1

Assessment of Liberal Education in the Academic Major Department of Physics, Ripon College

Teagle May, 2008 The purpose of this report is to assess where and how the Department of Physics at Ripon College supports components of a liberal arts education for students within the major. Our physics curriculum has been examined to identify and assess ways in which the liberal education goals of quantitative reasoning, critical thinking, and civic engagement are addressed, and we’ve examined the roles of advising and co-curricular programs that contribute to our students’ success in meeting these goals. The mission statement of the Department of Physics is intended to emphasize those elements of physics study addressed more generally in the mission statement of our division, the Natural Sciences. Both the departmental and the divisional mission statements are given as follows: Mission of the Department of Physics: Students studying physics will explore, interact with, measure, and explain systems in the universe ranging in size and complexity from subatomic particles to galactic clusters. They will apply simple models and universal principles in their descriptive and quantitative explanations. Those students majoring in physics will develop the ability to use more advanced techniques of experimental design as well as more advanced mathematical analysis leading to original research. In addition to learning about the historical development of physics as a discipline, they will become aware of the ways in which physical principles are applied to current concerns of society. NATURAL SCIENCES Mission Statement: The natural sciences of biology, chemistry, and physics are ways of knowing: ways of understanding and making testable predictions about how the natural world works. Scientific studies involve cooperative and creative endeavors that develop observational, analytical, quantitative, and communication skills. These studies are rooted in the scientific method involving hypothesis formation and testing, followed by public presentation of findings. The natural sciences enrich our lives, providing individuals with the tools to understand more completely the world and inform our lives as citizens and global stewards. Therefore, the student learning goals for introductory courses consists of the following.

1. Describe and apply the scientific method: a. Apply observational skills to natural phenomena, b. Pose questions that are answerable by the scientific method, c. Employ analytical skills to interpret scientific evidence, and d. Employ communication skills to describe their results.

2. Apply scientific concepts to global natural science issues. 3. Apply scientific analysis to everyday problems to test potential solutions.

As stated by our departmental and divisional missions, an integral part of the natural sciences is quantitative reasoning, and critical thinking is implied by the components of hypotheses forming and development of original research. Civic engagement is addressed in the divisional mission as we strive to inform students’ lives as citizens and global stewards. In this report, we first assess quantitative reasoning, followed by critical thinking, and finally civic engagement. For each of these components, we’ve identified where in the physics curriculum and/or in co-curricular activities the specific component is addressed, outlined our methodology for collection and assessment of evidence

2

supporting each component, and then presented our assessment results and analysis of the given component. Following the individual assessments of each of these liberal arts goals in the curriculum, we’ve included a section on student feedback through focus group meetings. In conclusion, we’ve identified strengths and weaknesses in the curriculum and outlined our future plans for improving the success of meeting liberal arts education goals for students in our major. The courses within our curriculum that we’ve examined for this assessment include Introduction to Physics I and II (PHY 151 and PHY 152), Modern Physics (PHY 251) Thermodynamics and Statistical Physics (PHY 333), Electricity and Magnetism (PHY 340), Astrophysics (PHY 360), and Quantum Mechanics (PHY 412). It is important to note that two courses, Advanced Mechanics (PHY 330) and Advanced Laboratory and Computational Physics (PHY 440) will be offered during the 2008-2009 academic year, but have not been offered in recent past semesters and are not included in the current assessment report. Table 1 provides the number of students participating in each course. In the introductory series, PHY 151 and PHY 152, the majority of the students are not physics majors, but do have a major in the division of natural science. In upper level courses, almost all of the students are either physics majors or physics minors.

Enrollment

Intro I PHY 151 (sp 08) 41

Intro II PHY 152 (sp 07) 36

Intro II PHY 152 (sp 08) 23

Modern Physics PHY 251 (f 08) 6

Thermo. and Stat. Phys PHY 333 (sp 08) 7

Elec. and Mag. PHY 340 (sp 08) 5

Astrophysics PHY 360 4

Quantum Mech. PHY 412 3

Senior Seminar PHY 500 2

Course

Table 1: Enrollment in physics courses included in assessment

I. Quantitative Reasoning A: Identifying components of quantitative reasoning within the major Quantitative reasoning is developed in every physics course within the major, beginning with the introductory physics series and proceeding through each advanced course. In this assessment report, we’ve chosen to focus on one aspect of quantitative analysis that appears throughout the physics curriculum: vectors. Because of the directional nature of many quantities in nature (e.g. force, momentum, and velocity), an understanding of vectors and how to work with them is a vital part of learning physics. Students find that learning the new methods of addition and multiplication inherent in vector operations very challenging, and vector calculus more difficult still. Vectors are first introduced in PHY 151 as they relate to motion in different directions. In PHY 152, vectors are addressed primarily on a conceptual level through right-hand-rules, relating components of magnetic fields, electric fields, motion of charges, and additional forces on charges. In PHY 340, vector operations, including differential and integral vector

3

calculus, are central to the study of electricity and magnetism. Maxwell’s equations—the central core of the classical electromagnetism—are vector differential equations, in fact. In this course problem assignments and examinations require the correct use of vector-based principles. An understanding of vector operations is also necessary in PHY 412 for the interpretation of some complex results and formulas in quantum mechanics. B. Methodology of Assessment (Quantitative Reasoning) To help students become as familiar as possible with vectors, we took every opportunity to apply them in class. Questions and short problems involving vectors were part of many PHY 151 and PHY 152 reading quizzes. These quizzes were given each week to assess students’ comprehension of textbook material. We concentrated lecture, problem assignments, and laboratory emphasis in those areas where students showed poor comprehension. In both courses, a number of the vector questions were repeated on the final examination to compare results. In order to assess student understanding of vector concepts, we have collected quiz and exam scores, comparing the percentage of incorrect answers from the first time students were tested on a particular vector concept, to the percentage of incorrect scores the second time students were test on the same concept. In PHY 152, the spring 07 and spring 08 sections were given the same two final exam questions involving vector concepts, and these responses were compared as well. In PHY 340, students presented solutions of problems in class weekly. During these sessions they were asked to explain their reasoning and show how they reached the solution of the chosen problem. They also handed in worked-out problem solutions for comment and grading, worked on in-class problems, and wrote mid-term and final examinations. Because of the intricacy of the problems, both mid-term and final exams were take-home exams. The levels of student success on these exams were used to assess student understanding of vector concepts in upper level courses. C. Results and Analysis (Quantitative Reasoning) Appendix A shows the comparison of percentages of incorrect responses on reading-quiz questions versus very similar final-examination questions in PHY 151, the majority of which dealt with vector concepts. Because students with the highest grades (A- or higher) in PHY 151 were given the option of not taking the exam, the students participating in the final exam was a subset—the subset with poorer overall performance—of the entire class. Even so, we found that with the exception of one question (dealing with scalar multiplication of vectors) the percentage of incorrect answers on these vector questions decreased, but none of the questions was answered correctly by every student. This tells us that continued work with and emphasis on proper use of vectors must be emphasized in other courses. Also included in Appendix A are results from three sets of quiz and exam questions from PHY 152, each requiring vector comprehension to successfully answer the question or solve the problem. The questions themselves are also provided in Appendix A. In the

4

first set of questions, students in the spring 07 section performed moderately well the first time they saw the question, with an average score of 65% (35% incorrect). However, the following year, in spring 08, students performed quite poorly on a similar question (91% incorrect). This reflects the fact that more class time was spent on this concept before the quiz during the first semester. However, when spring 08 students saw the same question again on their final exam, the performance improved immensely, reducing the incorrect component from 91% to 21%. Unfortunately, this did not meet the expectation of 0% incorrect, since the question was basic and had been seen before. On the second and third set of questions, the spring 08 section was more successful than the spring 07 section, showing fewer incorrect responses on the final exam questions (57% and 36% incorrect in spring 07, reduced to 15% and 23% incorrect in spring 08). The greater success of the spring 08 class is attributed to the fact that the spring 08 section were given a basic quiz on the same concepts earlier in the semester, in each case. One conclusion drawn from this result is that repeated exposure enhances student understanding of vector concepts. PHY 340 students struggled with vector concepts. They found problem-solving difficult and had many questions about application of vectors to the solution of problems. Prior to the due dates of mid-term exams and final exams, students asked for lots of hints to aid with problem solutions. In Appendix B are examples of successful and unsuccessful mid-term exam solutions. (The student who did very poorly on the exam was allowed to make up parts of it, but the nature of his continuing questions demonstrated a poor grasp of course material in general and vector operations in particular.)

II. Critical Thinking A: Identifying components of critical thinking within the major Critical thinking in physics is centered on the investigation of physical systems. From the simplest experiment in PHY 151 to a physics major’s thesis project, the student must be able to determine quantitative parameters that describe a system and the accuracy of those parameters. The issue of error analysis—the determination of the accuracy of a number being reported—poses a significant challenge in the simplest experiment and becomes more critical as students begin designing their own experiments. As students move from experiments where there is some know value to which they can compare their result to their own original experiments for which there is of course no known value, they must be able to produce a result with assigned error in which they have confidence. Coupled with the issue of error analysis is that of predicting and explaining results by employing mathematical derivations and discussion of background literature searches properly. Students need to learn how to formulate, perform, analyze, and communicate the results of an experiment. In PHY 151 and PHY 152 laboratory problems include fairly extensive instructions for collection and analysis of data. In PHY 251 (Modern Physics) student receive much less direction on experimental design. Handouts for these labs often include circuit diagrams and equipment specs but little detail about data collection or analysis. By the time students are enrolled in PHY 360 (Astrophysics), they are expected to design their

5

own observing project, develop appropriate data-collection procedures and methods of analysis, and then complete an appropriate report. Students taking the senior seminar course are expected to do original scientific research, and to entirely develop their own project, beginning with the identification of a problem, design of experiments, analyze results, and draw their own conclusions. B. Methodology of Assessment (Critical thinking) In examining critical thinking components in our curriculum, we’ve chosen to focus on three main concepts for assessment, each involved with the development of laboratory experiments and laboratory reports: 1) error analysis 2) explanation of underlying principles and assumptions through derivations, and 3) development of experiments. The proper treatment of experimental error is such a vital issue—and also an issue that students seem to find perplexing—that we assess it with some aspect of every laboratory activity beginning in PHY 151 as well as in quiz and final-examination problems. We tried to provide students with as many labs as possible for which the result is not known. This forced students to spend considerable effort to produce results with assigned error that they can defend, without the support of a “right” answer from external sources. This requires our students to develop critical thinking skills in addition to quantitative analysis skills. In PHY 151 and PHY 152 students were required to write formal reports of several labs. They were allowed to submit multiple drafts in most cases. A large part of the assessment of these reports rests on the quality of error analysis, data analysis, the ability to explain underlying principles and assumptions with appropriate derivations, and appropriate conclusions. In order to assess these components of critical thinking in our introductory courses, we have taken the average class scores for initial drafts and compared them to average scores of subsequent drafts, and we’ve reviewed the average number of rewrites submitted by our students for each report. We have also collected samples of lab reports to provide examples of poor and satisfactory reports, corresponding to scores of 70% or less (considered poor) and 80% or more for satisfactory reports. Additionally, we have collected lab reports from individual students in the major so that we can evaluate their development of these critical thinking skills from the first draft of the first report of PHY 151 to the last report of PHY 152. Because students in PHY 251 received less direction on experimental design, the assessment of PHY 251 lab reports includes analysis of the procedure students have developed as well as their results. The expectations for PHY 360 and senior seminar students are higher than in lower-level courses, and assessment of their reports focuses on the analysis of the multiple steps from initial experimental design to completion of complex reports or original experiments. Samples of reports from upper level courses (PHY 251, PHY 360, and senior seminar) have been collected for the assessment of critical thinking skills.

6

C. Results and Analysis (Critical thinking) In PHY 151 the first formal laboratory report, an analysis of falling bodies, required an average of just less than three submissions to achieve a final grade, and each student submitted at least two drafts. The average grade on the final reports was 86.6%. On the last formal report of the semester, 16 of the 39 students submitted just a single draft to achieve a grade of A- or better (one exception: one student submitted once for a grade of C+ and did not resubmit). The overall average on this set of reports on the ballistic pendulum lab was 85.7%. This lab report required a derivation that several students were unable to produce resulting in grades of C- or lower for 6 students. An example of a poor lab report is given in Appendix C (paper C.1). In this paper, the introduction lacks a general description of the system and incorrectly defines one of the three variables presented. In general, the language and sentence structure is informal, and the results are poorly presented (charts are not clearly labeled and data has too many significant figures). There is almost no discussion of the result: no comparison to the known expected value nor an explanation as to why the experimental result disagrees with the known value. The first lab report for the spring 08 section of PHY 152 was on the latent heat of fusion of water. Of 23 students, 10 received a satisfactory grade of 80% or higher, reflecting improvement from the PHY 151 course. The other 12 students were required to rewrite the lab report. One student did not submit a report at all. On the second draft, only 3 students received unsatisfactory scores below an 80%, while the average of the remaining 19 students was an 88%. On the second lab report, “Balloon Charge,” the average score of the first draft was 73%, with one student receiving a 50% and only two students with 100%. Only 7 students chose to rewrite this report, and the average score of the second draft was 87%. In the final drafts of both the first and second report, the major issue preventing students from receiving a 100% was the correct and complete derivation and explanation of the derivation. Students did well with the error analysis, after having a large amount of experience in PHY 151. An example of a second draft of the latent heat lab report is also shown in Appendix C (paper C.2). This report is well-written and received a 90%, however the derivation is still missing some details of explanation, lacking the fundamental assumptions that make the equations applicable. On the third (and final) lab report of PHY 152, “Diffraction Gratings,” students had only one opportunity to write the report (no rewrites). The average score was an 85%, which is overall satisfactory. Unfortunately, three students did not have a thorough derivation, and presented little information on their uncertainty, or error, analysis. An example of one of these poor papers (a score of 50%) is shown in Appendix C (paper C.3). This can compared with a satisfactory report for the same lab, included in Appendix C (paper C.4). The satisfactory paper gives a complete derivation of the governing equations and carefully explains error analysis, with a discussion of the experimental results. In PHY 251, students submitted an average of two drafts. Final grades for reports were in the 90% to 98% range with very satisfactory treatment of error analysis and derivations. Two senior theses were collected this semester (since only two students

7

participated in the course). In both cases, students showed satisfactory critical thinking skills by identifying the research question, providing sufficient background on the topic, designing their own experiments along with analysis, and presenting their results and conclusions.

III. Civic Engagement A: Identifying components of civic engagement within the major The final sentence of our departmental mission statement is: In addition to learning about the historical development of physics as a discipline, they will become aware of the ways in which physical principles are applied to current concerns of society.

Our commitment to civic engagement follows from this statement and the expectation that physicists have useful skills and knowledge to share with others. Our areas of civic engagement fall into roughly two areas:

1) Learning about and sharing information about the applications of physics to issues in society (e.g. energy conservation)

2) Community service in the form of sharing physics activities with others, especially school children and their teachers, to encourage scientific literacy and provide positive role models.

Within our physics courses over the past several semesters, a small component of each major course has required an application project which, for some students, included a civic engagement component, addressing the first area of civic engagement described above. In our courses, one way civic engagement is addressed is through student investigations of physics applications, although a civic engagement component has bot been required. Although civic engagement has not been a strong component of the in-class physics curriculum up to this point, we strongly believe in the importance of this component of a liberal arts education for our majors, and continue to develop extra-curricular programs that engage our students in the community. The Physics Fun Force is a student group that travels to local elementary schools, teaching science to both students and elementary teachers, and promoting an interest and passion for science through fun and educational science activities. This addresses the second component of civic engagement as described above. Also, over the past semester, we’ve begun our own chapter of the Society of Physics Students (SPS). The purposes of SPS are both to introduce students to a wide range of physics applications and career opportunities, and to engage them in community activities. Thus SPS potentially addresses both components of civic engagement defined above. B. Methodology of Assessment (Civic Engagement) The primary civic engagement activities for our physics majors are the Physics Fun Force (PFF) and the Society of Physics Students (SPS). The assessment of the impact of

8

our community service group, the Physics Fun Force (PFF) is based on the popularity of the group among students and the response from the schools we visit. We also attempt to get at least qualitative indications of the learning that is taking place during in-school sessions. Our assessment of the newly formed chapter of SPS is currently based on the amount of student participation as we gain momentum as a group. In our courses, we’ve assessed the development of civic engagement activities simply by tabulating the number of student projects in PHY 152, PHY 333, PHY 340, and PHY 412 courses that included a civic engagement component, even though this was not specified as a requirement for the projects. C. Results and Analysis (Civic Engagement) During the 2006-2007 academic year, five physics majors and minors participated in school visits. Appendix D shows the note of thanks that was sent from children and teachers at Clay Lamberton Elementary School in Berlin. (This huge illustrated note has been laminated and is displayed on one of the Physics Department bulletin boards to inform students about the work of PFF and show the Department’s commitment to community service.) PFF is under the direction of a Physics Department assistant, whose responsibility it is to contact schools and set up a schedule of school visits. This student, who is also an active member of Ripon’s Student Education Association, has used those contacts to bring three students who are not physics majors or minors into the group. This has afforded those students to learn a little additional physics while working with the children. Seven physics majors and minors have been actively involved in PFF. Three of them and one of the non-major recruits are shown “in uniform” in a picture in Appendix D. Four of them, assisted by PFF advisor Mary Williams-Norton, presented a well-received workshop session at the convention of Wisconsin Society of Science Teachers (WSST) on March 14, 2008. PFF groups are welcomed into classrooms with great enthusiasm. One indication of their impact is that grade 3 pupils at Clay Lamberton this year have clear recollections of activities done in their grade 2 classes last year. Another is that Clay Lamberton teachers responded immediately to our call for invitations for us to visit this year. Although we have been attempting to gather children’s ideas to assess content knowledge before they do the activities as well as surveys of what they have learned by asking questions at the ends of sessions, we find this very difficult because of time limitations in classrooms. From a science-learning standpoint, the time children spend investigating, articulating their observations, and sharing their results is the most valuable for them. We were able to elicit some ideas before and after making “oobleck” (cornstarch-water mixture with notable pressure-dependent viscosity) that showed that making and handling oobleck seemed to focus children’s concepts of solid versus liquid properties as well as the idea that a scientist must defend his or her conclusion with evidence. Before making oobleck they had some sense about solid properties that differed from liquid properties—that solids hold their shape and volume but liquids only their volume—but were able to defend claims of oobleck as a solid because it was “runny” or solid because it formed a hard ball when held tightly in the hand.

9

The SPS chapter at Ripon College was instated partway through this most recent semester, spring of 2008. Student participation included 7 students that are physics majors or have expressed intensions of majoring in physics. The activities that took place this past semester were limited to organizational and informational meetings, however future activities will include visits to different institutions and companies and participation in national SPS meetings to provide networking, community engagement, and career opportunities. Over the past year, students in PHY 152, PHY 333, PHY 340, and PHY 412 were required to complete a project where they researched and presented an application of physics related to course material. In the spring 08 section of PHY 152, only 2 of 12 projects involved a civic engagement component, related to physical therapy and solar energy. In PHY 333, one of 7 student projects had a civic engagement component, related to thermodynamics education. In PHY 340, one of 5 projects included civic engagement, related to terrorist attacks. In PHY 412 (quantum mechanics), none of the three projects included a civic engagement component. Since a component of civic engagement was not required for these projects, it is not surprising that there was extremely low consideration of the concept within the projects. This is an obvious assignment for us to incorporate civic engagement in the future.

IV: Focus Groups In addition to our own analysis of the curriculum and co-curricular activities, we’ve also asked our students for their input on advising, curriculum, course structure, and additional activities. Because the number of physics majors and minors is small, we have many opportunities for informal conversation where we seek student feedback, including time before class, in lab while students are doing less rigorous lab work, during SPS meetings, and from Physics Fun Force conversations while going back and forth to schools. We have also organized focus groups on a yearly basis, calling our majors and minors together for pizza, Welsh cakes, and soda. We have found these focus groups to be an efficient and effective way to get student input for departmental planning. To organize their input for assessment purposes, we’ve taken notes on student suggestions made at focus group meetings and during other informal gathering, and decide which ones can be implemented in light of resources, flexibility of the curriculum, and other factors. Appendix E shows the agenda and results of the most recent focus-group meeting. Eleven students from first-year through seniors attended and provided much useful information about courses they would like to see offered, advising of first-year students, and other departmental issues. There was strong support for starting and maintaining an active Society of Physics Students (SPS) chapter and strong interest in a variety of “new” upper-class courses and requiring that juniors take one semester of seminar. A previous focus group was organized in May of 2007, where 8 physics majors and minors gathered to share their experiences and suggestions. This meeting provided valuable feedback on the advising process, pointing out weakness when science students were not paired with a science advisor. Additionally, it

10

was stated that our flexibility and consideration of student needs during course planning was highly appreciated and valuable for students proceeding through the major.

V: Conclusions and future plans The assessment process has highlighted many successful parts of our physics program, and has also revealed several components of our curriculum that need to be improved to meet our liberal arts education goals of quantitative reasoning, critical thinking, and civic engagement. Quantitative reasoning is exercised throughout every course within our major, and we have focused on the assessment of students’ learning of vector operations to represent the broader learning goal. From our assessment, it is clear that vector concepts and operations continue to be points of struggle for our students, even in upper level courses. It is also clear that repeated exposure improves student performance on final exams, indicating an improved level of understanding after seeing the same concept more than once. Although the class average performance improved, not all students showed understanding of the relevant vector concepts by the end of each course. This analysis can be extended to many complex quantitative reasoning concepts that are applied within our courses, such as conservation laws. Our conclusion is that we must continue to exercise these difficult concepts through homework, lecture, labs, quizzes, and exams, and that the more the students practice and apply the concepts, the better their understanding. In our assessment of critical thinking, we’ve focused on error analysis to support validity of results, the ability of student to correctly derive and explain theories applied to their experiments, and the development of experiments for upper level courses. It is clear that students improve, on average, these skills through the introductory series. Although there is an overall improvement, some students in PHY 152 continue to struggle with appropriate explanations of their derivations and assumptions. However, in upper level courses, students have shown mastery of these topics, and show satisfactory development of their senior projects when they reach senior seminar, Over the past several semesters, civic engagement has been primarily addressed through student participation in the Physics Fun Force. This has been a great success and a large number of our physics majors and minors have actively participated. The Society of Physics Students shows potential for additional opportunities of civic engagement and we will continue to meet as a group during the school year, with intensions of increasing both membership and participation in off-campus activities. In the curriculum of our major courses, we have not had a significant component of civic engagement. However, we recognize the importance of this component of liberal education and the need to bring it into the classroom. One area where this will be incorporated in our assignments is in application projects, which are assigned in most physics courses. In the future, we will require that a civic engagement component be included in the application projects.

11

Finally, we’ve concluded that the physics focus groups have been very successful, providing valuable insight on the student perspective of advising, course offerings and content, and co-curricular activities. We will continue to hold focus group meetings and solicit student feedback on a regular basis. The next focus group meeting is planned for the beginning of the fall 08 semester.

12

APPENDICES

13

Appendix A: Improvement of Vector Understanding

1.PHY 151: Incorrect Responses on Reading Tests and Final Exam

Question: Topic Vectors Number Wrong: % Number Wrong: %

involved

1 Average Velocity 31 74.6 2 11.7

2 Vector in 2d * 19 46.34 5 29.41

3 Scalar Multiplcation * 7 1.7 7 41.17

4 Magnitude * 21 51.21 2 11.7

5 Projectile Motion * 18 43.9 3 17.64

6 Forces * 33 80.48 7 41.1

7 Constant Velocity 16 39.02 5 29.41

8 Constant Force * 26 63.41 1 5.8

9 Momentum\Collison * 23 56.09 8 47.05

10 Gravitational Force 16 39.02 3 17.64

11 Rotational Inertia 36 87.8 9 52.94

12 Kepler's Laws 14 34.14 5 29.41

Reading Quiz (41)

Reading Test Versus Final Exam

Final Exam (17)

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12Problems

% Wrong

Reading Test Final Exam

Incorrect Responses: Reading Test Versus Final Exam

14

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

(Appendix A) 2. PHY 152: Incorrect Responses on Vector Questions, Reading Quizzes and Final Exam, Spring 07 and Spring 08 Sections.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Incorrect Responses: Vector quiz and exam questions

Quiz, 07

Exam 3, 08

Final, 08

Quiz, 08

Final, 07

Final, 08

Quiz, 08

Final, 07

Final, 08

A

Question B

B

C

Question D

DE

Question F

F

3. PHY 152: Quiz and Exam Questions, Corresponding to the PHY 152 Graph (above). Question A. Quiz #7 (PHY 152, 2007)

CASE 1: Consider a loop of wire in a uniform magnetic field. Assume the magnetic field is directed into the page, as shown. As you slowly INCREASE the area of the loop, which direction is the induced current? CASE 2: If the area of the loop was enlarged at a FASTER rate, how would this affect the induced current compared to CASE 1

a. GREATER current (magnitude) b. LESS current (magnitude) c. The direction of the current will change d. The current will be the same in both cases

CASE 3: If the loop contained MORE COILS (N), how would the induced current differ from CASE 1 (N = 1 coil). Assume the area of the loop is increased the same as in case 1.

a. INCREASE (with increasing N) b. DECREASE (with increasing N) c. STAY THE SAME (independent of N)

Question B: Exam #3 and final (PHY 152, 2008)

A conductive loop sits in a uniform magnetic field, directed

into the page, as shown. The size of the loop is then changed

to a larger diameter. During this change, which direction is

the induced current in the loop?

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

15

(Appendix A) Question C: Quiz #7 (PHY 152, 2008)

1. What direction, if any, is the Lorentz force, F, acting on a stationary

NEGATIVE charge (velocity, v = 0) in a magnetic field, B? (see picture).

2. What direction, if any, is the Lorentz force, F, acting on a NEGATIVE charge moving in the same

direction as the magnetic field (v in same direction as B)?

3. Consider the current-carrying wire, as shown. Show the induced magnetic field surrounding the wire.

Question D: FINAL EXAM (PHY 152, 2007 and 2008)

When lightning strikes, it can be represented as a positive current moving upward toward the sky. Earth’s magnetic field points north (as shown). Which direction will the lightning bend due the force of the earth’s magnetic field (B) acting on current (I)? (north, south, east, west, up, or down)

Question E: Quiz #4 (PHY 152, 2008)

Compare the net force on the center particle in Case A and Case B. In which case is the magnitude of the net

force on the center particle larger? Assume the same distance r between each charged particle, as shown.

Question F: FINAL EXAM (PHY 152, 2007 and 2008)

Two objects with known charge (q1 = +5.0x10-3 C and q2 = - 3.0x10-3 C ) are positioned as shown. A small test charge, q0 = +2.0x10-9 C, is brought close to the position shown, near the larger charges.

a. Determine the magnitude and direction of the net force acting on qo due to the other charges. b. Calculate the strength of the electric field created by the large charges, at the location of test

charge q0. q1 = +5x10

-3 C

2.0 m

q2 = -3x10-3 C

1.0 m

q0 = +2.0x10-9 C

q1 = +5x10-3 C

2.0 m

q2 = -3x10-3 C

1.0 m

q0 = +2.0x10-9 C

+4 C+2 C +1 Crr

Fnet = ?

CASE A

+4 C+2 C +1 Crr

Fnet = ?

+4 C+2 C +1 Crrrr

Fnet = ?

CASE A

+4 C-2 C +1 Cr r

Fnet = ?

CASE B

+4 C-2 C +1 Cr r

Fnet = ?

+4 C-2 C +1 Cr r

Fnet = ?

CASE B

B

e-v

B

e-v

Be-

v = 0

Be-

v = 0

I

I

N

S

EW

BB

I

N

S

EW

BB

B (north)

I

W E

B (north)

I

W E

16

Appendix B: Vector Applications on Final Exam, PHY 340

17

(Appendix B)

18

(Appendix B)

19

(Appendix B)

20

(Appendix B)

21

(Appendix B)

22

(Appendix B)

23

(Appendix B)

24

(Appendix B)

25

(Appendix B)

26

(Appendix B)

27

(Appendix B)

28

(Appendix B)

29

(Appendix B)

30

(Appendix B)

31

(Appendix B)

32

(Appendix B)

33

(Appendix B)

34

(Appendix B)

35

(Appendix B)

36

(Appendix B)

37

(Appendix B)

38

Appendix C: Sample Lab Reports From PHY 151 and 152 Paper C.1: Example of a poor report (first draft, Lab 1, PHY 151)

Free Fall of Falling Bodies

Abstract: The acceleration of our object was about 9.589 m/s² +/-.1196%. Introduction: Acceleration of an object is defined as g = F/m (1) where g is acceleration and should end up equally around 9.81m/s² when it is near the surface of the Earth. We are going to try to figure this out by finding out if an object that is free falling well have an acceleration of 9.81m/s² when it is falling. F is equal to gravitational force of the object. The m is equal to the distance there is between the spark marks on the tape. Experimental Procedure: We used a spark timer to record the acceleration of a falling object. We found that the object was accelerating after we first dropped the object. After we got the spark tape we measured the distance between the first mark and the second, the first mark and the third, and so on. After we got all the measurements than we plotted everything in excel so that we could figure out the regression, the slope, and the standard error of our tape. Since we did the measuring of the tape it may have been off by a little so the error was .1196% or less. Results and analysis: SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.9986028

R Square 0.9972076 Adjusted R Square 0.9970524

Standard Error 0.0514052

Observations 20

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance

F

Regression 1 16.98594129 16.986 6427.99 1.9172E-24

Residual 18 0.047564905 0.0026

Total 19 17.0335062

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%

Upper 95%

Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%

Intercept 0.3730895 0.023010701 16.214 3.5E-12 0.32474578 0.421433 0.32474578 0.42143316

X Variable 1 9.5892632 0.119604493 80.175 1.9E-24 9.33798344 9.840543 9.33798344 9.84054287

39

(Appendix C)

Points Displacement T Tmid V Coef. X2

1 0.0073 0.016666666666667 0.008333333333333 0.438000000000000 9.539200000000000

2 0.0161 0.033333333333333 0.025000000000000 0.528000000000000

3 0.0305 0.050000000000000 0.041666666666667 0.864000000000000

4 0.0461 0.066666666666667 0.058333333333333 0.936000000000000

5 0.0648 0.083333333333333 0.075000000000000 1.122000000000000

6 0.0865 0.100000000000000 0.091666666666667 1.302000000000000

7 0.1094 0.116666666666667 0.108333333333333 1.374000000000000

8 0.1362 0.133333333333333 0.125000000000000 1.608000000000000

9 0.1641 0.150000000000000 0.141666666666667 1.674000000000000

10 0.1954 0.166666666666667 0.158333333333333 1.878000000000000

11 0.2298 0.183333333333333 0.175000000000000 2.064000000000000

12 0.2655 0.200000000000000 0.191666666666667 2.142000000000000

13 0.3064 0.216666666666667 0.208333333333333 2.454000000000000

14 0.3472 0.233333333333333 0.225000000000000 2.448000000000000

15 0.3926 0.250000000000000 0.241666666666667 2.724000000000000

16 0.4401 0.266666666666667 0.258333333333333 2.850000000000000

17 0.4908 0.283333333333333 0.275000000000000 3.042000000000000

18 0.5432 0.300000000000000 0.291666666666667 3.144000000000000

19 0.5991 0.316666666666667 0.308333333333333 3.354000000000000

20 0.6571 0.333333333333333 0.325000000000000 3.480000000000000

21 0.7808 0.350000000000000 0.341666666666667 7.422000000000000

22 0.9152 0.366666666666667 0.358333333333333 8.064000000000000

Chart Titley = 4.7696x2 + 0.3817x - 0.0005

R2 = 1

0.0000

0.1000

0.2000

0.3000

0.4000

0.5000

0.6000

0.7000

0.0000000

00000000

0.1000000

00000000

0.2000000

00000000

0.3000000

00000000

0.4000000

00000000

(s)

(m) Free Fall

Poly. (Free Fall)

40

(Appendix C)

Chart Title

y = 9.5893x + 0.2932

R2 = 0.9972

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0.0000 0.0500 0.1000 0.1500 0.2000 0.2500 0.3000 0.3500

(s)

(m/s)

Acc.

Linear (Acc.)

The Standard Error of the acceleration is .1196% so our final result of acceleration is 9.5893m/s² +/- .1196%. Conclusion: The acceleration of a free falling object is 9.5893m/s² +/-.1196%. We were able to figure that out because we measure the distance the object traveled and the force and which the object was going to that we could figure out the acceleration.

41

(Appendix C) Paper C.2: Example of a good second draft, PHY 152

42

(Appendix C)

43

(Appendix C)

44

(Appendix C) Paper C.3: Example of a poor lab report, Lab 3 (draft 1), PHY 152

45

(Appendix C)

46

(Appendix C)

47

(Appendix C) Paper C.4: Example of a satisfactory lab report, Lab 3 (draft 1), PHY 152

48

(Appendix C)

49

(Appendix C)

50

Appendix D: Physics Fun Force (Civic Engagement)

Four volunteers (in uniform) about to visit Clay Lamberton School (Berlin) This group worked with Light and Color with Grade 2 and Bubbleology in Grade 3.

Notes of thanks from Clay Lamberton teachers and pupils after visits during the 2006-2007 school year.

51

Appendix E: Physics Focus Group To consider at Jan. 18, 2008, meeting: 11 students and both faculty members present

� WSGC Scholarships: Willie Flores applied and receive3d a $2.000.00 scholarship

� Research Experiences for Undergraduates and Internships � Society of Physics Students: Is it time to start a chapter? With Sarah Warthesen as advisor and Josh LeGreve as student organizer, SPS has met to organize and consider possible activities. There is promise of having an ACTIVE chapter in place during the 2008-2009 academic year.

� Issues: Calling for your advice on � Advising Make sure ANY student considering a physics major or minor is advised to take Math 130 or 133 during first semester of the first year. This will be added to our departmental advising guide.

� Course offerings/ scheduling Students suggested several areas in which they would like to see courses offered: history of physics, optics, nuclear physics, relativity, electronics, plasma physics, laser physics (Notes: of these, optics and nuclear physics were of most apparent interest; history of physics, nuclear physics, and electronics had been offered in the past)

� Advanced lab: brainstorm areas in which to include projects � Senior seminar format for majors and minors:

a. Thesis (major) or project paper (minor) based on background material, original research, analysis of results

b. Presentation of thesis/project c. Experiment revisited d. Problem-solving (related to project e. Short literature review talks f. Field trip Regarding Senior Seminar, it was suggested that junior physics majors be required to take at least 1 semester of seminar to help them prepare for thesis work in particular)