Development of a rule-based adaptive four-tier diagnostic quiz system for identifying misconceptions in geometrical optics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58524/jasme.v6i1.1056Abstract
Background: Misconceptions in geometric optics remain persistent, including among prospective physics teachers, and are often difficult to detect using conventional assessments that focus only on final answers. Although four-tier diagnostic tests provide deeper conceptual information, their implementation is generally static and may reduce assessment efficiency.
Aims: This study aimed to develop and evaluate a rule-based adaptive four-tier diagnostic quiz system capable of identifying misconceptions more efficiently while maintaining stable diagnostic classifications.
Method: The study employed a research and development approach using the ADDIE model. A web-based adaptive diagnostic was developed by integrating a four-tier scoring scheme with transparent rule-based adaptive decisions. The platform was tested on 36 prospective physics teacher students. Data were analyzed descriptively to examine adaptive test length, diagnostic pathways, and classification stability.
Results: The adaptive system reduced the average test length from 15 static items to 11.5 items, representing an efficiency gain of 23.3%. A total of 77.8% of participants reached diagnostic stability before the maximum item limit, and the classification consistency rate reached 83.3%. The system also revealed variations in misconception patterns across topics, with concave mirror concepts showing the highest proportion of strong misconceptions.
Conclusion: The rule-based adaptive four-tier system improved diagnostic efficiency while maintaining stable classification outcomes. The transparent adaptive mechanism makes the system suitable for formative diagnostic assessment in physics education, although further studies with larger samples are recommended.
References
Aini, H., Sabani, S., Solikin, S., Manik, K., Harahap, R. A., Putri, R. I. P., & Sibagariang, S. A. B. (2025). Analysis of Students’ Cognitive Conceptual Understanding on Temperature and Heat Material Using a Four-Tier Multiple Choice Diagnostic Test. Lensa: Jurnal Kependidikan Fisika, 13(1), 73-83. https://doi.org/10.33394/j-lkf.v13i1.15822
Annisa, M., Budimansyah, D., Hidayat, M., Winarti, A., & Abrori, F. M. (2024). What can we learn from one-to-one trials in Instructional design? A case from module development. Research and Development in Education (RaDEn), 4(2), 816-826. https://doi.org/10.22219/raden.v4i2.35763
Branch, R. M. (2009). Instructional design: The ADDIE approach. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09506-6
Caleon, I., & Subramaniam, R. (2010). Development and application of a three-tier diagnostic test to assess secondary students’ understanding of waves. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 939–961. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902890130
Çelikkanlı, N. Ö., & Kızılcık, H. (2022). A review of studies about four-tier diagnostic tests in physics education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(4), 1220–1236. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2022.175
Festiana, I., Herlina, K., Kurniasari, L. S., & Haryanti, S. S. (2019). Damping Harmonic Oscillator (DHO) for learning media in the topic damping harmonic motion. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1157, No. 3, p. 032062). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1157/3/032062
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Gurel, D. K., Eryilmaz, A., & McDermott, L. C. (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. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1369a
Hasan, S., Bagayoko, D., & Kelley, E. L. (2017). Misconceptions and the certainty of response index (CRI). Physics Education, 34(5), 294–299. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/34/5/304
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Ivanjek, L., Susac, A., Planinic, M., Andrasevic, A., & Milin-Sipus, Z. (2016). Student reasoning about graphs in different contexts. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 010106. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010106
Jang, H., Kim, Y., & Reeve, J. (2019). Longitudinal test of self-determination theory’s motivation mediation model in a naturally occurring classroom context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(5), 838–852.
Kaltakci-Gurel, D., Eryilmaz, A., & 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, 35(2), 238–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1310094
Kanıawatı, I., Fratıwı, N. J., Danawan, A., Suyana, I., Samsudın, A., & Suhendı, E. (2019). Analyzing students’ misconceptions about newton’s lws through four-tier newtonian test (FTNT). Journal of Turkish Science Education, 16(1), 110-122.
Kiray, S. A., & Simsek, S. (2021). Determination and evaluation of the science teacher candidates' misconceptions about density by using four-tier diagnostic test. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(5), 935-955.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10087-5
Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382–385. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017
Neidorf, T., Arora, A., Erberber, E., Tsokodayi, Y., & Mai, T. (2020). Student misconceptions and errors in physics and mathematics: Exploring data from TIMSS and TIMSS Advanced. Springer Open. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30188-0
Peşman, H., & Eryılmaz, A. (2010). Development of a three-tier test to assess misconceptions about simple electric circuits. The Journal of educational research, 103(3), 208-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383002
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in nursing & health, 29(5), 489-497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
Putranta, H., & Afifah, F. (2025). Development of the Four-Tier Diagnostic Test to Identify Student Misconceptions in the Static Fluids Chapter. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 18(4), 268-281. https://doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2025.180403
Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2014). Design and development research: Methods, strategies, and issues. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203826034
Rusilowati, A. (2017). Four-tier diagnostic test to identify misconceptions in geometrical optics. Unnes Science Education Journal.
Rusilowati, A., Darsono, T., Sekarningtias, F. O., & Fariyani, Q. (2024). Development of a four-tier e-diagnostic test on the topic of momentum to measure and reduce student misconception. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia, 20(2), 173-187. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpfi.v20i2.1297
Sargazi Moghadam, T., Darejeh, A., Delaramifar, M., & Mashayekh, S. (2024). Toward an artificial intelligence-based decision framework for developing adaptive e-learning systems to impact learners’ emotions. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(7), 3665-3685. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2188398
Shute, V. J., & Rahimi, S. (2017). Review of computer-based assessment for learning in elementary and secondary education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12172
Shute, V. J., & Zapata-Rivera, D. (2012). Adaptive educational systems. Adaptive technologies for training and education, 7(27), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139049580.004
Soeharto, S., Csapó, B., Sarimanah, E., Dewi, F. I., & Sabri, T. (2019). A review of students’ common misconceptions in science and their diagnostic assessment tools. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 8(2), 247-266. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v8i2.18649
Spector, J. M., Ifenthaler, D., Sampson, D., Yang, L. J., Mukama, E., Warusavitarana, A., Lokuge Dona, K., Eichhorn, K., Fluck, A., Huang, R., Bridges, S., Lu, J., Ren, Y., Gui, X., Deneen, C. C., San Diego, J., & Gibson, D. C. (2016). Technology enhanced formative assessment for 21st century learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 58–71. http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.19.3.58.
Tumanggor, A. M. R., Supahar, S., Ringo, E. S., & Harliadi, M. D. (2020). Detecting students’ misconception in simple harmonic motion concepts using four-tier diagnostic test instruments. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika Al-Biruni, 9(1), 21-31. https://doi.org/10.24042/jipfalbiruni.v9i1.4571
Van der Linden, W. J., & Glas, C. A. (Eds.). (2010). Elements of adaptive testing (Vol. 10, pp. 978-0). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-85461-8
Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the educators?. International journal of educational technology in higher education, 16(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Muhammad Luqman, Akhmad Irsyad, Muhammad Ibadurrahman Arrasyid Supriyanto, Riskan Qadar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
