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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Pub Date : 2024-04-05DOI: 10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010121
Matthew Dew, Emma Hunt, Viranga Perera, Jonathan Perry, Gregorio Ponti, Andrew Loveridge
[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Instructional labs: Improving traditions and new directions.] Recent studies provide evidence that social constructivist pedagogical methods such as active learning, interactive engagement, and inquiry-based learning, while pedagogically more effective, can enable inequities in the classroom. By conducting a quantitative empirical examination of gender-inequitable group dynamics in two inquiry-based physics labs, we extend results of previous work. Using a survey on group work preferences and video recordings of lab sessions, we find similar patterns of gendered role taking noted in prior studies. These results are not reducible to differences in students’ preferences. We find that an intervention which employed partner agreement forms, with the goal of reducing inequities, had a positive impact on students’ engagement with equipment during a first-semester lab course. Our work will inform implementation of more effective interventions in the future and emphasizes challenges faced by instructors who are dedicated to both research-based pedagogical practices and efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in their classrooms.
{"title":"Group dynamics in inquiry-based labs: Gender inequities and the efficacy of partner agreements","authors":"Matthew Dew, Emma Hunt, Viranga Perera, Jonathan Perry, Gregorio Ponti, Andrew Loveridge","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010121","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010121","url":null,"abstract":"[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Instructional labs: Improving traditions and new directions.] Recent studies provide evidence that social constructivist pedagogical methods such as active learning, interactive engagement, and inquiry-based learning, while pedagogically more effective, can enable inequities in the classroom. By conducting a quantitative empirical examination of gender-inequitable group dynamics in two inquiry-based physics labs, we extend results of previous work. Using a survey on group work preferences and video recordings of lab sessions, we find similar patterns of gendered role taking noted in prior studies. These results are not reducible to differences in students’ preferences. We find that an intervention which employed partner agreement forms, with the goal of reducing inequities, had a positive impact on students’ engagement with equipment during a first-semester lab course. Our work will inform implementation of more effective interventions in the future and emphasizes challenges faced by instructors who are dedicated to both research-based pedagogical practices and efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in their classrooms.","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140592609","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 : 2024-04-05DOI: 10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010122
Moritz Waitzmann, Ruediger Scholz, Susanne Wessnigk
Clear and rigorous quantum reasoning is needed to explain quantum physical phenomena. As pillars of true quantum physical explanations, we suggest specific quantum reasoning derived from quantum physical key ideas. An experiment is suggested to support such a quantum reasoning, in which a quantized radiation field interacts with an optical beam splitter, leading to experimental results conflicting with classical physical predictions. The results, however, can be explained consistently with a quantum reasoning based on the key ideas of probability, superposition, and interference (PSI). In this quantum optical key experiment the optical beam splitter prepares a superposition of single photon states and a Michelson interferometer is used to detect the superposition via controlled propagation phases. Although different single photon experimental setups (aimed at helping students to gain access to foundational issues in quantum physics) have been discussed in the past, the wave-particle dualism bound to classical physics maintains its predominance as an explanation pattern for the interpretation of these experiments. The study presented here investigates the effect of the quantum optical key experiment on the ability of students to use quantum reasoning based on the key ideas of PSI to overcome the naive wave-particle dualism. The current state of relevant studies that test student access to quantum physics can roughly be divided into two distinct areas: one tests how mathematical abilities help them to understand quantum physics and one tests how nonmathematical representations of a set of specific quantum theoretical traits (“Wesenszüge”) lead to a deeper understanding of quantum physics. There is a lack of questionnaires that focus on the idea of developing quantum reasoning based on superposition, probability, and interference of quantum states combined with a real experiment using true quantum light. In the first part of the article, we describe the physical modeling and present the development of the questionnaire. The set of items has been constructed from newly developed items and combined with well-tested ones. The validation of the set addresses qualitative and quantitative methods. In the second part, we give a pre- and poststudy examination of the impact of the quantum optical key experiment on students’ quantum reasoning. A significant increase in the number of students using quantum arguments is based on PSI reasoning for the explanation of an interference, such as the behavior of single photon states. Though the increase is significant, we found only minor changes in a particular issue to the students’ reasoning when approaching quantum physics as illustrated by a sample of answers given in the second part of the article. The concept of quantum states and the principle of superposition still appear particularly difficult.
{"title":"Testing quantum reasoning: Developing, validating, and application of a questionnaire","authors":"Moritz Waitzmann, Ruediger Scholz, Susanne Wessnigk","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010122","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010122","url":null,"abstract":"Clear and rigorous quantum reasoning is needed to explain quantum physical phenomena. As pillars of true quantum physical explanations, we suggest specific quantum reasoning derived from quantum physical key ideas. An experiment is suggested to support such a quantum reasoning, in which a quantized radiation field interacts with an optical beam splitter, leading to experimental results conflicting with classical physical predictions. The results, however, can be explained consistently with a quantum reasoning based on the key ideas of probability, superposition, and interference (PSI). In this quantum optical key experiment the optical beam splitter prepares a superposition of single photon states and a Michelson interferometer is used to detect the superposition via controlled propagation phases. Although different single photon experimental setups (aimed at helping students to gain access to foundational issues in quantum physics) have been discussed in the past, the wave-particle dualism bound to classical physics maintains its predominance as an explanation pattern for the interpretation of these experiments. The study presented here investigates the effect of the quantum optical key experiment on the ability of students to use quantum reasoning based on the key ideas of PSI to overcome the naive wave-particle dualism. The current state of relevant studies that test student access to quantum physics can roughly be divided into two distinct areas: one tests how mathematical abilities help them to understand quantum physics and one tests how nonmathematical representations of a set of specific quantum theoretical traits (“Wesenszüge”) lead to a deeper understanding of quantum physics. There is a lack of questionnaires that focus on the idea of developing quantum reasoning based on superposition, probability, and interference of quantum states combined with a real experiment using true quantum light. In the first part of the article, we describe the physical modeling and present the development of the questionnaire. The set of items has been constructed from newly developed items and combined with well-tested ones. The validation of the set addresses qualitative and quantitative methods. In the second part, we give a pre- and poststudy examination of the impact of the quantum optical key experiment on students’ quantum reasoning. A significant increase in the number of students using quantum arguments is based on PSI reasoning for the explanation of an interference, such as the behavior of single photon states. Though the increase is significant, we found only minor changes in a particular issue to the students’ reasoning when approaching quantum physics as illustrated by a sample of answers given in the second part of the article. The concept of quantum states and the principle of superposition still appear particularly difficult.","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140592610","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 : 2024-04-05DOI: 10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010120
Danijela Dodlek, Gorazd Planinsic, Eugenia Etkina
Research carried out through the last 20 years gave us undeniable evidence that to learn anything we need to be active participants, not passive observers. One of the important aspects of learning physics is constructing explanations of physical phenomena. To support and guide students toward constructing their explanations, teachers need to be attentive and responsive to students’ explanations. To learn how physics teachers interpret and respond to students’ explanations we investigated pre- and in-service physics teachers’ responses to students’ written explanations of their answers to a complex physics problem. The survey administered to the participants included the problem statement and four authentic student explanations. The participants were asked to identify each student’s strengths and weaknesses and to provide a response to that student. We found that while the participants were successful in identifying productive and problematic aspects of student reasoning, they rarely built on student reasoning when responding to the students, mostly focusing on addressing problematic aspects. The paper discusses why this finding is important for physics teacher preparation programs and professional development programs.
{"title":"How to help students learn: An investigation of how in- and pre-service physics teachers respond to students’ explanations","authors":"Danijela Dodlek, Gorazd Planinsic, Eugenia Etkina","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010120","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010120","url":null,"abstract":"Research carried out through the last 20 years gave us undeniable evidence that to learn anything we need to be active participants, not passive observers. One of the important aspects of learning physics is constructing explanations of physical phenomena. To support and guide students toward constructing their explanations, teachers need to be attentive and responsive to students’ explanations. To learn how physics teachers interpret and respond to students’ explanations we investigated pre- and in-service physics teachers’ responses to students’ written explanations of their answers to a complex physics problem. The survey administered to the participants included the problem statement and four authentic student explanations. The participants were asked to identify each student’s strengths and weaknesses and to provide a response to that student. We found that while the participants were successful in identifying productive and problematic aspects of student reasoning, they rarely built on student reasoning when responding to the students, mostly focusing on addressing problematic aspects. The paper discusses why this finding is important for physics teacher preparation programs and professional development programs.","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140592616","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 : 2024-04-02DOI: 10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010119
Melissa Dancy, Charles Henderson, Naneh Apkarian, Estrella Johnson, Marilyne Stains, Jeffrey R. Raker, Alexandra Lau
A survey of 722 physics faculty conducted in 2008 found that many physics instructors had knowledge of research-based instructional strategies (RBISs), were interested in using more, but often discontinued use after trying. Considerable effort has been made during the decade following 2008 to develop and disseminate RBISs in physics as well as change the culture within the physics community to value RBIS use and other forms of student-centered instruction. This paper uses data from a 2019 survey of 1176 physics instructors to understand the current state of RBIS use in college-level introductory physics, thus allowing us to better understand some of the impacts of these efforts on physics instruction. Results show that self-reported knowledge and use of RBISs has increased considerably and discontinuation is now relatively low. However, although the percentage of time lecturing is less than 10 years ago, many instructors still engage in substantial lecturing (i.e., more than one-third of class time). Relatedly, we find that the majority of RBIS use centers on pedagogies designed to supplement a primarily lecture-based classroom rather than pedagogies designed to support a primarily active learning classroom. This suggests that the physics education research community and beyond has done well promoting knowledge about RBISs and inspiring instructors to try RBISs in their courses. But, there is still room to improve. Based on available evidence about effective instructional practices, we recommend that change agents focus on supporting instructors to increase the percent of class time in active learning and to implement higher impact strategies.
{"title":"Physics instructors’ knowledge and use of active learning has increased over the last decade but most still lecture too much","authors":"Melissa Dancy, Charles Henderson, Naneh Apkarian, Estrella Johnson, Marilyne Stains, Jeffrey R. Raker, Alexandra Lau","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010119","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010119","url":null,"abstract":"A survey of 722 physics faculty conducted in 2008 found that many physics instructors had knowledge of research-based instructional strategies (RBISs), were interested in using more, but often discontinued use after trying. Considerable effort has been made during the decade following 2008 to develop and disseminate RBISs in physics as well as change the culture within the physics community to value RBIS use and other forms of student-centered instruction. This paper uses data from a 2019 survey of 1176 physics instructors to understand the current state of RBIS use in college-level introductory physics, thus allowing us to better understand some of the impacts of these efforts on physics instruction. Results show that self-reported knowledge and use of RBISs has increased considerably and discontinuation is now relatively low. However, although the percentage of time lecturing is less than 10 years ago, many instructors still engage in substantial lecturing (i.e., more than one-third of class time). Relatedly, we find that the majority of RBIS use centers on pedagogies designed to supplement a primarily lecture-based classroom rather than pedagogies designed to support a primarily active learning classroom. This suggests that the physics education research community and beyond has done well promoting knowledge about RBISs and inspiring instructors to try RBISs in their courses. But, there is still room to improve. Based on available evidence about effective instructional practices, we recommend that change agents focus on supporting instructors to increase the percent of class time in active learning and to implement higher impact strategies.","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140592937","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 : 2024-03-29DOI: 10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010118
Ann Y. Kim, Vina Ton, Daniel Vega
Female students, Latinx students, first-generation students, and transfer students often feel uncomfortable in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) environments. However, some departments have been making progress in changing that. Guided by double consciousness and person-environment fit theory, we investigated the lived experiences of historically marginalized undergraduate and masters-level physics students at a large state university to understand how this particular department provides an environment encouraging all students they fit in physics. Graduated students and faculty were interviewed from California State University, Long Beach. Through the interviews, we gained an understanding of significant student experiences and their perceptions of fit in this physics environment. Department community members perceived the department environment to be open, which contributed to broadening fit and supporting diverse students to thrive. The importance of faculty agency in creating a welcoming and supportive physics environment is highlighted. Finally, we found students in this department take with them an approach to physics that they see applicable to other areas of study and their lives. We called this a physics state of mind. We include suggestions for other STEM departments based on the findings and previous research.
{"title":"Changing person-environment fit among underrepresented undergraduate physics students: Successes from a small department","authors":"Ann Y. Kim, Vina Ton, Daniel Vega","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010118","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.010118","url":null,"abstract":"Female students, Latinx students, first-generation students, and transfer students often feel uncomfortable in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) environments. However, some departments have been making progress in changing that. Guided by double consciousness and person-environment fit theory, we investigated the lived experiences of historically marginalized undergraduate and masters-level physics students at a large state university to understand how this particular department provides an environment encouraging all students they fit in physics. Graduated students and faculty were interviewed from California State University, Long Beach. Through the interviews, we gained an understanding of significant student experiences and their perceptions of fit in this physics environment. Department community members perceived the department environment to be open, which contributed to broadening fit and supporting diverse students to thrive. The importance of faculty agency in creating a welcoming and supportive physics environment is highlighted. Finally, we found students in this department take with them an approach to physics that they see applicable to other areas of study and their lives. We called this a physics state of mind. We include suggestions for other STEM departments based on the findings and previous research.","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140324955","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 : 2024-03-22DOI: 10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.018002
Geoff Potvin, Zahra Hazari, Raina Khatri, Hemeng Cheng, T. Blake Head, Robynne M. Lock, Anne F. Kornahrens, Kathryne Sparks Woodle, Rebecca E. Vieyra, Beth A. Cunningham, Laird Kramer, Theodore Hodapp
{"title":"Reply to “Comment on ‘Examining the effect of counternarratives about physics on women’s physics career intentions’ ”","authors":"Geoff Potvin, Zahra Hazari, Raina Khatri, Hemeng Cheng, T. Blake Head, Robynne M. Lock, Anne F. Kornahrens, Kathryne Sparks Woodle, Rebecca E. Vieyra, Beth A. Cunningham, Laird Kramer, Theodore Hodapp","doi":"10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.018002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.20.018002","url":null,"abstract":"<span>DOI:</span><span>https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.018002</span>","PeriodicalId":54296,"journal":{"name":"Physical Review Physics Education Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140201744","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：