The initial knowledge state of college physics students

Halloun, Ibrahim A.; Hestenes, David

doi:10.1119/1.14030

Cited by 799 publications

(503 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

440

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The steps involved in test development are summarized briefly below. Our approach was similar but not identical to the method advocated by Treagust (1988 Linke and Venz (1978), Halloun and Hestenes (1985), and Treagust (1988) used similar approaches. 2.…”

Section: Test Designmentioning

confidence: 79%

Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural selection as a mechanism of evolution is a central concept in biology; yet, most nonbiology-majors do not thoroughly understand the theory even after instruction. Many alternative conceptions on this topic have been identified, indicating that the job of the instructor is a difficult one. This article presents a new diagnostic test to assess students' understanding of natural selection. The test items are based on actual scientific studies of natural selection, whereas previous tests have employed hypothetical situations that were often misleading or oversimplified. The Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection (CINS) is a 20-item multiple choice test that employs common alternative conceptions as distractors. An original 12-item version of the test was field-tested with 170 nonmajors in 6 classes and 43 biology majors in 1 class at 3 community colleges. The test scores of one subset of nonmajors (n ¼ 7) were compared with the students' performances in semistructured interviews. There was a positive correlation between the test scores and the interview scores. The current 20-item version of the CINS was field-tested with 206 students in a nonmajors' general biology course. The face validity, internal validity, reliability, and readability of the CINS are discussed. Results indicate that the CINS will be a valuable tool for instructors. ß 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 39: 952-978, 2002 Natural selection is the principal mechanism of evolution, and the theory of evolution is of great importance as a unifying theory in biology education according to the National Science Standards (National Research Council, 1996). Yet, natural selection is misunderstood by many students. The litany of alternative conceptions regarding natural selection and evolution is long (Mayr,

show abstract

Section: Test Designmentioning

confidence: 79%

Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, studies of individual concepts abound, typically focusing on the development and change of students' understandings and involving, for example, identification of misconceptions (Chang et al, 2010;diSessa, 2006). Concepts have been the unit of interest because of their value in offering students a means for navigating disciplines (diSessa, 1993;Halloun & Hestenes, 1985;Hammer, 1994;Minstrell, 2001;Sabella & Redish, 2007). This body of work represents a valuable first step.…”

Section: Theoretical Background Seeing Knowledge In Science Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recovering Knowledge for Science Education Research: Exploring the “Icarus Effect” in Student Work

Georgiou

Maton

Sharma

2014

Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Educati

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science education research has built a strong body of work on students' understandings but largely overlooked the nature of science knowledge itself. Legitimation Code Theory (LCT), a rapidly growing approach to education, offers a way of analyzing the organizing principles of knowledge practices and their effects on science education. This article focuses on one specific concept from LCT-semantic gravity-that conceptualizes differences in context dependence. The article uses this concept to qualitatively analyze tertiary student responses to a thermal physics question. One result, that legitimate answers must reside within a specific range of context dependence, illustrates how a focus on the organizing principles of knowledge offers a way forward for science education. Abstract: Science education research has built a strong body of work on students' understandings but largely overlooked the nature of science knowledge itself. Legitimation Code Theory (LCT), a rapidly growing approach to education, offers a way of analyzing the organizing principles of knowledge practices and their effects on science education. This article focuses on one specific concept from LCT-semantic gravity-that conceptualizes differences in context dependence. The article uses this concept to qualitatively analyze tertiary student responses to a thermal physics question. One result, that legitimate answers must reside within a specific range of context dependence, illustrates how a focus on the organizing principles of knowledge offers a way forward for science education.Résumé: La recherche en enseignement des sciences a produit de nombreusesétudes sur la compréhension desétudiants, mais a souvent ignoré la nature du savoir scientifique lui-même. La théorie de la légitimation du code (TLC), une approche de plus en plus importante en enseignement, propose une façon d'analyser les principes structurels des pratiques du savoir et leurs effets sur l'enseignement des sciences. Cet article est centré sur un concept en particulier tiré de la TLC-la gravité sémantique-qui conceptualise les différences commeétant dépendantes du contexte. L'article se sert de ce concept pour faire une analyse qualitative des réponses tertiaires desétudiantsà une question de physique thermique. L'un des résultats, selon lequel les réponses légitimes doivent se situer dans un certain rayon de dépendance contextuelle, illustre comment le fait de mettre l'accent sur les principes structurels du savoir ouvre une avenue prometteuse pour l'enseignement des sciences.

show abstract

“…Élaboré d'après ces principes, le test d 'Halloun et Hestenes (1985) vise à identifier les connaissances initiales des étudiants avant d'entreprendre des cours d'introduction à la physique, c'est-à-dire les connaissances dérivées de leurs expériences quotidiennes avec les phénomènes du mouvement. Quoique la fidélité du test soit excellente (le coefficient de fidélité de KuderRichardson se situe entre 0,86 et 0,89), les résultats obtenus par les étudiants à ce test avant un cours d'introduction à la physique se sont révélés similaires à ceux obtenus après le cours (Halloun & Hestenes, 1985).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

“…Quoique la fidélité du test soit excellente (le coefficient de fidélité de KuderRichardson se situe entre 0,86 et 0,89), les résultats obtenus par les étudiants à ce test avant un cours d'introduction à la physique se sont révélés similaires à ceux obtenus après le cours (Halloun & Hestenes, 1985). Même si Halloun et Hestenes (1985) expliquent cette situation par le caractère traditionnel de l'enseignement de la physique à l'université, il est possible que la relative insensibilité de ce test à l'enseignement reflète une carence du test à mesurer certains apprentissages fondamentaux en physique, tels que la résolution de problèmes. C'est une des conclusions à laquelle est arrivé Dickie (1988) qui, en utilisant une version adaptée de ce test à des étudiants anglophones du secteur collégial au Québec, a montré que les résultats de ce test ne permettaient pas de prévoir leur performance future au cours de physique.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified