Advertisement

The Force Concept Inventory as a Measure of Students Conceptual Coherence

  • Antti SavinainenEmail author
  • Jouni Viiri
Article

Abstract

The Force Concept Inventory (FCI) is a multiple choice test designed to monitor students’ understanding of the conceptual domain of force and related kinematics (Hestenes et al. Physics Teacher 30:141–158 1992; Halloun et al., 1995, Online at http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html). It has gained wide popularity among both researchers and physics instructors in the United States and elsewhere. The FCI has also been criticized, and its validity as a measure of the coherence of a student’s understanding of the force concept has been questioned. In this paper we provide a characterization of students’ conceptual coherence and a way to evaluate it using the FCI. We divide students’ conceptual coherence into three aspects: representational coherence (the ability to use multiple representations and move between them), contextual coherence (the ability to apply a concept across a variety of contexts), and conceptual framework coherence (the ability to fit related concepts together, i.e. to integrate and differentiate between them). Postinstruction FCI results and interview data from two Finnish high school groups (n=49 total) are discussed; the data provide evidence that the FCI can be used to evaluate students’ conceptual coherence—especially contextual coherence—of the force concept.

Key Words

conceptual coherence Force Concept Inventory multiple representations Newton’s laws teaching force 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brown, D. (1989). Students’ concept of force: the importance of understanding Newton’s third law. Physics Education, 24, 353–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dufresne, R.J., Leonard, W.J. & Gerace, W.J. (2002). Making sense of students’ answers to multiple-choice questions. Physics Teacher, 40, 174–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Finegold, M. & Gorsky, P. (1991). Students’ concepts of force as applied to related systems: a search for consistency. International Journal of Science Education, 13(1), 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hake, R. (2002). Lessons from the physics education reform effort. Conservation Ecology, 5(2), 28. Online at <http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art28>. Accessed on 9.6.2007.Google Scholar
  6. Halloun, I. & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53, 1043–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Halloun, I., Hake, R., Mosca, E. & Hestenes, D. (1995). Force Concept Inventory (revised 1995). Password protected at <http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html>. Accessed on 9.6.2007.
  8. Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 60, 732–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hestenes, D., Wells, M. & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hestenes, D. & Halloun, I. (1995a). Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory. Physics Teacher, 33, 502–506. Online at <http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/InterFCI.pdf>. Accessed on 9.6.2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hestenes, D. & Halloun, I. (1995b). The search for conceptual coherence in FCI data; working paper. Online at <http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/CoherFCI.pdf>. Accessed on 9.6.2007.
  12. Huffman, D. & Heller, P. (1995). What does the Force Concept Inventory actually measure? Physics Teacher, 33, 138–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Koponen, I., Jauhiainen, J. & Lavonen, J. (2000). A Finnish translation of the 1995 version of the Force Concept Inventory. Department of Physics, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  14. McDermott, L. (1993). Guest comment: how we teach and how students learn a mismatch? American Journal of Physics, 61(4), 295–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McDermott, L., Schaffer, P. & the Physics Education Research Group (1998). Tutorials in Introductory Physics. Homework. Preliminary Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Meltzer, D. (2002). Student learning of physics concepts: Efficacy of verbal and written forms of expression in comparison to other representational modes. Online at <http://www.physicseducation.net/articles/index.html>. Accessed on 18.6.2007.
  17. Mildenhall, P. & Williams, J. (2001). Instability in students’ use of intuitive and Newtonian models to predict motion: the critical effect of parameters involved. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 643–660.Google Scholar
  18. Palmer, D. (1994). The effect of direction of motion on students’ conceptions of forces. Research in Science Education, 24, 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reif, F. (1987). Instructional design, cognition, and technology: application to the teaching of scientific concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 309–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reif, F. (1995). Understanding Basic Mechanics. Workbook. New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  21. Savinainen, A. (2004). High school students’ conceptual coherence of qualitative knowledge in the case of the force concept. Dissertations 41, Department of Physics, University of Joensuu. Online at <http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/savant/>. Accessed on 9.6.2007.
  22. Savinainen, A. & Scott, P. (2002a). The Force Concept Inventory: a tool for monitoring student learning. Physics Education, 37, 45–52. Online at <http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/savant/>. Accessed on 9.6.2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Savinainen, A. & Scott, P. (2002b). Using the Force Concept Inventory to monitor student learning and to plan teaching. Physics Education, 37, 53–58. Online at <http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/savant/>. Accessed on 9.6.2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Savinainen, A., Scott, P. & Viiri, J. (2005). Using a bridging representation and social interactions to foster conceptual change: designing and evaluating an instructional sequence for Newton’s third law. Science Education, 89, 175–195. Online at <http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/savant/>. Accessed on 9.6.2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schecker, H. & Gerdes, J. (1999). Messung von Konzeptualisierungsfähigkeit in der Mechanik: Zur Aussagekraft des FCI. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 5(1), 75–89.Google Scholar
  26. Steinberg, R. & Sabella, M. (1997). Performance on multiple-choice diagnostics and complementary exam problems. Physics Teacher, 35, 150–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thornton, R. (1995). Conceptual dynamics: changing students views of force and motion. In C. Tarsitani, C. Bernandini & M. Vincentini (Eds.), Thinking physics for teaching (pp. 157–183). London: Plenum.Google Scholar
  28. Van Heuvelen, A. (1991). Overview, case study physics. American Journal of Physics, 59(10), 898–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kuopion Lyseo High SchoolKuopioFinland
  2. 2.Teacher Education DepartmentUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations