The immediate impetus for reconsidering the curriculum was a new opportunity for majors that would require some to miss spring term. The department chair, however, encouraged thinking about broader issues. Important elements of the evolution of the Paradigms in Physics program included reorganizing the content and structure of the upper division curriculum, negotiating with administrators, designing a dedicated classroom, developing the new courses, nurturing interactive engagement pedagogy, fostering success for all students, and ongoing faculty study and reflection on teaching and learning. These issues were discussed with former department chairs, faculty members, graduate TAs participating in this program, and an undergraduate student at the time. Their insights are reported as recommendations for others interested in undertaking curricular reform:

• Form a small faculty committee to lead the change process
  • choose 3-4 people who care about teaching and represent various faculty perspectives
• Identify immediate needs and broader concerns
• Reorganize the content and structure of the upper division curriculum
  • create a way to document the current curriculum (e.g., ask each faculty member teaching a course to list main topics on index cards, one color per course, about ten cards per course)
  • establish place and process for pondering possible curricular revisions e.g., arrange index cards in a column for each course on a large table that can be left for a long time so that possible changes can be envisioned by moving cards around)
  • try out various ways to reorganize content that might enhance student learning (e.g. group together cards with topics that use the same mathematics but in different contexts, for example, to create case studies of paradigmatic situations, some involving two or more sub-disciplines; integrate laboratory experiments within course sessions to bring discussion of theories and evidence closer together)
  • consider changing course and curriculum structures(e.g., instead of separate unrelated courses meeting in parallel, combine them into one intensive course meeting daily for one or two hours, for a shorter time period such as three to five weeks, with several such courses taught sequentially each term)
• Consult one-on-one with every faculty member
  • meet individually with every faculty member so each can have input and consider issues from own perspective, even if this process takes many weeks(e.g., encourage individual faculty to move cards around to try out suggestions and consider implications of various changes they propose)
• Present plan at formal faculty meeting after concerns seem resolved and bring to vote
• Once approved, seek external funding for designing new courses and evaluating project
• Identify and engage local external evaluator
  • request evaluation plan that includes frequent qualitative feedback based on class observations and student interviews as well as formal long-term quantitative measures
  • use evaluator’s expertise in preparing and gaining approval of IRB consent forms
  • become aware of problems early by seeking feedback from evaluator in curricular meetings among faculty teaching the new courses
• Negotiate with administrators
  • prepare and submit materials for gaining university approval for the new courses
  • ask Registrar for changes so that students can register with new course structure
  • seek internal funding to remodel a classroom dedicated to the reformed program
• Design a dedicated classroom
  • furnish classroom with tables at which small groups can work together
  • provide a computer at every table for use with visualizations and simulations
  • supply large whiteboards on which small groups can display their thinking
  • mount wall-sized whiteboards for engaging groups in discussing work visible to all
  • include cabinets in which to store equipment for integrated experiments and activities
• Develop the new courses
  • present multiple cases in varying contexts and levels of abstraction
  • become aware of and address differences in math and science language and practices
  • develop comfort and flexibility with multiple notations by using many resources
  • build student confidence by developing concepts and skills across many courses
  • become aware of and use relevant education research within the discipline (e.g., see http://physics.oregonstate.edu/portfolioswiki/publications:start for articles articulating the faculty’s contributions to physics education research. See http://www.compadre.org/per/ for information about physics education research nationally and internationally)
  • identify common themes and ways that these develop across the curriculum so that faculty can understand how what they are teaching depends on prior courses and prepares the students for future courses
  • balance faculty freedom to design/teach a course and the need for a coherent curriculum
  • value perspectives and contributions of individual faculty with differing approaches
  • try to resolve conflicting visions via discussion to seek common ground and, if needed, get help through facilitation by someone outside the situation
• Nurture interactive engagement pedagogy
  • integrate collaborative activities and laboratories with lectures (e.g., small group activities, compare and contrast activities, kinesthetic activities, small whiteboard questions, clicker questions, computer visualizations, and tangible metaphor activities. See http://physics.oregonstate.edu/portfolioswiki/strategy:start )
  • establish on-going faculty curriculum meetings to discuss pedagogy (e.g, talk about what is happening in the courses, how students are (or are not) learning, why previous instructors have chosen to address issues in the ways they have, where changes might be desirable to make)
  • expand roles for teaching assistants (e.g., provide assistance to students during small group activities, participate in discussions with faculty about what students are thinking, convey to faculty what students are experiencing, and provide continuity when new faculty members begin teaching a course)
  • offer a teaching seminar for faculty and graduate students (e.g., help them to “think beyond the numbers” conceptually, to discuss struggles that some of their undergraduate students may be experiencing, and to become aware of the educational research literature within the discipline)
  • provide resources for those new to unusual course organization and interactive pedagogy (e.g. see the paradigms wiki http://physics.oregonstate.edu/portfolioswiki/props:start which includes information about the curriculum (activities by topic, activity sequences, courses, textbooks), pedagogy (activities by classroom strategy, narratives/videos, props/equipment, small whiteboard questions, thoughts about how students learn), institutional change (thoughts about how departments and teachers change), and publications, talks, and workshops; binders of materials and electronic files assembled by previous faculty teaching a course; videos of class sessions faculty new to a course can watch before teaching a class or using an activity)
  • expect changes in teaching practices to occur gradually over a long time period
• Foster success for all students
  • build community within class through interactive engagement pedagogy (e.g., see http://physics.oregonstate.edu/portfolioswiki/strategy:start for ways to engage students in talking with one another in class that likely will encourage them to support one another outside of class as well)
  • form a cohort who share an immersion experience that focuses attention on one intensive course meeting daily with coordinated in-class tasks and homework assignments
  • provide a room for students to use outside of class for studying together
• Encourage ongoing faculty study and reflection on teaching and learning
  • develop faculty learning community (e.g., shift faculty culture from isolation as faculty members design and teach their courses independently toward faculty collaboration as they meet regularly to discuss what is happening in the courses and how their students are (or are not) learning)
  • encourage faculty to undertake discipline-based education research (DBER) studies (e.g., systematic video-recording of class sessions, making copies of student homework and examination responses, interpreting and presenting some of these data in meetings, submitting and publishing papers in research journals. See, for example, http://physics.oregonstate.edu/portfolioswiki/publications:start )
  • fund participation in DBER conferences (e.g., such conferences provide opportunities to learn from others about ways to enhance student learning and teaching. Physics Education Research-Central (http://www.compadre.org/per/) provides a useful history of the emergence and evolution of physics education research within physics departments.)
  • participate in the discipline-based education research (DBER) community within one’s own institution. (e.g., faculty from a variety of departments and colleges across our university formed an early collaboration, Enhancing STEM Education (ESTEME) (http://www.science.oregonstate.edu/ESTEME/doku.php ) One effort involved seeking approval for, searching, and then hiring several faculty members in engineering, science, and mathematics departments whose research focuses on learning and teaching, forming an interdisciplinary community of STEM researchers on campus. This has evolved into a major NSF funded interdisciplinary project, ESTEME@OSU (http://stem.oregonstate.edu/esteme/home).