Detail Page

Physical Review Physics Education Research
written by James E. Wells, Rachel Henderson, Adrienne L. Traxler, and John Stewart
Investigating student learning and understanding of conceptual physics is a primary research area within physics education research. Multiple quantitative methods have been employed to analyze commonly used mechanics conceptual inventories: the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) and the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE). Recently, researchers have applied network analytic techniques to explore the structure of the incorrect responses to the FCI identifying communities of incorrect responses which could be mapped on to common misconceptions. In this study, the method used to analyze the FCI, modified module analysis, was applied to a large sample of FMCE pretest and post-test responses (Npre = 3956, Npost = 3719). The communities of incorrect responses identified were consistent with the item groups described in previous works. As in the work with the FCI, the network was simplified by only retaining nodes selected by a substantial number of students. Retaining as nodes only those incorrect answer choices selected by at least 20% of the students produced communities associated with only four misconceptions. The incorrect response communities identified for men and women were substantially different, as was the change in these communities from pretest to post-test. The 20% threshold was far more restrictive than the 4% threshold applied to the FCI in the prior work that generated similar structures. Retaining nodes selected by 5% or 10% of students generated a large number of complex communities. The communities identified at the 10% threshold were generally associated with common misconceptions producing a far richer set of incorrect communities than the FCI; this may indicate that the FMCE is a superior instrument for characterizing the breadth of student misconceptions about Newtonian mechanics.
Physical Review Physics Education Research: Volume 16, Issue 1, Pages 010121
Subjects Levels Resource Types
Classical Mechanics
- General
Education Foundations
- Alternative Conceptions
- Assessment
= Conceptual Assessment
- Problem Solving
- Research Design & Methodology
= Evaluation
= Statistics
General Physics
- Physics Education Research
- Scientific Reasoning
- Lower Undergraduate
- Reference Material
= Research study
Intended Users Formats Ratings
- Researchers
- Professional/Practitioners
- Administrators
- Educators
- application/pdf
- text/html
  • Currently 0.0/5

Want to rate this material?
Login here!


Access Rights:
Free access
License:
This material is released under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.
Rights Holder:
American Physical Society
DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010121
NSF Numbers:
EPS-1003907
ECR-1561517
Keywords:
FCI validation, FMCE validation, concept inventory, nodal networks
Record Creator:
Metadata instance created June 15, 2020 by Lyle Barbato
Record Updated:
January 6, 2023 by Caroline Hall
Last Update
when Cataloged:
April 22, 2020
Other Collections:

ComPADRE is beta testing Citation Styles!

Record Link
AIP Format
J. Wells, R. Henderson, A. Traxler, and J. Stewart, , Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16 (1), 010121 (2020), WWW Document, (https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010121).
AJP/PRST-PER
J. Wells, R. Henderson, A. Traxler, and J. Stewart, Exploring the structure of misconceptions in the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation with modified module analysis, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16 (1), 010121 (2020), <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010121>.
APA Format
Wells, J., Henderson, R., Traxler, A., & Stewart, J. (2020, April 22). Exploring the structure of misconceptions in the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation with modified module analysis. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., 16(1), 010121. Retrieved May 17, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010121
Chicago Format
Wells, J, R. Henderson, A. Traxler, and J. Stewart. "Exploring the structure of misconceptions in the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation with modified module analysis." Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, no. 1, (April 22, 2020): 010121, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010121 (accessed 17 May 2024).
MLA Format
Wells, James E., Rachel Henderson, Adrienne Traxler, and John Stewart. "Exploring the structure of misconceptions in the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation with modified module analysis." Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16.1 (2020): 010121. 17 May 2024 <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010121>.
BibTeX Export Format
@article{ Author = "James E. Wells and Rachel Henderson and Adrienne Traxler and John Stewart", Title = {Exploring the structure of misconceptions in the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation with modified module analysis}, Journal = {Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.}, Volume = {16}, Number = {1}, Pages = {010121}, Month = {April}, Year = {2020} }
Refer Export Format

%A James E. Wells %A Rachel Henderson %A Adrienne Traxler %A John Stewart %T Exploring the structure of misconceptions in the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation with modified module analysis %J Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. %V 16 %N 1 %D April 22, 2020 %P 010121 %U https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010121 %O application/pdf

EndNote Export Format

%0 Journal Article %A Wells, James E. %A Henderson, Rachel %A Traxler, Adrienne %A Stewart, John %D April 22, 2020 %T Exploring the structure of misconceptions in the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation with modified module analysis %J Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. %V 16 %N 1 %P 010121 %8 April 22, 2020 %U https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010121


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 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