Back to Documents

The TYC21 Networking Model,

The Experience of Two Year College Physics Teachers

Richard E. Swanson, Sandhills Community College, (910) 695-3715, swansonr@email.sandhills.cc.nc.us

Alexander Dickison, Seminole Community College, (407) 328-2202, dickisoa@mail.seminole.cc.fl.us

1. Introduction
2. Definition of Networking Model
3. Background
4. Current Status
5. Recommendations
6. Action Plan

Two-Year Colleges in the Twenty-First Century (TYC21) is an effort that has as a primary vision of developing a national and personal network that will achieve the goals of the project. The basic philosophy of developing the network was implemented in the early stages of the project through the establishment of fifteen regions across the country, each with a Regional Coordinator. Regional Coordinators were charged with using demographics and personalities of teachers within their own regions to develop their own mechanism for establishing and maintaining the network. At the national level, TYC21 project leaders and steering committee have the responsibility of connecting the regional networks into a national network with a new, but experienced, voice in the national physics community. The purpose of this paper is to present the TYC21 position on the issue of networking by developing a network model for two-year college (TYC) physics teachers.

A network model for two-year college physics teachers should contain the mechanics necessary for individuals to form personal and professional links with other individuals and the national body. Before establishing such a network, consensus had to be reached on the definition of a successful network.

There was a great deal of discussion concerning a functioning network at the regional and national level. Most regions discussed this at their meetings and some even wrote papers on the subject. The steering committee held many discussions at their meetings. Finally at the Annual National conferences there were sessions on networking considered from different viewpoints.

As a result of these discussions a common core of seven traits of a successful network emerged. This list might be added to, but additional traits might not have the importance to all individuals as these seven. A functioning network should:

1. Facilitate Professional Communications. The typical two-year college physics teacher was isolated. They seldom participated in professional physics meetings and activities. Often they were the only physics instructor at their college. The network needed to encourage instructors to talk and share their work activities and ideas. This needed to be done at many levels of communication from the informal to the formal. The network needed to serve many types of instructors from the isolated ones who were reluctant to share ideas, to the experienced veteran who was already plugged into national professional organizations.
2. Encourage and Support Personal Interactions and Collaboration Among Colleagues. It was felt that for many physics teachers to become part of the network and work for its continuation, the network must not only serve the professional needs of the instructor, but also the personal needs. Most instructors needed and wanted to build friendships and the sense of being part of a special community. The networks needed not only to allow this but have professions to actively encourage it. Many physics faculty have the tendency towards being shy and somewhat withdrawn. Activities need to be developed with this in mind.
3. Provide Mentoring for Potential New Leaders. Up until the time of this project the two-year college physics community had too few leaders. Most of the few leaders there knew the system and had a wide variety of experiences. They could get things, done, but they were getting close to retirement. There was a critical need to develop leaders for the future. The network needed to mentor the growth of these new leaders. They could not be overwhelmed with responsibilities, but needed to be nurtured and develop at an acceptable rate. This varied among individuals and the network needed to be sensitive to this.
4. Enable the Development of Responses to National Issues. There are many national issues that have a bearing on the teaching of physics at the two-year college. Some of these issues might involve the government such as legislation, the actions of the National Science Foundation, or the Department of Education. Others might involve actions or activities of professional organizations such as the American Association of Physics Teachers or the National Association of Science Teachers. Finally, some issues are under the control of local boards or governments, but are National in scope since they are common to all TYC physics faculty. Examples of these would include faculty teaching loads, common course syllabi, design of physics classrooms or laboratories, reform in physics teaching, and dispersal of Eisenhower funding. The network should provide the mechanism for TYC physics faculty to respond individually or collectively to these issues if it is felt appropriate. Individuals should feel free to offer their opinion and ideas. If there is a consensus among the community a single response from the entire community could be made.
5. Help members keep abreast of developments in physics education research, and its implications on teaching. The emerging field of physics education research has had a great impact on teaching in the two-year colleges. This research has learned a great deal about how students learn, the conceptions and misconceptions students have, and how teaching can change to allow more students to develop an understanding of many physics concepts. This is a new field of research and new results come out regularly. In addition to the pure educational research there are other initiatives that are taking the research results and developing new teaching methods. The network needs to keep instructors informed of these developments.
6. Help teachers evaluate and consider different teaching methods by sharing experiences. TYC physics instructors are very concerned about what teaching methods best facilitate student learning. There is no known "best" way. Therefore each teacher has to experiment and try different methods to find the one suited for their students and their personality. This does not need to be done in isolation. A great deal of time and effort can be saved by learning what works and doesn’t work for other instructors and students. The network should provide this important communication.
7. Become a viable, vigorous, and self-sustaining force for improving physics teaching. In the first years the network will be developed and nurtured with NSF money. During this time the network has to become important enough to the TYC physics community that it will remain self-sustaining and viable long after the funding stops. Five or ten years after the TYC-21 project they should be still serving the roles first described.

The two-year college phenomenon took off in the United States during the 1960’s. The number of two-year colleges was growing at a rapid pace. In 1968 the Federally Funded Commission on College Physics formed a Panel on Physics in the Two-Year Colleges to begin the networking of the new instructors. As a result of this work various regional workshops and meetings were held for two-year college physics instructors. Typically these were organized and hosted by a university. They were held mostly in the early 1970’s. Examples of these were computer workshops in Texas and Arizona, tech physics short courses in Oregon and California, summer institutes in New York, Saturday research seminars in Florida, and regular meetings in Minnesota. They were held in most states where there were a significant number of two-year colleges; networking was happening.

In the 1970’s the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) created a Committee on Physics in the Two-Year College. AAPT also got funding from Exxon Education Foundation to start a newsletter called CRPTYC. It is safe to say most two-year college physics instructors had the opportunity to be networked on a State or Regional basis with the newsletter providing some National connections. Funding for these efforts stopped in the middle to late 1970’s. Many instructors made efforts to maintain the network. It was difficult since most schools had very little or no travel budget.

Many original two-year college instructors had previous experience in industry or high schools. By the 1980’s these instructors began to retire. Slowly most networks were reduced in size since there was no active method to include the new instructors into the existing network. There were exceptions to this such as PNACP, which stayed active in the Pacific Northwest.

In 1989 the American Association of Physics Teachers sponsored a conference on Critical Issues in Two-Year College Physics and Astronomy. This was attended by 120 TYC faculty. It was largely supported by a grant from NSF. The attendees represented a wide range of geographic regions as well as various types of two-year colleges. This conference was held for three days and resulted in a series of recommendations to NSF, AACJC, college administrations, faculties, AAPT, four-year schools, and industry.

At this meeting an attempt was made to set up regional networks. They never functioned. Perhaps three days of an intense meeting is not enough time to produce a viable network. What the meeting did accomplish was to raise the visibility of the two-year college in the physics community. People started talking about what could and should be done.

In Texas a program (PEPTYC) similar to those of the 1970’s was started in 1991. It was lead by Texas A & M, but had strong leadership from TYC faculty. At first it only involved faculty from Texas, but during its second funding cycle, faculty from all over the country could attend. They had intense two-week institutes during the summer. In order to build the network the participants had to return each year for the Texas section meeting of AAPT.

In the early 1990’s NSF funded a very successful program called Two-Year College Physics Workshops. These were entirely run by two-year college faculty. There was a series of intense four-day workshops. They concentrated on the results of physics education research and the development of new teaching methods that took this research into account. The workshops were held around the country to allow maximum participation. Over the years a significant group of TYC physics instructors attended multiple workshops. This project created the beginnings of a network and helped TYC21 be as successful as it was.

In the early 1990’s AAPT considered holding a second conference for two-year college faculty. In planning, it soon became apparent that a second conference wasn’t enough. What was really needed was the establishment of regional and a national network. During the summer of 1993 at the AAPT summer meeting in Bozeman, Montana, the concept of TCY21 was formalized and proposed; and approved by the AAPT board. During this period significant behind-the-scenes evolution of the TYC21 concept took place among TYC, AAPT, and NSF personnel and key individuals from other organizations. Almost 18 months of planning, conceptualization, and organization took place before the project was funded.

The project had not been funded by the summer of 1994 so AAPT provided funds for the first TYC21 meeting at Notre Dame University. The Steering Committee and Regional Coordinators met. Everyone was introduced to the goals of TYC21 and planning was done on how to implement the program if it was funded. TYC21 was funded in 1995.

In 1995 TYC21 leadership began in earnest to "motivate involvement among two-year college physics faculty by creating opportunities to network…" TYC21 organizational structure consisted of a steering committee made up of the two principle investigators and six TYC faculty. Each of 15 regional coordinators was assigned responsibility to develop regional networks with mentoring support from a steering committee member. Each regional coordinator was expected to form regional teams made up of themselves and three other TYC physics faculty from their region. Regional coordinators, steering committee members and AAPT staff met in August 1995 in Post Falls, Idaho for a leadership retreat. At this meeting, a great deal of effort went in to having regional coordinators collaborate on the nature and scope of regional activities. It was important to provide enough support and concrete ideas that new leaders were confident that they could generate meaningful activities while ensuring that regions had the flexibility to create networks unique to their areas and membership. During the fall of 1995, each region held regional meetings that attracted almost 200 attendees

From the fall of 1995 to the summer of 1998, the TYC21 program provided support for three national meetings and over 90 regional meetings. For the purpose of this paper, we will track the evolution of TYC21 regional and national networks using the three national meetings as benchmarks. National Meeting One (NM1), titled "Realizing a Vision" was held in August 1996 at College Park, Maryland. National Meeting Two (NM2), titled "Focusing on Action" was held in August 1997 at Denver, Colorado. National Meeting Three (NM3), titled "Partners in Scholarship" was held in August 1998 at Nebraska City, Nebraska.

At NM1, regional teams (60 TYC physics faculty) met for three days with steering committee members, AAPT staff and invited presenters for training, networking, discussions, and sharing of ideas. This was the first opportunity to broaden the network to regional teams. The national meetings became focal points for the development of the national network and for encouraging and empowering the development of the regional networks. The meeting was marked by a significant amount of "outside" expertise and no small amount of discomfort on the part of attendees as they grappled with how to energize their networks and identify meaningful national issues. While no formal evaluation of the networks was attempted at this time, informal indications of network evolution were gleaned from meeting evaluations and observations of steering committee members. The feeling was that TYC21 participants had been energized and were committed but there was a significant amount of uncertainty as to how the process would unfold and how the fledgling networks would be able to function effectively.

