Context sensitivity in the force concept inventory

(Some reference links may require a separate subscription.)

1. R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998) [SPIN][INSPEC][ADS].
2. I. A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, The initial knowledge state of college physics students, Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043 (1985) [SPIN][INSPEC].
3. D. Hestenes, G. Swackhamer, and M. Wells, Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992) [SPIN].
4. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1997).
5. E. Kim and S.-J. Pak, Students do not overcome conceptual difficulties after solving 1000 traditional problems, Am. J. Phys. 70, 759 (2002) [SPIN].
6. L. Lising and A. Elby, The impact of epistemology on learning: A case study from introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 73, 372 (2005) [SPIN].
7. W. A. Sandoval, Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry, Sci. Educ. 89, 634 (2005).
8. D. B. May and E. Etkina, College physics students’ epistemological self-reflection and its relationship to conceptual learning, Am. J. Phys. 70, 1249 (2002) [SPIN].
9. K. Spall and M. Stanisstreet, Development of school students’ constructions of biology and physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 26, 787 (2004).
10. M. T. Chi, P. J. Feltovich, and R. Glaser, Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices, Cogn. Sci. 5, 121 (1981).
11. G. S. Gliner, College students’ organization of mathematics word problems in relation to success in problem solving, Sch. Sci. Math. 89, 392 (1989).
12. G. S. Gliner, College students’ organization of mathematics word problems in terms of mathematical structure vs. surface structure, Sch. Sci. Math. 91, 105 (1991).
13. E. E. Clough and R. Driver, A study of consistency in the use of students’ conceptual frameworks across different task contexts, Sci. Educ. 70, 473 (1986).
14. D. H. Palmer, The effect of context on students’ reasoning about forces, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 19, 681 (1997).
15. D. Huffman and P. Heller, What does the Force Concept Inventory actually measure?, Phys. Teach. 33, 138 (1995) [SPIN].
16. P. Heller and D. Huffman, Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory. a reply to Hestenes and Halloun, Phys. Teach. 33, 503 (1995) [SPIN].
17. D. Hestenes and I. Halloun, Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. 33, 502 (1995) [SPIN].
18. S. Itza-Ortiz, S. Rebello, and D. Zollman, Students’ models of Newton’s second law in mechanics and electromagnetism, Eur. J. Phys. 25, 81 (2004).
19. D. H. Palmer, Measuring contextual error in the diagnosis of alternative conceptions in science, Issues Educ. Res. 8, 65 (1998).
20. R. N. Steinberg and M. S. Sabella, Performance on multiple-choice diagnostics and complementary exam problems, Phys. Teach. 35, 150 (1997) [SPIN].
21. S. Rebello and D. Zollman, The effect of distractors on student performance on the Force Concept Inventory, Am. J. Phys. 72, 116 (2004) [SPIN].
22. C. Henderson, Common concerns about the Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. 40, 542 (2002) [SPIN].
23. L. Bao, K. Hogg, and D. Zollman, Model analysis of fine structures of student models: An example with Newton’s third law, Am. J. Phys. 70, 766 (2002) [SPIN][INSPEC].
24. D. E. Metzler, Relation between students’ problem-solving performance and representational format, Am. J. Phys. 73, 463 (2002) [SPIN].
25. M. H. Dancy and R. Beichner, Impact of animation on assessment of conceptual understanding in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010104 (2006).
26. D. H. Palmer, Investigating the relationship between students’ multiple conceptions of action and reaction in cases of static equilibrium, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 19, 193 (2001).