Portfolio for B.S. in Physics

Department of Physics

College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences

May 2004

This document is prepared under the pre-2005 UAPR guidelines for portfolio preparation (Effective January 2001).

II. Executive Summary

This document reports a self-study by the Physics Department of its BS degree program. The report includes results from student-outcome-based assessments taken during the first two years of the seven-year cycle. In this period it has been possible to assess seven out of a total of ten student outcomes. Some assessments are objective and quantitative, while others are subjective and qualitative.

In a department of our size (10 - 20 graduates each year) the faculty has a chance to get to know students personally. Personal interactions yield important impressions of strengths, weaknesses, and potentials. Thus, it has not been considered necessary, historically, to employ quantitative assessment tools that are finer than in-class examinations—which assess a student’s formal learning—and exit interviews which gather extensive qualitative impressions of the student’s learning experience.

The department has only recently begun to integrate quantitative assessments of student learning outcomes that focus on achievement in areas not addressed by in-class examinations. The assessment methods and their evaluation procedures are still under development.

With small numbers of students graduating each year, definitive conclusions based on assessment data would require nearly unanimous responses from outgoing students. Furthermore, a reinforcing trend in data from subsequent cohorts would be necessary to establish the need for a corrective change. Data acquired so far show no such well-defined trends.

           
* Physics also offers a BA degree. The number of students graduating with that option is too small to assess.

III. Introduction

The Physics Department has a long tradition of course-based and program-based outcomes assessment, though those terms were not explicitly used in the past. Physics competency is demonstrated by problem solving: the implicit or expressed outcome in any class, or for the program as a whole, is the ability to solve appropriate problems for the particular subject matter at hand.

The typical physics major, upon receiving a BS degree, will have completed 13 or more courses in physics, with another 10 or 12 technical courses in mathematics, chemistry, and other technical fields. The 13 physics courses will typically have required over 1,000 homework problems, 40-50 midterm and final exams, several technical papers, one or two oral presentations, and 30 or so laboratory exercises with reports of varying length. Our classes are small, so instructors have an excellent idea of how each of our graduates is able to solve physics problems.

Course and program improvement takes place on both individual-instructor and Department levels. Instructors in majors' courses regularly meet, formally and informally, to discuss student progress, the effectiveness (or not) of various innovations (measured, as always, by student performance on homework and examinations), and student preparation from earlier courses inside or outside the Department. These discussions are continuous and ongoing. Based on such discussions, a typical instructor makes changes every year in exactly what is taught and how it is approached.

Physics has been able to design, implement, and continuously improve a program that meets high standards for the very broadest student outcomes assessments: admission to excellent graduate programs, and success in them, and employment in attractive and well-paid positions. We know this because we interview every graduate and maintain contact with many of them for years after graduation. The department continues to attract top high school graduates and enrolls more academic scholarship holders than any other department for its size at NCSU.

At the Department level, major programmatic decisions have not been based, historically, on data from formal student learning outcome assessments. In the narrow sense of “program”, i.e., the Physics majors curriculum, the reasons for this are varied and include

(i) the relatively small number of students in our program, which makes it difficult to generate statistically meaningful data on a time scale of a few years,
(ii) the feeling among veteran instructors that their subjective judgments based on personal interactions with students are sufficient to assess the effectiveness of the program, and the general satisfaction of students with their level of achievement,
(iii) the reality that budgetary forces are more powerful, and
(iv) the process is slow on the time scale of writing a strategic plan or a compact plan.

In the larger sense of “program”, i.e., including service courses (in which students outnumber physics majors 100 to one) some examples of recent decisions, and why they were not based on student outcome assessments, include

(i) Format revision (“SCALE-UP”) in the sequence for Engineering majors (PY205/PY208). This revision, which had strong support from the client departments was a result of innovative efforts by two veteran faculty members who have distinguished themselves in the field of physics education research. The new format attracted substantial internal and external funding together with positive publicity for the department and the university.
(ii) Curriculum revision (“Matter and Interactions”) in the sequence for Engineering majors (PY205/PY208). This transformation is in progress. It has the strong endorsement of the department head and client departments and is driven by the acquisition of two new faculty members who have developed and tested the new curriculum elsewhere and who have outstanding credentials in physics education research.

