Physics 7 - A Restructured College Physics Course
-- Our Perspective on Learning --

We have been greatly influenced by the results of research on learning and teaching conducted over the past 15 to 20 years by educational psychologists and other researchers, science education researchers, physicists, and cognitive scienctists. One central and universal result which is now widely accepted by those active in science education reform efforts at all levels is that learning that goes beyond memorization (including the memorization of algorithmic problem solving approaches) requires learners to actively construct meaning for themselves. Understanding must be developed by learners individually. This kind of learning is a very active process. Learners mentally struggle as they try to make sense of new sensory input in terms of what they already "know." What they "know" gets modified during this process. Learning is not a process of dumping knowledge into a learner's blank mind. Rather, it is a process of learners creating their own knowledge, of using the understandings they already have to create new understandings.

The kind of knowledge we are talking about here is not forgotten at the end of the course. It is not the teacher's nor the textbook's knowledge. Rather, it is the learners' own knowledge, the "gut understandings" that learners use to make sense of their experiences. This kind of understanding is not compartmentalized by the learner as "physics", or "chemistry", or "engineering." It is what they know, not what they remember from a science course.

If we want learners - our students - to develop this kind of understanding of physics, of chemistry, of engineering, of biology, then the issue for us as instructors of introductory science courses is how to design courses that enable learners to construct their own understandings. What can we do as instructors to make this process as efficient as possible? Research, as well as our own observations of student learning - or the lack of learning when we are honest - has repeatedly shown that traditionally-taught introductory science courses do not promote the kind of learning we are talking about for a large majority of students. Rather, for these students, traditional introductory course practices encourage students to develop strategies that actively work against their constructing their own understandings.

We structure our new course to take into account what we know about which instructional strategies promote active learning and which act against it. In a research university setting there are many constraints that don't exist in small liberal arts colleges where most of the experimentation of this sort is taking place. Our goal is to develop a course that will work within these constraints.

Our focus is on what students are actually learning, not on what we think they can or should learn. We will continue to modify what we do as we learn better what instructional strategies work best for which students, and how to best facilitate the greatest number of students' learning within the constraints of our campus setting. Thus, in some sense, Physics 7 will never be a finished product. At any given time, it will simply be where it is at that point in its development.

One of the clearest implications of our own and other's work in devising instructional strategies that facilitate students' construction of understanding is that it is not realistic to expect the majority of our students to develop in a one-year four-unit course an understanding of all the material we traditionally present them with. It is just too much material! That is, it is too much if we expect more than simple memorization and skill at being able to find a formula with the appropriate variables. To help alleviate this problem, we have changed to a non-traditional thematic, spiraling approach, that both reduces the emphasis on some topics and allows a more efficient approach to others, . This approach also helps students to see the connectedness of the content.

Since 1990, we have been experimenting with the laboratory part of the traditional college physics class (Physics 5ABC). We have learned a lot about how to structure two and a half hour blocks of time to keep students actively constructing understanding for themselves, something that doesn't happen very often in traditional physics labs, nor we suspect in traditional chemistry labs nor in traditional biology labs. Physics 7 is structured with two, two and a half hour discussion/laboratory periods each week, and one 80 minute lecture period each week. Currently we use the first 20 to 25 minutes of each lecture period for a "core-content quiz".

At the end of the 95-96 academic year we will have completed two pilot years of Physics 7. The second-year pilot is a little different from the first year. We expect the course next year to be somewhat different from this year. Our focus is on what students are actually learning, not on what we think they can or should learn. We will continue to modify what we do as we learn better what instructional strategies work best for which students, and how to best facilitate the greatest number of students' learning within the constraints of our campus setting. Thus, in some sense, Physics 7 will never be a finished product. At any given time, it will simply be where it is at that point in its development.

One of the clearest implications of our own and other's work in devising instructional strategies that facilitate students' construction of understanding is that it is not realistic to expect the majority of our students to develop in a one-year four-unit course an understanding of all the material we traditionally present them with. It is just too much material! That is, it is too much if we expect more than simple memorization and skill at being able to find a formula with the appropriate variables. Thus, it would seem, we are forced to confront the question of what content to leave out. However, we believe there is another way to approach the issue of content coverage, that is more fruitful.

page created: 14-Aug-96
Lawrence B. Coleman, Department of Physics, University of California, Davis
comments to: