Abstract
We address the validity of the FCI, that is, whether respondents who answer FCI questions correctly have an actual understanding of the concepts of physics tested in the questions. We used sub-questions that test students on concepts believed to be required to answer the actual FCI questions. Our sample size comprises about five hundred respondents; we derive false positive ratios for pre-learners and post-learners, and evaluate the significant difference between them. Our analysis shows a significant difference at the 95 % confidence level for Q.6, Q.7, and Q.16, implying that it is possible for post-learners to answer three questions without understanding the concepts of physics tested in the questions; therefore, Q.6, Q.7 and Q.16 are invalid.References
Halloun, I. & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. Am. J. Phys., 53(11), 1043–1055.
Halloun, I. & Hestenes, D. (1985): Common sense concepts about motion. Am. J. Phys., 53(11), 1056–1065.
Hestenes, D. & Halloun, I. (1995). Interpreting the force concept inventory: A response to March 1995 critique by Huffman and Heller. Phys. Teach., 33(8), 502–506.
Heller, P. & Huffman, D. (1995). Interpreting the force concept inventory: A reply to Hestenes and Halloun. Phys. Teach., 33(8), 503–511.
Hestenes, D. & Jackson, J. (1992). Revised Table II for the Force Concept Inventory. Available at http://modeling.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html
Hestenes, D., Wells, M. & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. Phys. Teach., 30, 141–158.
Huffman, D. & Heller, P. (1995). What does the force concept inventory actually measure? Phys. Teach., 33(3), 138–143.
Morris, G.A., Branum-Martin, L., Harshman, N., Baker, S.D., Mazur, E., Dutta, S., Mzoughi, T., & McCauley, V. (2006). Testing the test: Item response curves and test quality. Am. J. Phys., 74(5), 449–453.
Morris, G.A., Harshman, N., Branum-Martin, L., Mazur, E., Mzoughi, T., & Baker, S.D. (2012). An item response curves analysis of the Force Concept Inventory. Am. J. Phys., 80(9), 825–831.
Rebello, N. & Zollman, D. (2004). The effect of distractors on student performance on the force concept inventory. Am. J. Phys., 72(1), 116–125.
Redish, E. (2003). Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite. Hoboken: Wiley.
Scott, T.F., Schumayer, D. & Gray, A.R. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis of a Force Concept Inventory data set. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 8(2), 020105-1–020105-10.
Stewart, J., Griffin, H., & Stewart, G. (2007). Context sensitivity in the force concept inventory. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 3, 010102-1–010102-6.
Taniguchi, M. & Yasuda, J. (2014). Quantitative Validation of Japanese Translation of Force Concept Inventory using Sub-Questions. Journal of the Physics Education Society of Japan (in Japanese only), 62(4), 226–231.
Thornton, R.K., Kuhl, D., Cummings, K. & Marx, J. (2009). Comparing the force and motion conceptual evaluation and the force concept inventory. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 5(1), 010105-1–010105-8.
Yasuda, J. & Taniguchi, M. (2013). Validating two questions in the Force Concept Inventory with subquestions. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 9(1), 010113-1–010113-7.
Yasuda, J., Uematsu, H., & Nitta, H. (2012). Validating a Japanese version of the Force Concept Inventory. Lat. Am. J. Phys. Educ., 6(1), 89–94.