Development of a circular motion concept question item inventory for use in Ugandan science education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36681//tused.2022.176Keywords:
Physics education research, concept inventory , circular motion concept inventory (CMCI), classical test theory (CTT), item response curves (IRCs)Abstract
In this study, we administered and evaluated circular motion concept question items with a view to developing an inventory suitable for the Ugandan context. Before administering the circular concept items, six physics experts and ten undergraduate physics students
carried out the face and content validation. One hundred eighteen undergraduate students responded to the 42 circular motion concept items. The data were analysed using the classical test theory (CTT) and item response curve (IRC) analyses. We calculated the difficulty level and index of discrimination and gauged the distraction efficiency of items. The IRCs revealed insights that were not evident from those provided by the CTT. Based on the IRCs, the circular concept items are classified into three categories: efficient, moderately efficient, and inefficient. This helped us better evaluate the quality of the items and their appropriateness for the population under consideration. We ended up with 22 circular motion concept question items which we call the circular motion concept inventory (CMCI). This inventory is particularly relevant to Ugandan context and may be useful to other countries in the East African region which share similar syllabi.
Downloads
References
Adams, W. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2011). Development and validation of instruments to measure learning of expert‐like thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 33(9), 1289-1312. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09500693.2010.512369
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Irvine, C. K. S., & Walker, D. (2018). Introduction to research in education. Cengage. http://repository.unmas.ac.id/medias/journal/EBK-00124.pdf
Aslanides, J. S., & Savage, C. M. (2013). Relativity concept inventory: Development, analysis, and results. Physical Review Special Topics- Physics Education Research, 9(1), 010118. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.010118
Balta, N., Dzhapashov, N., Salibasic, D., & Mesic, V. (2022). Development of the High School Wave Optics Test. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(1), 306-331. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1343220.pdf
Chasteen, S. V., Pepper, R. E., Caballero, M. D., Pollock, S. J., & Perkins, K. K. (2012). Colorado upperdivision electrostatics diagnostic: A conceptual assessment for the junior level. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8(2), 020108. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.020108
Chedi, J. M. (2017). A preliminary review on needs analysis and Delphi technique: Effective tools for data collection. Journal of Asian Vocational Education and Training, 10, 44-52. http://www.javet.net/wpcontent/uploads/2019/11/010-04-2017
Cizek, G. J., Robinson, K. L., & O'Day, D. M. (1998). Nonfunctioning options: A closer look. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(4), 605-611. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164498058004004
Clayton, M. J. (1997). Delphi: a technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision‐making tasks in education. Educational Psychology, 17(4), 373-386. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0144341970170401
Cohen, R., & Swerdlik, M. (2009). Psychological Testing and Assessment: An Introduction to Tests and Measurement (7th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Scott, Foresman, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/105960117600100220
DeMars, C. E. (2018). Classical test theory and item response theory. The Wiley handbook of psychometric testing: A multidisciplinary reference on a survey, scale, and test development, 49-73. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118489772.ch2
Ding, L., & Beichner, R. (2009). Approaches to data analysis of multiple-choice questions. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 5(2), 020103. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.020103
Gerke, F., Müller, R., Bitzenbauer, P., Ubben, M., & Weber, K. A. (2022). Requirements for future quantum workforce – a Delphi study. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2297(1), 012017. https://iopscience.iop.org/volume/1742-6596/2297
Gierl, M. J., Bulut, O., Guo, Q., & Zhang, X. (2017). Developing, analyzing, and using distractors for multiple-choice tests in education: A comprehensive review. Review of Educational Research. 87(6), 1082–1116. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317726529
Ishimoto, M., Davenport, G., & Wittmann, M. C. (2017). Use of item response curves of the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation to compare Japanese and American students’ views on force and motion. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13(2), 020135.
https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.020135
Istiyono, E., & Hamdi, S. (2020). Measuring Creative Thinking Skills of Senior High School Male and Female Students in Physics (CTSP) Using the IRT-based PhysTCreTS. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(4), 578-590. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1283951.pdf
Jalil, S., Ali, M. S., & Haris, A. (2018). Development and validation of science process skills instrument in physics. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1028 (1), 012203. https://iopscience.iop.org/volume/1742-6596/1028
Kirya, K. R., Mashood, K. K., & Yadav, L. L. (2021a). Review of research in student conception studies and concept inventories- Exploring PER threads relevant to Ugandan context. African Journal of Educational Studies in Mathematics and Sciences. 17(1), 37-60. https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajesms/article/view/219548
Kirya, K. R., Mashood, K. K., & Yadav, L. L. (2021b). A methodological analysis for the development of a circular-motion concept inventory in a Ugandan context by using the Delphi technique. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research. 20(10), 61-82. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.10.4
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. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09500693.2018.1550273
Kucharavy, D., & De Guio, R. (2015). Application of logistic growth curve. Procedia engineering, 131, 280290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.12.390
Laverty, J. T., & Caballero, M. D. (2018). Analysis of the most common concept inventories in physics: What are we assessing? Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(1), 010123. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010123
Li, J., & Singh, C. (2016). Developing and validating a conceptual survey to assess introductory physics students’ understanding of magnetism. European Journal of Physics, 38(2), 25. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/38/2/025702
Mabila, T. E. (2017). Postgraduate students’ understanding of mixed methods research design at the proposal stage. South African Journal of Higher Education, 31(5), 136-153. https://doi.org/10.20853/31-5-1498
Mashood, K. K., (2014). Development and evaluation of a concept inventory in rotational kinematics. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai. Retrieved January 18, 2020, from http://www.hbcse.tifr.res.in/research development/ph.d.-theses/thesis mashoodkk.pdf
Mashood, K. K., & Singh, V. A. (2015). Rotational kinematics of a rigid body about a fixed axis: development and analysis of an inventory. European Journal of Physics, 36(4), 045020. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/36/4/045020/meta
Morris, G. A., Branum-Martin, L., Harshman, N., Baker, S. D., Mazur, E., Dutta, S., Mzoughi, T., &
McCauley, V. (2006). Testing the test: item response curves and test quality. American Journal of Physics. 74, 449–53. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2174053
Morris, G. A., Harshman, N., Branum-Martin, L., Mazur, E., Mzoughi, T., & Baker, S. D. (2012). An item response curves analysis of the Force Concept Inventory. American Journal of Physics, 80(9), 825831. http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4731618
Mutsvangwa, A. (2020). A study of student teachers’ misconceptions on uniform circular motion. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1512 (1), 012029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1512/1/012029
National Curriculum Development Centre (NCDC), Uganda (2013). Uganda Advanced Certificate of Education, Teaching Syllabi for Physics. Retrieved January 20, 2020, from https://www.ncdc.go.ug/
Planinic, M., Boone, W. J., Susac, A., & Ivanjek, L. (2019). Rasch analysis in physics education research: Why measurement matters. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(2), 020111. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.020111
Rakkapao, S., Prasitpong, S., & Arayathanitkul, K. (2016). Analysis test of understanding of vectors with the three-parameter logistic model of item response theory and item response curves technique. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 020135. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020135
Reed, C. R., & Wolfson, A. J. (2021). Concept inventories as a complement to learning progressions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(2), es4. https://www.lifescied.org/doi/abs/10.1187/cbe.20-09-0208
Resbiantoro, G., & Setiani, R. (2022). A review of misconception in physics: the diagnosis, causes, and remediation. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(2). https://www.tused.org/index.php/tused/article/download/924/773
Reyes, M. G., & Rakkapao, S. (2020). Item response curve analysis of Likert scale on learning attitudes towards physics. European Journal of Physics, 41, 045703. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/ab805c
Richardson, C. J., Smith, T. I., & Walter, P. J. (2021). Replicating analyses of item response curves using data from the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 17(2), 020127. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.020127
Rimoldini, L. G., & Singh, C. (2005). Student understanding of rotational and rolling motion concepts. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1 (010102), 1- 9. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010102
Sartori, R. (2010). Face validity in personality tests: psychometric instruments and projective techniques in comparison. Quality & Quantity, 44(4), 749-759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-009-9224-0
Sirait, J. H., & Oktavianty, E. (2017). Analysis of pre-service physics teachers’ understanding of vectors and forces. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 14(2), 82-95. https://www.academia.edu
Suprapto, E., Sumiharsono, R., & Ramadhan, S. (2020). The Analysis of Instrument Quality to Measure the Students' Higher Order Thinking Skill in Physics Learning. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(4), 520-527. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1284007.pdf
Tighe, J., McManus, I. C., Dewhurst, N. G., Chis, L., & Mucklow, J. (2010). The standard error of measurement is a more appropriate measure of quality for postgraduate medical assessments than is reliability: an analysis of MRCP (UK) examinations. BMC Medical Education, 10(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-10-40
Wong, V., & Kanageswari, S. S. S. (2020). The role of classical test theory to determine the quality of classroom teaching test items. Pedagogia: Jurnal Pendidikan, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.21070/pedagogia.v9i1.123
Wu, M., Tam, H. P., & Jen, T. H. (2016). Educational measurement for applied researchers. Theory into practice, 136. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3302-5
Downloads
Issue
Section
Published
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Journal of Turkish Science Education
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
