Aps-ajp-11-1001-Book indb

Summary of:
(1) Lillian C. McDermott, “Combined physics course for future elementary 
and secondary school teachers,” pp. 129–137; 
(2) Lillian C. McDermott, “A perspective on teacher preparation in physics 
and other sciences: The need for special science courses for teachers,” 
pp. 138–146; 
(3) Lillian C. McDermott, Paula R. L. Heron, Peter S. Shaffer, and MacKenzie 
R. Stetzer, “Improving the preparation of K-12 teachers through physics edu-
cation research,” pp. 147–151.
This Summary presents an overview of three articles that 
were published in the American Journal of Physics over a 
span of more than 30 years. The fi rst section is devoted to the 
fi rst article, which dates from 1974. It describes the devel-
opment of a combined physics course for prospective K-12 
teachers at the University of Washington (UW). The second 
section outlines the evolution of this course and provides the 
context for the discussion of the other two articles in the third 
section. Published in 1990 and 2006, respectively,
1
these iden-
tify some important characteristics that courses for teachers 
should have and illustrate the kind of research in physics edu-
cation that has proved to be a useful guide for the preparation 
and professional development of precollege teachers. 
I. DEVELOPMENT OF A COMBINED COURSE FOR 
K-12 TEACHERS (1971-1974)
Concerned by the 1957 success of Sputnik, physicists 
and other scientists became engaged in the development of 
precollege “hands-on” science curricula that were inquiry-
oriented. NSF supported these efforts. It was anticipated that 
short workshops in which elementary school teachers could 
work through a few activities would be suffi cient prepara-
tion because they could continue to learn with their students.
2
This expectation proved unrealistic. At the high school level, 
Summer Institutes would prepare teachers to teach Physical 
Science Study Committee [PSSC] Physics and The Project 
Physics Course. It was assumed that they were well prepared 
in the content and just needed to learn how to teach by inquiry. 
Relatively few met this expectation. 
In the late 1960s, the UW Physics Department instituted a 
new course to prepare prospective elementary school teachers 
to teach physical science by inquiry.
3
A related NSF summer 
inservice program was begun in 1971. Both provided a learn-
ing environment in which the teachers could construct scien-
tifi c concepts from direct experience with the physical world 
and develop the reasoning skills necessary for applying the 
concepts to real objects and events. 
There was also a need for a similar course in which pro-
spective high school teachers could learn (or relearn) physics 
in a manner consistent with the inquiry-oriented approach in 
PSSC Physics and Project Physics. We realized that the same 
learning environment could also include students planning to 
teach in middle or junior high school. It was obvious, how-
ever, that even with the addition of these students, the number 
of prospective secondary school teachers would be too small 
to make a compelling case for a new course. Therefore, 
we invited students who had done well in the course for 
prospective elementary school teachers to enroll. We also 
decided to include liberal arts students who had taken a year 
of physics. University credit (but not the course number) was 
the same for everyone in this “combined” course. 
There is a strong tendency to teach as one has been taught 
(not only what but how). Development of a sound conceptual 
understanding and capability in scientifi c reasoning provide 
a fi rmer foundation for effective teaching than the superfi cial 
learning that often occurs during rapid coverage of many top-
ics. In the combined course, students gained direct experience 
with physical phenomena, rather than by passively listening to 
lectures and observing demonstrations. The course provided 
an environment in which future teachers could develop the 
capacity to implement inquiry-oriented curricula by working 
through a substantial amount of content in a way that refl ects 
this spirit. The perception that the one who learns most from 
explanations by the teacher is the teacher, not the student, 
set the tone for the type of guided inquiry that characterized 
instruction. The daily opportunity for informal observations 
helped us identify what teachers needed to know and be able 
to do to teach science as a process of inquiry. We had many 
in-depth discussions with the students. We soon realized that 
most had learned physics by memorizing defi nitions and for-
mulas, rather than by going through the reasoning involved 
in the construction and application of concepts. What they 
seemed to need most was not to listen to lectures on special 
relativity or black holes but to deepen their understanding of 
basic concepts and to develop the ability to apply them to real 
objects and events. 
The curriculum developed for this course gradually evolved 
into Physics by Inquiry.
4
The choice of topics was infl uenced 
by their inclusion in the new precollege curricula and by what 
could be encompassed within a few broad unifying themes. 
The emphasis in the combined course was on depth rather 
than breadth. We wanted students to recognize what it means 
to understand a scientifi c concept. The students themselves 
were expected to go through the process of constructing and 
applying conceptual models for the topics typically taught in 
introductory physics and physical science (e.g., mechanics, 
electricity and magnetism, optics, waves, and observational 
astronomy). For some topics, the prospective teachers were 
expected to write a logically constructed report on how their 
understanding had evolved. Sometimes they were asked to 
describe how they could use their own experience as a guide 
to lead students through inquiry to predict and explain some 
simple physical phenomena. Whatever the topic under inves-
tigation, the question of how we know what we know was 
raised. Teachers need to examine the nature of the subject 
APS-AJP-11-1001-Book.indb 24
APS-AJP-11-1001-Book.indb 24
27/12/11 2:56 PM
27/12/11 2:56 PM

---

Teacher Education in Physics 
25
Summary: McDermott, et al.
matter, to understand not only what we know but also on what 
evidence and through which lines of reasoning we have come 
to this knowledge. 
Although our decision to create a combined course for 
several populations was initially motivated to increase enroll-
ment, other advantages became apparent. All of the prospec-
tive teachers benefi ted from the unusual class composition. 
The elementary school teachers developed skill in propor-
tional reasoning and in ability to apply simple geometry, 
trigonometry, and even vector algebra. Teachers at all levels 
demonstrated substantial growth in logical reasoning and in 
the use and interpretation of graphical representations. After 
a year of learning by inquiry, the elementary school teach-
ers had acquired suffi cient self-confi dence to help wean their 
secondary school classmates from dependence on memorized 
formulas and textbooks. The elementary school teachers 
quickly became aware of their own greater skill in inquiry-ori-
ented learning and were not intimidated about asking for help. 
They were willing to accept, however, only a certain type of 
assistance. Some would say “Don’t just tell me the answer, I 
want help in fi nding out for myself.” Such statements helped 
the high school teachers recognize the value of independent 
learning and encouraged them to refl ect on their own intel-
lectual development.