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

In active engagement physics classrooms, students get opportunities to make sense of physics together through discussion. They do not always take up these opportunities, in part because of the risk of sharing their ideas and having them rejected by their classmates or the instructors. In this case study, I analyze videotaped discourse of a tutorial group's early discussions to investigate how students manage these risks in creating a safe space to sensemake. I find that the students and instructors alike rely on a common discursive resource - epistemic distancing - to share their ideas while protecting themselves affectively if others disagree. Epistemic distancing includes hedging, joking, deferring, and other discourse moves used to soften one's stance in conversation. I use video analysis to illustrate the effects of these moves on tutorial groups' sensemaking discussions, and discuss implications for instructors wishing to encourage sensemaking discussions in their physics classrooms., Comment: preprint of a paper submitted to the Physics Education Research Conference 2015, 4 pages, 1 figure

Students in inquiry science classrooms face an essential tension between sharing new ideas and critically evaluating those ideas. Both sides of this tension pose affective risks that can discourage further discussion, such as the embarrassment of having an idea rejected. This paper presents a close discourse analysis of three groups of undergraduate physics students in their first discussions of the semester, detailing how they navigate these tensions to create a safe space to make sense of physics together. A central finding is that students and instructors alike rely on a common discursive resource, epistemic distancing, to protect affect while beginning to engage with ideas in productive ways. The groups differ in how soon, how often, and how deeply they engage in figuring out mechanisms together, and these differences can be explained, in part, by differences in how they epistemically distance themselves from their claims. Implications for research include the importance of considering the coupled dynamics of epistemology and affect in collaborative sensemaking discussions. Implications for instruction include novel ways of encouraging classroom discussion., Comment: 29 pages, 10 figures

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

Many science education researchers have argued that learners' commitment to a substance (matter-based) ontology impedes the learning of scientific concepts that scientists typically conceptualize as processes or interactions, such as such as force, electric current, and heat. By this account, students' tendency to classify these entities as substances or properties of substances leads to robust misconceptions, and instruction should steer novices away from substance-based reasoning. We argue that substance-based reasoning, when it supports learners' sense-making, can form the seeds for sophisticated understanding of these very same physics concepts. We present a case study of a group of elementary school science teachers in our professional development program. The teachers build a sophisticated explanation for why objects of different masses have the same acceleration due to gravity, starting from substance-based metaphors for gravity. We argue that, for conceptual, epistemological, and affective reasons, instructional interventions should focus on tapping these productive matter-based resources rather than attempting to replace them., Comment: Submitted to Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research

We investigate the dynamics of student behaviors (posture, gesture, vocal register, visual focus) and the substance of their reasoning during collaborative work on inquiry-based physics tutorials. Scherr has characterized student activity during tutorials as observable clusters of behaviors separated by sharp transitions, and has argued that these behavioral modes reflect students' epistemological framing of what they are doing, i.e., their sense of what is taking place with respect to knowledge. We analyze students' verbal reasoning during several tutorial sessions using the framework of Russ, and find a strong correlation between certain behavioral modes and the scientific quality of students' explanations. We suggest that this is due to a dynamic coupling of how students behave, how they frame an activity, and how they reason during that activity. This analysis supports the earlier claims of a dynamic between behavior and epistemology. We discuss implications for research and instruction., Comment: 4 pages, PERC 2007