Although much of the research done by modern physicists would be impossible without the use of computers, today's physics curricula do not generally reflect their importance and utility. To more tightly connect undergraduate preparation with professional practice, we integrated computational instruction into middle-division classical mechanics at the University of Colorado Boulder. Our model for integration works with the constraints of faculty who do not specialize in computation by placing a strong emphasis on an adaptable curriculum. It also includes the construction of learning goals and the design of activities consistent with those goals, including assessment of student computational fluency. We present critiques of our model as we work to develop an effective and sustainable model for computational instruction in the undergraduate curriculum.
REFERENCES
1.
P.
Cvitanović
, R.
Artuso
, R.
Mainieri
, G.
Tanner
, and G.
Vattay
, Chaos: Classical and Quantum
(Niels Bohr Inst.
, Copenhagen
, 2013
).2.
J.
Kim
, J. H.
Wise
, and T.
Abel
, “Galaxy mergers with adaptive mesh refinement: Star formation and hot gas outflow
,” Astro. Phys. J.
694
(2
), L123
–L127
(2009
).3.
M.
Duhrssen
, S.
Heinemeyer
, H.
Logan
, D.
Rainwater
, G.
Weiglein
, and D.
Zeppenfeld
, “Extracting Higgs boson couplings from CERN LHC data
,” Phys. Rev. D
70
, 113009
–1
(2004
).4.
P. J.
Denning
, “Computing is a natural science
,” Commun. ACM
50
(7
), 13
–18
(2007
).5.
N.
Chonacky
and D.
Winch
, “Integrating computation into the undergraduate curriculum: A vision and guidelines for future developments
,” Am. J. Phys.
76
(4
), 327
–333
(2008
).6.
R.
Ivie
and K.
Stowe
, The Early Careers of Physics Bachelors (2002
). Available at http://www.aip.org/statistics/trends/reports/bachplus5.pdf.7.
See the theme issue in computational physics, Am. J. Phys. 76(4) (
2008
).8.
T.
Timberlake
and J. E.
Hasbun
, “Computation in classical mechanics
,” Am. J. Phys.
76
(4
), 334
–339
(2008
).9.
K. R.
Roos
, “An incremental approach to computational physics education
,” Comput. Sci. Eng.
8
(5
), 44
–50
(2006
).10.
D. H.
McIntyre
, J.
Tate
, and C. A.
Manogue
, “Integrating computational activities into the upper-level Paradigms in Physics curriculum at Oregon State University
,” Am. J. Phys.
76
(8
), 340
–346
(2008
).11.
C.
Henderson
, M.
Dancy
, and M.
Niewiadomska-Bugaj
, “Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process?
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
8
, 020104
–1
(2012
).12.
R.
Chabay
and B.
Sherwood
, “Computational physics in the introductory calculus-based course
,” Am. J. Phys.
76
(8
), 307
–313
(2008
).13.
Audience response systems in higher education: Applications and cases
, edited by D. A.
Banks
(IGI Global
, London
, 2006
).14.
15.
C.
Crouch
and E.
Mazur
, “Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results
,” Am. J. Phys.
69
(9
), 970
–977
(2001
).16.
L.
McDermott
, P.
Shaffer
, and the Physics Education Group at the University of Washington, Tutorials in Introductory Physics
(Pearson Education, Inc.
, Upper Saddle River, NJ
, 2002
).17.
B.
Ambrose
and M.
Wittmann
, Intermediate Mechanics Tutorials<http://faculty.gvsu.edu/ambroseb/research/IMT.html> (2013
).18.
D.
Hammer
, “More than misconceptions: Multiple perspectives on student knowledge and reasoning, and an appropriate role for education research
,” Am. J. Phys.
64
(10
), 1316
–1325
(1996
).19.
S. V.
Chasteen
, K. K.
Perkins
, P. D.
Beale
, S. J.
Pollock
, and C. E.
Wieman
, “A thoughtful approach to instruction: Course transformation for the rest of us
,” J. Coll. Sci. Teach
40
(4
), 70
–76
(2009
).20.
S. J.
Pollock
, R. E.
Pepper
, and A. D.
Marino
, “Issues and progress in transforming a middle-division Classical Mechanics/Math Methods course
,” in 2011 Physics Education Research Conference
, edited by S.
Rebello
, P. V.
Englehardt
, and C.
Singh
(AIP Press
, New York
, 2012
), p. 303
.21.
R. E.
Pepper
, S. V.
Chasteen
, S. J.
Pollock
, and K. K.
Perkins
, “Facilitating Faculty Conversations: Development of Consensus Learning Goals
,” in 2011 Physics Education Research Conference
, edited by S.
Rebello
, P. V.
Englehardt
, and C.
Singh
(AIP Press
, New York
, 2012
), p. 291
.22.
R.
Beichner
, R.
Chabay
, and B. A.
Sherwood
, “Labs for the Matter & Interactions curriculum
,” Am. J. Phys.
78
(5
), 456
–460
(2010
).23.
M. D.
Caballero
, Evaluating and Extending a Novel Course Reform of Introductory Mechanics
, Ph.D. Dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology
, 2011
.24.
M. D.
Caballero
, M. A.
Kohlmyer
, and M. F.
Schatz
, “Implementing and assessing computational modeling in introductory mechanics
,” Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
8
, 020106
–1
(2012
).25.
M. J.
Lage
, G. J.
Platt
, and M.
Treglia
, “Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment
,” J. Econ. Educ.
31
(1
), 30
–43
(2000
).26.
See supplementary material at http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4837437 and also at http://per.colorado.edu/ClassicalMechanics/comp.html for complete learning goals and all homework problems.
27.
B. S.
Bloom
, M.
Engelhart
, E. J.
Furst
, W. H.
Hill
, and D. R.
Krathwohl
, Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain
(David McKay
, New York
, 1956
).28.
M. D.
Caballero
, B. R.
Wilcox
, R. E.
Pepper
, and S. J.
Pollock
, “ACER: a framework on the use of mathematics in upper-division physics
” in 2012 Physics Education Research Conference
, edited by P. V.
Englehardt
, S.
Rebello
, and A. D.
Churukian
(AIP Press
, New York
, 2013
), p. 90
.29.
B. R.
Wilcox
, M. D.
Caballero
, R. E.
Pepper
, and S. J.
Pollock
, “Upper-division student understanding of Coulomb's law: difficulties with continuous charge distributions
” in 2012 Physics Education Research Conference
, edited by P. V.
Englehardt
, S.
Rebello
, and A. D.
Churukian
(AIP Press
, New York
, 2013
), p. 418
.30.
E.
Wiebe
, L.
Williams
, K.
Yang
, and C.
Miller
, “Computer science attitude survey
,” (2003
) (unpublished).31.
D.
Heersink
and B. M.
Moskal
, “Measuring high school students' attitudes toward computing
,” in Proceedings of the 41st ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (ACM
, 2010
), pp. 446
.32.
These materials will be available on the PICUP website: <http://www.compphysicsed.org>.
33.
E.
Price
, F.
Goldberg
, S.
Patterson
, and P.
Heft
, Supporting Scientific Writing and Evaluation in a Conceptual Physics Course with Calibrated Peer Review
, edited by P. V.
Englehardt
, S.
Rebello
, and A. D.
Churukian
(AIP Press
, New York
, 2013
), p. 318
.34.
J. M.
Aiken
, S.-Y.
Lin
, M. F.
Schatz
, and M. D.
Caballero
, “Understanding student computational thinking with computational modeling
,” in 2013 Physics Education Research Conference
, edited by P. V.
Englehardt
, A. D.
Churukian
, and D. L.
Jones
(AIP Press
, New York
, 2014
) (to be published).© 2014 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2014
American Association of Physics Teachers
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.
