An official website of the United States government
Uncertainty is an important concept in physics laboratory instruction. However, little work has examined how students reason about uncertainty beyond the introductory (intro) level. In this work we aimed to compare intro and beyond-intro students’ ideas about uncertainty. We administered a survey to students at 10 different universities with questions probing procedural reasoning about measurement, student-identified sources of uncertainty, and predictive reasoning about data distributions. We found that intro and beyond-intro students answered similarly on questions where intro students already exhibited expert-level reasoning, such as in comparing two data sets with the same mean but different spreads, identifying limitations in an experimental setup, and predicting how a data distribution would change if more data were collected. For other questions, beyond-intro students generally exhibited more expertlike reasoning than intro students, such as when determining whether two sets of data agree, identifying principles of measurement that contribute to spread, and predicting how a data distribution would change if better data were collected. Neither differences in institutions, student majors, lab courses taken, nor research experience were able to fully explain the variability between intro and beyond-intro student responses. These results call for further research to better understand how students’ ideas about uncertainty develop beyond the intro level.
more »
« less
Investigating a collaborative group exam as an instructional tool to address student reasoning difficulties that remain even after instruction
Many students tend to provide intuitively appealing (but incorrect) responses to some physics questions despite demonstrating (on isomorphic questions) the formal knowledge necessary to reason correctly. These inconsistencies in reasoning are persistent and remain even after evidence-based instruction. This project probed whether a collaborative group exam could serve not only as an innovative assessment tool but also as an instructional intervention that helps address persistent reasoning difficulties. Specifically, students were given opportunities to revisit their answers to questions known to elicit intuitively appealing responses in a collaborative group exam component immediately following a traditional individual exam. The efficacy of this approach was compared to that of a more traditional instructor-led exam review session. Both approaches yielded moderate improvements in performance on the final exam. However, additional multi-faceted data analysis provided further insights into student reasoning difficulties that suggested further implication for instruction and research.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10195708
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the 2020 Physics Education Research Conference
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 327 to 333
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Posing questions is a direct way for teachers to push students to verbalize justifications and make connections among ideas—a crucial component of giving students with learning disabilities access to high levels of mathematical reasoning—but this skill is difficult to learn. We recruited four pre-service special education teachers to provide 1-1 algebra tutoring to students with learning disabilities while receiving instruction related to posing mathematics questions and supporting students’ reasoning. The pre-service teachers increased their frequency of questions overall and of questions that probed students’ thinking or explored mathematical relationships. Students gave correct and complete responses to these more complex questions approximately half of the time; however, pre-service teachers most often reduced the complexity of their questions when students gave incomplete responses. The findings of this study illustrate the potential for pre-service special education teachers to develop questioning routines that engage students with learning disabilities in mathematical reasoning while scaffolding their progress toward new understanding.more » « less
-
Abstract We investigated the difficulties that physics students in upper-level undergraduate quantum mechanics and graduate students after quantum and statistical mechanics core courses have with the Fermi energy, the Fermi–Dirac distribution and total electronic energy of a free electron gas after they had learned relevant concepts in their respective courses. These difficulties were probed by administering written conceptual and quantitative questions to undergraduate students and asking some undergraduate and graduate students to answer those questions while thinking aloud in one-on-one individual interviews. We find that advanced students had many common difficulties with these concepts after traditional lecture-based instruction. Engaging with a sequence of clicker questions improved student performance, but there remains room for improvement in their understanding of these challenging concepts.more » « less
-
Parks, Beth (Ed.)We describe a study focusing on students' and faculty members' reasoning about problems of differing cognitive complexity related to the double-slit experiment (DSE) with single particles. In the first phase of the study, students in advanced quantum mechanics courses were asked these questions in written form. Additionally, individual interviews were conducted with ten students in which they were asked follow-up questions to make their thought processes explicit on the challenging problems. Students did well on the straightforward problem, showing they had some knowledge of the DSE after traditional instruction, but they struggled on the more complex ones. Even if explicitly asked to do so in interviews, students were often uncomfortable performing calculations or making approximations and simplifications, instead preferring to stick with their gut feeling. In the second phase of the study, the problems were broken down into more pointed questions to investigate whether students had knowledge of relevant concepts, whether they would do calculations as part of their solution approach if explicitly asked, and whether they explicitly noted using their gut feeling. While the faculty members' responses suggest that they could seamlessly move between conceptual and quantitative reasoning, most students were unable to combine concepts represented by different equations to solve the problems quantitatively. We conclude with instructional implications.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)The ability to predict macroscopic properties using a compound's chemical structure is an essential idea for chemistry as well as other disciplines such as biology. In this study we investigate how different levels of interventions impact the components of students’ explanations (claims, evidence, and reasoning) of structure–property relationships, particularly related to boiling point trends. These interventions, aligned with Three-Dimensional Learning (3DL), were investigated with four different cohorts of students: Cohort 1 – a control group of students enrolled in an active learning general chemistry course; Cohort 2 – students enrolled in the same active learning general chemistry course but given Intervention 1 (a 3DL worksheet administered during class time); Cohort 3 – students enrolled in the same active learning general chemistry course but given Intervention 1 and Intervention 2 (a 3DL course exam question administered after instruction); and Cohort 4 – a reference group of students enrolled in a transformed active learning general chemistry curriculum in which 3DL is an essential feature and includes Intervention 1 and Intervention 2 as part of the curriculum. We found that Cohort 2 students (with the 3DL worksheet intervention) were more likely than the control group (Cohort 1) to correctly predict the compound with a higher boiling point as well as incorporate ideas of strength of intermolecular forces into their explanations of boiling point differences. When a 3DL exam question was given as a follow up to the 3DL worksheet, students in Cohort 3 were more likely than Cohorts 1 and 2 to correctly identify the claim. Further comparison showed that Cohort 4 (transformed general chemistry curriculum) were more likely than Cohorts 1–3 to also include the ideas of energy needed to overcome stronger forces for a more sophisticated explanation (50% of Cohort 4 students compared to 17–33% for Cohorts 1–3). In addition, 80% of Cohort 4 students were able to construct a correct representation of hydrogen bonding as a non-covalent interaction compared to 13–57% for the other three cohorts.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2020.pr.mcinerny
