Next comes the question of the gross structure of the course. I'm not
talking about the meeting times; for that there is already a fixed
schedule of MWF 1:30-2:20 plus one lab session per week where the class
will be broken up into 3 sections for lab: Tue 8-9:50 am, Tue 10-11:50
am, and Wed 8:30-10:20 am. (For decades that last lab section was
scheduled for Thursday. I got it changed yesterday so that all the lab
sessions would occur between the Monday and Wednesday classroom sessions
so students could prep for lab on Monday and then on Wednesday
afternoon, in class, we could discuss the lab they just did.)
Below are some possibilities. I've tried to come up with several
structures that are significantly different from each other. I don't
think they are mutually exclusive. The real solution might be a mix.
1. Make the course similar to a typical algebra-based or calculus-based
course. In other words, cover about the same material in about the same
order with mechanics being the dominant topic the first semester and
electricity and magnetism being the dominant topic the second semester.
Use less math than one would in the case of the other two courses. I
think the Hewitt textbook is designed for such a course. Correlate the
lab with the course and try to make it so that each lab exercise helps
to enhance the understanding of concepts that the students have just
studied in the "in-class" part of the course. I would probably use
Mazur's peer tutoring method if I went this route in that I already have
a ton of conceptual questions (with some "repeat the information"
questions mixed in) and I am used to it.
2. Do something like 1 above but cut the number of topics in half. Take
the time to teach the math and have them do the math. Cover each topic
in more detail then one would have time to in 1 above.
3. Make the course a puzzle-solving course in which one applies the
skills gained by solving generic puzzles to physics puzzles and then
puzzles in other fields to check for and work on transference. Ideally
(I think), I'd have a ton of puzzles, each at a known learning level and
I would, probably by means of a test, figure out the appropriate level
for each student at the start of the course, and have them working on
puzzles at that level and the next level up so that they are challenged
but also meet with frequent success. Each time a person masters the
generic puzzles at one level I have them work on the physics puzzles at
that level and then perhaps some other field-specific puzzles from some
other field. Everybody would be working at their own pace but hopefully
there would always be a number of people at any given level so that they
could work in groups most of the time (but on their own occasionally
too). To try to make the whole course like this would probably be
biting off more than I can chew. The course grade plays such a huge
role in our system of education that it is pretty easy to see this kind
of course blowing up in my face. What are you going to grade them on,
how far they get? or how far ahead of where they started they wind up?
How much effort they seem to be putting in? This kind of course seems
like it might be a better fit for the way the Swiss undergraduate
university program was when I was there--you took some ungraded courses
for two years and then you took a test to see if you would be allowed to
stick around for two more years. Also, how would I ever come up with
all those puzzles and the learning level associated with each one?
4. Take Rick Tarara's advice and make the course a themed
course--perhaps "Energy" one semester and "Physics and the Environment"
the other; or perhaps I could work a unit (or a semester or an entire
course) on the interplay between physics and technology in there. While
it has been quite a while since we have been able to offer it, the
astronomy course which served most students as nothing but a free
elective was always popular which tells me that yes, at this institution
using a theme could go a long way in making the course appealing to the
students.
5. Implement the "modeling" method. There doesn't seem to be training
available to college professors for that method but there is plenty of
information and there are plenty of modeling materials available on
line--one should be able to figure it out.
6. Make the whole course a lab course. The MWF periods time could be
used for mini-labs, analysis of data gathered during the lab period,
designing the procedures that one is going to carry out in lab,
simulations, etc. I estimate that about 90% of them will have laptops so
we can do things requiring every group of 2 students to have a laptop
between them. Also, I wouldn't rule out activities like drawing
spacetime diagrams that wouldn't be considered lab activities, but we're
talking extreme hands on in this model.
-----------------------------------
My questions to you are: What other structures should be considered and
what are the pros and cons of the ones under consideration? What
structure would you use and why? Also, special insights based on
experience with a particular structure would be most appreciated.