What do they know? Investigating students’ ability to analyse experimental data in secondary physics education

References

• Abrahams, I. (2011). Practical work in secondary science: A minds-on approach. Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945–1969. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701749305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aikenhead, G. S. (2005). Science-based occupations and the science curriculum: Concepts of evidence. Science Education, 89(2), 242–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allie, S., Buffler, A., Campbell, B., & Lubben, F. (1998). First-year physics students’ perceptions of the quality of experimental measurements. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 447–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200405
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altricher, H., Feldman, A., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (2005). Teachers investigate their work: An introduction to action research across the professions. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bailey, S., & Millar, R. (1996). From logical reasoning to scientific reasoning: Students’ interpretation of data from science investigations. Science Education Research Paper, 96, 01.
   Google Scholar
• Bakx, A., Bakker, A., Koopman, M., & Beijaard, D. (2016). Boundary crossing by science teacher researchers in a PhD program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26. ISSN-0036-8148
   Google Scholar
• Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30–33.
   Google Scholar
• Boeker, E., & Van Grondelle, R. (2011). Environmental physics: Sustainable energy and climate change. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Boohan, R. (2016a). The language of mathematics in science. School Science Review, 97(360), 15–20.
   Google Scholar
• Boohan, R. (2016b). The language of mathematics in science: A guide for teachers of 11–16 science. Association for Science Education. www.ase.org.uk/resources/maths-in-science
   Google Scholar
• Brewer, M. B. (2000). Research design and issues of validity. H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (2003). Becoming critical: Education knowledge and action research. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Education England. (2013). Science programmes of study: key stage 3. National curriculum in England. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335174/SECONDARY_national_curriculum_-_Science_220714.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dillon, J. (2008). A review of the research on practical work in school science (pp. 1–9). King’s College.
   Google Scholar
• DUO (Ministry of Education, Cultural Affairs and Science (OCW)). (2017). Programs in secondary education.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (1995). White paper on education and training. Teaching and learning: Towards the learning society. European Union. https://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv:23953
   Google Scholar
• Farmer, S. (2012). Real graphs from real data: Experiencing the concepts of measurement and uncertainty. School Science Review, 346, 81–84.
   Google Scholar
• Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigative work in the science curriculum. Developing science and technology education. Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1996). Practical work: Its role in the understanding of evidence in science. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 791–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180705
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (2007). A framework for practical work in science and scientific literacy through argumentation. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(3), 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140701535000
   Google Scholar
• Gott, R., Duggan, S., Roberts, R., & Hussain, A. (2003). Research into understanding scientific evidence. http://www.dur.ac.uk/rosalyn.roberts/Evidence/cofev.htm
   Google Scholar
• Gott, R., & Roberts, R. (2008). Concepts of evidence and their role in open-ended practical investigations and scientific literacy; background to published papers. The School of Education, Durham University.
   Google Scholar
• Guetterman, T. C. (2015, May). Descriptions of sampling practices within five approaches to qualitative research in education and the health sciences [Paper presentation]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Nebraska.
   Google Scholar
• Gunstone, R. F., & Champagne, A. B. (1990). Promoting conceptual change in the laboratory. In E. Hegarty Hazel (Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 159–182). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gurria, A. (2016). PISA 2015 results in focus. PISA in Focus, 67, 1. https://doi.org/10.1787/22260919
   Google Scholar
• Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review, 70(256), 33–40.
   Google Scholar
• Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22, 85–142.
   Google Scholar
• Hodson, D. (2014). Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Different goals demand different learning methods. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2534–2553. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.899722
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofstein, A. (2017). Ch26: The role of laboratory in science teaching and learning. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science education (pp. 357–368). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hofstein, A., & Kind, P. M. (2012). Learning in and from science laboratories. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 189–207). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes, N. G., Olsen, J., Thomas, J. L., & Wieman, C. (2017). Value added or misattributed? A multi-institution study on the educational benefit of labs for reinforcing physics content. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 13(1), 010129. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.010129
   Google Scholar
• Holmes, N. G., & Wieman, C. (2018). Introductory physics labs: We can do better. Physics Today, 71, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.3816
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, L. R., Wheeler, G., & Centurino, V. A. (2015). TIMSS 2015 science framework (pp. 29–58). TIMMS.
   Google Scholar
• Kanari, Z., & Millar, R. (2004). Reasoning from data: How students collect and interpret data in science investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 748–769. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kok, K., Priemer, B., Musold, W., & Masnick, A. (2019). Students’ conclusions from measurement data: The more decimal places, the better? Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010103
   Google Scholar
• Lachmayer, S., Nerdel, C., & Prechtl, H. (2007). Modelling of cognitive abilities regarding the handling of graphs in science education. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 13, 161–180.
   Google Scholar
• Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1–64. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060001001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lubben, F., Campbell, B., Buffler, A., & Allie, S. (2001). Point and set reasoning in practical science measurement by entering university freshmen. Science Education, 85(4), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lubben, F., & Millar, R. (1996). Children's ideas about the reliability of experimental data. International Journal of Science Education, 18(8), 955–968. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In N. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393–441). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2013). Conducting educational design research. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Millar, R. (1997). Student's understanding of the procedures of scientific enquiry. In A. Tiberghien, E. L. Jossem, & J. Barojas (Eds.), Connecting research in physics education with teacher education (pp. 65–70). International Commission on Physics Education.
   Google Scholar
• Millar, R. (2010). Practical work. In J. Osborne, & J. Dillon (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say: What research has to say (2nd ed., p. 108). Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Millar, R., Le Maréchal, J. F., & Tiberghien, A. (1999). Mapping the domain: Varieties of practical work. In J. Leach & A. Paulsen (Eds.), Practical work in science education – recent research studies (pp. 33–59). Roskilde University Press/Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Millar, R., Lubben, F., Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1994). Investigating in the school science laboratory: Conceptual and procedural knowledge and their influence on performance. Research Papers in Education, 9(2), 207–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267152940090205
   Google Scholar
• Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. Kings College London.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Education Singapore. (2013). Science syllabus lower and upper secondary. https://www.moe.gov.sg/docs/default-source/document/education/syllabuses/sciences/files/science-lower-upper-secondary-2014.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mooldijk, A., & Sonneveld, W. (2010). Coherent education in mathematics and physics: The theme of proportionality in mathematics and physics. Trend in Science and Mathematics Education (TiSME), 43–50.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Next Generation Science Standards. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Appendix D: All standards, all students: Making the Next Generation Science Standards accessible to all students.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2013). PISA 2015: Draft science framework. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2015draftframeworks.htm
   Google Scholar
• Ottevanger, W., Oorschot, F., Spek, F., Boerwinkel, D.-J., Eijkelhof, H., De Vries, M. J., van der Hoeven, M., & Kuiper, W. (2014). Kennisbasis natuurwetenschappen en technologie voor de onderbouw vo: Een richtinggevend leerplankader: SLO (nationaal expertisecentrum leerplanontwikkeling).
   Google Scholar
• Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (1999). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into action. Harvard business press.
   Google Scholar
• Pols, C. F. J. (2020). A physics Lab course in times of COVID-19. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 24(2), 172–178. https://ejrsme.icrsme.com/article/view/20276
   Google Scholar
• Pols, C. F. J., Dekkers, P. J. J. M., & de Vries, M. J. (2019). Introducing argumentation in inquiry – a combination of five exemplary activities. Physics Education, 54(5), 055014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ab2ae5
   Google Scholar
• Pospiech, G., Geyer, M., Ceuppens, S., De Cock, M., Deprez, J., Dehaene, W., Michelini, M., & Stefanel, A. (2019). Role of graphs in the mathematization process in physics education [Paper presentation]. GIREP-MPTL, San-Sebastian, Spain, 9–13 July 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, R., & Reading, C. (2015). The practical work challenge: Incorporating the explicit teaching of evidence in subject content. School Science Review, 357, 31–39.
   Google Scholar
• Schalk, H. H., Van der Schee, J. A., & Boersma, K. T. (2008, September). The use of concepts of evidence by students in biology investigations: Development research in pre-university education [Paper presentation]. 7th ERIDOB Conference (pp. 1–12). Utrecht: Utrecht University.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610–645. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10128
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Séré, M. G., Journeaux, R., & Larcher, C. (1993). Learning the statistical analysis of measurement errors. International Journal of Science Education, 15(4), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069930150406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spek, W., & Rodenboog, M. (2011). Natuurwetenschappelijke vaardigheden onderbouw havo-vwo: SLO, nationaal expertisecentrum leerplanontwikkeling.
   Google Scholar
• Stump, E. M., White, C. L., Passante, G., & Holmes, N. (2020). Student reasoning about sources of experimental measurement uncertainty in quantum versus classical mechanics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.06675
   Google Scholar
• Tamir, P. (1991). Practical work in school science: An analysis of current practice. In B. E. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical science (pp. 13–20). Open University press.
   Google Scholar
• Tasker, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Facing the mismatches in the classroom. Learning in Science: The Implications of Children’s Science, 66–80.
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Trowler, P. (2011). Researching your own institution: Higher education. British Educational Research Association online resource.
   Google Scholar
• Tursucu, S. (2019). Successful transfer of algebraic skills from mathematics into physics in senior pre-university education [PhD]. University of Technology Delft. https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:80f98acd-dc72-4aa8-bec6-ce72a26c2c65
   Google Scholar
• United Kingdom Department for Education. (2014). National curriculum in England: Science programmes of study. Crown Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Educational design research. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• van den Berg, E. (2013). The PCK of Laboratory teaching: Turning Manipulation of equipment into Manipulation of ideas. Scientia in Educatione, 4(2), 74–92.
   Google Scholar
• Vanderlinde, R., & Braak, J. (2010). The gap between educational research and practice: Views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and researchers. British Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902919257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Kotzebue, L., Gerstl, M., & Nerdel, C. (2015). Common mistakes in the construction of diagrams in biological contexts. Research in Science Education, 45(2), 193–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9419-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VO-raad. (2018). Scholen op de kaart (mapping schools). https://www.scholenopdekaart.nl/
   Google Scholar
• Walsh, C., Quinn, K. N., Wieman, C., & Holmes, N. (2019). Quantifying critical thinking: Development and validation of the physics lab inventory of critical thinking. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(1), 010135. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010135
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb, M. (Producer). (2012). The Amazing Spider-Man – crane swinging scene [Movie scene]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoSY8jeLIfw
   Google Scholar
• Wellington, J. (2002). Practical work in school science: Which way now? Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wieman, C. (2015). Comparative cognitive task analyses of experimental science and instructional laboratory courses. The Physics Teacher, 53(6), 349–351. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4928349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wieman, C. (2016). Introductory labs; what they don't, should, and can teach (and why) [Paper presentation]. APS April Meeting Abstracts, Baltimore, Maryland.
   Google Scholar
• Wong, V. (2017). Variation in graphing practices between mathematics and science: Implications for science teaching. School Science Review, 98(365), 109–115.
   Google Scholar
• Wong, V. (2018). The relationship between school science and mathematics education. King's College London.
   Google Scholar
• Woolgar, S., & Latour, B. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zion, M., & Mendelovici, R. (2012). Moving from structured to open inquiry: Challenges and limits. Science Education International, 23(4), 383–399.
   Google Scholar