Journal of Physics: Conference Series

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

How do additional instructions change the answer? Study of pre-

service physics teachers’ misconception about buoyancy
To cite this article: Maison et al 2022 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2165 012048

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 125.167.62.147 on 28/01/2022 at 10:47

The 1st International Conference Science Physics and Education 2021 (ICSPE 2021) IOP
Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2165 (2022) 012048 doi:10. 1088/1742-
6596/2165/1/012048

How do additional instructions change the answer? Study

of pre-service physics teachers’ misconception about
buoyancy

Maison1, R Asma2, A Doyan3 and L Saputri1

1
Physics Education Study Program, Universitas Jambi, Indonesia
2
State High School 1, Jambi City, Indonesia
3
Physics Education Study Program, FKIP, University of Mataram, West
Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia

E-mail: maison@unja.ac.id

Abstract. The misconceptions experienced by pre-service physics teachers are essential to

know; However, these are not easy to identify, let alone to remediate. This study aims to find
out how additional instruction changes pre-service physics teachers' responses and whether or
not it affects the misconceptions of pre-service physics teachers. Respondents were tested
using the online Four-Tier Buoyancy Instrument (FTBI) twice, namely at Time 1 and 2. Pre-
service physics teachers were given additional instructions between the two mea surements
by reminding them of the principle of balance on a stationary object or an object moving
in a straight line with constant velocity. Quantitative data from the two areas of the
instrument are then analyzed and compared to determine the differences in respondents'
answers. In-depth interviews were conducted with respondents who had different answers to
the instruments. The results showed that a small proportion of respondents had changed
their answers to be the correct answers on several FTBI items. The interview results showed
that it seems there was a tendency to change the respondents' cognitive structure from
locally coherent to global coherent. However, this change does not necessarily reduce
pre-service physics teachers' misconceptions about buoyancy significantly.

1. Introduction
Continuous experiences and interactions between students and the surrounding environment
form some of these students' knowledge, attitudes, and skills. When they learn a concept, their
interpretation can be influenced by experience and information obtained from the
environment. In certain circumstances, it can lead to a conception different from those held by
scientists, which is called a misconception [1]. Many types of research related to students'
misconceptions have been carried out using various qualitative and quantitative techniques and
instruments. Quantitatively, the instruments used continue to develop, starting from the form of
ordinary multiple-choice, two-tier, three-tier, and four-tier [2], in the form of paper and web-based
such as [3].
Since the research conducted by [4] using a four-tier misconception instrument, there have been
many studies conducted by other researchers to develop and apply a four-tier format instrument in
diagnosing misconceptions including [5], [6], [7], and [8]. Misconception research on fluid topics
has also been published using four-tier instruments, for example, [9] on floating and sinking and
[10] on density. They researched pre-service science teachers and found 74 misconceptions on the
concept of floating and sinking and 48 misconceptions on density. The presence of
misconceptions is undoubtedly disturbing and hampers the student learning process [11]. It
certainly needs to be a
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further
The 1st International Conference Science Physics and Education 2021 (ICSPE 2021) IOP
Publishing
distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
The 1st International Conference Science Physics and Education 2021 (ICSPE 2021) IOP
Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2165 (2022) 012048 doi:10. 1088/1742-
6596/2165/1/012048

concern for pre-service physics teachers because they will become teachers, so they should not
have misconceptions about the science they will teach later. They need to be given treatment to
reduce the misconceptions they experience.
Can additional instruction change or improve students' understanding of concepts on the topic
of buoyancy, and does this increase also significantly reduce their misconceptions? This study aims
to determine how additional instruction given to students relates to correct answers and
misconceptions.

2. Methods
Researchers selected a sample of 96 pre-service physics teachers of Universitas Jambi in
Indonesia randomly. Respondents are members of the population who have studied Basic Physics in
which there is material on Archimedes' Law. Data was collected using an online instrument
consisting of five items in a four-tier format on buoyancy. The instrument was used sequentially
twice, namely at Time 1 and Time 2, like the pre-test and post-test. Between Time 1 and Time 2, pre-
service physics teachers were given a small additional instruction about the principle of balance of
forces acting on objects. This principle applies to all things that are at rest or moving in a straight
line. Although this additional instruction is not explicitly related to buoyancy, it is hoped to add
insight to pre-service physics teachers to think more broadly in viewing a physical phenomenon.
In general, the technical data collection and treatment were (1) taking the test at Time 1, (2) small
additional instructions, (3) taking the test at Time 2, and (4) interviewing pre-service physics
teachers who had different answers between Time 1 and Time 2.
The process of scoring quantitative data on test results in this study was carried out quickly
because the online instrument that we designed (web-based) was equipped with a program to directly
calculate correct scores and misconception scores for Tier- 1, Tier- 1&3, and All Levels. Besides
being able to find out the understanding and misconceptions experienced by respondents, this
application can also display False Positive (FP), False Negative (FN), and Lack of Knowledge (LK)
scores for each pre- service physics teacher, class, or all students as soon as they submit an
answer. It facilitates the process of identifying pre-service physics teachers’ misconceptions and, at
the same time, providing information about which students need further interviews (based on data
that there are differences in their answers and willingness to be interviewed).
Following the instrument's characteristics in a four-tier format, the scoring for correct answers
has three categories: valid scores on Tier- 1, Tier- 1&3, and All-Tier. If a student chooses the
correct answer on Tier- 1, he will be given a score of 1 for Tier- 1, and if he also chooses the correct
reason for the answer (it is on Tier-3), he will also get a score of 1 for Tier- 1&3. Meanwhile, for
All-Tier, pre- service physics teachers can get a score of 1 if he has the correct answer, is sure of the
answer, has the right reason, and is also confident of that reason. The correct answer for the All-Tier
category shows that a student knows a concept. If a student has the correct answer and the reason is
wrong, the student is categorized into False Positive (FP). While the student chooses the right
reason, but the answer is incorrect, the student is classified as False Negative (FN). Furthermore, if
pre-service physics teachers are unsure of the answers or explanations, pre-service physics teachers
are grouped into people who do not know the concept (LK).
This misconception instrument has one correct answer and reason for each item, and th e rest
are answer choices and reasons that contain misconceptions. The misconception assessment process
uses a different key with the correct answer key, as shown in Table 1. A misconception can be
identified or explored using one or more items as shown in types M1, M2, M3, and M5. However,
the maximum score for pre-service physics teachers' misconceptions of each kind remains one.
Therefore, the number of misconceptions scores must be divided by the number of measuring items.
For example, for M1, there are four items – namely Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, and Item 5. If a student
has two answers that match the key for M1, then the student's misconception score is (1 + 1)/4 = 0.5.

2
The 1st International Conference Science Physics and Education 2021 (ICSPE 2021) IOP
Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2165 (2022) 012048 doi:10. 1088/1742-
6596/2165/1/012048

Table 1. Answer keys for scoring misconception.

Misconception
Item Answer Keys
Type Description
M1 Pre-service physics teachers have the concept that the 1.1.a; 1.2.a; 1.3.a; 1.4.a
closer to the surface, the buoyant force is smaller. 2.1.a; 2.2.a; 2.3.b; 2.4.a
4.1.b; 4.2.a; 4.3.d;
4.4.a 5. 1.b; 5.2.a; 5.3.d;
5.4.a
M2 Pre-service physics teachers have the concept that the 1.1.b; 1.2.a; 1.3.b;
closer to the surface, the buoyant force is greater. 1.4.a 2.1.b; 2.2.a; 2.3.d;
2.4.a 4.1.a; 4.2.a; 4.3.b;
4.4.a 5. 1.a; 5.2.a; 5.3.b;
5.4.a
M3 Pre-service physics teachers have the concept that 1.1.a; 1.2.a; 1.3.d;
buoyancy is determined by hydrostatic pressure. 1.4.a 2. 1.a; 2.2.a; 2.3.a;
2.4.a
M4 Pre-service physics teachers have the concept that the 3. 1.a;.3.2.a; 3.3.a; 3.4.a
smaller the mass of an object, the greater the buoyant
force
M5 Pre-service physics teachers have the concept that the 3.1.c; 3.2.a; 3.3.c;
buoyant force is not determined by the volume of the 3.4.a 5. 1.a; 5.2.a; 5.3.a;
submerged object but is determined by the total 5.4.a
volume of the object

The comparison of repeated measurement scores at Time 1 and Time 2 for correct
and misconception scores were determined using the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. In this case,
we compared (1) pre-service physics teachers' correct scores before and after receiving
additional instruction and (2) pre-service physics teachers' misconception scores before and
after receiving additional instruction on the topic of buoyancy.

3. Result and Discussion

The study results are described as the percentage of correct scores and misconceptions based on the
data obtained at Time 1 and Time 2. In addition, the rate of false positives, false negatives, and lack
of knowledge is also seen.

3.1. Correct Answers

After scoring Tier- 1, Tier- 1&3, and All-Tier for Time 1 and Time 2, data on correct scores for
both measurements were obtained.

Table 2. Percentage of correct answers with and without additional instructions.

Tier-1 Tier-1&3 All-Tier

Item Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2
Item 1 16.67 23.96 15.63 20.83 15.63 19.79
Item 2 10.42 15.63 8.33 12.5 8.33 12.5
Item 3 16.67 14.58 6.25 10.42 6.25 9.38
Item 4 7.29 7.29 3.13 4.17 2.08 4.17
Item 5 10.42 12.5 6.25 7.29 6.25 7.29
Mean 12.29 14.79 7.92 11.04 7.71 10.63
;
The 1st International Conference Science Physics and Education 2021 (ICSPE 2021) IOP
Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2165 (2022) 012048 doi:10. 1088/1742-
6596/2165/1/012048

The correct scores percentage of pre-service physics teachers answer – for example, in Time 1 –
is highest on Tier- 1 with an average of 12.29 and the lowest on All-tier with an average score of
7.71. This is due to the difference in the way of scoring as explained in the method section, wherein
Tier- 1 pre-service physics teachers are given a score of 1 if the answer is correct regardless of
other Tiers. The correct score of the all-tier is the lowest because pre-service physics teachers get a
score of 1 if the answers and reasons are correct and have confidence in the answers and reasons.
Therefore, the All- tier score is more appropriate to determine how pre-service physics teachers
understand the concept because it is more accurate. If we look at the percentage of correct scores,
pre-service physics teachers have the highest score on Item 1 and the lowest score on Item 4. The
difference of correct scores between Time 1 and Time 2 can be seen in Figure 1.

All Tier
25

20

15

10

0
Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item5 Mean

Before After

Figure 1. Correct answers percentage before and after treatment.

A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test revealed a statistically significant increase in pre-service

physics teachers ’ correct answers following additional instruction in the test, z = - 1.98, p < 0.05,
with a small effect size (r = 0. 14). The mean on the correct score increase (M = 7.7) to post
additional instruction (M = 10.6). The results of this statistical test indicate an increase in the
percentage of pre-service physics teachers' correct scores on the All-tier. This finding aligns with
[12] research which uses hands-on activities in learning to increase students' understanding of
floatation concepts. Whether this increase in the rate of correct scores at the same time has reduced
the misconceptions that occur, it is necessary to look at the results of the analysis of pre-service
physics teachers' misconceptions.

3.2. Misconception
After scoring the items using Item Answer Keys in Table 1, the percentage of student
misconceptions for each type in Time 1 and Time 2 is obtained, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Percentage of misconception with and without additional instructions.

Tier-1 Tier-1&3 All-Tier

Misconception
Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2
M1 45.05 44.79 6.51 4.69 5.73 4.69
M2 47.66 47.4 20.83 18.23 19.79 17.45
M3 50 52.6 25.52 25.56 24.48 26.56
M4 63.54 61.46 63.54 61.46 59.38 57.29
M5 40.63 38.8 14.32 16.67 14.32 15.63
Mean 49.38 49.01 26.14 25.52 24.74 24.32

4
The 1st International Conference Science Physics and Education 2021 (ICSPE 2021) IOP
Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2165 (2022) 012048 doi:10. 1088/1742-
6596/2165/1/012048

Like the correct score data, the highest score percentage is in Tier- 1, and the lowest is in All-
Tier. Based on the assessment criteria, the All-tier needs to be a concern and can be used to decide
whether a student has misconceptions or not. A review of the All-Tier for each type of
misconception shows that pre-service physics teachers experience the least misconceptions in type
M5 and the most in type M4 with a percentage of 59.38% at Time 1 and 57.29% at Time 2. M4
misconceptions are measured using question number 3, which is four-tier, as shown in Figure 2.

3.1 A boat full of cargo floats on the surface of the water. If some of the
boat's cargo is removed, then
a) the buoyant force on the boat increases
b) the buoyancy force on the boat decreases
c) the buoyant force on the boat does not change
3.2 What is your level of confidence in the answers above?
a sure
b) not sure
3.3 The reasons for the answers above are:
a) the weight of the boat decreases, so the buoyancy increases
b) the boat becomes lighter; its position rises so that the buoyancy is
reduced
c) buoyancy is determined by the size of the boat, not by the load
3.4 What is your level of confidence in the reasons above?
a sure
b) not sure

Figure 2. Question number 3 of FTBI.

The results of the All-tier analysis show that 59.38 percent or as many as 57 pre-service
physics teachers who choose option a at Time 1 have the conception that if the boat's load is
reduced, the buoyant force acting on the boat increases (M4). This conception contradicts or
differs from the physicists' conception, where reducing the load will cause the part of the boat
immersed in the water to decrease so that the buoyant force acting on the boat is also reduced. The
analysis results in Time 2 showed a slight decrease in the percentage to 57.29 percent or as many
as 55 people who still had misconceptions about the same concept. So, two people were no
longer categorized as having misconceptions; these two people were then interviewed. The
interview results turned out to support the quantitative findings that at Time 2, one person had
changed the answer to the correct answer but for the wrong reasons (the misconception score was
zero). Another person became unsure of the solution. In the analysis, the student was no longer
categorized as experiencing misconceptions but lacked knowledge.
Furthermore, respondents who choose option c in question number 3 are categorized as
having other types of misconceptions; namely, the buoyant force is not determined by the
volume of the submerged object but is determined by the total volume of the object (M5). Pre-
service physics teachers assume that the magnitude of the buoyant force acting on the boat
is constant. This conception is very different from Archimedes' Law which states the magnitude
of the buoyant force experienced by an object while in a fluid is equal to the weight of the fluid
separated by the object and is determined by the volume of the submerged object. Overall, the
analysis results of misconceptions between Time 1 and Time 2 can be seen in Figure 3.

5
The 1st International Conference Science Physics and Education 2021 (ICSPE 2021) IOP
Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2165 (2022) 012048 doi:10. 1088/1742-
6596/2165/1/012048

All Tier
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 Mean

Before After

Figure 3. Misconception score before and after treatment.

A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test revealed a non-statistically significant decrease (from M = 24.7 to M
= 24.3) in pre-service physics teachers ’ misconceptions following additional instruction in the test, z
= - 0.58, p > 0.05. These results indicate that the misconceptions experienced by pre-service
physics teachers about buoyancy tend not to change. Most respondents still have the wrong
conception that (1) the reduction in the load on the boat causes the buoyant force acting on the boat
to increase, (2) the size of the load does not determine the buoyant force acting on the boat, but by
the size of the boat, because the size of the boat is fixed, the buoyant force of the boat is also
constant, (3) the buoyant force is constant because the density of water and the density of the boat
are constant. Then, why did the percentage of pre-service physics teachers' correct answers increase
significantly? It is necessary to analyze the categories of false positives, false negatives, and lack of
knowledge.

3.3. False Positive, False Negative, and Lack of Knowledge

As explained in the method section, if a student has the correct answer and the reason is false,
the student is categorized into False Positive (FP). If the answer is wrong, but the reason is correct,
it is classified as False Negative (FN). Furthermore, if pre-service physics teachers are unsure
of the answers or explanations, they are grouped into people who do not have knowledge (LK) even
though the answers and reasons are correct. The results of data analysis for these three categories are
shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Comparison of FP, FN, and LK values at Time 1 and Time 2

Time False Positive False Negative Lack of Knowledge

Before (Time 1) 4.16 1.30 24.22
After (Time 2) 2.08 0 4.95

The results of the data analysis shown in Table 4 show a decrease in the percentage of FP, FN, and
LK. The results of interviews with respondents who in Phase 1 were categorized as false-positive
pre- service physics teachers (FPS), false-negative pre-service physics teachers (FNS), and
lack of knowledge pre-service physics teachers (LKS) are as follows:

