1887
banner image
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.
Comparing large lecture mechanics curricula using the Force Concept Inventory: A five thousand student study
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1119/1.3703517
/content/aapt/journal/ajp/80/7/10.1119/1.3703517
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapt/journal/ajp/80/7/10.1119/1.3703517

Figures

Image of Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Average pre- and post-instruction FCI scores at Georgia Tech. The average FCI pre- and post-test scores are shown for students who took a one-semester mechanics course with either the traditional (TRAD) or Matter & Interactions (M&I) curriculum. The number of students (N) tested for each curriculum is indicated in the figure. The error bounds represent the 95% confidence intervals (estimated from the t-statistic) on the estimate of the average score.

Image of Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Gain in understanding of mechanics as measured by the FCI. The increase in student understanding resulting from a one-semester traditional (TRAD) or Matter & Interactions (M&I) course is measured using (a) the average raw gain G and (b) the average normalized gain g. Only students with matched scores were used for this figure (see Table I). The error bounds represent the 95% confidence intervals (estimated from the t-statistic) on the estimate of (a) the raw gain and (b) the normalized gain.

Image of Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

FCI score distributions by curriculum. The distributions of FCI test scores for students before (a) and after (b) completing a mechanics course with either a traditional (dashed line) or M&I curriculum (solid line) are shown. The total number of students tested in each curriculum is the same as in Fig. 1. The plots are constructed from binned data with bin widths equal to approximately 6.7% of the maximum possible FCI score (100%).

Image of Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

Difference in performance for individual FCI items and mechanics concepts. The difference in performance between traditional and M&I students is shown for each question on the FCI. Positive (negative) indicates superior performance by traditional (M&I) students on individual questions. The numerical labels indicate the corresponding question number in order of appearance on the FCI. The items are grouped together into one of five concepts: Kinematics, Newton’s first law, Newton’s second law, Newton’s third law, and Force Identification. The horizontal line (dash) illustrates the value of , the mean difference in the item gains between curricula.

Tables

Generic image for table
Table I.

Georgia Tech FCI test results are shown for 22 traditional sections (T1–T22) and 6 Matter & Interactions sections (M1–M6). Different lecturers are distinguished by a unique letter in column L. The average incoming FCI score I for students entering the course is shown for sections in which the FCI was given prior to instruction. In those sections where data are available, the average outgoing FCI score O for students completing this course are indicated. is the number of students in a given section who took the FCI both at the beginning and at the end (i.e., matched data) of their mechanics course.

Generic image for table
Table II.

The average differences in item gains between curricula are computed for the items in each FCI force and motion concept, . Each is positive, indicating better average item gains for traditional students across all FCI force and motion concepts. Concepts with higher are those for which traditional students achieve higher normalized gains than M&I students. Traditional students achieve the highest values of on the Kinematics and Force Identification concepts and lowest on Newton’s first law concept. The measures are presented along with their variance.

Generic image for table
Table III.

An estimate of the fraction of homework questions covering a particular FCI concept in the two mechanics curricula is compared. Subtopics for these homework questions were not mutually exclusive. The relative fraction of homework questions covering FCI force and motion concepts and some individual FCI concepts (i.e., Kinematics, Newton’s second law, Newton’s third law, and Force Identification) is greater in the traditional curriculum.

Generic image for table
Table IV.

Comparison of the estimated fractions of lecture/reading topics in the two mechanics curricula. Subtopics for these lectures/readings were not mutually exclusive. The relative fraction of lectures/readings in the traditional course is greater for the Kinematics, Newton’s third law, and Force Identification topics, which is consistent with their superior performance in those concepts on the FCI. However, on Newton’s first and second laws, the relative fractions of lectures/readings are roughly similar.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapt/journal/ajp/80/7/10.1119/1.3703517
2012-06-18
2014-04-23
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Comparing large lecture mechanics curricula using the Force Concept Inventory: A five thousand student study
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapt/journal/ajp/80/7/10.1119/1.3703517
10.1119/1.3703517
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM