In his Phys-L post of 29 Aug 2002 08:35:03-0500, titled "Versions of
FCI" Tim Folkerts wrote (my numbering and lettering):
FOLKERTS-FOLKERTS-FOLKERTS-FOLKERTS-FOLKERTS-FOLKERTS
1. "After looking on-line briefly, it would appear there are actually
at least 3 versions of the FCI
a. the original, 29 questions, ~1990
b. a revision, 29 questions, but slightly rewritten and reordered, ~1995
c. a second revision, 30 questions and again reordered, ???
2. Does anyone have the reasons behind these changes?
3. I've been using the 30 question version - is that the currently
accepted version to use?
4. I did find a list of which concepts go with which questions, but
it wasn't for the 30 question version I used, so I will need to
'translate' it for the other version - and decide how to classify the
new question."
FOLKERTS-FOLKERTS-FOLKERTS-FOLKERTS-FOLKERTS-FOLKERTS
Addressing Tim's questions and comments in order:
1. Tim's "a" above evidently refers to Hestenes et al. (1992). I am
unfamiliar with "b." Without a URL and/or reference I can't comment.
Tim's "c" evidently refers to Halloun et al. (1995).
2. As indicated in footnote #7 of Hake (1998a), (Halloun et al. 1995)
revised Hestenes et al. (1992) so as to reduce ambiguities and
thereby reduce the likelihood of false positives. As indicated in the
suppressed Hake (1998b): "Comparisons of gains attained with the
revised FCI on courses with a long history of FCI pre/post testing at
Harvard and Indiana University suggest that pretest averages may tend
to be somewhat lower with the revised FCI (see courses EM-95C and
IU95F of Table I), but that average normalized gain <g> values are
not much affected."
3. Yes, the 30-question version of Halloun et al. (1995) is now "the
currently accepted version to use."
4. I don't know where Tim found his list, but Table I of Hestenes et
al. (1992) indicates the Newtonian concepts probed by each specific
numbered question in the 29-question 1992 version of the FCI. Table
II Hestenes et al. (1992) gives a taxonomy of misconceptions probed
by each specific numbered question. Translating Tables I & II so that
they apply to specific numbered questions in the 30-question 1995
version should be relatively straightforward since most questions are
the same or nearly the same. However some judgement is required to
make the translations involving those few 1995 questions that are new
or markedly revised. Perhaps some Phys-L'er or PhysLrnR knows of
published revisions of Tables I & II of Hestenes et al. (1992) that
apply directly to Halloun et al (1995).
By the way:
A. For an earlier response to questions similar to those raised by
Folkerts see Hake (1998c).
B. For advice that may be useful for those contemplating pre/post
testing using the FCI or other diagnostic tests see Hake (2001).
C. For a review of the vital role of pre/post testing in the physics
education reform effort see Hake (2002).
D. For exemplary recent reports of the constructive use of FCI and
CSEM [Maloney et al. (2001)] pre/post testing see Crouch & Mazur
(2001), Savinainen & Scott (2002a,b), and Meltzer and Manivannan
(2002).
Hake, R.R. 1998a. "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A
six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory
physics courses." Am. J. Phys. 66(1):64-74; also at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>.
Hake, R.R. 1998b. "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory
mechanics courses," submitted to Physics Ed. Res. Supplement to Am.
J. Phys.; also at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/>. [A crucial but sadly
unpublished companion paper to Hake (1998a) - PER has NO archival
journal!!] Average pre/post test scores, standard deviations,
instructional methods, materials used, institutions, and instructors
for each of the survey courses of Hake (1998a) are tabulated and
referenced. In addition the paper includes: (a) case histories for
the seven IE courses of Hake (1998a) whose effectiveness as gauged by
pre-to-post test gains was close to those of T courses, (b) advice
for implementing IE methods, and (c) suggestions for further research.
Hake, R.R. 2001. "Suggestions for Administering and Reporting
Pre/Post Diagnostic Tests"; online as ref. 14 at
<http://physics.indiana.edu/~hake/>.
Hake, R.R. 2002a. "Lessons from the physics education reform effort."
Conservation Ecology 5(2): 28; online at
<http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art28>. "Conservation Ecology," is
a FREE "peer-reviewed journal of integrative science and fundamental
policy research" with about 11,000 subscribers in about 108 countries.
Halloun, I., R.R. Hake, E.P Mosca, D. Hestenes. 1995. Force Concept
Inventory (Revised, 1995), online - password protected] at
<http://modeling.la.asu.edu/R&E/Research.html> and also in Mazur (1997).
Hestenes, D., M. Wells, & G. Swackhamer, 1992. "Force Concept
Inventory." Phys. Teach. 30: 141-158.
Maloney, D.P., T.L. O'Kuma, C.J. Hieggelke, & A. Van Heuvelen. 2001.
"Surveying students' conceptual knowledge of electricity and
magnetism," Phys. Educ. Res., Am. J. Phys. Suppl. 69: S12-S23.
Mazur, E. 1997. "Peer Instruction: A User's Manual." Prentice Hall.
Savinainen A. & P. Scott. 2002b. "Using the Force Concept Inventory
to monitor student learning and to plan teaching," Phys. Educ., 37:
53-58; online at <http://kotisivu.mtv3.fi/oma/physics/downloads.html>.
Meltzer D.E. & K. Manivannan. 2002. "Transforming the lecture-hall
environment: The fully interactive physics lecture," Am. J. Phys. 70:
639-654; online as item #1 at
<http://www.physics.iastate.edu/per/articles/index.html>.