(Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008, USA)

Abstract The field of Physics Education Research has grown substantially in recent decades. This growth has resulted in significant knowledge about effective teaching and learning of physics at the postsecondary level in the United States and has been put into practice in the development and testing of a wide variety of curricular materials and instructional approaches. This knowledge and resultant materials have been widely disseminated to physics instructors in the US, resulting in widespread adoption of highly effective research-based instructional practices. The growth and positive impact of Physics Education Research would not have been possible without significant and ongoing government funding.

Key words Physics Education Research (PER); US government funding for PER; The growth and positive impact of PER in the US

Introduction

Improving undergraduate physics instruction has been an important focus of research and funding in the United States (US) for over 60 years. Interest in physics education, and science education more generally, is often traced to 1957 when the Soviet Union successfully launched the first satellite to orbit the Earth (DeBoer, 1991). This long term and ongoing focus on science has been based on the desire to prepare science professionals who can work towards important national goals of a strong economy, military defense, and international prestige (Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy, 2006; National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; National Science Board, 2007; National Science Foundation, 1996). More recently, dealing with current world issues has been added to this list. For example, in a 2009 speech, President Obama highlighted the need to address climate change, find cures for disease, and produce clean energy as pressing reasons to improve STEM education (The White House, 2009). In this article I will describe some of the main impacts of this interest and focus on physics education in the US. Although I will focus on physics, similar articles could be written about other fields of science. Other non-science areas of study, such as arts and humanities have not enjoyed similar levels of national emphasis and funding.

Physics Education Research has developed important knowledge about highly effective physics teaching methods

The field of Physics Education Research (PER) was founded by traditionally-trained physics faculty who became dissatisfied with traditional lecture-based teaching methods. PER was one of the first science disciplines to engage in this type of work (Cummings, 2011; Docktor & Mestre, 2014). By the 1980s, about a dozen research universities had PER programs within physics departments, offering Ph.D.’s focusing on PER. Common topics of study were student conceptual understanding of physics topics, effective curricula, and physics problem solving. Due to the demonstrated success of this early work, in 1999 the American Physical Society (APS) published a policy statement recognizing PER as a legitimate research endeavor within physics departments (APS, 1999).

PER has continued to expand.Since 2000 PER has its own annual research conference, and since 2005, its own APS archival research journal,PhysicalReviewPhysicsEducationResearch(PRPER). Currently there are at least 40 universities offering PhDs focused on PER (PER Programs, n.d.). The number of PER publications also continues to increase regularly. For example, between 2005 and 2007 PRPER accepted 55 articles; between 2015 and 2017 PRPER accepted 224 articles (Henderson, 2018).

The major findings of PER have been summarized in arecent synthesis (Docktor & Mestre, 2014). Researchers have identified a number of important concerns about teaching methods commonly used in STEM courses. There is concern that many undergraduate STEM courses: 1) do not help students develop meaningful understanding of the course content; 2) do not help students develop the skills necessary to solve real problems; 3) turn away many capable students who find these courses dull and unwelcoming; and 4) misrepresent the processes of science. Research-based instructional approaches advocated by PER are known to significantly address all of these concerns (Freeman et al., 2014; Singer, Nielsen, & Schweingruber, 2012).

For example, the research-based instructional approach of Student-Centered Active Learning Environment with Upside-down Pedagogies (SCALE-UP) is one of the many instructional approaches advocated by PER. In SCALE-UP, instructors modify their pedagogy to minimize lecture and have significant time for small group work. Round tables, whiteboards, and technology facilitate collaboration and sharing of student work. SCALE-UP has been shown to improve student problem-solving abilities, conceptual understanding, attitudes toward science, grades in introductory courses (Beichner et al., 2007; Beichner et al., 2000), as well as performance in later courses (Dori et al., 2003). On measures of core course content, students in classes taught using SCALE-UP have been consistently shown to learn over twice as much as similar students at the same institution taught using traditional methods (Beichner et al., 2007).

Physics Education Research has used this knowledge to change postsecondary teaching practices in the US

It is not enough to develop knowledge about effective teaching methods.One of the major goals of PER has always been to put new knowledge into practice. This has been done in a wide variety of ways, including the publication of curricular materials, giving talks and workshops, word of mouth communication, and emphasis on teaching by physics professional societies. Perhaps the most powerful influence on postsecondary physics teaching practices in the US has been the Physics and Astronomy New Faculty Workshop (NFW). This workshop is organized by three major professional societies (American Astronomical Society, American Association of Physics Teachers, American Physical Society) with funds from the National Science Foundation. It has been running for over 20 years and currently reaches approximately 40% of all new physics faculty in the US (Henderson, 2008). Faculty who attended the NFW are much more likely to know about and use PER-based instructional strategies than those who did not (Henderson, 2012).

Surveys of physics instructors suggest that knowledge and use of PER-based instructional strategies is high and has increased significantly during the last decade (Dancy et al., 2019; Henderson & Dancy, 2009). For example, as shown in Figure 1, nearly all US postsecondary physics instructors now know about PER-based instructional strategies and the level of use of these strategies is 2～3 times greater than it was in 2008. This growth matches the growth of the field of PER and the corresponding knowledge development and outreach efforts.

Figure 1 Knowledge and Use of PER-Based Instructional Strategies in 2008 vs. 2019. Adapted from Dancy et al., 2019.

Physics Education Research could not have flourished without significant government funding

The success of the field of PER is amazing. There has been significant research-based knowledge generated about effective teaching and learning of physics at the postsecondary level. And, more importantly, this knowledge has been put into widespread practice by physics instructors. An important contributor to the success of PER in the US has been focused and consistent federal funding.

US government funding for science education has grown significantly in the last several decades. For example, the National Science Foundation funding for science education was $60M US in 1977 and had grown to $800M US by 2016 (Suter and Camilli, 2018).

In 2011, a survey was conducted of all active Physics Education Researchers in the US (Henderson, Barthelemy, Finkelstein, & Mestre, 2011). During the previous five years (2006—2010 inclusive), funding for PER consisted of at least 262 grants worth a total of $72.5M USD. Most of this funding (88%) was from government sources, with the largest government source (75% of all funding) being the National Science Foundation. The most common activity supported by funding was curriculum development, followed by basic research; dissemination and professional development; and outreach.

The importance of ongoing funding for education research to have an impact on practice was found in another study (Khatri et al., 2017). In this study, the researchers used a survey of experts to identify 43 instructional innovations that have become widely used in postsecondary science, math, and engineering in the US. Interviews with the developers of these innovations found that nearly all of them had received at least $3M USD in external funding over at least 10 years. Nearly all of these received funding from government sources, primarily the National Science Foundation.

Summary

In this article I have highlighted the strong growth of the field of Physics Education Research (PER) during the last few decades. This growth has resulted in significant research-based knowledge about effective teaching and learning of physics. This knowledge has significantly transformed the way that physics is taught at colleges and universities in the United States. None of this would have been possible without significant ongoing government funding, primarily from the National Science Foundation.