PERC 2009 Abstract Detail Page
Previous Page |
New Search |
Browse All
| Abstract Title: |
Cognitive Issues in Developing Curriculum for Upper-Level Physics Courses |
| Abstract: |
In
the last few decades, several exemplary introductory physics curricula
have been developed that take into account cognitive issues in the
teaching and learning of physics. This session will focus on how
physics education researchers, in recent years, have begun developing
and evaluating curricula for upper-level physics courses that account
for cognitive issues. The poster presenters will discuss cognitive
approaches to designing upper-level physics curriculum pertaining to
different subject matters. They will particularly focus on analyzing
the issues that are common across different subject matters and those
that are particularly important for their topic of interest. Presenters
will also discuss the importance of various cognitive issues in the
design of upper-level courses compared to their importance in
developing introductory physics curriculum. |
| Abstract Type: |
Targeted Poster Session
|
Author/Organizer Information |
| Primary Contact: |
Chandralekha Singh
University of Pittsburgh
3941 Ohara St.
Department of Physics, University of PIttsburgh
Pittsburgh,
PA
15260
Phone: 412-624-9045
Fax: 4126249163
|
Targeted Poster Session Specific Information |
| Poster 1 Title: |
Observations of General Learning Patterns in an Upper-Level Thermal Physics Course
|
| Poster 1 Authors: |
David E. Meltzer, Arizona State University |
| Poster 1 Abstract: |
I
will discuss some observations from using interactive-engagement
instructional methods in an upper-level thermal physics course over a
two-year
period. From the standpoint of the subject matter knowledge of the
upper-level students, there was a striking persistence of
common
learning difficulties previously observed in students enrolled in the
introductory course, accompanied, however, by some notable
contrasts
between the groups. More broadly, I will comment on comparisons and
contrasts regarding general pedagogical issues among different student
sub-populations, for example: differences in the receptivity of lower-
and upper-level students to diagrammatic representations; varying
receptivity to tutorial-style instructional approach within the
upper-level population; and contrasting approaches to learning among
physics and engineering sub-populations in the upper-level course with
regard to use of symbolic notation, mathematical equations, and
readiness to employ verbal explanations. |
|
