Archives
Current issue
About
About us
Aims and Scope
Abstracting and Indexing
Editorial Office
Open Access Policy
Publication Ethics
Journal History
Publisher
Follow us: Twitter
Contact
For Authors
Editorial Policy
Peer Review Policy
Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
Copyright & Licencing
Publication Fees
Fee Waiver Policy for Doctoral Students
EJMSTE Language Editing Service
More
Statistics
Special Issues
Special Issue Announcements
Published Special Issues
Developing a Four-level Learning Progression and Assessment for the Concept of Buoyancy
1
Department of Chemistry Education, Korea National University of Education, Cheongju, Korea
2
Division of Science Education, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Korea
Online publication date: 2017-08-04
Publication date: 2017-08-04
Corresponding author
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2017;13(8):4965-4986
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Despite its complexity in science, sinking and floating is a phenomenon about which students of almost all grades develop personal theories, using a variety of conceptual elements such as weight, volume, shape, and density, prior to classroom teaching. Here, we distribute students from elementary to high school according to the levels of their achievement on the learning progression regarding the buoyancy phenomenon. We suggest four levels of learning progression for buoyancy concept. We developed a 13-item, open-ended, and short essay type questionnaire to evaluate students’ learning progression of buoyancy concept based on two different contexts. We evaluated the validity and reliability of the new instrument for measuring buoyancy learning progression using a series of rigorous statistical tests. Participants of this study were students in grades 3–12 (N = 1,017). A series of analyses including internal consistency analysis (Cronbach alpha), confirmatory factor analysis using structural equation modeling, and Rasch analysis for item fit and person/item reliability revealed that the instrument met the quality benchmark. Furthermore, our findings revealed that students’ abilities in two different contexts were differentiated. Finally, we discuss the four levels of learning progression, concept assessment items developed, and some implications based on the findings.
REFERENCES (96)
1.
Alonzo, A. (2012). Eliciting Students’ Responses Relative to a Learning Progression. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning Progressions in Science (pp. 241-254). Rotterdam: Sense.
2.
Alonzo, A. C., & Steedle, J. T. (2009). Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression. Science Education, 93(3), 389-421.
3.
Baxter, G. P., & Glaser, R. (1998). Investigating the cognitive complexity of science assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(3), 37-45.
4.
Besson, U. (2004). Students' conceptions of fluids. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 1683-1714.
5.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
6.
Boone, W. J., Staver, J. R., & Yale, M. S. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
7.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
8.
Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges to creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
9.
Carey, S. (1991). Knowledge acquisition: Enrichment or conceptual change? In S. Carey and R. Gelman (Eds.), The epigenesis of mind: Essays on biology and cognition (pp. 257-291). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10.
Çepni, S., & Şahin, Ç. (2012). Effect of different teaching methods and techniques embedded in the 5E instructional model on students’ learning about buoyancy force. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 4(2), 97-127.
11.
Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive science, 5(2), 121-152.
12.
Chiu, M. H., & Wu, W. L. (2013). A novel approach for investigating students’ learning progression for the concept of phase transitions. Educación Química, 24(4), 373-380.
13.
Cho, B. K., & Lee, E. J. (2011). Understanding among 4 to 5 year-old children about ‘float or sink’ concept. Journal of Early Childhood Education, 31(5), 481-508.
14.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.
15.
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology, (pp. 15–22). New York: Springer-Verlag.
16.
Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
17.
Dougherty, M. J. (2009). Closing the gap: Inverting the genetics curriculum to ensure an informed public. American Journal of Human Genetics, 85, 1–7.
18.
Duncan, R. G., Rogat, A. D., & Yarden, A. (2009). A learning progression for deepening students’ understandings of modern genetics across the 5th-10th grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 655-674.
19.
Duschl R. A., Schweingruber H.A., & Shouse A. (Eds.), (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, D. C.: National Academies Press.
20.
Elmesky, R. (2013). Building capacity in understanding foundational biology concepts: AK-12 learning progression in genetics informed by research on children's thinking and learning. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1155–1175.
21.
Fulmer, G. W. (2014). Validating proposed learning progressions on force and motion using the force concept inventory: Findings from Singapore secondary schools. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1-20.
22.
Fulmer, G. W., Liang, L. L., & Liu, X. (2014). Applying a force and motion learning progression over an extended time span using the force concept inventory. International Journal of Science Education, 36(17), 2918-2936.
23.
Furtak, E. M., Morrison, D., & Kroog, H. (2014). Investigating the link between learning progressions and classroom assessment. Science Education, 98(4), 640–673.
24.
Gang, S. (1995). Removing preconceptions with a ‘‘learning cycle’’. The Physics Teacher, 33(6), 346-354.
25.
Gotwals, A. W., & Songer, N. B. (2013). Validity evidence for learning progression‐based assessment items that fuse core disciplinary ideas and science practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(5), 597-626.
26.
Gunckel, K. L., Covitt, B. A., Salinas, I., & Anderson, C. W. (2012). A learning progression for water in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 843-868.
27.
Hardy, I., Jonen, A., Moller, K., & Stern, E. (2006). Effects of instructional support within constructivist learning environments for elementary school students' understanding of "Floating and Sinking". Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 307-326.
28.
Heritage, M. (2008). Learning Progressions: Supporting instruction and formative assessment. Paper prepared for the formative assessment for teachers and students (FAST), State Collaborative on Assessment and student standards (SCASS). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).
29.
Heron, P. R. L., Loverude, M. E., Shaffer, P. S., & McDermott, L. C. (2003). Helping students develop an understanding of Archimedes’ principle. Part II: Development of research-based instructional materials. American Journal of Physics, 71, 1188–1195.
30.
Hokayem, H., Ma, J., & Jin, H. (2015). A learning progression for feedback loop reasoning at lower elementary level. Journal of Biological Education, 49(3), 246-260.
31.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.
32.
Howe, C. J. (2016). Conceptual structure in childhood and adolescence: The case of everyday physics. London: Routledge.
33.
Hsin, C. T., & Wu, H. K. (2011). Using scaffolding strategies to promote young children’s scientific understandings of floating and sinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 656-666.
34.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books.
35.
Jin, H., & Anderson, C. W. (2012). A learning progression for energy in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1149-1180.
36.
Jin, H., Zhan, L., & Anderson, C. W. (2013). Developing a fine-grained learning progression framwork for carbon-transforming processes. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1663-1697.
37.
Johnson, P. & Tymms, P. (2011). The emergence of a learning progression in middle school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 849-877.
39.
Kariotogloy, P., Koumaras, P., & Psillos, D. (1993). A constructivist approach for teaching fluid phenomena. Physics Education, 28(3), 164-169.
40.
Kelly, A. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 115–128.
41.
Kennedy, C. A., Brown, N. J., Draney, K., & Wilson, M. (2005). Using progress variables and embedded assessment to improve teaching and learning. American Education Research Association, San Francisco, California.
42.
Kim, Y. Y., & Kim, J. (2012). Analysis of the Middle School Students' Conceptions about Buoyancy. Journal of Science Education, 36(2), 369-380.
43.
Krnel, D., Glazar, S. A., & Watson, R. (2003). The development of the concept of matter: A cross-age study of how children classify materials. Science Education, 87, 621-639.
44.
Krnel, D., Watson, R., & Glazar, S. A. (1998). Survey of research related to the development of the concept of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 257-289.
45.
Ku, J. H. (2002). Elementary school teachers' understanding on conceptions of the weight in the water. Master thesis of Korea National University of Education.
46.
Kwon, D. H. & Kwon, S. K. (2000). Elementary school students’ conceptions of buoyance related with cognitive levels. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 19(1), 131-143.
47.
Lee, J. H., & Kim, S. Y. (2003). Young children's causal explanations for "floating or sinking" objects and the logical consistency of their applications. Journal of Early Childhood Education, 23(4), 169-192.
48.
Lee, J. S. (2009). Analysis of students' conceptual understanding of gravity and buoyancy. Master's thesis of Dankuk University.
49.
Lee, S. J., & Park, I. W. (2012). Effect of introducing density concept on science-gifted children's understanding of buoyant force. Journal of Science Education for the Gifted, 4(1), 79-92.
50.
Lee, S. J. (2000). An investigation of elementary school teachers' conceptions about buoyancy. Master thesis of Pusan National University of Education.
51.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Modeling in mathematics and science. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: Educational design and cognitive science (vol. 5, pp. 101-159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96(4), 701-724.
53.
Lehrer, R., Jaslow, K., & Curtis, C. (2003). Developing understanding of measurement in the elementary grades. In D.H. Clements and G. Bright (Eds.), Learning and teaching measurement. 2003 yearbook (pp. 100-121). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
54.
Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., Strom, D., & Pligge, M. (2001). Similarity of form and substance: Modeling material kind. In S. Carver and D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years in progress. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
55.
Leuchter, M., Sbach, H., & Hardy, I. (2014). Designing science learning in the first years of schooling. An intervention study with sequenced learning material on the topic of 'floating and sinking'. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1751-1771.
56.
Loverude, M. E. (2009). A research-based interactive lecture demonstration on sinking and floating. American Journal of Physics, 77(10), 897-901.
57.
Loverude, M. E., Kautz, C. H., & Heron, P. R. (2003). Helping students develop an understanding of Archimedes’ principle. I. Research on student understanding. American Journal of Physics, 71(11), 1178-1187.
58.
Mayes, R. L., Forrester, J. H., Christus, J. S., Peterson, F. I., Bonilla, R., & Yestness, N. (2014). Quantitative reasoning in environmental science: A learning progression. International Journal of Science Education, 36(4), 635–658.
59.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741-749.
60.
Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socioecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 675-698.
61.
National Research Council. (2012). Framework for K-12 Science Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
62.
Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2011). Item feature effects in evolution assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(3), 237-256.
63.
