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

assistant model
Valerie Otero, Steven Pollock, and Noah Finkelstein

Citation: American Journal of Physics 78, 1218 (2010); doi: 10.1119/1.3471291

View online: [Link]
View Table of Contents: [Link]
Published by the American Association of Physics Teachers

Articles you may be interested in

Transforming the preparation of physics teachers
Am. J. Phys. 82, 633 (2014); 10.1119/1.4868023

More Finland, educational reform and physics; YouTube wideos from Wanderbilt and Harvard and comments
from Finnish physics teacher preparation scholar
Phys. Teach. 51, 125 (2013); 10.1119/1.4775545

Report on HS Physics Teacher Preparation, [Link]/statistics/trends/reports/[Link], by Casey

Langer Tesfaye and Susan White of the American Institute of Physics (AIP)
Phys. Teach. 50, 317 (2012); 10.1119/1.3703561

Preparing K-12 teachers in physics: Insights from history, experience, and research
Am. J. Phys. 74, 758 (2006); 10.1119/1.2209243

Evaluating a model of research‐based practices for teacher preparation in a physics department: Colorado
PhysTEC
AIP Conf. Proc. 818, 3 (2006); 10.1063/1.2177009

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: [Link] Downloaded to IP:
[Link] On: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 [Link]
 A physics department’s role in preparing physics teachers:
The Colorado learning assistant model
Valerie Otero
School of Education, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309
Steven Pollock and Noah Finkelstein
Department of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309
共Received 11 November 2009; accepted 7 July 2010兲
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. © 2010
American Association of Physics Teachers.
关DOI: 10.1119/1.3471291兴

I. INTRODUCTION: THE U.S. EDUCATIONAL ulty and education faculty in addressing the national chal-
CONTEXT lenges in science education. Talented undergraduate physics
majors are hired as learning assistants 共LAs兲 to assist inter-
Physics majors are typically not recruited or adequately ested faculty in redesigning their large-enrollment introduc-
prepared to teach high school physics. One needs only to tory physics courses so that students have more opportunities
look at reports,1 international2,3 and national4 studies, and to articulate and defend their ideas and interact with one
research on student learning5 for evidence. Two out of three another. In our redesigned courses, we employ findings of
U.S. high school physics teachers have neither a major nor a research on student learning, utilize nationally validated as-
minor in physics,6 and there are no subject matter specialties sessment instruments, and implement research-based and
that have a greater shortage of teachers than mathematics, research-validated curricula that are inquiry oriented and
chemistry, and physics.7 Many undergraduates are not learn- interactive.16 To this end, we have implemented Peer
ing the foundational content in the sciences,8,9 and average Instruction17 in lectures and Tutorials in Introductory
composite SAT/ACT scores of students who enter teaching Physics18 in recitations. These innovations have been dem-
are far below scores of those who go into engineering, re- onstrated to improve student understanding of the founda-
search, science, and other related fields.10 The effects may be
tional concepts in introductory physics.8,9
dramatic. For example, only 29% of U.S. eighth grade stu-
The Learning Assistant program in physics is part of a
dents scored at or above proficient on the National Assess-
larger campus-wide effort19 to transform science, technology,
ment of Educational Progress in 2005.11 What is worse is
engineering, and mathematics 共STEM兲 education at CU
that only 18% of U.S. high school seniors scored at or above
Boulder and has now been implemented in nine science and
proficient.11 With few exceptions, universities and research
mathematics departments. The program uses undergraduate
universities in particular, are producing very few physics
courses as a mechanism to achieve four goals:
teachers.12 And some universities are sending the message,
usually implicit but often explicit, that such a career is not a 共1兲 improve the education of all science and mathematics
goal worthy of talented students.13 students through transformed undergraduate education
Recently, the National Academies listed four priority rec- and improved K-12 teacher education;
ommendations for ensuring American competitiveness in the 共2兲 recruit more future science and math teachers;
21st century. The first recommendation, in priority order, is 共3兲 engage science faculty more in the preparation of future
to “increase America’s talent pool by vastly improving K–12 teachers and discipline-based educational research; and
science and mathematics education.”1 Who will prepare the 共4兲 transform science departmental cultures to value
teachers? Physics teacher preparation cannot be solely the research-based teaching as a legitimate activity for pro-
responsibility of schools of education.14 Studies point to con- fessors and our students.
tent knowledge as one of the main factors that is positively
correlated with teacher quality.15 Yet, those directly respon- These four synergistic goals are illustrated in Fig. 1. Un-
sible for undergraduate physics content, physics faculty dergraduate Course Transformation is highlighted because it
members, are rarely involved in teacher preparation. also serves as the central mechanism by which the other
three goals are achieved within the Learning Assistant
II. THE COLORADO LEARNING ASSISTANT model.
MODEL Since the inception of the program in Fall 2003 through
the most current data analysis 共Spring 2010兲, we have trans-
At the University of Colorado at Boulder 共CU Boulder兲, formed over 35 undergraduate mathematics and science
we have developed an model that engages both physics fac- courses using LAs with the participation of over 48 science

