Performance on multiple-choice diagnostics and complementary exam problems

Physics Teacher

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 150-155

  Steinberg, Richard N ^a   Sabella, Mel S ^a  

^a Bldg 142   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85006508330     PISSN: 0031921X     EISSN: 19434928     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1119/1.2344625     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. For example, see E.F. Redish, I.M. Saul, and R.N. Steinberg, "On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputerbased laboratories," Am. J. Phys. 65,45-54 (1997).
2. Eric Mazur of Harvard University has become a renowned spokesperson for this cause. His story begins with his introduction to a conceptual multiple-choice diagnostic. For a published account, see E. Mazur, "Qualitative vs. quantitative thinking:Are we teaching the right thing?," Optics and Photonics News (Feb. 1992).
3. Richard Hake of Indiana University has spoken nationally about this issue. His informative talks about measuring the success of different modes of instruction are entirely based on the FCI.4 For details, see R.R. Hake, "A five-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses." Indiana University preprint (1996).
4. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhammer, "Force concept inventory," Phys. Teach. 30, 141-158 (1992). Anew version of the FCI is now also available.
5. For an account of the research that preceded the FCI, see I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, "The initial knowledge state of college physics students," Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043-1055 (1985).
6. For a discussion ofa factor analysis on the FCI, see D. Huffman and P. Heller, "What does the force concept inventory actually measure?" Phys. Teach. 33, 138-143 (1995);
7. D. Hestenes and I. Halloun, "Interpreting the force concept inventory, a response to the March 1995 critique by Huffman and Heller," Phys. Teach. 33,502 (1995);
8. P. Heller and D. Huffman, "Interpreting the force concept inventory, a reply to Hestenes and Halloun," Phys. Teach. 33, 503 (1995).
9. For an example that includes thorough research on reliability of multiple-choice physics diagnostics, see R.I. Beichner, "Testing student interpretation of kinematic graphs," Am. J. Phys. 62, 750-762 (1994);
10. For an overview of research in physics education, see L.C. McDermott, "What we teach and what is learned-Closing the gap," Am. J. Phys. 59, 301-315 (1991).
11. For a discussion of "mental models," see E.F. Redish, "Implications of cognitive studies for teaching physics," Am. J. Phys. 62, 796-803 (1994).
12. For a paper with a much-needed perspective related to this issue, see D. Hammer, "More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research," Am. J. Phys. 64, 13161325 (1996).
13. For two assessment instruments under development that address student views and attitudes about physics, see E.F. Redish, R.N. Steinberg, and J.M. Saul, "The Distribution and Change of Student Expectations in Introductory Physics,"
14. I. Halloun, "Views about science and physics achievement: The VASS story," both invited posters presented at The International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education (ICUPE), College Park, MD, July 31-August 3,1996. Proceedings to be published by the American Institute ofPhysics, E.F. Redish and J. Rigden, Editors.