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.