Abstract
This study examined assessment item difficulty patterns in two energy aspects, energy source/form/transfer and energy degradation/conservation, across and within science disciplines. The participant students were taking at least one college-level introductory science course. Findings showed a common pattern of item difficulties for the two energy aspects across science disciplines; energy degradation/conservation items were, in general, more difficult than energy source/form/transfer items. The effects of energy aspects on item difficulty were not found to be significantly different across disciplines. However, item difficulty levels for energy source/form/transfer items varied more than those of energy degradation/conservation items. Further analysis of item difficulties for energy aspects by science content topics within each discipline revealed different sequences of item difficulty between the two energy aspects across science content topics. Together, these findings showed more promising characteristics of energy degradation/conservation than the energy source/form/transfer aspect as a cross-disciplinary energy concept.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Project 2061. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php.
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 5–11.
Barman, C. R., Griffiths, A. K., & Okebukola, P. A. O. (1995). High school students’ concepts regarding food chains and food webs: a multinational study. International Journal of Education, 17(6), 775–782.
Becker, N. M., & Cooper, M. M. (2014). College chemistry students' understanding of potential energy in the context of atomic–molecular interactions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(6), 789–808.
Biggs, J. (1979). Individual difference in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8(4), 381–394.
Biggs, J., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York, NY: Academic.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Inc..
Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., & Yale, M. S. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. New York, NY: Springer.
Boyes, E., & Stainsstreet, M. (1991). Misconceptions in first-year undergraduate science students about energy sources for living organisms. Journal of Biological Education, 25(3), 209–213.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–41.
Case, R. (1992). The mind’s staircase: exploring the conceptual underpinnings of children’s thought and knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chabalengula, V., Sanders, M., & Mumba, F. (2011). Diagnosing students’ understanding of energy and its related concepts in biological context. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(2), 241–266.
Chen, R. F., Scheff, A., Fields, E., Pelletier, P., & Faux, R. (2014). Mapping energy in the Boston public schools curriculum. In R. F. Chen et al. (Eds.), Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education (pp. 135–152). New York, NY: Springer.
Chu, H.-E., Treagust, D. F., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2009). A stratified study of students’ understanding of basic optics concepts in different contexts using two-tier multiple-choice items. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27(3), 253–265.
Clough, E. E., & Driver, R. (1985). Secondary students’ conceptions of the conduction of heat: bringing together scientific and personal views. Physics Education, 20, 176–182.
Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4–15.
Cooper, M. M., & Klymkowsky, M. W. (2013). The trouble with chemical energy: Why understanding bond energies requires an interdisciplinary systems approach. CBE Life Science Education, 12(2), 306–312.
Cooper, M. M., Klymkowsky, M. W., & Becker, N. M. (2014). Energy in chemical systems: an integrated approach. In R. F. Chen et al. (Eds.), Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education (pp. 301–316). New York, NY: Springer.
Dawson, T. L. (2006). Stage-like patterns in the development of conceptions of energy. In X. Liu & W. Boone (Eds.), Applications of Rasch measurement in Science Education (pp. 111–136). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.
Ding, L., Chabay, R., & Sherwood, B. (2013). How do students in an innovative principle-based mechanics course understanding energy concepts? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(6), 722–747.
diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N., & Esterly, J. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28, 843–900.
Dorans, N. J., Moses, T., & Eignor, D. (2010). Principles and practices of test score equating. ETS Research Report No. RR- 10-29. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing.
Dreyfus, B. W., Redish, E. F., & Wakins, J. (2012). Student views of macroscopic and microscopic energy in phusics and biology. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1413, 179–182.
Dreyfus, B. W., Gouvea, J., Geller, B. D., Sawtelle, V., Turpen, C., & Redish, E. F. (2014). Chemical energy in an introductory physics course for the life sciences. American Journal of Physics, 82(5), 403–411.
Duit, R. (1981). Students’ notions about the energy concept - before and after physics instruction. In W. Jung, H. Pfundt, & C. von Rhoneck (Eds.), Proceedings of the international workshop on “problems concerning students’ representation of physics and chemistry knowledge” (pp. 268–319). Ludwigsburg: Paedagogische Hochschule.
Duit, R. (2012). Towards a learning progression of energy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Indianapolis, IN.
Duit, R. (2014). Teaching and learning the physics energy concept. In R. F. Chen et al. (Eds.), Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education (pp. 67–85). New York, NY: Springer.
Eisenkraft, A., Nordine, J., Chen, R. F., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Neumann, K., & Scheff, A. (2014). Introduction: Why focus on energy instruction? In R. F. Chen et al. (Eds.), Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education (pp. 1–11). New York, NY: Springer.
Fischer, G. H. (1973). The linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. Acta Psychologica, 37(6), 359–374.
Fischer, G. H. (1997). Unidimensional linear logistic Rasch models. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 225–243). New York, NY: Springer.
Fortus, D., Sutherland Adams, L. M., Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. (2015). Assessing the role of curriculum coherence in student learning about energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(10), 1408–1425.
Gilbert, J. K., & Pope, M. L. (1986). Small group discussions about conceptions in science: a case study. Research in Science and Technological Education, 4(1), 61–76.
Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as context: the role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5–11.
Haja, S., & Clarke, D. (2011). Middle school students’ responses to two-tier tasks. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23(1), 67–76.
Hambleton, R. K., & Jones, R. W. (1993). Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 12, 38–47.
Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Harrison, A. G., Grayson, D. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1999). Investigating a grade 11 student’s evolving conceptions of heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 55–87.
Hartig, J., Frey, A., Nold, G., & Klieme, E. (2012). An application of explanatory item response modeling for model-based proficiency scaling. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(4), 665–686.
Hartley, L. M., Wilke, B. J., Schramm, J. W., D’Avanzo, C., & Anderson, C. W. (2011). College students’ understanding of the carbon cycle: contrasting principle-based and informal reasoning. BioScience, 61(1), 65–75.
Herrmann-Abell, C. F., & DeBohr, G. E. (2013). Developing and using distracter-driven multiple-choice assessments aligned to ideas about energy forms, transformation, transfer, and conservation. Paper presented at the 2013 Energy Summit, East Lansing, MI.
Huck, S. W. (2012). Reading statistics and research (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Keller, L. (2007). Item response theory. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics (pp. 493–496). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
Kline, P. (1993). Handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routlegde.
Krajcik, J., Chen, R. F., Eisenkraft, A., Fortus, D., Neumann, K., Nordine, J., & Scheff, A. (2014). Conclusion and summary comments: teaching energy and associated research efforts. In R. F. Chen et al. (Eds.), Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education (pp. 357–363). New York, NY: Springer.
Lancor, R. A. (2014). Using student-generated analogies to investigate conceptions of energy: a multidisciplinary study. International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 1–23.
Lancor, R. (2015). An analysis of metaphors used by students to describe energy in an interdisciplinary general science course. International Journal of Science Education., 37(5–6), 876–902.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometric, 33(1), 159–174.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, H. S., & Liu, O. L. (2009). Assessing learning progression of energy concepts across middle school grades: The knowledge integration perspective. Science Education, 94(4), 665–688.
Lewis, E. L., & Linn, M. C. (1994). Heat energy and temperature concepts of adolescents, adults, and experts: implications for curricular improvements. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 657–677.
Lin, C.-Y., & Hu, R. (2003). Students' understanding of energy flow and matter cycling in the context of the food chain, photosynthesis, and respiration. International Journal of Science Education, 25(12), 1529–1544.
Linacre, J. M. (2014). A user’s guide to Winsteps® ministep Rasch-model computer program. Retrieved August, 1st, 2018 from http://www.winsteps.com/winman/index.htm.
