Teaching Physics

Handbook of Research on Science Education

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 599-629

  Duit, Reinders ^a   Niedderer, Hans ^b   Schecker, Horst ^b  

^a LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BREMEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85145535181     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203824696-24     Document Type: Chapter

References (110)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., and Lederman, N. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417-436.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Project 2061-Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Anderson, R. D., and Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 3-16.
4. Arons, A. (1997). Teaching introductory physics. New York: Wiley.
5. Arons, A. (1984). Students’ patterns of thinking and reasoning. The Physics Teacher, 22, 21-26; 89-93; 576-581.
6. Baker, D. R. (1998). Equity issues in science education. In B. J. Fraser and K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 869-895). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
7. Baumert, J., and Köller, O. (2000). Unterrichtsgestaltung, verständnisvolles Lernen und multiple Zielerreichung im Mathematik- und Physikunterricht der gymnasialen Oberstufe [Instruc- tional planning, mindful learning and the achievement of multiple goals in mathematics and physics instruction at upper secondary level]. In J. Baumert and O. Köller (Eds.), TIMSS/III. Dritte Internationale Mathematik- und Naturwissenschaftsstudie (Vol. 2, pp. 271-315). Opladen, Germany: Leske and Budrich.
8. Beaton, A. E., Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., Smith, T. A., and Kelly, D. A. (1996). Science achievement in the middle school years. IEA’s Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Boston: Boston College, Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy.
9. Beichner, R. J. (1994). Testing student interpretation of kinematik graphs. American Journal of Physics, 62, 750-762.
10. Beichner, R. J. (1996). The impact of video motion analysis on kinematics graph interpretation skills. American Journal of Physics, 64, 1272-1278.
11. Bethge, T. (1992). Vorstellungen von Schülerinnen und Schülern zu Begriffen der Atomphysik (Students ideas about concepts of atomic physics). In H. Fischler (Ed.), Quantenphysik in der Schule (pp. 88-113). Kiel, Germany: IPN-Leibniz Institute for Science Education.
12. Budde, M., Niedderer, H., Scott, P., and Leach, J. (2002). The quantum atomic model “Electronium”:A successful teaching tool. Physics Education, 37, 204-210.
13. Bybee, R. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
14. Camp, C., and Clement, J. (1994). Preconceptions in mechanics. Lessons dealing with students’ conceptual difficulties. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
15. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., and de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: Atheory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.
16. Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1241-1257.
17. Clement, J., and Steinberg, M. (2002). Step-wise evolution of models of electric circuits: A”learningaloud” case study. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 389-452.
18. Dahncke, H., Duit, R., Östman, L., Psillos, D., and Pushkin, D. (2001). Science education versus science in the academy: Questions-discussions-perspectives. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, M. Komorek, A. Kross, and P. Reiska (Eds.), Research in science education- past, present, and future (pp. 43-48). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
19. diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman and P. B. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49-90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., and Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Bristol, UK: Open University Press.
21. Driver, R., and Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105-122.
22. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., and Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science-Research into childrens’ ideas. London: Routledge.
23. Duit, R. (1992). Teilchen- und Atomvorstellungen (Conceptions of particles and atoms). In H. Fischler (Ed.), Quantenphysik in der Schule (pp. 201-204). Kiel, Germany: IPN-Leibniz Institute for Science Education.
24. Duit, R. (2006). Bibliography-STCSE (Students’ and Teachers’ Conceptions and Science Education). Kiel: IPN-Leibniz Institute for Science Education (http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/ stcse.html).
25. Duit, R., Komorek, M., and Wilbers, J. (1997). Studies on educational reconstruction of chaos theory. Research in Science Education, 27, 339-357.
26. Duit, R., Müller, C. T., Tesch, M., and Widodo, A. (2004, April). A video study on the practice of German physics instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Vancouver, Canada.
27. Duit, R., and Treagust, D. (2003). Conceptual change-A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 671-688.
28. Duit, R., and von Rhöneck, Ch. (1998). Learning and understanding key concepts of electricity. In A. Tiberghien, E. L. Jossem, and J. Barojas (Eds.), Connecting research in physics education. Boise, Ohio: ICPE-International Commission on Physics Education, ICPE Books (published on the internet: http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/_jossem/ICPE/TOC.html).
29. Fensham, P. (2001). Science content as problematic-issues for research. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, M. Komorek, A. Kross, and P. Reiska (Eds.), Research in science education-past, present, and future (pp. 27-41). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
30. Fischler, H. (1999, March). Introduction to quantum physics-Development and evaluation of a new course. In D. Zollman (Ed.), Research on teaching and learning quantum mechanics (pp. 32-40). Papers presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) (http://www.phys.ksu.edu/perg/papers/narst/).
31. Fischler, H., and Lichtfeldt, M. (1992). Modern physics and students’ conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 181-190.
32. Galili, I., and Hazan, A. (2000). The influence of a historically oriented course on students’ content knowledge in optics evaluated by means of facets-schemes analysis. American Journal of Physics Supplement, 68(7), S3-S14.
33. Goldberg, F., and Bendall, S. (1995). Making the invisible visible: A teaching and learning environment that builds on a new view of the physics learner. American Journal of Physics, 63, 978-991.
34. Grayson, D. (1996). Improving science and mathematics learning by concept substitution. In D. Treagust, R. Duit, and B. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 152-161). New York: Teachers College Press.
35. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64-74.
36. Harding, J. (1996). Science as a masculine strait-jacket. In L. H. Parker, L. J. Rennie, and B. Fraser (Eds.), Gender, science and mathematics (pp. 3-16). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
37. Harrison, A. G., and Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules:Implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80, 509-534.
38. Häußler, P., and Hoffmann, L. (2002). An intervention study to enhance girls’ interest, self-concept and achievement in physics classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 870-888.
39. Heimann, P., Otto, G., and Schulz, W. (1969). Unterricht, Analyse und Planung [Instruction: Analysis and planning]. Hannover, Germany: Schroedel.
40. Herrmann, F. (1995). A critical analysis of the language of modern physics. In C. Bernardini, C. Tarsitani, and M. Vicentini (Eds.), Thinking physics for teaching [pp. 287-294]. New York:Plenum Press.
41. Herrmann, F. (1998). Der Karlsruher Physikkurs [The Karlsruhe physics course] (Vol. 1). Köln, Germany:Aulis.
42. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., and Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141-158.
43. Hodson, D. (1993). Practical work in science: Time for a reappraisal. Studies in Science Education, 19, 175-184.
44. Jenkins, E. (2001). Research in science education in Europe: Retrospect and prospect. In H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, M. Komorek, A. Kross, and P. Reiska (Eds.), Research in science education-past, present, and future [pp. 17-26]. Dordrecht, the Netherlands:Kluwer Academic.
45. Jung, W., Wiesner, H., and Engelhard, P. (1981). Vorstellungen von Schülern über Begriffe der Newtonschen Mechanik [Students’ ideas about concepts of Newtonian Mechnanics]. Bad Salzdetfurth, Germany: Franzbecker.
46. Kaestle, C. F. (1993). The awful reputation of educational research. Educational Researcher, 22(1), 23-31.
47. Kattmann, U., Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., and Komorek, M. (1995, April). A model of educational reconstruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francisco.
48. Keeves, J. P., and Kotte, D. (1996). Patterns of science achievement: International comparisons. In L. H. Parker, L. J. Rennie, and B. Fraser (Eds.), Gender, science and mathematics (pp. 77-94). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
49. Kircher, E., Girwidz, R., and Häußler, P. (2000). Physikdidaktik [Didactics of physics]. Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, Germany: Friedrich Vieweg and Sohn.
50. Klafki, W. (1969). Didaktische Analyse als Kern der Unterrichtsvorbereitung [Educational analysis as core issue of instructional planning]. In H. Roth and A. Blumental (Eds.), Auswahl, Didaktische Analyse (pp. 5-34). Hannover, Germany: Schroedel.
51. Knote, H. (1975). Zur Atomvorstellung bei Dreizehn- bis Fünfzehnjährigen [Thirteen- to fifteenyear- old students’ conceptions of the atom]. Der Physikunterricht, 4, 86-96.
52. Köller, O., Baumert, J., and Neubrand, J. (2000). Epistemologische Überzeugungen und Fachverständnis im Mathematik- und Physikunterricht [Epistemological beliefs and content knowledge in mathematics and physics instruction]. In J. Baumert et al. (Eds.), TIMSS-Mathematischnaturwissenschaftliche Bildung am Ende der Sekundarstufe II [TIMSS-mathematics and science literacy at the end of upper secondary school] (pp. 229-270). Opladen, Germany: Leske and Budrich.
53. Kroh, L. B., and Thomsen, P. V. (2005). Studying students’ attitudes towards science from a cultural perspective but with a quantitative methodology: Border crossing into the physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 281-302.
