Resource Letter PhD-2: Physics Demonstrations expanded version


Visual Quantum Mechanics: Selected Topics with Computer-Generated Animations of Quantum-Mechanical Phenomena



Download 303.48 Kb.
Page6/7
Date20.10.2016
Size303.48 Kb.
#6626
1   2   3   4   5   6   7

Visual Quantum Mechanics: Selected Topics with Computer-Generated Animations of Quantum-Mechanical Phenomena, Bernd Thaller (Springer, 2000). Book with CD containing Mathematica applications to quantum mechanics problems. This book with the CD is considered among the highest quality quantum mechanics material available. (I)

  • Advanced Visual Quantum Mechanics, Bernd Thaller (Springer, 2004). This is the second of a two-volume set, also including a CD. The first book features one- and two-dimensional problems and the second featuring three-dimensional problems. (I,A)

  • http://library.thinkquest.org/27948/home.shtml, Physics by Demonstrations, (Oracle ThinkQuest, 1999). “Projects by students for students.” Set of 21 simulations covering most major topics in physics. (E)



    1. Physics Education Research involving demonstrations and simulations

    Beginning by about 1980, serious study was initiated in the area to be known later as “Physics Education Research.” Initially, the results of this research were published in The Physics Teacher and The American Journal of Physics; in 1999 the AJP began to issue supplements for Physics Education Research once or twice a year. In 2005 this research area was formally recognized by the American Physical Society, with its own journal: Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research has been published twice yearly since that time. One of the sub-topics included in this endeavor is the use of demonstrations in physics teaching. Investigations have included whether demonstrations actually have any value in teaching, or are more of a distraction, a confusing influence or simply entertainment. Quantitative and qualitative techniques for the teaching and the evaluation of learning using demonstrations have been developed, and using these techniques studies have been carried out regarding the best techniques for use of demonstrations in the classroom and lecture hall.

    1. “Resource Letter: PER-1: Physics Education Research,” Lillian C. McDermott and Edward F. Redish, Am. J. Phys. 67, 755-767 (1999). This is an outstanding, and very complete, bibliography of materials from the earlier period of Physics Education Research, including earlier bibliographical reference materials and well documented conference proceedings. One of the important topics of then current research regards the effectiveness of demonstrations in teaching physics; a large section of the document is subdivided into detailed studies in learning in the various topics of general physics, with smaller sections detailing the state of other significant aspects of student learning, such as learning of concepts and how to apply mathematics to physics. (A)

    2. Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual, Eric Mazur (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997). Professor Mazur has pioneered the concept of Peer Instruction (PI), often using a demonstration as the centerpiece of a discussion regarding the physics topic under study. In PI using demonstrations, students are given the opportunity to vote as to the outcome of a demonstration experiment before the experiment is carried out, then given the opportunity to further discuss the outcome after seeing the demonstration. This provides the student with some additional motivation in learning the subject matter as well as the opportunity to learn from each other. This book provides help with the procedure as well as a large number of questions and demonstrations. (A)

    3. Review of “Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual,” Mark D. Sommers, Am. J. Phys. 67, 359-360 (1999). The American Journal of Physics review of “Peer Instruction.” (A)

    4. https://galileo.harvard.edu/login/, Interactive Learning Toolkit, Link to the web site where ConcepTest questions can be exchanged among interested teachers. You must obtain a password to gain access to this site; instructions on site. (A)

    5. Just-in-Time Teaching, Gregor M. Novak, Evelyn T. Patterson, Andrew D. Gavrin, and Wolfgang Christian (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458, 1999). From the cover material: “[JiTT] is an exciting new teaching and learning methodology designed to engage students by using feedback from pre-class web assignments to adjust classroom lessons so that students receive rapid response to the specific questions and problems they are having.” The book includes some philosophy, strategies for implementation of this procedure, and lots of questions for use in most physics topics. The book should be very helpful to any teacher implementing JiTT, and even for general ideas regarding concept tests. (A)

    6. “Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results,” Catherine H. Crouch and Eric Mazur, Am. J. Phys. 69, 970-977 (2001). From the abstract: “We report data from ten years of teaching with Peer Instruction ~PI! in the calculus- and algebra-based introductory physics courses for nonmajors; our results indicate increased student mastery of both conceptual reasoning and quantitative problem solving upon implementing PI. We also discuss ways we have improved our implementation of PI since introducing it in 1991. Most notably, we have replaced in-class reading quizzes with pre-class written responses to the reading, introduced a research-based mechanics textbook for portions of the course, and incorporated cooperative learning into the discussion sections as well as the lectures. These improvements are intended to help students learn more from pre-class reading and to increase student engagement in the discussion sections, and are accompanied by further increases in student understanding.” (A)

    7. “Peer Instruction: Engaging students one-on-one, all at once,” Catherine Crouch, Jessica Watkins, Adam Fagen and Eric Mazur, in Reviews in Physics Education Research, edited by E.F. Redish and P. Cooney (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2007). From the abstract: “We describe Peer Instruction (hereafter PI) and report data from more than ten years of teaching with PI in the calculus- and algebra-based introductory physics courses for non-majors at Harvard University, where this method was developed. Our results indicate increased student mastery of both conceptual reasoning and quantitative problem solving upon implementing PI. Gains in student understanding are greatest when the PI questioning strategy is accompanied by other strategies that increase student engagement, so that every element of the course serves to involve students actively.” Experiences at several universities are included. (A)

    8. “Using JiTT with Peer Instruction,” Jessica Watkins and Eric Mazur, in Just in Time Teaching Across the Disciplines, edited by Scott Simkins and Mark Maier, pp. 39-62 (Stylus Publishing, Sterling, VA, 2009). From the abstract: “Separately, both JiTT and PI provide students with valuable feedback on their learning at different times in the process -- JiTT works asynchronously out of class, and PI gives real-time feedback. Together, these methods help students and instructors monitor learning as it happens, strengthening the benefits of this feedback.” (A)

    9. “Peer Instruction: From Harvard to Community Colleges,” Nathaniel Lasry, Eric Mazur and Jessica Watkins, Am. J. Phys. 76, 1066-1069 (2008). From the abstract: “…not previously reported are the following two findings: First, although students with more background knowledge benefit most from either type of instruction, PI students with less background knowledge gain as much as students with more background knowledge in traditional instruction. Second, PI methodology is found to decrease student attrition in introductory physics courses at both four-year and two-year institutions.” (A)

    10. “Peer Instruction: Results from a Range of Classrooms,” Adam P. Fagan, Catherine H. Crouch, and Eric Mazur, Phys. Teach. 40, 206-209 (2002). Summarizes results from PI use in University, four-year college, two-year college, and high school. (A)

    11. http://mazur.harvard.edu/publications.php?function=display&rowid=625, “Student Response Times to Conceptual Questions,” Nathaniel Lasry, Eric Mazur, Jessica Watkins and Douglas Mark Van Wieren. Response times under various circumstances, helpful in design of a curriculum using these questions. (A)

    12. http://www.wiley.com/college/sc/cummings/suite.html, The Physics Suite, Karen Cummings, Priscilla Laws, Edward F. Redish, Patrick Cooney, David Sokoloff, Ronald Thornton. From the web summary of the Suite: “Based upon Halliday, Resnick, and Walker’s FUNDAMENTALS OF PHYSICS 6e, this narrative text is designed to work with interactive learning strategies that are increasingly being used in physics instruction (for example, microcomputer-based labs, interactive lectures, etc.). In doing so, it incorporates new approaches based upon Physics Education Research (PER), aligns with courses that use computer-based laboratory tools, and promotes Activity Based Physics in lectures, labs, and recitations.” The Physics Suite includes a number of individual books, including the next two entries in this list. See the link for detailed description.

    13. http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~redish/Book, Teaching Physics With the Physics Suite, Edward F. Redish. As part of The Physics Suite, this wide-ranging book includes philosophy, practical advice, and lots of information about physics, physics learning, and physics education research, and contains an enormous bibliography of literature based on sound physics education research. It is certain to be helpful not only if you use the Physics Suite, but also in virtually any physics teaching endeavor. The link leads to a late version of the book before publication. (A)

    14. Interactive Lecture Demonstrations, Active Learning in Introductory Physics, D. R. Sokoloff and R. K. Thornton (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2004). This book, part of the Physics Suite, contains a large number of interactive lecture demonstrations, that is, questions based on the use of classroom demonstrations which are presented to the class during the discussion of the experiment, usually by way of prediction of the outcome of the demonstration. Graphs are used in lieu of complex calculations; many of the demonstrations involve plotting graphs obtained using probes available from Vernier or Pasco, so the student is familiarized with equipment that can also be used in the lab. Demonstrations, organized by topic, cover most areas of the general physics curriculum. This book contains a number of excellent ideas, and is well worth obtaining. (E)

    15. http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach/QOTW/active/questions.htm The Physics Question of the Week, Richard E. Berg (Physics Department, University of Maryland, 2001-2010). The Physics Question of the Week includes 365 physics “brainteaser” type questions in the form of demonstrations, which are asked and answered in the form of quick and relatively simple experiments, many of which are presented in video format. These are very useful as interactive demonstrations using the Peer Instruction technique. A topical list is linked at the beginning of the QOTW home page. (E)

    16. http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/ILD.htm, Interactive Lecture Demonstrations (ILDs) from the UMD PERG, The University of Maryland Physics Education Research Group (E. F. Redish, 2005). A group of worksheets for interactive physics demonstrations developed by the UM PERG. (A)

    17. http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/demonstrations/, Starting Point: Teaching Entry Level Geoscience, Dorothy Merritts, Robert Walter, Bob MacKay, Mark Maier, Rochelle Ruffer, Sue Stockly, and Ronald Thornton (Science Education Center, Carlton College, 2010). Almost 100 interactive lecture demonstrations, many of which look like physics, along with helpful introductory materials. (A)

    18. “The Introductory University Physics Project,” John S. Rigden, Donald F. Holcomb, and Rosanne Di Stefano, Phys. Today 64, 32-37 (1993). The Introductory University Physics Project (IUPP) was a major study of the calculus-based introductory physics courses at nine major American University physics departments. The goal of the study was to evaluate four new curriculum models that were developed for the project. This paper lays out the goals and the techniques used in implementing the research. Some of the preliminary results are presented in the next paper in this list. (A)

    19. “The IUPP evaluation: What we were trying to learn and how we were trying to learn it,” R. Di Stefano, Am. J. Phys. 64, 49-57 (1996). (A)

    20. “Preliminary IUPP results: Student reactions to in-class demonstrations and to the presentation of coherent themes,” R. Di Stefano, Am. J. Phys. 64, 58-68 (1996). Results of several years of study, lots of student interviews and surveys, and large group of examples. Some of the pre-test and the post-test questions are given. A very nice collection of references is given, including seminal articles describing the application of these ideas to several individual physics topics. (A)

    21. “Testing student interpretation of kinematics graphs,” Robert J. Beichner, Am. J. Phys. 62, 750-762 (1994). (A)

    22. “Intuitive Physics,” Michael McClosky, Sci. Am. 248(4), 122-130 (1983). This was a seminal paper involving young students’ understanding of Newton’s laws. Two important experiments from this work have been almost universally adopted in the teaching of elementary physics: (1) the trajectory of a ball moving in a circular track after it leaves the track, and (2) the trajectory of a projectile after it is released by a person moving along a straight path. (A)

    23. “Investigation of student understanding of the concept of velocity in one direction,” David E. Trowbridge and Lillian C. McDermott, Am. J. Phys.48, 1020-1028 (1980).

    24. “Aristotle is not dead: Student understanding of trajectory motion,” Robert J. Whitaker, Am. J. Phys. 51, 352-357 (1983).

    25. “Common sense concepts about motion,” Ibrahim Abou Halloun and David Hestenes, Am. J. Phys. 53, 1056-1065 (1985).

    26. “Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics,” John Clement, Am. J. Phys. 50, 66-71 (1982).

    27. “Student understanding in mechanics: A large population survey,” Richard F. Gunstone, Am. J. Phys. 55, 691-696 (1987).

    28. “A Mechanics Baseline Test,” D. Hestenes and M. Wells, Phys. Teach. 30, 159-166 (1992).

    29. “An investigation of student understanding of the real image formed by a converging lens or concave mirror,” Fred M. Goldberg and Lillian McDermott, Am. J. Phys. 55, 108-119 (1987). From the abstract: “Student understanding of the real images produced by converging lenses and concave mirrors was investigated both before and after instruction in geometrical optics.” Some of the misunderstandings and inaccurate knowledge of these problems by students in an algebra-based university physics class were analyzed. (A)

    30. “Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism,” David P. Maloney, Thomas L. O’Kuma, Curtis J. Hieggelke, and Alan Van Heuvelen, Am. J. Phys. 69, S12 (2001).

