The Masterclass in the U.S. 2009 Ken Cecire Hampton University/QuarkNet ken. cecire@hamptonu

1. The Masterclass in the U.S. 2009 Ken Cecire Hampton University/QuarkNet ken.cecire@hamptonu.edu

2. Items to Report • U.S. Masterclass statistics • Developments in the previous year • Evaluation and preliminary results • Observations • Future plans

3. 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. Statistics

5. 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

7. 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. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. Evaluation - Preparation

12. Evaluation – Change in Understanding

13. 1 In Masterclass I would like to have more exercises instead of lectures. 2 I prefer a program that leaves more room for my own ideas. 3 After attending Masterclass, I know more about particle physics. 4 This MC informs me about the role of physics for modern technological developments. 5 From attending this MC, I have learned how scientific research is organized and carried out. 6 Modern physics such as particle physics should be a bigger part of my physics/science lessons in school. 7 Physics in this Masterclass shows a relation to everyday life. Evaluation – Attitudes

14. Evaluation – Program Aspects

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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?

18. 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”