Re: [Phys-l] Errata for FCI?

[carmelo@pacific.net.sg]

Quoting Richard Hake <rrhake@earthlink.net>:
> One of the problems is that, although as Antti writes, "almost all
> educational research involving the FCI has been conducted using the
> revised version," most of that research (other than by the Harvard
> group) SLOPPILY fails to indicate that the 1995 version of the FCI
> was used, referencing only the original version by Hestenes et al.
> (1992)!

The fact is some folks are still using the FCI-92 originally designed  
by David Hestenes, Malcolm Wells, and Gregg Swackhamer. The FCI-95  
version modified by Ibrahim Halloun, Richard Hake and Eugene Mosca, is  
not referenced in many papers. If many Phys-Lers are not aware of the  
two different versions, many physics teachers may not be aware of the  
error in FCI-92. No errata has been published!?

Some of you may find the following analysis of FCI-92 interesting.  
(Published in: The Physics Teacher, Vol. 30, March 1992, 141-158)

"The belief G1 that air pressure contributes to gravity is common only  
among very naive students. Among other things, question 12 was  
designed to detect this misconception. The fact that the net force due  
to air pressure is actually upward (buoyant force) instead of  
downward, was hardly recognized by students at any level, for item 12D  
was very rarely selected. Interviews of 16 graduate students revealed  
that only two of them really understood the buoyant force concept. A  
third of the others could state Archimedes principle, but they did not  
know that the buoyant force is due to a pressure gradient, and some  
offered very peculiar hypotheses to explain it. No doubt this sorry  
state of affairs is largely due to the fact that buoyancy gets little  
attention in the physics curriculum today. Because of all this, item  
12D is not very informative, and we allow 12B as an acceptable  
Newtonian choice. We have retained item 12D, nevertheless, because it  
is such a good pretext to interview students about buoyant force.  
Besides, some teachers might think physics students should know why  
things float!"

The moral of the story is “Physics Education Researchers must ensure  
the answer key in the inventory items to be correct!”


Best regards,
Alphonsus