Physics

Bachelor of Science in Physics (62/63)

Contact Person:
Dr. Andre Rollefson
Department of Physics
(501) 569-8963
aarollefson@ualr.edu

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK Plan No. 62/63
Assessment Progress Report Form (Calendar Year 2004)

I. USING ASSESSMENT FOR PROGRAM BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENT

We focused on the following activities:

The force concept inventory, a survey of fundamental concepts essential to mechanics, used nationwide.  We use it regularly in first-year physics as an annual check on how students are mastering these concepts. At the conclusion of the Fall 2004 offering of Phys 2321 (Calculus-Based Introductory Physics I) the full 30-question Force Concept Inventory was administered to the class.  A total of 22 students completed the FCI.  No pre-test was administered at the beginning of the semester.  Prior experience indicates that our calculus-based students consistently score 33%, or 10 questions right out of 30, when given as a pre-test.  For the Fall 2004, FCI given only as a post-test, students scored 53%, or 16 questions right out of 30. This result is indicative of a significant gain in student performance.

Assessment using Seminar.  There were two students who took Phys 4190 Seminar during 2004.  Both students demonstrated the ability to present scientific material in a logical fashion but as mentioned in the approach section our new evaluation instrument did not provide us with specific enough information to use for feedback for program improvement.  We are currently redesigning the procedures for Seminar to provide more detailed feedback.

Survey of alumni. We are surveying our physics alumni as part of a larger project. Some of the questions ask whether the courses we teach have been useful to them (although national surveys are more useful because they include more students…and our students move into jobs all over the country).  The newer part of the survey probes into the question of why they decided to become physics majors in the first place.  It is part of a major effort to increase the number of physics majors. As mentioned in the approach section, our database of alumni contained many incorrect addresses so we are working to improve the database and resend the survey as well as participating in the CSAM sponsored telephone survey. The surveys that have been returned indicate general satisfaction with the program. There were some suggestions that an even greater emphasis be placed on computer programming (see the following section).

Input from the Physics Advisory Council. One of the recommendations of the Advisory Council was to add a formal course in a computer language to the degree requirements since one of the most important skills for a physics graduate to bring to a prospective employer is the ability to use computers for problem solving.  Details of this requirement are currently being worked out.

The force concept inventory. We simply look for improvement in how our students do relative to the national norm (It is a widely-used test nationally).

We will wait until a consistent pattern with enough students develops to draw conclusions.  At that point, our information should be detailed enough to permit identification of problem areas so that feedback can occur.

II. FACULTY AND STAKE HOLDER INVOLVEMENT

We have formed a Physics Advisory Council consisting of physics graduates, both UALR and non-UALR graduates (see attachment D for a list of Council members). As can be seen from the list, the Council includes representatives from employers of physics graduates who can help us to assess whether our program is meeting the needs of prospective employers. The Council also includes undergraduate and graduate student representatives.  The faculty of the Physics and Astronomy Department meet several times a year with the Council to discuss a variety of issues related to the program and suggestions for improvement. (see the following section for a specific recommendation). 

III. APPROACH

Our core strategy to assess our physics degree programs is to determine how well our majors understand key concepts in physics and mathematics, the concepts that all physics graduates should have mastered, in the ideal world.  Our Learning Objectives represent those key principles and concepts. (Attachment A) 

The force concept inventory, a survey of fundamental concepts essential to mechanics, used nationwide.  We use it regularly in first-year physics as an annual check on how students are mastering these concepts. We have also administered the test to graduating seniors to assess whether they demonstrate improvement in the areas covered by this inventory.

Homework Assignment Services.  Last year’s assessment report dealt in some detail with the UT Homework Service which was used to evaluate our students mastery of the Learning Objectives in comparison to students nationwide in a section of Physics 2321.  In 2004 we switched to the use of a different service called WebAssign but thus far have not been able to obtain the data for comparison with other students. We are currently exploring whether to switch to another service.

Mathematical Skills Survey.  Last year we introduced a new survey given at the start of all of the introductory physics labs to determine the mathematical skill levels of entering students. (Attachment B).  We will then look for correlations between student performance on the pre-survey and their performance in the labs and the classes.  We have obtained the results of the presurvey (Attachment C) and are in the process of analyzing the data for correlations with classroom and lab performance.

Use of Seminar as Assessment.  We continue to use Phys 4190, Seminar as a holistic measure of graduating seniors.  Students give two twenty-minute talks which are evaluated by the entire faculty. We developed a new rubric for scoring Seminar in an attempt to provide better feedback for assessment purposes but it still did not provide us with sufficiently detailed information.  We are in the process of restructuring Seminar to include a written component.  As part of that written component, the student would have to identify which of the Learning Objectives are addressed in  his or her presentation.

Use of Undergraduate Research as Assessment.  The other holistic assessment approach we have used and will continue to use is undergraduate research.  Since most students give one of their seminars on their undergraduate research the addition of a written component to seminar will permit better evaluation of Undergraduate Research as well.

Use of the Major Field Test in Physics.  As the number of upper level students in Physics has increased significantly in the last two years (twenty upper level physics majors), it becomes feasible to use the Major Field Test in Physics provided by the Educational Testing Service.  Since we should have more than the minimum of five students required, ETS will provide Assessment Indicators indicating how the group performed in each of five major areas of physics.

I.          Classical Kinematics and Dynamics

II.         Electricity and Magnetism

III.       Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics

IV.       Quantum Mechanics

V.        Special Topics

The four specific areas listed match our senior level courses as well as our Learning Objectives and should provide a good comparison of our students with a national database. We did not have any graduating seniors in 2004 so the test will be given for the first time in 2005.

Survey of Alumni.  Although we obtained some results from our Alumni Survey described in last year’s report, we discovered that our database of mailing addresses for our alumni was very poor.  We got a large number of returned envelopes because of incorrect addresses.  We are currently working with the Development Office to obtain an improved database to redo the survey and also to participate in the CSAM sponsored phone assessment.

Physics Advisory Council.  We have also formed a Physics Advisory Council, which will provide us with much better stakeholder involvement as described in the next section.

Our major effort continues to be evaluation of the Learning Objectives and the above activities are all related to that.  Next year we hope to have much more data as a result of the changes in methods of assessment as described above. 

The major changes in the plan involve the changes in methods of measurements to include tests of graduating seniors.  The major criticism of our plan last year was the failure to include assessment measures beyond the introductory courses.

Attachment A             

Click here to see the Learning Objectives and Codes

Attachment B

Click here to see the Physics Pre-Student Survey

Attachment C

Click here to see Tally for Laboratory Pre-Survey

Attachment D

Click here to see the Physics Advisory Council Members