- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation

    Editorial: Focused Collection: PER in Upper-Division Physics Courses

    Michael E. Loverude1 and Bradley S. Ambrose2

    • 1Department of Physics and Catalyst Center, California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, California 92834, USA
    • 2Department of Physics, Grand Valley State University, 1 Campus Drive, Allendale, Michigan 49401, USA

    PDF

    Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020002 – Published 23 September, 2015

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.020002

    Article Text

    References (57)

    1. C. Henderson, Editorial: Announcing PRST-PER Focused Collections, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010001 (2014). Editorial: Call for Papers Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research PER in Upper Division Courses, 10, 010002 (2014). Editorial: Call for Papers Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research Preparing and Supporting University Physics Educators, 10, 010003 (2014). Editorial: Call for Papers Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research Gender in Physics, 10, 010004 (2014).
    2. P. R. L. Heron, Empirical investigations of learning and teaching. Part I: Examining and interpreting student thinking, in Enrico Fermi Summer School on Physics Education Research, edited by E. F. Redish and M. Vicentini (Italian Physical Society, Varenna, Italy, 2003), pp. 341–351.
    3. D. Hammer, More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research, Am. J. Phys. 64, 1316 (1996); Student resources for learning introductory physics, 68, S52 (2000).
    4. M. J. Cochran and P. R. L. Heron, Development and assessment of research-based tutorials on heat engines and the second law of thermodynamics, Am. J. Phys. 74, 734 (2006).
    5. D. E. Meltzer, Student learning in upper-level thermal physics: Comparisons and contrasts with students in introductory courses, AIP Conf. Proc. 790, 31 (2005).
    6. S. J. Pollock, Longitudinal study of student conceptual understanding in electricity and magnetism, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020110 (2009).
    7. P. W. Irving and E. C. Sayre, Identity statuses in upper-division physics students, arXiv:1505.07801 [Cultural Studies of Science Education (to be published)].
    8. D. B. Mountcastle, B. R. Bucy, and J. R. Thompson, Student estimates of probability and uncertainty in advanced laboratory and statistical physics courses, AIP Conf. Proc. 951, 152 (2007).
    9. B. M. Zwickl, N. Finkelstein, and H. J. Lewandowski, The process of transforming an advanced lab course: Goals, curriculum, and assessments, Am. J. Phys. 81, 63 (2013).
    10. C. 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); C. S. Wallace and S. V. Chasteen, Upper-division students’ difficulties with Ampère’s law, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020115 (2010); D.-H. Nguyen and N. Sanjay Rebello, Students’ difficulties with integration in electricity, 7, 010113 (2011); R. E. Pepper, S. V. Chasteen, S. J. Pollock, and K. K. Perkins, Observations on student difficulties with mathematics in upper-division electricity and magnetism, 8, 010111 (2012).
    11. B. S. Ambrose, Investigating student understanding in intermediate mechanics: Identifying the need for a tutorial approach to instruction, Am. J. Phys. 72, 453 (2004); E. C. Sayre and M. C. Wittmann, Plasticity of intermediate mechanics students’ coordinate system choice, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 020105 (2008).
    12. T. I. Smith, J. R. Thompson, and D. B. Mountcastle, Student understanding of Taylor series expansions in statistical mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020110 (2013); J. R. Thompson, B. R. Bucy, and D. B. Mountcastle, Assessing student understanding of partial derivatives in thermodynamics, AIP Conf. Proc. 818, 77 (2006); E. B. Pollock, J. R. Thompson, and D. B. Mountcastle, Student understanding of the physics and mathematics of process variables in P-V diagrams, 951, 168 (2007).
    13. M. E. Loverude, Student understanding of basic probability concepts in an upper-division thermal physics course, AIP Conf. Proc. 1179, 189 (2009); Investigating student understanding for a statistical analysis of two thermally interacting solids, 1289, 213 (2010).
    14. B. L. Sherin, How students understand physics equations, Cognit. Instr. 19, 479 (2001); 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); J. Tuminaro and E. F. Redish, Elements of a cognitive model of physics problem solving: Epistemic games, 3, 020101 (2007); M. B. Kustusch, D. Roundy, T. Dray, and C. A. Manogue, Partial derivative games in thermodynamics: A cognitive task analysis, 10, 010101 (2014).
    15. B. R. Wilcox, M. D. Caballero, D. A. Rehn, and S. J. Pollock, Analytic framework for students’ use of mathematics in upper-division physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020119 (2013).
    16. C. Henderson and M. H. Dancy, Impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics in the United States, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020107 (2009); Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics, 3, 020102 (2007); C. Henderson, A. Beach, and M. H. Dancy, Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 48, 952 (2011).
