Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userNot engaging with problems in the lab: Students navigation of conflicting data and models
289
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Anna McLean Phillips
Publication date
2021
fields
Physics
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
With the adoption of instructional laboratories (labs) that require students to make their own decisions, there is a need to better understand students activities as they make sense of their data and decide how to proceed. In particular, understanding when students do not engage productively with unexpected data may provide insights into how to better support students in more open-ended labs. We examine video and audio data from groups within a lab session where students were expected to find data inconsistent with the predictions of two models. In prior work, we examined the actions of the four groups that productively grapple with this designed problem. Here, we analyze the engagement of the three groups that do not. We conducted three phases of analysis: 1) documenting large scale behaviors and time spent in on-topic discussion, 2) analyzing interactions with the teaching assistant, and 3) identifying students framing--their expectations for what is taking place--when they were discussing their data. Our Phase 1 and 2 analysis show only minor differences between the groups that engaged with the problem and those that did not. Our Phase 3 analysis demonstrated that the groups that did not engage with the problem framed the lab activity as about confirming a known result or as a series of hoops to jump through to fulfill assignment requirements. Implications for instruction include supporting teaching assistants to attend to students framing and agency within laboratory classrooms.
rate research
Read More
The dynamics of gravitating astrophysical systems such as black holes and neutron stars are fascinatingly complex, offer some of natures most spectacular phenomena, and capture the publics imagination in ways that few subjects can. Here, we describe {it AstroDance}, a multi-media project to engage deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) students in astronomy and gravitational physics. {it AstroDance} incorporates multiple means of representation of scientific concepts and was performed primarily for secondary and post-secondary audiences at $sim$20 venues in the northeastern US prior to the historic first detection of gravitational waves. As part of the {it AstroDance} project, we surveyed $sim$1000 audience members roughly split evenly between hearing and DHH audience members. While both groups reported statistically equivalent high-rates of enjoyment of the performance, the DHH group reported an increase in how much they learned about science at a statistically significant rate compared to the hearing audience. Our findings suggest that multi-sensory approaches benefit both hearing and deaf audiences and enable accessible participation for broader groups.
We demonstrate how students use of modeling can be examined and assessed using student notebooks collected from an upper-division electronics lab course. The use of models is a ubiquitous practice in undergraduate physics education, but the process of constructing, testing, and refining these models is much less common. We focus our attention on a lab course that has been transformed to engage students in this modeling process during lab activities. The design of the lab activities was guided by a framework that captures the different components of model-based reasoning, called the Modeling Framework for Experimental Physics. We demonstrate how this framework can be used to assess students written work and to identify how students model-based reasoning differed from activity to activity. Broadly speaking, we were able to identify the different steps of students model-based reasoning and assess the completeness of their reasoning. Varying degrees of scaffolding present across the activities had an impact on how thoroughly students would engage in the full modeling process, with more scaffolded activities resulting in more thorough engagement with the process. Finally, we identified that the step in the process with which students had the most difficulty was the comparison between their interpreted data and their model prediction. Students did not use sufficiently sophisticated criteria in evaluating such comparisons, which had the effect of halting the modeling process. This may indicate that in order to engage students further in using model-based reasoning during lab activities, the instructor needs to provide further scaffolding for how students make these types of experimental comparisons. This is an important design consideration for other such courses attempting to incorporate modeling as a learning goal.
Physics lab courses are an essential part of the physics undergraduate curriculum. Learning goals for these classes often include the ability to interpret measurements and uncertainties. The Physics Measurement Questionnaire (PMQ) is an established open-response survey that probes students understanding of measurement uncertainty along three dimensions: data collection, data analysis, and data comparison. It classifies students reasoning into point-like and set-like paradigms, with the set-like paradigm more aligned with expert reasoning. In the context of a course transformation effort at the University of Colorado Boulder, we examine over 500 student responses to the PMQ both before and after instruction in the pre-transformed course. We describe changes in students overall reasoning, measured by aggregating four probes of the PMQ. In particular, we observe large shifts towards set-like reasoning by the end of the course.
Recently, there have been several national calls to emphasize physics practices and skills within laboratory courses. In this paper, we describe the redesign and implementation of a two-course sequence of algebra-based physics laboratories at Michigan State University called Design Analysis Tools and Apprenticeship (DATA) Lab. The large-scale course transformation removes physics specific content from the overall learning goals of the course, and instead, uses physics concepts to focus on specific laboratory practices and research skills that students can take into their future careers. Students in DATA Lab engage in the exploration of physical systems to increase their understanding of the experimental process, data analysis, collaboration, and scientific communication. In order to ensure our students are making progress toward the skills outlined in the course learning goals, we designed all of the assessments in the courses to evaluate their progress specific to these laboratory practices. Here, we will describe the structures, scaffolds, goals, and assessments of the course.
An important goal of introductory physics for the life sciences (IPLS) is for those students to be prepared to use physics to model and analyze biological situations in their future studies and careers. Here we report our findings on life science students ability to carry out a sophisticated biological modeling task at the end of first-semester introductory physics, some in a standard course (N = 34), and some in an IPLS course (N = 61), both taught with active learning and covering the same core physics concepts. We found that the IPLS students were dramatically more successful at building a model combining multiple ideas they had not previously seen combined, and at making complex decisions about how to apply an equation to a particular physical situation, although both groups displayed similar success at solving simpler problems. Both groups identified and applied simple models that they had previously used in very similar contexts, and executed calculations, at statistically indistinguishable rates. Further study is needed to determine whether IPLS students are more expert problem-solvers in general or solely in biological settings.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
