A physics department’s role in preparing physics teachers: The Colorado learning assistant model

In response to substantial evidence that many U.S. students are inadequately prepared in science and mathematics, we have developed an effective and adaptable model that improves the education of all students in introductory physics and increases the numbers of talented physics majors becoming certified to teach physics. We report on the Colorado Learning Assistant model and discuss its effectiveness at a large research university. Since its inception in 2003, we have increased the pool of well-qualified K–12 physics teachers by a factor of approximately three, engaged scientists significantly in the recruiting and preparation of future teachers, and improved the introductory physics sequence so that students’ learning gains are typically double the traditional average.

[1]  Steven J. Pollock,et al.  A Research‐Based Approach to Assessing Student Learning Issues in Upper‐Division Electricity & Magnetism , 2009 .

[2]  Diane Ebert-May,et al.  Scientific Teaching , 2004, Science.

[3]  Steven J. Pollock,et al.  Sustaining Educational Reforms in Introductory Physics. , 2008, 0805.0277.

[4]  D. Istance Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development , 1966, Nature.

[5]  Bat-Sheva Eylon,et al.  Research-Design Model for Professional Development of Teachers: Designing Lessons with Physics Education Research. , 2006 .

[6]  Steven Pollock,et al.  Who Is Responsible for Preparing Science Teachers? , 2006, Science.

[7]  Robert J. Beichner,et al.  Evaluating an electricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism assessment , 2006 .

[8]  Ronald K. Thornton,et al.  Assessing student learning of Newton’s laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula , 1998 .

[9]  Ralph T. Putnam,et al.  What Do New Views of Knowledge and Thinking Have to Say About Research on Teacher Learning? , 2000 .

[10]  Christine Y. O'Sullivan,et al.  The Nation's Report Card: Writing, 2002. , 2003 .

[11]  C. E. Wieman,et al.  Why We Should Teach the Bohr Model and How to Teach it Effectively. , 2007, 0707.1541.

[12]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. , 1999 .

[13]  S. Pollock Longitudinal study of student conceptual understanding in electricity and magnetism , 2009, 0907.5597.

[14]  Steven J. Pollock,et al.  Transforming Upper‐Division Electricity and Magnetism , 2008 .

[15]  Richard Catrambone,et al.  A Tale of Two Curricula: The performance of two thousand students in introductory electromagnetism , 2009, 0906.0022.

[16]  Jeffery M. Saul,et al.  Student expectations in introductory physics , 1998 .

[17]  L. Shulman Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching , 1986 .

[18]  R. Hake Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses , 1998 .

[19]  Noah S. Podolefsky,et al.  New Instrument for Measuring Student Beliefs about Physics and Learning Physics: The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey. , 2006 .

[20]  L. Shulman Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform , 1987 .

[21]  Katherine K. Perkins,et al.  Transforming Upper‐Division Quantum Mechanics: Learning Goals and Assessment , 2009 .

[22]  N. Finkelstein Teaching and learning physics: A model for coordinating physics instruction, outreach, and research , 2004, physics/0505091.