- 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

Inventory for the assessment of representational competence of vector fields

Stefan Küchemann1,*, Sarah Malone2, Peter Edelsbrunner3, Andreas Lichtenberger4, Elsbeth Stern3, Ralph Schumacher5, Roland Brünken2, Andreas Vaterlaus4, and Jochen Kuhn1

  • 1Department of Physics, TU Kaiserslautern, Erwin-Schrödinger Str. 46, 67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
  • 2Department of Education, Saarland University, Campus A 4.2., 66121 Saarbrücken, Germany
  • 3Department of Humanities, ETH Zürich, Clausiusstrasse 59, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
  • 4Department of Physics, ETH Zürich, John-von-Neumann-Weg 9, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland
  • 5MINT-Learning Center, ETH Zürich, Clausiusstrasse 59, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland

  • *s.kuechemann@physik.uni-kl.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020126 – Published 1 October, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.020126

Abstract

Representational competence is essential for the acquisition of conceptual understanding in physics. It enables the interpretation of diagrams, graphs, and mathematical equations, and relating these to one another as well as to observations and experimental outcomes. In this study, we present the initial validation of a newly developed cross-contextual assessment of students’ competence in representing vector-field plots and field lines, the most common visualization of the concept of vector fields. The Representational Competence of Fields Inventory (RCFI) consists of ten single choice items and two items that each contain three true or false questions. The tool can be easily implemented within an online assessment. It assesses the understanding of the conventions of interpreting field lines and vector-field plots, as well as the translation between these. The intended use of the tool is both to scale students’ representational competences in respect to representations of vector fields and to reveal related misconceptions (areas of difficulty). The tool was administered at three German-speaking universities in Switzerland and Germany to a total of 515 first- and third-semester students from science, technology, engineering, and mathematics subjects. In these first steps of the validation of the RCFI, we evaluated its psychometric quality via classical test theory in combination with Rasch scaling and examined its construct validity by conducting student interviews. The RCFI exhibits a good internal consistency of ω=0.86, and the results of the Rasch analysis revealed that the items discriminate well among students from lower to medium-high competence levels. The RCFI revealed several misunderstandings and shortcomings, such as the confusion of the conventions for representing field lines and vector-field plots. Moreover, it showed that many students believed that field lines must not exhibit a curvature, that the lengths of field lines matter, and that field lines may have sharp corners. In its current version, the RCFI allows assessing students’ competence to interpret field representations, a necessary prerequisite for learning the widespread concept of vector fields. We report on planned future adaptations of the tool, such as optimizing some of the current distractors.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (69)

  1. E. Ekici, “Why Do I Slog through the Physics?”, Understanding high school students’ difficulties in learning physics, J. Educ. Pract. 7, 95 (2016).
  2. S. Ainsworth, DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations, Learning Instr. 16, 183 (2006).
  3. E. Campos, G. Zavala, K. Zuza, and J. Guisasola, Students’ understanding of the concept of the electric field through conversions of multiple representations, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010135 (2020).
  4. L. Bollen, P. van Kampen, C. Baily, M. Kelly, and M. De Cock, Student difficulties regarding symbolic and graphical representations of vector fields, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020109 (2017).
  5. G. Brod, Generative Learning: Which Strategies for what Age?, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 1 (2020).
  6. A. A. diSessa, Metarepresentation: Native Competence and Targets for Instruction, Cognit. Instr. 22, 293 (2004).
  7. R. Even, Factors involved in linking representations of functions, J. Math. Behav. 17, 105 (1998).
  8. J. K. Gilbert and D. Treagust, Towards a coherent model for macro, submicro and symbolic representations in chemical education, in Multiple Representations in Chemical Education, edited by J. K. Gilbert and D. Treagust (Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2009), pp. 333–350.
  9. A. Van Heuvelen, Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies, Am. J. Phys. 59, 891 (1991).
  10. A. Van Heuvelen and X. Zou, Multiple representations of work-energy processes, Am. J. Phys. 69, 184 (2001).
  11. M. A. Rau, V. Aleven, and N. Rummel, Intelligent tutoring systems with multiple representations and self-explanation prompts support learning of fractions, in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, edited by V. Dimitrova, R. Mizoguchi, and B. Du Boulay (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2009), pp. 441–448.
  12. D. Rosengrant, E. Etkina, and A. Van Heuvelen, An overview of recent research on multiple representations, AIP Conf. Proc. 883, 149 (2007).
  13. C. Y. Tsui and D. F. Treagust, Introduction to multiple representations: Their importance in biology and biological education, in Multiple Representations in Biological Education. Models and Modeling in Science Education, edited by D. F. Treagust and C. Y. Tsui (Springer, Dordrecht, 2013), Vol. 7.
  14. Constructing Representations to Learn in Science, edited by R. Tytler, V. Prain, P. Hubber, and B. Waldrip (SensePublishers, Rotterdam, 2013).
  15. P. Klein, J. Viiri, S. Mozaffari, A. Dengel, and J. Kuhn, Instruction-based clinical eye-tracking study on the visual interpretation of divergence: How do students look at vector field plots?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010116 (2018).
  16. M. Reisslein, R. Moreno, and G. Ozogul, Pre-college electrical engineering instruction: The impact of abstract vs. contextualized representation and practice on learning, J. Eng. Educ. 99, 225 (2010).
  17. W. Schnotz, Integrated model of text and picture comprehension, in The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 2nd ed., edited by R. E. Mayer (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2014), pp. 72–103.
  18. T. Fredlund, C. Linder, J. Airey, and A. Linder, Unpacking physics representations: Towards an appreciation of disciplinary affordance, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020129 (2014).
  19. S. Ainsworth, The functions of multiple representations, Comput. Educ. 33, 131 (1999).
  20. R. B. Kozma, J. Russell, T. Jones, N. Marx, and J. Davis, The use of multiple, linked representations to facilitate science understanding, in International Perspectives on the Design of Technology-Supported Learning Environments, edited by S. Vosniadou, E. De Corte, R. Glaser, & H. Mandl (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, 1996), pp. 41–60.
  21. R. E. Mayer, The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2014).
  22. C. Linder, Disciplinary discourse, representation, and appresentation in the teaching and learning of science, Eur. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 1, 43 (2013).
  23. S. E. Ainsworth, P. A. Bibby, and D. J. Wood, Examining the effects of different multiple representational systems in learning primary mathematics, J. Learn. Sci. 11, 25 (2002).
  24. W.-M. Roth, G. M. Bowen, and M. K. McGinn, Differences in graph-related practices between high school biology textbooks and scientific ecology journals, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 36, 977 (1999).
  25. M. P. Cook, Visual representations in science education: The influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles, Sci. Educ. 90, 1073 (2006).
  26. P. Hubber, R. Tytler, and F. Haslam, Teaching and learning about force with a representational focus: Pedagogy and teacher change, Res. Sci. Educ. 40, 5 (2010).
  27. P. Kohl, D. Rosengrant, and N. Finkelstein, Comparing explicit and implicit teaching of multiple representation use in physics problem solving, AIP Conf. Proc. 883, 145 (2007).
  28. J. Clement, The concept of variation and misconceptions in Cartesian graphing, Focus on Learning Problems Math. 11, 77 (1989).
  29. P. Nieminen, A. Savinainen, and J. Viiri, Relations between representational consistency, conceptual understanding of the force concept, and scientific reasoning. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010123 (2012).
  30. A. A. diSessa and B. L. Sherin, Meta-representation: An introduction, J. Math. Behav. 19, 385 (2000).
  31. R. B. Kozma and J. Russell, Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 34, 949 (1997).
  32. P. Klein, A. Müller, and J. Kuhn, Assessment of representational competence in kinematics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010132 (2017).
  33. K. L. Daniel, C. J. Bucklin, E. Austin Leone, and J. Idema, Towards a definition of representational competence, in Towards a Framework for Representational Competence in Science Education. Models and Modeling in Science Education, edited by K. Daniel (Springer, Cham, 2018), Vol. 11.
