Atmosphere-related environmental problems diagnostic test: A validation study in Bosnia and Herzegovina university student

Abstract

This study was conducted with three aims. The first aim of our study was to examine both construct-related validity and content validity of the Atmosphere-related environmental problems diagnostic test (Arslan et al. 2012) in Bosnia and Herzegovina university student sample. The Atmosphere-related environmental problems diagnostic test is a three-tier multiple-choice diagnostic test consisting of 13 questions on global warming, greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion and acid rain. The second aim of this study was to examine scientific understanding as well as misunderstanding of atmosphere-related environmental problems among B&H university student sample. Finally, the third aim of our study was to compare scientific understanding and misconceptions of the atmosphere-related environmental problems with respect to educational background. A total of 445 students (22,7% males) of three faculty participated in the research. Results indicate that Atmosphere-related environmental problems diagnostic test measures a single construct of general scientific knowledge about atmosphere-related environmental problems. In addition, the content validity and reliability were satisfactory. Results obtained in our study show that students’ overall understanding of each content area was low but comparable to knowledge of pre-service teachers in the USA (Arslan et al. 2012; Kahraman, 2019). Similar to earlier research, most incorrect answers resulted from lack of knowledge rather than from misconceptions. Students who attended ecology classes scored higher than students who had not attended these classes. However, although having higher scores on Atmosphere-related environmental problems diagnostic test, students who attended ecology classes also exhibited more misconceptions related to atmosphere-related environmental problems compare to who had not attended ecology classes. This finding indicates that in the context of university education in Bosnia and Herzegovina, one has to also check for possible sources of didaktikogenic misconceptions related to environmental education.

Keywords

• Three-tier diagnostic test
• Misconception
• Environmental education
• University students

References

1. Anderson, B., & Wallin, A. (2000). Students’ understanding of the greenhouse gas effect, the societal consequences of reducing CO2 emissions and the problem of ozone layer depletion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1096-1111. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736
2. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.680618
3. Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (1992). Students’ perceptions of global warming. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 42, 287–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207239208710804
4. Buja, A., & Eyuboglu, N. (1992). Remarks on parallel analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 27(4), 509-540. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2704_2
5. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690902890130
6. Cataloglu, E. (2002). Development and validation of an achievement test in introductory quantum mechanics: The Quantum Mechanics Visualization Instrument (QMVI). Retrieved December 24, 2019, from https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/1884
7. Cetin-Dindar, A., & Geban, Ö. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.147
8. Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2007). The development of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument for evaluating secondary school students’ ability to describe and explain chemical reactions using multiple levels of representation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 293-307. https://doi.org/10.1039/B7RP90006F

9. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500691003718014
10. 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 instrument for upper secondary school science. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 210–236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.976295
11. Chu, H. E., Treagust, D. F., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2009). A stratified study of students’ understanding of basic optics concepts in different contexts using two-tier multiple-choice items. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27(3), 253-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140903162553
12. Cordero, E. (2001). Misconceptions in Australian students’ understanding of ozone depletion. Melbourne Studies in Education, 41, 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508480009556362 Coştu, B., Ayas, A., Niaz, M., Ünal, S., & Çalık, M. (2007). Facilitating conceptual change in students’ understanding of boiling concept. Journal of Science Educational Technology, 16, 524-536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9079-x
13. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (2008). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Mason, Ohio: Cengage learning.
14. Dunwoody, S. (1992). The media and public perceptions of risk: How journalists frame risk stories. The Social Response to Environmental Risk, D. W. Bromley and K. Segerson, Eds., Kluwer Academic, 75-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2954-1_4
15. Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2017). Program FACTOR at 10: Origins, development and future directions. Psicothema, 29(2), 236-240. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.304
16. Fischhoff, B., & Furby, L. (1983). Psychological dimensions of climatic change. Social Science Research and Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Appraisal, R. S. Chen, E. Boulding, and S. H. Schneider, Eds., D. Reidel, 180-203. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7001-4_10
17. Flora, B. F., Finkel, E. J., & Foshee, V. A. (2003). Higher order factor structure of a self-control test: Evidence from confirmatory factor analysis with polychoric correlations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(1), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164402239320
18. Gowda, M., Fox, J., & Magelky, R. (1997). Students’ understanding of climate change: Insights for scientists and educators. American Meteorological Society, 78(10), 2232-2240. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477-78.10.2232
19. Griffard, P. B., & Wandersee, J. H. (2001). The two-tier instrument on photosynthesis: What does it diagnose? International Journal of Science Education, 23(10), 1039-1052. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690110038549
20. Groves, F. H., & Pugh, A. F. (1999). Elementary pre-service teacher perceptions of the greenhouse effect. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 75–81. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009433705790
21. Groves, F. H., & Pugh, A. F. (2002). Cognitive illusions as hindrances to learning complex environmental issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(4), 381–390. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020694319071
22. Hasan, S., Bagayoko, D., & Kelley, E. L. (1999). Misconceptions and the certainty of response index (CRI). Physics Education, 34(5), 294–299. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/34/5/304 Hestenes, D., & Halloun, I. (1995). Interpreting the force concept inventory. Physics Teacher, 33, 502–506. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2344279
23. Kahraman, S. (2019). Evaluating university students’ understanding of atmospheric environmental issues using a three-tier diagnostic test. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 9(1), 1-17.
24. Kahraman, S. (2020). Pre- and in-service teachers’ understandings of atmosphere-related environmental issues: The effects of major and gender. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 22(1), 193-210. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.615183
25. Kane, M. T. (1986). The role of reliability in criterion-referenced tests. Journal of Educational Measurement 23(3), 221–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1986.tb00247.x
26. Kanli, U. (2014). A study on identifying the misconceptions of pre-service and in-service teachers about basic astronomy concepts. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(5), 471-479. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1120a
27. Kılıç, D., & Sağlam, H. (2009). Development of a two-tier diagnostic test to determine students’ understanding of concepts in genetics. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 36, 227-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.474
28. Korur, F. (2015). Exploring seventh-grade students' and pre-service science teachers' misconceptions in astronomical concepts. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5). https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1373a
29. Kutluay, Y. (2005). Diagnosis of eleventh grade students' misconceptions about geometric optic by a three-tier test. Unpublished master thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
30. 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, 175-199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-004-6484-y
31. Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2006). FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 88-91. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192753
32. Mann, M., & Treagust, D. (1998). A pencil and paper instrument to diagnose students' conceptions of breathing, gas exchange and respiration. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 44, 55-60.
33. Maydeu, A., & D’Zurilla, T. J. (1995). A factor analysis of the social problem-solving inventory using polychoric correlations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11(2), 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.11.2.98
34. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
35. Michail, S., Stamou, A. G., & Stamou, G. P. (2007). Greek primary school teachers understanding of current environmental issues: An exploration of their environmental knowledge and images of nature. Science Education, 91(2), 244–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20185
36. Morgan, M. D., & Moran, J. M. (1995). Understanding the greenhouse effect and the ozone shield: An index of scientific literacy among university students. The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 76, 1185-1190. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477-76.7.1185
37. Muthén, B., & Kaplan D. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 171-189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1985.tb00832.x
38. Muthén, B., & Kaplan D. (1992). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables: A note on the size of the model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 45, 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1992.tb00975.x
39. Pallier, G., Wilkinson, R., Danthiir, V., Kleitman, S., Knezevic, G., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). The role of individual differences in the accuracy of confidence judgments. The Journal of general psychology, 129(3), 257–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221300209602099
40. Papadimitriou, V. (2004). Prospective primary teacher’s understanding of climate change, greenhouse effect, and ozone layer depletion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 229-307. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOST.0000031268.72848.6d
41. Paterson, M. (1996). Global warming and global politics. London: Routledge.
42. Pekel, O. F., & Ozay, E. (2005). Turkish high school students’ perceptions of ozone layer depletion. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 4, 115–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15330150590934598
43. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383002
44. Pruneau, D., Liboiron, L., Vrain, E., Gravel, H., Bourque, W., & Langis, J. (2001). People’s ideas about climate change: A source of inspiration for the creation of educational programs. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 6, 121-138.
45. Rajeev Gowda, M. V., Fox, J. C., & Magelky, R. D. (1997). Students' understanding of climate change: Insights for scientists and educators. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78(10), 2232-2240. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477-78.10.2232
46. Renner, C. H., & Renner, M. J. (2001). But I thought I knew that: Using confidence estimation as a debiasing technique to improve classroom performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0720
47. Rye, J. A., Rubba, P. A., & Wiesenmayer, R. L. (1997). An investigation of middle school students’ alternative conceptions of global warming. International Journal of Science Education, 19(5), 527–551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069970190503
48. Salinger, M. (2005). Climate variability and change: past, present, and future – an overview. Climate Change, 70(1), 9-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-005-5936-x Sesli, E., & Kara, Y. (2012). Development and application of a two-tier multiple choice diagnostic test for high school students’ understanding of cell division and reproduction. Journal of Biological Education, 46(4), 214-225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2012.688849
49. Singer, E., & Endreny, P. M. (1993). Reporting on Risk: How the Mass Media Portrays Accidents, Diseases, Disasters, and Other Hazards. Russell Sage Foundation.
50. Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis,13, 675-682. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01329.x
51. Sreenivasulu, B., & Subramaniam, R. (2013). University students’ understanding of chemical thermodynamics. International Journal of Science Education, 35(4), 601-635. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.683460
52. Summers, M., Kruger, C., Childs, A., & Mant, G. (2000). Primary school teachers’ understanding of environmental issues: An interview study. Environmental Education Research, 6(4), 293–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713664700
53. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10023
54. Taşlıdere, 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2015.1124409
55. Treagust, F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159-169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100204
56. United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
57. Wachholz, S., Artz, N., & Chene, D. (2014). Warming to the idea: University students' knowledge and attitudes about climate change. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15(2), 128-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-03-2012-0025
58. Yen, C., Yao, T., & Mintzes, J. J. (2007). Taiwanese students’ alternative conceptions of animal biodiversity. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 535-553. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690601073418
59. Zajkov, O., Gegovska-Zajkova, S., & Mitrevski, B. (2017). Textbook-caused misconceptions, inconsistencies, and experimental safety risks of a grade 8 physics textbook. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 15, 837–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9715-0