The Physics education of tomorrow: A Roadmap for Pakistan

In the last column, I tried to indicate various facets responsible for the decline of science in the Muslim world after the 13th century. After its successful publication, I discussed it with one of my colleagues, Ayesha Khan from CHEP, at a coffee table at Pak Tea House (a sitting place for intellectual sittings) in Lahore. She urged me to give a pathway for its ramification in the Islamic land. After a long debate, the decision was to first show the opinion on restructuring physics education in Pakistan.

We discovered through the eyes of the Physics Department students that various areas of physics education in the country require reorganization, such as redesigning the curriculum, reforming the semester system, and focusing on alternative solutions for the lack of observatories for the country’s HEIs (Higher Education Institutes).

Firstly, the curriculum used to insulate physics in HEIs does not foster creativity or the ability to innovate among learners. The primary reason is that it confines pupils to a narrow thinking horizon. In our institute, students don’t even bother to think outside of the curriculum box. However, Farhat Abbas Sha (an Indian writer) says that the curriculum is merely a tool to foster knowledge among seekers. Ideally, it should encourage pupils to transform accumulated information into knowledge. Don’t you think that we have an adverse one?

Our physics curriculum has become too specialized and unable to produce creative scientists. We can remember that it was the only course titled “Communication Skills”; we opted for in our three years of physics studies. A single subject on the sociological aspect of physics is not included in the course outline for a master’s in computational physics. Consequently, the system produces physicists lacking a broader thinking horizon and good communication skills.

There is a need to align curricula on generalized parameters. Report of the Zakri Task Force on Science at the Universities of the Muslim World Foreword by: Tan Sri Zakri Abdul Hamid, Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of Malaysia, suggests that:

“The curriculum should be more globular, i.e., contain enough general teaching (humanities, social science, languages, and communication) to assure that science graduates in the Muslim world are not technically competent at the expense of more comprehensive knowledge.” The latter, it is widely agreed, gives scientists and engineers new outlooks, thus more creativity in solving manifold crises, and helps them cooperate and communicate better with colleagues, superiors, officials, and the public. At the very least, curricula for science programs should include humanities courses related to science, e.g., history and philosophy of science.

Every science begins with philosophy and ends with the arts. This phrase can be defined as: “The two apparent distinguished disciplines are interlinked, and the gap between scientists and literary intellectuals should keep narrowing.” British scientist and writer C.P. Snow argue in his article that at Cambridge University, every night, intellectuals from the literature and science departments have a debate sitting for ideas discussion. Will Durant also conveyed this similar in his book: The pleasure of philosophy that science and arts are both connected (On Philosophy by Will Durant).

According to the history of science, the divide between science and the arts thrived during the Renaissance. According to the two cultures, there was a movement during this century from conventional liberal arts education, which centered on literature, philosophy, and rhetoric, to more scientific and technological education. Snow contends that this movement resulted in a schism between scientific and literary cultures, which grew over time. Snow claims that the separation between the two civilizations widened throughout the nineteenth century as science and technology improved. Snow observes that many literary elites were suspicious of science and its ability to explain the mysteries of the cosmos during this period.

The scientific culture is evidence-based and attempts to comprehend the natural world via observation and investigation. Literary culture is based on subjective interpretation and aids in understanding the human experience via art, literature, and philosophy.

The divide between the two cultures (science and literature) is due to a lack of communication and understanding between scientists and literary intellectuals. Peter Burke explains that this lack of understanding is not dangerous but hinders progress and innovation. (The History of Knowledge; published by Cambridge University)

In the context of Punjab University, this gap between science and arts can bridge by following an out-of-class learning model. For instance, we have a CHEP scientific society that engages scholars worldwide to come and enlighten students about physics theories. However, the scientific community should broaden its vision and promote literary cultures in a scientific atmosphere. Last week, I attended a talk on “subjugating or liberating literature as a double-edged weapon” at PULC’s Moot Hall. It had an indirect link with science studies.

