Number 51

April 2006

ICPE Chair’s Corner
Greetings from India and the new Chair! These are
exciting times for Physics Education. The euphoria of theworld-wide celebration of the International Year of
Physics (IYP) is still with us. Our Commission and its
activities have been center stage as we had tremendous
opportunities to work towards fulfillment of our
objectives. The IYP brought closer all stakeholders; thosein schools, universities, research laboratories, nationalsocieties, government, science museums and other nonformal agencies engaged in the area of physics education.
Of particular significance has been the international
solidarity. Several international organizations worked
collaboratively to setup spectacular global events withlarge scale participation form across the world. There wassomething for everyone.
One of our major concerns has been to involve those indeveloping countries and help strengthen physics
education in culturally relevant ways. The deliberations at
the World Conference on Physics and Sustainable
Development at Durban in October 2005 led to actionplans for Physics Education, reported in this issue. Thisconference was different as it was visualized as thestarting point of a long term world-wide initiative. At the
recently concluded IUPAP meeting of the council chairs,
it was heartening to see all commissions endorse plansand promise proactive support. Since then, IUPAP has
earmarked special funds for beginning work. A beginningis being made with a UNESCO Workshop in Morocco in
April and later in the year in India followed by one in
Latin America.
The best way of propagating the cause of physics
education, it appears, would be for us to organize
conferences on physics education in countries which havenever done so before. The ICPE conference in Delhi in
August 2005, the first ever in the region, certainly
galvanized the community and the Government; there is
now serious interest in establishing and funding a vibrantprogram for Research and Innovation in Physics
Education in the country and a Nodal Resource Center toserve the region. We can catalyze similar interest as wetravel across the world.
There is much that we need to do in the coming few
years. The participation of women in physics at higher
levels continues to be an area of concern. The commission
also looks for ways to enhance participation of young, ormore appropriately, early career physics education

April 2006

researchers and educators in its conferences. We havereceived several requests for expanding our mandate tobring about greater participation of students and instituteactivities that directly benefit them. We invite suggestions
about the best way to proceed in each area. Starting withthis issue of the Newsletter, we hope to carry information
about innovative physics education resources andprograms, international events wherein students canparticipate and mentoring possibilities.
We look forward to our next conference in Tokyo, beingorganized by Toshio Hyodo. As usual, it will give us an
opportunity to meet and review the road map.

Pratibha Jolly, ICPE Chair, Delhi

In this issue
From the Chair .......................................................... 1
Prathiba Jolly (University of Delhi)

Conference Reports
ICPE2005, Delhi ......................................................... 2
World Conference on Physics and Sustainable
Development, Durban ................................................. 3
ArticlesUsing Enhanced Learning Technologies to Teach
Nanoscience Research Techniques to Postgraduate
Physics Students
Etain Kiely (Institute of Technology, Sligo) ................. 4
University Physics Education in Australia
Judith Pollard (The University of Adelaide), Manjula
Sharma (The University of Sydney), David Mills (Monash
University), Geoff Swan (Edith Cowan University) andAlberto Mendez (The University of Sydney) . ................. 7

Conferences
GIREP2006, Amsterdam ........................................... 10
ICEP2006, Tokyo ...................................................... 10
NoticesCompetition: First step to Nobel Prize in Physics ..... 11
ICPE Membership ..................................................... 11
From the Editor ....................................................... 12
Ian Johnston (The University of Sydney)

International Newsletter on Physics Education

1

Conferences Report

International Conference on Physics Education ICPE 2005
World View on Physics Education in 2005: Focusing on Change
Pratibha Jolly
Convener and Organizing Secretary, ICPE 2005
Miranda House, University of Delhi, Delhi 110 007, India
Miranda House, the prestigious college for women at the
University of Delhi, had the special privilege of hosting
the annual conference of the International Commission on
Physics Educational the country’s premiere convention
centre, Vigyan Bhavan in New Delhi, 21–26 August,2005. The conference assumed special significance as it
was ICPE’s conference in the International Year of
Physics and also because India hosted an IUPAP
conference on Physics Education after several decades.
The conference brought together about 350 participantsfrom 30 countries, with vibrant participation from theneighboring countries of South Asia, East Asia and otherdeveloping countries where Physics Education Researchis still in its infancy.
The conference dwelt in depth on changes in the ways ofteaching-learning of physics; in the understanding of theteaching-learning process; in the content of physics as adiscipline, and in the context of physics teaching. The
presence of some of the best known physics education
researchers, innovators, curriculum developers andpractitioners from the classroom ensured successful
elaboration of the conference themes. Those who wereattending a Physics Education Conference for the firsttime admitted that the deliberations had radically altered
their knowledge of, and epistemological beliefs about theteaching-learning process per se.

Conference keynotes
In keeping with the celebratory spirit of the InternationalYear of Physics, the Inaugural Day Program on 22 August
was designed to be special The conference wasinaugurated by the President of India, Dr. A. P. J. Abdul
Kalam in a hall filled to its capacity of 1200. Speaking of
Injecting beauty of science in teaching, with insightful
examples of the questions posed to him by students andthe strategies adopted by great teachers of science, Dr.
Kalam generated awesome delight amongst the diverse
international audience. (The full text of his speech
appeared in the October 2005 ICPE Newsletter.)In his eloquent keynote address, Communicating Physics:
a personal account, Nobel Laureate Horst Stormer from
Columbia University and Lucent Technologies, further
elaborated the process of scientific learning and discovery
with magnificent historic and pedagogic insight. This wasfollowed by a broad overview of the concerns of physics
education research by Edward F. Redish, University of
Maryland, who in his engaging and highly interactive talkfocused on Changing student ways of knowing: whatshould our students learn in a physics class? Professor K.
R. Sreenivasan, Abdus Salam, International Centre for
Theoretical Physics at Trieste, spoke aptly on Today’s

April 2006

physics for tomorrow: the world ofphysics beyond 2005. A glimpse ofphysics at the frontiers was provided
by Professor Anton Zeilinger, Institute of Experimental
Physics, Vienna, in his talk From Einstein to Quantum
Information and by Professor Lawrence Krauss, Case
Western Reserve University, in a talk provocatively titled
Einstein’s biggest blunder? A cosmic mystery story.

Technical sessions
The technical sessions on the remaining days included
invited talks, hands-on workshops, brief talks in parallelsessions; and poster presentations. Keynote talks gave an
overview of current issues and findings in physics
education research and elaborated the effective diagnostic
tools and instruments adopted for assessing conceptual
learning. Speakers reiterated the crucial research findingsthat show the gap between what is taught and what islearnt, presenting a convincing case for developing
learning environments that encourage active mental
engagement, the critical importance of hands-on minds-on
activities, the role of experiments and evidence, the roleof mathematics and, the role of ICT and emerging
technologies in the teaching-learning of physics. Several
talks emphasized the introduction of emerging areas ofphysics in the classroom; building of a holistic
perspective about the structure of knowledge in physics;
connecting research in physics to teaching-learning ofphysics; and teaching of physics in multidisciplinary
contexts.
Also discussed were changes in the context of physics
teaching, issues relating to bridging the gap between
schools, colleges, universities and the workplace;connecting teaching-learning to cultural contexts; andenhancing the public understanding of physics in amodern society. A special session was devoted tonurturing women in physics.

Other highlights
These included: presentation of the ICPE Medal to Svein
Sjöberg of Norway; a stage science show; exhibitions ofscientific equipment form the best known internationaland national manufacturers and exhibition of books.
Parallel programs organized each day at the National
Science Centre and Museum gave some of the
distinguished conference speakers a chance to address andinteract with a hall full of nearly 300 excited school
students. Showcasing the technology capability of thecountry, at immense cost, units of Indira Gandhi National
Open University, the National Informatics Centre, andIndian Space Research Organization video recorded theInternational Newsletter on Physics Education

2

Conference Reportentire proceedings as an educational resource. These weredirectly transmitted by EDUSAT, the educational
satellite, for viewing in real time across the country. They
were web cast and are now archived at the conference
website.
The penultimate day conference banquet had a befitting
surprise for the participants. The famous and muchawarded danseuse, Shovana Narayan, herself a physics
graduate, presented a specially choreographed
performance in Indian Classical dance form Kathak,
dedicated to the International Year of Physics and theconference. Titled Anugatti – the dance of the particles,

the performance captured the physicist’s imagination andsculpted concepts through interplay of movement,
rhythm, sound and light.

Future plans
The conference proceeding is being brought out by World
Scientific Publishing Company. The action plans include
bringing together some of the best physics educators towork collaboratively and establishment of a vigorous
program for Research and Innovation in Physics
Education (RIPE) India which can also serve othercountries in the region. A beginning for this has alreadybeen made at Miranda House.

World Conference on Physics and Sustainable Development
Pratibha Jolly, Miranda House, University of Delhi, Delhi 110 007, India
Priscilla Laws, Dickinson College, Carlisle, PA 17013, USA
As part of the International Year of Physics celebrations,
IUPAP, UNESCO and ICTP organized a conference on
Physics and Sustainable Development, in Durban, South
Africa, 30 October–2 November, 2005. The organizers
identified that if physics is to impact sustainable
development, there is need to understand and suggest
action plans for the coming years in four critical areas,
namely, Physics Education, Physics and Economic
Development, Energy and Environment, and Physics and
Health.

Physics education goals
An international Physics Education Planning committee
was established, which identified several guidelines foraction planning and set the following agenda:
1. Physics education should be strengthened in ways thatare sustained by local initiatives.
2. Improvements in physics education should be focusedon the secondary level and the training of future
physics teachers.
3. Basic physics teaching should be enhanced by the useof locally developed examples, assignments andprojects.
During day 2 of the conference, approximately 100
delegates divided into four breakout groups, which
discussed:
1. Dissemination of Teacher Resources: how to create
an International Physics Education Resource Center,
which could offer electronic access to curriculum
materials and other teaching resources.
2. Development of New Curriculum Materials: how to
identify physics topics relevant to the needs ofdeveloping countries, and to promote ways to develop
and disseminate locally modifiable materials andequipment.
3. Pilot Teacher Workshops: how to design andimplement teacher workshops using available
resources, serving the needs of the three developing
regions, Latin America, Africa and Asia.

April 2006

4. Mobile Physics: how the potential of mobile sciencemight provide access to equipment and resources;enrich teaching; support teachers; and involve thewider science community in science education

Recommendations
The following project plans were proposed by the
Breakout Session Groups:
1. To give educators and students in developing
countries access to high quality physics education
resources by establishing a website and Physics
Education Resource Centres in Africa, Asia and Latin
America.
2. To develop supplemental instructional materials forsecondary physics courses that help students
understand how the mastery of physics concepts canenable them to contribute to sustainable developmentin their own countries.
3. To develop model workshops for teacher-trainers inAsia, Latin America and Africa that exemplify how
active learning methods can be adapted to help meetthe needs of students in developing countries.
4. To establish a structured multi-disciplinary mobile
science community that provides support to mobile
science practitioners, enabled by a web site hosted bytheInstituteofPhysics(UK)at:
http://www.mobilescience.info/.

Future plans
The IUPAP in February 2006, at the meeting of its
Council Chairs and Executive Council endorsed theseaction plans and reiterated that there is an urgent need togive a boost to physics education if research in physics isto thrive. As part of this initiative, within the frameworkof the UNESCO project Active Learning in Optics andPhotonics (ALOP): Training of Physics Trainers, aworkshop will be held at the Faculty of Sciences
Semlalia, Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakech in Morocco
from 23–29 April 2006. The WCPSD committee plans toorganize similar workshops in India and Latin America
later in the year.

International Newsletter on Physics Education

3

Article

Using Enhanced Learning Technologies to Teach Nanoscience
Research Techniques to Postgraduate Physics Students
Etain Kiely
School of Science, Institute of Technology, Sligo
Ballinode, Sligo, Ireland. Kiely.Etain @itsligo.ie
This paper is abridged from an article in the November 2005 issue of CAL-laborate published by UniServe Science,
The complete article may be viewed at: http://science.uniserve.edu.au/pubs/china/vol5/CP5_phys_03.pdf.

Background and motivation‘Nano’ derives from the Greek word for dwarf. ‘Nano’ isa prefix meaning one-billionth, so a nanometre is onebillionth of a metre. Nanoscience generally refers to theworld as it works on the nanometre scale, from one
nanometre to several hundred nanometres. To put thatscale of measurement into perspective, a human red blood
cell is about 7,500 nanometres across, and one nanometreis roughly 10 atoms wide. Industry recognises theextraordinary potential the nanotechnology field offers in
the form of bulk, composite, or coating materials to
optoelectronic engineering, magnetic recording, ceramics
and special metals engineering, bioengineering, and micro
manufacturing (Siegal 1998). The possibilities ofnanotechnology are endless. Entirely new classes ofincredibly strong, extremely light and environmentallybenign materials could be created (Lane 1998).
Nanotechnology’s rapid growth provides challenges toour academic communities and they are reacting slowly to
prepare the workforce for emerging opportunities innanotechnology. No specific training programme exists
within the Irish education system, for example, andstudents who are engaged in research in nanotechnology
gather their information on nanotechnology from books
and the Internet. A survey carried out for the purpose ofthis study in the University of Limerick (2001) revealed
96% of nanotechnology related research students believed
there was a need for a web-based teaching package innanoscience materials research. Nanolab was developed
to provide up to date information about facilities andexperimental techniques, to reduce the burden on
supervisors, to fully utilise the facilities created byexternal funding and to attain excellence in research. The
system is a web-based teaching/learning package that uses
the Internet as its platform for delivery. Internet
applications offer the potential to combine the advantagesof the traditional and new education methods whensufficient bandwidths are available.

Design and development of Nanolab
The underlying educational theory for Nanolab is Piaget’s
theory of Constructivism. This assumes the learner takes
control of his/her own learning, constructing knowledge
by building on previous experiences. Nanolab isconsistent with this theory as learning starts with issues
around which the students are actively trying to constructmeaning. The package focuses on primary concepts rather
than isolated facts. Since education is inherently

April 2006

interdisciplinary, the package measures learning by
making the assessment part of the learning process,ensuring it provides students with information on thequality of their learning. Currently, there are no widely
recognised models of web-based design. The field of
instructional design (ID) is in a state of rapid change(Wilson 1997). Existing models of instructional designfor both traditional instruction and for software
instruction contain elements that are suited to
instructional design for web-based learning.
For the purpose of developing Nanolab it was necessary
to draw from existing models of instructional design when
designing the web-based teaching package. This approachallows the development of both the technological solution
and the pedagogy required to make a useful adaptive
learning system. The author adapted Stoner’s framework(Stoner 1996) and McNutt’s lifecycle (McNutt 1991) andmerged their models with educational theories to create
one model that would then be the basis for the
implementation and development of the teaching/learning
package Nanolab. This model promotes a step-by-stepprocedure. The first step recognised the potential fordevelopment in the initiation phase through preliminary
assessment of the situation. This called for appropriate
research of the relevant literature, which led to thedefinition of course aims and objectives. The next phaseanalysed the required level of integration including
content inclusion and the appropriate selection of learningtechnologies. This enabled the progression to the designphase, which considered the learning activities, course
structure, interface design, media design, interaction
design, and assessment integration. This was thenimplemented and evaluated in a cyclic format until themost appropriate system was devised.

