physics literature review topics

Your browser does not support javascript. Some site functionality may not work as expected.

• Government Reports
• Books & eBooks
• Citation Help
• Writing a Literature Review
• University of Washington Libraries
• Library Guides

Physics: Writing a Literature Review

Literature reviews.

A  literature review  surveys scholarly articles, books and other sources (e.g. dissertations, conference proceedings) relevant to a particular issue, area of research, or theory, providing a description, summary, and critical evaluation of each work. 

• Provide context for a research paper
• Explore the history and development of a topic
• Examine the scholarly conversation surrounding the topic
• Shows relationships between studies
• Examines gaps in research on the topic

Components 

Similar to primary research, development of the literature review requires four stages:

• Problem formulation—which topic or field is being examined and what are its component issues?
• Literature search—finding materials relevant to the subject being explored
• Data evaluation—determining which literature makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the topic
• Analysis and interpretation—discussing the findings and conclusions of pertinent literature

Conducting a Literature Review

1. choose a topic. define your research questions..

Your literature review should be guided by a central research question.  Remember, it is not a collection of loosely related studies in a field but instead represents background and research developments related to a specific research question, interpreted and analyzed by you in a synthesized way.

• Make sure your research question is not too broad or too narrow.  Is it manageable?
• Begin writing down terms that are related to your question. These will be useful for searches later.
• If you have the opportunity, discuss your topic with your professor.

2. Decide on the scope of your review. 

• How many studies do you need to look at?
• How comprehensive should it be?
• How many years should it cover? 

Tip: This may depend on your assignment.  How many sources does the assignment require?

3. Select the databases you will use to conduct your searches.  

Make a list of the databases you will search.  

Where to find databases:

• Find Databases by Subject
• T he Find Articles tab of this guide

This page contains a list of the most relevant databases for most Physics research. 

4. Conduct your searches and find the literature. Keep track of your searches! 

• Review the abstracts of research studies carefully. This will save you time.
• Write down the searches you conduct in each database so that you may duplicate them if you need to later (or avoid dead-end searches   that you'd forgotten you'd already tried).
• Use the bibliographies and references of research studies you find to locate others.
• Ask your professor or a librarian if you are missing any key works in the field.

5. Review the Literature 

Some questions to help you analyze the research: 

• What was the research question of the study you are reviewing? What were the authors trying to discover?
• Was the research funded by a source that could influence the findings?
• What were the research methodologies? Analyze its literature review, the samples and variables used, the results, and the conclusions. Does the research seem to be complete? Could it have been conducted more soundly? What further questions does it raise?
• If there are conflicting studies, why do you think that is?
• How are the authors viewed in the field? Has this study been cited?; if so, how has it been analyzed?

Tips: 

• Again, review the abstracts carefully.  
• Keep careful notes so that you may track your thought processes during the research process.

Chat with a UW Librarian

• << Previous: Citation Help
• Last Updated: Oct 19, 2023 11:59 AM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uw.edu/bothell/physics

Quick Links:

• Where do I find physics resources in the library?
• What if I can't find what I'm looking for?
• How do I know if my source is a "scholarly" source?
• How do I paraphrase something?

Literature Review Basics

• Literature Review Step-by-Step
• Common Questions about Literature Reviews
• How do I craft a basic citation?
• What is citation tracing?
• How do I use Zotero for citation management?
• Who do I contact for help?

This video will provide a short introduction to literature reviews.

Steps For Writing a Literature Review

Recommended steps for writing a literature review:

• Review what a literature review is, and is not 
• Review your assignment and seek clarification from your instructor if needed
• Narrow your topic
• Search and gather literature resources. 
• Read and analyze literature resources
• Write the literature review
• Review appropriate  Citation and Documentation Style  for your assignment and literature review

Common Questions

What is a literature review?

A literature review is a type of scholarly, researched writing that discusses the already published information on a narrow topic . 

What is the purpose of a writing literature review?

Writing a literature review improves your personal understanding of a topic, and demonstrates your knowledge and ability to make connections between concepts and ideas. The literature review is a service to your reader, summarizing past ideas about a topic, bringing them up to date on the latest research, and making sure they have all any background information they need to understand the topic.  

What is "the literature"?

This already published information- called the literature- can be from primary information sources such as speeches, interviews, and reports, or from secondary information sources such as peer-reviewed journal articles, dissertations, and books. These type of sources are probably familiar to you from previous research projects you’ve done in your classes.

Is a literature review it's own paper?

You can write a literature review as a standalone paper , or as part of a larger research paper . When a standalone paper, the literature review acts as a summary, or snapshot, of what has been said and done about a topic in the field so far. When part of the a larger paper, a literature review still acts as a snapshot, but the prior information it provides can also support the new information, research, or arguments presented later in the paper.

Does a literature review contain an argument?

No, a literature review does NOT present an argument or new information. The literature review is a foundation that summarizes and synthesizes the existing literature in order for you and your readers to understand what has already been said and done about your topic.

• << Previous: How do I paraphrase something?
• Next: How do I craft a basic citation? >>
• Last Updated: Mar 29, 2024 11:34 AM
• URL: https://fhsuguides.fhsu.edu/physics

• Joyner Library
• Laupus Health Sciences Library
• Music Library
• Digital Collections
• Special Collections
• North Carolina Collection
• Teaching Resources
• The ScholarShip Institutional Repository
• Country Doctor Museum

Physics and Astronomy: Literature Review

• Find Articles
• Literature Review
• Evaluate Sources
• Citation Guide

Choosing a Topic

Choosing your topic is one of the most important steps for a graduate student, and should be done in consultation with your faculty advisor.  Some of the tips presented in the video below can help you get started.

The Literature Review

This tutorial from NCSU gives a good overview of the process of the literature review.

Types of Literature Reviews

Completing Literature Reviews

Links to Further Help You...

• UNC Writing Center Handout for Writing a Lit Review
• Purdue Online Writing Lab Social Work Literature Review Guidelines (Not only for Social Work!)
• UW-Madison Writing Center Learn How to Write a Review of Literature
• University of Toronto The Literature Review: A Few Tips on Conducting It
• Mindmap The Literature Review in Under 5 Minutes
• << Previous: Find Articles
• Next: Evaluate Sources >>
• Last Updated: Dec 21, 2022 2:03 PM
• URL: https://libguides.ecu.edu/Physics_Astronomy

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 04 December 2020
• Correction 09 December 2020

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Related Articles

• Research management

Overcoming low vision to prove my abilities under pressure

Career Q&A 28 MAR 24

How a spreadsheet helped me to land my dream job

Career Column 28 MAR 24

Maple-scented cacti and pom-pom cats: how pranking at work can lift lab spirits

Career Feature 27 MAR 24

Superconductivity case shows the need for zero tolerance of toxic lab culture

Correspondence 26 MAR 24

Cuts to postgraduate funding threaten Brazilian science — again

The beauty of what science can do when urgently needed

Career Q&A 26 MAR 24

The corpse of an exploded star and more — March’s best science images

News 28 MAR 24

How papers with doctored images can affect scientific reviews

Nature is committed to diversifying its journalistic sources

Editorial 27 MAR 24

Tenure-track Assistant Professor in Ecological and Evolutionary Modeling

Tenure-track Assistant Professor in Ecosystem Ecology linked to IceLab’s Center for modeling adaptive mechanisms in living systems under stress

Umeå, Sweden

Umeå University

Faculty Positions in Westlake University

Founded in 2018, Westlake University is a new type of non-profit research-oriented university in Hangzhou, China, supported by public a...

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Westlake University

Postdoctoral Fellowships-Metabolic control of cell growth and senescence

Postdoctoral positions in the team Cell growth control by nutrients at Inst. Necker, Université Paris Cité, Inserm, Paris, France.

Paris, Ile-de-France (FR)

Inserm DR IDF Paris Centre Nord

Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine on Open Recruitment of Medical Talents and Postdocs

Director of Clinical Department, Professor, Researcher, Post-doctor

The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University

Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Warmly Welcomes Talents Abroad

“Qiushi” Distinguished Scholar, Zhejiang University, including Professor and Physician

No. 3, Qingchun East Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang (CN)

Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital Affiliated with Zhejiang University School of Medicine

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Science - Physics - Year 12 - Scientific Literature Review: Sample Literature Reviews

• Effective Evaluation of Academic Articles
• Effectively Searching Academic Articles

Sample Literature Reviews

Sample reviews.

A selection of sample literature reviews are listed below. They are broad in scope and not necessarily scientific in nature, however they may prove helpful as a reference point, or for you to obtain a few ideas regarding the structure of a review. 

The evolution of mathematics support: a literature review https://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=sch& AN=146514953&site=ehost-live& authtype=ip,shib&custid= s9039487

Parkinson's disease and occupational exposures: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses https://www.jstor.org/stable/ 26386293

Employment Among Current and Former Welfare Recipients: A Literature Review    https://laverne.libguides.com/ ld.php?content_id=1226593

Considering the Environment in Transportation Planning: Review of Emerging Paradigms and Practice in the United States   https://laverne.libguides.com/ ld.php?content_id=1226590

• << Previous: Effectively Searching Academic Articles
• Last Updated: Mar 21, 2024 10:25 PM
• URL: https://saintpatricks-nsw.libguides.com/science_physics/scientific_lit_review

University Libraries      University of Nevada, Reno

• Skill Guides
• Subject Guides

Physics: Systematic Reviews

• Articles/Research Databases
• Selected Web Resources
• U.S. National Laboratories
• Systematic Reviews

What Is a Systematic Review?

Regular literature reviews are simply summaries of the literature on a particular topic. A systematic review, however, is a comprehensive literature review conducted to answer a specific research question. Authors of a systematic review aim to find, code, appraise, and synthesize all of the previous research on their question in an unbiased and well-documented manner. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) outline the minimum amount of information that needs to be reported at the conclusion of a systematic review project. 

Other types of what are known as "evidence syntheses," such as scoping, rapid, and integrative reviews, have varying methodologies. While systematic reviews originated with and continue to be a popular publication type in medicine and other health sciences fields, more and more researchers in other disciplines are choosing to conduct evidence syntheses. 

This guide will walk you through the major steps of a systematic review and point you to key resources including Covidence, a systematic review project management tool. For help with systematic reviews and other major literature review projects, please send us an email at  [email protected] .

Getting Help with Reviews

Organization such as the Institute of Medicine recommend that you consult a librarian when conducting a systematic review. Librarians at the University of Nevada, Reno can help you:

• Understand best practices for conducting systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses in your discipline
• Choose and formulate a research question
• Decide which review type (e.g., systematic, scoping, rapid, etc.) is the best fit for your project
• Determine what to include and where to register a systematic review protocol
• Select search terms and develop a search strategy
• Identify databases and platforms to search
• Find the full text of articles and other sources
• Become familiar with free citation management (e.g., EndNote, Zotero)
• Get access to you and help using Covidence, a systematic review project management tool

Doing a Systematic Review

• Plan - This is the project planning stage. You and your team will need to develop a good research question, determine the type of review you will conduct (systematic, scoping, rapid, etc.), and establish the inclusion and exclusion criteria (e.g., you're only going to look at studies that use a certain methodology). All of this information needs to be included in your protocol. You'll also need to ensure that the project is viable - has someone already done a systematic review on this topic? Do some searches and check the various protocol registries to find out. 
• Identify - Next, a comprehensive search of the literature is undertaken to ensure all studies that meet the predetermined criteria are identified. Each research question is different, so the number and types of databases you'll search - as well as other online publication venues - will vary. Some standards and guidelines specify that certain databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE) should be searched regardless. Your subject librarian can help you select appropriate databases to search and develop search strings for each of those databases.  
• Evaluate - In this step, retrieved articles are screened and sorted using the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The risk of bias for each included study is also assessed around this time. It's best if you import search results into a citation management tool (see below) to clean up the citations and remove any duplicates. You can then use a tool like Rayyan (see below) to screen the results. You should begin by screening titles and abstracts only, and then you'll examine the full text of any remaining articles. Each study should be reviewed by a minimum of two people on the project team. 
• Collect - Each included study is coded and the quantitative or qualitative data contained in these studies is then synthesized. You'll have to either find or develop a coding strategy or form that meets your needs. 
• Explain - The synthesized results are articulated and contextualized. What do the results mean? How have they answered your research question?
• Summarize - The final report provides a complete description of the methods and results in a clear, transparent fashion. 

Adapted from

Types of reviews, systematic review.

These types of studies employ a systematic method to analyze and synthesize the results of numerous studies. "Systematic" in this case means following a strict set of steps - as outlined by entities like PRISMA and the Institute of Medicine - so as to make the review more reproducible and less biased. Consistent, thorough documentation is also key. Reviews of this type are not meant to be conducted by an individual but rather a (small) team of researchers. Systematic reviews are widely used in the health sciences, often to find a generalized conclusion from multiple evidence-based studies. 

Meta-Analysis

A systematic method that uses statistics to analyze the data from numerous studies. The researchers combine the data from studies with similar data types and analyze them as a single, expanded dataset. Meta-analyses are a type of systematic review.

Scoping Review

A scoping review employs the systematic review methodology to explore a broader topic or question rather than a specific and answerable one, as is generally the case with a systematic review. Authors of these types of reviews seek to collect and categorize the existing literature so as to identify any gaps.

Rapid Review

Rapid reviews are systematic reviews conducted under a time constraint. Researchers make use of workarounds to complete the review quickly (e.g., only looking at English-language publications), which can lead to a less thorough and more biased review. 

Narrative Review

A traditional literature review that summarizes and synthesizes the findings of numerous original research articles. The purpose and scope of narrative literature reviews vary widely and do not follow a set protocol. Most literature reviews are narrative reviews. 

Umbrella Review

Umbrella reviews are, essentially, systematic reviews of systematic reviews. These compile evidence from multiple review studies into one usable document. 

Grant, Maria J., and Andrew Booth. “A Typology of Reviews: An Analysis of 14 Review Types and Associated Methodologies.” Health Information & Libraries Journal , vol. 26, no. 2, 2009, pp. 91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x .

• << Previous: U.S. National Laboratories

Physical Review Physics Education Research

• Collections
• Editorial Team

NEW ARTICLE

Changing person-environment fit among underrepresented undergraduate physics students: successes from a small department.

Ann Y. Kim, Vina Ton, and Daniel Vega Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20 , 010118 (2024)

There are concrete things that faculty can do to create a welcoming and supportive environment within their physics department.

Redesigning a first year physics lab course on the basis of the procedural and conceptual knowledge in science model

C. F. J. Pols and P. J. J. M. Dekkers Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20 , 010117 (2024)

The procedural and conceptual knowledge science model guides curriculum design and analysis of student engagement and understanding.

Evaluating IBM’s Watson natural language processing artificial intelligence as a short-answer categorization tool for physics education research

Jennifer Campbell, Katie Ansell, and Tim Stelzer Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20 , 010116 (2024)

Artificial intelligence tools are not currently suitable for assessing individual student work, but can be used to summarize the level of a class’ understanding for the purpose of adjusting instruction.

Investigating introductory and advanced students’ difficulties with change in internal energy, work, and heat transfer using a validated instrument

Mary Jane Brundage, David E. Meltzer, and Chandralekha Singh Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20 , 010115 (2024)

Even upper-level physics students struggle with basic thermodynamics concepts related to internal energy, work, and heat transfer.

Editorial: Discontinuation of short papers in PRPER

January 16, 2024.

Short papers in Physical Review Physics Education Research (PRPER) were originally intended for articles that either extended a previous work (by the authors or someone else) or were initial results from a larger effort that were interesting enough to merit this type of publication.

Editorial: Call for Papers for Focused Collection of Physical Review Physics Education Research : AI Tools in Physics Teaching and PER

December 14, 2023.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has increasingly found its way into more and more areas of our lives, including education. This focused collection aims to address opportunities, challenges, and issues around the use of a broad variety of AI tools in physics education and physics education research.

Editorial: Call for Papers for Focused Collection of Physical Review Physics Education Research : Investigating and Improving Quantum Education through Research

December 4, 2023.

In the year 2025, we will be celebrating the 100th anniversary of the formulation and development of quantum theory. The United Nations is working toward a declaration of 2025 as the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology (IYQST). In the spring of 2025, Physical Review Physics Education Research (PRPER) will join the celebration by rolling out a special issue of the journal focused on investigating and improving quantum education.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Meet new prper associate editor eric brewe, june 30, 2023.

Dr. Eric Brewe is a Professor in Physics and Science Education at Drexel University. Much of his research into the teaching and learning of physics at the university level is focused on the Modeling Instruction method. Dr. Brewe publishes frequently in PRPER and has received significant external funding to support his research. He is an APS Fellow and has served as Chair of the APS Education Policy Committee and Chair of the APS Topical Group on Physics Education Research.

APS Announces Outstanding Referees for 2024

APS has selected 156 Outstanding Referees for 2024 who have demonstrated exceptional work in the assessment of manuscripts published in the Physical Review journals. A full list of the Outstanding Referees is available online .

NEWS AND COMMENTARY

Ableism puts neurodivergent students at a disadvantage, february 29, 2024.

While undergraduate physics students that identify as neurodivergent report little outright discrimination or violence, they do say that structural ableism has negatively impacted their time as students.

Feature on: Liam G. McDermott, Nazeer A. Mosley, and Geraldine L. Cochran Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 20 , 010111 (2024)

SPECIAL COLLECTION

Examining racial diversity and identity in physical review physics education research, july 1, 2020.

In the following special collection from Physical Review Physics Education Research , authors examine and highlight racial diversity, specifically how Black physicists and people of color navigate within the physics community at large.

Editorial: Announcing the PRPER Statistical Modeling Review Committee (SMRC)

November 22, 2022.

Lead Editor, Charles Henderson, announces PRPER’s development of the Statistical Modeling Review Committee (SMRC) to help support high-quality statistical modeling techniques.

Editorial: Research on Advancing Equity Is Critical for Physics

April 11, 2022.

PRPER Lead Editor, Charles Henderson, and APS Editor in Chief, Michael Thoennessen, discuss the vital importance of offering an inclusive and welcoming environment to the physics community.

Editorial: Call for Papers Focused Collection of Physical Review Physics Education Research Instructional labs: Improving traditions and new directions

November 17, 2021.

Physics is an experimental science. Instructional laboratories where students conduct experiments, analyze data, arrive at conclusions, and communicate findings have been around for over a century. Every physics department has labs of different levels: from introductory to advanced, for majors and nonmajors, with real equipment or virtual.

Editorial: Call for Papers Focused Collection of Physical Review Physics Education Research Qualitative Methods in PER: A Critical Examination

August 4, 2021.

Physics Education Research (PER) uses various research methods classified under qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. These approaches help researchers understand physics education phenomena and advance our efforts to produce better PER. Over time, research questions and contexts have evolved, and so have our methods. We understand it has come the time for PER scholars to examine qualitative methods in our field critically. Therefore, we urge you to contribute to the Focused Collection on Qualitative Methods in PER.

Special Collection on Curriculum Development: Theory into Design

This Physical Review Physics Education Research (PRPER) Focused Collection was curated to bring to light curriculum design decisions and the factors that shape them. By making decisions about design explicit, we can better understand the contexts behind our research claims, hold curricula up to informed critique, and support new scholars as they undertake curriculum development.

Current Issue

Vol. 20, Iss. 1 — January - June 2024

Previous Issues

• Vol. 19, Iss. 2 — July - December 2023
• Vol. 19, Iss. 1 — January - June 2023
• Vol. 18, Iss. 2 — July - December 2022
• Vol. 18, Iss. 1 — January - June 2022

Email Alerts

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review Physics Education Research

AAPT APS FEd APS GPER

Announcements

APS has selected 156 Outstanding Referees for 2024 who have demonstrated exceptional work in the assessment of manuscripts published in the Physical Review journals. A full list of the Outstanding Referees is available online.

Offer includes Journal Access and waived article publication charges to Scientists in 100+ Lower and Middle Income Countries

The journal Physical Review Physics Education Research  and the Topical Group on Physics Education Research (GPER) are collaborating to host these events on recent, high-impact physics education research.

Articles appearing in this special collection highlight the current state of the field of physics education research as it relates to quantitative methods. Editorial

I am pleased to announce that PRST-PER will begin having focused collections. A focused collection is a selection of articles on a particular topic of interest to the PER community. Announcements of the first three focused collections will be made in the form of guest editorials in the coming months. It is expected that there will be one or two focused collections in PRST-PER published each year.

More Announcements

Job Openings

APS is now accepting applications of qualified candidates for the role of Chief Editor for Physical Review E.

Read more - American Physical Society - Job Openings

Special Collection

• Forgot your username/password?
• Create an account

Article Lookup

Paste a citation or doi, enter a citation.

• Position paper
• Open access
• Published: 28 November 2019

Physics education research for 21 st century learning

• Lei Bao   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3348-4198 1 &
• Kathleen Koenig 2  

Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research volume  1 , Article number:  2 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

37k Accesses

69 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Education goals have evolved to emphasize student acquisition of the knowledge and attributes necessary to successfully contribute to the workforce and global economy of the twenty-first Century. The new education standards emphasize higher end skills including reasoning, creativity, and open problem solving. Although there is substantial research evidence and consensus around identifying essential twenty-first Century skills, there is a lack of research that focuses on how the related subskills interact and develop over time. This paper provides a brief review of physics education research as a means for providing a context towards future work in promoting deep learning and fostering abilities in high-end reasoning. Through a synthesis of the literature around twenty-first Century skills and physics education, a set of concretely defined education and research goals are suggested for future research, along with how these may impact the next generation physics courses and how physics should be taught in the future.

Introduction

Education is the primary service offered by society to prepare its future generation workforce. The goals of education should therefore meet the demands of the changing world. The concept of learner-centered, active learning has broad, growing support in the research literature as an empirically validated teaching practice that best promotes learning for modern day students (Freeman et al., 2014 ). It stems out of the constructivist view of learning, which emphasizes that it is the learner who needs to actively construct knowledge and the teacher should assume the role of a facilitator rather than the source of knowledge. As implied by the constructivist view, learner-centered education usually emphasizes active-engagement and inquiry style teaching-learning methods, in which the learners can effectively construct their understanding under the guidance of instruction. The learner-centered education also requires educators and researchers to focus their efforts on the learners’ needs, not only to deliver effective teaching-learning approaches, but also to continuously align instructional practices to the education goals of the times. The goals of introductory college courses in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines have constantly evolved from some notion of weed-out courses that emphasize content drilling, to the current constructivist active-engagement type of learning that promotes interest in STEM careers and fosters high-end cognitive abilities.

Following the conceptually defined framework of twenty-first Century teaching and learning, this paper aims to provide contextualized operational definitions of the goals for twenty-first Century learning in physics (and STEM in general) as well as the rationale for the importance of these outcomes for current students. Aligning to the twenty-first Century learning goals, research in physics education is briefly reviewed to provide a context towards future work in promoting deep learning and fostering abilities in high-end reasoning in parallel. Through a synthesis of the literature around twenty-first Century skills and physics education, a set of concretely defined education and research goals are suggested for future research. These goals include: domain-specific research in physics learning; fostering scientific reasoning abilities that are transferable across the STEM disciplines; and dissemination of research-validated curriculum and approaches to teaching and learning. Although this review has a focus on physics education research (PER), it is beneficial to expand the perspective to view physics education in the broader context of STEM learning. Therefore, much of the discussion will blend PER with STEM education as a continuum body of work on teaching and learning.

Education goals for twenty-first century learning

Education goals have evolved to emphasize student acquisition of essential “21 st Century skills”, which define the knowledge and attributes necessary to successfully contribute to the workforce and global economy of the 21st Century (National Research Council, 2011 , 2012a ). In general, these standards seek to transition from emphasizing content-based drilling and memorization towards fostering higher-end skills including reasoning, creativity, and open problem solving (United States Chamber of Commerce, 2017 ). Initiatives on advancing twenty-first Century education focus on skills that converge on three broad clusters: cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal, all of which include a rich set of sub-dimensions.

Within the cognitive domain, multiple competencies have been proposed, including deep learning, non-routine problem solving, systems thinking, critical thinking, computational and information literacy, reasoning and argumentation, and innovation (National Research Council, 2012b ; National Science and Technology Council, 2018 ). Interpersonal skills are those necessary for relating to others, including the ability to work creatively and collaboratively as well as communicate clearly. Intrapersonal skills, on the other hand, reside within the individual and include metacognitive thinking, adaptability, and self-management. These involve the ability to adjust one’s strategy or approach along with the ability to work towards important goals without significant distraction, both essential for sustained success in long-term problem solving and career development.

Although many descriptions exist for what qualifies as twenty-first Century skills, student abilities in scientific reasoning and critical thinking are the most commonly noted and widely studied. They are highly connected with the other cognitive skills of problem solving, decision making, and creative thinking (Bailin, 1996 ; Facione, 1990 ; Fisher, 2001 ; Lipman, 2003 ; Marzano et al., 1988 ), and have been important educational goals since the 1980s (Binkley et al., 2010 ; NCET, 1987 ). As a result, they play a foundational role in defining, assessing, and developing twenty-first Century skills.

The literature for critical thinking is extensive (Bangert-Drowns & Bankert, 1990 ; Facione, 1990 ; Glaser, 1941 ). Various definitions exist with common underlying principles. Broadly defined, critical thinking is the application of the cognitive skills and strategies that aim for and support evidence-based decision making. It is the thinking involved in solving problems, formulating inferences, calculating likelihoods, and making decisions (Halpern, 1999 ). It is the “reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do” (Ennis, 1993 ). Critical thinking is recognized as a way to understand and evaluate subject matter; producing reliable knowledge and improving thinking itself (Paul, 1990 ; Siegel, 1988 ).

The notion of scientific reasoning is often used to label the set of skills that support critical thinking, problem solving, and creativity in STEM. Broadly defined, scientific reasoning includes the thinking and reasoning skills involved in inquiry, experimentation, evidence evaluation, inference and argument that support the formation and modification of concepts and theories about the natural world; such as the ability to systematically explore a problem, formulate and test hypotheses, manipulate and isolate variables, and observe and evaluate consequences (Bao et al., 2009 ; Zimmerman, 2000 ). Critical thinking and scientific reasoning share many features, where both emphasize evidence-based decision making in multivariable causal conditions. Critical thinking can be promoted through the development of scientific reasoning, which includes student ability to reach a reliable conclusion after identifying a question, formulating hypotheses, gathering relevant data, and logically testing and evaluating the hypothesis. In this way, scientific reasoning can be viewed as a scientific domain instantiation of critical thinking in the context of STEM learning.

In STEM learning, cognitive aspects of the twenty-first Century skills aim to develop reasoning skills, critical thinking skills, and deep understanding, all of which allow students to develop well connected expert-like knowledge structures and engage in meaningful scientific inquiry and problem solving. Within physics education, a core component of STEM education, the learning of conceptual understanding and problem solving remains a current emphasis. However, the fast-changing work environment and technology-driven world require a new set of core knowledge, skills, and habits of mind to solve complex interdisciplinary problems, gather and evaluate evidence, and make sense of information from a variety of sources (Tanenbaum, 2016 ). The education goals in physics are transitioning towards ability fostering as well as extension and integration with other STEM disciplines. Although curriculum that supports these goals is limited, there are a number of attempts, particularly in developing active learning classrooms and inquiry-based laboratory activities, which have demonstrated success. Some of these are described later in this paper as they provide a foundation for future work in physics education.

Interpersonal skills, such as communication and collaboration, are also essential for twenty-first Century problem-solving tasks, which are often open-ended, complex, and team-based. As the world becomes more connected in a multitude of dimensions, tackling significant problems involving complex systems often goes beyond the individual and requires working with others who are increasingly from culturally diverse backgrounds. Due to the rise of communication technologies, being able to articulate thoughts and ideas in a variety of formats and contexts is crucial, as well as the ability to effectively listen or observe to decipher meaning. Interpersonal skills can be promoted by integrating group-learning experiences into the classroom setting, while providing students with the opportunity to engage in open-ended tasks with a team of peer learners who may propose more than one plausible solution. These experiences should be designed such that students must work collaboratively and responsibly in teams to develop creative solutions, which are later disseminated through informative presentations and clearly written scientific reports. Although educational settings in general have moved to providing students with more and more opportunities for collaborative learning, a lack of effective assessments for these important skills has been a limiting factor for producing informative research and widespread implementation. See Liu ( 2010 ) for an overview of measurement instruments reported in the research literature.

Intrapersonal skills are based on the individual and include the ability to manage one’s behavior and emotions to achieve goals. These are especially important for adapting in the fast-evolving collaborative modern work environment and for learning new tasks to solve increasingly challenging interdisciplinary problems, both of which require intellectual openness, work ethic, initiative, and metacognition, to name a few. These skills can be promoted using instruction which, for example, includes metacognitive learning strategies, provides opportunities to make choices and set goals for learning, and explicitly connects to everyday life events. However, like interpersonal skills, the availability of relevant assessments challenges advancement in this area. In this review, the vast amount of studies on interpersonal and intrapersonal skills will not be discussed in order to keep the main focus on the cognitive side of skills and reasoning.

The purpose behind discussing twenty-first Century skills is that this set of skills provides important guidance for establishing essential education goals for modern society and learners. However, although there is substantial research evidence and consensus around identifying necessary twenty-first Century skills, there is a lack of research that focuses on how the related subskills interact and develop over time (Reimers & Chung, 2016 ), with much of the existing research residing in academic literature that is focused on psychology rather than education systems (National Research Council, 2012a ). Therefore, a major and challenging task for discipline-based education researchers and educators is to operationally define discipline-specific goals that align with the twenty-first Century skills for each of the STEM fields. In the following sections, this paper will provide a limited vision of the research endeavors in physics education that can translate the past and current success into sustained impact for twenty-first Century teaching and learning.

Proposed education and research goals

Physics education research (PER) is often considered an early pioneer in discipline-based education research (National Research Council, 2012c ), with well-established, broad, and influential outcomes (e.g., Hake, 1998 ; Hsu, Brewe, Foster, & Harper, 2004 ; McDermott & Redish, 1999 ; Meltzer & Thornton, 2012 ). Through the integration of twenty-first Century skills with the PER literature, a set of broadly defined education and research goals is proposed for future PER work:

Discipline-specific deep learning: Cognitive and education research involving physics learning has established a rich literature on student learning behaviors along with a number of frameworks. Some of the popular frameworks include conceptual understanding and concept change, problem solving, knowledge structure, deep learning, and knowledge integration. Aligned with twenty-first Century skills, future research in physics learning should aim to integrate the multiple areas of existing work, such that they help students develop well integrated knowledge structures in order to achieve deep leaning in physics.

Fostering scientific reasoning for transfer across STEM disciplines: The broad literature in physics learning and scientific reasoning can provide a solid foundation to further develop effective physics education approaches, such as active engagement instruction and inquiry labs, specifically targeting scientific inquiry abilities and reasoning skills. Since scientific reasoning is a more domain-general cognitive ability, success in physics can also more readily inform research and education practices in other STEM fields.

Research, development, assessment, and dissemination of effective education approaches: Developing and maintaining a supportive infrastructure of education research and implementation has always been a challenge, not only in physics but in all STEM areas. The twenty-first Century education requires researchers and instructors across STEM to work together as an extended community in order to construct a sustainable integrated STEM education environment. Through this new infrastructure, effective team-based inquiry learning and meaningful assessment can be delivered to help students develop a comprehensive skills set including deep understanding and scientific reasoning, as well as communication and other non-cognitive abilities.

The suggested research will generate understanding and resources to support education practices that meet the requirements of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), which explicitly emphasize three areas of learning including disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting concepts, and practices (National Research Council, 2012b ). The first goal for promoting deep learning of disciplinary knowledge corresponds well to the NGSS emphasis on disciplinary core ideas, which play a central role in helping students develop well integrated knowledge structures to achieve deep understanding. The second goal on fostering transferable scientific reasoning skills supports the NGSS emphasis on crosscutting concepts and practices. Scientific reasoning skills are crosscutting cognitive abilities that are essential to the development of domain-general concepts and modeling strategies. In addition, the development of scientific reasoning requires inquiry-based learning and practices. Therefore, research on scientific reasoning can produce a valuable knowledge base on education means that are effective for developing crosscutting concepts and promoting meaningful practices in STEM. The third research goal addresses the challenge in the assessment of high-end skills and the dissemination of effective educational approaches, which supports all NGSS initiatives to ensure sustainable development and lasting impact. The following sections will discuss the research literature that provides the foundation for these three research goals and identify the specific challenges that will need to be addressed in future work.

Promoting deep learning in physics education

Physics education for the twenty-first Century aims to foster high-end reasoning skills and promote deep conceptual understanding. However, many traditional education systems place strong emphasis on only problem solving with the expectation that students obtain deep conceptual understanding through repetitive problem-solving practices, which often doesn’t occur (Alonso, 1992 ). This focus on problem solving has been shown to have limitations as a number of studies have revealed disconnections between learning conceptual understanding and problem-solving skills (Chiu, 2001 ; Chiu, Guo, & Treagust, 2007 ; Hoellwarth, Moelter, & Knight, 2005 ; Kim & Pak, 2002 ; Nakhleh, 1993 ; Nakhleh & Mitchell, 1993 ; Nurrenbern & Pickering, 1987 ; Stamovlasis, Tsaparlis, Kamilatos, Papaoikonomou, & Zarotiadou, 2005 ). In fact, drilling in problem solving may actually promote memorization of context-specific solutions with minimal generalization rather than transitioning students from novices to experts.

Towards conceptual understanding and learning, many models and definitions have been established to study and describe student conceptual knowledge states and development. For example, students coming into a physics classroom often hold deeply rooted, stable understandings that differ from expert conceptions. These are commonly referred to as misconceptions or alternative conceptions (Clement, 1982 ; Duit & Treagust, 2003 ; Dykstra Jr, Boyle, & Monarch, 1992 ; Halloun & Hestenes, 1985a , 1985b ). Such students’ conceptions are context dependent and exist as disconnected knowledge fragments, which are strongly situated within specific contexts (Bao & Redish, 2001 , 2006 ; Minstrell, 1992 ).

In modeling students’ knowledge structures, DiSessa’s proposed phenomenological primitives (p-prim) describe a learner’s implicit thinking, cued from specific contexts, as an underpinning cognitive construct for a learner’s expressed conception (DiSessa, 1993 ; Smith III, DiSessa, & Roschelle, 1994 ). Facets, on the other hand, map between the implicit p-prim and concrete statements of beliefs and are developed as discrete and independent units of thought, knowledge, or strategies used by individuals to address specific situations (Minstrell, 1992 ). Ontological categories, defined by Chi, describe student reasoning in the most general sense. Chi believed that these are distinct, stable, and constraining, and that a core reason behind novices’ difficulties in physics is that they think of physics within the category of matter instead of processes (Chi, 1992 ; Chi & Slotta, 1993 ; Chi, Slotta, & De Leeuw, 1994 ; Slotta, Chi, & Joram, 1995 ). More details on conceptual learning and problem solving are well summarized in the literature (Hsu et al., 2004 ; McDermott & Redish, 1999 ), from which a common theme emerges from the models and definitions. That is, learning is context dependent and students with poor conceptual understanding typically have locally connected knowledge structures with isolated conceptual constructs that are unable to establish similarities and contrasts between contexts.

Additionally, this idea of fragmentation is demonstrated through many studies on student problem solving in physics and other fields. It has been shown that a student’s knowledge organization is a key aspect for distinguishing experts from novices (Bagno, Eylon, & Ganiel, 2000 ; Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981 ; De Jong & Ferguson-Hesler, 1986 ; Eylon & Reif, 1984 ; Ferguson-Hesler & De Jong, 1990 ; Heller & Reif, 1984 ; Larkin, McDermott, Simon, & Simon, 1980 ; Smith, 1992 ; Veldhuis, 1990 ; Wexler, 1982 ). Expert’s knowledge is organized around core principles of physics, which are applied to guide problem solving and develop connections between different domains as well as new, unfamiliar situations (Brown, 1989 ; Perkins & Salomon, 1989 ; Salomon & Perkins, 1989 ). Novices, on the other hand, lack a well-organized knowledge structure and often solve problems by relying on surface features that are directly mapped to certain problem-solving outcomes through memorization (Chi, Bassok, Lewis, Reimann, & Glaser, 1989 ; Hardiman, Dufresne, & Mestre, 1989 ; Schoenfeld & Herrmann, 1982 ).

This lack of organization creates many difficulties in the comprehension of basic concepts and in solving complex problems. This leads to the common complaint that students’ knowledge of physics is reduced to formulas and vague labels of the concepts, which are unable to substantively contribute to meaningful reasoning processes. A novice’s fragmented knowledge structure severely limits the learner’s conceptual understanding. In essence, these students are able to memorize how to approach a problem given specific information but lack the understanding of the underlying concept of the approach, limiting their ability to apply this approach to a novel situation. In order to achieve expert-like understanding, a student’s knowledge structure must integrate all of the fragmented ideas around the core principle to form a coherent and fully connected conceptual framework.

Towards a more general theoretical consideration, students’ alternative conceptions and fragmentation in knowledge structures can be viewed through both the “naïve theory” framework (e.g., Posner, Strike, Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982 ; Vosniadou, Vamvakoussi, & Skopeliti, 2008 ) and the “knowledge in pieces” (DiSessa, 1993 ) perspective. The “naïve theory” framework considers students entering the classroom with stable and coherent ideas (naïve theories) about the natural world that differ from those presented by experts. In the “knowledge in pieces” perspective, student knowledge is constructed in real-time and incorporates context features with the p-prims to form the observed conceptual expressions. Although there exists an ongoing debate between these two views (Kalman & Lattery, 2018 ), it is more productive to focus on their instructional implications for promoting meaningful conceptual change in students’ knowledge structures.

In the process of learning, students may enter the classroom with a range of initial states depending on the population and content. For topics with well-established empirical experiences, students often have developed their own ideas and understanding, while on topics without prior exposure, students may create their initial understanding in real-time based on related prior knowledge and given contextual features (Bao & Redish, 2006 ). These initial states of understanding, regardless of their origin, are usually different from those of experts. Therefore, the main function of teaching and learning is to guide students to modify their initial understanding towards the experts’ views. Although students’ initial understanding may exist as a body of coherent ideas within limited contexts, as students start to change their knowledge structures throughout the learning process, they may evolve into a wide range of transitional states with varying levels of knowledge integration and coherence. The discussion in this brief review on students’ knowledge structures regarding fragmentation and integration are primarily focused on the transitional stages emerged through learning.

The corresponding instructional goal is then to help students more effectively develop an integrated knowledge structure so as to achieve a deep conceptual understanding. From an educator’s perspective, Bloom’s taxonomy of education objectives establishes a hierarchy of six levels of cognitive skills based on their specificity and complexity: Remember (lowest and most specific), Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, and Create (highest and most general and complex) (Anderson et al., 2001 ; Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956 ). This hierarchy of skills exemplifies the transition of a learner’s cognitive development from a fragmented and contextually situated knowledge structure (novice with low level cognitive skills) to a well-integrated and globally networked expert-like structure (with high level cognitive skills).

As a student’s learning progresses from lower to higher cognitive levels, the student’s knowledge structure becomes more integrated and is easier to transfer across contexts (less context specific). For example, beginning stage students may only be able to memorize and perform limited applications of the features of certain contexts and their conditional variations, with which the students were specifically taught. This leads to the establishment of a locally connected knowledge construct. When a student’s learning progresses from the level of Remember to Understand, the student begins to develop connections among some of the fragmented pieces to form a more fully connected network linking a larger set of contexts, thus advancing into a higher level of understanding. These connections and the ability to transfer between different situations form the basis of deep conceptual understanding. This growth of connections leads to a more complete and integrated cognitive structure, which can be mapped to a higher level on Bloom’s taxonomy. This occurs when students are able to relate a larger number of different contextual and conditional aspects of a concept for analyzing and evaluating to a wider variety of problem situations.

Promoting the growth of connections would appear to aid in student learning. Exactly which teaching methods best facilitate this are dependent on the concepts and skills being learned and should be determined through research. However, it has been well recognized that traditional instruction often fails to help students obtain expert-like conceptual understanding, with many misconceptions still existing after instruction, indicating weak integration within a student’s knowledge structure (McKeachie, 1986 ).

Recognizing the failures of traditional teaching, various research-informed teaching methods have been developed to enhance student conceptual learning along with diagnostic tests, which aim to measure the existence of misconceptions. Most advances in teaching methods focus on the inclusion of inquiry-based interactive-engagement elements in lecture, recitations, and labs. In physics education, these methods were popularized after Hake’s landmark study demonstrated the effectiveness of interactive-engagement over traditional lectures (Hake, 1998 ). Some of these methods include the use of peer instruction (Mazur, 1997 ), personal response systems (e.g., Reay, Bao, Li, Warnakulasooriya, & Baugh, 2005 ), studio-style instruction (Beichner et al., 2007 ), and inquiry-based learning (Etkina & Van Heuvelen, 2001 ; Laws, 2004 ; McDermott, 1996 ; Thornton & Sokoloff, 1998 ). The key approach of these methods aims to improve student learning by carefully targeting deficits in student knowledge and actively encouraging students to explore and discuss. Rather than rote memorization, these approaches help promote generalization and deeper conceptual understanding by building connections between knowledge elements.

Based on the literature, including Bloom’s taxonomy and the new education standards that emphasize twenty-first Century skills, a common focus on teaching and learning can be identified. This focus emphasizes helping students develop connections among fragmented segments of their knowledge pieces and is aligned with the knowledge integration perspective, which focuses on helping students develop and refine their knowledge structure toward a more coherently organized and extensively connected network of ideas (Lee, Liu, & Linn, 2011 ; Linn, 2005 ; Nordine, Krajcik, & Fortus, 2011 ; Shen, Liu, & Chang, 2017 ). For meaningful learning to occur, new concepts must be integrated into a learner’s existing knowledge structure by linking the new knowledge to already understood concepts.

Forming an integrated knowledge structure is therefore essential to achieving deep learning, not only in physics but also in all STEM fields. However, defining what connections must occur at different stages of learning, as well as understanding the instructional methods necessary for effectively developing such connections within each STEM disciplinary context, are necessary for current and future research. Together these will provide the much needed foundational knowledge base to guide the development of the next generation of curriculum and classroom environment designed around twenty-first Century learning.

Developing scientific reasoning with inquiry labs

Scientific reasoning is part of the widely emphasized cognitive strand of twenty-first Century skills. Through development of scientific reasoning skills, students’ critical thinking, open-ended problem-solving abilities, and decision-making skills can be improved. In this way, targeting scientific reasoning as a curricular objective is aligned with the goals emphasized in twenty-first Century education. Also, there is a growing body of research on the importance of student development of scientific reasoning, which have been found to positively correlate with course achievement (Cavallo, Rozman, Blickenstaff, & Walker, 2003 ; Johnson & Lawson, 1998 ), improvement on concept tests (Coletta & Phillips, 2005 ; She & Liao, 2010 ), engagement in higher levels of problem solving (Cracolice, Deming, & Ehlert, 2008 ; Fabby & Koenig, 2013 ); and success on transfer (Ates & Cataloglu, 2007 ; Jensen & Lawson, 2011 ).

Unfortunately, research has shown that college students are lacking in scientific reasoning. Lawson ( 1992 ) found that ~ 50% of intro biology students are not capable of applying scientific reasoning in learning, including the ability to develop hypotheses, control variables, and design experiments; all necessary for meaningful scientific inquiry. Research has also found that traditional courses do not significantly develop these abilities, with pre-to-post-test gains of 1%–2%, while inquiry-based courses have gains around 7% (Koenig, Schen, & Bao, 2012 ; Koenig, Schen, Edwards, & Bao, 2012 ). Others found that undergraduates have difficulty developing evidence-based decisions and differentiating between and linking evidence with claims (Kuhn, 1992 ; Shaw, 1996 ; Zeineddin & Abd-El-Khalick, 2010 ). A large scale international study suggested that learning of physics content knowledge with traditional teaching practices does not improve students’ scientific reasoning skills (Bao et al., 2009 ).

Aligned to twenty-first Century learning, it is important to implement curriculum that is specifically designed for developing scientific reasoning abilities within current education settings. Although traditional lectures may continue for decades due to infrastructure constraints, a unique opportunity can be found in the lab curriculum, which may be more readily transformed to include hands-on minds-on group learning activities that are ideal for developing students’ abilities in scientific inquiry and reasoning.

For well over a century, the laboratory has held a distinctive role in student learning (Meltzer & Otero, 2015 ). However, many existing labs, which haven’t changed much since the late 1980s, have received criticism for their outdated cookbook style that lacks effectiveness in developing high-end skills. In addition, labs have been primarily used as a means for verifying the physical principles presented in lecture, and unfortunately, Hofstein and Lunetta ( 1982 ) found in an early review of the literature that research was unable to demonstrate the impact of the lab on student content learning.

About this same time, a shift towards a constructivist view of learning gained popularity and influenced lab curriculum development towards engaging students in the process of constructing knowledge through science inquiry. Curricula, such as Physics by Inquiry (McDermott, 1996 ), Real-Time Physics (Sokoloff, Thornton, & Laws, 2011 ), and Workshop Physics (Laws, 2004 ), were developed with a primary focus on engaging students in cognitive conflict to address misconceptions. Although these approaches have been shown to be highly successful in improving deep learning of physics concepts (McDermott & Redish, 1999 ), the emphasis on conceptual learning does not sufficiently impact the domain general scientific reasoning skills necessitated in the goals of twenty-first Century learning.

Reform in science education, both in terms of targeted content and skills, along with the emergence of knowledge regarding human cognition and learning (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000 ), have generated renewed interest in the potential of inquiry-based lab settings for skill development. In these types of hands-on minds-on learning, students apply the methods and procedures of science inquiry to investigate phenomena and construct scientific claims, solve problems, and communicate outcomes, which holds promise for developing both conceptual understanding and scientific reasoning skills in parallel (Trowbridge, Bybee, & Powell, 2000 ). In addition, the availability of technology to enhance inquiry-based learning has seen exponential growth, along with the emergence of more appropriate research methodologies to support research on student learning.

Although inquiry-based labs hold promise for developing students’ high-end reasoning, analytic, and scientific inquiry abilities, these educational endeavors have not become widespread, with many existing physics laboratory courses still viewed merely as a place to illustrate the physical principles from the lecture course (Meltzer & Otero, 2015 ). Developing scientific ideas from practical experiences, however, is a complex process. Students need sufficient time and opportunity for interaction and reflection on complex, investigative tasks. Blended learning, which merges lecture and lab (such as studio style courses), addresses this issue to some extent, but has experienced limited adoption, likely due to the demanding infrastructure resources, including dedicated technology-intensive classroom space, equipment and maintenance costs, and fully committed trained staff.

Therefore, there is an immediate need to transform the existing standalone lab courses, within the constraints of the existing education infrastructure, into more inquiry-based designs, with one of its primary goals dedicated to developing scientific reasoning skills. These labs should center on constructing knowledge, along with hands-on minds-on practical skills and scientific reasoning, to support modeling a problem, designing and implementing experiments, analyzing and interpreting data, drawing and evaluating conclusions, and effective communication. In particular, training on scientific reasoning needs to be explicitly addressed in the lab curriculum, which should contain components specifically targeting a set of operationally-defined scientific reasoning skills, such as ability to control variables or engage in multivariate causal reasoning. Although effective inquiry may also implicitly develop some aspects of scientific reasoning skills, such development is far less efficient and varies with context when the primary focus is on conceptual learning.

Several recent efforts to enhance the standalone lab course have shown promise in supporting education goals that better align with twenty-first Century learning. For example, the Investigative Science Learning Environment (ISLE) labs involve a series of tasks designed to help students develop the “habits of mind” of scientists and engineers (Etkina et al., 2006 ). The curriculum targets reasoning as well as the lab learning outcomes published by the American Association of Physics Teachers (Kozminski et al., 2014 ). Operationally, ISLE methods focus on scaffolding students’ developing conceptual understanding using inquiry learning without a heavy emphasis on cognitive conflict, making it more appropriate and effective for entry level students and K-12 teachers.

Likewise, Koenig, Wood, Bortner, and Bao ( 2019 ) have developed a lab curriculum that is intentionally designed around the twenty-first Century learning goals for developing cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal abilities. In terms of the cognitive domain, the lab learning outcomes center on critical thinking and scientific reasoning but do so through operationally defined sub-skills, all of which are transferrable across STEM. These selected sub-skills are found in the research literature, and include the ability to control variables and engage in data analytics and causal reasoning. For each targeted sub-skill, a series of pre-lab and in-class activities provide students with repeated, deliberate practice within multiple hypothetical science-based scenarios followed by real inquiry-based lab contexts. This explicit instructional strategy has been shown to be essential for the development of scientific reasoning (Chen & Klahr, 1999 ). In addition, the Karplus Learning Cycle (Karplus, 1964 ) provides the foundation for the structure of the lab activities and involves cycles of exploration, concept introduction, and concept application. The curricular framework is such that as the course progresses, the students engage in increasingly complex tasks, which allow students the opportunity to learn gradually through a progression from simple to complex skills.

As part of this same curriculum, students’ interpersonal skills are developed, in part, through teamwork, as students work in groups of 3 or 4 to address open-ended research questions, such as, What impacts the period of a pendulum? In addition, due to time constraints, students learn early on about the importance of working together in an efficient manor towards a common goal, with one set of written lab records per team submitted after each lab. Checkpoints built into all in-class activities involve Socratic dialogue between the instructor and students and promote oral communication. This use of directed questioning guides students in articulating their reasoning behind decisions and claims made, while supporting the development of scientific reasoning and conceptual understanding in parallel (Hake, 1992 ). Students’ intrapersonal skills, as well as communication skills, are promoted through the submission of individual lab reports. These reports require students to reflect upon their learning over each of four multi-week experiments and synthesize their ideas into evidence-based arguments, which support a claim. Due to the length of several weeks over which students collect data for each of these reports, the ability to organize the data and manage their time becomes essential.

Despite the growing emphasis on research and development of curriculum that targets twenty-first Century learning, converting a traditionally taught lab course into a meaningful inquiry-based learning environment is challenging in current reform efforts. Typically, the biggest challenge is a lack of resources; including faculty time to create or adapt inquiry-based materials for the local setting, training faculty and graduate student instructors who are likely unfamiliar with this approach, and the potential cost of new equipment. Koenig et al. ( 2019 ) addressed these potential implementation barriers by designing curriculum with these challenges in mind. That is, the curriculum was designed as a flexible set of modules that target specific sub-skills, with each module consisting of pre-lab (hypothetical) and in-lab (real) activities. Each module was designed around a curricular framework such that an adopting institution can use the materials as written, or can incorporate their existing equipment and experiments into the framework with minimal effort. Other non-traditional approaches have also been experimented with, such as the work by Sobhanzadeh, Kalman, and Thompson ( 2017 ), which targets typical misconceptions by using conceptual questions to engage students in making a prediction, designing and conducting a related experiment, and determining whether or not the results support the hypothesis.

Another challenge for inquiry labs is the assessment of skills-based learning outcomes. For assessment of scientific reasoning, a new instrument on inquiry in scientific thinking analytics and reasoning (iSTAR) has been developed, which can be easily implemented across large numbers of students as both a pre- and post-test to assess gains. iSTAR assesses reasoning skills necessary in the systematical conduct of scientific inquiry, which includes the ability to explore a problem, formulate and test hypotheses, manipulate and isolate variables, and observe and evaluate the consequences (see www.istarassessment.org ). The new instrument expands upon the commonly used classroom test of scientific reasoning (Lawson, 1978 , 2000 ), which has been identified with a number of validity weaknesses and a ceiling effect for college students (Bao, Xiao, Koenig, & Han, 2018 ).

Many education innovations need supporting infrastructures that can ensure adoption and lasting impact. However, making large-scale changes to current education settings can be risky, if not impossible. New education approaches, therefore, need to be designed to adapt to current environmental constraints. Since higher-end skills are a primary focus of twenty-first Century learning, which are most effectively developed in inquiry-based group settings, transforming current lecture and lab courses into this new format is critical. Although this transformation presents great challenges, promising solutions have already emerged from various research efforts. Perhaps the biggest challenge is for STEM educators and researchers to form an alliance to work together to re-engineer many details of the current education infrastructure in order to overcome the multitude of implementation obstacles.

This paper attempts to identify a few central ideas to provide a broad picture for future research and development in physics education, or STEM education in general, to promote twenty-first Century learning. Through a synthesis of the existing literature within the authors’ limited scope, a number of views surface.

Education is a service to prepare (not to select) the future workforce and should be designed as learner-centered, with the education goals and teaching-learning methods tailored to the needs and characteristics of the learners themselves. Given space constraints, the reader is referred to the meta-analysis conducted by Freeman et al. ( 2014 ), which provides strong support for learner-centered instruction. The changing world of the twenty-first Century informs the establishment of new education goals, which should be used to guide research and development of teaching and learning for present day students. Aligned to twenty-first Century learning, the new science standards have set the goals for STEM education to transition towards promoting deep learning of disciplinary knowledge, thereby building upon decades of research in PER, while fostering a wide range of general high-end cognitive and non-cognitive abilities that are transferable across all disciplines.

Following these education goals, more research is needed to operationally define and assess the desired high-end reasoning abilities. Building on a clear definition with effective assessments, a large number of empirical studies are needed to investigate how high-end abilities can be developed in parallel with deep learning of concepts, such that what is learned can be generalized to impact the development of curriculum and teaching methods which promote skills-based learning across all STEM fields. Specifically for PER, future research should emphasize knowledge integration to promote deep conceptual understanding in physics along with inquiry learning to foster scientific reasoning. Integration of physics learning in contexts that connect to other STEM disciplines is also an area for more research. Cross-cutting, interdisciplinary connections are becoming important features of the future generation physics curriculum and defines how physics should be taught collaboratively with other STEM courses.

This paper proposed meaningful areas for future research that are aligned with clearly defined education goals for twenty-first Century learning. Based on the existing literature, a number of challenges are noted for future directions of research, including the need for:

clear and operational definitions of goals to guide research and practice

concrete operational definitions of high-end abilities for which students are expected to develop

effective assessment methods and instruments to measure high-end abilities and other components of twenty-first Century learning

a knowledge base of the curriculum and teaching and learning environments that effectively support the development of advanced skills

integration of knowledge and ability development regarding within-discipline and cross-discipline learning in STEM

effective means to disseminate successful education practices

The list is by no means exhaustive, but these themes emerge above others. In addition, the high-end abilities discussed in this paper focus primarily on scientific reasoning, which is highly connected to other skills, such as critical thinking, systems thinking, multivariable modeling, computational thinking, design thinking, etc. These abilities are expected to develop in STEM learning, although some may be emphasized more within certain disciplines than others. Due to the limited scope of this paper, not all of these abilities were discussed in detail but should be considered an integral part of STEM learning.

Finally, a metacognitive position on education research is worth reflection. One important understanding is that the fundamental learning mechanism hasn’t changed, although the context in which learning occurs has evolved rapidly as a manifestation of the fast-forwarding technology world. Since learning is a process at the interface between a learner’s mind and the environment, the main focus of educators should always be on the learner’s interaction with the environment, not just the environment. In recent education developments, many new learning platforms have emerged at an exponential rate, such as the massive open online courses (MOOCs), STEM creative labs, and other online learning resources, to name a few. As attractive as these may be, it is risky to indiscriminately follow trends in education technology and commercially-incentivized initiatives before such interventions are shown to be effective by research. Trends come and go but educators foster students who have only a limited time to experience education. Therefore, delivering effective education is a high-stakes task and needs to be carefully and ethically planned and implemented. When game-changing opportunities emerge, one needs to not only consider the winners (and what they can win), but also the impact on all that is involved.

Based on a century of education research, consensus has settled on a fundamental mechanism of teaching and learning, which suggests that knowledge is developed within a learner through constructive processes and that team-based guided scientific inquiry is an effective method for promoting deep learning of content knowledge as well as developing high-end cognitive abilities, such as scientific reasoning. Emerging technology and methods should serve to facilitate (not to replace) such learning by providing more effective education settings and conveniently accessible resources. This is an important relationship that should survive many generations of technological and societal changes in the future to come. From a physicist’s point of view, a fundamental relation like this can be considered the “mechanics” of teaching and learning. Therefore, educators and researchers should hold on to these few fundamental principles without being distracted by the surfacing ripples of the world’s motion forward.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

American Association of Physics Teachers

Investigative Science Learning Environment

Inquiry in Scientific Thinking Analytics and Reasoning

Massive open online course

New Generation Science Standards

• Physics education research

Science Technology Engineering and Math

Alonso, M. (1992). Problem solving vs. conceptual understanding. American Journal of Physics , 60 (9), 777–778. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.17056 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., … Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, abridged edition . White Plains: Longman.

Ates, S., & Cataloglu, E. (2007). The effects of students’ reasoning abilities on conceptual understandings and problem-solving abilities in introductory mechanics. European Journal of Physics , 28 , 1161–1171.

Bagno, E., Eylon, B.-S., & Ganiel, U. (2000). From fragmented knowledge to a knowledge structure: Linking the domains of mechanics and electromagnetism. American Journal of Physics , 68 (S1), S16–S26.

Bailin, S. (1996). Critical thinking. In J. J. Chambliss (Ed.), Philosophy of education: An encyclopedia , (vol. 1671, pp. 119–123). Routledge.

Bangert-Drowns, R. L., & Bankert, E. (1990). Meta-analysis of effects of explicit instruction for critical thinking. Research report. ERIC Number: ED328614.

Google Scholar  

Bao, L., Cai, T., Koenig, K., Fang, K., Han, J., Wang, J., … Wu, N. (2009). Learning and scientific reasoning. Science , 323 , 586–587. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1167740 .

Bao, L., & Redish, E. F. (2001). Concentration analysis: A quantitative assessment of student states. American Journal of Physics , 69 (S1), S45–S53.

Bao, L., & Redish, E. F. (2006). Model analysis: Representing and assessing the dynamics of student learning. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research , 2 (1), 010103.

Bao, L., Xiao, Y., Koenig, K., & Han, J. (2018). Validity evaluation of the Lawson classroom test of scientific reasoning. Physical Review Physics Education Research , 14 (2), 020106.

Beichner, R. J., Saul, J. M., Abbott, D. S., Morse, J. J., Deardorff, D., Allain, R. J., … Risley, J. S. (2007). The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project. Research-Based Reform of University Physics , 1 (1), 2–39.

Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., & Rumble, M. (2010). Draft White paper defining 21st century skills . Melbourne: ACTS.

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 1: Cognitive domain . New York: Longman.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn , (vol. 11). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brown, A. (1989). Analogical learning and transfer: What develops? In S. Vosniadu, & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning , (pp. 369–412). New York: Cambridge U.P.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cavallo, A. M. L., Rozman, M., Blickenstaff, J., & Walker, N. (2003). Learning, reasoning, motivation, and epistemological beliefs: Differing approaches in college science courses. Journal of College Science Teaching , 33 (3), 18–22.

Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development , 70 , 1098–1120.

Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science , 13 (2), 145–182.

Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science , 5 (2), 121–152.

Chi, M. T., & Slotta, J. D. (1993). The ontological coherence of intuitive physics. Cognition and Instruction , 10 (2–3), 249–260.

Chi, M. T., Slotta, J. D., & De Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction , 4 (1), 27–43.

Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. In R. N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Chiu, M. H. (2001). Algorithmic problem solving and conceptual understanding of chemistry by students at a local high school in Taiwan. Proceedings-National Science Council Republic of China Part D Mathematics Science and Technology Education , 11 (1), 20–38.

Chiu, M.-H., Guo, C. J., & Treagust, D. F. (2007). Assessing students’ conceptual understanding in science: An introduction about a national project in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education , 29 (4), 379–390.

Clement, J. (1982). Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics , 50 (1), 66–71.

Coletta, V. P., & Phillips, J. A. (2005). Interpreting FCI scores: Normalized gain, preinstruction scores, and scientific reasoning ability. American Journal of Physics , 73 (12), 1172–1182.

Cracolice, M. S., Deming, J. C., & Ehlert, B. (2008). Concept learning versus problem solving: A cognitive difference. Journal of Chemical Education , 85 (6), 873.

De Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hesler, M. G. M. (1986). Cognitive structure of good and poor problem solvers in physics. Journal of Educational Psychology , 78 , 279–288.

DiSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction , 10 (2–3), 105–225.

Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education , 25 (6), 671–688.

Dykstra Jr., D. I., Boyle, C. F., & Monarch, I. A. (1992). Studying conceptual change in learning physics. Science Education , 76 (6), 615–652.

Ennis, R. (1993). Critical thinking assessment. Theory Into Practice , 32 (3), 179–186.

Etkina, E., & Van Heuvelen, A. (2001). Investigative science learning environment: Using the processes of science and cognitive strategies to learn physics. In Proceedings of the 2001 physics education research conference , (pp. 17–21). Rochester.

Etkina, E., Van Heuvelen, A., White-Brahmia, S., Brookes, D. T., Gentile, M., Murthy, S., … Warren, A. (2006). Scientific abilities and their assessment. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research , 2 (2), 020103.

Eylon, B.-S., & Reif, F. (1984). Effects of knowledge organization on task performance. Cognition and Instruction , 1 (1), 5–44.

Fabby, C., & Koenig, K. (2013). Relationship of scientific reasoning to solving different physics problem types. In Proceedings of the 2013 Physics Education Research Conference, Portland, OR .

Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction – The Delphi report . Millbrae: California Academic Press.

Ferguson-Hesler, M. G. M., & De Jong, T. (1990). Studying physics texts: Differences in study processes between good and poor solvers. Cognition and Instruction , 7 (1), 41–54.

Fisher, A. (2001). Critical thinking: An introduction . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 111 (23), 8410–8415.

Glaser, E. M. (1941). An experiment in the development of critical thinking . New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Hake, R. R. (1992). Socratic pedagogy in the introductory physics laboratory. The Physics Teacher , 30 , 546.

Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics , 66 (1), 64–74.

Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985a). The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics , 53 (11), 1043–1055.

Halloun, I. A., & Hestenes, D. (1985b). Common sense concepts about motion. American Journal of Physics , 53 (11), 1056–1065.

Halpern, D. F. (1999). Teaching for critical thinking: Helping college students develop the skills and dispositions of a critical thinker. New Directions for Teaching and Learning , 80 , 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.8005 .

Hardiman, P. T., Dufresne, R., & Mestre, J. P. (1989). The relation between problem categorization and problem solving among experts and novices. Memory & Cognition , 17 (5), 627–638.

Heller, J. I., & Reif, F. (1984). Prescribing effective human problem-solving processes: Problem description in physics. Cognition and Instruction , 1 (2), 177–216.

Hoellwarth, C., Moelter, M. J., & Knight, R. D. (2005). A direct comparison of conceptual learning and problem solving ability in traditional and studio style classrooms. American Journal of Physics , 73 (5), 459–462.

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research , 52 (2), 201–217.

Hsu, L., Brewe, E., Foster, T. M., & Harper, K. A. (2004). Resource letter RPS-1: Research in problem solving. American Journal of Physics , 72 (9), 1147–1156.

Jensen, J. L., & Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology. CBE - Life Sciences Education , 10 , 64–73.

Johnson, M. A., & Lawson, A. E. (1998). What are the relative effects of reasoning ability and prior knowledge on biology achievement in expository and inquiry classes? Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 35 (1), 89–103.

Kalman, C., & Lattery, M. (2018). Three active learning strategies to address mixed student epistemologies and promote conceptual change. Frontiers in ICT , 5 (19), 1–9.

Karplus, R. (1964). The science curriculum improvement study. Journal of College Science Teaching , 2 (4), 293–303.

Kim, E., & Pak, S.-J. (2002). Students do not overcome conceptual difficulties after solving 1000 traditional problems. American Journal of Physics , 70 (7), 759–765.

Koenig, K., Schen, M., & Bao, L. (2012). Explicitly targeting pre-service teacher scientific reasoning abilities and understanding of nature of science through an introductory science course. Science Educator , 21 (2), 1–9.

Koenig, K., Schen, M., Edwards, M., & Bao, L. (2012). Addressing STEM retention through a scientific thought and methods course. Journal of College Science Teaching , 41 , 23–29.

Koenig, K., Wood, K., Bortner, L., & Bao, L. (2019). Modifying traditional labs to target scientific reasoning. Journal of College Science Teaching , 48 (5), 28-35.

Kozminski, J., Beverly, N., Deardorff, D., Dietz, R., Eblen-Zayas, M., Hobbs, R., … Zwickl, B. (2014). AAPT recommendations for the undergraduate physics laboratory curriculum , (pp. 1–29). American Association of Physics Teachers Retrieved from https://www.aapt.org/Resources/upload/LabGuidlinesDocument_EBendorsed_nov10.pdf .

Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review , 62 (2), 155–178.

Larkin, J., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science , 208 (4450), 1335–1342.

Laws, P. W. (2004). Workshop physics activity guide, module 4: Electricity and magnetism. In Workshop physics activity guide . Wiley-VCH.

Lawson, A. E. (1978), The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning, Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 15 (1), 11–24.

Lawson, A. E. (1992). The development of reasoning among college biology students - a review of research. Journal of College Science Teaching , 21 , 338–344.

Lawson, A. E. (2000). Classroom test of scientific reasoning: Multiple choice version, based on Lawson, A. E. 1978. Development and validation of the classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 15 (1), 11–24.

Lee, H. S., Liu, O. L., & Linn, M. C. (2011). Validating measurement of knowledge integration in science using multiple-choice and explanation items. Applied Measurement in Education , 24 (2), 115–136.

Linn, M. C. (2005). The knowledge integration perspective on learning and instruction. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences , (pp. 243–264). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833.016 .

Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education , (2nd ed., ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Liu, X. (2010). Science and engineering education sources. Using and developing measurement instruments in science education: A Rasch modeling approach . Charlotte: IAP Information Age Publishing.

Marzano, R. J., Brandt, R. S., Hughes, C. S., Jones, B. F., Presseisen, B. Z., Rankin, S. C., et al. (1988). Dimensions of thinking, a framework for curriculum and instruction . Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual . Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

McDermott, L. C. (1996). Physics by Inquiry: An Introduction to the Physical Sciences . John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

McDermott, L. C., & Redish, E. F. (1999). Resource letter: PER-1: Physics education research. American Journal of Physics , 67 (9), 755–767.

McKeachie, W. J. (1986). Teaching and learning in the college classroom: A review of the research literature . Ann Arbor: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.

Meltzer, D. E., & Otero, V. K. (2015). A brief history of physics education in the United States. American Journal of Physics , 83 (5), 447–458.

Meltzer, D. E., & Thornton, R. K. (2012). Resource letter ALIP-1: Active-learning instruction in physics. American Journal of Physics , 80 (6), 478–496.

Minstrell, J. (1992). Facets of students’ knowledge and relevant instruction. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Proceedings of the international workshop: Research in physics learning- theoretical issues and empirical studies , (pp. 110–128). The Institute for Science Education.

Nakhleh, M. B. (1993). Are our students conceptual thinkers or algorithmic problem solvers? Identifying conceptual students in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education , 70 (1), 52. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed070p52 .

Nakhleh, M. B., & Mitchell, R. C. (1993). Concept learning versus problem solving: There is a difference. Journal of Chemical Education , 70 (3), 190. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed070p190 .

National Research Council (2011). Assessing 21st century skills: Summary of a workshop . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13215 .

Book   Google Scholar  

National Research Council (2012a). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council (2012b). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Research Council (2012c). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

National Science & Technology Council (2018). Charting a course for success: America’s strategy for STEM education . Washington, DC: Office of Science and Technology Policy.

NCET. (1987). Critical thinking as defined by the National Council for excellence in critical thinking, statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul, presented at the 8th annual conference on critical thinking and education reform. Retrieved December 4, 2018, from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766 .

Nordine, J., Krajcik, J., & Fortus, D. (2011). Transforming energy instruction in middle school to support integrated understanding and future learning. Science Education , 95 (4), 670–699.

Nurrenbern, S. C., & Pickering, M. (1987). Concept learning versus problem solving: Is there a difference? Journal of Chemical Education , 64 (6), 508.

Paul, R. (1990). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world . Rohnert Park: Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique.

Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher , 18 (1), 16–25.

Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education , 66 (2), 211–227.

Reay, N. W., Bao, L., Li, P., Warnakulasooriya, R., & Baugh, G. (2005). Toward the effective use of voting machines in physics lectures. American Journal of Physics , 73 (6), 554–558.

Reimers, F. M., & Chung, C. K. (Eds.) (2016). Teaching and learning for the twenty-first century: Educational goals, policies and curricula from six nations . Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanism of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist , 24 (2), 113–142.

Schoenfeld, A. H., & Herrmann, D. J. (1982). Problem perception and knowledge structure in expert and novice mathematical problem solvers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition , 8 (5), 484.

Shaw, V. F. (1996). The cognitive processes in informal reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning , 2 (1), 51–80.

She, H., & Liao, Y. (2010). Bridging scientific reasoning and conceptual change through adaptive web-based learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 47 (1), 91–119.

Shen, J., Liu, O. L., & Chang, H.-Y. (2017). Assessing students’ deep conceptual understanding in physical sciences: An example on sinking and floating. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 15 (1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9680-z .

Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking and education , (vol. 1). New York: Routledge.

Slotta, J. D., Chi, M. T., & Joram, E. (1995). Assessing students’ misclassifications of physics concepts: An ontological basis for conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction , 13 (3), 373–400.

Smith III, J. P., DiSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences , 3 (2), 115–163.

Smith, M. U. (1992). Expertise and organization of knowledge: Unexpected differences among genetic counselors, faculty members and students on problem categorization tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 29 (2), 179–205.

Sobhanzadeh, M., Kalman, C. S., & Thompson, R. I. (2017). Labatorials in introductory physics courses. European Journal of Physics , 38 , 1–18.

Sokoloff, D. R., Thornton, R. K., & Laws, P. W. (2011). RealTime physics: Active learning laboratories . New York: Wiley.

Stamovlasis, D., Tsaparlis, G., Kamilatos, C., Papaoikonomou, D., & Zarotiadou, E. (2005). Conceptual understanding versus algorithmic problem solving: Further evidence from a national chemistry examination. Chemistry Education Research and Practice , 6 (2), 104–118.

Tanenbaum, C. (2016). STEM 2026: A vision for innovation in STEM education . Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

Thornton, R. K., & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula. American Journal of Physics , 66 (4), 338–352.

Trowbridge, L. W., Bybee, R. W., & Powell, J. C. (2000). Teaching secondary school science: Strategies for developing scientific literacy . Upper Saddle River: Merrill-Prentice Hall.

United States Chamber of Commerce (2017). Bridging the soft skills gap: How the business and education sectors are partnering to prepare students for the 21 st century workforce . Washington DC: Center for Education and Workforce, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation.

Veldhuis, G. H. (1990). The use of cluster analysis in categorization of physics problems. Science Education , 74 (1), 105–118.

Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change . New York: Routledge.

Wexler, P. (1982). Structure, text, and subject: A critical sociology of school knowledge. In M. W. Apple (Ed.), Cultural and economic reproduction in education: Essays on class, ideology and the state . London: Routledge & Regan Paul.

Zeineddin, A., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2010). Scientific reasoning and epistemological commitments: Coordination of theory and evidence among college science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 47 (9), 1064–1093.

Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review , 20 (1), 99–149.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research is supported in part by NSF Awards DUE-1431908 and DUE-1712238. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

The research is supported in part by NSF Awards DUE-1431908 and DUE-1712238.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, 45221, USA

Kathleen Koenig

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LB developed the concept, wrote a significant portion of the review and position, and synthesized the paper. KK wrote and edited a significant portion of the paper. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lei Bao .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bao, L., Koenig, K. Physics education research for 21 st century learning. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res 1 , 2 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0007-8

Download citation

Received : 17 April 2019

Accepted : 13 June 2019

Published : 28 November 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0007-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Twenty-first century learning
• STEM education
• Scientific reasoning
• Deep learning

A List of 240 Physics Topics & Questions to Research

Plates break when you drop them. Glasses help you see better. Have you ever wondered why?

Our specialists will write a custom essay specially for you!

Physics has the answer. It studies the observable as well as invisible aspects of nature. An essential part of this is examining the structure and interactions of matter.

Are you a high-schooler studying for your exams? Or maybe you need to write an interesting physics paper for your Ph.D. research or college seminar? This article presents a list of the most popular topics in physics for you to choose from.

Best of all, you don’t have to push yourself too hard to finish your essay. Custom-writing.org is happy to help students with all kinds of written assignments.

🔝 Top 10 Physics Research Topics

✅ branches of physics.

• ⭐ Top 10 Physics Topics
• ⚙️ Mechanics
• 🌡️ Thermodynamics
• ⚡ Electromagnetism
• 🔊 Sounds & Waves
• ☢️ Modern Physics
• 🔋 Physics Project Topics
• 🔭 Astrophysics
• 🌎 Physical Geography
• 🤔 Theoretical Physics
• ⚛️ Quantum Physics

🔍 References

• Modern vs. classical physics
• Gravity method in geophysics
• Why can’t the multiverse be real?
• Nuclear physics vs. quantum physics
• Photonics’ relationship to other fields
• Is electromagnetism the strongest force?
• What would extra dimensions look like?
• The importance of kinematics in real life
• Is string theory a generalization of quantum field theory?
• The difference between liquid pressure and air pressure

Now: before writing about physics you should know about its main branches. These are classical and modern . Let’s take a closer look:

• Mechanics , which is concerned with motion. Two of its essential aspects are kinematics and dynamics.
• Optics helps us understand the properties of light.
• Another branch investigates waves and sound . It studies the way they travel and how they are produced.
• Thermodynamics deals with heat and motion. One of its key concepts is entropy.
• Electromagnetism studies the interactions between charged particles. It also deals with the forces and fields that surround them.
• Finally, physical geographers observe our Earth’s physical features. These include environmental processes and patterns.
• Atomic physics , which examines the structure and behavior of atoms.
• Nuclear physics investigates the nucleus of atoms. This branch often deals with radioactivity.
• Scientists working in quantum physics concentrate on the erratic behavior of waves and particles.
• Relativity can be general and special. Special relativity deals with time and motion. General relativity describes gravity as an alteration of spacetime caused by massive objects.
• Cosmology and astrophysics explore the properties of celestial bodies. Cosmologists strive to comprehend the universe on a larger scale.
• Mesoscopic physics covers the scale between macroscopic and microscopic.

You can talk about any of these branches in your essay. Keep in mind that this division is a basic outline. Strictly speaking, everything that happens around you is physics! Now, we’re all set to move on to our physics paper topics.

Just in 1 hour! We will write you a plagiarism-free paper in hardly more than 1 hour

⭐ Top 10 Physics Topics 2024

• Biophysics vs. biochemistry
• The future of nano-physics
• The use of perturbation theory
• Possible cause of baryogenesis
• Solid-state vs. condensed matter physics
• Why is the quark model introduced?
• The importance of plasma in physics
• Statistical mechanics vs. statistical physics
• Ways to calculate electronic structure
• Difference between matter and dark matter

🧲 Classical Physics Topics to Write About

Classical physics deals with energy, force, and motion. You encounter this kind of physics in everyday life. Below, we’ve compiled a list with compelling prompts you’ll recognize from your physics class:

⚙️ Mechanics Essay Topics

• What does Newton’s laws of motion state?
• How do ships stay afloat?
• Equipartition: for what systems does it not hold?
• What does Bernoulli’s principle state about fluids?
• Surface tension: what causes it?
• How does buoyancy work?
• An overview of the molecular origins of viscosity.
• The equipartition theorem: how does it connect a system’s temperature to its energies?
• The benefits of the continuum assumption.
• Contrast the different types of forces.
• Explain the term “momentum.”
• Kinematics: describing the relationships of objects in constrained motion.
• What causes objects to oscillate?

🌡️ Thermodynamics Paper Topics

• Thermodynamics as a kinetic theory of matter.
• What is entropy?
• Describe the three types of thermodynamic processes.
• The Carnot heat engine as part of a thermodynamic cycle.

• Perpetual motion: is it possible or not?
• Investigate fire in terms of chemistry and thermodynamics.

⚡ Electromagnetism Topics to Research

• Examine the connection between electric potential and electric field.
• What makes an excellent conduit?
• How does a dielectric impact a capacitor?
• Contrast current, resistance, and power.
• How do magnetic fields relate to electricity?
• Explain inductance. What causes it?
• How do induction stoves work?

🔊 Essay Topics on Sounds & Waves

• Sound waves: how do they travel?
• Describe the two types of mechanical waves.
• What are electromagnetic waves used for?
• The difference between interference and diffraction.
• Music and vibrations: the properties of sound.

👓 Optics Topics to Write About

• How does reflection work?
• What happens when an object absorbs light?
• Why does light break into a rainbow?
• Lasers: what do we use them for?
• What causes Aurora Borealis?
• Photography: what happens when you change the aperture?
• Explain what influences the colors of sunsets.
• Fata Morgana mirages: where do they originate from?
• What is the Novaya Zemlya effect?

☢️ Modern Physics Topics for a Paper

The world of modern physics shifts away from its more tangible origins. It deals with atoms and even smaller particles. Nuclear, atomic, and quantum physics belong to this category. One of the central problems of modern physics is redefining the concept of gravity.

• Relativity: a discovery that turned our understanding of physics upside down.
• An overview of 20th century physics.
• The ultraviolet catastrophe and how it was solved.
• What happens to the energy entering an ideal blackbody?
• The photoelectric effect: creating current with light.
• Why did the classical lightwave model become outdated?
• How do night vision devices work?
• The production of x-rays.
• Explain why the charge of electrons is quantized.
• How does the kinetic energy of an electron relate to the light’s frequency and intensity?
• Describe the photon model of the Compton Scattering.
• How do you identify an element using its line spectra?
• Cold Fusion: how likely is it?
• Explain the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
• Electron shells and atomic orbitals: properties of electrons.
• What causes peaks in the x-ray spectrum?
• How do you calculate radioactive decay?
• Carbon dating: how accurate is it?
• The discovery of radioactivity.
• What holds electronic nuclei together?
• Nuclear Fusion: will it ever be possible?
• Describe the types of elemental transmutation.
• Applications of nuclear fission.
• Virtual particles: how do they come into existence?

• Nucleosynthesis: creating atomic nuclei.
• How do you dope a semiconductor using ion implantation?
• What are the magic numbers?
• Superheavy primordial elements: the history of unbihexium.
• Predictions surrounding the island of stability.
• How does a computer tomography work?

🔋 Physics Project Topics for a Science Fair

What’s the most fun part of every natural science? If you said “experiments,” you guessed it! Everybody can enjoy creating rainbows or exploring the effects of magnets. Your next physics project will be as fascinating as you want it to be with these exciting ideas!

