You are here:

An Enhanced Studio Physics Model: Which Technologies are Productive?
Article

, School of Education, Acadia University, Canada ; , Physics Depart ment, Acadia University, Canada

JCMST Volume 25, Number 1, ISSN 0731-9258 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

The notion of problem-based physics laboratories enhanced by computer technology has been coined ?studio physics? (Wilson, 1994) and has been practised at various institutions for some time (Cummings, Marx, Thornton, & Kuhl, 1999; Williams, MacLatchy, Backman, & Retson, 1997). In recent years new technology tools have been available to supplement the standard use of computer probes and data-acquisition software in studio physics. This paper reports a quantitative/qualitative case study of the implementation of two emergent communication tools: (a) Silicon Chalk and (b) the Graphire? Tablet.

Citation

MacKinnon, G. & Williams, P. (2006). An Enhanced Studio Physics Model: Which Technologies are Productive?. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 25(1), 29-40. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 9, 2024 from .

© 2006 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Berg, B. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th ed.) London: Allyn & Bacon.
  2. Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Clark, R., Clough, M., & Berg, C. (2000). Modifying cookbook labs: A different way of teaching a standard laboratory engages students and promotes understanding. The Science Teacher, 67(7), 40-43.
  3. Clough, M. (2000). Using the laboratory to enhance student learning. In R. Bybee (Ed.), Learning science and the science of learning. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
  4. Clough, M., & Clark, R. (1994a). Cookbooks and constructivism: A better approach to laboratory activities. The Science Teacher, 61(2), 34-37.
  5. Clough, M., & Clark, R. (1994b). Creative constructivism: Challenge your students with an authentic science experience. The Science Teacher, 61(7), 4649.
  6. Cummings, K., Marx, J., Thornton, R., & Kuhl, D. (1999). Evaluating innovation in studio physics. Phys. Educ. Res., Am. J. Phys. Suppl., 67(7), S38-S44. Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
  7. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage Publications.
  8. Hew, K., Hur, J., Jang, H., & Tian, L. (2004). The eight events of instruction: An instructional method based on the constructivist paradigm. In D. Willis, J. Price, R. Carlsen, R. Weber, & N. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, (pp. 4110-4115). Charlottesville, VA: AACE.
  9. Hodson, D. (1993). Rethinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22, 85-142.
  10. Ivins, J. E. (1983). What are your labs really teaching? The Science Teacher, 50(5), 56-59.
  11. MacKinnon, G. (1997). Constructing meaning in the chemistry laboratory. Journal of College Science Teaching, 27(1), 6.
  12. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
  13. Morgan, D. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  14. Neuman, W. (2000). Social research methods. Needham Heights, MA: Pearson. NSES. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, National Research Council, National Academy Press. Washington, DC.
  15. Parsons, R., & Brown, K. (2002). Teacher as refl ective practitioner and action researcher. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth-Thomson.
  16. Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
  17. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientifi c conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 221-227
  18. Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
  19. Squires, D. (1999). Educational software for constructivist learning environments: Subversive use and volatile design. Educational Technology, 39(3), 48-54.
  20. Williams, P., MacLatchy, C., Backman, P., & Retson, D. (1997). Studio physics at Acadia University. Physics in Canada, 53(2), 96-101.
  21. Wilson, J. (1994). The CUPLE physics studio. The Physics Teacher, 32, 518-23. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research, design and methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Pages You've Visited

Abstracts