Some common errors exhibited by students in interpreting graphs in physics are illustrated by examples from kinematics. These are taken from the results of a descriptive study extending over a period of several years and involving several hundred university students who were enrolled in a laboratory-based preparatory physics course. Subsequent testing indicated that the graphing errors made by this group of students are not idiosyncratic, but are found in different populations and across different levels of sophistication. This paper examines two categories of difficulty identified in the investigation: difficulty in connecting graphs to physical concepts and difficulty in connecting graphs to the real world. Specific difficulties in each category are discussed in terms of student performance on written problems and laboratory experiments. A few of the instructional strategies that have been designed to address some of these difficulties are described.

This paper summarizes case studies developed by a group of collaborating educators. We investigated ways of speaking that encourage students to (a) formulate insightful questions about science topics and (b) express their own ideas during re¯ective discussions. The authors include elementary, high school, and college faculty. Subject-matter contexts included phases of the moon, motion, electricity, light, and waves. In developing case studies, we documented and interpreted student and teacher questions during the three ways of speaking we value most: guided discussions, student-generated inquiry discussions, and peer collaborations. Student questions occurred when we set up discourse structures that explicitly elicited student questions, engaged students in conversations about familiar contexts in which they had made many observations over a long time period, created comfortable discourse environments in which students could try to understand one another's thinking, and established small groups where students were collaborating with one another. Typically we elicited student thinking by asking questions that develop conceptual understanding. These included questions to help students clarify their meanings, explore various points of view in a neutral and respectful manner, and monitor the discussion and their own thinking. We also elicited student thinking by practicing quietness through long wait times, attentive silence, and reticence.

This case study documents an example of inquiry learning and teaching during a summer institute for elementary and middle school teachers. A small group constructed an explanatory model for an intriguing optical phenomenon that they were observing. Research questions included: What physics thinking did the learners express? What aspects of scientific inquiry were evident in what the learners said and did? What questions did the learners ask one another as they worked? How did these learners collaborate in constructingCorrespondence to:

Inservice teachers need ways to gain an integrated knowledge of content, pedagogy, and technologies that reflects new ways of teaching and learning in the 21st century. This interpretive study examined inservice K -8 teachers' growth in their pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) toward technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (TPACK) in an online graduate course designed for integrating dynamic spreadsheets as teaching and learning tools in mathematics and science. With the lens of four TPACK components (Niess, 2005), the analysis describes teachers' development from recognizing to accepting, adapting, and exploring TPACK levels. Implications and recommendations for the design of future professional development courses and continuing research are identified to support inservice teachers' knowledge growth for teaching with technologies. (Keywords: Teacher knowledge, spreadsheets, inservice teachers, elementary and middle school, online, professional development)

Seven experiments examined how information used to screen options is used subsequently in evaluating the survivors before a choice of the best survivor is made and showed the following. (1) In general, information receiver early in the task had a smaller impact upon pre‐choice evaluations of options than information received later, whether or not screening had taken place. (2) However, early information had virtually no impact upon pre‐choice evaluations when various events partitioned the task into two distinct parts. This was called the ‘task‐partitioning effect’. This effect was, however, labile and could be eliminated by repeating the early information at the time that the pre‐choice evaluations were made. (3) In contrast, when the partitioning event consisted specifically of screening out unattractive options, early information had virtually no impact on evaluations and its repetition did not increase its use. This was called the ‘screening effect’. This effect was observed even when someone other than the subject carried out the screening.