Second, scientific societies should rebuild their structures, introduce their study circles, and discuss general readings in physics and other disciplines. As a startup, they can discuss the Seven Lessons on Physics by Carlo Roveili, Cosmic Evolution by the famous science communicator Neil deGrasse Tyson, and the Structure of Scientific Revolution by Thomas Cohen. From my reading angle, these worthless texts can foster reading habits and critical analysis among students. C.P. Snow also discusses the role of education in perpetuating the divide between the two cultures. He suggests that the education system should encourage students to learn about science and literature to bridge the gap between the two cultures. Professor Bilal Masud, also quoted in his philosophy class, said, “For years, science teachers have claimed that the pupils should study “natural sciences” to develop a scientific attitude; no evidence shows that enrollment in science classes improves one’s scientific attitude.” (Reference: Skewes,1933) (Bilal Masud’s philosophy notes)

Third, the failure of the semester system in HEIs due to a lack of suitable grounding and implementation has diminished healthy physics education. In the 2000s, the semester system was introduced in Pakistani higher education institutes as a copy of the American education system. In those days, we also signed an anti-terrorism war deal with the USA, and our educational bosses believed that dollar flow would reshape the robust structure of education and implement the semester system automatically. Overall, dollar flow changed the campus’s condition from black carpet roads to beautiful buildings. But Christopher Jafferlot argues in Pakistan at Crossroads that the share of the educational budget remained low compared to military or intelligence monetarily funded allocations. The US has recently fulfilled its interest in our geographical location. Consequently, dollar flow has halted, and we are thriving this semester without monetary resources. Ultimately, the half-baked recipe of the semester system is deteriorating physics education.

Fourth, there is a need to rethink alternative grassroots solutions for the lack of physics observatories. There is indeed no substitute for physical laboratories. Primarily, we must generate wealth inside the country by connecting public-private partnerships to build highly infrastructured observatories. A reader has thinking would agree that political, economic, and social change is a prerequisite for capital production in the region. Hence, it is a long journey that requires fundamental systematic changes, long-term planning, and collectivism.

For the short term, we should introduce simulation or virtual labs in our HEIs. Simulation laboratories employ computer software to create a virtual environment for researchers to perform experiments and monitor the outcomes in real-time. In these laboratories, complex ideas and theories that are difficult to understand in a standard lab environment can teach. Moreover, simulation laboratories may provide a secure and controlled setting for students to discover and experiment without fear of harm or equipment damage. (Report: Enhancing science education in the 3rd world countries through digital technologies)

In contrast, virtual laboratories employ digital technology to provide an interactive learning experience as a physical laboratory. These laboratories are available online from anywhere in the world. Students may work together to conduct experiments, analyze data, and draw conclusions.

Now, the question arises: can these suggestions mitigate the deficiencies in physics education? I believe that if authorities implement these recommendations in their true spirit, these solutions have the potential to produce creative scientists.

Now, does our current system have enough space to accommodate innovative physicists? We need a systematic change to manage the physics graduates of HEIs. Interestingly, when our institute started the BS in computational physics, policymakers did not identify the workplaces for the graduates of this degree program. Unintentionally, HEC equalized the degree of computational physics with that of pure physics. So they just increased the number of graduates. Instead, a new class of computational physicists would hire to revive the discipline.

Only active student bodies can carry the struggle forward. The system is not channelizing the students’ potential. The dilemma is that the youth’s power for social change has been locked into a system of colonial legacies. Worryingly, physicists have no self-esteem to advocate for social change. There is a dire need to permit student bodies to organize and push for social change. In physics teaching, it is possible to follow an out-of-class learning model inside campuses and urge pupils to study the philosophy of science. Hopefully, they will be able to apply their knowledge to social change. It is unclear yet who is leading positive change. Yet, I was delighted to hear a discussion about these core topics around the coffee table.