Click for next page ( 83


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 82
480 :~ References Chabay, R.W., & Sherwood, B.A. (1999). Electric and magnetic interactions. New York: Wiley. Chabay, R. W., & Sherwood, B.A. (2002). Matter and interactions, volume2: Electric and Magnetic Interactions. New York: Wiley. Champagne, A. B., Gunstone, R. F., & Klopfer, L. E. (1985). Instructional conse- quences of students' knowledge about physical phenomena. In L.H.T. West and A.L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptualchange. New York: Academic Press. Clement, J. (1982). Student preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), 6~71. Coleman, L. A., Holcomb, D.F., & RigUen, J.S. (1998). The introductory university physics project 1987-1995: What has it accomplished? American Journal of Phys- ics, 66, 124-137. College Entrance Examination Board. (1994a). 1993 APphysicsB: Free-responsescor- ing guide with multiple-choice section. New York: Author. College Entrance Examination Board. (1994b). 1993APphysics C: Free-response scoring guide with m?~ltiple-choice section. New York: Author. College Entrance Examination Board. (1994c). College and university guide to the advanced placement program. New York: Author. College Entrance Examination Board. (1999a). Advanced placement course descrip- tion, physics, 2000, 2001. New York: Author. College Entrance Examination Board. (1999b). Released exams: 1998 UP physics B andthysics C. New York: Author. College Entrance Examination Board. (2001). Advanced placement course descrip- tion, physics, 2002, 2003. New York: Author. diSessa, A.A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Edge, R.D. (1987). String and sticky tape experiments. College Park, MD: American Association of Physics Teachers. Eisenkraft, A. (1999). Active physics. Armonk, NY: It's About Time. Eylon, B.S., & Reif, F. (1984). Effects of knowledge organization on task perfor- mance. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 5-44.

OCR for page 82
PHYSICS Hake, R.R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand- student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Ameri- can Journal of Physics, 66 (1), 64-74. Halliday, D., Resnick, R., & Walker, J. (2000). Fundamentals of physics: Volume 1. New York: Wiley. Halloun, I. (1996). Schematic modeling for meaningful learning of physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 (9), 1019-1041. Halloun, I. (1998). Views about science and physics achievement. The VASS Story. In E.F. Redish, end J.S. RigUen (Eds.), Proceedings oftheinternationalconference on undergraduate physics education (1996). Washington DC: American Insti- tute of Physics. Hammer, D. (1995). Epistemological considerations in teaching introductory physics. Science Education, 79(4), 39~413. Hammer, D. (1997). Discovery learning and discovery teaching. Cognition and In- struction, 15(4), 485-529. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141-158. Hewitt, P.G. (1999). Conceptualphysics. Menlo Park, CA: Scott Foresman Addison- Wesley. Hewson, P.W. (1985). Epistemological commitments in the learning of science: Ex- amples from dynamics. European Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 16~172. Hoy, R.R. (1993). A 'model minority' speaks out on cultural shyness. Sconce, 262, 1117-1118. International Baccalaureate Organisation. C1996). International baccalaureate: Pbysics. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. International Baccalaureate Organisation. (1999a). International baccalaureate: Pbysics, bigher level, examination papers 1-3. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. International Baccalaureate Organisation. (1999b). Subject reports May 1999. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. International Baccalaureate Organisation. (2001). LB diploma programmeguide: Pbys- ics, 2001. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Knight, R.D. (1997). Pbysics: A contemporary perspective. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley. Kolodny, A. (1991). Colleges must recognize students' cognitive styles and cultural backgrounds. Chronicle of Higher Education, 37(21), A44. Laws, P. (1989). Workshop physics: Replacing lectures with real experience. In E.F. Redish andJ.S. Riley (Eds.), Computers in physics instruction: Proceedings. Read- ing, MA: Addison-Wesley. Laws, P.W. (1991). Calculus-based physics without lectures. Physics Today, 44(12), 24-31. Laws, P.W. (1997). Workshop physics activity guide. New York: Wiley. Laws, P.W. (1999). New approaches to science and mathematics teaching at liberal arts colleges. Dacdalus, 128(1), 217-240. Lichten, W. (2000). Whither advanced placement? Education PolicyAnalysisArchives, 8(29), 1-19. 481

