Applying a resources framework to analysis of the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation

Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research

Volumn 4, Issue 2, 2008, Pages

  Smith, Trevor I ^a   Wittmann, Michael C ^a  

^a University of Maine   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 52949091573     PISSN: 15549178     EISSN: 15549178     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.4.020101     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. PHTEAH 0031-921X 10.1119/1.2343497 30, 141 (1992).
2. R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.18809 66, 64 (1998).
3. 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. AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.18863 66, 338 (1998).
4. M. C. Wittmann, available at http://perlnet.umephy.maine.edu/research/ Wittmann2002RTPpaper.pdf
5. E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, On the effectiveness of active-engagement micorcomputer-based laboratories, Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.18498 65, 45 (1997).
6. D. Hammer, Student resources for learning introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.19520 68 S52 (2000).
7. J. Minstrell, in Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies, Proceedings of an International Workshop, Bremen, Germany, edited by, R. Duit, F. Goldberg, and, H. Niedderer, (IPN, Kiel, 1992), pp. 110-128.
8. M. C. Wittmann, Using resource graphs to represent conceptual change, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. PRSTCR 1554-9178 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.020105 2, 020105 (2006).
9. R. J. Beichner, Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs, Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.17449 62, 750 (1994).
10. P. B. Kohl and N. D. Finkelstein, Effects of representaion on students solving physics problems: A fine-grained characterization, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. PRSTCR 1554-9178 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.010106 2, 010106 (2006).
11. P. B. Kohl and N. D. Finkelstein, Student representational competence and self-assessment when solving physics problems, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. PRSTCR 1554-9178 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010104 1, 010104 (2005).
12. D. J. Dykstra, 2002, available at http://www.boisestate.edu/physics/ dykstra/WTK1.pdf
13. R. K. Thornton, NATO Advanced Studies Institute, Series (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993).
14. R. K. Thornton, in Thinking Physics for Teaching, edited by, C. Tarsitani, C. Bernardini, and, M. Vincentini, (Plenum, New York, 1995).
15. R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools, Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.16350 58, 858 (1990).
16. L. Bao, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, 1999.
17. J. H. Wandersee, J. J. Mintzes, and J. D. Novak, Handbook of Research of Science Teaching and Learning (Macmillan, New York, 1994), pp. 177-210.
18. S. Vosniadou and W. F. Brewer, Mental Models of the Earth: A Study of Conceptual Change in Childhood, Cognit Psychol. 24, 535 (1992). 0010-0285
19. A. diSessa, Toward an Epistemology of Physics, Cogn. Instruct. ZZZZZZ 0737-0008 10, 105-225 (1993).
20. D. Hammer, A. Elby, R. E. Scherr, and Edward F. Redish, Transfer of Learning: Research and Perspectives (Information Age, Greenwich, CT, 2005).
21. R. E. Scherr, Modeling student thinking: An example from special relativity, Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.2410013 75, 272 (2007).
22. D. E. Brown and J. Clement, Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction, Instr. Sci. INLSBJ 0020-4277 10.1007/BF00118013 18, 237-261 (1989).
23. I. A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, Common sense concepts about motion, Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.14031 53, 1056 (1985).
24. L. Bao, K. Hogg, and D. Zollman, Model analysis of fine structures of student models: An example with Newton's third law, Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.1484152 70, 766 (2002).
25. T. I. Smith and M. C. Wittmann, Comparing three methods for teaching Newton's third law, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. PRSTCR 1554-9178 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.020105 3, 020105 (2007).
26. D. P. Maloney, Rule-governed approaches to physics: Newton's third law, Phys. Educ. PHEDA7 0031-9120 10.1088/0031-9120/19/1/319 19, 37 (1984).
27. D. Hammer and A. Elby, Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics, J. Learn. Sci. JLSBE3 1050-8406 10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_3 12, 53 (2003).
28. T. I. Smith, M.S.T. thesis, University of Maine, 2003.
29. D. E. Trowbridge and L. C. McDermott, Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension, Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.12525 49, 242 (1981).
30. D. E. Trowbridge and L. C. McDermott, Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one dimension, Am. J. Phys. AJPIAS 0002-9505 10.1119/1.12298 48, 1020 (1980).
31. Table 3 also shows the response to each question that corresponds with each of these models.
32. These and many other resources are lightly derived from diSessa's p -prims (Ref.).
33. One could argue that this is only a problem if the students use the net force for each of these resources; however, the fact that the FMCE presents questions that involve a single applied force on a frictionless surface makes this a moot point.
34. Definitions of these facets can be found in Refs..
35. Possibly tacit indicators of momentum or kinetic energy.
36. Note that, while the ramp on which the toy car rolls in questions 8-10 prevents it from truly being in free fall, the up and down motion of the car travelling under its own volition is analogous to the coin toss in questions 11-13 (Ref.).
37. The v model would require an increasing downward force for each of these questions.
38. It should be noted that Thornton's study (Ref.) did not include the questions from the Newton III cluster. The most common student responses are those reported by one of the authors (T.I.S.) in Ref..
39. Question 33 is not included in analysis of the FMCE (Ref.).
40. These responses often occur with the most common responses listed in Table 8 for questions 30-34 (Ref.).
41. All sample responses are taken from research reported in Ref..
42. For simplicity we will ignore the Reversing Directions component to the original Force (Newton's first and second laws) cluster.