58
Monday morning
ing up lab time for active learning exercises, group discussion, and
student-teacher dialog. MOOC tools were also used to deliver prepa-
ratory background material which students were required to complete
before starting each new experiment.
PST1B17: 8-8:45 a.m. Lessons Learned Implementing
Online Laboratories at the University of Arkansas
Poster – John C. Stewart, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR
72701;
To increase access and to improve ease of transfer, the University of
Arkansas-Fayetteville will be offering its first-semester, calculus-based
physics class online to all 11 campuses of the University of Arkansas
system beginning in the spring 2014 semester. This requires imple-
mentation of online laboratory experiences that were piloted at the
Fayetteville campus during the fall 2013 semester. These laboratories
used a mix of simulations and video recording of experiments to
replace face-to-face laboratories. The interactive nature of the face-to-
face laboratory was partially replaced by inserting quiz questions at
points in the laboratory. A video recording of the instructor discuss-
ing each quiz question was made available to the students. This poster
will report on the lessons learned in this project.
Physics Education Research
PST1C02: 8:45-9:30 a.m. Clarifying the Force Concept
Inventory via Think-Aloud Interviews
Poster – Matthew R. Semak, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley,
CO 80639;
Wendy K. Adams, Richard D. Dietz, University of Northern Colorado
Over the past two years we have conducted three iterations of think-
aloud interviews with students as they grappled with questions on
the Force Concept Inventory (FCI). Doing so has shown us that the
difficulties they have with some questions have nothing to do with
their understanding of physics. These difficulties involve diagrams,
notations, and vocabulary that make perfect sense to physics teachers
but can easily confuse beginning students. Informed by those think-
aloud interviews, we have been modifying a subset of questions to im-
prove clarity and then administered each version of the clarified FCI
to students in two introductory physics courses. Here we show how
and why we modified a few specific questions to construct our latest
version of the clarified FCI and compare the consequent results with
several years of archival data generated with the canonical Inventory.
PST1C03: 8-8:45 a.m. Japanese Pre-concepts of Force and
Motion Probed by the FCI
Poster – Michi Ishimoto, Kochi University of Technology, Tosayamada-
cho Kami-shi, Kochi 782-8502;
The Force and Concept Inventory (FCI) is used around the world
to assess students’ understanding of force and motion. The FCI has
been translated into over 21 languages. Because Japanese belongs to
a different language family from the Indo-European language family
(to which English belongs), it is important to validate the translation
of the FCI from English into Japanese. Translation requires a proper
selection of words and writing styles, which may influence students’
response choices. Based on the classical test theory, the results of
reliability and discrimination testing of the translated version indicate
that it is a high-quality test. An analysis of individual items shows that
the surveyed Japanese students exhibited the same most common-
sense concepts about motion and force (e.g. impetus and active force)
as those of American students. The probed concepts are compared to
concepts introduced in the taxonomy of misconceptions.
PST1C04: 8:45-9:30 a.m. Representational and Writing
Style Influences on Concept Inventories
Poster – Michi Ishimoto, Kochi University of Technology, Tosayamada-
cho Kami-shi, Kochi 782-8502;
The Force Concept Inventory (FCI) and the Force and Motion Con-
ceptual Evaluation (FMCE) probe not only Newtonian responses but
also commonsense concepts of force and motion. The representation
and writing styles of questions may influence students’ responses. Pre-
sumably, these influences are greater on responses to questions con-
cerning commonsense concepts. Four items regarding Newton’s 3rd
law on the FCI and the FMCE are identical in terms of their contents.
A comparison of representational styles reveals that three of the four
questions are different and that one question is identical. Different
writing styles are used to translate the FCI and the FMCE into Japa-
nese. Representational and writing style influences on the responses
to the four questions are statistically examined using data from the
same groups of students. The FMCE produces results with fewer cor-
rect answers and more common-sense answers. A greater difference is
observed on questions with different representational styles.
PST1C05: 8-8:45 a.m. Linguistic Misinterpretations of
Fundamental Concepts of Physics of
Semiconductors
Poster – Emanuela Ene, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK
74078;
Interviews conducted at Oklahoma State University with undergradu-
ates enrolled in an introductory course of semiconductor devices
revealed surprising linguistic misinterpretations. The instruction
in the lecture format course had no significant effect on linguistic
representations, but was significantly associated with the graphical
representations.
PST1C07: 8-8:45 a.m. Development of a Standardized
Static Fluids Assessment
Poster – DJ Wagner, Grove City College, Grove City, PA 16127;
Ashley Lindow, Elizabeth Carbone, Anna Olson, Grove City College
We are developing an FCI-style assessment covering static fluids
topics commonly included in introductory physics courses. Beta
versions have been sent to other institutions, and we are continuing to
refine the assessment. This poster will focus on our efforts to identify
which conceptions persist into our target audience of late high school
and introductory college students. We’re particularly interested in
receiving suggestions from other educators and in recruiting more
beta-testers. Stop by and chat!
PST1C08: 8:45-9:30 a.m. Students’ Blending of
Mathematical Integrals with Physics
Poster – Dehui Hu, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
14623;
N. Sanjay Rebello, Kansas State University
College calculus is used across many physics topics from introductory
to upper-division level courses. The fundamental concepts of dif-
ferentiation and integration are important tools for solving real-world
problems involving non-uniformly distributed quantities. Research
in physics education has reported students’ lack of ability to transfer
their calculus knowledge to physics. In order to better understand
students’ deficiencies, we collected data from group teaching/learning
interviews as students solved physics problems requiring setting up
integrals. We adapted the conceptual blending framework from cogni-
tive science to make sense of the ways in which students combined
their knowledge from calculus and physics to set up integrals. We
report on our analysis of the ways in which students blend knowledge
in several mental spaces to set up integrals in physics contexts. Finally,
we compare students’ conceptual blends and discuss the implications
of our study
PST1C09: 8-8:45 a.m. Explicit Instruction in
Metacognition: An Example from Physics
Poster – Alistair G. McInerny, Western Washington University, Belling-
ham, WA 98225;
Andrew Boudreaux, Western Washington University
Mila Kryjevskaia, North Dakota State
University
