Assessment of Pre-Service Teachers’ Misconceptions in Geometrical Optics via a Three-Tier Misconception Test (Öğretmen Adaylarının Geometrik Optik Konusundaki ...) Doi: 10.14686/BUEFAD.2015111057

Abstract

This study was undertaken to describe pre-service elementary teachers’ misconceptions about various aspects of light, shadow and mirror images before they learn the geometrical optics at the university level. The participants of the study were 317 junior and sophomore level students studying at the departments of science and computer education. Students’ misconceptions were assessed via a revised three-tier geometrical optics misconception test. Its’ validity and reliability evidences were rechecked. The findings denoted that the revised test is a valid and reliable measuring tool for assessing pre-service elementary teachers' misconceptions of  geometrical optics. The internal consistency of the test was measured via Cronbach alpha and it was found as 0.65. The results revealed that most of the pre-service elementary teachers have limited conceptual understanding and they hold 12 prevalent misconceptions in geometrical optics. The instructors can consider the findings of current study while making their teaching plans for geometrical optics for pre-service science and computer elementary teachers.

Keywords

• -

Öğretmen Adaylarının Geometrik Optik Konusundaki Kavram Yanılgılarının Üç-Aşamalı Kavram Yanılgısı Testi ile Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışma öğretmen adaylarının üniversitede geometrik optik konularını işlemeden önce ışık, gölge ve ayna görüntüleri ile ilgili kavram yanılgılarını tespit etmek amacı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği ve Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi bölümü birinci ve ikinci sınıflarında öğrenim gören 317 öğretmen adayı çalışmanın katılımcılarını oluşturmuştur. Adayların kavram yanılgıları, revize edilmiş üç-aşamalı geometrik optik kavram yanılgısı testi ile ölçülmüş ve testin geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik analizleri tekrar yapılmıştır. Sonuçlar, revize edilen testin öğretmen adaylarının ışık, gölge ve düzlem ayna konularındaki kavram yanılgılarını tespit etmek için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçüm aracı olduğunu göstermiştir. Testin iç güvenilirlik katsayısı olan Croanbach alfa değeri 0,65 olarak bulunmuştur. Elde edilen sonuçlar, öğretmen adaylarının çoğunun geometrik optik dersleri öncesinde ışık, gölge ve düzlem ayna görüntüleri ile ilgili kavramsal anlama düzeylerinin oldukça zayıf ve 12 yaygın kavram yanılgısına sahip olduklarını göstermiştir. Bu çalışmanın sonuçlarının; geometrik optik konularını anlatan öğreticilerin, fen bilgisi ve bilgisayar öğretmenliği lisans programlarındaki öğrenciler için öğretim planlarını hazırlamalarında yararlı olacağı düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

• Kavram yanılgısı, Geometrik optik, Üç-aşamalı kavram testi, Kavramsal anlama, Öğretmen adayı

References

1. Arslan, H. O., Cigdemoglu, C. & Moseley, C. (2012). A three-tier diagnostic test to assess pre-service teachers’ misconceptions about global warming, greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion, and acid rain. International Journal of Science Education, 34(11), 1667–1686. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.680618
2. Aydın, S. (2007). Eliminating the misconceptions about geometric optics by conceptual change texts. Unpublished dissertation, Atatürk University, Erzurum.
3. Aydoğan, S., Güneş, B. & Gülçiçek, Ç. (2003). Isı ve sıcaklık konusunda kavram yanılgıları. G.Ü. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Dergisi, 23(2), 111-124.
4. Bendall, S., Goldberg, F. & Galili, I. (1993). Prospective elementary teachers’ prior knowledge about light. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9), 1169-1187. doi:10.1002/tea.3660300912
5. Blizak, D., Chafiqi, F. & Kendil, D. (2009). Students misconceptions about light in Algeria. Optical Society of America Technical Digest Series.
6. Blizak, D., Chafiqi, F. & Kendil, D. (2013). What thinks the university’s students about propagation of light in the vacuum? European Scientific Journal, 9(24), 197-213.
7. -
8. Caleon, I. & Subramaniam, R. (2010a). Development and application of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess secondary students’ understanding of waves. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 939-961. doi:10.1080/09500690902890130

9. Caleon, I. & Subramaniam, R. (2010b). Do students know what they know and what they don’t know? Using a four-tier diagnostic test to assess the nature of students’ alternative conceptions. Research Science Education, 40, 313-337. doi:10.1007/s11165-009-9122-4
10. Cataloglu, E. (2002). Development and validation of an achievement test in introductory quantum mechanics: The Quantum Mechanics Visualization Instrument (QMVI). Unpublished PhD Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University.
11. Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 66-71. doi:10.1119/1.12989
12. Chen, C.C., Lin, H-S. & Lin, M-L. (2002). Developing a two-tier diagnostic instrument to assess high school students’ understanding-the formation of images by a plane mirror. Proceedings of the National Science Council, 12(3), 106-121.
13. Cohen, R., Eylon, B. & Ganiel, U. (1983). Potential difference and current in simple electric circuits: A study of students’ concepts. American Journal of Physics, 51(5), 407–412. doi:10.1119/1.13226
14. Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (2008). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Cengage Learning, Ohio USA.
15. Engelhardt, P. V. & Beichner, R. J. (2004). Students’
16. understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits. American Journal of Physics, 72(1), 98–115. doi:10.1119/1.1614813
17. Favale, F. & Bondani, M. (2013). Misconceptions about optics: an effect of misleading explanations? Optics InfoBase Conference Paper. Retrieved from http://spie.org/Documents/ETOP/2013/4_Conceptual%20Understanding%20Assessment/ETOP2013_4-4.pdf
18. Feher, E. & Rice, K. (1988). Shadows and anti-images: childrens’ conception of light and vision. II. Science Education, 72(5), 637-649. doi:10.1002/sce.3730720509
19. Fetherstonhaugh, T. & Treagust, F. D. (1992). Students’ understanding of light and its properties: teaching to engender conceptual change. Science Education, 76(6), 653-672. doi:10.1002/sce.3730760606
20. Galili, I. & Hazan, A. (2000). Learners’ knowledge in optics: interpretation, structure and analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 57-88. doi:10.1080/095006900290000
21. Galili, I., Bendall, S. & Goldberg, F. (1993). The effects of prior knowledge and interaction on understanding image formation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(3), 271-301. doi:10.1002/tea.3660300305
22. Goldberg, F. M. & McDermott, L. (1986). Student difficulties in understanding image formation by a plane mirror. Physics Teacher, 24(8), 472-480.doi:10.1119/1.2342096
23. Halloun, I. A. & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1043-1055. doi:10.1119/1.14030
24. Hammer, D. (1996). More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research. American Journal of Physics, 64(10), 1316-1325. doi:10.1119/1.18376
25. Hasan, S., Bagayoko, D. & Kelley, E. L. (1999). Misconceptions and the certainty of response index (CRI). Physics Education, 34, 294-299.
26. Hestenes, D. & Halloun, I. (1995). Interpreting the force concept inventory. Physics Teacher, 33, 502–506.
27. Kaltakci, D. & Eryilmaz, A. (2010). Identifying Pre-service Physics Teachers’ Misconceptions with Three-tier Tests, GIREP-ICPE-MPTL Conference: Teaching and Learning Physics today: Challenges? Benefits? August 22-27, Reims, France, p.140.
28. Kutluay, Y. (2005). Diagnosis of Eleventh Grade Students’ Misconceptions About Geometric Optics By a Three-Tier Test. Unpublished Master Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
29. Langley, D., Ronen, M. & Eylon, B. (1997). Light propagation and visual patterns: preinstruction learners’ conceptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 399-424.
30. Linn, R. L. & Gronlund, N. E. (1995). Measurement and assessment in teaching (7th ed.). Prentice Hall. Inc.
31. Odom, A. L. & Barrow, L. H. (1995). Development and application of a two-tier diagnostic test measuring college biology students’ understanding of diffusion and osmosis after a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(1), 45–61. doi:10.1002/tea.3660320106
32. Odom, A. L. & Barrow, L. H. (2007).High school biology students’knowledge and certainty about diffusion and osmosis concepts. School Science Mathematics, 107, 94-101.
33. Peşman, H. & Eryılmaz, A. (2010). Development of a three-tier test to assess misconceptions about simple electric circuits. The journal of Educational Research, 103(3), 208-222. doi:10.1080/00220670903383002
34. Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159–169. doi:10.1080/0950069880100204
35. Wuttiprom, S., Sharma, M. D., Johnston, I. D., Chitaree, R., & Soankwan, C. (2009). Development and use of a conceptual survey in introductory quantum physics, International Journal of Science Education, 31(5), 631-654. doi:10.1080/09500690701747226