Abstract
This paper reports results from evaluation of the Cosmic Ray Observatory Project (CROP), a student, teacher, scientist partnership to engage high-school students and teachers in school based cosmic ray research. Specifically, this study examined whether an intensive summer workshop experience could effectively prepare teacher—student teams to engage in cutting edge high-energy physics research. Results showed that teachers and students could acquire enough knowledge about cosmic ray physics and self-efficacy for conducting cosmic ray research during a summer workshop to be full participants in an SSP conducting research in their schools, and a capstone anchoring approach using an authentic research activity was effective for motivating student engagement in didactic classroom learning. CROP demonstrated “proof of concept” that setting up cosmic ray detector arrays in schools run by teachers and students was feasible, but found that set-up and operation in a high-school was technically difficult.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. W. H. Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co, New York
Barab SA, Hay KE (2001) Doing science at the elbows of experts: issues related to the science apprenticeship camp. J Res Sci Teach 38(1):70–102
Brown JS, Collins A, Duguid P (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educ Res 18(1):32–42
Cappelleri DJ, Keller JF, Kientz T, Szczesniak P, Kumar V (2007) SAAST robotics—an intensive three week robotics program for high school students. In: Proceedings of ASME 2007 international design engineering technical conferences & computer and information in engineering conference. ASME, pp 1–9
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1990) Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educ Res 19:2–10
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1992) The Jasper Series as an example of anchored instruction: theory, program description, and assessment data. Educ Psychol 27:291–315
Collins A (2006) Cognitive apprenticeship. In: Sawyer RK (ed) The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 47–60
Donahue TP, Lewis LB, Price LF, Schmidt DC (1998) Bringing science to life through community-based watershed education. J Sci Educ Technol 7:15–23
Howland D, Becker ML (2002) GLOBE-The science behind launching an international environmental education program. J Sci Educ Technol 11:199–210
Knox KL, Moynihan JA, Markowitz DG (2003) Evaluation of short-term impact of a high school summer science program on students’ perceived knowledge and skill. J Sci Educ Technol 12:471–478
Nagai K (2001) Learning while doing: practical robotic education. Robot Autom Mag 8(2):39–43
National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Pajares F (2008) Motivational role of self-efficacy beliefs in self-regulated learning. In: Schunk DH, Zimmerman BJ (eds) Motivation and self-regulated learning: theory, research, and applications. Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis Group, New York, pp 111–140
Rahm I, Miller HC, Hartley L, Moore JC (2003) The value of an emergent notion of authenticity: examples from two student/teacher-scientist partnership programs. J Res Sci Teach 40:737–756
Siegwart R (2001) Grasping the interdisciplinarity of mechatronics. Robot Autom Mag 8(2):27–34
Tinker RF (1997) Student scientist partnerships: Shrewd maneuvers. J Sci Educ Technol 6:111–117
Zech L, Vye NJ, Bransford JD, Goldman SR, Barron BJ, Schwartz DL, Kisst-Hackett R, Mayfield-Stewart C, The Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1998) An introduction to geometry through anchored instruction. In: Lehrer R, Chazan D (eds) Designing learning environments for developing understand of geometry and space. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 439–463
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (Grant #9911855).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix A
See Table 11.
Appendix B
Typical CROP workshop week.
Appendix C
CROP Year 4 pre- and post-knowledge test
-
1.
What are cosmic rays?
-
2.
What is meant by “primary” and “secondary” cosmic ray particles?
-
3.
The energy distribution of primary cosmic rays bombarding the earth has been measured by a number of experiments. In the space below, sketch a graph of the number of observed primary cosmic rays vs. cosmic ray energy, and describe the distribution in a sentence or two.
-
4.
Where do we believe most primary cosmic rays come from? What questions remain about the origin of the highest energy primary cosmic rays?
-
5.
Describe three different detector devices which might be used to detect the presence of cosmic rays at the earth’s surface.
-
6.
Explain how a scintillation counter works, i.e., write down the sequence of events from the passage of a charged particle through a scintillator to the generation of an electric signal in a photomultiplier tube.
-
7.
Describe how an energetic cosmic ray creates a giant air shower in the earth’s atmosphere.
-
8.
Describe the structure of an atom down to its smallest pieces.
-
9.
What two pieces of information will be needed from a GPS receiver in CROP, and how will this information be used in measurements of cosmic-ray air showers?
-
10.
Many detectors capable of tracking the path taken by a charged particle are designed to operate within a surrounding magnetic field. What properties of the incoming particle can be determined by such an arrangement and how?
-
11a.
Why did the physicist Pauli suggest and Fermi develop a controversial idea like the existence of a new neutral (perhaps massless, or at least nearly so) particle (the neutrino)? What observations were they attempting to explain?
-
11b.
What is meant by the recently observed phenomenon called “neutrino oscillations”? [eliminated in Year 5 test]
-
12.
Describe some characteristic differences between electromagnetic showers and hadronic showers created when particles impinge on a block of matter or a cosmic ray enters the atmosphere. Hint: think in terms of the type of particle which initiates the shower, the type of secondary particles in the shower, the shape of the shower, depth penetration of the shower particles, etc.
-
13.
What do the terms “real” and “accidental” coincidences mean in an experiment employing two scintillation detectors and an electronic coincidence circuit?
-
14.
Describe two types of measurements or observations you could make to determine whether a CROP scintillation counter has a “light leak”.
-
15.
What is meant by the “efficiency” of a scintillation counter? Describe the set-up you might use to measure this quantity.
-
16.
The singles rates (counts per minute) of one of your scintillation counters, which you have observed to be stable for a few days, suddenly changes (increase or decreases) by a factor of 4. What do you suspect may be the cause of such a change? How would you verify that your suspected cause (or causes) is correct?
-
17.
The oscilloscope.
-
a.
What is the amplitude (in millivolts, mV) of the square pulse traced by the oscilloscope above?
-
b.
What is the pulse’s width (in nanoseconds, ns)?
-
c.
The oscilloscope settings are now adjusted to a new sensitivity of 500 mV/division and trace speed of 5 ns/division. Sketch below how you expect the pulse to appear now.
-
18a.
The Poisson distribution
describes the probability of counting n randomly occurring events during some fixed period of time.
-
What mean (average) number of counts does it predict?
-
What (in principle) is the maximum and minimum count it allows?
-
18b.
What is the best estimate of “error” in counting the events described by the above expression?
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shell, D.F., Snow, G.R. & Claes, D.R. The Cosmic Ray Observatory Project: Results of a Summer High-School Student, Teacher, University Scientist Partnership Using a Capstone Research Experience. J Sci Educ Technol 20, 161–177 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9243-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9243-6