login - create an account - help

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

Materials Similar to Interpreting the force concept inventory: A response to March 1995 critique by Huffman and Heller

• 48%: Differences in Male/Female Response Patterns on Alternative-format Versions of the Force Concept Inventory
• 45%: Force concept inventory
• 42%: What does the force concept inventory actually measure?
• 41%: Interpreting force concept inventory scores: Normalized gain and SAT scores
• 41%: Interpreting the force concept inventory: A reply to Hestenes and Halloun
• 41%: The effect of distracters on student performance on the Force Concept Inventory
• 41%: The puzzling reliability of the Force Concept Inventory
• 40%: The Force Concept Inventory: A tool for monitoring student learning
• 40%: Context sensitivity in the force concept inventory
• 40%: Force Concept Inventory-based multiple-choice test for investigating students' representational consistency
• 40%: Experimental validation of the half-length Force Concept Inventory
• 39%: Common Concerns About the Force Concept Inventory
• 39%: Racial and ethnic bias in the Force Concept Inventory
• 38%: Comparing large lecture mechanics curricula using the Force Concept Inventory: A five thousand student study
• 37%: Comparing the force and motion conceptual evaluation and the force concept inventory
• 37%: Dividing the Force Concept Inventory into two equivalent half-length tests
• 37%: Comparison of normalized gain and Cohen’s d for Force Concept Inventory results in an introductory mechanics course
• 36%: Developing the Lunar Phases Concept Inventory
• 34%: Rasch model based analysis of the Force Concept Inventory