Energy is the topic where calculation is most reliable — and conceptual understanding is most fragile. A single-sitting diagnostic that maps the exact misconceptions your students carry: what energy is, when conservation holds, the work-energy theorem, spring PE, PE diagrams, heat vs temperature, and the friction paradox. Heatmap delivered within 48 hours of class completion.
A student can apply conservation of energy to a roller-coaster problem, calculate spring PE, and set up the work-energy theorem on an inclined plane — and still hold a substance view of energy that breaks down the moment energy is transformed rather than transferred. These patterns appear across IB, AP, A-Level, and GCSE classrooms.
Ask students what energy means for a stretched spring connected to a block. Many will say it is something the spring contains and will transfer. The substance view is hard to dislodge because it works for most calculations — but it produces incoherent reasoning the moment energy is transformed rather than transferred.
A ball is held at height h above the ground. Where does the gravitational PE belong — to the ball, to the Earth, or to neither alone? Most students say to the ball. Both common answers are wrong: gravitational PE belongs to the ball-Earth interaction. Students who hold the single-object view systematically misidentify system boundaries in conservation problems.
An astronaut in a space station pushes off the floor and gains kinetic energy. Where does the energy come from? Most students say the floor does positive work, computed as F·dCM. But the contact point doesn't displace; the floor does zero real work. The KE comes from internal chemical energy in the astronaut's muscles — transformed, not transferred. The pseudowork distinction is invisible at the calculation level and decisive at the conceptual level.
Students — and most textbooks — speak of heat as if it were a substance that flows, gets stored in objects, and can be possessed. “The heat in the water,” “friction converts work into heat,” “the kettle stores heat.” Heat is a process, not a thing; the substance once heat is inside an object is thermal energy. This isn't pedantry — it's the linguistic backbone of the substance view.
The diagnostic surfaces eleven instructionally important misconception bands across twenty-four items. Coverage spans the full conceptual surface of energy at upper-secondary level — from what energy actually is, through conservation, work-energy, spring PE, qualitative transformations, PE diagrams, and heat versus temperature, to the friction paradox that closes the loop back to Newton's laws.
Energy as a property of a state vs energy as stuff that flows or gets used up. The root misconception that anchors most others.
When mechanical-energy conservation holds, when path-independence applies, when dissipation enters the picture.
Energy moving between systems vs energy changing form within a system — the distinction the substance view collapses.
Energy as a scalar quantity assigned to a state, not a vector or a process. Disambiguation from momentum and from heat.
Gravitational and elastic PE as properties of pair interactions, not single objects. Reference choice and negative-PE handling.
F·dCM versus work at the contact point. Pseudowork vs real work. Forces that do no work.
Length vs displacement, spring-constant meaning, drop-block-on-spring as a tool-choice probe.
Following the energy chain through compound systems. Internal energy versus thermal energy versus heat.
Stable vs unstable equilibrium, graph-shift invariance, turning points, forbidden trajectories on multi-hill landscapes.
Heat-as-noun recognition, phase change at constant temperature, the linguistic discipline most textbooks fail to enforce.
Constant-velocity block on a rough surface: ΔK = 0 yet thermal energy rises. Cross-band closing item that ties energy back to Newton's laws.
Within 48 hours of your class completing the diagnostic, we send you a complete misconception analysis — actionable, teacher-readable, and ready to use in your next lesson.
Colour-coded class heatmap showing performance by question and by student performance band (A–D). Items grouped by misconception band so cluster patterns become visible at a glance.
Teacher-readable summary: which misconception bands hit hardest, what they mean, and how your class distributes across performance bands.
Energy Mistake Museum, Words That Hurt language guide, Remediation Worksheet, and Teacher Answer Key — mapped to the specific misconceptions your class triggered.
What each performance band (A–D) means for your students, with specific teacher action items — from “structurally sound” to “needs foundational rebuilding.”
