Dominant misconceptions and alluvial flows between Engineering and Physical Science students

Abstract In this article we assess the comprehension of physics concepts by Physical Science and Engineering students enrolled in their first semester at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa (2022). We employ different graphical measures to explore similarities and differences using the results of both pre- and post-test data from the force concept inventory assessment tool, from which we calculate dominant misconceptions (DMs) and gains. We also use alluvial diagrams to track the choices made by these two groups of students from pre- to post-test stages. In our analysis, we find that DM results indicate that participating Engineering students outperformed Physical Science students on average, however, the same types of normalised DMs persist at the post-test level. We call these DMs ‘persistent misconceptions.’ This is very useful when tracking persistent misconceptions, where when using repeated measures and alluvial diagrams with smaller groups of students, we find that Physical Science students tend to make more chaotic choices.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Physics Education
Published
2025-04-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/adc4ad
Primary Topic
Science Education and Pedagogy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Dominant misconceptions and alluvial flows between Engineering and Physical Science students

Alan S. Cornell, Wade Naylor, Anna Chrysostomou
Physics Education
Science Education and Pedagogy
article

Dominant misconceptions and alluvial flows between Engineering and Physical Science students

Alan S. Cornell, Wade Naylor, Anna Chrysostomou
article en

Abstract

Abstract In this article we assess the comprehension of physics concepts by Physical Science and Engineering students enrolled in their first semester at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa (2022). We employ different graphical measures to explore similarities and differences using the results of both pre- and post-test data from the force concept inventory assessment tool, from which we calculate dominant misconceptions (DMs) and gains. We also use alluvial diagrams to track the choices made by these two groups of students from pre- to post-test stages. In our analysis, we find that DM results indicate that participating Engineering students outperformed Physical Science students on average, however, the same types of normalised DMs persist at the post-test level. We call these DMs ‘persistent misconceptions.’ This is very useful when tracking persistent misconceptions, where when using repeated measures and alluvial diagrams with smaller groups of students, we find that Physical Science students tend to make more chaotic choices.

Physics EducationVol. 60(3)
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR), University of Johannesburg (ZA), Sorbonne Université (FR), Laboratoire de Physique Théorique et Hautes Energies (FR), Australian Catholic University (AU)
Australian Catholic University
Openalex Percentile: Top 94%
Science Education and Pedagogy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.