1. Masterclass 2011 in the U.S. Ken Cecire University of Notre Dame/QuarkNet kcecire@nd.edu

2. IPPOG Spring Meeting 14 April 2011 2 Items to Report Statistics and developments LHC masterclasses Changes and adjustments for 2011 Observations Future plans

3. IPPOG Spring Meeting 14 April 2011 3 2011 (2010) (2009) Statistics 21 (22) (23) U.S. institutes 3 institutes had double masterclasses. 2 participated with CERN rather than FNAL. 6 (2) (2) institute(s) from outside U.S. Wien and Shizuoka continued. Added Medellin, Montreal, Shanghai, Vancouver x2. 10 (7) (7) videoconferences at Fermilab Each had 3-4 participating institutes. >500 (>500) (>350) students

4. IPPOG Spring Meeting 14 April 2011 4 2011 Overall Developments All groups did LHC masterclasses–ATLAS or CMS–this year. Evaluation limited to surveys Student survey Teacher survey M.J. Young & Associates with QuarkNet fellows and participating teachers Variations for larger numbers of students Double masterclasses (Spearfish, Hampton) Double videoconferences (Baltimore) Special International Masterclass arrangements Pacific Rim Transatlantic

5. IPPOG Spring Meeting 14 April 2011 5 Classroom Prep Plan Data indicates prep matters. Emphasize learner objectives. Recommend ~3 hrs., 3 activities: Rolling with Rutherford Quark Workbench Top Quark Mass

6. IPPOG Spring Meeting 14 April 2011 6 LHC Masterclasses Worked! High satisfaction reported by mentors (Some missed LEP, though.) LHC Exercises: ATLAS Z-path CMS J/  -path Combination and transmission of results Record results using Google spreadsheet. Make histogram using Shodor (or other method). Put histogram in Google presentation. One moderator suggestion: Use Indico.

7. IPPOG Spring Meeting 14 April 2011 Observations Classroom preparation materials Gave teachers hands-on resources. Emphasized that learner objectives should be met. Reused prep from 2010  change for 2012 and LHC? Meeting goals Much positive feedback on overall masterclass day and on exercises Videoconference less popular

8. IPPOG Spring Meeting 14 April 2011 Plans Growth Did not seek growth in U.S. numbers in 2011. International dimension grew  good for students! International partners Further growth in Asia, Canada, Latin America? Videoconference times  threading the needle (but it works). Transatlantic connection robust but could use more partners. Follow-on Use of “Web 2.0” robust—keep going. Continue to adjust for LHC.