Patterns of multiple representation use by experts and novices during physics problem solving
Patterns of multiple representation use by experts and novices during physics problem solving
复制标题
DOI：
10.1103/physrevstper.4.010111
复制
发表时间：
2008-01-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Finkelstein, Noah D.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kohl, Patrick B.;Finkelstein, Noah D.
人们普遍认为，学生在解决某些物理问题时应该使用多种表示，早期的PER工作已经开始概述专家和新手在使用多种表示方面的差异。在本研究中，我们在此基础上通过采访专家和新手物理学家来解决两种类型的多重表征问题：一种是为他们提供了多重表征，另一种是学生必须构建自己的表征。我们详细分析了主体使用的表征类型以及它们使用的顺序和方式。专家和新手对表示的使用在某些方面惊人地相似，特别是专家和新手都大量使用多种表示。也出现了一些显著的差异。专家在起点方面更灵活，在可用的表示之间移动更快，而新手倾向于在更多的表示之间移动。此外，我们发现，检查多重表征的使用频率和时间不足以充分表征解决问题的情节；还必须考虑使用可用表示形式背后的目的。对专家和新手如何使用表示的分析加深了两组之间的差异，展示了可能在未来工作中有用的分析技术，并提出了可能的指导途径。
It is generally believed that students should use multiple representations in solving certain physics problems, and earlier work in PER has begun to outline how experts and novices differ in their use of multiple representations. In this study, we build on this foundation by interviewing expert and novice physicists as they solve two types of multiple representation problems: those in which multiple representations are provided for them and those in which the students must construct their own representations. We analyze in detail the types of representations subjects use and the order and manner in which they are used. Expert and novice representation use is surprisingly similar in some ways, especially in that both experts and novices make significant use of multiple representations. Some significant differences also emerge. Experts are more flexible in terms of starting point and move between the available representations more quickly, and novices tend to move between more representations in total. In addition, we find that an examination of how often and when multiple representations are used is inadequate to fully characterize a problem-solving episode; one must also consider the purpose behind the use of the available representations. This analysis of how experts and novices use representations sharpens the differences between the two groups, demonstrates analysis techniques that may be useful in future work, and suggests possible paths for instruction.