🚀 go-pugleaf

This is a follow-up to the survey questions I sent out about a section in
AJP devoted to physics education research.  There were a total of 26
responses.  If you want the complete text, drop me a note.

>>>>>>>> 1.  Do you think it is a good idea?  What disadvantages do you see?

19 yes, 3 no

A sampling of interesting comments:

Physics Education is not perceived as "real research" by many "real"
Physicists so articles would need scrupulous vetting for correctness and
interest.

Yes, I think it's an excellent idea for two reasons.  One is the value of
bringing an educational research perspective to teachers of higher level
physics who might be somewhat complacent about their teaching style, or who
simply have no time to attend workshops and conferences.  The other is that
it would give physics teachers a clearer idea of what good educational
research looks like.  I have been quite depressed by the naivete of some
pedagogical claims made by authors who know a lot about the teaching style
they are recommending, but not so much about evaluation and research
methods.

The only remaining reasons for me to look at AJP are physics education
research and the odd (and increasingly rare) article on down-to-earth
experiments and apparatus.  Could we also move Deep Theory to another
section of AJP?  How about a 500-page December edition of AJP with More
Visits to the Hydrogen Atom in N Dimensions, and the M+1th attack of the
3-j Symbols.

Summary articles, or perhaps reviews, could also be appropriate.  But the
results of an individual research project, that has not been substantiated
by much other research, is probably not of sufficient interest to all
members of the AAPT for publication.  As someone else on this net has
noted, most education research is BAD.

I don't see the motivation for a distinguishable section. AJP already
prints education research that is applicable to physics, and such articles
fall well within the stated editorial policies.


>>>>>>> 2.  Would you read the section?  Regularly, or in search of specific
>>>>>>>
            articles?

16 yes, 0 no

I get AJP and find that the occasional article on ed research is what is most
applicable to my classes.

YES.  Note that currently AJP does not adequately list their bibliographies
in ERIC and the other Sci Ed Rsch databases, so searching would be hard.

I would certainly be interested in and read physics education research if
it were published in ajp.  It might inspire some of us who are border line
interested in doing that type of research into getting off our duffs and
doing something.


>>>>>> 3.  If you do this type of research, would you submit articles for
           publication to AJP?  Would this be your first choice of
journals?
           Why or why not?

11 yes,  2 no

Yes.  Yes.  To have it read by physicists (hopefully).

I think of AJP as filling a particular niche of research articles - I send
things that have implications for physics instruction but not heavy
theoretical stuff about learning.  More theoretical articles I send to
journals such as Cognition and Instruction, which have higher weight in my
community.  But I can't send everything to theoretical journals, because
there is often a large component of physics that cog sci audiences won't
understand.

First choice would be my own National Physics Journal, The Australian
Physicist, which has an Educational insert on a regular basis already.


>>>>>> 4.  If you do not currently subscribe to AJP, would this be sufficient
           incentive for you to start receiving it?  Are you a high school or
           college/university faculty member?

most answering survey currently subcribe

If I knew that, on a regular basis, there would be articles in AJP about
physics education research, I would subscribe to it, and read it on a
regular basis.  I am a high school teacher, so TPT would be my first choice
of journals because it is my perception it is aimed at my level of interest
and expertise.


>>>>>>> 5.  Should the section be devoted strictly to rigorously reviewed
>>>>>>>
            research articles or would you like to also like to see
descriptions
            of research-based curricular modifications, software, etc.?  How
            should these articles differ from similar topics covered in The
            Physics Teacher?

13 both, 2 research only

I am not opposed to a section on teaching methods, software, etc, but I
strongly oppose a loose boundary between this and actual research reports.
Already at AAPT meetings the "educational research" sessions see too many
contributions that are not really research reports at all, but rather
presentations of creative teaching ideas without substantiation.  Calling
this research discredits the work of serious educational researchers.

The categories you suggest are not exclusive. Interesting work could be
done on misconceptions,  successful curricula and useful tools. The work
should, however, all be reviewed and held to a high standard. To date, this
has been done for "misconceptions" articles, but too many of the curriculum
articles adduce little evidence of effectiveness. The sort of anecdotal
material usually presented would never see print in a psychology journal.
I do not regularly read TPT, but my impression is that it is aimed more at
the concerns of high school teachers. The fact that AJP is viewed as a
higher-level archival journal should provide a natural distinction in the
material selected.

Physics educational research continues to search for legitimacy and for a
following.  The number of disciples is growing, but the number of
unconverted heathens remains large.  Publishing in the AJP lends more
legitimacy to the work so it is indeed best to try to carve out a regular
segment in that journal for this topic.


******************************************************************************

  Robert J. Beichner                              Voice: (919) 515-7226
  Department of Physics                             Fax: (919) 515-6538
  North Carolina State University                E-mail: Beichner@NCSU.edu
  Raleigh, NC 27695-8202

******************************************************************************