Two hypotheses for our two-faced moon

By Gregory H. Revera (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons

Our moon has two very different faces: the near side and the far side are quite different from one another. Today, Slate's Phil Plate covers two hypotheses on just why the two sides of our moon are so different. Definitely check out Plate's quick synopsis of the two hypotheses, and if you are hungry for more, dive in to the two resources he covers!

Hypothesis one comes from Nature:

Jutzi, M., & Asphaug, E. (2011). Forming the lunar farside highlands by accretion of a companion moon. Nature, 476(7358), 69-72. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7358/abs/nature10289.html

Hypothesis two you'll find via arxiv.org:

Roy, A., Wright, J. T., & Sigurðsson, S. (2014). Earthshine on a Young Moon: Explaining the Lunar Farside Highlands. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 788(2), L42. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.2020.pdf

If you have any trouble accessing either of these two resources, feel free to ask a librarian! We are happy to help you figure out how to get access to all sorts of resources.
Happy searching! 

Nat'l Academies Pre-print Report on Discipline-Based Education Research

This 270 page "synthesis study" collects the literature and assesses research on approaches to undergraduate science education.  I haven't read the report, just skimmed the 19-page Executive Summary. 

Most reports by the National Academies can be read online for free, including this one.  From the Exec. Summ.:

DBER scholars have devoted considerable attention to effective instructional strategies and to students’ conceptual understanding, problem solving, and use of representations. Key findings from DBER are consistent with cognitive science research and studies in K-12 education.

To gain expertise in science and engineering, students must learn the knowledge, techniques, and standards of each field. However, across the disciplines, the committee found that students have incorrect understandings about fundamental concepts, particularly those that involve very large or very small temporal and spatial scales. Moreover, as novices in a domain, students are challenged by important aspects of the domain that can seem easy or obvious to experts, such as problem solving and understanding domain-specific representations like graphs,
models, and simulations. These challenges pose serious impediments to learning.

DBER clearly shows that research-based instructional strategies are more effective than traditional lecture in improving conceptual knowledge and attitudes about learning. Effective instruction involves a range of approaches, including making lectures more interactive, having students work in groups, and incorporating authentic problems and activities.

To enhance DBER’s contributions to the understanding of undergraduate science and engineering education, the committee recommended:

• Research that explores similarities and differences among different student
  populations.
• Longitudinal studies—including studies of the K-12/undergraduate transition— to better understand the acquisition of important concepts and factors influencing retention.
• More studies that measure outcomes other than test scores and course performance, and better instruments to measure these outcomes.
•  Interdisciplinary studies of cross-cutting concepts and cognitive processes.