Minnesota State University Moorhead Assessment Report Cover Sheet (

Minnesota State University Moorhead
Assessment Report Cover Sheet
(An electronic version of this form can be accessed at http://www.mnstate.edu/assess)
Note: All non-accredited programs are required to complete this form. Include Assessment
Reporting Forms for each learning outcome assessed.
Academic Program: B.S. Physics
Department: Physics and Astronomy
College: College of Social and Natural Sciences
Date: 4/6/2011
1. Name(s) of Department Assessment Coordinator and/or Assessment Committee
Members
Linda Winkler, Steve Lindaas, Matthew Craig
2. List of All Student Learning Outcomes. (List all outcomes, placing an asterisk (*) by the
outcomes you are assessing this year.)
1. Demonstrate basic knowledge of experimental and theoretical physics.
2. Apply analytical thinking, mathematical analysis, and computational techniques
to the solution of problems.
3. Reach both quantitative and qualitative conclusions from experimental and
observational data.
4. Apply analytical thinking, instrumentation skills, and computer techniques to
perform experiments.
5.* Design and carry out independent research.
3. Describe how your program has addressed the comments from the Student Learning
Outcomes Assessment Committee during the past two academic years? (If you have made
changes to your plan, file a revised Assessment Plan Cover Sheet and Assessment Planning
Form(s).)
We will re-evaluate our goals for learning outcome #1, evaluated using the Major Field Test with
a goal of 80th percentile scores for our seniors after the next time we administer the test in May
2011. We have begun offering the test every 18 months rather than every year to ensure large
enough cohorts that we can get more detailed comparative statistics between our students and
others taking the test from ETS.
4. If you have received an Instructional Improvement Grant in the past two years, identify
the outcomes on which the grant was based and provide a summary here of the results
from your grant.
NA
5. Signatures
Department Chair or Program Director
Dean or Director
Required Attachments:
1. Assessment Reporting Forms
2. Records of department meetings when Assessment Report was discussed and approved.
Minnesota State University Moorhead
Assessment Reporting Form
(An electronic version of this form can be accessed at http://www.mnstate.edu/assess)
Instructions: Include this form for each student learning outcome assessed during the previous
year. Include Assessment Report Cover Sheet.
Academic Program: B.S. Physics
1. Learning outcome assessed (please include the number of the outcome to correspond
with the list on the cover sheet).
5.* Design and carry out independent research.
2. Describe assessment measure used for this learning outcome (attach instrument or
rubric)
Senior Project Rubric, used to evaluate oral presentations of senior projects.
3. Expected/satisfactory student results (from assessment plan)
All students will receive an Acceptable (3) or higher rating in each category of the rubric.
4. Actual results from the past year (attach additional information, if necessary)
Detailed results are attached. Averages ranged from 3.66 to 4.15. The data set includes all
senior projects since the last assessment report, a total of 10 senior projects.
5. Describe and explain available trend data for student performance on this outcome over
the past several years. In other words, describe how the results of this measure have
changed over the past several years.
Performance on the senior project continues to improve. It is reassuring to see that
improvement in a cohort larger than all of the previous cohorts combined (10 in this
report, 3 in the 2009 report and 2 in the 2007 report). In addition to an increase in the
average performance, most of the projects in this reporting period scored 4 (Very Good) or
higher in each category rated. The 2010 group includes strong projects from students with
a wide range of GPAs, indicating that the continued improvement is in a skill distinct from
what we grade in our other courses.
6. Proposed action in response to results. (Please note if improvements can be made with
existing department resources. If improvements cannot be made with existing department
resources, consider applying for an Instructional Improvement Grant.)
It might be possible to further improve outcomes by making the senior project more
structured and providing formal feedback to the student during project from several
faculty members. We have recently changed the senior project to require a committee of
faculty to regularly review projects and give feedback, and anticipate being able to discuss
impacts of that in future reports.
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Senior Project Assessment Summary Data
Average of score Column Labels
Row Labels
Background
Conclusion Methods Results Understanding Grand Total
F2009_1
3.33
3.00
4.50
3.13
3.67
3.53
Sp2010_1
4.20
3.42
4.17
3.50
3.33
3.71
Sp2010_2
4.40
4.00
4.00
4.10
3.70
4.04
Sp2010_3
4.50
4.13
4.63
4.38
4.50
4.43
Sp2010_4
4.50
4.58
4.33
4.67
4.58
4.53
Sp2010_5
4.20
3.30
4.30
3.90
4.30
4.00
Sp2010_6
4.10
3.00
3.40
3.00
3.30
3.36
Sp2010_7
3.75
3.92
4.42
3.92
4.08
4.02
Sp2010_8
3.13
2.25
2.88
2.38
3.00
2.73
F2010_1
4.83
4.33
4.42
4.58
4.17
4.47
Grand Total
4.15
3.66
4.13
3.81
3.89
3.93
ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
Senior Project
Presenter:F2009_1
Rater:
Title:
Date:
Scoring
SCORE
5
SIMPLE
DESCRIPTOR
Excellent
4
Very good
3
Acceptable
2
Unacceptable
1
Failing
DESCRIPTOR
Shows conceptual understanding, all essential
elements in place, exhibits depth
Shows conceptual understanding, all essential
elements in place
Shows conceptual understanding, but quantitative
analysis is incomplete or incorrect
Misunderstands key concepts and quantitative
analysis is incorrect or incomplete
Missing key elements, incomplete or incorrect on a
large scale
Components scored, oral presentation:
Component
Background
Score
3.33
Comments
Certainly could have had more background; Good
understanding of details of alternate methods of
potential calculation that he mentioned but many
omitted clear statement of hypothesis; Not present for
this
Methods
4.50
Seemed appropriate if unrealized; Seemed to
understand the method fairly well; Well organized,
though not super detailed
Results
3.13
Handled questions about accuracy. Presentation of
main graph is unclear. Did better with some prompting;
He should have used the scale on his graph that showed
the most clear relationship. Current graph looks like
line was sketched in rather randomly; It would be nice
to see this applied beyond testing the algorithm. But
algorithm looks well tested.; Not much physics here.
Better if solving a physics problem
Conclusion
3.00
Good enough based on insufficient data; It would be nice
to see this applied beyond testing the algorithm. But
algorithm looks well tested.; Seemed ok
Understanding
3.67
Clear explanation fo low end and overhead. Well,
depends on what you mean- no real grasp; He did a clear
presentation of a nasty concept. Honest about "lack of
physics"; Would like to have seen more physics
understanding, but knowledge of computational
methods seemed fine
ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
Senior Project
Presenter:F2010_1
Rater:
Title:
Date:
Scoring
SCORE
5
SIMPLE
DESCRIPTOR
Excellent
4
Very good
3
Acceptable
2
Unacceptable
1
Failing
DESCRIPTOR
Shows conceptual understanding, all essential
elements in place, exhibits depth
Shows conceptual understanding, all essential
elements in place
Shows conceptual understanding, but quantitative
analysis is incomplete or incorrect
Misunderstands key concepts and quantitative
analysis is incorrect or incomplete
Missing key elements, incomplete or incorrect on a
large scale
Components scored, oral presentation:
Component
Background
Score
4.83
Comments
Excellent background on nanotubes and on broader
applications; Good motivation for replacing ITO
w/SWCNT; Nice pictures- motivation (InSnO2) - Good!;
Presented the background well, good delivery, although
how much was known vs. read?; Very good
understanding of project and significance. Better
research than most
Methods
4.42
Image needed to show approach; Method is good,
explanation of filtered/unfiltered graphs; Seemed
reasonable; Very clear explanation, stuck on a hard
question on stress vx. Strain; Very good here. Wasn't
sure on stress and strain and how it relates to Young's
mod
Results
4.58
Clearly presented, understands the underlying
relationship; Cool video too; Good explanation fo data.
Error bars on theory; Good lcear plots to illustrate
theoretical vs. observed. Good answer to metal vs. semi
question; Seemed reasonable for a work in progress with
little theory yet to guide analysis of shy equations were
wrong, etc.
Conclusion
4.33
Could relate back to motivation; Good understanding of
limits on his understanding of his results; Interesting
interpretation of swelling of film
Understanding
4.17
Clear- able to address issues that were brought up
concerning the project; Good here. Maybe more
materials science. More understanding than most.
Didn't understand some of the techniques used too- like
Ftransform. Really good project on "cutting edge";
Seems to clearly know what he knows and doesn't know
yet; Some trouble w/defs of stress & strain
ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
Senior Project
Presenter:Sp2010_1
Rater:
Title:
Date:
Scoring
SCORE
5
SIMPLE
DESCRIPTOR
Excellent
4
Very good
3
Acceptable
2
Unacceptable
1
Failing
DESCRIPTOR
Shows conceptual understanding, all essential
elements in place, exhibits depth
Shows conceptual understanding, all essential
elements in place
Shows conceptual understanding, but quantitative
analysis is incomplete or incorrect
Misunderstands key concepts and quantitative
analysis is incorrect or incomplete
Missing key elements, incomplete or incorrect on a
large scale
Components scored, oral presentation:
Component
Background
Score
4.20
Comments
Good practicle use. Could use an actual interferometer
from optics lab; I missed some of this, so can't comment;
Ok, didn't stand out. Did have wide. Many slides hard
to read (black letters on blue blackground); Partially
reflective mirrors. Good list of uses. Thin film deposit
goes beyond just mirrors. Black on blue is hard to read;
seemed good
Methods
4.17
Again, this was an engineering project that seemed to be
success. He was making progress.; Good description;
Good explanation of pump (even if slides were a bit
rushed); Nice schematic of process
Results
3.50
Good explanation. Needs to analyze (change existing
data) then take more data or change exp variable; How
much? Doesn't have his equation yet; Kinda used graphs
(AFM) without knowing about them. Didn't see
quantitative results about mirror; Needs to understand
AFM data. Collect more data related to his own
question; Not great understanding of AFM results and
real data on reflectivity; One slide we get a mirror…ah
no, more analysis, good. Results of AFM not
clear…needs to quanify/clarify
Conclusion
3.42
But made a nice mirror; Don't present results unless you
understand them. Show results (mirrors); kinda hard to
tell what conclusion was; Needs stronger conclusion.
Made a claim based on your data; Same weakness as
results; Very brief, "we got this working"
Understanding
3.33
Admitted he didn't understand AFM results (helped him
with results). He knows the experiment; AFM piece was
weak; Don't put up the AFM slide of the smoothness of
the surface if you don't know what it means; Good.
Some points to work on, but strong overall; Torr?
Roughness
ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
Senior Project
Presenter:Sp2010_2
Rater:
Title:
Date:
Scoring
SCORE
5
SIMPLE
DESCRIPTOR
Excellent
4
Very good
3
Acceptable
2
Unacceptable
1
Failing
DESCRIPTOR
Shows conceptual understanding, all essential
elements in place, exhibits depth
Shows conceptual understanding, all essential
elements in place
Shows conceptual understanding, but quantitative
analysis is incomplete or incorrect
Misunderstands key concepts and quantitative
analysis is incorrect or incomplete
Missing key elements, incomplete or incorrect on a
large scale
Components scored, oral presentation:
Component
Background
Score
4.40
Comments
Good- would like to have seem nore background on solid
state; Great qualitative of quantitative explanation;
Reasonable description of quantum tunneling. A little
unclear on "spatroscopy" aspect, but I think I
understood what he meant; Schematic- small one is
good. (larger new would be helpful). What does WKB
stand for? Quantum tunneling wave function does not
look right
Methods
4.00
A bit tense, but covers the basics; Good; Good image of
graphite, nice discussion of noise; Unclear on what I vs V
means in terms of spectra of object. Nice disucssion of I
vs V in questions
Results
4.10
Need to describe IV curve- good job. Not clear about
how IV curve details (good to note that this is averaged
line); Nice spectrum, not clear on significance; Not clear
how much "variance" there is in spectra- what is noise
level?; Very curt results. But that was good, I suppose
Conclusion
4.00
Band gaps- has basic understanding. Might not have
complete understanding but went ahead and completeed
a nice derivation; No conclusion drawn; No errors that I
can see, but curt; Not entirely clear why no spikes pos
and neg in spectrum (expected has definite sign)
Understanding
3.70
A bit fuzzy on significance of results; Band gaps and
density of stats needs work; Having difficulty
interpreting his ; Only weakness was understanding of
d(ln(I))/d(ln(V)) and LDOS
ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
Senior Project
Presenter:Sp2010_3
Rater:
Title:
Date:
Scoring
SCORE
5
SIMPLE
DESCRIPTOR
Excellent
4
Very good
3
Acceptable
2
Unacceptable
1
Failing
DESCRIPTOR
Shows conceptual understanding, all essential
elements in place, exhibits depth
Shows conceptual understanding, all essential
elements in place
Shows conceptual understanding, but quantitative
analysis is incomplete or incorrect
Misunderstands key concepts and quantitative
analysis is incorrect or incomplete
Missing key elements, incomplete or incorrect on a
large scale
Components scored, oral presentation:
Component
Background
Score
4.50
Comments
Clear and as far as I know, correct; Good, would have
been better to say more about goals; Need a picture of
F=grad( m dot B), nice pictures for magnetization
Methods
4.63
Good description of e/m theory; Model-description perhaps too much math w/o visual connection. How
small a magnetization (m) can be ignored? Is aluminum
diamagnetic or paramagnetic?; Very clear explanation
for derivation of current in his "loops"
Results
4.38
Good experimental description. Nice to see he figured
out how much current needed; Good- how to make
useful? Compare to mass of ball (real force). Good
choice of units. Analysis (check); Theory equation.
Good to do units check
Conclusion
4.13
Final product is <F>, tried unknown values; Nice
consideration fo options; What is R+X=? How could
you increase H?
Understanding
4.50
Answered questions reasonably well; Good work with
equation and understanding; Much improvedtheoretically- still retained connection to concepts
ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
Senior Project
Presenter:Sp2010_4
Rater:
Title:
Date:
Scoring
SCORE
5
SIMPLE
DESCRIPTOR
Excellent
4
Very good
3
Acceptable
2
Unacceptable
1
Failing
DESCRIPTOR
Shows conceptual understanding, all essential
elements in place, exhibits depth
Shows conceptual understanding, all essential
elements in place
Shows conceptual understanding, but quantitative
analysis is incomplete or incorrect
Misunderstands key concepts and quantitative
analysis is incorrect or incomplete
Missing key elements, incomplete or incorrect on a
large scale
Components scored, oral presentation:
Component
Background
Score
4.50
Comments
Acronyms- all defined/explained good. Project
described completely; Clear explanation of motivation
fro study and of techniques; Good; Nice discussion of
why you might expect variability; The intro seemed to
emphasize the goal of the variable star, but the whole
rest of the presentation was calibration; Wold have been
nice to see more bg on young stars, why they might vary
Methods
4.33
Detailed step-by-step explanation. What was Heather's
role (plots not coutesy of someone else); Discussion of
data reduction used for light curve was a bit unclear at
points (rushed); Light curve- process nicely explained
(position read brightness determination clearly
explained - complete). (Multiple methods described)
Results
4.67
Good error based on plot; Good presentation of results,
with errors; Graphs clear and explained. Calibration
process clear. Error included!
Conclusion
4.58
Could show a "typical" variable star light curve with
magnitude expected. Clear conclusion. Work on
conclusion.; Not "linear"… flat. Sensible conclusion
based on data; Rushed, but reasonable
Understanding
4.58
A few "misused" technical terms, but you understood
what you meant; Excellent; Good use of examples. Good
description of error and limits; Hard to assess, not a lot
of time for questions but seemed well versed. More
emphasis on methodology/calibration than on the results
of light curve itself, maybe I missed the point?; Seems to
hafve been independent here, good
ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
Senior Project
Presenter:Sp2010_5
Rater:
Title:
Date:
Scoring
SCORE
5
SIMPLE
DESCRIPTOR
Excellent
4
Very good
3
Acceptable
2
Unacceptable
1
Failing
DESCRIPTOR
Shows conceptual understanding, all essential
elements in place, exhibits depth
Shows conceptual understanding, all essential
elements in place
Shows conceptual understanding, but quantitative
analysis is incomplete or incorrect
Misunderstands key concepts and quantitative
analysis is incorrect or incomplete
Missing key elements, incomplete or incorrect on a
large scale
Components scored, oral presentation:
Component
Background
Score
4.20
Comments
Good; Good here; I think she understood it, but I was a
bit confused with how hologram is viewable (why we can
see 3D image. Otherwise, very good; Tolerance for path
length difference. Temporal vx. Spatial adherence needs
to be defined. Parallax vx whole field (need to phase
problem (twin image)
Methods
4.30
Good here; Seemed ok, but rainbow perhaps too
ambitious? For available setup; The film interference
not as clear. Good schematics; Very clear method. Easy
to follow
Results
3.90
Good description of why it might have failed; Good on
transmission; Hard to assess as rainbow. Was getting
rushed by constraints; Process described nicely. Able to
explain results completely
Conclusion
3.30
Hologramm did not work; Was a copy (w/o slit) tried?
Was there any success
Understanding
4.30
Admitted she didn't kow proper slit width or proper
distance to place hologram plate; Good here. Questionsgood answers; Needs more of theoretical (Hyguns
Principle, etc). Grounding; Seemed ok, but no time for
many questions, so… A lot of handwaving, could use
more slices to "visualize" how they are made, work such
as the transmissions vs. reflection or maybe reorder your
2 more detailed slides even better than either
comparison slides
ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
Senior Project
Presenter:Sp2010_6
Rater:
Title:
Date:
Scoring
SCORE
5
SIMPLE
DESCRIPTOR
Excellent
4
Very good
3
Acceptable
2
Unacceptable
1
Failing
DESCRIPTOR
Shows conceptual understanding, all essential
elements in place, exhibits depth
Shows conceptual understanding, all essential
elements in place
Shows conceptual understanding, but quantitative
analysis is incomplete or incorrect
Misunderstands key concepts and quantitative
analysis is incorrect or incomplete
Missing key elements, incomplete or incorrect on a
large scale
Components scored, oral presentation:
Component
Background
Score
4.10
Comments
Good overview of lenses and good discussion of lensing
eq & how used; Good, motivation somewhat weak; Nice
images- perhaps relate to simple lens situation. Good
lens equation; Not sure if it is a language proficiency
limit, but slides were clear and as far as I know, correct
Methods
3.40
Described limitations of packages used; Not clear on
how gravlens and lens model different. Limitations slide
unclear; Ok, derivation fo point mass somewhat unclear;
Solid here. A little unclear on how X^2 was used- look
for lowest ?
Results
3.00
Did have mass and position X^2; I was unclear on how
she was getting real data with lens model.; Not clear if
there is complete understanding of scale (might be a bad
question); Not good understanding of X^2
Conclusion
3.00
Didn't really get at how calc. compares to simulation
gravlens; Uncertainty- need to know tolerance X^2
meaning (more basic theory just get it to 0). No error
Understanding
3.30
A bit fuzzy on how to compare numbers; I am not
certain what knowledge she had outside of fravlens/lens
model. She did know what the lens was; Not a deep
understanding of complicated systems, but not bad on
point mass; Simulation needs to confirm the methods so
confidence in end result can be believed
ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
Senior Project
Presenter:Sp2010_7
Rater:
Title:
Date:
Scoring
SCORE
5
SIMPLE
DESCRIPTOR
Excellent
4
Very good
3
Acceptable
2
Unacceptable
1
Failing
DESCRIPTOR
Shows conceptual understanding, all essential
elements in place, exhibits depth
Shows conceptual understanding, all essential
elements in place
Shows conceptual understanding, but quantitative
analysis is incomplete or incorrect
Misunderstands key concepts and quantitative
analysis is incorrect or incomplete
Missing key elements, incomplete or incorrect on a
large scale
Components scored, oral presentation:
Component
Background
Score
3.75
Comments
Good here; Graphic of jet engine vx. Pulse jet need more
harmonic types [(open/closed)] not just [open/open].
Acoustic graph/description good; I was confused. 2 cycle
chainsaw role in rocket? This could have been clearer;
Nice illustrations, represents clear effort in carrying out
project; What kind of wave? Sound!
Methods
4.42
Good experiment; Good presentation of data, including
linerization and error; Impressed with set up!
Creative!; Nice discussion of rocket; Seemed to make a
few methadological errors early and limited ability; Why
do you expect resonances? What will they tell you?
Schematic of system- matched to picture would be good
Results
3.92
Check units; length = cm; Data was limited by methods.
Not sure what can be drawn from 3 points?; Kinda not
clear on what the plots show. F vs 1/2 seems to be, with
slope = velocity?; Model needs to be explaned. Pitch vs.
length graph- needs better explanation; Nice- actually
looked at standard dev to get at significance; Plots a bit
unclear, but ok explanation
Conclusion
3.92
I was unclear on which acoustics model you used;
Limited by results; More careful analysis of possible
errors would be good; Simple approach - not clear how
or where assumptions were made
Understanding
4.08
Not many questions. Was it supposed to be compared to
a driven tone? Could you for that specific type?; Very
decent answers to questions; Very good
ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
Senior Project
Presenter:Sp2010_8
Rater:
Title:
Date:
Scoring
SCORE
5
SIMPLE
DESCRIPTOR
Excellent
4
Very good
3
Acceptable
2
Unacceptable
1
Failing
DESCRIPTOR
Shows conceptual understanding, all essential
elements in place, exhibits depth
Shows conceptual understanding, all essential
elements in place
Shows conceptual understanding, but quantitative
analysis is incomplete or incorrect
Misunderstands key concepts and quantitative
analysis is incorrect or incomplete
Missing key elements, incomplete or incorrect on a
large scale
Components scored, oral presentation:
Component
Background
Score
3.13
Comments
Good intro; Ok explanation of background; Picture or
schematic of what you are describing would help
Methods
2.88
Followed outline of original papers pretty well; Not
clear. Certainly can't see why w and v have same units.
He indicated r is missing; Theory- hard to understand
limits- better to show the limits for velocity and rotation.
Could describe variables more completely
Results
2.38
Missing variables- fix slides from SAC! What
assumptions are you making. I=2/5 mr^2 (hollow ball).
Did you try a simulation (vpython)?; Not actually
literally like a harmonic oscillator; These came from
demo? Or analysis? Results were really descriptions of
eq. Nothing evaluated
Conclusion
2.25
Again, are these from demo?; Good- looked at special
cases. Does ball escape or not?; Really didn't conclude
anything new though he did correctly fill in details
Understanding
3.00
Does ball come exactly back to the hand? Simulation;
Understands underlying derivation but broader results
not well understood
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
Ananda Shastri <[email protected]>
assessment
April 19, 2011 3:06:26 PM CDT
Matthew Craig <[email protected]>
Matt,
I approve the assessment report.
--Ananda
Ananda Shastri, Ph. D.
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Minnesota State University Moorhead
Moorhead, MN, 56563
218 477 2448
[email protected]
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
"Dr. Juan E Cabanela Ph.D." <[email protected]>
Re: [Physfac] Assessment report
April 19, 2011 12:30:07 PM CDT
Physfac Listserve <[email protected]>
I approve both the Annual Report and the Assessment Report.
Juan
On Apr 17, 2011, at 10:43 PM, Matthew Craig wrote:
Hi all,
The assessment report is attached. It is somewhat brief because we are not administering the MFT until later
this semester in order to pool our students into larger cohorts.
Please respond by email to indicate whether you accept the report or not, or with any comments/suggestions.
Matt Craig
<PHYS_ASSESSMENT_APR_2011.pdf>
Office hours/schedule at: http://physics.mnstate.edu/craig
-Dr. Juan Cabanela
218-477-2453 (V) 218-477-2290 (F)
Minnesota State University Moorhead WWW: http://www.cabanela.com/
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
Twitter: Juan_Kinda_Guy
1104 Seventh Ave South, Hagen 307B
IM: AstroJuanCab (AIM)
Moorhead, MN 56563
[email protected] (MSN)
[email protected] (GTalk)
Public PGP Key available at: http://www.cabanela.com/juan_public.asc
_______________________________________________
Physfac mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe http://lists.mnstate.edu/mailman/listinfo/physfac
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
Linda Winkler <[email protected]>
Re: [Physfac] Assessment report
April 18, 2011 1:35:20 PM CDT
Physfac Listserve <[email protected]>
Hi Matt:
I approve of assessment
On Apr 17, 2011, at 10:43 PM, Matthew Craig wrote:
Hi all,
The assessment report is attached. It is somewhat brief because we are not administering the MFT until later
this semester in order to pool our students into larger cohorts.
Please respond by email to indicate whether you accept the report or not, or with any comments/suggestions.
Matt Craig
<PHYS_ASSESSMENT_APR_2011.pdf>
Office hours/schedule at: http://physics.mnstate.edu/craig
---Professor and Chair
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Minnesota State University Moorhead
1104 7th Ave S, Moorhead MN 56563
phone: (218) 477-2439
fax: (218) 477-2290
_______________________________________________
Physfac mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe http://lists.mnstate.edu/mailman/listinfo/physfac
_______________________________________________
Physfac mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe http://lists.mnstate.edu/mailman/listinfo/physfac
From:
Subject:
Date:
To:
Steve Lindaas <[email protected]>
Re: [Physfac] Assessment report
April 19, 2011 1:27:07 AM CDT
Physfac Listserve <[email protected]>
Hi Matt,
I approve both the Annual Report and the Assessment Report. The assessment report has a bunch of typos.
Did you already fix them?
- Steve
On Apr 17, 2011, at 10:43 PM, Matthew Craig wrote:
Hi all,
The assessment report is attached. It is somewhat brief because we are not administering the MFT until later
this semester in order to pool our students into larger cohorts.
Please respond by email to indicate whether you accept the report or not, or with any comments/suggestions.
Matt Craig
<PHYS_ASSESSMENT_APR_2011.pdf>
Office hours/schedule at: http://physics.mnstate.edu/craig
---Professor and Chair
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Minnesota State University Moorhead
1104 7th Ave S, Moorhead MN 56563
phone: (218) 477-2439
fax: (218) 477-2290
_______________________________________________
Physfac mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe http://lists.mnstate.edu/mailman/listinfo/physfac
_______________________________________________
Physfac mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe http://lists.mnstate.edu/mailman/listinfo/physfac
Department Annual Report
Due: May 3, 2013
Department: Physics and Astronomy
Chair/Director: Matt Craig
Phone: x2439
Email: [email protected]
Administrative Assistant: Joy Lindell
Phone: x2141
Email: [email protected]
General Instructions
1. Complete the top portion of this sheet and attach it as the Cover Sheet with all other forms,
including a record of department/program approval of the Department Annual Report.
Submit the final document to your Dean.
Assessment Reporting
2. Complete an Assessment Reporting Form for each student learning outcome you have
assessed during the past year and submit the form(s) to your Dean and the University
Assessment Committee. See the Program Outcomes Assessment web site at
http://web.mnstate.edu/assess/poa for instructions and forms.
Reporting
3. Progress Reporting: Describe progress made toward department/program goals since your
last plan was submitted. Use Part A of the Department Annual Report Form (form is
required).
4. Data and Information Reporting: Provide the following information, which will be
necessary for the President’s final report to the Chancellor.
A. Provide the number of students (majors and/or minors) who participated in internships
or other professional experiences during the past year (e.g., undergraduate research, student
teaching, clinical experiences, assistantships).
B. Describe any advisory board activity for your department/program.
C. Report on your department’s external activities, including external partnerships,
community service or service learning, and/or community outreach.
D. Describe any curricular revision or innovation undertaken by your department/program
in the past year. In particular, please describe your department’s progress in implementing (a)
high-impact initiatives and/or (b) curriculum revisions or innovations that are designed to
achieve the System’s goal of meeting local and regional workforce needs.
E. For possible inclusion in the Great Grads publication: Identify students who have received
noteworthy jobs or internships. How many of your majors have been accepted to graduate
and professional school programs? Note those students who have received a scholarship or
assistantship.
F. Describe any other significant departmental accomplishments during the past year.
Planning
5. Provide a two-year course offering schedule. Identify and justify staffing needs you anticipate
for FY2014 and FY2015. Please consider the impact of anticipated sabbatical leaves and/or
retirements.
6. Attach a record of departmental approval of all items submitted.
Minnesota State University Moorhead
Assessment Report Cover Sheet
(An electronic version of this form can be accessed at http://web.mnstate.edu/assess)
Note: All non-accredited programs are required to complete this form. Include Assessment
Reporting Forms for each learning outcome assessed.
Academic Program: B.S. Physics
Department: Physics and Astronomy
College: CSNS
Date: 5/02/2013
1. Name(s) of Department Assessment Coordinator and/or Assessment Committee
Members
Richard Lahti, Mathew Craig, Linda Winkler
2. List of All Student Learning Outcomes. (List all outcomes, placing an asterisk (*) by the
outcomes you are assessing this year.)
*1. Demonstrate basic knowledge of experimental and theoretical physics.
2. Apply analytical thinking, mathematical analysis, and computational techniques to the solution
of problems.
3. Reach both quantitative and qualitative conclusions from experimental and observational data.
4. Apply analytical thinking, instrumentation skills, and computer techniques to perform
experiments.
*5. Design and carry out an independent research.
3. Describe how your program has addressed the comments from the Student Learning
Outcomes Assessment Committee during the past two academic years? (If you have made
changes to your plan, file a revised Assessment Plan Cover Sheet and Assessment Planning
Form(s).)
We received no feedback on our 2011 report (because we sent it to Dean Malott and did not CC
[email protected]). We have not formally addressed the concerns of the 2007 report (the last
on record at the assessment website) as of this report. We expect those changes to be submitted
in a modified assessment plan this summer. We are looking at ways to implement more
objective measurements across more levels, rather than relying primarily on the more subjective
senior project rubric that only measures outcomes during the final semester of the senior year.
We are also planning on revising the rubrics (senior project as well as rubrics used in individual
classes) to align exactly with student learning outcomes as was suggested in the feedback from
2007, and simplify the rubric to a 3 point (Meets, Exceeds, or Below Expectations) as Dr.
Anderson has suggested to other departments on several occasions. Finally, we will establish a
regular procedure for the major field test so that we are not comparing apples to oranges.
One reason we have not made these changes yet is that a large bubble of majors (potentially ~24)
is entering its second year in the program. Some feedback on the 2007 report concerned the low
numbers of graduates harming the analysis, but if 24 students per class becomes the new normal,
this will help that concern.
The larger reason we have not modified our plan yet is that we are in the middle of a curricular
reform, starting with freshman curriculum during 2012-2013, and moving on to sophomore
classes in 2013-2014. It makes sense to start the new plan (particularly if it continues with the
assessment of SLO 3 in the sophomore class PHYS 306) once the new 306 format has been
finalized.
4. If you have received an Instructional Improvement Grant in the past two years, identify
the outcomes on which the grant was based and provide a summary here of the results
from your grant.
NA
5. Signatures
Department Chair or Program Director
Dean or Director
Required Attachments:
1. Assessment Reporting Forms
2. Records of department meetings when Assessment Report was discussed and approved.
Minnesota State University Moorhead
Assessment Reporting Form
(An electronic version of this form can be accessed at http://www.mnstate.edu/assess)
Instructions: Include this form for each student learning outcome assessed during the previous
year. Include Assessment Report Cover Sheet.
Academic Program: B.S. Physics
1. Learning outcome assessed (please include the number of the outcome to correspond
with the list on the cover sheet).
1.* Demonstrate basic knowledge of experimental and theoretical physics.
2. Describe assessment measure used for this learning outcome (attach instrument or
rubric)
The primary assessment measure used for SLO #1 is the Major Field Test (MFT) in
physics, data from the May, 2011 exam. Results from this exam (created by Educational
Testing Services), as well as information about interpreting the scores, will be attached.
Eight students took this test.
3. Expected/satisfactory student results (from assessment plan)
Our assessment plan stated "Each student will achieve 80% or better in each subtopic
tested." Since only raw scores and percentile scores are reported, when we write the new
plan this summer, we will rewrite the student results in terms of percentile. As for now,
however, this is the language from the current plan.
4. Actual results from the past year (attach additional information, if necessary)
The results of the 2011 Major Field Test are clearly bimodal. Recognizing that a sample of
8 students is pretty small to draw any grand conclusions, it is clear that the MSUM physics
and Astronomy department turns out some good majors (58th-73rd percentile on either the
total test or a particular subscore) but that a number of our majors failed to perform well
on the 2011 MFT (with 1/2 of students scoring 16th percentile or below overall). In
particular, our students performed very poorly on the Introductory Topics subscore, with 5
of 8 scoring 15th percentile or below). In contrast, only 1 of 8 students scored below the 19th
percentile on the Advanced Topics subscore.
As an institution, MSUM was in the 12th percentile overall, with a 10th percentile
performance in Introductory Topics and a 23rd percentile performance in Advanced
Topics.
5. Describe and explain available trend data for student performance on this outcome over
the past several years. In other words, describe how the results of this measure have
changed over the past several years.
We have noted that students have performed more poorly on the introductory topics
compared to the advanced topics each year we have given the MFT. With such small
numbers of students, any movement has to be taken with a grain of salt. Too make matters
worse, the samples were not equivalent.
Some of the graduating seniors in the 2009 sample represented the best majors we have
had in the program in a decade. The 2011 data set, on the other hand, represents a
combination of some weak seniors as well as some sophomores and juniors. The
underclasspeople are disadvantaged because they have not yet completed all of the
coursework for the degree (as can be illustrated by the fact that one of these students was
the only MSUM student to score higher on his/her introductory topics subscore than the
advanced topics subscore).
That being said. results from the 2011 MFT were weaker than either previous cohort
across every category.
See attached.
6. Proposed action in response to results. (Please note if improvements can be made with
existing department resources. If improvements cannot be made with existing department
resources, consider applying for an Instructional Improvement Grant.)
We encourage physics students to work as paid teaching assistants in classes that they have
already taken. While there are numerous benefits that we hope to reap from this practice
(increased sense of community, an additional person that students can ask questions of to
speed up feedback during lab, etc.) the benefit relevant to this report is that in revisiting
introductory topics during later semesters as a teaching assistant, student mastery of these
topics will hopefully increase. While we had begun using students as TA's by 2011, none of
the students in the 2011 cohort had extensive experience as a TA.
Minnesota State University Moorhead
Assessment Reporting Form
(An electronic version of this form can be accessed at http://www.mnstate.edu/assess)
Instructions: Include this form for each student learning outcome assessed during the previous
year. Include Assessment Report Cover Sheet.
Academic Program: B.S. Physics
1. Learning outcome assessed (please include the number of the outcome to correspond
with the list on the cover sheet).
5.* Design and carry out independent research. (Yes, we are aware this is the same SLO
assessed in our last report in 2011).
2. Describe assessment measure used for this learning outcome (attach instrument or
rubric)
Senior Project Rubric (attached), used to evaluate oral presentations of senior projects.
3. Expected/satisfactory student results (from assessment plan)
All students will receive an Acceptable (3) or higher rating in each category of the rubric.
4. Actual results from the past year (attach additional information, if necessary)
Detailed results are attached. Average scores (across raters) on each of the 5 subscores
ranged from 3.49 to 3.92. These results were slighly lower for 4 of the 5 subscores, but
slightly higher for the subscore Understanding (see attached). The data set includes all
senior projects since the last assessment report, a total of 7 senior projects. Of the 7 senior
projects, 6/7 exceeded level 3 (Acceptable) overall, with the last missing it by 0.07. Of the
subscores used on the senior project rubric, Background, Methods and Understanding met
or exceeded Acceptable for all students, with 6/7 meeting or exceeding Acceptable for
Results and 5/7 meeting or exceeding Acceptable for Conclusion. Their were fewer very
low scores on the recent projects (below 2.5), as the graph attached shows.
5. Describe and explain available trend data for student performance on this outcome over
the past several years. In other words, describe how the results of this measure have
changed over the past several years.
Performance on the senior project continues to improve. While the scores show a slight
decrease, it is the consensus of the department that as the quality of our students and their
projects improve, we have graded more stringently and recalibrated what is currently
"Acceptable" (i.e. projects that scored a 3.0 8 years ago might only score a 1.0 or 2.0
today). Unfortunately, we realize that this approach is not consistent with assessment best
practices as it negates the point of trying to be quantitative about observing change over
time. We have discussed the idea of trying to calibrate our scoring of senior projects to
improve interrater reliability, but have not implemented this yet.
6. Proposed action in response to results. (Please note if improvements can be made with
existing department resources. If improvements cannot be made with existing department
resources, consider applying for an Instructional Improvement Grant.)
We have restructured our senior project and have been implementing a more supportive
structure with more checkpoints, which seems to have improved the quality of the projects
(numbers aside). We will propose a new assessment plan consistent with our new
curriculum in the near future.
Senior'Project'Rubric:'
'
'
'
Comparing'the'rubric'scores'on'the'final'project'from'the'2011'report'to'the'current'(2013)'report.''
Overall'there'was'little'change.''Although'4'of'the'5'scores'decreased'from'the'2011'report'to'the'2013'
report'and'only'1'improved,'there'were'no'sub'2.5'scores'in'among'the'most'recent'senior'projects.'
'
Rubric'
Background'
Methods'
Results'
Conclusion'
Understanding'
'
2011'report'
4.09'
3.59'
4.10'
3.75'
3.86'
2013'report'
3.73'
3.49'
3.82'
3.60'
3.92'
'
'
'
'
Results'of'2011'Major'Field'Test.'
Cohort/Sessio
n
PhysicsMajors
2011
PhysicsMajors
2011
PhysicsMajors
2011
PhysicsMajors
2011
PhysicsMajors
2011
PhysicsMajors
2011
PhysicsMajors
2011
PhysicsMajors
2011
INSTITUTIONALA
MEAN
Total/Raw/
Score
Total/
percentile/
score
Raw/Score,/
introductary/
topics
Percentile/
score,/
introductory/
topics
Raw/Score,/
advanced/
topics
Percentile/
Score,/
advanced/
topics
124
2nd
26
4th
25
3rd
135
16th
34
15th
37
19th
144
38th
34
15th
55
61st
132
11th
26
4th
40
25th
132
11th
21
1st
46
39th
160
73rd
60
73rd
58
67th
157
67th
55
63rd
58
67th
139
27th
52
58th
37
19th
140.4
12th
38.5
10th
44.5
23rd
Historical'Results'of'Major'Field'Test'
[email protected]@
students Total
Pre/2009
10 38%/tile
2009
6 52%/tile
2011
8 12%/tile
Percentile
Intro
30%/tile
37%/tile
10%/tile
Advanced
52.5%/tile
64%/tile
23%/tile '
Information'on'interpreting'the'major'field'test'scores'and'subUscores'can'be'found'at:'
http://www.ets.org/s/mft/pdf/physics4amf.pdf'
'
'
'
Department/Program Annual Report Form Parts A&B
Department/Program: Physics and Astronomy
Part A: Progress Report (based on 2012-2013):
Departmental/Programmatic Goal
Investigate*offering*a*less*technical*version*of*physics*
degree
Build*the*Sustainability*Program*through*increased*
undergraduate*research*opportunities*and*the*continued*
development*and*implementation*of*the*sustainability*
house*project.*
Progress Report (describe status of department/program actions with respect
to each goal)
Action deferred until 2013-14 because of unexpected demand for our
traditional physics curriculum.
Spring and Summer 2012, two students worked with Dr. Shastri on
developing a pulsed field gradient NMR system for fuel-related research. Dr.
Shastri published a paper studying the fundamental science of proton
conducting materials.
WILL PUT UPDATES FROM LINDAAS AND JACOBS HERE
In Fall 2012, Dr. Cabanela re-wrote operating instructions for the telescope.
Continue*developing*a*strong*Astronomy*program*by*
In Spring 2013 Dr. Craig and Dr. Cabanela continued development of a
providing*research*and*outreach*opportunities.
reduction pipeline for observatory data and delivered a course on
astronomical image analysis.
An articulation agreement with NDSU for mechanical engineering was
Expand*and*enhance*the*dual*degree*program
submitted to the Dean’s office in spring 2013.
Dr. Lindaas developed a set of course materials based on the textbook Matter
Implement*first*year*of*curricular*changes.*
and Interactions that integrate computer modeling of physical systems into
lab.
Develop*plan*for*assessing*impact*of*changes*to*curriculum.* A revised assessment plan is being developed.
Develop*detailed*implementation*plan*for*2nd*year*
curriculum,*submit*for*approval*to*college*curriculum*
committee.*
Revisions to many of our courses, including the second year, were submitted
to the college curriculum committee in the fall and received final approval in
Spring 2013. In addition to changes in the course outlines for the 2nd year
curriculum, pre-requisite requirements were updated for all courses and
numerous small errors in course descriptions and outlines were corrected.
rd
Develop*detailed*proposal*for*expanding*lab*offerings*in*3 * Deferred until 2013-14.
and*4th*year.*
Continue*collaboration*with*the*Society*of*Physics*Students*
(SPS)*and*area*schools*to*deliver*outreach*experiences*that*
enhance*retention*and*serve*as*a*catalyst*for*future*
student*recruitment.*
Increase*variety*and*types*of*programming*in*the*
planetarium*and*further*develop*infrastructure*for*small*
telescope*observing*at*the*RSC,*and*increase*participation*
of*majors*in*astronomy*programming.*
Formally*revise*curriculum*for*physics*major*with*
astronomy*emphasis.*
SPS added new outreach events this year (Halloween hands-on night with
planetarium) and continued for a second year outreach events it began last
year (Science Demo Show, hands-on demo room at Ellen Hopkins Family
Fun Night) and participated in several other outreach events. Some SPS
members acted as mentors for the FIRST robotics team at Moorhead High
School.
Several students have been trained to deliver public programs; some of those
students are graduating so a new group of students , freshman and sophomore
majors with an astronomy emphasis is being trained to deliver public
programming and administer the constellation test that is part of the intro
astro course. Several new programs have been purchased/developed for the
planetarium and the planetarium director has trained one faculty member to
assist in delivering shows to school groups.
A curriculum revision was prepared and went through the academic
governance approval process, with final approval in Feb 2013.
Provide the number of students (majors and/or minors) who participated in
internships or other professional experiences during the past year (e.g.,
undergraduate research, student teaching, clinical experiences, assistantships).
A.
Number: ____59_(students are counted once for each activity in which they participate)
List of students/activities:
● Undergraduate research:
○ Hollee Johnson, variable star photometry
○ Uche Ogbonnaya, physics of the high jump
○ Shouvik Bhattacharya, variable star photometry
○ Wes Teo, solar panel efficiency
○ Nick Weir, building and testing an a data acquisition system
○ Ishan Subedi, building and testing a Tesla coil
○ Nathan Walker, crystal radio lab for physics of music class
○ Andrew Larson, crystal radio lab for physics of music class
○ Daniel Houk, pulsed field gradient NMR probe construction
○ Taffeny Gladney, building a filter for an ECG device
○ Pragalv Karki, building a helmholtz coil
● Participation in outreach (NOTE: Outreach activities will be described in more detail
below):
○ Hands-on Light and Sound at Ellen Hopkins Elementary School: Abel
Tilahun, Hollee Johnson, Beau Scheving, Laura Herzog, Tyler Lane, Johnson
Anya, Elizabeth Overboe, Wyatt Davis, Aaron Peterson
○ Lead mentors for the Moorhead High School FIRST robotics team: LeAnn
Washenberger, Anthony Woltman. Additional student mentors: Tom
Brennan, Sri Kadimatsky, James Diem mentors.
○ STEM Marketplace for Kids: KG, Loza, TJ Rydeen, Brett Brunsvold
○ Expanding Your Horizons: Loza, Susan, Laura Herzog
● Student assistantships:
○ Wesley Teo, Nick Weir, Hollee Johnson, Shouvik Bhattacharya, Meredith
McLinn, Ashan Perera, TJ Rydeen, Aaron Peterson, Scott Froehle, Andrew
Larson, Pragalv Karki, Sarah Berg, Christine M, Saralynn Dobler, Tyler
Lane, Laura Herzog, Nathan Heidt, Iwnetim Abate
● Student presentations at conferences:
○ Hollee Johnson and Meredith McLinn, 6th Annual Midwest Conference for
Undergraduate Women in Physics, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign,
January 2013
○ Iwnetim Abate, National Collegiate Research Conference, Harvard
University, January 2013; Awarded “People’s Choice Award” for poster
presentation
○ Shouvik Bhattacharya, American Physical Society March Meeting,
Baltimore, MD, March 2013
○ Iwnetim Abate, NCUR Conference, University of Wisconsin, La Crosse,
April 2013
○ Jordan Pienneke and Hollee Johnson, State SAC held at MSU-Mankato, Feb
2013
○ Andrew Larson, Pragalv Karki attended the Σ Π Σ Quadrennial Congress
○ In addition, 17 students presented 12 projects at the Student Academic
Conference at MSUM.
B. Describe any advisory board activity for your department/program.
We are in the early stages of forming an advisory board for the Academic Sustainability Program.
C. Report on your department’s external activities, including external
partnerships, community service or service learning, and/or community
outreach
External professional activities
(community service listed separately)
Faculty Member
Organization/activity
Additional description
Dr. Linda Winkler
American Journal of Physics
Reviewer
Dr. Linda Winkler
Advisory Board for American
Journal of Physics
Serving three year term
Dr. Linda Winkler
Co-author on publication in the
Journal of Geophysical Research
"Sounding of the
plasmasphere by Midcontinent
Magnetoseismic Chair
(McMAC)
magnetometers",
accepted April, 2013
Dr. Linda Winkler
Co-presenter of poster at American
Geophysical Union Fall Meeting
"Global-mode Pc 5
pulsations: Ground
distribution and
correlation with
energetic particles in the
inner magnetosphere",
NH51A-1798, Dec.
2012
Dr. Linda Winkler
Lead author of poster at American
Association of Physics Teachers
Beyond the First Year Conference
"Developing
Professionalism in a
Sophomore-level
Experimental Physics
Class", July 2012
Dr. Steve Lindaas
American Association of Physics
Teachers
Past-Chair, Committee
on Apparatus
Dr. Steve Lindaas
American Association of Physics
Teachers
Member and Chair,
Committee for Science
Education for Public
Dr. Steve Lindaas
Semi-Annual Meetings American
Association of Physics Teachers,
Summer 2011 and January 2012
Organized and presided
at sessions. Presented
workshop.
Dr. Steve Lindaas
Southwest Center for
Microsystems Education and North
Dakota State College of Science
Creating workshop
material for selected
microelectromechanical
system (MEMS) devices
Dr. Steve Lindaas
Sustainability across the
curriculum, 2nd annual meeting
Part of faculty team
attending MnSCU
workshop
Dr. Steve Lindaas
PKAL/ Sustainability Improves
Student Learning (SISL) in STEM
Member of collaboration
Dr. Juan Cabanela
National Science Foundation
Reviewer for the
BIGDATA Proposals
related to Astronomy.
Dave Weinrich
International Planetarium Society
Past President
Dr. Richard Lahti
Fergus Falls District Curriculum
Committee (ongoing)
Advise on k-12
curriculum
Dr. Ananda Shastri
Journal of the Electrochemical
Society
Reviewer
Dr. Ananda Shastri
Iowa State University, Washington
University in St. Louis, Chalmers
University of Technology
Scientific collaboration
Dr. Ananda Shastri
Solid State Ionics
Published paper
Dr. Ananda Shastri
Minnesota American Association
of Physics Teachers
Spring conference
presenter
Dr. John Buncher
American Journal of Physics
Reviewer
Dr. John Buncher
Astrophysics & Space Science
Published paper
Dr. John Buncher
Purdue University
Scientific Collaboration
Sara Schultz
Proposal to the Fargo-Moorhead
Area Foundation to fund purchase
of planetarium show One World,
One Sky
Written in consultation
with Dave Weinrich
Sara Schultz
Proposal to Honda Foundation to
fund development of new
planetarium programming for
public schools
Written in collaboration
with the Astronomical
Society of the Pacific,
Moorhead School
District, Dave Weinrich
and Matt Craig.
Community service and outreach
The department has committed over 1200 person-hours to outreach over the last year
Activity
Description
People involved
Time
commitment
(person-hours)
Science Olympiad 2-1-2013
Set up and judged the Science Olympiad
event “Boomilever”
Matt Craig and 2
students.
4 hours
Science Olympiad, 2-1-2013
Set up and judged “Gravity Vehicle”
Olympiad event.
Matt Craig and 2
students.
4 hours
Science Olympiad, 2-1-2013
Set up and judge “Circuit Lab” Olympiad
event
Dr. Craig and one
student.
4 hours
Science Olympiad, 2-1-2013
Set up and judge “Technical Problem
Solving” Olympiad event
Dr. Craig and one
student.
4 hours
Science Olympiad, 2-1-2013
Set up and judged the Science Olympiad
event “Material Science”
Richard Lahti
4 hours
Expanding Your Horizons, April 6
2013
Water rockets, Physics of Music
Drs. Lindaas and
Shastri
4 hours
FIRST Robotics Competition (FRC)
Mentored/Coached a high school robotics
team for FIRST (For Inspiration and
Recognition of Science and Technology)
competition
Dr Lindaas, Dr.
Craig and 4
students
670 hours
BEST Robotics Competition
Mentored a middle school robotics team for
the BEST (Boosting Engineering, Science
and Technology) competition
Dr Lindaas, and 1
student
80 hours
Discovery Middle School, Fargo
Delivered hands-on presentation to
Dr. Craig
2 hours
complement planetarium visits
Physics Demo Show
Free public show attended by over 150
members of the community.
10 student
40 hours
members of the
Society of Physics
Students, advised
by all faculty
Science Room for Ellen Hopkins
Elementary School Family Fun
Night
Provided free, hands-on science activities for
over 250 hundred children during the 2.5
hour event.
6 students and Dr. 20 hours
Craig
La Sistema Solar (May 2012)
A talk on the solar system aimed at 3rd
graders in Ellen Hopkins Spanish Immersion.
Dr. Juan Cabanela 2 hours
Physics Demos for 2nd and 3rd grade
(April 2013)
Worked with several students to do
interactive activities with several 2nd and 3rd
grade classes at Ellen Hopkins
Dr. Juan
70 hours
Cabanela,
Dr. Steve Lindaas,
Dr. Matt Craig, 9
students
Regional Science Fair
Judged middle and high school science fair
projects.
Dr. Richard Lahti
4 hours
College for Kids
Will teach “Science of Music” and “Science
of Food” at 2013 College for Kids
Dr. Richard Lahti
20 hours
Toothpick Bridge
Organized the annual Toothpick Bridge
competition in collaboration with the FM
Engineering Club
Drs. Craig and
Shastri, two
students
8 hours
STEM Marketplace
Use a thermos construction project to teach
engineering design to 5th-6th grade students.
Drs. Richard Lahti 40 hours
and Steve Lindaas
and 4 students
Halloween Planetarium and Physics
Demos
Hands-on science activities offered in
conjunction with a special Halloween
planetarium show.
Society of Physics 20 hours
Students
STEM Camp
Camp co-director, instructor of robotics
course
Steve Lindaas
80 hours
Horizon Middle School
Physics activities for family fun night
Dr. Ananda
Shastri, Dr. Steve
Lindaas, Nick
Weir, Wes Teo,
Tyler Lane, Brett
Brunsvold
24 hours
College For Kids
Assistant Director
Sara Schultz
20 hours
College For Kids
Developing and teaching LEGO Robotics
Summer 2013
Sara Schultz &
Juan Cabanela
40 hours
Wisconsin Iowa Minnesota
Hosted annual meeting
Dave Weinrich,
20 hours
Planetarium Society (WIMPS)
Sara Schultz
Astronomy Lesson at Cleveland
Elementary School (Fergus Falls)
Presented Stellarium and Celestia to a 3rd
grade class and provided professional
development to 1 teacher.
Dr. Richard Lahti
4 hours
www.ContactingTheCongress.org
over 5000 unique visitors a day seeking
congressional contact information
Dr. Juan Cabanela 10 hours
Solar Eclipse and Venus Transit
Public Observing
Public outreach events held in conjunction
with the solar eclipse in May 2012 and the
transit of Venus in June 2012
Dr. Juan
Cabanela, Dave
Weinrich
Media interviews
A total of 11 interviews with local TV and
Newspapers during the last year related to
the Supermoon, Fireball over the Red River
Valley, Transit of Venus, Curiosity landing
on Mars, close call by Asteroid 2012 DA14,
and Russian Meteor impact.
Dr. Juan Cabanela 5 hours
40 hours
D. Describe any curricular revision or innovation undertaken by your
department/program in the past year. In particular, please describe your
department’s progress in implementing (a) high-impact initiatives and/or (b)
curriculum revisions or innovations that are designed to achieve the System’s
goal of meeting local and regional workforce needs.
The department’s efforts in implementing high-impact initiatives were focused on
Initiative 4, Enhancing Course Pedagogy. The changes made in calculus-based
introductory courses PHYS 200 and 201 were motivated both by weaknesses we
perceived in our program and a desire to build skills useful to potential employers of our
students.
One important change was to review the prerequisite/corequisite requirements for
all of the courses in our department. It had been several years since the last such review
and at the time of the last review the Records Office discouraged the use of restrictive
prerequisites or corequisites. All requirements for our courses are now restrictive. We
anticipate this will reduce the DFW rate of our courses by ensuring that students only
enroll when their preparation is adequate. While DFW rates for our courses have never
been exceptionally high there are at least two courses for majors taught in Spring 2013 in
which the DFW rate will be higher than usual in part because several students enrolled
for the courses without having the necessary prerequisites.
The introductory calculus-based physics sequence, PHYS 200-201 has been
revised to include a significant amount of computer-based modeling of physical systems
using the language vpython. The change was made for several reasons:
○ Our upper division students have demonstrated limited understanding of
the process of modeling physical systems.
○ Graduates of our program--those looking for work and those who go on to
graduate school--have indicated they need stronger programming skills.
○ At a meeting for physics department chairs in summer 2012, several chairs
from Ph.D.-granting institutions indicated that graduate students entering
their program had no programming experience.
○ Practical programming experience is a highly desirable skill for future
employers.
E. For possible inclusion in the Great Grads publication: Identify students who
have received noteworthy jobs or internships. How many of your majors have
been accepted to graduate and professional school programs? Note those
students who have received a scholarship or assistantship.
Hollee Johnson (University of North Dakota, Masters program, teaching
assistantship, full support)
● Nick Weir (University of Massachusetts Lowell, Ph.D. program, teaching
assistantship, full support)
● Shouvik Bhattacharya (internship at the American Association of Variable
Star Observers in Boston for Summer 2013)
●
F. Describe any other significant departmental accomplishments during the past
year.
The department has taken on significant new responsibilities and dealt with a tremendous
increase in the number of majors enrolled in our program. The department is now the
administrative home for both the Planetarium, including scheduling, and College for Kids.
The department has taken on an extensive supporting role in launching a FIRST robotics
team at Moorhead High School and continues to work with teachers at Horizon Middle
School to support their FIRST Lego League robotics team.
Administering the Planetarium and College for Kids has added to the workload for both
our office manager and our lab technician. The office manager is the primary contact for
planetarium reservations, handles the budget and billing for the planetarium, coordinates
College for Kids registrations and administration of short term contracts and
reimbursements. The lab technician is deeply involved in supporting the College for Kids
courses offered through our department by assisting with setup and purchasing. Several
of the faculty in the department are teaching College for Kids courses this summer, and
one member of the department is currently assistant director of College for Kids. That
same faculty member has also started delivering some public school shows in the
planetarium.
Robotics mentoring involved two faculty members working closely with students and
administrators from Moorhead High School, volunteer mentors from John Deere, and
MSUM students to coach the robotics team. The time commitment was extraordinary but
the department views it as an investment that will pay off in future enrollment while
providing networking opportunities for our faculty and students with local engineers.
Those relationships will help us better understand the local job market for our majors and,
we hope, lead to internship opportunities in the future.
We are currently working with Horizon Middle School to revitalize their LEGO robotics
team. In the past our majors have provided extensive support to the team and we plan to
continue that relationship in the coming academic year. A successful team at the middle
school level feeds into the high school team, which in turn feeds into the science
programs at MSUM.
The number of incoming majors this past year was huge: 30 new entering freshman or
transfer physics majors. If enrollment continues at that level we will be one of the largest
undergraduate-only departments in the country. The increase in enrollment has caused
challenges for the department. It has meant overload teaching duties and will cause a
strain on department resources next year: more space, lab equipment and personnel than
we currently have.
Our$two(year$course$plan$assumes$that$the$position$currently$held$by$Dennis$Jacobs,$
who$is$entering$his$last$year$of$phased$retirement,$will$be$filled$and$that$we$will$be$
able$to$hire$at$least$an$additional$0.5$FTE$fixed$term$or$adjunct.$The$department$
recognizes$the$potential$for$joint$appointments,$strengthening$interdisciplinary$
collaboration$while$simultaneously$addressing$instructor$load$needs.$
$
Known%staffing%changes:%
• Dr.$Dennis$Jacobs$will$transition$from$phased$retirement$at$0.5$FTE$to$full$
retirement$at$the$end$of$Fall$2013.$
• No$sabbatical$leaves$or$other$leaves$of$absence$are$anticipated.$
$
Staffing%needs%
During$the$recently$concluded$academic$year$the$department$was$asked$to$prepare$
a$course$plan$for$AY$2013(2014$that$assumed$only$sabbatical$replacement$for$one$
person$and$no$replacement$for$Dr.$Jacobs$in$the$spring.$That$exercise$was$useful$in$
helping$us$articulate$what$the$impact$would$be$of$not$filling$the$position$currently$
held$by$Dr.$Jacobs.$They$include$all$of$these:$
$
• Reduction$of$the$capacity$in$our$algebra(based$introductory$physics$
sequence$to$a$capacity$we$have$exceeded$every$year$since$2007.$$
• Elimination$of$Analog$Electronics$as$a$course$offered$every$year.$It$is$
required$or$is$a$restricted$elective$for$several$of$our$areas$of$emphasis$and$
for$the$major.$Due$to$equipment$and$space$restrictions$the$enrollment$is$
limited$and$hence$offering$a$larger$section$less$often$is$not$a$viable$option.$
• Reduction$in$an$additional$core$upper$division$course.$$These$courses$are$
offered$on$a$regular$bi(annual$schedule$and$so$a$reduction$will$impact$the$
Astronomy$emphasis,$Medical$Physics$emphasis$or$the$major.$
$
Current%practices%that%minimize%staffing%requirements%
Following$our$last$external$review$in$2005$the$department$made$significant$changes$
to$our$emphases$to$allow$students$maximum$flexibility$while$maintaining$a$realistic$
level$of$staffing.$Our$program$is$modeled$on$that$of$the$University$of$Wisconsin$
LaCrosse,$one$of$the$most$successful$undergraduate(only$physics$departments$in$
the$country.$These$practices$place$us$in$the$minority$of$physics$departments$
nationwide;$most$choose$to$offer$a$very$traditional$two(course$sequence$in$every$
core$subject$and$are$unable$to$offer$any$emphases.$Our$emphasis$options$have$been$
crucial,$we$believe,$in$building$interest$in$our$programs.$We$currently:$
• Require$all$students$take$a$common$core$of$classes$regardless$of$emphasis.$
The$freshman$and$sophomore$courses$are$offered$every$year;$most$of$the$
upper$division$courses$are$offered$only$every$other$year.$Impact:%By$
requiring$a$common$core$we$ensure$those$courses$have$reasonably$high$
enrollments$while$offering$a$diverse$range$of$emphasis$options.$
• Offer$the$courses$required$only$for$an$emphasis$every$other$year.$Impact:$A$
predictable$bi(annual$schedule$makes$advising$considerably$easier;$in$the$
past$these$courses$were$offered$on$an$as(needed$basis.$By$offering$the$
•
•
$
$
courses$every$other$year$we$ensure$higher$enrollment$than$we$would$
otherwise$be$able$to$achieve.$
Offer$core$upper(division$courses$every$other$year,$with$one$exception:$
junior(level$Mechanics$is$offered$every$year.$Mechanics$uses$almost$the$full$
range$of$mathematical$techniques$students$will$need$in$their$upper$division$
course$work.$Impact:%By$choosing$to$offer$this$course$every$year$we$are$able$
to$identify$at(risk$students$before$they$take$other$upper$division$courses$and$
intervene$with$them$if$necessary.$Offering$the$other$courses$every$other$year$
is$a$compromise$between$staffing$level$and$student$needs.$Those$students$
who$go$on$to$graduate$school$would$clearly$benefit$from$having$these$
courses$every$year$but$until$recently$we$have$not$had$sufficient$number$of$
majors$to$justify$more$frequent$offerings.$
Ensure$all$elective$courses$are$required$for$one$or$more$of$our$emphases.$Put$
differently,$each$emphasis$has$a$small$number$of$courses$that$are$required$
only$for$that$emphasis.$These$courses$are$also$available$to$students$who$have$
no$emphasis$to$fulfill$their$elective$requirement$in$the$major.$Impact:%
Enrollment$in$courses$required$for$an$emphasis$almost$always$includes$
students$who$have$decided$to$not$pursue$that$emphasis,$which$ensures$good$
enrollment$for$those$courses$even$when$the$number$of$students$in$the$
emphasis$happens$to$be$low.$
Two'Year'Course'Schedule'(FY14,'FY15)
Department'Name:'Physics'and'Astronomy'
Rubric'&'Number
AST 102/L
AST 104/L
AST 190
AST 361
AST 362
AST 365
AST 366
ENG 243
PHYS 105
PHYS 140
PHYS 160/L
PHYS 161/L
PHYS 200/L
PHYS 201/L
PHYS 202
PHYS 300
PHYS 302
PHYS 305
PHYS 306
PHYS 312
PHYS 315
PHYS 318
PHYS 322
PHYS 325
PHYS 330
PHYS 342
PHYS 350
PHYS 370
PHYS 399
PHYS 430
PHYS 455
PHYS 469
PSCI 170
PSCI 378
Course'Title
Solar system Astronomy
Stellar Astronomy
Special projects in Astronomy
Stellar Astronomy
Galactic and Extragalactic Astronomy
Cosmology
Observational Astronomy
Statics
Physics of Music
Introduction to Sustainability
College Physics I and Lab
College Physics II and Lab
General Physics I and Lab
General Physics II and Lab
Introduction to 20th Century Physics
Physics Research
Energy/Sustain
Experimental Physics I
Experimental Physics II
Electronics
Seminar
Biophysics and Medical Imaging
Elementary Modern Physics
Optics
Intermediate Mechanics
Introduction to Research
Computational Methods for Physical Science
Electromagnetic Theory
Thermodynamics
Quantum Mechanics
Senior Project
Internship
Physical Science I
Energy and the Environment
Fall'2013
X
Spring'2014 Fall'2014
X
X
Spring'2015 As'Needed
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
InstrucKons:'
1)$Please$list$ALL$departmental$courses.$
2)$Place$an$X$in$the$semester/s$you$plan$to$offer$the$
course.$
$
COURSE
F2013
Projected
Worst
-19
-13
Deficit
S2014
Projected
Worst
-35
-12
Actual
-19
Actual
-23
Deficit is the difference between total offered credits in
the column and the tenured/tenure-track load available
to the department. All reassigned time is explicitly
accounted for as part of the offered credits.
AST 102/L
AST 104/L
AST 190
AST 365
AST 380
AST 366
AST 362
AST 361
PHYS 140
PHYS 105
PHYS 160/L
Solar system Astronomy
AST$102/L
Stellar Astronomy
AST$104/L
Special projects in Astronomy
AST$190
Cosmology
AST$365
Celestial Mechanics (dropped)
AST$380
Observational Astronomy
AST$366
Galactic and Extragalactic Astronomy
AST$362
Stellar Astronomy
AST$361
Introduction to Sustainability
PHYS$140
Physics of Music
PHYS$105
College Physics I and Lab
PHYS$160/L
Projected
12
PHYS 160Trailer
College Physics I and Lab
PHYS 161/L College Physics II and Lab
PHYS$160Trailer
PHYS$161/L
PHYS 200/L General Physics I and Lab
PHYS$200/L
PHYS 201/L
PHYS 202
PHYS 300
PHYS 302
PHYS 305
PHYS 306
PHYS 312
General Physics II and Lab
PHYS$201/L
Introduction to 20th Century Physics
PHYS$202
Physics Research
PHYS$300
Energy/Sustain
PHYS$302
Experimental Physics I
PHYS$305
Experimental Physics II
PHYS$306
Electronics
PHYS$312
PHYS 315
PHYS 318
PHYS 322
PHYS 325
PHYS 330
PHYS 342
Seminar
Biophysics and Medical Imaging
Elementary Modern Physics
Optics
Intermediate Mechanics
Introduction to Research
PHYS 350
Computational Methods for Physical
PHYS$350
Science
PHYS 370
Electromagnetic Theory
PHYS$370
PHYS 399
PHYS 430
Thermodynamics
Quantum Mechanics
PHYS$399
PHYS$430
PHYS$315
PHYS$318
PHYS$322
PHYS$325
PHYS$330
PHYS$342
Worst
12
Actual
Projected
12
12
3
3
3
3
3
3
15
12
15
9
9
4
0
3
5
4
0
3
5
4
12
3
3
3
4
4
4
0
3
1
1
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
3
0
9
9
9
0
0
5
5
Redution$from$4$labs$to$3IINOT$REALISTIC;$the$last$time$there$was$only$demand$for$3$lab$
sections$was$prior$to$Fall$2007.$The$last$time$there$was$demond$for$only$FOUR$full$lab$
sections$of$24$was$Fall$2008,$so$it$is$not$clear$that$a$reduction$from$5$labs$to$4$is$even$
realistic.$
No$trailer$section;$this$has$worked$in$the$past.
12 Reduction$from$3$labs$to$2:$NOT$REALISTICIIlowest$demand$since$Fall$2007$is$64$students,$
which$cannot$be$accommodated$in$2$labs
This$level$of$staffing$has$been$adequate$by$allowing$labs$to$be$overenrolled$and$in$one$case$
creatively$utilizing$two$labs$and$multiple$TAs.$$Fall$2012,$saw$demand$by$physics$majors$
explode$which$necessitated$adding$a$third$lab$section.$Whether$demand$in$Fall$2013$falls$
9 This$level$of$staffing$has$been$stable$by$utilizing$overenrollment$in$lab$sections$as$needed$
3
5
3
3
Actual
12
6
12
9
Worst
3
$
5
We$had$planned$to$skip$offering$this$one$year$in$favor$of$offering$PHYS$350$every$year.
1
3
3
1
3
3
1
3
3
Had$been$offered$every$other$year$in$the$past;$see$notes$on$PHYS$455$(Senior$Project)$for$
more$detail.$Paying$for$this$by$not$giving$load$for$Senior$Project$in$fall.
4
0
4 We$had$hoped$to$switch$toffering$this$every$year$(up$form$every$other$year),$covering$most$
of$the$cost$by$offering$electronics$every$other$year$instead$of$every$year.
4
0
4 PREVENTS$STUDENTS$FROM$GRADUATINGIIthis$was$last$offered$in$Spring$2012$and$is$on$
schedule$again$in$Spring$2014
COURSE
F2013
Projected
Worst
-19
-13
Deficit
S2014
Projected
Worst
-35
-12
Actual
-19
Actual
-23
Deficit is the difference between total offered credits in
the column and the tenured/tenure-track load available
to the department. All reassigned time is explicitly
accounted for as part of the offered credits.
PHYS$455
0
0
0
PHYS 469 Internship
PSCI 378
Energy and the Environment
PSCI 170
Physical Science I
HON XXX
ENG 243
Statics
Sust dir
Observatory dir
Chair
PHYS$469
PSCI$378
PSCI$170
HON$XXX
ENG$243
Sust$dir
Observatory$dir
Chair
0
3
0
0
3
0
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
Load
Staffing
Actual$tenure(d)$faculty
Richard
Phased$ret
Fixed$(sabb)
Fixed$(addl)
Overload
Total
Load
79
Staffing
Actual$tenure(d)$faculty48
Richard
Phased$ret
12
Fixed$(sabb)
12
Fixed$(addl)
6
Overload
0
Total
78
PHYS 455
Senior Project
1 Giving$load$for$senior$project$began$roughly$two$years$ago;$though$it$was$2$credits$in$Spring$
2013,$it$has$been$scaled$back$to$0$credits$in$the$fall$and$1$credit$in$the$spring.$For$fall,$we$
will$offer$PHYS$342,$Intro$to$Research,$as$a$way$of$formalizing$it$as$a$preIseniorIproject$
course,$and$part$of$the$load$for$that$will$be$organizing$senior$project$proposals.
1
1
3
3
4
0
6
6
0
0
3
3
4
0
0
6
0
0
3
3
4
73
79
89
66
77
48
48
12
12
0
0
72
12
12
6
0
78
48
6
0
12
12
0
78
48
6
0
12
0
0
66
48
6
0
12
12
0
78
Substantial$reduction$of$number$of$LASC10$offerings
6
Assume$that$Statics$will$NOT$be$offered$in$the$2013I14
3
3
4
Physics'&'Astronomy'
Department'Meeting'
4630613'
'
Present:!!Matt!Craig,!Ananda!Shastri,!Richard!Lahti,!Steve!Lindaas,!Juan!Cabanela,!Sara!Schultz,!
Joy!Lindell!
!
Absent:!!Dave!Weinrich,!John!Buncher!!
!
Sabbatical:!Linda!Winkler!
!
!
!
1.) Department'Meeting'Minutes:'
• 4-23-13
o Steve moved to approve
o Ananda 2nd motion
o All approved
•
2-26-13
o Steve moved to approve
o Ananda 2nd motion
o All approved
2.) Assessment:
• Richard will update assessment plan—due Friday
• We generate our data from: major field test, CSEM, FCI
o Our report will be based on old goals
o 2007 comments we got back talk about too much emphasis on what happens
senior year and low number of majors
o would like multiple areas to test to make our numbers more conclusive
• Discussion
• Rubric didn’t align well w/learning outcomes
• Therefore, a 3 point rubric (above, at, below standards) was suggested
• In Summary:
o Department is ok with outcomes
o Department is ok with 3 point rubric
• Possible to make major field test a part of senior project course or quantum or E&M
• Need to talk about expanding labs in 3rd & 4th year
3.)
•
•
•
Work Plan:
Reviewed Part B Goals
Most items done
Joy will add submitted items to #2
4.) Miscellaneous:
• SPS election results:
o Tyler Lane—President
o Dana Koczur—VP
o Kyle Salk—Treasurer
o Tony Woltman—Historian
• Phys305
o For fall—enrollment currently full at 12
o 5 needing overrides
o possible 24 enrollment
o Matt will send email to student listserv
o Steve will ask students in Phys201 about interest/intent
• Michelle coming to department meeting next week to discuss/vote on chair for
next year
Joy Lindell
Recorder
Approved 5-7-13
Physics'&'Astronomy'
Department'Meeting'
567612'
'
Present:!!Matt!Craig,!Ananda!Shastri,!Richard!Lahti,!Steve!Lindaas,!!John!Buncher,!Juan!
Cabanela,!Sara!Schultz,!Dana!Carlson,!Joy!Lindell!
!
Guest:!Dean!Michelle!Malott!
!
Absent:!!Dave!Weinrich!
!
Sabbatical:!Linda!Winkler!
!
!
!
1.) Minutes:'
• Steve moved to approve with few corrections
• John 2nd
• All in favor
2.) Dean Malott:
• Reminded us to abide by department policies and procedures when recommending a
new/interim department chair
• College meeting on Thursday. The intention is to get everyone together from new
college realignment
3.) New Chair:
• Discussion
o Options:
! Matt resign
! Steve chair 3 years
! Matt return as faculty
! Steve may resign after next year and department may vote again
! This scenario creates more flexibility
! Matt will email Linda to explain scenario and ask if she’d like to vote
! Linda should email vote to Joy
! Joy will tabulate votes and email results to Michelle
! Final recommendation goes to Michelle accompanied by Matt’s
resignation memo
4.)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Assessment Report:
Part of annual reporting process but is separate report from department report
Draft was sent out over weekend
Each year supposed to change what data you report on
Recommendation: Phys305/306—choose a common question to collect data from
Possible to identify a couple questions from exams to “measure” data
When we reuse plan we need to identify specific questions, specific rubric and specific
data and then be sure to report on it
May try to meet again to further discuss assessment plan
5.) Department Report:
• Reporting on goals we listed last year
• Joy will pull time to get together to meet on Thursday or Friday of this week to discuss
6.)
•
•
•
•
Miscellaneous:
Ishan should dismantle senior project
Remind seniors to clean up HA302
Remember to vote for new chair
Graduation:
o Matt, Ananda, Steve, Richard attending
o 12:30 luncheon potluck
Joy Lindell
Recorder