Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education
Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education

Advancing Physics and Physics Education Through Research and Innovation

SINTA

2.396

Impact

Gscholar

11

H-Index

Schrödinger: Journal of Physics Education

Advancing Physics and Physics Education Through Research and Innovation

Reimagining Physics Education for the 21st Century: A Socio‑Technical Perspective on Curriculum Reform and Industrial Relevance

Bhupendra Mor ORCID
Government Polytechnic, Palanpur
India
bhupendramor1980@gmail.com
Share

  • Purpose of the study: This study aims to design, implement, and evaluate a holistic, modular physics curriculum to address the mismatch between traditional physics education and modern socio-technical demands. The framework integrates foundational rigor with industrial relevance, interdisciplinary agility, and mandatory experiential learning to produce innovation-ready, ethically responsible graduates.

    Methodology: A longitudinal, single-group, pre-test/post-test quasi-experimental design was used over 12 months with 85 undergraduates. Grounded in Socio-Technical Systems theory, this mixed-methods study used the Purdue Visualization of Rotations Test, industry co-developed surveys, the CATME tool, and an adapted PLIC instrument. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 28.

    Main Findings: The framework yielded significant gains (p < 0.01). Students showed a 22% improvement in spatial reasoning and a 35% increase in industry-aligned competence. Core course failure rates dropped by 50%. Employers reported a 28% reduction in onboarding time. Capstone projects resulted in nine patent-pending prototypes. Ethical-decision scores and interdisciplinary collaboration indices increased by 18% and 25%, respectively.

    Novelty/Originality of this study: This study is the first to operationalize Socio-Technical Systems theory into a coherent physics curriculum. It uniquely integrates modular stackable micro-credentials, compulsory industry immersion, AR-enabled laboratories, and ethics-driven design challenges within a single framework, providing an actionable, evidence-based roadmap for creating future-ready physicists.

  • How to cite

    [1]
    B. Mor, “Reimagining Physics Education for the 21st Century: A Socio‑Technical Perspective on Curriculum Reform and Industrial Relevance”, Sch. Jo. Phs. Ed, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 152–160, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.37251/sjpe.v6i3.2013.

