Advertisement

Main Reasons to Call a Text into Question

Chapter
  • 124 Downloads
Part of the Contributions from Science Education Research book series (CFSE, volume 7)

Abstract

This chapter illustrates the main warning signals that could help us to detect the flaws of an explanation in physics: internal contradiction (two examples); direct contradiction of a law of physics (one example); indirect contradiction of a law of physics (one example); logical incompleteness of an explanation (three examples); overgeneralization (three examples); incompatibility with a thought experiment (three examples); incompatibility with an unperformed experiment (one example). Finally, we point out that several warning signals can intervene in parallel to question a given text, as shown in a last example (the direction of the current in the batteries).

References

  1. Bächtold, M. (2012). Les fondements des sciences basés sur l’investigation. Tréma, 38, 7–39.Google Scholar
  2. Belin. (2012). Sciences physiques Classe de Terminale S. Paris: Belin.Google Scholar
  3. Brasquet, M. (1999). Actions, interactions et schématisation. Bulletin de l’Union des Physiciens, 816, 1220–1236.Google Scholar
  4. Calmettes, B. (dir.). (2012). Didactique des sciences et démarches d’investigation. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  5. Chabay, R. W., & Sherwood, B. A. (2006). Restructuring the introductory electricity and magnetism course. American Journal of Physics, 74, 329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. da Vinci. Del moto e misura dell’ acqua di da Vinci. A spese di Francesco Cardinali, Bologna (1828). Digitized copy of Harvard College Library, Google books. http://www.archive.org/stream/raccoltadautorii10card#page/n537/mode/1up
  7. Das, S., Marchand, A., Andreotti, B., & Snoeijer, J. H. (2011). Elastic deformation due to tangential capillary forces. Physics of Fluids, 23, 072006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Décamp, N., & Viennot, L. (2015). Co-development of conceptual understanding and critical attitude. Analysing texts on radio-carbon dating. International Journal of Science Education, 37(12), 2038–2063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3–4), 391–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellenberg, J. (2015). How not to be wrong. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  11. EU. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe (European Commission). Brussels: EC.Google Scholar
  12. Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). (2006). Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (Science & Technology Education Library). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  13. Gauvrit, N. (2007). Statistiques méfiez-vous! Paris: Ellipse.Google Scholar
  14. Gormally, C., Brickman, P., Hallar, B., & Armstrong, N. (2009). Effects of inquiry-based learning on students’ science literacy skills and confidence. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hibon, M. (1996). La physique est un jeu d’enfant: activités d’éveil scientifique. Paris: A. Colin.Google Scholar
  16. Jacquier, B., & Vannimenus, J. (2005). La lumière et la matière. Les Ulis: EDP Sciences.Google Scholar
  17. Marchand, A., Weijs, J. H., Snoeijer, J. H., & Andreotti, B. (2011). Why is surface tension parallel to the interface. American Journal of Physics, 999–1008.Google Scholar
  18. Menigaux, J. (1986). La schématisation des interactions en classe de troisième. Bulletin de l’Union des Physiciens, 683, 761–778.Google Scholar
  19. Ogborn, J. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom (p. 65). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Santamaria, C. (2007). La physique tout simplement. Paris: Ellipses.Google Scholar
  21. Viennot, L. (1982). L’action et la réaction sont-elles bien égales et opposées? Bulletin de l’Union des Physiciens, 640, 479–485.Google Scholar
  22. Viennot, L. (2001). Reasoning in physics the part of common sense. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Viennot, L. (2013). Les promesses de l’Enseignement Intégré de Science et Technologie (EIST): de la fausse monnaie? Spirale, 52, 51–68.Google Scholar
  24. Viennot, L., & Décamp, L. (2016). Co-development of conceptual understanding and critical attitude: toward a systemic analysis of the survival blanket. European Journal of Physics, 015702 (26pp).  https://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/37/1/015702

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Matter and Complex Systems UMR 7057University of ParisParisFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire de Didactique André Revuz EA 4434University of ParisParisFrance

Personalised recommendations