Laboratory-tutorial activities for teaching probability
We report on the development of students’ ideas of probability and probability density in a University of Maine laboratory-based general education physics course called Intuitive Quantum Physics. Students in the course are generally math phobic with unfavorable expectations about the nature of physi...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
American Physical Society
2006-08-01
|
Series: | Physical Review Special Topics. Physics Education Research |
Online Access: | http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.020104 |
id |
doaj-422f257b7f4b4b8fb5c8960ccd38dcb3 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-422f257b7f4b4b8fb5c8960ccd38dcb32020-11-25T02:40:09ZengAmerican Physical SocietyPhysical Review Special Topics. Physics Education Research1554-91782006-08-012202010410.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.020104Laboratory-tutorial activities for teaching probabilityMichael C. WittmannJeffrey T. MorganRoger E. FeeleyWe report on the development of students’ ideas of probability and probability density in a University of Maine laboratory-based general education physics course called Intuitive Quantum Physics. Students in the course are generally math phobic with unfavorable expectations about the nature of physics and their ability to do it. We describe a set of activities used to teach concepts of probability and probability density. Rudimentary knowledge of mechanics is needed for one activity, but otherwise the material requires no additional preparation. Extensions of the activities include relating probability density to potential energy graphs for certain “touchstone” examples. Students have difficulties learning the target concepts, such as comparing the ratio of time in a region to total time in all regions. Instead, they often focus on edge effects, pattern match to previously studied situations, reason about necessary but incomplete macroscopic elements of the system, use the gambler’s fallacy, and use expectations about ensemble results rather than expectation values to predict future events. We map the development of their thinking to provide examples of problems rather than evidence of a curriculum’s success.http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.020104 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Michael C. Wittmann Jeffrey T. Morgan Roger E. Feeley |
spellingShingle |
Michael C. Wittmann Jeffrey T. Morgan Roger E. Feeley Laboratory-tutorial activities for teaching probability Physical Review Special Topics. Physics Education Research |
author_facet |
Michael C. Wittmann Jeffrey T. Morgan Roger E. Feeley |
author_sort |
Michael C. Wittmann |
title |
Laboratory-tutorial activities for teaching probability |
title_short |
Laboratory-tutorial activities for teaching probability |
title_full |
Laboratory-tutorial activities for teaching probability |
title_fullStr |
Laboratory-tutorial activities for teaching probability |
title_full_unstemmed |
Laboratory-tutorial activities for teaching probability |
title_sort |
laboratory-tutorial activities for teaching probability |
publisher |
American Physical Society |
series |
Physical Review Special Topics. Physics Education Research |
issn |
1554-9178 |
publishDate |
2006-08-01 |
description |
We report on the development of students’ ideas of probability and probability density in a University of Maine laboratory-based general education physics course called Intuitive Quantum Physics. Students in the course are generally math phobic with unfavorable expectations about the nature of physics and their ability to do it. We describe a set of activities used to teach concepts of probability and probability density. Rudimentary knowledge of mechanics is needed for one activity, but otherwise the material requires no additional preparation. Extensions of the activities include relating probability density to potential energy graphs for certain “touchstone” examples. Students have difficulties learning the target concepts, such as comparing the ratio of time in a region to total time in all regions. Instead, they often focus on edge effects, pattern match to previously studied situations, reason about necessary but incomplete macroscopic elements of the system, use the gambler’s fallacy, and use expectations about ensemble results rather than expectation values to predict future events. We map the development of their thinking to provide examples of problems rather than evidence of a curriculum’s success. |
url |
http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.2.020104 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT michaelcwittmann laboratorytutorialactivitiesforteachingprobability AT jeffreytmorgan laboratorytutorialactivitiesforteachingprobability AT rogerefeeley laboratorytutorialactivitiesforteachingprobability |
_version_ |
1724782764719341568 |