Acting like a physicist: Student approach study to experimental design

(Some reference links may require a separate subscription.)

1. R. W. Bybee and B. Fuchs, “Preparing the 21st century workforce: A new reform in science and technology education,” J. Res. Sci. Teach. 43, 349 (2006).
2. P. Chin, H. Munby, N. L. Hutchinson, J. Taylor, and F. Clark, in Reconsidering Science Learning, edited by E. Scanlon, P. Murphy, J. Thomas, A. Whitelegg, and E. Whitelegg (Routledge Falmer, London, 2004), p. 118.
3. M. Coles, in Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium of IOSTE, edited by K. Colhoun, R. Panwar, and S. Shrum (University of Alberta Press, Edmonton, 1997), Vol. 1, p. 292.
4. edited by R. Gott, S. Duggan, and P. Johnson, “What do practicing applied scientists do and what are the implications for science education?,” Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 17, 97 (1999).
5. E. Lottero-Perdue and N. W. Brickhouse, “Learning on the job: The acquisition of scientific competence,” Sci. Educ. 86, 756 (2002).
6. S. Duggan and R. Gott, “What sort of science education do we really need?,” Int. J. Sci. Educ. 24, 661 (2002).
7. Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop, edited by R. A. McCray, R. L. DeHaan, and J. A. Schuck (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2003), http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309089298/html.
8. Committee on the Engineer of 2020, Phase II, Committee on Engineering Education, National Academy of Engineering (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2005), http://nap.edu/catolog/11338.html.
9. National Research Council,National Science Education Standards (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996).
10. Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K–8, edited by R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, and A. W. Shouse (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2007).
11. R. Czujko, in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities, edited by E. F. Redish and J. S. Rigden, AIP Conf. Proc. No. 399 (AIP, Woodbury, NY, 1997), p. 213.
12. J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1999).
13. E. Etkina and A. Van Heuvelen, Investigative Science Learning Environment: Using the processes of science and cognitive strategies to learn physics, in Proceedings of the 2001 Physics Education Research Conference, edited by S. Franklin, J. Marx, and K. Cummings, (Rochester, NY, 2001), p. 17.
14. E. Etkina, A. Van Heuvelen, S. White-Brahmia, D. Brookes, M. Gentile, S. Murthy, D. Rosengrant, and A. Warren, “Scientific abilities and their assessment,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020103 (2006).
15. A. Lawson, “What Does Galileo’s Discovery of Jupiter’s Moons Tell Us About the Process of Scientific Discovery?,” Sci. Educ. 11, 1 (2002).
16. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).
17. P. Heller and M. Hollabaugh, “Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups,” Am. J. Phys. 60, 637 (1992) [SPIN][INSPEC][ADS].
18. E. Etkina, S. Murthy, and X. Zou, “Using introductory labs to engage students in experimental design,” Am. J. Phys. 74, 979 (2006) [SPIN].
19. S. Murthy and E. Etkina, in Physics Education Research Conference, edited by J. Marx and S. Franklin, AIP Conf. Proc. No. 790 (AIP, Melville, NY, 2004), p. 133.
20. A complete set of rubrics is available at http://paer.rutgers.edu/scientificabilities.
21. E. Etkina, A. Van Heuvelen, D. Brookes, S. Murthy, A. Karelina, and M. Villasenor, in Proceedings of a National STEM Assessment Conference, Washington, DC, October 19–21, 2006, edited by Donald G. Deeds and Bruce W. Callen, National Science Foundation and Drury University, 2008.
22. V. Otero, The process of learning about static electricity and the role of the computer simulator, Ph.D. Thesis (San Diego University, 2001), http://education.colorado.edu/faculty/oterov/Otero_Dissertation.htm.
23. P. Adey and M. Shayer, An Exploration of Long-Term Far-Transfer Effects Following an Extended Intervention Program in the High School Science Curriculum, Cognition and instruction 11, 1 (1993).
24. A. F. Artzt and E. Armour-Thomas, Development of a Cognitive-Metacognitive Framework for Protocol Analysis of Mathematical Problem Solving in Small Groups, Cognition and instruction 9, 137 (1992).
25. R. Lippmann and the Physics Education Research Group, Analyzing students’ use of metacognition during laboratory activities, in AREA Meeting (New Orleans, 2002), available at http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/papers/lippmann/meta_lab.pdf.
26. R. Lippman Kung, A. Danielson, and C. Linder, Metacognition in the students laboratory: Is increased metacognition necessarily better, in EARLI symposium (2005), available at http://www.anst.uu.se/rekun676/meta.pdf.
27. A. Karelina and E. Etkina, in Physics Education Research Conference, edited by Laura McCullough, Leon Hsu and Paula Heron. AIP Conf. Proc. No. 883 (AIP, Melville, NY, 2007), p. 93.