login - create an account - help

• AAPT ComPADRE
• Events
• Collaborate
• About
• Contact Us

Materials Similar to Gender Differences in Learning of the Concept of Force, Representational Consistency, and Scientific Reasoning

• 53%: Relations between representational consistency, conceptual understanding of the force concept, and scientific reasoning
• 47%: Gender Differences in Both Force Concept Inventory and Introductory Physics Performance
• 43%: Gender bias in the force concept inventory?
• 43%: Differences in Male/Female Response Patterns on Alternative-format Versions of the Force Concept Inventory
• 39%: Force Concept Inventory-based multiple-choice test for investigating students' representational consistency
• 39%: FCI normalized gain, scientific reasoning ability, thinking in physics, and gender effects
• 35%: Is the Force Concept Inventory Biased? Investigating Differential Item Functioning on a Test of Conceptual Learning in Physics
• 34%: Unpacking Gender Differences in Students’ Perceived Experiences in Introductory Physics
• 34%: Transfer of Learning through Gender and Ethnicity
• 34%: Gender gap on concept inventories in physics: What is consistent, what is inconsistent, and what factors influence the gap?
• 34%: Exploring the contributions of self-efficacy and test anxiety to gender differences in assessments
• 34%: Gender differences in the use of an online homework system in an introductory physics course
• 33%: Developing a magnetism conceptual survey and assessing gender differences in student understanding of magnetism
• 33%: Gender Differences in Conceptual Understanding
• 33%: Gender & LEAP Pedagogy: What Does The Gender Force Concept Inventory Have To Say?
• 32%: Sensitivity of Learning Gains on the Force Concept Inventory to Students’ Individual Epistemological Changes
• 32%: Replicating a self-affirmation intervention to address gender differences: Successes and challenges
• 32%: Sex differences in physics learning and evaluations in an introductory course
• 32%: Making classroom assessment more accountable to scientific reasoning: A case for attending to mechanistic thinking