Physics
RESULTS OF ASSESSMENT
2003-2004 (submitted 10/19/04)
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 courses to supplement a major outside of
our department and/or to fulfill a general education requirement. These types of
analyses take place in selected courses, focusing on specific learning
objectives. The assessment that takes place on this level will be informative to
all instructors in the department and to all courses in which we are involved.
Additionally, all assessment efforts (even
informal ones that are discussed in department hallways, rather than in
assessment reports) lead to new questions. To demonstrate and document that the
department continues to actively think about revise its assessment efforts, we
should also list the goals of future assessment. By documenting these in this
report it is expected that a forward-moving progression of assessment will
continue in future years.
This report is organized according to these
three different sections, representing the two levels of assessment described
above and the possibilities for future assessment. Under each section heading
are items which describe specific assessment efforts.
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
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.
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
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.
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, and
because of the small number of graduates from our department. We will
continue to 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
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.
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 years. In
addition, this committee has developed and maintains a set of expanded
course descriptions and topics on file in the department. A thorough review
of the curriculum is planned every five years, and this academic year
represents a “due date” for the latest iteration of this review. The
curriculum committee has been charged with looking particularly closely at
our lower division laboratory curricula, our Physics Seminar (PHSX 4990)
course, and our Physics Teaching Major. This review will include a careful
and deliberate evaluation (and possible revision) of department goals, and
will be informed by the newly released project report of the National Task
Force on Undergraduate Physics, Strategic Programs for Innovations in
Undergraduate Physics. Particular attention will be given to the 21
institutions highlighted in the report for their innovative physics
programs.
The last academic year was the first
iteration of lower division laboratory courses being offered at the Davis
Campus. These labs are under continual review and revision, due to the use
of new equipment and pedagogy at the new campus. Plans to evaluate the
Davis campus lab program and integrate it with the Ogden campus lab program
are in development, and this effort has been charged to the department’s
Lower Division Laboratory Committee.
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. Assessment of understandings of
conceptual physics
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. Previous use of the FCI enabled us to expand its use for the
2002-03 year, when it was used in both General Physics I and
Physics for Scientists and Engineers I. This use of the inventory
continues.
Additionally, multiple instruments
assessing a wide variety of physics concepts have been added to the
ChiTester database, so that many modes of assessment can be used by many
different courses. The full use and implication of these measures has yet
to be achieved, but this semester in the abovementioned courses,
measurements in addition to the FCI are being used. This will help us to
better understand not only our students’ conceptions, but also the nature of
the measures themselves.
B. Nature of Science Understandings
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.
This research will inform our curriculum committee of potential
modifications to standard syllabi and departmental goals.
More recently, research regarding
understandings of science has been applied to undergraduate researchers in
our department. Findings from these studies have resulted in grant
proposals by several faculty that will try to better address students
understanding of the nature of science while they are engaged in
undergraduate research endeavors.
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 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.
More specifically, the department’s
assessment committee aims to address the following in future years:
q
A comparison of our Physics
Teaching Major program to that of other institutions and to national
accreditation standards, as outlined by the National Science Teachers
Association (NSTA).
q
A continual expansion and
utilization of our assessment tools, as described above. Now that these are
readily available on ChiTester, department members will be encouraged to use
these and help contribute to departmental assessment efforts.
Further inquiry into the
effectiveness of laboratory at all levels of instruction (lower division and
upper division courses) and in all situations (as a part of regular
coursework, as a part of independent study for credit, and as a part of
undergraduate research experiences).
Mission Statement
/ Student Learning Outcomes
/ Curriculum Grid / Assessment Plan / Contact
Person
| 