1218 Am. J. Phys. 78 共11兲, November 2010 [Link] © 2010 American Association of Physics Teachers 1218
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: [Link] Downloaded to IP:
[Link] On: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 [Link]
 Fig. 2. The LA experience triad for developing pedagogical content
knowledge.
Fig. 1. Synergistic goals of the Colorado Learning Assistant program.

tion sections兲 in which students work collaboratively to

make sense of physical problems posed in curriculum activi-
and mathematics faculty members including two Nobel Lau- ties 共see Fig. 3兲. Second, LAs work within the large lecture
reates and several National Academy members. More than setting where they facilitate group interactions by helping
15 physics faculty members have been involved in trans- students engage in debates, arguments, and forming consen-
forming a course or in sustaining previous transformations.19 sus around conceptual questions that are posed roughly every
The program impacts roughly 2000 introductory physics stu- 20 min of lecture typically through personal response sys-
dents per year and is still growing. Recent efforts are focus- tems 共clickers兲 used to poll the class.
ing on the transformation of upper-division courses.20,21 Through the collective experiences of teaching as a LA,
The LAs are instrumental in initiating and sustaining instructional planning with a physics faculty member, and
course transformation by taking active roles in facilitating reflecting on their teaching and the scholarship of teaching
small-group interaction both in large-enrollment lecture sec- and learning, LAs integrate their understanding of content,
tions and in interactive recitation sections. Because the LAs pedagogy, and practice, or what Shulman23 calls pedagogical
also make up a pool from which we recruit new K–12 teach- content knowledge, which has been shown to be a critical
ers, our efforts in course transformation are tightly coupled characteristic of effective teachers. Putnam and Borko24 de-
with our efforts to recruit and prepare future K–12 science scribed why pedagogical training is more beneficial when it
teachers. is situated in practice—teachers have the opportunity to try
Each semester, the physics department typically hires 18 out and revise pedagogical techniques by implementing them
LAs from a pool of roughly 60 applicants. These LAs pre- with real students. Eylon and Bagno demonstrated the effects
dominantly support transformations in the introductory of situating physics-specific teacher professional develop-
calculus-based physics sequence for majors and engineers ment in practice.25 This reflective practice is a feature of the
but have also supported transformations in nonmajor intro- LA program because LAs take their Math and Science Edu-
ductory courses such as Light and Color, Sound and Music, cation course during the first semester in which they serve as
and Physics of Everyday Life, and upper-division courses LAs. Those LAs who decide to seriously investigate K–12
such as Electricity and Magnetism. In the Introductory Phys- teaching as a possible career option are encouraged to con-
ics I and II courses, faculty members work with both under- tinue as LAs for a second and third semester. Those who
graduate LAs and graduate teaching assistants 共TAs兲 on a commit to becoming teachers and are admitted to our CU-
weekly basis to prepare them to implement research-based Teach teacher certification program are eligible for NSF-
approaches to teaching and to assess the effectiveness of funded Noyce Teaching Fellowships.26
these instructional interventions. Participating faculty mem- There are several elements that distinguish the Learning
bers also work with each other to provide support and advice Assistant program from other programs that use undergradu-
for implementing various innovations, trying out new ideas, ates as teaching assistants. First, although course transforma-
and discussing their research findings regarding the course tion is a key element of the LA program, the target popula-
transformations.22 Some of these research results are pre- tion of the program is the LAs themselves. The LA program
sented in Sec. III. is an experiential learning program; the learning is embod-
LAs engage in three major activities each week, which
support all aspects of course transformation 共see Fig. 2兲. The
LAs in each department meet weekly with the instructor of
the class to plan for the upcoming week, reflect on the pre-
vious week, and examine student assessment data in these
courses. LAs from all the participating STEM departments
attend a course in the School of Education, Mathematics and
Science Education, which complements their teaching expe-
riences. In this course, the LAs reflect on their teaching prac-
tices, evaluate the transformations of courses, share experi-
ences across STEM disciplines, and investigate relevant
educational literature. In addition to weekly meetings with Fig. 3. Traditional versus transformed educational environment for recita-
instructors and attending the Education seminar, LAs assume tion sections. The new recitation environment depicts one LA and one TA
one or two main roles to support changes in lecture-based working together with students in lieu of a TA working problems solo at the
courses. First, LAs lead learning teams 共sometimes in recita- chalkboard. 共Lectures are still held in a 350 seat hall.兲

1219 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 78, No. 11, November 2010 Otero, Pollock, and Finkelstein 1219
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: [Link] Downloaded to IP:
[Link] On: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 [Link]
 ied in the experience of serving as an LA. Second, the LA U.S. schools 共mostly in Colorado兲, and an additional six was
program serves as a K–12 teacher recruitment program. enrolled in teacher certification programs. Before the LA pro-
Throughout the LA experience, LAs learn about the com- gram began recruiting, CU Boulder had an average of less
plexity of the problems involved in public science education than one physics/astrophysics major per year enrolled in our
and their potential roles in generating solutions to these prob- teacher certification programs.
lems. Although only approximately 12% of LAs are actually Most of the LAs who decided to become teachers report
recruited to K–12 teaching careers, the program is valuable that they had not previously explored teaching as a career
to all students as they move into careers as research scientists until participating as LAs. Our surveys of LAs indicate that
and college professors or into industry and have opportuni- one of the factors influential in helping students to consider
ties to improve science education more broadly. teaching has been the encouragement and support of partici-
pating STEM faculty members.13 Another frequently re-
III. RESULTS OF THE LA PROGRAM ported reason for deciding to become a teacher is the recog-
nition of teaching as an intellectually challenging endeavor.
The LA program has been successful at increasing the A typical LA 共Physics, Fall 2004兲 stated,
number and quality of future physics teachers, improving
student understanding of basic content knowledge in physics, “It would have been weird at first when I first
and engaging research faculty in course transformation and started 关to consider teaching兴…. But now 关the LA
teacher recruitment. program兴 is really affecting the way a lot of us
think.… So now it’s kind of a normal thing to hear.
A. Impact of the LA program on teacher recruitment Oh yeah, I’m thinking about K–12…. It’s not out
of the ordinary, whereas a couple years ago it
Since its inception in Fall 2003 through Spring 2010, 186 would have been strange for me to hear that.”
LAs positions have been filled in the physics department
共120 individual LAs, 66 for more than one semester兲, and
123 positions have been filled in the astronomy department B. Impact of the LA program on physics content
共82 individual LAs, 41 for more than one semester兲; 40 phys- knowledge
ics LAs were female 共80 male兲 and 45 astronomy LAs were
female 共37 male兲. Of the 120 individual LAs in physics, 68 Students learn more physics as a result of the course trans-
were physics, engineering physics, or astrophysics majors, formations supported by the LA program. In this section, we
and 45 were other STEM majors 共such as mechanical engi- present sample results from our introductory calculus-based
neering, aerospace engineering, and math兲; among the re- physics courses where most physics LAs are employed.
maining seven, four had undeclared majors at the time that These classes are large 共500–600 students兲 with three lec-
they served as LAs, and three were finance or communica- tures per week, implementing Peer Instruction17 and now
tions. In astronomy, 27 of the 82 individual LAs were as- including the Tutorials in Introductory Physics.18 The LA
tronomy majors, three were physics majors, 17 were other program in physics was established due to one faculty mem-
STEM majors, and six had undeclared majors. The remain- ber’s 共Pollock兲 intention to implement the Tutorials after vis-
ing 29 LAs hired in astronomy were majors such as econom- iting the Physics Education Group at the University of Wash-
ics, international affairs, finance, and political science. The ington. At that time, the LA program was being piloted in
large number of nonscience majors in astronomy should be four departments and Pollock took advantage of this oppor-
expected because some of our astronomy course transforma- tunity to use undergraduate LAs alongside graduate TAs. We
tions take place in courses for nonscience majors, which is therefore have no course transformation data that isolate the
one of the places from which LAs are recruited. In some use of LAs 共or TAs兲 from our implementation of the Tutori-
cases, students changed their majors to STEM majors as a als. This type of isolation would be difficult because the
result of participating in the LA program. For example, a Tutorials require a higher teacher to student ratio, which was
political science major who served as a LA in astronomy made possible at CU Boulder through the LA program. We
changed her major to biochemistry, became certified to teach do not argue that LAs are more effective than graduate TAs
secondary science, and is now teaching science in a local when the Tutorials are used. In the following, we demon-
high needs school district. The average grade point average strate the value that the LA experience has on the LAs them-
of physics majors was 3.6 共the department’s average is 3.0兲 selves and on faculty using LAs.
and 3.2 for astronomy majors. Nine physics and seven Each semester, we assess student achievement in the trans-
astronomy/astrophysics majors have been recruited to formed courses using conceptual content surveys 共in addition
teacher certification programs. to traditional measures兲. Specifically, we use the Force and
The impact of the LA program is demonstrated by a com- Motion Conceptual Evaluation28 共FMCE兲 in the first semes-
parison of the total enrollments of physics/astrophysics ma- ter and the Brief Electricity and Magnetism Assessment29
jors in teacher certification programs in the entire state of 共BEMA兲 in the second semester. Figure 4 shows BEMA re-
Colorado to those at CU Boulder since LAs began graduat- sults for all of the students enrolled in second semester in-
ing from teacher certification programs. In AY 2004/2005, troductory physics. The data demonstrate that LA-
the state of Colorado had only five undergraduate physics transformed courses result in greater learning gains for
majors enrolled in teacher certification programs 共out of al- students and, in even greater learning gains, for students who
most 11000 certification students at 18 colleges and participated as LAs. The histogram shows pre- and post-test
universities兲.27 For comparison, in AY 2007/2008, CU Boul- scores for the fraction of a 600-student class within each
der’s enrollment of physics/astrophysics majors in certifica- range. The average pretest score for this term was 27%, the
tion programs was 13. As of Fall 2009, ten physics/ post-test was 59% 共which corresponds to a normalized learn-
astrophysics majors that were former LAs were teaching in ing gain of 共具post典 − 具pre典兲 / 共100% − 具pre典兲 = 0.44兲. For com-

1220 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 78, No. 11, November 2010 Otero, Pollock, and Finkelstein 1220
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: [Link] Downloaded to IP:
[Link] On: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 [Link]
 E&M during the next three semesters from Spring 2006
through Spring 2007: 共1兲 those who had a traditional intro-
ductory experience with no LAs 共N = 18兲, 共2兲 those who did
take an introductory course that was transformed using LAs
共N = 36兲, and 共3兲 students who had been LAs themselves
共N = 6兲. The scores of the students who did not take a trans-
formed course are comparable in both F04/05 and S06/07.
The students who had taken a transformed introductory
E&M course scored significantly higher than those who did
not, and the LAs scored even higher. These data suggest that
the LA program produces students who are better prepared
for graduate school and for teaching careers and that the LA
experience greatly enhances students’ content knowledge.30
Fig. 4. Pre/postscores on the BEMA instrument for enrolled students com- Note that although some students from each group in Fig. 5
pared to LAs. Histogram bars show data for students enrolled 共N = 232兲 in a have taken the BEMA multiple times, the average change
representative term of Calculus-based Physics 2 共Spring 2005兲. Hashed ar-
rows indicate LA pre/postscores the first semester LAs were used 共N = 6兲.
from post-freshman score to post-junior score 共after taking
Solid arrows indicate LA pre/postscores 共N = 6兲 from the following semester. the BEMA for a second time following upper-division E&M兲
is zero.30 Also, repeated testing of individuals on the BEMA
shows no impact on their scores.30
parison, a recent national study31 shows that typical post-test In addition to increased content gains, LAs show strong
scores in traditionally taught courses at peer institutions are evidence of attitudinal gains. The Colorado Learning Atti-
around or below 45% 共and normalized gains of 0.15–0.3兲. tudes about Science Survey32 共CLASS兲 is a research-based
The dashed arrows in Fig. 4 show the BEMA pre- and post- instrument intended to measure students’ attitudes and be-
test scores for LAs during the first semester that LAs were liefs about physics and about learning physics. As is the case
used in the physics department. All of these LAs had taken a with the Maryland Physics Expectations Survey33 and other
non-transformed introductory electricity and magnetism instruments of this type, students’ attitudes and expectations
course preceding their service as an LA. The solid arrows about physics tend to degrade over a single semester.33 The
near the top of Fig. 4 show the average BEMA pre- and arrows in Fig. 6 show results from a recent semester. First
post-test scores for LAs in the first semester for which all semester physics students showed large negative shifts in
LAs were recruited from transformed classes. That is, most their overall views about physics and in their personal inter-
of the LAs from the subsequent semesters had taken an in- est as measured by the CLASS, consistent with national
troductory course that was transformed using LAs. The av- findings.33 The second semester course showed smaller nega-
erage normalized learning gains for all students in the trans- tive shifts 共possibly due to a combination of instructor and
formed courses have consistently ranged from 33% to 45%. selection effects兲. Both of these courses were transformed
The normalized learning gains for the LAs averages just be- and show high levels of conceptual learning. The LAs started
low 50%, with their average post-test score exceeding the with much more expertlike views and high personal interest,
average incoming physics graduate-TA’s starting score. both of which increased greatly throughout a semester of
The data in Fig. 5 show the scores of students enrolled in serving as LAs.
upper-division Electricity and Magnetism. The bin labeled Although there is a contribution from selection effects as-
F04-F05 is the average BEMA score for students who were sociated with the LA data shown in Fig. 6, students who are
enrolled in upper-division E&M in the three consecutive se- serving as LAs shift in a dramatically favorable manner dur-
mesters from Fall 2004 through Fall 2005 共N = 71兲. None of ing the semester. These students make up the pool from
which we are recruiting future K–12 teachers and exit the LA
these students had enrolled in an introductory physics course
experience with more favorable beliefs about science, greater
that was transformed using LAs. The three bins labeled S06-
interest in science, and greater mastery of the content than
S07 represent the average BEMA scores for three different
their peers.
groups of students who were enrolled in upper-division

Fig. 6. Shifts by non-LA and LA students in attitudes about learning physics

Fig. 5. BEMA scores of physics majors after taking upper-division Electric- and in their interest in physics over one semester. The horizontal axis rep-
ity and Magnetism, binned by semester and freshman 共Physics II兲 resents percent favorable scores on the CLASS instrument. The LA scores
background. are an average for the LAs in both courses combined.

1221 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 78, No. 11, November 2010 Otero, Pollock, and Finkelstein 1221
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: [Link] Downloaded to IP:
[Link] On: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 [Link]
 C. Impact of the LA program on faculty Table I. Normalized gain on the FMCE for first semester Introductory Phys-
ics taught by different instructors.
As a result of transforming courses and working with LAs,
participating faculty members have started to focus on edu- Average Normalized
cational issues that they had not considered previously. Fac- Semester Recitation N 共matched兲 post-test score gain 具g典
ulty members report increased attention to student learning.
F01 Traditional 265 52 0.25
All of the 11 faculty who were involved in the LA program
F03 Tutorials 400 81 共FCI data兲 0.63
from 2003–2005 were interviewed and reported that collabo-
S04 Tutorials 335 74 0.64
rative student work is essential, and LAs are instrumental to
F04 Workbooksa 302 69 0.54
change. One typical faculty member noted,
S05 Traditional 213 58 0.42
“I’ve taught 关this course兴 a million times. I could F05 Traditional 293 58 0.39
S06 Tutorials 278 60 0.45
do it in my sleep without preparing a lesson. But
F06 Tutorials 331 67 0.51
关now兴 I’m spending a lot of time preparing lessons
S07 Tutorials 363 62 0.46
for 关students兴, trying to think ‘OK, first of all, what F07 Tutorials 336 69 0.54
is the main concept that I’m trying to get across
a
here? What is it I want them to go away knowing?, Students worked in small groups on problems in a workbook that came
which I have to admit I haven’t spent a lot of time with their text. No LAs were used 共Ref. 37兲.
in the past thinking about.”

