Vernier Software and Technology - Celebrating 35 years
Vernier Software & Technology

Supporting Your Idea

Many funders are interested in seeing literature to substantiate your claim that your idea will improve things in your classroom. We have compiled a list of support articles on the benefits of the use of computers and calculators for data collection in the classroom. Many of the available articles can be accessed directly on the internet.

White Paper

What the Research Says About the Value of Probeware for Science Instruction

White paper discusses use of data-collection technology to improve test scores, deepen understanding of science concepts, meet national and state educational standards, and support a framework for K-12 education.

Download the Vernier White Paper

What the Research Says About the Value of Probeware for Science Instruction

General

  • Silverstein, Samuel C., Jay Dubner, Jon Miller, Sherry Glied, and John D. Loike, “Teachers’ Participation in Research Programs Improves Their Students’ Achievement in Science”. Science. 16 October 2009. 440-442.Read article synopsis at sciencemag.org
  • STEM SETDA Research 2008. SETDA discusses the importance of STEM education, the current state of STEM education, barriers to implementing STEM education, and recommends what stakeholders and policymakers can do to support STEM education.Download the STEM report
  • Friedrichsen, Patriacia Meis, Thomas M. Dana, Carla Zembal-Saul, Danusa Munford, and Chen Tsur “Learning to Teach with Technology Model: Implementation in Secondary Science Teacher Education.” Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching (2001) 20 (4), 377-394.
  • NAEP 2000 Science Assessment Results.Download naep2000.pdf
  • Lapp, Douglas Ph.D. and Dr. Vivan F. Cyrus “Using Data Collection Devices to Enhance Student Understanding”. Central Michigan University. 2000. This same paper can be found in Mathematics Teacher. 93 September 2000. 504-509.http://calcnet.cst.cmich.edu/faculty/lapp/MT2000.pdf
  • Evaluation of the Calculator-Based Laboratory System. Stanford University. 2000.
  • Thornton, Ronald. “Using the Results of Research in Science Education to Improve Science Learning”. Center for Science and Mathematics Teaching, Tufts University. 1999.http://probesight.concord.org/what/articles/thornton.pdf
  • Stager, Gary S. “Empowering Young Mathematicians and Scientists Through Technology”. Curriculum Administrator. October 1998.http://www.stager.org/articles/Mathsciencecafeature.html
  • Arnold, Steve, Pat Taylor and Jacqueline Spencer. “The Use of Calculator-Based Laboratory Equipment in Teaching Math, Chemistry, and Biology”. Inquiry. 3 Fall 1998, 6-8.
  • “Understanding the Total Cost and Value of Integrating Technology in Schools”. International Data Corporation. 1997.
  • Final Report to the Concord Consortium and the National Science Foundation on the Technology-Enhanced Elementary and Middle School Science (TEEMSS) Project.Download teemss.pdf

Back to Top

Physics

  • Bernhard, Jonte. “Can a Combination of Hands-on Experiments and Computers Facilitate Better Learning in Mechanics?” CAL-laborate. 5 October 2000.
    http://science.uniserve.edu.au/pubs/callab/vol5/bernhard.html
  • Rios, José M. and Santosh Madhavan. “Guide to Adopting Technology in the Physics Classroom.” The Physics Teacher. 38 February 2000. 94-97.
  • Hartley, Kendall W., David Fowler and Robert Mann. “Probing Student Minds.” The Science Teacher. October 1999. 34-39.
  • Svec, Michael. “Improving Graphing Interpretation Skills and Understanding of Motion Using Micro-computer Based Laboratories.” Furman University June 1999.
    http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/svec.html
  • Phillips, Dennis W. “Physics on Graphing Calculators.” The Physics Teacher. 37. April 1999. 230-231.
  • Angell, Carl and Trond Ekern, “Measuring Friction on Falling Muffin Cups.” The Physics Teacher. 37 March 1999. 181-182.
  • Redish, Edward F. and Richard N. Steinberg. “Teaching Physics: Figuring Out What Works.” Physics Today. January 1999. 24-30.
  • Fay, Sarah and Angela Portenga. “Hey You! Shut the Refrigerator Door!.” The Physics Teacher. 36 Sept. 1998. 336-338.
  • Russel, David, Keith B. Lucas, and Campbell J. McRobbie. “Microprocessor Based Laboratory Activities as Catalysts for Student Construction of Understanding in Physics”. Queensland University of Technology. 1999.
    http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/luc99196.htm
  • Thornton, Ronald K. and David R. Sokoloff. “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 April 1998. 338-352.
  • Laws, P. W. “Millikan Lecture 1996: Promoting active learning based on physics education research in introductory physics courses.” American Journal of Physics. 65 January 1997. 14-20.
  • Redish, Edward F., Jeffery M. Saul, and Richard N. Steinberg. “On the Effectiveness of Active-Engagement Microcomputer-Based Laboratories.” American Journal of Physics. Volume 65. 45 – 54 (1997)
    http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/papers/redish/mbl/mbl1.html
  • Dimitriadis, Panagiotis et al. “Linear motion study through graphs- A new technology – based learning environment.”
  • Sokoloff, David R. and Ronald K. Thornton. “Using Interactive Lecture Demonstrations to Create an Active Learning Environment”. The Physics Teacher. 35 Sept. 1997. 340-347.
  • George, Elizabeth and Jesus Vazquez-Abad. “Effects of instructional technologies on student learning in the undergraduate physics laboratory.” NSF Project Proposal. Wittenberg University.
    http://userpages.wittenberg.edu/egeorge/per.html
  • Making Connections with the MTV®; Generation is Easier, More Interesting When Science and Math Teachers Use TI’s Calculator-Based Laboratory ™ System. Texas Instruments.
  • Redish, Edward F., Jeffery M. Saul, and Richard N. Steinberg. “On the Effectiveness of Active-Engagement Microcomputer-Based Laboratories: Part 2.”
    http://www.physics.umd.edu/perg/papers/redish/mbl/mbl2.html

Back to Top

Chemistry

  • Milner-Bolotin, Marina. “Increasing Interactivity and Authenticity of Chemistry Instruction through Data Acquisition Systems and Other Technologies.” Journal of Chemical Education. February 2012 (web). Read article synopsis at acs.org
  • Durick, Mary Ann. “The Study of Chemistry by Guided Inquiry Method Using Microcomputer-Based Laboratories.” Journal of Chemical Education 78 (2001): 574-575.
  • Sale, Cynthia L, Nicole M. Ragan and Maureen Kendrick Murphy. “Using Calculator-Based Laboratory Technology to Conduct Undergraduate Chemical Research.” Journal of Chemical Education 78 (2001) 694-696.
  • Cherkas, Andy. Review of Computer and calculator data collection with Vernier Workshop.CHEM13 News. Nov. 2000. 5.
  • Jones, Rebecca B. “Life before and after Computers in the General Chemistry Laboratory”. Journal of Chemical Education. 77 August 2000. 1085-1087.
  • Rayner-Canham, et al. “A Computer-Interfaced Physical Chemistry Laboratory: Some Personal Experiences”. L’Actualité chimique canadienne. March 2000. 16-17.
  • Cortés-Figueroa and Deborah Moore. “Using CBL Technology and a Graphing Calculator to Teach the Kinetics of Consecutive First-Order Reactions.” Journal of Chemical Education. 76 May 1999. 635-638.

Back to Top

Biology

  • Lu, Casey R., Burton E. Voss and Lewis J. Kleinsmith, “The Effect of a Microcomputer-Based Biology Study Center on Learning in High School Biology Students”. American Biology Teacher. May 1997. 270

Back to Top

Water Quality

Back to Top

K-8

  • Final Report to the Concord Consortium and the National Science Foundation on the Technology-Enhanced Elementary and Middle School Science (TEEMSS) Project.Download teemss.pdf
  • NAEP 2000 Science Assessment Results.Download naep2000.pdf

Back to Top

Special Needs / Assistive Education

  • Lunney, David. “Everybody Needs to Learn Science: How Assistive Computer Technology Can Help Bring Students with Disabilities into the Mainstream”. 1997.

Back to Top

Go to top