15. PhysTEC.
Hein refers the Board members to the report from the PhysTEC evaluator Karen Johnston in the Board packet. He reported that the project had geared up during the last few months. The project hired a coordinator, Dr. Kevin Aylsworth, who is helping the leadership stay on track. Dr. Aylsworth will assist the management team in communicating with the Primary Program Institutions (PPIs), developing and writing policy statements, and collecting project data. In addition, there is increased interest among four-year institutions in joining the teacher coalition.
The management team has completed drafts of important documents that will continue to guide the project. These include documents on mentoring and induction, coalition membership and primary program membership. PhysTEC will have it second annual conference on February 28-March 2, 2003 at the University of Arizona. The theme for the conference is “Bridging the Two Cultures: Science and Education”.
Hein requested the Board’s help in raising the level of visibility of the project among the AAPT membership. He specifically asked that the Board consider making teacher preparation an eighth planning initiative. He explained that while the PTRA program has excellent programs for teacher in service, the PhysTEC project offers the AAPT a real opportunity to make a significant contribution to pre service science teacher preparation. The PhysTEC project provides a way for the AAPT to have more influence and a greater presence among college and university physics departments.
In discussion of the report and recommendations, Holbrow expressed that he heard an air of restraint during the first year of the project. Hein explained that due to the late announcement of the funding award from the NSF in September 2001, the project leadership was delayed in identifying and organizing institutions to serve as the PPIs. He added that he would bring to the Board in April specific suggestions that would raise the recognition of PhysTEC.
16. Implementation of Science Standards for Teachers.
In his report to the Board, Khoury reminded members that one of the AAPT’s strategic goals is to “Assist physics teachers in complying with science standards”. The Board had appointed a small task force to consider how to take steps to accomplish that goal. One effort recently completed involved the AAPT submission of a significant set of comments in September 2002 to the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) addressing a revision of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education’s standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation programs in the sciences.
Prior to these recent efforts, the AAPT members had provided extensive input to the National Research Council as it developed and published the National Science Education Standards (NSES). The AAPT had appointed a task force, led by Jim Stith, to develop written documentation to assist physics teachers in conforming to these published standards. Although the task force had many discussions, it was not able to converge on a specific effort to help physics teachers.
Since that time, many states have developed their own sets of science standards, some of these incompatible with the NSES. These separate standard statements, explained Khoury, make it very difficult for the AAPT to determine how the association can best help its members and other physics teachers to comply with their state standards. The compliance with state standards has fostered the implementation of testing and accountability in many states. Khoury referenced the activities that are occurring in Texas concerning teacher preparation as one model for other sections or states. In a conversation with Len Jossem, Chair of the AAPT Committee on Teacher Preparation, Khoury learned that discussions addressing teacher preparation were occurring in 6-7 sections, including Florida, New England, and California.
Hein added that some funding from an anonymous donor has been made available for such discussions at the section level and that Iona would make this announcement to the Section Reps during their Austin meeting. In addition, Hein added that PhysTEC has a stake in these activities and has some funding to support these activities. Khoury recommended that the AAPT should provide funding to foster and support teacher prep activities at the sectional level. Holbrow, therefore moved, that the Board authorize Khoury to designate up to $5000 to AAPT sections to convene meetings and initiate discussions concerned with teacher preparation. Nelson seconded the motion. In discussion of the motion, Khoury commented that this action enhances the implementation of standards. Iona added that the proposed AAPT development of an AAPT booklet for physics teachers to be considered by the high school committee (see these Minutes, Item 12). The motion passed unanimously.
17. ComPADRE.
Bruce Mason presented a report on the status of the redesign of the PSRC and the ComPADRE project funded in October 2002. Mason, who had been working half time as Director of the PSRC, is the principal investigator for the NSF project. A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed with his home institution, University of Oklahoma that gives him 50% release time for the term October 2002 to September 30, 2004. Mason introduced to the Board, Thad Lurie, who was recently hired as web designer and developer for ComPADRE.
Building tools are now available to nominate materials to be added to the PSRC collections. Conversations were occurring to help define how the new materials could be tied in with the existing AAPT materials. Lurie will be working with Mason and his student assistants to bring the redesigned PSRC online in late February. Much of the work done on the redesign of the PSRC will be directly transferable to the development of the ComPADRE prototype sites. The PSRC will serve as the foundation on which ComPADRE will be built.
Mason described the ComPADRE project as the development of particular collections for five different prototype communities, with a site targeting each community. Editors have been hired for four of these sites. The AAPT website will service the new crossover teacher and Cathy Ezrailson will serve as its editor. Ed Lee from APS will serve as the editor for the public outreach site and David Donnelly will serve as the editor for the AIP/SPS sponsored site for students. The American Astronomical Society has not yet named the editor for its astronomy site. The fifth resource site will concern Quantum Mechanics. The first ComPADRE site is expected to be ready in the Fall 2003.
In response to a question from Holbrow, Mason explained that when searches by users fail to find the information they want on ComPADRE, the website would tie into the Google Search Engine. In additional discussion, Mason explained that the NSDL program of the NSF is more of a background database, allowing users to pull out data for a particular community, thereby producing a service built on its data. Stone asked if training programs would be developed for teachers. Mason explained that he had not considered how to train teachers to use the technical aspects of the service (i.e. getting images/data into the classroom). Mason concluded his report by asking for AAPT’s help in persuading people to prepare and submit more proposals to NSF/NSDL so as to increase the presence of physics and astronomy in the program.
18. AIP Physics Resource Center.
Jim Stith, Director of the AIP Physics Resource Center, reported that it has been a difficult year for AIP. However, he stated that the Physics Today Online publication was doing well and that the AIP is pleased with the community response to this service. There had been initial concern by some that the web traffic would slow down, but that had not been the case.
Stith reported that the Discoveries and Breakthroughs in Science continues to be an editorial success. The AIP now has eighty broadcasting stations and is getting readership. However, the stations are realizing decreases in revenue, which does not permit the AIP to increase its prices for media pieces as it had planned. Stith has made arrangements with the stations so that they share more in the production and benefits but the AIP has received less exposure. He would like for the effort to be a break-even activity financially in five years.
The AIP magazines are still struggling as the classified advertisements have decreased. Stith reported that according to his conversations, the physics jobs are there but people are not looking for them. He also noted that The Industrial Physicist was still a financial challenge, running at an $800 K deficit this year.
In response to a question from the Board, Stith explained that raising money for the Olympiad was getting tougher. Some AIP societies will not contribute to the Olympiad in 2003 and so the AIP has had in-house discussions regarding the loss of financial support. Stith explained that many people see the competition as an AAPT activity for which the AIP raises the money. However, he is trying to identify ways to make the Olympiad a community effort among the AIP societies. The AIP raised about $100 K for the Olympiad in 2002 and will reimburse the AAPT $90 K for its out of pocket expenses.
Khoury inquired about the problems the AIP would be realizing from the bankruptcy proceedings of its subscription service agency, RoweCom. He explained that the AAPT Board had indicated that the AAPT would honor subscriptions by libraries through RoweCom. Stith responded saying that the AIP was having the same discussions but no resolution had been reached. It was his feeling that the AIP would honor the subscriptions but it was not clear how the institute would recover its losses. Stith added that he did not have a sense regarding how the other AIP societies would respond to this problem.
In closing, Stith reported that Marc Brodsky, CEO for AIP, was in route to Thailand and therefore sent his regrets that could not attend the AAPT Winter meeting. The message from Brodsky to the Board was that the AIP was happy with the Physics Today Online effort and hoped that the AAPT was pleased. On behalf of the Board, Khoury responded that the association was happy with the service and that the lessons learned from the AIP effort had helped the AAPT staff to put The Physics Teacher online.
19. Active Physics Curriculum.
In his introduction of Arthur Eisenkraft to the Board, Khoury explained that the AAPT developed the Active Physics (AP) curriculum under Eisenkraft’s leadership. The publisher, It’s About Time (IAT), is the market distributor for the product and the AAPT realizes a royalty stream. The AAPT, with Eisenkraft as principal investigator, submitted a proposal to the NSF in 2002 requesting funding for the preparation of a revision of the curriculum but the proposal was not funded. Therefore, Khoury explained that the questions to be considered by the Board were (1) what should be the model for the revision and (2) how would the association fund such a revision.
