Introductory Physics

Students’ Treatment (or ignoring) of

Measurement Uncertainty
Duane L. Deardorff
Robert J. Beichner - advisor
The University of
North Carolina at
Chapel Hill

Presented at the 123rd National Meeting of the American

Association of Physics Teachers in Rochester, NY
Monday, July 23, 2001
www.physics.unc.edu/~deardorf/uncertainty
1
Are these time measurements
significantly different?
t1 = 1.86 s
t2 = 2.07 s

• Yes
• No
• Can’t tell
2
Are these time measurements
significantly different?
t1 = 1.86 s
t2 = 2.07 s
Student responses (N = 44):
• Yes 43%
• No 27% ???
• Can’t tell 30%
3
 Motivation
• Science relies on empirical data, which is
inherently subject to measurement error
• Uncertainty estimates are necessary for:
– assessing quality of data
– comparison of data
– verify/refute theoretical predictions
• Students often have difficulty analyzing errors
• Guidelines for reporting uncertainties vary:
– Terminology and notation is not consistent
– International standard exists but is not well known
4
 Primary Research Questions
• How do physics students treat uncertainty?
• What do and don’t introductory physics
students understand about measurement
uncertainty?
• How do these student conceptions compare
with those of experts and other students?

5
 Measurement Uncertainty Studies
• M. Sere, R. Journeaux, C. Larcher (1993)
20 first-year physics lab students in France
• Students did not understand the role and value of statistical tools for
specifying confidence
• Confusion between systematic and random errors; precision and
accuracy
• S. Allie, A. Buffler, L. Kaunda, B. Campbell, F.
Lubben (1998)
121 first-year physics students at U. of Cape Town, South Africa
• The need to take additional measurements depends on the
context of the experiment, but student rationale is not clear.
• J. Tomlinson, P. Dyson, J. Garratt (2001)
33 first-year chemistry students at Univ. of York, UK
• Less than half demonstrated a “good” understanding of 12
key terms related to measurement error.
6
 Research Methodology
• Formative study based on grounded theory
• Research methods are primarily qualitative with
some quantitative comparisons
• Student ideas examined from a variety of
perspectives to triangulate common patterns:
– Open-ended surveys: N ≈ 200
– Follow-up student interviews: N ≈ 50
– Homework and class assignments: N ≈ 300
– Physics lab reports: N ≈ 100
– Hands-on lab exam: N ≈ 200
7
 Population and Sampling
Population: introductory physics students
– calculus and algebra-based levels, sem. 1 & 2

Student samples:
– North Carolina State University (NCSU)
• Almost no error analysis
– University of North Carolina (UNC-CH)
• Heavy emphasis on error analysis

Experts: graduate students and teachers

– Surveyed to determine the “right” answers

8
 Research Findings
1) Uncertainty is rarely estimated and stated,
even when required (true for experts too!).
2) Even if found, most students do not use
uncertainties to justify their conclusions.
3) Calculated values are often reported with
too many (in)significant digits.
4) Students have difficulty identifying the
primary source of error in an experiment.

9
 Research Findings
1) Students often fail to report a quantitative
uncertainty estimate, even when requested.

Overall reporting rates from this study:

0 to 50% of students reported uncertainty

30 to 70% of TAs reported uncertainty

10
 Research Findings
Task: Use a ruler to measure the diameter of a penny
as accurately as possible.

Uncertainty Reported for Penny Dia.

100%
80%
60% NCSU
40% UNC
20%
0%
Students TAs
11
 Research Findings
2) Even if stated, most students do not justify
their conclusions based on the uncertainty
Judgements are made based on arbitrary criteria:
– “Our percent error was only 4%, so our experiment proved
the theory.”
– “I decide by how much two measurements differ in order to
see if they agree.”
– “The result should be accurate as long as the error is less
than 10%.”

Similar findings in other studies (Sere; Garratt)

12
 Research Findings
3) Students tend to overstate precision (too many
significant figures) of calculated values and to a
lesser extent for directly measured values.

Typical student values:

L L = 2.35 cm (± 0.05 cm)
W = 1.85 cm (± 0.05 cm)
W
A = L*W = 4.3475 cm2

(Expert: A = 4.3 ± 0.1 cm2 )

13
 Research Findings
4) Students have difficulty identifying the
primary source of error in an experiment.

Are nickel coins made of nickel? Find density:

• Median density from 76 students = 7.1 g/cm3
(standard deviation = 10 g/cm3 )

Density of pure nickel = 8.912 g/cm3

Density of nickel coin = 8.9 ± 0.4 g/cm3
(alloy of 25% nickel, 75% copper)
14
Sources of Error for Nickel Density
Actual NCSU UNC
Source of uncert. students students TAs
error contrib. (n = 36) (n = 40) (n = 17)
thickness ±10% 15% 42% 40%
διαµετερ ± 1% 19% 16% 20%
µασσ ± 2% 41% 16% 40%
ηυµαν 7% 3%
οτηερ 18% 23%
15
 Conclusion

Students often focus on the details

of error analysis and miss the big
picture, losing sight of the forest
for the sake of the trees.

16
Student: t1 (s) t2 (s) t1 (s) t2 (s)
1.86 2.07 Std. Dev. = 0.21 0.16
1.74 1.89 Std. Error = 0.12 0.09
2.15 2.20
Average = 1.92 2.05
“The numbers are close,
but different.”

Expert: t1
t2
t (s)
1.8 2.0 2.2

“These time measurements agree with each other.”

17
 Implications for Instruction
• Structure lab activities to intrinsically motivate students
to estimate uncertainties
• Remind students of the “big picture” view of why
uncertainty estimates are important.
• Show examples of how to decide whether results agree
or disagree within their uncertainty using error bars on
number line.
• Teach concepts consistent with ISO Guide

18
 ISO Guide to the Expression of
Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM)
• International Organization for Standardization published
new guidelines in 1993 for industry and research
NIST version:
physics.nist.gov/cuu/Uncertainty
• Use standard uncertainty
– Type A component: random, evaluated statistically
– Type B component: systematic, judgement, a priori
• use term “uncertainty” not “error”
• avoid use of ambiguous ± notation
19
Future Research and Development
• Refine facets of understanding (now on Web)
• Extend research using Lab Exam
• Develop concept test on meas. uncertainty
• Create new teaching materials
• Distribute data comparison tool (Excel)

www.physics.unc.edu/~deardorf/uncertainty

20
“It is better to be roughly right
than precisely wrong.”
- Alan Greenspan
U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman

For more on measurement uncertainty, go to:

www.physics.unc.edu/~deardorf/uncertainty
21