Assessing Secondary School Students' Justifications for Supporting or Rejecting a Scientific Hypothesis in the Physics Lab.
Saved in:
| Title: | Assessing Secondary School Students' Justifications for Supporting or Rejecting a Scientific Hypothesis in the Physics Lab. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Ludwig, Tobias1 (AUTHOR) tobias.ludwig@ph-karlsruhe.de, Priemer, Burkhard2 (AUTHOR), Lewalter, Doris3 (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Research in Science Education. Jun2021, Vol. 51 Issue 3, p819-844. 26p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Secondary school students, *Science education, *Test validity, *Design students, Hypothesis |
| Abstract: | Justifications play a central role in argumentation, which is a core topic in school science education. This paper contributes to this field of research by presenting two studies in which we assess students' justifications for supporting or rejecting hypotheses in the physics lab based on self-collected, anomalous experimental data, which are defined as data that contradict a prior belief, hypothesis, or concept. Study 1 analyzes the spectrum of possible justifications students give in semi-structured interviews and categorizes these into ten types: appeal to an authority, data as evidence, experimental competence (technical/skills), experimental competence (self-concept), ignorance, intuition, measurement uncertainties (explicit), measurement uncertainties (implicit), suitability of the experimental setup, and use of theoretical concepts. Study 2 presents a questionnaire suitable for medium- and large-scale assessments that probes students' use of four of these types of justifications: appeal to an authority, data as evidence, intuition, and measurement uncertainties (explicit). The questionnaire can be administered in 5–10 minutes and is designed for students in the eighth and ninth grades. We outline the development and quality of the assessment tools of both studies, reporting on the content validity, factorial validity, discriminant validity, convergent validity, and reliability of the questionnaire. The two studies shed light on the various justifications students use when evaluating anomalous data at a fine-grained level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Research in Science Education is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Justifications play a central role in argumentation, which is a core topic in school science education. This paper contributes to this field of research by presenting two studies in which we assess students' justifications for supporting or rejecting hypotheses in the physics lab based on self-collected, anomalous experimental data, which are defined as data that contradict a prior belief, hypothesis, or concept. Study 1 analyzes the spectrum of possible justifications students give in semi-structured interviews and categorizes these into ten types: appeal to an authority, data as evidence, experimental competence (technical/skills), experimental competence (self-concept), ignorance, intuition, measurement uncertainties (explicit), measurement uncertainties (implicit), suitability of the experimental setup, and use of theoretical concepts. Study 2 presents a questionnaire suitable for medium- and large-scale assessments that probes students' use of four of these types of justifications: appeal to an authority, data as evidence, intuition, and measurement uncertainties (explicit). The questionnaire can be administered in 5–10 minutes and is designed for students in the eighth and ninth grades. We outline the development and quality of the assessment tools of both studies, reporting on the content validity, factorial validity, discriminant validity, convergent validity, and reliability of the questionnaire. The two studies shed light on the various justifications students use when evaluating anomalous data at a fine-grained level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0157244X |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11165-019-09862-4 |
