Consistency of students’ conceptions of wave propagation: Findings from a conceptual survey in mechanical waves

Abstract

We recently developed a multiple-choice conceptual survey in mechanical waves. The development, evaluation, and demonstration of the use of the survey were reported elsewhere [ A. Tongchai et al. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 31 2437 (2009)]. We administered the survey to 902 students from seven different groups ranging from high school to second year university. As an outcome of that analysis we were able to identify several conceptual models which the students seemed to be using when answering the questions in the survey. In this paper we attempt to investigate the strength with which the students were committed to these conceptual models, as evidenced by the consistency with which they answered the questions. For this purpose we focus on the patterns of student responses to questions in one particular subtopic, wave propagation. This study has three main purposes: (1) to investigate the consistency of student conceptions, (2) to explore the relative usefulness of different analysis techniques, and (3) to determine what extra information a study of consistency can give about student understanding of basic concepts. We used two techniques: first, categorizing and counting, which is widely used in the science education community, and second, model analysis, recently introduced into physics education research. The manner in which categorizing and counting is used is very diverse while model analysis has been employed only in prescriptive ways. Research studies have reported that students often use their conceptual models inconsistently when solving a series of questions that test the same idea. Our results support their conclusions. Moreover, our findings suggest that students who have had more experiences in physics learning seem to use the scientifically accepted models more consistently. Further, the two analysis techniques have different advantages and disadvantages. Our findings show that model analysis can be used in more diverse ways, provides flexibility in analyzing multiple-choice questions, and provides more information about consistency and inconsistency of student conceptions. An unexpected finding is that studying waves in other contexts (for example, quantum mechanics or electromagnetism) leads to more consistent answers about mechanical waves. The suggestion is that studying more abstract topics may solidify students’ understanding of more concrete waves. While this might be considered to be intuitive, we have not actually found direct empirical studies supporting this conjecture

The Mechanical Waves Conceptual Survey: An Analysis of University Students’ Performance, and Recommendations for Instruction

“…The second error (7%) was to answer incorrectly (again, consistently) based on the belief that the particle does not oscillate but instead moves along a line (answer combination D, G, F). These findings agree with those reported by Tongchai et al (2011). However, there is a consistency issue that needs to be pointed out.…”

“…Analyzing the frequent errors in both questions, we found that the most frequent error for was to believe or assume that the speed of sound waves depends on their frequency. This tendency was pointed out by Tongchai et al (2011), who studied the consistency of students' answers within this subtopic. Upon carrying out a cross analysis of these questions, we found that 31% of the students chose answers that were based on this incorrect assumption (selecting option B for both).…”

“…(1) Propagation (Linder & Erickson, 1989;Linder, 1992;1993;Maurines, 1992;Wittman, 1998;2002;Wittmann, Steinberg & Redish, 1999;Hrepic, Zollman & Rebello, 2010;Tongchai et al, 2011;Kennedy & De Bruyn, 2011;Pejuan, Bohigas, Jaén & Periago, 2012;Kryjevskaia, Stetzer, & Heron, 2012) (2) Superposition (Wittman, 1998;2002;Wittmann, Steinberg, & Redish, 1999;Grayson, 1996;Sengören, Tanel & Kavcar, 2006;Kennedy & De Bruyn, 2011;Kryjevskaia, Stetzer & Heron, 2011) (3) Reflection (Kryjevskaia et al, 2011) (4) Standing waves (Zeng, Smith, Poelzer, Rodriguez, Corpuz, & Yanev, 2014) Note that some studies have proposed new instructional materials or curricular modifications (Wittman, 1998;Wittmann et al, 2003;Kennedy & De Bruyn, 2011;Kryjevskaia et al, 2011;Zeng et al, 2014;Bhathal, Sharma & Mendez, 2010). …”

“…This review included the article in which the test was initially introduced and the research articles that cited the original paper. From these studies, only one -a second article by the authors that designed the test (Tongchai, Sharma, Johnston, Arayathanitkul & Soankwan, 2011) -analyzes test results obtained by the MWCS. In this article, the authors analyze the same data presented in the original article; however, they focus on the consistency of students' conceptions of items under the main topic propagation, which is the first of the four main topics on the test.…”

Mechanical waves conceptual survey: Its modification and conversion to a standard multiple-choice test

“…(1) Propagation [2,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] (2) Superposition [2,10,11,19,[22][23][24] (3) Reflection [24] (4) Standing waves [25] In the article in which they introduce the MWCS, Tongchai et al [1] concentrated mainly on the development of the test and its evaluation, focusing on validity and reliability. The test was administered to 632 Australian students, ranging from high school to second-year university students, and 270 Thai high school students.…”