The changing physics curriculum in 1961

[Frabjous]

Phillip Morse (of Morse and Feshbach) wrote this preface for the preliminary^* edition of his book Thermal Physics. It has some interesting comments about curriculum reform.


^* First time I have heard of a preliminary edition of a book

 

[Haborix]

Fascinating! I'd never even considered that differential calculus wasn't foundational at the early stages. One of the things I loved about my physics education was its generality. Although specialization is inevitable at the boundaries of human knowledge, being a generalist to some degree is its own advantage. Very cool read, thank you for sharing!

 

[mpresic3]

It could be that what Morison is referring to is the "absolute differential calculus" which is more advanced than is typically taught to first year students.

 

[gleem]

I'd never even considered that differential calculus wasn't foundational at the early stages.

It could be that what Morison is referring to is the "absolute differential calculus" which is more advanced than is typically taught to first year students

Morris's comment referred to a generation ago so that would have been about 1935. so I don't think he was referring to absolute differential calculus since in 1965 absolute calculus was not needed for (Jackson) electrodynamics or Stat Mech nor is it still today(?).

 

[jedishrfu]

Very interesting preface by Morse. One thing we never got a grasp of as students was the drive in the US toward teaching more science, technology and math due the fear of Sputnik and that the Russians have leapt ahead of us.

My math teacher in high school explained it to me years later that Sputnik opened up lots of grant money. He used it to buy several pricey desktop computer/calculators (Olivetti Programma 101s) which at the time were $2500 a pop and he got three. In todays dollars that would be about $20K.

In college physics circa 1970s, we were exposed to calculus based physics often taking calculus in parallel or just prior to needing it in physics. Our first course on modern physics introduced us to Quantum Mechanics, the players and the Schrodinger equation as applied to the square well and Special Relativity.

Our Quantum Mechanics class came in the junior year using the Schiff book on Quantum Mechanics. We would use Morse and Feshbach for when we needed more help. Schiff was known to outline the high points and to have the student work out the details in the problem sets. It seemed that Morse and Feshbach were more approachable.

Reading a review of the book circa 1949, I discovered Schiff's book was for grad students so I guess my college was compactifying things by using it at the undergrad level which explains why Schiff's content was so high-level for us poor undergrads.

Schiff is available on the internet archive:

https://ia601609.us.archive.org/11/...-quantummechanics/Schiff-QuantumMechanics.pdf

Another book my Union College profs used to mention a lot was Rojansky with almost and air of reverence about it. Rojansky was a former physics dept head at our college (1930-1955) a decade or so earlier. I can't comment much on his book but it appears both Schiff and Rojansky's books were highly regarded with Schiff having a more modern graduate student approach.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Rojansky

 

[Vanadium 50]

We don't like lumping post-secondary education in with the "military industrial complex", but it is there. When WW2 ended, where did all those scientists working on military research go? Back to universities.

One could argue that WW2 was won with technology (atomic bomb, cavity magnetron) and while I think this goes to far, it is true that it was won with industry. Japan attacked a country with an industrial capacity an order of magnitude larger, and when the war was over, the Empire of Japan essentially ceased to exist. This lesson was not lost of the leadership of the day. Sputnik energized and reinforced this, but the ideas had already taken root.

 

[Mark44]

One could argue that WW2 was won with technology (atomic bomb, cavity magnetron) and while I think this goes to far, it is true that it was won with industry.

Marc Reisner makes this point in "Cadillac Desert," a book about, in part, about hydroelectric dam projects on major rivers in the US. His point was that the Columbia River and those of the Tennessee Valley Authority made it possible to refine large quantities of aluminum for B-17s and B-29s as well as to power centrifuges at Hanford, WA and Oak Ridge, TN for uranium enrichment.

 

[neerajkirola]

Amazing.
Philip Morse was an American physicist known for his contributions to theoretical physics, particularly in statistical and quantum mechanics. Along with Herman Feshbach, he co-authored several influential books, including "Methods of Theoretical Physics" and "Theoretical Physics."

 

[Vanadium 50]

Why is it amazing that an expert would write a textbook?

 

[Florian Geyer]

Hello respected member.



Your message sparked a lot of thoughts, which I want to share here.

First is not it counterproductive to make students study materials far higher than their level? As I understood this is the connotation of your message

I guess my college was compactifying things by using it at the undergrad level which explains why Schiff's content was so high-level for us poor undergrads.

Well, in my opinion, it is much better to teach materials that are suitable to the level of the students. I will refer to some educational literature to support this idea (also to try to reach to some generalizations and be objective).

- First and foremost, the idea of zone of proximal development ZPD by Vygotsky, more on this in the following link https://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html

- Ausubel also espouse the same idea, see this quote "If [he] had to reduce all of educational psychology to just one principle, [he] would say this: The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach him accordingly" (Ausubel, 1968, p. vi) the source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ausubel

- Even if we took the educational ideas of Jerome Bruner, we will find that although he doesn't believe in the idea that leaners should first become (mature enough) to be presented with some advanced material, he still thinks that leaners should exposed to the material gradually in what is known as "Spiral curriculum".

I will quote the following text from a lesson written about him (although it refers to children sometimes but the presented ideas still apply to older learners).

"Bruner (1960) explained how this was possible through the concept of the spiral curriculum. This involved information being structured so that complex ideas can be taught at a simplified level first, and then re-visited at more complex levels later on.

The underlying principle in this is that the student should review particular concepts at over and over again during their educative experience; each time building and their understanding and requiring more sophisticated cognitive strategies (and thus increase the sophistication of their understanding).

Therefore, subjects would be taught at levels of gradually increasing difficultly (hence the spiral analogy). Ideally, teaching his way should lead to children being able to solve problems by themselves."

Source: https://www.simplypsychology.org/bruner.html#The-Spiral-Curriculum

It seems that the educational research is in contradiction to the way of teaching you have referred to thus it is counterproductive to learning (or am I wrong?)

I think it would more beneficial to shift the focus of the teaching to what the students are learning more than what their professors wish them to learn.

I am not sure to how extent, but I think these educational ideas are not entirely in contradiction with the practices in all universities since I have read about some professors who seem to espouse the ideas presented in the previously mentioned educational literature.
I will take the following statement by prof. Weiskopf “It is not important what we cover, but what you discover” in his reply to the student who asked him about what they will cover in the semester… resource https://rtraba.com/2015/11/11/it-is...cover-but-what-you-discover-victor-weisskopf/ (you can also listen to the whole video presented by prof Chomsky.



Based on the previous reasons I built my *HUMBLE*opinion on how should the educational process should be.



Please if anyone suggest otherwise tell me and explain why (hopefully with some educational research). Thank you.

 

[jedishrfu]

Curriculum compactification is a necessary thing to do as we acquire new knowledge and let go of older knowledge no longer of use in the modern world. In a sense, its a form of educational evolution.

A case in point, my dad when he attended college needed to learn Spherical Trigonometry. In contrast, when I majored in Physics thirty years later, spherical trigonometry was an after thought that might come up in some specialized Calculus integral and that was the extent of it.

The curious thing was my last job required me to look into spherical trigonometry for proper global distance calculations using lat/lon values. The whole notion of lat/lon and nautical mile basics was foreign to me as well since my last exposure to it was in 4th grade and that was over 50 years ago. So it was a "what goes around comes around" ordeal.

In general, schooling is there to teach the basics while it teaches you how to learn. The basics are defined by what industry needs in its scientists, engineers and applied mathematicians. It will necessarily change as the world changes and by necessity compactification to teach you some things in preparation before others comes into play.

 

[Frabjous]

Some March issues of Physics Today talk a lot about curricula

1967
1968

 

[gleem]

Becasue the articles posted above are difficult to read I have reposted their content below. Those with a Physics Today subscription may access the articles of interest that were referenced. I might add that Physics Today has had many articles on physics education in the '80s, 90's, and 2000s.

NTRODUCTORY PHYSICS EDUCATION

GROWTH IS FORCING changes in introductory physics education as well as in other parts of physics. The teacher of introductory courses now has more physics to teach to more students. He is adapting his courses to incorporate new points of view, new concepts and new facts; he is changing his techniques to deal with the growth of the student body and to use new educational aids.

But the growth of physics enrollments has not kept pace with the growth of the student body. As Susanne Ellis points out in this issue, the percentage of college students taking a first physics course has declined; high-school enrollments reflect the same trend. There is growing concern that physicists are failing to communicate the rudiments of physics to the generally educated man, that we may be in danger of losing contact with our society as a whole. Thus, somewhat paradoxically, physicists face the problems of a growth that is large yet not large enough.

For this special issue of PHYSICS TODAY we have solicited descriptions of some of the changes proposed and introduced to deal with these problems. The changes cover a wide spectrum of techniques and emphases, and we have classified them according to their corresponding student groups, those taking pre-college courses and those taking college courses. In the first category we have descriptions of the Physical Science Study Curriculum, Harvard Project Physics, the Engineering Concepts Curriculum Project and Britain's Nuffield physics teaching project.

Uri Haber-Schaim discusses the PSSC course, now ten years old, and its younger brother Introductory Physical Science. Gerald Holton summarizes the status of PSSC's prospective competitor, Harvard Project Physics. The British response to the need to update physics teaching is described in Eric Roger's report on the Nuffield teaching project.

An interesting attempt is being made to present physical science within the conceptual framework of systems engineering. Edward David and John Truxal discuss ECCP, which is developing such a course for highschool students. V. Lawrence Parsegian describes a similarly oriented college-level course intended to give nonscientists an integrated, philosophical view of physical science. Another college-level course for nonscientists is discussed by the staff of the project Physical Science for Nonscience Students.

NO description of contemporary physics education would be adequate without mention of the Feynman lectures, the Berkeley course and the new MIT course. Howard Stabler tells some of his experience teaching from the first volume of Feynman; A. Carl Helmholz describes the Berkeley course; and Robert Hulsizer presents a brief note on the MIT project.

All the stir in college physics education has created a need for an organization to serve as a clearing house for ideas and to act as a coordinator. John Fowler relates how the Commission on College Physics is working toward these ends.

Despite much outward enthusiasm for the new courses, many teachers are wary of the changes. They fear valuable features of the traditional approach may be lost without compensating gains. Mark Zemansky contributes a note of caution along these lines, reminding us that there is far from unanimous agreement on the virtues of these reforms.

PHYSICS TODAY • MARCH 1967 • 25

THE UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM

THERE ARE NOW ABOUT 800 colleges and universities in the United States that offer physics courses at bachelor-degree level. There are therefore about 800 physics curricula, most of which are either new and to some extent experimental, or old, unsatisfactory and due to be replaced soon.

To investigate the current state of physics programs PHYSICS TODAY planned this special issue, a sequel to the issue on Introductory Physics Education last March (reprints of that issue are available on request). It is meant to be representative of schools of all sizes, from small four-year colleges to large universities with graduate schools, where physics is taught as a major subject. Our 11 contributors were invited to explain the philosophy underlying their own choice of curriculum, and we have gathered and tabulated statistical information from a random sample of American colleges and universities to see if there are any significant differences between large and small schools.

We invited contributions from five four-year colleges that provide an unusually high proportion of PhD candidates. Emphasis on student research and special projects at these five schools may be one reason for their success although, clearly, any program can be only as good as the faculty that teaches it. Charles A. Fowler Jr and William L. Parker write about student research activity at Pomona College and Reed College. Robert A. Reitz explains the unusual three-term year at Carleton College and tells us why he finds it a satisfactory basis for his physics curriculum. Swarthmore College has an honors program for bright students, described for us by William C. Elmore; Villa Madonna College has strong ties with its alumni, and George K. Miner explains in his article how he finds their suggestions useful when designing his curriculum. We invited articles from physicists at some large universities, too, to see how their curricula are planned. Burton K. Moyer, of the University of California at Berkeley, is currently examining upper-division courses to ensure a good match to the introductory Berkeley Physics Course. Mark G. Inghram, University of Chicago, Thomas R. Carver, Princeton University, and Hugh T. Richards, University of Wisconsin at Madison, are all concerned with the provision of a sufficient variety of courses to suit students with different aims: graduate study, direct employment in industry or high-school teaching.

Our fifth contributor from a large university is Clifford C. Butler of Imperial College, London. His article illustrates the differences between American undergraduate courses and those in England, where specialization at high school enables the universities to teach more advanced topics at undergraduate level and to lessen the load of course work on graduate students. Imperial College would be called an institute of technology in the US as there are no humanities departments; it has long been known as a difficult college for a student to get into but an easy one for him to drop out of; so if the courses that Butler describes appear to be exceptionally advanced and concentrated, we must remember that he has only the very best students in his classes.

Finally John M. Fowler, of the Commission on College Physics, reports on interdisciplinary curricula that are being used in some schools. He tells us of courses that have succeeded and of courses that have failed; success appears to depend on the quality of the teaching staff as much as on details of course design.

• PHYSICS TODAY • MARCH 1968 • 23

 

[gleem]

While many were trying to modify, augment, or improve physics curricula some were more cautious. One person was Mark Zemansky of Sears and Zemansky fame. He published his concern in In Physics Today 20 (3), 71–73 (1967).

Mark W. Zemansky discusses his issues with the changing physics curriculum at some universities (Cal Tech, MIT, Berkeley) ( that might be models for many others, my interpretation). He is concerned that courses for physics majors may be becoming too advanced citing that some material as in Purcells E/M that some programs wish to use contains materials that he saw first in a graduate course. Such a program he states may discourage good B students who might have otherwise developed into a productive physicist. He also had issues with the general service physics course textbooks by Kenneth Atkins and Arnold Arons.

He stated his concern previously at a Physics Teachers' meeting in 1961 and restated in the
Am. J. Phys. 30, 163 (1962). So as early as 1961 changes were underway. I was a junior in college at that time and introduction to quantum mechanics was being implemented at the undergraduate level in most universities and colleges.

He states,

“My objections to (1) the inclusion of large amounts of relativity and quantum theory, (2) the indiscriminate skipping of large chunks of physics, like statics, acoustics and geometrical optics, (3) the attempt to induce "depth of insight," (4) the emphasis on history and philosophy and (5) the ' harping on "scientific method" at the expense of "facts," still stand and I shall therefore not repeat them.“

The three universities of concern Zemansky believes cater to a class of well prepared high IQ students and not those of the more numerous city and state universities, He also notes that most successful physicists are not “wunderkinds” and these energized courses might end up discouraging some good students that have not yet matured.

He also has some interesting remarks on Feynmans lectures.

“These lectures have an informality, a warmth and a flair that are absolutely unique, and they show an erudition and a depth of insight that is fantastic. They are excellent as preparation for the PhD qualifying exam of a doctoral candidate and as a source of inspiration for physics teachers some of whom are not capable of understanding Volume 3.”

He was concerned that physics courses at most high schools schools were probably not good enough preparations for this new curriculum. A 1983 September issue of Physics Today is devoted to “The Crisis in High School Physics Education.”

 

[Vanadium 50]

Zemansky is not stupid, and I see his points, although I don't agree with them entirely.

If you walk into a Big Ten University and try and enroll in Physics 101, you have two, sometimes three choices: Physics for Future Engineers, Physics for Everybody Else (mostly pre-meds) and sometimes - only sometimes - Physics for Future Physicists, although the last usually gets lumped in with the engineers. Sure, MIT can offer that, but they have 65 or more majors per year.

It is not so easy to satisfy the needs of such a wide body of students in one curse, or even two.

Further, there is an element of a zero-sum game here. A class has about 40 hours of lecturing available. Put something in, and something goes out. To set the scale, if the professor were to talk continuously, that's about 150,000 words, or about the typical novel. That's it! That's all the time there is.

So, what goes in? Do we discuss elasticity beyond Hooke's Law at all? That would be useful. Acoustics? Fluid flow at more than the most trivial level? He doesn't like an introduction of QM - do we tell students why atomic spectra have lines? Because that's usually as far as we go. Or not? Maybe we should dump that onto the Chem 101 class and make them decide what to pitch over the side.

IMO, the biggest problem with Purcell is not his brief treatment of relativity (which people seem to complain is either too much or too little). It's the problems. An average student at an average high school can successfully work a problem that requires them to know one thing. Toss them a problem that requires them to know two things and they panic and lose all capacity for rational thought. Well, that's what Purcell likes to do.