• Gavin W. FulmerEmail author


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.

Key words

force Force Concept Inventory learning progressions Newton’s laws physics education Rasch modeling science education 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10763_2014_9553_MOESM1_ESM.docx (130 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 129 kb)


  1. Achieve Inc (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alonzo, A. C. & Steedle, J. T. (2009). Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression. Science Education, 93(3), 389–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2007). Atlas of science literacy (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: AAAS Project 2061.Google Scholar
  4. Andrich, D. (1988). Rasch models for measurement. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York, NY, USA: CBS College Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gregory, K. & Clarke, M. (2003). High-stakes assessment in England and Singapore. Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 66–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hestenes, D., Hake, R., & Mosca, E. (1995). Force concept inventory (Revised form 081695R).Google Scholar
  19. Hestenes, D., Wells, M. & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Liu, X. (2010). Using and developing measurement instruments in science education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. Minstrell, J. (n.d.). Facet codes. Retrieved 15 July 2012
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Research Council (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Savinainen, A. & Scott, P. (2002). The force concept inventory: A tool for monitoring student learning. Physics Education, 37(1), 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. Singapore Ministry of Education (2001). Singapore lower secondary science syllabus. Retrieved from
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Education (Singapore)SingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations