Introductory Physics and Thriving Undergraduate Physics Programs

1
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
2
Outline
Calculus-Based Introductory Physics

• Current statistics
• Some history
• Brief survey of recent CBIP efforts
• SPIN-UP and the role of CBIP in physics
  departments
• Some provocative thoughts
• Discussion

3
Bachelors Degree Production
Source AIP Statistical Research Center
Enrollments and Degrees Report, and NCES Digest
of Education Statistics
4
National Statistics
5
Facts and Figures

• 27-28 of high school students take physics. The
  is growing! 5050 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
6
The Changing Role of Physics
Physics
20th Century
21st Century
7
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

8
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.

9
The Standard Model of Introductory Physics
Difficulties 1. Large amount of material favors
recipes and memorization techniques, often
without long-term retention. 2. Emphasis on
pre-20th Century physics often doesnt inspire
students. 3. Isolated from the rest of physics
and other sciences. 4. Students have changed
since we were in college.
Mechanics Thermal Physics Electricity/Magnetism Wa
ves
Optics Relativity Atomic Physics Condensed Matter
Physics Nuclear Physics High Energy
Physics Chaos Your Favorite Subject Here
10
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).

11
Innovative Delivery

• Workshop Physics - P. Laws et al.
• Interactive Lectures-Peer Instruction - E. Mazur
  (Harvard), J. Mestre, W. Gerace (U. Mass.), T.
  Moore (Pomona),
• Interactive Demos R. Thornton, D. Sokoloff
• Studio Physics - J. Wilson (UMass), K. Cummings
  (S. Conn) , Cal Poly SLO, U. New Hampshire,
• SCALE-UP B. Beichner (NCSU), J. Saul (UCF),
• Dynamic Physics - P. Sokol (Penn State)

12
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- E. Patterson, G. Novak (Air Force),
  A. Gavrin (U. Indiana-Purdue-Indianapolis)
• Tutorials - L. McDermott, P. Heron, J. Redish
• Context-Rich Problems -Heller (Minn.)
• Computer-Intensive - R. Fuller (U. Nebraska), W.
  Christian (Davidson)

13
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
  (McGraw-Hill) IUPP
• 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)
• ..

14
CBIP and Thriving Departments

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

15
Strategic Programs for Innovations in
Undergraduate Physics
SPIN-UP
Supported by ExxonMobil Foundation American
Institute of Physics American Association of
Physics Teachers American Physical Society
16
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 OKuma
(Lee College) Doug Osheroff (Stanford) Joe Taylor
(Princeton) Carl Wieman (U. Colorado)
Ex Officio AIP- J. Stith, J. Hehn APS-J. Franz,
F. Stein AAPT-B. Khoury, W. Hein PKAL J. Narum
17
SPIN-UP

• Site Visits to 21 thriving undergraduate
  physics programs.
• Survey (with AIP) all 761 bachelors degree
  granting physics programs in the US (74
  response).
• Report and Analysis.
• See AAPT web site http//www.aapt.org/Projects/ntf
  up.cfm
• Ask your department chair for the report!
• Physics Today, September, 2003.

18
Site Visit Departments
SPIN-UP

• 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.

• 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

20 /- other possibilities
19
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

20
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 for physics
  majors.
• Designed to serve the appropriate audience.
• Department continually works to improve the
  course(s).

21
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.

22
Some Difficult Questions

• Why havent the innovations been widely adopted?
• Why is there resistance to educational change?

23
Why Dont Innovations Stick?

• Innovations are no good?
• Innovations good, but no documentation of their
  success. Assessment is difficult (pace Mike
  Zeilik and Bob Beichner).
• 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 and R. Lopez
  Sunday.

24
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)

25
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.
• Dont underestimate the tyranny of the
  textbook. Textbooks do matter, and the net
  effect is usually negative.

26
Conference Survey

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