Advertisement

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

  • Claudio FazioEmail author
  • Onofrio Rosario Battaglia
  • Benedetto Di Paola
  • Dominique Persano Adorno
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Physics book series (SPPHY, volume 190)

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. Borg, I., & Groenen, P. (1997). Modern multidimensional scaling. New York: Springer.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ding, L., & Beichner, R. (2009). Approaches to data analysis of multiple-choice questions. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 5, 020103.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. (2011). Cluster Analysis. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Gower, J. C. (1966). Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika Trust, 53(3/4).Google Scholar
  11. Green, E. (2001). Can qualitative research produce reliable quantitative findings? Field Methods, 13, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Mantegna, R. N. (1999). Hierchical structure in financial markets. European Physical Journal B, 11.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Sokal, R. R., & Sneath, P. H. A. (1963). Principles of numerical taxonomy. London: W. H. Freeman & Co‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers’ knowledge of models and modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 11.Google Scholar
  26. 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

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudio Fazio
    • 1
    Email author
  • Onofrio Rosario Battaglia
    • 1
  • Benedetto Di Paola
    • 2
  • Dominique Persano Adorno
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Physics and ChemistryUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and InformaticsUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations