Why we should teach the Bohr model and how to teach it effectively

(Some reference links may require a separate subscription.)

1. H. Fischler and M. Lichtfeld, in Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies, edited by R. Duit, F. Goldberg, and H. Niedderer (IPN, Kiel, 1992), pp. 240–258.
2. H. Fischler and M. Lichtfeld, Modern physics and students’ conceptions, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 14, 181 (1992).
3. R. Blanco and M. Niaz, Baroque tower on a gothic base: A lakatosian reconstruction of students’ and teachers’ understanding of structure of the atom, Sci. Educ. 7, 327 (1998).
4. R. Justi and J. Gilbert, History and philosophy of science through models: Some challenges in the case of ‘the atom,’ Int. J. Sci. Educ. 22, 993 (2000).
5. M. Budde, H. Niedderer, P. Scott, and J. Leach, ‘Electronium:’ a quantum atomic teaching model, Phys. Educ. 37, 197 (2002).
6. M. Budde, H. Niedderer, P. Scott, and J. Leach, The quantum atomic model ‘Electronium:’ a successful teaching tool, Phys. Educ. 37, 204 (2002).
7. R. Müller and H. Wiesner, Teaching quantum mechanics on an introductory level, Am. J. Phys. 70, 200 (2002) [SPIN].
8. G. Kalkanis, P. Hadzidaki, and D. Stavrou, An instructional model for a radical conceptual change towards quantum mechanics concepts, Sci. Educ. 87, 257 (2003).
9. J. Petri and H. Niedderer, A learning pathway in high-school level quantum atomic physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 20, 1075 (1998).
10. J. L. Ke, M. Monk, and R. Duschl, Learning introductory quantum physics: Sensori-motor experiences and mental models, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 27, 1571 (2005).
11. A. G. Harrison and D. F. Treagust, Learning about atoms, molecules, and chemical bonds: A case study of multiple-model use in grade 11 chemistry, Sci. Educ. 84, 352 (2000).
12. K. Taber, When the analogy breaks down: modeling the atom on the solar system, Phys. Educ. 36, 222 (2001).
13. I. A. Halloun, Modeling Theory in Science Education (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 2004).
14. National Research Council, National Science Education Standards (National Academy, Washington, DC, 1996).
15. D. Gentner and A. L. Stevens, Mental Models (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1983).
16. A. diSessa, Towards an epistemology of physics, Cogn. Instruct.10, 105 (1993).
17. A. Elby and D. Hammer, On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology, Sci. Educ. 85, 54 (2001).
18. National Research Council, Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8 (National Academy, Washington, DC, 1996).
19. N. Bohr, On the constitution of atoms and molecules, Philos. Mag. 26, 1 (1913) [CrossRef][CAS].
20. L. de Broglie, Ph.D. thesis, Paris University, 1924.
21. E. Schrödinger, Quantisierung als eigenwertproblem, Ann. Phys. 386, 109 (1926).
22. P. Loeblein (private communication).
23. Jefferson County Public Schools, Chemistry Performance Expectations, 2005.
24. D. A. Zollman, N. S. Rebello, and K. Hogg, Quantum mechanics for everyone: Hands-on activities integrated with technology, Am. J. Phys. 70, 252 (2002) [SPIN].
25. P. R. Fletcher, Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney, 2004.
26. G. Ireson, The quantum understanding of pre-university physics students, Phys. Educ. 35, 15 (2000).
27. D. T. Brookes, Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University, 2006.
28. D. T. Brookes and E. Etkina, Using conceptual metaphor and functional grammar to explore how language used in physics affects student learning, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010105 (2007).
29. L. Grosslight, C. Unger, E. Jay, and C. L. Smith, Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 28, 799 (1991).
30. J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (National Academy, Washington, DC, 1999).
31. S. B. McKagan, K. K. Perkins, and C. E. Wieman, Reforming a large lecture modern physics course for engineering majors using a PER-based design, in 2006 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, edited by L. McCullough, P. Heron, and L. Hsu (AIP Press, Melville, NY, 2007).
32. http://per.colorado.edu/modern.
33. B. Berardi-Coletta, L. S. Buyer, R. L. Dominowski, and E. R. Rellinger, Metacognition and problem solving: A process-oriented approach, J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn.21, 205 (1995).
34. D. Dykstra, American Association of Physics Teachers National Summer Meeting, 2006 (unpublished).
35. http://phet.colorado.edu.
36. S. B. McKagan, W. Handley, K. K. Perkins, and C. E. Wieman, A research-based curriculum for teaching the photoelectric effect, Am. J. Phys. (arXiv:physics/0706.2165).
37. J. Loewenstein, L. Thompson, and D. Gentner, Analogical learning in negotiation teams: Comparing cases promotes learning and transfer, Academy of Management Learning and Education 2, 119 (2003).
38. F. Marton, Sameness and difference in transfer, J. Learn. Sci. 15, 499 (2006).
39. J. D. Bransford and D. Schwartz, in Review of Research in Education, edited by A. Iran-Nejad and P. D. Pearson (American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC, 1999), Vol. 24, p. 61.
40. S. B. McKagan, K. K. Perkins, M. Dubson, C. Malley, S. Reid, R. LeMaster, and C. E. Wieman, Developing and researching PhET simulations for teaching quantum mechanics Am. J. Phys (to be published May 2008).
41. E. Etkina, A. Van Heuvelen, S. White-Brahmia, D. T. Brookes, M. Gentile, S. Murthy, D. Rosengrant, and A. Warren, Scientific abilities and their assessment, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020103 (2006).
42. E. Etkina and A. V. Heuvelen, Investigative Science Learning Environment: Using the processes of science and cognitive strategies to learn physics, in 2001 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, edited by S. Franklin, J. Marx, K. Cummings, (Rochester, NY, 2001) http://piggy.rit.edu/franklin/perc2001/Brahmia.doc.
43. L. C. McDermott and the Physics Education Group, Physics by Inquiry (Wiley, New York, 1996), Vols. 1 and 2.
44. F. Goldberg, S. Robinson, and V. Otero, Physics for Elementary Teachers (PET) (Its About Time, Armonk, 2005).
45. P. Heron, Physics Education Research Conference, 2004 (unpublished).
46. All statistics were calculated using a one-tailed Z test under the hypothesis that the treatment would lead to a decrease in the exclusive use of the Bohr model and an increase in the use of the Schrödinger model, use of multiple models, explicit discussion of models, and mention of the limitations of the Bohr model.