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.
A physics department’s role in preparing physics teachers: The Colorado learning assistant model
1.Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century, Rising Above the Gathering Storm (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2006).
2.National Center for Education Statistics, Trends in Math and Science Study (Institute for Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, 2003),
3.Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Learning for Tomorrow’s World–First Results from PISA 2003 (OECD, Paris, 2003),
4.National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s Report Card: Science 2005 (NCES, Washington, DC, 2005),
5.How People Learn, in Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, edited by J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1999).
6.M. Neuschatz, M. McFarling, and S. White, Reaching the Critical Mass: The Twenty Year Surge in High School Physics, Findings from the 2005 Nationwide Survey of High School Physics Teachers (AIP, College Park, MD, 2008), Fig. 14, p. 17.
7.American Association for Employment in Education, Educator Supply and Demand in the United States (AAEE, Columbus, OH, 2003).
8.J. Handelsman, D. Ebert-May, R. Beichner, P. Bruns, A. Chang, R. DeHaan, J. Gentile, S. Lauffer, J. Stewart, S. M. Tilghman, and W. Wood, “Scientific teaching,” Science 304, 521–522 (2004);
8.J. Luken, J. Handelsman, R. Beichner, P. Bruns, A. Chang, R. DeHaan, D. Ebert-May, J. Gentile, S. Lauffer, J. Stewart, and William W. Wood, “Universities and the teaching of science,” Science 306, 229–230 (2004).
9.R. Hake, “Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,” Am. J. Phys. 66 (1), 64–74 (1998).
10.National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 (National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, 2006), Vol. 1, NSB 06-01; Vol. 2, NSB 06-01A.
11.National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NEAP), 2005 Science Assessments (Institute for Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, 2005). “Proficient” is an arbitrary cut-off intended to reflect the cited qualities. It is one of the three NAEP achievement levels. Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency, including subject matter knowledge, application of such knowledge to real-world situations, and analytical skills appropriate to the subject matter.
12.T. Hodapp, J. Hehn, and W. Hein, “Preparing high school physics teachers,” Phys. Today 62(2), 40–45 (2009);
12.National Task Force for Teacher Education in Physics, Report Synopsis (February 2010).
13.V. Otero, “Recruiting talented mathematics and science majors to careers in teaching: A collaborative effort for K–16 educational reform,” Proceedings of the 2006 Annual General Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, edited by D. B. Zandvliet and J. Osborne, 2006.
14.T. Sanders, “No time to waste: The vital role of college and university leaders in improving science and mathematics education,” paper presented at Invitational Conference on Teacher Preparation and Institutions of Higher Education (U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, 2004).
15.U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy Planning and Innovation, Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge: The Secretary’s Second Annual Report on Teacher Quality (Washington, DC, 2002).
16.E. F. Redish, Teaching Physics: With the Physics Suite (Wiley-VCH, Berlin, 2003).
17.E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1997).
18.L. McDermott, P. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice-Hall, Saddle River, NJ, 2002).
20.S. V. Chasteen and S. J. Pollock, “A research-based approach to assessing student learning issues in upper-division electricity & magnetism,” 2009 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, edited by M. Sabella, C. Henderson, and C. Singh (AIP Press, Melville, NY, 2009), pp. 7–10.
21.S. Goldhaber, S. J. Pollock, M. Dubson, P. Beale, and K. Perkins, “Transforming upper-division quantum mechanics: Learning goals and assessment,” 2009 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, edited by M. Sabella, C. Henderson, and C. Singh (AIP Press, Melville, NY, 2009), pp. 145–148.
23.L. Shulman, “Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching,” Educ. Res. 15 (2), 4–14 (1986);
23.L. Shulman, “Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform,” Harv. Educ. Rev. 57, 1–22 (1987).
24.R. T. Putnam and H. Borko, “What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning?,” Educ. Res. 29 (1), 4–15 (2000).
25.B. S. Eylon and E. Bagno, “Research-design model for professional development of teachers: Designing lessons with physics education research,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020106 (2006).
26.CU-Teach is a part of the UTeach replication effort, funded by the National Mathematics and Science Initiative, and partially funded by Exxon/Mobil. Noyce scholarships are funded by National Science Foundation Grant DUE-0434144 and DUE-833258. Typically Noyce Fellows receive up to $15000 per year and engage in STEM education research in their major departments.
27.Colorado Commission on Higher Education, Report to Governor and General Assembly on Teacher Education (CCHE, Denver, CO, 2006).
28.R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, “Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula,” Am. J. Phys. 66 (4), 338–351 (1998).
29.L. Ding, R. Chabay, B. Sherwood, and R. Beichner, “Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010105 (2006).
31.M. A. Kohlmyer, M. D. Caballero, R. Catrambone, R. W. Chabay, L. Ding, M. P. Haugan, M. J. Marr, B. A. Sherwood, and M. F. Schatz, “Tale of two curricula: The performance of 2000 students in introductory electromagnetism,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020105 (2009).
32.W. K. Adams, K. K. Perkins, N. Podolefsky, M. Dubson, N. D. Finkelstein, and C. E. Wieman, “A new instrument for measuring student beliefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2 (1), 010101 (2006).
36.S. V. Chasteen and S. J. Pollock, “Transforming upper-division dlectricity and magnetism,” 2008 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, edited by C. Henderson, M. Sabella, and L. Hsu (AIP Press, Melville, NY, 2008), pp. 91–94.
37.R. Knight, Student Workbook for Physics for Scientists and Engineers: A Strategic Approach (Addison-Wesley, San Francisco, 2003).
See G. Stewart
, “Undergraduate learning assistants at the University of Arkansas: Formal classroom experience, preparation for a variety of professional needs
,” APS Forum on Education Newsletter
, Summer 2006
, pp. 36
40.The cost of a LA is less than one-fifth that of a graduate TA. Alternatively, LAs may receive credit in lieu of pay.
41.N. D. Finkelstein, “Teaching and learning physics: A model for coordinating physics instruction, outreach, and research,” J. Scholarship Teach. Learn. 4 (2), 1–17 (2004).
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...
Most read this month