Abstract
Interactive engagement curricula are successful in helping students develop conceptual understanding of physics principles and solve problems. However, another benefit of actively engaging students in the construction of their physics knowledge is providing them with an opportunity to engage in habitual “thinking like physicists”. Some examples of such thinking are: drawing a sketch before solving any physics problem, subjecting normative statements to experimental testing, evaluating assumptions, or treating each experimental results as an interval. We can help students develop these “habits of mind” if we purposefully and systematically engage them in the processes that mirror the processes in which physicists engage when they construct and apply knowledge. For such engagement to occur, we need to deeply re-conceptualize the role of experiments in physics instruction and their interaction with the theory. However, most importantly, we need to rethink the role of the instructor in the classroom.References
Aikenhead, G.S. (2005). Science-Based Occupations and Science Curriculum: Concepts of Evidence. Science Education, 89, 242–275.
Chin, P., Munby, H., & Hutchinson, N.L., et.al. (2004). Where’s the science? Understanding the form and function of workplace science. In E. Scanlon, P. Murphy, J. Thomas, & A.E. Whitelegg (Eds.), Reconsidering science learning, (118–134), London: Routledge Falmer.
Coles, M. (1997). What does industry want from science education? In K. Colhoun, R. Panwar, & S. Shrum (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th symposium of IOSTE (292–300). Edmonton: Faculty of Education, University of Alberta.
Coletta, V.P. & Phillips, J.A. (2005). Interpreting FCI scores: Normalized gain, preinstruction scores, & scientific reasoning ability. American Journal Physics, 73(12), 1172–1182.
Czujko, R. (1997). The Physics Bachelors as a Passport to the Workplace: Recent Research Results in The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities. E.F. Redish & J.S. Rigden, (Eds). AIP Conf. Proc. 399, Woodbury, NY.
Duggan, S. & Gott, R. (2002). What sort of science education do we really need? International Journal of Science Education, 24, 661–679.
Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century, (2005). The National Academies Press, N.W., Washington. Available at http://nap.edu/catolog/11338.html
Etkina, E., Brookes, D. & Van Heuvelen, A. (2013). Instructor Guide for College Physics. San Francisco, CA: Pearson, 2013.
Etkina, E., Gentile, M. & Van Heuvelen, A. (2013a). College Physics. San Francisco, CA: Pearson.
Etkina, E., Gentile, M. & Van Heuvelen, A. (2013b). The Physics Active Learning Guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pearson.
Etkina, E., Karelina, A. & Ruibal-Villasenor, M. (2008). How long does it take? A study of student acquisition of scientific abilities. Physical Review, Special Topics, Physics Education Research, 4, 020108; 9.
Etkina, E. & Karelina, A., et.al. (2009). Using action research to improve learning and formative assessment to conduct research. Physical Review. Special Topics, Physics Education Research, 5, 010109; 14.
Etkina, E., Karelina, A. & Ruibal-Villasenor, M., et.al. (2010). Design and reï¬ection help students develop scientific abilities: Learning in introductory physics laboratories. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 1, 54–98.
Etkina, E., Planinšič, G. & Vollmer, M. (2013). A simple optics experiment to engage students in scientific inquiry. American Journal of Physics, 81 (11), 815–822.
Etkina, E., Van Heuvelen, A. & White-Brahmia, S., et.al. (2006). Developing and assessing student scientific abilities. Physical Review. Special Topics, Physics Education Research. 2, 020103.