Pub Date : 2024-05-06DOI: 10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010135
Saeed Salimpour, Michael Fitzgerald, Robert Hollow
Over the years, there have been various calls to increase and better represent astronomy in curricula. This is motivated by views within the astronomy and astronomy education communities that the awe, wonder, and interdisciplinary nature of astronomy has the potential to engage students in STEM across disciplines. Reviews of curricula have shown that astronomy topics are represented in most mandated curricula around the world and although there is a homogeneity of astronomy topics in most mandated curricula, this representation has its limitations. By using the Australian National Curriculum, the USA-based Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), and the Swedish National Curriculum as examples, this study unpacks ideas around “How much astronomy is enough?”, the mismatches between astronomy topics in curricula and what constitutes astronomical literacy within the context of the Big Ideas in Astronomy document. The results identify that there is a significant gap at the galactic and extragalactic scales when considering the typical progression of astronomy topics when considering the conceptual, spatial, and temporal scales of the topics. Specifically, topics in curricula jump from tangible concepts within the student’s immediate and Solar System spatial scales in primary school to cosmological spatial scales in upper high school, without reference to spatial and conceptual connecting topics at galactic scales. Potential sample curriculum statements drawn from the Big Ideas are presented as a suggested curriculum inclusion. This curricula gap is identified as a potential source of a similar gap in education research in these topics at these levels, which in turn perpetuates the problem by there being a lack of research-based evidence for inclusion in the curriculum.
{"title":"Examining the mismatch between the intended astronomy curriculum content, astronomical literacy, and the astronomical universe","authors":"Saeed Salimpour, Michael Fitzgerald, Robert Hollow","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010135","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010135","url":null,"abstract":"Over the years, there have been various calls to increase and better represent astronomy in curricula. This is motivated by views within the astronomy and astronomy education communities that the awe, wonder, and interdisciplinary nature of astronomy has the potential to engage students in STEM across disciplines. Reviews of curricula have shown that astronomy topics are represented in most mandated curricula around the world and although there is a homogeneity of astronomy topics in most mandated curricula, this representation has its limitations. By using the Australian National Curriculum, the USA-based Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), and the Swedish National Curriculum as examples, this study unpacks ideas around “How much astronomy is enough?”, the mismatches between astronomy topics in curricula and what constitutes astronomical literacy within the context of the Big Ideas in Astronomy document. The results identify that there is a significant gap at the galactic and extragalactic scales when considering the typical progression of astronomy topics when considering the conceptual, spatial, and temporal scales of the topics. Specifically, topics in curricula jump from tangible concepts within the student’s immediate and Solar System spatial scales in primary school to cosmological spatial scales in upper high school, without reference to spatial and conceptual connecting topics at galactic scales. Potential sample curriculum statements drawn from the Big Ideas are presented as a suggested curriculum inclusion. This curricula gap is identified as a potential source of a similar gap in education research in these topics at these levels, which in turn perpetuates the problem by there being a lack of research-based evidence for inclusion in the curriculum.","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140881862","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 : 2024-05-03DOI: 10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010134
Vegard Gjerde, Sivert Hagane
Peer Instruction gives practice in the abstract language of physics, addresses common misconceptions among students, and is more effective than traditional lecturing. However, it is not clear what makes Peer Instruction effective nor how we might improve the method. An emerging perspective is that what makes Peer Instruction effective is how it stimulates certain cognitive processes. Research also indicates that providing rules for discussion may improve the effect of peer instruction. Hence, we wanted to answer two research questions in this study: (i) What cognitive learning processes occur during peer discussions? (ii) How do students follow discussion rules? To answer our research questions, we recorded and thematically analyzed peer discussions during Peer Instruction in an introductory physics course. The most prevalent cognitive process during peer discussions was decoding the problem. The most prevalent type of explanation was explanations with physics concepts, which usually led the students to an incorrect answer. The next most prevalent type of explanation was explanation with physics models, which usually led the students to the correct answer. The students also explained with reference to their experience or examples—intuitive or analogical explanations—and it usually added little to the conversation, was wrong, or created confusion. Some discussion rules had limited impact, prompting suggestions for rule improvements to optimize Peer Instruction. Our work contributes to the literature on Peer Instruction with a cognitively based description of the learning processes and how we might further improve and ensure the effectiveness of Peer Instruction.
