- 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 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.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Assessing high school students’ understanding of friction force: A cognitive diagnostic modeling approach

Benjie Wang1, Wei Han1,*, Qingdian Kong2, Huanxia Wang3, and Yingjie Zhang1,†

  • *Contact author: hanwei0127@163.com
  • †Contact author: yingjiezhang@qufu.edu.cn
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020122 – Published 8 September, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/kcnz-wrtr

Abstract

Enhancing students’ conceptual understanding is one of the primary goals of science education. Existing literature suggests that the degree of knowledge integration among students can reflect their level of conceptual understanding. This study focuses on the concept of friction force, constructing a cognitive structure model of friction force to depict the cognitive structure features of students with different levels of conceptual understanding. Additionally, a cognitive diagnostic test tool for friction force was developed. Based on this tool, 827 Chinese high school students were tested. The results demonstrate that the cognitive structure model of friction force is reasonable and can effectively characterize the knowledge structures of students with varying levels of conceptual understanding. Furthermore, analysis revealed multiple viable pathways for cognitive development. Based on empirical data, we identified the progression pathway optimally aligned with students’ cognitive schemata. The findings of this study provide a novel approach for mapping the cognitive development process of students and offer valuable information for personalized instructional guidance.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (85)

  1. E. Gaigher, J. M. Rogan, and M. W. H. Braun, Exploring the development of conceptual understanding through structured problem-solving in physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 29, 1089 (2007).
  2. P. G. Hewitt, Millikan lecture 1982: The missing essential—A conceptual understanding of physics, Am. J. Phys. 51, 305 (1983).
  3. P. Nieminen, A. Savinainen, and J. Viiri, Relations between representational consistency, conceptual understanding of the force concept, and scientific reasoning, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010123 (2012).
  4. L. Bao and K. Koenig, Physics education research for 21st century learning, Discip. Interdiscip. Sci. Educ. Res. 1, 2 (2019).
  5. A. B. Champagne, R. F. Gunstone, and L. E. Klopfer, A perspective on the differences between expert and novice performance in solving physics problems, Res. Sci. Educ. 12, 71 (1982).
  6. M. B. Nakhleh, Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Identifying conceptual students in general chemistry, J. Chem. Educ. 70, 52 (1993).
  7. A. E. Rivet and J. S. Krajcik, Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students’ prior knowledge and experiences to foster understanding of middle school science, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 45, 79 (2008).
  8. K. J. Roth, Developing meaningful conceptual understanding in science, in Dimensions of Thinking and Cognitive Instruction (Routledge, New York, 1990).
  9. W. Xu, Q. Liu, K. Koenig, J. Fritchman, J. Han, S. Pan, and L. Bao, Assessment of knowledge integration in student learning of momentum, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010130 (2020).
  10. J. Piaget, The Child’s Conception of Physical Causality (Littlefield, Adams & Co., Totowa, NJ, 1966).
  11. P. Potvin, L. Nenciovici, G. Malenfant-Robichaud, F. Thibault, O. Sy, M. A. Mahhou, A. Bernard, G. Allaire-Duquette, J. Blanchette Sarrasin, L.-M. Brault Foisy, N. Brouillette, A.-A. St-Aubin, P. Charland, S. Masson, M. Riopel, C.-C. Tsai, M. Bélanger, and P. Chastenay, Models of conceptual change in science learning: Establishing an exhaustive inventory based on support given by articles published in major journals, Stud. Sci. Educ. 56, 157 (2020).
  12. R. K. Sawyer, The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2005).
  13. G. J. Posner, K. A. Strike, P. W. Hewson, W. A. Gertzog et al., Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change, Sci. Educ. 66, 211 (1982).
  14. International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change, edited by S. Vosniadou (Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York, 2013), pp. 1–768.
  15. J. Minstrell, Explaining the “at rest” condition of an object, Phys. Teach. 20, 10 (1982).
  16. J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, and J. D. Novak, Teaching Science for Understanding: A Human Constructivist View (Academic Press, New York, 2005).
  17. A. A. DiSessa, N. M. Gillespie, and J. B. Esterly, Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force, Cogn. Sci. 28, 843 (2004).
  18. A. A. DiSessa et al., A bird’s-eye view of the “pieces” vs “coherence” controversy (from the “pieces” side of the fence), in International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change (Routledge, New York, 2013), pp. 31–48.
  19. D. A. Norman and D. E. Rumelhart, The LNR approach to human information processing, Cognition 10, 235 (1981).
  20. S. Vosniadou, Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change, Learn. Instr. 4, 45 (1994).
  21. M. T. Chi, J. D. Slotta, and N. De Leeuw, From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts, Learn. Instr. 4, 27 (1994).
