Pub Date : 2024-05-02DOI: 10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010131
Josephine C. Meyer, Gina Passante, Bethany Wilcox
Driven in large part by the National Quantum Initiative Act of 2018, quantum information science (QIS) coursework and degree programs are rapidly spreading across U.S. institutions. Yet prior work suggests that access to quantum workforce education is unequally distributed, disproportionately benefiting students at private research-focused institutions whose student bodies are unrepresentative of U.S. higher education as a whole. We use regression analysis to analyze the distribution of QIS coursework across 456 institutions of higher learning as of Fall 2022, identifying statistically significant disparities across institutions in particular along the axes of institution classification, funding, and geographic distribution suggesting today’s QIS education programs are largely failing to reach low-income and rural students. We also conduct a brief analysis of the distribution of emerging dedicated QIS degree programs, discovering much the same trends. We conclude with a discussion of implications for educators, policymakers, and education researchers including specific policy recommendations to direct investments in QIS education to schools serving low-income and rural students, leverage existing grassroots diversity and inclusion initiatives that have arisen within the quantum community, and update and modernize procedures for collecting QIS educational data to better track these trends.
{"title":"Disparities in access to U.S. quantum information education","authors":"Josephine C. Meyer, Gina Passante, Bethany Wilcox","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010131","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010131","url":null,"abstract":"Driven in large part by the National Quantum Initiative Act of 2018, quantum information science (QIS) coursework and degree programs are rapidly spreading across U.S. institutions. Yet prior work suggests that access to quantum workforce education is unequally distributed, disproportionately benefiting students at private research-focused institutions whose student bodies are unrepresentative of U.S. higher education as a whole. We use regression analysis to analyze the distribution of QIS coursework across 456 institutions of higher learning as of Fall 2022, identifying statistically significant disparities across institutions in particular along the axes of institution classification, funding, and geographic distribution suggesting today’s QIS education programs are largely failing to reach low-income and rural students. We also conduct a brief analysis of the distribution of emerging dedicated QIS degree programs, discovering much the same trends. We conclude with a discussion of implications for educators, policymakers, and education researchers including specific policy recommendations to direct investments in QIS education to schools serving low-income and rural students, leverage existing grassroots diversity and inclusion initiatives that have arisen within the quantum community, and update and modernize procedures for collecting QIS educational data to better track these trends.","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140839590","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-26DOI: 10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010129
Karel Kok, Sophia Chroszczinsky, Burkhard Priemer
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.
{"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":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010129","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":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140806637","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-26DOI: 10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010128
Justin Gambrell, Eric Brewe
Computational thinking in physics has many different forms, definitions, and implementations depending on the level of physics or the institution it is presented in. To better integrate computational thinking in introductory physics, we need to understand what physicists find important about computational thinking in introductory physics. We present a qualitative analysis of 26 interviews asking academic () and industrial () physicists about the teaching and learning of computational thinking in introductory physics courses. These interviews are part of a long-term project toward developing an assessment protocol for computational thinking in introductory physics. We find that academic and industrial physicists value students’ ability to read code and that python (or vpython) and spreadsheets were the preferred computational language or environment used. Additionally, the interviewees mentioned that identifying the core physics concepts within a program, explaining code to others, and good program hygiene (i.e., commenting and using meaningful variable names) are important skills for introductory students to acquire. We also find that while a handful of interviewees note that the experience and skills gained from computation are quite useful for student’s future careers, they also describe multiple limiting factors of teaching computation in introductory physics, such as curricular overhaul, not having “space” for computation’, and student rejection. The interviews show that while adding computational thinking to physics students’ repertoire is important, the importance really comes from using computational thinking to learn and understand physics better. This informs us that the assessment we develop should only include the basics of computational thinking needed to assess introductory physics knowledge.
{"title":"Analyzing interviews on computational thinking for introductory physics students: Toward a generalized assessment","authors":"Justin Gambrell, Eric Brewe","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010128","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010128","url":null,"abstract":"Computational thinking in physics has many different forms, definitions, and implementations depending on the level of physics or the institution it is presented in. To better integrate computational thinking in introductory physics, we need to understand what physicists find important about computational thinking in introductory physics. We present a qualitative analysis of 26 interviews asking academic (<math display=\"inline\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><mrow><mi>N</mi><mi>_</mi><mi>a</mi><mrow><mo>=</mo><mn>18</mn></mrow></mrow></math>) and industrial (<math display=\"inline\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><mrow><mi>N</mi><mi>_</mi><mi>i</mi><mrow><mo>=</mo><mn>8</mn></mrow></mrow></math>) physicists about the teaching and learning of computational thinking in introductory physics courses. These interviews are part of a long-term project toward developing an assessment protocol for computational thinking in introductory physics. We find that academic and industrial physicists value students’ ability to read code and that <span>python</span> (or <span>vpython</span>) and spreadsheets were the preferred computational language or environment used. Additionally, the interviewees mentioned that identifying the core physics concepts within a program, explaining code to others, and good program hygiene (i.e., commenting and using meaningful variable names) are important skills for introductory students to acquire. We also find that while a handful of interviewees note that the experience and skills gained from computation are quite useful for student’s future careers, they also describe multiple limiting factors of teaching computation in introductory physics, such as curricular overhaul, not having “space” for computation’, and student rejection. The interviews show that while adding computational thinking to physics students’ repertoire is important, the importance really comes from using computational thinking to learn and understand physics better. This informs us that the assessment we develop should only include the basics of computational thinking needed to assess introductory physics knowledge.","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140804184","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-26DOI: 10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010130
Yaren Ulu, Sevda Yerdelen-Damar
This study aimed (i) to investigate how epistemic cognition in physics and metacognition, together with three dimensions of physics identity framework—recognition, physics self-efficacy, and interest—predicted the overall physics identity of Turkish high school students and also (ii) to investigate gender differences in study constructs. A sample of 1197 high school students participated in the study. The collected data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. The analysis results indicated that the model fitted the data well, further motivating intervention studies to test the causal relations proposed in the model. The results showed that recognition and interest directly predicted physics identity and mediated the relation of physics self-efficacy to it. Metacognition and epistemic cognition predicted physics identity through physics self-efficacy. The study also observed significant direct and indirect relations among metacognition, epistemic cognition, self-efficacy, recognition, and interest. Furthermore, gender differences were found in the current study. While no gender difference was observed in metacognition and epistemic cognition in physics, male students scored higher than female students in physics identity, self-efficacy, recognition, and interest. However, the mediation analysis further indicated that gender differences in physics self-efficacy might explain gender differences in physics identity, recognition, and interest. The results of this study could motivate future interventions testing the effect of metacognitive and epistemic activities on both physics self-efficacy and identity, and also, the interventions testing whether practices that reduce the gender gap in physics self-efficacy will help eliminate the gender gap in physics identity, recognition, and interest.
{"title":"Metacognition and epistemic cognition in physics are related to physics identity through the mediation of physics self-efficacy","authors":"Yaren Ulu, Sevda Yerdelen-Damar","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010130","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010130","url":null,"abstract":"This study aimed (i) to investigate how epistemic cognition in physics and metacognition, together with three dimensions of physics identity framework—recognition, physics self-efficacy, and interest—predicted the overall physics identity of Turkish high school students and also (ii) to investigate gender differences in study constructs. A sample of 1197 high school students participated in the study. The collected data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. The analysis results indicated that the model fitted the data well, further motivating intervention studies to test the causal relations proposed in the model. The results showed that recognition and interest directly predicted physics identity and mediated the relation of physics self-efficacy to it. Metacognition and epistemic cognition predicted physics identity through physics self-efficacy. The study also observed significant direct and indirect relations among metacognition, epistemic cognition, self-efficacy, recognition, and interest. Furthermore, gender differences were found in the current study. While no gender difference was observed in metacognition and epistemic cognition in physics, male students scored higher than female students in physics identity, self-efficacy, recognition, and interest. However, the mediation analysis further indicated that gender differences in physics self-efficacy might explain gender differences in physics identity, recognition, and interest. The results of this study could motivate future interventions testing the effect of metacognitive and epistemic activities on both physics self-efficacy and identity, and also, the interventions testing whether practices that reduce the gender gap in physics self-efficacy will help eliminate the gender gap in physics identity, recognition, and interest.","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140804050","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-15DOI: 10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010127
Meagan Sundstrom, L. N. Simpfendoerfer, Annie Tan, Ashley B. Heim, N. G. Holmes
Previous work has identified that recognition from others is an important predictor of students’ participation, persistence, and career intentions in physics. However, research has also found a gender bias in peer recognition in which student nominations of strong peers in their physics course disproportionately favor men over women. In this study, we draw on methods from social network analysis and find a consistent gender bias in which men disproportionately undernominate women as strong in their physics course in two offerings of both a lecture course (for science and engineering, but not physics, majors) and a distinct lab course (for science, engineering, and physics majors). We also find in one offering of the lecture course that women disproportionately undernominate men, contrary to what previous research would predict. We expand on prior work by also probing two data sources related to who and what gets recognized in peer recognition: students’ interactions with their peers (who gets recognized) and students’ written explanations of their nominations of strong peers (what gets recognized). Results suggest that the nature of the observed gender bias in peer recognition varies between the instructional contexts of lecture and lab. In the lecture course, the gender bias is related to who gets recognized: both men and women disproportionately overnominate their interaction ties to students of their same gender as strong in the course. In the lab course, the gender bias is also related to what gets recognized: men nominate men more than women because of skills related to interactions, such as being helpful. These findings illuminate the different ways in which students form perceptions of their peers and add nuance to our understanding of the nature of gender bias in peer recognition.
