ADAPTING TO A
CHANGING WORLD—
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITES IN
UNDERGRADUATE PHYSICS EDUCATION
Committee on Undergraduate Physics Education
Research and Implementation
Board on Physics and Astronomy
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Grant No. PHY-1003414 between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Foundation. Support for this study was also provided by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation Fund of the National Academy of Sciences. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-28303-8
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-28303-5
Library of Congress Control Number: 2013940085
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu; and the Board on Physics and Astronomy, National Research Council, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001; http://www.national-academies.org/bpa.
Copyright 2013 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCH AND IMPLEMENTATION
DONALD N. LANGENBERG, University of Maryland, Chair
SUZANNE BRAHMIA, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
JERRY P. GOLLUB, Haverford College
DAVID HAMMER, Tufts University
CHARLES HENDERSON, Western Michigan University
PAULA HERON, University of Washington
THEODORE HODAPP, American Physical Society
MICHAEL P. MARDER, University of Texas, Austin
JOSÉ P. MESTRE, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
MARY BETH MONROE, Southwest Texas Junior College
VALERIE OTERO, University of Colorado, Boulder
DAVID E. PRITCHARD, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
JAMES SCHAFER, Montgomery Blair High School, Montgomery County Public Schools
JACK M. WILSON, University of Massachusetts
HUNG-HSI WU, University of California, Berkeley
DEAN ZOLLMAN, Kansas State University
Staff
JAMES C. LANCASTER, Director
DONALD C. SHAPERO, Senior Scholar
CARYN J. KNUTSEN, Associate Program Officer
TERI G. THOROWGOOD, Administrative Coordinator
BETH DOLAN, Financial Associate
BOARD ON PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY
PHILIP H. BUCKSBAUM, Stanford University, Chair
DEBRA ELMEGREEN, Vassar College, Vice Chair
RICCARDO BETTI, University of Rochester
ADAM S. BURROWS, Princeton University
TODD DITMIRE, University of Texas at Austin
NATHANIEL J. FISCH, Princeton University
PAUL FLEURY, Yale University
S. JAMES GATES, University of Maryland
LAURA H. GREENE, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
MARTHA P. HAYNES, Cornell University
MARK B. KETCHEN, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
MONICA OLVERA DE LA CRUZ, Northwestern University
PAUL SCHECHTER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
BORIS SHRAIMAN, Kavli Institute of Theoretical Physics
MICHAEL S. TURNER, University of Chicago
ELLEN D. WILLIAMS, BP International
MICHAEL S. WITHERELL, University of California, Santa Barbara
Staff
JAMES C. LANCASTER, Director
DONALD C. SHAPERO, Senior Scholar
DAVID B. LANG, Program Officer
CARYN J. KNUTSEN, Associate Program Officer
TERI G. THOROWGOOD, Administrative Coordinator
BETH DOLAN, Financial Associate
Preface
We live in turbulent but exciting times!
The U.S. economy is struggling to recover from a great recession. As we do so, the circumstances within which we hope to rise are not those from which we came. We are entering what some have termed “The Third Industrial Revolution.” In this new world, what characterizes a leading economy is not factory production lines producing well-designed machines. Rather, it is the ability to serve the information and communication needs of populations approximating those of the entire Earth. Specifically, the United States can no longer enjoy an unchallenged position of leadership in this new world. Our preeminence is being challenged by many countries and societies from both the developed and developing worlds.
In this new world, much depends on the capabilities of a nation’s citizens in high technology. Those capabilities depend critically on the quality and levels of education of those citizens, from kindergarten through graduate school. It is, thus, not surprising that the performance of education institutions in the United States has become the subject of national concern. Where once we could take pride in being at the top of the world in education, comparative international studies show that we are sliding down into the middle of the pack, not so much because we are failing to meet our traditional standards, but because other nations are on innovative and creative tracks that enable them to overtake and surpass us.
This is of particular concern because this new world requires a citizenry well informed about technical matters and well educated in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subjects. It is not solely economic issues that require such skills, but many political issues as well, including environmental and
energy issues. For example, climate change (or disruption) has become a central problem for all of us, including our children.
The first letter of STEM is for science. The component parts, including physics, chemistry, biology, and Earth sciences, are not interchangeable. Physics is the fundamental science that provides the foundation for all others. Education in physics, at all levels, forms the gateway into technological competence and expertise in almost everything of importance in our new world. Evidence indicates, however, that the physics community remains in a traditional mode in which the primary purpose of physics education is to create clones of the physics faculty. Yet there are notable exceptions. Over the past several decades, active research by physicists into the teaching of their subject has yielded important insights about what can be done to heighten the quality of students’ understanding of the universe—at all levels. But this new knowledge is slow to find significant adoption, nor is it fully understood by physics faculty.
This report was commissioned by the National Science Foundation to examine the present status of undergraduate physics education, including the state of physics education research, and, most importantly, to develop a series of recommendations for improving physics education that draws from what is known about learning and effective teaching. Our committee has endeavored to do so, with great interest and more than a little passion.
Our committee was composed of a broadly diverse pool of concerned physicists. These individuals brought a considerable breadth of experience and expertise and an understanding of the landscape of current physics education as well as an appreciation for how education research has begun to transform understanding of student learning. What they all shared is a deep dedication to physics and the ways of thinking that characterize it. That’s where the passion came from. There are two popular maxims about physics: “Physics is a social science,” and “Physics is a contact sport.” Both were demonstrated in our work. I thank all the members of the committee for their deep engagement in and devoted attention to meeting our charge. It was a great pleasure to work with them.
Finally, let me thank the talented members of the NRC staff who supported us. They include Jim Lancaster and Caryn Knutsen, who kept us on track, and Don Shapero, representing the Board on Physics and Astronomy.
Donald N. Langenberg, Chair
Committee on Undergraduate Physics Education Research and Implementation
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Michael Brown, Swarthmore College,
David Daniel, University of Texas, Dallas,
Fred Eiserling, University of California, Los Angeles,
Eugenia Etkina, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
Ken Heller, University of Minnesota,
Ernest M. Henley, University of Washington,
Kenneth Krane, Oregon State University,
Tom O’Kuma, Lee College, and
Howard Stone, Princeton University.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of
this report was overseen by Julia Phillips, Sandia National Laboratories. Appointed by the NRC, she was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION: PHYSICS IS AMAZING AND PRACTICAL AND MUST BE TAUGHT BETTER
Undergraduate Physics Education in a Rapidly Changing World
Changing the Educational Paradigm
Physics Is Fundamental and Foundational
Scientific Approach to Physics Education
2 THE CURRENT STATUS OF UNDERGRADUATE PHYSICS EDUCATION
Undergraduate Education in General
Course Content and Program Structures
Recruiting and Retaining Students from Traditionally Underrepresented Groups
3 PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCH AS A FOUNDATION FOR IMPROVING EDUCATION
A Brief Overview of the Field of Physics Education Research
Key Findings from Physics Education Research
Areas of Current and Emerging Emphasis in Research
Student Learning: Understanding, Reasoning, and Problem Solving
The Role of Physical and Social Environments in Learning Physics
Participation and Achievement of Students from Groups Traditionally Underrepresented in Physics
Preparation of Future Physics Teachers
Scaling and Sustaining Research-Supported Instructional Strategies
Detailed Recommendations for Individual Physics Faculty
Detailed Recommendations for Physics Department Leadership
Detailed Recommendations for Higher-Level Academic Administrators