Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

• Bayraktar, S. (2009). Misconceptions of Turkish Pre-Service Teachers about Force and Motion. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 273-291.
• Cahyadi, V. (2004). The effect of interactive engagement teaching on student understanding of introductory physics at the faculty of engineering, University of Surabaya, Indonesia. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(4), 455-464.
• Driver, R. (1989). Students’ conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal Of Sciience Education, 11, Special Issue, 481-490.
• Frank, B. W., Kanim, S. E. & Gomez, L. S. (2008). Accounting for variability in students responses to motion questions, Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research 4, 020102.
• Gautreau, R. & Novembsky, L. (1997). Concepts first–A small group approach to physics learning. American Journal of Physics 65(5), 418-428.
• Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-students survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66 (1), 64-74.
• Halloun, I., Hake, R., Mosca, E. & Hestenes, D. (1997). Force Concept Inventory. In E. Mazur (Eds.) Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (pp. 47-58). London:Prentice Hall.
• Halloun, I. A. & Hestenes, D. (1985). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1056-1065.
• Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. The Physics teacher, 30, 141-158.
• Luangrath, P. & Pettersson, S. (2008). Using a context adjusted version of the Force Concepts Inventory to probe Laotian University students understanding of mechanics. This paper was presented at the 13th IOSTE Symposium in Kusadasi-Turkey (21-26, September, 2008). (Published in Proceedings of the XIII IOSTE Symposium, 552-558, 2008).
• Luangrath, P. & Vilaythong, T. (2010). An Analysis of the Students’ Perceptions of Physics in Science Foundation Studies at the National University of Laos. Canadian and International Education Journal, 39(1), 32-40.
• McCullough, L. & Meltzer, D. (2000). Differences in male/female response patterns on alternative-format versions of FCI items. http://piggy.cis.rit.edu/franklin/ perc2001/McCullough.doc. (15 Aug. 2006).
• McCullough, L. (2004) Gender, Context, and Physics Assessment. Journal of International Women's Studies, 5(4), 20-30.
• McCullough, L. (2006). Gender Force Concept Inventory. Private communication.
• McDermott, L.C. (1984). Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics. Physics Today, 37(7). pp 24- 32.
• McDermott, L. C. & Redish, E. F. (1999). Resource Letter: PER-1: Physics Education Research. American Journal Physics, 67(9), 755-767.
• Schecker, H. and Gerdes, J. (1999). Messung von konzeptualisierungsfähigkeit in der Mechanik. Zeitschrift fur didaktik der naturwissenschaften, 5 (1), 75-89.
• Savinainen, A. & Scott, P. (2002a). The Force Concept Inventory: a tool for monitoring student learning. Physics Education, 37 (1), 45-52.
• Savinainen, A. & Scott, P. (2002b). Using the Force Concept Inventory to monitor student learning and to plan teaching. Physics Education, 37 (1), 53-58.
• Sabella, M. S. (1999). Using The context of Physics Problem Solving to Evaluate the Coherence of Student Knowledge. http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/ dissertations/Sabella/. (9 Aug. 2008).
• Stewart, J., Griffin, H. & Stewart, G. (2007). Context sensitivity in the force concept inventory. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education research, 3, 010102.
• Vilaythong, T. & Popov, O. (2007). Situations with and Opinions about Practical Work in Lao PDR (in Lao language), Scientific Journal of National University of Laos, 1, 105-116.
• Von Aufschnaiter, C. & Rogge, C. (2010) Misconceptions or Missing Conceptions? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 6(1), 3-18.

APA

Luangrath, P., Pettersson, S., & Benckert, S. (2011). On the Use of Two Versions of the Force Concept Inventory to Test Conceptual Understanding of Mechanics in Lao PDR. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 7(2), 103-114. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75184

Vancouver

Luangrath P, Pettersson S, Benckert S. On the Use of Two Versions of the Force Concept Inventory to Test Conceptual Understanding of Mechanics in Lao PDR. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2011;7(2):103-14. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75184

AMA

Luangrath P, Pettersson S, Benckert S. On the Use of Two Versions of the Force Concept Inventory to Test Conceptual Understanding of Mechanics in Lao PDR. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2011;7(2), 103-114. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75184

Chicago

Luangrath, Phimpho, Sune Pettersson, and Sylvia Benckert. "On the Use of Two Versions of the Force Concept Inventory to Test Conceptual Understanding of Mechanics in Lao PDR". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2011 7 no. 2 (2011): 103-114. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75184

Harvard

Luangrath, P., Pettersson, S., and Benckert, S. (2011). On the Use of Two Versions of the Force Concept Inventory to Test Conceptual Understanding of Mechanics in Lao PDR. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 7(2), pp. 103-114. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75184

MLA

Luangrath, Phimpho et al. "On the Use of Two Versions of the Force Concept Inventory to Test Conceptual Understanding of Mechanics in Lao PDR". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 7, no. 2, 2011, pp. 103-114. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75184