Are All Wrong FCI Answers Equivalent?

Dedic, Helena; Rosenfield, Steven; Lasry, Nathaniel; Singh, Chandralekha; Sabella, Mel; Rebello, Sanjay

doi:10.1063/1.3515177

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, in think-aloud studentinterviews, Thornton et al showed that some students chose a correct FCI response using incorrect reasoning. 10 In a previous study using latent Markov chain modeling, 18 we found statistical evidence of the same false-positive (FCI question 16) reported in the qualitative analysis in Ref. 10.…”

Section: Probability Model For Transitionssupporting

confidence: 78%

The puzzling reliability of the Force Concept Inventory

Lasry¹,

Rosenfield²,

Dedic³

et al. 2011

American Journal of Physics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Force Concept Inventory (FCI) has influenced the development of many research-based pedagogies. However, no data exists on the FCI's internal consistency or test-retest reliability. The FCI was administered twice to one hundred students during the first week of classes in an electricity and magnetism course with no review of mechanics between test administrations. High KuderRichardson reliability coefficient values, which estimate the average correlation of scores obtained on all possible halves of the test, suggest strong internal consistency. However, 31% of the responses changed from test to retest, suggesting weak reliability for individual questions. A chi-square analysis shows that change in responses was neither consistent nor completely random. The puzzling conclusion is that although individual FCI responses are not reliable, the FCI total score is highly reliable.

show abstract

Section: Probability Model For Transitionssupporting

confidence: 78%

The puzzling reliability of the Force Concept Inventory

Lasry¹,

Rosenfield²,

Dedic³

et al. 2011

American Journal of Physics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[6]. Dedic et al (2010) employ Latent Markov Chain Modeling to show that students form a hierarchical series of 7 reasoning-groups. The transitions between reasoning-groups typically only occur from a lower (Class 7 being the lowest) to higher (Class 1 representing Netwonian thinking) classes of reasoning-groups [8].…”

Section: Transitions Toward Newtonian Thinkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dedic et al (2010) employ Latent Markov Chain Modeling to show that students form a hierarchical series of 7 reasoning-groups. The transitions between reasoning-groups typically only occur from a lower (Class 7 being the lowest) to higher (Class 1 representing Netwonian thinking) classes of reasoning-groups [8]. An interesting result from that work was that students in Class 3 were more likely to transition to Newtonian thinking (i.e., Class 1) than students in Class 2 at a rate of 65% for Class 3 students compared a rate of 37% for Class 2 students.…”

Section: Transitions Toward Newtonian Thinkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Student Learning and Improving Instruction with Transition Matrices

Walter¹,

Morris²

2016

2016 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For common multiple-choice assessments, we can investigate progress in student understanding by creating simple transition matrices that identify the percentage of students who select each possible pre-/post-test answer combination on each question of a diagnostic exam such as the Force Concept Inventory. In order to create a transition matrix, we first rank answer choices from worst to best using item response curves. This allows us to determine changes in understanding of concepts and misconceptions even when students do not get the correct answer on the post-test. Our work outlines the utility of transition matrices and the availability of a new tool for adoption by high school and college level physics teachers who use a common assessment. We then construct transition probabilities matrices and find that students who chose an incorrect answer to a question on the pre-test are equally likely to choose the correct answer on the post-test regardless of which wrong answer she or he selected on the pre-test.

show abstract

“…The most common distractor chosen by students on both questions, both before and after instruction, is answer C, the force exerted by the car is larger. Under the categorization of Dedic et al, 9 answering A on both Q15 and Q16 is consistent with (but does not require) a "Newtonian" schema. The choice of answer C on both questions would be consistent with a "Dominance: more active agent provides more force" schema, where the more active agent exerts a greater force.…”

Section: Results and Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…The remaining students (11/16) all answered C in the pre-test. Our interpretation is that these students are transitioning up the Dedic et al 9 hierarchy as they build new knowledge structures, moving from the "Dominance: more active agent provides more force" schema at the time of the pre-test, to the Net Force schema following instruction. While their overall mark might not reflect this progress, the fact that they at least initially select the correct answer at Q15 indicates the possible emergence of a consistent, but still comparatively weak, Newton's Third Law knowledge structure.…”

Section: Results and Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“On Second Thoughts…”: Changes of Mind as an Indication of Competing Knowledge Structures

Wilson

Low

2015

American Journal of Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A review of student answers to diagnostic questions concerned with Newton's Laws showed a tendency for some students to change their answer to a question when the following question caused them to think more about the situation. We investigate this behavior and interpret it in the framework of the resource model; in particular, a weak Newton's Third Law structure being dominated by an inconsistent Newton's Second Law (or “Net Force”) structure, in the absence of a strong, consistent Newtonian structure. This observation highlights the hidden problem in instruction where the implicit use of Newton's Third Law is dominated by the explicit conceptual and mathematical application of Newton's Second Law, both within individual courses and across a degree program. To facilitate students' development of a consistent Newtonian knowledge structure, it is important that instructors highlight the interrelated nature of Newton's Laws in problem solving.

show abstract

Are All Wrong FCI Answers Equivalent?

Cited by 9 publications

References 1 publication

The puzzling reliability of the Force Concept Inventory

The puzzling reliability of the Force Concept Inventory

Assessing Student Learning and Improving Instruction with Transition Matrices

“On Second Thoughts…”: Changes of Mind as an Indication of Competing Knowledge Structures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About