Two-Phase Study Examining Perspectives and Use of Quantitative Methods in Physics Education Research

Autor/inn/en	Knaub, Alexis V.; Aiken, John M.; Ding, Lin
Titel	Two-Phase Study Examining Perspectives and Use of Quantitative Methods in Physics Education Research
Quelle	In: Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15 (2019) 2, Artikel 020102 (20 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	2469-9896
Schlagwörter	Physics; Educational Research; Research Methodology; Science Education; Expertise; Statistical Analysis; Science Tests; Research Problems; Attitude Measures; Course Descriptions; Journal Articles; Generalization; Force Concept Inventory + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Physik; Bildungsforschung; Pädagogische Forschung; Research method; Forschungsmethode; Naturwissenschaftliche Bildung; Expert appraisal; Statistische Analyse; Forschungskritik; Kursstrukturplan; Journal article; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
Abstract	While other fields such as statistics and education have examined various issues with quantitative work, few studies in physics education research (PER) have done so. We conducted a two-phase study to identify and to understand the extent of these issues in quantitative PER. During phase 1, we conducted a focus group of three experts in this area, followed by six interviews. Subsequent interviews refined our plan. Both the focus group and interviews revealed issues regarding the lack of details in sample descriptions, lack of institutional or course contextual information, lack of reporting on limitation, and overgeneralization or overstatement of conclusions. During phase 2, we examined 72 manuscripts that used four conceptual or attitudinal assessments (Force Concept Inventory, Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism, Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment, and Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey). Manuscripts were coded on whether they featured various sample descriptions, institutional or course context information, limitations, and whether they overgeneralized conclusions. We also analyzed the data to see if reporting has changed from the earlier periods to more recent times. We found that not much has changed regarding sample descriptions and institutional or course context information, but reporting and overgeneralizing conclusions have improved over time. We offer some questions for researchers, reviewers, and readers in PER to consider when conducting or using quantitative work. [This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Quantitative Methods in PER: A Critical Examination.] (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	American Physical Society. One Physics Ellipse 4th Floor, College Park, MD 20740-3844. Tel: 301-209-3200; Fax: 301-209-0865; e-mail: assocpub@aps.org; Web site: http://prst-per.aps.org
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01