2009 FEd Member Survey

Home › Units › Forum on Education › Newsletters › Summer 2009 › 2009 FEd Member Survey

Ernie Malamud

Brief History

Should the FEd take on more than its traditional role of organizing sessions at meetings and publishing a newsletter? Gay Stewart suggested a survey to address this question and perhaps also as a way to motivate and encourage the Forum membership numbering in the thousands to undertake new initiatives. Gay took the lead on creating a first draft of the survey. Subsequently many contributed and John Thompson produced the final version.

The email inviting our members to participate laid out the purpose:

"The Forum on Education is one of the largest Forums in the APS, an indication that science education is a critical issue for our members. Your opinions are needed to help identify the most important issues in science education that the APS faces. The FEd Executive Committee has created an online survey of the FEd membership to help identify these issues and set the goals for the Forum.

Currently, FEd activities include creating sessions and hosting events at APS meetings, providing workshops on educational issues and tools for APS members, helping support non-APS conferences and events focused on physics education, and publishing a newsletter three times a year highlighting educational activities in physics and beyond. The Executive Committee will use the results of this survey to focus the work of the Forum on those activities that best serve the members of the APS, whether this is strengthening its current efforts or starting new initiatives."

Survey Details

The survey ran from March 26 through April 17, 2009 using the vehicle "Survey Monkey". There were 8 questions. Questions 2, 5, 7, and 8 included the option of prose (text) responses. Question 6 is entirely open response.

Response and comparison with the 2007 survey which focused on the newsletter

There were 796 responses or 17.3% of our 2009 membership of 4595. Of the respondents, 91.3% (727) are FEd members. It is unclear how the other 69 got the survey and responded. (727 are 15.8% of our 2009 membership.)

This response is significantly higher than in our previous survey, in 2007, which focused on the newsletter. That survey had 14 questions plus a 15^th one asking for comments. 504 people, 11.0% of our 4598 members at that time, responded.

After combining some categories (including a few entries in "other") the table below indicates that 70% are employed in educational institutions (although they are not all necessarily teaching). That compares to the roughly 83% of all FEd members employed in educational institutions. Note: in the "other" category are 5 "unemployed".

Who responded? Question 2. Who is your current employer?

	Percent	Count
College or university with graduate program	46.70%	372
Undergraduate only college or university	20.70%	165
Junior or community college	2.50%	20
High School	1.60%	13
Industry	4.10%	33
Government	4.60%	37
Informal science education provider	0.10%	1
Retired	12.20%	97
Other (text response)	7.30%	58

The heart of the survey: Question 3. Do you feel the FEd should become engaged in more activities beyond its traditional role of organizing sessions at APS meetings and publishing a newsletter?

	Count	Percent
YES	550	69.1%
NO	198	24.9%
Skipped question	48	6.0%

So for what follows we have a somewhat biased sample, i.e., those who completed the survey were more likely to be those who would like to see the FEd take on more activities.

Question 4. To what extent should the FEd, as an APS unit, become more active in the following areas?

There were 8 areas and the respondents were asked to rate each on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 meant that the FEd as an APS unit should not be active at all and 5 the FEd should be more active.

First, we list the 8 areas and examples for each one. The results follow.

Undergraduate Capacity/Pipeline: Number of physics majors—recruitment and retention; the APS/AAPT Doubling Initiative (a joint APS/AAPT call to double the number of undergraduate physics majors over the next decade); recruitment and retention of majors from underrepresented groups
Graduate Education and Career Preparation: Number of physics graduate students—recruitment and retention; career skills and preparation for non-academic careers
Outreach: Demonstration shows, museums/science centers, school visits, media liaisons
K-12 Teacher Recruitment, Preparation, and Support: Recruitment of physics majors to become physics and physical science teachers; collaborations with teacher education programs; professional development workshops for K–12 teachers
University Physics Education: Development and/or dissemination of new courses, including interdisciplinary; issues in physics teaching at the introductory, advanced, or graduate levels.)
Dissemination of Results of Physics Education Research (PER): Dissemination of PER-based practices, curricular materials, and results; promotion of PER in physics departments
Resources (non-financial): Broader impacts assistance with NSF grants; electronic resources, e.g., ComPADRE
APS Policy Regarding Education: Recommendations for best-practice pedagogy; accreditation of physics programs; endorsement of teaching materials; K–12 physics teaching content (e.g., state or local standards)

	Not Active At All				More Active	Rating	Response
						Average	Count
Undergraduate Capacity/Pipeline	3.3% (17)	7.9% (41)	25.0% (130)	37.4% (194)	26.4% (137)	3.76	519
Graduate Education and Career Preparation	3.1% (16)	10.3% (53)	31.3% (161)	32.1% (165)	23.2% (119)	3.62	514
Outreach	3.7% (19)	8.1% (42)	24.0% (125)	33.8% (176)	30.4% (158)	3.79	520
K-12 Teacher Recruitment, Preparation, and Support	2.3% (12)	4.4% (23)	17.2% (90)	35.5% (186)	40.6% (213)	4.08	524
University Physics Education	2.5% (13)	6.3% (33)	19.9% (104)	33.5% (175)	37.7% (197)	3.98	522
Dissemination of Results of Physics Education Research (PER)	3.3% (17)	5.6% (29)	18.6% (97)	35.1% (183)	37.4% (195)	3.98	521
Resources (non-financial)	4.3% (22)	11.4% (58)	32.1% (164)	32.9% (168)	19.4% (99)	3.52	511
APS Policy Regarding Education	3.3% (17)	4.6% (24)	15.6% (81)	33.1% (172)	43.5% (226)	4.09	520

Conclusion: About 2/3 of the respondents answered question 4. The average ratings are fairly similar for the 8 areas. They all are between 3.5 and a little over 4. The highest are for the FEd to be more active in APS policy regarding education and in K–12 teacher recruitment, preparation, and support. My understanding is that the first of these, APS policy, is more the purview of the CoE, whereas K–12 teacher recruitment, preparation, and support is certainly an area where the FEd could be more active (other than sessions at meetings and newsletters). So the question for discussion now is specifically what should we as a unit undertake, if anything?

Question 5. What are the most pressing areas the FEd should address? (choose up to three)

Since the respondent could choose up to three, the total does not equal 100%. Again, about 2/3 responded to this question. It is clear that the largest percentage of those who responded felt K–12 teacher recruitment, preparation and support was an area the FEd should address.

	Percent	Count
K-12 Teacher Recruitment, Preparation, and Support	59.60%	319
University physics education	45.20%	242
Dissemination of results of physics education research (PER)	38.10%	204
Outreach	33.50%	179
Undergraduate Capacity/Pipeline	30.10%	161
APS Policy Regarding Education	29.00%	155
Graduate Education and Career Preparation	21.90%	117
Resources (non-financial)	12.10%	65
Other (text response)	6.40%	34

Question 6. What are the best ways to engage FEd members in pursuing these activities?

There were 213 prose responses to this question. There are a few common themes:

Work locally with schools, universities, and APS sections
Form subcommittees and task teams and give them well-defined charges and action items
Improve dissemination of materials, PER materials, and public outreach materials
Work more closely with AAPT and SPS

Question 7. What education-related activities are you currently involved in? (choose up to three)

This question (except for the first one asking if they were a FEd member) had the most response; 603 individuals responded.

	Percent	Count
University physics education	66.50%	401
Outreach	47.30%	285
Graduate Education and Career Preparation	29.20%	176
Undergraduate Capacity/Pipeline	28.70%	173
K-12 Teacher Recruitment, Preparation, and Support	27.40%	165
Dissemination of results of physics education research (PER)	15.40%	93
Resources (non-financial)	8.00%	48
APS Policy Regarding Education	2.20%	13
Other (text response)		67

Question 8: What would you personally like to become more involved in?

556 people answered this question.

	Percent	Count
University physics education	19.80%	110
K-12 Teacher Recruitment, Preparation, and Support	19.60%	109
Outreach	14.70%	82
Other (text response)	11.50%	64
APS Policy Regarding Education	9.20%	51
Dissemination of results of physics education research (PER)	8.50%	47
Undergraduate Capacity/Pipeline	7.00%	39
Graduate Education and Career Preparation	5.90%	33
Resources (non-financial)	3.80%	21

Another frequent reply in the "other" category was they were maxed out already.

I would be happy to provide detailed data upon request.

Ernie Malamud is the FEd Past-Chair and a member of the Adjunct Faculty at the University of Nevada, Reno.

Disclaimer - The articles and opinion pieces found in this issue of the APS Forum on Education Newsletter are not peer refereed and represent solely the views of the authors and not necessarily the views of APS.