Preparing physics graduate students to be educatorsEdward Price and Noah Finkelstein

Citation: American Journal of Physics 76, 684 (2008); doi: 10.1119/1.2897288 View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.2897288 View Table of Contents: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/76/7?ver=pdfcov Published by the American Association of Physics Teachers Articles you may be interested in Effect of paper color on students’ physics exam performances AIP Conf. Proc. 1513, 374 (2013); 10.1063/1.4789730 The Challenge of Teaching Introductory Physics to Premedical Students Phys. Teach. 45, 552 (2007); 10.1119/1.2809149 Physics Educational Triangle Phys. Teach. 45, 191 (2007); 10.1119/1.2709700 Gestures as evidence of student thinking about physics AIP Conf. Proc. 720, 61 (2004); 10.1063/1.1807254 Bridging Critical Points: discontinuities in high school and university physics education AIP Conf. Proc. 720, 19 (2004); 10.1063/1.1807244

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

173.35.236.212 On: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 22:20:50

This art

Preparing physics graduate students to be educatorsEdward Pricea�

Department of Physics, California State University at San Marcos, San Marcos, California 92096

Noah Finkelsteinb�

Department of Physics, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado 80309

�Received 28 August 2006; accepted 23 February 2008�

We discuss two efforts that support the preparation of graduate students for their roles asprofessional physicists, particularly in the areas of teaching and education research. The PreparingFuture Physicists program and the Teaching and Learning Physics course are mutually supportive,address broader graduate roles, and support the development of physics education research.Students’ participation in these activities increases their mastery of physics, develops their interestin education and teaching, and engages them in research projects in physics education. We describethese efforts and identify critical features of their successes. © 2008 American Association of PhysicsTeachers.

�DOI: 10.1119/1.2897288�

I. INTRODUCTION

It is well recognized that we need to better educate ourundergraduates in physics and the other sciences.1–6 As aresult of research, we know of curricula, procedures, andapproaches that more effectively educate these students.7–9

Yet, we do not broadly prepare our future faculty to developor implement these now well-understood research-basededucational practices. This study focuses on graduate schoolas a critical period in the preparation of future physicists andas a key point of leverage to integrate teaching and educationresearch into the broader physics culture.

During graduate school, physics students are prepared toconduct independent research by engaging in authentic, su-pervised, and mentored experiences; typically, there is nocorresponding apprenticeship in teaching and learning.10,11

We claim that students will benefit from a broader prepara-tion, especially because the majority of graduate students donot end up in research-only environments.10,12–15 A recentreport on physics graduate education recognizes the need toreconsider graduate student preparation. The report calls forbetter informing graduates about the full range of employ-ment opportunities, developing students’ communicationskills, and delivering the graduate curriculum via innovativemethods.16 We discuss two graduate activities that addressthese recommendations, particularly by attention to educa-tion and teaching.

By extending the focus of physics graduate school to in-clude structured attention to education, we begin to give edu-cation greater prominence and validate education researchand reform in physics, by physicists. In this way, we canbroadly educate our students, and shift the culture of physicsto include education in the core practice of physicists. Bymore broadly preparing students in their graduate educationwe invest in the future of the discipline; simultaneously, bysupporting the growth and dissemination of the field of phys-ics education research �PER�, we invest in the tools and prac-tices that educators may use.

There are many model programs designed to support thedevelopment of physics graduate students as educators andprofessionals in physics.17–20 In this paper we examine two

coupled programs, a graduate seminar series and a graduate

684 Am. J. Phys. 76 �7�, July 2008 http://aapt.org/ajp

icle is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is sub

173.35.236.212 On: Tue,

physics course, both of which we consider programmatic ef-forts. In addition to introducing these two programs anddocumenting their successes, we identify critical features thatmake them successful. These programs focus on student par-ticipation �generally voluntary�, have tiered levels of in-volvement and commensurate levels of commitment, engagestudents in reflective practice, provide students with practicalexperience in teaching and researching in education, andbuild a community of scholars committed to the inclusion ofeducation in the practice of physicists.

