Click-On-Diagram Questions: a New Tool to Study Conceptions Using Classroom Response Systems
Geoscience instructors depend upon photos, diagrams, and other visualizations to depict geologic structures and processes that occur over a wide range of temporal and spatial scales. This proof-of-concept study tests click-on-diagram (COD) questions, administered using a classroom response system (CRS), as a research tool for identifying spatial misconceptions. First, we propose a categorization of spatial conceptions associated with geoscience concepts. Second, we implemented the COD questions in an undergraduate introductory geology course. Each question was implemented three times: pre-instruction, post-instruction, and at the end of the course to evaluate the stability of students’ conceptual understanding. We classified each instance as (1) a false belief that was easily remediated, (2) a flawed mental model that was not fully transformed, or (3) a robust misconception that persisted despite targeted instruction. Geographic Information System (GIS) software facilitated spatial analysis of students’ answers. The COD data confirmed known misconceptions about Earth’s structure, geologic time, and base level and revealed a novel robust misconception about hot spot formation. Questions with complex spatial attributes were less likely to change following instruction and more likely to be classified as a robust misconception. COD questions provided efficient access to students’ conceptual understanding. CRS-administered COD questions present an opportunity to gather spatial conceptions with large groups of students, immediately, building the knowledge base about students’ misconceptions and providing feedback to guide instruction.
KeywordsClickers Diagrams Conceptions Mental models Spatial thinking Geology
The authors appreciate assistance from Kerri Gefeke and Sheldon Turner for assisting with the ArcGIS analysis protocol, Mark Howland for re-drafting the graphics used for the CRS questions, Allison Jaeger for input on the COD questions, Mia Velazquez for generating the figures, and Doug Lombardi for thoughtful suggestions on this manuscript.
This study was funded in part by the National Science Foundation (Grant 1640800). Preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by NIU’s PI Academy and National Science Foundation grant 1640800 to TFS & NDL.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Brewer, W. F. (2008). Naïve theories of observational astronomy: review, analysis, and theoretical implications. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 155–204). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Catuneanu, O. (2006). Principles of sequence stratigraphy. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Creativity: shifting across ontological categories flexibly. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: an investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 209–234). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10227-009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In S. Vosniadou (Eds.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61–82). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd). New York: Routledge Academic.Google Scholar
- Gentner, D. (1989). Analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (p. 199). Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
- Gurel, D. K., Eryılmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (2015). A review and comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify students’ misconceptions in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(5), 989–1008.Google Scholar
- Karlstrom, K., Semken, S., Crossey, L., Perry, D., Gyllenhaal, E. D., Dodick, J., Williams, M., Hellmich-Bryan, J., Crow, R., Watts, N. B., & Ault, C. (2008). Informal geoscience education on a grand scale: the trail of time exhibition at Grand Canyon. Journal of Geoscience Education, 56(4), 354–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- King, C. (2008). The earth science misconceptions of some science writers: how wrong can they be. Teaching Earth Sciences, 33(2), 9–11.Google Scholar
- LaDue, N. D. (2018). Scaffolding temporal reasoning with geologic timelines. Retrieved from: https://serc.carleton.edu/181886. Accessed 2 Apr 2018.
- Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
- Marshak, S. (2016). Essentials of geology (5th ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc..Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. S. R. Singer, N. R. Nielsen, & H. A. Schweingruber (Eds.), Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- New York State Education Department [NYSED]. (2018). Science Regents Exams: Physical Setting/Earth Science. Retrieved from: http://www.nysedregents.org/EarthScience/.
- Newcombe, N. S., & Shipley, T. F. (2015). Thinking about spatial thinking: new typology, new assessments. In Studying visual and spatial reasoning for design creativity (pp. 179–192). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Richardson, R. (2005). Teaching time in large enrollment intro classes: an active approach. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 37(7), 153.Google Scholar
- United States Geological Survey [USGS]. (2017). Geology and the National Parks. Retrieved from: https://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/pltec/.
- Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In S. Voisniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3–34). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar