美国研究基金支持下的物理教育研究及其对高等物理教育的影响
物理教育研究（PER：Physics Education Research）在美国已经有近60年的历史，1999年美国物理学会（APS：American Physical Society）发布了一份声明，认定PER是物理研究领域的一个分支方向，获得政府研究基金的支持。2005年APS在《物理评论》（Physical Review）的系列期刊中增加了PER的期刊——《物理评论—物理教育研究》（PRPER：Physical Review Physics Education Research）。Henderson 博士是该期刊的总编，本文是他应邀撰写的文章。
Henderson 博士在本文中介绍了PER领域的理论知识发展和将其应用于物理教学实践给美国高等物理教育带来的积极影响，并强调如果没有政府研究基金持续性的大力资助，这些是不可能实现的。文章介绍了从2006年到2010的5年中，PER获得资金资助至少有262项，总价值为7250万美元。对43项创新教学方法的开发者调查表明，他们几乎都获得了至少300万美元的外部资金，资助持续时间至少是10年。PER领域的研究资金几乎都来源于政府，主要是美国国家科学基金会（NSF：National Science Foundation, United States）。在美国PER领域，资金支持最多的研究方向是课程开发，其次是基础研究、传播和教职培训，以及在其他领域的推广。目前在美国至少有40所大学提供PER的博士学位，现在（2019年）几乎所有的美国高校物理教师都知道基于PER的教学策略，使用这些策略的教师人数是2008年的2～3倍，大大提高了物理教育教学质量。
2018年12月教育部高等学校大学物理课程教学指导委员会（简称大学物理教指委）在新一届委员会成立会议暨第一次工作会议上设立了物理教育改革和研究专项委员会（简称大学物理教指委教改研专委会），由北京师范大学张萍教授任主任。为了更好地借鉴国外先进经验，结合我国高等教育实际推动大学物理教学方法改革和物理教育研究，教改研专委会邀请并吸纳了两位美国PER专家：一位是本文作者，PRPER总编Charles Henderson博士；另一位是美国俄亥俄州立大学Lin Ding 博士。在今年7月美国物理教师年会期间（AAPT2019）， 教改研专委会主任张萍教授代表大学物理教指委主任王青教授向两位委员颁发了聘书，同时邀请两位专家撰写文章，向中国读者介绍美国PER 的发展。
本文中文翻译稿将发表在2019年《物理》杂志上，敬请关注。
《物理与工程》编辑部
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, Physical Review Physics Education Research (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.
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.
References
[1]American Physical Society. Education—Research in physics education//Policy statement on research in physics education[Z]. http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/99_2.cfm. 1999.
[2]BEICHNER R J, SAUL J M, ALLAIN R J, et al. Introduction to SCALE UP: Student-centered activities for large enrollment university physics[R], 2000.
[3]BEICHNER R J, SAUL J M, ABBOTT D S, et al. The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project[J]. Research-Based Reform of University Physics, 2007,1(1): 2-39.
CUMMINGS K. A developmental history of physics education research[R/OL]. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_072580.pdf. 2011.
[4]DANCY M, APKARIAN N, HENDERSON C, et al. Survey of physics, mathematics and chemistry faculty. poster presented at the 2019 meeting of the American Association of Physics Teachers[EB/OL]. https://drive.google.com/file/d/189EVb6IXb8GHKvOCjTEy_YAOCxncLd7D/view. 2019, [2019-08-03].
[5]DANCY M H, HENDERSON C. Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty[J]. American Journal of Physics, 2010, 78(10): 1056-1063.
[6]DANCY M, HENDERSON C, TURPEN C. How faculty learn about and implement research-based instructional strategies: The case of Peer Instruction[J]. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 2016, 12(1).
[7]DOCKTOR J L, MESTRE J P. Synthesis of discipline-based education research in physics[J]. Physical Review-Special Topics: Physics Education Research, 2014, 10(2) 020119.
[8]DORI Y J, BELCHER J, BESSETTE M, et al. Technology for active learning[J]. Materials Today, 2003, 6(12): 44-49.
[9]FREEMAN S, EDDY S L, MCDONOUGH M, et al. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2014, 111(23): 8410-8415.
[10]HAKE R R. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses[J]. American Journal of Physics, 1998, 66: 64-74.
[11]HENDERSON C. Promoting instructional change in new faculty: An evaluation of the physics and astronomy new faculty workshop[J]. American Journal of Physics, 2008, 76(2): 179.
[12]HENDERSON C. Evaluation of the physics and astronomy new faculty workshop[R]. A white paper prepared for the Workshop on the Role of Scientific Societies in STEM Faculty Workshops. 2012. DC: Washington.
[13]HENDERSON C. PER journal metrics[J]. APS Topical Group on Physics Education Research Newsletter, December 2018.
[14]HENDERSON C, BARTHELEMY R, FINKELSTEIN N, et al. Physics education research funding census[R].//2011 PERC Proceedings, AIP Conf.Proc. 2012, 211-214.
[15]HENDERSON C, DANCY M H. Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics[J]. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 2007, 3(2): 14.
[16]HENDERSON C, DANCY M H. Impact of physics education research on the teaching of introductory quantitative physics in the United States[J]. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 2009, 5.
[17]HENDERSON C, DANCY M, NIEWIADOMSKA-BUGAJ M. Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process?[J]. Physical Review Special Topics—Physics Education Research, 2012, 8(2): 15.
[18]HESTENES D, WELLS M, SWACKHAMER G. Force concept inventory[J]. The Physics Teacher, 1992, 30: 141-158.
[19]KHATRI R, HENDERSON C, COLE R, et al. Characteristics of well-propagated teaching innovations in undergraduate STEM[J]. International Journal of STEM Education, 2017, 4(1): 2.
[20]National Commission on Excellence in Education. A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform[M]. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2010.
[21]National Science Board. A national action plan for addressing the critical needs of the US science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education system[M]. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 2007.
[22]National Science Foundation. Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology[R]. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 1996.
[23]National Research Council. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school[M]. BRANSFORD J D, BROWN A L, COCKING R R, Eds.. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1999.
[24]PER Programs[Z]. https://www.compadre.org/per/programs/. [2019-05-18].
[25]SINGER S R, NIELSEN N R, SCHWEINGRUBER H A. (Eds.) Discipline-based education research[M]. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2012.
[26]SUTER L E, CAMILLI G. International student achievement comparisons and US STEM workforce development[J]. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2019, 28(1): 52-61.
[27]The White House. Remarks by the president on the “education to innovate” campaign[Z]. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-education-innovate-campaign. (2015-07-17)
作者简介: Charles HENDERSON, Editor, Physical Review Physics Education Research.
引文格式: Charles HENDERSON. 美国研究基金支持下的物理教育研究及其对高等物理教育的影响[J]. 物理与工程，2019，29（5）：22-26.
END
更多精彩文章请点击下面“蓝字”标题查看：
《物理与工程》期刊是专注于物理教育教学研究的学术期刊，是中国科技核心期刊，1981年创刊，欢迎踊跃投稿，期刊投审稿采编平台：
http://gkwl.cbpt.cnki.net
欢迎关注
《物理与工程》微信公众号