{"title":"Who and what gets recognized in peer recognition","authors":"Meagan Sundstrom, L. N. Simpfendoerfer, Annie Tan, Ashley B. Heim, N. G. Holmes","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010127","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010127","url":null,"abstract":"Previous work has identified that recognition from others is an important predictor of students’ participation, persistence, and career intentions in physics. However, research has also found a gender bias in peer recognition in which student nominations of strong peers in their physics course disproportionately favor men over women. In this study, we draw on methods from social network analysis and find a consistent gender bias in which men disproportionately undernominate women as strong in their physics course in two offerings of both a lecture course (for science and engineering, but not physics, majors) and a distinct lab course (for science, engineering, and physics majors). We also find in one offering of the lecture course that women disproportionately undernominate men, contrary to what previous research would predict. We expand on prior work by also probing two data sources related to who and what gets recognized in peer recognition: students’ interactions with their peers (who gets recognized) and students’ written explanations of their nominations of strong peers (what gets recognized). Results suggest that the nature of the observed gender bias in peer recognition varies between the instructional contexts of lecture and lab. In the lecture course, the gender bias is related to who gets recognized: both men and women disproportionately overnominate their interaction ties to students of their same gender as strong in the course. In the lab course, the gender bias is also related to what gets recognized: men nominate men more than women because of skills related to interactions, such as being helpful. These findings illuminate the different ways in which students form perceptions of their peers and add nuance to our understanding of the nature of gender bias in peer recognition.","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":"81 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140592614","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-12DOI: 10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010124
Lauren C. Bauman, Trà Huỳnh, Amy D. Robertson
Literature on student ideas about circuits largely focuses on misunderstandings and difficulties, with seminal papers framing student thinking as stable, difficult to change, and connected to incorrect ontological categorizations of current as a thing rather than a process. In this paper, we analyzed 417 student responses to a conceptual question about electric circuits using a lens consistent with resources theory. We found that though indicators of substance-based reasoning about current are common in student responses, this reasoning is not predictive of other difficulties reported in the literature, such as “current is consumed” or “the battery is a constant source of current.” We also found that students use substance-based reasoning in resourceful ways, suggesting that substance-based reasoning may in fact be a productive starting place for instruction on circuits.
{"title":"Substance-based and sequential reasoning about current: An example from a bulb-ranking task using a resources theoretical lens","authors":"Lauren C. Bauman, Trà Huỳnh, Amy D. Robertson","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010124","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010124","url":null,"abstract":"Literature on student ideas about circuits largely focuses on misunderstandings and difficulties, with seminal papers framing student thinking as stable, difficult to change, and connected to incorrect ontological categorizations of current as a thing rather than a process. In this paper, we analyzed 417 student responses to a conceptual question about electric circuits using a lens consistent with resources theory. We found that though indicators of substance-based reasoning about current are common in student responses, this reasoning is not predictive of other difficulties reported in the literature, such as “current is consumed” or “the battery is a constant source of current.” We also found that students use substance-based reasoning in resourceful ways, suggesting that substance-based reasoning may in fact be a productive starting place for instruction on circuits.","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":"58 27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140593170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-11DOI: 10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010125
Shams El-Adawy, Alexandra C. Lau, Eleanor C. Sayre, Claudia Fracchiolla
Physicists engage with the public to varying degrees at different stages of their careers. However, their public engagement covers many activities, events, and audiences, making their motivations and professional development needs not well understood. As part of ongoing efforts to build and support a community in the informal physics space, we conducted interviews with physicists with a range of different experiences in public engagement. We use personas methodology and self-determination theory to articulate their public engagement motivation, challenges, and needs. We present our set of three personas: the physicist who engages in informal physics for self-reflection, the physicist who wants to spark interest and understanding in physics, and the physicist who wants to provide diverse role models to younger students and inspire them to pursue a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics career. Needs covered a range of resources including science communication training, community building among informal physics practitioners, and mechanisms to recognize, elevate, and value informal physics. By bringing user-centered design methodology to a new topical area of physics education research, we expand our understanding of motivations and needs of practitioners in physics public engagement. Therefore, departments, organizations, and institutions could draw upon the personas developed to consider the ways to better support physicists in their respective environments.
{"title":"Motivation and needs of informal physics practitioners","authors":"Shams El-Adawy, Alexandra C. Lau, Eleanor C. Sayre, Claudia Fracchiolla","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010125","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010125","url":null,"abstract":"Physicists engage with the public to varying degrees at different stages of their careers. However, their public engagement covers many activities, events, and audiences, making their motivations and professional development needs not well understood. As part of ongoing efforts to build and support a community in the informal physics space, we conducted interviews with physicists with a range of different experiences in public engagement. We use personas methodology and self-determination theory to articulate their public engagement motivation, challenges, and needs. We present our set of three personas: the physicist who engages in informal physics for self-reflection, the physicist who wants to spark interest and understanding in physics, and the physicist who wants to provide diverse role models to younger students and inspire them to pursue a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics career. Needs covered a range of resources including science communication training, community building among informal physics practitioners, and mechanisms to recognize, elevate, and value informal physics. By bringing user-centered design methodology to a new topical area of physics education research, we expand our understanding of motivations and needs of practitioners in physics public engagement. Therefore, departments, organizations, and institutions could draw upon the personas developed to consider the ways to better support physicists in their respective environments.","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":"69 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140592617","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The assessment of test anxiety has received increasing attention in educational research due to the potential negative effects of anxiety on student performance. Traditionally, test anxiety scales have been developed for mathematics, but few studies have focused on physics. In this study, we validated two test anxiety scales for undergraduate physics courses: the Test Anxiety Inventory for Physics (TAIP) and the Abbreviated Test Anxiety Inventory for Physics scale (ATAIP), which were adapted from existing instruments. A convenience sample of 361 engineering students enrolled in a first-semester introductory physics course participated in the study. Confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis were used to establish the construct validity of both scales. Convergent validity for the TAIP scale was established by examining its correlation with a scale adapted from the math anxiety scale. Criterion-related validity for both TAIP and ATAIP was established by analyzing the relationship between students’ Rasch scores on the two scales and their performance on two conceptual tests. Finally, measurement invariance of TAIP and ATAIP scales was established using both multigroup and differential item functioning analyses to reliably investigate gender differences in the corresponding Rasch measures. The study confirms a robust four-factor structure of the TAIP. The four subscales, Worry, Emotionality, Interference, and Lack of Confidence, demonstrate good reliability (McDonald’s , respectively). Rash analysis also confirms that, for each subscale, the rating scale functioning was consistent with the item difficulty and person measures. The TAIP also demonstrates adequate convergent and criterion-related validity, as well as measurement invariance with respect to gender. The ATAIP also demonstrates good reliability (McDonald’s ), a well-functioning rating scale, and sufficient criterion-related validity. Additionally, it exhibits measurement invariance with respect to gender. Overall, the study supports that both the TAIP and ATAIP scales are reliable instruments for measuring students’ test anxiety in an undergraduate physics course. Implications for physics instruction at the university introductory level are briefly discussed.
由于焦虑对学生成绩的潜在负面影响，考试焦虑的评估在教育研究中受到越来越多的关注。传统上，考试焦虑量表是针对数学而开发的，但很少有研究关注物理。在本研究中，我们验证了两个适用于本科物理课程的考试焦虑量表：物理考试焦虑量表（TAIP）和物理考试焦虑量表缩写表（ATAIP）。这项研究的样本来自 361 名修读物理入门课程第一学期的工科学生。研究采用了确认性因子分析和 Rasch 分析来确定两个量表的建构效度。通过检验 TAIP 量表与数学焦虑量表的相关性，确定了 TAIP 量表的收敛效度。通过分析学生在两个量表上的 Rasch 分数与他们在两个概念测试中的表现之间的关系，确定了 TAIP 和 ATAIP 的标准相关效度。最后，通过多组分析和差异项目功能分析，确定了 TAIP 和 ATAIP 量表的测量不变性，从而可靠地研究了相应 Rasch 测量中的性别差异。研究证实 TAIP 具有稳健的四因子结构。担心、情绪化、干扰和缺乏自信这四个分量表显示出良好的信度（麦克唐纳ω分别为 0.78、0.86、0.87、87）。Rash 分析也证实，对于每个分量表，评分量表的功能与项目难度和人的测量结果是一致的。TAIP 还显示了充分的收敛效度和标准效度，以及与性别相关的测量不变性。ATAIP 也表现出良好的信度（麦当劳 ω=0.84）、功能完善的评分量表和充分的标准相关效度。此外，它还表现出与性别相关的测量不变性。总之，本研究证明 TAIP 和 ATAIP 量表是测量本科生物理课程中学生考试焦虑的可靠工具。本研究还简要讨论了对大学入门级物理教学的启示。
{"title":"Validation of two test anxiety scales for physics undergraduate courses through confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis","authors":"Agostino Cioffi, Silvia Galano, Raffaella Passeggia, Italo Testa","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010126","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010126","url":null,"abstract":"The assessment of test anxiety has received increasing attention in educational research due to the potential negative effects of anxiety on student performance. Traditionally, test anxiety scales have been developed for mathematics, but few studies have focused on physics. In this study, we validated two test anxiety scales for undergraduate physics courses: the Test Anxiety Inventory for Physics (TAIP) and the Abbreviated Test Anxiety Inventory for Physics scale (ATAIP), which were adapted from existing instruments. A convenience sample of 361 engineering students enrolled in a first-semester introductory physics course participated in the study. Confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis were used to establish the construct validity of both scales. Convergent validity for the TAIP scale was established by examining its correlation with a scale adapted from the math anxiety scale. Criterion-related validity for both TAIP and ATAIP was established by analyzing the relationship between students’ Rasch scores on the two scales and their performance on two conceptual tests. Finally, measurement invariance of TAIP and ATAIP scales was established using both multigroup and differential item functioning analyses to reliably investigate gender differences in the corresponding Rasch measures. The study confirms a robust four-factor structure of the TAIP. The four subscales, Worry, Emotionality, Interference, and Lack of Confidence, demonstrate good reliability (McDonald’s <math display=\"inline\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><mrow><mi>ω</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>0.78</mn><mo>,</mo><mn>0.86</mn><mo>,</mo><mn>0.87</mn><mo>,</mo><mn>8</mn><mn>7</mn></mrow></math>, respectively). Rash analysis also confirms that, for each subscale, the rating scale functioning was consistent with the item difficulty and person measures. The TAIP also demonstrates adequate convergent and criterion-related validity, as well as measurement invariance with respect to gender. The ATAIP also demonstrates good reliability (McDonald’s <math display=\"inline\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><mrow><mi>ω</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>0.84</mn></mrow></math>), a well-functioning rating scale, and sufficient criterion-related validity. Additionally, it exhibits measurement invariance with respect to gender. Overall, the study supports that both the TAIP and ATAIP scales are reliable instruments for measuring students’ test anxiety in an undergraduate physics course. Implications for physics instruction at the university introductory level are briefly discussed.","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140592846","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-10DOI: 10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010601
Purwoko Haryadi Santoso, Bayu Setiaji, Wahyudi, Johan Syahbrudin, Syamsul Bahri, Fathurrahman, A. Suci Rizky Ananda, Yusuf Sodhiqin
The Force Concept Inventory (FCI) is one of the research-based assessments established by the physics education research community to measure students’ understanding of Newtonian mechanics. Former works have often recorded the notion of gendered mean FCI scores favoring male students notably in the North American (NA) based studies. Nevertheless, these performance gaps remain inconclusive and unexplored outside the NA context. This paper aims to fill this gap by meta-analyzing the mean FCI scores between gender based on the existing physics education research literature internationally. We analyzed the magnitude and direction on the mean FCI scores between gender based on primary international studies published over the last two decades. We also explored the moderating impact of international study characteristics on the meta-analytic findings by performing a subgroup analysis to study the different study regions stratified by two subgroups (NA vs non-NA authors). Thirty-eight studies reporting the mean FCI scores by gender were included in the present meta-analysis. We employed Hedges’ statistic to estimate to what degree the mean FCI scores may be different between male and female students on each study. Under a random effects model, we meta-analyzed the findings and conducted a subgroup analysis to answer the research questions. In summary, our meta-analysis indicated a significantly positive and moderate amount of gendered mean FCI scores in favor of male students both in NA- and non-NA based regions, and the performance gaps were wider in the NA-based studies. Suggestions are discussed while interpreting the mean FCI scores between gender for teaching, learning, and forthcoming studies.
力概念量表（FCI）是物理教育研究界为测量学生对牛顿力学的理解而建立的基于研究的评估之一。在以往的研究中，FCI 的平均分往往存在性别差异，尤其是在北美的研究中，男性学生的得分更高。然而，在北美以外的地区，这些成绩差距仍然没有定论，也未被探索。本文旨在根据国际上现有的物理教育研究文献，对性别间的 FCI 平均分进行元分析，以填补这一空白。我们基于过去二十年发表的主要国际研究，分析了性别间 FCI 平均得分的大小和方向。我们还通过亚组分析（NA 作者与非 NA 作者）对不同研究地区进行了分层，探讨了国际研究特征对元分析结果的调节作用。本荟萃分析共纳入了 38 项报告了不同性别 FCI 平均得分的研究。我们采用 Hedges'g 统计量来估算每项研究中男女学生的 FCI 平均分的差异程度。在随机效应模型下，我们对研究结果进行了元分析，并进行了分组分析，以回答研究问题。总之，我们的元分析结果表明，在基于 NA 和非 NA 的研究中，男生的 FCI 平均分明显偏向于正值和中等水平，而在基于 NA 的研究中，男生和女生的成绩差距更大。在解释性别间的平均 FCI 分数时，我们讨论了对教学、学习和未来研究的建议。
{"title":"Exploring gender differences in the Force Concept Inventory using a random effects meta-analysis of international studies","authors":"Purwoko Haryadi Santoso, Bayu Setiaji, Wahyudi, Johan Syahbrudin, Syamsul Bahri, Fathurrahman, A. Suci Rizky Ananda, Yusuf Sodhiqin","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010601","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010601","url":null,"abstract":"The Force Concept Inventory (FCI) is one of the research-based assessments established by the physics education research community to measure students’ understanding of Newtonian mechanics. Former works have often recorded the notion of gendered mean FCI scores favoring male students notably in the North American (NA) based studies. Nevertheless, these performance gaps remain inconclusive and unexplored outside the NA context. This paper aims to fill this gap by meta-analyzing the mean FCI scores between gender based on the existing physics education research literature internationally. We analyzed the magnitude and direction on the mean FCI scores between gender based on primary international studies published over the last two decades. We also explored the moderating impact of international study characteristics on the meta-analytic findings by performing a subgroup analysis to study the different study regions stratified by two subgroups (NA vs non-NA authors). Thirty-eight studies reporting the mean FCI scores by gender were included in the present meta-analysis. We employed Hedges’ <math display=\"inline\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><mi>g</mi></math> statistic to estimate to what degree the mean FCI scores may be different between male and female students on each study. Under a random effects model, we meta-analyzed the findings and conducted a subgroup analysis to answer the research questions. In summary, our meta-analysis indicated a significantly positive and moderate amount of gendered mean FCI scores in favor of male students both in NA- and non-NA based regions, and the performance gaps were wider in the NA-based studies. Suggestions are discussed while interpreting the mean FCI scores between gender for teaching, learning, and forthcoming studies.","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140592940","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-04-09DOI: 10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010123
Elaine Christman, Paul Miller, John Stewart
This study proposes methods of reporting results of physics conceptual evaluations that more fully characterize the range of outcomes experienced by students with differing levels of prior preparation, allowing for more meaningful comparison of the outcomes of educational interventions within and across institutions. Factors leading to variation in post-test scores on the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE) across different instructors, semesters, and course models in a sample collected in introductory calculus-based mechanics at a large, eastern land-grant university were examined. The sample was collected over nine years and contains a total of matched pretest and post-test records. The data showed a systematic semester-by-semester variation in both pretest scores and ACT or SAT mathematics percentile scores. Neither the normalized gain nor Cohen’s removed the semester-to-semester variation observed in post-test scores. The local average curve plotting post-test scores against pretest scores, which we call a conceptual growth curve, allowed for the characterization of outcomes for students with different pretest scores. Regression models were used to produce an approximation to this curve. By using either the full curve or a mathematical approximation developed through linear regression, the post-test score that would be observed if a class enrolled students with a given level of prior preparation measured by pretest scores can be predicted. This predicted post-test score can then be used to calculate the predicted normalized gain if desired. These methods rely on using the natural variation of incoming student preparation at one institution to predict how a class would perform if it enrolled students with different prior preparation. The study presents an example of converting the outcomes at an institution with a weakly prepared student population to the outcomes which would have been observed if the course enrolled a more prepared student population; converting the outcomes for a different student population dramatically changed the interpretation of how the class studied was functioning.
