• Open Access

Examining the relation of correct knowledge and misconceptions using the nominal response model

John Stewart, Byron Drury, James Wells, Aaron Adair, Rachel Henderson, Yunfei Ma, Ángel Pérez-Lemonche, and David Pritchard
Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010122 – Published 29 March 2021
PDFHTMLExport Citation

Abstract

This study reports an analysis of the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) using item response curves (IRC)—the fraction of students selecting each response to an item as a function of their total score. Three large samples (N=9606, 4360, and 1439) of calculus-based physics students were analyzed. These were drawn from three land-grant institutions with very different average FCI post-test scores. A significant number of the response curves for incorrect responses have a maximum at some intermediate value of the total score on the FCI. To analyze the incorrect responses (rather than just the correct response as is typically done), we used Bock’s nominal response model (NRM), primarily because it can fit these intermediate maximum curves. The one-dimensional NRM latent ability dimension was strongly correlated (r=0.99) with the latent ability determined by two-parameter logistic (2PL) item response theory applied with correct or incorrect grading even though the correct responses were not identified for the NRM. To understand the relation of Newtonian and non-Newtonian thinking, higher dimensional models were fit. The two-dimensional NRM model produced one ability dimension which could be rotated to be highly correlated with the 2PL latent ability (r0.98) and a second dimension which was most strongly related to misconceptions involving Newton’s third law. Cluster analysis was applied to the two latent ability dimensions producing a three-cluster solution where the cluster centroids were very similar for each of the three institutions. The clusters represented three groups of students: Newtonian thinkers still retaining some misconceptions, non-Newtonian thinkers strongly applying Newton’s third law misconceptions, and non-Newtonian thinkers weakly applying those misconceptions. The differences between overall FCI scores at the three institutions could be explained by the relative populations of the three clusters.

  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Received 31 October 2020
  • Accepted 16 March 2021

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.010122

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Physics Education Research

Authors & Affiliations

John Stewart1,*, Byron Drury2, James Wells3, Aaron Adair2, Rachel Henderson4, Yunfei Ma2, Ángel Pérez-Lemonche2, and David Pritchard2

  • 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506, USA
  • 2Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA
  • 3Department of Physics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269, USA
  • 4Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA

  • *jcstewart1@mail.wvu.edu

Article Text

Click to Expand

Supplemental Material

Click to Expand

References

Click to Expand
Issue

Vol. 17, Iss. 1 — January - June 2021

Reuse & Permissions
Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

Authorization Required


×
×

Images

×

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from 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 4.0 International 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.

×

Log In

Cancel
×

Search


Article Lookup

Paste a citation or DOI

Enter a citation
×