No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Cosmic collaboration in an undergraduate astrophysics laboratory
2.National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators (National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, 2000), NSB-00-1.
4.C. M. Ashby, Higher Education: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Programs and Related Trends (U. S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C., 2005), GAO-06-114.
5.C. A. Buxton, “Feminist science in the case of a reform-minded biology department,” J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng. 7, 173–198 (2001).
6.T. Conefrey, “Laboratory talk and women’s retention rates,” J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng. 6, 251–264 (2000).
7.C. Hollenshead, P. S. Younce, and S. A. Wenzel, “Women graduate students in mathematics and physics: Reflections on success,” J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng. 1, 63–88 (1994).
9.E. Seymour and N. M. Hewitt, Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences (Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1997), pp. 231–289.
11.B. J. Guzzetti and W. O. Williams, “Changing the pattern of gendered discussion: Lessons from science classrooms,” J. Adolesc. Adult Literacy 40, 38–47 (1996).
12.P. Heller and M. Hollabaugh, “Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups,” Am. J. Phys. 60 (7), 637–644 (1992).
13.P. Heller, R. Keith, and S. Anderson, “Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 1: Group vs. individual problem solving,” Am. J. Phys. 60 (7), 627–636 (1992).
15.M. L. McKinnon and W. H. Potter, “Preliminary results of gender equity variations in a large active-learning introductory physics course due to laboratory activity instructions,” AIP Conf. Proc. 790, 129–132 (2005).
17.M. Prince, “Does active learning work? A review of the research,” J. Eng. Educ. 93 (3), 223–231 (2004).
20.M. Galley, “Astrophysics brings together Calif. schools and scientists,” Educ. Week 23 (26), 6–8 (2004).
21.R. A. Soluk, “Educational cosmic ray arrays,” in CP828, Multiparticle Dynamics, edited by V. Simak, M. Sumbera, S. Todorova, and B. Tomasik (American Institute of Physics, Kromeriz, Czech Republic, 2006), pp. 271–276.
22.T. Wibig, K. Kolodziejczak, R. Pierzynski, and R. Sobczak, “Educational studies of cosmic rays with a telescope of Geiger-Muller counters,” Phys. Educ. 41 (6), 542–545 (2006).
23.R. J. Beichner, J. M. Saul, R. J. Allain, D. L. Deardorff, and D. S. Abbott, “Introduction to SCALE-UP (student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs) project,” Proceedings of the 2000 Meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, Seattle, WA, 2000.
24.IceCube Startup Project, Cooperative Agreement No. OPP-0236449, National Science Foundation.
25.J. Madsen, R. Atkins, M. Briggs, J. Cooley, B. Dingus, F. Halzen, K. Rawlins, D. Steele, T. Millar, and S. Stevenoski, “Astronomy in the ice: Bringing neutrino astronomy to the secondary schools,” Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Proceedings, NASA Office of Space Science Education and Public Outreach in Chicago, June 12–14, 2002.
27.R. Hake, “Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,” Am. J. Phys. 66 (1), 64–74 (1998).
31.A. Bhattacharyya, R. R. Hake, and R. Sirochman, “Improving Socratic dialogue inducing (SDI) labs,” AAPT Announcer 25 (2), 80 (1995).
33.M. Ruibal, S. Murthy, A. Karelina, and E. Etkina, “Scaffolding students’ experimental work with scientific abilities rubrics,” AAPT Announcer 35 (2), 121 (2005).
34.V. Otero and S. Pollock, “Transforming your undergraduate physics course using learning assistants,” Workshop for NASULG Leadership Collaborative, Pre-PTEC 09 Meeting, Pennsylvania, 2009.
35.M. E. Huba and J. E. Freed, Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses: Shifting the Focus from Teaching to Learning (Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA, 2000).
36.T. A. Angelo and K. P. Cross, Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers, 2nd ed. (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1993).
37.B. L. Boyd, “Formative classroom assessment: Learner focused,” Agricultural Education Magazine 73 (5), 18–19 (2001).
38.American Association of University Women, Gender Gaps: Where Schools Still Fail Our Children (Marlowe, New York, 1999), pp. 61–65.
39.P. H. Dunham, “Procedures to increase the entry of women in mathematics-related careers,” ERIC/SMEAC Mathematics Education Digest No. 3, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED324195 (1990).
42.Q. Li, “Teachers’ beliefs and gender differences in mathematics: A review,” Educ. Res. 41, 63–76 (1999).
43.P. Orenstein, School Girls: Young Women, Self-Esteem, and the Confidence Gap (Anchor Books, Doubleday, NY, 1994), pp. 3–31.
44.M. Sadker and D. Sadker, Failing at Fairness: How Our Schools Cheat Girls (Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1994), pp. 42–76.
45.S. J. Correll, “Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments,” Am. J. Sociol. 106 (6), 1691–1730 (2001).
47.M. Enman and J. Lupart, “Talented female students’ resistance to science: An exploratory study of post-secondary achievement motivation, persistence, and epistemological characteristics,” High Abil. Stud. 11 (2), 161–178 (2000).
48.T. Tindall and B. Hamil, “Gender disparity in science education: The causes, consequences, and solutions,” Education 125 (2), 282–295 (2004).
49.M. Baenninger and N. Newcombe, “Environmental input to the development of sex-related differences in spatial and mathematical ability,” Learn. Individ. Differ. 7, 363–379 (1995).
51.S. J. Farenga and B. A. Joyce, “Beyond the classroom: Gender differences in science experiences,” Educ. 117 (4), 563–568 (1997).
53.G. Huang, N. Taddese, E. Walter, and S. S. Peng, Entry and Persistence of Women and Minorities in College Science and Engineering Education, U.S. Department of Education: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (NCES 2000-601, 2000).
55.S. D. Simpkins, P. E. Davis-Kean, and J. S. Eccles, “Math and science motivation: A longitudinal examination of the links between choices and beliefs,” Dev. Psychol. 42 (1), 70–83 (2006).
57.M. Foschi, in Sociological Theories in Progress: New Formulations, edited by J. Berger, M. Zelditch, Jr., and B. Anderson (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1989), pp. 58–72.
59.C. L. Ridgeway, “Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: Considering employment,” Am. Sociol. Rev. 62 (2), 218–235 (1997).
60.V. Valian, Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999), pp. 103–144.
61.D. G. Wagner and J. Berger, “Gender and interpersonal talk behaviors: Status expectation accounts,” Sociol. Perspect. 40, 1–32 (1997).
64.L. Springer, M. E. Stanne, and S. S. Donovan, Effects of Small-Group Learning on Undergraduates in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology: A Meta-Analysis, Research Monograph No. 11 (National Institute for Science Education, Madison, WI, 1997).
65.R. Narode, “A constructivist program for college remedial mathematics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst,” ERIC Document No. ED309988 (1989).
66.N. Enyedy, “Knowledge construction and collective practice: At the intersection of learning, talk, and social configurations in a computer-mediated mathematics classroom,” J. Learn. Sci. 12 (3), 361–407 (2003).
67.J. M. Morse, M. Barrett, M. Mayan, K. Olson, and J. Spiers, “Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research,” Int. J. Qual. Methods 1 (2), 13–22 (2002).
68.J. F. Dovidio, C. E. Brown, K. Heltman, S. L. Ellyson, and C. F. Keating, “Power displays between women and men in discussions of gender-linked tasks: A multichannel study,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 55 (4), 580–587 (1988).
69.K. Amann and K. Knorr-Cetina, in Representation in Scientific Practice, edited by M. Lynch and S. Woolgar (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990), pp. 85–330.
70.K. Jordan and M. Lynch, in The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Science, edited by A. Clarke and J. Fujimura (Princeton U. P., Princeton, NJ, 1992), pp. 77–114.
71.K. Jordan and M. Lynch, in Technology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction, and Technology, edited by G. Button (Routledge, New York, 1992), pp. 162–178.
72.K. Knorr-Cetina, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Harvard U. P., Cambridge, MA, 1999), pp. 79–110.
73.B. Latour and S. Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (Princeton U. P., Princeton, NJ, 1986), pp. 15–90.
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...
Most read this month