Paper detail

Comparing the Matter and Interactions Curriculum with a Traditional Physics Curriculum: A Think Aloud Study

Physics curricula across the US fail to prepare students adequately to solve problems, especially novel problems. A new curriculum, Matter and Interactions (M&I), was designed to improve student learning by organizing concepts around fundamental principles. Despite this, students taught in traditional classes continue to outperform M&I students on force concept questions. This study aimed to determine the underlying issues related to the performance differential. Students from both courses solved questions from the Force Concept Inventory (FCI) while verbally describing their reasoning. Analysis of the transcripts revealed that M&I students failed to employ the fundamental principles, and traditional students used simple physics facts to help identify the correct answers. Neither of these methods would be sufficient for solving more complex problems.

preprint2010arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.