2000 Department Chairs Conference
I. NSF and DOE Budget Priorities in the Physical Sciences
"Budgets and Priorities in Math and Physical Sciences at NSF"
Robert Eisenstein, Assistant Director
Directorate of Mathematical and Physical Sciences
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, Virginia 22230
E-mail: reisenst@nsf.gov
Phone: (703) 306-1801
Information about programs and funding opportunities available through the is available.
""
Pat Dehmer, Director of Basic Energy Science and Acting Deputy Director, Office of Science
U.S. Department of Energy
19901 Germantown Road
Germantown, MD 20874-1290
E-mail: patricia.dehmer@science.doe.gov
Phone: (301) 903-3081
Graphs showing the trends in the federal funding of research, prepared by AAAS, were presented. Some topics included:
- Trends in Federal Research by Discipline, FY 1970-2000
- Trends in Basic Research, FY 1976-2001
- Trends in Nondefense R&D by Function, FY 1953-2001
- Basic Research by Agency, FY 1970-2000
Additional information about programs and funding opportunities available through the is available.
II. ABET 2000 Criteria
""
Alan Van Heuvelen
Physics Department
Ohio State Univ.
174 W. 18th Avenue
Columbus, OH 43210-1106
E-mail: avanh@mps.ohio-state.edu
Phone: (614) 292-6956
Kathleen Andre
Physics Department
Ohio State Univ.
174 W. 18th Avenue
Columbus, OH 43210-1106
E-mail: kma@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu
Phone: (614) 688-3598
The new accreditation standards for engineering students no longer require one year of physics instruction. Instead, Colleges of Engineering must show that their students have acquired during their four or more years of undergraduate study eleven skills needed for the practice of engineering. We will look at these new criteria and consider the following questions. What risks might physics departments face if we do not respond to ABET 2000? How do the criteria match requests from other quarters concerning the goals for our introductory and advanced physics instruction? What content and pedagogy changes might we make to not only respond to the criteria but to help lead the charge into productive physics learning systems for the 21st century?
""
Ken Heller
Physics Department
Univ. of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455
E-mail: heller@physics.spa.umn.edu
Phone: (612) 624-7314
One of the primary features of the new Engineering accreditation requirements is that specified classes are being replaced by student performance criteria determined by individual engineering departments. Even though some knowledge of physics is necessary, introductory physics is no longer a required course for engineering students. In this climate it is more important than ever for physics departments to find out the goals of the engineering departments and tailor their physics course to meet those goals if possible. This talk will present the results of a survey of engineering departments at the University of Minnesota and describe how those results affected the teaching of physics.
III. Inquiry-Based Teaching Activities
This session consisted of five parallel breakout sessions on techniques for engaging students in both the classroom and laboratory. The session was repeated so each participant could attend two of the five presentations.
""
Ken Heller
Physics Department
Univ. of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Columbus, OH 43210-1106
E-mail: heller@physics.spa.umn.edu
Phone: (612) 624-7314
Problem solving has always been an important part of an introductory physics course. It is also one of the primary reasons that other departments require their students to take physics. But what is "problem solving" that everyone wants? Is it really part of a standard physics course? Unfortunately many students have difficulty solving problems and understanding the fundamental concepts of physics. At the University of Minnesota we have applied the findings of educational research to develop an introductory physics course that emphasizes learning fundamental physics through problem solving. In the process of implementing both the algebra-based and calculus-based introductory physics course, we have adopted a well-focused set of goals and relied on the instructional technique of cooperative groups. This course structure has been successful enough so that it is now the standard mode of instruction for most of our introductory physics classes. This talk will briefly outline the technique, its rationale, and its results.
"" *
David Hestenes
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Arizona State Univ.
Tempe, Arizona 85287-1504
E-mail: hestenes@asu.edu
Phone: (480) 965-6277
Modeling Website:
We review the design, results and implications of the Force Concept Inventory (FCI), as an instrument for evaluating the effectiveness of physics instruction at both the high school and college level. This is one of several instruments used to evaluate ongoing reforms at ASU. For several years, we have been developing a University Physics course organized around models and modeling to make the subject matter and procedural knowledge more explicit, systematic and coherent. This has required extensive "remodeling" of the standard course. The instructional method employed is a variant of the "modeling method" that has proved so successful in high school physics. Students work in collaborative groups in a technology-rich studio classroom. With well-documented success in a small classroom environment, we are currently adapting the approach to a large classroom and developing workshops for wide dissemination.
*Supported by NSF grant DUE-9952706.
"The Activity Based Physics Suite: Improving Introductory Physics Teaching through the Integration of Active Learning Strategies into Lectures, Laboratories, and Tutorials"
Priscilla W. Laws
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Dickinson College, Carlisle, PA 17013
E-mail: Lawsp@Dickinson.edu
Phone: (717) 243-1242
Website:
This workshop will help participants learn about an Activity Based Physics Suite that is currently being developed for use in a variety of settings ranging from traditionally structured lecture classrooms to full workshop/studio courses. The Suite consists of an array of curricular materials designed to help departments use active, collaborative teaching methods in introductory calculus-based physics courses. The Suite includes:
- an alternative edition of the HRW Fundamentals of Physics,
- a series of Interactive Lecture Demonstrations, the Workshop Physics Activity Guide,
- a set of RealTime Physics Laboratory modules,
- the Tutorials in Introductory Physics developed at the University of Washington. Suite elements also include
- Quantitative Tutorials and materials for
- Collaborative Problem Solving developed at the University of Maryland.
Contributors to the Suite project include: K. Cummings (RPI), P. Cooney (Millersville University), P. Laws (Dickinson College), E.F. Redish (U. of Maryland), D. Sokoloff (U. of Oregon), and R. Thornton (Tufts University) in consultation with L. McDermott and members of the U. of Washington Physics Education Group.
"Interactive Lecture Demonstrations: Active Learning in Large Lectures" *
Ronald K. Thornton
Departments of Physics and Education
Tufts Univ.,
Medford, MA 02155
E-mail: CSMT@Tufts.edu.
Physics education research has shown that learning environments that engage students and allow them to take an active part in their learning can lead to large conceptual gains compared to traditional instruction. An active learning environment is often difficult to achieve in large lecture sessions. This presentation will demonstrate the use of sequences of microcomputer-based interactive lecture demonstrations (ILDs) using real experiments and student interaction to create an active learning environment in large lecture classes. Interactive lecture demonstrations will be done in the area of energy, dynamics, and vectors using MBL motion and force probes and the Visualizer.® A video tape of students involved in interactive lecture demonstrations will be shown. The results of a number of research studies at various institutions to measure the effectiveness of ILDs will be presented
*This work was partially funded by the NSF and by The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE, US Department of Education).
"Active Learning Materials to Enhance Qualitative Reasoning and Problem Solving"
Alan Van Heuvelen
Physics Department
Ohio State Univ.
174 W. 18th Avenue
Columbus, OH 43210-1106
Email: avanh@mps.ohio-state.edu
Phone: (614) 292-6956
Kathleen Andre
Physics Department
Ohio State Univ.
174 W. 18th Avenue
Columbus, OH 43210-1106
Email: kma@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu
Phone: (614) 688-3598
Research during recent decades indicates that traditional didactic instruction is not producing the student learning that we desire. In recent years, the research has helped in the development of new pedagogical strategies and curriculum that improve student achievement. We describe one effort based on this research. The goals are to help students learn to:
- develop qualitative representations and imagery so that they can reason effectively about physical processes without using math;
- learn to use the symbolic language of physics with understanding by linking it to other representations such as sketches, diagrams, and graphs; and
- develop the skills needed to solve complex multipart problems
We will illustrate the use of a variety of tools that help achieve these goals including goal free problems, Jeopardy problems, interactive multimedia, context-rich problems, and experiment problems.
IV. ""
Robert C. Hilborn (Chair of the Task Force)
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, NE 68588-0111
Email: rhilborn@unlserve.unl.edu
Phone: (402) 472-9010
AAPT, AIP, and APS have established the National Task Force on Undergraduate Physics to provide advice to the physics organizations and to the physics community at large about constructive and creative responses to the dramatic changes in the environment for undergraduate physics in colleges and universities across the nation. The emphasis is on improving undergraduate physics programs as a whole: introductory and advanced courses for all students, preparation of K-12 teachers, undergraduate research opportunities, and the recruitment and mentoring of students for diverse careers.
During the next few months Task Force members will visit several physics departments to learn how departments are planning for and implementing innovations in their undergraduate programs. The Task Force will also put together a catalog of case studies with analysis of departments that have developed thriving undergraduate programs. The Task Force will work with similar education groups in other disciplines and with various funding agencies to coordinate efforts to improve undergraduate science, mathematics, and engineering education. The Exxon-Mobil Foundation has provided a Planning Grant to assist the Task Force in its first year of activities and to supplement the support from AIP, APS, and AAPT.
Other members of the Task Force who participated in this session were Laurie McNeil, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Jose Mestre, University of Massachusetts. The participants were given the opportunity to participate in The Physics "," a tongue-in-cheek evaluation of their undergraduate physics programs.
V. The Undergraduate Physics Major
This session consisted of four presentations on topics related to the upper-level curriculum taken by students majoring in physics. Many departments will need to address curriculum and career issues if they plan on continuing to offer an undergraduate major that attracts an adequate number of students.
"Computational Physics and the Undergraduate Curriculum"
Harvey Gould
Clark Univ.
Department of Physics
Worcester, MA 01610
E-mail: hgould@clarku.edu
Phone: (508) 793-7485
Website:
I will discuss the advantages of teaching a separate laboratory-based course that emphasizes computer simulations as early as possible in the physics major curriculum. Such a course can involve physics majors and other students in research-type experiences and give them the tools necessary to use computers in their other courses in meaningful ways. I will also discuss the advantages of using Java in such a course. If time permits, I will discuss the curriculum development project led by Jan Tobochnik and myself to include computer simulations in thermal and statistical physics courses.
"Paradigms in Physics: Revitalizing the Upper-Division Curriculum"
Corinne A. Manogue
Physics Department
Oregon State Univ.
Corvallis, OR 97331
E-mail: corinne@physics.orst.edu
Phone: (541) 737-1695
Website:
In the Paradigms in Physics Project at Oregon State University, we are completing the second 2-year cycle in the restructuring of our upper-division physics curriculum. The junior year highlights a series of nine "Paradigms", sequentially taught modules that emphasize the way professional physicists think by addressing a particular physical concept, often crossing the usual sub-discipline boundaries. The senior year continues with six deductive "Capstones" which develop the individual sub-disciplines in a condensed, but more traditional, format. The approach shifts the framework of the upper-division curriculum more firmly to quantum mechanics from classical mechanics. Scheduling which includes some 2 hour sessions has allowed us to experiment with a number of pedagogical techniques, some of which are natural extensions of physics education research at the lower-division level and some of which are attempts to address the unique needs of the upper-division. Challenges and success stories will be shared.
""
Richard F. Martin, Jr.
Physics Department
Campus Box 4560
Illinois State Univ.
Normal, IL 61790-4560
E-mail: rfm@ilstu.edu
Phone: (309) 438-5382
As fewer physics graduates choose graduate study in their major field, it behooves physics educators to rethink the traditional undergraduate degree. Programs that are student-centered and allow options at the upper division give our graduates broader opportunities and help extend the physicist's unique skills and perspective into a wider range of careers. Several examples of alternative degree sequences, such as computational physics, engineering physics, industrial and applied physics, and business/financial options, will be presented with an eye toward what works, what hasn't worked, and why.
Information about and its programs is available.
"Visual Quantum Mechanics"
Dean Zollman
Department of Physics
Kansas State Univ.
Manhattan, KS 66506-2601
E-mail: dzollman@phys.ksu.edu
Phone: (785) 532-1619
Website:
The Visual Quantum Mechanics project has created a series of teaching/learning units to introduce quantum physics to a variety of audiences ranging from high school students who normally would not study these topics to undergraduate physics majors. Interactive computer visualizations have been coupled with hands-on experiences to create a series of activities that help students learn about quantum mechanics. Our goal is to enable students to obtain a qualitative understanding of contemporary ideas in physics. Included in the instructional materials are student-centered activities that address a variety of concepts in quantum physics and applications to devices such as LEDs, the electron microscope, an inexpensive infrared detection card, and the Star Trek Transporter. Throughout the instructional units the students work with interactive visualizations. For physics students, these visualizations are usually followed by a mathematical approach. For others, the visualizations provide a framework for understanding the concepts. Thus, Visual Quantum Mechanics allows a wide range of students to begin to understand the basic concepts, implications and interpretations of quantum physics. (This project is supported by the National Science Foundation under grants ESI-9452782 and DUE-9652888 and by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.)
The developed by Zollman's group at Kansas State University are available.
VI. Breakout Session
Eight breakout groups allowed the conference participants to share information and interact with resource people who had presented at the conference. Notes taken by a recorder for each of the groups summarize the important points discussed by each group.
A. The Introductory Laboratory
B. Revitalizing the Upper-Division Curriculum
C. Issues for the National Task Force on Undergraduate Physics
D. Courses for Non-Majors
E. Undergraduate Research and Flexible Curricula
F. Using the Results of Physics Education Research
G. Computational Physics in the Undergraduate Curriculum
H. Career Paths for Undergraduate Physics Majors
VII. K-12 Teacher Preparation
"Lessons Learned in the Preparation of Elementary Teachers"
John Layman
7500 Sweetbriar Drive
College Park, MD 20740
E-mail: JL15@umail.umd.edu
Phone: (301) 474-1953
John Layman provided a videotape from the Powerful Ideas in Physical Science program of the AAPT showing three students dealing with the concept of whether there was evidence for heat transfer when two amounts of water at different temperatures were mixed. One student states that she believes that the hot water is loosing heat energy but does not feel the cold water is receiving any. She further states that if something is gaining and another is loosing then "nothing is happening." Her two classmates then draw the group into a discussion of something hot eventually cooling to room temperature. John Layman, standing in the background is shown asking additional questions but not providing the "correct" understandings. It is quite evident that in this student centered inquiry mode the students are building their understanding using evidence from their lab and personal experiences. This quite a different model than the one found in many of our standard physics laboratory work today, and recommended as an improvement in learning and teaching.
""
Sanford Kern
Department of Physics
Colorado State Univ.
Fort Collins, CO 80523
E-mail: kern@lamar.colostate.edu
Phone: (970) 491-6192
""
Jose Mestre
Department of Physics
Univ. of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
E-Mail: mestre@physics.umass.edu
Phone: (413) 545-2040
Website:
"Lessons Learned from Research on the Preparation of Teachers"
Paula Heron
Department of Physics
Univ. of Washington
Box 351560
Seattle, WA 98195-1560
E-mail: pheron@phys.washington.edu
Phone: (206) 543-3894
Website:
Results from research indicate that many K-12 teachers lack sufficient subject matter competence to teach science as a process of inquiry. Science methods courses taught in departments of education cannot help teachers develop the depth of understanding that is needed. Responsibility for the subject matter preparation of teachers lies with science faculty. However, in physics and related disciplines, neither courses for majors nor for non-majors provide the kind of preparation required for teaching science by inquiry. Special physics courses expressly designed for this purpose on the basis of research have proved successful not only with prospective teachers but also with other students. In many cases, elementary teachers perform at a higher level than do science and engineering majors in standard introductory courses. The intellectual objectives and instructional methods that characterize these courses are discussed in the context of specific examples. These are drawn from more than 25 years of experience in the Physics Department at the University of Washington.
References on Teacher Preparation
L.C. McDermott and L.S. DeWater, "The need for special science courses for teachers: Two perspectives," Inquiring into Inquiry Learning in Teaching and Science, J. Minstrell and E.H. van Zee, eds., (AAAS, Washington, D.C., 2000), pp. 241-257.
L.C. McDermott, "A perspective on teacher preparation in physics and other sciences: The need for special courses for teachers," Am. J. Phys. 58, 734-742 (1990).
L.C. McDermott, "Combined course for future elementary and secondary school teachers," Am. J. Phys. 42, 668-676 (1974).
Additional Articles on Teacher Preparation
L.C. McDermott, "Teacher education and the implementation of elementary science curricula," Am. J. Phys. 44, 434-441 (1976).
L.C. McDermott, "Improving high school physics teacher preparation," Phys. Teach. 13, 523-529 (1975).
L.C. McDermott, "Practice-teaching program in physics for future elementary school teachers," Am. J. Phys. 42, 737-742 (1974).
VIII. Employment and Careers
""
Roman Czujko
Education and Employment Statistics
American Institute of Physics
One Physics Ellipse
College Park, MD 20740-3845
E-mail: rczujko@aip.org
Phone: (301) 209-3080
""
Diandra Leslie-Pelecky
Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Lincoln, NE 68588-0111
E-mail: dleslie@unlnotes.unl.edu
Phone: (402) 472-9178
Additional information about the APS Careers and Professional Development Liaison (CPDL) program can be found by clicking .
"The View from Washington"
Mike Lubell
APS Office of Public Affairs
National Press Building - Suite 1050
529 14th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20045-2001
E-mail: lubell@aps.org
Phone: (202) 662-8700
Website:
Data and graphs presented during Dr. Lubell's talk are available as Excel spreadsheets as described below:
House of Representatives Bill 3161 "Federal Research Investment Act" and Senate Bill 296 "Federal Research Investment Act" were also discussed.