54. Laukenmann, M., Bleicher, M., Fuß, S., Gläser-Zikuda, M., Mayring, P. and v. Rhöneck, C. (2003). An investigation of the influence of emotional factors on learning in physics instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 489-507.
55. Laws, P. W. (1997). Promoting active learning based on physics education research in introductory physics courses (Millikan Lecture 1996). American Journal of Physics, 65, 14-21.
56. Leach, J. (2002). Students’ understanding of the nature of science and its influence on labwork. In D. Psillos and H. Niedderer (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 41-49). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
57. Linn, M. C., Songer, N. B., Lewis, E. L., and Stern, J. (1993). Using technology to teach thermodynamics:Achieving integrated understanding. In D. L. Ferguson (Ed.), Advanced educational technologies for mathematics and science (pp. 5-60). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
58. Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching. In K. Tobin and B. Fraser (Eds.), International handbook of science education, Part I (pp. 249-264). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
59. Maloney, D. P. (1994). Research on problem solving: Physics. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 327-354). New York: Macmillan.
60. Mashhadi, A. (1995). Students’ conceptions of quantum physics. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, and P. Scott (Eds.), Research in Science Education in Europe (pp. 254-266). London: Falmer.
61. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching-The role of history and philosophy of science. London:Routledge.
62. McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 284(4), 114-122.
63. McComas, W. F. (Ed.) (1998). The nature of science in science education rationales and strategies. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
64. Meyling, H. (1997). How to change students’ conceptions of the epistemology of science. Science and Education, 6, 397-416.
65. Minstrell, J. (1992). Facets of students’ knowledge and relevant instruction. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, and H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies. Kiel, Germany: IPN-Institute for Science Education.
66. Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., and Novak, J. D. (Eds.). (1997). Teaching science for understanding-A human constructivist view. San Diego: Academic Press.
67. MSC Software. (2004). Interactive physics. Redwood City, CA: Author.
68. Müller, R. (2003). Quantenphysik in der Schule [Quantum physics in high school]. Berlin: Logos.
69. Müller, R., and Wiesner, H. (2002). Teaching quantum mechanics on an introductory level. American Journal of Physics, 70, 200-209.
70. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Education Press.
71. Niedderer, H., and Deylitz, S. (1999, March). Evaluation of a new approach in quantum atomic physics in high school. In D. Zollman (Ed.), Research on teaching and learning quantum mechanics (pp. 23-27). Papers presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) (http://www.phys.ksu.edu/perg/papers/narst/).
72. Niedderer, H., Buty, C., Haller, K., Hucke, L., Sander, F., Fischer, H. E., et al. (2002). Talking physics in labwork contexts-a category based analysis of videotapes. In D. Psillos and H. Niedderer (Eds.), Teaching and learning in the science laboratory (pp. 31-40). Dordrecht, the Netherlands:Kluwer Academic.
73. Niedderer, H., and Goldberg, F. (1995). Lernprozesse beim elektrischen Stromkreis. [Learning processes in the case of the electric circuit]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 1, 73-86.
74. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (1999). Measuring student knowledge and skills-A new framework for assessment. Paris: OECD Publications.
75. Osborne, R. (1983). Towards modifying children’s ideas about electric current. Research in Science and Technology Education, 1, 73-82.
76. Oser, F. K., and Baeriswyl, F. J. (2001). Choreographies of teaching: Bridging instruction to learning. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 1031-1065). Washington, DC:American Educational Research Association.
77. Parker, L. H., Rennie, L. J., and Fraser, B. (Eds.). (1996). Gender, science and mathematics. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
78. Petri, J., and Niedderer, H. (1998). A learning pathway in high-school level quantum physics. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1075-1088.
79. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., and Boyle, R. A. (1992). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199.
80. Rebello, S., and Zollman, D. (1999, March). Conceptual understanding of quantum mechanics after using hands-on and visualization instructional materials. In D. Zollman (Ed.), Research on teaching and learning quantum mechanics (pp. 2-6). Papers presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) (http://www.phys.ksu. edu/perg/papers/narst/).
81. Redish, E. F. (2003). Teaching physics. New York: Wiley.
82. Redish, E. F., Saul, J. M., and Steinberg, R. N. (1996). On the effectiveness of active-engagement microcomputer-based laboratories. American Journal of Physics, 65, 45-54.
