African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and

Technology Education

ISSN: 1811-7295 (Print) 2469-7656 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmse20

Assessment of Students Scientific and Alternative

Conceptions of Energy and Momentum Using
Concentration Analysis

Bekele Gashe Dega & Nadaraj Govender

To cite this article: Bekele Gashe Dega & Nadaraj Govender (2016): Assessment of Students
Scientific and Alternative Conceptions of Energy and Momentum Using Concentration
Analysis, African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, DOI:
10.1080/18117295.2016.1218657

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2016.1218657

Published online: 16 Aug 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 14

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmse20

Download by: [Ryerson University Library] Date: 10 October 2016, At: 22:46
African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2016.1218657
2016 Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology
Education (SAARMSTE)

Assessment of Students Scientic and Alternative

Conceptions of Energy and Momentum Using Concentration
Analysis

Bekele Gashe Dega and Nadaraj Govender*

University of KwaZuluNatal, Pinetown, South Africa

*Corresponding author. University of KwaZuluNatal, Pinetown, South Africa. Email: govendern37@
ukzn.ac.za

This study compares the scientic and alternative conceptions of energy and momentum of university rst-
year science students in Ethiopia and the US. Written data were collected using the Energy and Momentum
Conceptual Survey developed by Singh and Rosengrant. The Concentration Analysis statistical method
was used for analysing the Ethiopian data from 72 students and extending the analysis of the American
data from 352 students in the Singh and Rosengrant study. Low levels of scientic conceptions of
students responses were identied for both groups of respondents. A three-level categorisation of
students responses showed that the distribution of responses to 80% (ETH) and 52% (US) of the items
represented the null-model or random state. The distribution of responses to 20% (ETH) and 48% (US) of
the items represented the bi-model state and none of the items was responded to in a purely correct or
alternative conception one-model state. The analysis of the data revealed a variety of students
alternative conceptions and phenomenological primitives (p-prims) regarding energy and momentum.
The ndings imply that teachers should explore the use of the Concentration Analysis method in
identifying alternative conceptions and p-prims in physics to support their students learning.

Keywords: Alternative conceptions; concentration analysis; energy and momentum; response states; scientic
conceptions

Introduction and Statement of the Problem

Research indicates that physics undergraduate students have difculties in understanding physics
concepts (Wieman & Perkins, 2005). In this study, we investigated students scientic and alternative
conceptions of energy and momentum. Singh and Rosengrant (2003) developed a research-based
test, the Energy and Momentum Conceptual Survey (EMCS), to assess American (US) introductory
university students conceptual understanding of energy and momentum. This study focused on the
Ethiopian context, where science students have limited practical hands-on experiences at secondary
school (Bekalo & Welford, 1999; Bradley, 2016) that could affect negatively their understanding of
science concepts. In contrast, US students generally have access to laboratories and technologies
at school level.
While Singh and Rosengrants (2003) study has additional information from interviews on students
understanding, it does not explicitly focus on the distribution of students alternative conceptions. It is
not easy to get information on the nature of students alternative answers from traditional test score
analysis, as such an analysis often depends solely on frequencies of students giving the correct

African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education is co-published by Unisa Press and Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
2 Dega and Govender

answer. Traditional test analysis lacks rigorous statistical analysis to assess the concentration of stu-
dents responses to the correct and alternative answers.
Concentration analysis, a statistical method, incorporates information on students scientic and
alternative conceptions and describes their associated response level as well (Bao & Redish,
2001). Thus, more nuanced insight can be obtained about students thinking. Concentration analysis
used as a diagnostic tool can inform teachers on the range of alternative conceptions and phenomen-
ological primitives (p-prims) (diSessa, 1993) they need to address in their teaching. p-Prims originate
from common experiences of ready schemata in terms of which one sees and explains the world
(diSessa, 1993, p. 112) and once identied teachers can design appropriate instructional approaches
for conceptual change.
This study explored to what extent Ethiopian introductory undergraduate students perform differently
from US students in terms of conceptual understanding of energy and momentum. The research ques-
tions are: how are the Ethiopian students scientic and alternative conceptions of energy and momen-
tum categorised into levels using concentration analysis; and how do these results compare with US
students EMCS test results?