(iii) Reduction in number of laboratory sessions in both the Engineering majors sequence (PY205/PY208) and in the life sciences majors sequence (PY211/212). This decision was forced on the department by space limitations and by budgetary conditions.
(iv) Subsequent increase in number of laboratory sessions in both the Engineering majors sequence (PY205/PY208) and in the life sciences majors sequence (PY211/212) and reallocation of student laboratory sessions to recitation sections in the Engineering sequence. This was made possible by the acquisition of new space in the Marye Anne Fox Teaching Laboratory Building, and was necessary for implementing the new curriculum (see (ii) above).

Faculty in the Physics Department are making a good faith effort to implement regular student outcome assessments. We have yet to complete a full seven-year cycle. The assessment plan for our Physics majors BS program and the assessments that have been made thus far are summarized in Sections VII and VIII below.

IV. Rationale for the Program

The formal mission of the Physics Department of North Carolina State University is to serve the people of the State of North Carolina by: (1) providing educational opportunities to undergraduate and graduate students in physics through high-quality curricula and research opportunities, (2) developing research programs which advance scientific knowledge and contribute to the needs of the Nation and State and which merit national and international recognition for their high quality; (3) providing high-quality physics instruction to the University community, and (4) supporting outreach activity which fosters public awareness of science. Central to this mission is the provision of a strong undergraduate physics majors program, to educate students for a range of professional opportunities including the next generation of university faculty.

Physics deals with the most fundamental nature of matter and energy. Its study has been associated with some of the great intellects of Western civilization. It brings together disciplined observation and experimentation in the natural world and rigorous mathematical inference to produce an interlocked set of broadly general principles, analytical techniques, and problem-solving strategies whose success in describing the world around us has remade that world. Physics contributions to society and to other disciplines are so fundamental and ubiquitous that a very brief list can be representative: all of electricity; radio; lasers; nuclear energy; nuclear magnetic resonance and its medical application, MRI; space exploration, the Hubble Space Telescope, weather satellites; the transistor, computers, nanotechnology. All these areas were initially developed by physicists.

Current research in physics represents some of the most exciting and challenging frontiers of human thought, and provides a powerful attraction for the best students. In today’s society, the intellectual rigor of physics has proved to be an outstanding education not only for future physicists but for individuals in all fields; the concentration on careful thinking, logical analysis, and search for fundamental principles is as useful in a court of law as in a laboratory. At NC State, individuals with physics degrees can be found in almost every College, including Humanities and Social Sciences and Design. Graduates of our department have become successful lawyers and businessmen as well as outstanding scientists. The attributes required for success in physics are common to almost all fields, and their development is one of the chief tasks our Department has undertaken.

All other major US research universities share NC State's commitment to providing a strong undergraduate physics majors’ program. Numbers of graduates are small compared to some professional fields; NC State's 5-year average of about 20 baccalaureate degrees/year places us in the top 25 nationally. However, here and elsewhere, physics majors tend to be among the strongest students academically; the median entering SAT score over the last 5 years is about 1330, almost 150 points higher than the University’s median, while the median high-school GPA is over 4.0. About 4% of the University’s Park Scholars are physics majors, even though majors make up only about 0.5% of the total undergraduate enrollment. NC State’s Physics Department believes that offering a nationally competitive physics program to meet the demand of these very strong students is an essential part of the Department’s, and the University’s, mission, and is an important service to the state of North Carolina.

The goal of the program is to provide a strong foundation in the basic concepts, procedures, and culture of physics. Students planning on graduate studies in physics or a related scientific or engineering field normally take our BS degree, while students interested in less technical career options, or double majoring, often obtain the BA degree. Part of our mission is to offer physics instruction to a range of students, including to students majoring in a related field who wish the intellectual rigor and prestige of a physics degree in addition to their primary degree.

We regard undergraduate research as an essential part of our physics majors’ educational program. Departmental funds and individual research grants support undergraduates for summer and term-time laboratory work, and in some cases even before students arrive for their first year at the University. We established the Rodney McCormick Award for Undergraduate Research in Physics, awarded annually at an Undergraduate Physics Colloquium given by the winner, followed by a poster session of research by other undergraduates. Many of our majors present their research at the University’s Undergraduate Research Symposium (URS) each April, and a few travel to professional meetings to deliver papers. Our honors program requires that students do research in which they have an intellectual stake, as they are required to write a summary and present at the URS. We operate one of the oldest NSF-funded Research Experiences for Undergraduates summer programs, supporting twelve to fifteen undergraduates each year for work in various Departmental laboratories.

