Date:
July 29, 2005
To:
Linda Beath
Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies
From:
M. Meghan Miller
Dean, College of the Sciences
Subject:
2004-2005 Program review, Physics
You have asked me to provide commendations and recommendations as part of the
program review process for Physics. These observations are based primarily on the self-study
and the very thorough external evaluator’s report, as well as on the context of the college and
resource issues in the college.
The department prepared an excellent self-study and carefully planned the campus visit
of the external reviewer. Dr. Ken Krane did an unusually thorough job of gathering and
analyzing information, and focusing recommendations. His review was both thorough and long,
however, containing many recommendations for the department, college and university. As a
result, there is much to summarize.
In addition, I note that the department has already responded to some of the issues that
were raised, and I attach a summary of some of their progress.
PROCESS:
Dr. Krane made several good comments about the process – that structured meetings with
the client departments are useful when a program has such an important service role. He
suggested that the reviewer’s time with students should not conflict with classes. Finally, syllabi
and course descriptions should be included in the self-study.
COMMENDATIONS:
Among its strengths, the Physics Department has done a good job of providing a rigorous
and challenging physics curriculum that is consonant with national norms but has unique features
that also recommend it; the number of baccalaureate degrees awarded are commendable in
comparison to like departments. The department has commanded the respect of its client
departments. It maintains an enviable record of undergraduate research projects and an awardwinning chapter of the Society of Physics Students. The department has maintained its
undergraduate study room in a building where space is at a premium.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The external review identifies many issues that jeopardize the contributions of this
program, which I broadly take up in the categories of staffing and department culture, facilities,
curriculum, and outreach.
 Personnel and department culture. The external reviewer makes the case for adding at
least two tenure track lines in the Physics Department. There are several aspects of the
department that fall to the few tenure track members – including supervision of
undergraduate research as well as advising and the development of the teacher scholar
professoriate. There are linked issues of morale within the department. In its current
configuration, non-tenure track instruction is about 40% of the faculty effort (and even
more of the instruction) within the department.

Facilities: The reviewer makes the case for a better facility – space that better supports
the integration of scholarship into instruction and instruction into scholarship. This
review would support the priority of completing the science facility cluster. Nonetheless,
the introductory labs are considered relatively well equipped.
Dr. Krane notes that the Physics lecture hall could be used more efficiently. Doug Ryder
has reviewed this suggestion. Installation of a sloped floor would gain approximately 5
seats, and thus it does not appear that it would be cost effective.
Finally, he notes that the lecture demonstration storage facility is not currently being put
to good use. This work should be assigned by the chair to the instructional technician
and coordinated with the faculty members who use this equipment in class.

Curriculum and course delivery: Dr. Krane had several recommendations regarding
curriculum in general and course delivery in particular.
o The capacity of the astronomy gen ed classes could be increased by rethinking use
of the observatory.
o The capacity of the 181 sequence needs to be expanded by taking full advantage
of any latent capacity in lecture sections and integrating undergraduate TAs into
the lab curriculum. Some of the work of implementing the lab curriculum and
training undergraduate TAs might also be assigned to the instructional technician.
o Faculty members were asked to develop innovative pedagogies including use of
peer instruction, a just-in-time project, and other techniques. Some support for
peer tutoring is available through student services and has often been targeted at
large and challenging general education courses. There have also been university
supported faculty development opportunities offered that support integration of
multiple modes of instruction delivery. Project Kaleidoscope also offers both
broad and topical workshops on innovation in science instruction. Systematic
efforts towards faculty development with respect to instruction innovation is
needed.
o The reviewer identified the particular needs of Physics majors in intermediate
level mathematics. The Mathematics department currently has an NSF project
that integrates mathematics instruction into science content courses, and this
project includes Physics participation. The faculty may want to meet with Stuart
Boersma and explore ideas about how to address this need without creating an
additional course, or whether an additional course requirement is sensible.
o The reviewer comments on scheduling conflicts with Mathematics and Chemistry.
This creates problems across the four natural science departments and is the result
of the elimination of interdepartmental room use agreements for the large
classrooms used by general education and service courses. This problem needs to
be addressed at the level of Academic Affairs and the Registrar’s office and
implemented in the classroom scheduling software.

Outreach and recruiting: Several of the reviewer’s comments relate to outreach and
recruiting.
o The reviewer accurately notes that the department level web sites need much
work and that the university template is not well suited to the needs of academic
departments. There are two real issues here: content and delivery. Organizing
the content, advising materials, projects and images to build an appropriate web
page is the work of the department. These materials then need to be incorporated
into the web page. This is technical and time consuming work. The college
needs to find a way to provide technical support for these pages.
o Dr. Krane notes that the latent capacity in the Physics major could support as
much as doubling the number of majors. He suggests a targeted recruiting plan
aimed at the community colleges to build this enrollment.
SUMMARY:
In summary, the external review accurately summarizes the consequence of the lack of
institutional support for this program; at the same time it acknowledges that without a sufficient
base of tenure track faculty, a clearly articulated set of goals and a vital departmental culture that
supports reaching those goals is also lacking The Department of Physics has performed well,
very well in light if the minimal resource base that sustains it. It has a credible major program
that needs attention to some areas, but is considered both strong and successful. The department
plays an essential and respected role in general education and service courses. Despite its
strengths, departmental level efforts are needed; these include innovation in instruction,
economies in program delivery, better allocation of staff effort, and faculty professional
development. Moving this program forward will require both directed work at the department
level and institutional support to put this program on a better resource footing.
I forward the key recommendations of the external reviewer as the most critical areas in which to
make substantive progress to support this strong, but under-supported program.
C:
David Soltz, Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs
Bruce Palmquist, Chair, Physics