STUDENT LEARNING ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

Please complete a separate worksheet for each academic program (major, minor) at each level (undergraduate, graduate) in your department.  Worksheets are due to CASA this year by 
June 15, 2018.  Worksheets should be sent electronically to kjsanders@eiu.edu and should also be submitted to your college dean.  For information about assessment or help with your assessment plans, visit the Assessment webpage at http://www.eiu.edu/~assess/ or contact Karla Sanders in CASA at 581-6056.	

SUMMARY FORM AY 2017-2018

BS in Physics

Degree and
Program Name:

Steven Daniels

Submitted By:	

Please use size 10 font or larger.

PART ONE

What are the learning objectives?	How, where, and when are they assessed? 	What are the expectations?	What are the results?	Committee/ person responsible?  How are results shared?	
1a. Physics graduates will develop the skills to carry out scientific inquiry in the physical sciences.

1b. Physics majors will demonstrate a working knowledge of the basic laws of physics in all areas of Physics.

	A.  BS in Physics majors are required to take PHY 4713 which is a lab course in which the students design, build, and run a laboratory exercise.

B.  BS in Physics majors are encouraged to take a mentored research course in which they actually go through the process of scientific inquiry.  

A.The course, PHY 2400, is required for most Physics and Pre-Engineering students.  This serves as a good indicator of mathematical skill level as well as being the highest level standard lecture course that is broadly required.

B.Analysis of Advanced Lab results (Physics majors)

C.  Evaluation of success rate for Pre-Engineers in post-EIU engineering programs.

D.  The Major Field Test will be given as an overall measure that is nationally normed
	A.  The expectation is that students will pass this course with a B or better

B.  Students will present the results of their mentored research at the end of each semester in a department wide forum.

A.The expectation would be that at least 50% of students would demonstrate a proficiency at this level with a grade of B or better.

B. The expectation is that at least 75% of students would perform at the B or better level.

C. This data is not available but interviews with students prior to transferring to other programs is done.  

D. The expectation is that the Physics majors will take this test in their last or next to last semester and perform at a level that is at or near the 50 percentile nationally.
	A.  No students took this course this academic year.

B.  Students are graded on the course by the mentor.  In the Computational Physics option the research course is a required course. 

A.SP2013:  3 of 5 students reached the level.
SP2014:  5 of 12 students reached this level.
SP2015:  6 of 8 students reached this level.
SP2016:  3 of 7 students reached this level.
SP2017:  2 of 4 students reached this level.
SP2018: 6 of 9 students reached this level.

Overall, 25 of 43 students reached this level.  This number is just above the expectation and will be monitored.

B. SP2013:  100% of students reached that level.
SP2014:  67% of students reached that level.
SP2015:  83% of students reached that level.
SP2016:  86% of students reached that level.
SP2017:  60% of students reached that level.
SP2018:  100% of students reached that level.

C. Pre-Engineering advising has shown that 100% of EIU students who apply for transfer are accepted to at least one Engineering program.  

D. The one graduating senior this spring did not take the seminar course where this exam is given and did not end up taking the exam.  So no data was collected.  
	A.  Instructor for PHY 4713.  The results can be shared through weekly meetings of the entire department.

B.  Since the presentations are made before the entire department there is no further need to disseminate the results. 

 

A. Instructor for PHY 2400.  Report shared with department at department meetings.

B. Instructor for Advanced Lab.  Report shared with department at department meetings.  

C.  Pre-Engineering Coordinator.  Data requested from UIUC or other Engineering programs.

D.  Instructor for Physics Seminar course.  Data shared at department meetings.	
2.  Students will demonstrate critical thinking skills	2.   Students will be assessed in PHY 1371 and again in an upper level required course (PHY 3410 or PHY 4850).  The 1371 course is a gateway to the entire program and serves the entire Physics and Pre-Engineering cohort.  Word problems in these courses examine the student’s ability to address all of the issues outlined in the “Critical Thinking Rubric.”  The upper level courses are taught every other year so that is why we assess one or the other each year.	2.  Students are expected to score at least a B in PHY 1371 and at least a C in PHY 3410 or 4850.  The expectation is that 75% of the students will perform at this level or better. 
Problem solving in Physics requires clear understanding of the question, knowledge of the related issues, synthesis of the varied material, and creating a logical step by step written argument or solution.  So at the lower level an A or a B demonstrate performance at the Exemplary level.  At the upper levels an A or a B demonstrate Exemplary while a C demonstrates Satisfactory achievement.   	2.  In Phy 1371 there were 6 out of 7 students that obtained the expected grade in the 2017-18 academic year.  A success rate of 86%.  
In PHY 4850 there were 5 out of 5 that achieved the expected level.  That is 100%.  	2. Instructor for PHY 1371 and instructor for PHY 4850.  Report shared with department at department meetings.	
3.  Students will demonstrate quantitative reasoning skills.	3.  Students will be assessed in PHY 1371 and PHY 1372.  In these courses students have to deal with calculations, tables, graphs, proofs, analysis of data, construct arguments, and utilize technology.  	3.  Students are expected to score an A or a B in these two courses.  The expectation is that 75% of the students will perform at this level or better.  Based on the “Quantitative Rubric” these grades correspond to Exemplary performance.	3.  In PHY 1371 6 out of 7 students obtained the expected grade in the 2017-18 academic year.  That is 86% which exceeds expectations.  
In PHY 1372 there were 7 out of 7 that achieved the expected level.  That is 100%.	3. Instructor for PHY 1371 and instructor for PHY 1372.  Report shared with department at department meetings.	
4a.  Students will demonstrate speaking proficiency.

4b. Students will demonstrate proficiency in scientific communications techniques by constructing, organizing, and presenting materials appropriate to the field. 	A.  At the University level, speaking data are collected in two required general education courses:  at the 1000 level in CMN 1310G and at the senior level in the senior seminar courses.  

4b.  Most students in the Physics program take PHY 4000/4010, Seminar.  In this course the students learn to present materials in a manner appropriate to the discipline.  Students are graded on a rubric that includes Research, Presentation Method, Speaking Clarity, Presence, Organization, and Timing.	A.  Students will score at or above the average for the University and will show improvement from freshman to senior year.

4b.  Students will present high quality scientific talks of a specified length with appropriate research and organizational skills.  	A.  In 2014 the freshmen scores were 3.10 for the College of Sciences, and 3.75 for the Physics Department.

In 2014 the senior scores were 3.29 for the College of Sciences, and 3.75 for the Physics Department.

In 2016 the freshmen scores were 2.96 for the College of Sciences, and 3.20 for the Physics Department.

In 2016 the senior scores were 3.64 for the College of Sciences, and 4.00 for the Physics Department.

In 2017 the freshmen scores were 3.18 for the College of Sciences, and 4.00 for the Physics Department.

In 2017 the senior scores were 3.455 for the College of Sciences, and 3.50 for the Physics Department.

In 2018 the freshmen scores were 3.1 for the College of Sciences and 3.25 for the Physics Department.

In 2018 there were no senior scores from the Physics Department to compare.  

The Physics students scored higher than the College in general.  The most recent data is inconclusive but in general Physics students score at or near the College average.

4b.  Seminar students consistently perform well in this venue.  Often these students go on to present their mentored research to the Department and are successful in these talks.  Furthermore, the students often then go on to the regional ISAAPT meeting to present their mentored research and EIU students have consistently received awards at that venue.  In the past year Physics students have presented at Regional meetings in Indianapolis, Lawrence (Kansas), and SIUE Edwardsville.  Students also presented at a national conference in Washington D.C.	A.  This data is shared with the instructor for the Physics seminar course 4000/4010 to help them enhance their approach.

4b.  The PHY 4000/4010 instructor is responsible for some this assessment tool.  Research mentors are also responsible for this too.  Since the faculty are asked to attend and participate in the mentored research talks it is clear that the whole department is aware of the level of performance of our students.   	
5.  Students will demonstrate responsible citizenship.	5.  The EIU Global Affairs questionnaire will be used to assess this goal.  	5.  The Department would like to have students from diverse populations and backgrounds learning to interact with varying cultures and ethnicities.	5.  Data collected for AY 2016 shows about 1/3 students from rural backgrounds, 1/3 students from suburban backgrounds, and 1/3 students from urban backgrounds.  It also shows students with open minds for interacting with ethnic diversity.  

Data collected for AY 2018 shows about ¼ students from rural backgrounds, about 1/3 students from suburban backgrounds, and about 2/5 from urban backgrounds.  About 2/5 identify as white, about ½ identify as black, and the rest are mixed or Hispanic.  About 1/5 are female.  This mix of students will promote the diversity that serves the Physics Department well.	5.  This data has been shared and discussed with the faculty at informal faculty meetings.	
6.  Students will demonstrate writing proficiency.	6a.  The EWP Scoring Rubric will be used to assess this goal.  The EWP is collected throughout the educational process.

6b.  Analysis of Advanced Lab results (Physics majors)

	6a.  The Department would like to have their students performing at or above the average for the University and the College.

6b. As an advanced level course that requires scientific writing this course is an excellent assessment tool.  It is expected that 50% of the students will obtain a B or better in this course.  	6a.  Data collected in the fall of 2013 indicated that the average for the University was 3.40 and the average for the College of Sciences was 3.41.  The Physics Department average was 3.56 at that time.

Data collected in the fall of 2015 indicated that the average for the University was 3.38 and the average for the College of Sciences was 3.41.  The Physics Department average was 3.30.

Data collected in the academic year of 2017 indicated that the average for the University was 3.38 and the average for the College of Sciences was 3.37.  The Physics Department average was 3.38.

Data collected in the academic year of 2018 indicated that the average for the University was 3.40 and the average for the College of Sciences was 3.42.  The Physics Department average was 3.38

The Physics students could be performing better on this measure but, due to the small number of samples, fluctuate above and below the College and University averages.  

6b.  SP2013:  100% of students reached that level.
SP2014:  67% of students reached that level.
SP2015:  83% of students reached that level.
SP2016:  86% of students reached that level.
SP2017:  60% of students reached that level.
SP2018: 100% of students reached that level.

	6a.  This data has been shared and discussed with the faculty at informal faculty meetings.

6b.  Advanced Lab instructor collects this data and it is shared with the Department Chair.	

(Continue objectives as needed.  Cells will expand to accommodate your text.)

PART TWO
Describe your program’s assessment accomplishments since your last report was submitted.  Discuss ways in which you have responded to the CASA Director’s comments on last year’s report or simply describe what assessment work was initiated, continued, or completed.

We continue to improve and develop our assessment methods for the B.S. in Physics program as well as the Pre-Engineering program.  We continue to utilize the departmental, university, and external measurement tools to determine whether our students are progressing appropriately.  In this report we have incorporated many of the suggestions from the previous review to better report on our assessment program.  We have investigated the various rubrics for learning goals and incorporated them into our assessment processes.  We are discontinuing the use of Watson-Glaser as a tool for critical thinking assessment in favor of classroom activities.  This will demonstrate the success of our students over a longer term (as opposed to a one day questionnaire).  When we have the opportunity to address it (meaning sufficient staffing and resources to accomplish it) we will go back to a mailed survey of our graduates to determine what aspects of the program are most useful for producing positive results.   

We continue to utilize classroom performance as an assessment tool.  We utilize the grading standard to ensure that acceptable levels of achievement are demonstrated in the assessment process.  Students that do not earn at least a B or a C in the various courses have not demonstrated the highest level of skill in the assessed area.  For example, speaking is evaluated in PHY 4000/4010 and, while the particulars of the grading method are up to the instructor, success at the B level shows that the student has reasonably mastered giving a scientific talk that would be acceptable at a regional meeting such as the Illinois Section of the American Association of Physics Teachers.  An A in this course would suggest that the student could give a talk at a national meeting such as the American Physical Society Annual Spring Meeting.  We have expanded our evaluation points from sophomore/senior to all four years.  It should be noted that various aspects of assessment are more directly addressed through different courses.  For example, our students demonstrate writing proficiency with specific attention to the standards of the Physics community in their Junior and Senior year while taking Advanced Lab (which requires multiple full lab reports) but they also demonstrate writing proficiency in general through the EWP which is collected over the entire career.  

For quantitative and critical thinking skills we can use all of the courses that utilize problem solving for homework.  Exams and lab exercises are used to demonstrate quantitative and critical thinking skills.  In order to obtain a B or better grade each student must demonstrate characteristics of “Exemplary” critical thinking and quantitative skills.  Standard communication in the laboratory activities will demonstrate facility with calculations, measurements, analysis of data, interpreting graphs, making tables and graphs and curve fitting to the data, and evaluating quantitative results and drawing conclusions.  Problem solving of word problems demonstrates (in addition to the quantitative skills invoked) skills such as insightful and detailed statement of the problem, utilization of various functional relationships and pieces of information in synthesizing the solution, and sifting through relevant and irrelevant information to determine the fundamental issues of the problem.  In the end the student uses these abilities in the process of creating a (near mathematical proof level) logical and clear progression of mathematical and verbal connections to fit all of the pieces of the problem statement into the theoretical structure of the field to develop a complete and well thought out solution.  While the depth of solution changes from the lower level courses to the upper level courses, the basic format consistently lends itself to assessment of quantitative and critical thinking skills. We feel that these activities are clear demonstrations of quantitative and critical thinking skills at the highest level.    

PART THREE

Summarize changes and improvements in curriculum, instruction, and learning that have resulted from the implementation of your assessment program.  How have you used the data?  What have you learned?  In light of what you have learned through your assessment efforts this year and in past years, what are your plans for the future?  

Over the past year we have completely revamped the Physics curriculum (with a focus on the upper level majors courses).  This was driven by staffing issues but with a sincere effort to maintain quality in the overall program.  To that end we had to assess what was central to the Physics major as well as what each concentration needed to produce the highest quality graduates.  Each of the upper level courses was assessed and many were changed to ensure that all critical elements of the program were maintained while non-essential subjects were either removed completely or made elective.  We also made an effort to increase the usefulness of each course that is elective.  We made each of the requirements for one concentration a useful and helpful elective for other concentrations.  That will help to give breadth and depth to the education of all of our majors.  We were informed by a number of things including; comparison to peer institutions, informal surveys of our graduates, and we drew heavily from a publication from the Joint Task Force on Undergraduate Physics Programs titled “Phys21: Preparing Physics Students for 21st Century Careers.”  Through this assessment process we discovered that we had to change our approach to education.  Faculty are naturally drawn to teach as if we are creating future professors.  The literature demonstrated that, in fact, only a small fraction of graduates become professors and the vast majority of graduates go on to careers in industry or government.  That change helped us to devise a curriculum that would aid students to succeed in all future endeavors.  Furthermore, we decided to rely more heavily on courses taught by other departments across campus to give the students the important skills they need for their major as well as diverse ways of thinking about applications of physics.  Through this revamp of the curriculum we will maintain the key courses where assessment can focus.  Specific courses such as Advanced Lab and General Physics III will continue to provide information on such skills as critical thinking and quantitative reasoning.  Students will be required to take mentored research where they will get better training in scientific communication both written and verbal.  So, even though staffing was the impetus for the changes, the Physics program in all concentrations will be stronger and will train professionals for high levels of success in the field.  The changes come from careful review of external sources as well as a clear understanding of our own clientele.  It is important to note that the changes made to curriculum were overseen and supported by the Dean and the Provost.  These changes were also approved by the College of Sciences Curriculum Committee as well as the Council for Academic Affairs.  So these changes have been well vetted and will promote the excellence that is the hallmark of the Physics program.