Undergraduates’ understanding of selected aspects of linear and circular motion

ABSTRACT

Background

Recognizing the relatively few studies that have explored university students’ understanding and alternative conceptions in linear and circular motion as well as the relatively few studies that have used 2-dimensional multiple-choice questions (MCQs) in the science education literature, this study set out to contribute to these areas.

Purpose

To investigate undergraduates’ understanding of velocities and accelerations in linear and circular motions using 2-dimensional MCQs.

Sample

450 engineering undergraduates who were doing a Physics course.

Design and methods

A 2-dimensional MCQ instrument comprising 8 questions was developed and administered to the samples. Both cognitive scores and metacognitive measures were extracted as part of data analyses. Incorrect responses which were at least at the 10% threshold level were classified as alternative conceptions (ACs).

Results

Both cognitive scores and metacognitive measures have afforded a more nuanced appreciation of students’ understanding as well as their ACs on the topics. In this context, we report on confidence when correct, confidence when wrong, confidence with which the ACs are expressed and confidence accuracy quotient for each question. Student responses led to the identification of 14 ACs. It was noted that students’ understanding of key concepts in the topics tested is rather modest. A commentary is presented on these ACs from the lens of instructor teaching experience.

Conclusion

Two dimensional MCQs were found to be effective in exploring undergraduates’ understanding of linear and circular motions as well as in documenting their alternative conceptions.

KEYWORDS:

• Linear motion
• circular motion
• undergraduates
• 2-dimensional MCQs
• alternative conceptions

Acknowledgment

We thank the four reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and for providing several suggestions for improvement.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplementary data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2023.2166030.