{"title":"Enhancing peer instruction in physics: Understanding cognitive processes and refining rules","authors":"Vegard Gjerde, Sivert Hagane","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010134","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010134","url":null,"abstract":"Peer Instruction gives practice in the abstract language of physics, addresses common misconceptions among students, and is more effective than traditional lecturing. However, it is not clear what makes Peer Instruction effective nor how we might improve the method. An emerging perspective is that what makes Peer Instruction effective is how it stimulates certain cognitive processes. Research also indicates that providing rules for discussion may improve the effect of peer instruction. Hence, we wanted to answer two research questions in this study: (i) What cognitive learning processes occur during peer discussions? (ii) How do students follow discussion rules? To answer our research questions, we recorded and thematically analyzed peer discussions during Peer Instruction in an introductory physics course. The most prevalent cognitive process during peer discussions was decoding the problem. The most prevalent type of explanation was explanations with physics concepts, which usually led the students to an incorrect answer. The next most prevalent type of explanation was explanation with physics models, which usually led the students to the correct answer. The students also explained with reference to their experience or examples—intuitive or analogical explanations—and it usually added little to the conversation, was wrong, or created confusion. Some discussion rules had limited impact, prompting suggestions for rule improvements to optimize Peer Instruction. Our work contributes to the literature on Peer Instruction with a cognitively based description of the learning processes and how we might further improve and ensure the effectiveness of Peer Instruction.","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140839595","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 : 2024-05-03DOI: 10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010132
Diana Sachmpazidi, Chandra Turpen, Jayna Petrella, Robert P. Dalka, Fatima N. Abdurrahman
Leaders, policymakers, and researchers have called attention to the need to improve critical aspects of physics programs, from teaching and pedagogy to making physics more diverse and equitable. As such programmatic changes are challenging and require a second-order change to be effective, many physics faculty responsible for carrying them out are not equipped with the necessary experience and support to do so. This can result in a significant waste of resources and time. Moreover, while there is a robust body of literature in higher education focusing on institutional and cultural change, there is a limited understanding of the baseline of the culture of physics programs (where physics programs are starting from), a critical aspect that shapes the change effort. Dr. David Craig and Dr. Joel Corbo with the support of the American Physical Society and the American Association of Physics Teachers developed the Departmental Action Leadership Institutes (DALIs) to meet the needs of the physics community by supporting physics faculty to effectively design and implement departmental change focusing on areas needing improvement. In this research project, we developed case studies of five DALI-active physics programs from two DALI cohorts. We use a cultural dynamics lens to document facets of the dominant culture around how physics faculty approach and pursue change work. We see evidence of DALI participants’ growing awareness of taken-for-granted assumptions about educational change processes and assessment practices within their departmental cultures and coming to recognize and value alternative ways of collaborating and enacting change in their local contexts. We found that physics faculty typically approach change work in a rushed and ad hoc way ignoring the use of formal evidence. In particular, we found that any data collection efforts are the primary responsibility of a single person, rarely becoming the focus of joint attention. Whenever data did receive joint attention, it was approached in a cursory way without meaningfully informing collective change efforts. This study lays the foundation to explore critical aspects of the dominant physics culture that may constrain enacting particular forms of programmatic change. In future work, we document the cultural shifts made by these DALI-active departments around change work.
领导者、政策制定者和研究人员都呼吁关注改进物理课程关键方面的必要性，从教学和教学法到使物理更加多样化和公平。由于此类课程改革具有挑战性，需要进行二阶改革才能取得成效，因此许多负责实施这些改革的物理系教师并不具备必要的经验和支持。这会造成资源和时间的严重浪费。此外，虽然高等教育领域有大量关注机构和文化变革的文献，但对物理课程文化基线（物理课程的起点）的了解却很有限，而这正是影响变革努力的一个关键方面。大卫-克雷格博士和乔尔-科博博士在美国物理学会和美国物理教师协会的支持下，建立了 "系部行动领导力研究所"（DALIs），以满足物理学界的需求，支持物理系教师有效地设计和实施系部变革，重点关注需要改进的领域。在本研究项目中，我们对两届 DALI 的五个 DALI 活跃物理项目进行了案例研究。我们使用文化动力学视角，记录了围绕物理系教师如何对待和追求变革工作的主流文化的方方面面。我们发现有证据表明，DALI 的参与者越来越意识到在他们的部门文化中，关于教育变革过程和评估实践的假设是理所当然的，他们开始认识到并重视在当地环境中合作和实施变革的其他方式。我们发现，物理系教师通常以匆忙和临时的方式开展变革工作，忽视了正式证据的使用。特别是，我们发现任何数据收集工作都是一个人的主要责任，很少成为共同关注的焦点。即使数据得到了共同关注，也是草草了事，没有为集体变革努力提供有意义的信息。本研究为探索主流物理文化的关键方面奠定了基础，这些方面可能会制约特定形式的计划变革。在未来的工作中，我们将记录这些活跃于 DALI 的部门围绕变革工作所进行的文化转变。
{"title":"Recognizing dominant cultures around assessment and educational change in physics programs","authors":"Diana Sachmpazidi, Chandra Turpen, Jayna Petrella, Robert P. Dalka, Fatima N. Abdurrahman","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010132","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010132","url":null,"abstract":"Leaders, policymakers, and researchers have called attention to the need to improve critical aspects of physics programs, from teaching and pedagogy to making physics more diverse and equitable. As such programmatic changes are challenging and require a second-order change to be effective, many physics faculty responsible for carrying them out are not equipped with the necessary experience and support to do so. This can result in a significant waste of resources and time. Moreover, while there is a robust body of literature in higher education focusing on institutional and cultural change, there is a limited understanding of the baseline of the culture of physics programs (where physics programs are starting from), a critical aspect that shapes the change effort. Dr. David Craig and Dr. Joel Corbo with the support of the American Physical Society and the American Association of Physics Teachers developed the Departmental Action Leadership Institutes (DALIs) to meet the needs of the physics community by supporting physics faculty to effectively design and implement departmental change focusing on areas needing improvement. In this research project, we developed case studies of five DALI-active physics programs from two DALI cohorts. We use a cultural dynamics lens to document facets of the dominant culture around how physics faculty approach and pursue change work. We see evidence of DALI participants’ growing awareness of taken-for-granted assumptions about educational change processes and assessment practices within their departmental cultures and coming to recognize and value alternative ways of collaborating and enacting change in their local contexts. We found that physics faculty typically approach change work in a rushed and <i>ad hoc</i> way ignoring the use of formal evidence. In particular, we found that any data collection efforts are the primary responsibility of a single person, rarely becoming the focus of joint attention. Whenever data did receive joint attention, it was approached in a cursory way without meaningfully informing collective change efforts. This study lays the foundation to explore critical aspects of the dominant physics culture that may constrain enacting particular forms of programmatic change. In future work, we document the cultural shifts made by these DALI-active departments around change work.","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140839591","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 : 2024-05-03DOI: 10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010133
Meagan Sundstrom, Logan Kageorge
Students’ beliefs about the extent to which meaningful others, including their peers, recognize them as a strong science student are correlated with their persistence in science courses and careers. Yet, prior work has found a gender bias in peer recognition, in which student nominations of strong peers disproportionately favor men over women, in some instructional science contexts. Researchers have hypothesized that such a gender bias diminishes over time, as determined by students’ academic year: studies have found a gender bias in peer recognition in science courses aimed at first-year students, but not in science courses aimed at beyond first-year students. This hypothesis that patterns of peer recognition change over time, however, has yet to be tested with longitudinal data—previous studies only examine snapshots of different students in different science courses. In this study, we isolate the effect of time on peer recognition by analyzing student nominations of strong peers across a two-semester introductory physics course sequence, containing the same set of students and the same instructor in both semesters, at a mostly women institution. Using a combination of social network analysis and qualitative methods, we find that while many students receive similar levels of peer recognition over time, the four most highly nominated students—the recognition celebrities—exhibit some change between semesters even in this highly controlled setting. Furthermore, we observe that these changes in the celebrities track closely with changes in student outspokenness and that being outspoken is likely more important for gaining recognition than earning a high grade in the class. These findings lend support to prior work’s hypothesis that peer recognition changes over time, but also challenge the generalizability of previous results (i.e., that patterns of recognition are related to students’ academic year). Instead, peer recognition seems highly sensitive to variables such as individual students’ participation and, therefore, may be course specific. We provide recommendations for both when and how instructors may intervene on peer recognition based on our results.
{"title":"Investigating peer recognition across an introductory physics sequence: Do first impressions last?","authors":"Meagan Sundstrom, Logan Kageorge","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010133","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010133","url":null,"abstract":"Students’ beliefs about the extent to which meaningful others, including their peers, recognize them as a strong science student are correlated with their persistence in science courses and careers. Yet, prior work has found a gender bias in peer recognition, in which student nominations of strong peers disproportionately favor men over women, in some instructional science contexts. Researchers have hypothesized that such a gender bias diminishes over time, as determined by students’ academic year: studies have found a gender bias in peer recognition in science courses aimed at first-year students, but not in science courses aimed at beyond first-year students. This hypothesis that patterns of peer recognition change over time, however, has yet to be tested with longitudinal data—previous studies only examine snapshots of different students in different science courses. In this study, we isolate the effect of time on peer recognition by analyzing student nominations of strong peers across a two-semester introductory physics course sequence, containing the same set of students and the same instructor in both semesters, at a mostly women institution. Using a combination of social network analysis and qualitative methods, we find that while many students receive similar levels of peer recognition over time, the four most highly nominated students—the recognition celebrities—exhibit some change between semesters even in this highly controlled setting. Furthermore, we observe that these changes in the celebrities track closely with changes in student outspokenness and that being outspoken is likely more important for gaining recognition than earning a high grade in the class. These findings lend support to prior work’s hypothesis that peer recognition changes over time, but also challenge the generalizability of previous results (i.e., that patterns of recognition are related to students’ academic year). Instead, peer recognition seems highly sensitive to variables such as individual students’ participation and, therefore, may be course specific. We provide recommendations for both when and how instructors may intervene on peer recognition based on our results.","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140839635","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 : 2024-05-02DOI: 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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
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：