Literature Review

Teaching for conceptual development of science concepts arose from research in the 1980s on stu-
dents alternative conceptions (Driver, 1989). An essential part of both assessment of and teaching
for conceptual development was to clarify students existing ideas and to help them construct the scien-
tically accepted ideas. Both strategies have a benecial impact on students conceptual change,
either directly or indirectly, by modifying their motivation beliefs which, in turn, inuence conceptual
change (Yin et al., 2008).
Students hold a number of alternative conceptions when describing energy and momentum ideas in
real situations. For example, several students think that energy is a concrete entity and not an abstract
idea. They often confuse the concepts of energy and force (Kruger, Palacio, & Summers, 1992), kinetic
energy and momentum (Bryce & MacMillan, 2009) and energy, power and energy conservation (Goldr-
ing & Osborne, 1994). Questions involving workenergy and impulsemomentum theorems are typi-
cally perceived to be more difcult than those involving their special cases, momentum and energy
(Lawson & McDermott, 1987). Singh and Rosengrant (2003) found that many students have difculty
in using the conservation of energy and momentum principles appropriately in a variety of practical situ-
ations. University students also have difculties with energy concepts in that they fail to recognise the
implications of a particular choice of system (Lindsey, Heron, & Shaffer, 2012) and their application to
everyday situations (Jewett, 2008; Lindsey et al., 2012). In some cases, students do not believe that
particular groupings of objects can even be considered a system. This failure reects a tendency to
assume that the energy of any system remains constant because energy is conserved. In other
cases, students reasons for changes in kinetic and potential energies are over-generalised in that
they do not recognise situations when changes are inadequate. Differentiation of fundamental con-
cepts in physics is also problematic. For example, several introductory physics students are unable
to answer basic questions involving collisions of objects because of their failure to differentiate the
scalar quantity kinetic energy from the vector quantity linear momentum (Close & Heron, 2010).
They also categorise work and energy as vector quantities because of the positive or negative sign
attached to the work done by or against gravity and work done by or against friction. The literature
review conrms that students understanding of energy and momentum is often fraught with multiple
difculties viewed from both teaching and learning perspectives.

Methodology

A quantitative research method was used to collect and analyse data from 72 undergraduate calculus-
based physics students at a university in Ethiopia prior to their exposure to introductory physics. The
EMCS diagnostic test of 25 items (see Appendix) developed by Singh and Rosengrant (2003) was
Assessment of Students Scientic and Alternative Conceptions of Energy and Momentum Using Concentration Analysis 3

used to assess students conceptual knowledge of energy and momentum concepts. It is a Multiple
Choice Questions (MCQ) test with a combination of scientic conceptions as correct answers and
alternatives as distractors. The EMCS test has been used in many other studies throughout the litera-
ture and its validity has been established.

Concentration Analysis of Students Responses

We used concentration analysis, a statistical method, to measure how students correct and incorrect
responses to MCQ were distributed (Bao & Redish, 2001). By investigating the relative frequency of
the students alternative ideas in the data, we sought patterns of scientic and alternative conceptions.
Every item of a MCQ diagnostic test is represented by two parameters, the score (S) and concentration
factor (Cf). The score is the fraction of students correct answers to each MCQ. Its value varies from 0
to 1. The Cf is the concentration of the students responses to the different options of each item, and is
given by:










m 2





m i=1 ni 1
Cf =





(1)
m1 N m

where m stands for the number of multiple options and ni is the number of students responses to the ith
option, where i varies from 1 to m, and N is the total number of students who wrote the test. The value of
the concentration factor also varies from 0 to 1. For example, if an MCQ single-response question with
ve choices (AE) was given to 100 students, then three possible distributions of the students
responses to the question as adapted from Bao and Redish (2001) would be given, as in Table 1.
In Table 1, a type I distribution represents an extreme case (Cf = 0) where the responses are evenly
distributed among all the choices, such as for the results of random responses. Type II is a more typical
distribution that may occur in many situations where students responses to a test item show a higher
concentration for some choices than for others (0 < Cf < 1). Type III is the case where every student has
selected the same choice (Cf = 1).

Categorisation of Students Response States

Students responses to the EMCS were analysed using concentration analysis to answer the research
question. The score and concentration factor of the students responses for each of the 25 EMCS items
were calculated to investigate the extent of the scientic and alternative conceptions held by the stu-
dents. The students response levels were then identied by combining, for each item, the score with
the concentration factor. A three-level coding was used to categorise students response levels as
shown in Table 2 (Bao & Redish, 2001).
Concentration analysis also allows for further categorisation of students response levels forming
three response model states (Bao & Redish, 2001) shown in Table 3. In an items response model
state level (e.g. LM) the rst letter (L) represents the score while the second (M) indicates the concen-
tration level of the set of responses.
The EMCS items are designed with the alternative conceptions included as distracters. Hence, if stu-
dents responses are concentrated on one or more of these choices, then their associated response
model states can be assessed. In contrast, if the students have little conceptual knowledge of the

Table 1. Three possible distribution patterns of student responses

Type A B C D E S Cf
I 20 20 20 20 20 0.2 0
II 40 30 20 5 5 0.4 if A is correct, 0.3 if B is correct, 0.2 if C is correct, >0 and <1
0.05 if D or E is correct
III 100 0 0 0 0 1 if A is correct otherwise 0 1
4 Dega and Govender

Table 2. Students response levels categorisation

Score (S) Concentration factor (Cf) Levels

0 S < 0.4 0 Cf < 0.2 Low (L)
0.4 S < 0.7 0.2 Cf < 0.5 Medium (M)
0.7 S 1.0 0.5 Cf 1.0 High (H)

concepts, they may act as if they have no models at all, or as if they would choose from a wide variety of
different conceptions (null-model). In this case, their response model state level is LL. In the bi-model
state, the response model states levels range from two popular to two non-popular levels. The way in
which the students responses are distributed can provide useful information about the students
response model states.

Analysis methods
Permission was obtained from the authors to use the EMCS items. We reconceptualised part of Singh
and Rosengrants (2003) data (pre-test A, p. 610) from a calculus-base class of 352 US introductory
physics students who took the EMCS test. We incorporated the percentage responses, S, Cf and
model state for each EMCS question. The purpose was to make justiable comparisons with the
results of our study. The scores and concentration factors were calculated, represented and analysed
using equation (1) and Tables 1 and 2. The corresponding response model states were categorised
using Table 3.

Results

For analytic purposes, we categorised the 25 EMCS items into ve conceptual clusters (Table 4). The
results for each of these clusters are presented in Tables 59. The correct choices of EMCS items are
indicated in bold.

Conservation of mechanical energy

The items 2, 4, 9, 15, 17 and 22 (Table 5) can be answered based upon the principle of conservation of
mechanical energy (CME) because there is no work done by non-conservative forces. The questions
focus on gravity (as a conservative force) in the absence of friction.
Apart from question 15, Table 5 shows that the Ethiopian students responses to the CME questions
were in random response model state-LL. The wide range of choices for these questions reects a
variety of fragmented ideas held by ETH students.
ETH students responses to question 15 reect a bi-model state (LM) with a predominant alternative
option (C) of greater weight greater downward acceleration and another alternative option (E) of
greater mass less time to slide down. Their LM state conrms that a p-prim heavy objects fall

Table 3. Students possible response model states categorisation

Response model states Levels Description

One-model HH One correct model
LH One dominant incorrect model
Bi-model LM Two possible incorrect models
MM Two popular, correct and incorrect, models
ML Two non-popular models
MH Two non-popular models
Null model LL Near random situation
Assessment of Students Scientic and Alternative Conceptions of Energy and Momentum Using Concentration Analysis 5

Table 4. Conceptual cluster of EMCS items

Concepts Items Conceptual cluster

Energy 2, 4, 9, 15, 17 and 22
1, 6, 8,12, 20, 24 and 25
Momentum 5, 10, 14 and 21
7, 18, 19 and 23
Energy and Momentum 3, 11, 13 and 16
Conservation of mechanical energy (Table 5)
Work done by conservative and non-conservative forces
(Table 6)
Momentum conservation (Table 7)
Impulse and momentum (Table 8)
Systems for energy and momentum (Table 9)

Table 5. Percentage distribution of students responses, score, concentration factor, levels and response model
state on items of conservation of mechanical energy

Items A B C D E S Cf S level Cf level Response model state

2 ETH 6 25 32 26 11 0.11 0.10 L L LL
US 15 7 21 7 50 0.50 0.22 M M MM
4 ETH 11 15 4 43 27 0.11 0.17 L L LL
US 47 14 3 15 21 0.47 0.19 M L ML
9 ETH 6 38 18 29 10 0.06 0.13 L L LL
US 26 33 14 12 15 0.26 0.06 L L LL
15 ETH 13 7 50 11 19 0.13 0.22 L M LM
US 47 6 39 4 4 0.47 0.30 M M MM
17 ETH 14 15 29 31 11 0.15 0.07 L L LL
US 31 30 5 28 6 0.30 0.13 L L LL
22 ETH 24 15 35 11 15 0.11 0.07 L L LL
US 35 7 21 16 21 0.16 0.13 L L LL

faster with two variations, namely, a dominant the acceleration of a falling object depends upon its
weight and less dominant the greater the mass the faster it falls. For the same question (15), the
US students MM state suggests one correct and one alternative modela dominant variation of
the p-prim, namely option C. The difference in the p-prims lies in the concept of acceleration,
which is more dominant for both groups than time. This observation can be explained by the
familiarity with F proportional to a in Newtons Second Law (more frequently tested in class), rather
than F proportional to 1/t. The bi-model states of both groups suggest that the students hold two
popular models involving conservative forces in CME, namely, the mechanical energy conservation
model and kinematic reasoning model compounded by the p-prim of larger mass causes larger
acceleration.
The US students responses to questions 9, 17 and 22 indicate fragmented ideas as reected in the
LL model state. However, responses to questions 2, 4 and 15 represent the bi-model state, i.e. a better
response than from the Ethiopian students LL model state suggesting Ethiopians students lesser
exposure to problems of this kind, either quantitatively or qualitatively. For question 2, the US students
response model state is MMone correct and one alternative conceptual model. The correct model
choice is based on CME and their alternative model on kinematics. Both groups selected a popular
incorrect choice of constant and higher slope (C). Probably the students used the mathematical
slope idea, the larger the slope, the larger the value of the quantity (speed) at the bottom of the
slide (p-prim). These students could also have interpreted the graph as a velocitytime
graph (where the tangent to the curve gives acceleration) rather than an xy position graph. The
ETH students LL state indicates that they also chose the distractor that described the longer the dis-
tance, the greater speed (p-prim) (B). The ML response model state for the responses to question 4
indicates that a prevailing conception amongst the US sample group is the scientic model for the
CME.
6 Dega and Govender

Table 6. Percentage distribution of students responses, score, concentration factor, levels and response model
state on items of work done by conservative and non-conservative forces

Items A B C D E S Cf S level Cf level Response model state

1 ETH 18 14 26 19 22 0.14 0.02 L L LL
US 10 33 37 9 11 0.33 0.14 L L LL
6 ETH 21 17 14 40 8 0.14 0.11 L L LL
US 5 4 12 66 13 0.12 0.43 L M LM
8 ETH 38 7 17 25 14 0.17 0.10 L L LL
US 6 8 30 41 15 0.30 0.16 L L LL
12 ETH 22 21 11 24 22 0.24 0.02 L L LL
US 5 4 9 21 61 0.21 0.37 L M LM
20 ETH 11 36 35 13 6 0.11 0.15 L L LL
US 35 11 33 8 13 0.35 0.12 L L LL
24 ETH 7 47 33 8 4 0.07 0.26 L M LM
US 20 29 29 15 7 0.20 0.06 L L LL
25 ETH 32 19 17 14 18 0.18 0.04 L L LL
US 15 13 19 20 33 0.33 0.04 L L LL

Work done by conservative and non-conservative forces

Table 6 includes items 1, 6, 8, 12, 20, 24 and 25, all related to work done by conservative and non-con-
servative forces. This cluster of items involving work done by conservative and non-conservative
forces reveals that roughly 85% of the ETH students and 70% of the US students responses lay in
the LL state, suggesting serious conceptual fragmentation. The ETH students responses to all ques-
tions in this cluster, except question 24, reect an LL state. ETH students responses to question 24
reect a bi-model LM state. Sizeable clusters of students chose either of two of the options (B and
C), representing two alternative conceptions. In this case, 47% the students related smaller mass to
higher kinetic energy and 33% of the students associated a larger speed with a higher kinetic
energy, revealing the two alternative conceptions that either only greater mass or only larger speed
achieves greater kinetic energy. This suggests non-coherent reasoning. It is notable that for the US
group the response choices for question 24 are even more evenly distributed, reecting a random
model stateLL.
US students responses to all questions in this cluster reect an LL state, except for questions 6 and
12, indicating a bi-model LM state, suggesting an alternative conception each. Question 6 was about
motion of a satellite around the earth in a circular orbit at constant speed. A signicant percentage
(66%) of the US students selected the distractor stating the invariance of velocity as the satellite
moves in the orbit. This depicted a lateral alternative conception (Dega, Kriek, & Mogese, 2013)
that considers speed as a velocity as these respondents did not appreciate the change of velocity
owing to the change of direction in a circular motion. For question 12, the popular distractor was E
(61%), which describes that the magnitude of the applied force is greater than the magnitude of fric-
tional force. This may indicate that students hold the p-prim conception of force implies motion.

Momentum conservation
The response distributions for items 5, 10, 14 and 21 on momentum conservation in elastic and inelas-
tic collisions are presented in Table 7. ETH students responses to all questions of this cluster except
question 5 reect a random response stateLL. ETH students ML response state for question 5
suggests that they hold two non-popular models. The rst is the dominant conservation of momentum
model (correct answer D), suggesting that they associate an elastic collision with bouncing off as the
bullet does from the steel block. The other model relates to inelastic collision where students only use
Newtons second law (option C) while ignoring conservation of momentum. There is an increase in
mass of the wooden block as the bullet embeds in it, but the students reason that the force increases
and causes an acceleration. This student conception probably resulted in them deducing the incorrect
Assessment of Students Scientic and Alternative Conceptions of Energy and Momentum Using Concentration Analysis 7

Table 7. Percentage distribution of students responses, score, concentration factor, levels and response model
state of items on momentum conservation

Items A B C D E S Cf S level Cf level Response model state

5 ETH 14 8 29 42 7 0.42 0.17 M L ML
US 15 45 17 11 12 0.11 0.14 L L LL
10 ETH 4 25 44 14 13 0.14 0.18 L L LL
US 35 20 21 13 11 0.13 0.06 L L LL
14 ETH 15 18 14 32 21 0.32 0.04 L L LL
US 6 14 8 60 12 0.60 0.34 M M MM
21 ETH 11 19 39 19 11 0.39 0.10 L L LL
US 13 15 44 11 17 0.44 0.13 M L ML

answer that the wooden block travels faster than the steel block. For this item, the ETH students were
found to perform better than the US students in differentiating between elastic and inelastic collisions in
momentum conservation. The US students related the block travels faster after collision to only the
speed of the bullet (choice B). This students view shows a p-prim that momentum corresponds to
speed only rather than to the product of mass and speed.
The US students responses to all questions in this cluster reect the LL state apart from responses
to questions 14 and 21. Question 14 tests both momentum and CME. The MM state for this inelastic
collision item suggests two popular modelsone correct model based on conservation of momentum
selected by most students (D) and the other incorrect (B) model based on kinetic energy of the system.
These students did not consider work done or transfer of energy during the collision as a change in
kinetic energy resulting in the carts being stuck together and remaining stationary with zero momen-
tum and kinetic energy of the system just after collision. Question 21 also involves an inelastic inter-
action. The US students correct choice (C) results in the ML model state reecting a dominant
scientic concept. Although the concept of variable mass during collision seems difcult to physics stu-
dents, the familiar context of a rain-cart system motion helped them to understand the problem. The bi-
model MM and ML states for questions 14 and 21, respectively, reect correct responses, suggesting
that the US students were better than the ETH students in differentiating between elastic and inelastic
collisions, conservation of momentum and CME.

Impulse and momentum

Table 8 for items 7, 18, 19 and 23 focuses on impulse and momentum relationships. In this impulse and
momentum cluster of items, there was equal distribution of LL and the bi-model states for the ETH (and
the US) students. Question 7 probes students understanding of the linear momentum of a motorcycle
and a truck. The masses of the two objects are not specied in the question, and thus it lacks the

Table 8. Percentage distribution of students responses, score, concentration factor, levels and response model
state of items on impulse and momentum

Items A B C D E S Cf S level Cf level Response state

7 ETH 10 18 4 60 8 0.08 0.35 L M LM
US 15 5 10 15 55 0.55 0.27 M M MM
18 ETH 11 18 17 8 46 0.46 0.17 M L ML
US 23 17 19 21 20 0.20 0.00 L L LL
19 ETH 14 13 29 21 24 0.13 0.04 L L LL
US 14 47 7 14 18 0.47 0.17 M L ML
23 ETH 18 31 19 22 10 0.31 0.04 L L LL
US 45 21 20 9 5 0.21 0.17 L L LL
8 Dega and Govender

Table 9. Percentage distribution of students responses, score, concentration factor, levels and response model
state of items on energy and momentum

Items A B C D E S Cf S level Cf level Response model state

3 ETH 15 26 13 21 25 0.26 0.03 L L LL
US 13 45 16 16 10 0.45 0.14 M L ML
11 ETH 8 14 43 15 19 0.19 0.14 L L LL
US 13 23 12 11 41 0.41 0.12 M L ML
13 ETH 36 17 36 7 4 0.36 0.17 L L LL
US 6 18 52 10 14 0.52 0.23 M M MM
16 ETH 26 31 28 15 0 0.28 0.12 L L LL
US 24 22 34 12 8 0.34 0.08 L L LL

information needed to state that either the motorcycle or the truck has a larger momentum. For this
item, the LM state for ETH students suggests a possible alternative momentum conception (choice
D), namely, moving faster and having an acceleration, resulting in a larger momentum while ignoring
the mass effect; the p-prim identied is momentum is associated with changes in speed only. For US
students, their MM state suggests a correct conception by just over half of the sample as both mass
and speed are considered necessary to compare the momentum of the truck and motorcycle. Momen-
tum being the product of mass and instantaneous velocity seems to be an elusive concept and extre-
mely difcult, especially for ETH students, as only 8% selected the correct answer.
Question 18 is concerned with simple denitions and units related to linear momentum and impulse.
The ETH students bi-model ML state reects one correct model of the unit of measurement for
momentum and impulse being the same. For question 19, the US students ML state reects the scien-
tically correct model of changes in momentum over a longer time (option B). Although the distribution
of responses for questions 18 and 19 indicates the prevalence of the scientic conception of impulse
and momentum for one of the groups, the distribution of responses of the other group is considerably
different. A pattern emerges that abstract concepts comprising the product of two concrete concepts
are not understood easily.

Systems for energy and momentum

Table 9 presents the response distributions for items 3, 11, 13 and 16 on the relationships between the
energy and momentum concepts. In this cluster, all the responses of ETH students reect the LL
states. The responses to 75% of the items for the US group show a bi-model state. In each of these
items, such a bi-model state is due to the prevalence of the scientically correct choices. There is a
clear difference between the understanding displayed by both groups. Since the concepts to be devel-
oped in Table 9 require some exploration with practicals, it can be speculated that a clearer conception
of momentum conservation in elastic and inelastic collisions amongst the US group may be related to
more extensive practical experiences acquired in laboratories.

Discussion

We categorised levels of the Ethiopian students scientic and alternative conceptions of energy and
momentum using concentration analysis and compared these results with US students EMCS test
results. A three-level categorisation of students responses showed that the distribution of responses
to 80% (ETH) and 52% (US) of the items represented the null-model or random state. The distribution
of responses to 20% (ETH) and 48% (US) of the items represented the bi-model state and none of the
items was responded to in a purely correct or alternative conception one-model state.
The results in this study are in agreement with Singh and Rosengrants (2003) study showing that
students lack a coherent understanding of the principles related to energy and momentum. Most stu-
dents did not use the principle of conservation of energy and momentum to answer the questions but
Assessment of Students Scientic and Alternative Conceptions of Energy and Momentum Using Concentration Analysis 9

relied more on a kinematical reasoning model. Few students of both groups held scientic conceptions
about work done by conservative and non-conservative force; hence they were unable to differentiate
conditions for work done. For the US students, prevalent scientically accepted models were reected
for several items testing conceptual clusters of CME, momentum conservation and systems of energy
and momentum conservation.
It seems that the students in Ethiopia are not explicitly exposed to some of the research on alternative
conceptions and conceptual change, like Force Concept Inventory research (Hestenes, Wells, & Swac-
khamer, 1992). Their responses attest to the tenacity of p-prims as universal alternative concepts
amongst school students (Dykstra & Sweet, 2009), university students at all levels (Hestenes et al.,
1992) and even teachers (Bayraktar, 2009). diSessa (1993) characterised prior intuitive knowledge in
terms of p-prims as minimal abstractions of common phenomena (p. 114) originating from interactions
of the daily physical world. Many of these are expressed as qualitative proportionalities such as the More
effort implies more result (p. 126) and observed in questions 2 and 15 as the greater the weight, the
faster the object falls. Lateral alternative conceptions (Dega et al., 2013) such as incorrect categorisation
of velocity as speed, momentum as force, work as force and a poor discrimination of the relationships
between work, energy and momentum concepts were revealed from their responses. In addition, the stu-
dents alternative conception revealed momentum as a scalar, rather than a vector, and ignored the com-
bination of the product of mass and velocity (Lawson & McDermott, 1987).
The methods of teaching physics in school and university in Ethiopia are mostly lecture-based with a
focus on mathematical problem-solving with occasional demonstrations and fewer laboratories and
technologies. The students also experience physics as a subject that is abstract and theoretical
(Semela, 2010) such that they cannot see the application in their daily lives. In Semelas study,
reports of observations of an Ethiopian university physics laboratory sessions conrm constraints
such as the shortage of equipment, the limited individual opportunities for hands-on practice and
lack of integration of theory and practical in terms of curriculum sequencing. It seems that the lack
of sufcient exposure to practical work as well as simultaneously elucidating the relevant theory has
impacted on students learning of concepts in energy and momentum as evidenced in the many
random LL states arising from questions involving practical and conceptual questions in Tables 59.
As English is a second language and is underdeveloped in Ethiopia, Ethiopian students may have
additional difculty in differentiating common daily words such as work and normal and abstract
words such as conservative and non-conservative, conservation and impulse amongst others, as
they are employed differently in physics. The use of local language context-based problems may
afford improved linkages between physics concepts and their everyday life experiences.

Conclusion

A quantitative research method was used to collect data from 72 rst-year Ethiopian university science
students who completed 25 multiple-choice items of the EMCS prior to their exposure to introductory
physics. The analysis showed low levels of the students scientic conceptions in energy and momen-
tum concepts. The Ethiopian students results were also compared to US students results from Singh
and Rosengrants (2003) study. A three-level concentration analysis categorisation of students
response distributions showed that the vast majority of the response distributions for the Ethiopian stu-
dents and the majority of those for the US students exhibited a random state. The signicance of this
categorisation is that the students response distributions showed neither a pure correct model nor an
incorrect model. The results of the study revealed a variety of students alternative conceptions and p-
prims, but mostly a fractured understanding regarding the principles of conservation of mechanical
energy, work done by conservative and non-conservative forces, the workenergy theorem and
momentum.

