Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment of Students’ Responses: An Example from Energy and Momentum Concepts

Bekele Gashe Dega

doi:10.20308/ejpe.v10i1.219

Bekele Gashe Dega Department of Physics, Ambo University

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20308/ejpe.v10i1.219

Abstract

Introductory physics concepts, like electromagnetism concepts involve abstract relations which are particularly problematic in students’ learning. Electromagnetism concepts are crosscutting concepts across science and technology disciplines. Newly enrolled university students’ response states in electromagnetism concepts were investigated. Quantitative research method was used to collect and analyze data taken from 78 first year science students enrolled in a university in Ethiopia. A standardized Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism (CSEM) of 32 items multiple-choice test was used to collect data from the students. Data collection was done before commencing of the semester’s courses. Concentration analysis was used to analyze the students’ responses to the test. A paired samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the difference between the concentrations of the students’ responses to the scientific and alternative conceptions. The result from the CSEM data showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the two concentrations of the students’ responses (t=0.23, p=0.82). This showed that the students’ responses the concepts of electromagnetism are nearly in the random response state. In addition, three-level categorization of students’ responses on the test showed that 81% of the students’ responses were in the null non-modal state, 19% of the students’ responses were in the mixed bi-modal state and none of the students’ response was in pure state (one modal state). This means that the students had no pure correct or incorrect conceptual model which also shows their inconsistent and random response states. Based on this assessment, it can be concluded that teacher educators need to use concepts learning strategies to significantly develop students’ conceptual understanding of introductory physics courses.

References

Bao, L., &Redish, E. F. (2001). Concentration Analysis: A Quantitative Assessment of Student States. Phys. Edu. Res., American Journal of Physics, 69 (7), S45-53.
Bulunuz, N., Bulunuz, M. & Peker, H. (2014). Effects of formative assessment probes integrated in extracurricular hands-on science: middle school students’ understanding. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(2), 243-258.
Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161-199.
Clark, D. B. (2006). Longitudinal conceptual change in students' understanding of thermal equilibrium: An examination of the process of conceptual restructuring. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 467-563.
Dega, B. G. (2012). Conceptual change through cognitive perturbation using simulations in electricity and magnetism: a case study in Ambo University, Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation).
Dega, B. G., & Govender, N. (2016). Assessment of Students’ Scientific and Alternative Responses in Energy and Momentum Concepts using Concentration Analysis. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(3), 201-213.
Dega, B. G., Kriek, J., & Mogese, T. F. (2013). Categorization of alternative conceptions in electricity and magnetism: The case of Ethiopian undergraduate students. Research in Science Education, 43(5): 1891-1915.
Ding, L., Chabay, R., & Sherwood, B. (2013). How do students in an innovative principle-based mechanics course understand energy concepts? Journal of research in science teaching, 50(6), 722-747. doi: 10.1002/tea.21097
diSessa, A.A., Gillespie, N., &Esterly, J. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28(6), 843-900.
Driver, R. (1989).Students’ conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 481–490.
Duit, R. and Treagust, D.F. (2003) Conceptual change: a powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Hamlett, C. L. (2003). The potential for diagnostic analysis within curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(3&4), 13-22.
Getenet, T. (2006). Causes of high attrition among physics PPC students. The Ethiopian Journal of Education, 26(1), 53-66.
Goldring H & Osborne J (1994). Students’ difficulties with energy and related concepts, Physics Education, 29(1), 26-32.
Harrison, A. G., Grayson, D. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1999).Investigating a grade 11 student's evolving conceptions of heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 55-87.
Ioannides, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2002). The changing meaning of force. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2(1), 5-61.
Jewett Jr, J. W. (2008). Energy and the confused student II: Systems. The Physics Teacher, 46(3), 81-86.
Jin, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2012).A learning progression for energy in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1149-1180.
Lawson, R. A., & McDermott, L. C. (1987). Student understanding of the work-energy and impulse-momentum theorems. American Journal of Physics, 55(9), 811-817.
Leighton, J. P., &Gierl, M. J. (2007). Why cognitive diagnostic assessment? In J. P. Leighton & M. J. Gierl (Eds), Cognitive Diagnostic Assessment for Education: Theory and Applications (pp. 3-18). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lindsey, B. A., Heron, P. R., & Shaffer, P. S. (2012). Student understanding of energy: Difficulties related to systems. American Journal of Physics, 80(2), 154-163.
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in higher education, 31(2), 199-218.
PISA (2009). What students know and can do: Student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Volume I). [Online] Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa2009keyfindings.htm.
Planinic, M. (2007). Conceptual change requires insight and intervention. Physics Education, 42 (2), 222-223.
Özdemir, G., & Clark, D. B. (2007).An overview of conceptual change theories. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 351-361.
Sadler, D. R. (1989).Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional science, 18(2), 119-144.
Semela, T. (2010).Who is joining physics and why? Factors influencing the choice of physics among Ethiopian university students. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 5(3), 319-340.
Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., &Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds.). (2012). Discipline-based education research. National Academies Press.
Singh, C., & Rosengrant, D. (2003).Multiple-choice test of energy and momentum concepts. American Journal of Physics, 71(6), 607-617.
Van Heuvelen, A., & Zou, X. (2001). Multiple representations of work - energy processes. American Journal of Physics, 69(2), 184-194.
Wellman, H. M., &Gelman, S. (1992). Cognitive development: Foundational theories of core domains. Annual Review of Psychology, 43(1), 337–375.
Yin, Y., Shavelson, R. J., Ayala, C. C., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., & Young, D. B. (2008). On the impact of formative assessment on student motivation, achievement, and conceptual change. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 335-359.