  34. M. E. Lira and M. Stieff, Using gesture analysis to assess students’ developing representational competence, in Towards a Framework for Representational Competence in Science Education. Models and Modeling in Science Education, edited by K. Daniel (Springer, Cham, 2018), Vol. 11.
  35. J. Scheid, A. Müller, R. Hettmannsperger, and W. Schnotz, Improving learners’ representational coherence ability with experiment-related representational activity tasks, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010142 (2019).
  36. R. B. Kozma and J. Russel, Students becoming chemists: developing representational competence, in Visualization in Science Education, edited by J. Gilbert (Kluwer, London, 2005).
  37. M. Niss, M. Prescriptive modelling—challenges and opportunities, in Mathematical Modelling in Education Research and Practice: Cultural, Social and Cognitive Influences, edited by G. A. Stillman, W. Blum, and M. Biembengut (Springer, Cham, 2015), pp. 67–79.
  38. R. Tytler, V. Prain, and S. Peterson, Representational issues in students learning about evaporation, Res. Sci. Educ. 37, 313 (2007).
  39. M. A. Rau, Conditions for the effectiveness of multiple visual representations in enhancing STEM learning, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 29, 717 (2017).
  40. M. A. Rau, Cognitive and socio-cultural theories on competencies and practices involved in learning with multiple external representations, in Handbook of Learning from Multiple Representations and Perspectives, edited by P. Van Meter, A. List, D. Lombardi, and P. Kendeou (Routledge, New York, 2020).
  41. D. E. Meltzer, Relation between students’ problem-solving performance and representational format, Am. J. Phys. 73, 463 (2005).
  42. A. Northedge, Organizing excursions Into specialist discourse communities: A sociocultural account of university teaching, in Learning for Life in the 21st Century, edited by G. Wells and G. Claxton (Wiley, New York, 2002).
  43. O. Parnafes, What Does “Fast” Mean? Understanding the Physical World Through Computational Representations, J. Learn. Sci. 16, 415 (2007).
  44. R. J. Beichner, Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs, Am. J. Phys. 62, 750 (1994).
  45. P. Nieminen, A. Savinainen, and J. Viiri, Force Concept Inventory-based multiple-choice test for investigating students’ representational consistency, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020109 (2010).
  46. J. Scheid, A. Müller, R. Hettmannsperger, and J. Kuhn, Erhebung von repräsentationaler Kohärenzfähigkeit von Schülerinnen und Schülern im Themenbereich Strahlenoptik, Z. Didaktik der Natur. 23, 181 (2017).
  47. E. R. Fyfe, N. M. McNeil, J. Y. Son, and R. L. Goldstone, Concreteness fading in mathematics and science instruction: A systematic review, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 26, 9 (2014).
  48. A. Donhauser, S. Küchemann, J. Kuhn, M. Rau, S. Malone, P. Edelsbrunner, and A. Lichtenberger, Making the invisible visible: Visualization of the connection between magnetic field, electric current, and Lorentz force with the help of augmented reality, Phys. Teach. 58, 438 (2020).
  49. J. Lincoln, Electric field patterns made visible with potassium permanganate, Phys. Teach. 55, 74 (2017).
  50. A. I. Benimoff, The electric fields experiment: A new way using conductive tape, Phys. Teach. 44, 140 (2006).
  51. S. P. Thompson, A study in magnetism, Nature (London) 19, 79 (1878).
  52. D.-H. Nguyen and S. Rebello, Students’ difficulties in transfer of problem solving across representations, AIP Conf. Proc. 1179, 221 (2009).
  53. D.-H. Nguyen, E. Gire, and S. Rebello, Facilitating students’ problem solving across multiple representations in introductory mechanics, AIP Conf. Proc. 1289, 45 (2010).
  54. S. Van den Eynde, P. van Kampen, W. Van Dooren, and M. De Cock, Translating between graphs and equations: The influence of context, direction of translation, and function type, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020113 (2019).
  55. E. Gire and E. Price, Arrows as anchors: An analysis of the material features of electric field vector arrows, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020112 (2014).
  56. S. Törnkvist, K.-A. Pettersson, and G. Tranströmer, Confusion by representation: On student’s comprehension of the electric field concept, Am. J. Phys. 61, 335 (1993).
  57. D. A. Frisbie and D. C. Sweeney, The relative merits of multiple true-false tests, J. Educ. Measure. 19, 29 (1982).
  58. A. Mobalegh and H. Barati, Multiple True-false (MTF) and multiple-choice (MC) test formats, J. Lang. Teach. Res. 3, 1027 (2012).
  59. B. A. Couch, J. K. Hubbard, and C. E. Brassil, Multiple-true-false questions reveal the limits of the multiple-choice format for detecting students with incomplete understandings, Bio Science 68, 455 (2018).
  60. J. K. Hubbard, M. A. Potts, and B. A. Couch, How question types reveal student thinking: An experimental comparison of multiple-true-false and free-response formats, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 16, ar26 (2017).
  61. https://www.unipark.com/
  62. S. Malone, S. Küchemann, P. A. Edelsbrunner, A. Lichtenberger, K. Altmeyer, R. Schumacher, and R. Brünken, CESAR 0 data. Retrieved from osf.io/p476u (May 5, 2021).
  63. T. Bond, Z. Yan, and M. Heene, Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences (Routledge, New York, 2020).
  64. R. L. Doran, Basic Measurement and Evaluation of Science Instruction (National Science Teachers Association, Washington, DC, 1980).
  65. L. Ding and R. Beichner, Approaches to data analysis of multiple-choice questions, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020103 (2009).
  66. T. J. Dunn, T. Baguley, and V. Brunsden, From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation, Brit. J. Psychol. 105, 399 (2014).
  67. A. Robitzsch, T. Kiefer, and M. Wu, Package TAM: Test Analysis Modules (2020).
  68. B. Wright, Reasonable mean-square fit values, Rasch Meas Trans. 8, 370 (1994).
  69. L. J. Cronbach and P. E. Meehl, Construct validity in psychological tests, Psychol. Bull. 52, 281 (1955).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020126– Published 1 October, 2021
  • Received 11 February 2021
  • Accepted 24 August 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