Eisenkraft in his comments to the Board explained that the NSF reviewers are basically asking for evidence that the AP curriculum works. More emphasis is being placed on research in submitted NSF proposals than in previous years and most of the NSF funding is targeting Math-Science Partnerships. He therefore advised that the principal investigators should pay close attention to the details of the individual reviews. He expressed that the AAPT should be proud of this effort because by developing the AP curriculum, the association has responded to the standards, has increased the number of students taking physics, has provided outreach to urban areas, and is providing instruction to under represented students. In addition, AP was the curriculum project highlighted by the NSF.
His presentation concerning the revision of AP basically addressed (1) a rationale for the need for revision of the curriculum, (2) the defined scope for the proposed revision and (3) what changes or additions IAT wants the revisions to have.
(1) Eisenkraft explained that state frameworks are the drivers for high school curriculum. According to him, Texas could not adopt AP because most of the Texas state frameworks were missing in the text. He explained that the revision should meet the needs of new students (such as students not being mainstreamed) and classes having mixed students resulting from federal mandates. The revised curriculum should have more toe holes for teachers and should provide opportunities for teacher-to-teacher audiences. The AP curriculum as a 9th grade curriculum will necessarily need to deal with the weak math background and writing skills of 9th graders as contrasted with that of 11th or 12th graders. The developers of the revision will need to keep in mind that some teachers of the revised curriculum will be poorly prepared to teach physics (such as cross-over teachers).
(2) Eisenkraft explained that he had tried to explain the scope of the revision in the proposal. He proposed that the revision should have new chapters, new material added to some existing chapters, and address the state frameworks. The project design should include an evaluation component and he advised that the NSF was looking for pre- and post-tests.
(3) According to Eisenkraft, IAT wanted a high quality revision that met the new demands of state and local frameworks.
Eisenkraft asked the Board for policy action that would permit the project directors to move ahead with the revision, to define the scope of the revision and to implement the plan for revision. He volunteered to talk with individual Board members about discrete aspects of the revision.
During subsequent discussion, Nelson stated that the Board supported the revision and would probably support future efforts. Haas suggested that since the NSF advised Eisenkraft to narrow the focus of the revision, he possibly should consider a sequential revision process. Eisenkraft concurred with this. He also added that he felt that the NSF might have some funding money available sooner than the next proposal cycle but the new proposal would have to be an evaluation proposal. Khoury responded saying that Gerhard Salinger, NSF program officer, had expressed that he would like to see an evaluation of non-traditional programs and NSF reviewers have implicitly made the same point. He suggested that the evaluation proposal could be an interim effort in the revision design. Holbrow added that the NSF was feeling political pressure to provide evidence that this sort of curriculum is working.
Chiaverina asked Eisenkraft if he would agree to do an evaluation of the curriculum. In response, Eisenkraft stated that we have to get to work on the revision because of pressure from IAT and that we have to figure out ways to evaluate products already completed. He explained that he had tried unsuccessfully to obtain more information from NSF regarding how to do the evaluation and what results the NSF wanted to see. Eisenkraft concluded saying the evaluation and the revision would have to be parallel efforts due to the timetable constraints.
Tobochnik asked Eisenkraft to explain his preference for the next step. Eisenkraft responded saying he would first write a chapter on atomic structure and develop the framework for the revision. He added that there was a funding issue and he wanted to make it clear who would do the writing. Tobochnik asked Eisenkraft to clarify his primary focus for the revision: was it addressing the standards or was it reaching students who cannot read. Tobochnik added that he felt it was very difficult for the revision to address 20 questions, which was suggested by the proposal. Eisenkraft responded that while the task was difficult it had to be done because the message of the text is “physics for all”. When asked if the product could work for such a diverse audience, he said it was being done and cited Hewitt’s book as working at the 9th grade level, at the 12th grade level and at the college level. However, he went on to say that he did not know if Hewitt’s text was being used for the same audiences targeted by AP. Tobochnik suggested that a few changes be made to the AP curriculum, possibly in an appendix, that would make it address a larger audience, bring in more revenue, and then self fund the desired larger revision.