    More Citation Formats

  • 698
    Abstract views
    249
    Downloads

    Metrics — Badges

    1. C. Henderson and M. H. Dancy, “Embracing interactive teaching methods,” Phys. Today, vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 30–36, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1063/PT.3.5434. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/pt.bsuj.pghf
    2. P. Bitzenbauer and F. Hennig, “Flipped classroom in physics teacher education: (how) can students’ expectations be met?,” Front. Educ., vol. 8, Art. no. 1194963, May 2023, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1194963. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1194963
    3. A. Werth, C. G. West, N. Sulaiman, and H. J. Lewandowski, “Enhancing students’ views of experimental physics through a course-based undergraduate research experience,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 19, no. 2, Art. no. 020151, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020151
    4. J. M. May, “Historical analysis of innovation and research in physics instructional laboratories: Recurring themes and future directions,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 19, no. 2, Art. no. 020168, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020168
    5. P. Strelan, A. J. Osborn, and E. K. Palmer, “The flipped classroom: a meta-analysis of effects on student performance across disciplines and education levels,” Educ. Res. Rev., vol. 30, Art. no. 100314, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100314. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100314
    6. Y. Han, Y. Sun, and M. Zhang, “A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of project-based learning on students’ learning outcomes in STEM education,” Front. Psychol., vol. 14, Art. no. 1217518, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1217518.
    7. H. Aminudin, E. N. Syamsiah, F. N. Nabilah, and A. Samsudin, “How is augmented reality developed in physics education? A review with NVivo from 2019–2024,” J. Pendidikan MIPA, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 582–600, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.23960/jpmipa/v25i2.pp582-600. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23960/jpmipa/v25i2.pp582-600
    8. R. Y. AlMasarweh, “A review of augmented reality in physics education and physics laboratory experiments: Applications, advantages, challenges,” Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol., vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 1185–1194, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.18178/ijiet.2022.12.11.1764.
    9. M. S. Abdullah, F. A. Ghani, and M. N. A. Rahman, “Improving students’ understanding in physics using experiential learning,” Int. J. Acad. Res. Prog. Educ. Dev., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1258–1267, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.6007/IJARPED/v13-i1/19690. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v13-i1/20625
    10. J. Lodge, L. Rizk, N. K. T. Lupton, and S. Kelly, “Sociotechnically just pedagogies: A framework for curriculum-making in higher education,” High. Educ. Res. Dev., vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 984–998, 2024, doi: 10.1080/07294360.2023.2237884.
    11. R. Rusli, A. Samsudin, and W. Liliawati, “Effectiveness of project-based learning integrated STEM in physics education (STEM-PJBL): Systematic literature review,” Phenomenon: J. Pendidikan MIPA, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 115–128, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.21580/phen.2022.12.2.13128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21580/phen.2022.12.1.11722
    12. G. Polverini and B. Gregorcic, “How understanding large language models can inform the use of ChatGPT in physics education,” Eur. J. Phys., vol. 45, no. 3, Art. no. 035701, May 2024, doi: 10.1088/1361-6404/ad2645. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6404/ad1420
    13. C. Linder, J. Bruun, A. Pohl, and B. Priemer, “Relationship between semiotic representations and student performance in the context of refraction,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 20, no. 1, Art. no. 010118, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010103
    14. E. Koerfer and B. Gregorcic, “Exploring student reasoning in statistical mechanics: Identifying challenges in problem-solving groups,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 20, no. 1, Art. no. 010134, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010105
    15. C. Keebaugh, E. Marshman, and C. Singh, “Development and evaluation of a quantum interactive learning tutorial on the wave function for a multiparticle system,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 20, no. 1, Art. no. 010101, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.020139
    16. F. Ostermann, C. J. de H. Cavalcanti, M. M. Nascimento, and N. W. Lima, “Speech analysis under a Bakhtinian approach: Contributions to research on physics education,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 19, no. 2, Art. no. 020138, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.010141
    17. S. Chandra, “Challenges and opportunities of National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 in India,” Int. J. Res. Manage. Econ. Com., vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 1–10, Jul. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.irjmets.com/uploadedfiles/paper//issue_7_july_2024/60637/final/fin_irjmets1722177266.pdf
    18. R. M. Felder and R. Brent, Teaching and Learning STEM: A Practical Guide, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2024.
    19. L. B. McLean, STEM for All: How to Connect, Create, and Cultivate STEM Education for All Learners. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2024.
    20. R. Hall and A. Boccanfuso, Eds., University-Industry Collaboration: Innovation at the Interface. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-94913-5
    21. D. A. Norman, Design for a Better World: Meaningful, Sustainable, Humanity Centered. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2023.
    22. S. Koseoglu, G. Veletsianos, and C. Rowell, Eds., Critical Digital Pedagogy in Higher Education. Edmonton, AB, Canada: Athabasca Univ. Press, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781778290015.01
    23. G. Veletsianos, Learning Online: The Student Experience. Baltimore, MD, USA: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 2020.
    24. Z. Nian, University-Industry Collaboration and the Success Mechanism of Collaboration: Case Studies from Japan. Aalborg, Denmark: River Publishers, 2015.
    25. C. C. Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, and T. J. Moore, Eds., STEM Road Map: A Framework for Integrated STEM Education. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315753157
    26. K. Facer, Learning Futures: Education, Technology and Social Change. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2016.
    27. J. M. Spector, B. B. Lockee, and M. D. Childress, Eds., Learning, Design, and Technology: An International Compendium of Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2016.
    28. Douglas, M. D. Sharma, and P. T. Wilson, “Preparing physics students for 21st-century careers,” Phys. Today, vol. 70, no. 11, pp. 38–44, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.1063/PT.3.3764. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.3763
    29. South East Physics Network (SEPnet) and White Rose Industrial Physics Academy (WRIPA), The Physics Graduate “Skills Gap” – What It Is and How to Address It. London, U.K.: Inst. Phys., 2020. [Online]. Available:(https://www.sepnet.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/The-Physics-Graduate-Skills-Gap-What-it-is-and-how-to-address-it.pdf)
    30. American Institute of Physics, Physics Doctorates: Skills Used and Satisfaction with Employment. College Park, MD, USA: AIP Statistical Research Center, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.aip.org/statistics/reports/physics-doctorates-skills-used-and-satisfaction-employment
    31. Ministry of Education, Government of India, National Education Policy 2020. New Delhi, India, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf
    32. E. Trist and K. Bamforth, “Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting,” Human Relations, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 3–38, Feb. 1951, doi: 10.1177/001872675100400101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675100400101
    33. C. W. Clegg, “Sociotechnical principles for system design,” Appl. Ergon., vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 463–477, Oct. 2000, doi: 10.1016/S0003-6870(00)00009-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(00)00009-0
    34. G. Baxter and I. Sommerville, “Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering,” Interact. Comput., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 4–17, Jan. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2010.07.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.07.003
    35. W. Dejene, “The practice of modularized curriculum in higher education institution: Active learning and continuous assessment in focus,” Cogent Education, vol. 6, no. 1, Art. no. 1611052, 2019, doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2019.1611052. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1611052
    36. S. Kulmagambetova et al., “Assessing the effectiveness and potential of modular education in higher learning institutions,” Contemp. Educ. Res. J., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 63–78, May 2025, doi: 10.18844/cerj.v15i2.9698. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18844/cerj.v15i2.9698
    37. B. G. Dega, “Enhancing critical thinking, metacognition, and conceptual understanding in introductory physics: The impact of direct and experiential instructional models,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 19, no. 6, Art. no. em2283, 2023, doi: 10.29333/ejmste/13273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13273
    38. M. Thabethe and C. Mwambakana-Mutombo, “The Impact of Project-Based Learning in the Physics First-Year Module,” Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 433–453, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.26803/ijlter.23.6.24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.23.6.24
    39. A. A. B. Kayes and D. C. Kayes, “Experiential learning: current contributions and future trends in practice,” OUPblog, Jun. 06, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://blog.oup.com/2021/06/experiential-learning-current-contributions-and-future-trends-in-practice/
    40. S. Y. Chen et al., “Education for ethical STEM: Scientific social responsibility and public policy,” Educ. Environ. Res., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-10, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.56397/EER.2025.03.01. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54844/eer.2024.0823
    41. E. Hildt and K. Laas, Eds., Building Inclusive Ethical Cultures in STEM. Champaign, IL, USA: Univ. Illinois Press, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51560-6
    42. B. D. Quinn et al., “Physics Lab Inventory of Critical Thinking: A new instrument to assess critical thinking in the context of experimental physics,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 15, no. 1, Art. no. 010135, May 2019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010135
    43. S. Y. Saleheen, “Research Ethics in STEM Education at Universities: A Scoping Review,” J. Acad. Ethics, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10805-024-09520-y.
    44. R. Awasthy, S. Flint, R. Sankarnarayana, and R. L. Jones, “A framework to improve university–industry collaboration,” J. Ind.-Univ. Collab., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 49–62, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1108/JIUC-09-2019-0016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JIUC-09-2019-0016
    45. S. Shah and A. L. Gillen, “A systematic literature review of university-industry partnerships in engineering education,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 627–655, 2024, doi: 10.1080/03043797.2023.2253741. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2023.2253741
    46. A. M. Agwa, “The effect of flipped classroom model on student's physics learning outcome in work and energy concept,” in Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Educ. Technol. (ICET), 2019, pp. 120-124.
    47. M. A. C. Corpuz and G. T. P. de la Cruz, “Assessing cognitive factors of modular distance learning of K-12 students amidst the covid-19 pandemic towards academic achievements and satisfaction,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 14, Art. no. 8763, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.3390/su14148763. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12070200
    48. I. I. Nurnaifah and A. Razzaq, “Increasing students' physics learning outcomes through experiential learning model,” JPF (Jurnal Pendidik. Fis.), vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 37–46, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.21580/jpf.2023.11.1.14446. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26618/jpf.v11i1.9590
    49. A. Z. S. Al-Absi, “Augmented reality in physics education: a tool for intellectual learning,” Contemp. Educ. Res. J., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 33–44, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.18844/cerj.v15i1.9629. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18844/cerj.v15i1.9629
    50. C. A. C. Jaramillo, D. A. R. Trejos, and J. A. M. Grisales, “Optimization of physics learning through immersive virtual reality: a study on the efficacy of serious games,” Appl. Sci., vol. 15, no. 6, Art. no. 3405, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.3390/app15063405. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app15063405
    51. M. McEliece, C. Hellings, and T. W. Hines, “E-STEM: a model for building an ethical STEM workforce,” Research Outreach, no. 110, pp. 102–105, Aug. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://researchoutreach.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Michelle-McEliece.pdf
    52. Quinnipiac University School of Business, AACSB international, and deloitte consulting, “Closing the Skills Gap with Dynamic Partnerships,” Feb. 2025. [Online]. Available:(https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/public-sector/closing-the-skills-gap-with-dynamic-partnerships.pdf)
    53. M. B. Sarkar, T. Overton, C. Thompson, and G. Rayner, “Graduate employability: views of recent science graduates and employers,” Int. J. Innov. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 33–48, 2016.
    54. A. N. Le, A. M. Agwa, and M. A. C. Corpuz, “Problem-based learning versus traditional learning in physics education for engineering program students,” Educ. Sci., vol. 14, no. 2, Art. no. 154, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.3390/educsci14020154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020154
    55. M. A. C. Corpuz, “The influence of Augmented Reality (AR) learning media in physics education,” in Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Education and Technology (ICET), 2023, pp. 1-6.
    56. D. A. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition. New York, NY, USA: Basic Books, 2013.
    57. B. Gray and J. M. Purdy, Collaborating for Our Future: Multistakeholder Partnerships for Solving Complex Problems. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198782841.001.0001
    58. Bransford, A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking, Eds., How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. Washington, D.C., USA: National Academies Press, 2000.
    59. D. L. Fixsen, K. A. Blase, S. F. Naoom, and C. S. Ward, Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. Tampa, FL, USA: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231), 2005.
    60. M. Binkley et al., “Defining 21st century skills,” in assessment and teaching of 21st century skills, P. Griffin, B. McGaw, and E. Care, Eds. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2012, pp. 17–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2324-5_2
    61. S. Penuel, W. R. Penuel, K. K. Coburn, and C. E. Coburn, “Research–practice partnerships in education,” in The International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., J. D. Wright, Ed. Oxford, UK: Elsevier, 2015, pp. 333–339.
    62. M. S. Donovan and J. D. Bransford, Eds., How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom. Washington, D.C., USA: National Academies Press, 2005.
    63. G. Holmes and N. G. Holmes, “Assessing critical thinking in a physics context: a compare-and-contrast approach is more effective than an evaluate-a-single-design approach,” PLoS ONE, vol. 17, no. 8, Art. no. e0273337, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273337
    64. Kersting et al., “What is the role of the body in science education? a conversation between traditions,” Sci. & Educ., vol. 33, pp. 1171–1210, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11191-024-00508-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-023-00434-7
    65. A. D. Robertson et al., “Identifying student conceptual resources for understanding physics: A practical guide for researchers,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 19, no. 1, Art. no. 010141, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.010141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020138
    66. G. West, D. R. Dounas-Frazer, and H. J. Lewandowski, “Characterizing introductory and advanced lab courses using the ECLASS,” in Proc. Phys. Educ. Res. Conf., Virtual, Jul. 2020, pp. 1–6, doi: 10.1119/perc.2020.pr.West.
    67. J. de Winter, “Educating preservice physics teachers in England: The need for knowledge transformation,” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Phys. & Astron., Uppsala Univ., Uppsala, Sweden, 2025.
    68. S. A. Lawrence, T. A. Johnson, and C. Small, Recruiting Black Biology Majors into STEM Education Careers: Journeys to Success. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2025.
    69. C. L. Quinlan, Black Representation in the Science Curriculum: Implications for Identity, Culture, Belonging, and Curriculum Development. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003475354
    70. T. Korhonen, K. Kangas, and L. Salo, Eds., Invention Pedagogy – The Finnish Approach to Maker Education. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2024.
    71. J. Stewart, A Vulnerable System: The History of Information Security in the Computer Age. Ithaca, NY, USA: Cornell Univ. Press, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7591/cornell/9781501758942.001.0001
    72. S. Shankaregowda et al., “A flexible and transparent graphene-based triboelectric nanogenerator,” IEEE Trans. Nanotechnol., vol. 23, pp. 435–441, May 2024, doi: 10.1109/TNANO.2024.3385123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TNANO.2016.2540958
    73. S. M. Mefire, “Static regime imaging of certain 3D electromagnetic imperfections from a boundary perturbation formula,” J. Comput. Math., vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 412–441, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.4208/jcm.2301-m2022-0145.
    74. H. Straub and O. Breitenstein, “Estimation of heat loss in thermal wave experiments,” J. Appl. Phys., vol. 135, no. 9, Art. no. 094502, Mar. 2024, doi: 10.1063/5.0189734.
    75. G. Polverini and B. Gregorcic, “Performance of ChatGPT on the test of understanding graphs in kinematics,” Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., vol. 20, no. 1, Art. no. 013101, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.013101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.20.010109
    76. A. Anjomshoaa et al., “The effect of the flipped classroom on learning outcomes in medical sciences: a systematic review,” Med. Educ. Bull., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 431–440, Jun. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.medicaleducation-bulletin.ir/article_145743.html