• Open Access

Comparing the force and motion conceptual evaluation and the force concept inventory

Ronald K Thornton, Dennis Kuhl, Karen Cummings, and Jeffrey Marx
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 010105 – Published 20 March 2009

Abstract

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.

  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Received 12 April 2007

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.010105

This article is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Authors & Affiliations

Ronald K Thornton

  • Center for Science and Mathematics Teaching, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155, USA

Dennis Kuhl

  • Marietta College, Marietta, Ohio 45750, USA

Karen Cummings

  • Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, USA

Jeffrey Marx*

  • McDaniel College, Westminster, Maryland 21157, USA

  • *Corresponding author; jmarx@mcdaniel.edu

Article Text

Click to Expand

References

Click to Expand
Issue

Vol. 5, Iss. 1 — January - June 2009

Reuse & Permissions
Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

Authorization Required


×
×

Images

×

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

×

Log In

Cancel
×

Search


Article Lookup

Paste a citation or DOI

Enter a citation
×