The Impact of the Washington Physics
Education Group on the Teaching and
Learning of Introductory Physics
April APS Meeting
St. Louis, MO
Gary Gladding
University of Illinois
April 14, 2008
The Plan
• The Washington PEG Logo
Interdependence of:
Curriculum, Instruction, and Research
IMPACT
Materials
People
Research
Materials
• Tutorials in Introductory Physics
Preliminary Edition (1998)
First Edition (2002)
• Supplements Lecture/Textbook
• Promotes Functional Understanding
• constructing concepts
• developing reasoning skills
• relating formalism to real world
• Guided Inquiry
• Elicit-Confront-Resolve
• Pretest
• Worksheet (in-class group work)
• Homework
• Posttest
• Many Topics (50 worksheets !)
• Kinematics, Newton’s laws, Energy &
Momentum, Rotation
• Electrostatics, Electric circuits,
Magnetism, Electromagnetism
• Waves
• Geometrical optics, Physical Optics
• Hydrostatics, Thermodynamics,
Modern Physics
Materials
• Dissemination of Tutorials in Introductory Physics
– Go Forth !!! And Do They Ever !!
• PEG has given workshops on Tutorials at every national AAPT
meeting (two a year) since 1995 !
• Workshops at many many other meetings, most recently in
Singapore
– Pilot Sites
• Maryland, Colorado, Montana State, Harvard, Purdue, Cincinnati,
Georgetown, Air Force, Illinois, Maine, Syracuse, LA Pierce
College, and University Tecnologico de Monterrey (Mexico)
– Tutorials have used at more than 100 colleges and universities
Materials
• Documented Implementation: Colorado
– “Replicating and understanding successful innovations: Implementing
tutorials in introductory physics”, N. Finkelstein & S. Pollock, PHYS
REV ST PER (2005)
REPLICATION
AND LOTS MORE…
reflects interdependence with research
Materials
• Documented Implementation: Colorado
– “Replicating and understanding successful innovations: Implementing
tutorials in introductory physics”, N. Finkelstein & S. Pollock, PHYS
REV ST PER (2005)
• Present framework for understanding features related to successful
and sustainable implementation
• Includes student attitudes & beliefs as well as performance
• Contextual constructivist perspective: How are tasks situated ?
• Correlation of Tutorial Homework with
Course Grade
• r = 0.73
• reflects integration of Tutorials
with the course..
• Physical arrangement
• Training of Instructors
• Institutional Support
• Consideration of norms & beliefs of
students and instructors
Materials
• Implementation at Illinois
– Context: Major Reform of Introductory Courses (1996 - 2000)
• Big Idea: Integrate all aspects of a course using interactive
engagement methods based on physics education research in a
team teaching environment.
• Initial Implementation (calculus-based: 1996-1997)
– Lectures (75 min 2/week): Peer Instruction (Concept Tests)
– Discussion (2 hr 1/week): Cooperative Group Work
focussed on problem-solving (Minnesota and our own)
– Labs (2 hr 1/week): Predict-Observe-Explain
– Homework: Online “standard” problems
• Evolution
– Online homework: Interactive Examples (concept-based
problem solving)
– Discusson: Add conceptual work (Tutorials)
Calculations vs Concepts (Fall 97)
Two infinite sheets of charge are aligned perpendicular to the x-axis as
shown in the figure. To the right is an infinite slab of conductor also
perpendicular to the x-axis. The left-most sheet has a charge per unit area
 = 5.00 mC/m2; the sheet to its right has  = – 2.50 mC/m2 ; the conducting
slab is uncharged. The spacing parameter is a = 2.00 cm.
Find the x-component of the
net electric field in Region II.
Average Score = 91%
I
IV
III
II
V
0
2a
5a
6a


L
R
A positive point charge +Q0 is now placed to the right of
the Gaussian surface as shown in the figure on the
right. (Assume the charge distribution on the sheet is
unaffected by the point charge +Q0.) The absolute
value of the flux through the left end cap (surface 2)
will:
(A) increase
(B) decrease
Average Score = 55%
(C) remain the same
WOW !!
x
Physics 112 Comparison
• Some qualitative questions from OLD (spring97 and fall97) final
exams were repeated on the NEW (spring98) final exam.
Spring,Fall97
Spring98
59.3 ± 0.7 66.6 ± 0.7
NEW
100
What change was made in
Spring98?
Biggest: Introducing Tutorials into
discussion sections.
Spring 98 Score
80
60
In fact, red points are the flux
questions. There are some other
large gains in areas not directly
addressed by tutorials,though.
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
Fall, Spring 97 Score
80
OLD
100
The performance on quantitative
questions did not change!
Fall97
72
Spring98
74
People
• UW PEG has impacted many people in important ways
over the years
– Graduate Students in PER:
• 22 students have received physics Ph.D.s from UW based on their
research with PEG
– Most now actively teaching (and doing research) at universities
(e.g., UW, New Mexico State, Hamburg, CalState Fullerton,
Maryland, Grand Valley State, ..)
– Postdocs:
• 8 postdocs over the years: most now active in teaching and
research
– UW TAs
• All TAs in Tutorial sections participate in graduate teaching
seminar.
• Exposure to non-traditional instruction  increased awareness
when they eventually teach.
– Long term visitors (change of field?)
• Fred Goldberg (1982: atomic physics)
• Joe Redish (1992: nuclear physics)
• GG (2001: high energy physics)
My Story
• My involvement with our reform led to an increased interest in PER.
• Question: Should we take the next step? Establish a PER group with
graduate students
– Where to go? Obvious choice: UW PEG
• How does the group work? How is research done?
– Not unlike an experimental high energy group
• Two grad students got their degrees while I was there
– Rachel Scherr and Luanna Ortiz
• My conclusion?
– Make PER my full-time research interest
• Accept grad students
• First two students (Michael Scott and Eugene Torigoe) have just
finished their degrees this semester at Illinois
Research
• PEG: The foundations of Physics Education Research
– 1980-81 research papers on velocity and acceleration published in
American Journal of Physics: a first!!
• I counted 37 more PEG articles in AmJournPhys since then !!
– Laid groundwork for what counts as PER
• PEG treats research on learning and teaching of physics as an
empirical applied science. (teaching as art  teaching as science)
• PEG adopts the rules of evidence of experimental physics
• Focus is on student as learner, not instructor as teacher
– Assessment of student learning is used as criterion for
effectiveness of instruction
Research
• 1999 APS Statement on Research in Physics Education:
– In recent years, physics education research has emerged as a topic of research
within physics departments. This type of research is pursued in physics
departments at several leading graduate and research institutions, it has
attracted funding from major governmental agencies, it is both objective and
experimental, it is developing and has developed publication and dissemination
mechanisms, and Ph.D. students trained in the area are recruited to establish
new programs. Physics education research can and should be subject to the
same criteria for evaluation (papers published, grants, etc.) as research in
other fields of physics. The outcome of this research will improve the
methodology of teaching and teaching evaluation.
– The APS applauds and supports the acceptance in physics departments of
research in physics education. Much of the work done in this field is very
specific to the teaching of physics and deals with the unique needs and demands
of particular physics courses and the appropriate use of technology in those
courses. The successful adaptation of physics education research to improve
the state of teaching in any physics department requires close contact between
the physics education researchers and the more traditional researchers who
are also teachers. The APS recognizes that the success and usefulness of
physics education research is greatly enhanced by its presence in the physics
department.
I cannot imagine this important statement being made by APS
without the foundation laid by the Washington PEG.
Congratulations to PEG on a richly deserved award !!