Designing and Implementing a Societal-Context Course for Physics Undergraduates

The study addresses how to prepare physics undergraduates to grapple with complex relationships between physics and society, in a discipline often taught as objective and detached from societal concerns. The context is a one-semester upper-level course that fulfills the ethics requirement for physics specialists at a large research university, enrolling about 40 third- to fifth-year students who are accustomed to traditional lectures and solo problem sets. The purpose is to examine the depth of learning and the efficacy of a student-driven course design intended to equitably engage students, mitigate resistance to a nontraditional format, and empower them to critique and improve the cultures in which they live (physics, academia, and beyond). Learning goals include: (1) exploring relationships between individuals and physics; (2) exploring relationships between society and physics; and (3) communicating effectively. This self-study focuses on the practitioner’s second iteration of the course with analysis by a trusted observer.

The theoretical framework draws on extensive research supporting active learning as superior to traditional methods for understanding content (e.g., Kolloffel et al., 2011; Muukkonen & Lakkala, 2009; Song & Looi, 2012; Haak et al., 2011). Active learning activities are aligned with SALTISE definitions (inquiry-based, problem-based, project-based instruction, concept mapping, debates). The ICAP theory (Chi et al., 2018) underpins the design by emphasizing cognitive engagement through students’ generative activities and connecting new ideas to lived experiences to avoid inert knowledge. The self-study methodology (Loughran, 2004; Russell et al., 2020) is used to critically examine and iteratively refine pedagogy with checks on self-bias via a trusted observer. Additional literature informs course elements such as learning assistants (Barrasso & Spilios, 2021; Otero et al., 2010), ungrading (Kohn & Blum, 2020), scaffolding creative, interdisciplinary projects (Martinez, 2017), and fostering pro-social, human-centric aspects in STEM (Holmes; Segarra et al., 2018).

Design: A self-study research–practice partnership examined the second iteration of an upper-level one-semester course on physical science in contemporary society. The practitioner (instructor) implemented a student-driven curriculum with student-led facilitation, weekly reflective writing with ungrading, and an open-ended final project; a trusted observer provided external observations and analysis. Participants: Approximately 30–40 third- to fifth-year physics undergraduates. Data sources: seven sources were triangulated—(1) logs of classroom observations; (2) post-class reflections by the instructor; (3) student works (facilitation materials, reflections, projects) and feedback; (4) class syllabus; (5) assignment documents; and (6–7) interviews of the instructors. The observer attended about 30% of classes, taking notes on sequences of events, student reactions, and publicly facing student work. Implementation details: - Student-led facilitation: Groups of up to four facilitated one hour of class. In iteration two, topics were co-created with students. A structured Facilitation Worksheet scaffolded lesson design; the instructor reviewed plans, met with groups pre-class, and debriefed with them to co-determine grades based on preparation and in-class facilitation. Class discussion norms were co-created on day one and revisited.

• Preparatory materials and quizzes: Each facilitation group produced a one-page, cited summary of background readings shared one week in advance; brief online pre-class quizzes built a common knowledge base.
• Weekly post-class reflections with ungrading: Students connected class learning to real-life situations and personal experiences. TAs provided weekly formative feedback using three criteria adapted from AAC&U VALUE rubrics (position/perspective; analysis/integration; syntax/mechanics), plus a mid-semester estimated grade. Students completed self-assessments and 1:1 meetings with TAs to finalize writing grades.
• Final project: Groups of up to five pursued open-ended, creative products (e.g., podcast, video, play, blog, research proposal) on complex society–physics issues. Three scaffolded stages received feedback; presentations were graded partly on active learning engagement. Peer feedback and self-evaluation followed submission; final grades were finalized in meetings with the instructor. Analytic approach: Triangulation across observation notes, instructor reflections, student artifacts, surveys/feedback, and course documents to assess engagement, depth of learning, and effectiveness of active-learning and ungrading strategies.

• Mitigating superficial facilitation (“phone it in”): Redesign with scaffolded planning meetings, a facilitation worksheet, and increased weighting (from 10% to 30%) improved preparation and in-class engagement; students initially reticent adapted and came to enjoy the activities.
• Knowledge development and discourse: Students demonstrated strong understanding via oral comments and whiteboard work; however, uneven background summaries by some groups limited nuanced discussions, indicating the need for earlier feedback on summaries.
• Writing growth through ungrading: Nearly all students’ writing improved markedly; after 5–6 assignments most approached mastery-level performance on VALUE-aligned criteria. A non-binding midpoint grade prompted attention to feedback among slower responders. Survey data indicated students engaged with TA feedback over time.
• Student perceptions: Surveys were universally positive, praising peer facilitation, TA feedback, and the instructor. Students valued whole-class discussions and reported increased connections with peers and broader perspectives on physics; one student advocated making the course obligatory.
• Overall success indicators: High-quality final projects, effective student-designed activities, and reflective writing evidenced achievement of course goals and the relevance of physics in social contexts.

Findings indicate that a student-driven, actively facilitated course can engage physics undergraduates—who are typically accustomed to traditional lectures—in meaningful discourse about society–physics relationships, addressing the goals of equitable engagement, reduced resistance to nontraditional formats, and empowerment to critique academic cultures. Structured scaffolds and co-created norms helped students transition from initial reticence to active participation, aligning with ICAP by fostering generative connections between course content and lived experience. Ungrading shifted focus from point accumulation to iterative improvement, producing substantial gains in argumentation, integration of knowledge, and mechanics. Challenges with uneven background preparation reveal the importance of front-loading formative feedback to ensure shared baseline knowledge for deeper discussions. The positive perceptions and improved outputs suggest that embedding active learning, reflective writing, and student-led facilitation can normalize social-context inquiry within physics curricula and develop transferable communication and collaboration skills.

A student-driven, active-learning course structure—combining peer facilitation, reflective writing with ungrading, and open-ended creative projects—effectively engaged physics undergraduates with the societal context of physics and improved their communication and integrative reasoning skills. The approach was well-received and produced strong student artifacts and reflections. Future directions include: (1) employing ungrading in other iterative, skills-focused post-secondary contexts (e.g., writing-intensive courses, lab reports); (2) explicitly leveraging ICAP by making connection-making a stated learning outcome; (3) expanding student-led learning in physics courses; and (4) advancing co-creative designs to support pro-social learning in traditionally non-human-centric fields.