Journal Menu
Submit Manuscript via ScholarOne

EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
Volume 11, Issue 5 (October 2015), pp. 989-1008

DOI: 10.12973/eurasia.2015.1369a

Downloaded 803 times.

Research Article

Published online on Jul 02, 2016

How to reference this article?

 

A Review and Comparison of Diagnostic Instruments to Identify Students’ Misconceptions in Science

Derya Kaltakci Gurel, Ali Eryılmaz & Lillian Christie McDermott

Abstract
Different diagnostic tools have been developed and used by researchers to identify students' conceptions. The present study aimed to provide an overview of the common diagnostic instruments in science to assess students' misconceptions. Also the study provides a brief comparison of these common diagnostic instruments with their strengths and weaknesses. A total of 273 articles published (from the year 1980 to 2014) in main journals were investigated thoroughly through document analysis method. The study reveals interviews (53%), open-ended tests (34%), multiple-choice tests (32%) and multiple tier tests (13%) as the most commonly used diagnostic tools. However, each tool has some advantages as well as disadvantages over the others that should be kept in mind in their usages. A careful user of a diagnostic instrument such as a classroom teacher or a researcher would be aware of the diagnostic instruments and selects the most effective one for his/her purposes.   


Keywords: diagnostic instruments, misconceptions, science education

References
  1. Al-Rubayea, A. M. (1996). An Analysis of Saudi Arabian High School Students‘ Misconceptions About Physics Concepts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas.
  2. Adadan, E., & Savasci 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.
  3. Akkus, H., Kadayifci 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), 146-155.
  4. Andersson, B., & Karrqvist, C. (1983). How Swedish peoples, aged 12-15 years understand light and its properties. International Journal of Science Education, 5(4), 387-402. 
  5. Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Norman, J. G. (2002). Development and validation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 952-978.
  6. 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.
  7. Artdej, R., Ratanaroutai, T., Coll, R. K., & Thongpanchang, T. (2010). Thai grade 11 students’ alternative conceptions for acid-base chemistry. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28(2), 167-183.
  8. Aydın, Ö. (2007). Assessing tenth grade students’ difficulties about kinematics graphs by a three-tier test. Unpublished master thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
  9. Aykutlu, I., & Şen, A. İ. (2012). Üç aşamalı test, kavram haritası ve analoji kullanılarak lise öğrencilerinin elektrik akımı konusundaki kavram yanılgılarının belirlenmesi. Education and Science, 37(166), 275-288.
  10. Bardar, E. M., Prather, E. E., Slater, T. F., & Brecher, K. (2007). Development and validation of the light and spectroscopy concept inventory. Astronomy Education Review, 5(2), 103-113.
  11. Baser, M. & Geban, O. (2007). Effectiveness of conceptual change instruction on heat and temperature concepts. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(1), 115-133.
  12. Bau-Jaoude, S. B. (1991). A study of the nature of students’ understandings about the concept of burning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 689-704. 
  13. Beichner, R. J. (1994). Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs. American Journal of Physics, 62(8), 750-762.
  14. Bork, A. (1984). Letters to the editor. American Journal of Physics, 52(10), 873-874.
  15. Caleon, I. S. & 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.
  16. Caleon, I. S. & 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 in Science Education, 40, 313-337.
  17. Caramazza, A., McCloskey, M., & Green, B. (1980). Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces: naïve beliefs about the motion of objects. Science, 210(4474), 1139-1141.
  18. Cataloglu, E. & Robinett, R. W. (2002). Testing the development of student conceptual and visualization understanding in quantum mechanics through the undergraduate career. American Journal of Physics, 70(3), 238-251.
  19. 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.
  20. 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 mutiple levels of representation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 293-307.
  21. Chang, C. Y., Yeh, T. K., & Barufaldi, J. P. (2010). The positive and negative effects of science concept tests on student conceptual understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 265-282.
  22. Chang, H. P., Chen, J. Y., Guo, C. J., Chen, C. C., Chang, C. Y., Lin, S. Y., Su, W. J., Lain, K. D., Hsu, S. Y., Lin, J. L., Chen, C. C., Cheng, Y. T., Wang, L. S., Tseng, & Y. T. (2007). Investigating primary and secondary students’ learning of physics concepts in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 465-482.   
  23. Chen, S. M. (2009). Shadows: young Taiwanese children’s views and understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 31(1), 59-79.
  24. 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 plane mirror. Proc. Natl. Sci. Counc. ROC(D), 12(3), 106-121.
  25. 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. 
  26. Chiu, M. H. (2007). A national survey of students’ conceptions of chemistry in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 29(4), 421-452.
  27. Chu, H. E., Treagust, D. F., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2009). A stratified study of students’ understanding of basic optics concepts in different contexts using a two-tier multiple-choice items. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27(3), 253-265.
  28. Clement, J., Brown, D. E., & Zietsman, A. (1989). Not all preconceptions are  misconceptions: finding ‘anchoring conceptions’ for grounding instruction on students’ intuitions. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 554-565.
  29. Colin, P., Chauvet, F., Viennot, L. (2002). Reading images in optics: students’ difficulties and teachers’ views. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3) 313-332.
  30. 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.
  31. Ding, L., Chabay, R., Sherwood, B., & Beichner, R. (2006). Evaluating an assessment tool: brief electricity and magnetism assessment. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 2(1), 10105-1-10105-7.
  32. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2&3), 105-225.
  33. Downing, S. M. (2006). Twelve steps for effective test development. In S.M. Downing, & T. M. Haladayna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (pp. 3-25), New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  34. Driver, R. & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: a review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84.
  35. Duit, R., Treagust, D. F., & Mansfield, H. (1996). Investigating student understanding as a prerequisite to improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 17-31). New York: Teachers College Press. 
  36. Engelhardt, P. V. & Beichner, R. J. (2004). Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electric circuits. American Journal of Physics, 72(1), 98-115.
  37. Eryılmaz, A. (2010). Development and application of three-tier heat and temperature test: Sample of bachelor and graduate students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 40, 53-76.
  38. Eshach, H. (2003). Small-group interview-based discussions about diffused shadows. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 261-275.
  39. Fetherstonhaugh, A. & Treagust, D. F. (1992). Students’ understanding of light and its properties: teaching to engender conceptual change. Science Education, 76(6), 653-672.
  40. Frankel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education (4th ed.). US: McGraw-Hill Comp.
  41. Franklin, B. J. (1992). The development, validation, and application of a two-tier diagnostic instrument to detect misconceptions in the areas of force, heat, light and electricity. Unpublished PhD Thesis, The Louisiana State University.
  42. Galili, I. & Goldberg, F. (1993). Left-right conversions in a plane mirror. The Physics Teacher, 31(8), 463-466.
  43. Goldberg, F. M. & McDermott, L. C. (1986). Student difficulties in understanding image formation by a plane mirror. The Physics Teacher, 24(8), 472-481.
  44. Goldberg, F. M. & McDermott, L. C. (1987). An investigation of student understanding of real image formed by a converging lens or concave mirror. American Journal of Physics, 55(2), 108-119.
  45. Greca, I. M. & Moreire, M. A. (2002). Mental, physical and mathematical models in the teaching and learning of physics. Science Education, 86 (1), 106-121.
  46. 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.
  47. Gronlund, N. E. (1981). Measurement and evaluation in teaching. NY: McMillan Pub. Co. Inc.
  48. Hammer, D. (1996). More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for educational research. American Journal of Physics, 64(10), 1316-1325.
  49. Hasan, S., Bagayoko, D., & Kelley, E. L. (1999). Misconceptions and the certainty of response index (CRI). Physics Education, 34(5), 294-299.
  50. Haslam, F. (1986). Secondary students’ understanding of photosynthesis and respiration in plants. Unpublished manuscript. Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Western Australian Institute of Technology, Perth, WA.
  51. Haslam, F. & Treagust, D. F. (1987). Diagnosing secondary students’ misconceptions about photosynthesis and respiration in plants using a two-tier multiple-choice instrument. Journal of Biological Education, 21(3), 203-211.
  52. Helm, H. (1980). Misconceptions in physics amongst South African students. Physics Education, 15, 92-105.
  53. Hestenes, D. & Wells, M. (1992). A mechanics baseline test. The Physics Teacher, 30, 159-166.
  54. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141-158.
  55. Howitt, S. T., Anderson, M., Hamilton, S., & Wright, T. (2008). A concept inventory for molecular life sciences: How will it help your teaching practice? Australian Biochemist, 39, 14-17.
  56. Hrepic, Z. (2004). Development of a real-time assessment of students’ mental models of sound propagation. Unpublished PhD thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas.
  57. Iona, M. (1982). Virtual mirrors. The Physics Teacher, 20, 278.
  58. Kalas, P., O’Neil, A., Pollock, C. & Birol, G. (2013). Development of a meiosis concept inventory. CBE Life Sci Educ.,12 (4), 655-664.
  59. Kaltakci, D. & Didis, D. (2007). Identification of pre-service physics teachers’ misconceptions on gravity concept: A study with a 3-tier misconception test. In S. A. Çetin, & İ. Hikmet (Eds.), Proceedings of the American Institute of Physics, USA,899, 499-500.
  60. Kaltakçı, D. (2012). Development and application of a four-tier test to assess pre-service physics teachers’ misconceptions about geometrical optics. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
  61. 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.
  62. Kızılcık, H. S. & Güneş, B. (2011). Developing three-tier misconception test about regular circular motion. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 41, 278-292.
  63. Kirbulut, Z. D. & Beeth, M. E. (2013). Representations of fundamental chemistry concepts in relation to the particulate nature of matter. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1 (2), 96-106.
  64. Kirbulut, Z. D. & Geban, O. (2014). Using three-tier test to assess students’ misconceptions of states of matter. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10 (5), 509-521.
  65. Klammer, J. (1998). An overview of techniques for identifying, acknowledging and overcoming alternative conceptions in physics education. (Report no: ED423121). Columbia University. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED423121.pdf
  66. Klymkowsky, M. W. & Garvin-Doxas, K. (2008). Recognizing students’ misconceptions through Ed’s tools and the Biology Concept Inventory. PloS Biology, 6, e3. 
  67. Knight, J. K. & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4, 298-310.
  68. Komorek, M. & Duit, R. (2004). The teaching experiment as a powerful method to develop and evaluate teaching and learning sequences in the domain of non-linear systems. International Journal of Science Education, 26(5), 619-633.
  69. 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.
  70. Langley, D., Ronen, M., & Eylon, B. S. (1997). Light propagation and visual patterns: preinstruction learners’ conceptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 399-424.
  71. La Rosa, C., Mayer, M., Patrizi, P., & Vicentini-Missoni, M. (1984). Commonsense knowledge in optics: preliminary results of an investigation into properties of light. European Journal of Science Education, 6(4), 387-397.
  72. Lin, S. W. (2004). Development and application of a two-tier diagnostic test for high school students’ understanding of flower plant growth and development. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 175-199.  
  73. Maloney, D. P., O’Kuma, T. L., Heiggelke, C. J., & Van Heuvelen, A. (2001). Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism. American Journal of Physics, 69(7), 12-23.
  74. Mann, M. & Treagust, D. F. (1998). A pencil and paper instrument to diagnose students’ conceptions of breathing, gas exchange and respiration. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 44, 55–59.
  75. McDermott, L. C. (1993). How we teach and how students’ learn-A mismatch?. American Journal of Physics, 61(4), 295-298. 
  76. Monteiro, A., Nobrega, C., Abrantes, I. & Gomes, C. (2012). Diagnosing Portuguese students’ misconceptions about the mineral concept. International Journal of Science Education, 34 (17), 2705-2726.
  77. Mulford, D. R. & Robinson, W. R. (2002). An inventory for alternate conceptions among first-semester general chemistry students. Journal of Chemical Education, 79(6),739-744. 
  78. 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.
  79. Olivieri, G., Torosantucci, G., & Vincentini, M. (1988). Coloured shadows. International Journal of Science Education, 10(5), 561-569.
  80. Osborne, J. F., Black, P., Meadows, J., & Smith, M. (1993). Young children’s (7-11) ideas about light and their development. International Journal of Science Education, 15(1), 83-93. 
  81. Osborne, R. & Freyberg, P. (1987). Learning in science: the implications of children’s science. Auckland: Heinemann.
  82. Osborne, R. J. & Gilbert, J. K. (1979). Investigating student understanding of basic physics concepts using an interview-about-instances approach. Research in Science Education, 16, 40-48.
  83. Osborne, R. J. & Gilbert, J. K. (1980a). A method for investigating concept understanding in science. European Journal of Science Education, 2, 311-321.
  84. Osborne, R. J. & Gilbert, J. K. (1980b). A technique for exploring students’ views of the world. Physics Education, 15, 376-379.
  85. Peşman, H., & Eryılmaz, A. (2010). Development of a three-tier test to assess misconceptions about simple electric circuits. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 208-222.
  86. Peterson, R. F., Treagust, D. F., & Garnett, P. (1986). Identification of secondary students’ misconceptions of covalent bonding and structure concepts using a diagnostic test instrument. Research in Science Education, 16, 40-48. 
  87. Piaget, J. (1969). The child’s conception of physical causality. New Jersey: Littlefield & Adams, Co
  88. Rollnick, M. & Mahooana, P. P. (1999). A quick and effective way of diagnosing student difficulties: two tier from simple multiple-choice questions. South African Journal of Chemistry, 52(4), 161-164. 
  89. Ross, B. & Munby, H. (1991). Concept mapping and misconceptions: a study of high school students understanding of acids and bases. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 11-23.
  90. Sadler, P. M. (1998). Psychometric models of student conceptions in science: reconciling qualitative studies and distractor-driven assessment instruments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(3), 265-296.
  91. Schmidt, H. J. (1997). Students’ misconceptions- looking for a pattern. Science Education, 81(2), 123-135.
  92. 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.
  93. Shi, J., Wood, W. B., Martin, J. M., Guild, N. A., Vicens, Q., & Knight, J. K. (2010). Diagnostic assessment for introductory molecular and cell biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9, 453-461.
  94. Singh, C. & Rosengrant, D. (2003). Multiple-choice test of energy and momentum concepts. American Journal of Physics, 71(6), 607-617.
  95. Sokoloff, D. (1993). Electric Circuit Concept Tests. Unpublished study.
  96. Sokoloff, D. (1997). Light and Optics Conceptual Evaluation. Unpublished study.
  97. Sreenivasulu, B. & Subramaniam, R. (2013). University students’ understanding of chemical thermodynamics. International Journal of Science Education, 35(4), 601-635.
  98. Tamir, P. (1989). Some issues related to the use of justifications to multiple-choice answers. Journal of Biological Education, 23, 285-292.
  99. Tamir, P. (1990). Justifying the selection of answers in multiple-choice items. International Journal of Science Education, 12(5), 563-573.
  100. 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(4), 283-301.
  101. Thornton, R. K. & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton’s Laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66(4), 338-352.
  102. Tongchai, A., Sharma, M. D., Johnston, I. D., Arayathanitkul, K., & Soankwan, C. (2009). Developing, evaluating and demonstrating the use of a conceptual survey in mechanical waves. International Journal of Science Education, 31(18), 2437-2457.
  103. Treagust, D. (1986). Evaluating students’ misconceptions by means of diagnostic multiple choice items. Research in Science Education, 16, 199-207.
  104. 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.
  105. Tuysuz, C. (2009). Development of two-tier diagnostic instrument and assess students’ understanding in chemistry. Scientific Research and Essays, 46, 629-631.
  106. Türker, F. (2005). Developing a three tier test to assess high school students’ misconceptions concerning force and motion. Unpublished master thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
  107. Uzuntiryaki, E. & Geban, Ö. (2005). Effect of conceptual change approach accompanied with concept mapping on understanding of solution concepts. Instructional Science, 33, 311-339.
  108. Van Zee, E. H., Hammer, D., Bell, M., Roy, P., & Peter, J. (2005). Learning and teaching science as inquiry: a case study of elementary school teachers’ investigations of light. Science Education, 89(6), 1007-1042.
  109. Voska, K. W. & Heikkien, H. W. (2000). Identification and analysis of student conceptions used to solve chemical equilibrium problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2) 160-176.  
  110. Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions  in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp.177-210). New York: Macmillan. 
  111. 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, 131-157.
  112. White, R. & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: The Falmer Press.
  113. Wittman, M. C. (1998). Making sense of how students come to an understanding of physics: an example from mechanical waves. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Maryland