Modeling student thinking: An example from special relativity

American Journal of Physics

Volumn 75, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 272-280

  Scherr, Rachel E ^a  

^a University of Maryland   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33947192604     PISSN: 00029505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1119/1.2410013     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. J. Clement, "Student preconceptions in introductory mechanics," Am. J. Phys. 50(1), 66-71 (1982).
2. M. McCloskey, "Naive theories of motion," in Mental Models, edited by D. Gentner and A. Stevens (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1983), pp. 299-324;
3. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, "Force Concept Inventory," Phys. Teach. 30, 141-158 (1992).
4. D. I. Dykstra, C. F. Boyle, and I. A. Monarch, "Studying conceptual change in learning physics," Sci. Educ. 76(6), 615-652 (1992).
5. S. Vosniadou, "Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change," Learn. Instr. 4, 45-69 (1994).
6. A. diSessa, "Towards an epistemology of physics," Cogn. Instruct. 10(2-3), 105-225 (1993).
7. J. Smith, A. diSessa, and J. Roschelle, "Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition," J. Learn. Sci. 3(2), 115-163 (1993).
8. J. Minstrell, "Facets of students' knowledge and relevant instruction," in Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies, edited by R. Duit, F. Goldberg, and H. Niedderer (IPN, Kiel, Germany, 1992), pp. 110-128.
9. A more theoretically precise definition of context (and references to other definitions) appears in D. Hammer, A. Elby, R. E. Scherr, and E. F. Redish, "Resources, framing, and transfer," in Transfer of Learning: Research and Perspectives, edited by J. Mestre (Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, 2004).
10. M. S. Sabella, "Using the context of physics problem-solving to evaluate the coherence of student knowledge," Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Physics, University of Maryland, 1999 (unpublished).
11. A. Elby, "Helping physics students learn about learning," Am. J. Phys. 69, S54-S64 (2001).
12. L. Lising and A. Elby, "The impact of epistemology on learning: A case study from introductory physics," Am. J. Phys. 73(4), 372-382 (2005).
13. A review of various terms used in the literature appears in J. H. Wandersee, J. J. Mintzes, and J. D. Novak, "Research on alternative conceptions in science," in Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, edited by D. Gabel (Simon & Schuster Macmillan, New York, 1994), pp. 177-210.
14. This characterization of misconceptions is in contrast to the idea that misconceptions are items on an unstructured list of wrong student ideas. An example of such a list appears at 〈www.amasci.com/miscon/opphys.html〉.
15. Hewson, for example, states that individuals "replace [conceptions] when faced with new anomalous experiences." See P. W. Hewson, "A case study of conceptual change in special relativity: The influence of prior knowledge in learning," Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 4, 61-78 (1982), p. 63.
16. L. C. McDermott, "Oersted Medal Lecture 2001: Physics education research: The key to student learning," Am. J. Phys. 69(11), 1127-1137 (2001).
17. D. Hammer, "Student resources for learning introductory physics," Am. J. Phys. 68, S52-S59 (2000).
18. D. Tirosh, R. Staby, and S. Cohen, "Cognitive conflict and intuitive rules," Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 1257-1269 (1998).
19. See, for example, the discussions of systematicity in Ref. 5 and patterns of association in E. F. Redish, Teaching Physics (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 2003).
20. A. diSessa and B. L. Sherin, "What changes in conceptual change?" Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20(10), 1155-1191 (1998).
21. See Ref. 10. For other accounts of intuition refinement as an instructional approach, see A. diSessa, "Momentum flow as an alternative perspective in elementary mechanics," Am. J. Phys. 48(5), 365-369 (1980);
22. J. Minstrell, "Explaining the 'at rest' condition of an object," Phys. Teach. 20, 10-20 (1982);
23. J. Clement, D. Brown, and A. Zeitsman, "Not all preconceptions are misconceptions: Finding 'anchoring conceptions' for grounding instruction on students' intuitions," Int. J. Sci. Educ. 11, 554-565 (1989);
24. D. E. Brown, "Re-focusing core intuitions: A concretizing role for analogy in conceptual change," J. Res. Sci. Teach. 30(10), 1273-1290 (1993);
25. D. J. Grayson, "Concept substitution: A teaching strategy for helping students disentangle related physics concepts," Am. J. Phys. 72(8), 1126-1133 (2004).
26. R. E. Scherr, P. S. Shaffer, and S. Vokos, "Student understanding of time in special relativity: Simultaneity and reference frames," Am. J. Phys. 69, S24-S35 (2001).
27. As I discuss later, I had an implicit misconceptions theoretical orientation at the time that the research was conducted, which may have biased me toward stability in the data.
28. R. E. Scherr, P. S. Shaffer, and S. Vokos, "The challenge of changing deeply held student beliefs about the relativity of simultaneity," Am. J. Phys. 70(12), S1238-S1248 (2002).
29. O. J. Posner, K. A. Strike, P. W. Hewson, and W. A. Gertzog, "Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change," Sci. Educ. 66, 211-227 (1982).
30. S. Panse, J. Ramadas, and A. Kumar, "Alternative conceptions in Galilean relativity: Frames of reference," Int. J. Sci. Educ. 16, 63-82 (1994);
31. J. Ramadas, S. Barve, and A. Kumar, "Alternative conceptions in Galilean relativity: Inertial and non-inertial observers," ibid. 18, 615-629 (1996);
32. E. Saltiel and J. L. Malgrange, "'Spontaneous' ways of reasoning in elementary kinematics," Eur. J. Phys. 1, 73-80 (1980);
33. A. Villani and J. L. A. Pacca, "Students' spontaneous ideas about the speed of light," Int. J. Sci. Educ. 9, 55-66 (1987);
34. A. Villani and J. L. A. Pacca, "Spontaneous reasoning of graduate students," ibid. 12, 589-600 (1990).
35. For more about the effect of the researcher's agenda on data collection and interpretation, see R. E. Scherr and M. C. Wittmann, "The challenge of listening: The effect of research agenda on data collection and interpretation," and M. C. Wittmann and R. E. Scherr, "Student epistemological stance constraining researcher access to student thinking: An example from an interview on charge flow," in Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings 2002, edited by S. Franklin, K. Cummings, and J. Marx.
36. It is also possible to characterize this instructional sequence as a process of refining intuitions, consistent with the pieces model of student thinking. The relevant knowledge piece is the one termed "ultimate reality." The common (inappropriate) refinement of that knowledge piece is "Events that are simultaneous in one frame are simultaneous in all frames;" the correct refinement is "Events that happen in one frame happen in all frames." The classroom observations support the misconceptions characterization of the instructional sequence.
37. It should come as no surprise that the instructional materials are not perfectly theoretically consistent, especially when the theoretical orientation of the researchers was implicit. In any case, the goal of the materials was not to enact a particular instructional agenda, but to teach students particular concepts in physics. The approach was pragmatic.
38. We may also model this instructional sequence in terms of misconceptions as done in Ref. 23. The classroom observations support the pieces characterization of the instructional sequence.
39. A. Elby, "Why teachers should care about cognitive theory," abstract for 125th National Meeting of the American Association of Physics Teachers, Boise, ID (2002).