This statement was drawn from the group of 11 faculty

members who are now perceived by students as caring about
student learning and supporting their decisions to become faculty member who also engaged in physics education re-
K–12 teachers. search. All of the other faculty members who taught the
Impacts on faculty are also observed in the scaling of the courses listed in Table I range from somewhat to vaguely
program at CU Boulder. Increasingly, faculty members are familiar with physics education research.
working together to implement the LA program in the phys- The data suggest that the transformations are transferable
ics department as well as in other departments. Faculty mem- among faculty members at CU Boulder, even among faculty
bers seek out one another for support and meet weekly in members who have little or no experience with physics edu-
informal “Discipline-Based Educational Research”34 meet- cation research. This finding suggests that such LA-
ings to discuss their teaching and the use of LAs and to supported tutorials are transferable to faculty at other insti-
present data from their assessments and evaluations of their tutions.
transformations. The development of an LA program in physics depart-
The Learning Assistant model does not stop at the intro- ments at other institutions requires the commitment of dedi-
ductory level. Faculty members who teach upper-division cated faculty and administration within the department. Cur-
courses are increasingly drawing on LAs to help them trans- rently, at least five universities in the U.S. are funded to
form their courses, including third semester Introductory emulate the Colorado LA program as a part of their work
Physics35 and upper-level Electricity and Magnetism36 and with the Nationwide Physics Teacher Education Coalition.38
Quantum Mechanics. In these environments, faculty mem- Many other institutions are also emulating the Colorado LA
bers work with LAs 共typically second- or third-time LAs or model. Although the Colorado LA program is a campus-wide
Noyce Fellows兲 to make research-based transformations to program spanning nine departments, other institutions have
their courses. Typically, educational research regarding the successfully developed and managed LA programs in the
efficacy of the transformation is conducted by the lead fac-
physics department alone.39 Successful LA programs have
ulty member, a Noyce Fellow, and sometimes a postdoctoral
started in the physics department with a buy-in from the
scholar. In these contexts, LAs assume varying roles, all with
the common theme of supporting educational practices that department chair and a handful of interested faculty mem-
are known to improve student understanding. bers.
Departments considering implementing an LA program
need to identify sources of financial and pedagogical support
IV. SCALING THE LA PROGRAM for the undergraduates who will be enrolling. Implementa-
We have studied the scaling of the program by examining tion of an LA program requires funding of a few thousand
the use of LA-supported Tutorials in Introductory Physics dollars per LA per year.40 An alternative to this cost is to
over a 6-year span, covering 15 different implementations of provide course credit in a service-learning model,41 where
the tutorials by 15 faculty members.22 We observe that it is LAs receive course credit for time spent supporting course
possible to demonstrate strong and consistent learning gains transformation. Although pedagogical support for LAs may
for different faculty members. Table I summarizes the overall be challenging, it is a critical component of the program.
measures of students’ conceptual learning gains in first se- LAs must be supported both in weekly content preparation
mester courses. Although the listed courses span nearly the such as the tutorial preparation we have discussed and in
entire range of learning gains documented for interactive their acquisition and implementation of pedagogical tech-
courses elsewhere,9 all courses with the LA-supported tuto- niques through a forum such as the Mathematics and Science
rials led to learning gains higher than any classes that had Education course. We encourage physics departments to
traditional recitation experiences. All except two of the partner with their Schools of Education to offer such a spe-
courses listed in Table I were taught by different instructors. cialize course and have sample course materials available for
Semesters F03 and S04 were taught by the same instructor, a those interested.

1222 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 78, No. 11, November 2010 Otero, Pollock, and Finkelstein 1222
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: [Link] Downloaded to IP:
[Link] On: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 [Link]
 V. SUSTAINING SUCCESSFUL LA PROGRAMS Haan, J. Gentile, S. Lauffer, J. Stewart, S. M. Tilghman, and W. Wood,
“Scientific teaching,” Science 304, 521–522 共2004兲; J. Luken, J. Han-
Can the Learning Assistant model be sustained? Is it pos- delsman, R. Beichner, P. Bruns, A. Chang, R. DeHaan, D. Ebert-May, J.
sible to scale this model without significant external fund- Gentile, S. Lauffer, J. Stewart, and William W. Wood, “Universities and
ing? We believe so. Currently, 85% of our LAs are funded by the teaching of science,” ibid. 306, 229–230 共2004兲.
9
R. Hake, “Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six
our administration and private donations, although these are thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics
temporary funds and the university is working toward stable courses,” Am. J. Phys. 66 共1兲, 64–74 共1998兲.
institutional funding. 10
National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 共Na-
At CU Boulder, the Learning Assistant program is tional Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, 2006兲, Vol. 1, NSB 06-01; Vol.
university-wide and benefits from such scale. We bring to- 11
2, NSB 06-01A.
gether a variety of interested faculty members, department National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educa-
heads, deans, and senior administrators, each of whom has a tional Progress 共NEAP兲, 2005 Science Assessments 共Institute for Educa-
tional Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, 2005兲.
stake in and benefits from increasing the number of high- “Proficient” is an arbitrary cut-off intended to reflect the cited qualities. It
quality teachers, improving our undergraduate courses, and is one of the three NAEP achievement levels. Students reaching this level
increasing the number of math and science majors. Because have demonstrated competency, including subject matter knowledge, ap-
teacher recruitment and preparation are tied to the improved plication of such knowledge to real-world situations, and analytical skills
education for all students through the transformation of un- 12
appropriate to the subject matter.
dergraduate courses, many members of the university com- T. Hodapp, J. Hehn, and W. Hein, “Preparing high school physics teach-
ers,” Phys. Today 62共2兲, 40–45 共2009兲; National Task Force for Teacher
munity have a vested interest in the success of the Colorado
Education in Physics, Report Synopsis 共February 2010兲.
LA program. CU Boulder recently received funding to repli- 13
V. Otero, “Recruiting talented mathematics and science majors to careers
cate the University of Texas at Austin’s successful UTeach in teaching: A collaborative effort for K–16 educational reform,” Pro-
certification program.35 The new CU-Teach certification pro- ceedings of the 2006 Annual General Meeting of the National Association
gram utilizes the Colorado LA program as one of two meth- for Research in Science Teaching, edited by D. B. Zandvliet and J. Os-
ods for recruiting students to careers in teaching. borne, 2006.
14
With the commitment of physics departments to the en- T. Sanders, “No time to waste: The vital role of college and university
leaders in improving science and mathematics education,” paper pre-
hanced education of all students and to the recruitment and sented at Invitational Conference on Teacher Preparation and Institutions
preparation of future teachers, we can collectively enhance of Higher Education 共U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC,
the status of education both for the students considering 2004兲.
15
teaching careers and for the faculty teaching these students. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy Planning and Innovation,
As scientists, we can take action to address the critical short- Meeting the Highly Qualified Teachers Challenge: The Secretary’s Sec-
fall of science teachers by improving our undergraduate pro- ond Annual Report on Teacher Quality 共Washington, DC, 2002兲.
16
E. F. Redish, Teaching Physics: With the Physics Suite 共Wiley-VCH,
grams and engaging more substantively in evidence-based
Berlin, 2003兲.
solutions in education and teacher preparation. 17
E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual 共Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 1997兲.
18
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS L. McDermott, P. Shaffer, and the Physics Education Group, Tutorials in
Introductory Physics 共Prentice-Hall, Saddle River, NJ, 2002兲.
19
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Na- V. Otero, N. Finkelstein, S. Pollock, and R. McCray, “Who is responsible
tional Science Foundation 共Award Nos. DUE-0302134, DUE 20
for preparing science teachers?,” Science 313, 445–446 共2006兲.
424144, DUE-833258, and DRL-0554616兲, and the support S. V. Chasteen and S. J. Pollock, “A research-based approach to assessing
student learning issues in upper-division electricity & magnetism,” 2009
of American Institute of Physics, the American Association
Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, edited by M. Sa-
of Physics Teachers, the PhysTEC program of the American bella, C. Henderson, and C. Singh 共AIP Press, Melville, NY, 2009兲, pp.
Physical Society, and the Association of Public and Land 7–10.
Grant Universities’ Science and Mathematics Teacher Im- 21
S. Goldhaber, S. J. Pollock, M. Dubson, P. Beale, and K. Perkins, “Trans-
perative. forming upper-division quantum mechanics: Learning goals and assess-
ment,” 2009 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, edited
by M. Sabella, C. Henderson, and C. Singh 共AIP Press, Melville, NY,
1
Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century, 2009兲, pp. 145–148.
Rising Above the Gathering Storm 共National Academy Press, Washing- 22
S. Pollock and N. Finkelstein, “Sustaining educational reforms in intro-
ton, DC, 2006兲. ductory physics,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 4, 010110 共2008兲.
2 23
National Center for Education Statistics, Trends in Math and Science L. Shulman, “Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching,”
Study 共Institute for Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Educ. Res. 15 共2兲, 4–14 共1986兲; L. Shulman, “Knowledge and teaching:
Washington, DC, 2003兲, 具[Link]/timss/[Link]典. Foundations of the new reform,” Harv. Educ. Rev. 57, 1–22 共1987兲.
3 24
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Learning for R. T. Putnam and H. Borko, “What do new views of knowledge and
Tomorrow’s World–First Results from PISA 2003 共OECD, Paris, 2003兲, thinking have to say about research on teacher learning?,” Educ. Res. 29
具[Link]/典. 共1兲, 4–15 共2000兲.
4 25
National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s Report Card: Sci- B. S. Eylon and E. Bagno, “Research-design model for professional de-
ence 2005 共NCES, Washington, DC, 2005兲, 具[Link]/ velopment of teachers: Designing lessons with physics education re-
nationsreportcard/pdf/main2005/2006466_2.pdf典. search,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 020106 共2006兲.
5 26
How People Learn, in Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, edited by J. CU-Teach is a part of the UTeach replication effort, funded by the Na-
D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking 共National Academy Press, tional Mathematics and Science Initiative, and partially funded by Exxon/
Washington, DC, 1999兲. Mobil. Noyce scholarships are funded by National Science Foundation
6
M. Neuschatz, M. McFarling, and S. White, Reaching the Critical Mass: Grant DUE-0434144 and DUE-833258. Typically Noyce Fellows receive
The Twenty Year Surge in High School Physics, Findings from the 2005 up to $15000 per year and engage in STEM education research in their
Nationwide Survey of High School Physics Teachers 共AIP, College Park, major departments.
27
MD, 2008兲, Fig. 14, p. 17. Colorado Commission on Higher Education, Report to Governor and
7
American Association for Employment in Education, Educator Supply General Assembly on Teacher Education 共CCHE, Denver, CO, 2006兲.
and Demand in the United States 共AAEE, Columbus, OH, 2003兲. 28
R. K. Thornton and D. R. Sokoloff, “Assessing student learning of New-
8
J. Handelsman, D. Ebert-May, R. Beichner, P. Bruns, A. Chang, R. De- ton’s laws: The force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evalua-

1223 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 78, No. 11, November 2010 Otero, Pollock, and Finkelstein 1223
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: [Link] Downloaded to IP:
[Link] On: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 [Link]
 tion of active learning laboratory and lecture curricula,” Am. J. Phys. 66 the Bohr model and how to teach it effectively,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys.
共4兲, 338–351 共1998兲. Educ. Res. 4, 010103 共2008兲.
29 36
L. Ding, R. Chabay, B. Sherwood, and R. Beichner, “Evaluating an elec- S. V. Chasteen and S. J. Pollock, “Transforming upper-division dlectricity
tricity and magnetism assessment tool: Brief electricity and magnetism and magnetism,” 2008 Physics Education Research Conference Proceed-
assessment,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2, 010105 共2006兲. ings, edited by C. Henderson, M. Sabella, and L. Hsu 共AIP Press,
30
S. Pollock, “A longitudinal study of student conceptual understanding in Melville, NY, 2008兲, pp. 91–94.
37
electricity and magnetism,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020110 R. Knight, Student Workbook for Physics for Scientists and Engineers: A
共2009兲. Strategic Approach 共Addison-Wesley, San Francisco, 2003兲.
31 38
M. A. Kohlmyer, M. D. Caballero, R. Catrambone, R. W. Chabay, L. See 具[Link]/典.
39
Ding, M. P. Haugan, M. J. Marr, B. A. Sherwood, and M. F. Schatz, “Tale See G. Stewart, “Undergraduate learning assistants at the University of
of two curricula: The performance of 2000 students in introductory elec- Arkansas: Formal classroom experience, preparation for a variety of pro-
tromagnetism,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 5, 020105 共2009兲. fessional needs,” APS Forum on Education Newsletter, Summer 2006,
32
W. K. Adams, K. K. Perkins, N. Podolefsky, M. Dubson, N. D. Finkel- pp. 36–37, [Link] L. Seeley
stein, and C. E. Wieman, “A new instrument for measuring student be- and S. Vokos, “Creating and sustaining a teaching and learning profes-
liefs about physics and learning physics: The Colorado Learning Atti- sional community at Seattle Pacific University,” APS Forum on Educa-
tudes about Science Survey,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 2 共1兲, tion Newsletter, Summer 2006, pp. 38–41, [Link]
010101 共2006兲. newsletters/[Link].
33 40
E. Redish, J. Saul, and R. Steinberg, “Student expectations in introduc- The cost of a LA is less than one-fifth that of a graduate TA. Alterna-
tory physics,” Am. J. Phys. 66 共3兲, 212–224 共1998兲. tively, LAs may receive credit in lieu of pay.
34
DBER 共CU Boulder兲, 具[Link]/ScienceEducation/ 41
N. D. Finkelstein, “Teaching and learning physics: A model for coordi-
[Link]典. nating physics instruction, outreach, and research,” J. Scholarship Teach.
35
S. B. McKagan, K. K. Perkins, and C. E. Wieman, “Why we should teach Learn. 4 共2兲, 1–17 共2004兲.

1224 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 78, No. 11, November 2010 Otero, Pollock, and Finkelstein 1224
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: [Link] Downloaded to IP:
[Link] On: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 [Link]