Detail Page

Physical Review Physics Education Research
written by C.F.J. Pols, P.J.J.M. Dekkers, and M.J. (Marc) de Vries
Physics inquiry can be interpreted as the construction of a cogent argument in which students apply inquiry knowledge and knowledge of physics to the systematic collection of relevant, valid, and reliable data, creating optimal scientific support for a conclusion that answers the research question. In learning how to devise, conduct and evaluate a rigorous physics inquiry, students should learn to choose and apply suitable techniques and adhere to scientific conventions that guarantee the collection of such data. However, they also need to acquire and apply an understanding of how to justify their choices and present an optimally convincing argument in support of their conclusion. In this modified and augmented Delphi study we present a view of inquiry knowledge and a way to assess it that acknowledges both of these components. Using our own expertise with teaching physics inquiry and using curriculum documents on physics inquiry, "inquiry knowledge" is deconstructed as a set of "understandings of evidence" (UOE)--insights and views that an experimental researcher relies on in constructing and evaluating scientific evidence. While insights cannot be observed directly, we argue that their presence can be inferred from a student's actions and decisions in inquiry. This set of UOE is presented and validated as an adequate, coherent, partially overlapping set of learning goals for introductory inquiry learning. We specify conceivable types of actions and decisions expected in inquiry as descriptors of five attainment levels, providing an approach to assessing the presence and application of inquiry knowledge. The resulting construct, the assessment rubric for physics inquiry, is validated in this study. It distinguishes nineteen UOE divided over six phases of inquiry. Preliminary results suggesting a high degree of ecological validity are presented and evaluated. Directions for future research are proposed.
Physical Review Physics Education Research: Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages 010111
Subjects Levels Resource Types
Education Foundations
- Assessment
= Instruments
- Research Design & Methodology
= Data
= Validity
- Sample Population
= Instructor: Faculty
= Instructor: In-service
Education Practices
- Active Learning
= Inquiry Learning
General Physics
- Physics Education Research
- Scientific Reasoning
- Graduate/Professional
- Reference Material
= Research study
Intended Users Formats Ratings
- Researchers
- Professional/Practitioners
- Administrators
- application/pdf
- text/html
  • Currently 0.0/5

Want to rate this material?
Login here!


Access Rights:
Free access
License:
This material is released under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.
Rights Holder:
American Physical Society
DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010111
Keywords:
ARPI Assessment validity, ARPI validity, Physics Inquiry Rubric
Record Creator:
Metadata instance created February 28, 2022 by Lyle Barbato
Record Updated:
September 28, 2023 by Caroline Hall
Last Update
when Cataloged:
February 15, 2022
Other Collections:

ComPADRE is beta testing Citation Styles!

Record Link
AIP Format
C. Pols, P. Dekkers, and M. de Vries, , Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18 (1), 010111 (2022), WWW Document, (https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010111).
AJP/PRST-PER
C. Pols, P. Dekkers, and M. de Vries, Defining and assessing understandings of evidence with the assessment rubric for physics inquiry: Towards integration of argumentation and inquiry, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18 (1), 010111 (2022), <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010111>.
APA Format
Pols, C., Dekkers, P., & de Vries, M. (2022, February 15). Defining and assessing understandings of evidence with the assessment rubric for physics inquiry: Towards integration of argumentation and inquiry. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., 18(1), 010111. Retrieved July 15, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010111
Chicago Format
Pols, C, P. Dekkers, and M. de Vries. "Defining and assessing understandings of evidence with the assessment rubric for physics inquiry: Towards integration of argumentation and inquiry." Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, no. 1, (February 15, 2022): 010111, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010111 (accessed 15 July 2024).
MLA Format
Pols, C.F.J., P.J.J.M. Dekkers, and M.J. (Marc) de Vries. "Defining and assessing understandings of evidence with the assessment rubric for physics inquiry: Towards integration of argumentation and inquiry." Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18.1 (2022): 010111. 15 July 2024 <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010111>.
BibTeX Export Format
@article{ Author = "C.F.J. Pols and P.J.J.M. Dekkers and M.J. (Marc) de Vries", Title = {Defining and assessing understandings of evidence with the assessment rubric for physics inquiry: Towards integration of argumentation and inquiry}, Journal = {Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.}, Volume = {18}, Number = {1}, Pages = {010111}, Month = {February}, Year = {2022} }
Refer Export Format

%A C.F.J. Pols %A P.J.J.M. Dekkers %A M.J. (Marc) de Vries %T Defining and assessing understandings of evidence with the assessment rubric for physics inquiry: Towards integration of argumentation and inquiry %J Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. %V 18 %N 1 %D February 15, 2022 %P 010111 %U https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010111 %O application/pdf

EndNote Export Format

%0 Journal Article %A Pols, C.F.J. %A Dekkers, P.J.J.M. %A de Vries, M.J. (Marc) %D February 15, 2022 %T Defining and assessing understandings of evidence with the assessment rubric for physics inquiry: Towards integration of argumentation and inquiry %J Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. %V 18 %N 1 %P 010111 %8 February 15, 2022 %U https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010111


Disclaimer: ComPADRE offers citation styles as a guide only. We cannot offer interpretations about citations as this is an automated procedure. Please refer to the style manuals in the Citation Source Information area for clarifications.

Citation Source Information

The AIP Style presented is based on information from the AIP Style Manual.

The APA Style presented is based on information from APA Style.org: Electronic References.

The Chicago Style presented is based on information from Examples of Chicago-Style Documentation.

The MLA Style presented is based on information from the MLA FAQ.

Save to my folders

Contribute

Similar Materials