The European Educational Researcher

Development of Modern Physics Achievement Test: Validity and Reliability Study

The European Educational Researcher, Volume 3, Issue 1, February 2020, pp. 29-38
OPEN ACCESS VIEWS: 277 DOWNLOADS: 134 Publication date: 15 Feb 2020
ABSTRACT
In this study, we aimed to develop an instrument that could be used to measure students' achievement in modern physics at high school level in a valid and reliable manner. The study was carried out in fall 2013–2014 with a total of 304 students. In this study, expert opinions were obtained to determine the test’s content validity. The reliability of the test was obtained via Cronbach’s alpha, which produced reliability coefficients that fell within acceptable limits. Item analysis were conducted to eliminate improper items. Based on these findings, it could be concluded that the test is an instrument that produces valid and reliable measures, and that can be used to determine students’ achievement in modern physics.
KEYWORDS
Modern physics test, Physics achievement test, Test validity and reliability
CITATION (APA)
Balta, N., & Eryılmaz, A. (2020). Development of Modern Physics Achievement Test: Validity and Reliability Study. The European Educational Researcher, 3(1), 29-38. https://doi.org/10.31757/euer.313
REFERENCES
  1. Balta, N., & Eryılmaz, A. (2019). The effect of the ‘teacher-led PD for teachers’ professional development program on students’ achievement: an experimental study. Teacher Development, 23(5), 588-608.
  2. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Florida: Holt, Rinehart and Winston INC.
  3. Dimitriadi, K., & Halkia, K. (2012). Secondary Students’ Understanding of Basic Ideas of Special Relativity. International Journal of Science Education. 1–18, First Article.
  4. Eryılmaz, A. (2012). Personal communication, November, 29.
  5. Griffith, W. T. (2001). The Physics for Everyday Phenomena: A conceptual introduction to physics, MCGraw Campanies.
  6. Hewitt, P. G. (2006). Conceptual physics, Ninth edition, Pearson.
  7. Hewson, P. W. (1982). A case study of conceptual change in special relativity: the influence of prior knowledge in learning. International Journal of Science Education. 4, 61–78.
  8. Hosson, C., Kermen, I., & Parizot, E. (2010). Exploring students' understanding of reference frames and time in Galilean and special relativity. European journal of physics, 31, 1527–1538.
  9. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
  10. Scherr, R. (2007). Modeling student thinking: an example from special relativity. American Journal of Physics. 75, 272–80.
  11. Selçuk, G. S. (2010). Addressing pre-service teachers’ understandings and difficulties with some core concepts in the special theory of relativity. European journal of physics, 32, 1–13.
  12. Serway, R. A., & Jewett, J. W. (2004). Physics for Scientists and Engineers 6th edn (Thomson Brooks/Cole)
  13. Villani, A. & Pacca, J. L. A. (1987). Students’ spontaneous ideas about the speed of light. International Journal of Science Education, 9 55–66.
  14. Yıldız, A. (2012). Prospective Teachers' Comprehension Levels of Special Relativity Theory and the Effect of Writing for Learning on Achievement. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 37(12), 15-28.
LICENSE
Creative Commons License