In his 5/22/01 PhysLnR post "Re: student attitudes toward physics,"
Bob Beichner made two points:
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
A. "I'd be interested in seeing some numbers or a list of
institutions where this . . .(introductory physics courses placed
under the control of engineering departments) . . . has happened or
has been threatened. Most engineering schools are pretty anxious
about the new ABET . . . (Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology). . . .accreditation standards <http://www.abet.org>, but
I doubt many have actually taken over the physics courses. (Although
this is now an option.)
B. On the other hand, their concern is our opportunity . . . . . A
good way for physics departments to 'make points' with the engineers
is to show them how the physics courses are part of a comprehensive
program that meets the ABET criteria."
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
Regarding Bob Beichner's point "A,"
a. Bob Ehrlich(1) surveyed engineering deans and found that 32%
indicated that they would "seek to have physics taught within
engineering, accreditation requirements permitting." (Unfortunately
Ehrlich's important report was somehow omitted from the online
edition of ref. 1.)
b. Tom Foster, Pat Heller, and Ken Heller(2) surveyed engineering and
science professors at the Univ. of Minnesota "to learn why. .
.(they) require physics for their students. . .(and recommendations
as to the). . . goals for our course, topics we might want to teach,
and how best to teach them in the laboratory and recitation
sections."
Regarding Bob Beichner's point "b," I agree with him that the concern
of engineering schools about ABET accreditation presents an
opportunity for physics departments, and emphasizes the importance of
Physics Education Research and Development in helping departments
meet ABET (and AIP, NSF, and US. Dept. of Labor) criteria.(3,4) This
theme has been discussed by Alan Van Heuvelen & Kathy Andre(6), and
also by Paul Zitzewitz(7).
In addition to concern for the possible diminution in the march of
shackled captives into their service courses, Physics Departments
worry about the dwindling number of volunteer physics majors.(8-11) A
possible partial solution is the implementation of "Curriculum S"(5,
12-14) where S stands for "Synthesis."
Thus far the AAPT/APS/AIP "National Task Force on Undergraduate
Physics,"(15) chaired by Ruth Howes and Robert Hilborn, has evidenced
little interest in "Curriculum S." Robert Hilborn(16) has explained
that "The Task Force is not, for better or worse, in the business of
promoting any particular curricula, new or old."
In the words of Len Jossem(13): "The intent of the original
Curriculum S proposal was to synthesize a single curriculum that
promoted competence in physics, independence in inquiry, physical
insight, and talent so as to enable a student to become 'a thoughtful
and productive participant in a culture increasingly molded by
science.' "
It would seem that those in physics education research and
development should be able to enhance student learning and enjoyment
both in courses for students bound for other professions and for
advanced courses for physics majors. For an example of the latter
effort see e.g., ref. 17)
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Richard Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<rrhake@earthlink.net>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
REFERENCES & FOOTNOTES
1. R. Ehrlich, "Engineering Deans' Opinions of Physics Courses," APS
Forum on Education Newsletter, Summer 1998, pp. 2-4 (1998). (The
Summer 1998 issue is online at
<http://www.aps.org/units/fed/aug98/index.html>. Unfortunately,
Ehrlich's article was not included in the online version.)
"It is an encouraging result that our science and engineering faculty
believe that physics is an important part of their curriculum. We
have been able to gain some insights into what they want us to teach
and how they would like us do it. When asked about goals, we know
that they:
a. want us to teach fundamental principles in depth, not just covered lightly,
b. value both qualitative and quantitative skills in problem solving,
c. would like students to work collaboratively in recitation,
d. DO NOT WANT THEIR STUDENTS TO HAVE INQUIRY-BASED LABS IN OUR
PHYSICS COURSES.
. . .[But do engineers know what "inquiry labs" are? Are they aware
that published quantitative assessments strongly suggest that inquiry
labs are relatively effective in promoting students' conceptual
understanding?]. . .
It is enlightening to see that our engineering and science faculty
have thought about these issues and have reached conclusions similar
to many . . . [But not all !]. . . . physics educators."
My CAPS and [parenthesized] commentary.
3. ABET <http://www.abet.org> wants engineering school graduates to be able to:
(a) Apply knowledge of math, science, engineering;
4. Ref. 5, page 23, shows a pictorial summary of the skills needed in
the professions as indicated by ABET, AIP, NSF, and the U.S. Labor
Department, as they were extracted from the sources by Van Heuvelen
and Andre (5).
5. R.R. Hake, "Is it Finally Time to Implement Curriculum S?" AAPT
Announcer 30(4), 103 (2000); on the web as ref. 13 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake> [CurriculumS.pdf., 3/15/01,
1200K] (400 references & footnotes, 390 hot-linked URL's). This
presentation concerns improving the education of undergraduate
physics majors by instituting a "Curriculum S" for "Synthesis." But
because that's a small part of a much larger educational problem in
the U.S. there's a lot of material on the reform of P-16 education
generally (P = preschool).
6. A. Van Heuvelen & K. Andre, "Calculus-Based Physics and the
Engineering ABET 2000 Criteria," Undergraduate Physics for the New
Century, Conference of Physics Chairs, 14-16 April 2000;
<http://www.aapt.org/>.
7. P. Zitzewitz, "Engineering Accreditation Changes: a Threat or an
Opportunity for Physics Programs," APS Forum on Education Newsletter,
Spring 1998, pp. 1, 3 (1998);
<http://www.research.att.com/~kbl/APS/apr98/>.
8. R. Ehrlich, "Where are the physics majors?" Am. J. Phys. 66(1),
79-86 (1998), online at <http://ojps.aip.org/ajp/>; "Historical
Trends in Physics Bachelor Output," Phys. Teach. 36(6), 328-333
(1999), "What Can We Learn from Recent Changes in Physics Bachelor
Degree Output?" Phys. Teach. 37(3), 142-146 (1999).
11. D. Goodstein, Oersted Medal acceptance speech, "Now Boarding: The
Flight from Physics," Am. J. Phys. 67(3), 183-186 (1999); online at
<http://ojps.aip.org/ajp/>. See also D. Goodstein, "The Coming
Revolution in Physics Education, APS News, June 2000, on the web at
<http://www.aps.org/apsnews/0600/060017.html>: "My friends and
colleagues across the county tell me that the number of students
majoring in physics is at its lowest point since Sputnik, more than
40 years ago . . . . . We are in deep trouble. Our methods are
obsolete, and our product is not in demand . . . . . If the
profession of teaching physics were a business, we would be filing
for bankruptcy. . . ."
12. Recommendations of the Second Ann Arbor Conference on
Undergraduate Curricula for Physics Major," Am. J. Phys. 31(1), 1-8
(1963).
13. E.L. Jossem, "Undergraduate Curricula in Physics: A Report on the
Princeton Conference on Curriculum S," Am. J. Phys. 32(6), 491-497
(1964); for summary see ref. 5.
14. K.W. Ford, "Guest Editorial: Whatever Happened to Curriculum S?"
Phys. Teach., March 1987, pp. 138-139; for an illustrated summary see
ref. 5.
15. R.H. Howes & R.C. Hilborn, "Winds of Change," Am. J. Phys. 68(5),
401-402 (2000), online at <http://ojps.aip.org/ajp/>: ""All
meaningful change in undergraduate physics must eventually be local.
A 'one size' program will not fit all. The new environment is
unlikely to return to its state of thirty-some years ago. Thus, it is
up to the physics community to respond creatively and constructively
to the new environment."
16. R. Hilborn to R.R. Hake, private communication of 3/21/01.