| Q# | Concept Tested | Overall | A (20–24) | B (15–19) | C (10–14) | D (0–9) | Band |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q01 | Substance vs bookkeeping | 60% | 75% | 88% | 56% | 0% | E1 |
| Q02 | Path-independence (frictionless) | 60% | 100% | 75% | 44% | 25% | E2 |
| Q04 | Sliding-to-rest (Knight) | 60% | 100% | 62% | 56% | 25% | E2 |
| Q03 | Transfer vs transformation | 44% | 100% | 50% | 22% | 25% | E3 |
| Q05 | Scalar E vs vector p | 52% | 75% | 62% | 44% | 25% | E4 |
| Q06 | Ball–Earth PE-as-pair | 72% | 75% | 75% | 89% | 25% | E5 |
| Q07 | Single-object-no-PE | 56% | 50% | 88% | 44% | 25% | E5 |
| Q13 | PE-reference + negative-PE | 44% | 100% | 62% | 22% | 0% | E5 |
| Q08 | Ramp normal force (no work) | 64% | 100% | 75% | 56% | 25% | E6 |
| Q11 | W-K theorem F–x graph | 44% | 75% | 50% | 44% | 0% | E6 |
| Q14 | Astronaut floor-jump | 52% | 100% | 62% | 44% | 0% | E6 |
| Q15 | Wall-on-spring (no Δx) | 52% | 75% | 62% | 44% | 25% | E6 |
| Q09 | Spring-constant meaning | 60% | 75% | 75% | 67% | 0% | E7 |
| Q10 | Length vs displacement (spring) | 68% | 100% | 75% | 56% | 50% | E7 |
| Q12 | Drop-block-on-spring | 32% | 50% | 62% | 11% | 0% | E7 |
| Q16 | Transformation chain | 60% | 100% | 62% | 56% | 25% | E8 |
| Q17 | Internal vs thermal | 48% | 75% | 75% | 33% | 0% | E8 |
| Q18 | Stable vs unstable equilibrium | 64% | 100% | 62% | 56% | 50% | E9 |
| Q19 | Graph-shift invariance | 44% | 75% | 50% | 44% | 0% | E9 |
| Q20 | Turning points / forbidden | 52% | 100% | 38% | 56% | 25% | E9 |
| Q21 | Forbidden trajectory (3-hill) | 32% | 50% | 25% | 44% | 0% | E9 |
| Q22 | Heat-as-noun recognition | 36% | 75% | 50% | 22% | 0% | E10 |
| Q23 | Phase change at constant T | 60% | 100% | 75% | 44% | 25% | E10 |
| Q24 | Friction paradox | 36% | 75% | 38% | 33% | 0% | X1 |
Q12 — Band E7 (Hooke's law + spring PE). Drop-block-on-spring procedural item: 32% overall, 11% in Band C, 0% in Band D. Even Band B is at 62%. Procedural fluency in spring problems does not imply ability to choose the right tool when both energy and kinematic methods are available.
Q22 — Band E10 (Heat versus temperature). Heat-as-noun recognition item: 36% overall, 22% in Band C, 0% in Band D. The linguistic discipline that distinguishes heat (a process) from thermal energy (a state) has not landed for most students — and the textbook prose they read mostly does not help.
Q24 — Band X1 (Friction paradox, cross-band). Constant-velocity-block-on-rough-surface item: 36% overall, 0% in Band D, 33% in Band C. The closing item ties energy back to Newton's laws. A class that misses Q24 broadly is also likely to misread work-energy theorem applications across the rest of the topic.
Red cells mark the highest-leverage targets. The X1 row (separated above) is a cross-band closing item that ties energy back to Newton's laws via the friction paradox; it is scored individually but never independently flagged as a band-level remediation target. Your class heatmap is generated from your students' responses and delivered within 48 hours of class completion.
I carried out a pilot test of the Physics Misconceptions Diagnostics with my Grade 11 (lower 6th) International Baccalaureate classes, as part of their revision for end of year exams. The tests covered Motion Foundations, Forces and Free-Body Diagrams - topics that are fundamental to the IB course as well as A’ level courses.
The tests were all set up by FundaFirst - all I had to do was point the students to web links. The students found the questions easy to access and to carry out. The information that came back from FundaFirst was incredibly useful, identifying areas where the class and/or individuals were weaker. These areas would have been much harder to identify without the tests. FundaFirst then provided concrete examples of how to address the misconceptions, with work sheets targeting these areas.
I will not hesitate to use FundaFirst’s diagnostic testing with future cohorts!
Fill in the form below. The Energy diagnostic suits classes finishing or revising work, energy, and conservation laws.
→You receive a class-specific diagnostic link and a short setup message you can paste directly to your students. No student logins needed.
→Share the link. The diagnostic takes about 25–30 minutes (24 questions, no calculator required, single sitting). In-class or take-home.
→Class heatmap, cohort summary, band profiles, and remediation toolkit emailed to you within 48 hours of class completion.
Share your details below and we'll set up the diagnostic link within 24 hours. No commitment — this is a free pilot designed for teacher use and classroom feedback.
The diagnostic is grounded in physics education research, including the work of Arons, Knight, Chabay & Sherwood, Sherwood & Bernard, and Moore. Our physics content has previously been licensed by Cengage.
The Energy diagnostic builds on kinematics and forces. Two sister diagnostics are also available: a Motion Diagnostic covering position, velocity, acceleration, motion diagrams, and the x/v/a graph chain — and a Newton's Laws Diagnostic covering Newton's laws, free-body diagrams, weight, and Newton's third law. Same format, same 48-hour turnaround.
View the Motion Diagnostic → View the Newton's Laws Diagnostic →Further reading: Energy Is Not a Substance — a teacher-facing essay on why students treat energy as a substance that gets used up, and what to say instead.