The Masterclass in the U.S. 2009

Ken Cecire

Hampton University/QuarkNet

ken.cecire@hamptonu.edu

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”