AC 2010-1274: THE "WRITE" PATH TO EFFECTIVE STUDENTUNDERSTANDING IN PHYSICS

Teresa Larkin, American UniversityTeresa L. Larkin is an Associate Professor of Physics Education and Faculty Liaison to thePre-engineering Program at American University. She received her Ph.D. in Curriculum andInstruction with special emphasis in Physics and Science Education from Kansas StateUniversity. Dr. Larkin has published widely on the assessment of student learning in introductoryphysics and engineering courses. She has been an active member of ASEE for 25 years. Dr.Larkin served on the Board of Directors for ASEE from 1997-1999 as Chair of ProfessionalInterest Council III (PIC III) and as Vice President of Professional Interest Councils. Dr. Larkinhas received numerous national and international awards including the Distinguished Educatorand Service Award from the Physics and Engineering Physics Division of ASEE in 1998 and theInternational Conference on Engineering and Computer Education award for ExtraordinaryAchievements and Contributions to the Fields of Engineering and Computer Education WorldWide in 2007 (Santos/Monguaguá, Brazil). In 2000-2001 she served as a National ScienceFoundation ASEE Visiting Scholar.

© American Society for Engineering Education, 2010

Page 15.1203.1

The “Write” Path to Effective Student Understanding in Physics

ABSTRACT

The active process of writing has been shown to serve as an effective tool to improve the quality

of student learning. While the benefits of a writing approach have been documented, it is often

very challenging to implement in a physics classroom. In a physics classroom the focus is

typically on having students solve problems. Problem solving is clearly critical in terms of

helping students understand physics. Unfortunately, students often don’t realize the flaws in their

thinking until after a quiz or exam has been graded and returned to them. At that point, it is

already too late for students to adjust their flawed thinking and demonstrate their revised

understanding of a particular topic or concept in physics. A number of studies in physics

education have presented the challenges that novice students often face when learning to solve

problems in a physics class. Writing exercises can help students elicit and confront the

misconceptions they often harbor (as a result of their own life’s experiences related to the

physical world) while the learning is actually taking place. This paper will describe an effective

and time-efficient strategy that allows instructors to utilize writing in their classrooms to help

students get a deeper and more robust understanding of physics. This strategy, known as free-

writing, has been used with introductory physics students at American University for a number

of years. The free-writing activities have been shown to help students uncover gaps in their

understanding in a challenging, yet non-threatening way; and, to allow students to correct flaws

in their thinking before they have lost points on a quiz or exam. An example of a specific

writing activity developed for use in the introductory physics classroom will be shared. In

addition, samples of students’ writing will be presented to illustrate typical misconceptions and

to provide documentation for the need to develop techniques that encourage students to confront

their misconceptions. Responding to students’ written work in a timely fashion is especially

challenging for those that teach large classes. Time-efficient writing assessment strategies will

be highlighted with a focus on how writing can be used with a minimal investment of time.

Finally, the importance of effective instructor feedback will be discussed along with ways to

provide that feedback in such a way that students have time to adjust their thinking while the

learning is actually taking place.

I. INTRODUCTION

A primary purpose of teaching is to promote and enhance student learning. However,

traditional teaching methodologies have clearly been shown to put students in a role of passive

rather than active learning [1]. Traditional instructional methods have also been shown to be

very inadequate in terms of promoting deep learning and long-term retention of important

concepts. Students in traditional classrooms acquire most of their “knowledge” through

classroom lectures, textbook reading, and the internet. A troubling fact is, after instruction,

students often emerge from our classes with serious misconceptions [2 - 6].

In recent years, a number of writing techniques have evolved that make use of various

writing-to-learn strategies within the domains of engineering, mathematics, and the sciences [7 -

16]. The use of writing in introductory classes for non-majors can be an effective vehicle for

allowing students to enhance their critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Writing can also

assist students with the identification and confrontation of personal misconceptions [17].

Page 15.1203.2

Science classes are often seen by many students to be threatening and intimidating places

to be. Tobias [18] has been critical of introductory college science courses and has argued that

typical classrooms are “… competitive, selective, intimidating, and designed to winnow out all

but the ‘top tier’ … there is little attempt to create a sense of ‘community’ among average

students of science” (p. 9). Hence, a traditional science classroom may present potential barriers

that could inhibit learning for some students. In addition, Tobias describes students in the

‘second tier’ as students who are often very capable of doing well in science, but for one reason

or another, choose not to. Often, non-majors who enroll in a science course, perhaps to complete

a university requirement, may well be categorized as students in the second tier. It is precisely

these students that one wants to be reach in order to provide them with a wider array of options

as they move through the academic ladder. While traditional teaching methods can work well

for some students depending upon their individual learning styles; they can present roadblocks to

learning for others. The active process of writing may provide one mechanism through which

these barriers to learning can be reduced and possibly even removed. Tobias [19] also indicates

that writing can serve as a means to help students relieve their anxiety as well as help them

unlearn models and techniques that have been shown to be scientifically unsound.

This paper describes a strategy for infusing writing into the introductory physics

curriculum for non-majors. This strategy is used in a first-level physics courses for non-science

majors at American University. Following a brief description of the course and its

corresponding student population, the writing strategy as it is used will be described. Finally, a

summary of this strategy will be presented in terms of its relevance to science, technology,

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education.

II. THE INTRODUCTORY PHYSICS COURSE FOR NON-MAJORS

The writing strategy to be described is used within an introductory level physics course

for non-science majors at American University. The course is entitled Physics for the Modern

World (PMW) and is a foundation-level, algebra-based course within the Natural Sciences

portion of the General Education core. The development of higher-order critical thinking skills

is a key objective of the course. The course also includes a laboratory component. Students

complete 12 laboratory experiments over the course of one semester. Course topics typically

include kinematics, Newton’s Laws, conservation of momentum and energy, rotational motion,

and fluid mechanics. As such, numerous strategies, including the writing strategies to be

described, have been developed that center around the accommodation of students’ diverse

learning styles [20 – 26].

Students that enroll in PMW most often do so to satisfy the university’s science

requirement for graduation. The students come from a wide-array of academic disciplines

including business, international studies, international relations, political science,

communications, audio technology, economics, theater, music, literature, and history, just to

name a few. The vast majority of these students are quite capable of doing well in science, but

have chosen to pursue other areas such as those mentioned here. In some cases, after students

have taken the introductory physics course and it has piqued their interest and curiosity about

physics, they go on to take other physics courses. Some even go on to complete a minor in

Applied Physics. In addition to the traditional physics minor, American University offers a

minor in Applied Physics which gives students credit for the General Education introductory

Page 15.1203.3

physics courses that they’ve taken. It has become increasingly common for a history major, for

example, to also complete a minor in Applied Physics.

Figure 1 shows a team of students in the PMW laboratory. These students are building a

roller coaster to investigate concepts related to energy conservation. They have constructed a

loop-the-loop track on which they will run a small car through photogates they have carefully

placed along the track. The photogates are connected to a data acquisition system which will

allow them to collect motion data they can use to determine whether or not energy has been

conserved for their car.

FIGURE 1 PMW STUDENTS INVESTIGATE ENERGY CONSERVATION

Figure 2 shows two students working on an equilibrium experiment. The students are

working to position several weights on an object on a typical force table. Using the data they

collect, they will work to verify the two conditions of equilibrium. In Figure 3, students are

preparing to launch a ball during a projectile motion lab designed to help them learn about 2-

dimensional motion.

FIGURE 2 PMW STUDENTS INVESTIGATE EQUILIBRIUM CONCEPTS

FIGURE 3 PMW STUDENTS PREPARE TO LAUNCH A PROJECTILE

Page 15.1203.4

Within the laboratory component of the course, students write traditional laboratory

reports. While this is an important skill for students to learn, writing a laboratory report doesn’t

always go far enough in terms of helping students uncover any misconceptions they might have

in terms of a particular concept in physics. Hence, in addition to writing a laboratory report,

within the same course students are given a less-traditional opportunity to use writing to help

them learn physics. The following section presents a description of the less-conventional writing

activities developed for use in this course. These activities are called “free writing” activities

and are designed to help students work through any problems in their understanding and to help

them uncover any deep-seeded misconceptions they might have regarding a particular topic in

physics. Ultimately, these activities are intended to help students get to the heart of their

understanding about key concepts in physics in a non-threatening, yet pedagogically effective

way.

III. THE FREE-WRITING ACTIVITY

As part of their homework assignments, students are required to keep a two-pocket folder

in which to place their free-writing activities. Students receive approximately 6 free writing

assignments each semester. Upon collection of the folders, a block of time (approximately 6 - 8

hours) is set aside to read them and provide each student with written feedback. This written

feedback is absolutely essential. Numerous studies have pointed out the importance and value of

prompt and thoughtful feedback to students [27 – 31]. When students take time to reflect on

their writing and on the instructor’s comments, the folder becomes a highly effective tool in

helping them uncover and then wrestle with their misconceptions while the learning is taking

place.

The nature of the free-writing assignments varies depending on the goals and objectives

for a particular topic or content area. For example, for some free-writing assignments students

are asked to explain a problem or a concept that was highlighted or discussed during a class

session. Thus, students essentially have the “answer” to the problem in their hands when they

write up this assignment. The rationale for this type of activity is that learning can be enhanced

when students take on the role of teacher through their detailed responses and explanations.

A second example of the kind of activities students are asked to respond to involves the

creation of sample exam questions. In addition to writing a question, students must explain their

choice of responses (i.e. for a multiple choice question) including the reasoning behind both the

correct response as well as the incorrect options. An additional example of a typical writing

activity involves having students contemplate and then write about a particular “real-life”

question prior to when that particular topic is actually discussed in class. Still other activities

require students to reflect on an idea or demonstration that was presented in class. As will be

discussed shortly, students are not penalized for getting the answer wrong when they complete

their free-writing assignments.

To provide an example of a free-writing activity, an assignment that was given to

students in the fall 2009 PMW class will be shared. The activity focused on an inertia

demonstration that was shown students during a class period near the beginning of the term.

However, the writing assignment asked the students to extend their understanding of the

demonstration to include their thoughts in regards to force, impulse, and momentum; topics that

had not yet been discussed in class. The intent of this type of activity is to encourage students to

put their thoughts in writing, regardless of whether they are correct or not. As class discussions

move forward, the writing activity is brought up and discussed in detail. As the discussions

Page 15.1203.5

ensue, students often experience an “ah-ha” moment or two in regards to the response they

earlier provided in their writing activities and the actual physics behind the particular question.

Figure 4 illustrates the free-writing activity in its entirety.

Physics 100 Folder/Free-Writing Activity 2 Fall Semester 2009 Dr. Larkin Due Date: Monday, Sept. 28th For this brief free writing assignment, I would like you to recall a demonstration you were shown in class earlier this semester.* The demonstration involved 3 raw eggs, some empty tissue rolls, a pizza pan, and 3 glasses mostly filled with water. If you recall, I set the pizza pan on top of the glasses of water. I centered the tissue rolls above each glass of water and placed a raw egg on top of each roll. To demonstrate the concept of inertia I quickly jerked the pizza pan out from under the tissue rolls. The tissue rolls had little inertia and just toppled out of the way. The eggs, however, having more inertia, fell straight down into the glass of water. When the eggs landed in the water – they didn’t break. What I want you to focus on is the question: Why didn’t the eggs break? Please prepare a short paragraph of about 6 – 8 sentences to explain why the eggs didn’t break. Do not use any outside resource (i.e. your text, the internet, etc.) to answer this question. Simply write out your answer to why the eggs didn’t break in your own words. After you have written this paragraph, go back and underline all the words that you’ve used that are physics-related (i.e. inertia, force, whatever else you come up with and feel is physics-related). Finally, below your paragraph, please provide a complete definition (again in your own words) of what your underlined words mean using the best physics you can. I would expect that your paragraph would include about 4 physics-related words. Again, do not rely on any outside resources to help you. [Remember you don’t lose points for getting the physics wrong as long as you are sincere in your responses and have fully completed the writing task. We’ll clear up any incorrect thinking as we move forward.] You are welcome to be as creative as you like as you complete this activity! Please submit this assignment in the folder you should have that is dedicated to this activity. Be sure to always include previous assignments each time you submit. *If you added class after this demo was shown in class, stop by and I’ll demonstrate it for you! If you know

someone in class, you could also have them explain to you what was done.

FIGURE 4 SAMPLE WRITING ACTIVITY

Typical student responses revealed that students’ thinking often was muddled by the

cosmetic details of the question. Many students were correctly able to describe why the eggs

landed in the cups, but virtually none were able to correctly answer why the eggs didn’t break.

