Confirming what we know: Understanding questionable research practices in intro physics labs

Stein, Martin M.; Smith, Emily M.; Holmes, N. G.

doi:10.1119/perc.2018.pr.stein

Cited by 12 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In verification labs, where the goal was to obtain an outcome to verify a particular result, students in the intervention condition recorded fewer agency-based decisions than in evaluation labs, where the goal was to evaluate a model or compare multiple possible models. Previous research has suggested that when students know the intended result of the experiment, they may feel encouraged to "massage their data" [23] or engage in questionable research practices to get the expected outcome [57][58][59]. Evaluation labs (at least for the intervention condition) encouraged revision and exploration, likely because there was no clear end point to pursue [66].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[56]. We used the two common evaluation labs to evaluate the quality of students' decision making because we expected that the coordination of theory and evidence in verification labs would be impeded by potential confirmation biases or orientations [57][58][59]. Lab D may be classified as better affording epistemic agency than lab E, because there is an intuitive expectation for the result in lab E (that the collision with the ground would result in more energy loss than drag).…”

Section: Identifying Decision Making Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Developing scientific decision making by structuring and supporting student agency

Holmes

Keep

Wieman

2020

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific expertise is manifested through extensive cycles of making and acting on decisions. To learn the processes and practices of science, therefore, students must have practice with scientific decision making. We argue that this can only happen if students are afforded agency: the opportunity to make decisions to pursue a goal. In this study, we compared two different introductory physics labs through the lens of structuring and supporting student agency. We explore both the role of decision making agency (students are afforded opportunities to make decisions about their lab investigations) and epistemic agency (students are afforded opportunities to generate knowledge). We found that the two labs differed in both the amount and type of structure provided to students: one lab (the intervention condition), with more overall structure, cued student decision making; the other lab (control condition), with less overall structure, made decisions for students. Students in the intervention condition documented, on average, ten times more decisions during their investigations, including more unprompted decisions. In contrast, in labs with less available epistemic agency (i.e., labs where they had to verify or demonstrate canonical models or constants), students in the intervention condition documented fewer decisions than in labs with more available epistemic agency. We associate the improved decision making with students taking up personal agency, based on significant shifts in students' tone as they described their experimental methods (from passive, third-person narratives to active, first-person narratives). Students in the intervention condition also made higher-quality decisions in line with scientific practice. The study speaks to the important nuances between structure and agency in instructional labs and tests the generalizability of previous research on lab instruction to a two-year college population.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Identifying Decision Making Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing scientific decision making by structuring and supporting student agency

Holmes

Keep

Wieman

2020

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent studies suggest that students in traditional laboratories (i.e., those that use confirmatory exercises) tend to engage in questionable research practices when their results deviate from the expected results (Stein et al, 2018;Smith et al, 2020).…”

Section: Theme: Decrease In Unethical Behavior Number Of Responses (%): 4 (31%)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Current Approaches for Integrating Responsible and Ethical Conduct of Research (RECR) Education into Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences: A National Assessment

Díaz-Martínez

Hernandez

D’Arcy

et al. 2021

LSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Students may feel empowered to express themselves more authentically in learning experiences and seek out alternative ideas and methods from their peers. Students may more readily bring up limitations and biases that will support their future investigative and practical choices in labs and research and in other sciences [22]. Students may also reference examples of subjectivity such as structural bias and barriers when they discuss their career choices.…”

Section: Human Values Introduces Subjectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Embracing subjectivity in physics to support student empowerment

Wooley¹,

Basara²,

Daane³

2021

2021 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Descriptions of the Nature of Science are in contrast with the widespread notion that "physics" is objective, unaffected by human influence. To better understand students' thinking about the nature of physics, we taught a lesson from the Underrepresentation Curriculum and collected written responses before and after in-class discussion about the nature of physics. In this manuscript, we share student responses about the presence of subjectivity in physics and relate them to commonly accepted ideas about the Nature of Science. Students tend to describe physics without reference to human influence. After discussing subjectivity, many students identify that while physical properties may be objective, human interpretation, biases, and values influence physics as well. Some students also consider our understanding of physics as incomplete. These discussions are a first step towards increasing awareness of structural and individual subjectivity. We believe this will ultimately support a more equitable, robust scientific community.

show abstract

Confirming what we know: Understanding questionable research practices in intro physics labs

Cited by 12 publications

References 9 publications

Developing scientific decision making by structuring and supporting student agency

Developing scientific decision making by structuring and supporting student agency

Current Approaches for Integrating Responsible and Ethical Conduct of Research (RECR) Education into Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences: A National Assessment

Embracing subjectivity in physics to support student empowerment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About