Search

A central aim of physics education research is to understand the processes of learning and use that understanding to inform instruction. To this end, researchers often conduct studies to measure the effect of classroom interventions on student learning outcomes. Many of these intervention studies have provided an empirical foundation of reformed teaching techniques, such as active engagement. However, many times there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the intervention had the intended effect, and these null results often end up in the file drawer. In this paper, we argue that null results can contribute significantly to physics education research, even if the results are not statistically significant. First, we review social sciences and biomedical research that has found widespread publication bias against null results, exploring why it occurs and how it can hurt the field. We then present three cases from physics education research to highlight how studies that yield null results can contribute to our understanding of teaching and learning. Finally, we distill from these studies some general principles for learning from null results, proposing that we should evaluate them not on whether they reject the null hypothesis, but according to their potential for generating new understanding., Comment: 14 pages, 3 figures, 1 table

Research has documented a sharp decline in students' interest and persistence in science, starting in middle school, particularly among students from underrepresented populations. In working to address this problem, we can learn a great deal from positive examples of students getting excited about science, especially students who were previously disengaged. In this paper, we present a case study of Estevan, an 8th grade student who came into Ms. K's science class with a reputation as a potential "problem student," but left as a leader of the class, even making plans to pursue a career in science. Through analysis of interviews and classroom interactions, we show how Estevan's love of science can be partially explained by an alignment between his identity as a lover of challenges and his epistemology of science as involving the challenge of figuring things out for yourself. This alignment was possible in part because it was supported by his caring teacher, who attended to his ideas and constantly challenged him and the rest of her students to figure things out for themselves instead of just "giving them the answers.", Comment: This manuscript is currently under review at the Journal of the Learning Sciences