Lillian C. McDermott
60
History
3/15/10
C.
Graduate Education
Although graduate education is not an explicitly stated goal of our undergraduate
or teacher-related grants, we consider supervising physics graduate students (Ph.D. and
M.S.) a major responsibility.
Those in the Physics Education Group earn their degrees for
research on the learning and teaching of physics and related curriculum development.
All
graduate students in our Department assigned to the tutorials participate in our weekly
Graduate Teaching Seminar.
Thus, we expose students who may become faculty in
traditional fields of physics to the value of PER as a resource for teaching.
D.
A Few Concerns
Our experience with NSF has been very positive.
However, we have a few
concerns that we hope can be addressed.
NSF, other government agencies, and private
foundations (
e.g.,
Knowles and Merck) seem to focus on funding very specific topics of
projects in science education for limited periods of time.
Research on student learning,
production of curriculum based on that research, preservice and inservice teacher
professional development, undergraduate education, and the preparation of TAs are often
treated in separate categories.
Yet, in all of these, the understanding of specific science
content is vitally important.
Moreover, it has been our experience that findings from
research among students in one category often reinforce results obtained in another.
However, there does not seem to be a way in which we could submit an “umbrella
proposal” to NSF with a multi-faceted research component.
Our group’s long-term goal is to produce a coherent, vertically integrated body of
work to help improve the learning of physics from the elementary grades to the graduate
level.
NSF does not seem to encourage successful education-related projects to continue
to evolve in ways that enable them to capitalize in the gains that they have made.
Projects
that last only from three to five years are unlikely to lead to cumulative improvement in
the learning and teaching of science.
In more traditional areas of research, there seems to
be more confidence that competent groups will continue to be productive and that good
track records are good predictors of ongoing success.
Some of the Divisions that support K-12 projects seem to have been reorganized
several times during the existence of our group.
Their programs have had increasingly
Lillian C. McDermott
61
History
3/15/10
detailed guidelines that change often.
Trying to adhere to them has been a time-
consuming challenge.
(Guidelines in other parts of NSF do not seem to us to be as rigid.)
Certain requirements, such as partnerships with school districts, may work well for
a brief time but may last only as long as the personnel who submitted the proposal remain
in their positions.
Years ago, during an NSF project, we conducted workshops to prepare
teachers in a local school district to implement the
Elementary Science Study (ESS)
curriculum.
157
All progress vanished, however, when a new District Superintendent
eliminated the position of Science Supervisor, thus making it difficult to coordinate
teacher professional development.
In contrast, our group has been a stable resource that
local science teachers have been able to draw upon for many years.
There has been also been pressure in some K-12 programs for proposals to include
faculty in colleges of education and individuals in school districts or other organizations.
Sometimes such collaborations strengthen a project but making them a requirement does
not take into account varying conditions.
Administrative complications are often
multiplied.
Moreover, a productive collaboration is seldom the result of externally
imposed conditions.
It is initiated by individuals with common interests and objectives
who recognize the benefits of working together.
We have worked closely and effectively
with faculty at our pilot sites without any formal arrangements.
XII.
Reflections on History
In recalling my early days in the UW Physics Department, I remember the strong
influence that Arnold Arons had on my views about what constitutes good teaching. His
perceptive questions often led to dialogues with individual students that were, in effect,
informal “case studies.”
A gifted teacher, he intuitively recognized the implications for
the instruction of all students.
158
Arnold did not conduct research in physics education,
but he appreciated its importance and encouraged my efforts.
More often than not, the
results from systematic research supported his instructional approach.
157
See Refs. 3 and 10.
158
Arnold Arons wrote extensively about the teaching of physics.
His books include: A.B. Arons,
Development of Concepts of Physics
(Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1965);
A Guide to Introductory
Physics Teaching
(John Wiley & Sons, NY, 1990);
Teaching Introductory Physics (
John Wiley & Sons,
NY, 1997).
Arnold’s many papers were published in
AJP
and other journals.
