Author
Abstract
Traditional science assessments inadequately distinguish between lack of knowledge and confident misconceptions, limiting their diagnostic value for instructional design. This study developed and validated a three-tier multiple choice diagnostic instrument for Indonesian students studying ecology and biodiversity concepts, integrating content questions, reasoning probes, and confidence ratings using the Certainty of Response Index. We administered a 15-item instrument to 95 seventh-grade students at a public junior high school in Central Java, Indonesia. Validation employed multi-method approaches including classical test theory, Item Response Theory modeling, confidence calibration analysis, and network analysis of misconception co-occurrence patterns. Student responses were classified as Sound Understanding with Confidence (PKDY), Sound Understanding with Uncertainty (PKTTY), Misconceptions (M), or Lack of Knowledge (TPK). The instrument demonstrated acceptable reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.647-0.682) and high content validity (0.833). Classification revealed 37.4% PKDY, 33.9% misconceptions, 19.0% lack of knowledge, and 9.7% uncertain understanding. Students exhibited systematic overconfidence (OI = 0.024) with Dunning-Kruger effects. Network analysis identified four misconception communities with coherent clustering patterns rather than random errors. Two-parameter logistic IRT models provided superior fit compared to Rasch models. The methodology advances diagnostic assessment by revealing which misconceptions function as conceptual bridges in student thinking, providing actionable intelligence for targeted instruction. For educational practice, the identification of 33.9% confident misconceptions—which traditional binary systems would simply mark as "incorrect"—demonstrates substantial gains in diagnostic precision essential for effective remediation. The framework offers replicable protocols for developing culturally responsive diagnostic tools with implications for teacher professional development and curriculum sequencing in diverse educational contexts.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- repec:eur:ejisjr:317 is not listed on IDEAS
- repec:eur:ejmsjr:511 is not listed on IDEAS
- repec:eur:ejmsjr:525 is not listed on IDEAS
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eur:ejserj:405. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Revistia Research and Publishing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://revistia.com/index.php/ejser .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.