Liu, X., & Collard, S. (2005). Using Rash model to validate stages of understanding the energy concept. Journal of Applied Measurement, 6(2), 224–241.
Liu, X., & McKeough, A. (2005). Development growth in student's concept of energy: Analysis of selected items from the TIMSS database. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 493–517.
Liu, X., & Park, M. (2012). Progression of students' understanding of the energy concept. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Indianapolis, IN.
Liu, X., & Park, M. (2014). Contextual dimensions of the energy concept and implications for energy teaching and learning. In R.F. Chen et al. (Eds.), Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education (pp 175–186). New York, NY: Springer.
Liu, O. L., Ryoo, K., Linn, M. C., Sato, E., & Vanessa Svihla, V. (2015). Measuring knowledge integration learning of energy topics: a two-year longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1044–1066. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1016470.
Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149–174.
McLellan, H. (1996). Situated learning: multiple perspectives. In H. McLellan (Ed.), Situated learning perspectives (pp. 5–17). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Committee for science education standards and assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2011). Item feature effects in evolution assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(3), 237–256.
Neumann, K., Viering, T., Boone, W. J., & Fischer, H. E. (2013). Towards a learning progression of energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 162–188.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Opitz, S. T., Neumann, K., Bernholt, S., & Harms, U. (2017). How do students understand energy in biology, chemistry, and physics? Development and validation of an assessment instrument. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(7), 3019–3042.
Ozdemir, G., & Clark, D. (2009). Knowledge structure coherence in Turkish students’ understanding of force. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(5), 570–596.
Park, M. & Liu, X. (2016). Assessing understanding of the energy concept in different science disciplines. Science Education, 100(3), 483–516.
Peterson, R. F., Treagust, D. F., & Garnet, P. (1989). Development and application of diagnostic instrument to evaluate grade-11 and -12 students’ concepts of covalent bonding and structure following a course of instruction. Journal of Reaserch in Science Teaching, 26(4), 301–314.
Rose, L. T., & Fischer, K. W. (2009). Dynamic development: a neo-Piagetian approach. In U. Muller, J. Carpendale, & L. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Piaget (pp. 400–421). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Singer, S. R. (2013). Advancing research on undergraduate science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(6), 768–772.
Singley, K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Solomon, J. (1983). Messy, contradictory, and obstinately persistent: a study of children’s out-of-school ideas about energy. School Science Review, 65(231), 225–229.
Steedle, J., & Shavelson, R. (2009). Supporting valid interpretations of learning progression level diagnoses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 699–715.
Taber, K. (1989). Energy-by many other names. School Science Review, 70(252), 57–62.
Teichert, M. A., & Stacy, A. M. (2002). Promoting understanding of chemical bonding and spontaneity through student explanation and integration of idea. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 464–496.
Trumper, R. (1998). A longitudinal study of physics students’ conceptions on energy in pre-service training for high school teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7(4), 311–318.
Watts, D. (1983). Some alternative views of energy. Physics Education, 18, 213–217.
Watts, D., & Gilbert, J. (1983). Enigmas in school science students’ conceptions for scientifically associated words. Research in Science and Technological Education, 1(2), 161–171.
Weston, M., Houdek, K. C., Prevost, L., Urban-Lurain, M., & Merrill, J. (2015). Examining the impact of question surface features on students’ answers to constructed-response questions on photosynthesis. CBE-Life Science Education, 14, 1–12.
Wilson, M., De Boeck, P., & Carstensen, C. (2008). Explanatory item response models: a brief introduction. In J. Hartig, E. Klieme, & D. Leutner (Eds.), Assessment of competencies in educational contexts: state of the art and future prospects (pp. 91–120). Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Park, M., Liu, X. An Investigation of Item Difficulties in Energy Aspects Across Biology, Chemistry, Environmental Science, and Physics. Res Sci Educ 51 (Suppl 1), 43–60 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9819-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9819-y