Materials Similar to Rural and First Generation Performance Differences on the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation
- 57%: What does the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation pretest measure?
- 50%: The Reliability of the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation
- 49%: Comparing the force and motion conceptual evaluation and the force concept inventory
- 47%: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation
- 45%: Validity and reliability of the force and motion conceptual evaluation
- 44%: Assessing student learning of Newton's laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula
- 42%: Differences in Male/Female Response Patterns on Alternative-format Versions of the Force Concept Inventory
- 40%: Evaluating students’ performance on the FCI at a minority serving institution
- 39%: Comparing students' performance on research-based conceptual assessments and traditional classroom assessments
- 38%: Modeling students’ conceptual understanding of force, velocity, and acceleration
- 38%: Conceptual Understanding of Resistive Electric Circuits Among First-year Engineering Students
- 36%: Applying a resources framework to analysis of the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation
- 35%: Rotational and Rolling Motion Conceptual Survey
- 35%: Racial and ethnic bias in the Force Concept Inventory
- 35%: Teaching assistants' performance at identifying common introductory student difficulties revealed by the conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism
- 35%: Gender Differences in Student Responses to Physics Conceptual Questions Based on Question Context
- 34%: Evaluation of the Translated Version of the FMCE
- 33%: Design and Evaluation of a Natural Language Tutor for Force and Motion
- 33%: The effect of distracters on student performance on the Force Concept Inventory
