STUDENTS' CONCEPTIONS OF THE

PHYSICS OF SOUND
Leo Sutrisno
Dept. Math and Science
Education
Faculty of Education
Tanjungpura University
Pontianak, Indonesia

List of contents
1 sample characteristics
2 Students' conceptions of sound
2.1 Results in general
2.2 The generation of sound (DPH1)
2.3 The transmission of sound (DPH2)
2.4 The medium of transmission (DPH3)
2.5 Velocity of sound and velocity of light (DPH4)
2.6 The velocity of sound in gases (DPH5)
2.7 The velocity of sound in solids (DPH6)
2.8 The velocity of sound in liquids (DPH7)
2.9 Pitch (DPH8)
2.10 The Doppler effect (DPH9)
2.11 Amplitude and loudness (DPH10)
2.12 Wave length and tone (DPH11)
2.13 Resonance (OPH12)
2.14 Beat (DPH13)
2.15 The human ear (DPH14)
2.16 The night phenomenon of the transmission of sound (DPH15)
2.17 The effect of the gravitational force on sound (DPH16)
3 Comparison the first and second investigations
4 Focuses of remedial work

52
List of tables
Table 1 Frequency distribution of students in each school
Table 2 Frequency distribution of total scores of physics
diagnostic test
Table 3 Percentages of students tested after formal
instruction in the physics of sound who held
conceptions which differed from scientists'
conceptions
Table 4 Number and percentages of students
who mastered and who did not master
each sub-unit

1 sample characteristics

In order to establish the foundation for remediation

throughout Kalimantan Barat, it would be better to have
information as large as possible. Therefore, this diagnostic test
was administrated among 596 students enrolled in 19 Senior
High Schools.
This investigation involved the administration of the final
form of the physics diagnostic test, both as a trial for the test and
to establish some norms or expectations for the performance of

53
second year SMA students (roughly equivalent to year 11 in
Australian schools) after having received formal instruction on the
physics of sound. The students' conceptions about sound will be
presented and will be compared with scientists' conceptions.
Students' conceptions which urgently need to be remedied will be
identified.
Nineteen schools were randomly chosen as the sample. Ten
SMAs are in the Pontianak municipality, four are in the Pontianak
regency, two are in Sambas and three in Sanggao regencies.
These nineteen SMAs are distributed in the towns of Pontianak,
Mempawah, Singkawang, Pemangkat, Pahouman, Ngabang,
Sangau and Sekadau. The average distance from Pontianak, the
provincial capital, is about 183 km. The total number of students
who participated in this second investigation was 596.
Table 5.1 shows the distribution of students' ethnicity based
on their fathers' ethnic backgrounds. The Chinese students
group is the largest (35.1%), followed by Malay (26%),
Dayaknese (16.1%)Javanese (14.9%). There are other small
groups such as Sundanese (2.2%); Sumantrans, either
Padangnese or Bataknese (2.4%), Sulawesians, either Bugese or
Manadonese (2.7%) and other (0.6%). There are 391 (65.6%)
male students and 205 (34.4%) female students who participated
in the investigation.

Table 1 Frequency distribution of students in each school

School Frequency Percent

SMAN1 PTK 45 7.6

54
SMAN2 PTK 25 4.2
SMAN5 PTK 34 5.7
SMAN6 PTK 24 4.0
SMAN7 MPW 38 6.4
SMAN8 PTK 42 7.0
SMAN1 SKW 40 6.7
SMAN MPW 26 4.4
SMAN NGB 23 3.9
SMAN SGO 40 6.7
SMAN SKD 34 5.7
SMA St. Paulus 34 5.7
SMA F. Asisi 25 4.2
SMA Islamiah 45 7.6
SMA A. Wacana 26 4.4
SMA Kandayan 31 5.2
SMA S. Pranoto 30 5.0
SMA S SKW 18 3.0
SMA S SGO 16 2.7

Total 596 100.0

The students' characteristics, recorded individually, are prior

achievement in physics (PHACH), prior achievement in
mathematics (MTACH), prior achievement in language
(Indonesian) (INACH), ranking of the overall achievement in the
previous semester (Rank), verbal analogy ability (AVAB), and
mathematical reasoning ability (MTRSN). They were labelled for
purposes of computer analysis. On a scale of 0 - 10 the mean of
PHACH is 6.51 (Sd = 0.65); MTACH is 6.67 (Sd = 0.84) and INACH
is 6.82 (Sd = 0.68). These measures of prior achievement were
based on the school-reports in the previous semester. It can be
argued that these >cores might vary somewhat from one school
to another. Scheffe tests indicate three, six and no pairs out of
171 pairs are significantly iifferent at .O1 level for PHACH, MTACH

55
and INACH respectively, and .00 the scores from different schools
can be regarded as comparable.
To make the data comparable students of this school were
asked their total scores according to school reports, and the
investigator then ranked these total sum scores as the other
schools did. On ranks from 1 to 30, the average rank is 12.58 (SD
= 8.15). Scheffe test results reveal no significant difference
among these schools at the .O1 level.
The last two aspects of students' characteristics, the verbal
analogy and the mathematical reasoning ability, were detected by
administering tests. The verbal analogy scores ranged from 19 to
30 points out of 30 points. The average was 26.40 with 2.05
standard deviation. The mathematical reasoning ability was
focused on the ability to transform verbal sentences into
mathematical sentences. On a scale of 0 - 10 the average score
was 8.16 (Sd = 1.76).

2 Students' conceptions of sound

2.1 Results in general

As has been mentioned in Chapter 4, the physics diagnostic

test consisted of 32 items which were divided into several
concepts of sound: sources of sound (DPH1), the transmission of
sound (OPH2), the medium of transmission (OPH3), velocity of
sound vs velocity of light (DPH4), the velocity of sound in gases

56
(DPH5), the velocity of sound in solids (DPH6), the velocity of
sound in liquids (DPH7), pitch (DPH8), the Doppler Effect (OPH9),
amplitude vs loudness (DPH10), wave length vs tone (DPH11),
resonance (DPH12), beat (DPH13), human ears (DPH14), the night
phenomenon of sound (DPH15), and the influence of the
gravitational force (OPH16). DPH3 - 7,9 were tested by three
items each. DPH1 - 2,8,14 were tested by two items each. For
mastery, students should have answered two questions in each
concept correctly. DPH10 - 13,15,16 had only one item each. Thus
the maximum score for this test was 16. The total score of this )
hysics diagnostic test, for the purpose of identification in the
computer computation, is labelled as DPTL.
Scores resulting from this investigation ranged from 2 to 16
with mean and standard deviation of 8.22 and 2.95 respectively.
The distribution of these scores is presented in Table 5.2. The
coefficient of skewness (.13) indicates that scores are
approximately normally distributed and are peaked around the
mean (coefficient of kurtosis = 2.67).

Table 2 Frequency distribution of total scores of physics

diagnostic test

Cum.
Score Frequency Percent
Percent
0 2 .3 .3
1 3 .5 .8
2 6 1.0 1.8

57
3 15 2.5 4.4
4 29 4.9 9.2
5 53 8.9 18.1
6 68 11.4 29.5
7 78 13.1 42.6
8 81 13.6 56.2
9 71 11.9 68.1
10 54 9.1 77.2
11 46 7.7 84.9
12 39 6.5 91.4
13 25 4.2 95.6
14 17 2.9 98.5
15 7 1.2 99.7
16 2 .3 100.0

Total 596 100.0

Table 5.3 presents the correlation matrix among PHACH,

MTACH, INACH, Rank, AVAB, MTRSN, OPTL and gender. Only AVAB
and MTRSN are significantly correlated with DPTL at the 5% level
(.26 and .36 respectively).

The analysis of variance of DPTL based on ethnic

background, school and gender found that all of these variables
significantly influence on DPTL. (ethnic background: F(7,588) =
4.23, p < .001; school: F(18,577) = 30.56, p < .001; gender:
F(1,594) = 6.40, p = .O1).
On average each item was answered correctly by 63.9
percent of the students (SD = 13.68). The lowest facility value
was 28 percent (item no.ll) and the highest was 89.9 percent
(item no.l). The following sections will present the distribution of
students' responses in each sub-unit.

58
2.2 The generation of sound (DPH1)

Only 10 percent of the students did not know that sound is

generated by vibration. They perceived that if the inside air of a
whistle is moving out or if there is wind inside the whistle sound
would be produced (7.1% and 3.0% respectively) (item no.l).
Item no.2 questioned what would happen when the gamelan
players touch the end of pieces of the gamelan instrument in
order to stop its sound. About 12.4 percent of the students stated
that the transmission of sound of the gamelan will be stopped.
Others (5.4%) predicted that the sound would be absorbed by the
players' bodies.
Only students who answered correctly both item no.l and
item no.2 were considered as having mastered the sources of
sound concept (DPH1).
Crosstabulation analysis results indicate no significant
differences on the students' responses among ethnic backgrounds

( χ 2 = 7.32, df = 7, p = .40) nor between genders ( χ 2 = 2.49, df

= 1, p = .12) but there were significant differences among schools

( χ 2 = 75.42 df = 18, p < .001).

2.3 The transmission of sound (DPH2)

Item no.3 is concerned with the explanation of why sound

can pass through a medium. About 20.1 percent of the students

59
stated that there must be air inside, and 12.4 percent stated that
the particles of the medium move and carry the sound.
By completely closing a room we can be protected from any
unexpected outside sound. Twenty-four percent of the students
believed that this is because the movement of particles which
carry that sound is stopped. About 15.6 percent said that it is
because movement of air is stopped (item no.4).
Only students who were able to answer correctly both of
those questions were considered to have mastered the concept
transmission of sound (DPH2).
Crosstabulation results indicate significant differences on

students' responses among schools ( χ 2 = 59.23, df = 18, p <

.001), but not among ethnic backgrounds ( χ 2 = 10.86, df = 7, p

= .15) nor between genders ( χ 2 = 2.48, df = l, p = .12).

2.4 The medium of transmission (DPH3)

An electric bell is placed in a box made of glass. While air

inside the box is pumped out the bell is operating. The vibration
of the bell can be seen but its sound cannot be heard (item
no.5).
About one-tenth (12.8%) of the students explained that this
was because there was no wind which carried the sound inside
the box. Another 6.9 percent of the students believed that it was
because of the inability of that sound to penetrate the box.
Item no.6 was concerned with whether or not sound can
pass through solids and the relevant reasons. Over 30 percent of

60
the students believed that sound cannot pass through solids.
Some (21.8%) said that it was because the solid is packed
(dense/Paaat) and the others (9.9%) said there was not enough
air inside the solids. This seems to be consistent with the
responses to item no.7. That sound cannot pass through solids is
believed by 28.4 percent of the students. Several students
(6.9%) believed that sound cannot pass through liquids.
The responses to these three questions were combined.
Students who gave two correct answers out of three were
classified as having mastery of the medium of transmission sub-
unit.
The crosstabulation analyses reveal significant differences

among schools ( χ 2 = 165.69, df = 18, p < .001), but not among

ethnic backgrounds ( χ 2 = 5.03, df = 7, p = .66) nor between

genders ( χ 2 = 3.51, df = 1, p = .06).

2.5 Velocity of sound and velocity of light (DPH4)

About one-fifth (19.1%) of the students perceived that the

velocity of sound is greater than the velocity of light. Another 12.3
percent of the students stated that both velocities are the same
(item no.8). Others agreed that the velocity of sound is less than
that of light. These responses are inconsistent with the responses
to item no.9, in which all students agreed that the velocity of
sound is less than the velocity of light.
However, only 68.5 percent of the students gave
explanations which matched scientists' conceptions. Some

61
students (28.4%) explained that it was because light can reach a
further place than sound, so that light has a higher velocity than
sound. The others (3.2%) viewed light as a kind of wave but
sound not as a kind of wave, thus light should have a higher
velocity than sound (item no.9).
Students who answered these two items correctly were
considered as having mastered the comparison between the
velocity of sound and the velocity of light.
The cross-tabulation results reveal significant differences

among schools ( χ 2 = 86.06, df = 18, p < .001), but no significant

differences among ethnic backgrounds ( χ 2 = 7.49, df = 7, p =

.38), nor between genders ( χ 2 = 2.67, df = 1, p = .10).

2.6 The velocity of sound in gases (DPH5)

Most students (79.7%) were able to recall the mathematical

formulae for the velocity of sound in gases (item no.13). However,
another question (item no.ll) reveals that 39.9 percent of the
students were unable to relate the temperature of gas and the
velocity of sound and about 37.9 percent of the students were not
able to draw a relationship between the mass of gas and the
velocity of sound (item no.12).
Students who responded correctly to nos. 11, 12 and 13
were regarded as having mastery of the velocity of sound in gas
sub-unit. Crosstabulation analyses reveal no significant

differences among ethnic backgrounds ( χ 2 = 7.25, df = 7, p =

62
.04, but significant differences among schools ( χ 2 = 167.72, df =

18,p < .001) and between genders( χ 2 = 8.67, df = 1, p < .O1).

2.7 The velocity of sound in solids (DPH6)

Over seventy percent of the students (71.3%) were able to

recall the mathematical formula for the velocity of sound in solids
(item no.16). But 51.1 percent of the students were unable to
describe, in words, the relationship between the velocity of sound
and the mass of a solid (item no.14). About the same (47.0%) also
were not able to relate the velocity of sound and the Young's
modulus correctly (item no.15).
Students were regarded as having mastery of the sub-unit
velocity of sound in solids if they answered correctly the questions
numbered 14,15 and 16.
Crosstabulation analyses results reveal statistically

significant differences among schools ( χ 2 = 147.72, df = 18,p <

.001) and between genders ( χ 2 = 8.07, df = 1, p < .O1). There

was no significant difference among ethnic backgrounds ( χ 2 =

7.25, df = 14, p = .40).

2.8 The velocity of sound in liquids (DPH7)

Although 78.2 percent of the students stated that the

velocity of sound in liquids is determined by the bulk modulus and
the density of the liquid (item no.19), 47.2 percent of the students

63
could not relate velocity of sound to the bulk modulus of liquid
correctly (item no.17). Responses to item no.18 show that there
were 30.1 percent of the students who were not able to relate
velocity of sound to the mass of liquid.
Students who answered those three questions correctly
(items no.17,18 and 19) were considered as having mastery of
the velocity of sound in liquids sub-unit. Crosstabulation analysis

show significant differences among both ethnic backgrounds ( χ 2

= 22.41, df = 7, p < .O1) and schools ( χ 2 = 139.85, df = 18, p <

.O1). However, there was no significant difference between

genders ( χ 2 = 2.18, df = 1, p = .10).

2.9 Pitch (DPH8)

Responses to item no.20 reveal that few students perceive

the relationship between tone and amplitude (20.8%) and
between tone and velocity (8.7%). There is a belief that by
increasing either velocity or amplitude there would be an increase
in the pitch of sound.
These percentages were slightly changed when those
principles were applied to musical instruments, such as a player
changing the pitch to one octave higher (item no.21). About a
quarter of the students (25.5%) believed the amplitude to be
changed and another 4.7 percent perceived the velocity to be
changed.

64
 There were significant differences among both ethnic

background ( χ 2 = 17.63, df = 14, p = .O1) and schools ( χ 2 =

86.25, df = 18,p < .O1). There was no significant difference

between genders ( χ 2 = 0.19, df = 1, p = .66).

2.10 The Doppler effect (DPH9)

One-fifth of the students (22.3%) believed that the

frequency of sound which is heard would increase if the velocity
of the sound is increased. Other students (18.0%) believed they
would get the same result if the amplitude of the sound is
increased (item no.22). If there is a source of sound moving
toward the students (item no.23) some students (23.3%) said that
the velocity of sound would increase and other students (15.1%)
said the amplitude would increase.
Item no.24 was concerned with the hypothetical situation "If
there is an ambulance moving toward you, what would happen to
the sound of the siren?" Over a quarter of the students (26.7%)
suggested that the velocity of the siren would increase, and other
students (16.8%) suggested the amplitude would be increased.
All students who gave correct responses for these three
questions were classified as having mastery of the Doppler Effect.

There were significant differences among ethnic backgrounds ( χ 2

= 19.77, df = 7, p < .O1) and among schools χ 2 = 89.03, df =

18, p < .O1). The crosstabulation analysis results also reveal no

65
significant difference between male and female students in this

regard ( χ 2 = 0.61, df = 1, p = .44).

2.11 Amplitude and loudness (DPH10)

Item no.25 concerned the relationship between amplitude

and loudness. Over one-third of the students (36.7%) believed
that if the volume of a radio is turned up, the frequency of its
sound would increase. Other students (10.9%) stated that the
amplitude would increase.
Crosstabulation analysis results show a significant difference

on students' responses among schools ( χ 2 = 94.21 df = 18, p <

.O1) but no differences among ethnic backgrounds ( χ 2 = 5.26, df

= 7,p = .63) nor between genders ( χ 2 = 0.13, df = 1, p = .91).

2.12 Wave length and tone (DPH11)

The relationships between the length of a pipe of an

angklung, a traditional musical instrument, and characteristics of
its sound was examined by asking a question such as "the biggest
and the
151 longest angklung would produce what sort of sound?"
(item no.26). Over seventeen percent (17.3%) of the students
said "a sound with the shortest wave-length", and another 15.3
percent said "a sound with the slowest velocity".

66
 There were no significant differences among ethnic

backgrounds ( χ 2 = 8.29, df = 7, p = 0.31) nor between genders (

χ 2 = 0.16, df = l, p = .69). However, there was a significant

difference among schools ( χ 2 = 120.10, df = 18, p < .O1).

2.13 Resonance (OPH12)

Item no.27 was concerned with timbre, and the fact that "we
can easily differentiate the sound produced by an organ from
another sound produced by a piano, even though its tones are
exactly the same". Some students (20.1%) explained that this was
because of the difference of frequencies and other students
(16.1%) said this was due to the difference of the wave-length.
Crosstabulation analysis results reveal significant difference

among schools ( χ 2 = 51.45, df = 18, p < .O1). The analysis also

shows no differences in students' responses among ethnic

background ( χ 2 = 5.10, df = 7, p = .65) nor between genders (

χ 2 = 0.91, df = 1, p = .33).

2.14 Beat (DPH13)

A beat was produced by placing two radio receivers close to

one another while being set to the same transmitter station.

67
Some students (10.0%) explained this as their sounds pull one to
the other. Other students (11.7%) explained that there is a
change in the wind direction between those two receivers. (This
question was presented in item no.28)
There were significant differences among ethnic

backgrounds ( χ 2 = 19.14, df = 7, p < .O1) and among schools (

χ 2 = 70.15, df = 18, p < .O1). But, there was no significant

difference between responses of male and female students ( χ 2 =

2.213, df = 1, p = .14).

2.15 The human ear (DPH14)

The mechanism by which human ears detect a sound was

examined by item no.29. Several students (15.1%) perceived that
a sound would be absorbed by the hearing nerve system, and
another 13.3 percent of the students believed that a resonance
would occur in the inside ears.
Over a quarter of the students (25.8%) suggested that the
threshold of pain is determined by amplitude, and other students
(16.1%) perceived the pain to be caused by the velocity of sound
which arrives at the ears (item no.30).
Crosstabulation analysis results show significant differences

among ethnic groups ( χ 2 = 28.73, df = 7, p < .O1) and among

schools ( χ 2 = 130.36, df = 18, p < .O1). The analysis also reveals

68
no significant difference between responses of male and female

students ( χ 2 = 3.30, df = 1, p = .07).

2.16 The night phenomenon of the transmission of sound

(DPH15)

The clarity of sound at night was explained as the effect of

the quietness of the night (20.5%) or the effect of the absence of
the sun (11.4%). These explanations can be seen as responses for
item no.31.

There was a significant difference among schools ( χ 2 =

139.30, df = 18, p < .O1). But there were no significant

differences for either ethnic background ( χ 2 = 12.80, df = 7, p =

.73) or gender ( χ 2 =0.20, df= 1, p= .66).

5.2.17 The effect of the gravitational force on sound

(DPH16)

A quarter of the students (25%) believed that the

transmission of sound of an aeroplane in the sky is affected by the
gravitational force. This sound is pulled downward to the earth.
Other students (1.7%) perceived that it is carried by wind.
The statistical analysis indicates that there were significant

differences among schools ( χ 2 = 88.29, df = 18, p < .O1) and

between genders ( χ 2 = 7.78, df = 1, p < .O1). There was no

69
significant difference among ethnic backgrounds ( χ 2 = 10.05, df

= 7, p = .19).
The correlation analysis revealed that only the school
variable which influences all sub-units at the 1% level of
confidence. There are significant differences among ethnic groups
on the velocity of sound in liquids, beat, human ears, and
between boys and girls on the effect of the gravitational force.
The average of rs between students' responses and ethnic
background is .45 (SD = 0.17), school is .97 (SD = 0.02) and
gender .10 (SD = 0.09)

3. Comparison the first and second

investigations

In the first investigation, described in Chapter 3, selected

first-year SMA students were interviewed about 10 concepts of
sound before they had received any formal instruction in the
physics of sound. As a result of these interviews a number of pre-
conceptions were identified.
As a result of this investigation multiple-choice items were
designed to test these pre-conceptions and a 32-item multiple-
choice test was developed to test 16 basic concepts of sound.
This test was administered to 596 second-year SMA students after
they had received formal instruction in the physics of sound
covering these topics.

70
Table 3 Percentages of students tested after formal instruction in
the physics of sound who held conceptions which differed from
scientists' conceptions

Sub units percent

The generation of sound 22.1

The transmission of sound 51.6
The medium of transmission 49.3
Velocity of sound and light 57.4
Velocity of sound in gases 64.6
Velocity of sound in solids 78.5
Velocity of sound in liquids 63.8
Pitch 45.1
The Doppler effect 74.7
Amplitude and loudness 52.5
Wavelength and tone 33.6
Resonance 37.2
Beat 19.1
Human ears 49.5
The night phenomenon of the transmission of sound 32.9
The effect of g on sound 26.1

Mean 48.4
Sd 16.6
N 596

No strict basis exists for the comparison of data in these two

tables. They derive from different students, selected on different
bases for different purposes. They also result from different
testing procedures. Nevertheless one is tempted to look at the
two tables together. Two observations may legitimately be made.
Firstly, students in the second investigation perform much better
on the nine concepts which were tested in both investigations.

71
This result may be affected by sampling and by added maturity,
but probably largely reflects the effects of formal instruction.
Secondly, even after formal instruction in the physics of sound,
nearly half the students in the second investigation held
conceptions of sound which differed from scientists' conceptions
over the range of topics tested.
Over 50 percent of the students still have different
conceptions from scientists' conceptions about the Doppler effect
(70.7%); the velocity of sound (68.9%); the transmission of sound
(57.6%); light velocity vs sound velocity (57.4%), and the
loudness of sound (52%).
As noted earlier the textbooks presentation on the velocity
of sound was mathematical and an examination of the students'
notebooks indicates that teachers used this approach as well. For
some students, this could lead to an inability to express their
conceptions verbally.
In another instance the language of instruction itself could
contribute to misunderstanding. For example, in the statement "in
order to reach human ears sound needs a medium", the word
medium is translated as Zat perantara. The word perantara is the
synonym of a middleman. This suggests that being a medium for
transmission of sound is being an active agent which carries
sound from one place to another, such as wind or a wave.

The comparison between light velocity and sound velocity is

not discussed specifically in the textbooks and is seldom taught
directly. It is understandable that some students find difficulty in
dealing with this topic. They have to synthesize their knowledge
about sound and light.

72
 All textbooks discuss the relationships between the
amplitude and the loudness of sound (section 3.2.2). However,
even after instruction there were still 52 percent of students in
the second investigation who believed that higher velocity or
frequency of sound is correlated with the loudness of sound.
The percentage of students who have different ideas from
scientists' ideas about the medium of transmission was 76
percent in the first investigation and 49.3 percent in the second
investigation. The belief that sound cannot pass through either
solids or liquids because there is no air inside them seems to be
shared by some teachers (section 3.3.2). However, examination of
students' notebooks does not indicate whether this belief was
given in the instruction or not. The common sentence in students'
notebooks is to bunyi merambat melalui gas, benda cair dan
benda padat" - sound travels through gases, liquids and solids.
This kind of sentence also appears in textbooks. It seems that this
is not an entirely adequate answer to the questions of why a
medium is needed and what kind of medium transmits sound.
There was a large difference in the percentage of students
who believed that the quietness and the absence of the sun at
night would improve the clarity of sound (90 percent of students
in the first investigation to 32.9 percent of students in the second
investigation).
Several topics - pitch, the wave length of sound, resonance,
beat and human ears - which were not deeply investigated in the
first investigation were studied in the second one. In general, the
average percentage of students who held different ideas from
scientists' ideas about these topics is 36.9 percent (SO = 11.77).

73
This finding suggests that these topics need to be included in the
remedial activities.

4 Focuses of remedial work

For some students, their conceptions about several basic

concepts of sound after being taught are similar to the pre-
conceptions of students who have had no formal instruction in
the physics of sound. Remedial work will be focused on concepts
which students find most difficult to master, even after
instruction, but priority will be given to those concepts that are
considered most basic.
Table 5.4 shows the number and the percentage of
students who did and did not have mastery for each sub unit.
There were seven sub units which were not mastered by more
than 50 percent of the students: DPH6 (78.5%), OPH9 (74.7%),
DPHS (64.6%), OPH7 (63.8%), DPH2 (57.6%), DPH4 (57.4%)
and DPH10 (52.5%). Another three subunits, DPH14, OPH3 and
DPH8 had not been mastered by almost 50 percent of the
students (49.5%, 49.3% and 45.1% respectively). DPH12,
DPH11, DPH15 were not mastered by about one-third of the
students (37.2%, 33.6% and 32.9% respectively). The others
were not mastered by between one-fifth and one-quarter of the
students.

74
Table 4 Number and percentages of students who
mastered and who did not master each sub-unit

non-mastery mastery
N
N percent percent
4
DPH1 132 22.1 77.9
64
DPH2 343 57.6 2 42.4
DPH3 294 49.3 3 50.1
53
DPH4 342 57.4 2 42.6
02
DPH5 385 64.6 2 35.4
54
DPH6 468 78.5 1 21.5
11
DPH7 380 63.8 2 36.2
28
DPH8 269 45.1 3 54.9
16
DPH9 445 74.7 1 25.3
27
DPH10 313 52.5 2 47.5
51
DPH11 200 33.6 3 66.4
83
DPH12 222 31.2 3 62.8
96
DPH13 114 19.1 4 80.9
74
DPH14 295 49.5 3 50.5
82
DPH15 196 32.9 4 61.1
01
DPH16 159 26.7 4 73.3
00
37
Sub-units which were not mastered by about 45 percent or
more of the students were first considered, but it was considered
that there were some sub units which were not as basic concepts
of sound as others. Such concepts were not included in remedial
work even though these concepts may not have been mastered
by over 45 percent of the students.
As a result remedial work was designed for the transmission
of sound (DPH2), medium of sound (DPH3), velocity of sound vs
velocity of light (DPH4), velocity of sound in gases, solids and

75
liquids (DPHS, 6 and 7), loudness of sound (DPH10) and Doppler
Effect (DPH9). For some students, there was a belief that sound
was carried by something in order to travel from one place to
another. That thing could be either wind, air, or even waves. The
belief that sound was carried by either wind or air led to the belief
that sound could only pass through gases or liquids. This was due
to the perception that there was a lack of air or even no air inside
solids.
The other belief, that sound was carried by a wave, led to
the perception that sound and waves were totally separated.
Waves were perceived to be the vehicle for sound. This belief
could contribute to the difficulty in understanding the velocity of
sound. The difficulty in understanding the velocity of sound could
also be affected by the lack of ability in transforming the
mathematical formulae into words.
Knowing that a loud sound can be heard from a great
distance some students also believed that the loudness of sound
was related to the velocity of sound. Studies on students'
conceptions in mechanics indicate that many students make
direct relationships between distance and velocity. Thus their
reasoning may be: a loud sound can reach a far place, and only a
thing which has a high velocity can reach far places, so that a
loud sound must have a high velocity.
It is more difficult to suggest an argument by which students
relate frequency and the loudness of sound. This belief, the
positive relationship between frequency and loudness, could be
due to a lack of understanding about the characteristics of waves
and the characteristics of sound itself.

76
 The Doppler Effect is one of the most difficult to understand.
The approach to teaching the Doppler Effect has usually been
mathematical, so that some students may have found difficulties
in applying the concept in real situations. Everyday
experiences may also contribute to this difficulty. For
some students the Doppler Effect is viewed as the change
in the loudness of sound rather than the change in the
frequency of sound.

Important terms
administration of the final form
trial for the test
establish some norms
students' characteristics,
prior achievement in physics (PHACH),
prior achievement in mathematics (MTACH),
prior achievement in language (Indonesian) (INACH),
ranking of the overall achievement in the previous semester
(Rank),
verbal analogy ability (AVAB),
mathematical reasoning ability (MTRSN).
sources of sound (DPH1),
transmission of sound (OPH2),
medium of transmission (OPH3),
velocity of sound vs velocity of light (DPH4),
velocity of sound in gases (DPH5),
velocity of sound in solids (DPH6),
velocity of sound in liquids (DPH7), pitch (DPH8),

77
Doppler Effect (OPH9),
amplitude vs loudness (DPH10),
wave length vs tone (DPH11),
resonance (DPH12), beat (DPH13),
human ears (DPH14),
the night phenomenon of sound (DPH15),
influence of the gravitational force (OPH16).
coefficient of skewness
normal distribution
coefficient of kurtosis
analysis of variance
ethnic background
school
gender

78