Probability-related naïve ideas across physics topics

IF 4.7 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Studies in Science Education Pub Date : 2020-05-12 DOI:10.1080/03057267.2020.1757244
M. M. Hull, Alexandra Jansky, M. Hopf
{"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.
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
物理学主题中与概率相关的天真想法
摘要在这篇文献综述中,我们调查了学生的天真想法(通常被称为“误解”),这些想法似乎至少在一定程度上与理解概率的困难有关。我们从物理学的一系列主题中收集了各种天真的想法:非线性动力学;宇宙学;热物理;原子、核和粒子物理学;基础粒子物理学;量子物理学;以及测量和不确定度。除了极少数例外,这些天真的想法在文献中被视为特定的主题。例如,“只需要一次测量,因为连续的测量总是会产生相同的结果”的想法在测量和不确定度中被视为误解。然而,在我们的综述中,我们提出了这样一种可能性,即这些不同的天真想法有一些共同点:它们在不同程度上是由数学教育研究人员记录的“随机性与预测和规律不兼容”的立场促成的。这一点很重要,因为它可能会为指导提供信息。也就是说,处理学生困难的根本原因可能比处理个人天真的想法本身更有效。
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
Studies in Science Education
Studies in Science Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
15.30
自引率
2.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Students’ ideas about the scientific underpinnings of climate change: a systematic review of the literature Queer individuals’ experiences in STEM learning and working environments Inquiry-based chemistry education: a systematic review Metacognitively ALERT in science: literature synthesis of a hierarchical framework for metacognition and preliminary evidence of its viability Inquiry-based science education in science teacher education: a systematic review
×
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