## Materials Similar to *An Epistemic Framing Analysis of Upper-Level Physics Students' Use of Mathematics*

*55%*:**Student Learning In Upper-Level Thermal Physics: Comparisons And Contrasts With Students In Introductory Courses***55%*:**Qualitative Analysis of Students' Epistemic Framing Surrounding Instructor's Interaction***54%*:**Mapping university students’ epistemic framing of computational physics using network analysis***48%*:**Upper-Level Physics Students’ Conceptions Of Understanding***46%*:**Analogous Patterns of Student Reasoning Difficulties in Introductory Physics and Upper- Level Quantum Mechanics***43%*:**Student Objections to and Understanding of Non-Cartesian Unit Vector Notation in Upper-Level E&M***43%*:**Question Characteristics and Students’ Epistemic Framing***42%*:**Observations on student difficulties with mathematics in upper-division electricity and magnetism***42%*:**Analytic framework for students’ use of mathematics in upper-division physics***42%*:**Using student-generated content to engage students in upper-division quantum mechanics***41%*:**Physics students' epistemic framings for a conceptual test question***38%*:**A Coordination Class Analysis of College Students' Judgments about Animated Motion***36%*:**Interviews with Upper-Level Undergraduates about Representations of Electromagnetic Plane Waves***35%*:**A Cognitive Framework for Analyzing and Describing Introductory Students' Use and Understanding of Mathematics in Physics***35%*:**Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Quantum Physics in College Level Classroom Environments***34%*:**Relationships between concrete and formal operational physics concepts and the intellectual levels of high school students***34%*:**Productive resources in students’ ideas about energy: An alternative analysis of Watts’ original interview transcripts***33%*:**Analysis of students' processes of confirmation and falsification of their prior ideas about electrostatics***33%*:**How physics instruction impacts students’ beliefs about learning physics: A meta-analysis of 24 studies**