Advertisement

Development and Application of a Two-Tier Diagnostic Test for High School Students’ Understanding of Flowering Plant Growth and Development

  • Sheau-Wen Lin
Article

Abstract

This study involved the development and application of a two-tier diagnostic test measuring students’ understanding of flowering plant growth and development. The instrument development procedure had three general steps: defining the content boundaries of the test, collecting information on students’ misconceptions, and instrument development. Misconception data were collected from interviews and multiple-choice questions with open response answers. The data were used to develop 13 two-tier multiple-choice items. The conceptual knowledge examined was flowering plant life cycles, reproduction, precondition of germination, plant nutrition, and mechanism for growth and development. The diagnostic instrument was administered to 477 high school students. The correlation coefficient of test-retest was 0.75. Difficulty indices ranged from 0.24 to 0.82, and discrimination indices ranged from 0.32 to 0.65. Results of the Flowering Plant Growth and Development Diagnostic Test suggested that students did not acquire a satisfactory understanding of plant growth and development concepts. Nineteen misconceptions were identified through analysis of the items that could inform biology instruction and resource.

Keywords

plant growth and development students’ understanding two-tier test 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrams, E., Southerland, S.A. & Cummins, C.C. (2001). The how’s and why’s of biological change: How students overlook the cause of phenomena in their search for meaning. International Journal of Science Education, 23(12), 1271–1281. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Google Scholar
  3. Bartov, H. (1978). Can students be taught to distinguish between teleological and causal explanations? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15, 567–572. Google Scholar
  4. Bell, B. (1985). Students’ ideas about plant nutrition: What are they? Journal of Biological Education, 19, 213–218. Google Scholar
  5. Biddulph, F. (1984). Pupils’ ideas about flowering plants. Learning in Science Project (Primary). Working Paper No. 125, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 252 406. Google Scholar
  6. Cummins, C.L. & Remsen, J.V. Jr. (1992, May). Research suggestions for studying student conceptions of ultimate and proximate causation. In Proceedings of Evolution Education Research Conference. Baton Rouge, LA. Google Scholar
  7. Gilbert, J.K. (1977). The study of student misunderstandings in the physical sciences. Research in Science Education, 7, 165–171. Google Scholar
  8. Griffard, P.B. & Wandersee, J.H. (2001). The two-tier instrument on photosynthesis: What does it diagnose? International Journal of Science Education, 23(10), 1039–1052. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haslam, F. & Treagust, D.F. (1987). Diagnosing secondary students misconceptions of photosynthesis and respiration in plants using a two-tier multiple choice instrument. Journal of Biological Education, 21, 203–211. Google Scholar
  10. Jungwirth, E. (1975). The problem of teleology in biology as a problem of biology-teacher education. Journal of Biological Education, 9, 243–246. Google Scholar
  11. Jungwirth, E. (1988). The associative field as a diagnostic instrument in assessing the breadth of multi-contextual concepts: The concept ‘development’. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 571–579. Google Scholar
  12. Lin, S.-W. (2003, March). Students’ understanding of flowering plants growth and development: An interview study. Paper presented at the NARST annual International Conference, Philadelphia, PA. Google Scholar
  13. Lin, S.-W. & Sue, Y.F. (2003, August). How textbooks and instruction contribute to students’ understanding of flowering plants growth and development. Paper presented at the 2003 Dialogue between Mathematics and Science Education: Concept Learning, Kaoshiung, Taiwan. Google Scholar
  14. Moore, J.A. (1993). Science as a way of knowing: The foundations of modern biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  15. Odom, A.L. & Barrow, L.H. (1995). Development and application of a two-tier diagnostic test measuring college biology students’ understanding of diffusion and osmosis after a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 45–61. Google Scholar
  16. Peterson, R.F. & Treagust, D.F. (1989). Development and application of a diagnostic instrument to evaluate grade-11 and grade-12 students’ concepts of covalent bonding and structure following a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 301–314. Google Scholar
  17. Schaefer, G. (1979). Concept formation in biology: The concept growth. European Journal of Science Education, 1, 87–101. Google Scholar
  18. Shi, H. (Ed.). (2001). Life science. Taipei, Taiwan: Lungtung. Google Scholar
  19. Simpson, M. & Arnold, B. (1982). The inappropriate use of subsumers in biology learning. European Journal of Science Education, 4, 173–182. Google Scholar
  20. Simpson, W. & Marek, E.A. (1988). Understandings and misconceptions of biology concepts held by students attending small high schools and students attending large high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(5), 361–374. Google Scholar
  21. Southerland, S.A., Abrams, E., Cummins, C.C. & Anzelmo, J. (2001). Understanding students’ explanations of biological phenomena: Conceptual frameworks or P-prims? Science Education, 85(4), 328–348. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tamir, P. (1989). Some issues related to the use of justifications to multiple-choice answers. Journal of Biological Education, 23(4), 285–292. Google Scholar
  23. Tamir, P. & Zohar, A. (1991). Anthropomorphism and teleology in reasoning about biological phenomena. Science Education, 7, 57–67. Google Scholar
  24. Treagust, D.F. (1985, April). Diagnostic test to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. Paper presented at the 58th annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, French Lick Springs, IN. Google Scholar
  25. Treagust, D.F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 159–169. Google Scholar
  26. Treagust, D.F. (1995). Diagnostic assessment of students’ science knowledge. In Glynn & Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 327–346). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  27. Wandersee, J.H. (1983). Students’ misconceptions about photosynthesis: A cross age study. In Helm & Novak (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Seminar: Misconceptions in Science and Mathematics (pp. 441–446). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Google Scholar
  28. Wandersee, J.H., Fisher, K.M. & Moody, D.E. (2000). The nature of biology knowledge. In Fisher, Wandersee & Moody (Eds.), Mapping biology knowledge (pp. 25–37). Norwell, MA: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  29. Wandersee, J.H., Mintzes, J.J. & Novak, J.D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 177–210). New York: Macmillan. Google Scholar
  30. Wareing, P.F. & Phillips, I.D.J. (1981). Growth and differentiation in plants, 3rd edn. New York: Pergamon. Google Scholar
  31. Yang, C.C. (Ed.) (2001). Life science. Tainai, Taiwan: Nani. Google Scholar
  32. Yarroch, W.L. (1991). The implications of content versus validity on science tests. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(7), 619–629. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Institute of Mathematics and Science EducationNational Pingtung Teachers CollegePingtungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations