The document summarizes revisions made to the introductory physics sequence at Central Washington University. It describes how the department grew from around 20 physics majors in 2007-2008 to around 80 majors in 2012-2013. The introductory sequence was changed from large lecture sections taught separately from labs to integrated lecture/lab sections with fewer students. This allows for slightly more students to be served using the same resources, and research shows it facilitates improved student learning. Stakeholders like administration support the changes due to no increased costs, while students may resist but benefit from gains, and faculty can view it as an experiment and continue adjustments.

1. Revising the introductory
physics sequence at
Central Washington University
Michael Jackson
Department of Physics
Central Washington University

2. Background
2007-2008 AY
•  20 physics majors
• 1 physics degree
(on average about
4.5 degrees/yr)
•  5 FTEF
2012-2013 AY
•  80 physics majors
• 14 physics degree
(this year about 20
physics degrees)
•  4.5 FTEF
o Functional department; #s were just small.
o Any elements missing from the SPIN-UP report
were implemented such as engaging introductory
courses taught by the ‘best’ instructors. Students
became ‘aware’ of their desire to study physics.

3. The introductory sequence
2007-2008 AY
• 72 student lecture section
• Four 18 student lab sections
• Lecture and lab sections
independent and taught by
different instructors
2012-2013 AY
• Two to three 40 student
lecture/lab sections
• Instructors for various
sections can differ
• 12 WLU (contact hours);
4 WLU for lecture and 2
WLU per lab section
• 6 WLU (contact hours)
per integrated
lecture/lab section
o Slightly more students are being served using the
same resources in an environment that has been
demonstrated to better facilitate student learning.

4. Before and After

5. Stakeholders
• Administration
 No cost, no problem
• Students
 There will be resistance (placing experienced
faculty in this class is very important)
 There are demonstrated gains (helpful to
regularly remind students of this)
• Faculty and Staff
 PER has demonstrated improved student
learning (so consider it an experiment)
 Are there any champions among the faculty?

6. Our Results
o Department’s enrollment growth.
o Some improvement in student learning and we
can do better!
o Its an experiment! So we can continue to monitor
our courses, making adjustments based on student
and faculty needs.

7. References
• SPIN-UP report, National Task Force on Undergraduate
Physics, retrieved March 7, 2014 from
http://www.aapt.org/programs/projects/ntfup/index.cfm
http://www.aps.org/programs/education/undergrad/facult
y/spinup/spinup-report.cfm
• SCALE-UP (Dr. Robert Beichner, NC State University)
http://www.ncsu.edu/per/scaleup.html
• A manuscript outlining a portion of our work at CWU is
being prepared by my colleague (Dr. Bruce Palmquist)
that will be submitted to Effective Practices in Preservice
Physics Teacher Education.
7