Development of Three-Tier Scale Insufficiencies of Classic Physics Conceptual Comprehension Scale (ICPCCS)

Year 2019, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 154 - 165, 16.12.2019

Atakan Çoban Mustafa Erol

Abstract

The aim of this
study is to develop a conceptual understanding scale on Insufficiencies of
Classical Physics concerning Quantum Physics Courses. In the first stage, 36
items were developed, depending on the target behaviours and the scale was
transformed into 33 items with the opinion of two expert academicians. The draft
scale was then applied to 139 (40 male 99 female) pre-service teachers from the
departments of Science Education and Physics Education at a state university.
Following the item analysis efforts, final version of the scale with a total
number of 20 items, has been obtained. The Cronbach Alpha reliability
coefficient of the final scale was found to be 0,78.

Keywords

Physics Education, Conceptual Understanding Scale, Three-Tier Scale, Insufficiency of Classical Physics.

Üç Aşamalı Ölçek Geliştirme: Klasik Fiziğin Yetersizlikleri Kavramsal Anlama Testi (KFYKAT)

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Kuantum
Fiziği dersi içerisinde yer alan Klasik Fiziğin Yetersizlikleri konusu üzerine öğrencilerin
kavramsal anlama düzeylerini belirlemeye yönelik üç aşamalı Kavramsal Anlama
Testi geliştirmektir. Başlangıç aşamasında ilgili literatür taraması ve kaynak
kitap araştırması doğrultusunda 36 taslak madde hazırlanmıştır. Uzman görüşleri
doğrultusunda test 33 maddeye indirgenmiştir ve taslak test oluşturulmuştur.
Taslak test, Türkiye’de bir devlet üniversitesinin Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği ve
Fizik Öğretmenliği bölümlerinde öğrenim gören 139 öğretmen adayına
uygulanmıştır. Madde ayırt edicilik analizi sonucunda Siyah Cisim Işıması,
Fotoelektrik Olay ve Compton Saçılması konularını kapsayan toplam 20 maddeden
oluşan sonuç test elde edilmiştir. Testin güvenirlik katsayısını belirlemek
için yapılan analiz sonucunda testin Cronbach Alfa güvenirlik katsayısı 0,78
olarak bulunmuştur. 

Keywords

Kavramsal anlama, kavramsal anlama testi, üç aşamalı kavram testi, klasik fiziğin yetersizlikleri.

References

• Abdurrahman, A. Saregar, A. & Umam, R. (2018). The effect of feedback as soft scaffolding on ongoing assessment toward the quantum physics concept mastery of the prospective physics teachers. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 7(1), 34-40.
• Alwan, A. A. (2011). Misconception of heat and temperature among physics students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12, 600-614.
• 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.
• Asgari, M., Ahmadi, F., & Ahmadi, R. (2018). Application of conceptual change model in teaching basic concepts of physics and correcting misconceptions. Iranian Journal of Learning and Memory, 1(1), 57-68.
• Beichner, R. J. (1994). Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. American Journal of Physics, 62(8), 750–762.
• Beichner, R. J., Jewett, J. W., & Serway, R. A. (2000). Physics for Scientists and Engineers. Saunders College.
• Beiser, A. (2003). Concepts of modern physics. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
• Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1997). Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha. Bmj, 314(7080), 572.
• Bridgman, P. W., (1927). The logic of modern physics (Vol. 3). New York: Macmillan.
• Caleon, I., & Subramaniam, R. (2010). 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.
• Cetin-Dindar, A., & Geban, O. (2011). Development of a three-tier test to assess high school students’ understanding of acids and bases. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 600-604.
• Daşdemir, İ., & Abay, C. (2018). Fen eğitimi bağlamında uzay, zaman, hız ve kütle çekimi kavramları hakkında üç aşamalı kavram testi geliştirme. Uluslararası Beşeri Bilimler ve Eğitim Dergisi, 4(7), 61-74.
• Eisberg, E., & Resnick, R. (1974). Quantum physics of atoms, molecules, solids, nuclei and particles. Wiley and Sons: New York.
• Engelhardt, P. V. & Beichner, R. J. (2004). Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits. American Journal of Physics, 72, 98–115.
• Fischler, H., & Lichtfeldt, M. (1992). Modern physics and students’ conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 14(2), 181-190.
• Fishbane, P. M., Gasiorowicz, S. G., & Thornton, S. T. (2005). Physics: For Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics. Prentice-Hall.
• Galili, I., & Lehavi, Y. (2006). Definitions of physical concepts: A study of physics teachers’ knowledge and views. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 521-541.
• Gil, D., & Solbes, J. (1993). The introduction of modern physics: overcoming a deformed vision of science. International Journal of Science Education, 15(3), 255-260.
• Hadzidaki, P., Kalkanis, G., & Stavrou, D. (2000). Quantum mechanics: a systemic component of the modern physics paradigm. Physics Education, 35(6), 386-392.
• Hasan, S., Bagayoko, D., & Kelley, E. L. (1999). Misconceptions and the certainty of response index (CRI). Physics education, 34(5), 294.
• Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141-158.
• Ireson, G. (2000). The quantum understanding of pre-university physics students. Physics Education, 35(1), 15.
• Jax, J., Ahn, J. N., & Lin-Siegler, X. (2019). Using contrasting cases to improve self-assessment in physics learning. Educational Psychology, 1-24.
• Kaltakçi, D., & Didiş, N. (2007). Identification of pre‐service physics teachers’ misconceptions on gravity concept: a study with a 3‐tier misconception test. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 899, No. 1, pp. 499-500). AIP.
• Kaltakci-Gurel, D., Eryilmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2017). Development and application of a four-tier test to assess pre-service physics teachers’ misconceptions about geometrical optics. Research in science & Technological Education, 35(2), 238-260.
• Koponen, I. T., & Nousiainen, M. (2019). Pre-service teachers’ knowledge of relational structure of physics concepts: finding key concepts of electricity and magnetism. Education Sciences, 9(1), 18.
• Krijtenburg-Lewerissa, K., Pol, H. J., Brinkman, A., & van Joolingen, W. R. (2019). Key topics for quantum mechanics at secondary schools: a Delphi study into expert opinions. International Journal of Science Education, 41(3), 349-366.
• Kryjevskaia, M. (2019). Examining the relationships among intuition, reasoning, and conceptual understanding in physics. In Upgrading Physics Education to Meet the Needs of Society (pp. 181-188). Springer, Cham.
• Laws, P., Sokoloff, D., & Thornton, R. (1999). Promoting active learning using the results of physics education research. UniServe Science News, 13, 14-19.
• Makiyah, Y. S., Utari, S., & Samsudin, A. (2019). The effectiveness of conceptual change texts in reducing pre-service physics teachers’ misconceptions in photoelectric effect. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1157, No. 2, p. 022055). IOP Publishing.
• Marioni, C. (1989). Aspect of student’s understanding in classroom setting: case studies on motion and ıntertia. Physics Education, 24, 273– 277.
• Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. New directions for adult and continuing education, 2001(89), 25-34.
• McDermott, L.C. & Shaffer, P.S. (1992). Research as a guide for curriculum development: an example from introductory electricity. Part I: Investigation of student understanding. American Journal of Physics, 60(11), 994-1003.
• McDermott, L. C., & Redish, E. F. (1999). Resource letter: PER-1: Physics education research. American Journal of Physics, 67(9), 755-767.
• McDermott, C. L. (2001). Physics education research‐the key to students learning. Physics World. 17(1), 40.
• Meltzer, D. E., & Thornton, R. K. (2012). Resource letter ALIP–1: active-learning instruction in physics. American Journal of Physics, 80(6), 478-496.
• Milenkovic, D. D., Hrin, T. N., Segedinac, M. D., & Horvat, S. (2016). Development of a three-tier test as a valid diagnostic tool for identification of misconceptions related to carbohydrates. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(9), 1514-1520.
• Neuman, L. W. (2014). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (Seventh Ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
• Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill Education, UK.
• Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, inc.
• 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.
• Petri, J., & Niedderer, H. (1998). A learning pathway in high‐school level quantum atomic physics. International Journal of Science Education, 20(9), 1075-1088.
• Reynolds, C. R., Livingston, R. B., Willson, V. L., & Willson, V. (2010). Measurement and assessment in education. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education International.
• Riche, R. D. (2000). Strategies for assisting students overcome their misconceptions in high school physics. Memorial University of Newfoundland Education. 6390.
• Serway, R. A., & Jewett, J. W. (2018). Physics for scientists and engineers with modern physics. Cengage learning.
• Stepans, J. (1996). Targeting students' science misconceptions: physical science concepts using the conceptual change model. Idea Factory.
• Şahin, Ç., & Çepni, S. (2011). Development of a two tiered test for determining differentiation in conceptual structure related to “Floating-sinking, buoyancy and pressure” concepts. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 8(1), 79-110
• Tan, K. C. D., Goh, N. K., Chia, L. S. & Treagust, D. F. (2002). Development and application of a two-tier multiple choice diagnostic instrument to assess high school students’ understanding of inorganic chemistry qualitative analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 283–301.
• Taslidere, E. (2016). Development and use of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess high school students’ misconceptions about the photoelectric effect. Research in Science & Technological Education, 34(2), 164-186.
• Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53.
• Terry, C. (1985). Children’s conceptual understanding of forces and equilibrium. Physics Education, 20, 162– 165.
• Tiruneh, D. T., De Cock, M., Weldeslassie, A. G., Elen, J., & Janssen, R. (2017). Measuring critical thinking in physics: Development and validation of a critical thinking test in electricity and magnetism. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(4), 663-682.
• 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.
• Wieman, C., & Perkins, K. (2005). Transforming physics education. Physics Today, 58(11), 36.
• Wittmann, M. C., Steinberg, R. N., & Redish, E. F. (2002). Investigating student understanding of quantum physics: Spontaneous models of conductivity. American Journal of Physics, 70(3), 218-226.
• 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.
• Yerushalmi, E., Singh, C., & Eylon, B. S. (2007, November). Physics learning in the context of scaffolded diagnostic tasks (I): The experimental setup. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 951, No. 1, pp. 27-30). AIP.
• Zacharia, Z., & Anderson, O. R. (2003). The effects of an interactive computer-based simulation prior to performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiment on students’ conceptual understanding of physics. American Journal of Physics, 71(6), 618-629.