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.
Thinking like a physicist: A multi-semester case study of junior-level electricity and magnetism
1. J. Bransford, A. Brown, and R. Cocking (Eds). How People Learn (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2000).
2. E. F. Redish, Teaching Physics With the Physics Suite (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2003).
3.For example, L. C. McDermott, and E. F. Redish, “ Resource letter: PER-1: Physics Education Research,” Am. J. Phys. 67, 755–767 (1999);
5. C. A. Manogue, K. Brown, T. Dray, and B. Edwards, “ Why is Ampère’s law so hard? A look at middle-division physics,” Am. J. Phys. 74, 344–350 (2006).
6. R. E. Pepper, S. V. Chasteen, S. J. Pollock, and K. K. Perkins, “ Observations on student difficulties with mathematics in upper-division electricity and magnetism,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. (in press);
6. R. E. Pepper, S. V. Chasteen, S. J. Pollock, and K. K. Perkins, “ Our best juniors still struggle with Gauss’s Law: characterizing their difficulties,” AIP Conf. Proc. 1289, 1–4 (2010);
6. S. V. Chasteen and S. J. Pollock, “ A research-based approach to assessing student learning issues in upper-division electricity & magnetism,” AIP Conf. Proc. 1179, 7–10 (2009).
7. C. A. Manogue, P. J. Siemens, J. Tate, K. Brown, and A. J. Wolfer, “ Paradigms in physics: a new upper-Division curriculum,” Am. J. Phys. 69, 978–990 (2001);
7. B. R. Patton, “ Group learning-based approach to the graduate electrodynamics course: Jackson by inquiry,” APS Forum Educ. August, 25–26 (1996);
8.See, for example, B. S. Ambrose, “ Investigating student understanding in intermediate mechanics: identifying the need for a tutorial approach to instruction,” Am. J. Phys. 72(4 ), 453–459 (2004), and first six references within.
10. E. F. Redish, “ Problem solving and the use of math in physics courses,” World View on Physics Education in 2005. Part of the Focusing on Change series, Delhi, August 21–22, 2005, pp. 1–10.
11. S. V. Chasteen, R. E. Pepper, S. J. Pollock, and K. K. Perkins, “ But does it last? Sustaining a research-based curriculum in upper-division electricity & magnetism,” AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 139–142 (2012).
12. S. V. Chasteen, R. E. Pepper, S. J. Pollock, and K. K. Perkins, “ Transforming the Junior-Level: Outcomes from instruction and research in E&M,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020107 (2012).
13. D. J. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. (Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1999).
14. R. E. Pepper, S. V. Chasteen, S. J. Pollock, and K. K. Perkins, “ Facilitating faculty conversations: development of consensus learning goals,” AIP Conf. Proc., 1413, 291–294 (2012).
17. S. V. Chasteen, K. K. Perkins, P. Beale, S.J. Pollock, and C. E. Wieman, “ A thoughtful approach to instruction: course transformations for the rest of us,” J. College Sci. Teach March/April, 70–76 (2011).
18.These course transformation efforts were facilitated by the grant-funded employment of one of the authors (SVC)—a postdoctoral Science Teaching Fellow (STF) supported by internal and external grant funding through the Science Education Initiative.
The Science Education Initiative is a 5-year $5 million project to improve student learning by approaching the teaching of science as a science through systematic course transformation in multiple departments at CU-Boulder. http://colorado.edu/sei
21. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction, A User’s Manual (Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1997).
22. L. Ding, R. Chabay, and B. Sherwood, “ Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: brief electricity and magnetism assessment,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 1–7 (2006).
23. S. V. Chasteen, R. E. Pepper, M. D. Caballero, S. J. Pollock, and K. K. Perkins, “ The Colorado Upper-Division Electrostatics (CUE) diagnostic: a conceptual assessment for the junior level,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. (in press);
23. S. V. Chasteen and S. J. Pollock, “ Tapping into Juniors’ Understanding of E&M: the Colorado Upper-Division Electrostatics (CUE) diagnostic,” AIP Conf. Proc. 1179, 109–112 (2009).
24. K. K. Perkins and C. Turpen, “ Student perspectives on the use of clickers in upper-division physics courses,” AIP Conf. Proc. 1179, 225–228 (2009).
26.Attendance at homework help sessions only recorded in two courses: PER-C and PER-A.
27. S. Goldhaber, S. Pollock, M. Dubson, P. Beale, and K. Perkins, “ Transforming upper-division quantum mechanics: learning goals and assessment,” AIP Conf. Proc. 1179, 145–148 (2009).
28. C. Turpen and N. Finkelstein, “ Not all interactive engagement is the same: variations in physics professors’ implementation of Peer Instruction,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020101–1 (2009).
29. R. R. Hake, “ Interactive engagement vs. traditional methods: a six-thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,” Am. J. Phys. 66, 64–74 (1998).
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...
Most read this month