- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Model analysis: Representing and assessing the dynamics of student learning

Lei Bao*

Edward F. Redish†

  • Department of Physics, The Ohio State University, 174 West 18th Ave., Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA

  • Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA

  • *Electronic address: lbao@mps.ohio-state.edu
  • †Electronic address: redish@physics.umd.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010103 – Published 2 February, 2006

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.010103

Abstract

Decades of education research have shown that students can simultaneously possess alternate knowledge frameworks and that the development and use of such knowledge are context dependent. As a result of extensive qualitative research, standardized multiple-choice tests such as Force Concept Inventory and Force-Motion Concept Evaluation tests provide instructors tools to probe their students’ conceptual knowledge of physics. However, many existing quantitative analysis methods often focus on a binary question of whether a student answers a question correctly or not. This greatly limits the capacity of using the standardized multiple-choice tests in assessing students’ alternative knowledge. In addition, the context dependence issue, which suggests that a student may apply the correct knowledge in some situations and revert to use alternative types of knowledge in others, is often treated as random noise in current analyses. In this paper, we present a model analysis, which applies qualitative research to establish a quantitative representation framework. With this method, students’ alternative knowledge and the probabilities for students to use such knowledge in a range of equivalent contexts can be quantitatively assessed. This provides a way to analyze research-based multiple choice questions, which can generate much richer information than what is available from score-based analysis.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (43)

  1. L. C. McDermott and E. F. Redish, Resource Letter PER-01: Physics Education Research, Am. J. Phys. 67, 755 (1999).
  2. A. diSessa, Towards an epistemology of physics, Cogn. Instruct. 10, 105 (1993).
  3. J. Minstrell, in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies, Proceedings of an International Workshop, Bremen, Germany, edited by R. Duit, F. Goldberg, and H. Niedderer (IPN, Kiel, Germany, 1992) p. 110.
  4. L. Viennot, Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics, Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1, 205 (1979); I. A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, The initial knowledge state of college physics students, Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043 (1985); Common sense concepts about motion, 53, 1056 (1985); J. Clement, Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics, ibid. 50, 66 (1982); and many others.
  5. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhammer, Force concept inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  6. 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, 338 (1998).
  7. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (Prentice-Hall, New York, 1997).
  8. P. Thagard, Mind: Introduction to Cognitive Science (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 1996).
  9. J. M. Fuster, Memory in the Cerebral Cortex (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999).
  10. J. Bransford, A. Brown, and R. Cocking, How People Learn (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1999).
  11. J. R. Anderson and C. Lebiere, The Atomic Components of Thought (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1998).
  12. A. Baddeley, Human Memory: Theory and Practice (Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA, 1997).
  13. E. R. Kandel, J. H. Schwartz, and T. M. Jessell, Principles of Neural Science, 4th ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2000); P. S. Churchland and T. J. Sejwnowski, The Computational Brain (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993).
  14. E. F. Redish, in Proceedings of the Varenna Summer School in Physics, ‘Enrico Fermi,” Course CLVI, Varenna, Italy, edited by E. F. Redish and M. Vicentini (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2004), p. 1.
  15. D. Hammer, A. Elby, R. Scherr, and E. Redish, in Transfer of Learning: Research and Perspectives, edited by J. Mestre (Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, 2004), Chap. 3.
  16. M. Sabella and E. F. Redish (unpublished).
  17. R. Steinberg and M. Sabella, Performance on multiple-choice diagnostics and complementary exam problems, Phys. Teach. 35, 150 (1997).
  18. Handbook of Psycholinguistics, edited by M. A. Gernsbacher (Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1994).
  19. G. Morgan, Images of Organization (Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, 1986).
  20. A. H. Schoenfeld, Mathematical Problem Solving (Academic Press, Orlando, FL, 1985).
  21. A. diSessa and B. L. Sherin, What changes in conceptual change?, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 1155 (1998).
  22. A. Caramazza, M. McCloskey, and B. Green, Naive beliefs in “sophisticated” subjects: misconceptions about trajectories of objects, Cognition 9, 117 (1981).
  23. S. Vosniadou, Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change, Learn. Instr. 4, 45 (1994).
  24. V. Otero, in Ref. 14, p. 409.
  25. D. Norman, in Mental Models, edited by D. Gentner and A. L. Stevens (Lea Publishing, Hillsdale, NJ 1983), p. 1.
  26. F. Reif and S. Allen, Cognition for interpreting scientific concepts: A study of acceleration, Cogn. Instruct. 9, 1 (1992).
  27. D. P. Maloney and R. S. Siegler, Conceptual competition in physics learning, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 15, 283 (1993).
  28. T. Shallice, From Neuropsychology to Mental Structure (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1998).
  29. C. Spearman, “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured, Am. J. Psychol., 15, 201 (1904).
  30. L. Bao, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, 1999.
  31. 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. (PER Suppl.) 70, S766 (2002).
  32. F. Marton, Phenomenography–a research approach to investigating different understandings of reality, J. Thought 21 (3), 28 (1986).
  33. E. T. Rolls and A. Treves, Neural Networks and Brain Function (Oxford University Press, New York, 1998).
  34. L. Bao and E. F. Redish, Concentration analysis: A quantitative assessment of student states, Am. J. Phys. (PER Suppl.) 69, S45 (2001).
  35. A. Champagne, L. Klopfer, and J. Anderson, Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 48, 1074 (1980).
  36. J. Clement, Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 50, 66 (1982).
  37. I. Galili and V. Bar, Motion implies force: where to expect vestiges of the misconception?, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 14, 63 (1992).
  38. I. A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, The initial knowledge state of college physics students, Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043 (1985); Common sense concepts about motion, 53, 1056 (1985).
  39. L. Bao (unpublished).
  40. D. Huffman and P. Heller, What does the force concept inventory actually measure?, Phys. Teach. 33, 138 (1995).
  41. K. G. Jöreskog, in Structural Equation Models in the Social Sciences, edited by A. S. Goldberger and O. D. Duncan (Seminar Press/Harcourt Brace, New York, 1973).
  42. R. K. Hambleton and H. Swaminathan, Item Response Theory: Principles and Applications (Kluwer, Nijhoff, 1984).
  43. 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).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010103– Published 2 February, 2006
  • Received 15 May 2005
Creative Commons Logo

This article is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation