Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

VALIDATING PROPOSED LEARNING PROGRESSIONS ON FORCE AND MOTION USING THE FORCE CONCEPT INVENTORY: FINDINGS FROM SINGAPORE SECONDARY SCHOOLS

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the validity of 2 proposed learning progressions on the force concept when tested using items from the Force Concept Inventory (FCI). This is the first study to compare students’ performance with respect to learning progressions both for force and motion and for Newton’s third law in parallel. It is also among the first studies on learning progressions within an East Asian context. Data come from 174 Singaporean secondary students who completed the FCI during regular school time. FCI questions are coded as ordered multiple choice items based on the respective learning progressions, and responses are analyzed using a rating scale Rasch measurement model. Results show that FCI items have moderate data-model fit and demonstrate the expected pattern of difficulty among levels of the learning progressions. However, scale reliability and fit for the thresholds between levels showed limitations. The students’ ability estimates for Newton’s third law were higher than for force and motion, contrary to expectation about the relationship between the 2 aspects of force. The paper discusses the connection of these results with the curriculum and implications for learning progressions for the force concept. Directions for future research on instruments for use with learning progressions are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Achieve Inc (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alonzo, A. C. & Steedle, J. T. (2009). Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression. Science Education, 93(3), 389–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (2007). Atlas of science literacy (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: AAAS Project 2061.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrich, D. (1988). Rasch models for measurement. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bao, L., Cai, T., Koenig, K., Fang, K., Han, J., Wang, J., Liu, Q., . . . Wu, N. (2009). Learning and scientific reasoning. Science, 323, 586–587.

  • Bao, L., Hogg, K. & Zollman, D. (2002). Model analysis of fine structures of student models: An example with Newton’s third law. American Journal of Physics, 70(7), 766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K. & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond, T. G. & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, D. C. & Alonzo, A. C. (2012). The psychometric modeling of ordered multiple-choice item responses for diagnostic assessment with a learning progression. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions (pp. 293–316). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, D. C., Alonzo, A. C., Schwab, C. & Wilson, M. (2006). Diagnostic assessment with ordered multiple-choice items. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 33–63. doi:10.1207/s15326977ea1101_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York, NY, USA: CBS College Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. G. & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2009). Learning progressions: Aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 606–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., Maeng, S. & Sezen, A. (2011). Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and analysis. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 123–182. doi:10.1080/03057267.2011.604476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulmer, G. W., Liang, L. L. & Liu, X. (2011). Using the Force Concept Inventory to measure high school students' learning progression of forces. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Orlando, FL.

  • Gopinathan, S. (2012). Fourth way in action? The evolution of Singapore’s education system. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 11(1), 65–70. doi:10.1007/s10671-011-9117-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, K. & Clarke, M. (2003). High-stakes assessment in England and Singapore. Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 66–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazari, Z., Tai, R. H. & Sadler, P. M. (2007). Gender differences in introductory university physics performance: The influence of high school physics preparation and affective factors. Science Education, 91(6), 847–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes, D., Hake, R., & Mosca, E. (1995). Force concept inventory (Revised form 081695R).

  • Hestenes, D., Wells, M. & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121. doi:10.1177/109442819800100106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, H. & Anderson, C. W. (2012). A learning progression for energy in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1149–1180. doi:10.1002/tea.21051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, K. J. (2007). Barriers to innovative school practice: A socio-cultural framework for understanding assessment practices in Asia. Paper presented at the Redesigning Pedagogy-Culture, Understanding and Practice Conference, Singapore.

  • Liu, X. (2010). Using and developing measurement instruments in science education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X. & Lesniak, K. M. (2005). Students’ progression of understanding the matter concept from elementary to high school. Science Education, 89(3), 433–450. doi:10.1002/sce.20056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X. & Tang, L. (2004). The progression of students’ conceptions of energy: A cross-grade, cross-cultural study. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics & Technology Education, 4(1), 43–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., Zhang, B., Liang, L. L., Fulmer, G. W., Kim, B. & Yuan, H. (2009). Alignment between the physics content standard and the standardized test: A comparison among the United States-New York State, Singapore, and China-Jiangsu. Science Education, 93(5), 777–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minstrell, J. (1992). Facets of students’ knowledge and relevant instruction. Paper presented at the Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies, Bremen, Germany.

  • Minstrell, J. (n.d.). Facet codes. Retrieved 15 July 2012 http://depts.washington.edu/huntlab/diagnoser/facetcode.html

  • Mohan, L., Chen, J. & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 675–698. doi:10.1002/tea.20314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2012a). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2012b). Workshop on developing assessments to meet the goals of the 2012 framework for K-12 science education. Washington, DC: National Academies, Board on Testing and Assessment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, I., Fulmer, G. W., Liang, L. L. & Neumann, K. (2012). Investigating development on a force and motion learning progression. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Indianapolis, IN.

  • Neumann, I., Fulmer, G. W., Liang, L. L. & Neumann, K. (2013a). Analyzing the FCI based on a force and motion learning progression. Science Education Review Letters, 40178.

  • Neumann, I., Fulmer, G. W., Liang, L. L. & Neumann, K. (2013b). Empirical validation of a learning progression for Newton’s Third Law using items from the Force Concept Inventory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Rio Grande, Puerto Rico.

  • Ng, P. T. (2010). The evolution and nature of school accountability in the Singapore education system. Educational Assessment, Evaluation & Accountability, 22(4), 275–292. doi:10.1007/s11092-010-9105-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nitsch, R., Fredebohm, A., Bruder, R., Kelava, A., Naccarella, D., Leuders, T. & Wirtz, M. (2014). Students’competencies in working with functions in secondary mathematics education: Empirical examination of a competence structure model. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi:10.1007/s10763-013-9496-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Planinic, M., Ivanjek, L., & Susac, A. (2010). Rasch model based analysis of the Force Concept Inventory. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 6(1), 010103-010101--010103-010111.

  • Plummer, J. D. & Krajcik, J. (2010). Building a learning progression for celestial motion: Elementary levels from an earth-based perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 768–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savinainen, A. & Scott, P. (2002). The force concept inventory: A tool for monitoring student learning. Physics Education, 37(1), 45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savinainen, A. & Viiri, J. (2008). The force concept inventory as a measure of students’ conceptual coherence. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 6(4), 719–740. doi:10.1007/s10763-007-9103-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., . . . Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654. doi: 10.1002/tea.20311

  • Sevian, H., Fulmer, G. W., McGaughey, K. & Wilson, P. (2011). Progressions of learning and chemistry. Paper presented at the the biennial meeting of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Lyon, France.

  • Singapore Ministry of Education (2001). Singapore lower secondary science syllabus. Retrieved from www.moe.gov.sg/cpdd/doc/Science_LowSec_All.pdf.

  • Songer, N. B., Kelcey, B. & Gotwals, A. W. (2009). How and when does complex reasoning occur? Empirically driven development of a learning progression focused on complex reasoning about biodiversity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 610–631. doi:10.1002/tea.20313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steedle, J. T. & Shavelson, R. J. (2009). Supporting valid interpretations of learning progression level diagnoses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 699–715. doi:10.1002/tea.20308

  • Wei, S., Liu, X. & Jia, Y. (2013). Using Rasch measurement to validate the instrument of Students’ Understanding of Models in Science (SUMS). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi:10.1007/s10763-013-9459-z.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2009). Measuring progressions: Assessment structures underlying a learning progression. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 716–730. doi:10.1002/tea.20318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J. & Wilson, M. (2012). ACER ConQuest version 3.0: Generalized item response modeling software. Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute of Education (Singapore), 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore, 637616, Singapore

    Gavin W. Fulmer

Authors
  1. Gavin W. Fulmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gavin W. Fulmer.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 129 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fulmer, G.W. VALIDATING PROPOSED LEARNING PROGRESSIONS ON FORCE AND MOTION USING THE FORCE CONCEPT INVENTORY: FINDINGS FROM SINGAPORE SECONDARY SCHOOLS. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 13, 1235–1254 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9553-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9553-x

Key words

Search

Navigation