Front Matter Free

A View From Physics: Discipline-Based Education Research is dedicated to the memory of Mark N. McDermott; to all past, present, and future members of the Physics Education Group at the University of Washington; and to Bruce, Melanie, and Constance McDermott.

Elementary and Secondary School Education

• 1944: P.S. 187 – Kindergarten to 8th grade (New York City, NY)

• 1948: Hunter College High School (then all female) (NYC)

Undergraduate Education

• 1952: B.A., Physics – Vassar College (then all female), Poughkeepsie, NY

Graduate Education

• 1956: M.A. – Department of Physics, Columbia University, NYC

• 1959: Ph.D. (Physics) – Department of Physics, Columbia University, NYC

Part-time Faculty

• 1961–1962: Physics Department Lecturer – City College of New York

• 1965–1971: Physics Department Lecturer – Seattle University and University of Washington

• 1971–1973: Physics Department – University of Washington (initially volunteer, later employed under NSF grant)

University of Washington (UW) Physics Department Faculty

• 1973–1976: Assistant Professor

• 1976–1981: Associate Professor

• 1981–2019: Professor

• 2019–2020: Professor Emerita

Most of the accomplishments described in A View From Physics are a result of collaborations among members of the Physics Education Group (PEG) in the Department of Physics at the University of Washington (UW). Support by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), especially by Duncan McBride and Joyce Evans in our early days, has been critical. We could not otherwise have produced Physics by Inquiry and Tutorials in Introductory Physics (McDermott, 1996; and McDermott et al., 2002; 2003; 2016), nor been able to conduct our Summer Institutes for K–12 Teachers. We also appreciate the Mellam Family Foundation for their contributions to our programs for teachers. I am grateful to Blayne R. Heckel, Physics Department Chair (2009–2019), for supporting our group's commitment to physics education research (PER), and to the subsequent Chair, Laurence (Larry) J. Yaffe (2020), for the opportunity to continue working on this book.

I am grateful to David E. Meltzer (Associate Professor, College of Integrative Sciences and Arts, Arizona State University, Mesa, AZ) for his reviews of and many contributions to the writing of this book. He wrote the Foreword and contributed the Afterword in collaboration with Valerie K. Otero (Professor, Science Education, University of Colorado, Boulder) and MacKenzie (Mac) R. Stetzer (Associate Professor, University of Maine). David and Valerie broadened my perspective on the history of U.S. physics education (Meltzer and Otero, 2015). While Mac was a post-doc, and later Assistant Research Professor with the PEG at UW (2001–2011), he made many contributions to research conducted by our group's graduate students and faculty visitors.

My work with the late Arnold Arons provided my initial opportunity and incentive to conduct research on student learning of physics. Arnold, who joined our department in 1968, did not want to conduct such research himself, but when I proposed the idea, he enthusiastically encouraged me. Arnold's welcome to me as a volunteer in his course for preservice elementary school teachers became the first step in my trajectory from experimental nuclear physics to PER. I am deeply grateful to him for his guidance in our group's early days and for his ongoing support.

Many more colleagues have left indelible personal and professional impressions on me along the way. Paula Heron, whose Ph.D. in physics is from Western University (London, Ontario, Canada), came in 1995 as a post-doc and is now also a Professor. In 2017, we welcomed Suzanne White Brahmia (UW undergraduate physics major and Rutgers University physics Ph.D. graduate) as an Assistant Professor in the PEG at UW. After participating in our NSF Summer Institutes for K-12 Teachers and academic-year Continuation Courses for several years, Donna Messina, then a local science teacher and now a Lecturer, joined our group and became a leader in our K–12 teacher programs.

I am very grateful for the indispensable help I have received over the years from a series of highly capable and dedicated assistants. Sedna Quimby Wineland, our group's first Program Assistant, was a great help to Arnold Arons and me until she left in 1975; Emily van Zee then assumed Sedna's responsibilities. In 1984, Joan Valles (who had graduated from Vassar College four years after I did) became our Program Assistant. Until retiring in early 2005, Joan helped our group build a strong sense of identity. She became a good friend and great help to me when I began writing this book. More recently, I have appreciated the technical assistance of Wilson Waldrop (Physics/Astronomy Information Technology Director), Bill Somsky, and Alan Jedlow (Senior Computer Specialists).

Alison Reeves (our first Editor at Prentice Hall) made perceptive comments on an early edition of Physics by Inquiry and offered useful advice. I am also very grateful to Duncan McBride and Joyce Evans (both retired, NSF). Faculty colleagues in the UW Physics Department and at other universities provided feedback on later versions. They include David Bodansky, Gerald Miller, Marjorie Olmstead, R. Daryl Pedigo, and Leslie Rosenberg at UW and Warren Buck (then Chancellor at UW Bothell). Physics faculty beyond UW also provided helpful feedback. Included are Suzanne White Brahmia (formerly Rutgers University, now UW faculty), Costas P. Constantinou (University of Cyprus), Karen Cummings (Southern Connecticut State University, now University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada), Dewey Dykstra (Boise State University), Gerald Feldman (George Washington University), Fred Goldberg (San Diego State University), Sheri Gates (Seoul Foreign School, South Korea), Charles Henderson (Western Michigan University), Ruth Howes (Ball State University, Indiana), Stephen Kanim (New Mexico State University), Robert Lambourne (Open University, UK), Priscilla Laws (Dickinson College, PA), Jill Marshall (University of Texas, Austin), David E. Meltzer (Arizona State University), Edward Prather (University of Arizona), E. F. (Joe) Redish (University of Maryland), Chandralekha Singh (University of Pittsburgh), David Sokoloff (University of Oregon), Gay Stewart (West Virginia University), and D. J. Wagner (Grove City College, PA).

I have especially appreciated the strong support of three AAPT presidents—David Sokoloff (2011), Jill Marshall (2012), and Gay Stewart (2013). I thank Robert (Bob) C. Hilborn (AAPT Associate Executive Officer) for his encouragement. I am also grateful to the AAPT Development Editors: Stamatis Vokos (now at California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo) and to Laura McCullough (University of Wisconsin-Stout). Special thanks are due to Juan Burciaga (AAPT Book Editor) and Jane Chambers (AAPT Publications Editor).

I am grateful to the AAPT for continuing its support by making possible the publication of this book through its contract with the publishing arm of the American Institute of Physics. I would also like to acknowledge the editorial assistance they provided through the skilled and supportive work of AIPP editors Benjamin Johnson, Dina Rabie, and Lauren Schultz, along with the adept assistance of freelance editors Karalynn Ott and Sean McGee.

The publishers of our two widely distributed curricula have been very supportive: Wiley for Physics by Inquiry and Prentice Hall (later Pearson International) for Tutorials in Introductory Physics. I was initially asked to sign contracts that we would pay royalty fees to one or the other for any duplication. After consultation with my son, Bruce (an attorney), it was decided that a mutual trust might be better than legal agreements. We continue to have a fine relationship with both publishers. (All of our royalty income goes to UW.)

A special acknowledgement must go to another UW physics professor not engaged in PER—my late husband, Mark N. McDermott. Mark strongly supported PER at UW and in the university physics community. The UW Physics Department continued to benefit from his leadership, persistence, and persuasive skills as Department Chair (1984–1994). (See more about Mark's lasting influence on the UW Physics Department and his peers in Appendix A, dedicated to his legacy.) Mark's many contributions to our family life and his encouragement of the research described in this volume enabled me to devote the time and effort required to help the PEG at UW succeed. I am also very grateful to our children—Bruce, Melanie, and Constance McDermott—for their helpful comments on this book and for their ongoing support.

