The interdisciplinary curriculum

MAR 01, 1968

Some attempts to provide combined physics—chemistry—biology courses have not survived, despite enthusiastic beginnings. What is the recipe for success?

DOI: 10.1063/1.3034827

John M. Fowler

LIKE THE PROGRAMS of the United Nations, interdisciplinary courses offer obvious advantages in theory but in practice often founder on political realities. Sometimes they also work well. Following the analogy, the interdisciplinary idea appears to work most successfully when applied outside the sphere of influence of the science department, that is, in courses for the “nonscientist.” But the situation is more difficult with joint introductory courses for science majors; for these courses are besieged with the possessive instincts of science departments toward their majors and with the narrow curricular views of the separate disciplines. Not surprisingly, perhaps, physics departments have, in many instances, stood out as the “hard line” department. Their rigorous view of what students should learn has left course developers with a disciplinary lump in the interdisciplinary amalgam.

References

1. “Teaching Physics and Chemistry in a Combined Course,” Report of the Beloit Conference, 27–30 December 1961, Beloit College, Beloit, Wisconsin.
2. “Joint Conference on Multidisciplinary Courses in Science,” Cosponsored by the Commission on College Physics and the Advisory Council on College Chemistry, 3–4 February 1967, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
3. E. Fuller, J. Chem. Educ. 44, 542 (1967).https://doi.org/JCEDA8
4. “Conference on Interdisciplinary Curricula in the National Sciences in the Liberal Arts College,” 20–21 October 1967, Hope College, Holland, Michigan.
5. AIP Educational Newsletter ♯7 (15 September 1967).
6. E. Wood, Am. J. Phys. 34, part II, 891 (1966).https://doi.org/AJPIAS

More about the Authors

John M. Fowler. University of Maryland.