The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interpreting FCI scores: Normalized gain, preinstruction scores, and scientific reasoning ability
Abstract
We examined normalized gains and preinstruction scores on the force concept inventory (FCI) for students in interactive engagement courses in introductory mechanics at four universities and found a significant, positive correlation for three of them. We also examined class average FCI scores of 2948 students in 38 interactive engagement classes, 31 of which were from the same four universities and 7 of which came from 3 other schools. We found a significant, positive correlation between class average normalized FCI gains and class average preinstruction scores. To probe this correlation, we administered Lawson’s classroom test of scientific reasoning to 65 students and found a significant, positive correlation between these students’ normalized FCI gains and their Lawson test scores. This correlation is even stronger than the correlation between FCI gains and preinstruction FCI scores. Our study demonstrates that differences in student populations are important when comparing normalized gains in different interactive engagement classes. We suggest using the Lawson test along with the FCI to measure the effectiveness of alternative interactive engagement strategies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hake, R. R. (1998) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.18809 · Cited by 6,072
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992) · The Physics Teacher · doi:10.1119/1.2343497 · Cited by 3,235
Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M. (1992) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.17118 · Cited by 726
Cited by
Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics
Docktor, J. L., & Mestre, J. P. (2014) · Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research · doi:10.1103/physrevstper.10.020119 · Cited by 549
Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college
Lasry, N., Mazur, E., & Watkins, J. (2008) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.2978182 · Cited by 356
Physics education research for 21st century learning
Bao, L., & Koenig, K. (2019) · Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research · doi:10.1186/s43031-019-0007-8 · Cited by 265
The Effect of Refuting Misconceptions in the Introductory Psychology Class
Kowalski, P., & Taylor, A. K. (2009) · Teaching of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00986280902959986 · Cited by 192
Scientific reasoning abilities of nonscience majors in physics-based courses
Moore, J. C., & Rubbo, L. J. (2012) · Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research · doi:10.1103/physrevstper.8.010106 · Cited by 76
Metadata
- Authors
- Coletta, V. P., & Phillips, J. A.
- Venue
- American Journal of Physics
- Published
- 2005-12-01
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1172-1182
- ISSN
- 0002-9505 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2909
- OpenAlex
- W2171900436
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 30.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interpreting FCI scores: Normalized gain, preinstruction scores, and scientific reasoning ability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1119/1.2117109
- The paper
- Coletta, V. P., & Phillips, J. A. (2005). Interpreting FCI scores: Normalized gain, preinstruction scores, and scientific reasoning ability. American Journal of Physics. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2117109
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.