English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In our paper published recently in this journal, we presented the rationale and structure of the Representational Variant of the Force Concept Inventory R-FCI . For this purpose we analyzed high school students’ n=168 preand post-test data. Most of the students n=143 studied in Finnish and took the R-FCI preand post-test in Finnish too. One student group Pre-IB, n=25, 15% of all students studied in English and took the Finnish R-FCI pretest and the English post-test. We found a difference between the English and Finnish test versions: the order of the alternatives was different for items 18 and 20. Because we had developed the analyzing system for the Finnish version of the R-FCI, this difference caused some errors in the R-FCI post-test results. The errors are mostly minor 1-2 percentage points and they are irrelevant to the aim of the published paper, i.e., presenting the R-FCI. However, the errors related to the distribution of correct answers for items 18 and 20 have some relevance in our paper. Item 18 is a vectorial item of theme 30 concerning gravitation, and item 20 is a vectorial item of theme 4 concerning Newton’s third law. We reported that 57% of students correctly answered item 18, and 83% correctly answered item 20. The correct figures are 67% and 94%, respectively. This caused an error in Fig. 6 and Table V in the published article and induced a faulty result—a statistically significant effect of a representational format in themes 4 and 30 see details in Section II C . This is not true. The corrected Fig. 6 and Table V show that students did not perform significantly worse with the vectorial than with the other representations in themes 4 and 30 in the post-test. Most of the errors are minor, and the notable ones are related to the distribution of correct answers for two items. Hence, we conclude that despite these errors the published article still fulfills its main purpose: to describe the structure, rationale and validity of the R-FCI.

physical review special topics. physics education research

Erratum: Force Concept Inventory-based multiple-choice test for investigating students’ representational consistency [Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.<b>6</b>, 020109 (2010)]

Erratum: Force Concept Inventory-based multiple-choice test for investigating students’ representational consistency [Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.6, 020109 (2010)]