    31. ”Reverse-Engineering the Solution of a “Simple” Physics Problem: Why Learning Physics Is Harder Than It Looks,” Edward F. Redish, Rachel E. Scherr, and Jonathan Tuminaro, Phys. Teach. 44, 293-300 (2006).

    32. "Using Interactive Lecture Demonstrations to Create an Active Learning Environment", D.R. Sokoloff and R.K. Thornton, Phys. Teacher, 35, 340-347 (1997). Discussion of use of interactive lecture demonstrations base on the microcomputer-based laboratory to study and graph kinematics and dynamics problems. Nice examples and graphs are presented, along with useful data sheets and discussion questions. (A)

    33. Mechanics Interactive Lecture Demonstration Package (ILD), Vernier Software, Portland, Oregon (1999). Many of the researchers used this material in carrying out their research on interactive demonstrations. (E)

    34. “On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories,” E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, Am. J. Phys. 65, 45-54 (1997). Study of calculus based engineering physics classes dealing with instantaneous velocity and Newton’s third law; involved 11 lecture classes taught by 6 different teachers with and without tutorials. Showed that students in MBL tutorials tested better than students in traditional recitations. (A)

    35. “Computers in teaching science: To simulate or not to simulate?,” Richard N. Steinberg, Am. J. Phys. 68, S37 (2000). From the abstract: “I compare two classes which both had interactive learning environments. One class used the simulation and the other class used only a set of paper and pencil activities. In the two different learning environments, there appears to be differences in how students approached learning. However, student performance on a common exam question on air resistance was not significantly different.” (A)

    36. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997PhDT........54K, “Promoting Active Learning in Lecture-Based Courses: Demonstrations, Tutorials, and Interactive Tutorial Lectures,” Pamela Ann Kraus, Ph. D. dissertation, University of Washington, 1997, University Microfilms, UMI No. 9736313. From the abstract: “Results obtained early in the study suggested that many lecture demonstrations, as they are typically shown, do not assist students in the development of a functional understanding of the concepts that the demonstrations are intended to elucidate.” (A)

    37. http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake/Hake-SriLanka-Assessb.pdf, “Assessment of Physics Teaching Methods,” Richard R. Hake, Proceedings of the UNESCO-ASPEN Workshop on Active Learning in Physics, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, 2-4 December 2002. This paper discusses methods to assess the effectiveness of use of demonstrations on student learning of physics concepts, and suggests a general procedure. It should be noted that a variety of techniques have been used in this type of evaluation and there remains a large amount of controversy regarding the effectiveness of demonstrations as opposed to computer simulations, so this topic is significant. Almost 100 references are listed in the test, with direct links to on-line PDF versions of many papers. (A)

    38. “Classroom Demonstrations: Learning Tools or Entertainment?,” Catherine H. Crouch, Adam P. Fagen, John Paul Callan and Eric Mazur, Am. J. Phys., 72, 835-838 (2004). From the abstract: “Students who passively observe demonstrations understand the underlying concepts no better than students who do not see the demonstration at all. Students who predict the demonstration outcome before seeing it, however, display significantly greater understanding.” (A)

    39. http://conference.nie.edu.sg/paper/Converted%20Pdf/ab00705.pdf, “Teaching Electromagnetic Induction through the use of demonstrations,” Ning Hwee Tiang and R. Subramaniam, Conference: Redesigning Pedagogy: Transforming Teaching, Inspiring Learning, National Institute of Education, Singapore (May 2011). This is an interesting paper describing interactive physics teaching with demonstrations at a school for girls in Singapore. (A)

    40. http://www.compadre.org/per/items/detail.cfm?ID=2848, “Why May Students Fail to Learn from Demonstrations? A Social Practice Perspective on Learning in Physics,” Wolff-Michael Roth, Campbell J. McRobbie, Keith B. Lucas, and Sylvie Boutonne, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 10, 509-533 (1997). Review by Ella Burkhalter, September 12, 2006, http://students.ou.edu/B/Ella.M.Burkhalter-1/pdf/journalreview.pdf

    41. “Role of Experiments in Physics Instruction – A Process Approach,” E. Etkina, A. Van Heuvelen, D. T. Brookes, and D. Mills, Phys. Teach. 40, 351-355 (2002). This paper discusses observational, testing, and concept application types of experiments, along with some of their goals, and the pedagogical approaches used. (A)

    42. “Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,” R. Hake, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64-74 (1998). (A)

    43. “Use of interactive lecture demonstrations: A ten year study,” Manjula D. Sharma, Ian D. Johnston, Helen Johnston, Kevin Varvell, Gordon Robertson, Andrew Hopkins, Chris Stewart, Ian Cooper, and Ronald Thornton, Phys. Rev. ST Physics Ed. Research 6, 020119 (2010) [9 pages]. From the abstract: “This paper reports on learning gains for two different Projects over ten years. In Project 1, the ILDs were implemented from 1999 to 2001 with students who had successfully completed senior high school physics. The learning gains for students not exposed to the ILDs were in the range 13% to 16% while those for students exposed to the ILDs was 31% to 50%. In Project 2, the ILDs were implemented from 2007 to 2009 with students who had not studied senior high school physics. Since the use of ILDs in Project 1 had produced positive results, ethical considerations dictated that all students be exposed to ILDs. The learning gains were from 28% to 42%. On the one hand it is pleasing to note that there is an increase in learning gains, yet on the other, we note that the gains are nowhere near the claimed 80%.” (A)

    44. “Teaching Physics: Figuring Out What Works,” E. F. Redish and R.N. Steinberg, Physics Today 52, 24-30 (1999).

    45. “An Implementation of Physics By Inquiry in a Large-Enrollment Class,” Rachel Scherr, Phys. Teach. 41 113-118 (2003). (A)

    46. “Transforming the lecture hall environment: The fully interactive physics lecture,” David E. Meltzer and Kandiah Manivannan, Am. J. Phys. 70, 639-654 (2002). This is a long and detailed article, describing in depth the experiences of the authors in teaching an introductory physics class for a period of seven years. They used interactive demonstrations in the Mazur Peer Instruction mode, finding this method very effective. The article includes a reference list of 94 items! (A)

    47. “Evaluating Innovation in Studio Physics,” Karen Cummings, Jeffrey Marx, Ronald Thornton, and Dennis Kuhl, Am. J. Phys. 67 S1, S38-S44 (1999). Summary of conceptual learning gain in studio physics engineering physics course at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute during the period from 1993 to 1999. (A)

    48. http://www.compadre.org/per/items/detail.cfm?ID=10575, “Comparing Student Learning in Mechanics Using Simulations and Hands-on Activities,” Adrian Carmichael, Jacquelyn J. Chini, N. Sanjay Rebello, and Sadhana Puntambekar, Physics Education Research Conference 2010, Part of the PER Conference series, Portland, Oregon: July 21-22, 2010, Volume 1289, Pages 89-92. Quoting from the abstract: “Students in three of five conceptual physics laboratory sections completed the physical experiment while the other two sections performed the virtual experiment. The experiments were part of a unit on simple machines from the CoMPASS curriculum which integrates hypertext-based concept maps in a design-based context. There was no statistically significant difference between the pre and post data of the students in the two groups. Students who performed the virtual experiment were able to answer questions dealing with work and potential energy more correctly, though neither group was able to offer sound reasoning to support their answers.” (A)

    49. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.3660310305/abstract;jsessionid=9372C49DE9595B15DDCE5FD4935EBD07.d02t03 “The impact of a science demonstration on children's understandings of air pressure,” Daniel P. Shepardson, Elizabeth B. Moje, Amy M. Kennard-McClelland, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 31, 243–258, March 1994. This paper is available for purchase on line from the Wiley On-Line Library. From the published abstract: “Constructivist theory guided our investigation of the impact of a scientific demonstration on children's understandings of air pressure. Primary data sources included children's written and oral interview responses. For one-third of the children, the demonstration reinforced previous understandings. These children appeared to utilize their prior knowledge and experiences to construct the purpose and meaning of the demonstration. Therefore, these children's understandings were not sufficiently challenged by observing the demonstration or the social interactions that occurred. Recommendations for using demonstrations to promote children's scientific understandings are presented herein.” (A)

    50. http://gng.phooeyhoo.com/modeling/hestenes.pdf, “Toward a modeling theory of physics instruction,” David Hestenes, Am. J. Phys.
      Download 303.48 Kb.

      Share with your friends:
    • 1   2   3   4   5   6   7



    The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
    send message
        Main page
    american association
    american journal
    information necessary
    materials covered
    principal features