No Arabic abstract
The ability to construct, use, and revise models is a crucial experimental physics skill. Many existing frameworks describe modeling in science education at introductory levels. However, most have limited applicability to the context of upper-division physics lab courses or experimental physics. Here, we discuss the Modeling Framework for Experimental Physics, a theoretical framework tailored to labs and experimentation. A key feature of the Framework is recursive interaction between models and apparatus. Models are revised to account for new evidence produced by apparatus, and apparatus are revised to better align with the simplifying assumptions of models. Another key feature is the distinction between the physical phenomenon being investigated and the measurement equipment used to conduct the investigation. Models of physical systems facilitate explanation or prediction of phenomena, whereas models of measurement systems facilitate interpretation of data. We describe the Framework, provide a chronological history of its development, and summarize its applications to research and curricular design. Ultimately, we argue that the Modeling Framework is a theoretically sound and well-tested tool that is applicable to multiple physics domains and research purposes. In particular, it is useful for characterizing students approaches to experimentation, designing or evaluating curricula for lab courses, and developing instruments to assess students experimental modeling skills.
The ability to develop, use, and refine models of experimental systems is a nationally recognized learning outcome for undergraduate physics lab courses. However, no assessments of students model-based reasoning exist for upper-division labs. This study is the first step toward development of modeling assessments for optics and electronics labs. In order to identify test objectives that are likely relevant across many institutional contexts, we interviewed 35 lab instructors about the ways they incorporate modeling in their course learning goals and activities. The study design was informed by the Modeling Framework for Experimental Physics. This framework conceptualizes modeling as consisting of multiple subtasks: making measurements, constructing system models, comparing data to predictions, proposing causes for discrepancies, and enacting revisions to models or apparatus. We found that each modeling subtask was identified by multiple instructors as an important learning outcome for their course. Based on these results, we argue that test objectives should include probing students competence with most modeling subtasks, and test items should be designed to elicit students justifications for choosing particular modeling pathways. In addition to discussing these and other implications for assessment, we also identify future areas of research related to the role of modeling in optics and electronics labs.
Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) are key partners in the education of undergraduates. Given the potentially large impact GTAs can have on undergraduate student learning, it is important to provide them with appropriate preparation for teaching. But GTAs are students themselves, and not all of them desire to pursue an academic career. Fully integrating GTA preparation into the professional development of graduate students lowers the barrier to engagement so that all graduate students may benefit from the opportunity to explore teaching and its applications to many potential career paths. In this paper we describe the design and implementation of a GTA Preparation course for first-year Ph.D. students at the Georgia Tech School of Physics. Through a yearly cycle of implementation and revision, guided by the 3P Framework we developed (Pedagogy, Physics, Professional Development), the course has evolved into a robust and comprehensive professional development program that is well-received by physics graduate students.
Mathematical reasoning skills are a desired outcome of many introductory physics courses, particularly calculus-based physics courses. Positive and negative quantities are ubiquitous in physics, and the sign carries important and varied meanings. Novices can struggle to understand the many roles signed numbers play in physics contexts, and recent evidence shows that unresolved struggle can carry over to subsequent physics courses. The mathematics education research literature documents the cognitive challenge of conceptualizing negative numbers as mathematical objects--both for experts, historically, and for novices as they learn. We contribute to the small but growing body of research in physics contexts that examines student reasoning about signed quantities and reasoning about the use and interpretation of signs in mathematical models. In this paper we present a framework for categorizing various meanings and interpretations of the negative sign in physics contexts, inspired by established work in algebra contexts from the mathematics education research community. Such a framework can support innovation that can catalyze deeper mathematical conceptualizations of signed quantities in the introductory courses and beyond.
The SiPM is a novel solid state photodetector which can be operated in the single photon counting mode. It has excellent features, such as high quantum efficiency, good charge resolution, fast response, very compact size, high gain of 106, very low power consumption, immunity to the magnetic field and low bias voltage (30-70V). Drawbacks of this device currently are a large dark current, crosstalk between micropixels and relatively low sensitivity to UV and blue light. In the last few years, we have developed large size SiPMs (9 mm^2 and 25 mm^2) for applications in the imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes, MAGIC and CTA, and in the space-borne fluorescence telescope EUSO. The current status of the SiPM development by MPI and MEPhI will be presented.
Writing is an integral part of the process of science. In the undergraduate physics curriculum, the most common place that students engage with scientific writing is in lab classes, typically through lab notebooks, reports, and proposals. There has not been much research on why and how we include writing in physics lab classes, and instructors may incorporate writing for a variety of reasons. Through a broader study of multiweek projects in advanced lab classes, we have developed a framework for thinking about and understanding the role of writing in lab classes. This framework defines and describes the breadth of goals for incorporating writing in lab classes, and is a tool we can use to begin to understand why, and subsequently how, we teach scientific writing in physics.