力与运动概念评估预测试测量的是什么?

D. Hewagallage, J. Stewart
{"title":"力与运动概念评估预测试测量的是什么?","authors":"D. Hewagallage, J. Stewart","doi":"10.1119/perc.2020.pr.stewart","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation is commonly used to measure the conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics. Several studies have reported a substantial difference in pretest scores between men and women. This study examines the contribution of several prior preparation factors to explain the variance in pretest score and whether these factors explain gender differences in the pretest score. The study examined a large sample ( N = 1060 ) of students taking introductory calculus-based mechanics at the university level. Women outperformed men on most prior preparation and college achievement measures. No significant differences between men and women were found in high school physics taking patterns. Linear regression analysis showed only 23% of the variance in FMCE pretest score could be explained using a linear combination of prior preparation variables. Controlling for these variables failed to explain the gender difference in pretest scores; conversely, the gender difference increased controlling for prior preparation.","PeriodicalId":269466,"journal":{"name":"2020 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What does the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation pretest measure?\",\"authors\":\"D. Hewagallage, J. Stewart\",\"doi\":\"10.1119/perc.2020.pr.stewart\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation is commonly used to measure the conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics. Several studies have reported a substantial difference in pretest scores between men and women. This study examines the contribution of several prior preparation factors to explain the variance in pretest score and whether these factors explain gender differences in the pretest score. The study examined a large sample ( N = 1060 ) of students taking introductory calculus-based mechanics at the university level. Women outperformed men on most prior preparation and college achievement measures. No significant differences between men and women were found in high school physics taking patterns. Linear regression analysis showed only 23% of the variance in FMCE pretest score could be explained using a linear combination of prior preparation variables. Controlling for these variables failed to explain the gender difference in pretest scores; conversely, the gender difference increased controlling for prior preparation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":269466,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2020 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2020 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2020.pr.stewart\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2020 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2020.pr.stewart","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

力和运动概念评价通常用来衡量对牛顿力学的概念理解。几项研究报告了男性和女性在测试前得分上的巨大差异。本研究考察了几个事前准备因素对前测分数差异的解释,以及这些因素是否解释了前测分数的性别差异。这项研究调查了一个大样本(N = 1060)的学生在大学水平上学习基于微积分的力学入门。女性在大多数前期准备和大学成绩指标上都优于男性。在高中物理学习模式上,男女之间没有显著差异。线性回归分析显示,只有23%的FMCE预试得分方差可以用预先准备变量的线性组合来解释。控制这些变量无法解释测前得分的性别差异;相反,在事先准备的控制下,性别差异增加了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
What does the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation pretest measure?
The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation is commonly used to measure the conceptual understanding of Newtonian mechanics. Several studies have reported a substantial difference in pretest scores between men and women. This study examines the contribution of several prior preparation factors to explain the variance in pretest score and whether these factors explain gender differences in the pretest score. The study examined a large sample ( N = 1060 ) of students taking introductory calculus-based mechanics at the university level. Women outperformed men on most prior preparation and college achievement measures. No significant differences between men and women were found in high school physics taking patterns. Linear regression analysis showed only 23% of the variance in FMCE pretest score could be explained using a linear combination of prior preparation variables. Controlling for these variables failed to explain the gender difference in pretest scores; conversely, the gender difference increased controlling for prior preparation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Graduate programs in physics education research: A USA based survey Qualitative Analysis of Students' Epistemic Framing Surrounding Instructor's Interaction Centering and marginalization in introductory university physics courses Toward a framework for the natures of proportional reasoning in introductory physics What does the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation pretest measure?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1