Development of learning path map of work and energy for high schoolers by using cognitive diagnostic assessment
More details
Hide details
Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, THAILAND
Online publication date: 2023-10-19
Publication date: 2023-11-01
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2023;19(11):em2360
The conception of work and energy is fundamental to learning physics and is essential to learning other subjects. However, most students still lack knowledge and understanding of work and energy. This may be due to previous research that aimed to develop students using similar teaching methods without considering the individual knowledge state of each student. We, thus, sought to develop the mastery test on work and energy and the learning path map of work and energy using cognitive diagnostic assessment. Participants were 537 tenth graders in Bangkok, Thailand, which were chosen by the multistage random sampling. The mastery test on work and energy developed is divided into six attributes, i.e., (1) work, (2) power, (3) kinetic energy, (4) gravitational potential energy, (5) elastic potential energy, and (6) law of conservation of energy. The test exhibited good psychometric properties, which were evaluated based on item parameters, content validity, construct validity, concurrent validity, classification consistency index, and classification accuracy index. The significant finding was the development of the learning path map of work and energy. The map illustrates students’ learning progression in different attribute profiles regarding work and energy. It proves to be highly beneficial for teachers in designing personalized learning methods for individual students. Additionally, it allows for tracking the learning progress of students until they have a comprehensive understanding of work and energy in all its attributes.
Afif, N. F., Nugraha, M. G., & Samsudin, A. (2017). Developing energy and momentum conceptual survey (EMCS) with four-tier diagnostic test items. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1848, 050010.
Akbay, L., & de la Torre, J. (2020). Estimation approaches in cognitive diagnosis modeling when attributes are hierarchically structured. Psicothema [Psychothema], 32(1), 122-129.
Astra, I. M., & Khumaeroh, S. I. (2019). The effect of flipped classroom model on student’s physics learning outcome in work and energy concept. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1318, 012070.
Bai, S. (2020). Developing a learning progression for probability based on the GDINA model in China. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 569852.
Bujang, M. A., & Baharum, N. (2017). Guidelines of the minimum sample size requirements for kappa agreement test. Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Public Health, 14(2), e12267.
Cai, Y., Tu, D., & Ding, S. (2018). Theorems and methods of a complete Q matrix with attribute hierarchies under restricted Q-matrix design. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1413.
Chen, F., Yan, Y., & Xin, T. (2017). Developing a learning progression for number sense based on the rule space model in China. Educational Psychology, 37(2), 128-144.
Chen, J. (2017). A residual-based approach to validate Q-matrix specifications. Applied Psychological Measurement, 41(4), 277-293.
de la Torre, J. (2009). DINA model and parameter estimation: A didactic. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 34(1), 115-130.
de la Torre, J. (2011). The generalized DINA model framework. Psychometrika, 76(2), 179-199.
de la Torre, J., & Minchen, N. D. (2019). The G-DINA model framework. In M. von Davier & Y. Lee (Eds.), Handbook of diagnostic classification models: Models and model extensions, applications, software packages (pp. 155-169). Springer.
Elisa, N., Kusairi, S., Sulur, S., & Suryadi, A. (2019). The effect of assessment for learning integration in scientific approach towards students’ conceptual understanding on work and energy. Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 3(2), 103-110.
Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378-382.
Hewitt, P. G. (2015). Conceptual physics. Pearson Education Limited.
Hu, J., Miller, M. D., Huggins-Manley, A. C., & Chen, Y. H. (2016). Evaluation of model fit in cognitive diagnosis models. International Journal of Testing, 16(2), 119-141.
Huang, R., Liu, Z., Zi, D., Huang, Q., & Pan, S. (2022). A multi-level remedial teaching design based on cognitive diagnostic assessment: Taking the electromagnetic induction as an example. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 851378.
Javidanmehr, Z., & Sarab, M. R. A. (2017). Cognitive diagnostic assessment: Issues and considerations. International Journal of Language Testing, 7(2), 73-98.
Kassiavera, S., Suparmi, A., Cari, C., & Sukarmin, S. (2019). Student’s understanding profile about work-energy concept based on multi-representation skills. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2202, 020060.
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford.
Liu, R., Huggins-Manley, A. C., & Bulut, O. (2018). Retrofitting diagnostic classification models to responses from IRT-based assessment forms. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 78(3), 357-383.
Mustofa, Z., Sutopo, S., Mufti, N., & Asmichatin, A. (2019). The impact of modeling instruction based on system toward work-energy concept understanding. Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pendidikan Fisika [Journal of Physics Education Research and Development], 5(2), 145-154.
National Science Teaching Association. (2017). Topic arrangements of the next generation science standards. Next Generation Science Standards.
Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. National Academies Press.
Pramesti, Y. S., Mahmudi, H., & Setyowidodo, I. (2020). Analyzing students’ understanding of work-energy concept. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1521, 022016.
Putranta, H., & Wilujeng, I. (2019). Physics learning by PhET simulation-assisted using problem based learning (PBL) model to improve students’ critical thinking skills in work and energy chapters in MAN 3 Sleman. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 20(1), 3.
Ravand, H., & Baghaei, P. (2020). Diagnostic classification models: Recent developments, practical issues, and prospects. International Journal of Testing, 20(1), 24-56.
Rivaldo, L., Taqwa, M. R. A., Zainuddin, A., & Faizah, R. (2020). Analysis of students’ difficulties about work and energy. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1567, 032088.
Rodrigues, I. B., Adachi, J. D., Beattie, K. A., Lau, A., & MacDermid, J. C. (2019). Determining known-group validity and test-retest reliability in the PEQ (personalized exercise questionnaire). BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 20, 373.
Rupp, A. A., & Templin, J. (2008). The effects of Q-matrix misspecification on parameter estimates and classification accuracy in the DINA model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(1), 78-96.
Rupp, A. A., Templin, J., & Henson, R. A. (2010). Diagnostic assessment: Theory, methods, and applications. Guilford.
Saglam-Arslan, A., & Kurnaz, M. A. (2011). Students’ conceptual understanding of energy: Do the learning difficulties in energy concept discovered in the 1990s persist still? Energy Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies, 3(1), 109-118.
Serway, R. A., & Vuille, C. (2018). College physics. Cengage Learning.
Takaoglu, Z. B. (2018). Energy concept understanding of high school students: A cross-grade study. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(4), 653-660.
Templin, J. L., & Henson, R. A. (2006). Measurement of psychological disorders using cognitive diagnosis models. Psychological Methods, 11(3), 287-305.
The Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology. (2020). Additional science and technology textbook, physics. BOWT Printing House.
Trenor, J. M., Miller, M. K., & Gipson, K. G. (2011). Utilization of a think-aloud protocol to cognitively validate a survey instrument identifying social capital resources of engineering undergraduates [Paper presentation]. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition.
Tu, D., Wang, S., Cai, Y., Douglas, J., & Chang, H. H. (2019). Cognitive diagnostic models with attribute hierarchies: Model estimation with a restricted Q matrix design. Applied Psychological Measurement, 43(4), 255-271.
Wancham, K., & Tangdhanakanond, K. (2022). Effects of feedback types and opportunities to change answers on achievement and ability to solve physics problems. Research in Science Education, 52(2), 427-444.
Wancham, K., Tangdhanakanond, K., & Kanjanawasee, S. (2022). The construction and validation of the cognitive model of force and motion for a diagnosis of misconceptions. Journal of Education Naresuan University, 24(3), 60-70.
Wancham, K., Tangdhanakanond, K., & Kanjanawasee, S. (2023). Sex and grade issues in influencing misconceptions about force and laws of motion: An application of cognitively diagnostic assessment. International Journal of Instruction, 16(2), 437-456.
Weston, R., & Gore Jr, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719-751.
Wu, X., Wu, R., Chang, H. H., Kong, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2020). International comparative study on PISA mathematics achievement test based on cognitive diagnostic models. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2230.
Wu, X., Xu, T., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Research on the data analysis knowledge assessment of pre-service teachers from China based on cognitive diagnostic assessment. Current Psychology, 42, 4885-4899.
Wu, X., Zhang, Y., Wu, R., Tang, X., & Xu, T. (2022). Cognitive model construction and assessment of data analysis ability based on CDA. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1009142.