123
July 13–17, 2013
Wednesday afternoon
Session FH: PER: The Birth of a
Subdivision of Physics
Location: Pavilion West
Sponsor: Committee on History and Philosophy in Physics
Date: Wednesday, July 17
Time: 12:30–2:30 p.m.
Presider: Ruth Howes
FH01:
12:30-1 p.m. Are We There Yet?
Invited – Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr., Boise State University, Physics Department,
MS 1570, Boise, ID 83725-1570;
The story from participation in what we now call Physics Education
Research (PER) reveals challenges faced by the field since its beginnings
in the late 1960s, early 1970s. PER is not from a bifurcation of an existing
field of physics. Instead, it is a brand new field in physics. As such, PER has
faced, and still faces, challenges of a different sort than one would expect in
a bifurcation. Some of these challenges will be described from the perspec-
tive of a member of the field since near its beginning.
FH02:
1-1:30 p.m. Physics Education Research in Tecnologico
de Monterrey: A Case Study
Invited – Genaro Zavala, Tecnologico de Monterrey, E. Garza Sada, 2501
Monterrey, NL 64849 Mexico;
The history of Physics Education Research (PER) in other countries is
shorter than that in the United States. In some countries the activity is
non-existent and/or PER is not recognized as a research subdivision of
physics by physics communities. In this talk I will present the case of
Mexico focusing in a city, Monterrey, and in an Institution, Tecnologico de
Monterrey. Although the emphasis will be on only one institution, howev-
er, the history of PER in Tecnologico de Monterrey is strongly linked to the
history of PER in Mexico since PER, unlike Physics Education which has a
long tradition, is present in a small number of institutions in the country.
FH03:
1:30-2 p.m. A Community-based Report of the Develop-
mental History of PER
Invited – Karen Cummings, 501 Crescent St., New Haven, CT 06511;
In the fall of 2010 I was asked to put together a report on the developmen-
tal history of the field of Physics Education Research which I presented
to the National Research Council of the National Academies of Sci-
ences, Committee on the Status, Contributions, and Future Directions of
Disciplined-Based Education Research (DBER). A goal of the committee
(with funding from the NSF) was to gain a broad view of the historical
development, current status, and future directions of the various DBER
fields. The history that I compiled and reported is information I gathered
from more than 20 people who are, or were, active in the development of
the PER community. In this talk I will summarize this work and compare
the development of PER with other DBER fields. Unique developmental
aspects of PER that I believe have been crucial in the relative success of the
field will be highlighted.
FH04:
2-2:30 p.m. Establishing a PER Group in a Physics
Department: An Example
Invited – Lillian C. McDermott, University of Washington-Seattle, Department
of Physics, Seattle, WA 98195; lcmcd@phys,washington,edu
From the early 1970s onward, the Physics Education Group in the Physics
Department at the University of Washington (UW) has worked toward
establishing physics education research (PER) as an appropriate field for
scientific inquiry in physics departments. In 1999 APS and AAPT issued a
joint resolution in strong support of PER by physics faculty, post-docs, and
graduate students. Since then, the field has grown rapidly. It is still difficult,
however, to establish a viable group in PER, especially at research-intensive
universities. The experience at UW may provide some helpful insights to
others who may want to establish a PER group.
Session FI: Physics & Society
Location: Galleria III
Sponsor: Committee on Science Education for the Public
Co-sponsor: Committee on Space Science and Astronomy
Date: Wednesday, July 17
Time: 12:30–2:30 p.m.
Presider: Art Hobson
FI01:
12:30-1 p.m. The Internet, the Information Age, and
Climate Science
Invited – Andrew L. Rice,* Portland State University, Department of Physics,
Portland, OR 97207-0751;
The Internet has led to an unprecedented availability of information and,
with the emergence of “smart” phones, this information is literally at our
fingertips at all times. This accessibility of information facilitates an open
exchange of ideas and opinions through online dialogs between like-mind-
ed citizens who share similar core values and world views. Yet this is not
without repercussions. Much of the information available online is without
filter, subject to author bias and, at worst, intentionally misinformative.
There are few scientific fields today more subject to this than climate sci-
ence. In this talk we examine the origins of information on climate science
on the Internet and how it is disseminated. We also discuss different peda-
gogical approaches for addressing questions on climate science stimulated
from online material. Finally, we examine widely circulated statements as
case studies of the challenges educators face in addressing the spread of
online misinformation about climate science.
*Sponsored by Art Hobson
FI02:
1-1:30 p.m. Wacky or Real: What Are YOU Doing About
It?
Invited – Erik Bodegom, Portland State University, Department of Physics,
Portland, OR 97201;
There are 7 billion people on Earth, most with crazy ideas, beliefs, and
superstitions that spread quickly far and wide by e-means. Prior to the
Pony Express, ideas spread slowly, haphazardly. Because of today’s flood
of misinformation, junk science, and woo-woo, it is necessary that people
are vaccinated against moronity. It is the mission of the sciences and
philosophy to inoculate the masses, but are we failing? Even many notable
scientists have shown a shocking lack of understanding, e.g., Josephson,
Pauling, Shockley, Mullis, Lenard, Mullis, Watson, Giaever, P. Curie, and
Collins. Why? We live under the pretense that we are more than “Cro-
Magnon.” But are we?
FI03:
1:30-2 p.m. Another Look at Surprising Facts About
Earth’s Current Population
Invited – A. James Mallmann, Milwaukee School of Engineering, 1025 North
Broadway, Milwaukee, WI 53202-3109;
Simple arithmetic can be used to present what would seem to be convinc-
ing evidence that Earth’s current population should not be viewed with any
concerns that would inspire us to worry. But equally simple arithmetic can
be used to show that that seemingly convincing evidence should be ques-
tioned. Which of these examples of contradictory evidence should be used
as a guide to think about the current and future population of Earth?
FI04:
2-2:10 p.m. Using NYTimes Environmental Articles
to Teach Physics
Contributed – John P. Cise, Austin Community College, 1212 Rio Grande St.,
Austin, TX 78701;
For five years I have been using NYTimes articles on the environment to
assist in teaching physics concepts. NYTimes articles are: pasted into word,
edited to fit on one page, graphics added. Introduction, questions, hints,
and answers are then added to the standard printable word page. All pages
are available and printable at:
