Victoria M. Arbour, University of Glasgow

On May 7, 2026, McMaster University’s Department of Physics & Astronomy hosted their first Physics Education Research and Practice Symposium in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (Figure 1). I was visiting my family in Canada at the time, and my colleague Prof. Eamonn Corrigan, who organised the event, extended an invitation.

The day started with a plenary by Nobel laureate, Prof. Carl Wieman (Stanford University) titled, Taking a Scientific Approach to Physics Education. Then there were many talks throughout the day – invited talks, general talks, and lightning talks. Invited talks included Prof. Ania Harlick (University of Toronto) on Exploration of Transparency in Evaluation in Undergraduate Courses, Prof. Michael Massa (University of Guelph) on Implementing Computation Across the Undergraduate Physics Curriculum, and Prof. Eamonn Corrigan (McMaster University) on When Incremental Reform Isn’t Enough: Can You Rebuild a First-Year Course from Scratch?. Finally, the day ended with a panel discussion on The Future of Physics Education led by Prof. Robert Cockcroft (McMaster University), and featuring Prof. Wieman again, as well as Nobel Laureate Prof. Donna Strickland (University of Waterloo), NSERC Chair for Women in Science and Engineering Prof. Shohini Ghose (Wilfred Laurier University), and Canadian Association of Physicists Teaching Medallist and Past-President Prof. Martin Williams (University of Guelph). The events throughout the day covered a wide range of PER topics from assessment to AI to demonstrations. An outline of all talks and speakers is provided on the McMaster website.

It was incredible to hear Prof. Wieman’s keynote address (Figure 2) as he is a personal PER role model of mine. I believe that having a Nobel laureate who won their prize in a different field of physics but chose to change to PER helped to legitimatize the field of PER. And the high quality of his research has helped to set a standard of practice for our community. In his talk, he discussed many things, including a background on how the brain learns and memory works, researched active learning techniques in large introductory classes and advanced courses, and the role of AI in education. For me, one part that stood out was his discussion of the research he has done on the development of disciplinary expertise in students through problem solving and real-world problems that included decision making (e.g., what assumptions to make). His group interviewed 52 expert scientists and engineers from various fields, and they found that, interestingly, all experts make a similar set of 29 decisions, outlined in Table 2 of his paper with Price et al. (2021). This led to a problem-solving template for students to follow, outlined in Table I of his paper with Burkholder et al. (2020), that has been implemented into many Stanford courses.

On a personal note, I got to have lunch with a small group of researchers who I admire greatly, including Wieman. Being the only student present, the others showed a considerable amount of interest in my work. My thesis is titled “Inclusive Pedagogical Strategies in Physics and Astronomy Education.” I outlined some studies that I was working on with the goal to increase inclusivity, and I brought up that I was having trouble figuring out how to measure inclusivity in my studies. Wieman said something that I found to be a great perspective on inclusive pedagogy – he said that it is very difficult to tell the difference between inclusive teaching and good teaching. This small yet profound statement rang so true to me. As demonstrated with the “curb cut effect,” innovations initially intended to address the needs of one population (e.g., curb cuts for wheelchair users) often end up benefiting many (e.g., people using strollers, luggage, bicycles). Wieman reminded me that anything I study with regards to inclusive pedagogy will likely not only impact my target demographic but benefit many students, ultimately making physics more inclusive for all. Because good teaching is inclusive, and I think this is beautiful.

Another highlight of the day for me was the panel at the end of the symposium (Figure 3). It was so exciting having two Nobel laureates – Prof. Wieman and Prof. Strickland – on the panel (Figure 4)! And the rest of the panel was amazing as well. Speaking with Corrigan, he told me that each panellist was selected to represent a different aspect of the future of physics education: Wieman represented PER, Strickland represented outreach (evidenced by her initiative Trust in Research Undertaken in Science and Technology (TRuST)), Ghose represented EDI (evidenced by her role as NSERC Chair of Women in Science and Engineering), and Williams represented teaching (evidenced by his CAP Teaching Medal). These are the four areas of physics education that we need to think about as we move forward in a changing physics climate. The discussions spanned many topics – undergraduate physics labs, AI in education, student engagement, and more. Something that I particularly liked was that Strickland emphasized the importance of getting back to the “fun in physics.” It was an amazing panel to witness!

This event was exciting and important on many levels. Firstly, for me personally, I got to meet, hear from, and interact with a role model of mine. Secondly, it is exciting to see this community of physics educators come together to share their work and ideas. Finally, I see this event as a sign of the growing legitimization of PER as a genuine branch of physics in Canada, especially as we were able to have two Nobel laureates participating in the day’s events. Events like this one remind us that the work of PER is not peripheral to physics, it is central to it. And perhaps the most powerful lesson I took away came not from a plenary or a panel, but from a quiet conversation over lunch: good teaching is inclusive. It is a deceptively simple idea, and one I intend to carry through every strand of my research.

References:

• Burkholder, E. W., Miles, J. K., Layden, T. J., Wang, K. D., Fritz, A. V., & Wieman, C. E. (2020). Template for teaching and assessment of problem solving in introductory physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(1), 010123. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.010123
• Price, A. M., Kim, C. J., Burkholder, E. W., Fritz, A. V., & Wieman, C. E. (2021). A Detailed Characterization of the Expert Problem-Solving Process in Science and Engineering: Guidance for Teaching and Assessment. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(3), ar43. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-12-0276
• Wieman, C. E. (2026, May 7). Taking a Scientific Approach to Physics Education. McMaster University Physics Education Research & Practice Symposium, McMaster University.