Lillian C. McDermott
17
History
3/15/10
Marie-Geneviève Séré (then at U. of Paris VII) is another physicist whom I met at
La Londe.
44
Our common interests led to a long-lasting friendship that we shared with our
husbands (Daniel and Mark).
I was also glad to meet Rosalind Driver (U. of Leeds), a
well-known science educator whose work had impressed me.
Although Rosalind saw
value in theory-driven research, she recognized the importance of focusing on “the
development of instructional practices which improve science teaching, as opposed to
making a claim about the model or theory being used.”
45
When I have since been chided
for my empirical approach, I think of Rosalind’s comment during her visit to Seattle a few
years later, “Lillian, you may be non-theoretical, but you are not a-theoretical.”
A humorous (in retrospect) event marked my trip from Seattle to La Londe.
All
my clothes were forever lost by the airlines.
It was fortunate that my books and papers all
arrived intact because I had not yet worked on a review of physics education research in
mechanics that I was expected to present.
While preparing for the talks, I remember being
serenaded by conference participants on their way to an outing or other social event.
Their efforts to brighten my spirits reminded me that I was spending all of my free time in
southern France either studying or desperately trying to find something to wear.
My lectures at La Londe led to an article in
Physics Today
that was published in
1984.
46
In my review of past research, I identified certain characteristics that seemed
critical for the results to be useful to physics instructors.
I thought it necessary then (and
still do) to specify the nature of the questions asked, the point in instruction when the data
were taken, the form in which they were obtained (
e.g
., interview transcripts or written
responses), the degree of interaction between investigator and student, and the depth of
probing.
Because the goals might affect the design of the study and the interpretation of
results, the motivation should also be specified,
i.e.
, whether the primary purpose was to
identify student difficulties, assess a curriculum, or develop a model of student thinking.
44
M-G. has since written a history of physics didactics in Europe:
M-G. Séré, “La Vie Quotidienne aux
Débuts de la Didactique Des Sciences, 1976-2004,” Université Paris Sud XI (2004) (unpublished).
45
R. Driver and G. Erickson, “Theories-in-action: some theoretical and empirical issues in the study of
students’ conceptual frameworks in science,”
Stud. Sci. Educ.
10
, 37-60 (1983).
46
L.C. McDermott, “Research on conceptual understanding in mechanics,”
Phys. Today
37,
24 (1984).
See also “Critical review of research in the domain of mechanics,”
Research on physics education:
proc. of the first international workshop, La Londe les Maures,1983
(Editions du CNRS, Paris,1984),
pp. 139-182.
Lillian C. McDermott
18
History
3/15/10
D.
Interlude at the National Science Foundation
In 1982 political pressure had led to the termination by President Reagan of NSF
funding for precollege science education.
After the publication of
A Nation at Risk
in
1983, NSF was again authorized to support science education for precollege teachers.
47
Late that year I was invited to NSF to speak about precollege teacher preparation.
This
event led to an experience that had a long-term effect on me.
Laura (Pat) Bautz, then the
Interim Assistant Director for Science and Engineering Education, asked me to serve as
Director of the new Division of Precollege Education in Science and Mathematics.
I felt
that I had to accept, and Mark agreed. For the first nine months of 1984, I commuted to
Washington, D.C. from Seattle to help restart NSF participation in teacher education.
I
came home for a long weekend every three weeks.
Emily van Zee managed our projects
in my absence.
My service at NSF engendered a deep respect for the program directors
with whom I worked and an ongoing loyalty to the National Science Foundation.
After my return to UW in late 1984, two important events occurred.
In 1985 Joan
Valles became our Program Coordinator.
Up until that time, Emily and Martha Means (a
peer instructor) had assisted me both in my classes and in management of the grants.
For
the next almost 20 years, Joan helped create an effective, pleasant working environment.
Also in 1985, Peter Shaffer, who was beginning the Ph.D. program, expressed interest in
our research.
Since it was quite obvious that he would be a very strong addition to the
group, I invited him to be a Teaching Assistant (TA) in the EOP course.
He became my
sixth graduate student and, eventually, my faculty colleague and very good friend.
E.
A Matter of Names
During the 1980s, I had to consider in two different contexts the question that
Juliet asks: “What’s in a name?”
48
The first was our group’s name; the second was my
own.
We had come to be known in our Department as the Physics Education Group.
Unlike “Physics Education Research Group,” a name used by other groups in physics
departments today, the word
research
is not in our title.
As soon as we started to conduct
research on student understanding, we began to develop curriculum. “Physics Education
47
This report by the National Commission on Excellence in Education was critical of U.S. education and
led to the re-involvement of the federal government in science and mathematics instruction.
48
William Shakespeare,
Romeo and Juliet,
II, ii, 1-2.
