Section 10.2 Core changes
¶Subsection 10.2.1 Modern Physics \(\rightarrow\) Contemporary Challenges
Proposal:
Redistribute the content of Modern Physics into two new sophomore-level courses, of which this section will primarily discuss Contemporary Challenges. The special relativity content, in more depth, will go into Intermediate Mechanics. We note that because Modern Physics requires 213 and is a 300-level course that cannot be taught at community colleges, it must be taken in the fall of the junior year by many of our students (transfer students as well as those in the trailing sequence).
Contemporary Challenges will have PH 211 as a prerequisite, and should be taken by all our local physics majors in the winter of their sophomore year. Transfer students will need to take it in the winter of their junior year, reducing the “crunch” of courses they need to take in their first term at OSU. Contemporary Challenges will be a 3-credit course (versus 4 for Modern Physics) with integrated labs (i.e. labs during class lecture time).
Con: Many students value the lab experience of Modern Physics, so we will want to ensure that we provide an excellent lab experience.
Pro: Reduces the overload for trailer and transfer students in the fall of the junior year
Pro: Theme of course provides increased coherence among the physics topics.
Pro: Seeing physics as practical may attract a more diverse set of students
Pro: Contemporary Challenges can be taught earlier than Modern Physics, giving majors an earlier cohort experience.
Pro: Will introduce rudimentary thermal physics content, easing transition to Energy & Entropy
Pro: Teaching this content earlier will allow us to cover more content in total prior to GREs while still reducing the load in the junior year.
Pro: Can begin developing improved mathematical sophistication in our majors earlier in their career.
Subsection 10.2.2 Classical Capstone + Reference Frames \(\rightarrow\) Intermediate Mechanics
Proposal:
In the spring of their sophomore year, all local students will take this Intermediate Mechanics. Transfer students take it in the spring of their junior year. The course covers advanced classical mechanics (including Lagrangian and an introduction to Hamiltonian mechanics), and special relativity. In addition, this course will introduce the idea of a power series approximation.
This course covers much of the material of the current Classical Capstone (the mechanics) and the current Reference Frames Paradigm (special relativity), both of which will be removed.
We envision that advanced and graduate-school-bound students may wish to take the graduate Dynamics course in their senior year.
Con: By teaching this content earlier with less prepared students, we cannot move as fast and cover as much material.
Con: Content no longer appearing in the curriculum: rigid body rotation, and rotating reference frames
Pro: We introduce a sophomore course without in- creasing total credit requirements.
Pro: Lagrangian mechanics is “cool” and students now can experience it in their sophomore year.
Pro: Same for special relativity.
Pro: More content is taught prior to GRE.
Pro: Challenge students with advanced mathematical thinking prior to paradigms (when possible), but in a way paced for their success.
Pro: Students expressed that they like the hyperbolic geometry from reference frames.
Pro: If taught at community colleges (up for debate), this could help further prepare our transfer students.
Pro: Advanced students can take graduate dynamics
Subsection 10.2.3 3-week Paradigms + Math Methods Capstone \(\rightarrow\) 5-week Paradigms + math bits
Proposal:
Change from three 3-week, 21-contact-hour Paradigms (with odd 4-week Paradigms and ex- tra weeks) per term to two 5-week, 35-contact-hour Paradigms per term.
One week of each 5-week Paradigm is devoted to mathematical methods relevant to that Paradigm. This content will normally be taught by a single professor for the year as a separate teaching assignment. In some cases this will be the first week of the Paradigm (as is currently done with the Prelude teaching matrices and eigensystems prior to Spins, and the Interlude teaching partial derivatives and differentials prior to Energy & Entropy), but in other cases we expect these math days to be dispersed to appropriate places in the Paradigm.
These math bits will take the place (and some of the content) of the existing Math Methods Capstone. Those students wanting additional math methods will be encouraged to take our graduate-level Math Methods course, which covers much the same content as the existing capstone.
Con: Teaching a paradigm for 5 weeks will be exhausting for professors, and is undoubtedly more work than an existing paradigm course (particularly the “normal” 3-week Paradigms).
Con: A particularly intense 5-week paradigm could be too exhausting for students.
Con: Requires coordination and communication between people teaching paradigms, which may be more effort.
Pro: Encourages coordination and communication between those who are teaching Paradigms.
Pro: A bit more time in each Paradigm may reduce hecticness of students.
Pro: Makes possible a mid-course test (or more lengthy quizzes), which most students liked the idea of, as it would enable them to find out testing style of new professors before it is too late. They did not like the idea of a “midterm” which is scary and disrupts their lives.
Pro: Makes each Paradigm a clear one-course contribution to teaching load, which could ease departmental teaching load.
Pro: Reduces teaching effort by professors due to 5-week Paradigms meeting 7 hours/week.
Pro: Separate “math bits” professor improves continuity and unified voice to the students.
Pro: Many of these “math bits” have been developed through extensive research into student difficulties. By putting this as a single teaching role we (hopefully) ensure that the professor will put care into learning what students are lacking, and how to address those issues.
Pro: Removes 3 credits of required student (Math Methods Capstone) work from the junior year.
Pro: Integrated math in paradigms is valued more than Math Methods Capstone by students.
Pro: Grad math methods should serve well for graduate-school-bound students, and looks stronger on transcript
???: Could raise enrollment in our graduate math methods course.
???: Some content from Math Methods moves into Central Forces
Subsection 10.2.4 Paradigms Ordering
Proposal:
Change the order of Paradigms to
- Quantum Fundamentals (425)
- Energy & Entropy (423)
- Oscillations & Waves (424)
- Periodic Systems (427)
- Static Fields (422)
- Central Forces (426)
Some of these courses could be reordered if we run into difficulties, as we have done with the existing Paradigms.
Con: Teaching E&E earlier may be challenging in terms of student preparation.
Pro: Allows students to take Vector Calculus in either fall or winter of their junior year
Subsection 10.2.5 Quantum Fundamentals (spins)
Proposal:
This is the current 4-week Spins, but with particle- in-a-box added, as well as introduction to complex numbers, taught concurrently with introducing complex numbers in Electronics.]
Pro: Adding particle in a box makes this a more complete introduction to quantum mechanics.
Subsection 10.2.6 Energy & Entropy
Proposal:
Gains a week.
Pro: Another week can allow for more introductory content and slower pacing.
Pro: We can also have a bit more time for stat mech.
Subsection 10.2.7 Oscillations & Waves
Proposal:
This is the Paradigms of Oscillations and Waves, without the quantum bits from Waves, plus no non- linear oscillator from Oscillations.
Con: Will be a challenging amount of material to teach in 5 weeks. May benefit from arriving just a bit later in the sequence.
Pro: Combines our lab-heavy paradigms into a longer course that can pace out lab reports
Subsection 10.2.8 Periodic Systems
Proposal:
The existing Periodic Systems, plus free particle quantum from Waves. Thus this course introduces momentum space (a.k.a. k-space, or reciprocal space), and all of its content harps on that concept.
Pro: Combines the content that emphasizes reciprocal or momentum space, so we can give this important concept more dedicated time.
Subsection 10.2.9 Static Fields
Proposal:
This is the existing 3-week Central Forces, with some relevant and necessary bits from Math Methods. In addition, we propose adding a bit of classical scattering content to this course.
Pro: The two weeks of additional time will enable a fuller treatment of separation of variables, and the considerable math methods required for spherical harmonics, etc.
Subsection 10.2.10 Restructuring Electronics
Proposal:
Reduce Electronics from 2 terms to 1, eliminating many of the existing labs, many of which involve constructing a wide variety of devices with either transistors or op amps. Lectures will be integrated into the lab time. Work hard to enable students to complete labs in the scheduled time. Reduce the total number of devices built by students, and focus a bit more on circuit analysis. Students should be taught lab writeup skills in a gradual fashion.
This course will introduce:
- Circuit analysis (Kirchoff's rules, etc), nominally review
- Passive AC circuits (high/low pass filters), not including LRC circuits, which are in Oscillations & Waves
- Introduction to Fourier transform, mostly qualitative
- Op amp introduction
- building and testing one or two devices using op amps
Con: Fewer total hours of electronics means less total lab experience.
Pro: Concentrating class hours in the lab will reduce burden on students.
Pro: Schedule content to complement paradigms, e.g. Oscillations & Waves can assume student familiarity with Kirchoff's laws, capacitors and inductors.
Pro: Removes 3 credits of student work
Pro: Total amount of electronics was excessive, students don't need to construct every possible circuit.
Pro: LRC circuits are studied in paradigms, and only need be taught once.
Subsection 10.2.11 Restructuring PH 415: Computer Interfacing
Proposal:
Create a labview-oriented course, which teaches students to use labview to control an experiment and collect data. Students learn about semiconductor devices (diodes and FETs) and characterize them using labview. They then do something (what?) with logic gates.
Con: Aduinos and FPGAs may be cool.
Pro: Both students and faculty perceive labview as very relevant to research and jobs.
Pro: Covering fewer programming languages will allow greater depth.