Review of Two-tier Tests in the Studies: Creating a New Pathway for Development of Two-tier Tests

Abstract

One of the diagnostic tests which is very valuable and used in education frequently is two-tier test. Two-tier tests are used for different purposes such as determining misconceptions, determining the comprehension level of students and etc.. Due to the wide and effective uses of two-tier tests, there are different studies in which two-tier tests are developed in science education. The aim of the present study is to review the studies in which two-tier tests are developed and used in different study and sample settings. Additionally, development steps of two-tier tests have been examined in depth. Through this review study, samples and subjects’ areas to whom and which two-tier tests are applied; the style of the two-tier tests and development process of the tests have been examined heedfully. As a result of in-depth examinations of the studies, a new and effective way for developing two-tier tests is proposed at the final phase of the study.

Keywords

• Meta-analysis
• Misconception
• Science Education
• Two-tier Tests

References

1. Adadan, E., & Savaşçı, F. (2012). An analysis of 16–17-year-old students' understanding of solution chemistry concepts using a two-tier diagnostic instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 34(4), 513-544.
2. Akkus, H., Kadayıfçı, H., & Atasoy, B. (2011). Development and application of a two-tier diagnostic test to assess secondary students' understanding of chemical equilibrium concepts. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 10(3).
3. AlHarbi, N. N., Treagust, D. F., Chandrasegaran, A. L., & Won, M. (2015). Influence of particle theory conceptions on pre-service science teachers’ understanding of osmosis and diffusion. Journal of Biological Education, 49(3), 232-245.
4. Apaydin, Z., & Sürmeli, H. (2006). Üniversite öğrencilerinin doğal seçilim, adaptasyon ve mutasyon ile ilgili görüşleri [University students’ conceptions about natural selectıon, adaptation and mutation]. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22, 31-46.
5. Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.
6. Bair, C. R. (1999, November). Meta-synthesis. In annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, San Antonio, TX.
7. Canpolat, N., & Pınarbaşı, T. (2011). Bazı kimya kavramlarına yönelik iki kademeli çoktan seçmeli bir testin geliştirilmesi ve uygulanması [Development and application of two-tier multiple choice instrument on some concepts of chemistry]. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(1), 55-80.
8. Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2011). Facilitating high school students' use of multiple representations to describe and explain simple chemical reactions. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 57(4), 13-20.

9. Chang, H. P., Chen, J. Y., Guo, C. J., Chen, C. C., Chang, C. Y., Lin, S. H., ... & Chen, C. C. (2007). Investigating primary and secondary students’ learning of physics concepts in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 465-482.
10. Chang, J. M., Lee, H., & Yen, C. F. (2010). Alternative conceptions about burning held by Atayal indigene students in Taiwan. International journal of science and mathematics education, 8(5), 911-935.
11. Cheong, I. P. A., Treagust, D., Kyeleve, I. J., & Oh, P. Y. (2010). Evaluation of students' conceptual understanding of malaria. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2497-2519.
12. Cheong, I.P.A., Johari, M., Said, H., & Treagust, D., F. (2015). What do you know about alternative energy? Development and use of a diagnostic insrument for upper secondary school science. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 1-27.
13. Chiu, M. H. (2007). A national survey of students’ conceptions of chemistry in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 421-452.
14. Cinici, A., & Demir, Y. (2013). Teaching through cooperative POE tasks: A path to conceptual change. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 86(1), 1-10.
15. Çetin-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.
16. Dahsah, C., & Coll, R. K. (2008). Thai grade 10 and 11 students’ understanding of stoichiometry and related concepts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 573-600.
17. Demirci, N. & Akdemir, E. (2009). Katıların ve sıvıların basıncı konularında öğrencilerin kavrama düzeyleri ve kavram yanılgıları [Students’ conceptual levels and misconceptions about solid and liquid pressure]. Milli Eğitim, 182, 314-330.
18. Eymur, G., & Geban, Ö. (2017). The collaboration of cooperative learning and conceptual change: enhancing the students’ understanding of chemical bonding concepts. International journal of science and mathematics education, 15(5), 853-871.
19. Haladyna, T. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2013). Developing and validating test items. New Jersey, Mahwah: Routledge.
20. Haslam, F., & Treagust, D. F. (1987). Diagnosing secondary students' misconceptions of photosynthesis and respiration in plants using a two-tier multiple choice instrument. Journal of biological education, 21(3), 203-211.
21. Kao, H. L. (2007). A study of aboriginal and urban junior high school students’ alternative conceptions on the definition of respiration. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 517-533.
22. Karataş, Ö. F., Köse, S., & Coştu, B. (2003). Two-stage tests used in determining students’ errors and understanding levels. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 13 (1), 54-69.
23. Lee, S. J. (2007). Exploring students’ understanding concerning batteries—Theories and practices. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 497-516.
24. Lee, H. S., Liu, O. L., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Validating measurement of knowledge integration in science using multiple-choice and explanation items. Applied Measurement in Education, 24(2), 115-136.
25. Lin, S. W. (2004). Development and application of a two-tier diagnostic test for high school students’ understanding of flowering plant growth and development. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 175-199.
26. Liu, X. (2010). Essentials of science classroom assessment. Sage Publications.
27. Loh, A. S. L., Subramaniam, R., & Tan, K. C. D. (2014). Exploring students’ understanding of electrochemical cells using an enhanced two-tier diagnostic instrument. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(3), 229-250.
28. Monteiro, A., Nóbrega, C., Abrantes, I., & Gomes, C. (2012). Diagnosing portuguese students' misconceptions about the mineral concept. International Journal of Science Education, 34(17), 2705- 2726.
29. Moutinho, S., Moura, R., & Vasconcelos, C. (2016). Mental models about seismic effects: students’ profıle based comparative analysis. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(3), 391- 415.
30. Mutlu, A., & Şeşen, B. A. (2016). Evaluating of preservice science teachers' understanding of general chemistry concepts by using two tier diagnostic test. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(1).
31. Nantawanit, N., Panijpan, B., & Ruenwongsa, P. (2012). Promoting students’ conceptual understanding of plant defense responses using the fighting plant learning unit (fplu). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(4), 827-864.
32. Novak, J. D. (1980). Learning theory applied to the biology classroom. The American biology teacher, 42(5), 280-285.
33. 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.
34. Ormancı, Ü., & Özcan, S. (2012). The effectiveness of drama method in unit “the systems in our bodies” in science and technology course: using two tier diagnostic test. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi (EFMED) (Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education), 6(2), 153-182.
35. Othman, J., Treagust, D. F., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2008). An investigation into the relationship between students’ conceptions of the particulate nature of matter and their understanding of chemical bonding. International Journal of Science Education, 30(11), 1531-1550.
36. Özbayrak, Ö., & Kartal, M. (2012). Ortaöğretim 9. sınıf kimya dersi" bileşikler" ünitesi ile ilgili kavram yanılgılarının iki aşamalı kavramsal anlama testi ile tayini [Determination of misconceptions regarding “compounds’’ chapter in secondary education 9th grade by two-tier conceptual understanding test]. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32, 144-156.
37. Reeves, T. C., & Okey, J. R. (1996). Alternative assessment for constructivist learning environments. Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design, 191- 202.
38. Sandelowski, M., Docherty, S., & Emden, C. (1997). Qualitative metasynthesis: issues and techniques. Research in Nursing & Health, 20(4), 365-371.
39. Sia, D. T., Treagust, D. F., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2012). High school students’ proficiency and confidence levels in displaying their understanding of basic electrolysisconcepts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1325-1345.
40. Siswaningsih, W., Firman, H., & Khoirunnisa, A. (2017, February). Development of Two-Tier Diagnostic Test Pictorial-Based for Identifying High School Students Misconceptions on the Mole Concept. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 812, No. 1, p. 012117). IOP Publishing.
41. Taber, K. S., & Tan, K. C. D. (2007). Exploring learners’ conceptual resources: Singapore A level students’ explanations in the topic of ionisation energy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(3), 375.
42. Tamir, P. (1989). Some issues related to the use of justifications to multiple-choice answers. Journal of Biological Education, 23(4), 285-292.
43. 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: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 283-301.
44. Tan, Ş. (2009). Öğretimde ölçme ve değerlendirme KPSS el kitabı (3. baskı) [Measurment and evaluation in teaching: KPSS handbook (3rd ed)]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
45. Tan, Ş., Kayabaşı, Y., & Erdoğan, A. (2002). Planning and evaluation of teaching. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
46. Treagust, D. F. (1985). Diagnostıc tests to evaluate student misconceptions in science. Science Education Association of Western Australia: Western Australian College of Advanced Education, Perth, October 1984, 17.
47. 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.
48. Treagust, D. F. (1995). Diagnostic assessment of students’ science knowledge. Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice, 1, 327-436.
49. Treagust, D. F., Chandrasegaran, A. L., Crowley, J., Yung, B. H., Cheong, I. P. A., & Othman, J. (2010). Evaluating students’ understanding of kinetic particle theory concepts relating to the states of matter, changes of state and diffusion: a cross- national study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(1), 141-164.
50. Treagust, D. F., & Mann, M. (1998). A pencil and paper instrument to diagnose students’ conceptions of breathing, gas exchange and respiration. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 44(2), 55-59
51. Tsai, C. H., Chen, H. Y., Chou, C. Y., & Lain, K. D. (2007). Current as the key concept of Taiwanese students’ understandings of electric circuits. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 483- 496.
52. Tsui, C. Y., & Treagust, D. (2010). Evaluating secondary students’ scientific reasoning in genetics using a two‐tier diagnostic instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1073-1098.
53. Uyulgan, M. A., Akkuzu, N., & Alpat, Ş. (2014). Assessing the students' understanding related to molecular geometry using a two-tier diagnostic test. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(6).
54. Vitharana, P. R. K. A. (2015). Student Misconceptions about Plant Transport--A Sri Lankan Example. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(3), 275-288.
55. Voska, K. W., & Heikkinen, H. W. (2000). Identification and analysis of student conceptions used to solve chemical equilibrium problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 160-176.
56. Walsh, D., & Downe, S. (2005). Meta‐synthesis method for qualitative research: a literature review. Journal of advanced nursing, 50(2), 204-211.
57. Wang, J. R. (2004). Development and validation of a two-tier instrument to examine understanding of internal transport in plants and the human circulatory system. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 131-157.
58. Wang, J. R. (2007). Students’ thinking and alternative conceptions of transport systems in plants: a follow-up study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(2), 307-328.
59. Yen, C. F., Yao, T. W., & Chiu, Y. C. (2004). Alternative conceptions in animal classification focusing on amphibians and reptiles: A cross-age study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 159-174.
60. Yen, C. F., Yao, T. W., & Mintzes, J. J. (2007). Taiwanese students’ alternative conceptions of animal biodiversity. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 535-553.
61. Yıldırım, C. (1999). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme [Measurment and evaluation in education]. Ankara: ÖSYM Eğitim Yayınları.