健康科学专业学生对电的概念理解:误解还是缺乏知识?

IF 2.2 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Kübra Özmen
{"title":"健康科学专业学生对电的概念理解:误解还是缺乏知识?","authors":"Kübra Özmen","doi":"10.1007/s11165-023-10136-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>While many university health science programs include physics courses to raise knowledge and understanding of physical science concepts, they are still far from addressing the needs of that science health profession. This study aimed to investigate the effect of an introductory physics course on first-year physiotherapy and rehabilitation (PR) students’ conceptual understanding of simple electric circuits. The study participants were students enrolled in the Physics II course. Eighty-two students registered for the course. Sixty students (73%) took the pretest, and 67 (81%) completed the posttest. 53 students (64%) took the pretest and posttest. This study adopts an exploratory research methodology that includes a one-group pretest-posttest design. The Simple Electric Circuits Diagnostic Test (SECDT) was used to assess students’ conceptual understanding. The prevalence of misconceptions was relatively low (before and after instruction), and very few students developed sound conceptual understanding after instruction. The local reasoning model was the most frequent misconception PR students held. After instruction, students’ overall confidence in their SECDT responses increased significantly. Interestingly, when the students were grouped into three achievement groups, the medium-achievement group fell into more misconceptions as their achievement increased compared to low- and high-achievement groups. These findings suggested that students’ low SECDT scores were due to a lack of knowledge rather than misconceptions.</p>","PeriodicalId":47988,"journal":{"name":"Research in Science Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Health Science Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Electricity: Misconception or Lack of Knowledge?\",\"authors\":\"Kübra Özmen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11165-023-10136-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>While many university health science programs include physics courses to raise knowledge and understanding of physical science concepts, they are still far from addressing the needs of that science health profession. This study aimed to investigate the effect of an introductory physics course on first-year physiotherapy and rehabilitation (PR) students’ conceptual understanding of simple electric circuits. The study participants were students enrolled in the Physics II course. Eighty-two students registered for the course. Sixty students (73%) took the pretest, and 67 (81%) completed the posttest. 53 students (64%) took the pretest and posttest. This study adopts an exploratory research methodology that includes a one-group pretest-posttest design. The Simple Electric Circuits Diagnostic Test (SECDT) was used to assess students’ conceptual understanding. The prevalence of misconceptions was relatively low (before and after instruction), and very few students developed sound conceptual understanding after instruction. The local reasoning model was the most frequent misconception PR students held. After instruction, students’ overall confidence in their SECDT responses increased significantly. Interestingly, when the students were grouped into three achievement groups, the medium-achievement group fell into more misconceptions as their achievement increased compared to low- and high-achievement groups. These findings suggested that students’ low SECDT scores were due to a lack of knowledge rather than misconceptions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47988,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in Science Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in Science Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10136-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10136-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管许多大学健康科学项目包括物理课程,以提高对物理科学概念的认识和理解,但它们仍然远远不能满足科学健康专业的需求。本研究旨在调查物理入门课程对一年级物理治疗和康复(PR)学生对简单电路概念理解的影响。研究参与者是参加物理II课程的学生。82名学生报名参加了该课程。60名学生(73%)参加了前测,67名学生(81%)完成了后测。53名学生(64%)参加了前测和后测。本研究采用探索性研究方法,包括一组前测后测设计。简单电路诊断测试(SECDT)用于评估学生的概念理解。误解的发生率相对较低(在教学前后),很少有学生在教学后形成良好的概念理解。本地推理模式是公关学生最常见的误解。教学结束后,学生对SECDT反应的总体信心显著增强。有趣的是,当学生被分为三个成绩组时,与低成绩组和高成绩组相比,随着成绩的提高,中等成绩组陷入了更多的误解。这些发现表明,学生的低SECDT分数是由于缺乏知识,而不是误解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Health Science Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Electricity: Misconception or Lack of Knowledge?

While many university health science programs include physics courses to raise knowledge and understanding of physical science concepts, they are still far from addressing the needs of that science health profession. This study aimed to investigate the effect of an introductory physics course on first-year physiotherapy and rehabilitation (PR) students’ conceptual understanding of simple electric circuits. The study participants were students enrolled in the Physics II course. Eighty-two students registered for the course. Sixty students (73%) took the pretest, and 67 (81%) completed the posttest. 53 students (64%) took the pretest and posttest. This study adopts an exploratory research methodology that includes a one-group pretest-posttest design. The Simple Electric Circuits Diagnostic Test (SECDT) was used to assess students’ conceptual understanding. The prevalence of misconceptions was relatively low (before and after instruction), and very few students developed sound conceptual understanding after instruction. The local reasoning model was the most frequent misconception PR students held. After instruction, students’ overall confidence in their SECDT responses increased significantly. Interestingly, when the students were grouped into three achievement groups, the medium-achievement group fell into more misconceptions as their achievement increased compared to low- and high-achievement groups. These findings suggested that students’ low SECDT scores were due to a lack of knowledge rather than misconceptions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Research in Science Education
Research in Science Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
8.70%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: 2020 Five-Year Impact Factor: 4.021 2020 Impact Factor: 5.439 Ranking: 107/1319 (Education) – Scopus 2020 CiteScore 34.7 – Scopus Research in Science Education (RISE ) is highly regarded and widely recognised as a leading international journal for the promotion of scholarly science education research that is of interest to a wide readership. RISE publishes scholarly work that promotes science education research in all contexts and at all levels of education. This intention is aligned with the goals of Australasian Science Education Research Association (ASERA), the association connected with the journal. You should consider submitting your manscript to RISE if your research: Examines contexts such as early childhood, primary, secondary, tertiary, workplace, and informal learning as they relate to science education; and Advances our knowledge in science education research rather than reproducing what we already know. RISE will consider scholarly works that explore areas such as STEM, health, environment, cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology and higher education where science education is forefronted. The scholarly works of interest published within RISE reflect and speak to a diversity of opinions, approaches and contexts. Additionally, the journal’s editorial team welcomes a diversity of form in relation to science education-focused submissions. With this in mind, RISE seeks to publish empirical research papers. Empircal contributions are: Theoretically or conceptually grounded; Relevant to science education theory and practice; Highlight limitations of the study; and Identify possible future research opportunities. From time to time, we commission independent reviewers to undertake book reviews of recent monographs, edited collections and/or textbooks. Before you submit your manuscript to RISE, please consider the following checklist. Your paper is: No longer than 6000 words, including references. Sufficiently proof read to ensure strong grammar, syntax, coherence and good readability; Explicitly stating the significant and/or innovative contribution to the body of knowledge in your field in science education; Internationalised in the sense that your work has relevance beyond your context to a broader audience; and Making a contribution to the ongoing conversation by engaging substantively with prior research published in RISE. While we encourage authors to submit papers to a maximum length of 6000 words, in rare cases where the authors make a persuasive case that a work makes a highly significant original contribution to knowledge in science education, the editors may choose to publish longer works.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信