An instrument to assess the basic knowledge state of students taking a first course in physics has been designed and validated. Measurements with the instrument show that the student's initial qualitative, common sense beliefs about motion and causes has a large effect on performance in physics, but conventional instruction induces only a small change in those beliefs.

Common sense beliefs of college students about motion and its causes are surveyed and analyzed. A taxonomy of common sense concepts which conflict with Newtonian theory is developed as a guide to instruction.

Following two decades of corroboration, modeling theory is presented as a pedagogical theory that promotes mediated experiential learning of model-laden theory and inquiry in science education. Students develop experiential knowledge about physical realities through interplay between their own ideas about the physical world and particular patterns in this world. Under teacher mediation, they represent each pattern with a particular model that they develop through a five-phase learning cycle, following particular modeling schemata of well-defined dimensions and rules of engagement. Significantly greater student achievement has been increasingly demonstrated under mediated modeling than under conventional instruction of lecture and demonstration, especially in secondary school and university physics courses. The improved achievement is reflected in more meaningful understanding of course materials, better learning styles, higher success rates, lower attrition rates and narrower gaps between students of different backgrounds.The pivotal role played by models is increasingly recognized in scientific theory and inquiry, most importantly in human cognition in general and in science education in particular. In science, models are considered principal means, if not the chief ones, with which scientists: (a) represent, investigate, control, and impose order on, physical systems and phenomena, and (b) put together scientific theory coherently and corroborate it efficiently (Hempel

Schematic modeling is presented as an epistemologic framework for physics instruction. According to schematic modeling, models comprise the content core of scientific knowledge, and modeling is a major process for constructing and employing this knowledge. A model is defined by its composition and structure and is situated in a theory by its domain and organization. Modeling involves model selection, construction, validation, analysis, and deployment. Two groups of Lebanese high school and college students participated in problem-solving tutorials that followed a schematic modeling approach. Both groups improved significantly in problem-solving performance, and course achievement of students in the college group was significantly better than that of their control peers.For decades, educators have been complaining that a high school or a college student often "passes [her or his physics] tests frequently alas, with very little comprehension of what [she or] he has been doing" (Swann, 1950). Recent educational research has consistently shown major deficiencies that persist after instruction both in the structure of students' knowledge of physics and in their problem-solving skills. In this article, a schematic modeling approach is proposed to help students learn physics in a meaningful way and resolve those deficiencies. An experiment for assessing the approach is reported.Research shows that high school and college students bring to their physics courses a rich array of foZk conceptions about the physical world that are incompatible with physics theory.After completing introductory physics courses, students often (a) hold still to their folk conceptions (Hake, 1994;Halloun & Hestenes, 1985;Hestenes, Wells, & Swackhamer, 1992), and (b) continue to believe that physics consists mostly of mathematical symbols and formulas (Halloun, 1995a;Hammer, 1989Hammer, , 1994Redish, 1994a;Reif & Larkin, 1991). Moreover, their ideas about physics remain disconnected, incoherent, and inconsistent (Halloun & Hestenes, 1985;Hammer, 1994;McDermott, 1993;Novak, 1987Novak, , 1994Redish, 1994a;Reif & Allen, 1992;Reif & Larkin, 1991).High school and college students often attempt to solve physics problems (a) by trial and error, (b) backward from a numerical answer provided in a textbook, or (c) by invoking a solution presented in class to a problem that they wrongly assume to be similar to the one on which they are working (Arons, 1981;Halloun, 1995a;McDermott, 1993;Novak, 1987Novak, , 1994Reif & Larkin, 1991;Strnad, 1986 (Halloun, 1995a;Hammer, 1994).Consequently, physics instruction suffers from (a) low eficacy, in the sense that students who are diagnosed before instruction as average or low-competence students remain at that level after instruction, (b) short-term retention, in the sense that even the best students forget most of what they learn shortly after completing a physics course (Tobias, 1990), and (c) high attrition rates, especially among students initially diagnosed as of low competence (Halloun & Hestenes, 1987;T...

The Force Concept Inventory (FCI) 1 is a unique kind of "test" designed to assess student understanding of the most basic concepts in Newtonian physics. It can be used for several different purposes, but the most important one is to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction.For that purpose, the FCI is probably the most widely used instrument in physics education today. Results of many independent investigations have been reported at the biannual AAPT meetings since the FCI was published in March 1992. Including unpublished data that have been brought to our attention, we estimate that the FCI has been administered in classes of well over a hundred different teachers to more than ten thousand students in high schools, colleges and universities. For comparative analysis, Richard Hake 2 has been collecting data on university and high school physics taught by many different teachers and methods.Readers with a similar concern are urged to contact him. Douglas Huffman and Patricia Heller (H&H) 3 have recently published a "factor analysis" of FCI data and claimed that it raises serious concerns about the validity and interpretation of the FCI. We find that their data provide support for our position, but their concerns are unjustified. Moreover, they have overlooked relevant analysis of the issues in our published papers, and their advice on using the FCI is ill considered. In the following we take familiarity with references 1 and 3 for granted, and readers who have not studied them are encouraged to do so. Design and Development of the FCIThe FCI has a predecessor, the Mechanics Diagnostic Test (MDT) 4 , which has also been widely applied. About 60% of the FCI is the same as the MDT, and the results from both tests are perfectly consistent and mutually supportive. Analysis of MDT results led to the improvements in the FCI. Accordingly, we regard the FCI as an improved version of the MDT rather than a completely new test. We mention this because the data and analysis in our two papers on MDT 4,5 have strong bearing on the interpretation of the FCI and its results.