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

2. EPPOG Spring Meeting 3 June 2009 2 Items to Report U.S. Masterclass statistics Developments in the previous year Evaluation and preliminary results Observations Future plans

3. EPPOG Spring Meeting 3 June 2009 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. EPPOG Spring Meeting 3 June 2009 4 Statistics

5. EPPOG Spring Meeting 3 June 2009 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

6. EPPOG Spring Meeting 3 June 2009

7. EPPOG Spring Meeting 3 June 2009 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. EPPOG Spring Meeting 3 June 2009 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. EPPOG Spring Meeting 3 June 2009 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. EPPOG Spring Meeting 3 June 2009 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. EPPOG Spring Meeting 3 June 2009 Evaluation - Preparation

12. EPPOG Spring Meeting 3 June 2009 Evaluation – Change in Understanding

13. EPPOG Spring Meeting 3 June 2009 Evaluation – Attitudes Physics in this Masterclass shows a relation to everyday life. 7 Modern physics such as particle physics should be a bigger part of my physics/science lessons in school. 6 From attending this MC, I have learned how scientific research is organized and carried out. 5 This MC informs me about the role of physics for modern technological developments. 4 After attending Masterclass, I know more about particle physics. 3 I prefer a program that leaves more room for my own ideas. 2 In Masterclass I would like to have more exercises instead of lectures. 1

14. EPPOG Spring Meeting 3 June 2009 Evaluation – Program Aspects

15. EPPOG Spring Meeting 3 June 2009 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. EPPOG Spring Meeting 3 June 2009 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. EPPOG Spring Meeting 3 June 2009 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. EPPOG Spring Meeting 3 June 2009 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”