II. PREPARING FUTURE PHYSICISTS—AGRADUATE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

In 1998, the American Association of Physics Teachers�AAPT� funded Preparing Future Physics Faculty �PFPF�, agraduate program designed to augment traditional training inresearch. PFPF was a discipline-specific version of PreparingFuture Faculty �PFF�, a program initiated by the Council ofGraduate Schools and the Association of American Collegesand Universities.18 PFPF and PFF were responses to calls forincreased emphasis on preparation in teaching and profes-sional development by the Association of American Univer-sities and the National Academy of Sciences.21,22 The Uni-versity of California San Diego �UCSD� was one of foursites chosen for a PFPF program.23 One of the authors �N.F.�was involved in establishing the program; the other �E.P.� isa former participant and director. The program ran with ex-ternal support until 2000, then continued with the support ofthe physics department and the UCSD campuswide Centerfor Teaching Development.

The PFF/PFPF program was initially intended to “producestudents who are well prepared to meet the needs of institu-tions that hire new faculty” by including an emphasis onteaching and professional development.18 Over the eightyears of its existence, the UCSD instantiation of the programhas undergone substantial changes and evolved to addressfour goals:

• Prepare graduate students for their future responsibilitiesas educators by promoting awareness and understanding ofPER

• Raise awareness of the differences in the needs and oppor-

684© 2008 American Association of Physics Teachers

ject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

08 Apr 2014 22:20:50

This art

tunities at different academic institutions �community col-leges, bachelor’s granting institutions, and regional and re-search universities�

• Provide physics graduate students with professional andcareer development in areas such as conducting a jobsearch and writing grant proposals

• Create an environment where physics graduate studentscan discuss issues of importance to the physics community.

Given the shift from the program’s original focus, and inlight of the participants’ broad career interests �discussed inthe following�, we now call the program Preparing FuturePhysicists �PFP�. Participation in the program is voluntary,and students may be active in a variety of ways, dependingon their interests and time. At a minimum, participants attendweekly �or biweekly� seminars on topics relating to thegoals. Table I indicates how particular seminars address thesethemes.

In addition to weekly seminars, graduate students are en-couraged to participate in a range of practice-based educa-tional activities: teaching, developing curricula, and re-searching.

Examples are shown in Fig. 1. Teaching practice is heavilyemphasized. All students are encouraged to lead a five to tenminute activity where they teach a single topic to the rest ofthe PFP seminar �a “microteach”�. Students subsequently en-gage in observations and guest lectures in local introductorycourses and at partner institutions �community and teachingcolleges�. Ultimately, several students have becomeinstructors-of-record, taking responsibility for designing andimplementing a full term class at these partner institutions.All of these teaching activities are overseen locally by thePFP organizer and at the host institutions by practicing fac-ulty. The second component, curricular development, oftentakes the form of graduate students adopting and adaptingPER-based activities for local practice.24 For example,graduate students have augmented the complement of inter-active lecture demonstrations25 �ILDs� in the introductoryphysics sequence by building an RC circuit ILD and testingits effectiveness in the algebra-based course. The third com-ponent, research, provides an opportunity for graduate stu-dents to engage in a systematic study of education. Projectsoften focus on examining and evaluating local teaching prac-tices. The three types of activities ground the seminar discus-

Table I. Areas and topics in the Preparing Future Physicists program.

Physics educationProfessional

and career development

• Current state of physics education • Choosing a graduate advisor• Cognitive issues in learning physics • The departmental examination• Conceptual-question performanceof intro physics classes• Physics demonstrations

• Postdoctoral positions: A paneldiscussion with current postdocs• The academic job market in phys

• Interactive lecture demos • Resume/CV and application mate• Peer instructionand class response systems

• Grant writing panel and grad fell

• Effective presentation and lecturing• Educational technology• Assessment: The role of testing and classes of questions

sions in practical experience, making both more meaningful.

685 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 7, July 2008

icle is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is sub

173.35.236.212 On: Tue,

The scope of graduate student engagement, ranging fromparticipation in seminar discussions to curricular develop-ment to teaching a course as instructor-of-record, depends onthe participant’s interests and constraints. Guest lecturing is avaluable experience with a small time commitment. Con-versely, teaching a course provides a more comprehensiveexperience, but is a demanding undertaking. Our most suc-cessful participant activities combine the best of both ap-proaches by including a group planning component and amodular workload. For example, a group of graduate stu-dents collectively planned a community science program,and then each student led one or two sessions.26 By involv-ing multiple participants, these programs can have a signifi-cant impact while only requiring modest effort from indi-vidual graduate students. In general, the PFP program isstructured so that varied levels of participation are legitimate,and students are encouraged to participate at a level they findappropriate.

The program’s tiered-participation model has been re-markably robust through several changes in program leader-ship. We attribute this durability to a few essential features:the involvement of a program organizer, sustained graduatestudent interest in the issues addressed by the program, rec-ognition of this program as legitimate within the physicsdepartment, and a flexible format that allows the program toreflect the participants’ and organizer’s interests. Except formodest funding, official administrative support has not beenessential, and has lagged behind the bottom-up support forthe program. In the 2003–2004 academic year, participationin the program was officially recognized as fulfilling theUCSD physics department’s teaching requirement; in 2006–2007 the department officially recognized for the first timethe organizer’s effort by granting teaching relief. Followingthe initial framework developed at UCSD, NF implementeda PFP program two years ago at the University ofColorado.27 The model’s central framing—voluntary partici-pation of graduate students in tiered levels of participation—has remained the same. The CU PFP program is now coupledwith the campuswide Graduate Teacher Program.

Program descriptions, background information, seminartopics, and participant activities can be found at�http://physics.csusm.edu/eprice/pfp/� for the UCSD program

Diverse academicenvironments

The physicscommunity

• Physics in regional universities • Political and social issues in physics• Physics in liberal arts colleges • Gender Issues in physics• Physics in high schools• Physics in community colleges

• Corporate – university interactions• Physics in industry/government labs

rep + interviewingip opportunities

icsrial powsh

and �http://per.colorado.edu/pfpf/� for the CU program.

685Edward Price and Noah Finkelstein

ject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

08 Apr 2014 22:20:50

ple P

This art

III. TEACHING AND LEARNING PHYSICS—AGRADUATE COURSE IN EDUCATION RESEARCHAND PRACTICE

Complementing the PFP program, we present anothermodel for incorporating education in graduatepreparation—a course that provides an intensive focus onphysics education and physics education research. Thecourse offers course credit and is intended for physics gradu-ate students interested in the study of education; it was ini-tially developed by NF in 1998 at UCSD and subsequentlyimplemented in 2003 at CU. The Teaching and LearningPhysics course is structured around three components: thestudy of pedagogical issues �from PER, cognitive science,psychology, and education�, the study of physics content, andpractical experience teaching in the local community and atthe university. Each of these course components comple-ments the others by providing a different perspective on thesame area of inquiry. For example, in the same week thatstudents read studies documenting individuals’ difficultieswith understanding the electric field, they study the conceptand teach it to others. This model has been described indetail.28,29

This course attracts students from all demographic back-grounds to physics, increases the number of physics majorsenrolling in teacher K–12 certification programs, and buildsstrong and sustainable ties between the university and com-munity partners.28 This course model has been employedelsewhere by at least five research institutions. An example isdescribed in the accompanying paper by Wittmann and Th-ompson.

Students’ projects in the course on teaching and learningphysics allow them to view the practices of education, teach-ing, and learning as scholarly pursuits. The projects haveranged from developing after-school programs that increaseyounger students’ interest and acuity in physics to programsthat study the role of gender in the university classroom.

30–32

Fig. 1. Exam

Several of these projects have led to published work, and

686 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 7, July 2008

icle is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is sub

173.35.236.212 On: Tue,

others have led to the creation of community partnershipsthat would not have otherwise existed �such as the CUSTOMP program33 or UCSD’s Fleet University26�. Other stu-dent research and teaching efforts have been instrumental inthe implementation of educational reforms at the university.For example, at CU the implementation of Tutorials in In-troductory Physics34 in the undergraduate calculus-based in-troductory sequence required an increased teacher-to-studentratio. Students from the course on teaching and learningphysics provided some of the critical human resources,35 andthe Tutorials provided real world examples of educationalreforms that graduate students could study. Each of theseactivities provides students with the opportunity to engage inauthentic educational practices, and also sends the messagethat these activities are part of a physicist’s pursuits.

IV. OUTCOMES AND DISCUSSION

A. Student participation

In the broadest sense, PFP and Teaching and LearningPhysics represent attempts to more thoroughly preparegraduate students by more fully including education in thecore practice of physicists. We anticipate these programs willyield significant long-term impacts, although assessing suchoutcomes requires a longitudinal study. Nevertheless, we canalready observe the preliminary impacts of these programs.In the graduate program, participation has increased since itsinception; starting with fewer than ten students, the UCSDprogram now regularly supports about 20 students. In agiven year, there are about 115 physics graduate students atUCSD, so that over five to six years of graduate studies, astudent is about as likely to participate in PFP as not. In theCU version of PFP, the average attendance is roughly 30graduate students per session. In the 2005–2006 year, partici-pants included more than one-third of the 210 physics gradu-ate students enrolled at CU, and roughly a dozen postdocs

FP activities.

and faculty. In the Teaching and Learning Physics course ten

686Edward Price and Noah Finkelstein

ject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

08 Apr 2014 22:20:50

This art

to 15 students have participated annually since its inceptionat UCSD, and in its first offering at CU, 23 students enrolled.Students are interested in engaging the issues addressed inthese programs, and there are few other outlets for thisinterest.10

B. Student interests and career goals

To gauge graduate students’ career interests and motiva-tions for participating in the PFP program, current UCSDand CU PFP participants were surveyed during the spring of2006. Table II indicates student responses to our question-naire. For comparison, Table II also includes data from theStatistical Research Center of the American Institute ofPhysics on the first choice of career path for physics graduatestudents in the United States.36 Similar percentages of re-spondents from each group selected “research tenure-trackfaculty” as their first choice. PFP respondents chose “facultyat liberal arts or community college or other teaching” atmore than twice the percentage of U.S. physics graduate stu-dents overall, and chose “research in industry, national lab,or university setting” at less than half the percentage of U.S.physics graduate students. Based on these responses, we in-fer that PFP participants are more interested in academiccareers and teaching than typical physics graduate students.37

When asked what they “really think they’ll be doing tenyears from now,” the percentage of PFP respondents whochose “research tenure-track faculty” dropped to 16%, and

Table II. Spring 2006 survey of UCSD and CU PFP

Question

What do you really hope to be doing ten years froResearch tenure-track facultyFaculty at liberal arts or community college or otherteachingResearch in industry, national lab or university settinPrivate consulting or other self-directed ventureSomething not on this listWhat do you are really think you are going to beResearch tenure-track facultyFaculty at liberal arts or community college or otherteachingResearch in industry, national lab or university settinPrivate consulting or other self-directed ventureSomething not on this listWhat would PFPF ideally do for you (besides feedProvide a diversity of ideas for my futureHelp me plot a course to facultyhoodProvide ideas for being a more effective educatorBring awareness of social issues that physicists canaddressTeach me the skills I will need as a faculty person

aBased on AIP Statistical Research Center’s 2000–0Table II �McFarling, Neuschatz, and Mulvey, AIP Recareer path for Ph.D. level, U.S. citizen, physics studbresearch or teach at a university,cresearch or teach at a four year college,dwork in an industrial research and development scomputers for a private company, or work for governebe self-employed or a consultant, andfall others.

the percentage who chose “faculty at liberal arts or commu-

687 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 7, July 2008

icle is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is sub

173.35.236.212 On: Tue,

nity college or other teaching” increased to 44%. Participantswere also asked what the PFP program would ideally do forthem. Reflecting the participants’ career hopes and expecta-tions, 34% of respondents selected “provide a diversity ofideas for my future” as their top choice, and 27% of respon-dents selected “provide ideas for being a more effective edu-cator.”

C. Participant outcomes

Building bridges between physics and education andbringing physics education research into practice are the cen-tral goals of these programs. As measured by other surveysof the participants, each program has been successful at ad-dressing these interrelated goals. We have surveyed PFP par-ticipants on their attitudes about the importance of teachingand what they have learned from the program.38 Results from2001–2002, 2002–2003, and 2003–2004 cohorts at UCSDare summarized in Table III. Although few respondents be-lieve education is valued by the physics research community,most plan on incorporating the results of PER in their teach-ing. Informal contacts with former participants who are nowteaching suggest that they are following through on theseintentions. When asked if they were considering entering theeducation research field, less than 40% of respondentsagreed, suggesting that the program is reaching beyond thePER community. In practice, the program supports studentsinterested in PER and those students who will employ the

cipants.

