How physics educators shape the content of their curriculum

Little by little, some educators are examining the content of their curriculum. Many start with the question "how can I show that the standard physics content is applicable to contemporary issues?" Some move on to "what topics in physics could we use to build a course that addresses contemporary issues?" For many decades, a common venue for considering these questions has been the course for non-scientists.

Physics for non-majors

Physics for engineers and non-physics science majors

Physics for engineers and non-physics science majors has been characterized by weed-out classes with ever-widening books bursting with prerequisite topics.(needs references)

Educators teaching pre-med physics are currently (2010) re-examining content scope and sequence. See a report by American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians

Physics for non-scientists/non-engineers

Hauke Busch explicitly discusses the departure from traditional physics curriculum and pedagogy.[Busch:2010]<bibref f="default.bib">Busch:2010Using-environmeAA</bibref> At Georgia College & State University, Busch and colleagues changed some of the traditional topics to some selected from "environmental physical science" in an attempt to make the course applicable to "current issues of interest."

Change to maintain career pathways

The curriculum for graduate students in physics has had to change to match their career prospects, as seen in this description of a workshop at AAPT's winter 2011 meeting:

A New Curriculum for Physics Graduate Students

Author: Invited - Harald W. Griesshammer, George Washington University.

Abstract: Effective fall 2008, GW Physics implemented a new graduate curriculum, addressing nationwide problems:

(1) wide gap between 50-year-old curricula and the proficiencies expected to start research;

(2) high attrition rates and long times to degree;

(3) limited resources in small departments to cover all topics deemed essential.

The new curriculum:

(1) extends each course to four hours weekly for better in-depth coverage and cautious additions;

(2) decreases the number of core-courses per semester to two, with less "parallel-processing" of only loosely correlated lectures;

(3) increases synergies by stricter logical ordering and synchronisation of courses;

(4) frees faculty to regularly offer advanced courses;

(5) integrates examples tied to ongoing research in our department;

(6) integrates computational methods into core-lectures;

(7) encourages focusing on concepts and "meta-cognitive skills" in studio-like settings.

The new curriculum and qualifying exam, its rationale and assessment criteria will be discussed. This concept is tailored to the needs of small departments with only a few research fields and a close student-teacher relationship.

Are we as flexible for younger students, who may or may not choose careers in physics research? If there is a more diverse group of career pathways for undergraduates, or especially high school students of physics, should those curricula be even more flexible or responsive?

Impediments to change

We don't have a critical mass of change agents. Evidence

The tutorial that you signed up for at the AAPT Winter (2011) meeting entitled "Civic Engagement and Service Learning in Physics" has been canceled due to low enrollment...

American Association of Physics Teachers

Programs  & Conferences Department

Physics has been very successful with a highly regimented curriculum for 60 years. If the measure of success is making grants, becoming professors, winning Nobel prizes; but not getting female participation, buy-in from the general public, or getting away from its weed-out course stigma. So, perhaps agents who care about the former catalog of success will not be agents for change, and those who care most about the latter catalog will.

References

Citations

<bibreferences />