Definition phase
The explicit definition of the course objectives for
Nanolab satisfies a number of different requirements forthe later development of the project, from providing a
number of metrics one can measure the implemented
system against to provide prospective users of the systemwith an explanation of how the implemented system canbenefit them.
The audience that the system Nanolab targets are
postgraduate students at the University of Limerick whoare engaged in research on materials in the nanoscale
range. The audience definition was compiled from online

International Newsletter on Physics Education

4

Articlesurvey results of students currently researchingnanomaterials and first hand knowledge of the group. At
present there are approximately 20 students researchingmaterials in the nanoscale range. They breakdown into thefollowing categories: Thin Films, Electrochemistry,
Biomedical, Magnetic Materials, and Surface Science.
The researchers are based and affiliated with different
departments including Physics, Chemistry, Engineering,and Materials Surface Science. The group as a whole arecomputer literate and have access to a computer each day.

in aiding fellow researchers. For the purpose of contacting
supervisors, email should prove an adequate means ofcommunication.

Analysis
Nanolab adopted a hybrid structure, organising thecontent on the server in a combined hierarchical/network
structure. The root of this hierarchical tree is the mainnavigation menu; the sub-sections consisting of a networkof related components are directly accessible from thismenu. Researchers searching for particular information
will yield the best result from a broad menu system withfewer levels to the hierarchy. Information, demonstrations
and illustrations were organised in ordering discrete
components into a coherent flow chart detailing how thecomponent sections interrelate to form the modules. The
approach employed by Nanolab resembles a traditional
feedback loop, by using a continuous improvement/
refinement process to integrate the technology into theuniversity environment.

Learning technologies (LT)
Local Area Network (LAN) generally refers to a highspeed and fault tolerant data network. LANs are capableof transmitting data at very fast rates. It is at present themost popular networking protocol, used by approximately
80% of networks worldwide (Woodward, Gattuccio andBrain 1999) The LAN speed at the University of Limerick
is 100 MB s-1 Ethernet LAN. This is the network
structure used in Nanolab to allow researchers to accessthe course materials. Macromedia Authorware was thegraphical authoring tool selected to produce the webbased executables for distribution of Nanolab to it
intended audience. Animations, illustrations and possible
interactions were implemented as Flash animations, using
a browser plug-in to view the resulting program.

Figure 1. User interface design used to navigate around
Nanolab

Implementation
The package is presented and subdivided into ten subsections: For the purpose of this paper examples of the
sub-sections have been displayed independently of theuser-template to conserve space (Figures 2 – 4).
Researchers will log-on to the system and can work
collaboratively with their peers through the use of the
discussion forum. Hypotheses can be constructed andchallenged, references can be shared, and they can discuss
their approach and evaluate it against the work of others.
Researchers can be encouraged to self-assess through theuse of the online quiz after exploring the techniques andanalysis sub-section. Feedback to question gives
encouragement when a response is correct and an
explanation when the response is incorrect.

Interface and interaction design
To achieve consistency, the system employs the following
conventions. The main menu is accessible to the user at
all times and sub-sections open within this frame. This
simplifies navigation for the user — see Figure 1, which
illustrates the user interface design used to navigate
around Nanolab. Each topic starts with a new display andis labelled accordingly in the screen title. Consistent key
actions are offered to navigate through the site, andforward and reverse progression are available. Global
control is provided in the form of help, glossaries andtermination is available at all times. There are a numberof different interactions available to the researchers; thesevary from direct email, to more involved possibilities
such as online discussion forum. The researchers are allbased at the University of Limerick, and so are in close
proximity. The use of discussion forum will be tostimulate lively discussion and provide alternative views

April 2006

Figure 2. Movie created using Flash MX showing how
the Scanning Electron Microscope works

International Newsletter on Physics Education

5

Article
Figure 2 illustrates a movie created using Flash MX about
how the Scanning Electron Microscope works and Figure
3 demonstrates the Nanoscale range using an interactive
animation of an oak leaf. The system will function as a

Assessment
The course assessment evaluates the actual course based
upon the feedback information from the user to improve
the system. This will be achieved by implementing an
online survey for researchers to communicate information
about the system. The evaluation of the package will bean ongoing process using a variety of methods such as
field trials, focus groups and expert panels and this will be
an integral part of the system development. This will
provide useful information on user-friendliness and easeof implementation as well accuracy and currency ofcontent.

Conclusions

Figure 3. Interactive animation of an oak leaf
demonstrating Nanoscale range
source of information by providing a glossary ofcommonly used terms and acronyms used in
nanotechnology research, a database of equipment andresearchers at the University of Limerick and a reference
sub-section of Nanonews internationally. The Virtual
Reality (VR) subsection offers environments in which thelearning is more realistic and in context. This enables
researchers to use attractive and user-friendly interfaces,
which encourage use of the equipment and techniques andgreatly increase user involvement. The use of multimedia
technology in Nanolab facilitates multi-sensory educationby allowing users to interact with the system and receive
not only textual, but also video or audio feedback. Video,
audio, animation and images also make possible theproduction of highly memorable, illustrative explanationsof concepts (Crosby and Iding 1997) This further
enhances interaction and makes applications more
intriguing and appealing to the user and lead to betterknowledge retention on the part of the user.

The system Nanolab was designed, developed andimplemented based on an adopted educational model by
Stoner’s (Stoner 1996) and McNutt’s lifecycle (McNutt
1991). The underlying learning theory for the system is
Constructivism. For this system, course assessment andfeedback will be of primary importance in improving andtailoring the system to best suit the needs of theresearchers to maximise the benefits obtained from thesystem whilst minimising the shortfalls. It is intended that
this web-based learning system Nanolab will provide
essential skills in various analytical and experimental
techniques used in nanoscopic materials research,
accelerate learning and enhance research while reducing
instructor and travel costs typically associated withtraditional training methods.

Acknowledgement
The author would like to acknowledge the support of Dr.
Zakia and Dr. Abdur Rahman, the University of Limerick
Foundation and General Electric who financially
supported this work.

References
Crosby, M.E. and Iding, M.K. (1997) The influence of amultimedia physics tutor. Computers and Education,
27(23).
Lane, N. (1998) Testimony on the budget request for
Fiscal Year 1999 for the National Science
Foundation. National Science Foundation.
McNutt, L. (1991) Design, Delivery and Evaluation of aHypertext System for Teaching Programming
Concepts. ACEC.
Siegal, R.W. (1998) Overview of the WTEC study.
WTEC Hyper-Librarian.
Stoner, G. (1996) A conceptual framework for the
integration of learning technology. Learning
Technology Dissemination Initiative.
Wilson, B.G. (1997) Reflections on constructivism andinstructional design. Instructional development
paradigms.
Woodward, S., Gattuccio, N. and Brain, M. (1999)
Microsoft Technology: Networking, Concepts, Tools
w/CD. Prentice Hall.

Figure 4. Explains and illustrates samples collected byresearchers using Atomic Force Microscopy

April 2006

International Newsletter on Physics Education

6

Article

University Physics Education in Australia
Judith Pollard, The University of Adelaide; Manjula D. Sharma, The University of Sydney; David Mills, Monash
University; Geoff Swan, Edith Cowan University; and Alberto Mendez, The University of Sydney(The complete project team consists of academics from a broad cross section of Australian universities, drawn largely
from the Physics Education Group (PEG) of the Australian Institute of Physics (AIP).)This report is substantially abridged from an article which appeared in Australian Physics (2006), B(1), 20–26.
In 2004, a project entitled “Learning Outcomes andCurriculum Development in Physics” was commissionedby the Australian Universities Teaching Commission(AUTC) to answer, inter alia, these questions:• How is the context and nature of physics education inAustralian universities changing?
• What factors are constraining staff and departments inproviding quality teaching and learning?
• How can we best share good practices so that physics
education strengthens, is sustained and grows?
The current context for physics education in universities
is indeed complex with quite dramatic changes occurring
during the last decade within most institutions. These

include changes to the nature and expectations of thestudent body, changes in staffing, infrastructure andresource allocations in departments, changes in employer
expectations and emerging multidisciplinary areas. In
response to these changes, departments have identified
and employed various strategies to provide high quality
physics teaching and learning. Individual, departmental
and collective experiences captured in this project provide
opportunities for sharing understandings of the current
context and advancing the teaching and learning ofphysics in Australian universities in effective and efficientways. Recent major studies in the USA1 and UK2 haveinformed and complemented this project.

The project aimed to capture the essence of physics teaching and learning inAustralian universities, and map the path forward based on collective experiences,both successful and not so successful.
Data collection
The project surveyed the 34 Australian universities in2004 whose teaching ranged from the archetypal Bachelorof Science degree with a major in physics to relatively
new degrees such as nanotechnology, photonics andsecurity technology, with most departments also teaching
service or multidisciplinary physics subjects.

Several different procedures were used to gather data.
These included accessing web pages, seeking
questionnaire responses from physics departments,
engaging in focus group discussions with students, andconducting interviews with individual department heads,
curriculum co-ordinators, physics graduates andemployers. More detailed data was obtained throughinterviews and focus groups at nine departments, selected
to represent each state and capture the diverse types ofdepartments.

The project focused on undergraduate physics education – 3 year and 4 year
programs, service and multidisciplinary physics subjects, and double/combined
degree programs.
Findings
The major findings of the project were presented in theStage 1 Report “Learning Outcomes and Curriculum
Development in Physics”3. Copies of this report havebeen distributed to each participating university. Eachmajor section of the report gave rise to a series ofrecommendation, some of which are discussed below.
The Executive Summary, containing the complete set ofrecommendations can be downloaded from the project
web pages5
The findings and recommendations were grouped undersix main headings:

April 2006

• The changing nature of students: implications forteaching;• Skills, capabilities and employment;• What are we teaching?
• How are our students learning and how are weteaching?
• Staffing challenges and responses; and• Future directions.
To give the reader a feeling for the kind of results
contained in the Stage 1 report, the findings andrecommendations of the first major section, concernedwith the background of physics students, may be quoted
here.

International Newsletter on Physics Education

7

Article
The changing nature of students: implications for teaching
Investigation of the changing nature of physics students gave rise to several recommendations related to appropriate
teaching. Most departments have identified changes in the background of students commencing physics studies, andhave adapted in a range of ways, as shown in Figure 1 (from ref 3, Figure 5.2).
ISSUE
Weaker in M aths
Weaker in P hysics
Lack o f unifo rm ity o f student's preparatio n in 1st year
P o o r at understanding/applying P hysics co ncepts
B etter backgro und in P hysics
IT skills im pro ving
N o practical skills
R ESP ON SE
A ttentio n needed to bring students up to speed in 1st year
Intro ductio n o f intro ducto ry, bridging subjects
Less use o f calculus in 1st year subjects
C hanged entry requirem enst o f subjects
C o ntent m o dified, less P hysics rigo ro us, m o re co ntext
C anno t assume kno wledge o f particular to pics
M o nito ring 1st year physics
0

5

10

15

20

25

Figure 1: Categorised and quantified questionnaire responses to “B7. Please make any general comments regarding
student backgrounds entering physics, including effect of changes to high school physics or mathematics. How has yourown department adapted to these changes?”
Recommendation 3.1:
That physics staff include in the curriculum learning activities that cater for a variety of learning styles andcontemporary technology.
Recommendation 3.2:
That physics staff recognise and value diversity of student background, such as previous physics and maths studies,work experience, gender and cultural background in designing the curriculum.
Recommendation 3.3:
That physics staff acknowledge the competing demands on students’ time, including part time work, when designinglearning and assessment tasks.
Recommendation 3.4:
That physics staff communicate their expectations of students clearly and explicitly.
Recommendation 3.5:
That physics departments involve younger academics and consult students in teaching and learning decision-making.
The project also sought answers to the questions How are
our students learning? and How are we teaching?
In the face of a decline in staff numbers and in laboratory
and information technology (IT) facilities on the one
hand, and poorer preparation of our students on the other,
departments are responding by restructuring thecurriculum and laboratories, changing their subject
offerings and introducing new learning activities and newtechnology.
The effectiveness of these responses was evaluated in partby asking students which activities are most helpful to

April 2006

their learning. The most common responses included
interaction with helpful and knowledgeable lecturers,
tutors and demonstrators, regular assessment, and worked
examples in class.
Recommendations related to this section of the reportarise from an awareness that the goal of improving
learning and teaching quality in Australian physics
departments depends on teaching staff having a betterawareness of approaches and resources which have been
evaluated and demonstrated to be pedagogically soundand efficient in terms of human and financial resources.

International Newsletter on Physics Education

8

Article
Recommendation 6.1:
That physics departments and the Australian Institute of Physics, through the Physics Education Group, support andundertake research into the effectiveness of learning and teaching strategies such as the use of IT and e-learning, thecontexts and benefits of undergraduate research projects, and opportunities for optimising our investment in andcommitment to laboratory experience.
Recommendation 6.2:
That further research into effective physics learning and teaching in the Australian context should be supported, withparticular attention to Generation Y.
Recommendation 6.3:
That heads of physics departments and the Australian Institute of Physics cooperate in establishing improved
mechanisms for promoting and sharing good practice, such as supporting academic exchange visits and contributing to
the national clearinghouse, UniServe Science.
Recommendation 6.4:
That the AUTC project team identify academic staff with an interest in physics for biological and medical sciences, andencourage them to collaborate in the production of common course materials appropriate for the Australian context.

Dissemination
In 2005, the project team concentrated on disseminating
findings, strengthening networking amongst the higher
education physics community and developing strategies
for sharing good practices. Among major initiatives inthis stage of the project were the publication ofSnapshots4 and development of the web page5.
Snapshots of good practice“Snapshot – Good Learning and Teaching in Physics”4 isa small booklet which provides descriptions of the rangeof good learning and teaching practices currently taking
place across Australian institutions. Twelve themes arefeatured:• Large Classes;• Online Learning;• Service Teaching;• Distance Learning;• Context-Centred Teaching;• Tutor/Demonstrator Training;• Laboratory Work;• Interface to Employment;• Small Class Activities–Tutorials;• Communication Skills;• Undergraduate Projects; and• Teamwork.
The booklet features some 40 examples in addition to
overview articles and has been widely distributed toAustralian physics departments and learning and teaching
centres at all participating universities.
Project web pages
A resources web-page5 has been set up so that academics
can readily access the best sources for physics education
research based teaching and learning materials. It includes
links to teaching resources which have been developed or

April 2006

implemented at Australian universities, and to Australianpublications related to research in physics education. This
will continue to develop over time.
More complete information is available in the Stage 1
report3 and the Snapshots booklet4 distributed to all
Australian physics departments, and via the project web
pages5:

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/super/AUTC/
Acknowledgements
The project has been funded by the Australian
Universities Teaching Commission and the Carrick
Institute for Learning and Teaching in Higher Education.
The project team appreciates the support and input fromphysics departments, the physics community and theExpert Advisory Panel members.

References
1

2
3

4

5

American Association of Physics Teachers: SPINUP/TYC: Strategic Programs for Innovations in
Undergraduate Physics at Two-Year Colleges,
http://www.aapt.org/Projects/spinup-tyc.cfm
Institute of Physics Inquiry into Undergraduate
Physics, http://policy.iop.org/UPI/index.html
M. Sharma, D. Mills, A. Mendez and J. Pollard,
Learning Outcomes and Curriculum Development inPhysics [Monash University, 2005]
A. Mendez, S. Feteris, L. Kirkup, M. Livett, D. Low,
A. Merchant, D. Mills, J. Pollard, A. Raynor, M.
Sharma, G. Swan, K. Wilson and M. Zadnik, Snapshot- Good Learning and Teaching in Physics inAustralian Universities [Monash University, 2005]
Learning Outcomes and Curriculum Development inPhysics http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/super/AUTC/

International Newsletter on Physics Education

9

Conferences
ICPE 2006 (Tokyo)
International Conference on Physics Education 2006
Toward development of physics for all
August 13–18, 2006
Tokyo, JapanThe Japanese Society of Physics Education will host The
International Conference on Physics Education 2006 –Toward Development of Physics for All – in collaboration
with International Commission on Physics on Physics
Education of International Union of Pure and Applied
Physics (IUPAP/ICPE), The Physical Society of Japan(JPS), Japan Society for Applied Physics (JSAP), andAssociation for Physics Education in Japan (APEJ).

The following five subjects will be discussed:• Development of physics curriculum• Structure and methods of physics education in theclassroom• Development of teaching materials• Training and support of pre- and in- service teachers• Popularization of science (physics)

The Conference will be held at National Olympics
Memorial Youth Center, Tokyo, Japan. It will focus on
the development of teaching methods and the contents of“Physics for All”, from the elementary school to theundergraduate university level.

Participation of school teachers is highly encouraged. A
special session for high school teachers will be highlighted in the conference. In this session teachers will
exchange their experiences and visions. It is hoped thatan international network for physics teachers is createdthrough the discussion.
The deadline for the early registration with reduced
registration fee is June 15, 2006. For more information
contact Prof. Toshio Hyodo (ICPE2006@komed.c.utokyo.ac.jp) or visit the conference web site:

http://www.komed.c.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ICPE2006/

GIREP Conference
International Research Group on Physics Teaching
August 20 – 25, 2006
Amsterdam, Netherlands
GIREP Conferences aim to bring together physicists,
physics educators and physics teachers from all levels of
education concerned with issues in physics education andphysics education research. The biannual conferences aremajor events with typically over 300 participants from allcontinents except Antarctica.
The theme of this year’s conference is Modelling in
Physics and Physics Education. Speakers include David
Hestenes and Ronald Thornton (USA), Vitor Teodoro(Portugal), Silke Seifert-Mikelskis (Germany), Hans
Fuchs and Michele D’Anna (Switzerland), Ian Lawrenceand Laurence Rogers (UK), Piet Lijnse and Peter Sloot(Netherlands).
The main theme of the conference guides the morning
lecture sessions and some workshops. The parallel paper,
poster, symposium, and workshop sessions can address
this theme as well. However, they can also focus on othermain themes in physics education such as Physics
Curriculum, Laboratory, Equipment, Teacher Education

and Professional Development, Assessment, and Use of
ICT in Physics Education, Teaching Physics forEngineering or Medicine, etc. The local organiser of
GIREP is the AMSTEL Institute of the Faculty of
Science, University of Amsterdam.
GIREP, Amsterdam, and summer make a very nicecombination. The conference will be in University of
Amsterdam facilities in the heart of the city at walking
distance or 5 – 10 minute streetcar rides from the mainsites.
The deadline for submitting papers is April 30.
For any questions regarding papers, posters, and symposia
please contact Ton Ellermeijer (ellermei@science.uva.nl)
or Ed van den Berg (eberg@science.uva.nl).
For information about registration, call for papers,
accommodation, and other details visit the conference
web site:

http://www.girep2006.nl/

April 2006

International Newsletter on Physics Education

10

Notices

First Step to Nobel Prize in Physics
First Step to Nobel Prize in Physics is an annualinternational competition in research projects in physics.
All secondary (high) school students regardless ofcountry, type of the school, sex, nationality etc. areeligible to enter. The only conditions are that the school
cannot be considered as a university college and the ageof the participants should not exceed 20 years on March
31 (the deadline for submitting the competition papers).
There are no restrictions concerning the subject matter ofthe papers, their level, methods applied etc. The papers,
however, must have a research character and deal withphysics topics or topics directly related to physics.
Participation in the competition does not need any
agreement from the school or educational authorities. The
pupils conduct their research in the way and underconditions that are the most convenient to them.

Characteristic features of the First Step:
1. The criteria used when evaluating the papers are quite
adult - we do not apply any discounts for the young
age of the participants.
2. There are no material or financial prizes. Instead, thewinners are invited to our Institute for one month(usually in November) during which they are involved
into real research works going on in the Institute.
3. Every year the proceedings with all the awarded
papers are published.

The First Step (as far as we know) is the only competition
that publishes proceedings with practically all theawarded papers. Because of that, all our most important
decisions may be verified.

Main aims of the competition:
1. Promotion of scientific interests among young pupils;
2. Selection of outstanding pupils (especially in countries
in which access to science is difficult) and theirpromotion (our winners are often sent to better
universities with financial help from local authorities);
3. Enhancing motivation of pupils to scientific work;
4. Stimulation of the schools, parents, local educational
centres, etc. for greater activity in work with pupils
interested in research;
5. Establishing friendly relations between young
physicists (currently winners are invited to theInstitute at the same time, they are accommodated in
the same place, they co-operate with each other, etc.).
For all further information, contact the chairman of theOrganizing
Committee,
WaldemarGorzkowski,(gorzk@ifpan.edu.pl) or visit our home page:

http://www.ifpan.edu.pl/firststep/

ICPE Members
The General Assembly of IUPAP held at Cape Town in October 2005 brought in several new members on board theCommission for a period of three years.
The reconstituted commission is:
Chair:
Pratibha Jolly, India
Vice-Chair:
Mauricio Pietrocola, Brazil
Secretary:
Dean Zollman, USA
Members:
Pedro Goldman, Canada
Diane Grayson, South Africa
Hiroshi Kawakatsu, Japan
Robert Lambourne, UK
Sung-Muk Lee, Korea
Xingkai Luo, China
Andra Patkos, Hungary
Ann-Marie Pendrill, Swenden
Elena Sassi, Italy
Hans-Joachim Schlichting, Germany
Associate Members:Minella Alarcon, UNESCO
Lakshman Dissanayake, Sri Lanka
Eduardo Molto, Cuba
Vivien Talisayon, Philippines
The contact addresses of the members are available atwww.iupap.org.

April 2006

We thank the members who have made way:
Gunnar Tibell (Chair)Toshio Hyodo (Vice Chair)
Ernie McFarland (Secretary)
Jon Ogborn
Sung-Jae Pak
Jacques Treiner andMatilde Vicentini
for their tremendous contribution. They will, of course,
continue to be associated with the ICPE projects.
With this issue, our editor for many years, Vivien
Talisayon, has passed on the onerous task of editing theNewsletter to Ian Johnston (Australia). We extend him awarm welcome and look forward to the changes he willbring to this publication.
Pratibha Jolly
Chair

International Newsletter on Physics Education

11

Notices

From the Editor
The ICPE newsletter has a new editor. In that capacity,
my first job is to express, on behalf of all our readers, ourheartfelt thanks to the previous editor, Vivien Talisayon,
for the constant dedication she brought to the job, and theexcellent standard she upheld for the newsletter over the
more than six years while she was at the helm. Thankyou Vivien. I only hope that I can keep the standard as
high as you did.

I hope that this newsletter might contribute, admittedly ina very small way, to alleviating this problem. I would
like it to be a voice for a worldwide community ofphysics educators, from all nations and at all levels, where
we can improve the links with one another and share ourproblems and solutions. I hope some of you will writeand send me articles on some aspect of physics education
in your country.

What of the future then? It is worth remembering that
one of the prime aims of ICPE is “to promote theexchange of information and views among the membersof the international scientific community in the generalfield of Physics Education”. That is where I believe thisnewsletter comes in.

In the meantime, for this issue I have included an article
which gives an overall picture of university physics
teaching in Australia. (Australia has not very oftenfeatured in these pages in the past. I’m sure you will
forgive me if I want to change that.) And I have also
included an article describing how a package of newlearning technologies can be used to teach one specificarea of physics in a university in Ireland (almost at the
diagonally opposite end of the globe to Australia).

It seems to me that the working life of a physics teacher
can be quite isolated. Mainstream physics researchers
usually have professional associations and technicaljournals through which they can make contact with othersin their field and share common experiences. Thoseinterested in physics education are often not so wellserved. Establishing and maintaining links with otherphysics educators, finding the funding to attend education
conferences, — these things can often be very difficult.
That is certainly true in my country (Australia), and I
would guess it applies to other countries as well.

I hope you enjoyed them.
Ian Johnston
Sydney, Australia

IUPAP – ICPEInternational Commission on Physics Education
International Union of Pure & Applied Physics
Editor:A/Prof Ian D. Johnston
School of Physics
The University of Sydney
Sydney, NSW 2006, Australiatel:+61 2 9351 5982
fax :+61 2 9351 7726
e-mail:i.johnston@physics.usyd.edu..au

Publisher:
UniServe Science, Science Clearinghouse
Carslaw Building (F07),
The University of Sydney
Sydney, NSW 2006, Australiatel:+61 2 9351 2960
fax :+61 2 9351 2175
e-mail: BioSciCH@mail.usyd.edu..au
web:
http://science.uniserve.edu.au/

For comments, questions, suggestions please contact the editor.
The International Newsletter on Physics Education is a bi-annual publication of the International
Commission on Physics Education. The next issue comes out in October 2006.
Visit our web site at:

http:// www.phys.ksu.edu/icpe/

April 2006

International Newsletter on Physics Education

12