We present spectroscopic observations of the black hole binary V4641 Sagittarii, obtained between 2004 July 4 and 2005 March 28, which cover the minor outburst of the star in early 2004 July and quiescence variations on 19 nights scattered over six months. During the outburst, the star peaked approximately 3 mag brighter than usual, and our spectra were dominated by broad hydrogen, helium and iron emission lines. The very first spectra showed P Cygni profiles, which disappeared within a few hours, indicating rapid changes in matter ejection. The Hα line had multiple components, one being a broad blueshifted wing exceeding 5000 km s−1. During a simultaneously observed 10‐min photometric flare up, the equivalent width of the Hα line temporarily decreased, implying that it was a flare of the continuum. The overall spectral appearance was similar to that observed in the 1999 September active phase, which suggests that similar mass‐ejection processes were associated with both eruptions. In quiescence, the spectra were those of the early‐type secondary star showing its orbital motion around the primary. By measuring cross‐correlation radial velocities, we give an improved set of spectroscopic elements. Whereas we measure the same velocity amplitude (K2= 211.3 ± 1.0 km s−1), within errors, as Orosz et al., our centre‐of‐mass velocity (γ= 72.7 ± 3.3 km s−1) differs significantly from the previously published value (107.4 ± 2.9 km s−1). However, we find evidence that the difference is caused by a systematic error in data reduction in the previous study, rather than by gravitational effects of an invisible third component.

With student numbers decreasing and traditional teaching methods having been found inefficient, it is widely accepted that alternative teaching methods need to be explored in tertiary physics education. In 2006 a different teaching environment was offered to 244 first year students with little or no prior formal instruction in physics. Students were invited to attend additional enrichment classes 1 h a week called map meetings. The focus of these classes was a different type of visual presentation of physics material called link maps. Link maps explicitly show the key concepts covered in lectures and how these interrelate to help novices establish their physics schemata. In each map meeting the link map for the different topic was interactively discussed by the researcher before the students worked on problems in groups using the link map. The class ended with the researcher going through one problem, talking aloud about how to logically attack it. The results were promising. Each week about 20% of the class voluntarily attended map meetings whereas 22% reported that they did not attend due to timetable clashes. Two questionnaires revealed that students thought the classes were helpful for gaining an overview of physics and for developing their problem solving abilities. In the final examination the 32 students who had attended at least eight out of ten map meetings achieved, on average, 9 points out of 90 better in the examination ͑p = 0.004͒ than a comparison group ͑N =40͒ with similar academic background which had not attended map meetings. The results of this study suggest that map meetings are a valuable learning environment for physics novices. Further investigations are currently being undertaken.

As a novel approach to the longstanding issue of how to help all students effectively learn and utilize math in physics, we integrated the free online mathematics learning system Khan Academy (KA) into introductory physics for pre-service teachers. Two focus group interviews (N =11) were conducted: one group had shown significant improvement on a math diagnostic test and the other had not. Thematic analysis revealed that the way KA was integrated into the course fostered internalization of the motivation for using KA; students displayed variability in depth of cognitive engagement in response to the feedback mechanism in KA; and KA helped students get into a 'mathematical mindset,' which enabled some students to forge deeper connections between math and physics. We also suggest fruitful avenues for further research on this longstanding issue in PER.

We present a case study featuring a first-year bio-science university student using computation to solve a radioactive decay problem and interpret the results. In a semi-structured cognitive interview, we use this case to examine the process of sensemaking in a computational science context. We observe the student entering the sensemaking process by inspecting and comparing computational outputs. She then makes several attempts to resolve the perceived inconsistency, foregrounding knowledge from different domains. The key to making sense of the model for this student proves to be thinking about how to implement a better model computationally. This demonstrates that integrating computation in physics activities may provide students with opportunities to engage in sensemaking and critical thinking. We finally discuss some implications for instruction.

In 2006 a new type of tutorial, called Map Meeting, was successfully trialled with novice first year physics students at the University of Sydney, Australia. Subsequently, in first semester 2007 a large-scale experiment was carried out with 262 students who were allocated either to the strongly scaffolding Map Meetings or to the less scaffolding Workshop Tutorials, which have been run at the University of Sydney since 1995. In this paper we describe what makes Map Meetings more scaffolding than Workshop Tutorials—where the level of scaffolding represents the main difference between the two tutorial types. Using a mixed methods approach to triangulate results, we compare the success of the two with respect to both student tutorial preference and examination performance. In summary, Map Meetings had a higher retention rate and received more positive feedback from students—students liked the strongly scaffolding environment and felt that it better helped them understand physics. A comparison of final examination performances of students who had attended at least 10 out of 12 tutorials revealed that only 11% of Map Meeting students received less than 30 out of 90 marks compared to 21% of Workshop Tutorial students, whereas there were no differences amongst high-achieving students. Map Meetings was therefore particularly successful in helping low-achieving novices learn physics