home - login - register

Journal Article Detail Page

Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research
written by Ronald K. Thornton, Dennis Kuhl, Karen Cummings, and Jeffrey Marx
In this paper we compare and contrast student's pretest/post-test performance on the Halloun-Hestenes force concept inventory (FCI) to the Thornton-Sokoloff force and motion conceptual evaluation (FMCE). Both tests are multiple-choice assessment instruments whose results are used to characterize how well a first term, introductory physics course promotes conceptual understanding. However, the two exams have slightly different content domains, as well as different representational formats; hence, one exam or the other might better fit the interests of a given instructor or researcher. To begin the comparison, we outline how to determine a single-number score for the FMCE and present ranges of normalized gains on this exam. We then compare scores on the FCI and the FMCE for approximately 2000 students enrolled in the Studio Physics course at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute over a period of eight years (1998–2006) that encompassed significant evolution of the course and many different instructors. We found that the mean score on the FCI is significantly higher than the mean score on the FMCE, however there is a very strong relationship between scores on the two exams. The slope of a best fit line drawn through FCI versus FMCE data is approximately 0.54, and the correlation coefficient is approximately r=0.78, for preinstructional and postinstructional testings combined. In spite of this strong relationship, the assessments measure different normalized gains under identical circumstances. Additionally, students who scored well on one exam did not necessarily score well on the other. We use this discrepancy to uncover some subtle, but important, differences between the exams. We also present ranges of normalized gains for the FMCE in a variety of instructional settings.
Subjects ADS Supplements Resource Types
Education - Basic Research
- Assessment
= Conceptual Assessment
= Instruments
- Research Design & Methodology
= Evaluation
General Physics
- Physics Education Research
- Reference Material
= Research study
PER-Central Type Intended Users Ratings
- PER Literature
- Researchers
- Professional/Practitioners
  • Currently 0.0/5

Want to rate this material?
Login here!


Formats:
text/html
application/pdf
Access Rights:
Free access
Personal use only, all commercial or other reuse prohibited
Restriction:
© 2009 American Physical Society
DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010105
PACS:
01.40.Fk
Keywords:
FCI, FMCE, Multiple-Choice Assessments
Record Creator:
Metadata instance created February 16, 2010 by Lyle Barbato
Record Updated:
June 29, 2010 by Vince Kuo
Last Update
when Cataloged:
March 20, 2009
ComPADRE is beta testing Citation Styles!

Record Link
AIP Format
R. Thornton, D. Kuhl, K. Cummings, and J. Marx, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5 (1), 010105 (2009), WWW Document, (http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010105).
AJP/PRST-PER
R. Thornton, D. Kuhl, K. Cummings, and J. Marx, Comparing the force and motion conceptual evaluation and the force concept inventory, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5 (1), 010105 (2009), <http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010105>.
APA Format
Thornton, R., Kuhl, D., Cummings, K., & Marx, J. (2009, March 20). Comparing the force and motion conceptual evaluation and the force concept inventory. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 5(1), 010105. Retrieved December 21, 2014, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010105
Chicago Format
Thornton, R, D. Kuhl, K. Cummings, and J. Marx. "Comparing the force and motion conceptual evaluation and the force concept inventory." Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, no. 1, (March 20, 2009): 010105, http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010105 (accessed 21 December 2014).
MLA Format
Thornton, Ronald, Dennis Kuhl, Karen Cummings, and Jeffrey Marx. "Comparing the force and motion conceptual evaluation and the force concept inventory." Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5.1 (2009): 010105. 21 Dec. 2014 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010105>.
BibTeX Export Format
@article{ Author = "Ronald Thornton and Dennis Kuhl and Karen Cummings and Jeffrey Marx", Title = {Comparing the force and motion conceptual evaluation and the force concept inventory}, Journal = {Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.}, Volume = {5}, Number = {1}, Pages = {010105}, Month = {March}, Year = {2009} }
Refer Export Format

%A Ronald Thornton
%A Dennis Kuhl
%A Karen Cummings
%A Jeffrey Marx
%T Comparing the force and motion conceptual evaluation and the force concept inventory
%J Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
%V 5
%N 1
%D March 20, 2009
%P 010105
%U http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010105
%O text/html

EndNote Export Format

%0 Journal Article
%A Thornton, Ronald
%A Kuhl, Dennis
%A Cummings, Karen
%A Marx, Jeffrey
%D March 20, 2009
%T Comparing the force and motion conceptual evaluation and the force concept inventory
%J Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
%V 5
%N 1
%P 010105
%8 March 20, 2009
%U http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010105


Disclaimer: ComPADRE offers citation styles as a guide only. We cannot offer interpretations about citations as this is an automated procedure. Please refer to the style manuals in the Citation Source Information area for clarifications.

Citation Source Information

The AIP Style presented is based on information from the AIP Style Manual.

The AJP/PRST-PER presented is based on the AIP Style with the addition of journal article titles and conference proceeding article titles.

The APA Style presented is based on information from APA Style.org: Electronic References.

The Chicago Style presented is based on information from Examples of Chicago-Style Documentation.

The MLA Style presented is based on information from the MLA FAQ.

Save to my folders

Contribute

Similar Materials