Comparing conceptual understanding across institutions with module analysis
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 ar...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
American Physical Society
2022-11-01
|
| Series: | Physical Review Physics Education Research |
| Online Access: | http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.020132 |
| _version_ | 1811225666026209280 |
|---|---|
| author | Christopher Wheatley James Wells David E. Pritchard John Stewart |
| author_facet | Christopher Wheatley James Wells David E. Pritchard John Stewart |
| author_sort | Christopher Wheatley |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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, 4360, 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T09:12:22Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-2513502eaa664d07a268d4ea76c3ce1c |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2469-9896 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T09:12:22Z |
| publishDate | 2022-11-01 |
| publisher | American Physical Society |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Physical Review Physics Education Research |
| spelling | doaj.art-2513502eaa664d07a268d4ea76c3ce1c2022-12-22T03:38:57ZengAmerican Physical SocietyPhysical Review Physics Education Research2469-98962022-11-0118202013210.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.020132Comparing conceptual understanding across institutions with module analysisChristopher WheatleyJames WellsDavid E. PritchardJohn StewartThe 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, 4360, 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.http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.020132 |
| spellingShingle | Christopher Wheatley James Wells David E. Pritchard John Stewart Comparing conceptual understanding across institutions with module analysis Physical Review Physics Education Research |
| title | Comparing conceptual understanding across institutions with module analysis |
| title_full | Comparing conceptual understanding across institutions with module analysis |
| title_fullStr | Comparing conceptual understanding across institutions with module analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparing conceptual understanding across institutions with module analysis |
| title_short | Comparing conceptual understanding across institutions with module analysis |
| title_sort | comparing conceptual understanding across institutions with module analysis |
| url | http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.020132 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT christopherwheatley comparingconceptualunderstandingacrossinstitutionswithmoduleanalysis AT jameswells comparingconceptualunderstandingacrossinstitutionswithmoduleanalysis AT davidepritchard comparingconceptualunderstandingacrossinstitutionswithmoduleanalysis AT johnstewart comparingconceptualunderstandingacrossinstitutionswithmoduleanalysis |