Implications

The study implies that teachers should engage their students more often with questions and familiar
contextual examples such as those of the EMCS that reveal conceptual difculties in the work
10 Dega and Govender

energy theorem. A workenergy approach to problem solving should be attempted rst rather than
kinematical reasoning. Teachers should address language difculties by highlighting different mean-
ings of words in different contexts and consolidate concepts such as kinetic energy, momentum and
impulse. More frequent individual exposure of practical work including ICT resources such as simu-
lations should be made available to Ethiopian students. Furthermore, the use of the Concentration
Analysis method is recommended to assess students possible categorisation of response model
states of particular concepts as it provides a deeper analysis for formative assessment by identifying
p-prims.

Funding

This work was supported by the University of KwaZulu-Natal, College of Humanities for post-doctoral
research.

References

Bao, L., & Redish, E. (2001). Concentration analysis: A quantitative assessment of student states. American Journal
of Physics, 69(S1), S45S53.
Bayraktar, S. (2009). Misconceptions of Turkish pre-service teachers about force and motion. International Journal
of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(2), 273291.
Bekalo, S., & Welford, A. (1999). Secondary pre-service teacher education in Ethiopia: Its impact on teachers com-
petence and condence to teach practical work in science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(12),
12931310.
Bradley, J. (2016). Achieving the aims of school practical work with microchemistry. African Journal of Chemical
Education, 6(1), 216.
Bryce, T., & MacMillan, K. (2009). Momentum and kinetic energy: Confusable concepts in secondary school
physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(7), 739761.
Close, H. G., & Heron, P. R. (2010). Research as a guide for improving student learning: An example from momen-
tum conservation. American Journal of Physics, 78(9), 961969.
Dega, B. G., Kriek, J., & Mogese, T. F. (2013). Categorization of alternative conceptions in electricity and magnet-
ism: The case of Ethiopian undergraduate students. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 18911915.
diSessa, A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(23), 105225.
Driver, R. (1989). Students conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 11
(5), 481490.
Dykstra Jr, D., & Sweet, D. (2009). Conceptual development about motion and force in elementary and middle
school students. American Journal of Physics, 77(5), 468476.
Goldring, H., & Osborne, J. (1994). Students difculties with energy and related concepts. Physics Education, 29
(1), 2632.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141158.
Jewett Jr, J. W. (2008). Energy and the confused student I: Work. The Physics Teacher, 46(1), 3843.
Kruger, C., Palacio, D., & Summers, M. (1992). Surveys of English primary teachers conceptions of force, energy,
and materials. Science Education, 76(4), 339351.
Lawson, R., & McDermott, L. (1987). Student understanding of the workenergy and impulsemomentum theories.
American Journal of Physics, 55(9), 811817.
Lindsey, B., Heron, P., & Shaffer, P. (2012). Student understanding of energy: Difculties related to systems.
American Journal of Physics, 80(2), 154163.
Semela, T. (2010). Who is joining physics and why? Factors inuencing the choice of physics among Ethiopian uni-
versity students. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 5(3), 319340.
Singh, C., & Rosengrant, D. (2003). Multiple-choice test of energy and momentum concepts. American Journal of
Physics, 71(6), 607617.
Wieman, C., & Perkins, K. (2005). Transforming physics education. Physics Today, 58(11), 36.
Yin, Y., Shavelson, R., Ayala, C., Ruiz-Primo, M., Brandon, P., Furtak, E., Tomita, M. & Young, D. (2008). On the
impact of formative assessment on student motivation, achievement, and conceptual change. Applied
Measurement in Education, 21(4), 335359.
Assessment of Students Scientic and Alternative Conceptions of Energy and Momentum Using Concentration Analysis 11
12 Dega and Govender
Assessment of Students Scientic and Alternative Conceptions of Energy and Momentum Using Concentration Analysis 13