Department of Physical Sciences
School of Science and Technology
B.S. Physics
CIP Code 40.0801
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
1
Student-Learning or Service Outcomes
General objectives. Generally, the program is designed to do one of the following:
•
•
•
•
Provide preparation sufficient for entry into a technical position in industry
Provide preparation sufficient for entry into graduate programs in physics
Provide preparation for the discipline portion of teacher education for Science education
Provide support for other baccalaureate programs which need a strong background in physics
From consideration of these specific paths, a set of general objectives can be identified which are fairly
typical of virtually any degree program in the University. The student should be able to:
•
•
•
•
Critically evaluate new unfamiliar material and draw conclusions
Orally present technical information with appropriate conclusions and recommendations
Present in a variety of writing styles technical information and recommendations
Work collaboratively with a group to attack an issue
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
2
2.- Specific content driven objectives.
•
In addition to these more general objectives, a set of basic content-related objectives have been identified
and are listed in the table that follows. The table also gives the course(s) in which the student may be
expected to encounter the specific objectives and the area of the Major Field Achievement Test which
addresses the objective. The parenthetical numbers in the MFAT column indicate the relative abundance of
questions in each area.
•
The set of content objectives listed for the program are those typically expected of students planning to
attend graduate school. Though they align fairly closely with the MFAT exam, the driving force for
determining the objectives is the informed view of the physics faculty as to the subjects that are most
essential. In the list we include an indication of the level of knowledge expected to be reached following
Bloom’s taxonomy:
•
•
•
•
•
•
K: Knowledge
C: Comprehension
Ap: Application
An: Analysis
S: Synthesis
E: Evaluation
Program Quality Improvement Report
2009-2010
3
Specific Program Objectives
Classical Mechanics
scalars and vectors
An
mass and weight
Ap
velocity
Ap
acceleration
Ap
force
Ap
linear and angular momenturm
Ap
work
An
energy
An
power and frames of reference
Ap
Newton's Laws of Motion
An
conservation of energy and momenturm
An
special relativity
time dilation
length contraction
addition of velocities
Doppler Effect
E=mc2
Heat and Thermodynamics
concepts of heat
temperature
entropy
heat transfer
thermodynamic processes and cycles
Quantum Mechanics
experimental evidence of quantization:
black body radiation
Millikan oil drop experiment
heat capacity of solids
photoelectric effect
Compton Effect
Frank-Hertz experiment
Stern-Gerlach experiment, Zeeman effect
theoretical development of quantum mechanics:
wave function and its interpretation
Schroedinger equation
Momentum in Q.M.
Harmonic oscillator in Q.M.
particle in a box
hydrogen atom
symmetries
angular momentum in Q.M.
Electromagnetism
Coulomb's Law
Gauss' Law
Ampere's Law
Maxwell's equations
concepts of electric and magnetic fields and potentials
properties of electromagnetic waves
circuit analysis
Kirchhoff's rules
Thevenin's theorem
Norton's theorem
Light and Optics
Ray optics
Reflection / Mirrors
Refraction / Lenses
Dispersion
Interference / diffraction / gratings
An
An
An
An
An
An
An
An
An
An
An
An
An
Light (4403)
Electricity and Magnetism (4113)
Electrical Measurement and Electronics (3024)
MFAT Section
Heat and theromodynamics (3403)
Mechanics (3303)
Introduction to quatum mechanics (3043)
Modern Physics I LAB (3011)
Modern Physics I (3003)
Physics II (1215 or 2025)
Course(s) that cover this material:
Physics I (1115 or 2015)
General Group
Specific Objective
Section I (19%)
Section I (19%)
Section I (19%)
Section I (19%)
Section I (19%)
Section I (19%)
Section I (19%)
Section I (19%)
Section I (19%)
Section I (19%)
Section I (19%)
S
S
An
An
An
An
An
Section I (19%)
Section I (19%)
Section I (19%)
Section I (19%)
Section I (19%)
Ap
Ap
Ap
Ap
Ap
An
An
An
S
S
Ap
Ap
Ap
Ap
Ap
Ap
Ap
K
K
C
Ap
Ap
Ap
Ap
Section III (18 %)
Section III (18 %)
Section III (18 %)
Section III (18 %)
Section III (18 %)
Section IV (23%)
Section IV (23%)
Section IV (23%)
Section IV (23%)
Section IV (23%)
Section IV (23%)
Section IV (23%)
S
S
Ap
Ap
Ap
Ap
Ap
Ap
An
An
Section IV (23%)
Section IV (23%)
Section IV (23%)
Section IV (23%)
Section IV (23%)
Section IV (23%)
Section IV (23%)
Section IV (23%)
Ap
C
Ap
Ap
Ap
Ap
An
An
An
An
An
An
Ap
Ap
Ap
Ap
Ap
Ap
Section II (17%)
Section II (17%)
Section II (17%)
Section II (17%)
Section II (17%)
Section II (17%)
An
An
An
Section II (17%)
Section II (17%)
Section II (17%)
S
An
An
An
S
Program Quality Improvement Report
2009-2010
4
Alignment of Outcomes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A.
Alignment with Cameron University’s Mission Statement:
The program objectives and learning outcomes align with the Cameron University’s mission statement as follows:
The physics program at Cameron University is designed to provide physics majors an environment of academic freedom that
will guarantee the dissemination of knowledge and the appreciation of physics and in solving real world application
problems.
There is a strong positive alignment of the learning outcomes with all three component missions (University, School of
Science and Technology and Department of Physical Sciences). This alignment optimizes the goals from the mission
statement which are in accord with our program objectives. The program objectives and learning outcomes are designed to
provide physics majors with a strong foundation of physics for acquiring knowledge, skills, and attitudes for a lifetime of
learning.
Students who graduate with a physics degree can pursue a plan of graduate study or pursue advanced studies in a health
career or obtain a career in industry requiring general laboratory skills and working with chemicals. These highly skilled
graduates will be able to promote our physics program and eventually attract more qualified students to our program.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
5
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
B.
Alignment with School of Science and Technology’s Mission Statement:
The learning outcomes and program objectives provide students with a strong knowledge base and quantitative skills. Students
are able to explore physics, gaining useful skills as well as an appreciation for the subject.
Some of our students participate in internships in industry and graduate schools where they can apply their physics skills to real
world situations. Department graduates are equipped to pursue a career in physics or graduate studies.
C.
Alignment with Department of Physical Sciences Mission Statement:
The department objectives and learning outcomes are strongly aligned with the department mission statement. The content has
been carefully selected to provide both majors and non-majors with the physics knowledge and skills needed to excel in their
desired academic program and to gain an appreciation for the power and versatility of physics. In addition, the physics program
provided by the department gives majors a rich physics knowledge base that adequately prepares them for graduate work or a
career in teaching or industry.
D.
Alignment with Cameron University’s Strategic Plan
The program objectives and learning outcomes relate to Cameron University’s strategic plan as follows:
The program objectives and learning outcomes are designed to provide our students with the tools necessary for them to
successfully compete in the job market both today and into the future. This is achieved by promoting a familiarity with present
technologies, the ability to communicate physics effectively, and an overall solid foundation in physics. In the past students also
had the opportunity to interact with the community via internships with local companies. The interaction with the community
is a key point in the Cameron Strategic Plan.
•
Program Quality Improvement Report
2009-2010
6
Measures of Learning and
Service Outcomes
• MFAT results
• Embedded questions in final exams
of physics courses.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
7
Report on actions from the three previously
chosen priority outcomes
• Physics I: It is the course where we have the best
assessment measures. The new data for this
report includes the fall of 09, and the summer of
2010. Some of the areas of concern have been
improved and we are going to focus on other areas
starting in the spring (pending the results from the
fall of 2010).
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
8
•
Physics II: We are glad that in four areas the average of the class has stayed above
the initial comparison values; The performance in problems about electric field
and charge stays weak in spite of efforts to improve. We are now going to apply a
more distributed analysis of how the students attack those problems. In the action
plan we address this concern.
•
Quantum Mechanics: Base on the initial results our students will need to improve
in the area of angular momentum, while keeping their good performance in the
other four areas assessed.
Program Quality Improvement Report
2009-2010
9
Student-learning or service outcome and measurements
(Use a separate chart for each priority outcome)
MEASUREMENTS OF STUDENT LEARNING OR SERVICE OUTCOME
PROGRAM
OUTCOME
CURRICULUM
AREA OR TARGET
AUDIENCE
Example:
IT 4444, IT 4342
Example:
Upper division
math courses
Measurements
List measurements
and identify each
as direct or
indirect*
Methods used to
determine validity
of measurement
instruments
Methods used
to determine
reliability of
measurements
Schedule for
measurements
Example:
Norm-referenced
scores
Example:
Inter-rater
reliability
Example:
Annually , Fall
Semester
Example:
Locally developed
test (direct)
Example:
alumni, employer,
and student
surveys (indirect)
Data is shown in the next few slides trying to adhere to the chart shown
as an example.( A slightly different version is used).
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
10
Display of assessment data
•
•
•
MFAT results from May 2010
This year we have three graduates that took the MFAT in physics. For comparison we also present the data from the last two
years:
By Student Data
May-08
Student
Student 1
By Class Data
Introductory
Advanced
physics
physics
Total
Sub
Sub
Score %
Score 1
% Score 2
145 40
36
20
55
May-09
Student
Student 1
Student 2
Student 3*
Student 4
Total
Score %
126
1
141 30
124
1
139 25
Introductory
physics
Sub
Score 1
21
44
37
39
Average
132.5 14
35.25
%
60
%
1
40
25
25
Advanced
physics
Sub
Score 2
34
37
25
40
%
20
20
1
25
23
34
16.5
Topics
Classical Mechanics and Relativity
Electromagnetism
Optics/Waves and Thermodynamics
Quantum Mechanics and Atomic Physics
Special Topics
Mean
Percent
correct
36
17
50
63
72
%
5
1
85
90
60
Topics
Classical Mechanics and Relativity
Electromagnetism
Optics/Waves and Thermodynamics
Quantum Mechanics and Atomic Physics
Special Topics
Mean
Percent
correct
23
44
25
31
25
%
1
40
1
10
1
Topics
Classical Mechanics and Relativity
Electromagnetism
Optics/Waves and Thermodynamics
Quantum Mechanics and Atomic Physics
Special Topics
Mean
Percent
correct
36
36
47
38
36
%
5
15
75
15
40
* natural science major, concentration in physics
May-10
Student
Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Average
Total
Score %
135 15
129
5
165 80
143
33
Introductory
physics
Sub
Score 1
42
31
52
41.7
%
35
10
55
Advanced
physics
Sub
Score 2
28
28
76
%
5
5
90
33
44
33.333333
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
11
Embedded questions in Optics
Spring 10
4403
8
students
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Diffraction Resolution
Polarization
Interference
Double slits
Total internal reflection
Photon energy
Blackbody Radiation
Mean
•
P+
42
45
26
53
42
36
82
87.5
62.5
75.0
25.0
100.0
62.5
75.0
46.6
69.6
In the spring of 2010 we gathered data from embedded questions in the course Light and Optics for the
first time. Trends will be developed in the future based on this initial set of scores. As in the case of
Quantum Mechanics we can compare these results to national averages for similar problems in GRE
exams.
•
Program Quality Improvement Report
2009-2010
12
Embedded questions in physics II
GRE
Problem
MFT1
17
MFT2
10
MFT3
9
MFT4
12
177
12
students
P+
Temperature and kinetic theory
Electric field / charge
DC circuits
Induction / Faraday’s law
Light: Geometric optics
Fall07
1215
9
Fall 08
1215
12
Spring 09
1215
29
Fall 09
1215
10
Spring 10
1215
27
Spring 09
2025
6
46
66.6
66.7
48.3
90.0
70.4
50.0
55
37.2
0.0
6.9
20.0
18.5
33.3
50
75.0
58.3
65.5
10.0
55.6
66.7
27
44.0
33.3
31.0
30.0
14.8
33.3
40
53.4
41.7
65.5
30.0
70.4
100.0
Program Quality Improvement Report
2009-2010
13
•
•
•
•
Embedded questions in final exams of physics courses.
As we have been doing in the last few years we include certain standard questions in the final exam of our physics courses.
These questions are in the style of the MFAT. These are selected questions to keep track of the progress in key areas of the
physics program. In the tables below, we show the number of students that took the exam, the semester when the test was
administered, the topic that the question covered and a comparison with published results in similar GRE questions. The
published results are shown as P+ in the tables and as a green line in the figures.
The trend figures that accompany the tables indicate the progress that the results have followed. The x-axis corresponds to
the time when the test was administered. In the case of Physics I and II, we distinguish between the algebra based classes
(blue lines and marks) and the calculus based (larger red marks and lines).
All the data shown contain new results from the past academic year. We also have new data from Introduction to Quantum
Mechanics and Light and Optics. The data from these two new courses are initial data that will be used in the future for
trend analysis.
Embedded questions in physics I
GRE Problem
177
4
177
23
177
50
177
26
9677
30
number of students
P+
Momentum and Energy Conservation in collisions.
62
Circular Motion and Addition of vectors.
54
Sound Waves, Resonance
50
Conservation of Mechanical Energy and Rotational Motion.
30
Hydrostatic Pressure, density.
28
Sp 08 Sum 08 Fall 08 Sp 09 Sum 09 Fall 09 Sum 10
1115
1115
1115
1115
1115
1115
1115
32
15
36
22
16
29
22
68.8
12.5
62.5
53.1
43.8
60
20
53.33
60
40
80.6
30.6
66.7
36.1
30.6
68.0
14.0
68.0
45.0
32.0
Program Quality Improvement Report
2009-2010
75.0
12.5
68.8
25.0
43.8
62.1
27.6
79.3
41.4
32.1
81.8
54.5
86.4
54.5
59.1
Fall 08
2015
9
88.9
11.1
55.6
88.9
55.6
14
Embedded questions in Modern Physics I
Fall 08
3003
9
Fall 09
3003
9
P+
53
52
49
60
52
77.8
66.7
88.9
77.8
22.2
100.0
66.7
100.0
100.0
44.4
53.2
66.7
82.2
students
Relativity: Velocity addition
Line spectra: Hydrogen
Blackbody
Photoelectric Effect
X-ray production
Mean
Program Quality Improvement Report
2009-2010
15
Embedded questions in Quantum Mechanics
Spring 10
3043
students
4
Eigenvalues
Normalization
Linear Momentum
Angular Momentum
Hermitian Operators
Mean
63
50
82
75
100
100
25
75
75.0
In the case of the data from quantum
mechanics we only have one initial data
point, so no trend analysis is possible yet,
however the results can be compared to
similar national results of similar questions
in GRE exams. Judging by the results it can
be concluded that we need to improve in
the areas of Angular momentum and
Hermitian operators.
Program Quality Improvement Report
2009-2010
16
Analysis of assessment data
1. Please observe the multi year trend chart
attached to each of the previous tables. Notice
that we can only have multi-year trends when
there are multi-year data. Outcomes that have
only one data point show the data only on a
table.
2. Comparison are made with similar national
responses from standard tests.
3. When possible, comparisons are also made with
previous Cameron students data.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
17
Action plan for Student-Learning or Service
Outcomes
- In Physics I several initial areas that were of our concern are now consistently performing
very well, so a new set of areas for focusing will be defined pending data from the fall 2010
semester.
- Knowledge of angular momentum that represented one of the weak areas in previous
assessment of physics I has improved, but the results from quantum mechanics indicate that
the weakness has to be addressed again in its quantum mechanical counterpart. Modern
Physics and Classical Mechanics emphasis in this area could help resolve this issue.
- The laboratory of Physics II should receive the same update of Physics I and new experiments
or additional activities for calculus based physics students should be implemented. We will
judge the results by looking at their performance in embedded questions in the final exams.
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
18
Published information on graduates
Academic Year 09-10
Entered Graduate School
Working In Discipline
Other
Summer 2009
Fall 2009
1
Spring 2010
3
Total
4
Program Quality Improvement Report 2009-2010
19