![]()
The Force Concept Inventory (FCI) is a popular multiple-choice instrument used to measure a student's conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics. Recently, a network analytic technique called module analysis has been used to identify responses to the FCI and other conceptual instruments that are preferentially selected together by students; these groups of responses are called communities. This study uses module analysis to explore the misconception structure of the FCI at five U.S. institutions with varying undergraduate populations (sample sizes of N = 9606, 4460, 1496, 466, and 213). Students from these universities had a broad range of prior knowledge in physics and of general high school academic preparation, resulting in large differences in FCI normalized gain, pretest, and post-test scores. In the current work, modified module analysis partial was applied and communities of consistently selected responses within the FCI were identified at the five institutions studied. There was substantial similarity between the communities identified postinstruction; somewhat less similarity preinstruction. This suggests that consistently applied Newtonian misconceptions exist both before and after instruction at a wide range of institutions. The most frequently applied misconceptions were "largest force determines motion," Newton's third law misconceptions, and "motion implies active forces." These misconceptions were still consistently applied even after instruction by a substantial number of students at all but the highest performing of the five institutions.
Physical Review Physics Education Research: Volume 18, Issue 2, Pages 020132
ComPADRE is beta testing Citation Styles!
![]() <a href="https://www.compadre.org/portal/items/detail.cfm?ID=16368">Wheatley, C, J. Wells, D. Pritchard, and J. Stewart. "Comparing conceptual understanding across institutions with module analysis." Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, no. 2, (November 14, 2022): 020132.</a>
![]() C. Wheatley, J. Wells, D. Pritchard, and J. Stewart, , Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18 (2), 020132 (2022), WWW Document, (https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.020132).
![]() C. Wheatley, J. Wells, D. Pritchard, and J. Stewart, Comparing conceptual understanding across institutions with module analysis, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18 (2), 020132 (2022), <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.020132>.
![]() Wheatley, C., Wells, J., Pritchard, D., & Stewart, J. (2022, November 14). Comparing conceptual understanding across institutions with module analysis. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., 18(2), 020132. Retrieved March 20, 2025, from https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.020132
![]() Wheatley, C, J. Wells, D. Pritchard, and J. Stewart. "Comparing conceptual understanding across institutions with module analysis." Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, no. 2, (November 14, 2022): 020132, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.020132 (accessed 20 March 2025).
![]() Wheatley, Christopher, James Wells, David E. Pritchard, and John Stewart. "Comparing conceptual understanding across institutions with module analysis." Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18.2 (2022): 020132. 20 Mar. 2025 <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.020132>.
![]() @article{
Author = "Christopher Wheatley and James Wells and David E. Pritchard and John Stewart",
Title = {Comparing conceptual understanding across institutions with module analysis},
Journal = {Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.},
Volume = {18},
Number = {2},
Pages = {020132},
Month = {November},
Year = {2022}
}
![]() %A Christopher Wheatley %A James Wells %A David E. Pritchard %A John Stewart %T Comparing conceptual understanding across institutions with module analysis %J Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. %V 18 %N 2 %D November 14, 2022 %P 020132 %U https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.020132 %O application/pdf ![]() %0 Journal Article %A Wheatley, Christopher %A Wells, James %A Pritchard, David E. %A Stewart, John %D November 14, 2022 %T Comparing conceptual understanding across institutions with module analysis %J Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. %V 18 %N 2 %P 020132 %8 November 14, 2022 %U https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.020132 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. |
ContributeSimilar Materials |