Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Exploring pedagogical content knowledge of physics teaching assistants using the Energy and Momentum Conceptual Survey

Liam Doyle1,*, Alexandru Maries2, and Chandralekha Singh1

  • *Contact author: LCD23@pitt.edu

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 22, 020138 – Published 1 October, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/fgqc-dfbz

Abstract

This study examines the extent to which physics graduate teaching assistants (TAs) are aware of introductory physics student thinking and the types of challenges introductory students commonly have with energy and momentum concepts, which is important for implementing active learning methodologies and supporting diverse learners in physics courses. We present findings from a TA professional development course and discuss an approach to investigate TAs’ pedagogical content knowledge, specifically their ability to recognize introductory student conceptual difficulties. We investigated 70 first-year graduate TAs’ ability to identify common introductory physics student alternate conceptions on the Energy and Momentum Conceptual Survey (EMCS). The TAs participated in a professional development course that emphasized reflection on introductory student thinking patterns to promote evidence-based pedagogical practices. TAs predicted the most common incorrect answers introductory students would select after lecture-based instruction, then compared their predictions with actual data from introductory students followed by a class discussion. This reflection process can promote robust understanding of introductory student thinking patterns, which is essential for effective teaching that accounts for how introductory students make sense of physics concepts. Results reveal gaps between TAs’ perceptions and introductory student thinking, with TAs performing poorly on many of the analyzed questions. For example, TAs consistently overestimated that introductory physics students would use novice-like thinking in many situations posed in EMCS problems, i.e., they expected introductory physics students to make more novice-like errors than they actually did. These findings have important implications for effective instructional design, e.g., physics TAs who misunderstand introductory physics student capabilities may inadvertently create barriers to learning by spending valuable class time on either overscaffolding or underchallenging introductory physics learners and not spending time on pedagogical issues that are important to address.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (111)

  1. C. Bell, D. Gitomer, C. Savage, and A. H. McKenna, A synthesis of research on and measurement of STEM teacher preparation, Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. (2019), https://aaas-arise.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Bell-Gitomer-Savage-McKenna-A-Synthesis-of-Research-on-and-Measurement-of-STEM-Teacher-Preparation.pdf.
  2. J. P. Van Overschelde and A. Y. Wiggins, Teacher preparation pathways: Differences in program selection and teacher retention, Act. Teach. Educ. 42, 311 (2020).
  3. S. M. Wilson and S. L. Kelley, Landscape of teacher preparation programs and teacher candidates. Evaluating and improving teacher preparation programs, Natl. Acad. Educ. (2022), https://naeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Evaluating_and_Improving_Teacher_Preparation_Programs.pdf.
  4. T. S. Love and Z. J. Love, The teacher recruitment crisis: Examining influential recruitment factors from a United States technology and engineering teacher preparation program, Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 33, 105 (2023).
  5. H. Song and M. Zhou, STEM teachers’ preparation, teaching beliefs, and perceived teaching competence: A multigroup structural equation approach, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 30, 394 (2021).
  6. E. J. Fuller and A. Pendola, Teacher preparation and teacher retention: Examining the relationship for beginning STEM teachers, Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. 21 (2019), https://aaas-arise.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Fuller-Pendola-Teacher-Preparation-and-Teacher-Retention-Examining-the-Relationship-for-Beginning-STEM-Teachers.pdf.
  7. M. Ryu, N. Mentzer, and N. Knobloch, Preservice teachers’ experiences of STEM integration: Challenges and implications for integrated STEM teacher preparation, Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 29, 493 (2019).
  8. C. K. Lo, Design principles for effective teacher professional development in integrated STEM education, Educ. Technol. Soc. 24, 136 (2021), https://drive.google.com/file/d/14SUMpmlv7ORA-OK40u1UScMClRgWpe9h/view.
  9. K. C. Margot and T. Kettler, Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review, Int. J. STEM Educ. 6, 1 (2019).
  10. J. Morrison, J. Frost, C. Gotch, A. R. McDuffie, B. Austin, and B. French, Teachers’ role in students’ learning at a project-based STEM high school: Implications for teacher education, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 19, 1103 (2021).
  11. F. Berisha and E. Vula, Developing pre-service teachers’ conceptualization of STEM and STEM pedagogical practices, Front. Educ. 6, 585075 (2021).
  12. D. Lane and S. Sorby, Bridging the gap: blending spatial skills instruction into a technology teacher preparation programme, Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 32, 2195 (2022).
  13. S. Hamad, H. Tairab, Y. Wardat, L. Rabbani, K. AlArabi, M. Yousif, A. Abu-Al-Aish, and G. Stoica, Understanding science teachers’ implementations of integrated STEM: Teacher perceptions and practice, Sustainability 14, 3594 (2022).