In Stage 1, I chose the correct answer but with the wrong reason. After the
additional instructions in Step 2, I tried to use the principle of equilibrium of forces acting on
objects so that I knew the correct explanation. (FPS1)

6
The 1st International Conference Science Physics and Education 2021 (ICSPE 2021) IOP
Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2165 (2022) 012048 doi:10. 1088/1742-
6596/2165/1/012048

I changed my answer to the correct answer, but I am still not sure about my answer. (FNS1)

My answer and reasoning in Stage 1 were the same as in Stage 2, but I finally believed in
the answers; after additional instructions, I tried to use the concepts I had learned to answer
the questions. (LKS1)

Based on the interview above, it is known that FPS1 and LKS1 are contributors to the increase
in the percentage of correct scores, while FNS1 is not because they are not sure of the answer. This
data shows that the rise in the rate of correct scores comes from the FP, FN, and LK groups, so
that the increase in the percentage of correct scores does not automatically represent a decrea se
in student misconceptions. The results of this study indicate that misconceptions tend to be stable and
difficult to change, as found by previous researchers [11][13].

4. Conclusion
Measurement and remediation of misconceptions are not easy to do. It takes the
appropriate instrument to diagnose a misconception and, of course, a more serious effort to
change it. The treatment or instruction may increase pre-service physics teachers' correct answers
to an item related to a concept being tested, but it is not necessarily significant in changing pre-
service physics teachers' misconceptions.

Acknowledgment
This research was conducted using research funds from the University of Jambi in Indonesia through
a scheme provided by the research institute.

References
[1] Clement J, Brown D E and Zietsman A 1989 Not all preconceptions are misconceptions:
Finding ‘anchoring conceptions’ for grounding instruction on students’ intuitions, Int. J.
Sci. Educ., 11 5, pp. 554–565
[2] Gurel D K, Eryilmaz A and McDermott L C 2015 A review and comparison of diagnostic
instruments to identify students’ misconceptions in science, Eurasia J. Math. Sci.
Technol. Educ. 11 5, pp. 989– 1008
[3] Maison, Kurniawan W, Kurniawan D A and Hanum A 2021 “Application of a web-based
four- tier misconception instrument on the topic of work and energy,” Proc. 3rd Green Dev.
Int.
Conf. (GDIC 2020) 205 2020, pp. 206–208
[4] Caleon I S and Subramaniam R 2010 Do students know what they know and what they don’t
know? Using a four-tier diagnostic test to assess the nature of students’ alternative
conceptions Res. Sci. Educ. 40 3 pp 313–337
[5] 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,”
Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., 35 2, pp. 238–260
[6] Maison M, Safitri I C and Wardana R W 2020 Identification of misconception of high school
students on temperature and calor topic using four-tier diagnostic instrument,” EDUSAINS
11 2, pp. 195–202
[7] Maison, Kurniawan D A and Widowati R S 2021 The quality of four-tier diagnostic test
misconception tnstrument for parabolic motion J. Pendidik. dan Pengajaran 54 2 pp. 359–369
[8] Maison, Asrial, Susanti N, Effrita A and Tanti 2021 Identification of students’
misconception about light using a four-tier instrument J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1876 1
[9] Kiray S A, Aktan F, Kaynar H, Kilinc S and Gorkemli T 2015 A descriptive study of pre-
service science teachers’ misconceptions about sinking-floating,” Asia-Pacific Forum
Sci. Learn. Teach. 16 2
[10] Kiray S A and Simsek S 2021 Determination and Evaluation of the Science Teacher
7
The 1st International Conference Science Physics and Education 2021 (ICSPE 2021) IOP
Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2165 (2022) 012048 doi:10. 1088/1742-
6596/2165/1/012048

Candidates’ Misconceptions About Density by Using Four-Tier Diagnostic Test,” Int. J.

Sci. Math. Educ. 19 5 pp. 935–955
[11] Hammer D 1996 More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and
reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research Am. J. Phys. 64 10 pp. 1316–
1325 [12] Unal S 2008 Changing students’ misconceptions of floating and sinking using hands-
on
activities J. Balt. Sci. Educ. 7 3, pp. 134– 146
[13] Hasan S, Bagayoko D and Kelley E L 1999 Misconceptions and the certainty of response
index (CRI),” Phys. Educ. 34 5 pp. 294–299