After another round of fall and spring regional meetings, regional teams gathered in Denver Colorado in August 1997 at National Meeting 2 (NM2) to "Focus on Action". The meeting was designed to allow regional teams to report on their efforts and get them to concentrate on plans for acting on "critical issues" that they had identified and developed. During NM2, regional coordinators filled out a written survey about the status of the network in their regions. The survey and results are included in Appendix A. From the responses compiled in Appendix A, it is reasonably clear that the TYC21 networking effort struck an early responsive cord with the faculty members who got involved. The regional coordinators, for the most part, were actively involved in developing their networks. Their estimates of the number of TYC faculty in their regions (a total of 2230, see Table A in Appendix A) compares favorably with the 2692 full- and part-time faculty reported in the October 1998 American Institute of Physics report on Physics in the Two-Year Colleges. It is interesting to note that this large number of participants, relative to the AIP reported 1777 full-time membership, is evidence that part-time teachers were considered by the regional coordinators as fully part of the network. This is an indicator that the regional coordinators were seeking out and contacting TYC physics faculty.

It is also apparent from the Networking Survey, however, that the regional coordinators where having some consternation about the fact that not everyone wanted to jump on the TYC21 bandwagon. The reported numbers in Table A indicate that networks of this kind can expect about 20-25% active participation. Inferred from remarks and other discussions was the indication that about 20% would be recalcitrant and not interested in any participation. The majority of about 60% would be interested but passive.

Written responses to the Networking Survey included in Appendix A indicate a great deal of enthusiasm for the project and recognize the importance of the leadership and resource support. Several regional coordinators indicated that the most important factor, however, was the focusing of efforts on meaningful issues provided by the project. There also seemed to be a recurring concern expressed that it was not clear how the TYC community would actually be able to address and take meaningful action to help solve issues.

At the end of National Meeting 2, the steering committee recognized significant enough growth in regional leadership that the program for National Meeting 3 (NM3) was turned over to the regions. As a result of the strengthened networks, NM3 became the most successful of the national meetings and the robust nature of the established network was apparent. During NM3, regional coordinators were interviewed about their perceptions of the networking process. Abridgements of these interviews are included in Appendix B.

The interviews in Appendix B are good indicators of the maturing of the leadership base created by TYC21 networking. Regional coordinators provided insight into the networking process that is realistic and sobering. They recognized that creating and maintaining relationships among colleagues takes focus, common interests and goals, and a lot of hard work. It is apparent from these interviews that the group of TYC21 regional coordinators represents a valuable, and possibly unique, resource of knowledge and expertise about the networking process. Comments from TYC21 Steering Committee member Tom O’Kuma are representative of the level of thought that has resulted from the process:

National Meeting 3 ended on an almost euphoric note. Participants uniformly recognized that that a great maturing had happened for the TYC21 network. Of 40 external evaluation surveys returned, all respondents agreed that the TYC21 project had contributed to building a network among two-year college faculty, that the project had encouraged participants to share work within the wider discipline community, and that that project had contributed to mentoring new leaders for the TYC physics community. Open-ended comments identified progress as "astounding," "phenomenal," "an overwhelming success," and "beyond my expectations." All 40 respondents stated that their regions had plans to continue meetings after the funding ended.

There were also, however, indications of a more sobering realization that networks, to be effective, actually have to do something. One participant stated, "Our network is complete as a discussion group but has not started to be an action group." Another recognized that, "Time will tell whether the organization is sustained and … produces further results." A third responded, "We progressed from fragmentation to cooperation and cohesion. Our cohesion is still tenuous. We need to nurture the network."

During the fall of 1998, TYC21 Steering Committee members analyzed the networking process in each of the regions as part of their final reports. While each region has its own peculiar history, geography, experiences, successes and challenges; there are some consistent themes, summarized below, that are important to creating a successful network.

1. The TYC21 program goals and leadership structure provided a focus and mission that were the impetus for creating the networks.
2. Even with enthusiastic volunteers, training on the process of networking was required. In many cases, training on simple ideas such as how to develop a meeting agenda was important to developing the confidence to initiate networking activities.
3. Personal, face-to-face contact is important. Over and over, regional coordinators stress the importance for TYC faculty members to meet and interact with colleagues.
4. Consistent, if passive, communications is important to keep less active participants involved and set the stage for more involvement. Many regional coordinators mentioned the importance of newsletters that are mailed to all TYC members.
5. Expectations need to be kept reasonable. TYC faculty are over worked and busy with classes. Most are at TYCs because teaching is what they want to put their effort towards, most are in small departments, and few have the flexibility to apply more than a small fraction of their energy to outside tasks.
6. Support, even if minimal, from regional or state systems can make huge differences in the viability of TYC networks. Networks were more inclusive and robust in states like Kentucky, North Carolina, Florida, and Texas that had administrations that provided mechanisms for discipline groups to interact.
7. The university model for getting networked groups to take on major projects or attract significant grants will not work for TYCs. Few TYC institutions have infrastructures or departments that can support the administration of large grants. Nor do they typically have faculty that can be given large amounts of release time to pursue projects.
8. Electronic communications have facilitated networking but as yet had not had a major impact on the development of the networks. Some efforts were successful but many attempts at email lists, listservers, and web pages had not produced meaningful improvements.
9. TYC faculty have difficulty addressing issues unique to them and their students. Most efforts ended up adding insight to issues already addressed by the larger discipline (physics in this case) community. This is not necessarily a negative, but it would have been nice to see TYC groups tackle issues unique to TYCs like, for example, supporting students of two-year technology programs.
10. You should not try to force a network where there is no reason for one. Some of the larger geographical regions are examples of this. For example, it may not be reasonable or appropriate to expect that Arkansas TYC faculty would form an effective network with Kansas TYC faculty.

There are positive indications that TYC21 regional networks will continue. In the fall of 1998, 11 of the 15 regions held meetings, most in conjunction with AAPT sections or other organizations’ meetings.

If there is a disappointing feature of the nature of TYC networks, it would be their ability to take action and produce meaningful results. Few of the regions were able to make significant progress on any issue. Several of the white papers created to address critical issues were of a quality that would be considered less than scholarly. On the other hand, networking and contacts allowed TYC21 participants to get more involved with existing, grant-related efforts and begin to develop the "I can to this" attitude that may pay more dividends in the future.

At the national level, the TYC21 Steering Committee, working with the Principle Investigators, was able to establish focus for the project by coordinating with the American Association of Physics Teachers, the National Science Foundation, and other organizations. Regional coordinators expressed often that this national structure was crucial to their regional efforts that would have lacked impetus on their own.

In April of 1999, TYC21 leadership hosted "A Vision for Tomorrow" meeting. The goals of the meeting were to identify resources to enhance networking, define the role of the national network, and solidify the national network by extending activities across regional boundaries. The meeting served to facilitate the transition of the fund-supported organization to a mechanism or organization that will support and sustain the network into the future.

In summary, the current status of the TYC21-facilitated networks is that TYC21 has enabled networking of perhaps 20% of TYC physics faculty with a larger portion watching with interest. There is a large and potentially significant resource of energetic, dedicated, and competent teachers ready to have a more positive impact on the improving of physics teaching and learning.

To maintain a consistent, workable model for networking that allows for regional flexibility, individual constraints unique to two-year colleges, and impact at the National level the following recommendations are made.

• The TYC21 regions cooperate with and take advantage of the existing structure of the AAPT sections to maintain regular meetings and communications.
• The two-year college community continues to maintain a national identity. The TYC21 name should continue to be associated with this identity. The AAPT should necessarily play an important role in providing a mechanism for this. At the regional level, TYC leaders can support a national identity by continuing to have special activities or sessions at section meetings and by working on project(s) of interest to the region.
• The AAPT should develop an organizational mechanism to support the TYC21 national identity and serve their TYC21 constituency. The national AAPT TYC Committee should play an active role in this mechanism and be the communications vehicle between regions and between the TYC community and the executive board. For example, the AAPT could issue a TYC newsletter at least once a year where articles and input are actively be sought from the regions. This newsletter should be mailed to all TYC physics instructors irrespective of membership in AAPT.
• Regional TYC groups should identify projects for collaborative work. Where appropriate, these groups should be encouraged and helped to seek outside funding to carry out these projects.
• In larger geographic regions, where travel funds are low, and the meetings are moved from state to state, regions are encouraged to look at creative funding such as found in the Northwest Physics Alliances.
• The TYC national structure should be involved in the planning, advising, and managing for future projects that require national leadership due to their nature or size.

To implement these recommendations several actions will need to be taken. All of these actions need to be completed by February 2000, to keep the momentum developed by TYC/21 and to carry over to the new structure.

1. Each region should establish a mechanism for succession of leadership. There are a variety of leadership roles that are needed to perpetuate networking into the long-term future. These would include: organizing meetings, facilitating communication among members, providing liaison with other educational communities, maintaining group records and history, and ensuring viability of the network.
2. Each of the TYC21 regions should develop a written plan for the future. These plans do not need to be long, but must outline how the region will continue functioning in the future. The plans should include:
1. When and how often the group will meet.
2. How the group will maintain its identity.
3. What the TYC component of the meeting (meal, session, other) will be. If there will be a professional and a second component.
4. Who will organize meetings and keep up communications.
5. How the meeting will be supported and if necessary travel will be funded.
6. What projects are the region interested in? Would any require outside funding? If so, who would be willing to work on a proposal?
   
3. The AAPT should develop an organizational structure that facilitates constituency groups, such as TYC teachers, to maintain a viable network. Perhaps one of the associate executive officers of national AAPT should be assigned as the TYC liaison. The role of the TYC representative to the AAPT executive board and the role of TYC committee chair and members should be reevaluated. The organizational structure should provide for long-term viability by performing functions such as:
1. Knowing what the regions are doing and encouraging leadership.
2. Actively encouraging proposals to carry on worthy projects.
3. Helping with the TYC newsletter and other mechanisms for providing publicity and visibility for the network.
   
4. The AAPT executive board should approve in the AAPT budget funds to support the TYC network that would provide for at least one TYC newsletter per year and necessary administrative support.
   
5. The AAPT TYC committee is one of many area committees. The role and membership of this committee should be restructured to enable it to provide meaningful leadership for the TYC network. (Parenthetically, we expect that the same kind of restructuring would be necessary for committees dealing with other constituencies such as high school and university teachers.) The TYC representative on the executive board should play an active and meaningful role with the committee and be provided with the resources and authority to take action necessary to ensure network viability.

This survey, reproduced here, was filled out by regional coordinators from the 15 TYC21 regions during the second national meeting of TYC21 in Denver, Colorado. Results of the survey are provided in this appendix.

How many TYC physics teachers are in your region?

How many have been contacted by TYC21?

By mailing?

By phone?

By Email?

In person?

How many teachers would you consider as part of your "network"?

How many have attended a TYC21 activity?

How many, do you estimate, are active in AAPT?

What has been your most successful technique for network building?

What has been your least successful technique for network building?

Describe, in a paragraph or two, the nature of the TYC network in your region. Comment on its health and ability to serve the needs of the teachers in your region.

What are the current weaknesses in the network within your region? What programs, activities or actions would be needed to make it an effective network?

Provide some specific examples of how your network has helped the members of your region improve the learning in their classes.

How effective has your network been in identifying and addressing issues of national importance?

What specific recommendations could you make to national leaders which would make the national TYC physics teachers network effective?

Table A. This table contains regional coordinator inputs to the numerical questions on the networking survey.

1. Mass mailings, schedule interesting speakers, email. Summer 1998: phone calls, personal contact with individuals. Probably the only way to get response from some teachers, especially those isolated geographically.
2. Phone calls prior to meetings – personal contact is key. Summer 1998: The listserver has become a valuable tool.
3. Direct, in-person visits; email.
4. Personal contact.
5. ITV. Most successful in Minnesota but not so much for the rest of the region.
6. Person-to-person contact.
7. Meetings – TYC21, AOK.
8. Mass mailing/email.
9. Meetings.
10. Newsletter (email).
11. Meetings in person.
12. AAPT/TYC21 combined meeting.
13. Statewide TYC faculty meetings (NC and VA) at AAPT section meetings.
14. Calling people. Having 2 meetings/semester.
15. Having meetings around the region.

1. The above [most successful techniques] were the only techniques used. Summer 1998. With geographically isolated teachers, mail is not adequate.
2. Mail – too much comes across a desk.
3. U.S. postal mail.
4. Mailings.
5. ITV for contacting people outside of the state. Part the fault of the medium and part of the leadership.
6. Mailings?
7. ?
8. ?
9. Listserver.
10. Phone calls, listserv.
11. Snail mail.
12. mail/email.
13. Mailing out materials to a large mailing list.
14. Postcard, listserve.
15. Web-site.

1. Network is in the developing stage. Good face to face networking is happening ... 2 meetings per year. A consistent core group continues to attend. Room for expanding the network to draw more instructors from outside Los Angeles County. (Comment from summer 1998: We have a better defined and committed core group of about 30.)
2. Strong in the Bay area; weak outside this sub-region. No active work going on in Sacramento & Nevada – key areas to date overlooked.
3. This is largely a "by mouth" form of networking where participants in TYC21 tell others about the organization be letter, email, phone, or personal contact.
4. The network works in pockets represented as alliances formed around metropolitan areas. These alliances are loosely linked through email and mailings. Since isolation is a choice of the individuals, the alliances serve the involved individual well and the alliances are healthy on their own.
5. In Minnesota, it will help for a long time. ITV sites were established so that each teacher could get to a site in less than a few hours. It allowed us to hold routine (bi-monthly for a while) sessions with TYC participants. Very useful. Small cost. Easy to use. We got a strong network in Minnesota. The use of ITV breaks down as the number of sites gets bigger. Delays become more disruptive and the interaction is not productive.
6. About 12 active participants. About 25 attending most activities. About 35 attending annually.
7. We communicate by listserv, mail and 2 meetings each year – 1 in the KC area, the other in central Kansas.
8. We have a core group of 10 dedicated members. Core group will continue meeting after project ends. We have ideas to improve participation. We love to talk to each other. We have planned our action plan to improve participation and to survey our members on their interests on technology & student learning.
9. Persons come together to the meetings and enjoy the interactions (1 only TYC21 – 1 joint MAAPT and TYC21). Some email interactions as we plan meetings among 10 or so. Email & mailings of meetings. Health – weak – may not survive after funding period unless we build stronger commitments and see results in our classroom experience and professional development.
10. The network mechanism has been established. Now it is time to grow. Our most important success is in bringing people together for informal as well as formal discussion. Our leadership group is a success! Our programs have focused on subjects of general TYC interest, and have been well received.
11. Healthy but small. The network has 15 active, dedicated, energetic people. There are efforts to set up a listserver and possibly a web page. We will try to use personal contact with one active member contacting and getting a commitment from 1 colleague to attend the fall meeting. By having some vendor demos we hope to increase the attendance. Comment from summer 1998: No one has used the listserver, did not work.
12. A small number of dedicated people – also a core of HS & 4-year people who are in regular contact and helping with meetings.
13. Two interconnected divisions: North Carolina & Chesapeake. North Carolina meets in East & West each Spring and Fall. Local areas within state meet between (during school year) to share teaching ideas dealing with curricular changes. Email interactions keep instructors in touch. Other common TYC issues keep TYCs in touch: Curriculum Improvement Project, curriculum issues, job openings, etc. Chesapeake is currently building a network around a core of 6 to 8 consistent contributors. Will be using state funds for statewide conference of TYCs (1999).
14. We have an extremely strong core of interested faculty. However, without new blood our core will get disgruntled, and this is beginning to happen already. It is extremely hard to get the isolates who WANT to be isolated.
15. Generally healthy, has a "cold" however. We have a proto-network. We can call a meeting and expect 18 or 20 to show up. We are concerned about the future, when funding runs out. We plan to move ahead with or own NSF grant.

1. Since region is so large geographically, it has been difficult to involve instructors from areas further than a 1-hour drive away. Breaking into smaller sub-regions is our proposed solution. Comment from summer 1998: The sub-region idea did not work with the membership (with the exception of the Hawaii group). To strengthen, we need more "nodes"; currently there is only one – the Regional Coordinator. New nodes would result if more participants would be involved in presenting what they are doing. The physical getting together is a major part of developing a network.
2. Advertise TYC meetings more heavily at AAPT, travel money for intra-regional work, telephone call marathons, "tell/bring a friend", encourage small group collaboration.
3. Distance – we are not seeing a great deal of participation from the extreme southern or the eastern portion of the region. Perhaps, splitting the region or holding sub-region meetings.
4. The large distance and Rocky Mountain range cause communication problems. This is region 4’s weakness.
5. Could have gotten sub regions going in the other states. Our region was too big to handle with only one regional coordinator.
6. Very little interaction with Louisiana. Personal contact with teachers in LA.
7. ?
8. 60 of 90 have not responded; additional 20 are luke warm. We don’t know how to make network work. We are trying to improve email participation by calling members by phone and having a person responsible for this project. Even core members are severely limited by time constraints of teaching and this limits our dialogue with each other.
9. Effective communication between meetings that directly affect my teaching effectiveness and students. We have the technology, but do not know how to put it to use effectively.
10. Not as many people are involved as could be because of lack of money and time. We need monetary support for travel.
11. Apathy of the non-participants. Personal contacts. Workshops & demos to increase attendance. MBL demos. Grant-writing workshops.
12. It’s a one-way network – team communicates, arranges meeting but we can’t get people to communicate back. [regarding what programs, activities needed, comment is, "Good Question!!"
13. Lack of consistent email. Lack of response to mailings.
14. Geographic isolation (no one will travel more than 3 hours). Apathy (esp. is upstate NY). Faculty are old and set in their ways. Retirement?
15. Many teachers are not participating in any way. List server and web site are underused. We are at work to create "bait" on our website to attract more users.

1. One instructor has changed textbooks and decided to orient her life science class more towards life science physics as a result of hearing presentation by.... Other instructors have made small changes and lively discussions have also resulted from [the] talk. Several instructors have been inspired to make changes along lines of active learning partially by hearing ... describe his successes in using ALPS.
2. Lab demonstrations. Obtain equipment ... "open labs" day ... Research of ... on learning. Interest in computer applications.
3. Meeting times have allowed for sharing of ideas, demonstration of activities, active learning and alternative (non-traditional?) assessment techniques.
4. Through presentations and workshops some individuals have incorporated physics reform into classrooms. Approximately 10 individuals are now more involved and aware of national issues.
5. We got TYC teachers with a professor to discuss ABET requirements. Very useful exchange about a very important topic. We had MBL demonstrations on ITV. Very easy to do and useful to all viewing the ITV.
6. A colleague at another college (...) participated in the PEPTYC program partially as a result of our network contacts. Several members of the region have used CBL in their instruction as a result of our CBL workshop.
7. Workshops. Calculator expertise available.
8. WWW workshops and graphics calculator workshops helped. Sharing conceptual exercises also helped. Has discussion on content of introductory physics by email. Peer learning discussion and material helped.
9. Web page info since I plan to put stuff on Web for my students. Technical physics materials were used at one institution by a person (who did not actually attend workshop) to incorporate hands on and demonstrations in her class this spring in tech physics.
10. A new program at one institution evolved with input from colleagues met through TYC21. Information about future course development was found within the national project.
11. Demos of lab experiments or teaching methodologies. Newton’s 2^nd Law experiment. Pre and post test analysis and use. Archimedes Principle Exp. Damped oscillation Exp.
12. TYC21 has provided 10 workshops for TYC and other instructors on everything from CBL to spreadsheet applications to camcorder applications (& other stuff).
13. Meetings to share teaching ideas. Sharing of materials among faculty: videotapes & text, workshop physics, conceptual physics, astronomy equipment & ideas (for new class). Outside speakers, multiple meeting sites.
14. People exposed to MBL techniques that will be used in their classrooms this fall. People were exposed to CE/OCS materials, videopoint, much else, but we don’t know if they have implemented them.
15. I do not know of any at this time.

1. We believe that all the issues we address locally are common to the national scene. Summer 1998: We have a pretty local view of things, rather than a global or national view. We recognize that we are not unique. We are not sure that we could deal with an issue and have our solution impact the national arena.
2. Isolation issues have been identified & addressed. Other national critical issues have been discussed.
3. Moderately effective – our region has taken on as its critical issue the type of assessment and delivery techniques for competencies and outcomes from vibrations, waves, and optics. Instructors in the region continue to contact others and spread the word about TYC21 and encouraging attendance at regional meetings.
4. As a repeat, there are about 10 individuals involved with national issues.
5. We took as our critical issue the issue of isolation of the physics curriculum. Our participants recognized the importance of the issue and that we would have an impact on its resolution. We made significant progress several continue to work on the issue.
6. 100% (lab-lecture parity issue)
7. Not at all.
8. We have identified 3 broad issues: using technology to improve student learning, increasing emphasis on conceptual learning with new and better materials, and network building. We have not narrowed this to an issue that can be dealt with in a white paper.
9. Up to now not effective at all. Just identified isolation – have effectively put into place a listserver or email correspondence. We have currently seemed to focus on the issue that is national: outcomes and competencies for Physics I.
10. We’re happy!
11. Very effective. The discussion of the participants on these issues has been lively and informative. The discussions are opening us up to ideas for beginning solutions.
12. Reasonably effective -- have identified 3 issues, and focused on one. In discussions with other regions, we find that other regions have similar issues.
13. Not very so far. The white paper may lead to some natural effects. NC has been overwhelmed with curriculum & semester conversion – much hope for the future.
14. We know what they are, but we can’t solve them.
15. Our network has enabled us to get involved in questions of faculty isolation, teaching via the www.

1. The network seems effective at the moment, so be sure to continue. Perhaps a continuing and permanent TYC component within the national AAPT. Help disseminate resource materials (provide access) and continue to sponsor national TYC meetings.
2. Call folks; get them involved. Time is key to get more, effective participation. Continued funding of TYC with travel budget expansion. AAPT, APT, etc. already exist. TYC needs to celebrate & concentrate on our uniquenesses. People pulled in multiple directions – hard to compete.
3. Some of these are in place already – links to regional TYC21 web sites from the National TYC21 web pages. If the national leadership has a list of TYC physics instructors in each region (all – not just the ones attending meetings), forwarding this info to the regional leadership teams would facilitate contact. An article in "Physics Today" promoting the organization could flush some interested parties out of the woodwork.
4.  
5.  
6. Make sure the legislature (federal government) and education policy agencies and accrediting agencies know and understand the TYC21 projects (solicit support). (Tell them and require or request response?)
7. I don’t quite understand, or don’t know.
8. Each region should have a WEB page/pages showing their activities and progress on TYC21/AAPT web server.
9. We don’t know now – we are trying to determine this for ourselves – will share what we come up [with] for ourselves. Encourage more involvement. P ... web page. Pouring money into problem does not do it.
10. Continued support of regional networks by AAPT. Occasional TYC conferences organized on an annual basis or 5-year basis. There should be a commitment to continuing these meetings. This should be hosted on a TYC campus but have NSF support.
11. Continue and strengthen the network. See if a follow-up type grant can be funded to provide 1 or 2 more years assistance & support as the regions begin to function on their own.
12. Find a way to bring in the folds who may feel "inadequate" and not willing to meet with a physics group.
13. Establish web page, especially for TYC (as part of PSRC?). Improve email communication. Establish regional/statewide web pages (as part of AAPT web). Link AAPT web page to PSRC page and TYC21. TYC faculty who know about such should be listed on such. Publicize existence of web pages and how to access.
14. Reduce teaching loads. Supply travel funds and support professional travel.
15. Make sure that AAPT posts links to TYC21 regional web sites. Make sure that all AAPT/APS national and sectional meetings are posted.

Selected regional coordinators were interviewed at TYC21 National Meeting 3 in Nebraska City, Nebraska in August 1998. An abridgement of the comments follows:

Region 1, Myron Mann. The sphere of our isolation is dissipated. That reaches to the boundaries of our region. The members of our regions do not recognize the national network. TYC21 is 90% responsible for the network we have. 10% were a result of the TYC physics workshops. Someone asked the regional coordinator to do it, and he did. The impact of having resources was not a major impact. It was the people and leadership. TYC21 gave a skeleton on which we could build something. It provided a pattern to follow. The workshops were the signal and TYC21 was the amplifier. The viability of the network is assured. A national identity is very important, but not essential. Resources are not so important. He is confident that he could help others develop a functioning network. His meetings fill a need.

Region 2, Tim Dave. Participants must realize that the activities are important and are valuable for them and their students. You need a core of people and need to maintain the core. It takes effort to involve those who do not see the importance of the effort or cause. It was the TYC21 people that created the network. But, without a valid need, the network would not have happened. It is also knowing that, "it could be done", that others are doing it and it is working, and that we have something important to say. We have a better communication and voice with the four year-institutions.

Region 3, Ken Gentili. Lots of different people, gave opportunities to grow. We first developed communication skills, to be able to develop as a team. Then were able to define issues with help and instigation from national meetings and leadership. The team developed their own focus. Then we used our communications skills to better define and articulate the issue. This provided the ability to include others in the issues and develop the network. We got, in essence, a peer review of our efforts as the network developed. We ended up with a huge structure with which to attack the solutions to the issues. The meetings allowed the more rapid building of the network, work on our major issue without short changing the other issues we wanted to address. The meetings were invaluable. We had to have the large teams; the issues required a group effort. It allowed us to step outside our box and gain strength from each other. We made huge gains. We developed the network in many ways: conference calls, email, etc. We developed an 8-9 person leadership team and were able to take advantage of different styles to address different teaching techniques. With lots of support, the regional coordinator did not have to carry the whole load. This network is a viable, working network as witnessed by the well-documented and supported white paper that is a categorization of competencies that students should have upon completing an introductory physics course. Members are continuing to develop assessment techniques and are piloting efforts to implement the techniques. The development of the network that TYC21 enabled will strengthen and enrich the TYC community so that members are more involved in taking the leadership role. We have leapfrogged ahead in this area. The regional coordinator was empowered by TYC21 leadership and learned through other grant-supported efforts. He was able to transfer learned "engineering design" or creative problem solving (need to solution: information gathering, idea generation, problem definition, evaluation and decision making, implementation. Coupled with this are teamwork, communication skills, and process development and improvement.) The act of assigning the task to the identified leader produced the result shown in this region. How to make a successful network: key elements: vision of why you are doing it, leadership that will empower other people, a reason for getting people to cooperate to reach a goal. You need to identify a structure and get self motivating people to work within the structure. You need people with vision to focus efforts. You need a focus and direction. If it is just an ad hoc group, it will die on the vine. The most important thing of this organization is that we have a need to improve physics education. We have been caught in a paradigm: the four-year schools have dictated our course content and structure, their model is based on a lecture format. We have not felt empowered to get out of this box. TYC21 and the network generated have freed us to do things to help do this. This empowerment will allow us to effect changes in the learning environment that would not have been possible with out it – a huge goal. How will this network sustain itself? Who realizes how important the network is? We are not sure. We have huge momentum after four years but fear that this is not enough. The national meetings are invaluable.

Region 5, Aaron Wenger. TYC21 provided a forum or structure to get instructors talking and interacting about issues of common interest. It takes a structure to "make" us do this kind of thing. Before TYC21 there were only a very few TYC teachers who talked with each other on a professional level. When we started doing the ITV meetings, we discovered a collegial relationship and developed a background framework on which other contacts could grow. When the regional coordinator attended the first meeting of TYC21, he was skeptical but decided to stay involved since he saw a value in interacting with teachers with common interests. He decided to get involved and be a regional coordinator. He doesn’t think the network will go away soon.

Region 8, Howard Balfour. His region has a "discussion" theme. They do not want to do projects or work on plans. There is only a core group in Chicago with little connection with other teachers in the region. They do not meet with AAPT sections and do not think that the sections adequately represent their views. The group will continue to meet but will not have a formal structure.

Region 9, Patti Hughey. Network building is hard work. There has to be personal contact involved. You have to have someone that takes the initiative as a motivator. The biggest obstacle is the time element. To make it a time priority, you need a tangible benefit and a reason and schedule. Planned meetings with commitments are important. You have to see both the short and long term value. TYC21 made the difference is that the TYC people now know each other and who they are. It has enabled us to have a separate identity. We didn’t have an identity before TYC21 because we didn’t think about ourselves as a separate entity. The four-year teachers and high school teachers now recognize our identity as a group with an agenda. We are more likely to collaborate and contact each other. The TYC network will continue. We now have a better sense of our national identity. We have picked up others in our network that are not TYC teachers but are interested in similar issues. We have national connections we never dreamed we would have, with the national leaders as well as other regions.

Region 11, Ali Yazdi. Need to have a quality program to encourage participation. The content has to be there. Until our culture develops, face to face meetings are necessary to build network. Virtual networks are not here yet.

Region 11, Nick Nicholson. Learning how to plan and put on a good meeting has made a big difference in the regions. The leadership has grown and mentored others. The interactions generate ideas and provide the impetus to go back to your own school and make changes.

Region 12, Sherry Savrda. It is hard. There are people that do not want to be involved and will not get involved. This, however, is not particularly bothersome. It is important to continue to include all people. What has happened has been valuable. In Florida, the TYC community has been instrumental in regenerating interest and vitality to the AAPT section. We have opened up lines of communication and are cooperating in many activities and solutions to problems. We are now regularly having good attendance at meetings and sharing with the four-year schools and high schools. TYC21 enabled the growth of the network by providing leadership and focus. We provided a reason to come, professional development, and time to share and participate. In a way, we structured the meetings as a mini-national meeting at a very reasonable cost. We learned at the first meeting to make sure that the meetings are meaningful and provide valuable information. Meetings are important. You can’t get the personal relationships that will maintain involvement without the personal contact. The whole project gave TYC teachers a chance to show that we are doing professional scholarly activities and that the work we are doing is of critical importance to the educational community.

Region 15, Doyle Davis. Brought people together, made them realize that their problems are not unique, gave them a chance to just talk, and to share. TYC21 brought together recognized leaders in the TYC and AAPT community. This ensemble of capable and proven leaders lent credibility to the organization and encouraged participation. In many ways, this project created an understanding of the importance and capability of the TYC community.