- 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

Global statistic of students’ understandings of Newtonian mechanics represented by a score-state vector of FCI

Masaki Goda*

Shinichi Kishizawa†

Yamato Hasegawa‡

  • Graduate School of Science and Technology, Niigata University, 8050 Ikarashi-2, Nishi-ku, Niigata-City, Niigata 950-2181, Japan

  • Urawa Akenohoshi Girls’ Junior and Senior High School, 9-4-19, Higashiurawa, Midori-ku, Saitama City 336-0926, Japan

  • *Contact author: masaki.goda.emeritus@niigata-u.ac.jp
  • †Contact author: s_kishizawa@nifty.com
  • ‡Contact author: hasegawa@sth.isct.ac.jp
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020105 – Published 10 July, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/xw7r-2rx1

Abstract

In this paper, we describe student understanding of the “force concept” (basic concepts of Newtonian mechanics) by representing it as a vector-valued quantity, which we refer to as the “score-state vector,” in a (30-dimensional) Force Concept Inventory (FCI) score space. We use a large ensemble of FCI results collected throughout Japan to explore the global statistical structure of the vector. We used principal component analysis to project the score-state vector into a three-dimensional subspace and found that the student score states follow a non-normal distribution. The distribution exhibits two snakes and is also skewed like a screw. This implies that the correlation of the second order (such as the commonly used correlation coefficients) is insufficient to describe the global structure of student score states. We find the distribution to be roughly divided into two subdistributions corresponding to novice respondents and intermediate (transient) and expert respondents. This indicates that “novice” and/or “expert” are not additional qualities given to the ensemble of samples but are understood as a label distinguishing the characteristic areas of the entire distribution. In addition, we observe, as a result of the non-normal distribution, the deviation of the second-order correlation of the score-state vector from that of an artificial interitem-uncorrelated ensemble of samples. The observed deviations realize many previously obtained results and present us with many other new results. Although ours is only a first step, it is a necessary process toward constructing a more accurate model of the student’s reasoning about Newtonian mechanics.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Corrections

13 August, 2025

Correction: A misprint in the section heading for II B introduced during the production cycle has been fixed.

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (51)

  1. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackharmer, Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  2. D. Hestenes and I. Halloun, Interpreting the Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. 33, 502 (1995).
  3. R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
  4. A. A. diSessa, Knowledge in Pieces, Constructivism in the Computer Age, edited by G. Foreman and P. B. Putall (Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1988), pp. 49–70.
  5. A. A. diSessa, Toward an epistemology of physics, Cognit. Instr. 10, 105 (1993).
  6. J. Minstrell, Facets of students’ knowledge and relevant instruction, research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies, in Proceedings of the International Workshop, Bremen, Germany, edited by R. Duit, E. Goldberg, and H. Niedderer (IPN, Kiel, Germany, 1991), pp. 110–128.
  7. F. C. Bartlett, Remembering (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1932).
  8. D. E. Rumelhart, Notes on a Schema for Stories, Representation and Understanding, edited by D. G. Bobrow and A. M. Collins (Academic Press, New York, NY, 1975), pp. 211–236.
  9. M. S. Sabella and E. F. Redish, Knowledge activation and organization in physics problem solving, Am. J. Phys. 75, 1017 (2010).
  10. See E. F. Redish, Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite (John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, NY, 2003).
  11. D. Hammer, Misconceptions or P-prims: How may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intention?, J. Learn. Sci. 5, 97 (1996).
  12. D. Hammer, More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for educational research, Am. J. Phys. 64, 1316 (1996).
  13. S. Graham, B. Weiner, D. C. Berliner, and R. C. Calfee, Theories and principles of motivation, in Handbook of Educational Psychology (MacMillan, London, 1996), pp. 63–84.
  14. D. J. Stipec, D. C. Berliner, and R. C. Calfee, Motivation and instruction, in Handbook of Educational Psychology (MacMillan, London, 1996), pp. 85–113.
  15. E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, Student expectations in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 66, 212 (1998).
  16. D. Hammer, Student resources for learning introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 68, S52 (2000).
  17. S. M. Stoen, M. A. McDaniel, R. F. Frey, K. M. Hynes, and M. J. Cahill, Force Concept Inventory: More than just conceptual understanding, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010105 (2020).
  18. R. E. Scherr, Modeling student thinking: An example from special relativity, Am. J. Phys. 75, 272 (2007).
  19. D. Huffman and P. Heller, What does the Force Concept Inventory actually measure?, Phys. Teach. 33, 138 (1995).
  20. T. F. Scott, D. Schumayer, and A. R. Gray, Exploratory factor analysis of a Force Concept Inventory data set, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020105 (2012).
  21. T. F. Scott and D. Schumayer, Conceptual coherence of non-Newtonian worldviews in Force Concept Inventory data, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010126 (2017).
  22. M. R. Semak, R. D. Dietz, R. H. Pearson, and C. W. Willis, Examining evolving performance on the Force Concept Inventory using factor analysis, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010103 (2017).
  23. P. Eaton and S. D. Willoughby, Confirmatory factor analysis applied to the Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010124 (2018).
  24. C. Distefano, M. Zhu, and D. Mindrila, Understanding and using factor scores: Considerations for the applied researcher, Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 14, 20 (2009).
  25. F. M. Lord, Application of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1980).
  26. M. Planinic, L. Ivanjek, and A. Susac, Rash model-based analysis of the Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 010103 (2010).
  27. J. Wang and L. Bao, Analyzing Force Concept Inventory with item response theory, Am. J. Phys. 78, 1064 (2010).
  28. R. D. Bock, Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories, Psychometrika 37, 29 (1972).
  29. T. I. Smith, K. J. Louis, B. J. Ricci, and N. Bendjilali, Qualitatively ranking incorrect responses to multiple-choice questions using item response theory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010107 (2020).
  30. T. F. Scott and D. Schumayer, Students’ proficiency scores within multi-trait item response theory, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020134 (2015).
  31. J. Stewart, C. Zabriskie, S. DeVore, and G. Stewart, Multidimensional item response theory and the Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010137 (2018).
  32. P. Eaton and S. Willoughby, Identifying a preinstruction to postinstruction factor model for the Force Concept Inventory within a multitrait item response theory framework, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010106 (2020).
  33. J. Stewart, B. Drury, J. Wells, A. Adair, R. Henderson, Y. Ma, A. Perez-Lemonche, and D. Pritchard, Examining the relation of correct knowledge and misconceptions using the nominal response model, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010122 (2021).
  34. G. A. Morris, L. B.-Martin, S. D. Baker, E. Mazur, S. Dutta, T. Mzoughi, and V. McCauley, Testing the test: Item response curves and test quality, Am. J. Phys. 74, 449 (2006).
  35. G. A. Morris, N. Harshman, L. B.-Martin, E. Mazur, T. Mzoughi, and S. D. Baker, An item response curves analysis of the Force Concept Inventory, Am. J. Phys. 80, 825 (2012).
  36. M. Ishimoto, H. Nitta, and R. Lang, 2014 survey on physics education in Japan (2): Item response curves of the FCI data, in Proceedings of the Meeting Report of the 2015 Annual Meeting of the Physical Society of Japan, 23 pCK-3 (Written in Japanese) (2015), 10.11316/jpsgaiyo.70.1.0_3482.
  37. T. Yamazaki, S. Kishizawa, Y. Hasegawa, J. Yasuda, H. Minoda, M. Goda, T. Murata, and R. Lang, Analysis of mechanics conceptual understanding through “item response curves” I, in Proceedings of the Meeting Report of the 2017 Annual Meeting of the Physical Society of Japan, 19 pC11-3 (Written in Japanese) (2017), 10.11316/jpsgaiyo.72.1.0_3376.
  38. S. Kishizawa, T. Yamazaki, Y. Hasegawa, J. Yasuda, H. Minoda, M. Goda, T. Murata, and R. Lang, Analysis of mechanics conceptual understanding through “item response curves” II, in Proceedings of the Meeting Report of the 2017 Annual Meeting of the Physical Society of Japan, 19 pC11-3 (Written in Japanese) (2017), 10.11316/jpsgaiyo.72.1.0_3377.
  39. M. Ishimoto, G. Davenport, and M. C. Wittman, Use of item response curves of the force and motion conceptual evaluation to compare Japanese and American students’ views on force and motion, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020135 (2017).
  40. J. C. Gower and D. J. Hand, Biplots (Chapman and Hall, London, 1995).
  41. G. H. Dunteman, Principal Component Analysis (SAGE, Beverly Hills, 1989).
  42. I. T. Jolliffe, Principal Component Analysis, Springer Series in Statistics (Springer, Berlin, 2002).
  43. J. C. Heyton, D. G. Allen, and V. Scarpello, Factor retention decision in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis, Organ. Res. Methods 7, 191 (2004).
  44. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/xw7r-2rx1 for the data on the artificial inter-item-uncorrelated samples of R1.
  45. D. J. Law and K. F. Wilson, The role of competing knowledge structures in undermining learning: Newton’s second and third laws, Am. J. Phys. 85, 54 (2017).
  46. K. Mizuno, The Principle of Multivariate Data Analysis (Written in Japanese) (Asakura Shoten, Tokyo, 1996).
  47. M. Goda, S. Kishizawa, and Y. Hasegawa, Revisit the FCI results with PCA I (PCA and FA), in Proceedings of the Meeting Report of the 2019 Semi-Annual Meeting of the Physical Society of Japan 11pB24-8 (Written in Japanese) (2019), 10.11316/jpsgaiyo.74.2.0_2816.
  48. M. Goda, S. Kishizawa, and Y. Hasegawa, Revisit the FCI results with PCA II (Principal component score and the divisions), in Proceedings of the Meeting Report of the 2019 Semi-Annual Meeting of the Physical Society of Japan 11pB24-9 (Written in Japanese) (2019), 10.11316/jpsgaiyo.74.2.0_2817.
  49. M. Goda, S. Kishizawa, and Y. Hasegawa, Revisit the FCI results with PCA III (PC expansion of the correlation between item scores), in Proceedings of the Meeting report of the 2020 Annual Meeting of the Physical Society of Japan 19 pK28-4 (Written in Japanese) (2020), 10.11316/jpsgaiyo.75.1.0_3010.
  50. M. Goda, S. Kishizawa, and Y. Hasegawa, Inter-item correlation of the correct answers of FCI, in Proceedings of the Meeting Report of the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Physics Education Society of Japan (Written in Japanese) (2021), pp. 50–51, https//pesj.jp/2021doc/Yokou2021.pdf.
  51. S. Kanim and X. C. Cid, Demographics of physics education research, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020106 (2020).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020105– Published 10 July, 2025
  • Received 23 December 2024
  • Accepted 18 June 2025
  • Corrected 13 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