ArticleHeliyon2024
Diagnosing students' misconception in Hydrostatic Pressure through a 4-tier test.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to record and highlight the misconceptions of Greek junior high school students regarding the concept of hydrostatic pressure. Hydrostatic pressure is included in most international curricula for this age group and in Greece, is introduced in the context of the study of fluid equilibrium in the second grade of the junior high school. After thorough international literature review and interviews with teachers who teach the physics course, to discover the students' way of thinking and their common misconceptions in the case of hydrostatic pressure concept, the researchers of this study created targeted questionnaires for students aged 12-13 years old. The method followed to determine the misconceptions in this article is the distribution of a 4 - tier test to a sample of students who, initially, attended the relevant course. During the 2023-24 school year, the questionnaires were handed out to 33 s-grade students at a junior high school in Athens, Greece. The students had previously been taught the corresponding unit. Before being administered to the students, the questionnaires were subjected to a content validity test by four physics experts according to Aiken's V index. The students' responses were inputted into SPSS version 25, which was utilized for the statistical analysis. Statistical analysis of the results revealed a high incidence of misconceptions related to the effects of container shape, area, and pressure direction, as well as a significant lack of knowledge. Although the overall rates of misconceptions may be low, the study recorded significant knowledge gaps in physics education, suggesting the need for improved teaching methods. The findings suggest that more effective teaching strategies and experimental approaches are needed to address these misconceptions our research highlighted. This study contributes a reliable diagnostic tool for future research and teaching, aiming to enhance conceptual understanding of hydrostatic pressure in educational settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.