The Impact of the Washington Physics Education Group on the Teaching and

Learning of Introductory Physics

April APS MeetingSt. Louis, MO

Gary GladdingUniversity of IllinoisApril 14, 2008

The Plan

• The Washington PEG Logo

Interdependence of: Curriculum, Instruction, and Research

IMPACT

Materials

People

Research

Materials• Tutorials in Introductory Physics

• Supplements Lecture/Textbook• Promotes Functional Understanding

• constructing concepts• developing reasoning skills• relating formalism to real world

• Guided Inquiry• Elicit-Confront-Resolve• Pretest• Worksheet (in-class group work)• Homework• Posttest

• Many Topics (50 worksheets !)• Kinematics, Newton’s laws, Energy & Momentum, Rotation• Electrostatics, Electric circuits, Magnetism, Electromagnetism• Waves• Geometrical optics, Physical Optics• Hydrostatics, Thermodynamics, Modern Physics

Preliminary Edition (1998)First Edition (2002)

Materials• Dissemination of Tutorials in Introductory Physics

– Go Forth !!! And Do They Ever !!• PEG has given workshops on Tutorials at every national

AAPT meeting (two a year) since 1995 !• Workshops at many many other meetings, most recently in

Singapore– Pilot Sites

• Maryland, Colorado, Montana State, Harvard, Purdue, Cincinnati, Georgetown, Air Force, Illinois, Maine, Syracuse, LA Pierce College, and University Tecnologico de Monterrey (Mexico)

– Tutorials have used at more than 100 colleges and universities

Materials• Documented Implementation: Colorado

– “Replicating and understanding successful innovations: Implementing tutorials in introductory physics”, N. Finkelstein & S. Pollock, PHYS REV ST PER (2005)

REPLICATION

AND LOTS MORE…reflects interdependence with research

Materials• Documented Implementation: Colorado

– “Replicating and understanding successful innovations: Implementing tutorials in introductory physics”, N. Finkelstein & S. Pollock, PHYS REV ST PER (2005)

• Correlation of Tutorial Homework with Course Grade

• r = 0.73• reflects integration of Tutorials with the course..

• Physical arrangement• Training of Instructors• Institutional Support• Consideration of norms & beliefs of students and instructors

• Present framework for understanding features related to successful and sustainable implementation

• Includes student attitudes & beliefs as well as performance• Contextual constructivist perspective: How are tasks situated ?

Materials• Implementation at Illinois

– Context: Major Reform of Introductory Courses (1996 - 2000)• Big Idea: Integrate all aspects of a course using interactive

engagement methods based on physics education research in a team teaching environment.

• Initial Implementation (calculus-based: 1996-1997)– Lectures (75 min 2/week): Peer Instruction (Concept

Tests)– Discussion (2 hr 1/week): Cooperative Group Work

focussed on problem-solving (Minnesota and our own)– Labs (2 hr 1/week): Predict-Observe-Explain– Homework: Online “standard” problems

• Evolution– Online homework: Interactive Examples (concept-

based problem solving)– Discusson: Add conceptual work (Tutorials)

Calculations vs Concepts (Fall 97)

x0 2a 5a 6a

L R

I II III IV V

Two infinite sheets of charge are aligned perpendicular to the x-axis as shown in the figure. To the right is an infinite slab of conductor also perpendicular to the x-axis. The left-most sheet has a charge per unit area = 5.00 C/m2; the sheet to its right has = – 2.50 C/m2 ; the conducting slab is uncharged. The spacing parameter is a = 2.00 cm. Find the x-component of the net electric field in Region II.

Average Score = 91%

A positive point charge +Q0 is now placed to the right of the Gaussian surface as shown in the figure on the right. (Assume the charge distribution on the sheet is unaffected by the point charge +Q0.) The absolute value of the flux through the left end cap (surface 2) will:

(A) increase(B) decrease(C) remain the same

o

1

Lo

2

3

Lo

+Qo

Average Score = 55%

WOW !!

Physics 112 Comparison• Some qualitative questions from OLD (spring97 and fall97) final exams were repeated on the NEW (spring98) final exam.

What change was made in Spring98?

Biggest: Introducing Tutorials into discussion sections.

In fact, red points are the flux questions. There are some other large gains in areas not directly addressed by tutorials,though.

The performance on quantitative questions did not change!

Spring,Fall97 Spring98 59.3 ± 0.7 66.6 ± 0.7

OLD

NEW

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100Fall, Spring 97 Score

Sp

rin

g 9

8 S

core

Fall97 Spring98 72 74

People• UW PEG has impacted many people in important

ways over the years – Graduate Students in PER:

• 22 students have received physics Ph.D.s from UW based on their research with PEG

– Most now actively teaching (and doing research) at universities (e.g., UW, New Mexico State, Hamburg, CalState Fullerton, Maryland, Grand Valley State, ..)

– Postdocs:• 8 postdocs over the years: most now active in teaching and

research– UW TAs

• All TAs in Tutorial sections participate in graduate teaching seminar.

• Exposure to non-traditional instruction increased awareness when they eventually teach.

– Long term visitors (change of field?)• Fred Goldberg (1982: atomic physics)• Joe Redish (1992: nuclear physics)• GG (2001: high energy physics)

My Story• My involvement with our reform led to an increased interest in

PER.• Question: Should we take the next step? Establish a PER group

with graduate students– Where to go? Obvious choice: UW PEG

• How does the group work? How is research done?– Not unlike an experimental high energy group

• Two grad students got their degrees while I was there– Rachel Scherr and Luanna Ortiz

• My conclusion?– Make PER my full-time research interest

• Accept grad students• First two students (Michael Scott and Eugene Torigoe) have just

finished their degrees this semester at Illinois

Research• PEG: The foundations of Physics Education

Research – 1980-81 research papers on velocity and acceleration published

in American Journal of Physics: a first!!• I counted 37 more PEG articles in AmJournPhys since then !!

– Laid groundwork for what counts as PER• PEG treats research on learning and teaching of physics as an

empirical applied science. (teaching as art teaching as science)

• PEG adopts the rules of evidence of experimental physics• Focus is on student as learner, not instructor as teacher

– Assessment of student learning is used as criterion for effectiveness of instruction

Research• 1999 APS Statement on Research in Physics

Education:– In recent years, physics education research has emerged as a topic of

research within physics departments. This type of research is pursued in physics departments at several leading graduate and research institutions, it has attracted funding from major governmental agencies, it is both objective and experimental, it is developing and has developed publication and dissemination mechanisms, and Ph.D. students trained in the area are recruited to establish new programs. Physics education research can and should be subject to the same criteria for evaluation (papers published, grants, etc.) as research in other fields of physics. The outcome of this research will improve the methodology of teaching and teaching evaluation.

– The APS applauds and supports the acceptance in physics departments of research in physics education. Much of the work done in this field is very specific to the teaching of physics and deals with the unique needs and demands of particular physics courses and the appropriate use of technology in those courses. The successful adaptation of physics education research to improve the state of teaching in any physics department requires close contact between the physics education researchers and the more traditional researchers who are also teachers. The APS recognizes that the success and usefulness of physics education research is greatly enhanced by its presence in the physics department.

I cannot imagine this important statement being made by APS without the foundation laid by the Washington PEG.

Congratulations to PEG on a richly deserved award !!