How to evaluate students’ decisions in a data comparison problem: Correct decision for the wrong reasons?

IF 2.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Physical Review Physics Education Research Pub Date : 2024-04-26 DOI:10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010129
Karel Kok, Sophia Chroszczinsky, Burkhard Priemer
{"title":"How to evaluate students’ decisions in a data comparison problem: Correct decision for the wrong reasons?","authors":"Karel Kok, Sophia Chroszczinsky, Burkhard Priemer","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Data comparison problems are used in teaching and science education research that focuses on students’ ability to compare datasets and their conceptual understanding of measurement uncertainties. However, the evaluation of students’ decisions in these problems can pose a problem: e.g., students making a correct decision for the wrong reasons. Three previous studies, that share the same context and data comparison problem but where participants had increasing conceptual knowledge of measurement uncertainties, are revisited. The comparison shows a troublesome result: increasing conceptual knowledge does not lead to better decision making in the data comparison problem. In this research, we have looked into this apparent discrepancy by comparing and reanalyzing the data from these three studies. We have analyzed students’ justifications by coding them based on the compared quantity and the deciding criterion, giving a highly detailed insight into what they do when comparing the datasets. The results show clear differences in the quality of the justifications across the studies and by combining the results with the decisions, we could successfully identify four cases of correct and incorrect decisions for right or wrong reasons. This analysis showed a high prevalence of correct decisions for wrong reasons in two of the studies, resolving the discrepancy in the initial comparison of these studies. The implication of our analysis is that simply asking students to make a decision in data comparison problems is not a suitable probe to gauge their ability to compare datasets or their conceptual understanding of measurement uncertainties and a probe like this should always be complemented by an analysis of the justification.","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010129","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Data comparison problems are used in teaching and science education research that focuses on students’ ability to compare datasets and their conceptual understanding of measurement uncertainties. However, the evaluation of students’ decisions in these problems can pose a problem: e.g., students making a correct decision for the wrong reasons. Three previous studies, that share the same context and data comparison problem but where participants had increasing conceptual knowledge of measurement uncertainties, are revisited. The comparison shows a troublesome result: increasing conceptual knowledge does not lead to better decision making in the data comparison problem. In this research, we have looked into this apparent discrepancy by comparing and reanalyzing the data from these three studies. We have analyzed students’ justifications by coding them based on the compared quantity and the deciding criterion, giving a highly detailed insight into what they do when comparing the datasets. The results show clear differences in the quality of the justifications across the studies and by combining the results with the decisions, we could successfully identify four cases of correct and incorrect decisions for right or wrong reasons. This analysis showed a high prevalence of correct decisions for wrong reasons in two of the studies, resolving the discrepancy in the initial comparison of these studies. The implication of our analysis is that simply asking students to make a decision in data comparison problems is not a suitable probe to gauge their ability to compare datasets or their conceptual understanding of measurement uncertainties and a probe like this should always be complemented by an analysis of the justification.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
如何评价学生在数据比较问题中的决策:决策正确的原因是什么?
数据比较问题被用于教学和科学教育研究中,重点关注学生比较数据集的能力以及他们对测量不确定性的概念理解。然而,对学生在这些问题中的决策进行评估可能会带来问题:例如,学生会出于错误的原因做出正确的决策。本研究重新审视了之前的三项研究,它们具有相同的背景和数据比较问题,但参与者对测量不确定性的概念性知识不断增加。比较显示了一个令人头疼的结果:概念性知识的增加并不能使学生在数据比较问题上做出更好的决策。在本研究中,我们通过比较和重新分析这三项研究的数据,对这一明显的差异进行了研究。我们根据比较的数量和决定标准对学生的理由进行了编码分析,从而对他们在比较数据集时所做的事情有了非常详细的了解。结果显示,不同研究中的理由质量存在明显差异,通过将结果与决定相结合,我们成功地找出了四例因正确或错误的理由而做出正确和错误决定的案例。这项分析表明,在其中两项研究中,因错误原因而做出正确决定的比例很高,从而解决了最初对这些研究进行比较时出现的差异。我们分析的意义在于,仅仅要求学生在数据比较问题中做出决定,并不是衡量他们比较数据集的能力或对测量不确定性的概念理解的合适探究方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Physical Review Physics Education Research
Physical Review Physics Education Research Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
41.90%
发文量
84
审稿时长
32 weeks
期刊介绍: PRPER covers all educational levels, from elementary through graduate education. All topics in experimental and theoretical physics education research are accepted, including, but not limited to: Educational policy Instructional strategies, and materials development Research methodology Epistemology, attitudes, and beliefs Learning environment Scientific reasoning and problem solving Diversity and inclusion Learning theory Student participation Faculty and teacher professional development
期刊最新文献
Erratum: Development and validation of a conceptual multiple-choice survey instrument to assess student understanding of introductory thermodynamics [Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020112 (2023)] Reinforcing mindware or supporting cognitive reflection: Testing two strategies for addressing a persistent learning challenge in the context of air resistance How women and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer physics doctoral students navigate graduate education: The roles of professional environments and social networks Evolving study strategies and support structures of introductory physics students Effectiveness of conceptual-framework-based instruction on promoting knowledge integration in learning simple electric circuit
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1