The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Confusion and representational practices as factors that sustain rich pedagogical discussions within faculty online learning communities
Open accessAbstract
We present analysis of an exemplary case of rich and extended pedagogical reasoning about energy representations among physics faculty participating in the Next Generation Physical Science and Everyday Thinking Faculty Online Learning Community (FOLC).Our analysis is driven by the question, "What drives and sustains this prolonged and substantive pedagogical discussion?"We argue that this discussion was partially sustained through two factors: (1) the substantive confusion (for students and educators) that it generated and (2) the rich coordination of conceptual resources it involved.Some of this rich coordination of conceptual resources seems enabled by the common curriculum used among the educators in this FOLC.We suggest that these factors create opportunities for faculty to deepen their pedagogical content knowledge and critical reflectiveness.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This FOLC has seen similar positive impacts as we report for the NFW-FOLC [58][59][60].”
From Faculty online learning communities: A model for sustained teaching transformation (2019) · cites this paper as [59]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- F. Goldberg, V. Otero, and S. Robinson, Am. J. Phys. 78, 1265 (2010).
- F. Goldberg, E. Price, S. Robinson, D. Boyd-Harlow, and M. McKean. Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 010121 (2012).
- L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in society (Harvard Univ., Cambridge, 1980).
Cited by
Price, E., Lau, A. C., Goldberg, F., Turpen, C., Smith, P. S., Dancy, M., & Robinson, S. (2021) · International Journal of STEM Education · doi:10.1186/s40594-020-00268-7 · Cited by 60
Self-citationFaculty online learning communities: A model for sustained teaching transformation
Dancy, M., Lau, A. C., Rundquist, A., & Henderson, C. (2019) · Physical Review Physics Education Research · doi:10.1103/physrevphyseducres.15.020147 · Cited by 53
Metadata
- Authors
- Turpen, C., Goldberg, F., Corrales, A., & Price, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- San Diego State University (US)
- California State University, San Marcos (US)
- Venue
- Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings
- Published
- 2019-01-21
- ISSN
- 2377-2379
- OpenAlex
- W2910188426
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 5.36
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Physics Education Research Conference (PERC) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- The Physics Video Demonstration Database (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1626496)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
- Keywords
- pedagogical reasoning, physics education, energy representation, conceptual resources, pedagogical content knowledge, conceptual confusion, curriculum coordination
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Confusion and representational practices as factors that sustain rich pedagogical discussions within faculty online learning communities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1119/perc.2018.pr.turpen
- The paper
- Turpen, C., Goldberg, F., Corrales, A., & Price, E. (2019). Confusion and representational practices as factors that sustain rich pedagogical discussions within faculty online learning communities. Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2018.pr.turpen
