Research Article

GRCI: An investigation into the feasibility of a General Relativity Concept Inventory

Mark A. J. Parker 1 * , Holly Hedgeland 2 , Nicholas St. J. Braithwaite 3 , Sally E. Jordan 1
More Detail
1 School of Physical Sciences, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UNITED KINGDOM2 Clare Hall, University of Cambridge, Herschel Road, Cambridge, CB3 9AL, UNITED KINGDOM3 Faculty of Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UNITED KINGDOM* Corresponding Author
European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(4), October 2024, 489-501, https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/15018
Published Online: 31 August 2024, Published: 01 October 2024
OPEN ACCESS   649 Views   297 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

The study outlines the early-stage development of a free-response General Relativity Concept Inventory (GRCI), an educational instrument designed to test for conceptual understanding of General Relativity. Data were collected for the study by having 26 participants from General Relativity courses work through the questions on the GRCI. Interviews were conducted with four of the participants to gain further insight about their experience of working through the GRCI. The written responses revealed that participants were proficient when answering questions which required mathematical thought processes, but were more limited when answering questions which required conceptual and physical thought processes. The interviews revealed that participants found that free-response questions were appropriate to test for conceptual understanding of General Relativity. Participants identified that General Relativity has physical interpretations and mathematical constructs, and both are important to understand the theory. Participants thought that the GRCI could be given a formative purpose in a teaching context. The study was proof of concept in scope, with the aim of highlighting important points pertaining to the feasibility and development of the GRCI. Additional work to further investigate the above points highlighted by the study is encouraged.
Keywords: general relativity, concept inventories, student reaction, conceptual understanding, physics education

CITATION (APA)

Parker, M. A. J., Hedgeland, H., Braithwaite, N. S. J., & Jordan, S. E. (2024). GRCI: An investigation into the feasibility of a General Relativity Concept Inventory. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(4), 489-501. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/15018

REFERENCES

  1. Aslanides, J. S., & Savage, C. M. (2013). Relativity Concept Inventory: Development, analysis, and results. Physical Review Special Topics Physics Education Research, 9, Article 010118. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.010118
  2. Bailey, J. M., Johnson, B., Prather, E. E., & Slater, T. F. (2012). Development and validation of the Star Properties Concept Inventory. International Journal of Science Education, 34(14), 2257–2286. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.589869
  3. Baily, C., Ryan, Q. X., Astolfi, C., & Pollock, S. J. (2017). Conceptual assessment tool for advanced undergraduate electrodynamics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13, Article 020113. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.020113
  4. Bandyopadhyay, A., & Kumar, A. (2010). Probing students’ understanding of some conceptual themes in general relativity. Physical Review Special Topics Physics Education Research, 6, Article 020104. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020104
  5. Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. McKay.
  6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  7. Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Terry, G. (2014). Thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Clinical Health Psychology, 24, 95–114.
  8. Brown, E., & Glover, C. (2006). Evaluating written feedback. In C. Bryan, & K. Clegg (Eds.), Innovative assessment in higher education (pp. 81–91). Routledge.
  9. Bulut, O., Cutumisu, M., Aquilina, A., & Singh, D. (2019). Effect of digital score reporting and feedback on students’ learning in higher education. Frontiers in Education, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00065
  10. Burko, L. M. (2017). Gravitational wave detection in the introductory lab. The Physics Teacher, 55, 288–292. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4981036
  11. Catalyst Harvard. (2024). Mixed methods research. https://catalyst.harvard.edu/community-engagement/mmr/
  12. Conlon, M., Coble, K., Bailey, J. M., & Cominsky, L. R. (2017). Investigating undergraduate students’ ideas about the fate of the Universe. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13, Article 020128. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.020128
  13. Dick-Perez, M., Luxford, C. J., Windus, T. L., & Holme, T. (2016). A quantum chemistry concept inventory for physical chemistry classes. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(4), 605–612. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00781
  14. Ding, L., Chaby, R., Sherwood, B., & Beichner, R. (2006). Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 2, Article 010105. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.010105
  15. Hartle, J. B. (2008). General relativity in the undergraduate physics curriculum. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2110581
  16. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2343497
  17. Hufnagel, B. (2002). Development of the astronomy diagnostic test. Astronomy Education Review, 1(1), 47–51. https://doi.org/10.3847/AER2001004
  18. Institute of Physics. (2024). Degree accreditation and recognition. https://www.iop.org/education/support-work-higher-education/degree-accreditation-recognition
  19. Kaur, T., Blair, D., Moschilla, J., Stannard, W., & Zadnik, M. (2017). Teaching Einsteinian physics at schools: Part 1, models and analogies for relativity. Physics Education, 52(6), Article 065012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/aa83e4
  20. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical view, a meta-analysis and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
  21. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
  22. 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(1), 14–17. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2508680
  23. Muller, T., & Frauendiener, J. (2011). Studying null and time-like geodesics in the classroom. European Journal of Physics, 32, 747–759. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/32/3/011
  24. Nicol, D. (2007). E-assessment by design: Using multiple-choice tests to good effect. Journal of Further and higher Education, 31(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098770601167922
  25. Parker, M., Hedgeland, H., Braithwaite, N., & Jordan, S. (2022). Student reaction to a modified force concept inventory: The impact of free-response questions and feedback. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(3), 310–323. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/11882
  26. Parker, M., Hedgeland, H., Braithwaite, N., & Jordan, S. (2023). Establishing a physics concept inventory using computer marked free-response questions. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 360–375. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/12680
  27. Porter, L., Taylor, C., & Webb, K. (2014). Leveraging open source principles for flexible concept inventory development. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 243–248). https://doi.org/10.1145/2591708.2591722
  28. Rebello, N., & Zollman, D. (2004). The effect of distractors on student performance on the force concept inventory. American Journal of Physics, 72, 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1629091
  29. Semon, M. D., Malin, S., & Wortel, S. (2009). Exploring the transition from special to general relativity. American Journal of Physics, 77, 434–438. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3088883
  30. Smith, J. I., & Tanner, K. (2010). The problem of revealing how students think: Concept inventories and beyond. CBE Life Sciences Education, 9(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-12-0094
  31. Stannard, W., Kersting, M., Kraus, U., & Moschilla, J. (2017). Research into the teaching and learning of Einsteinian physics in international contexts. In Proceedings of the 2017 GIREP-ICPE-EPEC Conference.
  32. Thornton, R., & Sokoloff, D. (1998). Assessing student 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(4), 338–352. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18863
  33. University of Auckland. (2024). Thematic analysis. https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/science/about-the-faculty/school-of-psychology/psychology-research/studies-methods-and-ethics.html
  34. Zahn, C., & Kraus, U. (2014). A toolkit for teaching general relativity: I. Curved spaces and spacetimes. European Journal of Physics, 35, Article 055020. https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/35/5/055020
  35. Zeilik, M. (2003). Birth of the astronomy diagnostic test: Prototest evolution. Astronomy Education Review, 1(2), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.3847/AER2002005
  36. Zhu, M., Liu, O. L., & Lee, H. S. (2020). The effect of automated feedback on revision behaviour and learning gains in formative assessment of scientific argument writing. Computers and Education, 143, Article 103668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103668