The challenge of matching learning assessments to teaching goals: An example from the work-energy and impulse-momentum theorems

American Journal of Physics

Volumn 66, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 147-157

  Pride, Tara O'Brien ^a   Vokos, Stamatis ^a   McDermott, Lillian C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032353944     PISSN: 00029505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1119/1.18836     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. A comprehensive list of references on research in physics education will be available in a Resource Letter for the American Journal of Physics that is being prepared by L. C. McDermott and E. F. Redish.
2. For examples of research by the Physics Education Group in support of this statement, see, in addition to Ref. 6, L. C. McDermott, "Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned - Closing the gap," Am. J. Phys. 59, 301-315 (1991); L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, "Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part I Investigation of student understanding," ibid. 60, 994-1003 (1992); Printer's erratum to Part I, ibid. 61, 81 (1993); P. S. Shaffer and L. C. McDermott, "Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part II Design of instructional strategies," ibid. 60, 1003-1013 (1992); and L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and M. D. Somers, "Research as a guide for teaching introductory mechanics: An illustration in the context of the Atwood's machine," ibid. 62, 46-55 (1994).
3. For examples of research by the Physics Education Group in support of this statement, see, in addition to Ref. 6, L. C. McDermott, "Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned - Closing the gap," Am. J. Phys. 59, 301-315 (1991); L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, "Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part I Investigation of student understanding," ibid. 60, 994-1003 (1992); Printer's erratum to Part I, ibid. 61, 81 (1993); P. S. Shaffer and L. C. McDermott, "Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part II Design of instructional strategies," ibid. 60, 1003-1013 (1992); and L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and M. D. Somers, "Research as a guide for teaching introductory mechanics: An illustration in the context of the Atwood's machine," ibid. 62, 46-55 (1994).
4. For examples of research by the Physics Education Group in support of this statement, see, in addition to Ref. 6, L. C. McDermott, "Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned - Closing the gap," Am. J. Phys. 59, 301-315 (1991); L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, "Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part I Investigation of student understanding," ibid. 60, 994-1003 (1992); Printer's erratum to Part I, ibid. 61, 81 (1993); P. S. Shaffer and L. C. McDermott, "Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part II Design of instructional strategies," ibid. 60, 1003-1013 (1992); and L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and M. D. Somers, "Research as a guide for teaching introductory mechanics: An illustration in the context of the Atwood's machine," ibid. 62, 46-55 (1994).
5. For examples of research by the Physics Education Group in support of this statement, see, in addition to Ref. 6, L. C. McDermott, "Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned - Closing the gap," Am. J. Phys. 59, 301-315 (1991); L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, "Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part I Investigation of student understanding," ibid. 60, 994-1003 (1992); Printer's erratum to Part I, ibid. 61, 81 (1993); P. S. Shaffer and L. C. McDermott, "Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part II Design of instructional strategies," ibid. 60, 1003-1013 (1992); and L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and M. D. Somers, "Research as a guide for teaching introductory mechanics: An illustration in the context of the Atwood's machine," ibid. 62, 46-55 (1994).
6. For examples of research by the Physics Education Group in support of this statement, see, in addition to Ref. 6, L. C. McDermott, "Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned - Closing the gap," Am. J. Phys. 59, 301-315 (1991); L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, "Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part I Investigation of student understanding," ibid. 60, 994-1003 (1992); Printer's erratum to Part I, ibid. 61, 81 (1993); P. S. Shaffer and L. C. McDermott, "Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part II Design of instructional strategies," ibid. 60, 1003-1013 (1992); and L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and M. D. Somers, "Research as a guide for teaching introductory mechanics: An illustration in the context of the Atwood's machine," ibid. 62, 46-55 (1994).
7. For an example of a supplementary curriculum that has been developed on the basis of research, see L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group at the University of Washington, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998).
8. For an example of a self-contained, laboratory-based curriculum that has been developed on the basis of research, see L. C. McDermott and the Physics Education Group at the University of Washington, Physics by Inquiry (Wiley, New York, 1996), Vols. I and II.
9. See, in addition to the articles in Ref. 2, E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User's Manual (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997), pp. 5-7.
10. R. A. Lawson and L. C. McDermott, "Student understanding of the work-energy and impulse-momentum theorems," Am. J. Phys. 55, 811-817 (1987).
11. See Ref. 3.
12. Some preliminary results from this investigation were presented in a plenary talk at the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, 31 July-3 August 1996, at College Park, MD. The Proceedings of the Conference will be published in 1997 with E. F. Redish and J. S. Rigden as Editors.
13. See Ref. 6.
14. This approach is more common among students with a strong mathematical background. The same pretest was given to 27 students enrolled in one recitation section of the introductory physics course at Seoul National University, one of the most selective universities in South Korea. Of the 33% of the students who gave correct responses to both the kinetic energy and momentum comparison tasks about one-half used the theorems and the rest used algebra [Eunsook Kim and Sung-Jae Pak (private communication)].
15. See Ref. 3.
16. For additional discussion of the tutorials and the tutorial system, see the last two articles in Ref. 2.
17. For further discussion and examples of the use of this strategy, see the articles in Ref. 2.
18. Evidence from research in support of this statement can be found in the articles in Ref. 2. For a discussion of this issue based on extensive teaching experience, see A. B. Arons, The Various Language: An Inquiry Approach to the Physical Sciences (Oxford U.P., New York, 1977); and A. B. Arons, A Guide to Introductory Physics Teaching (Wiley, New York, 1990).
19. Evidence from research in support of this statement can be found in the articles in Ref. 2. For a discussion of this issue based on extensive teaching experience, see A. B. Arons, The Various Language: An Inquiry Approach to the Physical Sciences (Oxford U.P., New York, 1977); and A. B. Arons, A Guide to Introductory Physics Teaching (Wiley, New York, 1990).
20. The data in Table II include results from some classes that had an extra tutorial on the work-energy theorem. The addition of this tutorial did not substantially alter the results obtained when it was not used.
21. I. A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, "The initial knowledge state of college physics students," Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043-1055 (1985). This article contains the Mechanics Diagnostic Test.
22. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, "Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 30 (3), 141-158 (1992). The FCI is included in this article. This test has evolved from the Mechanics Diagnostic Test.
23. D. Hestenes and M. Wells, "A mechanics baseline test," Phys. Teach. 30 (3), 159-166 (1992). This article contains the MBT.
24. R. Beichner, "Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs," Am. J. Phys. 62, 750-762 (1994).
25. R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, "Assessing student learning of Newton's laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula," Am. J. Phys. (to be published).
26. An analysis of a survey in which the FCI was used with 6000 high school and university students is described in a paper by R. R. Hake, entitled "Interactive engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 65 (1997).
27. D. Huffman and P. Heller, "What does the Force Concept Inventory actually measure?" Phys. Teach. 33 (3), 138-143 (1995); D. Hestenes and I. Halloun, "Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory - A response to March 1995 critique by Huffman and Heller," ibid. 33 (8), 502, 504-506 (1995); and P. Heller and D. Huffman, "Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory - A reply to Hestenes and Halloun," ibid. 33 (8), 503, 507-511, 1995.
28. D. Huffman and P. Heller, "What does the Force Concept Inventory actually measure?" Phys. Teach. 33 (3), 138-143 (1995); D. Hestenes and I. Halloun, "Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory - A response to March 1995 critique by Huffman and Heller," ibid. 33 (8), 502, 504-506 (1995); and P. Heller and D. Huffman, "Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory - A reply to Hestenes and Halloun," ibid. 33 (8), 503, 507-511, 1995.
29. D. Huffman and P. Heller, "What does the Force Concept Inventory actually measure?" Phys. Teach. 33 (3), 138-143 (1995); D. Hestenes and I. Halloun, "Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory - A response to March 1995 critique by Huffman and Heller," ibid. 33 (8), 502, 504-506 (1995); and P. Heller and D. Huffman, "Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory - A reply to Hestenes and Halloun," ibid. 33 (8), 503, 507-511, 1995.
30. See Ref. 18.
31. See Ref. 18.
32. See Ref. 18.
33. See, for example, the last article in Ref. 2.
34. This issue is also addressed in R. N. Steinberg and M. S. Sabella, "Performance on multiple-choice diagnostics and complementary exam problems," Phys. Teach. 35 (3), 150-155 (1997).
35. See the articles in Ref. 2.