International Journal of Educational Planning & Administration.
ISSN 2249-3093 Volume 4, Number 1 (2014), pp. 7-15
© Research India Publications http://www.ripublication.com
Praveen Puri and Anup Sarmah
M.Sc (Applied Physics), M Phil (Physics)
Sr. Lecturer, CCCT, Chisopani, South Sikkim
M. Sc (Applied Mathematics), B. Ed.
Sr. Lecturer, CCCT, Chisopani, South Sikkim
Ref: www.ccct.skmpoly.edu.in
ABSTRACT:
Force is one of the most important aspects of Physics if not the most important. To assess the understanding of Physics among students, it is imperative that we understand their concept of force. In this paper, the concept of force of students studying in Diploma Engineering Institute (Polytechnic) in
Sikkim are assessed using force concept inventory (FCI) developed by
Hestenes, D et al [1985]. In this paper, it is also studied that whether the concept of force differs for male and female students or for urban and rural students or for students passing 10 th
grade exams from different boards or between students who have obtained different aggregate percentage marks in
10th board examinations or between students who have obtained different percentage marks in 10th board examinations in Mathematics or between students who have obtained different percentage marks in 10th board examinations in Science.
KEYWORDS: Force, Concept of force, Force concept inventory, Sikkim students.
INTRODUCTION:
Physics education research over the last couple of decades, has shown that students already have a number of preconceived ideas about force even before they start to study physics (e.g. Clement J [1982] , Maloney D .[1985], Halloun I and D
Hestenes .[1985], Goldberg F and L. C McDermott . [1987] ).
These conceptions and misconceptions may not always be right, because they are formed from commonsense

8 Praveen Puri and Anup Sarmah and these beliefs play a dominant role. In many cases these ideas or common sense science are different from actual science. Goldberg F and L. C McDermott [1987] has revealed that it is difficult for students to change their initial ideas. So, it is necessary to know the level of conception (and also the misconception) of the concepts of force of our students. Halloun I and D Hestenes . [1985] established that (1) commonsense beliefs about motion and force are incompatible with Newtonian concepts in most respects, (2) conventional physics instruction produces little change in these beliefs, and (3) this result is independent of the instructor and the mode of instruction.
Hestenes et al [1992] have designed an Inventory, known as Force Concept Inventory
(FCI) to assess the Newtonian concept of force among students. FCI requires a forced choice between Newtonian concepts and commonsense alternatives. Hestenes et al
[1992] has classified the concepts of Newtonian physics in the FCI, along with the
Inventory items in which they appear with their correct responses (Table-I). All the concepts in the Table-I are necessary for the complete conceptual understanding of the concepts of force.
Table-I: Newtonian concepts in the FCI and their classification.
CONCEPT
1. KINEMATICS
2. FIRST LAW
3. SECOND LAW
4. THIRD LAW
5. SUPERPOSITION
PRINCIPLE
6. KINDS OF FORCE
Velocity discrimination from position
Acceleration discriminated from velocity
Constant acceleration entails parabolic orbit changing speed
Vector addition of velocities
With no force velocity direction constant speed constant
With cancelling force
Impulsive force
Constant force implies constant acceleration
INVENTORY ITEM
20E
21D
23D
24E
7E
4B, 6B, 10B
26B
8A, 27A
18B, 28C
6B, 7E
24E, 25B
For impulsive forces
For continuous forces
Vector sum
Cancelling forces
Solid contact
Passive
Impulsive
Friction opposes motion
Fluid contact
Air resistance
Buoyant (air pressure)
Gravitation acceleration independent of weight
Parabolic trajectory
6B, 7E
13A, 14A
19B
9D, 18B, 28C
9D, 12B
15C
29C
22D
12D
5D, 9D, 12B, D
17C, 18B, 22D
1C, 3A
16B, 23D

To Assess the Concept of Force of the Students Studying 9
A very good understanding of students' misconceptions about the concepts of force can be obtained from the inventory.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The following are the objectives of this study:
 To find out the level of conceptions and the misconceptions regarding force among students who have studied physics till 10 th
grade.
 To find out if there is any difference between male and female students regarding the conceptions and the misconceptions of force.
 To know if there is any difference between urban and rural students regarding conceptions and the misconceptions of force.
 To know if there is any difference between students passing 10 th
grade from different boards regarding conceptions and the misconceptions of force.
 To know if there is any difference between students who have obtained different aggregate percentage marks in 10 th
board examinations.
 To know if there is any difference between students who have obtained different percentage marks in 10 th
board examinations in Mathematics.
 To know if there is any difference between students who have obtained different percentage marks in 10 th
board examinations in Science.
HYPOTHESES
The following hypotheses are framed for the study –
 H1: There is a significant difference regarding concepts of force between male and female students.
 H2: There is a significant difference regarding concepts of force between urban and rural students.
 H3: There is a significant difference regarding concepts of force between students passing 10 th
grade from different boards.
 H4: There is a significant difference regarding concepts of force between students who have obtained different aggregate percentage marks in 10 th
board examinations.
 H5: There is a significant difference regarding concepts of force between students who have obtained different percentage marks in 10 th
board examinations in
 Mathematics.
 H6: There is a significant difference regarding concepts of force between students who have obtained different percentage marks in 10 th
board examinations in Science
DELIMITATION OF THE STUDY
 The study is limited to 1 st
Year students of one Polytechnic (CCCT) in Sikkim.
 Economic status of the students is delimited in this study.

10 Praveen Puri and Anup Sarmah
 The educational qualifications of the parents of the students are excluded from this study.
 The educational qualifications and training in teaching methods of the students’ school physics teachers are excluded from this study.
 The physics teachers are not included in this study.
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
Tools used
Different techniques are available for the collection of data and we have chosen the
'Force Concept Inventory' (FCI), originally designed by Hestenes et al [1992], as the tool for the collection of data. FCI is a well proved test and the test validity and reliability have been discussed in details by Hestenes et al [1992].
Samples
In the present study, to assess the conceptual understanding of the concepts of force, the sample consisted of 122 number of students studying in 1 st
Year Diploma
Engineering Courses in one of the Polytechnics in Sikkim viz. CCCT.
Table-II: Details of the samples for FCI
INSTITUTE COURSE SAMPLE SIZE LEVEL of the SAMPLE
CCCT DCST
DEE
25
33
1
ST
YEAR DIPLOMA
1
ST
YEAR DIPLOMA
DECE
DCIE
27
37
1
ST
YEAR DIPLOMA
1
ST
YEAR DIPLOMA
CCCT:
DCST:
DEE:
DECE:
DCIE:
Centre for Computers and Communication Technology
Diploma in Computer Science and Technology
Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering
Diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering
Diploma in Civil Engineering
Area of the Study
The present study was conducted among the students studying in 1 st
Year at Centre for Computers and Communication Technology (CCCT) located at South District of
Sikkim. The Institute conducts AICTE approved Three year diploma engineering courses and is ISO 9001:2008 certified. The Institute is managed as autonomous institute under the Directorate of Technical Education, Human Resource Development
Department, Government of Sikkim.
Administration of FCI and Collection of Data
The FCI test was administered to 122 number of students studying in 1 st
Year

To Assess the Concept of Force of the Students Studying 11
Diploma Engineering Courses in the two Polytechnics in Sikkim. The investigators went to the above said institutions, took permission from the Head of the institution for administering the FCI. After introduction the investigators explained the instructions of this test before the students and then supplied the answer paper
(Appendix-I) containing 30multiple choice type questions i.e. the FCI to them. The
FCI questions and all the five alternative answers were explained using Microsoft
Power Point presentations. They were allowed 10 seconds to answer each question after the explanations. The students answered (by making a cross to each question) on the answer paper and returned it to the investigators.
Scoring technique
There are 30 multiple choice type questions and each question has five options.
Among the five options one is correct answer according to Newtonian concept and the other four options are designed on the basis of misconceptions. The students were asked to mark one option on the basis of their own thinking. Wrong response or more than one response or no response was treated as incorrect answer.
There was no negative marking. A correct response was scored as +1 and an incorrect response was scored as 0. So a student's maximum score could be +30 and minimum be 0.
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Analysis of data relating to Hypothesis no.1
H1: There is a significant difference regarding concepts of force between male and female students.
The mean score of male students is 6.05 with standard deviation1.95 and the mean score of female students is 5.84 with standard deviation 2.14.The ’t-value’ and ‘pvalue’ is calculated to find out the significance of difference between two means. The
't-value’ between two means is found to be 0.5536 and the 'p-value’ between two means is found to be 0.5809. These levels are not found to be significant. From this statistical analysis we may conclude that the concept of force of male students and female students does not differ significantly.
TABLE-1
GROUP SAMPLE NO MEAN SCORE STD. DEV. t-VALUE p-VALUE Level of
(N) (M) (SD) Significance
MALE
FEMALE
77
45
6.05
5.84
1.95
2.14
0.5536 0.5809 Not
Significant
Analysis of data relating to Hypothesis no.2
H2: There is a significant difference regarding concepts of force between urban and rural students.

12 Praveen Puri and Anup Sarmah
The mean score of urban students is 6.26 with standard deviation1.77 and the mean score of female students is 5.85 with standard deviation 2.12. The ’t-value’ and
‘p-value’ is calculated to find out the significance of difference between two means.
The 't-value’ between two means is found to be 1.039 and the 'p-value’ between two means is found to be 0.3009. These levels are not found to be significant. From this statistical analysis we may conclude that the concept of force of urban students and rural students does not differ significantly.
TABLE-2
GROUP SAMPLE NO MEAN SCORE STD. DEV. t-VALUE p-VALUE Level of
URBAN
RURAL
(N)
38
84
(M)
6.26
5.85
(SD)
1.77
2.12
Significance
1.039 0.3009 Not Significant
Analysis of data relating to Hypothesis no.3
H3: There is a significant difference regarding concepts of force between students passing 10 th
grade from different boards.
The mean score of students passing 10 th
board examination from CBSE is 5.81 with standard deviation2.01 and the mean score of students passing 10 th
board examination from other boards is6.54 with standard deviation 1.97.The ’t-value’ and
‘p-value’ is calculated to find out the significance of difference between two means.
The 't-value’ between two means is found to be 1.964 and the 'p-value’ between two means is found to be 0.0928. These levels are not found to be significant. From this statistical analysis we may conclude that the concept of force of students passing 10 th grade from different boards does not differ significantly.
TABLE-3
GROUP SAMPLE NO MEAN SCORE STD. DEV. t-VALUE p-VALUE Level of
CBSE
(N)
94
(M)
5.81
(SD)
2.01 1.964
Significance
0.0928 Not Significant
OTHERS 28 6.54 1.97
Analysis of data relating to Hypothesis no.4
H4: There is a significant difference regarding concepts of force between students who have obtained different aggregate percentage marks in 10 th
board examinations.
The mean score of students passing 10 th
board examination with aggregate marks of 60% or more is 5.91 with standard deviation2.10 and the mean score of students passing 10 th
board examination with aggregate marks of less than 60% is6.19 with standard deviation 1.94.The ’t-value’ and ‘p-value’ is calculated to find out the significance of difference between two means. The 't-value’ between two means is found to be 1.371 and the 'p-value’ between two means is found to be 0.9999. These

To Assess the Concept of Force of the Students Studying 13 levels are not found to be significant. From this statistical analysis we may conclude that the concept of force between students who have obtained different aggregate percentage marks in 10 th
board examinations does not differ significantly.
TABLE-4
GROUP SAMPLE NO MEAN SCORE STD. DEV. t-VALUE p-VALUE Level of
(N) (M) (SD) Significance
>= 60%
< 60%
69
47
5.91
6.19
2.10
1.94
1.371 0.9999 Not Significant
Analysis of data relating to Hypothesis no.5
H5: There is a significant difference regarding concepts of force between students who have obtained different percentage marks in 10 th
board examinations in
Mathematics.
The mean score of students passing 10 th
board examination with marks of 60% or more in Mathematics is 6.00 with standard deviation1.88 and the mean score of students passing 10 th
board examination with marks of less than 60% in Mathematics is6.04 with standard deviation 2.14. The ’t-value’ and ‘p-value’ is calculated to find out the significance of difference between two means. The 't-value’ between two means is found to be 0.1032 and the 'p-value’ between two means is found to be
0.9180. These levels are not found to be significant. From this statistical analysis we may conclude that the concept of force between students who have obtained different percentage marks in 10 th
board examinations in Mathematics does not differ significantly.
TABLE-5
GROUP SAMPLE NO MEAN SCORE STD. DEV. t-VALUE p-VALUE Level of
(N) (M) (SD) Significance
>= 60%
< 60%
46
70
6.00
6.04
1.88
2.14
0.1032 0.9180 Not Significant
Analysis of data relating to Hypothesis no.6
H6: There is a significant difference regarding concepts of force between students who have obtained different percentage marks in 10 th
board examinations in Science
The mean score of students passing 10 th
board examination with marks of 60% or more in Science is 5.74 with standard deviation1.98 and the mean score of students passing 10 th
board examination with marks of less than 60% in Science is6.19 with standard deviation 2.06. The ’t-value’ and ‘p-value’ is calculated to find out the significance of difference between two means. The 't-value’ between two means is found to be 1.153 and the 'p-value’ between two means is found to be 0.2515. These levels are not found to be significant. From this statistical analysis we may conclude

14 Praveen Puri and Anup Sarmah that the concept of force between students who have obtained different percentage marks in 10 th
board examinations in Science does not differ significantly.
TABLE-6
GROUP SAMPLE NO MEAN SCORE STD. DEV. t-VALUE p-VALUE Level of
(N) (M) (SD) Significance
>= 60%
< 60%
43
73
5.74
6.19
1.98
2.06
1.153 0.2515 Not Significant
CONCLUSION
From the present study we may conclude that:
 There is no significant difference in the concept of force of male and female students.
 There is no significant difference of the concept of force of urban and rural students.
 There is no significant difference regarding concepts of force between students passing 10 th
grade from different boards.
 There is no significant difference regarding concepts of force between students who have obtained different aggregate percentage marks in 10 th
board examinations.
 There is no significant difference regarding concepts of force between students who have obtained different percentage marks in 10 th
board examinations in
Mathematics.
 There is no significant difference regarding concepts of force between students who have obtained different percentage marks in 10 th
board examinations in
Science.
SUGGESTION FOR FURTHER STUDY
 This study will be more valuable if it is extended to the other students of different schools and colleges of Sikkim
 The concept of force of the Physics teachers of schools and colleges of Sikkim can also be studied.
 The study will be more fruitful if the misconceptions of the students are analyzed in more details.
 Other variables like economic status of the students, the educational qualifications of the parents, educational qualifications and training in teaching methods of the school physics teachers can be included.

To Assess the Concept of Force of the Students Studying 15
REFERENCES
[1] Hestenes, D. Wells, M. and Swakhamer Gregg (1992), “Force Concept
Inventory”, The Physics Teacher, 30, 141.
[2] Carvalho, P.S. and Sousa, A.S.
(2005), Phys. Edu (UK), 40, 257
[3] Halloun, I and Hestenes, D (1985), “Common sense concept about motion”,
Am. J. Phys. 53, 1056
[4] Savinainen, A and Scott, P (2002), “ The force concept inventory, a tool for monitoring Student learning”, Phys. Edu. (UK), 37, 45.
[5] Malone, K.L.
(2008), “Correlations among knowledge structures, force concept inventoryAnd problem-solving behaviors”, Phys. Rev. ST Phy. Educ.Res 4,
020107
[6] Sharma, S V (2005), Investigation into understanding the concept of force at different Levels (Research project report), RIE (NCERT), Ajmer
[7] Sharma, S V (2006), Investigation into understanding theconcept of frictional force at Different Levels (Research project report), RIE (NCERT), Ajmer
[8] Sharma, S V and Sharma K C (2007), “ Concept of force and frictional force : the Influence of preconceptions on learning at different levels”, Phys. Edu
(UK) 42, 516
[9] Clement J.
(1982), “Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics”, Am.
J. Phys. 50: 66–71.
[10] Maloney D . (1985), “Charged poles”, Phys. Educ. 20: 310–316.
[11] Halloun I and D Hestenes . (1985), “ The initial knowledge state of college physics students”, Am. J. Phys. 53: 1–43.
[12] Goldberg F and L. C McDermott . (1987), ” An investigation of student understanding of the real image formed by a converging lens or converging mirror”, Am. J. Phys. 55: 108–119.
[13] McDermott L. 1991. Millikan Lecture (1990), “What we teach and what is learned - closing the gap”, Am. J. Phys. 59: 301–315.
[14] Nyayate M and J Pendharkar . (2011), “Correlation between concept of electricity and magnetism with physics expectancies: a cognitive approach”.
Gol. Res. Thou. 1 (3): 200-205.
[15] Best J and K Khan . (2006).“Research in Education”, Prentice Hall of India, N.
DehliFF (India).
[16] Henry H . (2006), “Statistics in Psychology and Education”, Surjeet Publication,
N. Dehli (India).
[17] Lorenzo M . (2006), “Average final grades for males and females in this course, and also across the BEMA and CSEM-taking subpopulations, are statistically indistinguishable”. Am. J. Phys 74 (2), 118
[18] Pollock S . (2007), “Comparing students learning ith multiple research – based conceptual surveys”: CSEM and BEMA. PERC Proceedings 2007, 951, p. 136.
[19] K. N. Chattopadhyay And PapiyaUpadhyay (2013) “To Assess The Concept Of
Force Of The Students Studying Physics By Force Concept Inventory”, Golden
Research Thoughts Vol-3, Issue-2 (Aug 2013): Online & Print.

16 Praveen Puri and Anup Sarmah