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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Michael C. Wittmann, Jeffrey T. Morgan, Roger E. Feeley
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