Multiple-choice test of energy and momentum concepts
By Chandralekha Singh, David Rosengrant. 2003
175 citations recorded by the source corpus.
We investigate student understanding of energy and momentum concepts at the level of introductory physics by designing and administering a 25-item multiple choice test and conducting individual interviews. We find that most students have difficulty in qualitatively interpreting basic principles related to energy and momentum and in applying them in physical situations.
Subfields: Education, Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, Statistical and Nonlinear Physics
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/28d7031652e18dd922917fe0e4d5500b7955a03a
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Education
- Jennifer Docktor
- Jose P. Mestre
- Jan E. DeWaters
- Carl E. Wieman
- W. Adams
- Susan E. Powers
- Stacey Lowery Bretz
- L. McClary
In Physical and Theoretical Chemistry
In Statistical and Nonlinear Physics
Citations in the corpus
- Development and Validation of Instruments to Measure Learning of Expert‐Like Thinking (2011, methodology): “However, after reviewing 16 FASI-type instruments for physics, chemistry, geosciences, and biology that were developed in the past 20 years only Redish, Steinberg, and Saul (1998) and Singh and Rosengrant (2003) used student interviews during both the development and validation processes.”
- Synthesis of Discipline-Based Education Research in Physics. (2014, background): “• TUG-K: Test of Understanding Graphs in Kinematics [13] • CSEM: Conceptual Survey in Electricity and Magnetism [16] • ECS: Energy Concepts Survey [409] • DIRECT: Determining and Interpreting Resistive Electric Circuits concept Test [410] • BEMA: Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment [411] • R-”
- Designing an Energy Literacy Questionnaire for Middle and High School Youth (2013, background): “…1993; National Energy Education Development Project [NEED], 2006; Nordine, 2007; Rendl, 2000) or concept inventories that, while broader in content, are nevertheless restricted to measuring cognitive outcomes (e.g., Finegold & Trumper, 1989; Singh & Rosengrant, 2003; Swackhamer & Hestenes, 2003).”