Secondary Students’ Stable and Unstable Optics Conceptions Using Contextualized Questions

Chu, Hye‐Eun; Treagust, David F.

doi:10.1007/s10956-013-9472-6

Cited by 28 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most students explain that the fish are not in the real position, but when explaining using the concept of refraction where there are two different medium densities, they still encounter difficulties. This is in accordance with the statement (Chu & Treagust, 2014;Aydin, et al, 2012) which states that students still have not mastered the concept of light propagation carefully.…”

Section: Aspects Of Critical Thinking Ability: Hypothesis Testingsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…The difficulties are caused by a lack of students' understanding of the material, as well as the misconceptions experienced by students on geometric optical materials (Agnes et al, 2015;Sutopo, 2014;Galili, 2007). Some of the difficulties experienced when learning optical geometry is the propagation of light (Chu & Treagust, 2014), and reflection and refraction (Aydin et al, 2012). From that circumstance, it will have an impact on students' difficulties in determining how the image will be formed from reflection events and light refraction (Chang et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How Does the Students’ Critical Thinking Ability in Geometry Optics?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the abilities that must be possessed by students in the 21st century is the ability to think critically. This article aims to analyze students' critical thinking skills in geometric optical materials. This research is descriptive research with subject of research consisted 116 student grade 12 SMA. The critical thinking skills test instrument consists of 12 items about the description of geometric optical material with reliability coefficient of 0.701. The results of this study indicate that the average ability of critical thinking students 14.54 of scale 100 with the highest score of 48 and the lowest value 1.3. This shows that students' critical thinking skills are still in the low category. The weakest aspect of critical thinking ability is argument analysis. Need efforts to improve students' critical thinking skills, one of them is by applying learning that requires students actively in solving problems.

show abstract

Section: Aspects Of Critical Thinking Ability: Hypothesis Testingsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Does the Students’ Critical Thinking Ability in Geometry Optics?

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 Sample two-tier multiple choice questions specifically to assess students' stable or context-independent conceptions in two different situations: light propagation during the day and at night. The inclusion of various contexts or perspectives about the phenomena is important because, as Chu and Treagust (2014) found, only a few students were able to achieve stable, correct conceptions by perceiving the commonalities and demonstrating understanding of the scientific conceptions across contexts. Conceptual complexity and naive reasoning based on earlier experiences are particularly influential in affecting students' consistency in applying concepts.…”

Section: Types and Uses Of Two-tier Itemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, classroom observations have been included as part of item development to investigate how the concept or topic was actually taught in different contexts (Chu and Treagust 2014;Chu et al 2015). This underscores the importance of incorporating the different aspects of the topic and various contexts for the concept that is being tested.…”

Section: Development and Analysis Of Two-tier Itemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, neither of these traditional approaches to handling the two-tier responses take into account the fact that some items, and the tiers themselves, may be harder. This is partially addressed in work that considers differences based on aspects of the concept or various contexts in which the concept is applied (Chu and Treagust 2014;Chu et al 2015, Treagust 1995. However, this still does not uncover the differences for the traits represented by the tiers themselves.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is it harder to know or to reason? Analyzing two-tier science assessment items using the Rasch measurement model

Fulmer

Chu

Treagust

et al. 2015

Asia Pac. Sci. Educ.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two-tier multiple-choice (TTMC) items are used to assess students' knowledge of a scientific concept for tier 1 and their reasoning about this concept for tier 2. But are the knowledge and reasoning involved in these tiers really distinguishable? Are the tiers equally challenging for students? The answers to these questions influence how we use and interpret TTMC instruments. We apply the Rasch measurement model on TTMC items to see if the items are distinguishable according to different traits (represented by the tier), or according to different content sub-topics within the instrument, or to both content and tier. Two TTMC data sets are analyzed: data from Singapore and Korea on the Light Propagation Diagnostic Instrument (LPDI), data from the United States on the Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning (CTSR). Findings for LPDI show that tier-2 reasoning items are more difficult than tier-1 knowledge items, across content sub-topics. Findings for CTSR do not show a consistent pattern by tier or by content sub-topic. We conclude that TTMC items cannot be assumed to have a consistent pattern of difficulty by tier-and that assessment developers and users need to consider how the tiers operate when administering TTMC items and interpreting results. Researchers must check the tiers' difficulties empirically during validation and use. Though findings from data in Asian contexts were more consistent, further study is needed to rule out differences between the LPDI and CTSR instruments.Keywords: Science education, Two-tier items, Rasch measurement models, Optics, Scientific reasoning Assessing student learning-of scientific concepts, practices, or habits of mind-is one of the central topics for research and development in science education. Such assessments can serve as formative or diagnostic tools for planning instruction and working with students, or as summative tools for gauging the effectiveness of our instructional practices, curriculum materials, or teacher education efforts. However, we observe an ongoing tension in science education assessment between our ability to construct conventional test items (e.g., multiple choice questions) that can be highly reliable but are perceived to be incapable of providing richer insights into students' conceptions and ways of thinking. Research addressing this includes efforts to make better sense of how students' responses to test items can be understood from a broader view of conceptual understanding, ability, or skill Neumann et al. 2011).One solution proposed that can address this tension are two-tier items (Treagust 1988). The two tiers in two-tier items act together to uncover students' understanding of core concepts because the student must choose a seemingly "factual" knowledge response for the first tier (Taber and Tan 2011), and then choose for the second tier what reasoning about the concept they used to arrive at the first-tier response. A large body of research across contexts has applied two-tier items to uncover students' understanding of scientific ...

show abstract