login - create an account - help

• AAPT ComPADRE
• Events
• Collaborate
• About
• Contact Us

Materials Similar to A Controlled Study of Stereoscopic Virtual Reality in Freshman Electrostatics

• 54%: A controlled study of virtual reality in first-year magnetostatics
• 38%: Virtual Reality as a Teaching Tool for Moon Phases and Beyond
• 35%: MIT Physics 8.02: Electrostatics Visualizations - The Electrostatic Videogame
• 35%: Comparative study of the effectiveness of three learning environments: Hyper-realistic virtual simulations, traditional schematic simulations and traditional laboratory
• 31%: A study on the impact of real, virtual and comprehensive experimenting on students’ conceptual understanding of DC electric circuits and their skills in undergraduate electricity laboratory
• 30%: Virtual reality in introductory physics laboratories
• 30%: Student Self-Assessment and Reflection in a Learner Controlled Environment
• 30%: Secondary analysis of teaching methods in introductory physics: A 50 k-student study
• 30%: Leveraging virtual reality for student development of force models in the introductory lab
• 29%: Systematic study of student understanding of the relationships between the directions of force, velocity, and acceleration in one dimension
• 29%: Comparing large lecture mechanics curricula using the Force Concept Inventory: A five thousand student study
• 29%: Investigating student ability to apply basic electrostatics concepts to conductors
• 28%: Controlled study on the effectiveness of multimedia learning modules for teaching mechanics
• 28%: Revealing Differences Between Curricula Using the Colorado Upper-Division Electrostatics Diagnostic
• 27%: Student reasoning about electrostatic and gravitational potential energy: An exploratory study with interdisciplinary consequences
• 26%: MIT Physics 8.02: Electrostatics - Electric Field of a Moving Positive Charge
• 26%: What do Seniors Remember from Freshman Physics?
• 26%: Quantum mechanics concept assessment: Development and validation study
• 26%: Rural and First Generation Performance Differences on the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation