Physics
RESULTS OF ASSESSMENT
2001-2002 (submitted 10/02/02)
The Department of Physics is currently continuing its long term assessment
plan. In past years, multiple efforts had been established, attempting to assess
how well our program serves our general student population as well as our
majors.
Our program assessment is carried out on two different levels. One analysis
has been focused on our majors (physics, applied physics, physics teaching, and
physical science composite teaching) and minors (physics and physics teaching)
and the graduates from these programs. We are assessing the degree to which
these students’ needs are met by our program, and how our program enables them
once they have graduated.
On another level, we focus more closely on the learning that takes place in
individual courses. This assessment considers not only the students who graduate
with a degree from our department, but also on students who are enrolled in
physics coursework to supplement a major outside of our department and/or to
fulfill general education coursework. These types of analyses take place in
selected courses, focusing on specific learning objectives. It is our hope that
the assessment which takes place on this level will be informative to all
instructors in the department and to all courses in which we are involved.
This report is organized according to these two different levels of
assessment. Under each level are items which describe specific assessment
efforts and their results.
I. The following assessments have been or are currently being
implemented in order to determine the effectiveness of our program in providing
the education and training necessary for our majors’ and minors’
post-graduation success in employment, graduate school, and other endeavors.
A. Graduate exit survey
1. Our exit survey (of graduates in a physics, applied physics,
physics teaching, or physical science composite teaching major) has been
expanded and is included as a required part of graduation sign-off. (These
exit-surveys are filled out anonymously and filed with the department
secretary to ensure student anonymity.) Surveys ask students a variety of
qualitatively answered questions which aim to highlight student impressions of
the strengths and weaknesses of the departments ability and dedication towards
helping students succeed both during and after their college careers.
2. The results of this instrument are not conclusive, but
encouraging. Since we graduate a relatively small number of individuals each
year, it would not be fair to state that the exit surveys currently provide a
reliable reading. We will continue to accumulate these data in subsequent
years. In the meantime, it should be noted that exit surveys are
overwhelmingly positive, all stating that the accessibility of and interaction
with faculty members was plentiful and beneficial. Graduates also consistently
listed numerous course and research experiences which they found favorable.
The laboratory and study facilities were also noted in most responses.
Negative comments were less frequent and not consistent between individuals.
Still, this assessment effort remains in progress as we continue to collect
more data.
B. Graduate Record Exam
1. We have continued to collect data on physics majors’ performance
on the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) and are collecting data on both physics GPA
and overall GPA to look for correlations between local performance and
performance on the nationally standardized GRE.
2. We currently have data on approximately 50% of those students who
have taken the GRE during the past decade and we are continuing to collect
more data. We hesitate to make too many conclusions based on this data, due to
the fact that students who take the GRE have the option to not report their
scores to our department. In the future, we will make an effort to encourage
students to report scores to the department by assuring them that scores will
not be associated with names when the scores are reported.
C. Curriculum analysis
1. A thorough analysis of our physics curriculum was completed as
part of the semester conversion process. We continually monitor our curriculum
to see if slight corrections are needed.
2. The department has a curriculum committee which is responsible for
such monitoring, and it has recommended small revisions to the curriculum and
individual courses over the past year. In addition, this committee has
developed and maintains a set of expanded course descriptions and topics on
file in the department. A review of these is conducted every two years, and
will be done again this academic year (2002-03). A thorough review of the
curriculum is planned every five years; the next iteration of this is planned
for the 2003-2004 academic year.
D. Grade and artifact analysis
1. The department analyzes student grades and artifacts of student
performance (written assignments, lab reports, senior presentation, etc.) to
help identify weaknesses in the curriculum. This level of analysis is aimed
specifically at courses and activities which are intended for our majors.
2. At this point, insufficient time has elapsed to collect enough
data to be meaningful, thus data collection is still in progress.
II. This second level of assessment is aimed at specific learning
objectives in specific classes. As a department with a commitment to and
research interest in physics education, the following list of undertakings is
meant to be useful in specific contexts and courses, as well as to other courses
and instructors, both at this institution and beyond.
A. The Force Concept Inventory
1. The Force Concept Inventory (FCI) was integrated into regular
coursework beginning with a General Physics I course in the fall of
2000. This tool is used to measure conceptual understanding of Newtonian
mechanics. It is administered both at the beginning and the end of the
semester in order to gauge changes in students’ conceptions.
2. Previous use of the FCI has enabled us to expand its use for the
2002-03 year, so that student assessment using this measure is becoming more
widespread. This looks to be useful for individual instructors, as well as for
helping to evaluate programs such as our lower division laboratory program and
its effectiveness in promoting the learning of conceptual physics.
B. Nature of science understandings
1. Previous faculty research in the physics department focused on
learners’ understanding of the "nature of science" – the
foundations of scientific knowledge and how such knowledge is obtained.
2. The above research will be used as new curriculum are considered
by our curriculum committee. The curriculum committee has been charged with
looking at some of our general education courses (e.g., PHSX 1010) and
potential modifications to standard syllabi. In addition, the curriculum
committee is considering the addition of a recommended course that physics
teaching majors would take in order to better understand the nature of
science and its connection to science literacy.
III. Future assessment efforts
Our future efforts will continue in the directions outlined above and
expand upon these as time allows. This will consist of continual analysis of
the curriculum (see item I.C.2) as well as an ongoing effort in educational
research to evaluate specific learning objectives in specific courses.
(Towards this end, the department supports faculty whose research objectives
are in physics and science education.) We are confident that our current
direction will assist us in maintaining high standards in the teaching and
learning which takes place in our department.
Mission Statement
/ Student Learning Outcomes
/ Curriculum Grid / Assessment Plan / Contact
Person
|
