The Masterclass in the U.S. 2009 Ken Cecire Hampton University/QuarkNet [email protected].
-
Upload
karen-norton -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of The Masterclass in the U.S. 2009 Ken Cecire Hampton University/QuarkNet [email protected].
The Masterclass in the U.S. 2009
Ken Cecire
Hampton University/QuarkNet
2
EPPOG Spring Meeting
3 June 2009
Items to Report
• U.S. Masterclass statistics• Developments in the previous year• Evaluation and preliminary results• Observations• Future plans
3
EPPOG Spring Meeting
3 June 2009
2009 Statistics• 23 (21) U.S. institutes (not double-counting)
• Brookhaven doubled: LEP/CERN and LEP/FNAL• Hampton doubled: LEP/FNAL and LHC/FNAL• 1 (Riverside) had videoconference with CERN only.• 1 (Houston) had no videoconference.
• 2 institutes from Europe• Wien: LEP with FNAL• London: LHC with FNAL
• Net 25 (23) institutes participated in the U.S. Masterclass in some way.
• 7 videoconferences at Fermilab• All had 3-4 participating institutes.• >350 students
4
EPPOG Spring Meeting
3 June 2009
Statistics
U.S. Masterclass Institute Participationsorted by location, dataset, videoconference
US-LEP-FNAL (14)US-LHC-FNAL (6)US-LEP-CERN (2)US-LEP-none (1)EUR-LEP-FNAL (1)EUR-LHC-FNAL (1)
5
EPPOG Spring Meeting
3 June 2009
Overall Developments
• Prescribed preparation plan• “Experienced” institutes given option to do Minerva
(RAL-LHC)• Migration from wiki to “Masterclass Library”
• Wiki: http://cosm.hamptonu.edu/vlhc• Library: http://quarknet.us/library/index.php/Masterclass_Library
• New student interfaces on Masterclass Library • More thorough evaluation
• Larger number of participants• Survey and pre/intermediate/post-test• M.J. Young & Associates with QuarkNet fellows and participating
teachers
• Videoconference plan rewrite
EPPOG Spring Meeting
3 June 2009
7
EPPOG Spring Meeting
3 June 2009
Two Developments in Detail
• Prescribed preparation plan:• Based on 5 class hours of preparation• Multiplicity of options• Hands-on work (e.g., cloud chamber)• Taxonomy and some history of standard
model
• Videoconference plan rewrite:• Intro• Student presentations
• “Typical” event • “Discrepant” event
• Mentor presentations• Discuss data.• Conclude.
8
EPPOG Spring Meeting
3 June 2009
Two More Developments• Masterclass at Fermilab (Feb 2009):
• 30 students from schools near Lab• Divided into 3 teams with 3 mentors• DELPHI data• “Non-videocon” held in Wilson Hall• Follow U.S. Masterclass model• Evaluated by QuarkNet fellow for effect on
student understanding of nature of science
• Presentation in Singapore (Apr 2009)• Raffles Institution, Singapore• 3-hour Masterclass workshop, 4 teachers• DELPHI data• Plan to build a course around Masterclass. • Hopefully, participate in Masterclass 2010
EPPOG Spring Meeting
3 June 2009
Evaluation Methods
• Pre/intermediate/post-test• Before preparation• Before Masterclass• After Masterclass
• Survey modeled on EPPOG • Shortened• Add questions about videoconference.
• Teacher cover sheet• Aim at 20 teachers and their classes (LEP).• Teacher incentives
• Cite in published paper.• Certificate for school administration
EPPOG Spring Meeting
3 June 2009
Preliminary Evaluation Results Summary
• Survey data only, M.J. Young and Associates• Good preparation in general
• Most had some physics, advanced mathematics.
• Positive change in understanding key concepts• Moved from 3.4-3.5 to 1.9-2.0 on scale for all categories
(5= lowest)
• Students told us where their attitudes were affected• Most felt they learned some particle physics.• Most did not apprehend a connection to “real life.”
• Exercises (48%) and videoconference (22%) most popular program aspects
EPPOG Spring Meeting
3 June 2009
Evaluation - Preparation
Student classwork
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Physics Mathematics
None
Basic
Advanced
EPPOG Spring Meeting
3 June 2009
Evaluation – Change in Understanding
Shift in mean self-reported understanding of key concepts
1
2
3
4
5
Particle Physics Standard Model Quarks/Leptons Detectors Accelerators
Before MC
After MC
EPPOG Spring Meeting
3 June 2009
Evaluation – Attitudes
Physics in this Masterclass shows a relation to everyday life.7
Modern physics such as particle physics should be a bigger part of my physics/science lessons in school.
6
From attending this MC, I have learned how scientific research is organized and carried out.
5
This MC informs me about the role of physics for modern technological developments.
4
After attending Masterclass, I know more about particle physics.3
I prefer a program that leaves more room for my own ideas.2
In Masterclass I would like to have more exercises instead of lectures.1Responses to Statements
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Statement
Agre
emen
t (1=
mos
t; 5=
least
)
EPPOG Spring Meeting
3 June 2009
Evaluation – Program Aspects
EPPOG Spring Meeting
3 June 2009
Observations
• Student preparation materials• Most students have good background.• Gave teachers a resource.• Length was intimidating to many.• Level of use varied widely.• Pre/intermediate results will tell more.
• Meeting goals• Students learning some particle physics• Exercises popular: students appreciate process.• Prescibed procedures but implementation varied; mentor
design and approach important
EPPOG Spring Meeting
3 June 2009
Observations
• Videoconference• Are changes positive? It is too early to tell.• Quality varied from “oops” to “best ever.”• Get QuarkNet staff (Ken) out of onscreen role?• Improve moderator recruitment and formation; however…• Mentors did a very good job (deserve thanks and praise).• MC@FNAL conference was a good dry run.• When VC ran best, it was wildly popular (and vice versa).
• Streamlining needed• Too many “moving parts” for mentors and teachers• Library should be organized around work plan.• Still data to study and understand
EPPOG Spring Meeting
3 June 2009
Observations
• Masterclass at Fermilab• Students seem to move toward greater appreciation of the
nature of science.• More analysis forthcoming – subject of doctoral
dissertation (Michael J. Wadness, University of Massachusetts at Lowell)
• Close to U.S. Masterclass model but independent of interaction with institutes
• Model seems to work well.• Further implementation?
EPPOG Spring Meeting
3 June 2009
Plans• Not new development but consolidation
• Do not seek growth in U.S. numbers• Continue to evaluate (less intensity?), seek data on current
model
• Improve current model in key areas• Mentor-student engagement and interaction• Orientation to better prepare mentors and teachers• Simplified online workflow with resources
• Increase internationalization• More integration with Europe• New Masterclass countries
• Extend model• More like Fermilab experience• Masterclasses come to schools• Still interested in “point-to-point”