Nehm, R. H., Beggrow, E. P., Opfer, J. E., & Ha, M. (2012). Reasoning about natural selection: diagnosing contextual competency using the ACORNS instrument. The American Biology Teacher, 74(2), 92-98.
64.
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.
65.
Opfer, J. E., Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2012). Cognitive foundations for science assessment design: knowing what students know about evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(6), 744-777.
66.
Parker, J., & Heywood, D. (2013). Exploring how engaging with reflection on learning generates pedagogical insight in science teacher education. Science Education, 97(3), 410-441.
68.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1974). The child's construction of physical quantities. London, England: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
69.
Plummer, J. D. (2014). Spatial thinking as the dimension of progress in an astronomy learning progression. Studies in Science Education, 50(1), 1-45.
70.
Plummer, J. D., & Krajcik, J. (2010). Building a learning progression for celestial motion: Elementary levels from an Earth-based perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 768–787.
71.
Plummer, J. D., & Maynard, L. (2014). Building a learning progression for celestial motion: An exploration of students' reasoning about the seasons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 902-929.
72.
Plummer, J. D., Palma, C., Flarend, A., Rubin, K., Ong, Y. S., Botzer, B., McDonald, S., & Furman, T. (2015). Development of a learning progression for the formation of the solar system. International Journal of Science Education, 37(9), 1381–1401.
73.
Pottenger, F. M. I., & Young, D. B. (1992). The local environment: FAST 1, Foundational approaches in science teaching. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Curriculum Research & Development Group.
74.
Radovanović, J., & Slisko, J. (2013). Applying a predict–observe–explain sequence in teaching of buoyant force. Physics Education, 48(1), 28-34.
75.
Raghavan, K., Sartoris, M. L., & Glaser, R. (1998). Why deos it go up? The impact of the MARS Curriculum as revealed through changes in student explanations of a helium balloon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 547-567.
76.
Roseman, J., Caldwell, A., Gogos, A., & Kurth, L. A. (2006). Mapping a coherent learning progression for the molecular basis of heredity. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
77.
Schneider, M., & Hardy, I. (2013). Profiles of inconsistent knowledge in children's pathways of conceptual change. Developmental Psychology, 49(9), 1639-1649.
78.
Seo, H. C. (2004). Characteristics of high school students' response about concepts of hydraulic pressure and buoyancy. Master thesis of Korea National University of Education.
79.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Wadsworth Cengage learning, Mifflin and Company, CA.
80.
She, H. C. (2005). Enhancing eighth grade students' learning of buoyancy: The interaction of teachers' instructional approach and students' learning preference styles. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(4), 609-624.
81.
Siegel, D. R., Esterly, J., Callanan, M. A., Wright, R., & Navarro, R. (2007). Conversations about science across activities in Mexican-descent families. International Journal of Science Education, 29(12), 1447-1466.
82.
Smith, C. L., Solomon, G. E. A., & Carey, S. (2005). Never getting to zero: Elementary school students’' understanding of the infinite divisibility of number and matter. Cognitive Psychology, 51(2), 101-140.
83.
Smith, C., Carey, S., & Wiser, M. (1985). On differentiation: A case study of the development of the concepts of size, weight, and density. Cognition, 21, 177-237.
84.
Smith, C., Snir, J., & Grosslight, L. (1992). Using conceptual models to facilitate conceptual change: The case of weight-density differentiation. Cognition and Instruction, 9(3), 221–83.
85.
Stanford Education Assessment Laboratory. (2003). FAST teacher’s guide to the reflective lessons Ver 6 22. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
86.
Stevens, S., Delgado, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). Developing a hypothetical multidimensional learning progression for the nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 687-715.
87.
Todd, A., & Kenyon, L. (2015). Empirical refinements of a molecular genetics learning progression: the molecular constructs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 1385-1418.
88.
Unal, S. (2008). Changing students’ misconceptions of floating and sinking using hands-on activities. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 7(3), 134-146.
89.
Varelas, M. (1996). Between theory and data in a seventh-grade science class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(3), 229-263.
90.
Weston, M., Haudek, 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 Sciences Education, 14(2), 1-12.
91.
Wilkening, F., & Huber, S. (2002). Children’s intuitive physics. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 349-370). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
92.
Wilson, M. (2009). Measuring Progressions: Assessment structures underlying a learning progression. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 716-730.
93.
Wiser, M., Smith, C., Doubler, S., & Asbell-Clark, J. (2009). Learning progressions as a tool for curriculum development: Lessons from the inquiry project. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.
94.
Wright, B. D. and Linacre, J. M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8, 370.
95.
Yin, Y., Tomita, K. M., & Shavelson, R. J. (2008). Diagnosing and dealing with student misconceptions about “sinking and floating.” Science Scope, 31, 34–39.
96.
Yin, Y., Tomita, M. K., & Shavelson, R. J. (2014). Using formal embedded formative assessments aligned with a short-term learning progression to promote conceptual change and achievement in science. International Journal of Science Education, 36(4), 531-552.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1305-8223 |
| ISSN: | 1305-8215 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
