Teacher Education in Physics

of the web resources that preservice teachers learn to inte-
grate into their future instruction are the PHET simulations
from the University of Colorado 52 , Van Heuvelen’s Activ-
Physics 56 , and NetLogo models from Northwestern Uni-
versity 57 . The big emphasis in the course is the connection
between the use of multiple representations in physics and
our knowledge of how the brain works 60 . In addition to
reading research papers relevant to the weekly topics and
using the book “Five Easy Lessons” by Knight 32 , the
students read the book “The Art of Changing the Brain” by
Zull 61 ; part of the class time is dedicated to discussing the
connections between the biology of the brain and the learn-
ing of specific topics in physics.
The course has the same structure as the other two courses
described above. For the first 6–7 weeks, the professor mod-
els problem-solving lessons; the preservice teachers partici-
pate as students and then reflect on the lesson. At home, they
write a journal in which they describe how they will help
students master a particular representation and devise a ru-
bric for self-assessment. After week 7 or 8, they start doing
microteaching. This time the lessons focus on problem solv-
ing instead of on concept construction
concept construction
is the focus in the course “Teaching Physical Science”.At
the end of the class, students submit another unit plan and
take the oral exam.

IV. DOES THE PROGRAM ACHIEVE ITS GOALS?

A. Summary of goals
The program described above has several specific goals.
The goals are to prepare a teacher of physics or physical
science who:

iis knowledgeable in the content and processes of phys-
ics,

iican engage students in active learning of physics that
resembles scientific inquiry

iiiknows how to listen to the students and assess their

learning in ways that improve learning, and


ivstays in the teaching profession.

A fifth goal is to increase the number of teachers of phys-

ics graduating from the program.

B. What is the evidence that the program achieves

these goals?

1. Evidence of learning physics content
   For the last 3 years the students have taken FCI 62 and
   CSEM 63 as pretests when they enroll in the first course in
   the program. The scores range from very low
   40 – 50 % on
   FCI to 30 – 40 % on CSEMto very high
   100% on FCI and
   90% on CSEM. The preservice teachers who score low are
   usually those who received their undergraduate degree a long
   time ago
   “postbac” students, have a chemistry major and
   are pursuing a physical science certification rather than
   straight physics, have an engineering major, or are students
   in the five-year program who are taking the bulk of their
   physics courses in the last year of their undergraduate degree
   
   usually these are transfer students or students who decided
   to become physics teachers late in the undergraduate course
   of study. Sometimes those scores can be as low as 25 – 30 %
   on FCI. However, after two years in the program preservice
   teachers make huge improvements in their physics knowl-
   edge. The majority score 90 – 100 % on FCI and 80 – 90 % on
   CSEM when they take them in the last course of the pro-
   gram. Another way to assess their level of physics knowl-
   edge is to examine the artifacts that the students create while
   in the program, such as history projects, lesson plans, unit
   plans, and course assessments; this allows for a much more
   thorough assessment of preservice teachers’ knowledge of
   the content of physics. As the same instructor teaches all of
   the PCK courses, these continuous physics-based interac-
   tions allow her to assess their current state of knowledge and

TABLE V. 
Continued.

Unit element Difficulty Feedback to the student

List of resources Preservice teachers list the internet sites
and curriculum materials but not physics
books and higher-level textbooks.

What resources related to the depth of the content

did you use?

TABLE VI. Rubric for assessment of force diagrams 59 .

Missing Inadequate

Needs some

improvement Adequate

No force diagram
is constructed.

Force diagram is constructed but

contains major errors: missing

or extra forces
not matching

with the interacting objects,

incorrect directions of

force arrows or incorrect

relative length

of force arrows.

Force diagram contains no

errors in force arrows but

lacks a key feature such as

labels of forces with

two subscripts or forces

are not drawn from

single point.

The diagram contains all

appropriate force and each

force is labeled so that

one can clearly understand

what each force represents.

Relative lengths of

force arrows are correct.

Axes are shown.

PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE AND PREPARATION... PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES. 6 , 020110
2010 

020110-17