    17. D. J. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, 4th ed. (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2013).
    18. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).
    19. L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and the University of Washington Physics Education Group, Tutorials in Introductory Physics, 1st ed. (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002).
    20. Science Education Initiative at University of Colorado Boulder, 2007–2009; course materials and other resources available at http://www.colorado.edu/sei/departments/physics.htm; K. K. Perkins and C. Turpen, Student perspectives on using clickers in upper-division physics courses, AIP Conf. Proc. 1179, 225 (2009); S. J. Pollock, S. V. Chasteen, M. Dubson, and K. K. Perkins, The use of concept tests and peer instruction in upper-division physics, 1289, 261 (2010).
    21. C. A. Manogue, P. J. Siemens, J. Tate, K. Browne, M. L. Niess, and A. J. Wolfer, Paradigms in physics: A new upper-division curriculum, Am. J. Phys. 69, 978 (2001).
    22. S. V. Chasteen, R. E. Pepper, M. D. Caballero, S. J. Pollock, and K. K. Perkins, Colorado Upper-Division Electrostatics diagnostic: A conceptual assessment for the junior level, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020108 (2012); S. B. McKagan, K. K. Perkins, and C. E. Wieman, Design and validation of the Quantum Mechanics Conceptual Survey, 6, 020121 (2010); E. Cataloglu and R. W. Robinett, Testing the development of student conceptual and visualization understanding in quantum mechanics through the undergraduate career, Am. J. Phys. 70, 238 (2002); B. M. Zwickl, T. Hirokawa, N. Finkelstein, and H. J. Lewandowski, Epistemology and expectations survey about experimental physics: Development and initial results, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 010120 (2014).
    23. T. J. Bing and E. F. Redish, Epistemic complexity and the journeyman-expert transition, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010105 (2012); E. Gire, B. Jones, and E. Price, Characterizing the epistemological development of physics majors, 5, 010103 (2009).
    24. E. Redish, Introducing students to the culture of physics: Explicating elements of the hidden curriculum, arXiv:1008.0578.
    25. S. L. Li and M. E. Loverude, Identity and belonging: Are you a physicist (chemist)?, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 246 (2013); E. W. Close, J. Conn, and H. G. Close, Development of integrated physics identity through physics learning assistant experience, Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Boulder, Colorado, 2014 (ISLS, 2014), pp. 1533–1534; I. Rodriguez, R. M. Goertzen, E. Brewe, and L. H. Kramer, Developing a physics expert identity in a biophysics research group, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 010116 (2015).
    26. M. Ong, Body projects of young women of color in physics: Intersections of gender, race, and science, Social Problems 52, 593 (2005); Z. Hazari, G. Potvin, R. M. Lock, F. Lung, G. Sonnert, and P. M. Sadler, Factors that affect the physical science career interest of female students: Testing five common hypotheses, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020115 (2013).
    27. M. C. Wittmann, R. N Steinberg, and E. F. Redish, Investigating student understanding of quantum physics: Spontaneous models of conductivity, Am. J. Phys. 70, 218 (2002); L. Bao and E. F. Redish, Understanding probabilistic interpretations of physical systems: A prerequisite to learning quantum physics, 70, 210 (2002).
    28. D. Zollman, N. S. Rebello, and K. Hogg, Quantum mechanics for everyone: Hands-on activities integrated with technology, Am. J. Phys. 70, 252 (2002).
    29. S. B. McKagan, K. K. Perkins, and C. E. Wieman, Deeper look at student learning of quantum mechanics: The case of tunneling, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 020103 (2008); C. Baily and N. D. FinkelsteinRefined characterization of student perspectives on quantum physics, 6, 020113 (2010).
    30. C. Singh and E. Marshman, Review of student difficulties in upper-level quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020117 (2015).
    31. E. Marshman and C. Singh, Framework for understanding the patterns of student difficulties in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020119 (2015).
    32. G. Passante, P. J. Emigh, and P. S. Shaffer, Examining student ideas about energy measurements on quantum states across undergraduate and graduate levels, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020111 (2015).
    33. P. J. Emigh, G. Passante, and P. S. Shaffer, Student understanding of time dependence in quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020112 (2015).
    34. E. Gire and E. Price, Structural features of algebraic quantum notations, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020109 (2015).
    35. C. Baily and D. N. Finkelstein, Teaching quantum interpretations: Revisiting the goals and practices of introductory quantum physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020124 (2015).
    36. T. I. Smith, W. M. Christensen, D. B. Mountcastle, and J. R. Thompson, Identifying student difficulties with entropy, heat engines, and the Carnot cycle, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020116 (2015).
    37. T. I. Smith, D. B. Mountcastle, and J. R. Thompson, Student understanding of the Boltzmann factor, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020123 (2015).
    38. R. Leinonen, M. A. Asikainen, and P. E. Hirvonen, Grasping the second law of thermodynamics at university: The consistency of macroscopic and microscopic explanations, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020122 (2015).
    39. M. Loverude, Identifying student resources in reasoning about entropy and the approach to thermal equilibrium, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020118 (2015).
    40. D. Roundy, E. Weber, T. Dray, R. R. Bajracharya, A. Dorko, E. M. Smith, and C. A. Manogue, Experts’ understanding of partial derivatives using the partial derivative machine, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020126 (2015).
    41. M. C. Wittmann and K. E. Black, Mathematical actions as procedural resources: An example from the separation of variables, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020114 (2015).
    42. S. V. Chasteen, B. Wilcox, M. D. Caballero, K. K. Perkins, S. J. Pollock, and C. E. Wieman, Educational transformation in upper-division physics: The Science Education Initiative model, outcomes, and lessons learned, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020110 (2015).
    43. B. M. Zwickl, D. Hu, n. Finkelstein, and H. J. Lewandowski, Model-based reasoning in the physics laboratory: Framework and initial results, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020113 (2015).
    44. D. J. Jones, K. W. Madison, and C. E. Wieman, Transforming a fourth year modern optics course using a deliberate practice framework, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020108 (2015).
    45. K. A. Ericsson, R .T. Krampe, C. Tesch-romer, C. Ashworth, G. Carey, J. Grassia, and V. Schneider, The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance, Psychol. Rev. 100, 363 (1993).
    46. B. R. Wilcox, D. M. Caballero, C. Baily, H. Sadaghiani, S. V. Chasteen, Q. X. Ryan, and S. J. Pollock, Development and uses of upper-division conceptual assessments, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020115 (2015).
    47. J. P. Zwolak and C. A. Manogue, Assessing student reasoning in upper-division electricity and magnetism at Oregon State University, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020125 (2015).
    48. E. C. Sayre and P. W. Irving, Brief, embedded, spontaneous metacognitive talk indicates thinking like a physicist, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020121 (2015).
    49. P. W. Irving and E. C. Sayre, Becoming a physicist: The roles of research, mindsets, and milestones in upper-division student perceptions, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020120 (2015).
    50. A. Orton, Student’s understanding of integration, Educ. Stud. Math. 14, 118 (1983); P. W. Thompson, Images of rate and operational understating of the fundamental theorem of calculus, 26, 229 (1994).
    51. C. Rasmussen, New directions in differential equations: A framework for interpreting students’ understandings and difficulties, J. Math. Behav. 20, 55 (2001).
    52. M. Wawro, G. Sweeney, and J. M. Rabin, Subspace in linear algebra: Investigating students’ concept images and interactions with the formal definition, Educ. Stud. Math. 78, 1 (2011).
    53. J. Garfield and A. Ahlgren, Difficulties in learning basic concepts in statistics: implications for research, J. Res. Math. Educ. 19, 44 (1988).
    54. D. Meredith and K. A. Marongelle, How students use mathematical resources in an electrostatics context, Am. J. Phys. 76, 570 (2008).
    55. T. M. Wemyss, R. R. Bajracharya, J. R. Thompson, and J. F. Wagner, Student understanding of integration in the context and notation of thermodynamics: Concepts, representations, and transfer, in Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, edited by S. Brown, S. Larsen, K. Marrongelle, and M. Oehrtman (Mathematical Association of America, 2011); J. F. Wagner, C. A. Manogue, and J. R. Thompson, Representation issues: Using mathematics in upper-division physics, AIP Conf. Proc. 1413, 89 (2012).
    56. S. B. McKagan, W. Handley, K. K. Perkins, and C. E. Wieman, A research-based curriculum for teaching the photoelectric effect, Am. J. Phys. 77, 87 (2009); C. Singh, Interactive learning tutorials on quantum mechanics, 76, 400 (2008); C. E. Wieman, K. K. Perkins, and W. K. Adams, Oersted Medal Lecture 2007: Interactive simulations for teaching physics: What works, what doesn’t, and why, 76, 393 (2008).
    57. M. S. Sabella and A. G. Van Duzor, Cultural toolkits in the urban physics learning community, AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 34 (2013).

    Outline

    Information

    Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 11, 020002– Published 23 September, 2015

      © 2015 American Physical Society

      Sign In to Your Journals Account

      Filter

      Filter

      Article Lookup

      Enter a citation