Some Thoughts on the Introductory Course in Physics
Three aspects of an introductory course in physics are discussed. They are the texts, the course proper and the laboratory. Together they form an integral part of the entire course. The laboratory, although a subject of much contention, has an important role to play in enhancing and complementing the lectures. The course should be characterized by five salient features namely continuity, coherence, consistency, clarity and contemporareousness in order to achieve the ultimate objective of the course, which is the manifestation of the unity of physics as seamless web.
Introduction
Introductory course in physics has always been a subject of academic interest. French (1980) for example has dwelt with it at length emphasizing physics as a process for exploring and interpreting the real world. Ridgen (1984) has also given it much thought in the editorial column of the American Journal of Physics. In view of the world-wide dwindling number of physics majors in recent years (Koh, 1992), it is opportune to take a hard look at the subject itself, to ask ourselves more searchingly why it is not popular amongst university aspirants. Poor career prospects have been ruled out for the unpopularity (Koh, 1992). The crux of the problem may lie elsewhere. To make a revamp one usually starts from the introductory course itself because it may be the root to the problem.
There has already been continual interest in the design and content of the physics fundamental course. The initiative by the UNESCO through ASPEN (Asia Physics Education Network) is a recent case in point. The effort by the Physical Science Study Committee (PSSC) under the sponsorship of MIT with support from various Foundations was another example. All these curricular reviews are in response to the demands of a fast changing world. In the ASPEN module, physics is to be taught in an integrated manner including class lectures, experiments, theory and laboratory, tutorials, demonstrations, etc., with about equal weightage given to theory and experiment. The key word here is integration. The PSSC course has similar aims. It is designed to stimulate interest and to lead students into operating with scientific concepts until they become familiar tools of thought instead of mere verbalization. Laboratory work is also treated as an integral part of the learning activities of the course. Both modules give due emphasis to the complementary role of theory and experiment. This is in keeping with the spirit of physics which is very much empirical in nature.
Physics is also by nature cumulative and consensual. It play a dual role in the curricula of a university; one as a core course for its majors and the other as the mental course in physics, basic physics text are inevitably subjected to more critical review. Their presentation, approach, format and content are often the points of contentions. Some have been criticized for being too mathematical. On the other hand, some have been chastised for being too qualitative. Others have been criticized for fragmentizing the subjects, dealing with technology at the expense of basic scientific concepts and emphasizing details of knowledge rather than developing attitudes of inquiry. Some physics texts have been criticized for not putting emphasis on the intuitive content of the basic ideas and concepts (Tzanakis & Coutsomitros, 1988). In short very few basic physics texts fit the bill of being truly suitable for a fundamental course.
On this basis, writing a text for a physics fundamental course is a challenging undertaking. Writing a physics text for non-physics majors is all the more difficult and challenging. Such sentiments have been expressed by Hans Breuer (1975) in his book ‘Physics for Life Science Students’ . “If the physics becomes too abstract or too far removed from topics in biology and medicine, the student may lose interest. On the other hand, if the physics becomes so diluted that its clarity and overall consistency are submerged, then the intellectual rigour has been removed then the book does not fill the student’s needs. Such a dilemma always stares a writer right at his face. He has to decide which topics should be treated only briefly and which topics have to be treated in depth. Should he adopt a mathematical stance or should he take a non-mathematical approach? Although the use of mathematic underservice course for the premed, engineering or liberal arts students. Whatever its audience, it must be presented as an interesting and rigorous discipline, a challenge to the human intellect. A subject that can attract and challenge geniuses like Galileo, Newton and Einstein must truly have tremendous intellectual appeal (Koh, 1990).
Whatever subtopics there may be in physics, one can always feel the oneness or unity of it all. Hence acoustics has meshed to become a part of mechanics and magnetism and optics have become part and parcel of electrodynamics (Amaldi, 1973; Sheibe, 1986). It is upon this unity that a fundamental course in physics should be based. As the Nobel laureate RW. Anderson (1990) has succinctly out it, “Physics, of all science, is a pretty seamless web.” This seamless web should be displayed in its entirety in the introductory course itself.
In what follows we shall discuss the three aspects of the fundamental course i.e the texts, the course proper and the laboratory.
The introductory text
Any course for a particular discipline is based on a few fundamental text for facts and reference. In physics the candidate may be the ‘Fundamental Physics’ by Halliday and Resnick (1981). This textbook has served generations of physicists. Arguably, not many physics introductory texts enjoy the wide acceptance as that by Halliday and Resnick in the physics community.
In an attempt to fine-tune the fundalines and emphasizes the exactness and internal consistency of physics, the laws of physics are not necessarily the ultimate truth. They are only approximations, even where applied to pure physics.
The problems faced by the writers for basic physics texts also confront the teachers of fundamental course in physics.
The introductory course
A fundamental course in physics should have its own salient features which distinguish it from a more advanced course. It is meant to be an interface between physics at high school and physics at the university level. As a bridging course it should have a certain measure of continuity. There should not be a quantum jump, so to speak. When it comes to designing an introductory course, one is often nagged by the perpetual problem of overlapping. A little overlapping may be necessary and helpful but too much of an overlap kills the interest of those following the introductory course. There is no better killjoy than repetitive learning. This is often being the complaint of those following an introductory course in physics. A judicious mix of old and new material seems to be the best compromise.
Another issue one has to contend with is the question of breadth and depth. The two seem to be mutually exclusive. Emphasizing one may be at the expense of the other. The rule of thumb may be prioritizing breadth for a brand new topic and emphasizing depth if the topic has been previously learned at a lower level. The indepth coverage may shed more light on a topic and give it a fresh perspective.
As to the content, the choice is more clear cut. Less is said to be better (French, 1988). This is also the stance of ASPEN. It is alleged that most of present introductory courses in physics are too overloaded with facts which the students can look up at their own leisure. An introductory course should concentrate on basic principles and discard much of the rest. On no count should it be encyclopaedic.
The presentation of an introductory course should be informal with a conversational tone (Weidner, 1985). Learning may become a chore if a lesson is bogged down with rigmoral of mathematics and details. Every lesson if possible should have a story line which will bring much life and interest to a lecture. Accidental discoveries, false starts and inspired guesses are part and parcel of the story line.
Nothing is more detrimental to physics learning than the fact that lessons are presented in a piecemeal or patchwork manner. The course itself should essentially have its coherence and focus which manifest the unity of physics at its best.
Contemporary physics should be included in an introductory course in keeping with the spirit of current scientific development.
In short the physics introductory course should have five features characterized by five c’s. They are Continuity, Coherence, Consistency, Clarity and Contemporareousness (Table 1). The questions of breadth and depth and the degree of overlapping are at the discretion of the teachers.
Table 1
The five main features of the physics introductory course.
The introductory laboratory course
The laboratory course is an integral part of an introductory physics course. Its aims are multifarious. Chambers (1963), for example, has listed five objectives, one of which is to illustrate, supplement and drive home points from lectures. In other words, it plays a reinforcement role. Spears and Zollman ( 1977) regard laboratory work as an opportunity for students to learn at first hand “the process o\f science”. Although the role of the laboratory course is clearly spelt out, it still receives adverse comments from various quarters. Toothacker (1983), for example, has called for the abolishment of laboratories from introductory physics curricula on the basis that they do not fulfil three objective, i.e. (i) reinforcement of lecture material, (ii) development of attitudes concerning experimentation and (iii) development of useful laboratory skills. Nedesky (1958) has said that there is little empirical evidence that laboratory instruction in elementary courses contributes significantly to the students’ understanding of physics.
On the other hand there are many who still have faith in the role of the laboratories. According to Potter and Burns (1984), laboratories provide experience in determining physical quantities with emphasis upon error analysis and to provide hands – on experience. Eades (1976) felt that laboratory work can help students appreciate the way in which many concepts and theories are dependent on the results of experimental work.
Indeed with the clarion call for enhancement of skills in experimental techniques and practical experience, laboratory course has a crucial role to play in the whole edifice of introductory physics course.
Concluding remarks
An introductory physics course should be both theory and experiment oriented. They complement each other although some critics may have their reservations regarding the role of the laboratory. The various characteristic features of an introductory course have been mentioned. In essence, it should convey the message that physics is not merely a body of isolated and unrelated facts but a highly unified and consistent picture of the world. Too often science instruction takes the form of transmitting bits of knowledge that are detached from any scientific, cultural or human context (Ridgen, 1989). Science, or for that matter physics is not a set of facts, but a way of giving order and thereby giving unity and intelligibility to the facts of nature (Bronowski, 1952). Physics should also be the study of the natural world, not a training ground for mathematics (Armstrong, 1984). Hence highly involved mathematics should be avoided in the introductory course. Physics should aim at solving practical problems, not conundrums per se.
Figure 1
The relationship between the texts, the lectures and the laboratory. Reinforcement between theory and experiment gives the whole structure strength and integration.
Laboratory course in physics has its important role to play, at least to let students experience physics in action. Its true objectives may not be completely fulfilled yet there is no justification for its total abandonment.
The three aspects of the introductory course i.e. the texts, the lecture and the laboratory may be likened to the structure shown in figure 1. The texts at the top represents cumulative knowledge in fundamental physics. The knowledge is supported by two pillars of equal length emphasizing the equal weightage given to theory and experiment. This is the stand of ASPEN. If there is an imbalance between theory and experiment, the whole structure becomes lob- sided. At the base of the two pillars is the ground symbolizing the complementary and reinforcement role of the laboratory to the lecture. This complementary aspect lends strength to the whole edifice. The proper balance between each component of the edifice manifests the unity of physics at its best.
In our desire to impart too much to the students, we may in the end accomplish little. There should be time for students to understand the basic concepts of physics swallowing the facts to be regurgitated in examinations should be avoided. Students learn best when physics is presented to them in a clear, coherent and consistent manner. They are confused when physics is not presented likewise. In short, when students cannot learn the way we teach them, we must teach them the way they learn (Dunn, 1990).
Acknowledgement
Thanks to Prof. Roslan Abd. Shukor, ASPEN, Malaysia, Noor Hayati Naim and Zakaria Keling for their kind assistance.
References
French A P (1988) Am J Phys 56 110
Rigden J S (1984) Am J Phys 52 303
Koh A K (1992) Phys Ed 27, 11
Koh A K (1990) Physics and Society 19, 2
Amaldi E (1973) Physics Today 23
Scheibe E (1986) Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 11, 148
Anderson P W (1990) Physics Today 9
Halliday D and Resnick R (1981) ‘Fundamentals of Physics’ John Wiley & ons, Inc.
Tzanakis C and Coutsomitros C (1988) Eur J Phys 9, 276
Breuer H (1975) ‘Physics for Life Science Students’ Prentice- Hall, Inc
Weidner R T ‘Physics ‘ (1985) Allyn and Bacon Inc
Chambers R G (1963) Bull Inst Phys and Phys Soc 14 181
Spears J and Zollman D (1977) J Res Sci Teach 1433
Toothacker W S (1983) Am J Phys 51 516
Nedesky L (1958) Am J Phys 26 710
Potter J G and J Burns (1984) Am J Phys 52 12
Eades J A (1976) ‘New Trend in Physics Teaching’ edited by John L Lewis (UNESCO, Paris) Vol III 52
Ridgen J S (1989) Nature 338715
Bronowski J (1952) Science 123710
Armstrong H L (1984) Am J Phys 52 11
Dunn R (1990) Ed Leadership 48 15
KOH AIK KHOON AND MAZLAN OTHMAN
School of Applied Physics
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Copyright Project Innovation, Inc. Dec 2004