An additional very special acknowledgment is due to Peter S. Shaffer. Peter, who had been an undergraduate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, became my sixth graduate student in 1985. After earning his physics Ph.D. at UW in 1992, Peter joined the UW research faculty and later became a Professor in the Physics Department. From our early days onward, Peter helped the PEG at UW be productive in research and development of curriculum from the introductory to the graduate level. He has provided unflagging support and technical assistance to the production of this book.

More recently, I have had the good fortune to have the assistance of Kevin Cutler, at first as a UW undergraduate physics major and later as a UW physics graduate student. Kevin's enthusiasm, steadily increasing knowledge of PER, editorial suggestions, and computer skills have been major assets.

I feel very fortunate to have been able to work for many years with colleagues whose commitment, cooperation, and collegiality contributed to a very productive and pleasant working environment.

With gratitude to everyone whose assistance helped produce A View From Physics,

Lillian C. McDermott

Physics education in the USA has undergone a substantial transformation during the past fifty years. Research by physicists on the learning and teaching of physics at the university level has gradually become a widely recognized and increasingly accepted field of scholarship. Today, instructional methods and curricular materials based on this research play an increasingly prominent role in the learning experiences of college and university physics students.

Many individuals and research groups have contributed to these developments over the years, but there can be no doubt that a central role has been played by the Physics Education Group (PEG) at the University of Washington (UW). This book is a systematic and detailed account of the evolution and activities of this group by the person who led it for approximately four decades, Professor Lillian C. McDermott.

Much of the history recounted in this book began in 1968 with the commitment made by Arnold Arons at UW to improve physics education for future elementary school teachers. This goal was later extended to include high school teachers as well. In search of improved methods of physics instruction, the program built by Lillian C. McDermott in the Department of Physics at UW meshed pedagogical insights from physics educators of the 1950s and 1960s, experience in teaching physics to precollege teachers and university undergraduates, and the investigative resources of a leading research-intensive university physics department. Over the past several decades, the outcome created by this unique synthesis, embodied in the PEG at UW, has become one of the most influential forces in physics education in U.S. universities. Among the most significant achievements have been the establishment and growth of the largest and longest-lived U.S. physics education research group in a university physics department. The other seminal achievement is the creation and maintenance of the oldest university-based physics department-based teacher education program.

To support and extend their early efforts to improve physics education, McDermott guided the PEG at UW to adopt the standpoint of a college or university physics instructor who wants to help students learn physics more effectively, as judged by a standard that would be satisfactory to most physicists. The group's research was directed toward that specific goal. That same objective has been maintained for more than four decades. Almost from the beginning, research on student learning, research-based instruction, and research-validated curriculum development were all carried out simultaneously in a mutually reinforcing process. The results, which have been published in peer-reviewed journals, led to the development of research-based instructional materials designed for immediate use by course instructors and workshop leaders.

Early research by the PEG involved the adaptation of Piaget's “clinical interview” method for a new context: a systematic and in-depth exploration of the thinking of college physics students about physical phenomena that embodied fundamental concepts of physics. Findings from the interviews were supplemented by analysis of students’ written explanations of the reasoning they used when solving problems. The research findings were applied to the development of instructional materials that were tested extensively in actual classes.

The focus of these investigations was not on students’ methods of solving traditional quantitative problems, but rather on the qualitative ideas and reasoning they used to describe and analyze simple physical systems. Surprisingly large gaps in students’ understanding of physics were found, reminiscent of the reasoning difficulties identified by Piaget among younger subjects. However, McDermott made the crucial observation that conceptual and reasoning difficulties are often inextricably intertwined and so must be addressed together for instruction to be most effective. This implies that in-depth investigation of students’ thinking is required to provide a basis for effective curriculum development. In collaboration with Peter Shaffer (since 1985), Paula Heron (since 1995), and other members of the group (past and present), McDermott's research has focused on examining how students think about physics. The emphasis has been on student ideas about specific physics concepts and principles, rather than on general problem-solving, reasoning, or lab skills in a physics context or on evaluations of instructional techniques or curricular materials per se.

The findings of the PEG and those of other researchers were used by other physicists to develop multiple-choice physics concept tests whose wide use has helped reveal and measure the state of student understanding. Despite the substantial advantages of such tests in efficiency and ease of use, they are not capable of providing the same level of subtle detail about student thinking revealed by students’ written explanations or through the deep probing possible by a skilled interviewer. Because answer options are necessarily provided in such tests, it is rarely possible to know in any detail the reasoning processes used to justify students’ responses. And yet, it is precisely this detailed knowledge of student reasoning that is indispensable for the development of effective research-based curricula.

The instructional materials of the PEG are subjected to a painstaking iterative assessment process in which they are repeatedly modified, rewritten, and refined until there is unambiguous evidence that they yield significant improvements in student learning. The physics problems posed to students to assess the instructional materials invariably require explanations of reasoning; responses lacking correct reasoning are not counted as correct—a very strict standard of evidence. Virtually every new piece of instructional material released by the group during the past 20 years—that is, each component of the curricular materials—has been put through this exacting development process.

These accomplishments would not have been possible without the sustained support of the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), which quickly came to recognize the value and impact of this groundbreaking work—and which continued to provide support for the group's work for over forty years.

The NSF has greatly expanded its support of Physics Education Research (PER) over the years and has gone on to support Discipline-based Education Research (DBER) in other sciences and technical fields. The successful and widely recognized early work by the PEG at UW helped create an environment in which NSF support for PER was seen as both acceptable and appropriate. This supportive funding environment played a critical and indispensable role in helping the field gain acceptance within the academic physics community. It is widely acknowledged that the growth and support for PER has also significantly benefitted DBER in other sciences and encouraged acceptance within the broader academic community.

The two main curriculum development projects by the PEG at UW are Physics by Inquiry (targeted primarily at prospective and practicing teachers) and Tutorials in Introductory Physics (targeted more generally at university physics students). A single Tutorial, or group of related Tutorials, is typically the outcome of years of research by a physics Ph.D. student. The development of most Tutorials is documented in a detailed Ph.D. dissertation as well as by one or more lengthy research articles in a peer-reviewed physics journal. Clear evidence of effectiveness is required, not merely tiny improvements demonstrable only with enormous sample sizes. Rather, the improvements must be “instructionally significant,” typically 20% or more when compared with standard instruction.

The ultimate outcome of this extraordinary practice of research and development is a set of physics instructional materials whose effectiveness has been documented to an unprecedented and unmatched degree. For example, more than 40 peer-reviewed journal articles—by PEG members and by researchers at other institutions—provide evidence of pedagogical effectiveness for Physics by Inquiry and Tutorials in Introductory Physics in a wide variety of instructional environments in highly diverse institutional settings. Instructors who have used these programs have often experienced the almost uncanny accuracy with which they identify and address common student learning difficulties that instructors often overlook or whose existence they may initially deny. The resulting improvements in student understanding are often equally striking and have been documented dozens of times and reported in the research literature.

The PEG at UW led by Lillian C. McDermott has provided a model for research-based physics instruction and curriculum development that has been unmatched in scope and productivity. I believe that this unique first-hand account of her personal history together with the genesis and development of the PEG is destined to become an enduring and invaluable document in the world history of physics education.

David E. Meltzer,

Arizona State University, Mesa

February 2013

Note: David received his Ph.D. in 1985 from the State University of New York (SUNY), Stony Brook, in Theoretical Condensed Matter Physics. He later changed his field of research to physics education research (PER).

Underlying this volume is the conviction that effective teaching of physics can be viewed as a science. As a scientist, one is expected to know about, and to build upon, previous work. Although student populations vary, every instructor should not have to discover independently the most effective ways of addressing the intellectual difficulties that a given topic often presents to students.

The primary goal of A View From Physics is to help make college- and university-level physics faculty aware of the contributions that Physics Education Research (PER) has made, and can continue to make, to student understanding of physics—from the introductory to the graduate level. I wanted to record and reflect upon the role in PER of the Physics Education Group (PEG) at the University of Washington (UW) as an important field for research in physics departments. I sought to inspire physics faculty, post-docs, and graduate students to conduct further research on student understanding of physics from the introductory to the graduate level. As a secondary goal, I also hoped to encourage physics faculty to strengthen the preparation of elementary, middle, and high school teachers to teach physics and physical science by active inquiry, not by memorization of formulas. Many insights gained from our group's research are consistent with the science education literature. Our conclusions, however, have been derived from studies that follow (as closely as possible) the procedures and rules of evidence that characterize physics research.

The immediate incentive for beginning this project when I did was a widely circulated email in April 2008 from a physics colleague at another university. It contained a “family tree” for PER. My placement on that tree suggested that I was Professor Arnold B. Arons’ graduate student in the UW Physics Department. I was concerned that this designation might make it difficult for me to influence faculty in physics departments to engage in PER. In fact, as detailed in this book, by that time I had earned a Ph.D. in Physics from Columbia and had since taught physics at three universities.

After I began writing, I soon realized that I could not completely disentangle the history of the co-evolution of PER and the PEG from the history of my own education and career. Therefore, I started to write about both, hoping that some insights into the background and personality of the author would provide a perspective that would be lacking if only facts were recorded. And thus a third goal gradually emerged, a personal one: I hoped to inspire and encourage young women with an interest in science to develop the courage, imagination, and persistence to pursue novel career paths, to seek leadership roles, and to find personal fulfillment in those careers.¹

A little historical background showing where the work of the PEG at UW fits into the emergence of the field of physics education research (PER) helps set the context for this narrative in the pages to follow. Earning a Ph.D. in physics for research in physics education in a physics department has been a relatively recent development. Universities in the USA had traditionally awarded doctorates for research in science education—sometimes with an emphasis in physics—in Colleges (or Schools) of Education but not for research in physics education conducted in physics departments.

In 1968, UC Berkeley established the Graduate Group, SESAME (Studies in Engineering, Science, and Mathematics Education), which provided another route to a Ph.D. Some of the research referenced in the present volume was conducted by faculty who made important contributions to PER but whose Ph.D. was not officially earned in physics. Among them are Rosalind Driver, Kathleen M. Koenig, and Valerie K. Otero.

In 1979, UW awarded a Ph.D. in physics to David E. Trowbridge, my first graduate student and the first person to earn a Ph.D. in physics for PER at a major U.S. university. By 2020, more than 30 of our group's graduate students in the UW Physics Department had earned a Ph.D. in physics.

Another early university to award a Ph. D. for research in physics education was Kansas State University. The early graduate students of Dean Zollman earned Ph.D.'s in physics education. By 1994, Kansas State University had begun to offer a Ph.D. in physics for PER.

In 1980, when the American Journal of Physics (AJP) published the PEG’s first article detailing systematic research on student learning, physics education research was not a recognized field. Twenty-five years later, AJP published a Guest Editorial by Paula Heron (UW) and David Meltzer (then Iowa State University) on the future of PER (Heron and Meltzer, 2005). In 2006, I was invited by AJP to write a Guest Editorial to encourage physics departments to engage in K–12 teacher preparation (McDermott, 2006). The same issue contained a research article by our group (McDermott et al., 2006). Since then, many more papers on PER have been published in AJP and other journals. In 2016, the American Physical Society (APS) instituted Physical Review—Physics Education Research as an online journal, thus indicating formal recognition of PER by the APS.

A View From Physics: Discipline-Based Education Research describes how research by the PEG in the Department of Physics at the University of Washington has shaped the field of PER, influenced science teaching, and ultimately helped deepen student understanding of physics. The bulk of this book is devoted to the history of our group's work in PER, our guidance of graduate students and post-docs to conduct such research, and our role in the national and international PER community. Also included are excerpts and reprints of a few of our most well-known publications from refereed physics journals and edited volumes.