Applying a resources framework to analysis of the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 020101 (2008) [12 pages]
Trevor I. Smith and Michael C. Wittmann
We suggest one redefinition of common clusters of questions used to analyze student responses on the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation. Our goal is to propose a methodology that moves beyond an analysis of student learning defined by correct responses, either on the overall test or on clusters of questions defined solely by content. We use the resources framework theory of learning to define clusters within this experimental test that was designed without the resources framework in mind. We take special note of the contextual and representational dependence of questions with seemingly similar physics content. We analyze clusters in ways that allow the most common incorrect answers to give as much, or more, information as the correctness of responses in that cluster. We show that false positives can be found, especially on questions dealing with Newton’s third law. We apply our clustering to a small set of data to illustrate the value of comparing students’ incorrect responses which are otherwise identical on a correct or incorrect analysis. Our work provides a connection between theory and experiment in the area of survey design and the resources framework.
Showing posts with label Smith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Smith. Show all posts
2008-09-10
2007-11-13
Smith Wittmann - arxiv.org 2007
Toward a more effective use of the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation
Trevor I. Smith, Michael C. Wittmann
contact: Trevor.I.Smith@umit.maine.edu and wittmann@umit.maine.edu
(Submitted on 12 Nov 2007)
We suggest one redefinition of common clusters of questions used to analyze student responses on the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE). Our goal is to move beyond the expert/novice analysis of student learning based on pre-/post-testing and the correctness of responses (either on the overall test or on clusters of questions defined solely by content). We base our work in resource theory, taking special note of the context dependence of questions with seemingly similar physics content. We analyze clusters in ways that allow the most common incorrect answers to give as much, or more, information as the correctness of responses in that cluster. Using this dichotomy of correct and most common incorrect models (in clusters defined by common models) we can apply Model Analysis to help better map a class's thinking about the physics on the FMCE. We give one example of such an analysis as a proof-of-concept of our approach.
Comments: 13 pages, 7 figures, submitted to Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res
Subjects: Physics Education (physics.ed-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:0711.1838v1 [physics.ed-ph]
Submission history
[v1] Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:11:32 GMT (250kb,D)
Trevor I. Smith, Michael C. Wittmann
contact: Trevor.I.Smith@umit.maine.edu and wittmann@umit.maine.edu
(Submitted on 12 Nov 2007)
We suggest one redefinition of common clusters of questions used to analyze student responses on the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE). Our goal is to move beyond the expert/novice analysis of student learning based on pre-/post-testing and the correctness of responses (either on the overall test or on clusters of questions defined solely by content). We base our work in resource theory, taking special note of the context dependence of questions with seemingly similar physics content. We analyze clusters in ways that allow the most common incorrect answers to give as much, or more, information as the correctness of responses in that cluster. Using this dichotomy of correct and most common incorrect models (in clusters defined by common models) we can apply Model Analysis to help better map a class's thinking about the physics on the FMCE. We give one example of such an analysis as a proof-of-concept of our approach.
Comments: 13 pages, 7 figures, submitted to Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res
Subjects: Physics Education (physics.ed-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:0711.1838v1 [physics.ed-ph]
Submission history
[v1] Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:11:32 GMT (250kb,D)
2007-10-30
Smith and Wittmann - Phys Rev 2007
From the Physical Review - Special Topics Physics Education Research:
Comparing three methods for teaching Newton’s third law
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020105 (2007)
Trevor I. Smith and Michael C. Wittmann
Department of Physics and Astronomy, College of Education and Human Development, Center for Science and Mathematics Education Research, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469, USA
Received 20 April 2006; revised 11 December 2006; published 18 October 2007
Although guided-inquiry methods for teaching introductory physics have been individually shown to be more effective at improving conceptual understanding than traditional lecture-style instruction, researchers in physics education have not studied differences among reform-based curricula in much detail. Several researchers have developed University of Washington–style tutorial materials, but the different curricula have not been compared against each other. Our study examines three tutorials designed to improve student understanding of Newton’s third law: the University of Washington’s Tutorials in Introductory Physics (TIP), the University of Maryland’s Activity-Based Tutorials (ABT), and the Open Source Tutorials (OST) also developed at the University of Maryland. Each tutorial was designed with different goals and agendas, and each employs different methods to help students understand the physics. We analyzed pretest and post-test data, including course examinations and data from the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE). Using both FMCE and course data, we find that students using the OST version of the tutorial perform better than students using either of the other two.
©2007 The American Physical Society
URL: http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRSTPER/v3/e020105
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.020105
PACS: 01.40.Fk, 01.40.G−, 01.40.gb
Comparing three methods for teaching Newton’s third law
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 020105 (2007)
Trevor I. Smith and Michael C. Wittmann
Department of Physics and Astronomy, College of Education and Human Development, Center for Science and Mathematics Education Research, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469, USA
Received 20 April 2006; revised 11 December 2006; published 18 October 2007
Although guided-inquiry methods for teaching introductory physics have been individually shown to be more effective at improving conceptual understanding than traditional lecture-style instruction, researchers in physics education have not studied differences among reform-based curricula in much detail. Several researchers have developed University of Washington–style tutorial materials, but the different curricula have not been compared against each other. Our study examines three tutorials designed to improve student understanding of Newton’s third law: the University of Washington’s Tutorials in Introductory Physics (TIP), the University of Maryland’s Activity-Based Tutorials (ABT), and the Open Source Tutorials (OST) also developed at the University of Maryland. Each tutorial was designed with different goals and agendas, and each employs different methods to help students understand the physics. We analyzed pretest and post-test data, including course examinations and data from the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE). Using both FMCE and course data, we find that students using the OST version of the tutorial perform better than students using either of the other two.
©2007 The American Physical Society
URL: http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRSTPER/v3/e020105
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.020105
PACS: 01.40.Fk, 01.40.G−, 01.40.gb
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)