We examined normalized gains and preinstruction scores on the force concept inventory (FCI) for students in interactive engagement courses in introductory mechanics at four universities and found a significant, positive correlation for three of them. We also examined class average FCI scores of 2948 students in 38 interactive engagement classes, 31 of which were from the same four universities and 7 of which came from 3 other schools. We found a significant, positive correlation between class average normalized FCI gains and class average preinstruction scores. To probe this correlation, we administered Lawson’s classroom test of scientific reasoning to 65 students and found a significant, positive correlation between these students’ normalized FCI gains and their Lawson test scores. This correlation is even stronger than the correlation between FCI gains and preinstruction FCI scores. Our study demonstrates that differences in student populations are important when comparing normalized gains in different interactive engagement classes. We suggest using the Lawson test along with the FCI to measure the effectiveness of alternative interactive engagement strategies.

1.
David
Hestenes
,
Malcolm
Wells
, and
Gregg
Swackhamer
, “
Force concept inventory
,”
Phys. Teach.
30
,
141
158
(
1992
).
2.
Eric
Mazur
,
Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual
(
Prentice-Hall
, Upper Saddle River, NJ,
1997
).
3.
Richard R.
Hake
, “
Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses
,”
Am. J. Phys.
66
,
64
74
(
1998
).
4.
Edward F.
Redish
and
Richard N.
Steinberg
, “
Teaching physics: Figuring out what works
,”
Phys. Today
52
,
24
30
(
1999
).
5.
A. E.
Lawson
, “
The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning
,”
J. Res. Sci. Teach.
15
(
1
),
11
24
(
1978
).
6.
A. E.
Lawson
,
Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning
, revised ed.
7.
D. P.
Maloney
, “
Comparative reasoning abilities of college students
,”
Am. J. Phys.
49
(
8
),
784
786
(
1981
).
8.
P.
Heller
,
R.
Keith
, and
S.
Anderson
, “
Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Groups versus individual problem solving
,”
Am. J. Phys.
60
,
627
636
(
1992
).
9.
P.
Heller
and
M.
Hollabaugh
, “
Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups
,”
Am. J. Phys.
60
,
637
645
(
1992
).
10.
David E.
Meltzer
, “
The relationship between mathematics preparation and conceptual learning in physics: A possible ‘hidden variable’ in diagnostic pretest scores
,”
Am. J. Phys.
70
,
1259
1268
(
2002
).
11.
Meltzer used two different math skills tests: the ACT Mathematics for two of the four groups and, for the other two, Hudson’s Mathematics Diagnostic Test.
H. Thomas
Hudson
,
Mathematics Review Workbook for College Physics
(
Little
, Brown,
1986
), pp.
147
160
.
12.
J. W.
Renner
and
A. E.
Lawson
, “
Piagetian theory and instruction in physics
,”
Phys. Teach.
11
(
3
),
165
169
(
1973
).
13.
B.
Inhelder
and
J.
Piaget
,
The Growth Of Logical Thinking From Childhood To Adolescence; An Essay On The Construction Of Formal Operational Structures
(
Basic Books
, New York,
1958
).
14.
A. E.
Lawson
, “
The generality of hypothetico-deductive reasoning: Making scientific thinking explicit
,”
Am. Biol. Teach.
62
(
7
),
482
495
(
2000
).
15.
D.
Elkind
, “
Quality conceptions in college students
,”
J. Soc. Psychol.
57
,
459
465
(
1962
).
16.
J. A.
Towler
and
G.
Wheatley
, “
Conservation concepts in college students
,”
J. Gen. Psychol.
118
,
265
270
(
1971
).
17.
A. B.
Arons
and
R.
Karplus
, “
Implications of accumulating data on levels of intellectual development
,”
Am. J. Phys.
44
(
4
),
396
(
1976
).
18.
H. D.
Cohen
,
Donald F.
Hillman
, and
Russell M.
Agne
, “
Cognitive level and college physics achievement
,”
Am. J. Phys.
46
(
10
),
1026
1029
(
1978
).
19.
J. W.
McKinnon
, and
J. W.
Renner
, “
Are colleges concerned with intellectual development?
,”
Am. J. Phys.
39
(
9
),
1047
1051
(
1971
).
20.
A. E.
Lawson
, and
J. W.
Renner
, “
A quantitative analysis of responses to piagetian tasks and its implications for curriculum
,”
Sci. Educ.
58
(
4
),
545
559
(
1974
).
21.
J. W.
Renner
and
A. E.
Lawson
, “
Promoting intellectual development through science teaching
,”
Phys. Teach.
11
(
5
),
273
276
(
1973
).
22.
J. W.
Renner
, “
Significant physics content and intellectual development-cognitive development as a result of interacting with physics content
,”
Am. J. Phys.
44
(
3
),
218
222
(
1976
).
23.
SAT data from The College Board web site,
2004
, ⟨www.collegeboard.com
24.
G. O.
Kolodiy
, “
Cognitive development and science teaching
,”
J. Res. Sci. Teach.
14
(
1
),
21
26
(
1977
).
25.
B.
Kurtz
and
R.
Karplus
, “
Intellectual development beyond elementary school vii: teaching for proportional reasoning
,”
Sch. Sci. Math.
79
,
387
398
(
1979
).
26.
C.
Henderson
and
P.
Heller
, “
Common Concerns about the FCI
,”
Contributed Talk, American Association of Physics Teachers Winter Meeting
,
Kissimmee
, FL, January 19, 2000.
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.