Review of Physics teaching and learning: Challenging the paradigm Mason, M. N. (2022, February 21). Review of Physics teaching and learning: Challenging the paradigm by D. W. Sunal, J. T. Shemwell, J. W. Harrell, & C.S. Sunal (Eds.). Education Review, 29. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/er.v29.3401 February 23, 2022 ISSN 1094-5296 Sunal, D. W., Shemwell, J. T., Harrell, J. W., & Sunal, C. S. (2019). Physics teaching and learning: Challenging the paradigm. Information Age Publishing. Pp. 254 ISBN: 978-1-64113-656-3 Reviewed by Michelle N. Mason University of Wyoming United States High-quality STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education is considered an international priority for addressing global challenges (Shernoff et al., 2017; Tanenbaum et al., 2016). However, physics education has traditionally been, and remains, a particularly difficult case to handle (Banilower, 2013; Hodapp et al., 2009). The vast majority of high school physics teachers are not certified to teach the subject (Kena et al., 2015), and even fewer have a college degree in the field (Tesfaye & White, 2012), leaving most physics instructors ill-prepared to effectively teach their courses (Meltzer, 2012). Reforming physics education has been fairly high on the priority list for administrators and secondary teachers (Meltzer & Otero, 2015). Helping teachers transition from traditional lectures to more engaging pedagogies is at the core of this reformation (e.g., Liu & Sun, 2021), which has been especially important recently due to COVID-dictated remote education. Sunal et al.’s Physics Teaching and Learning: Challenging the Paradigm covers several strategies aimed at helping physics teachers improve their practice. The eighth volume in the Research in Science Education (RISE) series; this 254- page edited collection comprises nine chapters written by 26 authors. The goal of the RISE series is to present “currently unavailable, or difficult to gather, materials from a variety of viewpoints and sources in a usable and organized format” (p. vii) for K-12 teachers. This volume is accessible and clearly organized into three major themes: improvements to teacher professional development programs, scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) projects, and overarching Education Review /Reseñas Educativas/Resenhas Educativas 2 issues in physics education. However, readers seeking groundbreaking work or research not already freely accessible should look elsewhere. The first section focuses on professional development programs for physics teachers, specifically the positive effects that professional development can have on enhancing teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, or the type of expertise that only educators develop which allows them to effectively relate the content to their pedagogy. The authors use the crucial aspects of professional development laid out by Desimone (2011) to guide their studies: inquiry-based content learning, active learning pedagogy, extensive and continuous hours of training, alignment of teacher training with district goals, and collaboration among in- service teachers. They find that physics professional development workshops that employ the modeling instruction approach yield significant changes in teachers’ classrooms. Modeling instruction workshops are especially effective in professional development programs for physics teachers, having them shift between student role and educator role. According to the authors, this shift tends to change the way instructors perceive teaching and learning, often resulting in a student-centered pedagogy that focuses on inquiry and reflective thinking. Moving beyond professional development and into the classroom, several contributors address tangible, in-classroom methods aimed at improving physics education. These studies could be classified as SoTL projects, although none of the authors identify them as such. SoTL “tends to be classroom-oriented, rather than theory- or hypothesis-driven… linked to what [faculty] see in the learning, or misunderstandings, of their students” (Felten, 2013, p. 121). With a narrow focus on unique practitioner issues, these chapters are well suited for that categorization. For example, one study focuses on computational modeling of complex systems. While prominent STEM educators recommend the incorporation of computer science into physics education (Chabay & Sherwood, 2008; diSessa, 2001), it is not yet a widespread practice. This chapter emphasizes that instructors need to have a strong background in computer science in order to adequately incorporate computational modeling into their curriculum. However, the persistent notion that computational modeling is “a promising avenue for motivating talented students” (p. 130, emphasis added) can be a bit of a turnoff for those who subscribe to the growth mindset model and believe that any student can excel despite their inherent abilities (Dweck, 2006). Another chapter explores the use of personification in physics, where human characteristics are attributed to material substances. The authors of this chapter argue that the use of personification is beneficial in helping students build a bridge from metaphorical explanations to formal conceptual understanding. Another chapter that resonates with a SoTL approach presents a research-informed strategy for teaching energy to teenage students in a conceptual manner. Here, the authors concluded that their teaching sequence did increase students’ conceptual understanding of energy more than traditional curriculum, but they do not claim that a conceptual approach to energy is more effective than a material approach. Review of Physics Teaching and Learning 3 Rather than speaking to broader impacts, the nature of these SoTL projects provide an acute perspective on distinct teaching practices. The remainder of Physics Teaching and Learning addresses overarching issues in physics education, and this the most informative and widely applicable portion of the text. The authors tackle essential issues that plague many physics teachers, including co-construction of knowledge through scaffolding, computer- supported collaborative learning, and the limitations and pitfalls of assessment- driven teaching. If you are a K-12 public school physics teacher, you have likely run into these issues and may need some help navigating the muddy waters. From strategies of modeling the construction of knowledge to virtual simulations that promote small group work, there are some useful tips, tricks, and insights presented in these three chapters. Furthermore, these studies are extremely well- structured, with detailed explanations of frameworks, contexts, methods, and implications. This volume provides a respectable synthesis of the literature regarding the challenges that face K-12 physics teachers as well as some suggestions for overcoming those challenges. Much of the content is valuable for those who do not have in-depth or personal knowledge of what it is like to teach physics in an assessment-driven K-12 setting. For instance, some authors include their assessment tools, including the pre-test, post-test, and interview protocols, as a resource for the reader. Indeed, several chapters in this text clearly show how physics instructors are “challenging the paradigm of teacher-centered instruction” (p. 106) in order to “align the learning experiences they [provide] to students with their knowledge about how to help students learn using more constructivist, student-centered inquiry and problem-solving approaches” (p. 169). However, some chapters contain substantial deficiencies (lack of detailed explanations of frameworks, contexts, methods, and implications), that distract from the ideas the authors were trying to convey and hinder their applicability. Physics education reform is a multifaceted effort, and the authors who contributed to Physics Teaching and Learning attempt to address the issue by providing their unique and varied perspectives. The authors show educators that even though physics education needs reform, specific problems can be tackled through professional development programs, broad pedagogical choices, and individual lesson decisions. Despite some limitations, this edited collection is a step in the right direction toward building a roadmap out of the persistent predicament of low-quality physics education. References Banilower, E. (2013). 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Horizon Research. Chabay, R. & Sherwood, B. (2008). Computational physics in the introductory calculus-based course. American Journal of Physics, 76(4), 307–313. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2835054 https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2835054 Education Review /Reseñas Educativas/Resenhas Educativas 4 Desimone, L. M. (2011). A primer on effective professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 68–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171109200616 diSessa, A. A. (2001). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1786.001.0001 Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House. Felten, P. (2013). Principles of good practice in SoTL. Teaching & Learning Inquiry: The ISSOTL Journal, 1(1), 121–125. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.1.1.121 Hodapp, T., Hehn, J., & Hein, W. (2009). Preparing high-school physics teachers. Physics Today, 62(2), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3086101 Kena, G., Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., Wang, X., Rathbun, A., Zhang, J., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Barmer, A., Velez, E. D. V., National Center for Education Statistics (ED), American Institutes for Research, & RTI International. (2015). The condition of education 2015. NCES 2015-144. National Center for Education Statistics. Liu, T., & Sun, H. (2021). Key competencies of physics teachers. Higher Education Studies, 11(1), 28–33. Meltzer, D. E., & Otero, V. K. (2015). A brief history of physics education in the United States. American Journal of Physics, 83(5), 447–458. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4902397 Meltzer, D. E., Plisch, M., & Vokos, S. (2012). The role of physics departments in high school teacher education. American Physical Society. Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing educator education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 13(4), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1 Tanenbaum, C., Gray, T., Lee, K., Williams, M., & Upton, R. (2016). STEM 2026: A vision for innovation in STEM education. U.S. Department of Education. Tesfaye, C. L., & White, S. (2012). High school physics teacher preparation. American Institute of Physics. About the Reviewer Michelle N. Mason is a doctoral candidate in the Physics & Astronomy department at the University of Wyoming, and she is concurrently enrolled in university’s doctoral program in Science Education. She is studying the impacts of mentoring of underrepresented students, specifically as it pertains to the recruitment and retention of diverse scholars in STEM fields. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171109200616 https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1786.001.0001 https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.1.1.121 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3086101 https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4902397 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1 Review of Physics Teaching and Learning 5 Education Review/Reseñas Educativas/Resenhas Educativas is supported by the Scholarly Communications Group at the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review. Readers are free to copy, display, distribute, and adapt this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Review, the changes are identified, and the same license applies to the derivative work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. Disclaimer: The views or opinions presented in book reviews are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of Education Review. Connect with Education Review on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Education- Review/178358222192644) and on Twitter @EducReview https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Education-Review/178358222192644 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Education-Review/178358222192644