No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Validity and reliability of the force and motion conceptual evaluation
1.A. W. Wright, “The ABCs of assessment,” Sci. Teach. 68(7), 60–64 (2001).
2.J. Hehn and M. Neuschatz, “Physics for all? A million and counting!,” Phys. Today 59(2), 37–43 (2006).
3.“Recommendation for a higher education accountability framework. Commission Report No. 05–01,” California Postsecondary Education Commission (2005).
4.A. Boberg and B. Barnetson, “System-wide program assessment with performance indicators: Alberta’s performance funding mechanisms,” Can. J. Program Eval. 15, 3–23 (2000).
5.J. D. LaRock and H. Rodriguez-Farrar, “Interview: U. S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings,” Harv. Educ. Rev. 75(4), 364–382 (2005).
6.K. A. McNeil, I. Newman, and J. Steinhauser, How to be Involved in Program Evaluation: What Every Administrator Needs to Know (Scarecrow Education, Lanham, MD, 2005), p. 306.
7.L. C. McDermott and E. F. Redish, “RL-PER1: Resource Letter on Physics Education Research,” Am. J. Phys. 67(9), 755–767 (1999).
8.R. Duit and D. F. Treagust, “Learning in science—From behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond,” in International Handbook of Science Education, edited by B. J. Fraser and K. G. Tobin (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1998), Vol. 2, pp. 3–26.
11.R. K. Thornton, in “Changing the physics teaching laboratory: Using technology and new approaches to learning to create an experiential environment for learning physics concepts,” in Proceedings of the Europhysics Conference on The Role of Experiment in Physics Education (Ljubljana, Slovenia, 1996), pp. 12–31.
12.R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, “Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula,” Am. J. Phys. 66(4), 338–352 (1998).
13.D. R. Sokoloff and R. K. Thornton, “Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment,” Phys. Teach. 35(6), 340–347 (1997).
14.R. K. Thornton, “Using large-scale classroom research to study student conceptual learning in mechanics and to develop new approaches to learning,” in Microcomputer-Based Labs: Educational Research and Standards, edited by Robert Tinker (Springer, Berlin, 1996), pp. 89–114.
15.R. K. Thornton, “Conceptual dynamics: Changing student views of force & motion” in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities, edited by Edward F. Redish and John S. Rigden (American Institute of Physics, Woodbury, New York, 1997), pp. 241–266.
16.E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, “On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories,” Am. J. Phys. 65, 45–54 (2000).
17.R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, “Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputer-based laboratory tools,” Am. J. Phys. 58, 858–867 (1990).
18.S. R. Yeo, “Evaluation of a university Physics Studio learning environment: The interrelationships of students’ perceptions, epistemological beliefs and cognitive outcomes,” Ph. D. thesis, Curtin University of Technology, Australia (2002).
19.I. Newman and C. Newman, Conceptual Statistics for Beginners (University Press of America, Lanham, MD, 1994), 2nd ed., p. 289.
20.R. L. Thorndike and E. P. Hagen, Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology and Education (Wiley, New York, 1977), 4th ed., p. 693.
21.J. C. Nunnally and N. A. Ator, Educational Measurement and Evaluation (McGraw–Hill, New York, 1972), 2nd ed., p. 598.
22.S. Ramlo, “The force and motion conceptual evaluation,” ERIC database report number ED471542, (2002).
23.S. E. Ramlo, “A multivariate assessment of the effect of the laboratory homework component of a microcomputer-based laboratory for a college freshman physics course,” Ph. D. dissertation, The University of Akron (2003).
24.R. B. Cattell, The Scientific Use of Factor Analysis in Behavioral and Life Sciences (Plenum, New York, 1978).
25.D. J. Mundfrom, D. G. Shaw, and T. L. Ke, “Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses,” Int. J. Test. 5(2), 159–168 (2005).
26.J. Stevens, Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2002), 4th ed., p. 699.
28.M. Dresel, A. Ziegler, P. Broome, and K. A. Heller, “Gender differences in science education: The double-edged role of prior knowledge in physics,” Roeper Rev. 21(2), 101 (1998).
29.D. Gentner and A. L. Stevens, Mental Models (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1983), p. 348.
30.M. D. Gall, W. R. Borg, and J. P. Gall, Educational Research: An Introduction (Longman, White Plains, NY, 1996), 6th ed., p. 788.
31.A. C. Howe, “Development of science concepts within a Vygotskian framework,” Sci. Educ. 80(1), 35–51 (1996).
32.I. D. Beatty, W. J. Gerace, W. J. Leonard, and R. J. Dufresne, “Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching,” Am. J. Phys. 74(1), 31–39 (2006).
33.P. Heller and D. Huffman, “Interpreting the force concept inventory,” Phys. Teach. 33(8), 503–511 (1995).
35.I. Newman and J. W. Fraas, “The responsibility of educational researchers to make appropriate decisions about the error rate unit on which type I error adjustments are based: A thoughtful process not a mechanical one,” ERIC document ED427020 (1998).
36.S. Ramlo, “A physicist’s reflection on Q methodology, quantum mechanics & Stephenson,” Operant Subj. 29(2), 81–86 (2006).
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...
Most read this month