Turner, W. A., & Ellis, G. W., & Beichner, R. J. (2014, June), A Comparison of Student Misconceptions in Rotational and Rectilinear Motion  Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana. 10.18260/1-2--19926

\bibitem{asee_peer_19926}
  Turner, W. A., \& Ellis, G. W., \& Beichner, R. J. (2014, June), \emph{A Comparison of Student Misconceptions in Rotational and Rectilinear Motion}
  Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana.
  10.18260/1-2--19926

Warren A. Turner, Glenn W. Ellis, and Robert J. Beichner.  "A Comparison of Student Misconceptions in Rotational and Rectilinear Motion".  2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana, 2014, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2014.  https://peer.asee.org/19926 Internet.  20 Jan, 2025

\bibitem{asee_peer_19926}
  Warren A. Turner, Glenn W. Ellis, and Robert J. Beichner.
  "A Comparison of Student Misconceptions in Rotational and Rectilinear Motion".
  \emph{2014 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana, 2014, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2014.
  https://peer.asee.org/19926 Internet.  20 Jan, 2025

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_19926
author = "Warren A. Turner, Glenn W. Ellis, and Robert J. Beichner"
title = "A Comparison of Student Misconceptions in Rotational and Rectilinear Motion"
booktitle = "2014 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2014"
month = "June"
address = "Indianapolis, Indiana"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/19926}
number = {10.18260/1-2--19926}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -              A comparison of student misconceptions in rotational and                                rectilinear motionThe Test of Understanding Graphics in Kinematics (TUG-K) has been modified to produce aTest of Understanding Graphics in Rotational Kinematics (TUG-R) to probe studentunderstanding of rotational kinematics. The seven objectives of the TUG-K were modified withthree questions to explore each objective resulting in a 21 question TUG-R which closelyparallels the original. For many questions the modification was a simple substitution of theequivalent rotational quantity for its linear counterpart in the question stem, answers and graph-axis labels. For the remainder of the questions the modification was straightforward. Forinstance, references to objects moving in a straight line were replaced by references to objectsspinning about a fixed axis.The TUG-R was administered to 198 students at a small, liberal arts college in New England.The use of a calculator was permitted and students were offered as much time as they wanted tocomplete the examination. No inducement or reward was offered to students to take theexamination and it was not counted toward their grade in the class. In order to make a moredirect comparison to the results of the TUG-K, the data were narrowed to consider only 93students where the TUG-R was administered post-instruction in both linear and rotationalkinematics. This group includes student instruction in a traditional, lecture-based format as wellas active engagement classrooms. Approximately 80% of the students were enrolled in analgebra-based course, the remainder in a calculus-based course.Post-instruction student responses on the TUG-K and TUG-R were compared. A 2 tailed z-testwas performed to assess whether or not differences in sample size can account for the differencesin results between the TUG-R and TUG-K which are reported. An objective by objective,question by question analysis of the results suggests the three basic types of misconceptionsnoted following post-instruction analysis of the TUG-K, namely graph type confusion, slopecalculation and slope vs. area confusion, continue to be exhibited at some level by studentstaking the TUG-R. However, significant differences were noted, with TUG-R studentsperforming better on every question in two of the seven objectives on 8 of the 21 questions andequally well on 9 of the remaining 13.Further work will be conducted to verify that these observations and conclusions remainconsistent as the testing sample is expanded across a broader spectrum of students of differentlevels, using different instructional techniques and at a larger cross section of institutions.
AU  - Warren A. Turner
AU  - Glenn W. Ellis
AU  - Robert J. Beichner
CY  - Indianapolis, Indiana
DA  - 2014/06/15
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - A Comparison of Student Misconceptions in Rotational and Rectilinear Motion
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/19926
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--19926
ER  -