The following represents a sample of typical (and unabridged) student responses to this activity:

≠ I feel that the eggs didn’t break as the water broke their fall. Also the height from which

the eggs fell into the glass was not that high. Hence there was not enough force created

for the egg to reach the bottom of the glass and crack. [Student 1]

≠ The eggs didn’t break because they landed in glasses of water. Water has fluid friction

which was pushing against the weight (and force of gravity) of the egg. The force of the

water was the same amount of Newtons as the force of gravity thus there was

equilibrium. Also eggs are buoyant in water which made less of an impact when they

initially hit the water. Due to these reasons, the eggs did not break. [Student 2]

≠ Water is much denser than air. Because it is denser, i.e., has more mass per volume, it

has more inertia and offers more resistance to being pushed out of the way by the egg fall

through it. This causes the egg to decelerate, decreasing its velocity. Because it then hits

Page 15.1203.6

the bottom of the cup at a much lower velocity, the force of impact is not enough to break

the egg. [Student 3]

≠ The idea of objects floating in water is called buoyancy. The eggs did not break when

they hit the water because of their density. Density is what determines if an object (solid

or liquid) floats or sinks in a liquid. The density of water was heavier than the density of

the eggs, so the force of the eggs pushing down was not strong enough to combat the

force of the water. Since F = ma, I would think if the eggs fell from a higher height, the

eggs may have had enough force to go all the way to the bottom of the cup and break.

The demonstration also would not have worked if there was not enough water in the cup

to allow the egg some room for the fight of gravity versus the buoyant force. The eggs do

not stop moving as soon as they hit the water. [Student 4]

≠ An experiment performed earlier in the semester resulted in three raw eggs dropping

from a height approximately equal to the length of a paper towel roll into a plastic cup

filled with water. When the eggs fell into the cups, they did not break but instead

splashed in and then floated on top of the water. The reason that the eggs did not break,

in addition to the fact that the height of the fall may not have been high enough to break

them, is that the water increased the time of the impact. The inertia of the eggs required

a force with a certain magnitude in order to stop the eggs’ movement. The exact same

force would be applied by the water as would be applied by a table. The only difference

is the length of time over which the force is spread out. When the eggs fell into the water,

the total force was enacted over a period of time much greater than the instantaneous

force put on eggs by a table. The longer a force is spread out, the lower the value of the

instantaneous force. [Student 5]

Recall that this writing activity had been given to the students near the beginning of the

term, so the students’ use of physics terminology is quite underdeveloped at best. The sample

responses illustrate how students often attempt to use a physics term, such as force or buoyancy,

which they are familiar with because of their own individual “real world” experiences. Some of

the students that take PMW have had a physics class in high school (some have even taken AP

physics), while others have had no academic exposure to physics at all. In addition, these sample

responses also clearly reveal numerous misconceptions that students have as they attempt to

explain why the eggs didn’t break. One of the reasons that physics is a subject for which its

students have so many misconceptions is because of its numerous and often intricate connections

to everyday life. As human beings do, students will tend to continue to hold onto a particular

conception as long as that conception works for them. For the typical college student, this often

means approximately 18 years of life experiences are helping them to shape their understanding

of the physical world. Often times, many of these experiences have not been challenged in an

academic way until a student enters their first physics class.

Because students have had many years of life experiences in which their conceptions

have not been challenged in an academic form, they often find it difficult to let go of an incorrect

conception, even when presented with evidence to the contrary. The active process of writing

can be one way to help students elicit and confront these incorrect conceptions as they move

towards a deeper understanding of physics. Each student has to be willing and able to make

modifications to their world view based on the new and scientifically sound information they are

wrestling with in their writing activities. Until students can get to a point where they can take an

Page 15.1203.7

idea and connect it to their lives, it is very difficult to get them to make an alteration in their

understanding.

After this particular writing assignment was collected, the instructor quickly provided

students with concrete written feedback on their work. There are many techniques for providing

written feedback in a time-efficient manner. For this particular assignment, each student

received enough detailed feedback to allow them to begin to understand where changes in their

thinking needed to be made. Students were also encouraged to come in during office hours to

discuss the written feedback they received. As Figure 5 shows, each student was also provided

with a full written explanation as to why the eggs didn’t break.

Physics 100 Folder/Free-Writing Activity 2 Fall Semester 2009 Dr. Larkin So why didn’t the eggs break? The key here is the water in the glass helped to extend the time that it took for the eggs to come to rest. Hence, the force that resulted was not large enough to crack their shells. When the eggs first began to fall, their initial velocity was zero. Their final velocity was a maximum at the point of impact with the water (and could be calculated using the constant acceleration equations if the falling distance or falling time was known). In physics, the term momentum (a vector) is used to describe “mass in motion.” Momentum can be found from:

p = m × v,

with units of kg-m/s. This looks a lot like a Newton, doesn’t it? We know that 1 N is equivalent to 1 kg-m/s2. Read on to see the connection … When the eggs fell, their momentum changed from a zero initial value (pi = 0) to some final value (pf). Again, we could calculate vf if we knew the falling distance or time. We could write this change in momentum as:

∆p = pf – pi.

For the momentum to change there must have been a force acting on the eggs to change it! Neglecting air resistance, the only force acting on the eggs as they fell was gravity. We could say that the force of gravity acted on the falling eggs over a certain period of time causing the momentum of the eggs to change. In physics we say an impulse occurred causing the momentum of the eggs to change. We can express impulse as:

I = Fave∆t = ∆p.

For the case of the freely falling eggs, their impulse would be:

I = Fave∆t = ∆p = pf – pi = pf – 0 = pf.

The eggs experienced a second impulse once they came in contact with the water. At this point, we could rename pf (the momentum they had when they hit the water) as pi for the stopping portion of their motion. In this case, our new pf = 0 because the eggs eventually come to rest in the water. So, our impulse in this case becomes:

I = Fave∆t = ∆p = pf – pi = 0 – pi = -pi.

The impulse of stopping is just equal in magnitude but opposite in direction to the impulse of falling!! Note that the change in momentum of the eggs will be the same value regardless of the stopping surface. We can’t change that. Good old gravity and the free-fall distance dictated that for us. But, since the water effectively “cushions” the fall – the time it takes for the eggs to come to rest is extended. Since the change in momentum is fixed, if we increase the stop time, we decrease Fave!! (Do you remember what we said in class about why we use the term Fave in physics??) If the eggs were to hit a hard surface (as they did in one class!), then the stop time would be much shorter (but remember the ∆p won’t change) and the force on the eggs would be much larger. Most likely they would break (and we all get scrambled eggs!). There are many, many everyday applications that relate to the impulse relationship. Take a little time to think about some examples!

FIGURE 5 FEEDBACK PROVIDED FOR FREE-WRITING ACTIVITY

Page 15.1203.8

Shortly after students submitted their free-writing assignment, the relevant topics were

addressed formally during a class session. Students were then given substantive instructor

feedback on their individual writings. The fact that students had taken the time to critically think

about these questions prior to formally learning about them greatly enhanced their understanding

as evidenced by the robust level of class discussion that resulted. In general, once students

complete their free-writing assignments they are asked to read them over to see if they have

addressed everything asked for in the assignment. Students are often required to have someone

else, who is preferably unfamiliar with physics, read their responses and comment on them

BEFORE they hand them in. Typical writing activities range in length from 1 - 2 pages. The

following section provides an overview of the assessment process used for the free-writing

activities.

IV. ASSESSMENT OF THE FREE-WRITING ACTIVITIES

In the course syllabus, students are provided with a description of the expectations for the

free-writing activities. Some class time is also devoted to a discussion of these expectations. In

terms of assessing the quality of the writing activities, students are provided with a checklist

outlining these expectations. The key element of the checklist involves the thoroughness with

which they present their responses. For example, a simple opinion statement that is unsupported

by a physics principle or relationship would be considered a weak response. A strong response

would be complete, well documented, and illustrated in terms of the physics involved. The

writing activities constitute approximately 10% of a students’ overall grade in the PMW course.

Other assessment measures include homework assignments, quizzes, exams, and written

laboratory reports.

The assessment strategy for the free-writing activities is unique. Students are not

penalized for incorrect use of physics! Not penalizing students for incorrect use of physics helps

to make the writing assignments non-threatening. In fact, a numerical grade is not given to their

writing assignments until the end of the semester! This does not bother the students at all. In

fact, the students indicate that they value the written feedback they receive and they look forward

to receiving it. A typical comment from students regarding this feedback is “I find your written

feedback very useful. I learn from my mistakes more than anything else. Feedback helps me

establish these mistakes.” Thus, students are encouraged to look at these comments, rather than

a numerical score when their writing activities are returned to them. What is intended is for

students to think very deeply about the instructor’s written comments and then do whatever they

need to do to correct the flaws in their thinking. The objective here is to get students away from

just looking at their numerical scores and then filing the activity away, oftentimes never to be

looked at again.

In addition to not penalizing students for incorrect use of physics, students’ writing

assignments are not assessed for grammar and spelling (unless it is blatantly poor, which seldom

happens). If a word is misspelled that will be indicated to the student, but they are not marked

down for it. Surprisingly, the papers that students turn in are remarkably well written and

grammatically clean. The extensive written feedback provided to the students clearly provides

an additional incentive for them to do a good job. Thus, the feedback provided to the students’

has an added benefit as it seems to encourage students to put even more thought and energy into

what they turn in.

Page 15.1203.9

The fact that English is not the first language of some of the students does not appear to

present any serious problems for those students. Moreover, language should not be seen as a

barrier to the students’ learning of physics. In fact, the writing activities have an added benefit

for all of the students, whether English is their first language or not; and that is, their

communication skills are enhanced.

The free-writing activities provide an additional assessment tool beyond such things as

traditional paper and pencil tests. However, there is one shortcoming to the writing activities,

and that is that they do take time to read and respond to, especially for instructors dealing with

large numbers of students as is the case with PMW. One strategy that can be used to handle

working with such large numbers of students involves sometimes staggering the assignments.

Since PMW is regularly taught in two reasonably large sections (i.e. about 30 - 60 students each)

often the activities are collected from one section at a time. It can be particularly enlightening to

ask students in one section to respond to a question on a particular topic before it has been

discussed in class and the other section to respond to the same question after it has been

discussed it in class. This strategy can provide a better view of what students understand about a

particular topic both before and after it has been discussed in class.

The following section provides a collective summary of instructor observations regarding

the free-writing writing activity. In addition, it provides some concluding thoughts in terms of

applications of these writing activities to other domains of science and engineering.

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Critical to the writing activities is the feedback provided to the students. The benefits of

instructor- (as well as peer-) feedback are numerous. The instructor-student relationship is

quickly fostered and enhanced. Because students are given prompt critical and detailed

feedback, they take the writing activities very seriously. The quality of student work is clearly

improved. Furthermore, the writing activities serve to motivate many students to go above and

beyond what is required purely for the sake of learning physics. Many students will occasionally

include colorful diagrams, photographs, and other artwork to their writing folders to help them

substantiate their written responses.

In terms of the free-writing activities, student responses often reveal students’

misconceptions regarding specific topics in physics. The instructor is then able to adjust their

teaching to help students more effectively confront their misconceptions. Other more traditional

assessment measures do not permit this type of robust discovery while the learning is actually

taking place. Furthermore, the free-writing activities have proved to be an effective means of

helping students make deeper and more personal connections to the physics content under study.

The process of explaining one’s thoughts through writing can lead to the sharpening of critical

thinking skills.

Important to note is the fact that the PMW course was designed with non-majors in mind.

However, the writing strategies outlined in this paper could easily be applied to other courses in

science and engineering, both for majors as well as non-majors. The underlying premise is that

all students, no matter what their gender, cultural, or demographic backgrounds, can learn

physics (and can even learn to like physics!).

Writing has proven to be an effective way to assist students in articulating their thoughts

and their understandings about a topic or set of topics. The opportunity to write about a topic

can allow students a chance to demonstrate their understanding in a way traditional assessment

Page 15.1203.10

measures do not permit. It is hoped that the writing approach described here might be adaptable

for use in other courses within the domains of science and engineering education.

VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank all of the awesome students in her spring and fall 2009 PMW

classes. Your dedication to the writing assignments and to understanding physics is greatly

appreciated. Many thanks to all of you!!

VII. REFERENCES

1. Jones, T. H. & Paolucci, R. (1998). The learning effectiveness of educational technology:

A call for further research. Educational Technology Review, (9), 10 – 14.

2. Arons, A. B. (1990). A Guide to Introductory Physics Teaching. New York: John Wiley

& Sons.

3. Halloun, I. A. & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge state of college students.

American Journal of Physics, 53(11), 1043 – 1055.

4. McCloskey, M., Caramazza, A., & Green, B. (1980). Curvilinear motion in the absence

of external forces: Naïve beliefs about the motion of objects. Science, 210, 1139 – 1141.

5. McDermott, L. C. (1984). Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics. Physics

Today, 37, 24 – 32.

6. McDermott, L. C. (1991). A view from physics. In M. Gardner, J. Greeno, F. Reif, A. H.

Schoenfeld, A. diSessa, and E. Stage (Eds.), Toward a Scientific Practice of Science

Education (pp. 3 – 30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

7. Connolly, P. & Vilardi, T. (1989). Writing to Learn in Mathematics and Science. New

York: Teachers College Press.

8. Countryman, J. (1992). Writing to Learn Mathematics: Strategies That Work.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc.

9. Hein, T. L. (1998). Using student writing as a research and learning tool. AAPT

Announcer, 27(4), 79.

10. Hein, T. L. (1999). Writing: An effective learning tool for non-science majors. AAPT

Announcer, 29(2), 114.

11. Kirkland, W. L. (1997). Teaching biology through creative writing. Journal of College

Science Teaching, 26(4), 277 – 279.

12. Mullin, W. J. (1989). Writing in physics. The Physics Teacher, 27(5), 342 – 347.

13. Rice, R. E. (1998). ‘Scientific writing’ – A course to improve the writing of science

students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 27(4), 267 – 272.

14. Sharp, J. E., Olds, B. M., Miller, R. L., & Dyrud, M. (1999). Four effective writing

strategies for engineering classes. Journal of Engineering Education, 88(1), 53 – 57.

15. Kalman, C. S. (2007). Successful Science and Engineering Teaching in Colleges and

Universities. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.

16. Larkin-Hein, T. (2001). Writing as a Teaching and Learning Tool in SMET Educaton.

Journal of SMET Education: Innovations and Research, 2(1&2), 25 – 35.

17. Hein, T. L. (1999). Using writing to confront student misconceptions in physics.

European Journal of Physics, 20, 137 – 141.

18. Tobias, S. (1990). They’re not dumb, they’re different: Stalking the second tier. Tucson,

AZ: Research Corporation.

Page 15.1203.11

19. Tobias, S. (1989). In Paul Connolly and Teresa Vilardi (Eds.), Writing to Learn

Mathematics and Science. New York: Teachers College Press.

20. Hein, T. L. (1995). Learning style analysis in a calculus-based introductory physics

course. Annual conference of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE),

Anaheim, CA (Session 1480).

21. Hein, T. L. & Zollman, D. A., (1997). Digital video, learning styles, and student

understanding of kinematics graphs. AAPT Announcer (Addendum), 26(4), 3.

22. Hein, T. L. & Budny, D. D. (1999). Teaching with STYLE: Strategies that work.

Electronic proceedings of the annual conference of the American Society for Engineering

Education (ASEE), Charlotte, NC (Session 3280).

23. Hein, T. L. & Budny, D. D. (1999). Research on learning style: Applications in science

and engineering. Electronic proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering

and Computer Education (ICECE), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

24. Hein, T. L. & Budny, D. D. (1999). Teaching to students’ learning styles: Approaches

that work. Electronic proceedings of the Frontiers in Education (FIE) Conference, San

Juan, Puerto Rico. IEEE Catalog number 99CH37011. ISBN 0-7803-5643-8.

25. Larkin—Hein, T. & Zollman, D. (2000). Digital Video, Learning Styles and Student

Understanding of Kinematics Graphs. Journal of SMET Education: Innovations and

Research, 1(2), 17-30.

26. Larkin, T. L., (2007). Writing: A Global Active Learning Tool in STEM Education.

International Conference on Engineering and Computer Education (ICECE 2007),

Santos/Monguaguá, Brazil, Plenary Session II.

27. Brown, S. & Knight, P. (1994). Assessing learners in higher education. London:

Kogon Page.

28. Gastel, B. (1991). Teaching science: A guide for college and professional school

instructors. Phoenix, AZ: Onyx Press.

29. Harmelink, K. (1998). Learning the write way. The Science Teacher, 65(1), 36 – 38.

30. Wiggins, G. (1997). Feedback: How learning occurs. AAHE Bulletin, 50(3), 7 - 8.

31. Larkin, T. L. (2009). Give it a “TWIST!”: Turning Writing into Student thinking.

IEEE/ASEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Austin, Texas. Article published in the

electronic proceedings, Session T4C, pp. 1 – 4. IEEE Catalog Number: CFP09FIE.

ISBN: 978-1-4244-4715. Library of Congress: 79-640910. ISSN: 0190-5848.

Page 15.1203.12