Full text loading...
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.
The Twin Twin Paradox: Exploring Student Approaches to Understanding Relativistic Concepts
1.For two early examples, see A. Champagne, L. Klopfer, and J. Anderson, “Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics,”Am. J. Phys. 48, 1074–1079 (Dec. 1980);
1.I.A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, “Common‐sense concepts about motion,” Am. J. Phys. 53, 1056–1065 (Nov. 1985).
2.For a collection of many examples, see The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities, edited by E. F. Redish and J. S. Rigden, AIP Conf. Proc. 399 (American Institute of Physics, Woodbury NY, 1997), Vol II.
3.Fred and George are not their real names and do not necessarily reflect the ethnicity of the twins.
4.Curricula used were directly from or derived from Tutorials in Introductory Physics, L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group at the University of Washington (Prentice Hall, 1998);
4.R. E. Scherr, P. S. Shaffer, and S. Vokos, “The challenge of changing deeply held student beliefs about the relativity of simultaneity,” Am.J. Phys. 70, 1238–1248 (Dec. 2002);
4.M. C. Wittmann, R. N. Steinberg, and E. F. Redish, Activity‐Based Tutorials: Vol. 2. Modern Physics (Wiley, 2004).
5.Sebastien Cormier, PhD Dissertation, City University of New York, Physics Department (2009).
6.The coding scheme was based on the dimensions described in D. Hammer, “Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics,” Cognition Instruct. 12(2), 151–183 (1994).
7.National Research Council, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 1999).
Article metrics loading...