# Exploring the Structure of Misconceptions in the Force Concept Inventory with Modified Module Analysis

## TL;DR

This study applied and modified Module Analysis to the Force Concept Inventory responses, revealing the structure of misconceptions and showing gender differences are unlikely to explain observed score disparities.

## Contribution

Introduced Modified Module Analysis (MMA) to better understand misconceptions in FCI and assess gender differences in responses.

## Key findings

- MMA identified 9 pretest and 11 post-test misconception groups.
- Most misconception groups were consistent across genders.
- Gender differences in FCI scores are not due to misconception structure.

## Abstract

Module Analysis for Multiple-Choice Responses (MAMCR) was applied to a large sample of Force Concept Inventory (FCI) pretest and post-test responses ($N_{pre}=4509$ and $N_{post}=4716$) to replicate the results of the original MAMCR study and to understand the origins of the gender differences reported in a previous study of this data set. When the results of MAMCR could not be replicated, a modification of the method was introduced, Modified Module Analysis (MMA). MMA was productive in understanding the structure of the incorrect answers in the FCI, identifying 9 groups of incorrect answers on the pretest and 11 groups on the post-test. These groups, in most cases, could be mapped on to common misconceptions used by the authors of the FCI to create distactors for the instrument. Of these incorrect answer groups, 6 of the pretest groups and 8 of the post-test groups were the same for men and women. Two of the male-only pretest groups disappeared with instruction while the third male-only pretest group was identified for both men and women post-instruction. Three of the groups identified for both men and women on the post-test were not present for either on the pretest. The rest of the identified incorrect answer groups did not represent misconceptions, but were rather related to the the blocked structure of some FCI items where multiple items are related to a common stem. The groups identified had little relation to the gender unfair items previously identified for this data set, and therefore, differences in the structure of student misconceptions between men and women cannot explain the gender differences reported for the FCI.