  14. K. B. Christian, A. M. Kelly, and M. F. Bugallo, NGSS-based teacher professional development to implement engineering practices in STEM instruction, Int. J. STEM Educ. 8, 21 (2021).
  15. T. R. Kelley, J. G. Knowles, J. D. Holland, and J. Han, Increasing high school teachers self-efficacy for integrated STEM instruction through a collaborative community of practice, Int. J. STEM Educ. 7, 14 (2020).
  16. D. Goldhaber, Evidence-based teacher preparation: Policy context and what we know, J. Teach. Educ. 70, 90 (2019).
  17. S. L. Bartels, K. M. Rupe, and J. S. Lederman, Shaping preservice teachers’ understandings of STEM: A collaborative math and science methods approach, J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 30, 666 (2019).
  18. P. M. Kurup, X. Li, G. Powell, and M. Brown, Building future primary teachers’ capacity in STEM: Based on a platform of beliefs, understandings and intentions, Int. J. STEM Educ. 6, 10 (2019).
  19. B. Wu, Y. Hu, and M. Wang, Scaffolding design thinking in online STEM preservice teacher training, Br. J. Educ. Technol. 50, 2271 (2019).
  20. F. Mumcu, N. A. Uslu, and B. Y𝚤ld𝚤z, Teacher development in integrated STEM education: Design of lesson plans through the lens of computational thinking, Educ. Inf. Technol. 28, 3443 (2023).
  21. R. E. Brown and C. A. Bogiages, Professional development through STEM integration: How early career math and science teachers respond to experiencing integrated STEM tasks, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 17, 111 (2019).
  22. E. A. Dare, K. Keratithamkul, B. M. Hiwatig, and F. Li, Beyond content: The role of STEM disciplines, real-world problems, 21st century skills, and STEM careers within science teachers’ conceptions of integrated STEM education, Educ. Sci. 11, 737 (2021).
  23. K. L. Boice, J. R. Jackson, M. Alemdar, A. E. Rao, S. Grossman, and M. Usselman, Supporting teachers on their STEAM journey: A collaborative STEAM teacher training program, Educ. Sci. 11, 105 (2021).
  24. D. S. Wright, M. M. Balgopal, L. B. Sample McMeeking, and A. E. Weinberg, Developing resilient K-12 STEM teachers, Adv. Dev. Human Resour. 21, 16 (2019).
  25. A. E. Weinberg, M. M. Balgopal, and L. B. Sample McMeeking, Professional growth and identity development of STEM teacher educators in a community of practice, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 19, 99 (2021).
  26. E. Bardelli, M. Ronfeldt, and J. P. Papay, Teacher preparation programs and graduates’ growth in instructional effectiveness, Am. Educ. Res. J. 60, 183 (2023).
  27. E. Akiri and Y. J. Dori, Professional growth of novice and experienced STEM teachers, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 31, 129 (2022).
  28. D. Goldhaber, J. Krieg, R. Theobald, and M. Goggins, Front end to back end: Teacher preparation, workforce entry, and attrition, J. Teach. Educ. 73, 253 (2022).
  29. D. Karisan, A. Macalalag, and J. Johnson, The effect of methods course on preservice teachers’ awareness and intentions of teaching science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subject, Int. J. Res. Educ. Sci. 5, 22 (2019), https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1198055.pdf.
  30. C. S. Chai, Teacher professional development for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education: A review from the perspectives of technological pedagogical content (TPACK), Asia-Pac. Educ. Res. 28, 5 (2019).
  31. A. Shum, P. Lau, and L. Fryer, From learner to teacher:(re) training graduate teaching assistants’ teaching approaches and developing self-efficacy for and interest in teaching, High. Educ. Res. Dev. 40, 1546 (2021).
  32. S. W. Lee and C. Brame, The impact of a pedagogy course on the teaching beliefs of inexperienced graduate teaching assistants, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 18, ar5 (2019).
  33. A. S. Huffmyer and J. D. Lemus, Graduate TA teaching behaviors impact student achievement in a research-based undergraduate science course, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 48, 56 (2019).
  34. E. K. Zotos, A. C. Moon, and G. V. Shultz, Investigation of chemistry graduate teaching assistants’ teacher knowledge and teacher identity, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 57, 943 (2020).
  35. L. B. Wheeler, J. L. Chiu, J. L. Maeng, and R. L. Bell, An exploratory study of teaching assistants’ motivation for inquiry-based teaching in an undergraduate laboratory context, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 20, 53 (2019).
  36. E. C. Goodwin, J. R. Cary, E. E. Shortlidge, and J. Hewlett, Enthusiastic but inconsistent: Graduate teaching assistants’ perceptions of their role in the CURE classroom, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 20, ar66 (2021).
  37. C. R. Smith, D. Menon, A. Wierzbicki, J. M. Dauer, and E. Schussler, Exploring STEM teaching assistants’ self-efficacy and its relation to approaches to teaching, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 22, ar6 (2023).
  38. A. Maries and C. Singh, Exploring one aspect of pedagogical content knowledge of teaching assistants using the test of understanding graphs in kinematics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 020120 (2013).
  39. A. Maries and C. Singh, Teaching assistants’ performance at identifying common introductory student difficulties in mechanics revealed by the force concept inventory, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010131 (2016).
  40. N. I. Karim, A. Maries, and C. Singh, Exploring one aspect of pedagogical content knowledge of teaching assistants using the conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010117 (2018).
  41. C. Singh, Categorization of problems to assess and improve proficiency as teachers and learners, Am. J. Phys. 77, 73 (2009).
  42. E. Marshman, R. Sayer, C. Henderson, and C. Singh, Contrasting grading approaches in introductory physics and quantum mechanics: The case of graduate teaching assistants, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010120 (2017).
  43. S.-Y. Lin, C. Henderson, W. Mamudi, C. Singh, and E. Yerushalmi, Teaching assistants’ beliefs regarding example solutions in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 010120 (2013).
  44. E. Marshman, R. Sayer, C. Henderson, E. Yerushalmi, and C. Singh, The challenges of changing teaching assistants’ grading practices: Requiring students to show evidence of understanding, Can. J. Phys. 96, 420 (2018).
  45. R. L. Kajfez and H. M. Matusovich, The practical applications of understanding graduate teaching assistant motivation and identity development, in Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (2013), pp. 605–607.
  46. S. Sandi-Urena, M. M. Cooper, and T. A. Gatlin, Graduate teaching assistants’ epistemological and metacognitive development, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 12, 92 (2011).
  47. M. Good, E. Marshman, E. Yerushalmi, and C. Singh, Graduate teaching assistants’ views of broken-into-parts physics problems: Preference for guidance overshadows development of self-reliance in problem solving, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 010128 (2020).
  48. E. Marshman, A. Maries, R. T. Sayer, C. Henderson, E. Yerushalmi, and C. Singh, Physics postgraduate teaching assistants’ grading approaches: Conflicting goals and practices, Eur. J. Phys. 41, 055701 (2020).
  49. D. Doucette, R. Clark, and C. Singh, Professional development combining cognitive apprenticeship and expectancy-value theories improves lab teaching assistants’ instructional views and practices, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020102 (2020).
  50. M. Good, E. Marshman, E. Yerushalmi, and C. Singh, The value of using different types of physics problems to help students become proficient problem-solvers, Phys. Educ. 59, 015018 (2023).
  51. C. Bauer, R. D. Libby, M. Scharberg, and D. Reider, Transformative research-based pedagogy workshops for chemistry graduate students and postdocs, Int. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 43, 36 (2013).
  52. R. M. Goertzen, R. E. Scherr, and A. Elby, Accounting for tutorial teaching assistants’ buy-in to reform instruction, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020109 (2009).
  53. M. Wilcox, Y. Yang, and J. J. Chini, Quicker method for assessing influences on teaching assistant buy-in and practices in reformed courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020123 (2016).
  54. V. Otero, S. Pollock, and N. Finkelstein, A physics department’s role in preparing physics teachers: The Colorado learning assistant model, Am. J. Phys. 78, 1218 (2010).
  55. F. Lawrenz, P. Heller, R. Keith, and K. Heller, Training the teaching assistant: Matching TA strengths and capabilities to meet specific program goals, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 22, 106 (1992).
  56. C. Sandifer and E. Brewe, Recruiting and Educating Future Physics Teachers: Case Studies and Effective Practices (American Physical Society, College Park, MD, 2015).
  57. A. Armenti Jr., and G. F. Wheeler, Hawthorne effect and quality teaching: Training graduate teaching assistants to teach, Am. J. Phys. 46, 121 (1978).
  58. M. J. Bozak, Tips for TAs: The role of the physics teaching assistant, Phys. Teach. 21, 21 (1983).
  59. E. Etkina, Helping graduate assistants teach physics: Problems and solutions, Grad. Teach. Assist. Dev. 7, 123 (2000), https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ621646.
  60. A. Flaherty, A. O’Dwyer, P. Mannix-McNamara, and J. J. Leahy, The influence of psychological empowerment on the enhancement of chemistry laboratory demonstrators’ perceived teaching self-image and behaviours as graduate teaching assistants, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 18, 710 (2017).
  61. M. Good, E. Marshman, E. Yerushalmi, and C. Singh, Physics teaching assistants’ views of different types of introductory problems: Challenge of perceiving the instructional benefits of context-rich and multiple-choice problems, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 020120 (2018).
  62. A. L. Gretton, T. Bridges, and J. M. Fraser, Transforming physics educator identities: TAs help TAs become teaching professionals, Am. J. Phys. 85, 381 (2017).
  63. K. Linenberger, M. C. Slade, E. A. Addis, E. R. Elliott, G. Mynhardt, and J. R. Raker, Training the foot soldiers of inquiry: Development and evaluation of a graduate teaching assistant learning community, Int. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 44, 97 (2014).
  64. G. Marbach-Ad, K. L. Schaefer, B. C. Kumi, L. A. Friedman, K. V. Thompson, and M. P. Doyle, Development and evaluation of a prep course for chemistry graduate teaching assistants at a research university, J. Chem. Educ. 89, 865 (2012).
  65. K. Miller, P. Brickman, and J. S. Oliver, Enhancing teaching assistants’ (TAs’) inquiry teaching by means of teaching observations and reflective discourse, School Sci. Math. 114, 178 (2014).
  66. J. P. Kurdziel, J. A. Turner, J. A. Luft, and G. H. Roehrig, Graduate teaching assistants and inquiry-based instruction: Implications for graduate teaching assistant training, J. Chem. Educ. 80, 1206 (2003).
  67. R. Sharpe, A framework for training graduate teaching assistants, Teach. Dev. 4, 131 (2006).
  68. A. Ghimire and C. Singh, How often does unguided peer interaction lead to correct response consensus? An example from conceptual survey of electricity and magnetism, Eur. J. Phys. 45, 035703 (2024).
  69. A. Ghimire and C. Singh, Using unguided peer collaboration to facilitate early educators’ pedagogical development: An example from physics TA training, Educ. Sci. 15, 1038 (2025).
  70. J. Chini and A. Al-Rawi, Alignment of TAs’ beliefs with practice and student perception, Proc. Phys. Educ. Res. Conf. 1513, 98 (2013).
  71. C. A. Ethington and A. Pisani, The RA and TA experience: Impediments and benefits to graduate study, Res. High. Educ. 34, 343 (1993).
  72. D. F. Feldon, J. Peugh, B. E. Timmerman, M. A. Maher, M. Hurst, D. Strickland, J. A. Gilmore, and C. Stiegelmeyer, Graduate students’ teaching experiences improve their methodological research skills, Science 333, 1037 (2011).
  73. D. French and C. Russell, Do graduate teaching assistants benefit from teaching inquiry-based laboratories?, BioScience 52, 1036 (2002).
  74. S. A. Wyse, T. M. Long, D. Ebert-May, and J. Schinske, Teaching assistant professional development in biology: Designed for and driven by multidimensional data, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 13, 212 (2014).
  75. A. Maries, Preparing the next generation of educators for active learning, in Active Learning in College Science: The Case for Evidence-Based Practice, edited by J. J. Mintzes and E. M. Walter (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020), p. 983.
  76. L. S. Shulman, Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching, Educ. Res. 15, 4 (1986).
  77. L. Shulman, Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform, Harv. Educ. Rev. 57, 1 (1987).
  78. J. H. van Driel, N. Verloop, and W. de Vos, Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 35, 673 (1998).
  79. P. Grossman, The Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Education, Professional Development and Practice Series (Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, 1990).
  80. P. L. Grossman, What are we talking about anyway? Subject-matter knowledge of secondary English teachers, in Advances in Research on Teaching, edited by J. Brophy (JAI, Greenwich, CT, 1991), Vol. 2, pp. 245–264.
  81. J. Gess-Newsome and N. G. Lederman, Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Construct and Its Implications for Science Education (Springer Science & Business Media, Hingham, MA, 2001), Vol. 6.
  82. J. Loughran, P. Mulhall, and A. Berry, In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 41, 370 (2004).
  83. H. Borko and R. T. Putnam, Expanding a teacher’s knowledge base: A cognitive psychological perspective on professional development, in Professional Development in Education: New Paradigms and Practices, edited by T. R. Guskey and M. Huberman (Teachers’ College Press, New York, 1995), Vol. 1, pp. 35–65.
  84. C. L. Ebert, An assessment of prospective secondary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge about functions and graphs (1993).
  85. A. N. Geddis, B. Onslow, C. Beynon, and J. Oesch, Transforming content knowledge: Learning to teach about isotopes, Sci. Educ. 77, 575 (1993).
  86. J. H. Van Driel, O. D. Jong, and N. Verloop, The development of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, Sci. Educ. 86, 572 (2002).
  87. G. Zavala, H. Alarcon, and J. Benegas, Innovative training of in-service teachers for active learning: A short teacher development course based on physics education research, J. Sci. Teach. Educ. 18, 559 (2007).
  88. D. Zollman, Preparing future science teachers: The physics component of a new programme, Phys. Educ. 29, 271 (1994).
  89. H. Akkoç and S. Yeşildere, Investigating development of pre-service elementary mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through a school practicum course, Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2, 1410 (2010).
  90. K. Carter, The place of story in the study of teaching and teacher education, Educ. Res. 22, 5 (1993).
  91. D. M. Kagan, Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the Goldilocks principle, Rev. Educ. Res. 60, 419 (1990).
  92. J. Loughran, A. Berry, and P. Mulhall, Understanding and Developing Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Professional Learning (Brill, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2012).
  93. J. A. Baxter and N. G. Lederman, Assessment and measurement of pedagogical content knowledge, in Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Construct and Its Implications for Science Education (Springer, New York, 1999), pp. 147–161.
  94. C. Yang, T. Noh, L. C. Scharmann, and S. Kang, A study on the elementary school teachers’ awareness of students’ alternative conceptions about change of states and dissolution, Asia-Pac. Educ. Res. 23, 683 (2014).
  95. P. M. Sadler, G. Sonnert, H. P. Coyle, N. Cook-Smith, and J. L. Miller, The influence of teachers’ knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms, Am. Educ. Res. J. 50, 1020 (2013).
  96. J. Loughran, R. Gunstone, A. Berry, P. Milroy, and P. Mulhall, Science cases in action: Developing an understanding of science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (2000).
  97. S. A. Lampley, G. E. Gardner, and A. T. Barlow, Exploring pedagogical content knowledge of biology graduate teaching assistants through their participation in lesson study, Teach. Higher Educ. 23, 468 (2018).
  98. J. Park and D. Rizzolo, Graduate teaching assistants’ perception of student difficulties and use in teaching, Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Educ. 11, 274 (2025).
  99. J. R. Thompson, W. M. Christensen, and M. C. Wittmann, Preparing future teachers to anticipate student difficulties in physics in a graduate-level course in physics, pedagogy, and education research, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 7, 010108 (2011).
  100. L. Doyle, A. Maries, and C. Singh, “A tutorial on evaluating one aspect of physics teaching assistants’ pedagogical content knowledge related to thermodynamics and improving their knowledge of student difficulties with this content” (to be published).
  101. L. Doyle, A. Maries, and C. Singh, “Exploring pedagogical content knowledge of physics teaching assistants using the rotational and rolling motion conceptual survey” (to be published).
  102. A. Berry, F. Depaepe, and J. van Driel, Pedagogical content knowledge in teacher education, in International Handbook of Teacher Education: Volume 1, edited by J. Loughran and M. L. Hamilton (Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2016), p. 386.
  103. C. Singh and D. Rosengrant, Multiple-choice test of energy and momentum concepts, Am. J. Phys. 71, 607 (2003).
  104. M. J. Brundage, A. Maries, and C. Singh, Using the energy and momentum conceptual survey to investigate progression in student understanding from introductory to advanced levels, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020132 (2023).
  105. X. Wu, Y. Li, and N. S. Rebello, Uncovering student conceptual structure by a multimethod evaluation of the energy and momentum conceptual survey, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 21, 020140 (2025).
  106. L. Seeley, S. Vokos, and E. Etkina, Examining physics teacher understanding of systems and the role it plays in supporting student energy reasoning, Am. J. Phys. 87, 510 (2019).
  107. L. Seeley, S. Vokos, and E. Etkina, Updating our language to help students learn: Mechanical energy is not conserved but all forces conserve energy, Am. J. Phys. 90, 251 (2022).
  108. E. Etkina, D. Gitomer, C. Iaconangelo, G. Phelps, L. Seeley, and S. Vokos, Design of an assessment to probe teachers’ content knowledge for teaching: An example from energy in high school physics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 14, 010127 (2018).
  109. R. Chabay, B. Sherwood, and A. Titus, A unified, contemporary approach to teaching energy in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 87, 504 (2019).
  110. M. C. Wittmann, R. N. Steinberg, and E. F. Redish, Investigating student understanding of quantum physics: Spontaneous models of conductivity, Am. J. Phys. 70, 218 (2002).
  111. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/fgqc-dfbz for [brief description].

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation