Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Variability in student reasoning about radioactive decay as a stochastic process

Michael M. Hull1, Alexandra Jansky2, and Martin Hopf3

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 010102 – Published 8 January, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/5yyz-hpx8

Abstract

For several years, we have been investigating student conceptual understanding of radioactivity, particularly regarding half-life. Although it is considered to be random when an individual nucleus undergoes the sudden process of radioactive decay, the duration of time within which half of a radioactive sample decays (i.e., the half-life) is a predictable quantity. Many students generally struggle with the idea that random behavior of individual agents can give rise to predictable patterns in the collective; specific to radioactivity, many students have said both in interviews and surveys that, if you are looking at an individual nucleus, half of the nucleus will have decayed after one half-life. Our findings have indicated, however, that this idea (of individual nuclei decaying in a predictably continuous manner) is often not a robust and intact mental structure; rather, in other contexts, the same students correctly discuss radioactive decay as being instantaneous and unpredictable. We developed a survey to measure this context dependency and administered it both to high school students in Austria and to college students at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Using both cluster analysis and alluvial diagrams to organize our data, we find a great variety in answering patterns across the survey prompts, indicating that student ideas have not yet crystallized. Our paper thus provides experimental evidence in support of a “knowledge in pieces” model of student cognition about radioactivity as opposed to a “misconceptions” model.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (76)

  1. , Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015 70/1. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development (2015), https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf.
  2. IAEA, IAEA annual projections rise again as countries turn to nuclear for energy security, and climate action, https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-annual-projections-rise-again-as-countries-turn-to-nuclear-for-energy-security-and-climate-action (2023).
  3. International Atomic Energy Agency (2017). How Nuclear Power Helps Meet Global Energy Demand The Role of the IAEA, https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/17/02/how-nuclear-power-helps-meet-global-energy-demand-the-role-of-the-iaea.pdf.
  4. R. Rhodes, A sensible climate change solution, borrowed from Sweden, NY Times (2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/05/books/review/bright-future-joshua-s-goldstein-staffan-a-qvist.html.
  5. WNA, Supply of uranium, https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium#:~:text=the%20world’s%20present%20measured%20resources,is%20normal%20for%20most%20minerals (2024).
  6. S. El-Showk, Final resting place, Science 375, 806 (2022).
  7. H. M. C. Eijkelhof, C. W. J. M. Klaassen, P. L. Lijnse, and R. L. J. Scholte, Perceived incidence and importance of lay-ideas on ionizing radiation: Results of a Delphi-study among radiation-experts, Sci. Educ. 74, 183 (1990).
  8. M. M. Hull and M. Hopf, Student understanding of emergent aspects of radioactivity, Int. J. Phys. Chem. Educ. 12, 19 (2020), https://ijpce.org/index.php/IJPCE/article/view/125.
  9. M. M. Hull, A. Jansky, and M. Hopf, Does confidence in a wrong answer imply a misconception?, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020108 (2022).
  10. M. M. Hull, A. Jansky, and M. Hopf, Radioactivity as “quintessentially eternal”: Two survey prompts, in Proceedings of the GDCP (Gesellschaft für Didaktik der Chemie und Physik) 2021 Conference 184 (2022), https://www.gdcp-ev.de/wp-content/tb2022/TB2022_184_Hull.pdf.
  11. M. M. Hull, A. Jansky, and M. Hopf, Two approaches to analyzing fluidity of student reasoning on a multiple choice survey about half-life, in 2021 ESERA Proceedings (2021), p. 62, https://www.esera.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/CNF21-Proceedings_Strand-1_p.4-89.pdf.
  12. M. M. Hull, A. Jansky, and M. Hopf, Reasoning fluidly about half-life on a two-tier multiple-choice survey, in GDCP Conference Proceedings (Online) (2020), https://gdcp-ev.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/GDCP_Band41_050721.pdf.
  13. H. M. C. Eijkelhof, Radiation and Risk in Physics Education (CDß Press, Utrecht, 1990).
  14. P. L. Lijnse, H. M. C. Eijkelhof, C. W. J. M. Klaassen, and R. L. J. Scholte, Pupils’ and mass-media ideas about radioactivity, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 12, 67 (1990).
  15. H M. C. Eijkelhof and R. Millar, Reading about Chernobyl: The public understanding of radiation and radioactivity, Sch. Sci. Rev. 70, 35 (1988).
  16. E. E. Prather, Students’ beliefs about the role of atoms in radioactive decay and half-life, J. Geosci. Educ. 53, 345 (2005).
  17. E. K. Henriksen, Laypeople’s understanding of radioactivity and radiation, Radiat. Protect. Dosim. 68, 191 (1996).
  18. M. M. Hull, A. Jansky, and M. Hopf, Probability-related naïve ideas across physics topics, Stud. Sci. Educ. 57, 45 (2021).
  19. C. W. J. M. Klaassen, H. M. C. Eijkelhof, and P. L. Lijnse, Considering an alternative approach to teaching radioactivity, in Relating Macroscopic Phenomena to Microscopic Particles: A Central Problem in Secondary Science Education (1990), pp. 304–316, https://www.academia.edu/download/50665841/Considering_an_alternative_approach_to_t20161201-19533-jvt2py.pdf.
  20. A. Jansky, Die Rolle von Schülervorstellungen Zu Wahrscheinlichkeit Und Zufall Im Naturwissenschaftlichen Kontext (University of Vienna, 2019), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340686195_Die_Rolle_von_Schulervorstellungen_zu_Wahrscheinlichkeit_und_Zufall_im_naturwissenschaftlichen_Kontext.
  21. U. Wilensky and M. Resnick, Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 8, 3 (1999).
  22. M. M. Hull, Emergent aspects of radioactivity: Creation of a survey on half-life, in GDCP Conference Proceedings (2019), pp. 590–593, https://www.gdcp-ev.de/wp-content/tb2020/TB2020_590_Hull.pdf.
  23. S. Vosniadou and I. Skopeliti, Conceptual change from the framework theory side of the fence, Sci. Educ. 23, 1427 (2014).
  24. D. Hammer, Misconceptions or p-prims: How may alternative perspectives of cognitive structure influence instructional perceptions and intentions, J. Learn. Sci. 5, 97 (1996).
  25. A. A. diSessa, A bird’s-eye view of the “pieces” vs. “coherence” controversy (from the “pieces” side of the fence), in International Handbook of Research on Conceptual Change, edited by S. Vosniadou (Routledge, 2009), p. 35, 10.4324/9780203154472.
  26. R. E. Scherr, Modeling student thinking: An example from special relativity, Am. J. Phys. 75, 272 (2007).
  27. E. F. Redish, Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite (New York, NY, 2003), https://www.per-central.org/items/detail.cfm?ID=3707.
  28. G. J. Posner, K. A. Strike, P. W. Hewson, and W. A. Gertzog, Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change, Sci. Educ. 66, 211 (1982).
  29. L. C. McDermott, Millikan lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned—Closing the gap, Am. J. Phys. 59, 301 (1991).
  30. A. A. diSessa, Toward an epistemology of physics, Cognit. Instr. 10, 105 (1993).
  31. D. Hammer, More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research, Am. J. Phys. 64, 1316 (1996).
  32. D. Hammer, Student resources for learning introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 68, S52 (2000).
  33. D. Hammer, A. Elby, R. E. Scherr, and E. F. Redish, Resources, framing, and transfer, in Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective, edited by J. P. Mestre (IAP, 2006), pp. 89–121, https://dhammer.phy.tufts.edu/home/publications_files/rft.pdf.
  34. S. Kapon and A. A. diSessa, Instructional explanations as an interface—The role of explanatory primitives, AIP Conf. Proc. 1289, 189 (2010).
  35. J. Minstrell, Facets of students’ knowledge and relevant instruction, in Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies, Proceedings of an International Workshop (1992), pp. 110–128, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hans-Niedderer/publication/330993365_Research_in_Physics_Learning_Theoretical_Issues_and_Empirical_Studies/links/5c5f8abea6fdccb608b40ca2/Research-in-Physics-Learning-Theoretical-Issues-and-Empirical-Studies.pdf#page=110.
  36. J. P. I. Smith, A. A. diSessa, and J. Roschelle, Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition, J. Learn. Sci. 3, 115 (1994).
  37. M. Lemmer, Nature, cause and effect of students’ intuitive conceptions regarding changes in velocity, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 35, 239 (2013).
  38. N. K. Weinlader, E. Kuo, B. M. Rottman, and T. J. Nokes-Malach, A new approach for understanding student resources with multiple-choice questions, presented at PER Conf. 2019, Provo, UT, 10.1119/perc.2019.pr.Weinlader.
  39. H. Eshach, T. C. Lin, and C. C. Tsai, Taiwanese middle school students’ materialistic concepts of sound, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010119 (2016).
  40. S. Hasan, D. Bagayoko, and E. L. Kelley, Misconceptions and the certainty of response index (CRI), Phys. Educ. 34, 294 (1999).
  41. P. Klein, S. Küchemann, S. Brückner, O. Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, and J. Kuhn, Student understanding of graph slope and area under a curve: A replication study comparing first-year physics and economics students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020116 (2019).
  42. M. Planinic, W. J. Boone, R. Krsnik, and M. L. Beilfuss, Exploring alternative conceptions from Newtonian dynamics and simple DC circuits: Links between item difficulty and item confidence, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 43, 150 (2006).
  43. M. Potgieter, E. Malatje, E. Gaigher, and E. Venter, Confidence versus performance as an indicator of the presence of alternative conceptions and inadequate problem-solving skills in mechanics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 32, 1407 (2010).
  44. I. Testa, A. Colantonio, S. Galano, I. Marzoli, F. Trani, and U. Scotti Di Uccio, Effects of instruction on students’ overconfidence in introductory quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010143 (2020).
  45. B. R. Wilcox and S. J. Pollock, Investigating students’ behavior and performance in online conceptual assessment, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 020145 (2019).
  46. D. MacIsaac, R. P. Cole, L. McCullough, and J. Maxka, Standardized testing in physics via the World Wide Web, Electron. J. Sci. Educ. 6 (2002), https://ejrsme.icrsme.com/article/download/7681/5448.
  47. J. Han, L. Bao, L. Chen, T. Cai, Y. Pi, S. Zhou, Y. Tu, and K. Koenig, Dividing the Force Concept Inventory into two equivalent half-length tests, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010112 (2015).
  48. J. Han, K. Koenig, L. Cui, J. Fritchman, D. Li, W. Sun, Z. Fu, and L. Bao, Experimental validation of the half-length Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020122 (2016).
  49. J.-i. Yasuda, N. Mae, M. M. Hull, and M.-A. Taniguchi, Optimizing the length of computerized adaptive testing for the Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010115 (2021).
  50. C. Singh, Assessing student expertise in introductory physics with isomorphic problems. II. Effect of some potential factors on problem solving and transfer, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010105 (2008).
  51. J. C. Speirs, M. R. Stetzer, B. A. Lindsey, and M. Kryjevskaia, Exploring and supporting student reasoning in physics by leveraging dual-process theories of reasoning and decision making, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 020137 (2021).
  52. J. C. Speirs, R. Leuteritz, T. K. Lê, R. Deng, and S. W. Ell, Investigating the efficacy of attending to reflexive cognitive processes in the context of Newton’s second law, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 010108 (2023).
  53. T. Fittswood, D. J. Rosen, and M. R. Stetzer, Insights from an intervention designed to support consistent reasoning, presented at PER Conf. 2022, Grand Rapids, MI, 10.1119/perc.2022.pr.Fittswood.
  54. M. Kryjevskaia, M. R. Stetzer, B. A. Lindsey, A. McInerny, P. R. Heron, and A. Boudreaux, Designing research-based instructional materials that leverage dual-process theories of reasoning: Insights from testing one specific, theory-driven intervention, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020140 (2020).
  55. H. A. Simon and J. R. Hayes, The understanding process: Problem isomorphs, Cognit. Psychol. 8, 165 (1976).
  56. J. R. Hayes and H. A. Simon, Psychological differences among problem isomorphs, in Cognitive Theory, edited by N. J. Castellan, D. B. Pisoni, and G. R. Potts (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1977).
  57. K. Kotovsky, J. R. Hayes, and H. A. Simon, Why are some problems hard? Evidence from the Tower of Hanoi, Cognit. Psychol. 17, 248 (1985).
  58. C. Singh, Assessing student expertise in introductory physics with isomorphic problems. I. Performance on nonintuitive problem pair from introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010104 (2008).
  59. D. E. Brown and J. Clement, Overcoming misconceptions via analogical reasoning: Abstract transfer versus explanatory model construction, Instr. Sci. 18, 237 (1989).
  60. R. L. Thorndike, Who belongs in the family?, Psychometrika 18, 267 (1953).
  61. M. M. Hull and K. R. Pokharel, Learning about radioactivity via synthetic groupwork in introductory physics, presented at PER Conf. 2024, Boston, MA, 10.1119/perc.2024.pr.Hull.
  62. M. M. Hull, M. Jeidler, and E. S. Holzinger, Simulated groupwork in an asynchronous course learning about radioactivity, presented at PER Conf. 2023, Sacramento, CA, 10.1119/perc.2023.pr.Hull.
  63. A. Johnson, IBI series winner, radiation and atomic literacy for nonscientists, Science 342, 436 (2013).
  64. M. Jeidler, M. Wintersteller, and M. M. Hull, The influence of “the radiation around us” on student conceptual understanding and interest, in PhyDid B—Didaktik der Physik—Beiträge zur DPG-Frühjahrstagung (2022), https://ojs.dpg-physik.de/index.php/phydid-b/article/view/1225.
  65. P. G. Hewitt, Conceptual Physics, 13th ed. (Pearson Higher Ed, 2022), https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/conceptual-physics/P200000006941/9780137394975?srsltid=AfmBOor9z3wo-2jRP2fLgWzJb5-e3dh0Ks5pmBykFlTPDNjMZVqq91Rs.
  66. FutureLearn, How to determine the optimal number of clusters: scree plots, and the elbow method, https://medium.com/@tarangds/determining-the-optimal-number-of-clusters-using-the-elbow-method-how-when-where-what-and-why-cd1e94b82c1e (2024).
  67. A. L. Traxler, T. Suda, E. Brewe, and K. Commeford, Network positions in active learning environments in physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020129 (2020).
  68. E. Sowles, D. J. Rosen, and M. R. Stetzer, Using metacognitive prompts to explore student reasoning trajectories, presented at PER Conf. 2022, Grand Rapids, MI, 10.1119/perc.2022.pr.Sowles.
  69. A. Werth, J. R. Hoehn, K. Oliver, M. F. J. Fox, and H. J. Lewandowski, Instructor perspectives on the emergency transition to remote instruction of physics labs, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 020129 (2022).
  70. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/5yyz-hpx8 for alluvial diagrams that contain all alluvia.
  71. K. S. Brock and R. Taber, Making claims about learning: A microgenetic multiple case study of temporal patterns of conceptual change in learners’ activation of force conceptions, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 42, 1388 (2020).
  72. R. Brock and K. S. Taber, The application of the microgenetic method to studies of learning in science education: Characteristics of published studies, methodological issues and recommendations for future research, Stud. Sci. Educ. 53, 45 (2017).
  73. I. Neumann, G. W. Fulmer, and L. L. Liang, Analyzing the FCI based on a force and motion learning progression, Sci. Educ. Rev. Lett. 8 (2013), https://repository.nie.edu.sg/bitstream/10497/15718/1/SERL-2013-8.pdf.
  74. A. C. Alonzo and J. T. Steedle, Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression, Sci. Educ. 93, 389 (2009).
  75. M. T. H. Chi and J. D. Slotta, The ontological coherence of intuitive physics, Cognit. Instr. 10, 249 (1993).
  76. J. D. Slotta and M. T. H. Chi, Helping students understand challenging topics in science through ontology training, Cognit. Instr. 24, 261 (2006).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation