Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysing the Conceptions on Modelling of Engineering Undergraduate Students: A Case Study Using Cluster Analysis

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Key Competences in Physics Teaching and Learning

Part of the book series: Springer Proceedings in Physics ((SPPHY,volume 190))

  • 1063 Accesses

Abstract

The problem of taking a set of data and separating it into subgroups where the elements of each subgroup are more similar to each other than they are to elements not in the subgroup has been extensively studied through the statistical method of Cluster Analysis . This method can be conveniently used to separate students into groups that can be recognized and characterized by common traits in their answers, without any prior knowledge of what form those groups would take (unsupervised classification). In the last years many studies examined the consistency of students’ answers in a variety of situations. Some of these papers have tried to develop more detailed models of the consistency of students’ reasoning, or to subdivide a sample of students into intellectually similar subgroups by using Cluster Analysis techniques. In this paper we start from a description of the data coding needed in Cluster Analysis, in order to discuss the meanings and the limits of the interpretation of quantitative results. Then a method commonly used in Cluster Analysis is described and the variables and parameters involved are outlined and criticized. Section 3 deals with the application of this method to the analysis of data from an open-ended questionnaire administered to a sample of university students, and discusses the quantitative results. Finally, some considerations about the relevance of this method in Physics Education Research are drawn.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, students that defined models as simple phenomena or experiments or reproductions of an object on a small scale have been put on the same category since the three definitions have been intended as giving a ontological reality to models.

References

  • Bao, L., & Redish, E. F. (2006). Model analysis: Representing and assessing the dynamics of student learning. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 2, 010103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg, I., & Groenen, P. (1997). Modern multidimensional scaling. New York: Springer.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding, L., & Beichner, R. (2009). Approaches to data analysis of multiple-choice questions. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5, 020103.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. (2011). Cluster Analysis. Chichester: Wiley.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, C., Battaglia, O. R., & Di Paola, B. (2013). Investigating the quality of mental models deployed by undergraduate engineering students in creating explanations: The case of thermally activated phenomena. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 9, 020101.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, C., Di Paola, B., & Guastella, I. (2012). Prospective elementary teachers’ perceptions of the processes of modelling: A case study. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8, 010110.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, C., & Spagnolo, F. (2008). Conceptions on modelling processes in Italian high school prospective mathematics and physics teachers. South African Journal of Education, 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • GhasemiGol, M., Yazdi, H. S., & Monsefi, R. (2010). A new Hierarchical Clustering Algorithm on Fuzzy Data (FHCA). International Journal of Computer and Electrical Engineering, 2, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gower, J. C. (1966). Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika Trust, 53(3/4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, E. (2001). Can qualitative research produce reliable quantitative findings? Field Methods, 13, 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, D., & Berland, L. K. (2014). Confusing claims for data: A critique of common practices for presenting qualitative research on learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learner’s conceptions of nature of science. Journal of research in science teaching, 39, 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacQueen, J. (1967). Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In: L. M. LeCam & J. Neyman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Berkely Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, 1965/66 (vol. I, pp. 281–297). Berkely: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mantegna, R. N. (1999). Hierchical structure in financial markets. European Physical Journal B, 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pluta, W. J., Clark, A., Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2011). Learners’ epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouseeuw, P. J. (1987). Silhouttes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal, R. R., & Sneath, P. H. A. (1963). Principles of numerical taxonomy. London: W. H. Freeman & Co‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬.

    Google Scholar 

  • Springuel, R. P., Wittmann, M. C., & Thompson, J. R. (2007). Applying clustering to statistical analysis of student reasoning about two-dimensional kinematics. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J., Miller, M., Audo, C., & Stewart, G. (2012). Using cluster analysis to identify patterns in students’ responses to contextually different conceptual problems. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tryon, R. C. (1939). Cluster analysis: Correlation profile and orthometric (factor) analysis for the isolation of unities in mind and personality. Ann Arbor: Edwards Brothers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tumminello, M., Micciché, S., Dominguez, L. J., Lamura, G., Melchiorre, M. G., Barbagallo, M., et al. (2011). Happy aged people are all alike, while every unhappy aged person is unhappy in its own. PLoS ONE, 6, 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers’ knowledge of models and modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittmann, M. C., & Scherr, R. E. (2002). Student epistemological mode constraining researcher access to student thinking: An example from an interview on charge flow. In K. C. Cummings, J. Marx & S. Franklin (Eds.), Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings (pp. 43–46. Boise: PERC Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics and Chemistry, University of Palermo, Viale delle Scienze, edificio 18, Palermo, Italy

    Claudio Fazio, Onofrio Rosario Battaglia & Dominique Persano Adorno

  2. Department of Mathematics and Informatics, University of Palermo, Via Archirafi, 34, Palermo, Italy

    Benedetto Di Paola

Authors
  1. Claudio Fazio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Onofrio Rosario Battaglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Benedetto Di Paola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dominique Persano Adorno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudio Fazio .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Experimental Physics, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland

    Tomasz Greczyło

  2. Institute of Experimental Physics, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland

    Ewa Dębowska

Appendix A: Questionnaire and Answering Strategies

Appendix A: Questionnaire and Answering Strategies

  • Q1. The term “model” is very common in scientific disciplines, but what actually is the meaning of “model” in physics?

    • (1A) A set of variables or rules or laws or experiments and observations that simplify reality and represent it in a reduced scale.

    • (1B) A simple phenomenon or the exemplification of a phenomenon through an experiment or a reduced scale reproduction of an object.

    • (1C) A mental representation aimed at describing a real object or a phenomenon, which takes into account the characteristics significant for the modeler.

    • (1D) A simplified representation describing a phenomenon aimed at the understanding of its mechanisms of functioning (or at explaining it or at making prediction).

    • (1E) No answer or not understandable answer.

  • Q2. Are the models creations of human thought or do they already exist in nature?

    • (2A) Models really exist and are simple, real life situations or simple experiments and humans try to understand them, sometimes only imperfectly.

    • (2B) Models are simple creations of human thought like mathematical formulas, or physics laws and/or they are what we call theories or scientific method.

    • (2C Models are creations of human thought and their creation comes from continuous interaction with the ‘‘real’’ external world and from its simplification.

    • (2D) Models are creations of human thought aimed at explaining natural phenomena and making predictions.

    • (2E) No answer or not understandable answer.

  • Q3. What are the main characteristics of a physical model?

    • (3A) It must contain all the rules or all the laws for a simplified description of reality and/or it must account for all the features of reality.

    • (3B) It must highlight the variables that are relevant for the description and/or explanation of the phenomenon analysed (or the object studied) and their relationships.

    • (3C) Their characteristics can classify models as descriptive or explicative or interpretative.

    • (3D) Their main characteristics are simplicity and/or uniqueness and/or comprehensibility.

    • (3E) No answer or not understandable answer.

  • Q4. Is it possible to build a model for each natural phenomenon?

    • (4A) Yes, every natural phenomenon can be simplified in order to be referred to a given model.

    • (4B) Yes, but the model can still contain errors or uncertainty connected with the possibility (or ability) of carefully reproducing the characteristics we are interested.

    • (4C) No. There are phenomena that cannot be described or explained with a model and/or that cannot be defined in terms of precise physical quantities.

    • (4D) No. There are phenomena that have not been still explained and these, perhaps, will be in the future.

    • (4E) No answer or answer not understandable.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Fazio, C., Battaglia, O.R., Di Paola, B., Persano Adorno, D. (2017). Analysing the Conceptions on Modelling of Engineering Undergraduate Students: A Case Study Using Cluster Analysis. In: Greczyło, T., Dębowska, E. (eds) Key Competences in Physics Teaching and Learning. Springer Proceedings in Physics, vol 190. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44887-9_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation