Teaching physics in a physiologically meaningful manner

Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2010, Pages

  Plomer, Michael ^a   Jessen, Karsten ^a   Rangelov, Georgi ^a   Meyer, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649389434     PISSN: 15549178     EISSN: 15549178     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020116     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. A. B. Arons, Guiding Insight and Inquiry in the Introductory Physics Laboratory, Phys. Teach. 31, 278 (1993).
2. American Association of Physics Teachers, Goals of the Introductory Physics Laboratory, Am. J. Phys. 66, 483 1998.
3. M. Welzel et al., Teachers' Objectives for Labwork. Research Tool and Cross Country Results, in Working Paper 6 from the European project Labwork in Science Education (Targeted Socio-Economic Research Program, Project PL 95-2005), 1998.
4. H. Theyßen, Ein Physikpraktikum für Studierende der Medizin (Logos Verlag, Berlin), 2000.
5. A. Hofstein and V. N. Lunetta, The Role of the Laboratory in Science Teaching: Neglected Aspects of Research, Rev. Educ. Res. 52, 201 1982.
6. V. N. Lunetta, in International Handbook of Science Teaching, edited by B. Fraser and K. Tobin Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1998, pp. 249-264.
7. A. Hofstein and R. Mamlok-Naaman, The laboratory in science education: the state of the art, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 8, 105 2007.
8. W. S. Toothacker, A critical look at introductory instruction, Am. J. Phys. 51, 516 1983.
9. V. N. Lunetta, A. Hofstein, and M. Clough, in Handbook of Research on Science Education, edited by N. Lederman and S. Abel Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, New York, 2007, pp. 393-441.
10. T. S. Volkwyn, S. Allie, and A. Buffler, Impact of a conven- tional introductory laboratory course on the understanding of measurement, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010108 2008.
11. AAMC-HHMI, Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians, http://www.hhmi.org/grants/sffp.html most recently accessed June 23rd 2010. 24
12. P. Tamir and V. N. Lunetta, Inquiry Related Tasks in High School Science Laboratory Handbooks, Sci. Educ. 65, 477 1981.
13. G. Kortemeyer, The Challenge of Teaching Introductory Phys- 25 ics to Premedical Students, Phys. Teach. 45, 552 2007.
14. P. S. Shaffer and L. C. McDermott, Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory elec- tricity. Part II: Design of instructional strategies, Am. J. Phys. 26 60, 1003 1992.
15. E. R. Kandel, J. H. Schwartz, and T. M. Jessell, Principles of 27 Neural Science (Mcgraw-Hill Professional, 2000), pp. 105-174.
16. A. L. Hodgkin and A. F. Huxley, A quantitative description of 28 membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve, J. Physiol. 117,500 1952.
17. I. Herman, Physics of the Human Body: A Physical View of Physiology (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2007), pp. 720-742.
18. C. Koch, Biophysics of Computation: Information Processing 30 in Single Neurons Oxford University Press, New York, 1999.
19. Fakultät für Physik der LMU München-Physikalische Prak- tika, Praktikum der Physik für Studierende der Humanmedizin. 31 Anleitungen zu den Experimentellen Übungen, http://www.physik.uni-muenchen.de/studium/praktikum/medizin/versuche/versuche.htm for login contact georgi.rangelov@physik.uni-muenchen.de.
20. Physiologisches Institut der LMU München, Anleitung zum physiologischen Praktikum: Teil 1-Neurophysiologie. Teil 2-Vegetative Physiologie (München, 2009).
21. J. D. Novak, Concept mapping: a useful tool for science education, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 27, 937 1990.
22. D. C. Rice, J. M. Ryan, and S. M. Samson, Using Concept Maps to Assess Student Learning in the Science Classroom: Must Different Methods Compete? J. Res. Sci. Teach. 35, 1103 1998.
23. J. Peuckert, Schulische Wissensdiagnose mittels Concept Mapping, edited by DPG, Didaktik der Physik-Vorträge, Tagung 1999, pp. 215-220.
24. M. A. Ruiz-Primo, S. E. Schulz, M. Li, and R. J. Shavelson, Comparison of the Reliability and Validity of Scores from Two Concept-Mapping-Techniques, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 38, 260 2001.
25. Y. Yin, J. Vanides, M. A. Ruiz-Primo, C. C. Ayala, and R. J. Shavelson, Comparison of Two Concept Mapping Techniques: Implications for Scoring, Interpretation and Use, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 42, 166 2005.
26. Institut für medizinische und pharmazeutische Prüfungsfragen, http://www.impp.de/ most recently accessed March 24th 2010. R. Donan, Basic Measurement and Evaluation in Science Instruction National Science Teachers Association, Washington DC, 1980, p. 97.
27. R. Donan, Basic Measurement and Evaluation in Science Instruction (National Science Teachers Association, Washington DC, 1980), p. 97
28. L. Cronbach, Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika 16, 297 1951.
29. L. Ding and R. Beichner, Approaches to data analysis of multiple-choice questions, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020103 2009.
30. J. R. McClure, B. Sonak, and H. K. Suen, Concept Map As- sessment of Classroom Learning: Reliability, Validity and Lo- gistical Practically, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 36,475 1999.
31. J. D. Novak and D. B. Gowin, Learning How to Learn (Cam- bridge University Press, New York), 1984.
32. Zentralstelle für die Vergabe von Studienplätzen, Auswahl- grenzen, http://www2.zvs.de/ most recently accessed March 23rd 2010.
33. J. Landis and G. Koch, The measurement of observer agree- ment for categorical data, Biometrics 33, 159 1977.
34. J. Cohen, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Routledge Academic, 1988, p. 83.
35. M. A. Ruiz-Primo and R. J. Shavelson, Problems and Issues in the Use of Concept Maps in Science Assessments, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 33, 569 1996.
36. J. D. Novak, D. Gowin, and G. Johansen, The use of concept mapping and knowledge vee mapping with junior high school science students, Sci. Educ. 67, 625 1983.
37. Ref. 34 pp. 24 ff.