In reaction to a comment from Robertson, Eisenkraft said he was the liaison between IAT and the AAPT. He claimed that the publisher’s sign off on the proposal was the publisher’s way of telling the AAPT that it wanted a revision. Robertson suggested that Khoury, Eisenkraft, and the publisher should meet to define and prioritize what needs to be done.
Khoury recommended that the President appoint two or three Board members to a special committee to define the scope of the revision, which in turn could be linked to the cost of funding. He explained that once this step was completed the AAPT could address the implementation phase of the revision. The Board expressed general agreement to this plan.
Eisenkraft then asked the Board to discuss why it had denied his request to use some of the AAPT royalties to fund AP workshops. He argued that the financial support of the workshops did not have to be a marketing endorsement. He stated that helping teachers is not marketing. He closed his presentation by stating that the best neutral role for the association is for the AAPT to say that it does not make money from AP because all royalties go back into the AP curriculum.
20. Executive Session II.
(Chiaverina convened the Board into Executive Session II without B. Khoury. Session 2 of the Board was then adjourned.)
21. Executive Session I.
(Chiaverina reconvened the meeting of the Board. Following introductory remarks from Khoury concerning the overview for the afternoon meeting, the President convened the Board into Executive Session I.)
22. Report of Section Reps Election.
Iona reported that the Section Representatives had elected Steve Iona as Chair of the Section Representatives and Randy Peterson was elected Vice-Chair of Section Representatives. Frank Peterson, Vice-Chair of Section Reps, would normally have moved into the position at the end of the January meeting. However, due to his resignation the Section Reps elected both a Chair and Vice-Chair during its Austin meeting.
23. BSCS.
Joe Taylor, Professional Development Associate at SCI, and Kim Bass, Superintendent of the San Diego School District, presented a preliminary plan for a proposed collaborative with the AAPT and Kansas State University. (SCI is the professional development component of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), a private, non-profit organization that has sustained itself primarily through grants.) The collaborative would address the needs of cross over teachers in a seven-year project. The project plan includes an initial year to establish appropriate infrastructure followed by a three-year professional development experience, culminating with credits toward certification or a master’s degree in physics/science education and membership in a professional organization such as the AAPT. Kansas State University would serve as a flagship effort for this proposed project.
The instructional outcomes for the proposed project would address content and pedagogy. Taylor explained that SCI has the expertise to help the teachers develop the game plan and curricular materials and implement them. According to the design of the project, teachers would select the specific curriculum they wanted to implement, such as Hewitt or Giancoli, and SCI would gear the professional development to that particular curricular program. However, SCI needed a critical mass of teachers who planned to use the selected curriculum program.
Trainees would participate in a three-week summer institute each year of the professional development experience and would also participate in a professional learning community of out-of-field physics teachers. The summer institute would provide six graduate credits toward certification or the masters degree program. Participation in the full, year-round professional community would give each teacher three graduate credits.
Bass explained that the San Diego school district had turned to SCI to help train fifty additional teachers needed to implement the recently adopted physics first sequence within their schools. San Diego out-of-discipline teachers received different professional development training from in-discipline teachers. (For example, the out-of-discipline teachers needed more training in physics content than the in-discipline teachers.) A summer institute for the trainees used local physics teachers for instruction and supervision and university professors developed a university course for out-of-field teachers that would give them authorization to teach the 9th grade physics. Most of the teachers receiving the special training were biology crossover teachers with some chemistry teachers and some who had sports-related degrees. She estimated that possibly 20-25% of the biology teachers had some physics in their educational background. The school system had realized that a systemic approach was needed to successfully implement the inquiry-based curriculum selected for its 9th grade physics.
