A Study of the Development of the Paradigms in Physics Program

Realigning conceptual, mathematical, and computational physics content.

The faculty intended the changes in instruction approved in 2016 to be a tentative realignment of the paradigms in physics curriculum that could be adjusted as needed. Such adjustments seemed likely after the substantial restructuring of several junior-level paradigms in physics courses and two new sophomore courses replacing some aspects of the eliminated modern physics course, classical mechanics capstone, and mathematical methods capstone. Also still needing to be discussed, designed, and added were an upper level lab and specialty courses reflecting the research of the current faculty

The faculty anticipated discussing and agreeing on incremental adjustments primarily during the on-going Upper Division Curriculum Committee meetings. Unfortunately, the university's requirement for all departments to adopt new assessment procedures in preparation for renewal of the university's accreditation usurped much of the time available for the anticipated collaborative conversations about refining the curriculum during the Upper Division Curriculum Committee meetings. Therefore fine-grained adjustments to the re-envisioned paradigms in physics curriculum did not occur as readily as expected.

Responding to needs due to increased enrollment.

During the first two decades of the paradigms in physics program, enrollment had been under thirty. A classroom had been remodeled and dedicated to instruction in the paradigms in physics courses. Students worked at nine rectangular tables; each table had enough space for a group of three or four students to work together around a computer or a large whiteboard. The instructor could move among the groups and engage them in quiet conversations while easily monitoring what was happening elsewhere in the room. The instructor also could easily address the whole group as common issues arose. All students could readily see anything written on the board.

Near the end of the second decade of the paradigms in physics program, however, enrollment had increased beyond the capacity of this dedicated classroom. Instruction now occurred in a very large room with students working at eight large circular tables, each with 3 computers and space for up to three groups of two or three students working around a computer or large white board. It was difficult for the instructor to monitor what was happening throughout the room while engaging a small group in conversation. It also was difficult for students to hear one another across the room during attempted large group discussions. Use of a microphone passed around was awkward. Some students could not even see well what the instructor wrote on the limited board space; they only could see clearly the portion of the board projected on a screen mounted on a nearby wall.

Challenges in using active engagement strategies in such a difficult classroom setting were already evident before the changes in instruction approved in 2016. Increased enrollment, up to 64 students in one of the new sophomore courses, added the need for additional equipment and assistance. Addressing these needs strained the resources of the department as well as of the time, energy, and patience of the faculty teaching the courses and the students enrolled. Substantial improvements could be made, however, if the department were able to offer two sections of a course with high enrollment, add more graduate teaching assistants (TAs) and undergraduate learning assistants (LAs), and cover the increased costs of buying, assembling, and managing additional equipment for the labs integrated into the paradigms in physics courses.

Recognizing needs and constraints in assigning faculty to teach paradigms in physics courses.

Faculty differ in their interest in and experience teaching with active engagement strategies as well as in their perception of the importance of their teaching responsibilities relative to their research programs. Most faculty members learned physics by reading textbooks focused on particular physics domains such as classical mechanics, electricity and magnetism, optics, or quantum mechanics, listening to lectures in separate courses about those domains, doing labs courses separated from related content courses, and working on problem sets individually, seeking assistance only as needed. Few have had experience with learning in groups or teaching through active engagement strategies and integrated labs in courses whose contents cross multiple physics domains.

This means that faculty assigned to teaching paradigms in physics courses need to be open to learning new ways of teaching as well as new ways of presenting the physics content. A faculty member assigned to one of the paradigms in physics courses, however, had seemed reluctant or unable to teach this way successfully and was later shifted to an assignment teaching one of the department's more traditional courses. Two new faculty members were supposed to teach upper-level courses before being reviewed for tenure. They were helped to prepare by “shadowing” faculty teaching paradigms courses before undertaking such teaching assignments themselves (See section 5.2 of Part V). Attention to such faculty needs and constraints was critically important in sustaining the paradigms in physics program during implementation of the approved changes in instruction.