83. Reid, N., and Skryabina, E. A. (2003). Gender and physics. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 509-536.
84. Sambursky, S. (1975). Physical thought. From the pre-Socratics to the quantum physicists-an anthology. New York: Pica Press.
85. Schecker, H. (1998). Integration of experimenting and modeling by advanced educational technology:Examples from nuclear physics. In K. Tobin and B. Fraser (Eds.), International handbook of science education, Part I (pp. 383-398). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
86. Schecker, H., Fischer, H. E., and Wiesner, H. (2004). Physikunterricht in der gymnasialen Oberstufe [Physics instruction in upper secondary schools]. In H. E. Tenorth (Ed.), Kerncurriculum Oberstufe (pp. 148-234). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
87. Schecker, H., and Niedderer, H. (1996). Contrastive teaching: Astrategy to promote qualitative conceptual understanding of science. In D. Treagust, R. Duit, and B. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 141-151). New York: Teachers College Press.
88. Scott, P. H. (1992). Pathways in learning science: Acase study of the development of one student’s ideas relating to the structure of matter. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, and H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 203-224). Kiel, Germany:IPN-Leibniz-Institute for Science Education.
89. Shipstone, D. M., von Rhöneck, C., Jung, W., Karrqvist, C., Dupin, J. J., Joshua, S., et al. (1988). A study of secondary students’ understanding of electricity in five European countries. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 303-316.
90. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of a new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
91. Stadler, H., Benke, G., and Duit, R. (2000). Do boys and girls understand physics differently? Physics Education, 35(6), 417-422.
92. Taber, K. S. (2001). When the analogy breaks down: Modeling the atom on the solar system. Physics Education, 36, 222-226.
93. Thornton, R. K. (1992). Enhancing and evaluating students’ learning of motion concepts. In A. Tiberghien and H. Mandl (Eds.), Physics and learning environments (pp. 265-283). Berlin:Springer-Verlag.
94. Thornton, R. K., and Sokoloff, D. R. (1990). Learning motion concepts using real-time microcomputerbased laboratory tools. American Journal of Physics, 58, 858-867.
95. Thornton, R. K., and Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66(4), 338-351.
96. Tinker, R. (Ed.). (1996). Microcomputer based labs: Educational research and standards. New York:Springer.
97. Treagust, D., Chittleborough, G., and Mamiala, T. L. (2002). Students’ understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 357-368.
98. Trowbridge, D. E., and McDermott, L. C. (1981). Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration. American Journal of Physics, 49, 242-252.
99. Urhahne, D., Prenzel, M., Davier, M. V., Senkbeil, M., and Bleschke, M. (2000). Computereinsatz im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht-Ein Überblick über die pädagogisch-psychologischen Grundlagen und ihre Anwendung [The use of computers in science education-an overview of pedagogical and psychological foundations and their applications]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 6, 157-186.
100. Viennot, L. (1979). Spontaneous reasoning in elementary dynamics. European Journal of Science Education, 1, 205-221.
101. Viennot, L. (2001). Reasoning in physics. The part of common sense. Dordrecht, the Netherlands:Kluwer Academic.
102. Viennot, L. (2003). Teaching physics. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
103. Vosniadou, S. (2002). On the nature of naive physics. In M. Limon and L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 61-76). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic.
104. Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., and Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 177-210). New York: Macmillan.
105. Warren, J. W. (1979). Understanding force. London: Murray.
106. Welzel, M., Haller, K., Bandiera, M., Hammelev, D., Koumaras, P., Niedderer, H., et al. (1998). Ziele, die Lehrende mit experimentellem Arbeiten in der naturwissenschaftlichen Ausbildung verbinden-Ergebnisse einer europäischen Umfrage [Objectives teachers relate to laboratory work in physics instruction-results of a European survey]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 4, 29-44 (English version available from http://www.idn.uni-bremen.de/pubs/Niedderer/1998-LSE-WP6.pdf).
107. Westbury, L., Hopmann, S., and Riquarts, K. (Eds.). (2000). Teaching as reflective practice. The German Didaktik tradition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
108. Woolnough, B. (1991). Practical science. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
109. Wright, E. (1993). The irrelevancy of science education research: Perception or reality? NARST News, 35(1), 1-2.
110. Zollman, D. A., Rebello, N. S., and Hogg, K. (2002). Quantum mechanics for everyone: Hands-on activities integrated with technology. American Journal of Physics, 70, 252-259 (see also http:// web.phys.ksu.edu/vqm/).