Please download materials now at this link: https://www.phystec.org/thriving/
Mike Eads, Northern Illinois University
Paul Jasien, Cal State San Marcos
Brian Utter, Bucknell University. Previously at James Madison University and involved in PhysTEC site but recent conversations across the college about teacher education, possible Noyce program. Mostly curious to see the rubric as we’re thinking through this.
Hi, I am Monica Plisch, APS Director of Education and Diversity and Project Director for PhysTEC
I’m David May, also at APS, where I’m an Education & Diversity Programs Manager and manager of PhysTEC.
You can ask questions here.
What percentage of ALL Physics grads at the model institution went into teaching.
So is it just having a thriving physics program?
Also: smaller programs that don’t reach 5/year can still be considered successful, relative to their department size.
Right we get about 1 every two years with about 10-15 majors a year.
Here’s the link again: https://www.phystec.org/thriving/
Or the direct PDF download: https://www.phystec.org/thriving/files/PTEPA%20Rubric%20V2.0.pdf
Is your take that “prevalent” is more important given that they are common among model sites? i.e. things that are highlighted to potentially address first?
Thriving programs hit the benchmark or better in the majority of rubric items.
I am concerned...5% of majors are becoming teachers and we are calling that a thriving program.
Related to Matt's concern, how much of the rubric is correlated to large programs as opposed to large PTE programs?
I would expect the fraction of physics majors going into teaching to vary a lot, depending on the institutional context.
Speaking of correlation, an item like 1A-3 is correlated with strong programs and probably a result of the strong program rather than a cause, correct?
So at a smaller PUI I wonder how consistly we could get external money or hire a PER researcher
Institutional context matters a lot. Standard 1 on Institutional Commitment captures some of this.
To Robert’s point, the instrument only captures items that correlate with top physics teacher educators, and does not claim a causal relationship.
We are at a small institution—we plan to use it to assess where we currently are and what we might be able to do to move the program forward.
We have a ~yearly “strategic planning” discussion among all the secondary science teaching programs. This rubric could provide a useful structure for this discussion, and what areas we want to prioritize.
I’m curious just to try it and use it as a starting point in a discussion with my main colleague in physics who is interested in improving teacher education on campus.
*Education department and Physics department
a strategic planning sound good.
To Kim’s comment, the PTEPA Rubric is written more from the perspective of a disciplinary department and does not capture much of what happens within a school of education. The TEPA instrument does an excellent job of covering things from the School of Education perspective.
Direct download of Excel version: https://www.phystec.org/thriving/files/PTEPA_Rubric_Interactive_V2.0.xlsx
Is there data on the ratio of physics pedagogy to physics content knowledge in the curriculum at thriving programs?
:) Thank you
PhysTEC conference: https://www.phystec.org/conferences/2019/
Thanks — this looks great.
Feel free to ask questions later if they come up!