Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EPPOG Spring Meeting16 April 2010
2
Items to Report
• Statistics and developments• Pre- and post-MC results from 2009• Synopsis of changes for 2010• Comparative survey results, 2009-2010• Observations• Future plans
EPPOG Spring Meeting16 April 2010
3
2010 (2009) Statistics
• 22 (23) U.S. institutes • 2 Masterclasses with no videoconference• 3 participated with CERN rather than FNAL
• 2 (2) institute(s) from outside U.S.• Wien continued. • UCL dropped.• Added Shizuoka, Japan.
• 7 (7) videoconferences at Fermilab• Each had 2-5 (3-4) participating
institutes.• >500 (>350) students
EPPOG Spring Meeting16 April 2010
4
2010 Overall Developments
• Prescribed preparation plan narrowed to 3 hrs.• All groups did DELPHI masterclass this year.• Migration from wiki to “Masterclass Library” completed
• Library: http://quarknet.us/library/index.php/Masterclass_Library
• Second year of rigorous evaluation• Student survey and pre/intermediate/post-test• Added teacher survey.• M.J. Young & Associates with QuarkNet fellows and participating
teachers
• Variations for larger numbers of students• Large MC with onsite conference (not video)• Baltimore, Brookhaven, and Notre Dame solutions
EPPOG Spring Meeting16 April 2010
5
Changes to Classroom Prep Plan
• All teachers prep students.• Learner objectives• Reduced time• Hands-on emphasis, 3 activities
• Rolling with Rutherford• Quark Workbench• Top quark mass
EPPOG Spring Meeting16 April 2010
6
Additional Changes to Model
• Orientation for all U.S. institutes• All teachers asked to participate.• Masterclass day
• Demo: cloud chamber or e/m apparatus• Lunch with physicists• MC cheat sheet
• Videoconference• Removed “normal event” presentation from videoconference.• Put “questionable events” on Google docs with data.• Recruited younger physicists from CMS and DZero as
moderators at Fermilab• Moved moderation to near Fermilab Remote Operations Center.
EPPOG Spring Meeting16 April 2010
7
Participation Developments• Masterclass at Fermilab model
• For large groups• Divided into n teams with n mentors• “Non-videocon” held onsite• This year at Fermilab, Mayaguez, Irvine
• Alternative models• Baltimore: large MC, 2 videoconference
groups• Notre Dame: very large MC, select students
in videoconference, use of Web 2.0 tools• Brookhaven, Mayaguez: more than one MC
• Addition of Shizuoka, Japan• 6:00 a.m. JST videoconference • 10 students• Language challenge
EPPOG Spring Meeting16 April 2010
2009 Pre-Post Quiz – Overall Result
Based on results from 10 teachers with 90 students
Pre-test: given before clasroom prep
Mid-test: given between classroom prep and MC
Post-test: given within week after MC
8
EPPOG Spring Meeting16 April 2010
2009 Pre-Post Quiz – Partial Item Analysis
Based on results from 3 teachers with 43 students and large effect sizes compared to others (used to highlight relative effectiveness of questions)
9
EPPOG Spring Meeting16 April 2010
Surveys – Course Preparation
10
EPPOG Spring Meeting16 April 2010
Surveys – Attitudes
11
EPPOG Spring Meeting16 April 2010
Surveys – Program Aspects
12
EPPOG Spring Meeting16 April 2010
Surveys – MC Effect on Interest in Physics
13
EPPOG Spring Meeting16 April 2010
Observations 2010• Classroom preparation materials
• Gave teachers hands-on resources.• Level of use improved.• Pre/intermediate results show gains.
• Meeting goals• Students learning particle physics• Exercises still popular• Tours and lectures also did well in 2010 (improved?).
• Videoconference from FNAL• Less successful than 2010• New moderators did well; gave good feedback.• Balance opportunity for discourse with structure.
• Large group adaptations• “MC@FNAL” model was disappointing in 2010.• Other adaptations seemed to work better.
14
EPPOG Spring Meeting16 April 2010
Plans
• Growth• Did not seek growth in U.S.
numbers in 2010. • Grew anyway.• Must plan 2011 with growth in mind.
• Increase internationalization• Find new ways to integrate with
Europe.• Follow up with Japan.
• Follow-on• Videoconferences with students• Use of social media
15
