A Methodological Analysis for the Development of a Circular-Motion Concept Inventory in a Ugandan Context by Using the Delphi Technique
Abstract
Concept inventories (CI) constitute a key thread in Physics Educational Research. As such, understanding the methodology and the technique of developing a good CI is essential for all physics teachers. This research aims to develop a circular-motion concept Inventory (CMCI) that is valid in the Ugandan context. To reach a consensus, we used the Delphi technique to collect the data from eleven experts in the physics discipline. These experts were asked to rank each CI item in the inventory, based on the relevant criteria, for assigning a degree of relevance for adoption on a scale ranging from one to four, one being "not relevant" and four being "highly relevant.” Because the technique does not require experts to meet face-to-face, they remained anonymous to one another. These experts are provided with structured questionnaires of CI items from the Rotational-Kinematics Inventory (RKI) and Rolling and Rotational Motion-Concept (RRMC) inventories in the first round, in order to adopt items relevant to circular-motion concepts in the Ugandan context. They agreed to use 31 CI items in the RKI and 14 CI items in the RRMC in the second round. The mean and standard deviation of expert replies were analysed by using descriptive statistics. We used the methodological principles of CI creation, in order to create eight CI items to fill in the missing sub-concepts. Therefore, a total of 53 concept items were created. In order to analyse their qualities in a psychometric analysis, these will be evaluated by using field testing and psychometric analysis. Various physics instructors will access the CMCI, because the field testing aims to gauge the level of educational efficacy in their academic and research initiatives.
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.10.4
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Adler, M., & Ziglio, E. (Eds.), (1996). Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health (pp. 3-33). London: Kingsley. https://lib.ugent.be/catalog/rug01:000376334.
Calderón, J. L., Morales, L. S., Liu, H., & Hays, R. D. (2006). Variation in the Readability of Items Within Surveys. American journal of medical quality: 21, 49-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1062860605283572
Canlas. I. P. (2015). The Use of Case Analysis in Teaching Circular Motion. International Journal of Education and Research. http://www.academia.edu/download/40973185/The_Use_of_Case_Analysis_in_Teaching_Circular_Motion.pdf
Chedi, J. M. (2017). A Preliminary Review on Needs Analysis and Delphi Technique: Effective Tools for Data Collection. Journal of Asian Vocational Education and Training, 10, 44-52.
Ding, L., Chabay, R., Sherwood, B., & Beichner, R. (2006). Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 2(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.010105
Evans, D. L., Midkiff, C., Miller, R., Morgan, J., Krause, S., Martin, J., … Wage, K. (n.d.). Tools for assessing conceptual understanding in the engineering sciences. 32nd Annual Frontiers in Education. https://doi.org/10.1109/fie.2002.1158151
Hasson, F., Keeney, S., & Mckenna, H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi Survey Technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1008-1015. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01567.x
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhammer, G. (1992). Force-concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141-158. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2343497
Hsu, C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 12, Article 10. http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=10
Lindell, R. S., Peak, E., & Foster, T. M. (2007). Are they all created equal? A comparison of different concept-inventory development methodologies. AIP Conference Proceedings, 883, 14-17. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2508680
Mashood, K. K., (2014). Development and evaluation of a concept inventory in rotational kinematics [Doctoral dissertation]. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai. http://www.hbcse.tifr.res.in/research-development/ph.d.-theses/thesis-mashoodkk.pdf
Mashood, K. K., & Singh, V. A. (2012a). Variation in angular velocity and angular acceleration of a particle in rectilinear motion. European Journal of Physics, 33(3), 473-78. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ984285
Mashood, K. K., & Singh, V. A. (2012b). Rotational kinematics of a particle in rectilinear motion: Perceptions and pitfalls. American Journal of Physics, 80, 720-723. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4721641.
Mashood, K. K., & Singh, V. A. (2013). Rotational kinematics of a rigid body about a fixed axis: Development and analysis of an inventory. European Journal of Physics, 36(4), 045020. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/36/4/045020/meta
Massaroli, A., Martini, J. G., Lino, M. M., Spenassato, D., & Massaroli, R. (2018). Método Delphi Como Referencial Metodológico Para A Pesquisa Em Enfermagem. Texto & Contexto - Enfermagem, 26(4). https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-07072017001110017
Meade, E, C. D., & Smith, C. F. (1991). Readability formulas: Cautions and criteria. Patient Education and Counselling, 17, 153-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/0738-3991(91)90017-Y
National Curriculum Development Centre (NCDC), Uganda (2013). Uganda Advanced Certificate of Education, Teaching Syllabi for Physics. https://www.ncdc.go.ug/
Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations, and applications. Information & Management, 42, 15-29. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002
Rimoldini, L. G., & Singh, C. (2005). Students’ understanding of rotational and rolling motion concepts. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1(010102), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010102
Savinainen, A., & Scott, P. (2002). Using the Force-Concept Inventory to monitor students’ learning and to plan to teach. Physics Education. 37, 53-58. http://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/37/1/307
Schmalz, U., Spinler, S. & Ringbeck, J. (2021). Lessons learned from a two-round Delphi-based scenario study, MethodsX 8, 101179.
Singh, V. A. (2011). Sifting the Grain from the Chaff: The Concept Inventory as a Probe of Physics Understanding. Physics News, 41(4), 20-31. http://www.hbcse.tifr.res.in/data/pdf/vijay-sigh-09-01-12.pdf
Skulmoski, G. J, Hartman, F. T., & Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate research. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 6, 1–21. http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol6/JITEv6p001-021Skulmoski212.pdf
Taherdoost, H. (2019). What Is the Best Response Scale for Survey and Questionnaire Design; Review of Different Lengths of Rating Scale / Attitude, Scale / Likert Scale, International Journal of Academic Research in Management, 8(1), 1-10. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3588604
Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100204
Thornton, R., & Sokoloff, D. (1998). Assessing students’ learning of Newton's laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66, 338-351. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18863
Yousuf, M. I., (2007). Using Experts’ Opinions through Delphi Technique. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 12(4). http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=4
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
e-ISSN: 1694-2116
p-ISSN: 1694-2493