  22. M. T. H. Chi, Two kinds and four sub-types of misconceived knowledge, ways to change it, and the learning outcomes, in International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change, edited by S. Vosniadou (Routledge, New York, 2013), pp. 49–70.
  23. K. S. Taber, Understanding the nature and processes of conceptual change: An essay review. Review of Vosniadou, Stella (Ed.) (2008) International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change. Vol. 14 No. 1, Educ. Rev. 14 (2011).
  24. D. R. Krathwohl, A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview, Theory Pract. 41, 212 (2002).
  25. J. Larkin, J. McDermott, D. P. Simon, and H. A. Simon, Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems, Science 208, 1335 (1980).
  26. O. L. Liu, H.-S. Lee, and M. C. Linn, Measuring knowledge integration: Validation of four-year assessments, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 48, 1079 (2011).
  27. M. S. Sabella and E. F. Redish, Knowledge organization and activation in physics problem solving, Am. J. Phys. 75, 1017 (2007).
  28. J. L. Snyder, An investigation of the knowledge structures of experts, intermediates and novices in physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 22, 979 (2000).
  29. T. R. Sikorski and D. Hammer, A critique of how learning progressions research conceptualizes sophistication and progress, in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2010) (International Society of the Learning Sciences, Chicago, 2010), pp. 1032–1039, https://repository.isls.org/handle/1/2641.
  30. A. A. Rupp, J. Templin and R. A. Henson, Diagnostic Measurement: Theory, Methods, and Applications (Guilford Press, New York, 2010).
  31. Learning Progressions in Science: Current Challenges and Future Directions, edited by A. C. Alonzo and A. W. Gotwals (Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, 2012).
  32. N. Frederiksen, R. J. Mislevy, and I. I. Bejar, Test Theory for a New Generation of Tests (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1993).
  33. K. K. Tatsuoka, Cognitive Assessment: An Introduction to the Rule Space Method (Routledge, New York, 2009).
  34. D. Tu, Y. Cai, and S. Ding, Cognitive Diagnosis: Theory, Methods and Applications (Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 2012).
  35. S. Bai, Developing a learning progression for probability based on the gdina model in China, Front. Psychol. 11, 569852 (2020).
  36. X. Wu, Y. Zhang, R. Wu, X. Tang, and T. Xu, Cognitive model construction and assessment of data analysis ability based on CDA, Front. Psychol. 13, 1009142 (2022).
  37. E. D. Corpuz and N. S. Rebello, Investigating students’ mental models and knowledge construction of microscopic friction. I. Implications for curriculum design and development, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 020102 (2011).
  38. J. K. Gilbert and D. M. Watts, Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education, Stud. Sci. Educ. 10, 61 (1983).
  39. I. Aviani, N. Erceg, and V. Mešić, Drawing and using free body diagrams: Why it may be better not to decompose forces, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020137 (2015).
  40. R. J. Beichner, Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs, Am. J. Phys. 62, 750 (1994).
  41. I. P. Canlas, Using visual representations in identifying students’ preconceptions in friction, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 39, 156 (2021).
  42. S. Prasitpong and R. Chitaree, What Thai students think about directions and types of frictional forces, AIP Conf. Proc. 1263, 66 (2010).
  43. A. Boudreaux and A. Elby, How curriculum developers’ cognitive theories influence curriculum development, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020144 (2020).
  44. J. Clement, Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 30, 1241 (1993).
  45. P. Mulhall and R. Gunstone, Views about learning physics held by physics teachers with differing approaches to teaching physics, J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 23, 429 (2012).
  46. H. Ş. Kızılcık, M. Aygün, E. Ş Şahin, N. Önder-Çelikkanlı, O. Türk, T. Taşkın, and B. Güneş, Possible misconceptions about solid friction, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 023107 (2021).
  47. C. C. Tsai and M. Lydia Wen, Research and trends in science education from 1998 to 2002: A content analysis of publication in selected journals, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 27, 3 (2005).
  48. C. O. Ameh and R F. Gunstone, The understanding held by Nigerian science teachers of some science concepts, in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, LA (1988), ERIC No. ED292633.
  49. U. Besson, L. Borghi, A. D. Ambrosis, and P. Mascheretti, A three-dimensional approach and open source structure for the design and experimentation of teaching-learning sequences: The case of friction, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 32, 1289 (2010).
  50. H. Caldas and É. Saltiel, Le frottement cinétique: Analyse des raisonnements des étudiants, Didaskalia 6, 55 (1995).
  51. A. B. Arons, Teaching Introductory Physics (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1997).
  52. T. C. Chia, Common misconceptions in frictional force among university physics students, Teach. Learn. 16, 107 (1996).
  53. D. R. Sari, D. Ramdhani, and H. K. Surtikanti, Analysis of elementary school students’ misconception on force and movement concept, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1157, 022053 (2019).
  54. M. E. Loverude, C. H. Kautz, and P. R. L. Heron, Student understanding of the first law of thermodynamics: Relating work to the adiabatic compression of an ideal gas, Am. J. Phys. 70, 137 (2002).
  55. A. Vidak, N. Erceg, E. Hasović, S. Odvzak, and V. Mevsić, Teaching about rolling motion: Exploring the effectiveness of an extreme case reasoning approach, J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 17, 511 (2018).
  56. J. P. Leighton, M. J. Gierl, and S. M. Hunka, The attribute hierarchy method for cognitive assessment: A variation on Tatsuoka’s rule-space approach, J. Educ. Meas. 41, 205 (2004).
  57. J. S. Gorin, Test construction and diagnostic testing, in Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment for Education: Theory and Applications, edited by J. P. Leighton and M. J. Gierl (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2007), pp. 173–202, 10.1017/CBO9780511611186.
  58. J. De La Torre, Dina model and parameter estimation: A didactic, J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 34, 115 (2009).
  59. S. Ha, G. Lee, and C. S. Kalman, Workshop on friction: Understanding and addressing students’ difficulties in learning science through a hermeneutical perspective, Sci. Educ. 22, 1423 (2013).
  60. B. Wang, W. Han, Y. Zhang, Q. Wang, D. Li, Z. Tang, and Q. Kong, Assessment of student knowledge integration in learning friction force, J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 23, 767 (2024).
  61. J. de la Torre and C.-Y. Chiu, A general method of empirical Q-matrix validation, Psychometrika 81, 253 (2016).
  62. S. E. Whitely, Multicomponent latent trait models for ability tests, Psychometrika 45, 479 (1980).
  63. K. K. TATSUOKA, Rule space: An approach for dealing with misconceptions based on item response theory, J. Educ. Meas. 20, 345 (1983).
  64. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force concept inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  65. Y. Nie, Y. Xiao, J. C. Fritchman, Q. Liu, J. Han, J. Xiong, and L. Bao, Teaching towards knowledge integration in learning force and motion, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 41, 2271 (2019).
  66. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/kcnz-wrtr for friction force cognitive diagnostic test.
  67. B. W. Junker and K. Sijtsma, Cognitive assessment models with few assumptions, and connections with nonparametric item response theory, Appl. Psychol. Meas. 25, 258 (2001).
  68. K. K. Tatsuoka, Caution indices based on item response theory, Psychometrika 49, 95 (1984).
  69. J. de la Torre, The generalized DINA model framework, Psychometrika 76, 179 (2011).
  70. M. E. Oliveri and M. von Davier, Investigation of model fit and score scale comparability in international assessments, Psychol. Test Assess. Model. 53, 315 (2011).
  71. Y. Cui and J. Li, Evaluating person fit for cognitive diagnostic assessment, Appl. Psychol. Meas. 39, 223 (2015).
  72. A. Maydeu-Olivares, Goodness-of-fit assessment of item response theory models, Meas. Interdiscip. Res. Perspect. 11, 71 (2013).
  73. J. Peugh and X. Fan, Modeling unobserved heterogeneity using latent profile analysis: A Monte Carlo simulation, Struct. Equ. Model. 20, 616 (2013).
  74. J. Templin and L. Bradshaw, Measuring the reliability of diagnostic classification model examinee estimates, J. Classif. 30, 251 (2013).
  75. Y. Cui and J. P. Leighton, The hierarchy consistency index: Evaluating person fit for cognitive diagnostic assessment, J. Educ. Measure. 46, 429 (2009).
  76. J. M. Linacre, A User’s Guide to WINSTEPS–MINISTEP: Rasch-Model Computer Programs. Program Manual 3.68.0 (Winsteps.com, Chicago, IL, 2009).
  77. X. Liu, Using and Developing Measurement Instruments in Science Education: A Rasch Modeling Approach (IAP, Charlotte, NC, 2010).
  78. M. Planinic, W. J. Boone, A. Susac, and L. Ivanjek, Rasch analysis in physics education research: Why measurement matters, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020111 (2019).
  79. W. Ma and J. de la Torre, gdina: An R package for cognitive diagnosis modeling, J. Stat. Softw. 93, 1 (2020).
  80. R. P. Chalmers, mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the r environment, J. Stat. Softw. 48, 1 (2012).
  81. X. Wu, R. Wu, Y. Zhang, D. Arthur, and H.-H. Chang, Research on construction method of learning paths and learning progressions based on cognitive diagnosis assessment, Assess. Educ. 28, 657 (2021).
  82. Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8, edited by R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, and A. W. Shouse (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2007).
  83. K. Neumann, T. Viering, W. J. Boone, and H. E. Fischer, Towards a learning progression of energy, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 50, 162 (2013).
  84. D. C. Briggs and A. C. Alonzo, The psychometric modeling of ordered multiple-choice item responses for diagnostic assessment with a learning progression, in Learning Progressions in Science: Current Challenges and Future Directions, edited by A. C. Alonzo and A. W. Gotwals (Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, 2012), pp. 293–316.
  85. F. Chen, S. Zhang, Y. Guo, and T. Xin, Applying the rule space model to develop a learning progression for thermochemistry, Res. Sci. Educ. 47, 1357 (2017).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020122– Published 8 September, 2025
  • Received 19 March 2025
  • Accepted 12 August 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

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

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation