Advertisement

An Investigation of Item Difficulties in Energy Aspects Across Biology, Chemistry, Environmental Science, and Physics

  • Mihwa ParkEmail author
  • Xiufeng Liu
Article
  • 59 Downloads

Abstract

This study examined assessment item difficulty patterns in two energy aspects, energy source/form/transfer and energy degradation/conservation, across and within science disciplines. The participant students were taking at least one college-level introductory science course. Findings showed a common pattern of item difficulties for the two energy aspects across science disciplines; energy degradation/conservation items were, in general, more difficult than energy source/form/transfer items. The effects of energy aspects on item difficulty were not found to be significantly different across disciplines. However, item difficulty levels for energy source/form/transfer items varied more than those of energy degradation/conservation items. Further analysis of item difficulties for energy aspects by science content topics within each discipline revealed different sequences of item difficulty between the two energy aspects across science content topics. Together, these findings showed more promising characteristics of energy degradation/conservation than the energy source/form/transfer aspect as a cross-disciplinary energy concept.

Keywords

Energy concept Cross-disciplinary concept Rasch modeling 

Notes

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Project 2061. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php.
  2. Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barman, C. R., Griffiths, A. K., & Okebukola, P. A. O. (1995). High school students’ concepts regarding food chains and food webs: a multinational study. International Journal of Education, 17(6), 775–782.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, N. M., & Cooper, M. M. (2014). College chemistry students' understanding of potential energy in the context of atomic–molecular interactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(6), 789–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biggs, J. (1979). Individual difference in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8(4), 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York, NY: Academic.Google Scholar
  7. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Inc..Google Scholar
  8. Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., & Yale, M. S. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyes, E., & Stainsstreet, M. (1991). Misconceptions in first-year undergraduate science students about energy sources for living organisms. Journal of Biological Education, 25(3), 209–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Case, R. (1992). The mind’s staircase: exploring the conceptual underpinnings of children’s thought and knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Chabalengula, V., Sanders, M., & Mumba, F. (2011). Diagnosing students’ understanding of energy and its related concepts in biological context. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(2), 241–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen, R. F., Scheff, A., Fields, E., Pelletier, P., & Faux, R. (2014). Mapping energy in the Boston public schools curriculum. In R. F. Chen et al. (Eds.), Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education (pp. 135–152). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clough, E. E., & Driver, R. (1985). Secondary students’ conceptions of the conduction of heat: bringing together scientific and personal views. Physics Education, 20, 176–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cooper, M. M., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2013). The trouble with chemical energy: Why understanding bond energies requires an interdisciplinary systems approach. CBE Life Science Education, 12(2), 306–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cooper, M. M., Klymkowsky, M. W., & Becker, N. M. (2014). Energy in chemical systems: an integrated approach. In R. F. Chen et al. (Eds.), Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education (pp. 301–316). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dawson, T. L. (2006). Stage-like patterns in the development of conceptions of energy. In X. Liu & W. Boone (Eds.), Applications of Rasch measurement in Science Education (pp. 111–136). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ding, L., Chabay, R., & Sherwood, B. (2013). How do students in an innovative principle-based mechanics course understanding energy concepts? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(6), 722–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N., & Esterly, J. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dorans, N. J., Moses, T., & Eignor, D. (2010). Principles and practices of test score equating. ETS Research Report No. RR- 10-29. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing.Google Scholar
  24. Dreyfus, B. W., Redish, E. F., & Wakins, J. (2012). Student views of macroscopic and microscopic energy in phusics and biology. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1413, 179–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dreyfus, B. W., Gouvea, J., Geller, B. D., Sawtelle, V., Turpen, C., & Redish, E. F. (2014). Chemical energy in an introductory physics course for the life sciences. American Journal of Physics, 82(5), 403–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Duit, R. (1981). Students’ notions about the energy concept - before and after physics instruction. In W. Jung, H. Pfundt, & C. von Rhoneck (Eds.), Proceedings of the international workshop on “problems concerning students’ representation of physics and chemistry knowledge” (pp. 268–319). Ludwigsburg: Paedagogische Hochschule.Google Scholar
  27. Duit, R. (2012). Towards a learning progression of energy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar
  28. Duit, R. (2014). Teaching and learning the physics energy concept. In R. F. Chen et al. (Eds.), Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education (pp. 67–85). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eisenkraft, A., Nordine, J., Chen, R. F., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Neumann, K., & Scheff, A. (2014). Introduction: Why focus on energy instruction? In R. F. Chen et al. (Eds.), Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education (pp. 1–11). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Fischer, G. H. (1973). The linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. Acta Psychologica, 37(6), 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fischer, G. H. (1997). Unidimensional linear logistic Rasch models. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 225–243). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fortus, D., Sutherland Adams, L. M., Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. (2015). Assessing the role of curriculum coherence in student learning about energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(10), 1408–1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gilbert, J. K., & Pope, M. L. (1986). Small group discussions about conceptions in science: a case study. Research in Science and Technological Education, 4(1), 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as context: the role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Haja, S., & Clarke, D. (2011). Middle school students’ responses to two-tier tasks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23(1), 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hambleton, R. K., & Jones, R. W. (1993). Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 12, 38–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Harrison, A. G., Grayson, D. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1999). Investigating a grade 11 student’s evolving conceptions of heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 55–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hartig, J., Frey, A., Nold, G., & Klieme, E. (2012). An application of explanatory item response modeling for model-based proficiency scaling. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(4), 665–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hartley, L. M., Wilke, B. J., Schramm, J. W., D’Avanzo, C., & Anderson, C. W. (2011). College students’ understanding of the carbon cycle: contrasting principle-based and informal reasoning. BioScience, 61(1), 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Herrmann-Abell, C. F., & DeBohr, G. E. (2013). Developing and using distracter-driven multiple-choice assessments aligned to ideas about energy forms, transformation, transfer, and conservation. Paper presented at the 2013 Energy Summit, East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
  42. Huck, S. W. (2012). Reading statistics and research (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  43. Keller, L. (2007). Item response theory. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics (pp. 493–496). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  44. Kline, P. (1993). Handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routlegde.Google Scholar
  45. Krajcik, J., Chen, R. F., Eisenkraft, A., Fortus, D., Neumann, K., Nordine, J., & Scheff, A. (2014). Conclusion and summary comments: teaching energy and associated research efforts. In R. F. Chen et al. (Eds.), Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education (pp. 357–363). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lancor, R. A. (2014). Using student-generated analogies to investigate conceptions of energy: a multidisciplinary study. International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lancor, R. (2015). An analysis of metaphors used by students to describe energy in an interdisciplinary general science course. International Journal of Science Education., 37(5–6), 876–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometric, 33(1), 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lee, H. S., & Liu, O. L. (2009). Assessing learning progression of energy concepts across middle school grades: The knowledge integration perspective. Science Education, 94(4), 665–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lewis, E. L., & Linn, M. C. (1994). Heat energy and temperature concepts of adolescents, adults, and experts: implications for curricular improvements. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 657–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lin, C.-Y., & Hu, R. (2003). Students' understanding of energy flow and matter cycling in the context of the food chain, photosynthesis, and respiration. International Journal of Science Education, 25(12), 1529–1544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Linacre, J. M. (2014). A user’s guide to Winsteps® ministep Rasch-model computer program. Retrieved August, 1st, 2018 from http://www.winsteps.com/winman/index.htm.
  54. Liu, X., & Collard, S. (2005). Using Rash model to validate stages of understanding the energy concept. Journal of Applied Measurement, 6(2), 224–241.Google Scholar
  55. Liu, X., & McKeough, A. (2005). Development growth in student's concept of energy: Analysis of selected items from the TIMSS database. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Liu, X., & Park, M. (2012). Progression of students' understanding of the energy concept. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar
  57. Liu, X., & Park, M. (2014). Contextual dimensions of the energy concept and implications for energy teaching and learning. In R.F. Chen et al. (Eds.), Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education (pp 175–186). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Liu, O. L., Ryoo, K., Linn, M. C., Sato, E., & Vanessa Svihla, V. (2015). Measuring knowledge integration learning of energy topics: a two-year longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1044–1066.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1016470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McLellan, H. (1996). Situated learning: multiple perspectives. In H. McLellan (Ed.), Situated learning perspectives (pp. 5–17). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.Google Scholar
  61. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Committee for science education standards and assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  62. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  63. Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2011). Item feature effects in evolution assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(3), 237–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Neumann, K., Viering, T., Boone, W. J., & Fischer, H. E. (2013). Towards a learning progression of energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 162–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  66. Opitz, S. T., Neumann, K., Bernholt, S., & Harms, U. (2017). How do students understand energy in biology, chemistry, and physics? Development and validation of an assessment instrument. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 3019–3042.Google Scholar
  67. Ozdemir, G., & Clark, D. (2009). Knowledge structure coherence in Turkish students’ understanding of force. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(5), 570–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Park, M. & Liu, X. (2016). Assessing understanding of the energy concept in different science disciplines. Science Education, 100(3), 483–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Peterson, R. F., Treagust, D. F., & Garnet, P. (1989). Development and application of diagnostic instrument to evaluate grade-11 and -12 students’ concepts of covalent bonding and structure following a course of instruction. Journal of Reaserch in Science Teaching, 26(4), 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rose, L. T., & Fischer, K. W. (2009). Dynamic development: a neo-Piagetian approach. In U. Muller, J. Carpendale, & L. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Piaget (pp. 400–421). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Singer, S. R. (2013). Advancing research on undergraduate science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(6), 768–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Singley, K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Solomon, J. (1983). Messy, contradictory, and obstinately persistent: a study of children’s out-of-school ideas about energy. School Science Review, 65(231), 225–229.Google Scholar
  74. Steedle, J., & Shavelson, R. (2009). Supporting valid interpretations of learning progression level diagnoses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 699–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Taber, K. (1989). Energy-by many other names. School Science Review, 70(252), 57–62.Google Scholar
  76. Teichert, M. A., & Stacy, A. M. (2002). Promoting understanding of chemical bonding and spontaneity through student explanation and integration of idea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 464–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Trumper, R. (1998). A longitudinal study of physics students’ conceptions on energy in pre-service training for high school teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(4), 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Watts, D. (1983). Some alternative views of energy. Physics Education, 18, 213–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Watts, D., & Gilbert, J. (1983). Enigmas in school science students’ conceptions for scientifically associated words. Research in Science and Technological Education, 1(2), 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Weston, M., Houdek, K. C., Prevost, L., Urban-Lurain, M., & Merrill, J. (2015). Examining the impact of question surface features on students’ answers to constructed-response questions on photosynthesis. CBE-Life Science Education, 14, 1–12.Google Scholar
  81. Wilson, M., De Boeck, P., & Carstensen, C. (2008). Explanatory item response models: a brief introduction. In J. Hartig, E. Klieme, & D. Leutner (Eds.), Assessment of competencies in educational contexts: state of the art and future prospects (pp. 91–120). Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Curriculum and InstructionTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA
  2. 2.Learning and InstructionUniversity at BuffaloBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations