{"title":"健康科学专业学生对电的概念理解:误解还是缺乏知识?","authors":"Kübra Özmen","doi":"10.1007/s11165-023-10136-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>While many university health science programs include physics courses to raise knowledge and understanding of physical science concepts, they are still far from addressing the needs of that science health profession. This study aimed to investigate the effect of an introductory physics course on first-year physiotherapy and rehabilitation (PR) students’ conceptual understanding of simple electric circuits. The study participants were students enrolled in the Physics II course. Eighty-two students registered for the course. Sixty students (73%) took the pretest, and 67 (81%) completed the posttest. 53 students (64%) took the pretest and posttest. This study adopts an exploratory research methodology that includes a one-group pretest-posttest design. The Simple Electric Circuits Diagnostic Test (SECDT) was used to assess students’ conceptual understanding. The prevalence of misconceptions was relatively low (before and after instruction), and very few students developed sound conceptual understanding after instruction. The local reasoning model was the most frequent misconception PR students held. After instruction, students’ overall confidence in their SECDT responses increased significantly. Interestingly, when the students were grouped into three achievement groups, the medium-achievement group fell into more misconceptions as their achievement increased compared to low- and high-achievement groups. These findings suggested that students’ low SECDT scores were due to a lack of knowledge rather than misconceptions.</p>","PeriodicalId":47988,"journal":{"name":"Research in Science Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Health Science Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Electricity: Misconception or Lack of Knowledge?\",\"authors\":\"Kübra Özmen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11165-023-10136-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>While many university health science programs include physics courses to raise knowledge and understanding of physical science concepts, they are still far from addressing the needs of that science health profession. This study aimed to investigate the effect of an introductory physics course on first-year physiotherapy and rehabilitation (PR) students’ conceptual understanding of simple electric circuits. The study participants were students enrolled in the Physics II course. Eighty-two students registered for the course. Sixty students (73%) took the pretest, and 67 (81%) completed the posttest. 53 students (64%) took the pretest and posttest. This study adopts an exploratory research methodology that includes a one-group pretest-posttest design. The Simple Electric Circuits Diagnostic Test (SECDT) was used to assess students’ conceptual understanding. The prevalence of misconceptions was relatively low (before and after instruction), and very few students developed sound conceptual understanding after instruction. The local reasoning model was the most frequent misconception PR students held. After instruction, students’ overall confidence in their SECDT responses increased significantly. Interestingly, when the students were grouped into three achievement groups, the medium-achievement group fell into more misconceptions as their achievement increased compared to low- and high-achievement groups. These findings suggested that students’ low SECDT scores were due to a lack of knowledge rather than misconceptions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47988,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in Science Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in Science Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10136-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10136-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Health Science Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Electricity: Misconception or Lack of Knowledge?
While many university health science programs include physics courses to raise knowledge and understanding of physical science concepts, they are still far from addressing the needs of that science health profession. This study aimed to investigate the effect of an introductory physics course on first-year physiotherapy and rehabilitation (PR) students’ conceptual understanding of simple electric circuits. The study participants were students enrolled in the Physics II course. Eighty-two students registered for the course. Sixty students (73%) took the pretest, and 67 (81%) completed the posttest. 53 students (64%) took the pretest and posttest. This study adopts an exploratory research methodology that includes a one-group pretest-posttest design. The Simple Electric Circuits Diagnostic Test (SECDT) was used to assess students’ conceptual understanding. The prevalence of misconceptions was relatively low (before and after instruction), and very few students developed sound conceptual understanding after instruction. The local reasoning model was the most frequent misconception PR students held. After instruction, students’ overall confidence in their SECDT responses increased significantly. Interestingly, when the students were grouped into three achievement groups, the medium-achievement group fell into more misconceptions as their achievement increased compared to low- and high-achievement groups. These findings suggested that students’ low SECDT scores were due to a lack of knowledge rather than misconceptions.
期刊介绍:
2020 Five-Year Impact Factor: 4.021
2020 Impact Factor: 5.439
Ranking: 107/1319 (Education) – Scopus
2020 CiteScore 34.7 – Scopus
Research in Science Education (RISE ) is highly regarded and widely recognised as a leading international journal for the promotion of scholarly science education research that is of interest to a wide readership.
RISE publishes scholarly work that promotes science education research in all contexts and at all levels of education. This intention is aligned with the goals of Australasian Science Education Research Association (ASERA), the association connected with the journal.
You should consider submitting your manscript to RISE if your research:
Examines contexts such as early childhood, primary, secondary, tertiary, workplace, and informal learning as they relate to science education; and
Advances our knowledge in science education research rather than reproducing what we already know.
RISE will consider scholarly works that explore areas such as STEM, health, environment, cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology and higher education where science education is forefronted.
The scholarly works of interest published within RISE reflect and speak to a diversity of opinions, approaches and contexts. Additionally, the journal’s editorial team welcomes a diversity of form in relation to science education-focused submissions. With this in mind, RISE seeks to publish empirical research papers.
Empircal contributions are:
Theoretically or conceptually grounded;
Relevant to science education theory and practice;
Highlight limitations of the study; and
Identify possible future research opportunities.
From time to time, we commission independent reviewers to undertake book reviews of recent monographs, edited collections and/or textbooks.
Before you submit your manuscript to RISE, please consider the following checklist. Your paper is:
No longer than 6000 words, including references.
Sufficiently proof read to ensure strong grammar, syntax, coherence and good readability;
Explicitly stating the significant and/or innovative contribution to the body of knowledge in your field in science education;
Internationalised in the sense that your work has relevance beyond your context to a broader audience; and
Making a contribution to the ongoing conversation by engaging substantively with prior research published in RISE.
While we encourage authors to submit papers to a maximum length of 6000 words, in rare cases where the authors make a persuasive case that a work makes a highly significant original contribution to knowledge in science education, the editors may choose to publish longer works.