Abstract
Certain explanatory elements or documents can convey unambiguously inaccurate explanations, or they may simply suggest such explanations and encourage a critical passivity towards them. This chapter presents these “risk factors”, in particular: the accuracy of the conclusion and the associated “confirmation bias” (two examples); the case where explanations that would merit critical analysis share the typical characteristics of a common reasoning; the inaccurate designation of the entities involved; an “all-or-nothing” view of the physical properties of objects (two examples); small values of physical quantities assimilated to zero values (three examples); the “single cause” syndrome (three examples); local analysis (as opposed to systemic analysis); explanation in the form of a story; misleading visual messages, analogies or metaphors. The conclusion emphasizes the fact that risks must be assessed in the light of the public, and that some compromises may have to be negotiated for a given public.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bachelard, G. (1938). La formation de l’esprit scientifique. Paris: Vrin.
Bächtold. (2014). L’équation Elibérée=|Δm|c2 dans le programme et les manuels de première S. Recherche en Didactique des Sciences et des Techniques, 10, 93–122.
Besson, U. (2004). Students’ conceptions of fluids. International Journal of Science Education, 26(14), 1683–1714.
Boizier, C. (2012). Difficultés associées à l’usage d’un texte historique de première main : Travail sur la description de l’expérience démontrant la composition de l’air par Lavoisier en classe de quatrième. Master de didactique des disciplines. Université Paris Diderot-Paris 7.
Botinelli, L., Brahic, A., Gouguenheim, L., Ripert, J., & Sert, J. (1993). La Terre et l’Univers. Paris: Hachette.
Centre National de Documentation pédagogique (France). (2000). Document d’accompagnement du programme de Seconde Générale (grade 10).
Colin, P., & Viennot, L. (2001). Using two models in optics: Students’ difficulties and suggestions for teaching, Physics education research. American Journal of Physics Sup., 69(7), S36–S44.
Colin, P., Chauvet, F., & Viennot, L. (2002). Reading images in optics: Students’ difficulties, and teachers’ views. International Journal of Science Education, 24(3), 313–332.
Crawford, F. S. (1965). Berkeley physics course vol. 3, waves. New York: McGraw-Hill.
de Hosson, C., & Kaminski, W. (2007). Historical controversy as an educational tool: Evaluating elements of a teaching–learning sequence conducted with the text “dialogue on the ways that vision operates”. International Journal of Science Education, 29(5), 617–642.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.). (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Euler, M. (2004). The role of experiments in the teaching and learning of physics. In E. F. Reddish & M. Vicentini (Eds.), Research on Physics education (International school of physics Enrico Fermi). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Fauconnet, S. (1981). Etude de résolution de problèmes: quelques problèmes de même structure en physique, Thèse de troisième bicycle, Université Paris 7.
Feller, I., Colin, P., & Viennot, L. (2009). Critical analysis of popularisation documents in the physics classroom. An action-research in grade 10. Problems of education in the 21st century, 17(17), 72–96.
Gauvrit, N. (2007). Statistiques méfiez-vous! Paris: Ellipse.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170.
Halbwachs, F. (1971). Réflexions sur la causalité physique. In M. Bunge, F. Halbwachs, T. S. Kuhn, J. Piaget, & L. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Les Théories de la Causalité. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Jacobi, D. (2005). Les sciences expérimentales communiquées aux enfants. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.
Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking fast and slow. London: Penguin books.
Kaminski. (1989). Conception des enfants et des autres sur la lumière. Bulletin de l’Union des Physiciens, 716, 973–996.
Karplus, R. (1969). Introductory Physics a model approach. New York: Benjamin Inc.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Lavoisier, A. L. (1789). Traité élémentaire de chimie (Vol. 1, planche IV, Fig. 2).
Lessons by Marie Curie, collected by Isabelle Chavannes in 1907. (2003). Physique élémentaire pour les enfants de nos amis. Coord. B. Leclercq. Paris : EDP Sciences.
Maury, J.-P. (1989). La glace et la vapeur, qu’est-ce que c’est ? Paris: Palais de la Découverte.
Maury, L., Saltiel, E., & Viennot, L. (1977). Etude de la notion de mouvement chez l’enfant à partir des changements de référentiels. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 40, 15–25.
McLelland, J. A. G. (2011). A very persistent mistake. Physics Education, 46(4), 469–471.
Michaut, C. (2014). La vulgarisation scientifique : mode d’emploi. Les Ulis: EDP Sciences.
Ogborn, J. (1996). Explaining Science in the classroom (pp. 70–71). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Pinto, R., Ametler, J., Chauvet, F., Colin, P., Giberti, G., Monroy, G., Ogborn, J., Ormerod, F., Sassi, E., Stylianidou, F., Testa, I., & Viennot, L. (2000). Investigation on the difficulties in teaching and learning graphic representations and on their use in science classrooms, STTIS transversal report (WP2), www.uab.es/sttis.htm and http://www.lar.univ-paris-diderot.fr/sttis_p7/index.htm
Reflets de la physique. (2017). n° 52, Paris : Société Française de Physique.
Rozier, S. (1988). Le raisonnement linéaire causal en thermodynamique classique élémentaire. Paris, Thèse, Université Paris 7.
Rozier, S., & Viennot, L. (1991). Students’ reasoning in thermodynamics. International Journal of Science Education, 13(2), 159–170.
Valentin, L. (1983). L’univers mécanique. Paris: Hermann.
Viennot, L. (2001). Reasoning in physics the part of common sense. Dordrecht: Springer.
Viennot, L. (2004). Common reasoning in physics : Relations fonctionnelles, chronologie et causalité, In L. Viennot, & C. Debru (dir.) Enquête sur le concept de causalité (pp. 7–29). Paris: PUF.
Viennot, L. (2007). La physique dans la culture scientifique: entre raisonnement, récit et rituels, Aster n° spécial « Science et récit », n°44, 23–40.
Viennot, L. (2014). Thinking in physics, the pleasure of reasoning and understanding. Dordrecht: Springer.
Viennot, L., & De Hosson, C. (2012). Beyond a dichotomic approach, the case of colour phenomena. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1315–1336. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.679034.
Viennot, L., & De Hosson, C. (2015). From a subtractive to multiplicative approach, a concept-driven interactive pathway on the selective absorption of light. International Journal of Science Education, 37(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.950186.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Viennot, L., Décamp, N. (2020). Risk Factors. In: Developing Critical Thinking in Physics. Contributions from Science Education Research, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43773-2_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43773-2_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-43772-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-43773-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)