本研究提出了报告物理概念评价结果的方法，这些方法能更全面地描述具有不同先期准备水平的学生所经历的结果范围，从而更有意义地比较机构内和机构间教育干预的结果。在东部一所大型赠地大学的微积分力学入门课程中收集的样本中，研究了导致不同教师、不同学期和不同课程模式的 "力与运动概念评价"（FMCE）测试后得分差异的因素。样本收集历时九年，共包含 N=4409 个匹配的前测和后测记录。数据显示，每个学期的考前成绩和 ACT 或 SAT 数学百分位数成绩都有系统性的变化。无论是归一化增益还是 Cohen's d，都无法消除在测验后分数中观察到的学期间差异。将后测分数与前测分数绘制成的局部平均曲线（我们称之为概念成长曲线），可用于描述不同前测分数的学生的学习结果。回归模型用于生成该曲线的近似值。通过使用完整的曲线或通过线性回归建立的数学近似值，可以预测出如果一个班级招收了具有特定水平的学生，而这些学生之前的准备情况是以考前分数来衡量的，那么该班级学生的考后分数是多少。然后，如果需要，还可以用预测的测验后分数来计算预测的归一化增益。这些方法依赖于利用一所学校新生准备情况的自然变化，来预测一个班级如果招收了具有不同先期准备情况的学生，将会取得怎样的成绩。本研究举例说明了如何将一所院校中准备薄弱的学生群体的成绩转换为如果该课程招收准备更充分的学生群体所能观察到的成绩；将不同学生群体的成绩进行转换，极大地改变了对所研究班级运作情况的解释。
{"title":"Beyond normalized gain: Improved comparison of physics educational outcomes","authors":"Elaine Christman, Paul Miller, John Stewart","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010123","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010123","url":null,"abstract":"This study proposes methods of reporting results of physics conceptual evaluations that more fully characterize the range of outcomes experienced by students with differing levels of prior preparation, allowing for more meaningful comparison of the outcomes of educational interventions within and across institutions. Factors leading to variation in post-test scores on the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (FMCE) across different instructors, semesters, and course models in a sample collected in introductory calculus-based mechanics at a large, eastern land-grant university were examined. The sample was collected over nine years and contains a total of <math display=\"inline\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><mi>N</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>4409</mn></math> matched pretest and post-test records. The data showed a systematic semester-by-semester variation in both pretest scores and ACT or SAT mathematics percentile scores. Neither the normalized gain nor Cohen’s <math display=\"inline\" xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\"><mi>d</mi></math> removed the semester-to-semester variation observed in post-test scores. The local average curve plotting post-test scores against pretest scores, which we call a conceptual growth curve, allowed for the characterization of outcomes for students with different pretest scores. Regression models were used to produce an approximation to this curve. By using either the full curve or a mathematical approximation developed through linear regression, the post-test score that would be observed if a class enrolled students with a given level of prior preparation measured by pretest scores can be predicted. This predicted post-test score can then be used to calculate the predicted normalized gain if desired. These methods rely on using the natural variation of incoming student preparation at one institution to predict how a class would perform if it enrolled students with different prior preparation. The study presents an example of converting the outcomes at an institution with a weakly prepared student population to the outcomes which would have been observed if the course enrolled a more prepared student population; converting the outcomes for a different student population dramatically changed the interpretation of how the class studied was functioning.","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140592607","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：