• Build a kaleidoscope and learn how it works.
• Investigate the centripetal force with the help of gelatin and marbles.
• Make a potato battery.
• Construct an elevator system.
• Prove Newton’s laws of motion by placing objects of different weights in a moving elevator.
• Learn how a telescope works. Then build one from scratch.
• Levitate small objects using ultrasound.
• Measure how fast a body in free fall accelerates.
• Find out what causes a capacitor to charge and discharge over time.
• Measure how light intensity changes through several polarizing filters.
• Observe how sound waves change under altered atmospheric conditions.
• Find out how a superheated object is affected by its container.
• Determine the mathematics behind a piece of classical music.
• Replicate an oil spill and search for the best way to clean it up.
• What makes a circular toy easy to spin? Experiment by spinning hula hoops of different sizes.
• Make DNA visible. What happens if you use different sources of plant-based DNA?
• Charge your phone with a handmade solar cell.
• Find out what properties an object needs to stay afloat.
• Create music by rubbing your finger against the rim of a glass. Experiment with several glasses filled with different amounts of water.
• Compare the free-fall speed of a Lego figure using various parachutes.
• Experiment with BEC to understand quantum mechanics.
• Make a windmill and describe how it works.
• Build an automatic light circuit using a laser.
• How do concave and convex mirrors affect your reflection?
• Investigate how pressure and temperature influence the air volume.
• Determine the conductivity of different fluids.
• Learn about the evolution of the universe by measuring electromagnetic radiation.
• Capture charged particles in an ion trap.
• Build a rocket car using a balloon.
• Experiment with pendulums and double pendulums. How do they work?

🔭 Astrophysics Topics for a Research Paper

Astrophysicists, astronomers, and cosmologists observe what happens in space. Astronomy examines celestial bodies, while astrophysics describes their mechanics. At the same time, cosmology attempts to comprehend the universe as a whole.

• Explain when a celestial body is called a planet.
• Dark energy and dark matter: how do they affect the expansion of the universe?
• The cosmic microwave background: investigating the birth of the universe.
• What are the possible explanations for the expansion of the universe?
• Evidence for the existence of dark matter.
• The discovery of gravitational waves: consequences and implications.
• Explore the history of LIGO.
• How did scientists observe a black hole?
• The origins of light.
• Compare the types of stars.
• Radioactivity in space: what is it made of?
• What do we know about stellar evolution?
• Rotations of the Milky Way.
• Write an overview of recent developments in astrophysics.
• Investigate the origin of moons.
• How do we choose names for constellations?
• What are black holes?
• How does radiative transfer work in space?
• What does our solar system consist of?
• Describe the properties of a star vs. a moon.

• What makes binary stars special?
• Gamma-ray bursts: how much energy do they produce?
• What causes supernovae?
• Compare the types of galaxies.
• Neutron stars and pulsars: how do they differ?
• The connection between stars and their colors.
• What are quasars?
• Curved space: is there enough evidence to support the theory?
• What produces x-rays in space?
• Exoplanets: what do we know about them?

🌎 Physical Geography Topics to Write About

Physical geographers explore the beauty of our Earth. Their physical knowledge helps them explain how nature works. What causes climate change? Where do our seasons come from? What happens in the ocean? These are the questions physical geographers seek to answer.

Receive a plagiarism-free paper tailored to your instructions. Cut 20% off your first order!

• What creates rainbows?
• How do glaciers form?
• The geographical properties of capes.
• What causes landslides?
• An overview of the types of erosion.
• What makes Oceania’s flora unique?
• Reefs: why are they important?
• Why is there a desert in the middle of Siberia?
• The geography of the Namibian desert.
• Explain the water cycle.
• How do you measure the length of a river?
• The Gulf Stream and its influence on the European climate.
• Why is the sky blue?
• What creates waves?
• How do marshes form?
• Investigate the causes of riptides.
• The Three Gorges Dam: how was it built?
• Explain the phenomenon of Green Sahara.
• The consequences of freshwater pollution.
• What are the properties of coastal plains?
• Why is the Atacama Desert the driest place on Earth?
• How does a high altitude affect vegetation?
• Atmospheric changes over the past 100 years.
• Predicting earthquakes: a comparison of different methods.
• What causes avalanches?
• Seasons: where do they come from?
• The Baltic and the Northern Seas meeting phenomenon.
• The geographical properties of the Altai Mountains.
• How do the steppes form?
• Why are some water bodies saltier than others?

🤔 Theoretical Physics Topics to Research

Math fans, this section is for you. Theoretical physics is all about equations. Research in this area goes into the development of mathematical and computer models. Plus, theoretical physicists try to construct theories for phenomena that currently can’t be explained experimentally.

• What does the Feynman diagram describe?
• How is QFT used to model quasiparticles?
• String theory: is it a theory of everything?
• The paradoxical effects of time travel.
• Monstrous moonshine: how does it connect to string theory?
• Mirror symmetry and Calabi-Yau manifolds: how are they used in physics?
• Understanding the relationship between gravity and BF theories.
• Compare the types of Gauge theories.

• Applications of TQFT in condensed matter physics.
• Examine the properties of fields with arbitrary spin.
• How do quarks and gluons interact with each other?
• What predictions does quantum field theory make for curved spacetime?
• How do technicolor theories explain electroweak gauge symmetry breaking?
• Quantum gravity: a comparison of approaches.
• How does LQG address the structure of space?
• An introduction into the motivation behind the eigenstate thermalization hypothesis.
• What does the M-theory state?
• What does the Ising model say about ferromagnetism?
• Compare the thermodynamic Debye model with the Einstein model.
• How does the kinetic theory describe the macroscopic properties of gases?
• Understanding the behavior of waves and particles: scattering theory.
• What was the luminiferous aether assumption needed for?
• The Standard Model of particles: why is it not a full theory of fundamental interactions?
• Investigate supersymmetry.
• Physical cosmology: measuring the universe.
• Describe the black hole thermodynamics.
• Pancomputationalism: what is it about?
• Skepticism concerning the E8 theory.
• Explain the conservation of angular momentum.
• What does the dynamo theory say about celestial bodies?

⚛️ Quantum Physics Topics for Essays & Papers

First and foremost, quantum physics is very confusing. In quantum physics, an object is not just in a specific place. It merely has the probability to be in one place or another. Light travels in particles, and matter can be a wave. Throw physics as you know it overboard. In this world, you can never be sure what and where things really are.

• How did the Schrödinger Equation advance quantum physics?
• Describe the six types of quarks.
• Contrast the four quantum numbers.
• What kinds of elementary particles exist?
• Probability density: finding electrons.
• How do you split an atom using quantum mechanics?
• When is an energy level degenerate?
• Quantum entanglement: how does it affect particles?
• The double-slit experiment: what does it prove?
• What causes a wave function to collapse?
• Explore the history of quantum mechanics.
• What are quasiparticles?
• The Higgs mechanism: explaining the mass of bosons.
• Quantum mechanical implications of the EPR paradox.
• What causes explicit vs. spontaneous symmetry breaking?
• Discuss the importance of the observer.
• What makes gravity a complicated subject?
• Can quantum mechanical theories accurately depict the real world?
• Describe the four types of exchange particles.
• What are the major problems surrounding quantum physics?
• What does Bell’s theorem prove?
• How do bubble chambers work?
• Understanding quantum mechanics: the Copenhagen interpretation.
• Will teleportation ever be possible on a large scale?
• The applications of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.
• Wave packets: how do you localize them?
• How do you process quantum information?
• What does the Fourier transform do?
• The importance of Planck’s constant.
• Matter as waves: the Heisenberg-Schrödinger atom model.

We hope you’ve found a great topic for your best physics paper. Good luck with your assignment!

You might also be interested in:

• 220 Best Science and Technology Essay Topics to Write About
• 501 Research Questions & Titles about Science
• 204 Research Topics on Technology & Computer Science
• A List of 212 Brilliant Research Proposal Topics to Investigate
• 300 Interesting Chemistry Topics & Writing Tips
• Physics: Encyclopedia Britannica
• AP Physics C: Mechanics: AP Students
• Topics in Modern Physics: WorldScientific
• All Projects: Dartmouth College
• Topics in Astrophysics: Harvard
• Ask an Astrophysicist: NASA
• Physical Geography: National Geographic
• Theoretical Physics: Latest Research and News: Nature.com
• Topics in Theoretical Physics: University of Mississippi
• What Is Quantum Mechanics?: LiveScience
• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to email

Biology is often called the science of life. From bacteria to whales, biologists study all kinds of organisms. Have you ever wondered why bees dance? Or how can chickens be the closest modern relatives to dinosaurs? The buzzing world is full of complex wonders like these. That’s why it’s so...

Culture is a set of knowledge, behaviors, and beliefs shared by a group of people. You would probably agree that it’s an integral part of humanity. It’s no wonder that students are often assigned to write about it. That’s why we came up with a list of interesting and creative...

The Earth is a complex system. To understand it, geologists examine the lithosphere and its layers. They trace our planet’s history by using physical and chemical methods. At the same time, geographers observe environmental patterns. They also focus on the interaction between humans and nature. Keep reading to find out...

Mathematics is the science of numbers and shapes. Writing about it can give you a fresh perspective and help to clarify difficult concepts. You can even use mathematical writing as a tool in problem-solving. In this article, you will find plenty of interesting math topics. Besides, you will learn about...

Cause and effect essays examine how an event happened and what consequences it had. Gaining weight after eating lots of fast food is an example of a cause-and-effect relationship. Possible topics cover a variety of subjects ranging from mental health to history and politics. This article gives you an outline...

An analysis essay aims to break down the subject in order to understand it. You can choose to analyze a text, a process, or an idea. This article will help you write a great essay! Selecting an interesting topic makes writing a lot easier. We’ve prepared a list of excellent...

Everybody knows that being healthy requires effort. We should exercise regularly and maintain a balanced diet. However, the reward is worth it. A healthy lifestyle prevents chronic illnesses and leads to better body performance. Besides, if you improve your physical well-being, your mental health will strengthen as well! In this...

Environment affects us all, whether we want it or not. Political leaders and students alike discuss ways to tackle environmental topics & issues. Some might argue about the role humans play in all this. The fact remains that our environment is a delicate matter. That’s why we must educate ourselves...

Our code of ethics is derived from what we think is right or wrong. On top of that, we have to agree to the moral standards established by the society we live in. Conventional norms generally label theft, murder, or harassment as bad. However, there are many influences that impact...

A definition explains the meaning of a term or a concept. In a dictionary, you’ll find a definition in a single sentence. A definition paper, however, encompasses several paragraphs. Such an essay, amongst other things, can include personal experience and examples. To write a successful definition paper, you need to...

As simple as it is, the purpose of the descriptive essay is to explain or portray its subject. It can focus on any topic or issue you want to write about. Be sure that any middle school, high school, or college student can manage this type of creative writing assignment!...

Rhetorical analysis essay focuses on assessing the method used for delivering a message. This assignment isn’t about giving an opinion on the topic. The purpose is to analyze how the author presents the argument and whether or not they succeeded. Keep reading to find out more strategies and prompts for...

Thanks for the great article

Thank you for your feedback, James!

• Previous Article
• Next Article

Physics in Literature

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Reprints and Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Harry Manos; Physics in Literature. Phys. Teach. 1 January 2014; 52 (1): 22–25. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4849148

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Physics offers a cross-discipline perspective to understanding other subjects. The purpose of this paper is to provide examples of physics in literature that physics and astronomy teachers can use to give students an indication of the relevance of science as depicted in the humanities. It is not possible to cite the thousands of examples available. I have tried to select authors whom students would be reading in high school and in college undergraduate English classes: in particular Joseph Conrad, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, William Shakespeare, H. G. Wells, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Norman Mailer, and an author currently in vogue, Dan Brown. I am sure many reading this article will come up with their own examples.

Sign in via your Institution

Citing articles via.

• Online ISSN 1943-4928
• Print ISSN 0031-921X
• For Researchers
• For Librarians
• For Advertisers
• Our Publishing Partners  
• Physics Today
• Conference Proceedings
• Special Topics

pubs.aip.org

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

Connect with AIP Publishing

This feature is available to subscribers only.

Sign In or Create an Account

Physics & Astronomy

• 1: Explore Topic
• 2: Find Sources
• 3: Evaluate
• Last Updated: Mar 22, 2024 1:33 PM
• URL: https://libguides.unco.edu/physics

Help | Advanced Search

Mathematical Physics

Title: what is ballistic transport.

Abstract: In this article, we review some notions of ballistic transport from the mathematics and physics literature, describe their basic interrelations, and contrast them with other commonly studied notions of wave packet spread.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essays Samples >
• Essay Types >
• Literature Review Example

Physics Literature Reviews Samples For Students

13 samples of this type

Regardless of how high you rate your writing skills, it's always an appropriate idea to check out a competently written Literature Review example, especially when you're handling a sophisticated Physics topic. This is precisely the case when WowEssays.com collection of sample Literature Reviews on Physics will prove useful. Whether you need to brainstorm an original and meaningful Physics Literature Review topic or survey the paper's structure or formatting peculiarities, our samples will provide you with the required material.

Another activity area of our write my paper agency is providing practical writing support to students working on Physics Literature Reviews. Research help, editing, proofreading, formatting, plagiarism check, or even crafting completely original model Physics papers upon your demand – we can do that all! Place an order and buy a research paper now.

Simple Quantum Mechanical Models Literature Reviews Examples

Good literature review on radiation detector failures, introduction, good literature review on electrical conductivity as a function of nanoadditive (carbon based) in biopolymer.

Don't waste your time searching for a sample.

Get your literature review done by professional writers!

Just from $10/page

Free Literature Review About Authorship Of Nature And The Physics World Through Different Periods

Free non material notions literature review example.

Non-material notions such as courage, love, truth or faith have been debated in terms of philosophical studies, as well as became central topics of literary works of different genres. Despite the fact that lots of approaches to defining these concepts have already been developed, new ones continue to emerge. For the purposes of this assignment I would like to demonstrate how different truth can be by examples of “The Story of an Hour” by Kate Chopin and “After Reading a Child's Guide to Modern Physics” by Wustan Hugh.Auden.

The Capability Of Crystalline Silicon, Thin-Film Solar Cells, And Photonic Nanostructures To Enhance Efficiency Of Solar Panels For Domestic Use Literature Review Samples

Free literature review on electrical power-leakage currents in transmission lines, psychodynamic theory and psychodynamic therapy literature review sample, mt. changbai literature review template for faster writing, good example of sustainability report of 2008 beijing olympic games literature review, example of the capability of crystalline silicon, thin-film solar cells, and photonic nanostructures to enhance efficiency of solar panels for domestic use literature review, good example of literature review on continuum mechanics applications in nanotubes, curious incident essay topics literature review examples.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

• Free Samples
• Premium Essays
• Editing Services Editing Proofreading Rewriting
• Extra Tools Essay Topic Generator Thesis Generator Citation Generator GPA Calculator Study Guides Donate Paper
• Essay Writing Help
• About Us About Us Testimonials FAQ
• Physics Literature Reviews
• Samples List

An literature review examples on physics literature reviews is a prosaic composition of a small volume and free composition, expressing individual impressions and thoughts on a specific occasion or issue and obviously not claiming a definitive or exhaustive interpretation of the subject.

Some signs of physics literature reviews literature review:

• the presence of a specific topic or question. A work devoted to the analysis of a wide range of problems in biology, by definition, cannot be performed in the genre of physics literature reviews literature review topic.
• The literature review expresses individual impressions and thoughts on a specific occasion or issue, in this case, on physics literature reviews and does not knowingly pretend to a definitive or exhaustive interpretation of the subject.
• As a rule, an essay suggests a new, subjectively colored word about something, such a work may have a philosophical, historical, biographical, journalistic, literary, critical, popular scientific or purely fiction character.
• in the content of an literature review samples on physics literature reviews, first of all, the author’s personality is assessed - his worldview, thoughts and feelings.

The goal of an literature review in physics literature reviews is to develop such skills as independent creative thinking and writing out your own thoughts.

Writing an literature review is extremely useful, because it allows the author to learn to clearly and correctly formulate thoughts, structure information, use basic concepts, highlight causal relationships, illustrate experience with relevant examples, and substantiate his conclusions.

• Studentshare
• Literature review

Examples List on Physics Literature Reviews

• TERMS & CONDITIONS
• PRIVACY POLICY
• COOKIES POLICY

PHYS 354: Medical Physics Principles: Sources + Literature Review

• Biomedical Optics
• Biomedical Technology
• General Medicine + Biology
• Magnetic Resonance Imaging
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Therapy
• Radiology + Medical Physics
• Ultrasound & Photoacoustics
• Medical Physics Resources
• Physics Citations
• Summarizing Research Articles & Annotated Bibliographies
• Sources + Literature Review
• Reference Management
• KU Library Resources

What is a Literature Review?

A  literature review  is a comprehensive study and interpretation of literature that addresses a specific topic.

Literature reviews are generally conducted in one of two ways:

1) As a preliminary review before a larger study in order to critically evaluate the current literature and justify why further study and research is required.

2) As a project in itself that provides a comprehensive survey of the works published in a particular discipline or area of research over a specified period of time.  

Why conduct a literature review? They provide you with a handy guide to a particular topic. If you have limited time to conduct research, literature reviews can give you an overview or act as a stepping stone.

More:   different types of literature reviews  on how to conduct a literature review.

Literature Review Links

• PhD on Track: Types of Reviews Narrative & Systematic
• Purdue Owl: Literature Reviews
• Purdue OWL: Writing a Literature Review

How to Develop a Literature Review

How to develop a literature review from Academic Research Foundations: Quantitative by Rolin Moe

What is the Difference Between a Systematic Review and a Meta-analysis?

Dr. Singh discusses the difference between a systematic review and a meta-analysis.

Library Resources

Purpose of a Literature Review

Purpose of a literature review from Academic Research Foundations: Quantitative by Rolin Moe

• << Previous: Summarizing Research Articles & Annotated Bibliographies
• Next: Presenting >>
• Last Updated: Mar 7, 2024 1:24 PM
• URL: https://libguides.kettering.edu/PHYS354

share this!

March 29, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

Climate adaptation research applied 'in real-time'

by SciDev.Net

With global South countries already bearing the devastating consequences of climate change, adaptation research needs to have immediate on-the-ground impact, while still being scientifically rigorous, say climate action specialists in a review published in Climate Services .

"With the climate crisis before us, we don't have time to sit back and do a conventional research program of two, or five, or 10 years, and then use the research itself," says Jesse DeMaria-Kinney, head of secretariat of the Adaptation Research Alliance (ARA).

The effects of climate change, fueled by the greenhouse gases humans are pumping into the atmosphere, are being felt acutely in the global South as temperatures rise, seasons shift, and extreme weather events, such as floods and storms, become more frequent and intense.

Adaptation, which involves changing ecological, social or economic systems to make them better able to weather the risks of climate change, "is a critical component of the long-term global response to climate change to protect people, livelihoods and ecosystems," according to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

But the difficulty is that research, as it is traditionally undertaken, has long lead times and that model is not fit for a rapidly changing climate.

"Decisions and actions have to be made now and they need to be made on the best available evidence," says DeMaria-Kinney. "But we need to build flexibility into research and that flexibility has to be informed by a continual research and iterative process that runs parallel to implementation."

Action-oriented research

Last year, at the UN climate summit COP28 in Dubai, ARA announced that it had mobilized more than £3 million (US$3.8 million) in investments for action-oriented research that addresses pressing adaptation needs of those most vulnerable to climate impacts.

Formally launched in 2021, the ARA is a global coalition of organizations committed to action-orientated research for adaptation. Its 250 members range from intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations Environmental Program to small community-based organizations.

"Action-orientated research is a paradigm shift in the way that the ARA sees research being done on climate change adaptation," DeMaria-Kinney says.

"This kind of research really focuses on ensuring impact for those on the frontlines of climate change, building capacity throughout the research processes, and the research actually being done with the end users."

Action-orientated research is different from traditional research because it happens alongside the implementation of findings on the ground, DeMaria-Kinney explains, adding that it focuses on "learning while doing."

He stresses that it should be driven by the needs of affected communities, working with those communities to co-design projects and find solutions that will have genuine societal impact.

One of the major investments announced by ARA was for the new Research 4 Impact (R4I) Hub, set up as part of the Climate Adaptation and REsilience (CLARE) research program, jointly designed and run by the UK's Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Canada's International Development Research Center (IDRC).

"We're in a decisive decade," says Bruce Currie-Alder, who leads the climate team at the IDRC. "We often know enough to act" and with action-oriented research, "you use research as a learning tool in real-time," implementing and testing findings immediately to determine what worked and what didn't, he explains.

As an example he points to flood preparedness in communities in West Africa and the research that can be done ahead of an actual flood event to determine the most effective action. In October 2022, more than 3.4 million people were displaced following floods in Nigeria, Chad, Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali and Cameroon.

"What's the tailoring that needs to be done at a community level?" Currie-Alder asks. If a community were flooded, would its residents be able to receive cash transfers to tide them over during the flood and in its aftermath? "What types of measures are needed 72 hours before the water starts rising? These are researchable questions," he says.

Research findings could be implemented immediately to prepare the community for the next flood, he explains, and scientists could then research whether the interventions made a difference and how they could be improved.

Research for impact

The R4I Hub's new Opportunities Fund aims to translate research and existing knowledge into practical applications for communities in the global South. Project funding ranges from C$15,000 (US$11,00) to C$60,000 (US$44,000), and interventions need to be completed within a year, Currie-Alder says. It is open to governments and quasi-government agencies, and non-governmental and civil society organizations that want to put evidence into action.

"Over the years, I've heard people say things like, 'I don't have time to wait for a new research project to get up and running and develop answers—I only have three months to get something in front of the minister and influence this particular investment,"' he adds. "This is the responsive need we're hoping that the hub will be able to address."

There are many funding opportunities available, from large international funds such as the Green Climate Fund to more modest national efforts, but small interventions which need evidence can fall through the cracks, says Currie-Alder.

For example, perhaps "there's a community investing its local funds and trying to think about the best bet in terms of local infrastructure, whether it's a drainage channel or a new road," he explains.

"These are things that sometimes go under the radar of a big research agenda. You don't go to a university and say, 'I want a Ph.D. student to do this.'" But the R4I Opportunity Fund could be able to mobilize existing expertise and research to assist.

The fund is looking for organizations that already have a clear sense of the project they need guidance on and the sort of support they need. This support could, for example, be the help of a soil scientist, an energy and water systems optimization specialist, or understanding the research around adaptation decisions.

"We're keen to learn from the hub's activities over 2024 and 2025 and then see whether its funding needs to be bigger, and if it needs to offer a greater spectrum of funding options," Currie-Alder says.

Collaboration on the ground

Jenny Frankel-Reed, a senior program officer with the agricultural development team at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, tells SciDev.Net, "We need to increase the relevance of scientific inquiry around climate action." The research should also be run by the affected regions, she says, adding, "In Sub-Saharan Africa, there's inequity both in terms of the impacts of climate and also who is generating the solutions."

The foundation has pledged £300,000 (US$380,000) to facilitate "co-creation" workshops for small-scale farmers in two African countries to identify research opportunities collaboratively. It is still deciding where the workshops will be based.

"It's always worth the time and the expense to do that [collaborative co-design] work well because the results are more durable, the buy-in is stronger, the questions are clearer—there are many advantages," says Frankel-Reed. This is one of the fundamental principles of action-oriented adaptation research.

About 70 percent of smallholder farmers in Africa rely on rainfed farming systems and this type of agriculture is particularly vulnerable to climate change, with its shifting seasons, variable temperatures, and extreme weather events .

"There's an urgency to climate adaptation that requires our research to be shaped by the people who are affected and really collaborate with the people who will use it," says Frankel-Reed. "It also needs to be done in a way that is going to build capacity around the world so that people are able to solve their own challenges around climate adaptation as well."

"There's a demand for this kind of research," adds DeMaria-Kinney. "That demand is seen by the ARA going from 33 when we launched at COP26 [in 2021] to having 250 members."

Action-oriented adaptation research is "flipping" the traditional research model around, says Currie-Alder. "As opposed to saying, 'What's your interesting idea and how does that influence the real work?', you're saying, 'What is the opportunity for impact, and what is the knowledge that is needed for that?'"

Provided by SciDev.Net

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Curiosity rover searches for new clues about Mars' ancient water

Study says since 1979 climate change has made heat waves last longer, spike hotter, hurt more people

Scientist taps into lobsters' unusual habits to conquer the more than 120-year quest to farm them

14 hours ago

Blind people can hear and feel April's total solar eclipse with new technology

18 hours ago

Mapping the best route for a spacecraft traveling beyond the sun's sphere of influence

Researchers outline new approach in search for dark matter through future DUNE research project

Researchers reveal evolutionary path of important proteins

Study identifies protein responsible for gas vesicle clustering in bacteria

Largest ice shelf in Antarctica lurches forward once or twice each day

19 hours ago

Researchers develop a thermoelectric material with optimal cost, efficiency and flexibility

20 hours ago

Relevant PhysicsForums posts

Unlocking the secrets of prof. verschure's rosetta stones.

Mar 29, 2024

‘Our clouds take their orders from the stars,’ Henrik Svensmark on cosmic rays controlling cloud cover and thus climate

Mar 27, 2024

Iceland warming up again - quakes swarming

Mar 21, 2024

Higher Chance to get Lightning Strike by Large Power Consumption?

Mar 20, 2024

A very puzzling rock or a pallasite / mesmosiderite or a nothing burger

Mar 16, 2024

Earth's earliest forest discovered in SW England

Mar 8, 2024

More from Earth Sciences

Related Stories

COP28: Countries promise action on food and farming

Dec 11, 2023

A guide on how to use climate data to inform human adaptation

Jan 11, 2024

COP28: Climate cash exclusion for conflict zones to end

Climate adaptation funds are not reaching front-line communities: What needs to be done about it

Nov 27, 2023

Opinion: COP28 agreement on adapting to climate change kicks the real challenge down the road

Dec 15, 2023

Report: As climate impacts accelerate, finance gap for adaptation efforts at least 50% bigger than thought

Nov 2, 2023

Recommended for you

Researchers find WWI and WWII bombs in the ground are becoming more volatile

Fukushima fallout transport longevity revealed by North Pacific ocean circulation patterns

Mar 28, 2024

Atmospheric observations in China show rise in emissions of a potent greenhouse gas

Study finds landfill point source emissions have an outsized impact and present opportunity to tackle US waste methane

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter