{"title":"Probability-related naïve ideas across physics topics","authors":"M. M. Hull, Alexandra Jansky, M. Hopf","doi":"10.1080/03057267.2020.1757244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this literature review, we survey student naïve ideas (frequently referred to as ‘misconceptions’) that plausibly relate, at least in part, to difficulty in understanding probability. We collected diverse naïve ideas from a range of topics in physics: Non-linear Dynamics; Cosmology; Thermal Physics; Atomic, Nuclear, and Particle Physics; Elementary Particle Physics; Quantum Physics; and Measurements and Uncertainties. With rare exception, these naïve ideas are treated in the literature to be topic-specific. For example, the idea that ‘only one measurement is needed because successive measurements will always yield the same result’ is treated to be a misconception in Measurements and Uncertainties. In our review, however, we raise the possibility that these diverse naïve ideas have something in common: they are enabled, to varying degrees, by the stance that ‘random is incompatible with predictions and laws’ that researchers in mathematics education have documented. This is important, as it may inform instruction. Namely, it may be the case that it is more effective to treat this underlying cause of student difficulty, rather than the individual naïve ideas themselves.","PeriodicalId":49262,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Science Education","volume":"57 1","pages":"45 - 83"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/03057267.2020.1757244","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2020.1757244","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: 7
Abstract
ABSTRACT In this literature review, we survey student naïve ideas (frequently referred to as ‘misconceptions’) that plausibly relate, at least in part, to difficulty in understanding probability. We collected diverse naïve ideas from a range of topics in physics: Non-linear Dynamics; Cosmology; Thermal Physics; Atomic, Nuclear, and Particle Physics; Elementary Particle Physics; Quantum Physics; and Measurements and Uncertainties. With rare exception, these naïve ideas are treated in the literature to be topic-specific. For example, the idea that ‘only one measurement is needed because successive measurements will always yield the same result’ is treated to be a misconception in Measurements and Uncertainties. In our review, however, we raise the possibility that these diverse naïve ideas have something in common: they are enabled, to varying degrees, by the stance that ‘random is incompatible with predictions and laws’ that researchers in mathematics education have documented. This is important, as it may inform instruction. Namely, it may be the case that it is more effective to treat this underlying cause of student difficulty, rather than the individual naïve ideas themselves.
期刊介绍:
The central aim of Studies in Science Education is to publish review articles of the highest quality which provide analytical syntheses of research into key topics and issues in science education. In addressing this aim, the Editor and Editorial Advisory Board, are guided by a commitment to:
maintaining and developing the highest standards of scholarship associated with the journal;
publishing articles from as wide a range of authors as possible, in relation both to professional background and country of origin;
publishing articles which serve both to consolidate and reflect upon existing fields of study and to promote new areas for research activity.
Studies in Science Education will be of interest to all those involved in science education including: science education researchers, doctoral and masters students; science teachers at elementary, high school and university levels; science education policy makers; science education curriculum developers and text book writers.
Articles featured in Studies in Science Education have been made available either following invitation from the Editor or through potential contributors offering pieces. Given the substantial nature of the review articles, the Editor is willing to give informal feedback on the suitability of proposals though all contributions, whether invited or not, are subject to full peer review. A limited number of books of special interest and concern to those involved in science education are normally reviewed in each volume.