In response to questions from Board members, Bass provided some insight regarding the impact of implementing 9th grade physics into the high school curriculum in San Diego. She explained that San Diego required 9th graders to take physics and then sophomores enrolled in chemistry. Teachers were observing that what students learned in the 9th grade physics was impacting their performance in the other sciences. As an incentive for implementing this inverted curriculum sequence, the San Diego system gave teachers one extra professional development period and paid all their expenses associated with receiving supplemental authorization As a result of this support from the school district, the system had not lost any teachers.
The Board will hear a more specific report concerning the proposed joint project during its April meeting. Khoury suggested that during the interim more definitive plans regarding the project design would be made and conversations with NSF would be initiated.
24. Publications Committee.
Monroe, on behalf of the Publications Committee, moved that:
· Lila Adair, Kandiah Manivannan, and Kenneth Ford be appointed for three-year terms to the TPT Editorial Board. The motion passed unanimously.
· Ruth Chabay, Ken Heller, and Richard Price be appointed for three-year terms to the AJP Editorial Board. The motion passed unanimously.
· Karl Mamola, whose current term as TPT Editor will end in January 2004, be reappointed for another three-year term. The motion passed unanimously.
During its August 2002 meeting, the Board approved the recommendation from Publications to activate the five-year review of the association’s journals, beginning with the Announcer in 2003.
· Accordingly Monroe recommended that the Board appoint Tom O’Kuma, Lee College as Chair of the Review Committee and Gerald Taylor, James Madison University, and Ann Brandon, Joliet High School, as committee members. Monroe reported that she had contacted each person and they had agreed to serve on the committee. Holbrow seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
· Monroe also presented to the Board for its consideration a draft of the Charge and Timeline for the Announcer Review Committee. The proposed Charge to the Committee asked the Committee members to measure the impact and benefits of the Announcer to the AAPT membership and other readers and to serve as a creative source for new directions and priorities for the journal in the near future. In the subsequent discussion, Board members asked that the Committee be forward looking, to formulate, with the input of AAPT membership, the role of the Announcer, and to determine who the readers of the journal are and the journal’s impact on them.
Monroe moved that the Charge to the Announcer Review Committee with suggested editorial changes be accepted. Holbrow seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Monroe moved that the Review Committee be asked to present its findings and recommendations in a written report, prepared for the Board and submitted to Monroe, by September 1, 2003, with the anticipation that O’Kuma would make a special report to the Board during its October meeting. Holbrow seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.
Monroe moved, as a recommendation from the Publications Committee, that the Board authorize the publication of AstroNotes, a compendium of TPT astronomy articles and a bibliography of recent TPT articles, prepared by Mike Zeilik and Tim Slater. The motion passed unanimously.
Monroe reported that Jan Mader and Mary Winn would continue with their preparation of a resource manual for new teachers and would submit the completed manuscript to the AAPT Publications Committee. The work by Mader and Winn will be submitted as a resource independent of the AAPT’s Resource Kit for New Teachers. Monroe explained that Debbie Rice, as liaison between the Committee and the resource editors, had been instrumental in helping to move this product to completion.
25. High School Publications.
Rice reported that the High School Committee, in response to a request from Board members, had identified and prioritized five items for development and publication by the AAPT:
· vertical alignment of physics first
· standards/curriculum (previously published as the content booklet)
· lab resource book, including materials addressing the physical layout of the lab, the lab pedagogy and lab activities,
· teacher preparation
· teacher kit (the old Resource Kit for New Teachers)
The Committee identified four people to serve as point persons for the development of these materials. Trina Cannon and Karen Bouffard were recommended and have agreed to serve. The other two persons have yet to be confirmed.
In discussion of the report, Sina Kniseley clarified that she would prefer to have one person for all documents, not one person per document. Rice also added that the High School Committee strongly felt that a high school teacher should be a member of the AAPT Teacher Prep Committee.
26. Lotze Scholarship.
M. Fehrs, in her report for the Lotze Scholarship Committee, explained that she had chaired the Austin meeting of the committee in the absence of Ed Neuenschwander, the current Chair of the committee. The committee received 35 applications, all from strong candidates.
· Following a review and discussion of the applicants, the Lotze Scholarship Committee recommended that the Board present the award to Carrie Lynn Pinter, Carthage College. The Lotze Scholarship is a $2000 award to a U.S. citizen who plans to become a high school teacher. The motion passed unanimously.
· Fehrs also moved, on behalf of the Lotze Committee, that Honorable Mentions be awarded to Rebekah Bergstrom, East Anchorage HS, Jason Bronowitz, George W. Hewlett HS, Timothy Carrier, UW-Marinette, Kevin Daum, Central MichiganU, Jennifer Lynn Docktor, N. Dakota State U., and Laura Robertson, Vassar College. The motion passed unanimously. These students will receive one-year memberships in AAPT with TPT subscriptions.
Fehrs added that many students who enter teacher education are people changing careers and often these students are married with children. She would like to identify a donor for a special scholarship targeting this type of student.
In response to a question from Randy Peterson, Khoury explained that the award and recipients would be publicized.
27. Venture Fund.
Robertson reported that negotiations with Ztek for the conversion of Cinema Classics to DVD format had been completed. The AAPT has given Ztek $30 K for the six DVDs which should be ready for sales by the Fall. The AAPT will receive 36% of the sales as royalties.
The Powerful Ideas in Physical Science CD has been prepared and is selling. While the CDs are free, users have to purchase the code enabling them to open and duplicate the curricular materials.
Robertson concluded his report stating that M. Fehrs and S. Kniseley would develop guidelines for the publication of products through the Venture Fund. The guidelines should help to identify marketable products for the AAPT.
28. Next Steps for Active Physics.
Khoury stated that he would like to bring the discussions regarding Active Physics (AP) to a closure. (See these Minutes, Item 19) He recommended that the Board appoint a committee or two or three members to define the scope of the revision for AP for the Board’s consideration. He stated that the AAPT has a contractual obligation to provide a revision and therefore the Board should have an involvement in its development. Holbrow suggested that the members should know what is going on in high schools. Jim Nelson’s name was suggested as a possible member and Rice and Iona volunteered to serve on this committee. Rice commented that she was not familiar with the AP materials but Iona explained that he had used the AP curriculum.
29. Metric Committee.
Monroe inquired if some action should be taken regarding the temporary status of the Metric Committee, which had been in existence for many years. Possible action could be to make the committee a full area committee or the Board could dissolve the committee. Hubisz recommended that the Metric Committee be left as a temporary committee, thereby eliminating the need for it to provide the required annual reports of area committees. He explained that irregularly, owing to the nature of the committee, it serves a valuable need, but that it should not be burdened with yearly paperwork required of the area committees. Iona explained that he attended the meetings of the Metric Committee and its members had also expressed some concern about the temporary status. However they realized that they did not fit in the general area committee category. The consensus of the Board was that the Metric Committee should continue as a temporary committee with annual reappointment by the AAPT President.
30. Area Committee Reports.
Board members reported the following special information items and requests originating within area committees they visited.
· The High School Committee was very pleased with the High School Photo Poster distributed through the TPT. The committee requested a website for both crossover teachers and experienced teachers. Hein suggested that PhysTEC might be able to use its mentoring funds for this service.
· The Technology Committee would like to organize a tutorial requiring advanced media technology. They would like for AAPT to charge a fee to cover the expenses for the special technology or else to schedule the tutorial in the evening in one of the rooms equipped with the new technology.
· The Two Year College Committee will develop sessions for future AAPT meetings addressing the World Year of Physics and trends in teaching modern physics.
· The Graduate Education Committee expressed concerns about the shortness of the allotted times for presentations by AAPT award winners and the overlap of invited speakers. Holbrow, in response, suggested that the Program Chair should post the tentative program for future meetings on the AAPT website, providing an opportunity for area committees to review the schedule of events. The Committee members also expressed that the AAPT meetings had too many PER-sponsored sessions.
The Committee also submitted a resolution to the President asking the AAPT to establish a commission to look into what constitutes a core curriculum for graduate studies. This resolution will be shared with the Board members.
· The PER Committee, on the other hand, felt their sessions were not long enough. The Committee also requested a later deadline for invited and contributed papers.