OCR for page 82
482 3: CONTENT PANEL REPORT MacIsaac, D. (2000) Communities of on-line physics educators. The Physics Teacher, 38(April), 210-213. Mazur, E. (1997). Peerinstruction, A user's manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. McDermott, L.C. (1991). What we teach and what is learnedClosing the gap. Ameri- can Journal of Physics, 59(4), 301-315. McDermott, L.C., &Redish, E.F. (1999). Resource letter PER-1: Physics education research. American Journal of Physics, 67, 755-767. McDermott, L.C., & Shaffer, P.S. (2002). Tutorials on introductory physics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. McDermott, L.C., Shaffer, P.S., & Somers, M.D. (1994). Research as a guide for teach- ing introductory mechanics: An illustration in the context of the Atwood's ma- chine. American Journal of Physics, 62(1), 46 60. Minstrell, J. (1989) Teaching science for understanding. In L.B. Resnick, and L.E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research COP 129-149). Alexandria, VA: American Society for Curriculum Development. Minstrell, J. (2000). Student thinking and related assessment: Creating a facet-based learning environment. In N.S. Rain, J.W. Pellegrino, M.W. Bertenthal, KJ. Mitchell, and L.R. Jones (Eds.), Grading the nation 's report card: Research from the evalu- ation of NAEP(pp. 44-73). Washington DC: National Academy Press. Moore, T.A. (1998). Six ideas that shaped physics. Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill. Morrison, P., Morrison, P., & Pine, J. (1996). ZAP!Electrical circuits andfields. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett. National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). Pursuing excellence: A study of U.S. twelfth-grade mathematics and science achievement in international context (NCES 98049). Washington, DC: US Department of Education. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2002). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. Coordinating Council for Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (1997a). Improving teacherpreparation and credentialing consistent with the national science education standards: Report of a sympo- sium. Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (1997b). Science teaching reconsidered. Committee on Undergraduate Science Education. Division on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded edition. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learn- ing. J.D. Bransford, A.L. Brown, and R.R. Cocking (Eds.). Committee on Behav- ioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Neuschatz, M., & McFarling, M. (1999). Maintaining momentum: High schoolphysics for a new millennium. College Park, MD: American Institute of Physics.

OCR for page 82
PHYSICS Redish, E.F., Steinberg, R.N., & Saul, J.M. (1998). The distribution and change of student expectations in introductory physics. In E.F. Redish, and J.S. Rigden (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on undergraduate physics education (199~. Washington DC: American Institute of Physics. Reif, F., & LarkinJ.H. (1991). Cognition in scientific and everyday domains: Compari- son and learning implications. Journal of Researob in Science Teaching, 28, 73 760. Roelofs, L.D. (1997). Preparing physics majors for secondary level teaching: The education concentration in the Haverford College physics program. American Journal of Physics, 65,1057-1059. Roth, W.M., & Lucas, K.B. (1997). From "truth" to "invented reality": A discourse analysis of high school physics students' talk about scientific knowledge. Jo?~r- nal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2),145-179. Serway, R.A., & Beichner, R.J. (2000). Physics for scientists and engineers. Philadel- phia: Saunders College. Shaffer, P.S., & McDermott, L.C. (1992). Research as a guide for curriculum develop- ment An example from introductory electricity. Part II: Design of instructional strategies. American Journal of Physics, 60(11), 100~1013. Sherin, B., diSessa, A. & Hammer, D. (1993) . Dynaturtle revisited: Learning physics through collaborative design of a computer model. Interactive Learning Enui- ronments, 3(2), 91-118. Sokoloff, D.R., Laws, P.W., & Thornton, R.K. (1994). Real time physics: Active learn- ing laboratories, mechanics. Medford, MA: Tufts University. Sokoloff, D.R., Laws, P.W., & Thornton, R.K. (1997). Real time physics: Active learn- ing laboratories, electric circuits. Eugene, OR: Department of Physics, Univer- sity of Oregon. Taylor, E.F., & Wheeler, J.A. (2001). Spacetime physics: Introduction to special relativ- ity, 2nd edition. New York: W.H. Freeman. Thornton, R. &, Sokoloff, D.R. (1990). Learning motion concepts using real-time micro- computer-based laboratory tools. Amercian Journal of Physics, 58(9), 85~66. Thornton, R.K., & Sokoloff, D.R. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton's laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66(4), 338-352. van Zee, E.H., & Minstrell, J.A. (1997). Reflective discourse: Developing shared under- standings in a physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 209-228. Wells, M., Hestenes, D, & Swackhamer, G. (1995). A modeling method for high- school physics instruction. American Journal of Physics, 63(7), 606-619. White, B.Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Mak- ing science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), ~118. Wilensky, U., & Resnick., M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems perspec- tive to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technol- ogy, 8(1), ~19. Wosilait, K., Heron, P.R.L., Shaffer, P.S., & McDermott, L.C. (1999). Addressing stu- dent difficulties in applying a wave model to the interference, and diffraction of light. American Jo2~rnal of Physics, 67~7), S5-S15. 483