- 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
  • Open Access

Rethinking the relationship between instructors and physics education researchers

Andrew Elby*

Sevda Yerdelen-Damar

  • Department of Teaching & Learning, Policy & Leadership, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA

  • Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul 34342, Turkey

  • *elby@umd.edu, he/him
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020151 – Published 4 December, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020151

Abstract

[This paper is part of the Focused Collection on Curriculum Development: Theory into Design.] In the “standard” physics education research curriculum-development model, researchers are cast primarily as producers of curricula and instructors are cast primarily consumers, i.e., adopters and adapters. We illustrate a complementary model in which researchers’ curricular modules, and also their “pure” research unattached to curriculum development, can serve as instructionally generative fodder that inspires and loosely guides instructors in creating their own curricular materials. Drawing on experiences from our graduate student days, we show how particular curricula and research papers influenced our curriculum development and instruction in particular ways. We then argue that the physics education ecosystem could benefit if researchers were more intentional about creating potential instructionally generative fodder, and we suggest ways to do so. Although not intended to replace the standard curriculum-development model, which has a history of producing effective tutorials and other curricular modules, our alternative model casts the researcher and instructor as co-equal contributors to the research-based yet creative process of curriculum generation.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Collections

This article appears in the following collection:

Curriculum Development: Theory into Design

A special collection on theory and design of curriculum.

Article Text

References (89)

  1. H. Sabo and A. Elby, this issue, Rethinking the division of labor between tutorial writers and instructors with respect to fostering equitable team dynamics, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020142 (2020).
  2. L. C. McDermott, Oersted medal lecture 2001: “Physics Education Research—the key to student learning”, Am. J. Phys. 69, 1127 (2001).
  3. D. M. Hammer, Students’ beliefs about conceptual knowledge in introductory physics, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 16, 385 (1994).
  4. D. M. Hammer, Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics, Cognit. Instr. 12, 151 (1994).
  5. A. Elby, Helping physics students learn how to learn, Am. J. Phys. Phys. Educ. Res. Suppl. 69, S54 (2001).
  6. D. M. Hammer and A. Elby, Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics, J. Learn. Sci. 12, 53 (2003).
  7. A. Elby, R. E. Scherr, T. L. McCaskey, R. Hodges, E. F. Redish, D. M. Hammer, and T. Bing, Open Source Tutorials in Physics Sense-making: Suite I, https://www.physport.org/curricula/MD_OST/.
  8. , Open Source Tutorials in Physics Sensemaking: Suite II, https://www.physport.org/curricula/MD_OST/.
  9. A. Eisenkraft, A proposed 7E model emphasizes “transfer of learning” and the importance of eliciting prior understanding, Sci. Teach. 70, 56 (2003).
  10. R. W. Bybee, J. A. Taylor, A. Gardner, P. Van Scotter, J. C. Powell, A. Westbrook, and N. Landes, The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness (BCBS, Colorado Springs, Co, 2006).
  11. S. Y. Damar, The effect of the instruction based on the epistemologıcally and metacognitively improved 7e learning cycle on tenth grade students’ achievement and epistemological understandings in physics, Ph.D. thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, 2013 (to be published).
  12. N. D. Finkelstein and S. J. Pollock, Replicating and understanding successful innovations: Implementing tutorials in introductory physics, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 1, 010101 (2005).
  13. C. E. Coburn, S. Bae, and E. O. Turner, Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider-outsider partnerships at the district level, Peabody J. Educ. 83, 364 (2008).
  14. S. A. Melnick and D. G. Meister, A comparison of beginning and experienced teachers’ concerns, Educ. Res. Quart. 31, 39 (2008).
  15. K. J. Anderson, Science education and test-based accountability: Reviewing their relationship and exploring implications for future policy, Sci. Educ. 96, 104 (2012).
  16. M. Dancy and C. Henderson, Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty, Am. J. Phys. 78, 1056 (2010).
  17. C. Henderson, M. Dancy, and M. Niewiadomska-Bugaj, Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020104 (2012).
  18. M. Borrego and C. Henderson, Increasing the use of evidence-based teaching in STEM higher education: A comparison of eight change strategies, J. Eng. Educ. 103, 220 (2014).
  19. P. Hutchings, M. T. Huber, and A. Ciccone, The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Reconsidered: Institutional Integration and Impact (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2011), Vol. 21.
  20. K. L. Sirum, D. Madigan, and D. J. Klionsky, Enabling a culture of change: A life science faculty learning community promotes scientific teaching, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 38, 28 (2009).
  21. A. Furco and B. E. Moely, Using learning communities to build faculty support for pedagogical innovation: A multi-campus study, J. Higher Educ. 83, 128 (2012).
  22. S. V. Chasteen, K. K. Perkins, W. J. Code, and C. E. Wieman, The science education initiative: an experiment in scaling up educational improvements in a research university, in Transforming Institutions: Undergraduate STEM Education for the 21st Century, p. 125 (2016), https://sei.ubc.ca/handle/seima/2171.
  23. L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, Tutorials in Introductory Physics (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998).
  24. D. R. Sokoloff, R. K. Thornton, and P. W. Laws, RealTime Physics: Active Learning Laboratories (Wiley, New York, 1999).
  25. R. Beichner, The SCALE-UP Project: A Student-Centered Active Learning Environment for Undergraduate Programs, An invited white paper (National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 2008).
  26. C. L. O’Donnell, Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research, Rev. Educ. Res. 78, 33 (2008).
  27. V. Otero, S. Pollock, and N. Finkelstein, A physics department’s role in preparing physics teachers: The Colorado Learning Assistant Model, Am. J. Phys. 78, 1218 (2010).
  28. R. E. Scherr and A. Elby, Enabling informed adaptation of reformed instructional materials, AIP Conf. Proc. 883, 46 (2007).
  29. S. McKagan, A. Madsen, E. Sayre, and L. Strubbe, PhysPort: Supporting physics teaching with research-based resources (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2011), https://www.physport.org.
  30. S. Pollock, G. Passante, and H. Sadaghiani, Research as a base to develop adaptable curricula bridging instructional paradigms in quantum mechanics (National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, 2016).
  31. S. McKagan et al., Living Physics Portal (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2019), https://www.livingphysicsportal.org.
  32. D. L. Ball and D. K. Cohen, Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform?, Educ. Res. 25, 6 (1996).
  33. J. S. Bruner, The Process of Education (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1977) (first published 1960).
  34. E. A. Davis and J. S. Krajcik, Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning, Educ. Res. 34, 3 (2005).
  35. R. W. Chabay and B. A. Sherwood, Electric and Magnetic Interactions (Wiley, New York, 1995).
  36. C. E. Coburn and W. R. Penuel, Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions, Educ. Res. 45, 48 (2016).
  37. S. R. McKay et al., Investing in teachers’ leadership capacity: A model from STEM education, Maine Policy Rev. 27, 54 (2018).
  38. S. Chasteen and W. Code, The Science Education Initiative Handbook (University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, 2018).
  39. C. Henderson, A. Beach, and M. Famiano, Promoting instructional change via co-teaching, Am. J. Phys. 77, 274 (2009).
  40. L. E. Strubbe, J. Stang, T. Holland, S. B. Sherman, and W. J. Code, Faculty adoption of active learning strategies via paired teaching: Conclusions from two science departments, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 049, 31 (2019).
  41. E. F. Redish, Teaching Physics with the Physics Suite (Wiley, New York, NY, 2003).
  42. L. C. McDermott and P. S. Shaffer, Research as a guide for curriculum development: An example from introductory electricity. Part I: Investigation of student understanding., Am. J. Phys. 60, 994 (1992).
  43. L. C. McDermott, P. S. Shaffer, and M. D. Somers, Research as a guide for teaching introductory mechanics: An illustration in the context of the Atwood’s machine, Am. J. Phys. 62, 46 (1994).
  44. P. S. Shaffer and L. C. McDermott, Research as a guide for curriculum development—An example from introductory electricity. Part II: Design of instructional strategies, Am. J. Phys. 60, 1003 (1992).
  45. R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula, Am. J. Phys. 66, 338 (1998).
  46. J. G. Greeno, On claims that answer the wrong questions, Educ. Res. 26, 5 (1997).
  47. J. G. Greeno, A situative perspective on cognition and learning in interaction, in Theories of Learning and Studies of Instructional Practice (Springer, New York, 2011), p. 41.
  48. R. K. Saivyer and J. G. Greeno, Situativity and learning, in The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2009), p. 304.
  49. J. Lave and E. Wenger, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1991).
  50. E. Wenger, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1998).
  51. A. C. H. Nowakowski, You poor thing: A retrospective autoethnography of visible chronic illness as a symbolic vanishing act, Qual. Rep. 21, 1615 (2016).
  52. T. A. Halvorsen, My face is more than me. A Nordic researcher in the South: An autoethnographic retrospective perspective, Int. Rev. Educ. 64, 845 (2018).
  53. G. A. Tilley-Lubbs, Good intentions pave the way to hierarchy: A retrospective autoethnographic approach, Michigan J. Commun. Serv. Learn. 16, 59 (2009).
  54. S. H. Jones, T. E. Adams, and C. Ellis, Handbook of Autoethnography (Routledge, London, 2016).
  55. P. Laws, Workshop Physics: Learning introductory physics by doing it, Change: Mag. Higher Learn. 23, 20 (1991).
  56. A. A. diSessa, Towards an epistemology of physics, Cognit. Instr. 10, 105 (1993).
  57. A. Elby, J. Frederiksen, C. Schwarz, and B. White, EBAPS: Epistemological Beliefs Assessment for Physical Science (American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC, 1997), p. 24.
  58. Epistemological Beliefs Assessment for Physical Science, http://www2.physics.umd.edu/∼elby/EBAPS/home.htm.
  59. E. F. Redish, J. M. Saul, and R. N. Steinberg, Student expectations in introductory physics, Am. J. Phys. 66, 212 (1998).
  60. B. L. Sherin, How students understand physics equations, Cognit. Instr. 19, 479 (2001).
  61. A. Einstein, Physics and reality, J. Franklin Inst. 221, 349 (1936).
  62. D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force Concept Inventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).
  63. D. Hestenes and M. Wells, A mechanics baseline test, Phys. Teach. 30, 159 (1992).
  64. E. Mazur, Peer Instruction (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).
  65. J. Bowden, G. Dallalba, E. Martin, D. Laurillard, F. Marton, G. Masters, P. Ramsden, A. Stephanou, and E. Walsh, Displacement, velocity, and frames of reference–phenomenographic studies of students understanding and some implications for teaching and assessment, Am. J. Phys. 60, 262 (1992).
  66. J. M. Monaghan and J. Clement, Use of a computer simulation to develop mental simulations for understanding relative motion concepts, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 21, 921 (1999).
  67. E. F. Redish and D. M. Hammer, Reinventing college physics for biologists: Explicating an epistemological curriculum, Am. J. Phys. 77, 629 (2009).
  68. S. Yerdelen-Damar and A. Eryılmaz, Promoting conceptual understanding with explicit epistemic intervention in metacognitive instruction: Interaction between the treatment and epistemic cognition, Res. Sci. Educ. 49, 1 (2019).
  69. L. D. Bendixen and D. C. Rule, An integrative approach to personal epistemology: A guiding model, Educ. Psychol. 39, 69 (2004).
  70. B. Y. White and J. R. Frederiksen, Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students, Cognit. Instr. 16, 3 (1998).
  71. D. R. Sokoloff, R. K. Thornton, and P. W. Laws, RealTime Physics, Module 1, Mechanics (Wiley-VCH, New York, 1998), pp. 288. ISBN 0-471-28379-7.
  72. B. K. Hofer and P. R. Pintrich, Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, N.J., 2002).
  73. P. Laws, D. Sokoloff, and R. Thornton, Promoting active learning using the results of physics education research, UniServe Science News 13, 14 (1999).
  74. M. H. Dancy, A. V. Apkarian, M. Stains, E. Johnson, and J. Raker, Survey of physics, mathematics and chemistry faculty, in Physics Education Research Conference (PERC) (Provo, UT, 2019).
  75. C. Henderson and M. H. Dancy, Physics faculty and educational researchers: Divergent expectations as barriers to the diffusion of innovations, Am. J. Phys. 76, 79 (2008).
  76. C. V. Schwarz, K. L. Gunckel, E. L. Smith, B. A. Covitt, M. Bae, M. Enfield, and B. K. Tsurusaki, Helping elementary preservice teachers learn to use curriculum materials for effective science teaching, Sci. Educ. 92, 345 (2008).
  77. G. H. Roehrig, R. A. Kruse, and A. Kern, Teacher and school characteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 44, 883 (2007).
  78. C. Henderson and M. H. Dancy, Impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics in the United States, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020107 (2009).
  79. B. J. Reiser, J. P. Spillane, F. Steinmuler, D. Sorsa, K. Carney, and E. Kyza, Investigating the mutual adaptation process in teachers’ design of technology-infused curricula, in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences, edited by B. Fishman and S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2000), pp. 342.
  80. G. W. Shrader and L. M. Gomez, Design research for the living curriculum, in Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL), edited by C. Hoadley and J. Roschelle (Erlbaum, Stanford Univeristy, Palo Alto CA, 1999).
  81. G. Shrader, K. Williams, J. Lachance-Whitcomb, L.-E. Finn, and L. Gomez, Participatory design of science curricula: The case for research for practice, in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA (American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC, 2001).
  82. E. M. Skaalvik and S. Skaalvik, Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion, Psychological reports 114, 68 (2014).
  83. L. C. Pearson and W. Moomaw, The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism, Educ. Res. Quart. 29, 38 (2005).
  84. M. S. Crocco and A. T. Costigan, The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability urban educators speak out, Urban Educ. 42, 512 (2007).
  85. A. M. Woods and J. Weasmer, Maintaining job satisfaction: Engaging professionals as active participants, The Clearing House 77, 118 (2004).
  86. A. B. Arons, Teaching Introductory Physics (Wiley, New York, 1997).
  87. R. E. Scherr and R. M. Goertzen, Periscope: Looking into learning in best-practices physics classrooms, Phys. Teach. 56, 100 (2018).
  88. Periscope Video Lessons (American Association of Physics Teachers), https://www.physport.org/periscope/?L=%2FLessons%2Ecfm.
  89. D. Hammer and L. K. Berland, Confusing claims for data: A critique of common practices for presenting qualitative research on learning, J. Learn. Sci. 23, 37 (2014).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020151– Published 4 December, 2020
  • Received 3 July 2019
  • Accepted 7 February 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