  

Introductory Physics and Thriving Undergraduate Physics Programs

Robert C. Hilborn Amherst College

National Task Force on Undergraduate Physics Support from American Association of Physics Teachers, American Physical Society American Institute of Physics The ExxonMobil Foundation

  

• • • •

Some history

Outline

Current statistics Calculus Based Introductory Physics Brief survey of recent CBIP efforts SPIN-UP and the role of CBIP in physics departments

• •

Some provocative thoughts Discussion

  

Bachelor’s Degree Production

Source: AIP Statistical Research Center : Enrollments and Degrees Report, and * NCES Digest of Education Statistics

  

National Statistics

  

Facts and Figures

   27-28% of high school students take physics. The % is growing! 50:50 men/women!!

70-75% of high school students go on to 2-year, 4-year colleges and universities.

350,000 students take college/university intro. physics each year ( 25-30% in 2-year colleges ). About 50% of those take CBIP.

 Only 3% of those taking calculus-based physics ever take another physics course.

SOURCE: AIP Statistics Division

  

The Changing Role of Physics

20th Century Physics 21st Century

  

Summary of the New Environment • • •

Changing role for physics in the universe of science Changing student population – – – demographics preparation interests Changing National Focus – emphasis on K-12

  

Some history of CBIP via textbooks

 Curry, Street, and Purcell 1950s  Halliday and Resnick 1960s  The clone era 1960s 1990s and on…  Outliers: Berkeley Series and Feynman Lectures  Recent developments – see Joe Amato,

Physics Today

, Dec. 1996.

  

The Standard Model of Introductory Physics

Mechanics Thermal Physics Electricity/Magnetism Waves Optics Relativity Atomic Physics

Difficulties: 1. Large amount of material favors recipes and memorization techniques, often without long-term retention.

2. Emphasis on pre-20 th

Condensed Matter Physics Nuclear Physics High Energy Physics Chaos Your Favorite Subject Here

Century physics often doesn’t inspire students.

3. Isolated from the rest of physics and other sciences.

4. Students have changed since we were in college.

  

General Philosophy for CBIP

 A thorough and rigorous coverage of a limited number of topics is more effective than an encyclopedic and show introduction to a wide range of subject matter.

 Physics should be taught as a growing subject and the student should be given illustrations of problems on present frontiers .

 Senior and experienced staff members should engage in the teaching of introductory physics courses, in the training of teaching assistants, and in experimentation directed at the improved teaching of physics.

•Carleton Report, Am. J. Phys.

25

, 417 (1957 ).

  

Innovative Delivery

     Workshop Physics Interactive Lectures-Peer Instruction E. Mazur (Harvard), J. Mestre, W. Gerace (U. Mass.), T. Moore (Pomona),… Interactive Demos – P. Laws et al.

R. Thornton , D. Sokoloff Studio Physics Hampshire, … J. Wilson (UMass), K. Cummings (S. Conn) , Cal Poly SLO, U. New SCALE-UP – (UCF),… B. Beichner (NCSU), J. Saul  Dynamic Physics - P. Sokol (Penn State)

  

Innovative Delivery - 2

  Overview--Case Study - A. van Heuvelen (Rutgers) “In-line” text exercises, take-home experiments R. Chabay and B. Sherwood (NCSU), J. King et al (MIT).

  Complete PPT and WWW package: G. Gladding , (Illinois) WWW – JiTT Indianapolis) E. Patterson , G. Novak (Air Force), A. Gavrin (U. Indiana-Purdue    Tutorials - L. McDermott, P. Heron , J. Redish Context-Rich Problems -Heller (Minn.) Computer-Intensive - R. Fuller (U. Nebraska), W. Christian (Davidson)

  

Innovative Ideas: Texts

           Joe Amato,

Physics Today

, Dec. 1996.

R. Knight,

Physics: A Contemporary Perspective

(Addison-Wesley) R. Chabay and B. Sherwood ,

Matter and Interactions

, (Wiley) Tom Moore ,

Six-Ideas that Shaped Physics

Hill) IUPP (McGraw J. Rigden, L. Coleman, J. Barojas,

Physics In Context

( IUPP ) Relativistic Mechanics first, J. Reichert J. Amato, C. Holbrow, J. Lloyd,

Modern Introductory Physics

(Springer) L. McDermott, P. Heron , et al,

Physics by Inquiry

(Prentice Hall) Eric Mazur … (Prentice Hall) Cummings, Laws , Redish, Cooney ,

Understanding Physics

, PER Revised HRW (Wiley) …..

  

CBIP and Thriving Departments

The role of CBIP in building a “thriving” undergraduate physics program.

  

Strategic Programs for Innovations in Undergraduate Physics

Supported by ExxonMobil Foundation American Institute of Physics American Association of Physics Teachers American Physical Society

  

National Task Force on Undergraduate Physics

J. D. Garcia (U. Arizona) S. James Gates (U. Maryland) Robert Hilborn (Amherst College), Chair Ruth Howes (Marquette), Co-Chair Ken Krane (Oregon State) Elizabeth McCormack (Bryn Mawr) Laurie McNeil (U. North Carolina-Chapel Hill) Jose Mestre (U. Massachusetts) Tom O’Kuma (Lee College) Doug Osheroff (Stanford) Joe Taylor (Princeton) Ex Officio: AIP- J. Stith, J. Hehn APS-J. Franz, F. Stein AAPT-B. Khoury, W. Hein PKAL – J. Narum Carl Wieman (U. Colorado)

     Site Visits to 21 “thriving” undergraduate physics programs.

Survey (with AIP) all 761 bachelor’s degree granting physics programs in the US (74% response).

 Report and Analysis.

See AAPT web site http://www.aapt.org/Projects/ntfup.cfm

Ask your department chair for the report!

Physics Today

, September, 2003.

  

Site Visit Departments

• Angelo State University • University of Arizona • Bethel College • Brigham Young University • Bryn Mawr College • Colorado School of Mines • Cal State San Luis Obispo • Carleton College • Grove City College • Harvard University • University of Illinois • University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse •Lawrence University •North Carolina State Univ.

•North Park University •Oregon State University •Reed College •Rutgers University •SUNY Geneseo •University of Virginia •Whitman College Site visit teams employed about 65 physics volunteers.

20 +/- other possibilities

   What makes an UPP Thrive?

Conclusions from the Task Force Site Visits  Strong and sustained departmental leadership  Well-defined sense of mission  Recruit and retain students – Challenging and supportive program – Multiple-tracks/options – Prof. development and mentoring – Introductory courses – Career information - alumni  Emphasis on the entire program of the department, including interactions with other departments

  

SPIN-UP and CBIP

 Most of the site visit departments have experimented with CBIP – mostly pedagogy and not content .

 Departmental effort (not just junior faculty or just senior faculty w/o research programs).

 CBIP often used as a recruiting tool majors.

for physics  Designed to serve the appropriate audience .

 Department continually course(s).

works to improve the

  

The Survey: 74% Response Rate

 Thanks to Ken Krane and Roman Czujko:  60% report “significant” curricular change in the past several years.

 Of those 71% report changes in CBIP.

Change Content and Ped.

Content only Of those reporting change in CBIP 50% 10-20% Ped. only 30-40%

  

Some Difficult Questions

• Why haven’t the innovations been widely adopted?

• Why is there resistance to educational change?

  

Why Don’t Innovations Stick?

  Innovations are no good?

Innovations good, but no documentation of their success. Assessment is difficult ( Zeilik and Bob Beichner ).

pace

Mike    Large upfront investment of resources required. Lack of faculty development and reward.

Difficult to make the effort a ‘departmental project’ with long-term sustained focus.

 Student resistance.

How to make them stick : G. Gladding Lopez – Sunday.

and R.

  

The Resistance

To be discussed Saturday afternoon.

   I was hired to do research.

My evaluations are great – of course my students are learning!

“Reform” is just dumbing down the curriculum. (see quote from Lloyd Taylor, 1938)

  

Provocative (?) Thoughts

 The goals of CBIP are often ill-defined , if defined at all.

 An improved CBIP by itself will not save your undergraduate physics program.

 Energy and enthusiasm and concern count . Details of content and pedagogy are of secondary importance.

 One size does not fit all . Local details are important.

 A departmental effort is crucial. (The “ energetic hero ” model does not work in the long run.)  Continuous experimentation and feedback are crucial.

 Don’t underestimate the “ tyranny of the textbook .” Textbooks do matter, and the net effect is usually negative.

  

Conference Survey

Please fill out CBIP survey form (one form per department) before the end of the conference.