DOCSLIB.ORG

A Theory of Instruction: Using the Learning Cycle to Teach Science

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

DOCUMENT' RE"GUXE ED 324 204 SE 051 583 AUTHOR Lawson, Anton E.; And.Others TITLE A Theory of.Instruction: Using the Learning Cycle.To Teach Science Concepts and Thinking Skills. NARST Monograph, Number One, 1989. INSTITUTION National Association for Research in Science Teaching. PUB DATE 89 NOTE 136p. AVAILABLE FROMNational Association for Research in Science Teaching, Department of Science Education, Co/lege of Education, University of,Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221. PUB TYPE Viewpoints (120) -- Guides - Classroom Use - Guides (For Teachers) (052) EDRS PRICE 14F01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS Cognitive Development; Cognitive Processes; Cognitive Style; *Concept Formation; *Developmental Stages; Discovery Learning; *Elementary School Science; Elementary Secondary Educationi Higher Education; *Learning Theories; Misconceptions; Science Activities; Science Education; *Scientific Concepts; *Secondary School Science; Thinking Skills ABSTRACT This monograph describes the origins of the learning cycle, related research, and ht)w future researcA might be conducted to further the %nderstanding of theories of instruction. A wide range of information is synthesized, producing a coherent framework for better understanding the theory of the learning cycle. The monograph identifies various models of the learning cycle, and focuses on a cycle consisting of exploration, term (concept) introduction, and concept application. Topics include: (I) a brief introduction to education goals in general and then to the more specific goals of science education; (2) the introduction of the learning cycle and the fundamental instructional method for teaching science to achieve these goals; (3) the historical origins of the learning cycle method; (4) attempts to provide a theoretical rationale for using the learning cycle method; (5) the nature of the learning cycle and types of learning cycles to show how their use leads to students' acquisition of scientific concepts and the development of creative and critical thinking skills; (6) a review of the empirical research; and (7) suggestions for future research. Appended are the procedures for five science activities that show the use of learning cycle. (KR) ********************************t************************************** Reproductions supplied by EMS are t4e best that can be made from the original document. ***********************************A**************2******************** t 'PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS ARST MONOGRAPH, Number One, 1989 MATERIAL IN MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN BRANTED BY ge.N.r> C\`ox'5,\.e.. 71( TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES rascI INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC). p eiz A Theory of Instruction: Using The Learning Cycle to Teach Science Concepts and Thinking Skills U.S. DEPARTMENT OPEDUCATION Offc of Educational Research andImprovement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) tUK: documenthas Men reprodc :ed as wonted from the person Oforganization Anton E. Lawson originating it. made to irnixoii 0 Minor changes hare Wen reproduction quality Michael R. Abraham Pointed view ix opoionsstated Minis docir represent official John W. Renner ment do not necessarily OERI paean of 03acY NARST MONOGRAPH, Number One, 1989 A THEORY OF INSTRUCTION: USING THE LEARNING-CYCLE TO TEACH SCIENCE CONCEPTS AND THINKING SKILLS Anton E. Lawson Department of Zoology Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287 Michael R. Abraham Devilment of Chemistry University of Oklahoma Norman, OK 73019 John W. Renner College of Education University of Oklahoma Norman, OK 73019 The National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) is a professional organization devoted to promoting and disseminating science education research. 3 To Chet Lawson and Bob Karplus Thank you '........ i 4 A THEORY OF INSTRUCTION: USING THE LEARNING CYCLE Ta TEACH SCIENCE CONCEPTS AND THINKING SKILLS Table of Contents Foreword iv Preface I.Introduction II. What is the Learning Cycle? 3 III.Historical Perspective 7 Ors of the Learning Cycle in the kis Program. Origins of the Learning Cycle in Biology Education. .9 Changes.in the Names of the 'Phases of the Learning - Cycle 10 IV. Why Use the Learning Cycle? TheoreticalPosition 13 The Nature of Declarative Knowledge 13 How Are Deicriptive Concepts Formed? the Constructive Process 17 The Role of Chunking in Higher-Order Concept Formation 20 How Are Theoretical Concepts Formed? 20 Conceptual Change 21 The Use of Ana'ogy 23 The Generai Pattern of Concept Formationand Conceptual Change 25 The Nature of Procedural Knowledge 27 Stages in the Development of Procedural Knowledge- Piaget's Theory 31 Reflectivity and the Internalization of Patterns of Argumentation 32 How Procedural Knowledge Develops 36 Developing the Procedure of Controlled Experimentation 36 V. Teaching Declarative and ProceduralKnowledge 45 Essential Elements of Instruction 45 The Learning Cycle 46 Three Types of Learning Cycles 47 Descriptive Learning Cycles 49 Empirical-Abductive Learning Cycles 50 Hypothetical-Deductive Learning Cycles 52 Learning Cycles as Different Phases of DoingScience. 55 A Note on Creativity 55 VI.Empirical Studies 59 Overview 59 Research on SCIS. ...... ...... 59 Affective IYOmain 59 Achievement in Content and Process Skills 60 Teacher Variables 63 Summary 64- LeamintCycle Risearch 65 Attitudes 65 Content Achievement 65 Thinking Skills 67 Summary 69 Research on Aspects of the Learning Cycle 69 Research on Phases of the Learning Cycle in Chemistry and Physics 72 The Sequence Variable 72 The Necessity Variable 74 The Format Variable 75 Summary 75 - VII.Directions for Future Research 77 Overview 77 Conceptions and Misconceptions 77 Motivation and Evaluation 79 Cooperative Learning 79 Sequencing and Selecting Content 80 The Role of Analogy 82 Retention and Transfer of Thinking Skills 83 Teaching Content versus Process 84 Textboob 85 New Technologies 85 Teacher Training 86 Other Currently Popular Methods 87 Testing 87 Theoretical Issues 88 VIII. Key Postulates and Concluding Remarks 89 APPENDIX: SKAMPLE LEARNING CYCIPS 91 1. Exploring Rotoplanes - Physical Science 92 2. What can be learned from skulls? - Biology 96 3. What caused the water to rise? - Chemistry 99 4. What causes water to rise in plants? - Biology 103 5. How do lenses work? - Physics 108 References 113 FOREWORD It is with great pleasure thaL I write this brief introduction to the first NARST Monograph. The authors have done a splendid job of describing the origins of me learning cycle, related research, and how future research might be corductf ' to further our understanding of an important theory of instruction. In reading various drafts and offering comments,I have had the opportunity to watch the development of a document that will surely become an important part of the foundation for future research into how students learn science.This question, it seems to me, is the central question for science education researchers. All science educators interested in the teaching and learning of science will find this first NARST Monograph valuable in a number of ways.First, it synthesizes a wide range of information into a coherent framework for better understanding the theory of instruction commonly referred to as the learning cycle. For this reason alone it is wt.rth having in one's personal library. Second, it refines and clarifies various terms commonly associated with the learning cycle, such as discovery, invention, concrete and formal operational, etc. In this regard the theory becomes more internally consistent as well as reflective of progress in research on cognition. Finally, this NARST Monograph identifies many areas for future research and raises theoretical issues that must be considered. I congratulate the authors on a fme piece of work. This NARST Monograph sets a standard for future Monographs that, if met, will ensure a valuable source of science education literature. Ron Good, Chair NARST Publications Advisory Committee 7 iv PREFACE A recent topic of discussion among science educators has centered on a seemingly esoteric question: Is science education a discipline?It can be argued that the c ntral criteria for any discipline is a generally accepted set of principles upon which aof:eldof inquiry has been focused. In other words, a field of inquiry becomes a discipline when, and only when, a theory emerges which sa'isfactorily explains a substantial number of itsues in the minds of researchers such that they agree with one another and can keep others from becoming practitioners in that field until they demonstrate an understanding of those principles.Tcday, for example, biology is a discipline which has Charles Darwin to thank for providing a generally acceptable set of principles (i.e., the postulates of his theory of evolution through natural selection). Darwin's theory raised the previous hodge podge of disjointed observations about the living world by various naturalists into a cohesive world view of organic change.Today all aspiring biologists and biology students learn about evolution and about Darwin's theory as themes which unify the discipline of biology. Does science education have such a unified set of accepted principles? Is science education a discipline? We think most observers would have to answer no.However, we also think that our understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge, the child and adolescent, and pedagogy have progressed to the point where such a set or fundamental principles can be offered.Consequently, the primary purpose of this book is to offer those principles.
Recommended publications
  • Scientific and Related Works of Chen Ning Yang

    Scientific and Related Works of Chen Ning Yang

    Scientific and Related Works of Chen Ning Yang [42a] C. N. Yang. Group Theory and the Vibration of Polyatomic Molecules. B.Sc. thesis, National Southwest Associated University (1942). [44a] C. N. Yang. On the Uniqueness of Young's Differentials. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 50, 373 (1944). [44b] C. N. Yang. Variation of Interaction Energy with Change of Lattice Constants and Change of Degree of Order. Chinese J. of Phys. 5, 138 (1944). [44c] C. N. Yang. Investigations in the Statistical Theory of Superlattices. M.Sc. thesis, National Tsing Hua University (1944). [45a] C. N. Yang. A Generalization of the Quasi-Chemical Method in the Statistical Theory of Superlattices. J. Chem. Phys. 13, 66 (1945). [45b] C. N. Yang. The Critical Temperature and Discontinuity of Specific Heat of a Superlattice. Chinese J. Phys. 6, 59 (1945). [46a] James Alexander, Geoffrey Chew, Walter Salove, Chen Yang. Translation of the 1933 Pauli article in Handbuch der Physik, volume 14, Part II; Chapter 2, Section B. [47a] C. N. Yang. On Quantized Space-Time. Phys. Rev. 72, 874 (1947). [47b] C. N. Yang and Y. Y. Li. General Theory of the Quasi-Chemical Method in the Statistical Theory of Superlattices. Chinese J. Phys. 7, 59 (1947). [48a] C. N. Yang. On the Angular Distribution in Nuclear Reactions and Coincidence Measurements. Phys. Rev. 74, 764 (1948). 2 [48b] S. K. Allison, H. V. Argo, W. R. Arnold, L. del Rosario, H. A. Wilcox and C. N. Yang. Measurement of Short Range Nuclear Recoils from Disintegrations of the Light Elements. Phys. Rev. 74, 1233 (1948). [48c] C.
  • (8 PAGES) Subject Index, Vol:9, P.429, 1986

    (8 PAGES) Subject Index, Vol:9, P.429, 1986

    SUBJECT INDEX 1955-1985 moat-cited works 355 aatronomy 1961-1982 most-cited articles 55,118 1964 most-cited articles on 374 1976-1983 250,361 review articlea on 147 1963 most-citad articles, chemistry 413 Atlas of Science 1964 moat-citad articles planning for 41,44,46 Iife sciences 369 Attachment and Loss 35 physical acience 366 authora 1964 most-cited primary authors 346,355 name ordering on papers 353 1984 208,221 number of 393 1985 Nobel Prize awards and prizes, NAS Award for Excellence chemistry 336 in Scientific Reviewing 146 economics 307 literature 307,312 medicine 282 physics 336,340 1986 NAS Award for Excellence in Baruch, Bernard 114 Scientific Reviewing 146 La Bataille de Pharsale 314 The Battle of Pharsalus 314 A Beckett, Samuel 218 Beilstein, Friedrich 44 Benitez Sanchez, Jose 160 AIDS research, French and American Berzelius, Jons Jakob 1 contributions 347,391 bibliographies, editing with Sci-Mate Alice’s Adventuresin Wonderland 296 Editor 81 Allen, Gordon 43 The Biochemists’ Songbook 50 allergies BioGraffiti: A Natural Selection 49 effect of breaat feeding on 181 biomedical decision-making, role of effect of stress on 141 hospital library in 197,202 Analysis of Secretarial Duties and biomedical education curricula 27 Traits 114 Block, Konrad E. 282 animal studies, unreliability of transferring Bohr, Niels 6 results to humana 407 A Book of Science Verse 53 Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 9 breast feeding Arrhenius, Svante August 2 factors affecting choice of 165 art merits of mother’s milk 155 at ISI 130,176,228 Breastfeeding Handfwok 162 commissioned forlSI’s Caring Canter for Breastfeedirrg: A Guide for the Medical Children and Parents 260 Profession 156 role of turtle in 293 Brown, Michael S.
  • Reversed out (White) Reversed

    Reversed out (White) Reversed

    Berkeley rev.( white) Berkeley rev.( FALL 2014 reversed out (white) reversed IN THIS ISSUE Berkeley’s Space Sciences Laboratory Tabletop Physics Bringing More Women into Physics ALUMNI NEWS AND MORE! Cover: The MAVEN satellite mission uses instrumentation developed at UC Berkeley's Space Sciences Laboratory to explore the physics behind the loss of the Martian atmosphere. It’s a continuation of Berkeley astrophysicist Robert Lin’s pioneering work in solar physics. See p 7. photo credit: Lockheed Martin Physics at Berkeley 2014 Published annually by the Department of Physics Steven Boggs: Chair Anil More: Director of Administration Maria Hjelm: Director of Development, College of Letters and Science Devi Mathieu: Editor, Principal Writer Meg Coughlin: Design Additional assistance provided by Sarah Wittmer, Sylvie Mehner and Susan Houghton Department of Physics 366 LeConte Hall #7300 University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-7300 Copyright 2014 by The Regents of the University of California FEATURES 4 12 18 Berkeley’s Space Tabletop Physics Bringing More Women Sciences Laboratory BERKELEY THEORISTS INVENT into Physics NEW WAYS TO SEARCH FOR GOING ON SIX DECADES UC BERKELEY HOSTS THE 2014 NEW PHYSICS OF EDUCATION AND SPACE WEST COAST CONFERENCE EXPLORATION Berkeley theoretical physicists Ashvin FOR UNDERGRADUATE WOMEN Vishwanath and Surjeet Rajendran IN PHYSICS Since the Space Lab’s inception are developing new, small-scale in 1959, Berkeley physicists have Women physics students from low-energy approaches to questions played important roles in many California, Oregon, Washington, usually associated with large-scale of the nation’s space-based scientific Alaska, and Hawaii gathered on high-energy particle experiments.
  • Physics and Feynman's Diagrams » American Scientist 6/3/10 12:09 PM

    Physics and Feynman's Diagrams » American Scientist 6/3/10 12:09 PM

    Physics and Feynman's Diagrams » American Scientist 6/3/10 12:09 PM FEATURE ARTICLE Physics and Feynman's Diagrams In the hands of a postwar generation, a tool intended to lead quantum electrodynamics out of a decades-long morass helped transform physics David Kaiser George Gamow, the wisecracking theoretical physicist who helped invent the Big Bang model of the universe, was fond of explaining what he liked best about his line of work: He could lie down on a couch and close his eyes, and no one would be able to tell whether he was working or not. A fine gag, but a bad model for thinking about the day-to-day work that theoretical physicists do. For too long, physicists, historians and philosophers took Gamow's joke quite seriously. Research in theory, we were told, concerns abstract thought wholly separated from anything like labor, activity or skill. Theories, worldviews or paradigms seemed the appropriate units of analysis, and the challenge lay in charting the birth and conceptual development of particular ideas. In the accounts that resulted from such studies, the skilled manipulation of tools played little role. Ideas, embodied in texts, traveled easily from theorist to theorist, shorn of the material constraints that encumbered experimental physicists (tied as they were to their electron microscopes, accelerators or bubble chambers). The age-old trope of minds versus hands has been at play in our account of progress in physics, which pictures a purely cognitive realm of ideas separated from a manual realm of action. This depiction of what theorists do, I am convinced, obscures a great deal more than it clarifies.
  • Nature Physics Advance Online Publication, 8 October 2013 Doi:10.1038/Nphys2800 Research Highlight Nobel Prize 2013: Englert

    Nature Physics Advance Online Publication, 8 October 2013 Doi:10.1038/Nphys2800 Research Highlight Nobel Prize 2013: Englert

    Nature Physics advance online publication, 8 October 2013 doi:10.1038/nphys2800 Research Highlight Nobel Prize 2013: Englert and Higgs Alison Wright The Nobel Prize in Physics 2013 has been awarded to François Englert and Peter Higgs "for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider". It is probably the most widely anticipated Nobel award ever made — even as the announcement on 8 October was delayed by an hour, it still seemed certain that the prize would be given for what is generally known as the Higgs mechanism, cemented by the discovery of a Higgs boson at CERN last year. The only uncertainty lay in quite who would claim a slice of the prize. In 1964, François Englert and his colleague Robert Brout published a paper1 in Physical Review Letters in which they outlined a possible mechanism for the generation of particle masses. A few weeks later — in a world without e-mail or preprint servers — Peter Higgs published a similar, independent work2, and also mentioned the existence of a particle associated with the postulated field that would provoke the mass-generating mechanism. (These have since been known as the Higgs boson, the Higgs field and the Higgs mechanism.) And just a few weeks later still, Gerald Guralnik, Carl Hagen and Tom Kibble followed up with their own, independent, version3 of the same mechanism.
  • Bibliography of United States Landslide Maps and Reports Christopher S. Alger and Earl E. Brabb1 Open-File Report 85-585 This Re

    Bibliography of United States Landslide Maps and Reports Christopher S. Alger and Earl E. Brabb1 Open-File Report 85-585 This Re

    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Bibliography of United States landslide maps and reports Christopher S. Alger and Earl E. Brabb 1 Open-File Report 85-585 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. 1 Menlo Park, California Contents Page Introductlon......................................... 1 Text References...................................... 8 Bibliographies With Landslide References............. 8 Multi State-United States Landslide Maps and Reports. 8 Alabama.............................................. 9 Alaska............................................... 9 American Samoa....................................... 14 Arizona.............................................. 14 Arkansas............................................. 16 California........................................... 16 Colorado............................................. 41 Connecticut.......................................... 51 Delaware............................................. 51 District of Columbia................................. 51 Florida.............................................. 51 Georgi a.............................................. 51 Guam................................................. 51 Hawa i i............................................... 51 Idaho................................................ 52 II1i noi s............................................. 54 Indiana.............................................
  • Here, at Last! and and Peter W.Peter Higgs Speed of Light, Without to Ofspeed Light, Get Any Possibility Caught Atoms in Or Molecules

    Here, at Last! and and Peter W.Peter Higgs Speed of Light, Without to Ofspeed Light, Get Any Possibility Caught Atoms in Or Molecules

    THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS 2013 POPULAR SCIENCE BACKGROUND Here, at last! François Englert and Peter W. Higgs are jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics 2013 for the theory of how particles acquire mass. In 1964, they proposed the theory independently of each other (Englert together with his now deceased colleague Robert Brout). In 2012, their ideas were confrmed by the discovery of a so called Higgs particle at the CERN laboratory outside Geneva in Switzerland. The awarded mechanism is a central part of the Standard Model of particle physics that describes how the world is constructed. According to the Standard Model, everything, from fowers and people to stars and planets, consists of just a few building blocks: matter particles. These particles are governed by forces medi- ated by force particles that make sure everything works as it should. The entire Standard Model also rests on the existence of a special kind of particle: the Higgs particle. It is connected to an invisible feld that flls up all space. Even when our universe seems empty, this feld is there. Had it not been there, electrons and quarks would be mass- less just like photons, the light particles. And like photons they would, just as Einstein’s theory predicts, rush through space at the speed of light, without any possibility to get caught in atoms or molecules. Nothing of what we know, not even we, would exist. The Higgs particle, H, completes the Standard Model of particle physics that describes building blocks of the universe. Both François Englert and Peter Higgs were young scientists when they, in 1964, independently of each other put forward a theory that rescued the Stand- ard Model from collapse.
  • What Is a Higgs Boson?

    What Is a Higgs Boson?

    Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory August 2015 What is a Higgs boson? In 2012 at the Large Hadron Collider, scientists discovered the long-sought Higgs boson. Now the question is: Are there more types of Higgs bosons? The Higgs field provides mass to quarks and other elementary particles that are the building blocks of matter. The photon and the gluon do not interact with the Higgs field, and hence they have no mass. Whether the Higgs field is the origin of the mass of dark matter or the tiny mass of the three known types of neutrinos is not yet known. What is a Higgs field? What is a Higgs boson? When did scientists discover the Higgs boson? The Higgs field is a force field that acts like a giant vat of molasses Scientists searched for the Higgs boson for more than two decades, spread throughout the universe. Most of the known types of particles starting with the LEP experiments at CERN in the 1990s and the that travel through it stick to the molasses, which slows them down Tevatron experiments at Fermilab in the 2000s. Years’ worth of LEP and makes them heavier. The Higgs boson is a particle that helps and Tevatron data narrowed the search for the Higgs particle. Then, transmit the mass-giving Higgs field, similar to the way a particle of in 2012 at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC), two experiments, light, the photon, transmits the electromagnetic field. ATLAS and CMS, reported the observation of a Higgs-like particle. With further analysis the new particle was confirmed as the Higgs boson in 2013.
  • SFRA Newsletter

    SFRA Newsletter

    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Digital Collection - Science Fiction & Fantasy Digital Collection - Science Fiction & Fantasy Publications 6-1-1999 SFRA ewN sletter 240 Science Fiction Research Association Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/scifistud_pub Part of the Fiction Commons Scholar Commons Citation Science Fiction Research Association, "SFRA eN wsletter 240 " (1999). Digital Collection - Science Fiction & Fantasy Publications. Paper 59. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/scifistud_pub/59 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Digital Collection - Science Fiction & Fantasy at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Digital Collection - Science Fiction & Fantasy Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. #140 lilliE 1### Coed'tors: lIonfiction ReY'ew Editor: Karen Hellellson &. Crals Jacobsen lIeil Barron . ~ . ..: .. .. !;] AGAIN INTO CYBERSPACE Alan Elms First, SFRA's Web page address is now officially <http://www.sfra.org>. That may seem a very small step for humankind, but have you ever tried to tell a potential member of our organization, "Oh, sure, all you need to do is check out <http://www.uwm.edul~sands/sfraJscifi.htm> .. ? Much thanks again to Pete Sands, Adam Frisch, and Len Hatfield for overcoming the various complications of get­ ting the new address and for keeping the Web page going, and extra thanks to Len's home institution for giving the page a free home on its server. (Thank you, Virginia Tech, thank you thank you thank you.) The new address was set up just in time, too. The current issue of the SFWA Bulletin says somebody has been snapping up such Web addresses as <annemccaffrey.com> and darryniven.com>, presumably in hopes of selling them to the named authors or their publishers for a profit as Web commerce expands in scope.
  • From Computational Linguistics to Algorithmic Historiography

    From Computational Linguistics to Algorithmic Historiography

    From Computational Linguistics to Algorithmic Historiography Presented at University of Pittsburgh by Eugene Garfield Chairman Emeritus, ISIâ & Publisher, The Scientistâ 3501 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104 Tel. 215-243-2205, Fax 215-387-1266 email: [email protected] Home Page: www.EugeneGarfield.org Lazerow Lecture held in conjunction with panel on “Knowledge and Language:Building Large- Scale Knowledge Bases for Intelligent Applications” September 19, 2001 Abstract This Lazerow Lecture was presented to honor the memory of Professor Casimir Borkowski. It coincided with the inauguration of the Casimir Borkowski Scholarship. The introduction is autobiographical and traces our accidental encounter in 1949, after our graduation from Columbia University that year. Our forty-year friendship continued through graduate school with digressions until receiving doctorates at the University of Pennsylvania under Zellig Harris, Casimir in 1958 and myself in 1961. In the fifties, Cas worked for Leon Dostert at Georgetown University in the project involving mechanical translation of Russian to English. After leaving Penn he worked at IBM in Yorktown Heights and then taught at the University Pittsburgh both in the computer science and information science programs. After commenting on the MT problem, the talk segues to work on algorithmic historiography and its relation to Information Retrieval. My work on historical networks began with Irv Sher in 1964 in a project which produced a map showing the development of DNA from Mendel to Niremberg in 1962. The DNA map is the model for future automatic generation of historical or genealogical maps of papers or topics. The technique is illustrated by the example of bibliographic coupling as first enunciated by MM Kessler in 1963.
  • The Higgs Boson: Window on the Big Bang

    The Higgs Boson: Window on the Big Bang

    Wright State University CORE Scholar Physics Colloquiums Physics 2-7-2014 The Higgs Boson: Window on the Big Bang Jim Brau University of Oregon Follow this and additional works at: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/physics_colloq Part of the Physics Commons Repository Citation Brau, J. (2014). The Higgs Boson: Window on the Big Bang. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/physics_colloq/1 This Video is brought to you for free and open access by the Physics at CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Physics Colloquiums by an authorized administrator of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE HIGGS BOSON WINDOW ON THE BIG BANG Jim Brau Center for High Energy Physics University of Oregon http://www.AstroPics.com Jim Brau Wright State University February 7, 2014 Jim Brau Wright State University February 7, 2014 Science 21 Dec 2012 BREAKTHROUGH OF THE YEAR Jim Brau Wright State University February 7, 2014 Time’s 2012 Person of the Year: the Higgs Boson was among nominees! Jim Brau Wright State University February 7, 2014 Time’s 2012 Person of the Year: the Higgs Boson was among nominees! Jim Brau Wright State University February 7, 2014 Time’s 2012 Person of the Year: the Higgs Boson was among nominees! Jim Brau Wright State University February 7, 2014 The Nobel Prize in Physics 2013 Photo: Pnicolet vi,; Photo: G·M Greuel via Wlkimedla commons Wiklmedia Commons F ra n~ o is Englert Peter W. Higgs The Nobel Prize in Physics 2013 was awarded jointly to Fran~ois Englert and Peter W.
  • Physics and Feynman's Diagrams

    Physics and Feynman's Diagrams

    Physics and Feynman’s Diagrams In the hands of a postwar generation, a tool intended to lead quantum electrodynamics out of a decades-long morass helped transform physics David Kaiser eorge Gamow, the wisecracking theoretical tools, known as the Feynman diagram. Since Gphysicist who helped invent the Big Bang the middle of the 20th century, theoretical model of the universe, was fond of explaining physicists have increasingly turned to this tool what he liked best about his line of work: He to help them undertake critical calculations. could lie down on a couch and close his eyes, Feynman diagrams have revolutionized nearly and no one would be able to tell whether he was every aspect of theoretical physics. Of course, working or not. A fine gag, but a bad model for no tool ever applies itself, much less interprets thinking about the day-to-day work that theo- the results of its usage and draws scientific retical physicists do. For too long, physicists, conclusions. Once the Feynman diagram ap- historians and philosophers took Gamow’s joke peared in the physics toolkit, physicists had to quite seriously. Research in theory, we were learn how to use it to accomplish and inform told, concerns abstract thought wholly sepa- their calculations. My research has therefore rated from anything like labor, activity or skill. focused on the work that was required to make David Kaiser is the Leo Marx Theories, worldviews or paradigms seemed the Feynman diagrams the tool of choice. Associate Professor of the His- appropriate units of analysis, and the challenge The American theoretical physicist Rich- tory of Science in the Program lay in charting the birth and conceptual devel- ard Feynman first introduced his diagrams in Science, Technology, and opment of particular ideas.