Comparing three methods for teaching Newton's third law

Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2007, Pages

  Smith, Trevor I ^a   Wittmann, Michael C ^a  

^a University of Maine   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35748983829     PISSN: 15549178     EISSN: 15549178     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.3.020105     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. N. D. Finkelstein and S. J. Pollock, Replicating and understanding successful innovations: Implementing tutorials in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. St Phys. Educ. Res. 1, 010101 (2005).
2. L. C. McDermott and E. F. Redish, Resource letter: PER-1: Physics education research, Am. J. Phys. 67, 755 (1999).
3. L. C. McDermott, Millikan Lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned - closing the gap, Am. J. Phys. 59, 301 (1991).
4. L. C. McDermott, Oersted Medal Lecture 2001: Physics education research - the key to student learning, Am. J. Phys. 69, 1127 (2001).
5. L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and the University of Washington's Physics Education Group, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002).
6. E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories, Am. J. Phys. 65, 45 (1997).
7. M. C. Wittmann, R. N. Steinberg, and E. F. Redish, Activity-Based Tutorials Volume 1: Introductory Physics (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2004).
8. M. C. Wittmann, R. N. Steinberg, and E. F. Redish, Investigating student understanding of quantum physics: Spontaneous models of conductivity, Am. J. Phys. 68, 218 (2002).
9. M. C. Wittmann, R. N. Steinberg, and E. F. Redish, Understanding and affecting student reasoning about sound waves, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 991 (2003).
10. D. Hammer and A. Elby, Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics, J. Learn. Sci. 12, 53 (2003).
11. D. Hammer, Student resources for learning introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 68, (Physics, Education, Research, Suppl.), S52 (2000).
12. A. Elby, Helping physics students learn how to learn, Am. J. Phys. 69, (Physics, Education, Research, Suppl.), S54 (2001).
13. This was found to be true for students at UMaine and has been reported anecdotally at other institutions.
14. M. C. Wittmann, R. N. Steinberg, and E. F. Redish, Making sense of students making sense of mechanical waves, Phys. Teach. 37, 15 (1999).
15. L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part I: Investigation of student understanding, Am. J. Phys. 60, 994 (1992).
16. We make explicit that one author, M.C.W., is lead author on the published ABT materials (Ref. 7). The original authors of the tutorial were Jeffery T. Saul, John Lello, Richard N. Steinberg, and Edward F. Redish. We used the published version as revised by Michael C. Wittmann and Richard N. Steinberg.
17. 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).
18. The original analysis was carried out as part of a senior thesis by one author, T.I.S., and used analysis methods he created. Only later did we revise this analysis into the language used this paper.
19. D. Hammer, E. F. Redish, A. Elby, and R. E. Scherr, in Resources, framing, and transfer, in Transfer of Learning: Research and Perspectives, edited by J. Mestre (Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC, 2004).
20. J. Minstrell, Facets of students' knowledge and relevant instruction in Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Studies, Proceedings of an International Workshop, Bremen, Germany 1991, edited by R. Duit, F. Goldberg, and H. Niedderer (IPN, Kiel, 1992), pp. 110-128.
21. 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. 70, 766 (2002).
22. J. Clement, Students preconceptions in introductory mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 50, 66 (1982).
23. Since, we are later interested in changes in numbers of facets used and are not considering percentages, the difference between six or seven possible total facets used is not relevant to our analysis.
24. http://perlnet.umaine.edu/materials/
25. Ron Thornton (private communication).
26. 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).