PFP U.S. gradsa

ow?38% 41%b

31 13c

15 37d

4 3e

12 6f

g in ten years?1644

204

16pizza)?

34122719

8

rvey of Graduate Physics and Astronomy Students,R-207.33, April 2004� which reports “top choice of” AIP response categories were:

, or work in the field of information systems andt or a national lab,

parti

m n

g

doin

g

you

1 Suportents.

ettingmen

research findings of PER in their own teaching practices.

687Edward Price and Noah Finkelstein

ject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

08 Apr 2014 22:20:50

This art

Students enrolled in the course on teaching and learningphysics report it to be among their most favored and usefulcourses. Table IV shows student responses to select items onan end of semester course evaluation. Students in the courseengage deeply and look for more learning opportunities.

In its initial instantiation at UCSD, Teaching and LearningPhysics was demonstrated to increase student mastery ofphysics, proficiency at teaching, and the likelihood that stu-dents would engage in future teaching experiences.28 Fur-thermore, evaluation of student understanding of educationreveals a shift from a more transmissionist perspective to amore progressive, constructivist perspective.28 More recentcorroborating results have been obtained at CU.

Students in the course showed significant normalized gainon the Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment, an as-sessment of conceptual understanding of electricity andmagnetism.39 The course normalized gain was 38%,40 and atwo-tailed, paired t-test on the pre and posttest scores indi-cates statistically significant differences of p�0.02. Studentswho participated in more formalized teaching roles as Learn-ing Assistants �LAs�41 in the CU implementation of Tutorialsin Introductory Physics34 posted normalized learning gainsof 55%. The students in the course who were not LAs buttaught or conducted research in other environments postednormalized learning gains of 27%, with p�0.1 for a two-tailed t-test comparing the LA and nonLA groups. Thesegains are striking, given that physics content is only onecomponent of the course, and all students had previouslytaken between one and three courses in electricity andmagnetism.

D. Broader outcomes and synergies

In addition to the impact on the graduate student partici-pants, PFP and Teaching and Learning Physics have had a

Table III. Survey of UCSD PFP participants.

Thirty-three of 38 respondents considered education a substantive part oftheir future career. Of these 33:

Percent agreeingI feel education is valued by the physics researchcommunity

18%

After participation in PFP…I am more aware of the results of PER 82%I am planning to incorporate PER results in teaching 94%I view PER as a legitimate research activity within thephysics community

88%

Table IV. Teaching and Learning Physics course eva

How useful to me is this class:How enjoyable is this class:

How much did you learn:

I recommend this course to others:

The department should offer this course in thefuture:

688 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 7, July 2008

icle is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is sub

173.35.236.212 On: Tue,

broader positive impact. The programs create a pool ofgraduate students who are well prepared for teaching posi-tions within the department. Furthermore, participants form anetwork that can assist and support the implementation ofresearch-based teaching methods. For example, participantsat UCSD helped field test tutorial-style introductory labs.Fieldwork and projects, undertaken through participation inPFP and Teaching and Learning Physics, often support out-reach programs in the broader community. Two such pro-grams are described in Refs. 26 and 33. PFP has provided amechanism for strengthening interactions between the hostphysics departments and other local institutions, such asteaching-focused colleges and informal science centers.These interactions include seminars by guests from partnerinstitutions, PFP participants teaching at partner institutions,and informal activities such as visits to partner institutions.Importantly, these interactions expose graduate students tovaried institutional environments. For many participantsthese contacts may be the first time they have heard someonesay that teaching physics at a community college is a satis-fying and rewarding career. This community network is animportant aspect of the program, given participants’ careerinterests and reasons for participating.

Although the PFP program and the Teaching and LearningPhysics course are independent and modular, they form amutually supportive continuum of increasing levels of en-gagement, with related but distinct foci. As a result, studentsinterested in physics education or physics education researchcan participate with an emphasis and intensity that they findappropriate. Interactions between these programs lead tobenefits for each; for instance, PFP creates a pool of studentsinterested in further study, and Teaching and Learning Phys-ics creates “expert” participants that enrich PFP discussionsand activities. Institutional support develops from broad stu-dent interest, the value of the programs’ “products” �curricu-lum development and instructional reform�, and the benefitsto the graduate participants.

E. Key features

As discussed before, these programs include features thatcontribute to their success and durability. These features areconsistent with the literature on developing and sustainingprograms42–45 and as such, ought to be considered in thereplication of these efforts, or the establishment of similarprograms. First, students are active participants who helpconstruct the program, not merely observers, and participa-tion is generally voluntary. Second, the programs providetiered levels of participation, allowing students to choose adegree of engagement they find appropriate and change their

ns by 18 CU students in the Spring of 2006.

Extremely Somewhat Not at all89% 11% 0%94% 6% 0%

A great deal Something Nothing at all94% 6% 0%

nthusiastically Maybe Never100% 0% 0%

They must Maybe Definitely not100% 0% 0%

luatio

E

688Edward Price and Noah Finkelstein

ject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

08 Apr 2014 22:20:50

This art

involvement over time as their interests and commitmentsevolve. Third, participants can engage in direct, practical ex-periences in teaching and education research. Fourth, theprograms provide a framework for reflection, allowing par-ticipants to reconcile formal ideas with personal experiences.Finally, lead individuals are required to ensure the coordina-tion and implementation of these programs.

V. CONCLUSION

We have described two programs that broaden physicsgraduate students’ conception of and preparation for theirprofession by focusing on education and education research.These efforts are part of a broader goal of including educa-tion as an essential part of what it means to be a physicist.This broad goal is compatible with recent calls to improveundergraduate science teaching and graduate preparation,and supports the continued growth of PER and the adoptionof PER-based teaching methods. Through participation inthese programs, graduate students come to value educationmore deeply as a core practice of physicists. More broadly,these programs can lead to similar shifts in local culture.Although it is not certain that these shifts will be sustained,the creation of layered and complementary programs makesthese changes more robust. Though many graduate programreforms have the intent of changing the preparation of gradu-ate students in order to support the changing job market, itmay turn out that graduate students involved in the programswe have described will change the nature of the discipline.

VI. AFTERWORD

In the 2006–2007 academic year, while this manuscriptwas in review, the UCSD PFP program faltered due to thelack of a lead individual. The program had survived severalprior changes in leadership, but the intended organizer for2006–2007 had other commitments and none of the previousleadership was present. This outcome reinforces our findingthat a key individual is necessary. The program did not de-pend on any particular person, but someone has to organizeand lead the program.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper is based on an article in the Spring 2006 APSForum on Education Newsletter. The authors are grateful forvaluable input and support from Barbara Jones, Omar Clay,Rosalind Streichler, Tom Murphy, Michael Cole, and theLCHC, John Cumalat, Christopher Keller, the graduate par-ticipants in the PFP programs, and the students in Teachingand Learning Physics. Thanks to Rachael Scherr for valuablefeedback on this paper. The authors also acknowledge theNSF and AAPT’s initial funding of the PFPF program, thecontinuing support of the UCSD and CU physics depart-ments, the UCSD Center for Teaching Development, and theAAPT/AIP/APS PhysTEC project.

a�Electronic mail: eprice@csusm.edub�Electronic mail: noah.finkelstein@colorado.edu1National Research Council, National Science Education Standards �Na-tional Academy Press, Washington DC, 1996�.

2National Science Foundation, Shaping the Future: New Expectations forUndergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, andTechnology �NSF, Arlington, VA, 1996�.

3

National Science Foundation, Shaping the Future, Vol. II: Perspectives on

689 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 7, July 2008

icle is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is sub

173.35.236.212 On: Tue,

Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, andTechnology �NSF, Arlington, VA, 1998�.

4Committee on Science, “Unlocking our future: Toward a new nationalscience policy,” Committee Print 105-B �U.S. House of Representatives,September, 1998�, �http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/science/cp105-b/science105b.pdf�.

5National Research Council, Committee on Undergraduate Science Edu-cation, Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics,Engineering, and Technology �National Academy Press, Washington DC,1999�.

6National Research Council, Committee on Science, Engineering, andPublic Policy, Rising Above The Gathering Storm: Energizing and Em-ploying America for a Brighter Economic Future �National AcademyPress, Washington DC, 2006�.

7J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking, How People Learn:Brain, Mind, Experience, and School �National Academy Press, Washing-ton DC, 2000�.

8E. F. Redish, Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite �Wiley, Somerset,2003�.

9R. D. Knight, Five Easy Lessons: Strategies for Successful PhysicsTeaching �Addison–Wesley, San Francisco, CA, 2002�.

10C. M. Golde and T. M. Dore, “At cross purposes: What the experiencesof doctoral students reveal about doctoral education,”�http://www.phd-survey.org�.

11 N. D. Finkelstein and E. Price, “Seeding Change: The Challenges ofTransfer and Transformation of Educational Practice and Research inPhysics �Part I�,” in Proceedings of the 2004 Physics Education ResearchConference, edited by J. Marx, P. Heron, and S. Franklin �AmericanInstitute of Physics Publishing, 2005�, Vol. 790, pp. 15–18.

12J. Gaff, “The disconnect: Graduate education and faculty realities: Areview of recent research,” Liberal Educ. 88�3�, 6–13 �2002�.

13K. Adams, “What colleges and universities want in newfaculty,” �http://www.aacu.org/pff/PFFpublications/what_colleges_want/wh_faculty.cfm�.

14C. Langer and P. J. Mulvey, “Initial employment report: Physics andastronomy degree recipients of 2002 & 2003,” R-282.25 �AIP, StatisticalResearch Center, 2005�, �http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/emp.pdf�.

15R. Ivie, S. Guo, and A. Carr, “2004 physics & astronomy academicworkforce report,” R-392.6 �AIP, Statistical Research Center, 2005�,�http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/awf.pdf�.

16Report of Joint AAPT-APS Task Force for Graduate Education in Phys-ics, �http://www.aapt.org/Resources/GradEdReport.cfm�.

17E. L. Jossem, “Resource letter EPGA-1: The education of physics gradu-ate assistants,” Am. J. Phys. 68�6�, 502–512 �2000�.

18A.S. Pruitt-Logan, J. G. Gaff, and J. E. Jentoft, “Preparing future facultyin the sciences and mathematics: A Guide for Change,”�http://www.preparing-faculty.org/PFFWeb.PFF3Manual.htm�.

19R. E. Scherr and A. Elby, “Enabling Informed Adaptation: Open-sourcePhysics Worksheets Integrated with Implementation Resources,” in Pro-ceedings of the 2006 Physics Education Research Conference, edited byL. McCullough, L. Hsu, and P. Heron �American Institute of PhysicsPublishing, 2007�, Vol. 883, pp. 46–49.

20M. Wittmann and J. Thompson, “Integrated approaches in physics edu-cation: A graduate level course in physics, pedagogy, and education re-search,” Am. J. Phys. 76, 677–683 �2008�.

21Committee on Graduate Education, Report and recommendations�http://www.aau.edu/reports/GradEdRpt.html�.

22Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy �COSEPUP�, Re-shaping the education of scientists and engineers �National AcademyPress, Washington DC, 1995�.

23Coincidentally, the University of Colorado at Boulder �CU� was anotherof the initial sites, but the authors were not involved in this program untillater.

24C. Henderson and M. Dancy, “Physics Faculty and Educational Re-searchers: Divergent Expectations as Barriers to the Diffusion of Innova-tions,” in Proceedings of the 2005 Physics Education Research Confer-ence, edited by P. Heron, L. McCullough, and J. Marx �AmericanInstitute of Physics Publishing, 2006�, Vol. 818, pp. 149–152.

25D. R. Sokoloff and R. K. Thornton, “Using interactive lecture demonstra-tions to create an active learning environment,” Phys. Teach. 35�6�, 340–347 �1997�.

26�http://lchc.ucsd.edu/fleetu�.27

Of the four original sites, two �the University of Arkansas and UCSD�

689Edward Price and Noah Finkelstein

ject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

08 Apr 2014 22:20:50

This art

have operated continuously, and a third �University of Colorado� wasrestarted after a hiatus.

28N. D. Finkelstein, “Teaching and learning physics: A model for coordi-nating physics instruction, outreach, and research,” J. Scholarship Teach.Learn. 4�2�, 1–17 �2004�.

29N. F. Finkelstein, “Coordinating instruction in physics and education,” J.Coll. Sci. Teach. 33�1�, 37–41 �2003�.

30N. S. Podolefsky and N. D. Finkelstein, “The perceived value of collegephysics textbooks: Students and instructors may not see eye to eye,”Phys. Teach. 44�6�, 338–342 �2006�.

31K. K. Perkins, M. M. Gratny, W. K. Adams, N. D. Finkelstein, and C. E.Wieman, “Towards Characterizing the Relationship Between Students’Self-reported Interest in and Their Surveyed Beliefs about Physics,” inProceedings of the 2005 Physics Education Research Conference, editedby P. Heron, L. McCullough, and J. Marx �American Institute of PhysicsPublishing, 2006�, Vol. 818, pp. 137–140.

32S. J. Pollock, N. D. Finkelstein, and L. E. Kost, “Reducing the gender gapin the physics classroom: How sufficient is interactive engagement?,”Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3�1�, 010107-1–4 �2007�.

33�http://per.colorado.edu/STOMP�.34L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, Tutorials in Introductory Physics

�Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2002�.35N. D. Finkelstein and S. J. Pollock, “Replicating and understanding suc-

cessful innovations: Implementing tutorials in introductory physics,”Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 1, 010101-1–13 �2005�.

36M. McFarling, M. Neuschatz, and P. J. Mulvey, “2001 graduate studentreport,” R-207.33 �Statistical Research Center, AIP, 2004�.

37We suspect that participants’ greater interest in academic careers is a

690 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 7, July 2008

icle is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is sub

173.35.236.212 On: Tue,

selection effect—those students interested in academia and teaching ca-reers are more likely to opt into the program �though they may alsodevelop these attitudes within the program�; however, no matter whystudents have these beliefs, PFP and the Teaching and Learning Physicscourse offer avenues for graduate students to develop and pursue theseinterests.

38E. Price and N. D. Finkelstein, “Seeding Change: The Challenges ofTransfer and Transformation of Educational Practice and Research inPhysics �Part II�,” in Proceedings of the 2004 Physics Education Re-search Conference, edited by J. Marx, P. Heron, and S. Franklin �Ameri-can Institute of Physics Publishing, 2005�, Vol. 790, pp. 19–22.

39L. Ding, R. Chabay, B. Sherwood, and R. Beichner, “Evaluating an elec-tricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetismassessment,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2�1�, 010105-1–7 �2006�.

40We report scores for matched students only on an augmented version ofthe BEMA that includes three questions from the Electrical Circuits Con-cept Evaluation. Student gains that saturate the exam �100%� and thosethat regress are not included.

41V. Otero, N. Finkelstein, R. McCray, and S. Pollock, “Who is responsiblefor preparing science teachers?,” Science 313, 445–446 �2006�.

42M. Cole, Cultural Psychology: A Once and Future Discipline �HarvardU.P., Cambridge, MA, 1996�.

43M. Fullan, The New Meaning of Educational Change �Teachers CollegePress, New York, 2001�.

44J. Lave and E. Wenger, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Par-ticipation �Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, 1991�.

45S. Sarason, The Creation of Settings and the Future Societies �Jossey–Bass, San Francisco, 1972�.

LOOKING BACK FROM 2000

What I want to talk about is the problem of manipulating and controlling things on a smallscale.

As soon as I mention this, people tell me about miniaturization, and how far it has progressedtoday. They tell me about electric motors that are the size of the nail on your small finger. Andthere is a device on the market, they tell me, by which you can write the Lord’s Prayer on the headof a pin. But that’s nothing; that’s the most primitive, halting step in the direction I intend todiscuss. It is a staggeringly small world that is below. In the year 2000, when they look back atthis age, they will wonder why it was not until the year 1960 that anybody began seriously tomove in this direction.

Richard P. Feynman, “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom: An Invitation to Enter a New Field of Physics,” Engineering& Science, February 1960. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Physical Society, 29 December 1959. Fulltranscript available at �www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html�.

690Edward Price and Noah Finkelstein

ject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

08 Apr 2014 22:20:50