Showing papers in "The Physics Teacher in 1992"

Force concept inventory

Abstract: Every student begins physics with a well-established system of commonsense beliefs about how the physical world works derived from years of personal experience. Over the last decade, physics education research has established that these beliefs play a dominant role in introductory physics. Instruction that does not take them into account is almost totally ineffective, at least for the majority of students. Specifically, it has been established that (1) commonsense beliefs about motion and force are incompatible with Newtonian concepts in most respects, (2) conventional physics instruction produces little change in these beliefs, and (3) this result is independent of the instructor and the mode of instruction. The implications could not be more serious. Since the students have evidently not learned the most basic Newtonian concepts, they must have failed to comprehend most of the material in the course. They have been forced to cope with the subject by rote memorization of isolated fragments and by carrying out meaningless tasks. No wonder so many are repelled! The few who are successful have become so by their own devices, the course and the teacher having supplied only the opportunity and perhaps inspiration.

A mechanics baseline test

Abstract: We have designed a test to assess student understanding of the most basic concepts in mechanics. The test is universal in the sense that it is limited to concepts that should be addressed in introductory physics at any level from high school through Harvard University. We have extensive data on postinstruction scores across the whole range of levels. This provides baseline data for evaluating and comparing the effectiveness of instruction at all levels. For this reason we refer to the test as the Mechanics Baseline (or just the Baseline). A copy of the Baseline test is provided in the Appendix to be used in any way the instructor sees fit. We believe, however, that the best use of the test is for postinstruction evaluation, except for advanced university courses where it may be useful as a preinstruction placement exam. Of course the self-defeating practice of \"teaching to the test\" should be avoided, but an examination of the test could help some teachers see where their instruction can be improved. The design of the test and some of its instructional implications are discussed in the next section. The paper concludes with a discussion of the baseline data. The Mechanics Baseline test should be compared with the Force Concept Inventory in the preceding paper. l The Baseline is the next step above the Inventory in mechanics understanding. Questions on the Inventory were designed to be meaningful to students without formal training in mechanics and to elicit their preconceptions about the subject. In contrast, the Baseline emphasizes

Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics laboratory

Abstract: What I cannot create I do not understand. Richard Feynman Let us visit the university physics lab of Fig. 1. Why are the instructors asking questions? Why are the students talking so much? Why are they engrossed in seemingly childish activities?

On the velocity in the Lorentz force law

Abstract: the State University o/Campinas (Institute 0/ Physics-DRCC, State University of Campinas, 13081 Campinas, Sp, Brazil) where he researches Weber s electrodynamics, Ampere's force between current elements, Mach s principle, and the origin 0/ inertia. He spelll the year of 1988 as a postdoctoral fellow at the Culham lAboratory (UKAEA, England). From October 1991 to October 1992 he was a visiting scholar at the Center for Electromagnetics Research (Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115)_ On the Velocity in the Lorentz force Law