Lillian C. McDermott
9
History
3/15/10
actions and other non-verbal responses are noted.
The entire discussion is audiotaped and
transcribed.
The transcripts, together with the investigator’s notes, are later analyzed.
We used as a criterion for understanding of a kinematical concept the degree to
which a student could successfully apply that concept to the interpretation of simple
motions of real objects.
Our indicator of degree of understanding was the extent to which
the student’s understanding corresponds to that of a physicist
(
i.e.,
the ability to define a
particular concept in an acceptable operational manner, distinguish it from related but
different concepts, and apply it successfully to real objects and events).
During the individual demonstration interviews that David conducted, students
observed the simultaneous motion of two balls, one rolling on a horizontal track and the
other on an adjacent inclined track.
17
They were asked whether the balls ever had the
same speed or acceleration.
When one passed the other, many claimed that the speeds
were the same.
If no passing occurred, they would often say that the speeds were never
the same.
Both responses indicated confusion between velocity and position.
Not
distinguishing acceleration from velocity was even more common.
Difficulties in relating
observations of motion to the formalism of kinematics were documented in David
Trowbridge’s Ph.D. dissertation (1979) and in two published papers that were the first of
their kind in
AJP
.
18
B.
Experience with Underprepared Students
During this same period, I began another project.
Leonie Piternick, who was
strongly motivated to help minority students do sufficiently well in biology for admission
to medical school, convinced me of the need for something similar in physics.
After
securing a commitment from Mark Rosenquist that he would collaborate with me on this
project, I submitted a proposal to NSF for research to guide the development of
instructional materials for a preparatory course for students in the Educational Opportunity
Program (EOP).
The goal would be to prepare them to succeed in introductory physics,
17
See Section VI.A.
18
D.E. Trowbridge and L.C. McDermott, “Investigation of student understanding of the concept of
velocity in one dimension,”
Am. J. Phys.
48
(12) 120 (!980); D.E. Trowbridge and L.C. McDermott,
“Investigation of student understanding of the concept of acceleration in one dimension,”
ibid.
49
(3)
242 (1981).
David later drew on this research to create an instructional computer program.
See D.E.
Trowbridge,
Graphs and Tracks,
Physics Academic Software, American Institute of Physics.
Lillian C. McDermott
10
History
3/15/10
one of the gateway courses to a science, engineering, or medical career.
We would
continue to develop
PbI
, maintaining the intellectual rigor, while making it more
accessible to underprepared students and also more easily adaptable by teachers for use in
their classrooms.
When the proposal was funded in 1978, we instituted an EOP section of the course
that had been designed for preservice elementary school teachers.
Both sections were
taught by members of our group.
We were often assisted by visiting faculty, who thus had
an opportunity to gain experience in teaching by inquiry.
19
The content was the same in
both sections but the study habits of the EOP students were monitored throughout the
year-long course.
We telephoned them when they were absent, required them to attend
class, and organized study groups.
I remember telling the students that I expected them to
be in class every day because studying physics would help them more than anything else
they could do during that same time.
There were no dropouts from the course.
During the second year of the EOP course, the instructional staff included peer
instructors who had taken this course the previous year and who were then enrolled in
calculus-based physics.
I barely managed to wrangle some financial aid for them. I tried
to get support from local industry but the usual response was that the company had already
contributed to UW.
One way or another, I put together small stipends for the peer
instructors.
I enrolled them in a special second-year course, in which we prepared them
for their role as peer instructors and mentored them while they progressed through
introductory physics and other science courses.
We set as the goal for students who had
taken the EOP course a grade of B (3.0) or better in calculus-based physics, a higher
standard than most underprepared students had been previously able to meet.
Tracking
grade records was difficult, but we were able to demonstrate this level of achievement for
students whom we could track.
Peer instructors usually did better than others.
One earned
her physics Ph.D. with our group.
20
Another obtained his from the U. of Maine.
21
19
See II.b. in the Endnotes.
20
Luanna S. Gomez (now at Buffalo State College, SUNY) transferred to U. of New Mexico, where she
obtained a B.S. in physics.
She returned later to UW as a graduate student in our group.
21
Edward Prather had taken the EOP course as an older student who had avoided science and
mathematics.
See Refs. 131, 132, and Appendix E.
His advisor at U. of Maine was Rand Harrington,
who had earlier earned his physics doctorate with us.
