 |
Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 13, Issue 1, Article 10 (Jun., 2012) |
Abraham, M. R., & Cracolice, M. S. (1994). Doing research on college science instruction. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23, 150-153.
Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Journal of the Association of Medical Colleges, 68, 52-68.
Allen, D. E., Duch, B. J., & Groh, S. E. (1996). The power of problem based learning in teaching introductory science courses. New Directions Teaching Learning, 68, 43-51.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and schooling. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi experimental designs for research: A handbook for research on interactions. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand- McNally College Publishing.
Cross, K. P. (1998). Why learning communities? Why now? About Campus, 3(3), 4-11.
Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69, 970-977.
Crouch, C. H., Watkins, J., Fagen, A. P., & Mazur, E. (2007). Peer instruction: Engaging students one-on-one, all at once. (In E. F. Redish, & P. Cooney (Eds.), American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park: MD).
Desoete, A. (2009). Mathematics and metacognition in adolescents and adults with learning disabilities. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2(1), 82-100.
Fagen, A. P., Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer instruction: Results from a range of classrooms. The Physics Teacher, 40, 206-209.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64-74.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhammer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. Physics Teacher, 30, 141-151.
Hemenway, M. K., Straits, W. J., Wilke, R. R., & Hufnagel, B. (2001). Educational research in an introductory astronomy course. Innovative Higher Education, 26, 178-269.
Hoekstra, A. (2008). Vibrant student voices: Exploring effects of the use of clickers in large college courses. Learning, Media, & Technology, 33(4), 329-341.
Kalman, C. S., Bolotin, M., & Antimirova, T. (2010). Comparison of the effectiveness of collaborative groups and peer instruction in a large introductory physics course for science majors. Canadian Journal of Physics, 88(5), 325-332.Karadeniz, S., Buyukozturk, S., Akgun, O. E., Cakmak, E, K., & Demirel, F., (2008). The Turkish adaptation study of motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ) for 12-18 year old children: Results of confirmatory factor analysis. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(4), 108-117.
Keiner, L. E., & Burns, T. E. (2010). Interactive engagement: How much is enough? The Physics Teacher, 48(2), 108-111.
Lasry, N., Mazur, E., & Watkins, J. (2008). Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college. American Journal of Physics, 76(11), 1066-1069.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Nitta, H. (2010). Mathematical theory of peer instruction dynamics. Physical Review Special Topics- Physics Education Research, 6(2), 020105, 1-4.
Paulsen, M. B., & Feldman, K. A. (1999). Student motivation and epistemological beliefs. New Directions Teaching Learning, 78, 17-25.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801-813.
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993a). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199.
Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1995). Assessing students’ motivation and learning strategies. (Meeting American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA).
Porter, L., Bailey, L. C., Simon, B., Cutts, Q., & Zingaro, D. (2011). A multi-classroom report on the value of peer instruction. In proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, June 27-29, Darmstadt, Germany.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp 334-370). New York: Macmillan.
Shimamura, A. P. (2000). What is metacognition? The brain knows. The American Journal of Psychology, 113, 142-147.
Simon, B., & Cutts, Q. (2012). Peer instruction: A teaching method to foster deep understanding. Communications of the ACM, 55(2), 27-29.
Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors’ implementation of peer instruction. Physical Review Special Topics- Physics Education Research, 5(2), 020101, 1-18.
Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2010). The construction of different classroom norms during peer instruction: Students perceive differences. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 6(2), 020123, 1-22.
