Analysis of Studens’ Understanding on Electrical Dynamics using

Certain Response Index (CRI)

Hamdi Akhsan, Maria Ulfa, and Melly Ariska

Universitas Sriwijaya, Jalan Raya Palembang-Prabumulih, Inderalaya, Indonesia

Keywords: Electrical dynamic, certainty of response index (CRI)

Abstract : This study aims to identify students' conceptual understanding of electrical dynamics concept with Certainty

of Response Index method. The type of this research is a quantitative descriptive study design. For data

collecting, this research performs the DIRECT test—a multiple choice questions type with open reasons.

Finally, the results show that 13.81% and 1.43% of the subjects are totally understand and uncertain regarding

the concept, respectively. While 47.55% of students are misconception and 37.44% are uncomprehending.

This result, furthermore, might provide information about students’ understanding level regarding the

concepts in the lesson of dynamic electricity.

1 INTRODUCTION

In recent years, physics educators are looking to

determine students’ understanding level regarding the

physics concepts (Fisher and Frey, 2011). This

condition, furthermore, point out the term

‘‘misconception’’- a word that explains the students’

incorrect pattern of response. This pattern could be

part of a naive theory on some physical phenomena

or a more fragmented and primitive responses as a

result of the posed questions (Engelhardt, 1997)

Deeper understanding in scientific concepts

becomes the fundamental focus in higher education

(Fisher and Frey, 2011). This unit plays a prominent

role in building the scientific knowledge . However,

the related studies notice that student’s understanding

at the initial point remain contrasts the scientific

concepts (Syaharudin et al., 2015; Suyatna and

Anggraini, 2016). This gap, moreover, is refereed to

the term of misconception. The term

“misconceptions” might disrupt the comprehension

of scientific concepts in cognitive structures

(Suparno, 2013). Misconceptions in science

apparently occur from elementary to higher education

level (McDermott and Shaffer, 1992; McDermott,

1995).

The curriculum in physics education department

of Universitas Sriwijaya consist of several basic

courses related to physics discussion, fundamental

physics, for instance. This lesson contains some

concepts which is an integration of several sub-

concepts. Concept definition stands for a thoughts or

an ideas, including anything that is logically related

to a category.

Part of sub-concepts in physics learning is

electrical dynamic (Serway, Faughn and Vuille,

2008). This sub-concept is an essential material due

to its features such as: plunge into the basis for higher

levels of education (any lesson related to electrical

circuits), occurs in daily life—society, science and

technology, provides high application value

(instructional application in any level of education),

stands for the fundamental theory for all electronics

circuits and devices).

A widespread usage of several instruments such

as Force Concept Inventory (FCI) and the Test of

Understanding Graphs in Kinematics (TUG-K) has

brought a new way in evaluating students’ conceptual

understanding (Gurel, Eryilmaz and McDermott,

2015). However, more instruments need to be

developed to allow instructors for better evaluation—

determining the students’ understanding of physics

concepts and measuring the feasibility analysis

regarding the teaching method (Kaltakci-gurel,

Eryilmaz and Mcdermott, 2017). DIRECT,

meanwhile, is an abbreviation of Determining and

Interpreting Resistive Electric Circuit Concepts Test

which is developed to evaluate students’

comprehension regarding direct current (DC)

resistive electrical circuits concepts (Kapartzianis,

2013; Breukelen, Smeets and Vries, 2015). DIRECT

178

Akhsan, H., Ulfa, M. and Ariska, M.

Analysis of Students’ Understanding on Electrical Dynamics using Certain Response Index (CRI).

DOI: 10.5220/0009994100002499

In Proceedings of the 3rd Sriwijaya University International Conference on Learning and Education (SULE-IC 2018), pages 178-182

ISBN: 978-989-758-575-3

 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

is designed for high school and university level.

Common misconceptions are incorporated into the

distractor of the test items (Closset, 1983).

Student’s perception concerning DC resistive

electric circuits is quite diverse. They assume with

two different standpoints: current is consumed and

the battery is a source of constant current. In addition,

students alternately use terms related to circuits, often

assigning the current to voltage, resistance, energy, or

power (Hestenes, Wells and Swackhamer, 1992).

With reference to the related work, in this paper, we

aim to determine students’ comprehension on

electrical dynamic concept using CRI.

The rest of this paper is systematized as follows.

Section 2 elaborates the research method. Section 3

presents the result along with the discussion. Section

4 outlines the conclusion.

2 RESEARCH METHOD

This research adopts the quantitative descriptive

study design for research method. By using this

method, the authors can achieve the representation of

student’s perception on the sub-concept of direct

current electric circuit (DC) through CRI instrument.

This instrument consists of several criteria as the

reference analysis. The researcher, moreover, will

determine the concept understanding level on the sub

chapter of direct current electric circuit—consists of

electric current, electrical resistance, electric potential

difference, electrical power, electrical energy, electric

field, and series-parallel circuit. Each concept will be

analyzed through student answers from the given

conceptual questions.

This research was conducted in Department of

Physics Education of Sriwijaya University from 3rd

March 2018 until 15th July 2018 on academic year

2017-2018. The research subject, furthermore, were

the students in the related period. The 3rd semester

students represent as the sample of this study. In this

research, the researchers classify the students into two

groups with different abilities based on their latest

achieved GPA. Moreover, the instrument provides

questions about the form of conceptual understanding

of sub-concepts on electrical direct current circuits in

order to obtain students' level of understanding in

each group.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

From the conducted research, data is obtained

through students responses regarding the given form.

The researchers analyze their reasons and then group

the anwers into four categories which is outlined in

Figure 1.

A = totally understand;

= uncertain;

C = misconception; D = uncomprehending

Figure 1: The students’ understanding level regarding the

concept on electrical dynamics.

Based on the figure 1, the graph illustrates the level

of students’ comprehension in terms of percentage.

We group the data according to sub-concepts in the

syllabus of electrical direct current which consists of

seven concepts: electrical power, electrical energy,

electrical resistance, potential electrical difference,

electric current, series-parallel circuits, and electrical

fields. Each concept, furthermore, is analyzed

regarding the four categories of understanding

concepts indicator. The obtained score in each

indicator, moreover, provide the quantity for

determining the average percentage. According to the

results, misconception occurs with the highest

percentage to the research subject, while uncertain

comprehension stands for the lowest proportion.

3.1 Electric Power Concept

This research adapts the DIRECT (Determining

Interpreting Resistive Electric Circuits Concepts

Test) as the instrument.



Based on the obtained results,

11% of the students are totally understand the

concept. This data explains that some students have

understood the equation of electrical power—means

that the greater number of the resistance in a circuit,

the lower number of produced power with constant

potential difference.

Analysis of Students’ Understanding on Electrical Dynamics using Certain Response Index (CRI)

179

3.2 Electric Energy Concepts

Related to the result in this study, 22% of the subjects

are totally understand with this concept. This

phenomenon reveals that students have

comprehended with this statement, if two batteries are

arranged in a chain, it increases the potential

difference, while pararel circuit decreases. Energy per

second (electric power) is proportional to the

potential difference squared (V

) and is inversely

proportional to the resistance value (R). Therefore,

the largest produced energy per second is provided

through series arrangement of the two batteries.

3.3 Potential Electrical Difference

Concept

Regarding the results, only 10% participant who are

totally comprehend with this concept. By this, those

subjects are familiar with the equation of the potential

difference equation in the series form which is

outlines in equation 1.

V=V

(1)

Then 2% of the subjects are uncertain regarding the

concepts which stands for the smallest proportion

among the four indicators. Furthermore, as many as

49.65% students have misconceptions—the highest

proportion in this sub concept.

3.4 Electrical Resistance Concepts

In this sub-concepts, only 12% of the student are

totally understand. Surprisingly, misconception also

appears as the major among all indicators—stands for

57%. Apparently, several students are generally

familiar with the series type circuit rather than the

pararel arrangement of the resistor. They recognize

easily that series circuit might increase the total value

of the resistors, while face difficulty when the

resistors are in pararel scheme might decrease its total

value. The students who experience misconceptions

are the subjects who answer the choice of answers

correctly but give the incorrect reasons (with a

confidence level > 2.5). While as many as 28% of the

participants are uncompressed regarding the

concept—they give incorrect answers and reasons by

lower than 2.5 of the confidence levels.

3.5 Electric Current Concepts

In the concept of electric current, 22% of participants

are totally understand the concepts. A great gap

remains occurs related to misconception level which

stands for 52%. While as many as 25.75% of the

students are uncomprehend the concept—a similar

number compared to the subjects who totally

understand. This concept is related to the

understanding level of student to apprehend the Ohm

Law. In description, they might explain concretely

that the current flowing is directly proportional to the

potential difference and inversely proportional to the

resistance. Students who do not understand the

concept are the students who offer both of correct or

incorrect answer regarding the question and reasons

with a confidence level lower than 2.5.

3.6 Series and Paralel Circuit Concept

Through the data analysis, it is obtained 20 % and

24% for the students who completely comprehend

and uncompressed, respectively. While 56%, as the

largest part of percentage level in this concepts

represent the number of the students who have

misconception. Meanwhile, there is none of students

who are uncertain regarding the concept.

The indicator level of understanding regarding

this concept is the comprehension of reading the

series-parallel circuit diagrams from several lamp

resistors in schematic diagrams to be outlined in the

form of ordinary circuits. Those participants who

uncompressed the concept are the students who give

both of correct and incorrect answers or reasons with

a confidence level below 2.5.

3.7 Electric Field

On the electric field concept, as much as 28.3% of the

students have misconceptions. While 71.7% are

uncompressed the concept.

3.8 Related Work

The research in determining student’s misconception

had been conducted by (Nugraha et al., 2018). The

obtained outcomes shows that several students

remain face the difficulty in understanding the

physics concept, specifically in electrical current,

voltage, and resistance. Regarding the data, it is

apparent that only around a half of the participant who

have the correct perception to the concepts. Another

related research also have performed by (Perdana,

Suma and Pujani, 2018). It is evident from the

information provided that misconception had by far

the highest number of students’ perception

percentage 44% among all categories. Figure 2 and

Table 1 illustrate the comparison with some

preliminary research.

SULE-IC 2018 - 3rd Sriwijaya University International Conference on Learning and Education

180

Figure 2: The percentage of student achieving the correct

answer (Nugraha et al., 2018)

Table 1: The comparison of students’ conception regarding

the Electrical Dynamic Concept

Conce

Conception (%)

SK M E LK

A B A B A B A B

Current 36,

43,

52 5,0 26

15,

Resistan

34,

43,

57 2,0 28

19,

Series-

paralel

circuit

22,

46,

24 5,1 24

26,

Potenti

differe

nce

19,

35,

39 0,0 39

45,

Energ

y and

electri

power

16,

50,

45 0,2 37

33,

A= Perdana, Suma and Pujani, 2018; B = results in this

research

SK=Scientific Knowledge; M= Misconception; E=Error;

LK=Lack of Knowledge

A glance at the figure 2 provided reveals a proportion

of correct answers in electrical dynamics concepts. Of

these concepts, resistance seems to be more simplify

among others concept in terms of understanding.

Accounting for around to 55% of respondents—

which is the highest proportion of true answers. On

the other hand, voltage and electric current are

lower—less than a half correct answers of the total

proportion.

Nugraha (Nugraha et al., 2018) lists several reason

for those problems. Firstly, many students answer the

question according to their argument with the wrong

concept—well-known as concept error. Secondly, the

way teachers teach might affect the understanding

level regarding the concepts.

Meanwhile, given the table comparing the

students’ conception percentage in higher education.

Overall, the most students have misconception

regarding the concepts. It seems that participant in

Research A are mostly misconception with electrical

energy and power while in this study, resistance

stands for the most risky concept which might arise

the misconception.

Moreover, it is surprisingly that both researches

has significant difference in terms of percentage—the

indicator of error and lack of understand category.

Although the proportion tend to be similar, the gap

remains contrast. The level of lack of understanding

shows A stands for the large score while group B

provide minimum value. While, for error indicator

level, it is revealed that Group A is lower compared

to Group B. This certain gap might be caused by

several problems—such as less practical lesson in the

school.

The beneficial aspect through this study is

providing initial description of students’

understanding in electrical dynamics concept.

Although there is a significant gap with both groups,

there should be several factors that affect the scores.

According to Perdana, Suma and Pujani (2018), some

suggestions are considerable specifically for teacher.

Firstly, the teacher should aware their students’

conception. It might be fatal for the students on

further learning due to misconception. Secondly,

some instructional should help in building students’

understanding of the concepts. Last, teacher should

creatively arrange the learning progress and motivate

the students to read more book.

4 CONCLUSION

Based on the results obtained in this research and the

discussion, we reach the conclusion that majority of

students in Physics Education Department have

misconception in electrical dynamics lesson.

Although the analysis is limited in several ways (only

provide misconception data without finding its causal

factors), our study provide the framework as the

reference for further research regarding the solutions

to misconception, such as conceptual change, for

instance.

Analysis of Students’ Understanding on Electrical Dynamics using Certain Response Index (CRI)

181

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Thanks to the 2018 Science, Technology and Art

research grants with the research contract number

0179.66/UN9/SB3.LP2N.PT/2018.

REFERENCES

Arnold and Millar, 1987. Being constructive: An alternative

approach to the teaching of introductory ideas in

electricity, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 9(5), 553–563.

Breukelen, D. Van, Smeets, M. and Vries, M. De. 2015.

Explicit Teaching and Scaffolding to Enhance Concept

Learning by Design Challenges’, Am. J. Phys. 62(8),

87–105.

Closset, J. L. 1983, Sequential reasoning in electricity: In

Research on Physics Education’, in Proceedings of the

First International Workshop. Paris: Editions du Centre

National de Recherche Scientifique, 2(4), 313–319.

Engelhardt, P. V. 1997, Examining students understanding

of electrical circuits through multiple-choice testing

and interviews by paula vetter engelhardt A thesis

submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina

State University in partial fulfillment of the

requirements fo. in Proceedings of the Second

International Seminar on Misconceptions and

Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics,

4(8), 293-303.

Fisher and Frey. 2011. Checking for Understanding,

Principal Leadership, 12(1), 60–62.

Gurel, Eryilmaz, and Mc Dermott. 2015, A review and

comparison of diagnostic instruments to identify

students’ misconceptions in science, Eurasia Journal of

Mathematics, Science and Technology Education,

11(5), 989–1008.

Hestenes, D., Wells, M. and Swackhamer, G. 1992, Force

concept inventory, The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141–

158.

Ivan Zee, Identifying and addressing student difficulties

with electric xircuits, European Journal of Science

Education, 6(3), 271–275.

Kaltakci-gurel, D., Eryilmaz, A. and Mcdermott, L. C.

2017, Development and application of a four-tier test to

assess pre-service physics teachers ’ misconceptions

about geometrical optics, Research in Science &

Technological Education. 5(4), 238–260.

Kapartzianis, A. 2013 ‘Conceptual Change Activities

Alleviating Misconceptions’, pp. 298–315.

McDermott, L. C. 1995 ‘Physics by inquiry: An

introduction to physics and the physical sciences’, in

Physics by inquiry. 1st edn. Wiley.

McDermott, L. C. and Shaffer, P. S. 1992 ‘Research as a

guide for curriculum development: An example from

introductory electricity. Part I: Investigation of student

understanding’, American Journal of Physics, 60(11),

994–1003.

Nugraha, D. A. et al. 2018, Understanding the students

’conception about electric current, voltage, and

resistance, Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 6(9), 114-126.

Perdana, G. P., Suma, K. and Pujani, N. M. 2018, The effect

of conceptual change text structure on concept

understanding and misconception reduction of dynamic

electricity, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 15(4), 351–361.

Sadler, P. M. and Sonnert, G. 2016, Understanding

misconceptions teaching and learning in middle school

physical science, American Educator, 40(1), 26–32.

Serway, R., Faughn, J. and Vuille, C. 2008 College physics.

10th edn. Cengage Learning.

Suparno, P. 2013 Miskonsepsi & Perubahan Konsep dalam

Pendidikan Fisika. Gramedia Widiasarana.

Sunile, John, 2009. Students’ interpretation of simple

electrical diagrams, Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 6, (3), 271–275.

Syaharudin, N. et al. 2015. ‘Misconception and difficulties

in introductory physics among high school and

university students : An Overview in Mechanics’, 2(1),

34–47.

SULE-IC 2018 - 3rd Sriwijaya University International Conference on Learning and Education

182