Upper-division students' difficulties with ampère's law

Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2010, Pages

  Wallace, Colin S ^a   Chasteen, Stephanie V ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649384209     PISSN: 15549178     EISSN: 15549178     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020115     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. J. Guisasola, J. M. Almundí, J. Salinas, K. Zuza, and M. Ceberio, The Gauss and Ampere laws: different laws but similar difficulties for student learning, Eur. J. Phys. 29, 1005 (2008).
2. C. A. Manogue, K. Browne, T. Dray, and B. Edwards, Why is Ampère's law so hard? A look at middle-division physics, Am. J. Phys. 74, 344 (2006)
3. S. V. Chasteen and S. J. Pollock, Transforming Upper-Division Electricity and Magnetism, PERC Procedings 2008(AIPPress, New York, 2008).
4. S. V. Chasteen and S. J. Pollock, A Research-Based Approach to Assessing Student Learning Issues in Upper-Division Electricity & Magnetism, PERC Proceedings 2009 (AIP Press, New York, 2009).
5. S. V. Chasteen and S. J. Pollock, Tapping into Juniors' Understanding of E&M: The Colorado Upper-Division Electrostatics (CUE) Diagnostic, PERC Proceedings 2009 (AIP Press, New York, 2009).
6. All course materials for this transformed version of junior E and MI-including tutorials-may be found e-linkurlwww.colorado.edu/sei/departments/physics-3310.htm/url/e-link
7. A. A. diSessa, Toward an Epistemology of Physics, Cogn. Instruct. 10, 105 (1993).
8. D. C. Meredith and K. A. Marrongelle, How students use mathematical resources in an electrostatics context, Am. J. Phys. 76, 570 (2008).
9. B. L. Sherin, How Students Understand Physics Equations, Cogn. Instruct. 19, 479 (2001).
10. F. Erickson, in Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd ed., edited by M. C. Wittrock (Macmillian Publishing Company, New York, 1986), pp. 119-161.
11. D. J. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. (Prentice Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999), pp. 225-230.
12. M. G. M. Ferguson-Hessler and T. de Jong, On the quality of knowledge in the field of electricity and magnetism, Am. J. Phys. 55, 492 (1987).
13. S. J. Pollock, Longitudinal study of student conceptual understanding in electricity and magnetism, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020110(2009).
14. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1997).
15. V. K. Otero and D. B. Harlow, title typecontributorGetting Started in Qualitative Physics Education Research, in/title title typejournalReviews in PER Vol. 2: Getting Started in PER,/title misctextedited by C. Henderson and K. A. Harper (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD/misctext, date2009)/date, e-linkurlhttp://www.per-central.org/document/ ServeFile.cfmID9122/url/e-link
16. D. A. de Wolf, Ampère's Law for a Linear Uniform Cylindrical Current, IEEE Trans. Educ. 50, 256 (2007).
17. T. J. Bing and E. F. Redish, Analyzing problem solving using math in physics: Epistemological framing via warrants, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020108 (2009).
18. A. H. Schoenfeld, What's All the Fuss About Metacognition?, in Cognitive Science and Mathematics Education, edited by A. H. Schoenfeld (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1987), pp. 189-215.
19. C. Singh, Student understanding of symmetry and Gauss's law of electricity, Am. J. Phys. 74, 923 (2006).