A.1. Physics at the Crossroads: Revitalizing Undergraduate Physics

Robert C. Hilborn
Amherst College, Amherst, MA 01002-5000

Why is this conference focusing on undergraduate physics education? There are two threads: First, two recent reports, Shaping the Future, New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology 1 from the National Science Foundation and From Analysis to Action, Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology 2 from the National Academy of Sciences both exhort the higher education community to reform and revitalize undergraduate science education. The primary imperative of the Shaping the Future report is that

"...all students [should] have access to supportive, excellent undergraduate education in SME&T [science, mathematics, engineering, and technology], and all students [should] learn these subjects by direct experience with the methods and processes of inquiry."

"All" in this case means not only our physics majors, but also students in our service courses, including engineers, pre-medical students, and pre-service teachers. "All" also means that we need equal access to SME&T education for women, minorities, and others underrepresented in the scientific community. "Direct experience [with] ...inquiry" means that passive lectures alone are not appropriate for teaching undergraduates.

The second thread begins with a conference sponsored by the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT). In September, 1996 a group of 22 physicists met with representatives of the undergraduate reform movements in chemistry, mathematics, and engineering to discuss a possible reform effort in physics. The resulting report "Physics at the Crossroads" has been widely distributed in the physics community with feedback indicating general support for the goals stated in that report: Development of an infrastructure (including web-based dissemination of ideas and materials, case histories of successful departmental reforms, and so on) to support the notion of continuous, nation-wide reform in undergraduate physics.

A quick review of the statistics indicating a steady decline in the number of physics majors3 and a survey4 of several thousand introductory physics students' conceptual understanding indicates that there are reasons for serious concern, but also indications for optimism because "interactive-engagement" methods of pedagogy seem to improve both students' conceptual understanding of physics, a goal of all introductory physics courses, and students' attitudes toward physics.

How will we know when undergraduate revitalization has succeeded? I suggest the following criteria:

  1. More undergraduate students find physics a challenging but hospitable subject.
  2. All physicists view teaching as an on-going scholarly activity.
  3. We all celebrate the wide range of activities and careers that make up the practice of physics.

1Shaping the Future, New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, Advisory Committee to the NSF Directorate for Education and Human Resources. (1996). The report is accessible through the NSF web site: www.nsf.gov (The report is in the file nsf96139.txt.)
2From Analysis to Action, Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1996). The National Academy Press web site is at www.nap.edu.
3Patrick J. Mulvey and Elizabeth Dodge, "1995 Bachelor's Degree Recipients Report," AIP Publication No. R211.27. (American Institute of Physics, Woodbury, NY 1996).
4Richard R. Hake, "Interactive engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses," submitted to Am. J. Phys. (1997). "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory mechanics courses," preprint. "Evaluating Conceptual Gains in mechanics: A six-thousand student survey of test data," Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, University of Maryland, College Park, MD (1996).

Next

Return to Home page