APS » Journals » Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. » Volume 3 » Issue 1
< Previous article | Next article >

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010106 (2007)

Interpreting force concept inventory scores: Normalized gain and SAT scores

Vincent P. Coletta, Jeffrey A. Phillips, and Jeffrey J. Steinert

Download: PDF (280 kB) Export: BibTeX or EndNote (RIS)

(Some reference links may require a separate subscription.)

  1. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force concept inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992) [SPIN].
  2. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997). We used Mazur’s version of FCI.
  3. R. R. Hake, Interactive-Engagement vs Traditional Methods: A Six-Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998) [SPIN][INSPEC][ADS].
  4. R. R. Hake (unpublished), http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/PERC2002h-Hake.pdf.
  5. D. Hestenes (private communication).
  6. V. P. Coletta and J. A. Phillips, Interpreting FCI Scores: Normalized Gain, Pre-instruction Scores, and Scientific Reasoning Ability, Am. J. Phys. 73, 1172 (2005) [SPIN].
  7. E. Redish and R. N. Steinberg, Teaching physics: Figuring out what works, Phys. Today 52 (1), 24 (1999) [INSPEC][ADS][CAS].
  8. V. P. Coletta, J. A. Phillips, and J. J. Steinert, Why you should measure your students reasoning ability, Phys. Teach. 45, 235 (2007) [SPIN].
  9. A. E. Lawson, The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 15, 11 (1978). An updated multiple choice version of the test is in the appendix of Ref. [6].
  10. M. A. Dubson and S. J. Pollock, Can the Lawson Test Predict Student Grades?, AAPT Announcer 36, 90 (2006).
  11. P. M. Pamela and J. M. Saul, Interpreting FCI Normalized Gain, Pre-instruction Scores, and Scientific Reasoning Ability, AAPT Announcer 36, 89 (2006).
  12. J. W. Renner and A. E. Lawson, Piagetian theory and instruction in physics, Phys. Teach. 11, 165 (1973) [SPIN].
  13. B. Inhelder and J. Piaget, The Growth Of Logical Thinking From Childhood To Adolescence; An Essay On The Construction Of Formal Operational Structures (Basic Books, New York, 1958).
  14. A. E. Lawson, The generality of hypothetico-deductive reasoning: Making scientific thinking explicit, Am. Biol. Teach. 62, 482 (2000).
  15. D. Elkind, Quality conceptions in college students, J. Social Psych. 57, 459 (1962).
  16. J. A. Towler and G. Wheatley, Conservation concepts in college students, J. Genet. Psychol. 118, 265 (1971).
  17. A. B. Arons and R. Karplus, Implications of accumulating data on levels of intellectual development, Am. J. Phys. 44, 396 (1976) [SPIN].
  18. H. D. Cohen, D. F. Hillman, and R. M. Agne, Cognitive level and college physics achievement, Am. J. Phys. 46, 1026 (1978) [SPIN].
  19. J. W. McKinnon and J. W. Renner, Are colleges concerned with intellectual development?, Am. J. Phys. 39, 1047 (1971) [SPIN].
  20. A. E. Lawson and J. W. Renner, A quantitative analysis of responses to Piagetian tasks and its implications for curriculum, Sci. Educ. 58, 545 (1974).
  21. J. W. Renner and A. E. Lawson, Promoting intellectual development through science teaching, Phys. Teach. 11, 273 (1973) [SPIN].
  22. The College Board, SAT Program Handbook, 2005 http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/prof/counselors/tests/sat/2005-06-SAT-program-handbook.pdf.
  23. M. C. Frey and D. K. Detterman, The Relationship Between the Scholastic Assessment Test and General Cognitive Ability, Psychol. Sci. 15, 373 (2004).
  24. B. Bridgeman, L. McCamley-Jenkins, and N. Ervin, Predictions of Freshman Grade-Point Average From the Revised and Recentered SAT I: Reasoning Test (College Entrance Examination Board, New York, 2000) http://www.collegeboard.com/research/pdf/rr0001_3917.pdf.
  25. S. Geiser with R. Studley, UC and the SAT: Predictive Validity and Differential Impact of the SAT I and SAT II at the University of California, 2001 http://www.ucop.edu/sas/research/researchandplanning/pdf/sat_study.pdf.
  26. J. S. Shoemaker (unpublished).
  27. M. Wells, D. Hestenes, and G. Swackhamer, A modeling method for high school physics instruction, Am. J. Phys. 63, 606 (1995) [SPIN].
  28. R. Karplus, Science teaching and the development of reasoning, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 14, 169 (1977).
  29. R. Feuerstein, Y. Rand, M. B. Hoffman, and R. Miller, Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive modifiability (University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980).
  30. P. S. Adey and M. Shayer, Really Raising Standards: Cognitive intervention and academic achievement (Routledge, London, 1994).
  31. P. S. Adey, M. Shayer, and C. Yates, Thinking Science: The curriculum materials of the CASE project, 3rd ed. (Nelson Thornes, London, 2001).
  32. B. Kurtz, Ph.D. dissertation in science and mathematics education, University of California, 1976.
  33. B. Kurtz and R. Karplus, Intellectual development beyond elementary school vii: teaching for proportional reasoning, Sch. Sci. Math. 79, 387 (1979).