RESEARCH PAPER
Effects of Simulation-based Formative Assessments on Students’ Conceptions in Physics
Mihwa Park 1  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Texas Tech University, USA
Online publish date: 2019-04-03
Publish date: 2019-04-03
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2019;15(7):em1722
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background:
The paper presents effects of simulation-based formative assessments on students’ conceptions in physics. In the study, two topics—motion in two dimensions and conservation of energy—were selected to explore students’ conceptions in physics, and related assessment tasks incorporating computer simulations and formative assessment questions were developed.

Material and methods:
The participant students were first-year college students with majors related to science or engineering. Analytic rubrics were developed to capture the students’ normative and non-normative ideas revealed in their responses, and a holistic rubric was applied to categorize the responses into four response models.

Results:
The results demonstrated that, overall, students predicted and explained the given scientific phenomena with more valid scientific ideas after experiencing a computer simulation. However, the results also indicated that students’ non-normative ideas were still present even after experiencing computer simulations, especially when they were required to consider an abstract scientific concept such as energy dissipation.

Conclusions:
The finding can be explained with knowledge-in-piece perspectives (diSessa, 1993), that students’ naïve knowledge is fragmented, and thus they do not demonstrate a coherent understanding of abstract science concepts across different situations.

 
REFERENCES (69)
1.
Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2005). Infusing active learning into the large-enrollment biology class: Seven strategies, from the simple to complex. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 262-268. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05....
 
2.
Barak, J., Gorodetsky, M., & Chipman, D. (1997). Understanding energy in biology and vitalistic conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 19(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
 
3.
Bell, R. L., & Trundle, K. C. (2008). The use of a computer simulation to promote scientific conceptions of moon phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 346-372. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20....
 
4.
Black, P., & Solomon, J. (1983). Life world and science world: Pupils’ ideas about energy. In G. Marx (Ed.), Entropy in the school. Proceedings of the 6th Danube Seminar on Physics Education (pp. 43–455). Budapest: Roland Eoetvoes Physical Society.
 
5.
Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: raising standards through classroom assessment. London: School of Education, King’s College.
 
6.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
 
7.
Bonham, S. W., Deardorff, D. L., & Beichner, R. J. (2003). Comparison of student performance using web and paper-based homework in college-level physics. Journal of Research in science teaching, 40(10), 1050-1071. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10....
 
8.
Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (1990). Misunderstandings of ‘‘law’’ and ‘‘conservation’’: A study of pupils’ meanings for these terms. School Science Review, 72(258), 51–57.
 
9.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Mind brain, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
 
10.
Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof....
 
11.
Cheng, K., Thacker, B. A., Cardenas, R. L., & Crouch, C. (2004). Using an online homework system enhances students’ learning of physics concepts in an introductory physics course. American Journal of Physics, 72(11), 1447-1453. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1768....
 
12.
Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: why some misconceptions are robust. The journal of the learning science, 14(2), 161-199. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327....
 
13.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
 
14.
Crisp, V., & Ward, C. (2008). The development of a formative scenario-based computer assisted assessment tool in psychology for teachers: the PePCAA project. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1509–1526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comp....
 
15.
de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific Discovery Learning with Computer Simulations of Conceptual Domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179-201. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465....
 
16.
de Klerk, S., Veldkamp, B. P., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015). Psychometric analysis of the performance data of simulation-based assessment: A systematic review and a Bayesian network example. Computer & Education, 85, 23-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comp....
 
17.
diSessa, A. A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2-3), 105-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/073700....
 
18.
diSessa, A. A. (2002). Why “conceptual ecology” is a good idea. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-....
 
19.
diSessa, A.A., Gillespie, N.,& Esterly, J. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843–900. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516....
 
20.
Dori, Y. J., & Barak, M. (2001). Virtual and physical molecular modeling: Fostering model perception and spatial understanding. Educational Technology and Society 4(1), 61–74.
 
21.
Driver, R., & Warrington, L. (1985). Students’ use of the principle of energy conservation in problem situations. Physic Education, 20, 171–176. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9....
 
22.
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.
 
23.
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.
 
24.
Geban, O., Askar, P., & Ozkan, I. (1992). Effects of computer simulations and problem solving approaches on high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 86(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/002206....
 
25.
Gelman, R. (1990). First principles organize attention to and learning about relevant data: number and the animate-inanimate distinction as examples. Cognitive Science, 14(1), 79-106. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516....
 
26.
Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333-2351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comp....
 
27.
Goldring, H., & Osborne, J. (1994). Students’ difficulties with energy and related concepts. Physics Education, 29(1), 26 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9....
 
28.
Gunstone, R. F., & White, R. T. (1981). Understanding of gravity. Science Education, 65(3), 291-299. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.37....
 
29.
Gurel, D. K., Eryılmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2015). A review and comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify students’ misconceptions in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5), 989-1008. https://doi.org/10.12973/euras....
 
30.
Hammer, D. (1996). More than misconceptions: multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research. American Journal of Physics, 64(10), 1316-1325. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1837....
 
31.
Huppert, J., Lomask, S.M., & Lazarowitz, R. (2002). Computer simulations in the high school: Students’ cognitive stages, science process skills and academic achievement in microbiology. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 803–821. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
 
32.
Hynd, C., Alvermann, D., & Qian, G. (1997). Preservice elementary school teachers’ conceptual change about projectile motion: refutation text, demonstration, affective factors, and relevance. Science Education, 81(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)...<1::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-M.
 
33.
Ioannides, C., & Vosniadou, S. (2002). The changing meaning of force. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2(1), 5–61.
 
34.
Jimoyiannis, A., & Komis, V. (2001). Computer Simulations in Physics Teaching and Learning: A Case Study on Students’ Understanding of Trajectory Motion. Journal of Computers & Education, 36, 183-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-....
 
35.
Linacre, J. M. (2014). WINSTEPS (version 3.81) [Computer program]. Retrieved from http://www.winsteps.com.
 
36.
Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517-538. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10....
 
37.
Liu, X. (2010). Essentials of Science Classroom Assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/978148....
 
38.
Mackey, J. (2009). Virtual learning and real communities: online professional development for teachers. In E. Stacey, & P. Gerbic (Eds.), Effective blended learning practices: evidence-based perspectives in ICT-facilitated education (pp. 163–181). Hershey: Information Science Reference. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-....
 
39.
Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47, 149 – 174. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0229....
 
40.
McCloskey, M. (1983). Naïve theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299-323). Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
 
41.
Moharreri, K., Ha, M., & Nehm, R. (2014). EvoGrader: an online formative assessment tool for automatically evaluating written evolutionary explanations. Evolution Education and Outreach, 7(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052....
 
42.
Navarro, P., & Shoemaker, J. (2000). Performance and perceptions of distance learners in cyberspace. American Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 15–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/089236....
 
43.
Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2011). Item feature effects in evolution assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(3), 237-256. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20....
 
44.
Nguyen, T. (2015). The effectiveness of online learning: Beyond no significant difference and future horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 309-319.
 
45.
Ozdemir, G. & Clark, D. (2009). Knowledge structure coherence in Turkish students’ understanding of force. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(5), 570-596. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20....
 
46.
Pachler, N., Daly, C., Mor, Y., & Mellar, H. (2010). Formative e-assessment: Practitioner cases. Computers & Education, 54, 715–721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comp....
 
47.
Park, M., & Liu, X. (2016). Assessing understanding of the energy concept in difference science disciplines. Science Education, 100(3), 483-516. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21....
 
48.
Park, M., & Liu, X. (2019). An investigation of item difficulties in energy aspects across biology, chemistry, environmental science, and physics. Research in Science Education. Published online first. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165....
 
49.
Park, M., Liu, X., Smith, E., & Waight, N. (2017). The effect of computer models as formative assessment on student understanding of the nature of models. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18, 572-581. http://doi.org/10.1039/c7rp000....
 
50.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
 
51.
Penn, J., Nedeff, V. M., & Gozdzik, G. (2000). Organic chemistry and the internet: a web-based approach to homework and testing using the WE_LEARN System. Journal of Chemical Education, 77(2), 227−231. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed077p....
 
52.
Perkins, K., Adams, W., Dubson, M., Finkelstein, N., Reid, S., & Wieman, C. (2006). PhET: Interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics. The Physics Teacher, 44, 18-23. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2150....
 
53.
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 Research in Science Teaching, 26(4), 301-314. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.36....
 
54.
Quellmalz, E. S., Timms, M. J., Silberglitt, M. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2012). Science assessments for all: Integrating science simulations into balanced state science assessment systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 363-393. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21....
 
55.
Redish, E. F. (2017). Analysing the competency of mathematical modelling in physics. In: Greczyło, T., & Dębowska, E., (Eds.), Key Competences in Physics Teaching and Learning (pp. 25-40). Chum: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-....
 
56.
Richards-Babb, M., Drelick, J., Henry, Z., & Robertson-Honecker, J. (2011). Online homework, help or hindrance? What students think and how they perform. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(4), 81–93.
 
57.
Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comp....
 
58.
Smetana, L., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337-1370. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
 
59.
Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21–51. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465....
 
60.
Srisawasdi, N., & Kroothkeaw, S. (2014). Supporting students’ conceptual learning and retention of light refraction concepts by simulation-based inquiry with dual-situated learning model. Journal of Computers in Education, 1(1), 49–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692....
 
61.
Srisawasdi, N., & Panjaburee, P. (2015) Exploring effectiveness of simulation-based inquiry learning in science with integration of formative assessment, Journal of Computers in Education, 2(3), 323-352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692....
 
62.
Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T. C., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: a review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465....
 
63.
Tao, P-K., & Gunstone, R. (1999). The process of conceptual change in force and motion during computer-supported physics instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 859-882. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)...<859::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-J.
 
64.
Tatar, E., & Oktay, M. (2007). Students’ misunderstandings about the energy conservation principle: a general view to studies in literature. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 2(3), 79-81.
 
65.
Treagust, D. F. (1998). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
 
66.
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006....
 
67.
Trundle, K. C., & Bell, R. L. (2010). The use of a computer simulation to promote conceptual change: A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 54(4), 1078–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comp....
 
68.
Winn, W., Stahr, F., Sarason, C., Fruland, R., Oppenheimer, P., & Lee, Y. (2006). Learning oceanography from a computer simulation compared with direct experience at sea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20....
 
69.
Zacharia, Z., & Anderson, O. R. (2003). The effects of an interactive computer-based simulation prior to performing a laboratory inquiry-based experiment on students’ conceptual understanding of physics. American Journal of Physics, 71(6), 618-629. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1566....
 
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215