Minstrell's 1st Law

SOCS-C
The author seemed to have a magic bean that would grow into the Modeling Instruction.  I believe N1L has a few sticking points, but Minstrell shows deep-seated views that students need changed.
(Minstrell)

I think this was the most interesting article in terms of what we have been doing and what we will be doing next.  His implications of having a class discussion, showing a few different events, searching for a similarity and having students argue an explanation was an nice read.  I feel I have heard each of these things maybe in grad classes or PD's, but never to be used all together in a package with clear example of why they are needed.

Mestre's L&I

SOCS-C
Mestre tells of the needs of educators, schools and text book authors to look at the cognitive science research and use it better.  If how students learn is understood, learning can be done more efficiently.
(Mestre)

Again the article seems old - 1991.  I have found myself floored that these ideas were never shown to me as an aspiring young teacher.  Before I read these articles now, in our fourth day, I look at the references to see who I recognize and if I have seen their paper.  The names are the same and the results are all similar and I have not read any of them until the mid part of my career.  That bums me out.  Or that Mestre points out the lack of a good text book to address constructivist thinking 20 years ago and I can't saw I have seen or heard of a big change.

The science ed classes I have had from Wayne State, in about 2003, used the constructivist, scafolding inquiry lessons.  I thought they were nuts.  But my searching for answers on Google (is there anyplace else), connected results from inquiry to learning circles to McDermott, Halloun, Hakes, Hestenes and more.  This has been my reading since and slowly have altered my class.

Hammer's two approaches

SOC-P
Another article pointing out the false education practice of those traditional teachers (I'm not anymore).  Good students find a way to survive and have learned to play the game for grades.
(Hammer)

I have notice with students when I give a deductive/inductive reasoning logic puzzles, the students who earn the A's are not the first ones to finish.  They would get frustrated because they were the "smart kids."  A C student can solve the puzzle clearly and quickly.  I thought, if only the C student did his homework, they could earn better grades.  I then wondered if the C student maybe bored with formulas and problems.  How do I engage them more into physics?

Arons 2.1-2.7

SOCS - I

I can now realize the need of fine tuning a lesson so that students can understand the subtle differences between time instance and time interval or position and distance.

Arons

McDermott's Mismatch

SOCS-I

From 1993, McDermott expands on Hestenes work from 15 years earlier and tells that teachers are doing it wrong.  Traditional lecture teaching is not helping students learn physics.

(McDermott)

I have read some of McDermott's books "Physics by Inquiry" and agree with her thoughts and doubts about traditional teaching.  About eight years ago, I took some grad level science education classes at WSU and they pushed the whole inquiry thing hard.  That was about the time when the HSCE had just come out and that was being pushed hard from my district.  I really didn't buy into the inquiry/conceptual change/constructivistic teaching so hitting 130 some standards in 180 days continued to be tradition but since reading a lot of the same Physics Education Research people has me wondering and changing.

FCI Article SOCS-P

SOCS - P

Always interesting that students believe a force continues to act on an object after impact.  I always think of Carleton Fisk's World Series home run and he continuing the swing.

(Hestenes)

SOCS C #1

I found it interesting Hestenes saw a problem with the division of science in high schools instead of taking time to teach science thinking.  And it misses out with math.

(Hestenes)