V. Missions and Strategic Plan
Relation of Program Outcomes to College and Department Mission Statements and to Department Strategic Plan

The mission statements of the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and of the Department of Physics both state a broad commitment to provide quality educational opportunities for undergraduate students (see excerpts below). The objectives of the Physics BS program as stated in the Assessment Plan are compatible with and elucidate the general statement made in the Physics mission statement. Those objectives closely parallel the items emphasized in the College mission statement.

The Physics Department has recently published a strategic plan (2000) and a compact plan (2002) which enunciate goals for undergraduate instruction (Physics majors and students in service courses, respectively). For example, the strategic plan lists the following guiding principles for instruction and student development:

1. We will remain aware of the needs of the students and provide learning opportunities that make our students maximally competitive upon graduation.
2.  We will seek to improve teaching effectiveness through the use of innovative approaches and the implementation of new technologies.

Department Mission Statement (excerpted):  
The Physics Department faculty is committed to providing outstanding educational and research opportunities.  Our highest priority is to help all students achieve their educational objectives.  We serve the people of the State of North Carolina by:

• providing educational opportunities to undergraduate and graduate students in physics, through high quality curricula, faculty, and research facilities.

College Mission Statement (excerpted):  
The mission of the College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences is to seek knowledge and educate students. ... Specifically, the principal purposes are 1) to provide a high quality instructional program in the physical and mathematical sciences both at the undergraduate and graduate levels, ... In the instructional and research programs both the basic and applied aspects of the physical and mathematical sciences are stressed so as to prepare students

• for scientific and technical careers in industry, government, and academia,
• for entry into programs of study leading to advanced degrees within the physical and mathematical sciences, ...

Sources:
Department Mission Statement:
http://www.physics.ncsu.edu/department/Files/bylaws.html
Department Strategic Plan (2000):
http://www.physics.ncsu.edu/links/links.html?/department/strategicarchive.html
Department Compact Plan (2002):
http://www.physics.ncsu.edu/department/compact_2002_combined.html
College Mission Statement:
http://www.pams.ncsu.edu/about/vision.php

VI. Enrollment and Retention

College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences
Internal Transfer Data
1999 - 2003
(does not include switches from one PAMS department to another,
e.g., CH to PY or PY to MA)

VII. Program Objectives, Outcomes and Assessment Plan*
(Items marked with an asterisk have been assessed during this reporting period.)

Graduates of the Physics Department will:
IV.	have a strong command of the nature of oral and written communication and of intra-group interactions in the traditions of physics. Outcomes: *1. Students will prepare and give oral research reports appropriate for professional meetings such as those of the APS or AAS, and will prepare written reports in the format of PRL or other refereed journals. assessment: speaking (alternate years): The PY452 instructor will convene a group of faculty to attend students' oral presentations and assess the presentations based on criteria provided by the instructor. This will occur at the end of the semester, and the assessment will not be part of the student's grade. writing: (alternate years): The PY452 instructor will ask a group of faculty to read students' written reports and assess them based on criteria provided by the instructor. This will occur at the end of the semester, and the assessment will not be part of the student's grade. 2. Students will have experience working in groups to accomplish common objectives. Assessment: This experience can be gained in two ways. Advanced UG lab course: satisfied by passing PY452. Research Lab: This complements Outcome III.2, above.
V.	do well in employment or admission to graduate study. Outcomes: *1. Students will be competitive in the employment markets and professional programs assessment: During pre-graduation exit interview students will be asked to report on their efforts to seek employment in an area that uses their knowledge of physics. 2. Students will gain admission to high-quality graduate programs in physics and other technical fields, and succeed in those programs. Assessment: (i) During the pre-graduation exit interview students will be asked to report on their efforts to gain admission to graduate school. (ii) The departmental assessment committee will review the responses to the Open-ended, Physics Department Insert to the Graduating Student Survey. (iii) Through regular contacts with alumni, the department head will attempt to keep track of progress made in graduate school.
*	During the review phase of this report the authors received thoughtful feedback from the College Associate Dean for Undergraduate Affairs who read the report carefully. We intend to incorporate those useful suggestions in the next review.

VIII. Assessment Report

During the two years leading up to the preparation of this report, an ad hoc committee of Physics Department instructors (both tenured and non-tenure-track) devised an assessment plan and began its implementation. This report summarizes our first attempts to asses the Physics BS degree program. Seven out of the ten assessment-plan outcomes were addressed.

Since this is a new activity for our department, a considerable shift in the culture is required in order to focus on global student learning outcomes. The kinds of measurements reported here are not unusual, but they are uncommon to physicists who pride themselves on developing and applying well-designed and calibrated instruments and who refuse to draw conclusions from small data sets. Having low-quality data (i.e., having large or unknown error bars) and no prior results from which to seek trends, the data sets gathered during this first brief reporting period primarily serve as benchmarks for future assessment.

Objective I: “Graduates of the Physics Department will have a comprehensive knowledge of undergraduate physics.”
Outcome 2: “Students will do well in advanced courses which presuppose understanding of physics at a more elementary level.”

Prior to the fall 2003 advising period, the Director of Undergraduate Programs met with the instructors of the core undergraduate courses required of Physics majors and discussed the status and performance of the students taking these courses. Two items of concern were identified; they are:
1) Most students transferring to NCSU’s Physics program from other institutions are inadequately prepared in their previous physics and mathematics courses.
2) A few topics which are important for appropriate treatment of the material in the core physics courses are apparently no longer taught in the prerequisite or corequisite mathematics courses.
In order to be certain that these two concerns are affecting students other than just those presently taking the core courses, the Director of Undergraduate Programs will meet with the course instructors semiannually prior to the advising period each semester. If these difficulties persist, possible solutions will need to be considered.

Objective I: “Graduates of the Physics Department will have a comprehensive knowledge of undergraduate physics.”
Outcome 3: “Students will be satisfied with the over-all quality of their physics education.”

Responses to the Open-ended, Physics Department Insert to the 2003 Graduating Student Survey (10 respondents) were tallied. Question #7 asked about satisfaction. There were ten responses.

None of the other nine questions (see Appendix IX.B) yielded usable data because of (1) the small number of respondents and (2) the wide range of opinions stated. Many of the respondents are double and triple majors with Physics not usually the first major. This cultural variation makes it more difficult to respond to the remarks.

Objective II: “Graduates of the Physics Department will be able to solve physical problems in a wide range of contexts of physics.”
Outcome 1: “Students will complete extensive collections of problems in classical mechanics, electromagnetism, and quantum mechanics.”

We have collected data from PY411 (classical mechanics) and PY413 (electricity and magnetism). The instructor’s reports are in Appendix IX.C.1 and IX.C.2, respectively. The data are broken down into the subtopics appropriate for each course, in an effort to identify areas of relatively weak mastery. The numbers show a high degree of mastery in each subtopic.

Objective III: “Graduates of the Physics Department will have laboratory and computer skills appropriate for employment or further study.”
Outcome 1: “Students will complete advanced exercises in modern physics.”

This outcome is course-based and is satisfied by passing PY452, a senior laboratory.

Objective III: “Graduates of the Physics Department will have laboratory and computer skills appropriate for employment or further study.”
Outcome 2: “Students will have the opportunity to engage in research laboratories at NC State or elsewhere.”

This Outcome is assessed partly from posters that students present at undergraduate research symposia. A list of recent posters can be found in Appendix IX.D.1. The object is not to win a competition, since only a few can achieve that. Poster presentations document the student outcome, i.e., that the students on the posters have been active in undergraduate research.

This Outcome is also assessed by responses to the Graduating Senior Survey. Question #10 of the Open-ended, Physics Department Insert to the 2003 Graduating Student Survey (see Appendix IX.B) indicated that undergraduate research experience made a significant, positive impact on students. (7 responses).

Objective IV: “Graduates of the Physics Department will have a strong command of the nature of oral and written communication and of intra-group interactions in the traditions of physics.”
Outcome 1: “Students will prepare and give oral research reports appropriate for professional meetings such as those of the APS or AAS, and will prepare written reports in the format of PRL or other refereed journals.”

The oral communication assessment is made at the end of the senior laboratory course (PY452). All faculty members are invited to attend student presentations and to comment on them via special rubric prepared for that purpose. Data on one year’s class is presented in Appendix IX.E. On a scale of one to five, faculty judged performances to lie in the mid-to-upper 3 range, with the highest marks going to presentation and organization. As these are the first ever data taken to assess this outcome, they serve as a reference level from which future improvements can be measured. It is worth pointing out, that as scientific as this assessment may seem, variability from year to year can be expected, not just because different students present different topics, but also because the examiners are different and have not been trained in the same way.

Objective V: “Graduates of the Physics Department will do well in finding employment or admission to graduate study. ”
Outcome 1: “Students will be competitive in the employment markets and professional programs”

This outcome is assessed by the Open-ended, Physics Department Insert to the 2003 Graduating Student Survey (see Appendix IX.B, questions #1 through #5). It seems that with the 2003 cohort, at least, the Survey comes too early in the hiring season to be a good measure of employment success.

Appendix IX.A Assessment Committee Members

Year One (2001 - 2002): Ad Hoc Committee
Task: to create assessment plans
Robert Beichner, Robert Egler, Marjorie Klenin, Richard Mowat (chair), George Parker, Stephen Reynolds (UGPD) , Elizabeth Rieg

Year Two (2002 - 2003): Ad Hoc Committee
Task: to create and conduct assessment procedures for service courses.
Robert Beichner, Marjorie Klenin, Richard Mowat (chair), George Parker, Stephen Reynolds (UGPD) , Elizabeth Rieg

Year Three (2003 - 2004): Physics Course and Curriculum Committee
Task: to create and conduct assessment procedures for Physics majors program
Charles Johnson (GPD), Marjorie Klenin, Fred Lado, Richard Mowat (Chair), Michael Paesler (GPD), Stephen Reynolds, Bruce Sherwood

Appendix IX.B Graduating Senior Survey (number of responses = 10)

2002-2003 Graduating Senior Survey:

Open-End Comments: Physics Department Insert

1. If seeking employment after graduation, indicate area of activity

Appendix IX.C.1 411 Homework Assignments* Fall 2003

#1. Chap. 1, Probs. 9, 10, 13, 17
Due: Monday, Aug. 25. …………… [Content: Vector Analysis; Average score: 93%]

#2. Chap. 1, Probs. 3, 4, 5
Due: Friday, Aug. 29….…...……… [Content: Matrix Analysis; Average score: 80%]

#3. Chap. 1, Probs. 27, 31, 40; Chap. 2, Prob. 6
Due: Friday, Sept. 5..…...….……… [Content: Vector Analysis; Average score: 90%]

#4. Chap. 2, Probs. 12, 14, 23, 30, 36
Due: Friday, Sept. 12…...….…..… [Content: Projectile Motion Average score: 93%]

#5. Chap. 3, Probs. 1,2, 6, 11
Due: Friday, Sept. 26…...…….[Content: Harnomic Oscillator; Average score: 87%]

#6. Chap. 3, Probs. 18, 28, 34, 45
Due: Monday, Oct. 6…...……. [Content: Harmonic Oscillator; Average score: 89%]

#7. Chap. 5, Probs. 2, 5, 6, 15, 16
Due: Friday, Oct. 24…...…...…. [Content: Newtonian Gravity; Average score: 94%]

#8. Chap. 7, Probs. 3, 4, 6, 7
Due: Friday, Oct. 31…………[Content: Lagrangian Dynamics; Average score: 86%]

#9. Chap. 6, Probs. 2, 4, 7; Chap. 7, 9, 10
Due: Friday, Nov. 7……………….[Content: Euler’s Equation; Average score: 92%]

#10. Chap. 7, Probs. 22, 23, 26, 34, 41
Due: Monday, Nov. 24……[Content: Hamiltonian Dynamics; Average score: 88%]

#11. Ch. 2, Prob. 16; Ch. 3, Probs. 3,12; Ch. 5, Prob. 13; Ch. 6, Prob. 14; Ch. 7, Prob. 16
Due: Wednesday, Dec. 3…..……. [Content: Review for Final; Average score: 96%]

Appendix IX.C.2 414 Homework Assignments* Fall 2003

#1. Chap. 1, Probs. 12, 16, 18, 24
Due: Wednesday, Aug. 27. …………. [Content: Vector Analysis; Average score: 93%]

#2. Chap. 1, Probs. 30 [Ans: 1/60], 31[Ans: 7], 32[Ans: 48], 39, 44
Due: Wednesday, Sept. 3…...…….…. [Content: Vector Analysis; Average score: 87%]

#3. Chap. 2, Probs. 6, 9, 13, 14, 16
Due: Wednesday, Sept. 10..…...….…… [Content: Electrostatics; Average score: 90%]

#4. Chap. 2, Probs. 22, 24, 26, 31, 32
Due: Wednesday, Sept. 17…...….…..… [Content: Electrostatics; Average score: 92%]

#5. Chap. 3, Probs. 1,4,5,6
Due: Wednesday, Oct. 1…...……. [Content: Special Techniques; Average score: 89%]

#6. Chap. 3, Probs. 7,8,14,16
Due: Wednesday, Oct. 8…...……. [Content: Special Techniques; Average score: 84%]

#7. Chap. 3, Probs. 23,26,28
Due: Monday, Oct. 20…...…...…. [Content: Special Techniques; Average score: 88%]
Hints:
(3.23) Consider separately the radial part when the angular solution is a constant.
(3.26) The leading term is a quadrupole.
(3.28) p = 4p kR³/3 in the positive z direction.

#8. Chap. 4, Probs. 2,4,6,7,10
Due: Wednesday, Oct. 29[Content:Electrostatic Fields in Matter; Average score: 86%]

#9. Chap. 4, Probs. 15,18,20
Due: Wednesday, Nov. 5[Content: Electrostatic Fields in Matter; Average score: 89%]

#10. Chap. 5, Probs. 1,4,7
Due: Wednesday, Nov. 12………….... [Content: Magnetostatics; Average score: 90%]

#11. Chap. 5, Probs. 9,11,13,23
Due: Wednesday, Nov. 19…..……….. [Content: Magnetostatics; Average score: 87%]

*Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, 3rd Ed.

Appendix IX.D.1 Undergraduates Presenting Departmental Colloquium
1999-2003

Rodney I. McCormick Award Recipients
1999 Kjersten C. Bunker — High-Resolution Radio Astronomy: Galaxies to Planetary Nebulae
2000 Chad E. Mitchell — Light-Front Analysis of Quantum Chromodynamic Exclusive Processes
2001 David K. Wood — Formation of Cobalt Disilicide Films on Carbon-Terminated 6H-SiC(000-1)
2002 Lucas K. Wagner — Magic Sizes, Doping, and Optical Transitions in Silicon Nanocrystals
2003 Jennifer Huening — Measurement of Nanostructure Stresses in Semiconducting Materials Using Raman Spectroscopy

Physics Undergraduate Research Colloquium
1999-2003

1999 Poster Session
Eugene Bryan — Diffusion of Amorphous Silicon Through Metal Silicides
Michael Raley — Convection and Rotation in Three-Dimensional Supernova Simulations
Erica Robertson — Formation of Titanium Carbide
Rosemary Stallings — Driving Convection in Supernova Blastwaves
Nick Stoute — Origin of Pulse Period Changes in X-Ray Binary Stars
Michael Binger — Multiloop Diagrams in Effective Field Theory and the Deuteron Quadrupole Moment

2000 Poster Session
Dargan M. Frierson — Testing Unified Theories for Seyfert Galaxies with the Arecibo Telescope: The Interaction of a Pulsar Nebula and a Supernova Remnant
Jacqueline S. Jones — Ionization of Molecular Clouds Due to Supernova Remnants
Alana Kirby — Search for Jets in Planetary Nebulae
Chad E. Mitchell — Study of the Light-Front Framework for QCD Exclusive Processes
Charles S. Nickerson — Isolation of Gold Nanoparticle Structures
Michael T. Raley — Gravitational Wave Signatures of Core Collapse Supernovae
Amanda Sabourov — Monte Carlo Studies of a Proton Compton Scattering Experiment Utilizing the New FEL at Duke University
Nicholas A. Stoute — Hydrodynamical Simulations of X-Ray Heating Transport Off of Accretion Disks Onto Compact Stellar Objects
Christopher Truman — Gravitational Focusing of Stellar Winds
Brett E. Unks — Simulation of Radiative Shocks

2001 Poster Session
Matthew Brinkley — Reflectance Difference Spectroscopy of Silicon Insulator Interfaces
Aaron Carpenter — Thin Shell Instabilities in Planetary Nebulae
James S. Cook — A Pulsed Jumping Ring Apparatus for Demonstration of Lenz’s Law
Albert Hopping & Gregory Nusz — Biologically Compatable Probes via Self-Assembled Monolayers
Alex C. Mayer — Recent Advances in the Study of Superconductivity-Dependent Sliding Friction
Amanda Sabourov — Development of a Compton Scattering Beam Flux Monitor
C. Soo Hoo & D. Paquin — Convective Instability in Core-Collapse Supernovae
Miklos Kiss & Nathan Speer — Studying Bone Using Diffraction Enhanced Imaging
Paul Tanner — Nuclear Orientation Thermometry

2002 Poster Session
Aaron Carpenter & Scott Miller — Testing of a 2.5 Tesla Superconducting Magnet System
Nick Featherstone — On the Evolution of Ejecta Inhomogeneities in Supernova Remnant
Mark C. Harris — Surface Morphology of Polystyrene and Poly(Methyl) Methacrylate Blends
Jennifer Huening — Synchrotron Radiation in Supernova Remnants
Derek H. Justice — Nonperturbative Vacuum Effect in the Quantum Field Theory of Neutrino Oscillations
Alana E. Kirby — A Search for the Smallest Stable Cage Clusters: Heteroatom Fullerenes
Mengning Liang — Emission Site Density Characterization of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotube Thin Films
Gregory Nusz — Biologically Compatible Probes via Self-Assembled Monolayers
Michael Robertson — Thin Shell Instabilities in Young Supernova Remnants
Lucas Wagner — A Quantum Monte Carlo Study of Electron Correlation in Transition Metal- Oxygen Systems
Lucas Wagner & Zachary Helms — Silicon Nanocrystals: Reconstructions and the Stokes Shift

2003 Poster Session
Justin Brockman — Supernova Neutrino Mixing
Nick Featherstone — Understanding a Supernova Remnant’s Evolution: Power Spectrum Comparisons of Models and Observations of Cassiopeia A
Zach Helms — The Effects of Au-Doping on Hydrogen Saturated Silicon Nanocrystals
Greg Nusz — Biologically Compatible Nanoprobes via Self-Assembled Monolayers

Appendix IX.D.2 N. C. State University Undergraduate Research Symposium
1999-2003
Papers by Physics Majors

1999
Kjersten C. Bunker — A Search for Synchrotron Emission from Planetary Nebulae
Michael T. Raley & Rosemary Stallings — Convection and Rotation in Three Dimensional Supernova Simulations
Rosemary Stallings — Driving Convection in Supernova Blastwaves
Nicholas A. Stoute — Origin of Pulse Period Changes in X-Ray Binary Stars

2000
Dargan M. Frierson — The Interaction of a Pulsar Nebula and a Supernova Remnant
Dargan M. Frierson — Testing Unified Theories for Seyfert Galaxies with the Arecibo Telescope
Jacqueline S. Jones — Ionization of Molecular Clouds Due to Supernova Remnants
Chad E. Mitchell — Frame-Independence of Exclusive Amplitudes in the Light-Front Quantization
Michael T. Raley — Gravitational Wave Signatures of Core Collapse Supernovae
Nicholas A. Stoute — Hydrodynamical Simulations of X-Ray Heating Transport off of Accretion Disks Onto Compact Stellar Objects
Christopher B. Truman — Gravitational Focussing of Stellar Winds
Brett E. Unks — Simulation of Radiative Shocks

2001
Matthew Brinkley — Reflectance Difference Spectroscopy of Silicon Insulator Interfaces
Aaron M. Carpenter — Thin Shell Instabilities in Planetary Nebulae
James S. Cook — A Pulsed Jumping Ring Apparatus for Demonstration of Lenz’s Law
Albert E. Hopping & Gregory J. Nusz — Biologically Compatible Probes via Self-Assembled Monolayers
Chirag Lakhani — Classical Chromodynamic Approach to Study of Hadrons
Alex C. Mayer — Recent Advances in the Study of Superconductivity-Dependent Sliding Friction
Amanda L. Sabourov — Development of a Compton Scattering Beam Flux Monitor
C. Soo Hoo & D. Paquin — Convective Instability in Core-Collapse Supernovae
Nathan J. Speer & Miklos Z. Kiss — Studying Bone Using Diffraction Enhanced Imaging
Paul J. Tanner — Nuclear Orientation Thermometry
David K. Wood — Formation of Cobalt Disilicide Films on (3x3) 6H-SiC(000-1)

2002
Aaron M. Carpenter & Scott Miller — Testing of a 2.5 Tesla Superconducting Magnet System
Anthony De Caro, Will Peterson, Gerald Sears, Noah Genzel, Tonya Mason, Frank Ziglar, Paul Ehrenkaufer, Mark Lavin, Rich Helle, James Perkins, Iyam Lynch, Eric Brunner, Ana Pinto, Ralph White, Nick Featherstone, Aaron Carpenter, Ashley Harris, Sally Royo, Megan Miller, Tera Crowe, Sam Thompson, Jeff Junker, Kevin Lee, Rob Pascale, Karen Spieler, Warren Buff — Got Iron? Iron Distribution in Cosmic Gamma-Ray Bursts
Nicholas A. Featherstone — On the Evolution of Ejecta Inhomogeneities in Supernova Remnants
Mark C. Harris — Surface Morphology of Polystyrene
Jennifer J. Huening — Synchrotron Radiation in Supernova Remnants
Derek H. Justice — Nonperturbative Vacuum Effect in the Quantum Field Theory of Neutrino Oscillations
Alana E. Kirby — A Search for the Smallest Stable Cage Clusters: Heteroatom Fullerenes
Mengning Liang — Emission Site Density Characterization of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotube Thin Films
Gregory J. Nusz — Biologically Compatible Probes via Self-Assembled Monolayers
Michael P. Robertson — Thin Shell Instabilities in Young Supernova Remnants
Lucas K. Wagner — A Quantum Monte Carlo Study of Electron Correlation in Transition Metal- Oxygen Systems
Lucas K. Wagner & Zachary Helms — Silicon Nanocrystals: Reconstructions and the Stokes Shift

2003
Justin S. Brockman — Supernova Neutrino Mixing
Hugh Heldenbrand — Adsorption of Nitric Oxide on Diesel Particulates
Zach Helms & Lucas Wagner — Hydrogen-Saturated Silicon Nanocrystals
Steven Story, Donald Winesett & Guenter Appel — Tuning Substrate Surface Energy for polystyrene/poly(methyl methacrylate) Blends

Appendix IX.E: Assessment Report, “Closing the Loop”
May 2003

OBJECTIVE IV Graduates of the Physics Department will have a strong command of the nature of oral and written communication in the traditions of physics.

OUTCOMES
1. Students will prepare and give oral research reports appropriate for professional meetings such as those of the American Physical Society or American Astronomical Society, and will prepare written reports in the format of Physical Review Letters or other refereed journals.
2. Students will have experience working in groups to accomplish common objectives

ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (this is a course-based assessment)
1. Evaluation of oral and written reports in required Senior Laboratory course PY 452, and in
advanced electives; oral and written reports from Honors projects and summer research
2. Evaluation of group assignments in upper-division courses, Senior Laboratory; exit interviews

ASSESSMENT BENCHMARK
not yet established

BACKGROUND
PY452 is a required laboratory course taken by Seniors during the Spring Semester. Students work in teams on a project that consumes most of the semester. Each team has a unique project. Students are graded on a pass/fail basis. Each team is required to give a public presentation based on its project. The departmental faculty is invited to hear those presentations each year at the end of the semester. This year seven projects were presented on the afternoon of May 7th. Students were informed prior to the presentations that faculty reviewers would be present, and that the faculty reviews would not be used in figuring course grades.

PROCEDURE
o PY452 instructor Professor Hans Hallen prepared a rubric that faculty reviewers used to evaluate the student presentations. Teams were scored on a five-point scale (5 being the highest score) in each of three categories:
1. presentation and organization
2. physics content and explanation
3. general impression of talk as a contributed talk at a professional meeting
o Seven faculty members attended at least some of the presentations. Those filing out rubrics were Robert Beichner, Don Ellison, Hans Hallen, and Richard Mowat.
o The data from the rubrics was compiled by Richard Mowat.
o The findings were presented to the department's undergraduate academic program review committee (UAPRC).
o Recommendations (see below) were made by the UAPRC after discussion of the findings.

FINDINGS, based on rubrics completed by four faculty members who heard all seven presentations:
(Compiled by Richard Mowat)

1. Each group was scored on each of three categories (5-point scale for each category) by four faculty reviewers. Typical scores were 3s and 4s with a few 5s. An average of the four reviewers' scores was made to smooth out variations. Those average values are plotted below.

Average value of the seven group scores = 3.8

Average value of the seven group scores = 3.4

Average value of the seven group scores = 3.6

 2. Reviewers made verbal comments during the presentations, and a few reviewers made written comments on the rubrics. The most serious remarks concerned the students' computation and presentation of the uncertainties in their measurements.

RECOMMENDED ACTION (as discussed by the Physics Department Undergraduate Academic Review Committee):
The PY452 instructor will be asked to present these findings to next year's class and to challenge the students to achieve average scores of 4.0 or higher. (Students are already provided with guidelines and training exercises, they just need a little more motivation to perform at a higher level.)