Physics Teacher Professional Development – Closing the Knowledge Gap During the summers of 2008 through 2012 five
cohorts totaling 114 secondary school teachers
responsible for teaching physics concepts enrolled
in a Massachusetts Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education funded summer institute
hosted at area Universities to enhance the teachers’
physics content knowledge and to improve their use of researchbased best practices in teaching physics.
The content knowledge gap between male and female science teachers was reduced from a gap of 25% to
6%, and the gap between physics majors teaching physics and other science majors teaching physics was
reduced from a gap of 31% to 8%. The average paired fractional gain for all participants was .68 with
teachers in every comparison group showing strong gains (.57 to .74 - see Table 1 below). Just as
encouraging, these gains showed little decay over time (see Table 2).
Teachers spent 60-hours during the summer in the role of student in a hands-on, minds-on physics
laboratory experience. Investigations involved the study of motion, force, work, energy and power. The
participants used a mix of computer probe-ware and some traditional equipment to gather and analyze data.
The content institute was based on the active learning strategies from the RealTime Physics Mechanics
laboratory curriculum(1) and the engaging science methodology of Interactive Laboratory Experience a
derivative of Interactive Lecture Demonstrations (ILD)(2). The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation
(FMCE)(3) tool, developed at The Center for Science and Mathematics Teaching at Tufts University was
used to measure teacher conceptual understanding, and a paired pre/post-test format was utilized to look at
change in teacher content knowledge. We modified our pre/post test design for the 2010 through 2012
participants to include a second post-test administered 4-months following the 1st post-test.
Table 1: Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation (Maximum Raw Score = 43)
Impact of Intervention by Group Characteristic – Only Paired Teacher Results are Shown
Group
Comparison
All Participants
114
Teach Physics Concepts
PreTest
28.2
By Major
25
75
14
Physics Major
STEM Not Physics
Not STEM Major
39.9
26.6
16.0
92.8
61.9
37.2
41.9
38.4
31.4
97.4
89.3
73.0
.65
.72
.57
By Gender
66
34
Male (STEM Majors)
Female (STEM Majors)
33.6
22.8
78.1
53.0
40.1
37.6
93.3
87.4
.69
.73
By Certification
36
39
Physics (STEM major but not physics)
Not Physics (STEM major but not physics)
33.3
20.2
77.4
47.0
40.5
36.5
94.2
84.9
.74
.71
By Primary
Assignment
60
23
31
Grades 10-12 Physics
Grade 9 Physics
Not Physics
34.7
28.6
15.4
80.7
66.5
35.8
40.7
37.5
34.3
94.7
87.2
79.8
.72
.62
.68
N
Characteristic
Table 2: Post-Post Test – Paired Teacher Results
Pre-Test
Pre
Test %
65.6
Post
Test
38.3
Post
Test %
89.1
Paired Fractional
Gain
.68
Post Test
Post-Post Test
All Participants
114
2008 through 2012 Participants
28.2
65.6
38.3
89.1
n/a
n/a
Cohorts 3, 4 & 5
46
2010 - 2012 Participants: Those that Took 2nd
Post Test 4 Months After the Institute Ended
29.7
69.1
38.8
90.2
37.4
87.0
(1)
(2)
(3)
D. Sokoloff, P. Laws, R. Thornton, “RealTime Physics Active Learning Laboratories Module 1: Mechanics,” 2nd edition,
Wiley Press, January 2004.
D. Sokoloff and R. Thornton, “Using interactive lecture demonstrations to create an active learning environment,” The
Physics Teacher, Volume 35, Number 9, pages 344-346, September 1997.
D. Sokoloff and R Thornton, “Assessing student learning of Newton’s labs: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation
and Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula,” American Journal of Physics, Volume 66, Number 4,
pages 338-352, April 1998.
Mark D. Greenman, 2012
Marblehead Science Matters - markdgreenman@gmail.com
rev. 11-Apr-13
Teacher Quotes
Instead of teaching physics the way I was taught, your course showed me something new. ILEs
(Interactive Laboratory Experiences) are more in line with the way I have been teaching my Engineering
classes and this teaching strategy fits my style of teaching. ILEs gave me a great start and has been a
different and better learning experience for my students. My students are learning Physics and I feel more
confident in my ability to help them learn. The course was an intense couple of weeks but it has been
worth every hour I spent in and out of class. Steve Cogger – Manchester Essex Regional HS
All the time, now, I find myself asking more questions that require student brainstorming and group
discussion. Before showing or explaining, I often now ask students to “predict what will happen" - based
on their current belief system. I also find myself looking for more ways to let “Nature Speak” and to put
less time into lecture. Phil Logsdon - Westford Academy
That was one tough course. I haven't had to exercise my brain so much for so long since PSSC physics with
Dr. Uri Harber-sham some 25 years ago! There will be a great payback because my level of mastery
affects my students' level. I am going to use ILDs/ILEs as my own teaching strategy in the future. Your
patience, open and non-critical, non-evaluative attitude and words made it possible to ask any question,
and learn more. Roseanna Dube, N Middlesex Regional
Even though I have a Ph.D. in physics, I found that the presentation of the content within the ILE pedagogy
deepened my own understanding of the physics concepts. This type of course should be mandatory for all
teachers seeking license to teach physics. Dan Hogan – Littleton PS
Not a day goes by that I don't access either directly or indirectly some content or pedagogy, which I
learned from you during these summer institutes, and incorporate them into my lessons. The overriding
theme of "let nature speak" and "claim with evidence" now pervades my students' thinking. Jason
Dimen – Boxborough PS
I learned so very much from you and your enthusiastic style. One of the strategies I have implemented
very successfully in my classes is walking around the room while I am asking questions and it has given
me wonderful results. One other strategy that I think is wonderful is the "prediction" part and helping
the student to feel safe and dare to predict without any judgment. I love physics! Norma Chico –
Worcester PS
I'm really excited and motivated to incorporate the learning strategies you so masterfully modeled in the
summer class. I can't wait to try them out! Thank you so much. Sue Grillon – West Springfield PS
What a great institute! I learned so many new things (etiquette, class routine, content) that I will be
taking back to my class in the fall. Thank you for all that you do for us. You make me a better teacher.
Sara Doucette – Medford PS
The instructor's unique approach to teaching using an inquiry-based approach was very helpful and I
plan on using the same teaching style in my classes. Learning about common student misconceptions
and ways to address them through experiments was very useful. I also learned a great set of
demonstrations (ILE/ILD) that are inquiry based but can be done on our limited budget. Anonymous –
Department of Elementary & Secondary Education Online Survey Reply
Mark D. Greenman, 2012
Marblehead Science Matters - markdgreenman@gmail.com
rev. 11-Apr-13