Model analysis: Representing and assessing the dynamics of student learning

(Some reference links may require a separate subscription.)

1. L. C. McDermott and E. F. Redish, Resource Letter PER-01: Physics Education Research, Am. J. Phys. 67, 755 (1999) [SPIN][INSPEC].
2. A. diSessa, Towards an epistemology of physics, Cogn. Instruct. 10, 105 (1993).
3. J. Minstrell, in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies, Proceedings of an International Workshop, Bremen, Germany, edited by R. Duit, F. Goldberg, and H. Niedderer (IPN, Kiel, Germany, 1992) p. 110.
4. L. Viennot, Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics, Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1, 205 (1979); I. A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, The initial knowledge state of college physics students, Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043 (1985) [SPIN][INSPEC]; and, Common sense concepts about motion,, 1056 (1985) [CrossRef][SPIN][INSPEC]; J. Clement, Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics, 50, 66 (1982); and many others [CrossRef][SPIN][INSPEC].
5. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhammer, Force concept inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992) [SPIN].
6. 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, 338 (1998) [SPIN][INSPEC].
7. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (Prentice-Hall, New York, 1997).
8. P. Thagard, Mind: Introduction to Cognitive Science (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 1996).
9. J. M. Fuster, Memory in the Cerebral Cortex (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999).
10. J. Bransford, A. Brown, and R. Cocking, How People Learn (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1999).
11. J. R. Anderson and C. Lebiere, The Atomic Components of Thought (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1998).
12. A. Baddeley, Human Memory: Theory and Practice (Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA, 1997).
13. E. R. Kandel, J. H. Schwartz, and T. M. Jessell, Principles of Neural Science, 4th ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2000); P. S. Churchland and T. J. Sejwnowski, The Computational Brain (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993).
14. E. F. Redish, in Proceedings of the Varenna Summer School in Physics, ‘Enrico Fermi,” Course CLVI, Varenna, Italy, edited by E. F. Redish and M. Vicentini (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2004), p. 1.
15. D. Hammer, A. Elby, R. Scherr, and E. Redish, in Transfer of Learning: Research and Perspectives, edited by J. Mestre (Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, 2004), Chap. 3.
16. M. Sabella and E. F. Redish (unpublished).
17. R. Steinberg and M. Sabella, Performance on multiple-choice diagnostics and complementary exam problems, Phys. Teach. 35, 150 (1997) [SPIN].
18. Handbook of Psycholinguistics, edited by M. A. Gernsbacher (Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1994).
19. G. Morgan, Images of Organization (Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, 1986).
20. A. H. Schoenfeld, Mathematical Problem Solving (Academic Press, Orlando, FL, 1985).
21. A. diSessa and B. L. Sherin, What changes in conceptual change?, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 1155 (1998).
22. A. Caramazza, M. McCloskey, and B. Green, Naive beliefs in “sophisticated” subjects: misconceptions about trajectories of objects, Cognition 9, 117 (1981) [CAS].
23. S. Vosniadou, Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change, Learn. Instr. 4, 45 (1994).
24. V. Otero, in Ref. 14, p. 409.
25. D. Norman, in Mental Models, edited by D. Gentner and A. L. Stevens (Lea Publishing, Hillsdale, NJ 1983), p. 1.
26. F. Reif and S. Allen, Cognition for interpreting scientific concepts: A study of acceleration, Cogn. Instruct. 9, 1 (1992).
27. D. P. Maloney and R. S. Siegler, Conceptual competition in physics learning, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 15, 283 (1993).
28. T. Shallice, From Neuropsychology to Mental Structure (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1998).
29. C. Spearman, “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured, Am. J. Psychol., 15, 201 (1904).
30. L. Bao, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, 1999.
31. L. Bao, K. Hogg, and D. Zollman, Model analysis of fine structures of student models: An example with Newton's third law, Am. J. Phys. (PER Suppl.) 70, S766 (2002).
32. F. Marton, Phenomenography–a research approach to investigating different understandings of reality, J. Thought 21 (3), 28 (1986).
33. E. T. Rolls and A. Treves, Neural Networks and Brain Function (Oxford University Press, New York, 1998).
34. L. Bao and E. F. Redish, Concentration analysis: A quantitative assessment of student states, Am. J. Phys. (PER Suppl.) 69, S45 (2001) [SPIN][INSPEC].
35. A. Champagne, L. Klopfer, and J. Anderson, Factors influencing the learning of classical mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 48, 1074 (1980) [SPIN][INSPEC].
36. J. Clement, Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 50, 66 (1982) [SPIN][INSPEC].
37. I. Galili and V. Bar, Motion implies force: where to expect vestiges of the misconception?, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 14, 63 (1992).
38. I. A. Halloun and D. Hestenes, The initial knowledge state of college physics students, Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043 (1985) [SPIN][INSPEC]; and, Common sense concepts about motion,, 1056 (1985) [CrossRef][SPIN][INSPEC].
39. L. Bao (unpublished).
40. D. Huffman and P. Heller, What does the force concept inventory actually measure?, Phys. Teach. 33, 138 (1995) [SPIN].
41. K. G. Jöreskog, in Structural Equation Models in the Social Sciences, edited by A. S. Goldberger and O. D. Duncan (Seminar Press/Harcourt Brace, New York, 1973).
42. R. K. Hambleton and H. Swaminathan, Item Response Theory: Principles and Applications (Kluwer, Nijhoff, 1984).
43. R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998) [SPIN][INSPEC][ADS].