cosmic ray research in high school classrooms: an ...pavone/particle-www/rachel... · table 1.1...

Cosmic Ray Research in High School Classrooms: An Evaluation of the

PARTICLE Program at the University of Rochester

By

Rachael Elizabeth Anderman

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the

Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science

Supervised by

Professor Kevin McFarland

Department of Physics and Astronomy The College

Arts & Sciences

University of Rochester Rochester, New York

2005

ii

Curriculum Vitae

The author was born on in Baltimore, Maryland on August 10, 1980. She

attended Hamilton College and graduated with a Magna Cum Laude Bachelor of Arts

degree in May 2001. She graduated with a major in physics and a minor in chemistry

and received departmental honors for her senior thesis work with Ann Silversmith.

She came to the University of Rochester to begin graduate study in physics in 2001.

In May 2002, she was awarded the Graduate Student Teaching Award. She then left

to pursue teaching interests and returned in July 2004 to complete her Master of

Science degree under the direction of Kevin McFarland.

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to give much thanks to my advisor, Kevin McFarland, for all of

his help and guidance with this project. We were both exploring new territory in

attempting an education research project, which is a bit different than experimental

physics research. April Luehman and Vicki Roth also deserve my thanks for helping

me get started and pointing me in the right direction. Their expertise on creating

surveys and educational analysis helped me conduct a better study and write a better

paper than otherwise would have been possible. Thank you also to Connie Jones for

all of her help with the logistics of mailing out hundreds of surveys over the course of

the year and for useful conversations about the program.

Much thanks also goes to the PARTICLE teachers for their cooperation with

this project; without them I would not have a thesis. They filled out many surveys

and convinced their colleagues to do the same. Especially important to the program

are Susen Clark and Joe Willie. I would like to thank them for the incredible amount

of time and effort they have put in to make PARTICLE a successful program.

I would also like to thank my parents for the editing support they gave me

while writing this paper. Lastly, I would like to thanks my husband, Brian Lancor for

encouraging me to finish my degree and for all of his support throughout the years.

This work was made possible by grants from the Research Corporation

Cottrell Scholars Award, number CS0857, and the National Science Foundation,

grant number PHY0134988. Human subject approval was granted by the University

of Rochester Research Subjects Review Board.

iv

Abstract

The PARTICLE (Physicists And Rochester Teachers Inventing CLassroom

Experiments) Program has been working since 1999 to provide Rochester area high

school teachers with the tools necessary to do experimental research in their

classrooms. Through the use of cosmic ray telescopes, students are introduced to

ideas in particle and modern physics, as well as the experimental research techniques

used in real scientific research. This report documents the success of the program

through an evaluation of the Summer Institute, which prepares teachers to implement

the program, and also an evaluation of how the program was used in the high schools

during the 2004-2005 school year. Case studies and results from questionnaires are

presented to determine the extent to which PARTICLE is meeting its goals. Also

examined are reasons why teachers have trouble implementing the program. The

PARTICLE Program is assessed with regard to established educational standards at

the state (New York State Board of Regents) and national level (National Science

Education Standards). The program is also evaluated using the Seven Principles for

Effective Education defined by Chickering and Gamson and the Authentic Inquiry

framework developed by Chinn and Malhotra. Recommendations are given for

program improvement.

v

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Background and Introduction 1

Chapter 2 Summer Institute 13

Chapter 3 PARTICLE in the Classroom 26

Chapter 4 The PARTICLE Program and Established 88 Education Standards

Chapter 5 Conclusion 116

References 130

Appendix A Instruments Used in Evaluation 132

Appendix B 2004 Summer Institute Schedule 157

Appendix C Examples of Student Research 160

Appendix D 2005 PARTICLE Day Schedule 162

vi

List of Tables

Table Title PageTable 1.1 Instruments and Data Collected 10Table 2.1 Summer Institute Survey Results 17Table 2.2 Teacher Preparation 23Table 3.1 Ethnic Group Distributions 31Table 3.2 Ethnic Group Distributions in PARTICLE 31Table 3.3 Classes Using PARTICLE 49Table 3.4 Detector Use by Students 50Table 3.5 Student Involvement in PARTICLE 51Table 3.6 Classroom Resources 53Table 3.7 Applying Program Experiences 56Table 3.8 Student Responses 60Table 3.9 Comparison of Student Responses 61Table 3.10 How Teachers Presented Material to Students 62Table 3.11 Influences on Curriculum Development (Mode/Mean) 64Table 3.12 Influences on Curriculum Development (Distribution) 65Table 3.13 Modern Physics Curricula 66Table 3.14 Breakdown of Modern Physics Topics by Course 67Table 3.15 Class and Lab Time Spent on Modern Physics 68Table 3.16 Curriculum Changes for New Teachers 69Table 3.17 Classroom Practices (Mode/Mean) 73Table 3.18 Classroom Practices (Distribution) 74Table 3.19 Classroom Practices in PARTICLE Unit 79Table 3.20 Ease of Implementing PARTICLE in the Classroom 82Table 3.21 School Support for PARTICLE 83Table 4.1 Modern Physics in Regents and AP Curricula 95Table 4.2 Methods of Learning in the Summer Institute 99Table 4.3 Authentic Inquiry Cognitive Processes 105Table 4.4 Authentic Inquiry Epistemology 112

vii

List of Figures

Figure Title Page

Figure 1.1 Schematic of a Cosmic Ray Telescope 3

Figure 1.2 Photograph of Cosmic Ray Telescope Detector Paddle 3

Figure 1.3 Photograph of Cosmic Ray Telescope in an Experiment Measuring Lead Absorption

4

Background and Introduction 1

Chapter 1: Background and Introduction

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Background: What is PARTICLE? 2

1.3 Research Goals 7

1.4 Instrumentation 8

1.5 A Note for Scientists on Research and Conclusions 11

1.6 Conclusion 12

1.1 Introduction

This evaluation of the PARTICLE (Physicists and Rochester Teachers

Inventing CLassroom Experiments) Program at the University of Rochester will

explore the extent to which the program is meeting its goals. The aim of this study is

to document how well PARTICLE is preparing teachers to use the program, how

exactly it is being implemented in their schools, the impact it has on students, and

how PARTICLE fits into established educational standards. The program is

constantly evolving, and this study can be considered as a snapshot of what happened

over the course of one year. Data was collected from July 27, 2004 to June 10, 2005.

The study includes teachers and students who were new to the program in 2004 and

returning participants from previous years. Though the program has been in existence

for five years, this is the first time an evaluation has been done of the program. I hope

to provide proof that the program has been successful, as well as to make

recommendations for improvement.

The first chapter of the report provides background information, including an

overview of the PARTICLE Program and the evaluation study that was conducted.

The next chapters report the findings of the evaluation. Specifically, the second

chapter deals with the Summer Institute and how PARTICLE prepares teachers, and

the third chapter reports on how the program was implemented in the classroom. The

third chapter also provides a comparison between PARTICLE teachers and their

peers who did not participate in the program. The fourth chapter evaluates the


program using established state and national standards and also against a theoretical

framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. The final chapter gives a summary of the

evaluation and recommendations for program improvement. Instruments and other

supporting materials can be found in the appendices.

1.2 Background: What is PARTICLE?

In many high school science classrooms, students perform laboratory

investigations that do not accurately reflect methods in real scientific research [1].

PARTICLE is an outreach program sponsored by the Department of Physics and

Astronomy at the University of Rochester that endeavors to help solve this problem.

The primary goal of the PARTICLE program is to give students the opportunity to

participate in original experimental research similar to what is done in the scientific

community. A secondary goal is to expose both teachers and students to topics in

modern physics, specifically elementary particle physics, that are not adequately

covered in many high school curricula. The program consists of three parts: a

Summer Institute for teachers; classroom research done by students; and PARTICLE

Day, a student research conference. Participation in the program is open to all high

school science teachers; it has been used most often in physics courses, but has also

been successfully implemented in chemistry and earth science classes.

In order to introduce teachers and students to experimental research,

PARTICLE gives teachers use of cosmic ray telescopes. Cosmic rays are formed

when high energy protons interact with the atmosphere and form heavy, but unstable

particles. The heavy particles quickly decay into lighter particles, such as leptons (i.e.

muons, electrons, and neutrinos) and electromagnetic radiation. The muons do not

interact much and so make it all the way down to earth where they can be detected

using these cosmic ray telescopes. The electrons get stopped farther up in the

atmosphere and neutrinos do not interact with the telescopes.

The telescopes given to teachers can be used to study cosmic rays and are

relatively portable, making them ideal for use in the classroom (see Figure 1.1). Each


teacher is given a set-up that includes three ‘paddles’, a data acquisition board, and a

laptop computer that runs the data acquisition software. The ‘paddles’ are made of a

plastic scintillator, light guide, photomultiplier tube, and high voltage base (see

Figure 1.2). When a charged particle hits the scintillator, a signal is sent to the

computer, which registers a hit. The most common cosmic rays detected by these

telescopes are muons, a particle similar to electrons, but heavier in mass. Precautions

are taken when doing experiments to eliminate hits due to background radiation, such

as electrons, and to ensure that the muon rate is what is actually being measured. The

detectors are usually used to measure muon rates, but can also be used to measure

parameters such as the speed or lifetime of a muon. A cosmic ray telescope being

used in an experiment can be seen in Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.1 Schematic of a Cosmic Ray Telescope

Figure 1.2 Photograph of Cosmic Ray Telescope Detector Paddle

Scintillator

Light Guide

Photomultiplier Tube

Base


Figure 1.3 Photograph of Cosmic Ray Telescope in an Experiment Measuring

Lead Absorption

PARTICLE provides a summer course to train teachers in how to use these

telescopes and in general experimental methods. The Summer Institute is a three

week graduate course for teachers who are new to the PARTICLE Program. Teachers

are recruited by sending letters to schools, by word of mouth, and through promotions

at professional organizations, such as the Western New York Physics Teachers

Association. In addition to receiving three graduate credits, teachers receive a stipend

of $300 per week. During the institute, teachers attend morning lectures on particle

physics, accelerator and detector physics, relativity, and cosmic rays given by

University of Rochester professors to increase their knowledge of topics in modern

and particle physics. Participants are also taken on a tour of the Cornell Electron

Storage Ring (CESR), a particle accelerator at Cornell University.

The afternoons are devoted to working in the laboratory with the detectors to

develop experimental research skills. Teachers, working in pairs, perform original

experiments in which they choose the research question, develop a procedure, and

collect and analyze data. Teachers also participate in statistics and data analysis

tutorials. They experience the research process in much the same way that their

students will during the school year. In addition to the institute for new teachers,

previous participants are invited to return for a one-week institute that overlaps with


the new teacher summer institute. Here they can do experimental research, attend

lectures, and share their experiences with the new teachers.

Participants are then expected to implement PARTICLE in their classrooms

by introducing the students to authentic experimental research using the cosmic ray

telescopes and by teaching topics in modern physics. The cosmic ray telescopes are

relatively portable pieces of equipment that can be used for a wide range of

experiments because the muon rate is dependent on so many factors. To list a few

examples, students could measure the muon rate as a function of air pressure, solar

activity, location, or direction. The use of the detectors gives students the opportunity

to design original experiments; they decide on the research questions, what variables

to measure, how to analyze the data, and how to present to results.

PARTICLE also has several modern physics demonstrations that are available

for teachers to borrow and use in their classrooms at any time. The most popular is a

cloud chamber where students can directly observe tracks from normally invisible

particles, such as cosmic rays. Also available for teachers to use is the e/m apparatus,

which is used to measure the charge-mass ratio of the electron. In 2004, two new

demonstrations were purchased that illustrate how particle detectors work: one where

students roll marbles towards mystery shaped blocks of wood to determine the shape,

and one where students roll magnetic marbles under a sheet with magnetic fillings

and observe the results.

Each May after the Advanced Placement exams have ended, the students are

invited to share their results at a research symposium: PARTICLE Day. At this

conference, students have the opportunity to present their research to their peers and

to see what other students have done through poster sessions and in oral

presentations. Students also hear talks by scientists and visit several research

laboratories. In recent years they have visited the University of Rochester’s Physics

Department, the Laser Laboratory for Energetics, and the Center for Optical

Manufacturing.


PARTICLE has recently expanded to allow summer research opportunities for

both teachers and students. In the summer of 2004, four teachers and eight students

worked at the University of Rochester on constructing and testing a giant (0.75 x 3.00

meter) cosmic ray telescope. The telescope has been placed in the attic of the Bausch

and Lomb building at the University of Rochester, and the data is available online for

teachers to access and use with their classes. So far, the data has proved to be superior

in statistics for long-term rate variation studies to that which can be obtained with the

small telescopes. This new aspect of the program will not be addressed in much detail

in this evaluation, but would be a good topic for further research.

The PARTICLE Program started in 1999 through QuarkNet, a Department of

Energy (DOE) and National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored outreach project,

which also aims to have teachers and students do experimental scientific research in

high school classrooms, but has since become an independent program. There are a

total of 28 teachers, mostly from the Rochester area, who are or have been involved

in PARTICLE, including eight teachers who were new to the program in 2004. The

PARTICLE Program is run by a mentoring professor, Kevin McFarland, and the

Summer Institute is organized by a lead teacher, Susen Clark. Ms. Clark and

Professor McFarland have been working together from the beginning of the program

and have continually made improvements. Over the years, other high school teachers

have taken leadership roles by leading workshops and tutorials at the Summer

Institute for new teachers. The program also has a graduate student, the PARTICLE

Fellow, working with it each year, who visits schools and gives a talk or brings

demonstrations to the students. The PARTICLE Fellow also provides support for data

analysis or technical problems. The 2004-2005 PARTICLE Fellow was Julie

Langenbrunner.

The PARTICLE program is sponsored by grants from The National Science

Foundation (NSF); The Research Corporation; QuarkNet, an NSF initiative; the

American Physical Society New York State Section Educational Outreach Grants;


and through in-kind contributions of obsolete equipment purchased by grants from

the Department of Energy, Office of Science.

To summarize, the goals of PARTICLE are to:

• Increase knowledge of the scientific process by giving teachers experience

doing experimental research and data analysis;

• Have students participate in and gain an appreciation for authentic science

research;

• Increase teachers’ knowledge of elementary particle physics and give the

teachers tools to present it to their classes;

• Increase students’ awareness and knowledge of modern physics, including

particle physics; and

• Develop relationships between high school teachers and university professors.

1.3 Research Goals

The main objective of this evaluation is to explore how well the PARTICLE

Program is meeting its goals by looking at how well the Summer Institute prepares

teachers to implement PARTICLE and how teachers actually use PARTICLE in the

classroom. More specifically, documentation was needed to show exactly what had

been done by teachers in the classrooms including curriculum, classroom practices,

and student participation in research projects because nothing has been officially

recorded up to this point. Before this study, there was only anecdotal evidence that

the program was working. The study also examines the differences in curriculum and

classroom practices between returning PARTICLE teachers, new PARTICLE

teachers, and teachers who are not a part of the program.

As mentioned previously, a real problem in science classrooms is that students

are not being exposed to science as it is done in the real world some students are not

even exposed to laboratory science at all. To help teachers deal with this issue (and

others in the teaching of science) the National Academy of Sciences and the National


Research Council have published the National Science Education Standards (NSES)

which give schools and educators a guide to use when planning their science curricula

[2]. This study evaluates the PARTICLE Program using established standards, such

as the NSES and the New York State Board of Regents and Advanced Placement

curricula. In addition to these bureaucratic standards, education researchers have also

designed frameworks that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and

activities. I will show how the Summer Institute is using the Seven Practices for

Effective Education as defined by A. Chickering and Z. Gamson [3]. The classroom

portion of the program is analyzed using A. Chinn and B. Malhotra’s theoretical

framework for evaluating inquiry tasks to show that PARTICLE is exposing students

to authentic inquiry in the classrooms [1].

My role in the program has been primarily that of an observer. I gathered

information through talking with teachers, probing them for information, and direct

observation of the Summer Institute and PARTICLE Day. I participated in the

Summer Institute and may be a future participant, when I am in an appropriate

teaching environment. However, I was not responsible in any way for the structure of

the program and consequently was able to critique it from a relatively neutral

standpoint. As in any report of this nature, there is some amount of bias present in the

analysis. I am an advocate for the program and strong believer in the importance of

what it is trying to accomplish and thus have a tendency to look for the positives, but,

as you will see, I was also critical when necessary.

The findings will be summarized in the conclusion by showing to what extent

PARTICLE is meeting its goals and objectives that are stated above. The last chapter

also includes recommendations for program improvement and suggestions for future

study.

1.4 Instrumentation

Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected using a variety of

instruments. Qualitative data were obtained through interviews and observation.


Quantitative data were gathered using several surveys. Table 1.1 shows how data was

collected, who provided the data, and which chapter explains the results. In general,

there was a high response rate; most of the participating teachers responded to

requests for information. Parts of the surveys were adapted from the QuarkNet

Surveys from their 2003 evaluation [4, 5]. I choose to borrow from the QuarkNet

survey because their instruments had been previously tested and proved to get reliable

results. Instruments can be found in Appendix A.

• Summer Institute Observation: I attended the 2004 Summer Institute as a

participant-observer. In addition to participating in all activities, I had

informal conversations with the new and returning teachers.

• Summer Institute Survey: Participants were asked about the quality of the

lectures and overall experience in the institute.

• Initial Survey: PARTICLE teachers were asked to provide quantitative

information about their demographics and how they plan to implement

PARTICLE in their classroom.

• Classroom Practices Survey: Participants were asked about their classroom

practices, both in general and specifically in reference to when they use

PARTICLE in the classroom.

• Follow-Up Survey: PARTICLE participants answered questions similar to the

Initial Survey about how they implemented PARTICLE in the past year and

also how well prepared they were to implement the program.

• Survey of Former PARTICLE Participants: A modified combination of the

classroom practices survey and the follow-up survey was sent to teachers who

have participated in PARTICLE in the past, but chose not to participate this

year.

• Survey of Non-PARTICLE Participants: Teachers who have not been involved

with the program were asked about classroom practices and content studied.

• Teacher Interviews: Six teachers were selected to be interviewed on the basis

of their participation in the program. They were asked about their experience


in the program and for details of how the program was implemented in their

classrooms. Teachers were chosen from a variety of schools and represent

how PARTICLE can be implemented in different ways. Six teachers, five

successful and one unsuccessful, were interviewed.

• Student Interviews: Students were interviewed informally on PARTICLE Day

about their experiences doing experimental research.

• Student Questionnaire: Students who attended PARTICLE Day were

questioned about their participation in the program and their interest in

science.

Table 1.1 Instruments and Data Collected

Instrument When

Collected Who Completed Response Rate/

Sample Size Results in Chapter

Summer Institute Observation

Summer 2004 (7/27/04-8/13/04)

Evaluator 13 out of 13 days 2, 4

Summer Institute Survey

August 2004 2004 Summer Participants

12 out of 13 teachers

2

Initial Survey October 2004 PARTICLE Teachers


3, 4

Classroom Practices Survey

October-November 2004

PARTICLE Teachers


3

Non-Participant Survey

October 2004 High School Science Teachers

30 teachers responded to letters

3

Former PARTICLE Participant Survey

November 2004 PARTICLE Teachers

6 out 9 teachers 3

Teacher Interviews October 2004 PARTICLE Teachers

6 teachers 3, 4

Student Questionnaire

May 16, 2005 PARTICLE Students

53 students 3

Informal Student Interviews

May 16, 2005 PARTICLE Students

50 students 3

Follow-Up Survey June 2005 PARTICLE Teachers


2, 3


1.5 A Note for Scientists on Research and Conclusions

As a physicist conducting a study that is more social science than physical

science, I feel the need to preface the conclusions drawn in this report with some

warnings for scientists. Over the course of this study, I have learned that the methods

used in social science research are significantly different from those used in the

physical sciences. At first I had trouble understanding how social scientists could

draw conclusions without numbers and hard data to work with, but I came to realize

that their methods do have some merits. People and their actions, as a subject, are

much harder to describe quantitatively than the phenomena physicists are used to

dealing with, like particle interactions. Thus social scientists, including education

researchers, turn to more qualitative methods, such as interviews, surveys, and case

studies.

Surveys often include questions that ask participants to rate, on a scale of 1 to

5, how well they agree with a statement. In these cases, I found it more useful to look

at the distribution of responses than the means and modes (though these data are also

presented), which can often be misleading, especially given the small sample size of

this study. All together there are only about thirty teachers who have ever been

involved in PARTICLE and even fewer who participated in the study. Because of this

small sample size, statistics can be swayed by one or two outlying data points and

valid conclusions cannot be made from looking solely at statistical averages. I made a

point of looking at broad trends and not getting too caught up in the statistical

analysis. It is hard to document anything that involves people in a purely statistical

way. Thus, in the style of a social scientist, I have tried to supplement my findings

with qualitative reports from the participating teachers. Also recall that these

conclusions are based on the results of a study conducted over just one year. This is

not enough time to establish trends or state that student or teacher participation in the

program is rising or falling.

Perhaps it is most important to bear in mind that correlation does not imply

causation. I can only speculate that changes in participants’ teaching habits have


something to do with their involvement in the program. Teachers who choose to

participate in the first place are often those who are more interested in experimental

research and new areas of science. The complexity of human behavior makes it

impossible to isolate variables or assign a definite causation, but nonetheless we can

reasonably postulate a causal relationship between the teachers’ participation in

PARTICLE and their subsequent use of methods promoted by the program. With

these things in mind, I have tried to document the activities of the program, cautiously

draw conclusions, and make suggestions for improvement.

1.6 Conclusion

The PARTICLE Program is an outreach program sponsored by the Physics

Department at the University of Rochester that aims to have students participating in

inquiry-based scientific research. PARTICLE has been in existence since 1999, but

has never been formally evaluated. This report documents the findings of the

evaluation study and makes recommendations for program improvement. The

Summer Institute is examined in Chapter 2 and the use of PARTICLE in the schools

and student responses is studied in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 examines how well the

program stands next to recognized national standards and theoretical frameworks

developed by education researchers. Chapter 5 concludes the report by summarizing

the extent to which PARTICLE is meeting its goals. My goal is that this evaluation

provides PARTICLE with constructive feedback that can be used to improve the

program for both teachers and students.

Summer Institute 13

Chapter 2: Summer Institute

2.1 Introduction 13

2.2 Methods 15

2.3 Demographics 16

2.4 Teacher Feedback on the Summer Institute 17

2.5 Teacher Preparation 22

2.6 Conclusion 24

2.1 Introduction

The Summer Institute provides teachers with the opportunity to build

detectors, do laboratory experiments, and attend lectures that increase their

knowledge and understanding of particle physics. A typical day starts out with an

informal question and answer session where participants meet with the previous day’s

lecturer to answer questions or discuss other areas of interest. The relaxed atmosphere

makes the teachers feel comfortable asking questions and provides an opportunity for

interactive learning with the professors. The class would then hear a lecture or spend

time in data analysis tutorials. The afternoons were primarily devoted to working in

the laboratory building and testing cosmic ray telescopes. Once the equipment was

functional, the participants began their own research experiments, using methods

similar to what their students would use in the classroom. Throughout the course, the

participants shared the progress of their research and had ample opportunities to

discuss their results with their peers. See Appendix B for a complete schedule from

the 2004 Summer Institute.

This three week course is open to any interested science teachers in the

Rochester area and beyond. Nine new teachers, including myself, and four returning

teachers attended the 2004 PARTICLE Summer Institute. In addition to the four

teachers who returned to attend the institute, two teachers were involved in leadership

roles; Susen Clark again served as the lead teacher and Joseph Willie led several

workshops on data analysis. The participants found out about PARTICLE from a

Summer Institute 14

variety of sources. Three people mentioned hearing about the program through the

Western New York Physics Teachers Association and three cited the PARTICLE

mailing sent to the schools. Some teachers also had been referred by previous

participants. The returning teachers noted that they had had good experiences in the

past, which prompted them to return.

Another four teachers and eight high school students took part in a summer-

long research opportunity through PARTICLE and the Research Experience for

Teachers at the University of Rochester. This group worked on constructing and

testing a large (about three square meters) cosmic ray telescope and also tested

possibilities for liquid scintillators to be used in future detectors. Both teachers and

students enjoyed the opportunity to do larger scale projects than can be done in the

classroom. With a successful first year, PARTICLE plans to continue the summer

research program, but it will not be discussed in detail in this evaluation.

Most teachers choose to participate in the PARTICLE Summer Institute

because of an interest in learning more about topics in current and experimental

physics. Practically all participants have a background in science, many in physics,

and a few have done experimental research at some point in their careers. All of the

teachers have an interest in exposing their students to authentic scientific research, the

type of research done by actual scientists. They also have a common desire to learn

about recent advances in physics and to keep current with research in the field.

The 2005 Summer Institute will be slightly different than those in years past.

As of May 2005, there were fewer new applicants for the program and thus returning

teachers are being invited to attend the institute for a longer period of time with the

hopes of increasing their proficiency with the equipment. This is further proof that the

program is continually changing to meet the needs of the participating teachers. How

the changes will affect the program would be a good topic for future study, but will

not be addressed here.

Summer Institute 15

This section of the report details the teachers’ responses to the Summer

Institute, including how they liked aspects of the course and how well prepared the

teachers felt they were to implement PARTICLE.

2.2 Methods

In order to find out how effective the Summer Institute is at preparing teachers

to implement PARATICLE in their schools, I conducted surveys, informal

interviews, and an observation of the Summer Institute. At the end of the 2004

Summer Institute, participants, both new and returning teachers, were asked to fill out

a survey asking about specific likes/dislikes of this institute and general questions

about how they plan to use what they learned. They were also asked to rate each

speaker on a scale of one to five, if they agreed (1) or disagreed (5) with each of the

following statements:

• I had an easy time understanding the lecture.

• The speaker went at an appropriate pace.

• I learned something new that I will take back to my classroom.

• I learned something that will be good for background information, but not for

general classroom use.

• I will use what I learned for data analysis in labs. (This statement was only

given for talks related to data analysis.)

As the evaluator, I acted as a participant-observer in the 2004 Summer Institute. In

addition to observing the class and participating in activities, informal interviews

were held with the teachers. This observational data has been incorporated into the

evaluation.

All participating teachers were also questioned about how well PARTICLE

prepared them to implement the program in the Follow-Up Survey that was given in

June 2005. They were asked to rate how often they drew on program experiences in

different aspects of their courses and how well prepared they were to implement the

program. This Follow-Up survey was given after the teachers had a chance to actually

Summer Institute 16

use what they learned in the Summer Institute and reflect upon their experience. A

similar survey was given to the teachers who are no longer participating in the

program to find out why they are no longer involved and also how well prepared they

were to implement PARTICLE.

2.3 Demographics

Summer Institute surveys were filled out by twelve teachers, eight new and

four returning teachers. This section details the demographic statistics of the

participants and provides a context for the study.

Teacher Experience

The teaching experience of the participants ranged from one to 35 years with

an average of 12.6 years, distributed as shown below:

1-5 years = 4 teachers 11-20 years = 2 teachers

6-10 years = 3 teachers 21+ years = 3 teachers

Education Level and Subject

Of the teachers who responded to the survey ten have a master’s degree and

two a bachelor’s degree. Seven participants majored in Physics in college, four in

Biology, and two in Chemistry. In graduate school, nine majored in Education, three

in Physics, and one in Chemistry.

Teacher Gender

Of the new teachers, four were women and four were men. Of the returning

teachers, two were women and two were men.

Course Statistics

The grades taught ranged from ninth to twelfth: six teach ninth grade, six

teach tenth grade, eleven teach eleventh grade, and twelve teach twelfth grade. Nine

Summer Institute 17

teachers plan to use PARTICLE in Regents Physics, three in AP Physics, two in Earth

Science, and one each in non-Regents Physics, Physical Science, and Chemistry.

The number of classes taught ranges from two to five, with an average of four.

Total number of students taught ranges from 45 to 250 with an average of 98. Two

teachers teach less than 50 students, seven teach 51-100, and two teach more than

100.

2.4 Teacher Feedback on the Summer Institute

The Summer Institute survey indicated that the participants were pleased with

the overall quality of the 2004 Summer Institute. As mentioned above, there were

thirteen teachers attending the 2004 Summer Institute, but only twelve filled out

surveys. The results presented below (see Table 2.1) may not add up to the total

number of surveys due to the fact that not everyone attended all lectures,

demonstrations, activities, etc. Also, the percentages may not add up to 100% due to

rounding. Please note that the statement “I learned something that will be good for

background information, but not for general classroom use.” seemed to be interpreted

in different ways. The results of this statement were not used in the analysis and are

not presented here due to this ambiguity.

Table 2.1 Summer Institute Survey Results Lecture/Activity # Teacher Responses (%) Program Overview/Cloud Chamber Demo 1(Agree) 2 3 4 5 (Disagree)

I had an easy time understanding the lecture. 4 (57) 3(43) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)

The speaker went at an appropriate pace. 6(86) 1(14) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) I learned something new that I will take back to my classroom. 4(57) 2(29) 1(14) 0(0) 0(0)

Cosmic Ray Lecture 1(Agree) 2 3 4 5 (Disagree) I had an easy time understanding the lecture. 3(43) 2(29) 1(14) 1(14) 0(0)


Summer Institute 18

Table 2.1 Summer Institute Survey Results (continued) Detector and Accelerator Lectures 1(Agree) 2 3 4 5 (Disagree)

I had an easy time understanding the lectures. 0(0) 3(43) 1(14) 2(29) 1(14)


Introduction to Statistics 1(Agree) 2 3 4 5 (Disagree) I had an easy time understanding the lecture. 3(43) 2(29) 2(29) 0(0) 0(0)


I will use what I learned for data analysis in labs. 5(71) 1(14) 1(14) 0(0) 0(0)

Excel Data Analysis Tutorials 1(Agree) 2 3 4 5 (Disagree) I had an easy time understanding the lecture. 2(20) 5(50) 3(30) 0(0) 0(0)



Standard Model Lecture 1(Agree) 2 3 4 5 (Disagree) I had an easy time understanding the lecture. 6(86) 1(14) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)


Cornell Tour and Lecture 1(Agree) 2 3 4 5 (Disagree) I had an easy time understanding the lecture. 0(0) 2(33) 1(17) 2(33) 1(17)


The tour was a good introduction to accelerators and detectors. 3(50) 1(17) 1(17) 1(17) 0(0)

Astrophysics Lecture/Computer Demonstrations 1(Agree) 2 3 4 5 (Disagree)

I had an easy time understanding the lecture. 1(13) 4(50) 2(25) 0(0) 1(13)



Summer Institute 19

Table 2.1 Summer Institute Survey Results (continued) Relativity Lecture 1(Agree) 2 3 4 5 (Disagree)

I had an easy time understanding the lecture. 5(63) 3(38) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)


Neutrinos Lecture 1(Agree) 2 3 4 5 (Disagree) I had an easy time understanding the lecture. 5(63) 3(38) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)


New and Returning Teacher Presentations 1(Agree) 2 3 4 5 (Disagree) I had an easy time understanding the lecture. 10(91) 1(9) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)


Modern Physics Demonstrations 1(Agree) 2 3 4 5 (Disagree) I had an easy time understanding the lecture. 11(92) 1(8) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)


Lab Work and Experiments 1(Agree) 2 3 4 5 (Disagree) I gained an understanding and appreciation of experimental physics. 11(100) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)

The experimental time was well defined; I knew what I was to be doing. 7(64) 3(27) 0(0) 1(9) 0(0)

I learned how to use data analysis techniques with my data. 7(64) 4(36) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)

I learned how to design and run an original experiment. 9(82) 2(18) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)

I have a good understanding of how the equipment (muon detectors, computers, etc) works.

6(55) 5(45) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)

For nine out of eleven lectures, all or all but one respondents gave a mark of

1-3 (thus agreeing) to the statements “I had an easy time understanding the lecture”,

“The speaker went at an appropriate pace.”, and “I learned something new that I will

take back to my classroom.” The majority of those responses were 1 or 2,

strengthening the argument that the participants were pleased with the quality of the

lectures. In the talks that involved data analysis, almost everyone said they would use

what they learned for data analysis in labs.

Summer Institute 20

The two lectures that received slightly lower scores were the Detector and

Accelerator Talks and the Cornell Tour and Lecture. For the Detector and Accelerator

lectures, only four out of seven agreed (marked 1-3) that they had an easy time

understanding the lecture, but five out of seven agreed that “The speaker went at an

appropriate pace”, and six out of seven agreed that they learned something new that

they will take back to their classrooms. Comments indicated that the speaker quickly

went over the heads of many of the teachers. The talk was also too long (two sessions

of two hours each) for many people due to the advanced nature of the material.

The lecture at the Cornell CESR Facility was also too advanced for many of

the participants. Only three out of six participants agreed (marked 1-3) that they had

an easy time understanding the lecture and would take something back to their

classrooms. Five out of six respondents marked a 3 or 4 that the speaker went at an

appropriate pace. The remaining person marked a 1. However, five out of six agreed

with the statement “The tour was a good introduction to accelerators and detectors.”

In general, most people enjoyed the visit and the tour, but had difficulty

understanding the lecture.

Overall, the talks were of an appropriate level for the participants. Many talks

began on a basic level, but also included more difficult material to challenge the

participants with more advanced physics backgrounds, such as myself. I admit that I

was doubtful that I would learn anything new from the talks, but was delighted to be

proven wrong. Several comments were made that the Standard Model lecture should

be given at the beginning of the course, before any other talks. As the program was

structured, several lectures referenced material that would be presented in the

Standard Model talk later in the course and this led to confusion and difficulty

understanding the earlier lecture for several participants.

Lectures and talks were not the only aspects of the course. Participants were

also asked about their experience working in the lab doing experimental research (see

Table 2.1). The survey asked whether teachers agreed (1) or disagreed (5) with the

following statements:

Summer Institute 21

• I gained an understanding and appreciation of experimental physics.

• The experimental time was well defined; I knew what I was to be doing.

• I learned how to use data analysis techniques with my data.

• I learned how to design and run an original experiment. I have a good

understanding of how the equipment works.

For each statement, all responses were 1 and 2 with one exception; one person

selected 4 for the statement “The experimental time was well defined; I knew what I

was to be doing.” This shows that participants were satisfied with the laboratory

portion of the course, as well as the lectures. Eleven (out of twelve total surveys)

comments were made that the most useful part of the Summer Institute was the time

spent working with the telescopes in the lab and doing data analysis for experiments.

As a conclusion to the laboratory portion of the course, each team of teachers

presented their research to the group. Returning teachers presented work that their

students had done in the past year. Participants were asked whether they agreed (1) or

disagreed (5) with the following statements:

• I enjoyed hearing about other research projects.

• I will use the data presented to compare results from my home school.

• The lectures gave me ideas for experiments to try at my school.

• I found it helpful to talk with teachers who had been through PARTICLE and

successfully implemented it in their classrooms.

For the first and third statements above, all respondents agreed with a 1 or 2,

indicating they were pleased with the presentations and discussions. The second

statement received seven out of eleven marks of 1 or 2 and the remaining were 3s.

This is to be expected as not all teachers will do experiments that are comparable to

previous research. All eleven agreed (marked 1-3) that it was helpful to talk with

returning teachers. This interaction was also mentioned by several people as one of

the most useful parts of the institute.

In general, the participants were pleased with the quality of the Summer

Institute. The highlight for most teachers was the research experience, but they were

Summer Institute 22

also learning new material through lectures that they would take to their classrooms

and share with their students. The new teachers left the institute inspired by the

returning teachers and excited about having their students do authentic scientific

research. See Chapter 4 on how the Summer Institute employs the Seven Practices of

Effective Education defined by Chickering and Gamson [3].

2.5 Teacher Preparation

As we just saw, most teachers felt that they learned a great deal about the

subject of particle physics through the Summer Institute. Even the teachers who no

longer do experiments or use the detectors said that they use what they learned in the

course to enhance their curriculum. The Summer Institute teachers seemed to feel

well-prepared immediately after the institute, but to see how prepared they really

were, they were surveyed once again at the end of the 2004-2005 school year to see

how they felt a year (or more for returning teachers) after the Summer Institute. It is

important to note that the teachers who answered these questions include both those

who implemented the program in 2004-2005 and those who did not.

In general, teachers agreed that the Summer Institute gave them enough

information to institute a program at their schools (see Table 2.2). All of the teachers

agreed that what they learned in PARTICLE was sufficient to incorporate particle

physics into the classes they teach. All of the teachers also agreed that the Summer

Institute prepared them to do research. Only one teacher felt uncomfortable with the

material and using the detectors in the classroom. One teacher also felt unprepared to

do data analysis. The one teacher who disagreed that he learned anything from more

experienced teachers is one of the most experienced teachers in the program, so his

response makes sense. Overall, this shows that the teachers feel that they are being

properly prepared to implement the program in their classrooms.

Summer Institute 23

Table 2.2 Teacher Preparation # Teachers (%)

n=14 Indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements based on your experience in the Summer Institute. Strongly

Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

a. What I learned in PARTICLE was sufficient for enabling me to incorporate particle physics into the course(s) I teach.

4 (29) 10 (71) 0(0) 0(0)

b. I was comfortable using the muon detectors in my classroom after my experience in the Summer Institute.

3 (23) 9 (69) 1 (8) 0(0)

c. I was comfortable teaching the topics in particle and modern physics after attending the Summer Institute.

3 (23) 10 (77) 0(0) 1 (7)

d. I learned from the experience of teachers who had already implemented the program. 4 (29) 9 (64) 0(0) 1(7)

e. The Summer Institute prepared me to do experimental research with my students. 5 (38) 8 (62) 0(0) 0(0)

f. The Summer Institute prepared me to do data analysis for experiments. 3 (23) 9 (69) 1(8) 0(0)

g. The Summer Institute gave me ideas for modern physics labs and demos. 3 (21) 10 (71) 1(7) 0(0)

In responses from teachers who chose not to participate this year, two

mentioned that they were not comfortable using the equipment, in addition to the one

who marked this on the follow-up survey. There was limited time in the Summer

Institute for teachers to do multiple experiments, but exposure to as many

experiments as possible is required for teachers to feel comfortable enough to let

students do projects that they themselves have not yet tried. Having teachers present

results to their peers is a good method of exposing all of the teachers involved to

many different types of experiments, but is no substitute for spending more time in

the laboratory. The only way for teachers to feel more confident with the equipment

is to have them spend more time using it.

During the interviews, teachers almost always stated that they were well

prepared by the Summer Institute. However, one teacher interviewed indicated that

she did not feel like she was well prepared for any technical problems that may arise.

Teachers need to be given at least basic training in troubleshooting to help them solve

simple problems on their own. The University of Rochester faculty and graduate

Summer Institute 24

students are available to help, but are not always available immediately. Many

teachers wait too long to ask for help and then run out of time for their students to do

research. If they had more training in troubleshooting, this might not happen as often.

These technical issues need to be addressed, but, in general, the Summer

Institute seems to be doing a good job at preparing teachers to start PARTICLE

programs at their schools. It is important to note that even teachers who did not have

students participating in PARTICLE this year often felt they were well prepared, but

did not implement the program for other reasons. In spite of the surveys’ positive

responses, not all teachers are implementing programs at their schools. Obviously

something more needs to be done to ensure that these teachers follow through with

the program when they return to their schools; perhaps more efforts need to be made

to assist teachers in the classrooms.

2.6 Conclusion

The 2004 Summer Institute proved to be a good way to get teachers involved

in the research process. In general, the participants are satisfied with the high quality

of the institute. The teachers felt that the majority of the lectures were at the right

pace and level for them to understand and that they learned a good deal of

background material, even if they did not directly address the topics in their

classrooms. The background lectures in particle and modern physics made the

teachers more comfortable teaching those topics in their classes. Most teachers stated

that working with the detectors and doing lab work were the most useful parts of the

institute. The question and answer sessions each morning, where the students could

discuss the previous day’s lectures, were another highlight of the course.

Based on the results of the follow-up survey, I can conclude that most teachers

feel like the Summer Institute prepared them to start programs at their schools.

However, many teachers did not implement the programs as they initially intended.

The institute needs to have a way to ensure that teachers follow through with their

plans to use PARTICLE in their schools. Another area that needs to be improved is

Summer Institute 25

troubleshooting. Many teachers who have technical difficulties are not trained to deal

with them and as a result may not follow through on their planned research projects.

See Chapter 5 for recommendations on improving the Summer Institute.

The participants were satisfied with the overall quality of the course and left

with plans for implementation in their schools. Exactly how PARTICLE is used in the

schools is the topic of the next chapter, where I will examine the programs that were

successful and also why some programs failed or never got started.

PARTICLE in the Classroom 26

Chapter 3: PARTICLE in the Classroom

3.1 Introduction 26

3.2 Methods 27

3.3 Demographics 28

3.4 Case Studies 34

3.5 Classroom Implementation 48

3.6 PARTICLE Day and Student Responses 56

3.7 Curriculum 63

3.8 Classroom Practices 70

3.9 Overcoming Obstacles 80

3.10 Conclusion 87

3.1 Introduction

The third chapter of this report is an evaluation and documentation of how

PARTICLE has been implemented in the classroom. The goal was to find out how

teachers were using the cosmic ray telescopes and how many students were involved

and at what capacity. Student participation in PARTICLE and what was being done in

the classroom had not been documented prior to this evaluation and we felt that it is

important to have a record of the teachers’ and students’ activities and

accomplishments. Again, this is only a snapshot of one year in the program, but it

gives a feel for what is happening in the classrooms as a result of the teachers’

participation in the program.

Demographic data is presented before the results to provide a context for the

evaluation. The case studies, which provide some insight into how the program is run

at several schools, are given next followed by a more detailed report of the classroom

experiences including some statistics. Topics addressed include classroom practices

in science classes in general as well as in PARTICLE units, how PARTICLE is

implemented, student responses, and, perhaps most importantly, barriers that teachers

encounter when implementing the program.


3.2 Methods

Data for this part of the evaluation were collected through surveys and

interviews. To study how PARTICLE was being used in classrooms, surveys were

distributed to teachers who participated in PARTICLE in 2004-2005. Teachers who

participated in PARTICLE previously were also surveyed to find out why they are no

longer involved and what barriers they encountered in setting up the program at their

schools. A follow-up survey was sent at the end of May asking teachers to report on

what actually happened in their classrooms in the 2004-2005 school year. The

surveys are included for reference in Appendix A.

Physical science teachers who have not been involved with PARTICLE were

surveyed to see if there were differences in curricula and teaching methods between

teachers who have gone through the program and those who have not. A letter was

sent to all physical science teachers in the Rochester area inviting them to participate

in the study. To entice teachers to participate in the study, they were offered a free

copy of the book Einstein for Beginners by Joseph Schwartz and Michael McGuiness

in return for filling out a survey. This proved to be an effective mechanism for getting

responses; 30 physical science teachers participated in the study. The same offer was

made to PARTICLE Teachers; 23 out of 28 responded to the initial survey and 14 out

of 19 to the follow-up survey. As noted in Chapter 1, parts of the surveys were based

on ones used in the 2003 QuarkNet Evaluation [4,5].

To gain a more qualitative perspective on how the program is being

implemented, I interviewed six teachers who have participated in PARTICLE.

Teachers were selected that represent the range of school and variety of programs that

have been implemented. Five of the teachers have participated for several years and

have well-established programs at their schools. The sixth teacher had trouble

implementing the program and has chosen not to participate in 2004-2005. These

teachers’ programs and experiences are written up as case studies in the beginning of

this chapter. The information collected in these interviews was also used in other

parts of the evaluation to supplement the statistical data.


I also informally interviewed about 50 students at PARTICLE Day in May

2005 to learn how they responded to working on research projects. I felt it was

important to talk directly to the students to hear what they had to say about using the

detectors in addition to hearing their teacher’s perspective on the situation. Not all of

the students had done research projects or even used the detectors at the time of

PARTICLE Day, so the responses were a mix of those who were familiar with the

program and those who were not.

As will be explained below, a wide range of data was collected through both

surveys and interviews and analyzed in several different ways. The curricula and

classroom practices of the teachers who have participated in PARTICLE and those

who have not were compared. New teachers to the PARTICLE Program gave insight

into how their curricula will change after attending the Summer Institute. All teachers

also reported on problems they encountered and obstacles to implementing a

successful program.

3.3 Demographics

This section details demographic information about the teachers who

participated in the study, their schools, and their students and provides a context for

the study.

3.3.1 Demographics of PARTICLE teachers

PARTICLE Involvement

Responses were received from 23 teachers who are currently participating or

have participated in PARTICLE. The number of years of participation ranged from

one to five years as follows:

1 year = 8 teachers 4 years = 3 teachers

2 years = 4 teachers 5 years = 4 teachers

3 years = 4 teachers


The program has been in existence for five years, so four teachers have been with it

since the beginning and can testify to the changes that have taken place over the

years.

Teaching Experience

As a group, the teachers have an average of 14 years teaching experience and

nine years teaching physics. The teaching experience ranges from 1-35 years, as

shown below:



11-20 years = 7 teachers

Not all teachers have been teaching physics for their entire careers. We also have

some teachers who do not teach physics at all. Their physics teaching experience

varies as follows:

0 years (do not teach physics) = 2 teachers 11-20 years = 2 teachers



Teacher Gender

The group includes 14 male and 9 female teachers.


Most (21) have at least one master’s degree; one has a bachelor’s degree and

one has a doctorate. Teachers reported studying mostly science and education, as

follows (Some people have multiple degrees, so the total is greater than the number of

participants.):

Physics = 11 teachers

Other science = 10 teachers

Education = 12 teachers


School Location

The PARTICLE teachers come from a variety of schools:

Urban = 7 schools

Rural = 6 schools

Sububan = 10 schools

This does not indicate 23 different schools because some schools have more than one

teacher participating in the program. Nineteen are public school teachers and four are

private.

Students – Ethnic Groups

The students who participate in PARTICLE are predominately white and to a

lesser extent African American, which is to be expected in Western New York (see

Table 3.1) [6]. Ten schools reported above 90% white population and only four below

20% white. The distribution for the group as a whole can be seen below:

White = 75%; range: 10-100% (23 teachers reporting)

African American = 16%; range: 0-85% (20 teachers reporting)

Asian = 2.6%; range: 0-20% (14 teachers reporting)

Native American = 0.3%; range: 0-5% (2 teachers reporting)

Hispanic = 4.1%; range: 0-35% (13 teachers reporting)

Other = 1.8%; range: 0-12% (6 teachers reporting)

Table 3.1 shows percentages of the total population of ethnic groups in the counties

where most PARTICLE participants teach and Table 3.2 compares the overall

distribution to the population of PARTICLE students. PARTICLE has a greater

percentage of both African American and Asian students, but less white students than

the overall population. For reference, Rochester is located in Monroe County.


Table 3.1 Ethnic Group Distributions Percentage of County Population [6] Ethnic Group

Genesee Livingston Monroe Ontario Orleans Wayne White 94.7 94.0 79.1 95.0 89.1 93.8 African American 2.1 3.0 13.7 2.1 7.3 3.2 Asian 0.5 0.8 2.4 0.7 0.3 0.5 Native American 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.3 Hispanic 1.5 2.3 5.3 2.1 3.9 2.4 Other 0.7 0.8 2.4 0.7 1.5 0.9 Two or more races 1.2 1.0 1.9 1.3 1.2 1.3

Table 3.2 Ethnic Group Distributions in PARTICLE Percentage of Population

Ethnic Group Average of Six

Counties PARTICLE

Students Non-PARTICLE

Students White 84.0 75 82 African American 10.3 16 14

Asian 1.8 2.6 1.8 Native American 0.3 0.3 0.7 Hispanic 4.2 4.1 1.4 Other 1.9 1.8 0.2 Two or more races 1.7 -- --

Students - Gender

Overall, the gender of the students was split 51% male, 49% female, including

two teachers who are in all-female schools. The overall population in Western New

York is 49% male and 51% female [6]. The male/female ratio for each class breaks

down as follows:

0/100 = 2 teachers 60/40 = 7 teachers

40/60 = 3 teachers 70/30 = 1 teacher




3.3.2 Demographics of Non-PARTICLE teachers

A total of 30 physical science teachers responded to the request to participate

in the study. The teachers mostly come from the greater Rochester area (within

approximately 50 miles of the city).

Teaching Experience

As a group, the teachers have an average of 14 years teaching experience and

ten years teaching physics. The teaching experience ranges from 2-34 years, as shown

below:




Not all teachers have been teaching physics for their entire careers. Some teachers

also responded who do not teach physics at all. Their physics teaching experience

varies as follows:

0 years (do not teach physics) = 4 teachers 11-20 years = 9 teachers


6-10 years = 6 teachers 30-35 years = 1 teacher

These teachers teach a variety of classes other than physics. Some teachers teach

more than one subject, so the total is more than 30.

Regents Physics = 22 teachers

AP/IB Physics = 13 teachers

Earth Science = 4 teachers

Chemistry (Regents and AP) = 9 teachers

Other Science = 8 teachers (includes Astronomy, Biology, and Physical

Science)

Teacher Gender

The group includes 20 male and 10 female teachers.



Most (28) have at least one master’s degree and two have bachelor’s degrees.

Teachers reported studying mostly science and education, as shown below. Some

people have multiple degrees, so the total is greater than the number of participants.

Physics = 12 teachers

Other science or engineering = 20 teachers

Education = 2 teachers

School Location

The teachers responding were from a variety of schools:

Urban = 7 schools

Rural = 13 schools

Suburban = 10 schools

As before, this does not indicate 30 different schools because more than one teacher

replied from some schools. Twenty-nine are public school teachers and one is a

private school teacher. There are more rural schools represented in this group than in

the PARTICLE teachers.

Students – Ethnic Groups

As a group, most of the students in these teachers’ classes are white. These

schools are somewhat less diverse than the PARTICLE teachers’ schools, but are

approximately the same. Seventeen schools reported above 95% white population and

an additional seven reported 90-95%. Again, the distribution is comparable to the

aggregate population in Western New York (see Tables 3.1 and 3.2). The overall

distribution can be seen below:

White = 82%; range: 1-100% (30 teachers reporting)

African American = 14%; range: 0-90% (23 teachers reporting)

Asian = 1.8%; range: 0-18% (14 teachers reporting)

Native American = 0.7%; range: 0-15% (6 teachers reporting)


Hispanic = 1.4%; range: 0-8% (14 teachers reporting)

Other = 0.2%; range: 0-2% (5 teachers reporting)

Students - Gender

Overall, the gender of the students was split 51% male, 49% female. Four

schools have more girls than boys in their classes. The male/female ratios break down

as follows:

0/100 = 1 teacher 60/40 = 5 teachers

20/80 = 1 teacher 65/35 = 1 teacher




55/45 = 3 teachers

Overall, the two groups of teachers, those who have participated in

PARTICLE and those who have not, are very similar. As a group, they have the same

average teaching experience and education. They also have approximately the same

distribution of student populations. The non-PARTICLE teachers represent a slightly

more rural population with less Asian and Hispanic students than the PARTICLE

teachers. In general, the ethnicity of the students is comparable to the population of

the six counties (Genesee, Livingston, Monroe, Ontario, Orleans, and Wayne) where

most of the teachers work indicating that the groups of students are representative of

the region as a whole. The two groups of teachers seem to be comparable based on

the demographics and thus the non-PARTICLE teachers act as a sort of control group

to which the PARTICLE teachers can be compared.

3.4 Case Studies

In order to illustrate the success (and failure) of PARTICLE in local

classrooms, six teachers were chosen to be interviewed. The interviews not only


provided information for these case studies but also helped to round out the

evaluation by providing more qualitative data than could be gained from

questionnaires. Five of these teachers have been very involved in the program for a

number of years and have established programs at their schools. The sixth teacher

was not as successful; she participated in 2003-2004, but chose not to return to the

program. Teachers were chosen who teach in a variety of school environments and

implement the program in range of ways. These case studies focus on the details of

how PARTICLE has been implemented and also what causes teachers leave the

program. Examples of student research experiences area also presented. (For

additional examples of student research, see Appendix C.) These give an

understanding of how the program is implemented which may be helpful to keep in

interpreting the statistical part of the report later in this chapter. The interviews were

conducted in October 2004.

Susen Clark – Bioscience and Health Careers High School (Rochester City School

District)

Susen Clark teaches physics and chemistry at the Bioscience and Health

Careers High School, a career school at Franklin High School, which is a part of the

Rochester City School District [7]. The school is an urban environment with a more

diverse population than most of the participating schools. Ms. Clark has been

participating in PARTICLE since it’s inception in 1999 and acts as the lead teacher

responsible for planning the Summer Institute to train new teachers. She has been

integral in the development of the program.

Ms. Clark uses the cosmic ray telescopes primarily in her Regents Physics

classes. Her school uses block scheduling (classes meet for 90 minute periods rather

than the traditional 45 minutes, but only for half the year), which allows for more

time to do laboratory experiments and research projects. She requires that all students,

working in small groups, design and run experiments. The modern physics unit is

taught early in the year and serves as a jumping off point for the experimental


research. She gives each student a rubric which outlines her expectations for the

project. As part of the project, the students are expected to do background research

about cosmic rays and particle physics using the internet. Her goal is for the students

to conduct an experiment in which they are responsible for everything from

controlling variables to analyzing data. She hopes to give them a research experience

different than the book research they are accustomed to doing in other classes.

Because there is only one detector, students sign up for time slots in which

they will carry out their experiments. Each group may use the detector for only a few

days, but as a whole, the research is conducted over the course of a semester. Ms.

Clark’s students often do fairly standard experiments such as comparing muon rate to

pressure, time of day, or location. Even though they do experiments that have been

done before, the students are not given a procedure; they are still responsible for

designing the experiment and have the added benefit of being able to compare their

results with the data from the previous experiments. They have also done more

complex experiments such as making a sky map, investigating muon lifetime, and

exploring cosmic ray showers.

Data analysis is done with the help of Excel, where students graph results and

add error bars to their measurements. Students in Ms. Clark’s classes spend a great

deal of time discussing unexpected and inconsistent results and this year she hopes to

have them compare their data to what other students have done in the past. She feels

that getting anomalous results is one of the most valuable parts of the project because

students do not get “wrong” answers in traditional labs. She gave the example of

students doing an experiment in which they were measuring the muon rate to create a

sky map. The students got one measurement that was far off from what they predicted

and chose to retake the data to confirm whether or not the original point was valid.

This shows that they are thinking critically about their data. Students then present

their research in the form of a poster or oral presentation. All students attend

PARTICLE Day in May to showcase their results. The students also present their

posters at her school’s annual Academic Fair.


Ms. Clark feels that the students benefit from having experimental research

experience. She stated that “it’s one of the most enjoyable things they do all year. I

don’t know if it puts them on the trail to become a future physicist, but I also think it

makes them see that doing research, doing science, is something that they are very

capable of doing” [7]. The students’ work with the detectors gives them confidence in

their research abilities and interest in science beyond the book. In her opinion,

learning particle physics is secondary to gaining the research experience that the

students will be able to apply in many different situations.

After the interview in October, Ms. Clark’s teaching schedule was changed

and she was assigned to teach non-science courses in the spring semester. This is an

example of how even the best and most dedicated teachers’ programs can fall if the

school makes changes beyond the control of the teacher. These changes also meant

that she could not attend PARTICLE Day with her first semester students. Other

programs have met a similar fate; Ms. Clark is not the only teacher to have

experienced such changes in teaching assignments and there is not much that can be

done to prevent these things from happening.

Patrick Freivald – Naples Central High School

Patrick Freivald teaches at a small rural school about 50 miles from Rochester

[8]. The 2004-2005 school year was his third year with PARTICLE, but the program

was already established at his school by one of his co-workers when he arrived. Mr.

Freivald has used a variety of approaches over the years in trying to figure out what

works best for his students. The first year he participated in the program he had all of

the students in the Regents Physics class do research projects. Due to time

constraints, the students were rushed to finish their projects by PARTICLE Day and

he felt like this was not the best method of implementing the program. The following

year, students did research projects solely as an extra-credit activity. While that

worked well, Mr. Freivald wanted to have all of his students do research projects. In

2004-2005, Mr. Freivald planned to try a blend of the two approaches; students will


do research as part of the class requirement starting early in the school year and also

have the option to do additional work after school for extra-credit. Although this year

his students could not present at PARTICLE Day due to scheduling conflicts, there

were several successful projects.

Mr. Freivald sees himself as a facilitator, where his role is to make sure the

students do not break anything and to help them keep the project in perspective. He

helps them figure out what a feasible project would be given the limitations of the

equipment. He encourages his students to brainstorm original ideas for experiments.

During the interview, he stated, “If we can do some unique research that hasn’t been

done, then that’s cool. And for them, I think cool is very important” [8]. He feels that

the students need to be doing something new and exciting to maintain an interest in

experimental research and keeping students interested is very important to the success

of the program. Several teachers have withdrawn from the program due to lack of

student interest.

The students decide on their own research questions and procedure with

minimal help from Mr. Freivald. The students collect muon rate data throughout the

year and also keep track of external variables such as pressure and solar and

geomagnetic activity. The students use Excel to graph and analyze their data. Mr.

Freivald shows them a chi-squared analysis and explains what a powerful tool it can

be. He has the students use the analysis, but does not expect them to understand all

the details. One interesting project his students did in 2003-2004 was to determine the

speed of a muon. This project used the equipment in a different way than the standard

experiment because they were measuring the time between muon hits rather than just

the muon rate.

After they analyze the data, the students compare results with previously

reported data and look for any anomalies. He stated that “part of the fun is figuring

out the inconsistencies” [8]. For example, when his students decided to measure the

speed of a muon, their data returned several speeds that were greater than the speed of

light. The students dismissed these results as unphysical and threw out the points.


This may not have been the correct procedure, but the students were thinking

critically about the points and making decisions about which points were valid and

which were not.

Mr. Freivald’s students then do a formal report on their research project. The

students who chose to do extra-credit work were those who presented their results at

PARTICLE Day. The students who do extra-credit work must at a minimum prepare

a poster or presentation for PARTICLE Day, but he leaves it up to them how much of

a report they want to write; it could be just a couple paragraphs or a full 20 page

paper. The amount of extra-credit they receive is based on how detailed a report they

write.

In addition to the muon telescopes, Mr. Freivald uses many of the

demonstrations available from the University of Rochester. In the past he has

borrowed the e/m apparatus and has had a graduate student give a talk to his class and

bring the cloud chamber. In class, he uses the marble demonstration, rolling marbles

at an unseen, mystery object to figure out its shape, to study how particle physics

detectors work. Mr. Freivald also uses internet resources, such as Particle Adventure

[9], extensively and has made up worksheets to guide his students through the

websites.

Mr. Freivald claims that it was “cake” implementing PARTICLE at his

school. Most useful to him was having another teacher at his school, who had been

also through the program to act as a support. In his school, he is lucky enough to have

lab every other day, so there is ample time to do experiments. He feels that students

are gaining a valuable experience by using the detectors, even though he feels that

they do not necessarily increase their understanding of particle physics.

Richard Hendrick – Nazareth Academy

Richard Hendrick teaches Regents and AP Physics classes at a small, private,

all-girls school in Rochester [10]. He has been involved with PARTICLE for four

years and has a well established program at his school. Mr. Hendrick uses the muon


detectors as simply a demonstration in the Regents Physics class, but has his AP

students do independent research projects after the AP exams are over.

The AP students begin their research experience by attending PARTICLE

Day. Seeing the other students’ projects inspires them to create their own experiment.

The students work together as a class, but it is often a small group of around ten

students. Mr. Hendrick encourages them to come up with unique ideas and they often

do original experiments. He said one of the hardest things for him is to let them work

independently; he has the urge to step in and help, but knows that the students can

design and execute interesting projects on their own. In May 2004, his students did a

novel experiment mapping their school using muon rates which was inspired by work

that was done finding secret chambers in Mayan temples. They hypothesized that the

muon rate would be higher in the auditorium, where there was assumed to be less

building material overhead than in the hallways surrounding it. The muon rates

showed just the opposite and some investigation led them to discover false ceiling

and roof repairs that made the auditorium actually have more mass over it than the

hallways. The extra mass was absorbing muons and thus giving the unexpected

results.

Mr. Hendrick has his students report relative rates as opposed to absolute rates

because he feels they are more accurate due to the nature of the detectors. The

students do simple data analysis to graph and find error bars for their data. Mr.

Hendrick’s students also compare their data to that posted from the Stanford Linear

Accelerator (SLAC) [11] and hoped to compare to the data from the new, large

cosmic ray telescope at the University of Rochester this year [12]. He spends a good

deal of time talking with his students about inconsistencies and different ways to do

statistics. He recognizes that depending how you do the statistics different

conclusions can be reached regarding the results of the experiment. He makes sure

that his students know of this danger when analyzing data and are careful to report

accurate results. The students do not usually have this problem in normal labs, so they

need to be especially wary of it in PARTICLE experiments.


The students then do a final report for Mr. Hendrick; his school has set up an

AP symposium, where the students are given the opportunity to give a short

presentation and show their poster with results and data. Even though the students

miss presenting at PARTICLE Day, they still gain the experience of presenting to

their peers, which is an important step in the research process.

Mr. Hendrick feels that the biggest contribution from the University of

Rochester to his program has been the equipment and training he has received. He

uses what he has learned in PARTICLE to teach the modern physics portion of

Regents Physics. He has not taken advantage of the touring graduate student, but has

constructed his own mini-cloud chamber for use in his classroom.

Donna Smith – Gates-Chili High School

Donna Smith teaches AP Physics at a large suburban school [13]. She

participated in PARTICLE in 2003-2004, but has chosen not to continue working

with the program. After attending the Summer Institute, she was excited about

integrating the use of the cosmic ray telescopes into her AP Physics C course, which

had spare time in the schedule. The detectors seemed to be the ideal way to get her

students to do experiments in which they did not know the answers. The particle

physics aspect of the program fit in very nicely with her curriculum because she has

her students read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene, a popular science book that

explores topics in particle and modern physics and focuses on string theory. She said

that the lectures in the Summer Institute helped her to have a better understanding of

the book and also that having read the book she got more out of the summer lectures

than she would have otherwise.

The students in Ms. Smith’s class designed their experiments entirely on their

own. She demonstrated how the equipment worked and told them about the

experiment she had done during the Summer Institute, but offered no further

assistance. The students were responsible for choosing a topic, deciding which

variables to measure and what to control for. Unlike most teachers, she did not


provide them with the list of experiments that had been done before to give them

ideas and somewhere to start. They had no reference from which to model their

procedures. Students also did not know the limitations of the equipment and some of

their experiments may have been somewhat overambitious, such as placing the

detectors in a strong magnetic field.

Unfortunately, things did not go as planned. She had repeated problems with

the computers and new data acquisition boards and thus did not get any useable data.

Although the PARTICLE graduate student provided assistance, it was not enough to

keep the project afloat. Part of the problem was that Ms. Smith did not test her

equipment ahead of time. Teachers are very busy, but it is important to make sure the

equipment is working well before introducing it to the students.

Ms. Smith was frustrated that she had no troubleshooting experience in the

summer school. She learned how to use the equipment, but not what to do if

something went wrong. She also stated that part of the problem was that upgrades

were done to the boards after the Summer Institute, so teachers had no experience

with the upgraded equipment. Her recommendation was for upgrades to be done only

before the Summer Institute so that teachers would have time to work with the new

equipment before they use it in their classrooms. Ms. Smith was not the only teacher

who has had problems troubleshooting the equipment and this is an area that

definitely needs to be addressed in the Summer Institute.

Ms. Smith has decided to not try PARTICLE in her classroom anymore, even

though doing research with the muon telescopes would fit in very nicely with her

curriculum and supports her goal of having students do original research. She told me

that her reasons for not participating may be somewhat selfish because she wants to

“do her own thing.” In order to be successful in PARTICLE, teachers need to be open

to integrating the program into their curriculum. This case shows that a teacher truly

must be committed to the program for it to be successful.

Ms. Smith had problems last year and even though she knows they have been

fixed, she refuses to try again because of her bad experience. Like Ms. Smith, many


teachers are easily discouraged when faced with equipment problems. While it is

impossible to ensure that everyone has a great first year in the program, the best way

to keep people involved is to see that other people do not have similar experiences

with malfunctioning equipment and encourage them to test their equipment early, so

they can get help when they need it. Later in this chapter, a more detailed study of

barriers teacher encounter is presented.

Joseph Willie – Pittsford-Mendon High School

Joe Willie is a physics teacher at a public suburban Rochester school and has

been involved with the PARTICLE program for four years [14]. He has given talks

about PARTICLE at national American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT)

meetings and also has led data analysis workshops at the Summer Institute for new

teachers. He primarily uses the cosmic ray detectors in his Regents Physics classes,

but also does more advanced data analysis with his AP Physics students. He is

adamant that the use of the detectors be an integral part of the course. Mr. Willie’s

course proceeds at a quick pace to ensure that he will have plenty of time to spend on

particle and modern physics. He begins the year by introducing students to the

standard model, then sets up the detector to run throughout the year, and finishes the

year with a unit on particle physics to tie everything together. In Mr. Willie’s classes,

they focus on doing long-term runs and take data for weeks or months at a time. He

views the research as a group project; he is working with the students as part of the

group, not necessarily leading the students, but guiding them through the research

process.

Mr. Willie mentioned that in implementing the program there was the fear that

it would be too rigorous and demanding, so he tried to make it “light-weight” enough

to appeal to all students. Usually, Mr. Willie has his classes break into small groups

that each work on one aspect of a larger project. Students are given suggestions to

think about and are encouraged to choose a topic on their own. Each group was in

charge of one part of the experiment, analyzing data, creating graphs, making a


presentation, etc. This method seems to work well because the students are not

overwhelmed with doing an entire project on their own, yet they still feel ownership

over their piece of the project.

Mr. Willie sees the use of the cosmic ray detectors as an extension of his other

labs. In the PARTICLE experiments, the students do similar types of data analysis as

they do with other labs. This means that the students have had some practice

manipulating data before doing the cosmic ray experiments and thus are more

comfortable with data analysis. Most of the research his students do is of the type that

has been done, but because he is constantly collecting and analyzing data, there are

always interesting phenomena to be observed such as solar flares. The advantage to

Mr. Willie’s approach is that all of his students are involved in experimental research,

not just a select few.

Students are responsible for coming up with the procedure, but are given

assistance in deciding which variables to measure. Mr. Willie has students do analysis

using Excel; they make graphs, fit data, and learn how to create error bars. If the

research they choose to do is relatively standard, such as measuring muon rate as a

function of pressure or solar activity, the results are checked against previous years’

data or data from other universities. The students spend time puzzling over

inconsistencies when analyzing data and discovering that other detectors, such as the

one at the University of Adelaide, have seen similar phenomena [15].

In October 2003, Mr. Willie’s class made an interesting discovery correlating

the muon rate to solar activity and ended up taking data for four and half months! In

January 2005, his class again saw the effects of a solar flare on the cosmic ray rate

here on Earth. In 2004-2005, Mr. Willie has spent a lot of time working with the data

from the large detector at the University of Rochester. He likes that it gets more

accurate results than the smaller detectors. The only disadvantage is that students

don’t get to work with it hands-on; they can only analyze the data. Each year, a

delegation of students is sent to PARTICLE Day to report on their results. At


PARTICLE Day 2005, his students presented results that compared the data from

their small detectors and the large one here on campus.

The students at Mr. Willie’s school are receptive to working with the

detectors. He claims that they “tolerate modern physics and that whole freaky

quantum thing a little bit more” [14] after working with the cosmic ray telescopes.

The work the students have done with the muon detectors helps prepare them for

opportunities doing independent research projects or summer internships. The

students of Mr. Willie’s that I met were very enthusiastic about their research projects

and it was evident that Mr. Willie has done an excellent job of conveying the

excitement of experimental physics with his students.

Mr. Willie has developed many materials for use in his classes due to the fact

that many textbooks do not address topics in particle and modern physics. He has

created worksheets to help guide students through relevant web pages, such as

Particle Adventure [9] and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) [11]. In

addition to being used in his classroom, the data analysis tutorials he designed have

been used in the Summer Institute to help train new PARTICLE participants.

Mr. Willie feels that he has greatly benefited from participating in

PARTICLE. He has become much more technologically advanced and has used what

he learned in the program throughout all of his classes. All of his classes, not only

those which use the detectors, have become more inquiry-based as a result of his

participation in the program. When Mr. Willie first joined PARTICLE, he claims he

could not even turn on a computer and now he is an integral member of the program.

Briana Wood – Byron-Bergen High School

Ms. Wood teaches physics and earth science at a rural school in Monroe

County and has been involved with PARTICLE since the start of the program in 1999

[16]. She feels that she does not have enough time to do experimental research as a

part of her class due to the Regents requirements, so she offers PARTICLE as an

extra-credit, after school activity. Ms. Wood typically has a group of six to ten


students who design and conduct experiments after school through the year. The

students come from both her physics and earth science classes and thus are from

different grades with a range of science experience.

Typically, the students will only take data for a week and spend another week

analyzing data, but days they work on the project are spread out over the course of the

spring semester due to sports, tests, and other commitments. The students in the

research group tend to be those who are more interested in science in the first place,

so they do not necessarily become more interested in science as a result of the

program, but they do gain an appreciation for experimental research. Her goal is for

the students to have an authentic research experience where they can puzzle over data

and think critically about results.

Ms. Wood sees her role in the project as a facilitator who helps the students

get started, but leaves everything else up to them. The students do not have any

formal background training in particle physics or cosmic rays in class before doing

the research project, so the research group uses the internet to learn about these

subjects and also to get ideas for experiments. The students usually start by trying one

of the experiments that are listed on the web page. After they have a little experience

and are more comfortable with the equipment, the students are more adventurous and

will come up with their own ideas for experiments. She helps them to design a

procedure by asking leading questions, but lets them figure out the details on their

own. She offers assistance with data analysis because not all students are comfortable

using Excel, especially with determining the error.

One of the most important things for Ms. Wood, like other PARTICLE

teachers, is that students learn to deal with inconsistent or inexplicable data, which is

something that is hard for students to understand because they have not seen

inexplicable results in normal physics labs. During the interview, she explained:

They have a really, very difficult time with [inconsistent data] because a lot of the experimentation that they’ve done is set up so that they know the answer and they will get what we are looking for. And this is not like that at all. They can have random points that mean nothing and they ask me, why? And I don’t know and they look at you like you are crazy because you always know the


answer. That is very difficult for them to grasp because they’re not used to not knowing what the answer is. They are used to the teacher having an answer key. … And I don’t have an answer key and that’s kind of hard for some of them to handle [16].

Hard as it is for the students, she encourages them to think about the inconsistencies

and what it means in the scope of the project.

Because of the nature of her program, Ms. Wood’s students can do more

elaborate experiments than can be done in the classroom. For example, in 2004, with

the help of a grant from the Western New York Physics Teacher Association, her

students sent a cosmic ray telescope in an airplane to measure the muon rate as a

function of altitude. The students predicted the muon rates based on the lifetime of a

muon. The PARTICLE Fellow, a graduate student, guided Ms. Wood’s students

through difficult data analysis techniques, which included relativity and muon

lifetime, in order to make sense of their data. Their measured data was compared to

(and agreed with) the theoretical model they developed. While this was an unusually

complex experiment, it is a good example of what can be done in an extra-curricular

program. Usually all of Ms. Wood’s students who participate attend PARTICLE Day

to present their results.

Ms. Wood teaches a unit on modern physics at the end of the year, but does

not use the telescopes in class. She feels pressed for time and restricts her lessons to

those that are required for the Regents exam. She stated that her work with

PARTICLE has greatly increased her knowledge of particle and modern physics and

allowed her to expand the unit accordingly. The background she received through

PARTICLE has made her more comfortable with the material and better able to

answer students’ questions, even if it has not made it into her curriculum.

These case studies illustrate how PARTICLE can be implemented in the

schools. Programs range from class required research projects in Regents and AP

Physics to after-school, interdisciplinary programs. These teachers provide a model

for new teachers to implement programs in their schools. The testimonials of these


successful teachers need to be shared with new teachers to show them how

PARTICLE can be successful. A common theme throughout the interviews was that

the most important thing students learn was not particle physics, but how to do

original scientific research. Some PARTICLE teachers may feel overwhelmed by the

complicated particle physics and not have their students do the research projects, but

many experiments can be done without a complete understanding of particle physics.

Teachers need to see that having the students understand the physics is secondary to

having them gain an appreciation for real science research.

In all the successful programs, students have guidance from the teacher while

still being free to design their own experiment. The key to a successful in class

program is having the detectors for a long enough time so that all students can

complete projects and starting early enough in the year so that they do not run out of

time. Also required is a certain amount of flexibility in the curriculum and dedication

from the participating teacher to stick with the program, even if things do not go as

planned. Although most teachers fare better than Ms. Smith, all have barriers that

they have encountered while implementing the program. These obstacles will be

explored in more detail later in this chapter (see section 3.9, Overcoming Obstacles).

3.5 Classroom Implementation

As we have just seen, teachers implement PARTICLE in a variety of ways

depending on their school, the classes they teach, and the amount of time they feel

they have to spend on experimental research. Most PARTICLE teachers have

students do experimental research of some kind, although some teachers use the

detectors for demonstration purposes only and do not have students doing original

research. This section gives details and statistics about how the detectors are used,

classroom resources, graduate student visits, and how teachers use what they learned

through PARTICLE.


3.5.1 Cosmic Ray Detector Use

In Fall 2004, 18 teachers planned on having their students participate in the

PARTICLE Program by doing experimental research at their schools. This includes

seven of the eight teachers who were new to PARTICLE in 2004-2005 and 11

teachers who have participated in the past. One new teacher was not able to

participate due to a last minute change in her teaching schedule, but hoped to help

other physics teachers at her school get involved with the program. This unfortunately

did not happen, but she continues to be interested in setting up a program at her

school. By the end of the year, only 11 teachers had reported actually using

PARTICLE in their classrooms. (Note that only 14 of the 18 teachers responded to

the follow-up survey, which may have contributed to the lower numbers reported in

this section.)

Exactly which classes use PARTICLE from year to year depends significantly

on teaching schedules, which is out of the control of individual teachers. PARTICLE

is most often used in Regents Physics or Advanced Placement (AP) Physics courses,

but also occasionally used in Earth Science or Chemistry. During the 2003-2004

school year, PARTICLE was used in 23 classes and in 16 classes in 2004-2005.

Several factors contributed to the decrease including teaching schedule changes, lack

of planning time, and problems sharing equipment. Several of the teachers who did

not end up using the detectors or PARTICLE were new teachers who indicated that

they would like to have more students involved in the future. Table 3.3 shows the

breakdown of courses using PARTICLE.

Table 3.3 Classes Using PARTICLE Course # Teachers Using

PARTICLE 2003-2004 (n=14)

# Teachers Planning to Use PARTICLE 2004-2005 (n=18)

# Teachers Actually Using PARTICLE 2004-2005 (n=11)

Regents Physics 10 15 9 AP Physics 7 7 5 Earth Science 3 3 2 Chemistry 3 1 0 Total # Courses 23 26 16


Although the number of classes using PARTICLE went down this year, there

was still student research done in many classes. Table 3.4 shows how detectors were

used in the classroom and how much time the students spent using the cosmic ray

telescopes. Overall, the number of teachers decreased in almost every category, but,

as mentioned above, many teachers indicated that they plan to have more students

involved next year. The number of hours spent using the detectors also decreased

slightly. The number of hours that teachers planned to use the detectors in 2004-2005

is misleading because several teachers reported total running time, not just the time

that students were actively using the detectors. Taking this into account, the time

spent is less than what was planned, but it is not as significant a decrease as it first

seems.

Table 3.4 Detector Use by Students Detector Use # Teachers Using

PARTICLE 2003-2004 (n=14)

# Teachers Planning to Use

PARTICLE 2004-2005 (n=18)

# Teachers Actually Using

PARTICLE 2004-2005 (n=11)

Demos 12 15 7 Student Research in Class 2 10 2 Independent Research 6 9 1 Other (Small Group Research) 2 2 4 Total Doing Student Research 10 14 7 # hours

(8 teachers responding)

# hours (10 teachers responding)

# hours (7 teachers responding)

Total Student Time Spent Using Detectors

57 139.5 * 35

Average Time per Teacher 7 14 5 Range 3-15 2.5-30 2-10 *Some teachers reported running time, thus leading to an inflated number of hours.

The number of students can fluctuate from year to year based on enrollment in

the appropriate courses, but did decrease in 2004-2005 from the last year (see Table

3.5). The number of students being exposed to PARTICLE in class has remained

constant. The number of teachers who plan on doing class research projects jumped

from five to twelve, but only three actually followed through. Those planning to

attend PARTICLE Day rose from six to eleven and eight actually attended. From the


data shown in Table 3.5, we can see that the number of students who were involved

was quite different from what the teachers had originally planned. This will be

addressed shortly.

Table 3.5 Student Involvement in PARTICLE # Students Involved (# Teachers Reporting) Type of Involvement 03-04 Planned 04-05 Actual 04-05 Class Research Projects 269 (5) 278 (12) 81 (3) After School Research 103 (6) 111 (9) 60 (4) Extra-Credit Work 91 (6) 85 (7) 6 (2) Exposure in Class 310 (11) 613 (16) 317 (7) PARTICLE Day 60 (6) 83 (11) 83 (8)

The October 2004 survey showed that many teachers plan on expanding their

programs and having students involved in multiple ways, such as doing research

projects in class and then having students spend time after school on independent,

more in-depth projects. These results were exciting because more teachers wanted to

do more research in their classrooms. When asked on the initial survey what they

were changing from last year, nine out of eleven teachers who responded indicated

that they want to spend more time with the detectors this year. The teachers’

comments included:

“I want to use [the muon telescopes] for more than just a cool demo.” “Add a lab for all students in physics” “I want to involve ALL students with the detectors.” “[I am] starting [to use the detectors] earlier in the year, so more time [can be] involved in research.” [17]

This indicates that there may be a learning curve for teachers to feel comfortable

enough with the equipment to let their students use it on their own. They may use it

their first year for demonstrations only, but then expand in the next year to involve

students in the research process. The new teachers also expressed similar sentiments

on the follow-up survey; they did not have the opportunity to implement the program

they envisioned, but hoped that they would in the future.


Unfortunately, many programs did not get implemented in 2004-2005 as

planned. As can be seen Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5, the number of students and number

of classes using the detectors is much less than what was predicted based on the

initial survey. Teachers planned on having more students involved in more ways than

before, but for a variety of reasons these programs did not go as intended. Five

teachers indicated that their PARTICLE curriculum differed significantly from what

they planned. When asked why, four teachers said there was not enough time in class,

four said not enough time to plan, and one was not comfortable with the material and

using the muon telescope. Two teachers also indicated there was no student interest.

It is important to note that because of the short time frame over which the study was

conducted, this data does not necessarily indicate a decreasing trend in program

participation, but nonetheless there are things we can learn from the teachers who did

not participate as planned.

Teachers start out very enthusiastic and optimistic about the program, but as

time passes and they get busy with other things the PARTICLE Program gets put

aside. The problem is that returning teachers lose interest or no longer feel confident

in their abilities using the equipment, and the programs never get off the ground.

PARTICLE does a great job at preparing teachers for their first year in the program,

but needs to spend more time following up with teachers in their second and third

years to ensure that the program continues to thrive. The changes being made to the

Summer Institute this year, primarily to invite teachers back for a longer period of

time, are a first step in this direction.

3.5.2 Classroom Resources

The PARTICLE teachers also use a number of demonstrations and resources,

both from the University of Rochester and from external sources. The follow-up

survey asked participants what resources they used in their classrooms during

PARTICLE projects and in their particle and modern physics unit. The survey

indicated that most popular were the cloud chamber and internet resources (see Table


3.6). Many teachers told me that seeing the cloud chamber brought by someone at

from the university was the highlight of the program for their students. On the first

survey, four teachers wrote that the cloud chamber was what worked best in their

classrooms. However, many of the other demonstrations that are available for

teachers to use with their students are not being utilized. Only one teacher told me

that he planed to use the e/m apparatus this year (four actually did), but many teachers

were excited about the marble labs that were purchased this year to illustrate detector

physics. The speed of light demonstration was not used at all, but one teacher has

already requested it for next year.

Many teachers have also developed their own resources. A leader in this area

has been Joseph Willie, who has created several data analysis tutorials that he uses

with the teachers in the Summer Institute as well as his students in the classroom. He

has also created internet activities to make the relevant websites more interactive for

students. He has made all of his materials available to the other PARTICLE teachers

and posted them on the PARTICLE website [12]. This type of sharing between

participating teachers is one of the unique resources PARTICLE provides; a network

of teachers with a common interest in teaching science effectively through inquiry

methods. Only three teachers reported using data posted on the PARTICLE website,

but this low number is partially due to the low number of research projects that were

conducted this year.

Table 3.6 Classroom Resources Resource # Teachers Using the

Resource (n =14) Cloud Chamber 7 e/m Apparatus 4 Marble Labs 4 Speed of Light Demo 0 Internet (Particle Adventure, SLAC, etc.)

10

Excel Tutorials 3 Big Paddle Data 2 Previous Experiment Data 3 Self-designed Resources 6 U of R grad student/faculty visit 8


3.5.3 Graduate Student Visits

One valuable resource that PARTICLE offers to teachers is a visit from a

University of Rochester faculty member or the PARTICLE Fellow, a graduate student

working with the program. The visit is a great way to expose students to particle

physics even if the teachers do not have time to do a full unit. The visits are also a

good introduction to a unit on particle physics or to experimental research. One

teacher remarked in an interview,

I think that the kids find [the speaker] very enjoyable. Some years are better than others, depending on the speaker. But I think it’s a good resource. I think that to see two students who are in graduate school made it seem a little more feasible that [the high school students] could eventually go there [7].

So not only do the students learn something new, they are also inspired by a young

scientist in the field. Visits usually lasted one class period, which ranges from 40-85

minutes depending on the school, and some teachers had more than one class receive

a visitor. The teachers were able to choose what they wanted the graduate student to

bring and what they wanted her to talk about.

Julie Langenbrunner, the PARTICLE Fellow for the 2004-2005 school year

reported visiting seven schools. At several schools she gave talks including a cloud

chamber talk at one school, a standard model talk at four schools, and a neutrino talk

at two schools. She also brought the cloud chamber to all schools but one, used the

cosmic ray detectors at one school, and brought the e/m apparatus to three schools.

She visited with a total of 190 students. Not all of these students went on to do

research projects, but they still were introduced to ideas in modern physics that they

might otherwise not have had. The students I talked with at PARTICLE Day all

indicated that they enjoyed Ms. Langenbrunner’s visits to their schools. Kevin

McFarland also visited one school in the fall, where he gave a talk and demonstrated

the cloud chamber.

The graduate student is also responsible for providing technical assistance

when equipment does not work properly and help with data analysis when students

(and teachers) need some extra assistance. For example, the graduate student in 2003-


2004 went to extensive lengths to help the students at Byron-Bergen with the analysis

of their ‘Muons in Flight’ project that measured muon rate as a function of altitude.

Their analysis required an understanding of complex topics such as special relativity

that high school students and teachers are not entirely comfortable with. But with his

help, they successfully showed that the rate agreed with their predictions.

One teacher expressed doubt about having a graduate student come and teach

the class for a day. He seemed to indicate that with the graduate student’s lack of

teaching experience with high school students, the students might be difficult to

control. Most teachers have not had this experience in the past, but it is useful to

know that teachers may have this hesitation. Despite this, having the PARTICLE

Fellow visit schools is one of the best resources PARTICLE has to offer.

3.5.4 Applying PARTICLE

Teachers often apply their experiences in professional development programs,

such as PARTICLE, throughout their classes and their schools (see Table 3.7). All of

the responding teachers said that they have drawn on program experiences for

examples in teaching, and 17 of 19 said it was to some or a great extent. More than

half (58%) of the teachers have made curriculum changes (to some or a great extent)

based on what they’ve learned in PARTICLE. Almost 80% have developed new

materials. Somewhat disappointing is that 33% of teachers responded that they have

not drawn on program experiences for student independent projects, but these are the

teachers who are not doing research projects with their students. Only three teachers

have conducted in-service activities to share what they’ve learned, but 84% have

shared informally with colleagues.


Table 3.7 Applying Program Experiences # Teachers Responding (%)

n=19 To what extent do you agree with each of the following statements about what has occurred since your participation in the program?

To a great extent

To some extent

To a small extent

Not at all

a. I have drawn on my program experiences for explanations and examples in my teaching 5(26) 12 (63) 2 (11) 0 (0)

b. I have drawn on my program experiences for ideas for student independent projects 4 (22) 4 (22) 4 (22) 6 (33)

c. I have made curriculum changes based on what I have learned in the program 3 (16) 8 (42) 5 (26) 3 (16)

d. I have developed new materials for the course(s) I teach 1 (5.3) 9 (47) 5 (26) 4 (21)

e. I have shared my experience/knowledge from the program with colleagues informally 4 (21) 3 (16) 9 (47) 3 (16)

f. I have been responsible for conducting in-service or workshop activities using ideas from the program

1 (5.3) 0 (0) 2 (11) 16 (84)

PARTICLE is being used in classrooms in a variety of ways from

demonstrations to after-school programs and in most classrooms for experimental

research. The way teachers implement the program varies from school to school, and

teachers are finding many ways to be successful. Teachers also use their experiences

in PARTICLE to enhance their other classes with the knowledge of particle and

modern physics, even if they are not doing experimental research. Although the

numbers were down for this year, the teachers and students continue to do high

quality research projects.

3.6 PARTICLE Day and Student Responses

PARTICLE Day has proven to be an effective way to get students interested

in the research process. At this research conference, students are given the

opportunity to present their research to their peers as an oral presentation or in a

poster session. Students also hear a guest lecturer and have the opportunity to visit

physics labs, the Laser Laboratory for Energetics, and the Center for Optical

Manufacturing. The 2005 PARTICLE Day featured a lecture by Dr. Debbie Harris

from Fermi National Laboratory, four student talks, and posters from students at two


different schools, as well as posters from the students who did summer research in

2004. See Appendix D for the complete 2005 PARTICLE Day schedule.

Teachers find the treat of a field trip is a good way to entice students into

doing research, if only for the reason that every high school student loves the

opportunity to miss a day of school. Most teachers bring only a few of their students,

electing a delegation or bringing those only who do after-school or extra-credit work.

In 2005, a total of 83 students from eight schools participated in PARTICLE Day, a

record turnout. Three of the eight schools that attended were new to PARTICLE this

year. In each of the past three years (2002-2004), between 67 and 69 students from

six different schools have attended PARTICLE Day. The first year, 2001, 44 students

came to PARTICLE Day from eight schools.

Despite the high turnout this year, there were fewer poster presentations than

in the past. There were five posters from two schools and three of those groups also

gave oral presentations. Part of the reason for the low turnout was scheduling

conflicts for teachers at schools that traditionally bring students with projects to

present. There was also one poster from a project that was done by an AP Physics

class after PARTICLE Day last year. Although the students who did the project were

not there to answer questions, other students could still see the results from their

experiment. This practice should be encouraged in the future to expose students to as

many projects as possible.

A first at the 2005 PARTICLE Day was that the students who did research in

summer 2004 talked about what they had done and also presented a total of three

posters. This gave the other students a look at a more in-depth project than can be

done in the classroom. The summer students worked on the construction of the large

cosmic ray telescope and also investigated liquid scintiallators. All of the student

presenters were effective at conveying both the joys and frustrations they experienced

during the research processes to their peers. Their excitement about their project was

evident when they shared their research experiments and was also contagious; the

other students were intrigued by what they had done.


Some teachers, particularly those teaching AP classes, use PARTICLE Day as

a jumping off point for the student research; the students see what their peers have

done and are inspired to do something better or different. There were also many

students who attended the conference this year had not done and are not planning on

doing experimental research. I think that for these students, PARTICLE Day was not

as meaningful as it is to the other students. They did not have the background to

appreciate the projects that the other students were presenting or really understand the

research that was done. The presenters all assumed a base level of knowledge that

was just not there for all who attended. Most of the students who asked questions

during the talks were those who had also done research, indicating that they had a

better understanding of what was being said, but all students were interacting and

asking questions during the poster session. I talked to several groups of students who

seemed unsure as to why they were even there. I heard one student ask another,

“What’s a cosmic ray detector?” Without a basic understanding, it is questionable

how much the students are gaining from the experience. Most did receive visits from

Ms. Langenbrunner, but did not have any background with the cosmic ray telescopes.

The students still gained an appreciation of the experimental science through hearing

the talks and visiting the research labs, even if they did not understand every detail.

I had the opportunity to talk with many of the students who were presenting

posters and giving talks. They were universally excited about their research and said

they had enjoyed the experience. Many indicated that they plan to continue studying

science in college and hope to do more research in the future. Among the most

enthusiastic were the ones who did summer research. The completion of such a big

project gave them a sense of pride in their work and the confidence that they have the

skills and ability to do more research in the future. The summer program is again

being offered this summer and appears to be a great addition to the PARTICLE

Program.

The students also completed a questionnaire about their research experiences

(see Table 3.8). Of the students present, 53 completed the survey including 23 who


presented research projects and 30 who did not. All 83 students did not participate

because some schools came in late, after the survey had been administered. These

groups did not present research results. Of those 30 who had not done research yet,

five said they plan on starting a project later in the year, 18 said they do not plan on

starting a project, and seven did not know what their teacher intended. There was an

equal split of 25 male and 26 female students (two students did not respond), which

indicates that women are participating in the program as much as the men. Of the

presenters, they were split evenly, 10 female, 11 male, and the two who didn’t

respond. The non-presenters included 14 male and 16 female students. Most students

(35) were in eleventh grade, but there were also seven tenth graders and eight seniors.

Also of note is that most students plan to study science in college, but there

were a few who do not. This is not surprising given the nature of the project, but

PARTICLE is good for all students, and should not be limited to those who are

science-oriented. The teachers need to make sure that all students are given the

opportunity to participate. Sometimes the ones who think they are not science people

will benefit the most from this type of experience because it differs from what they

see in a normal science classroom.

The overall results of the survey are given in Table 3.8, but more interesting is

to look at the difference in average responses between the presenters and non-

presenters, as shown in Table 3.9. In every question, the students who did research

and presented agreed more with the statements than those who had not done research.

Students were given the option of choosing ‘not applicable’ for the statements and

those responses were not included in the averages. For obvious reasons, the students

who did not do research chose ‘not applicable’ at a higher rate than the presenters.

The students who had done research were much more likely to enjoy

experimental research and using the muon telescopes. They were also more likely to

have gained an appreciation of science, to have become more interested in science as

a result of their participation, and to think about science differently than they had

before. But also worthy of note is that some students who did not do research said


that they still gained an appreciation of what experimental research was like, perhaps

from hearing about the other students presentations. The other big difference was that

the students who presented were more comfortable with the Standard Model,

probably because their teachers had spent more time on modern physics topics than

those that did not present.

Table 3.8 Student Responses # Students Responding (%) Indicate how strongly you

agree or disagree with each statement.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Disagree N/A

a. I enjoyed doing experimental research. 18 (34) 15 (28) 11 (21) 1 (2) 0 (0) 9 (17)

b. I enjoyed using the muon telescopes in my science class.

5 (9) 6 (11) 6 (11) 0 (0) 0 (0) 34 (64)

c. Doing experimental research sparked my interest in science.

15 (28) 14 (26) 16 (30) 1 (2) 0 (0) 7 (13)

d. I want to learn more about particle physics/cosmic rays.

9 (17) 23 (43) 17 (32) 2 (4) 2 (4) 0 (0)

e. I could explain the standard model to a friend.

9 (17) 17 (32) 7 (13) 5 (9) 5 (9) 8 (15)

f. I enjoyed the visit from the U of R faculty/student.

10 (19) 17 (32) 7 (13) 0 (0) 0 (0) 18 (34)

g. I have gained an appreciation of what real experimental science research is like.

9 (17) 17 (32) 16 (30) 1 (2) 0 (0) 7 (13)

h. The muon telescope projects made me think differently about scientific research than I had in my other science classes.

8 (15) 11 (21) 7 (13) 3 (6) 0 (0) 23 (43)

i. I will continue to study science in college. 31 (58) 13 (25) 6 (11) 2 (4) 1 (2) 0 (0)

Due to rounding, percentages may not add to 100%.


Table 3.9 Comparison of Student Responses Average Response * Indicate to what extent you agree or disagree

with each statement based on your participation in PARTICLE.

Students who presented research

Students who had not presented or done

research a. I enjoyed doing experimental research. 1.83 1.95 b. I enjoyed using the muon telescopes in my

science class. 1.58 2.83 c. Doing experimental research sparked my

interest in science. 1.96 2.17 d. I want to learn more about particle

physics/cosmic rays. 2.04 2.48 e. I could explain the standard model to a

friend. 1.68 3.59 f. I enjoyed the visit from the U of R

faculty/student. 1.77 2.00 g. I have gained an appreciation of what real

experimental science research is like. 1.86 2.61 h. I am more interested in science as a result of

the program. 1.95 2.60 i. The muon telescope projects made me think

differently about scientific research than I had in my other science classes. 1.41 1.87

j. I will continue to study science in college. 1.83 1.95 *Scale: 1 = Strongly Agree to 5 = Strongly Disagree N/A responses were not included in averages

The survey asked students how their teachers presented particle physics to

their class. This question was also asked of the teachers and while that may be a more

reliable source of what was actually done in the classroom, I was curious to know

what the students remembered their teachers doing. These are only the results for a

few schools, but it gives an idea of what the students who attended PARTICLE Day

were exposed to. In general, the students who presented have seen particle physics

presented in many more different ways than those who did not present (see Table

3.10). When looking at this data it is important to keep in mind that there was still one

month of school left, so many teachers had not yet covered particle physics, but this

reinforces my observation that many students were unaware of what was being done

in the PARTICLE Program at the time they attended PARTICLE Day.


Table 3.10 How Teachers Presented Material to Students # Students Responding (%) How did your teacher present

particle physics to your class? Students who presented research

n=23

Students who had not presented or done research

n=30 Lecture 22 (96) 17 (57) Demos (cloud chamber, e/m apparatus, muon detectors, etc)

22 (96) 18 (60)

Experiments with muon detectors

21 (91) 8 (27)

Other experiments/labs 16 (70) 3 (10) U of R faculty/grad student visit 21 (96) 9 (30) No teacher presentation 1 (4.3) 11 (37)

Overall, the students who have done research projects are very excited to

share what they have done and learn about other students’ projects. However, the

students that have not done original research projects are not benefiting from

PARTICLE as much as they would be otherwise. These students need to be at least

introduced to the idea of the cosmic ray telescopes before they attend PARTICLE

Day in order to get the most out of the experience. For both those who did research

projects and those who did not, most teachers reported that PARTICLE Day was the

students’ favorite part of the program and they learned a lot about experimental

science from the visit.

The teachers were also asked how they think the students benefited most from

PARTICLE. Most of the responses echo what we’ve seen here; the students enjoy

doing research that hasn’t been done before and getting a taste of real research.

Comments included: “Designing, executing, and analyzing an experiment from

scratch is a critical experience. Also using Excel and Powerpoint was a benefit as

well.”, “[The students] saw current research in a field that was not 300 years in the

past.”, “First hand research where things go wrong and they have to find solutions

and don’t know if their answers are correct are a valuable experience for students.”,

“[The students got a] taste of “real” research and the feasibility of studying particle

physics.”, and “[Research] broadened [students’] perspectives” [18]. Not only is

doing ‘real’ science teaching the students important critical thinking skills, but the


students also enjoy science classes more when they have these opportunities. More on

the students’ authentic research experience can be found in Chapter 4.

3.7 Curriculum

In addition to the goal of having students do experimental research,

PARTICLE also has the secondary mission of exposing students to more particle and

modern physics and having them gain an appreciation for happenings in current

science. This section details what topics were taught by teachers who did and did not

participated in PARTICLE and what influences their teaching methods.

3.7.1 Influences on Curricula

Before examining what is in the teacher’s curriculum, it is helpful to look at

what influences their curriculum and the content of the course. The first survey asked

PARTICLE teachers what influenced their curriculum and the biggest impact by far

was the Regents requirements. Because it has such a great impact on the teacher’s

curriculum, how PARTICLE fits in with the Regents requirements will be addressed

in more detail in the next chapter. Laboratory facilities and computer availability also

contributed to what was included in their curricula. Many teachers lacked resources in

these areas, which can prove to be a major obstacle when planning labs and

demonstrations. PARTICLE is a significant resource in this area because equipment,

computers, and demonstrations are available to borrow from the university. But these

demonstrations are only for modern physics, and many teachers are lacking

equipment and demonstrations throughout their curriculum.

Other significant influences on teachers’ curricula included their own interests

and science content background. The Summer Institute is assisting teachers in this

regard; it educates them on topics in particle and modern physics so that they feel

more comfortable talking about them in the classroom. Most teachers also reported

using their own curriculum rather than a textbook curriculum, which indicates a

certain flexibility that is not immediately obvious based on the teachers’ reported


reliance on the Regents requirements. This also indicates that most teachers have the

flexibility to incorporate at least some of the aspects of PARTICLE into their

curricula. See Tables 3.11 and 3.12 for a breakdown of influences on curriculum

development.

Table 3.11 Influences on Curriculum Development (Mode/Mean) For those elements that are applicable in your school in relation to science, please indicate the extent of influence each has on your teaching. Mode Mean a. State curriculum guide/ State-

mandated test 1 1.48

b. District curriculum guide/ District- or department-mandated test 5 3.38

c. National standards (e.g., Benchmarks) 2 2.62

d. Local improvement effort (such as science, mathematics, and/or technology reform)

2 3.43

e. Textbook program (commercially-developed) 4 3.81

f. Self-developed curriculum or course 1 2.14

g. Laboratory facilities, equipment, and supplies 1 1.76

h. Availability of computers 2 2.33 i. Parental/community involvement 3 3.43 j. My own science content

background 1 1.81

k. My own interests and experience 2 1.95 l. What other teachers with classes

like this are doing 2 2.76

Scale: 1 = extensive influence to 4 = no influence


Table 3.12 Influences on Curriculum Development (Distribution)

# Teachers Responding (%) For those elements that are applicable in your school in relation to science, please indicate the extent of influence each has on your teaching.

Extensive Influence

(1)

Some Influence

(2)

Little Influence

(3)

No Influence

(4) N/A (5)

a. State curriculum guide/ State-mandated test 15 (71) 4 (19) 1 (4.7) 0 (0) 1 (4.7)

b. District curriculum guide/ District- or department-mandated test

4 (19) 5 (24) 1 (4.7) 1 (4.7) 10 (48)

c. National standards (e.g., Benchmarks) 3 (14) 8 (38) 7 (33) 0 (0) 3 (14)

d. Local improvement effort (such as science, mathematics, and/or technology reform)

0 (0) 8 (38) 3 (14) 3 (14) 7 (33)

e. Textbook program (commercially-developed) 2 (9.5) 2 (9.5) 0 (0) 11 (52) 6 (29)

f. Self-developed curriculum or course 8 (38) 7 (33) 3 (14) 1 (4.7) 2 (9.5)

g. Laboratory facilities, equipment, and supplies 11 (52) 7 (33) 1 (4.7) 1 (4.7) 1 (4.7)

h. Availability of computers 6 (29) 10 (48) 1 (4.7) 0 (0) 4 (19) i. Parental/community

involvement 0 (0) 2 (9.5) 11 (52) 5 (24) 3 (14)

j. My own science content background 10 (48) 9 (43) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (9.5)

k. My own interests and experience 4 (19) 16 (76) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (4.7)

l. What other teachers with classes like this are doing 2 (9.5) 10 (48) 4 (19) 1 (4.7) 4 (19)

3.7.2 Topics in Modern Physics Curricula

Now that we see what influences a teacher’s curriculum, we can look at what

the curriculum includes. One of the goals of this report is to find out what topics in

particle and modern physics are being taught in high school physical science classes.

As seen in Table 3.13, there are not significant differences in the subjects taught by

physical science teachers who have and have not participated in the program. This is

to be expected as New York has a fairly stringent Regents curriculum that all teachers

must follow.

Two years of data from PARTICLE teachers shows that there is consistency

in what they teach. There are slight differences in the curricula between the


PARTICLE and non-PARTICLE teachers. One is the study of cosmic rays, where

58% of PARTICLE teachers as opposed to only 19% of non-PARTICLE teachers

teach the subject. Another difference of note is the non-PARTICLE teachers report

60% teaching radioactivity, compared to 32-36% of PARTICLE teachers. This is

most likely due to the fact that many of the non-PARTICLE teachers are chemistry

teachers, which requires radioactivity for the Regents exam, and the PARTICLE

teachers are primarily physics teachers. (Two non-PARTICLE teachers who

responded only taught Biology, so those responses were not included in the totals in

these tables because there is little physical science involved in biology classes.)

Table 3.13 Modern Physics Curricula # Teachers who reported teaching the given topic (%)

Modern Physics Topic

PARTICLE Teachers’ classes

2003-2004 n=14

PARTICLE Teachers’ classes

2004-2005 n=19

Non-PARTICLE Teachers’ classes

n=26 Standard Model 13(93) 17(89) 23(88) Relativity 4 (29) 9 (47) 8(31) Wave-Particle Duality 13(93) 18(95) 24(92) Models of the Atom 12(86) 16(84) 24(92) Quantum Mechanics Experiments

11(79) 16(84) 21(81)

Cosmic Rays 7(50) 11(58) 5(19) Radioactivity/Nuclear Power

5(36) 6(32) 15(62)

Semi-conductors/ Super-conductors

2(14) 2(11) 3(12)

Cosmology 4(29) 4(21) 6(23)

Modern physics is not only taught in physics classes, but also in chemistry and

earth science classes (see Table 3.14). In the follow-up survey, teachers were again

asked for this information to clarify results from the earlier questionnaire, which did

not make any distinction between which topics were taught in which courses. Topics

such as radioactivity are being taught in more Chemistry classes than Physics and

cosmology has a better chance of appearing in an Earth Science class than in most

Physics classes. Wave-particle duality, models of the atom, and quantum mechanics

were covered in all of the AP Physics classes and a large percentage of the Regents


Physics classes. The standard model appeared more in Regents Physics than AP

classes. The topics most underrepresented across the board are relativity and materials

science. The other topics will most likely be covered at some point in a student’s high

school science career.

Table 3.14 Breakdown of Modern Physics Topics by Course # Teachers who responded (%)

Modern Physics Topic

Regents Physics

n=12 AP Physics

n=6 Chemistry

n=4

Earth Science

n=3 Standard Model (Particle Physics) 11 (92) 5 (83) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Relativity 3 (25) 1 (17) 0 (0) 0 (0) Wave-Particle Duality (Heisenberg Uncertainty and DeBroglie wavelength)

11 (92) 6 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Models of the atom (Rutherford, Bohr) 11 (92) 6 (100) 3 (75) 1 (33)

Quantum Mechanics Experiments (Photoelectric Effect, Black Body Radiation)

10 (83) 6 (100) 1 (25) 0 (0)

Cosmic Rays 5 (42) 3 (50) 0 (0) 1 (33) Radioactivity/Nuclear Power 4 (33) 4 (67) 4 (100) 1 (33) Materials Science (semi-conductors/super-conductors) 3 (25) 1 (17) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Cosmology (Origins of the Universe) 3 (25) 2 (33) 0 (0) 3 (100)

Even though the subjects taught are similar, the amount of time spent on

modern physics topics differs significantly between the PARTICLE and non-

PARTICLE teachers (see Table 3.15). While the exact numbers change from year to

year, the trend is consistent. PARTICLE teachers are spending, on average, around 80

more minutes in class and 50 more minutes in lab on modern physics topics than non-

PARTICLE teachers. This may not seem like much, but in an average high school

environment where a class period is 45-50 minutes long, this is about two more class

periods and one additional period devoted to lab. A typical unit in a high school class

only lasts two weeks (10 class periods), so an increase of two or three days to spend

on a topic is significant.


Included in the averages shown are eight non-PARTICLE teachers that spend

no time on modern physics labs, while only one PARTICLE affiliated teacher, in two

years, has spent no time on modern physics in labs. Many teachers have trouble

finding appropriate labs to fit in with the topic; this was often listed as a reason by

non-PARTICLE teachers for why they did not spend more time on modern physics in

their classrooms. In this area, PARTICLE is accomplishing one of its goals by

providing the appropriate tools for teachers to use in their classrooms.

Table 3.15 Class and Lab Time Spent on Modern Physics Average Time Course

Class Time (min)

Lab Time (min)

# Teachers Responding

Regents Physics 428 120 12 AP Physics 314 161 5 Earth Science 20 0 1 Chemistry 774 0 1 Average PARTICLE Overall (04-05)

548 156 18

Average PARTICLE Overall (03-04)

537 144 14

Non-PARTICLE Teachers Overall

456 96 26

The non-PARTICLE teachers were asked what prevented them from doing

more particle and modern physics in their classes. The two biggest factors were time

and the Regents requirements, which is similar to responses from the former and

present PARTICLE teachers. Seven teachers marked that a lack of flexibility

prevented them from doing more modern physics, which also agrees with what

PARTICLE teachers indicated as a major obstacle. Seven teachers each also checked

lack of knowledge and lack of good lab experiments. The lack of knowledge and

laboratory experiments is where PARTICLE can really help these teachers expand the

modern physics part of the curriculum. Interestingly, no one said that a lack of student

interest in modern physics was a factor in determining the curriculum. In fact, modern

physics is often one of the students’ favorite parts of studying physics.


3.7.3 New PARTICLE Teachers

In 2004, eight new teachers participated in the PARTICLE Summer Institute.

Of those eight, seven provided us with data about how they did particle and modern

physics in their classrooms last year. From this data, we can see how they are

changing their curricula after participating in PARTICLE (see Table 3.16). As can be

seen below, teachers who complete the program are implementing more modern

physics into their curricula as a result of their participation. The biggest increases are

seen in the teaching of cosmic rays. There were also increases in standard model,

relativity, and wave-particle duality.

Table 3.16 Curriculum Changes for New Teachers # Teachers (%) Modern Physics Topic

Before PARTICLE After PARTICLE Standard Model 4(57) 6(86) Relativity 3(43) 5(71) Wave-Particle Duality 5(71) 7(100) Models of the Atom 6(86) 6(86) Quantum Mechanics Experiments 5(71) 5(71)

Cosmic Rays 0(0) 4(57) Radioactivity/Nuclear Power 1(14) 2(29)

Semi-conductors/ Super-conductors 0(0) 1(14)

Cosmology 1(14) 1(14) Average Time Spent Before PARTICLE After PARTICLE Class Time (min) 382 505 Lab Time (min) 100 167

Similar to the difference between the PARTICLE and non-PARTICLE

teachers, the biggest differences in curriculum change for new teachers are not in the

subjects taught, but in the time spent on topics in particle and modern physics. After

participating in the program the amount of time a teacher spends on modern physics

goes up dramatically (Table 3.16). The average the class time increased from 382 to

505 minutes, or a 29.6% increase. This increase of 123 minutes is equivalent to three

40 minute class periods. The lab time increased from 100 to 167 minutes, an increase

of 67%. Also noteworthy is the number of teachers not doing any modern physics


labs at all has dropped from three to one and the number of teachers spending more

than 200 minutes on lab has increased from one to three. This is only a small

sampling of teachers, but it shows that even though teachers may not necessarily be

adding more topics in modern physics to their curriculum, they are spending more

time on those subjects as a result of their participation in PARTICLE.

As far as curriculum is concerned, the overall result of a teacher’s

participation in PARTICLE is that more time is spent on modern and particle physics

topics. Even for teachers who do not see a way to integrate PARTICLE directly with

their existing curriculum, they are expanding their modern physics units based on

their increased knowledge of the topic. Correlation does not imply causation; the

teachers who sign up for PARTICLE may have more modern physics in their

curriculum in the first place. But based on the changes made by new teachers, I think

we can confidently say that PARTICLE is helping to educate teachers so that they can

expand their modern physics units. Being educated about a subject area makes it more

likely that the teacher will include it in his/her curriculum and PARTICLE’s Summer

Institute accomplishes this goal.

3.8 Classroom Practices

While the main goal of PARTICLE is to have students doing experimental

research, it also aims to get teachers thinking about how they teach physics in general.

The inquiry-based approach to teaching science classes has proven to be effective in

not only in getting students interested in science, but also helps them to become

proficient in research methods and ideals [1,2]. An inquiry-based approach means

that students are not simply told all of the answers, but use hands-on and problem

solving methods to discover principles for themselves. Ideally, PARTICLE teachers

would change their overall approach to be more inquiry-based, but it seems that this

is not the case. After conversations with several teachers, only a few said that their

courses had become more inquiry-based as a result of their participation in the


program. Some teachers felt that their classes were already inquiry driven, but that

PARTICLE helped them to continue this work by helping to design and implement

new labs. This is not surprising as the teachers who decided to get involved with

PARTICLE are most likely the ones who are more interested in the inquiry based

approach to teaching in the first place.

QuarkNet, an outreach project based at Fermi National Accelerator

Laboratory conducted an evaluation of their program in 2003 and found similar

results. Recall that QuarkNet, like PARTICLE, aims to get high school teachers and

students to do authentic experimental research, but QuarkNet is a large initiative that

is in place at many centers around the country. The survey I used to study classroom

practices was based on one used by the QuarkNet evaluation, which polled teachers

before and after participation in their summer institute. They found no significant

differences in classroom practices as a result of teachers’ participation in the program

[19].

For a somewhat different look at the same issue, I surveyed teachers who have

not participated in PARTICLE as well as those who have. Tables 3.17 and 3.18

display the results of the classroom practice survey; Table 3.17 shows the mode and

average responses of each group and Table 3.18 shows the distribution of responses.

The average (mean) provides a quick look at the trends for each group, but because of

the small sample size it may be more useful to look at the distribution of scores rather

than the means which can sometimes be misleading. Due to rounding, percentages

may not add up to 100%. Also, not all teachers responded to every question, so

percentages are based on the number of teachers who responded.

To summarize the data, below are the top ten classroom practices (out of the

20 they were asked about) for both PARTICLE and non-PARTICLE teachers. The

ranking was based on the mean frequency for how often each practice is used in each

group. Practices marked with an asterisk (*) are traditional practices that have proved

to be ineffective if overused [19].


Top Ten Classroom Practices Non-PARTICLE Teachers PARTICLE Teachers

1. Listen and take notes* 1. Work in groups 2. Work in groups 2. Review homework in class* 3. Review homework in class* 3. Use critical thinking skills such as

problem solving and/or decision making

4. Use critical thinking skills such as problem solving and/or decision making

4. Listen and take notes*

5. Complete worksheets or answer written questions*


6. Collect and interpret data 6. Follow procedures to do an investigation or solve a problem*

7. Follow procedures to do an investigation or solve a problem*

7. Demonstrations as part of the lecture


8. Collect and interpret data

9. Use laboratory investigations and problem solving to confirm previously learned concepts.

9. Use manipulatives/equipment (not calculators)

10. Use laboratory investigations and problem solving to introduce and explore concepts


Comparing teachers who have participated in PARTICLE to those who have

not, there are not significant differences in their classroom practices, as expected

based on the results of the QuarkNet study. Both groups have the same five practices

in their top five. The non-PARTICLE group may be slightly more traditional with

“listen and take notes” being #1 as opposed to #4 for PARTICLE teachers, but the

difference is not very significant. “Use laboratory investigations and problem solving

to introduce and explore concepts” and “use laboratory investigations and problem

solving to confirm previously learned concepts” were both present on the non-

PARTICLE list, but only the first on the PARTICLE list.


Table 3.17 Classroom Practices (Mode/Mean) Non-PARTICLE Teachers (n=29)

PARTICLE Teachers (n=23)

How often do students in your classes participate in each of the following during class time? Mode** Mean** Mode** Mean** a. work in groups 1 1.62 2 1.57 b. work on long-term projects 4 4.22 5 4 c. listen and take notes* 1 1.4 2 1.74 d. write a report/paper 2 3.17 3 3.48 e. write in journals or logs 5 4.32 5 4.26 f. collect and interpret data 2 1.9 2 2.22 g. follow procedures to do an

investigation or solve a problem* 2 1.93 2 1.96

h. review homework in class* 2 1.69 2 1.68 i. engage in out-of-class activities

(including fieldtrips) 4 4.1 5 4.52

j. complete worksheets or answer written questions* 2 1.86 2 1.87

k. give oral reports or presentations of their work 5 4.1 5 3.57

l. design experiments or solve novel problems 4 3.48 4 3.78

m. use a computer for other than word processing (data analysis) 2 3 2 3

n. use manipulatives/equipment (not calculators) 2 2.47 2 2.23

o. use a textbook to do assignments in class* 3 3.2 5 3.77

p. read a textbook in class* 5 4.43 5 4.27 q.

discuss a science- mathematics-technology-related news event 3 3.02 3 3.18

r. use critical thinking skills such as problem-solving and/or decision-making

2 1.8 1 1.73

s. use laboratory investigations and problem solving to confirm previously-learned concepts

2 2.22 2 2.36

t. Use laboratory investigations and problem solving to introduce and explore concepts.

2 2.35 3 2.77

u. demonstrations as part of the lecture 2 1.95 2 2.14

*Traditional practices that have proved to be ineffective if overused [19]. **Scale: 1= Almost every day; 2 = 1-2 times per week; 3 = 1-2 times per month; 4 = 1=2 times per semester; 5=Never


Table 3.18 Classroom Practices (Distribution) Non-PARTICLE Teachers (n=30) (%)

PARTICLE Teachers (n=23) (%) How often do students in your classes participate in each of the following during class time? Almost

every day

Once or twice a week

Once or twice

a month

Once or twice a

semester

Never or hardly

ever a. work in groups Non-PARTICLE 14(47) 13(43) 3(10) 0(0) 0(0) PARTICLE 10 (44) 13(57) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) b. work on long-term projects Non-PARTICLE 0(0) 0(0) 4(13) 15(50) 11(37) PARTICLE 0(0) 1(4) 6(26) 8(35) 8(35) c. listen and take notes* Non-PARTICLE 21(70) 6(20) 2(7) 1(4) 0(0) PARTICLE 10(44) 11(48) 1(4) 0(0) 1(4) d. write a report/paper Non-PARTICLE 1(3) 13(41) 1(3) 10(33) 5(17) PARTICLE 0(0) 5(22) 7(30) 6(26) 5(22) e. write in journals or logs Non-PARTICLE 2(7) 2(7) 2(7) 1(4) 21(75) PARTICLE 1(4) 3(13) 2(9) 1(4) 17(74) f. collect and interpret data Non-PARTICLE 5(17) 24(80) 0(0) 1(3) 0(0) PARTICLE 3(13) 15(65) 3(13) 1(4) 1(4) g. follow procedures to do an

investigation or solve a problem*

Non-PARTICLE 6(21) 20(69) 2(7) 1(4) 0(0) PARTICLE 5(22) 14(61) 4(17) 0(0) 0(0) h. review homework in class* Non-PARTICLE 11(42) 13(50) 1(4) 1(4) 0(0) PARTICLE 10(46) 11(50) 0(0) 0(0) 1(5) i. engage in out-of-class

activities (including fieldtrips)

Non-PARTICLE 1(3) 0(0) 3(10) 17(57) 9(30) PARTICLE 0(0) 0(0) 1(4) 9(39) 13(57) j. complete worksheets or

answer written questions*

Non-PARTICLE 10(35) 13(45) 6(21) 0(0) 0(0) PARTICLE 7(30) 12(52) 4(17) 0(0) 0(0) k. give oral reports or

presentations of their work

Non-PARTICLE 1(3) 0(0) 6(20) 11(37) 12(40) PARTICLE 2(9) 2(9) 7(30) 5(22) 7(30) l. design experiments or solve

novel problems

Non-PARTICLE 1(3) 3(10) 10(33) 12(40) 4(13) PARTICLE 0(0) 1(4) 8(35) 9(39) 5(22)


Table 3.18 continued

Non-PARTICLE Teachers (n=30) (%) PARTICLE Teachers (n=23) (%)

How often do students in your classes participate in each of the following during class time?

Almost every day


Once or twice

a month

Once or twice a

semester

Never or hardly ever

m. use a computer for other than word processing (data analysis)

Non-PARTICLE 1(3) 11(37) 10(33) 3(10) 5(17) PARTICLE 0(0) 9(41) 8(36) 1(4.6) 4(18) n. use manipulatives/equipment (not

calculators)

Non-PARTICLE 1(3) 20(67) 5(17) 2(7) 2(7) PARTICLE 2(9) 15(68) 4(18) 0(0) 1(4.6) o. use a textbook to do assignments in

class*

Non-PARTICLE 4(13) 6(20) 9(30) 2(7) 9(31) PARTICLE 1(4.6) 5(23) 3(14) 2(9) 11(50) p. Read a textbook in class* Non-PARTICLE 0(0) 1(3) 5(17) 4(13) 20(67) PARTICLE 0(0) 2(9) 4(18) 2(9) 14(61) q.

discuss a science- mathematics-technology-related news event

Non-PARTICLE 2(7) 4(14) 16(55) 5(17) 2(7) PARTICLE 0(0) 5(23) 11(50) 3(14) 3(14) r. use critical thinking skills such as

problem-solving and/or decision-making

Non-PARTICLE 12(40) 14(47) 2(7) 2(7) 0(0) PARTICLE 10(46) 10(46) 1(4.6) 0(0) 1(4.6) s. use laboratory investigations and

problem solving to confirm previously-learned concepts

Non-PARTICLE 3(10) 19(63) 7(23) 0(0) 1(3) PARTICLE 1(4.6) 14(64) 6(27) 0(0) 1(4.6) t. Use laboratory investigations and

problem solving to introduce and explore concepts.

Non-PARTICLE 3(10) 17(57) 7(23) 2(7) 1(3) PARTICLE 0(0) 8(36) 12(55) 1(4.6) 1(4.6) u. Use demonstrations as part of the

lecture

Non-PARTICLE 6(20) 19(63) 5(17) 0(0) 0(0) PARTICLE 6(27) 8(36) 7(32) 1(4.6) 0(0) *Traditional practices that have proved to be ineffective if overused [19].


A close look at Table 3.18 shows that for most of the classroom practices, the

distributions of frequency that teachers use each practice are almost the same for

PARTICLE and non-PARTICLE affiliated teachers. PARTICLE teachers have

students ‘work in groups’, ‘work on long term projects’, and ‘give oral reports or

presentations’ slightly more often than their peers. They also spend less time having

students ‘listen and take notes’ and ‘use a textbook to do assignments in class,’ which

are obviously not very interactive activities and should not be overused. It is troubling

that the PARTICLE teachers do not have students ‘design experiments or solve novel

problems’ and ‘use laboratory investigations and problem solving to introduce and

explore concepts’ as often as their peers, because this is one of the foundations of the

PARTICLE program.

Overall, the PARTICLE teachers appear to have about the same classroom

practices as their peers who have not participated. However, when we asked

specifically about their classroom practices in their PARTICLE unit, which is usually

a part of a larger particle/modern physics unit, the results were much different. Within

the particle/modern physics unit, the classes were much more inquiry based and used

very few traditional practices (see Table 3.19). To summarize, below is the top ten

list of classroom practices for the Particle/Modern Physics Unit compared to the top

ten overall classroom practices for PARTICLE Teachers. Again, the asterisk (*)

indicates traditional practices that have proved to be ineffective if overused [19].

PARTICLE Teacher’s Top Ten Classroom Practices Overall Particle/Modern Physics Unit

1. Work in groups

1. Collect and interpret data

2. Review homework in class* 2. Use critical thinking skills such as problem solving and/or decision making

3. Use critical thinking skills such as problem solving and/or decision making

3. Use computers for other than word processing (data analysis) (tie for 3)

4. Listen and take notes* 4. Use manipulatives/equipment (not calculators) (tie for 3)


5. Work in groups


6. Follow procedures to do an investigation or solve a problem*



7. Discuss a science/technology related news event

8. Collect and interpret data 8. Work on long-term projects 9. Use manipulatives/equipment (not

calculators) 9. Listen and take notes*


10. Use laboratory investigations and problem solving to introduce and explore concepts.

It is not surprising that “collect and interpret data” and “work in groups”

moved up to #1 and #2 respectively for the PARTICLE unit because this is usually

when teachers have students doing research projects. The use of manipulatives, such

as lab equipment and computers also increased during the PARTICLE unit. Also

interesting is the appearance of “discuss a science/technology related news event” at

#7. This indicates that teachers are using PARTICLE as a way to introduce their

students to what is happening in the world of physics today, which fulfills a goal of

PARTICLE: to expose students to what is happening in current science research.

Traditional practices have moved down or dropped off the list entirely. This indicates

that, at least during the particle/modern physics unit, teachers are leading more

inquiry-based, less traditional classrooms. This cannot be attributed entirely to the

teachers’ participation in PARTICLE; again correlation does not imply causation, but

their use of PARTICLE is at least contributing to the difference.

Note that #10 on the list is now “Use laboratory investigations and problem

solving to introduce and explore concepts.” as opposed to “Use laboratory

investigations and problem solving to confirm previously learned concepts.” Students

are now using experiments to learn something new, a hallmark of an inquiry-based

lesson. The ‘cook-book’ labs often used in classrooms are of the second type where

the students are only confirming something they already have learned; they already

know the answer, so do not have to think critically about their results.

Notably absent from this list is “Design experiments and solve novel

problems.” This is not as bad as it looks because the students usually only do one


original experiment during the course of the unit, which would be a 3 on the scale.

Two-thirds of teachers picked 1-3 meaning they do this at least once or twice during

the unit. Even though this practice did not make the top ten list, it is still an important

part of the PARTICLE unit. Only four teachers said they never design experiments,

which most likely indicates that they use the detectors for demonstrations only and

agrees with previous survey results.

See Table 3.19 for the mode, average, and distribution of responses. Keep in

mind that ‘3’ is equivalent to once or twice in the unit, which, depending on the

length of the unit could be once or twice a week to once or twice a month, so a ‘3’

here equals between a ‘2’ and a ‘3’ above in the overall tally (Tables 3.17 and 3.18).

There were many fewer responses for the particle/modern physics unit part of the

questionnaire due to teachers who are not using PARTICLE this year and new

teachers who had not yet used PARTICLE, so were unsure of which classroom

practices would be used.

PARTICLE seems to be making progress in helping teachers implement more

inquiry based laboratory experiments in their classrooms. As will be discussed in

Chapter 4, the National Science Education Standards (NSES) require teachers to

become more inquiry based [2] and PARTICLE is helping teachers to achieve this

goal. The purpose of PARTICLE is to have students doing authentic research in the

classrooms; while this is being done in the particle/modern physics unit, it is not

being done throughout the curriculum. Highlighting the fact that PARTICLE

reinforces the ideas of inquiry based science curricula established in the NSES might

encourage more teachers to participate and establish programs at their schools.

Overall, teachers who have participated in PARTICLE are not more inquiry-

based than their peers which was expected based on the QuarkNet study. However,

the PARTICLE teachers are using more best practices and less traditional classroom

practices in their particle and modern physics units.


Table 3.19 Classroom Practices in PARTICLE Unit # Teachers Responding (n=12) (%) How often do students in your

classes participate in each of the following during class time?

Mode Mean

Almost every day

More than once or

twice in the unit

Once or twice in the unit

Never or

hardly ever

a. work in groups 2 2.2 3(27) 4(36) 1(9) 3(27) b. work on long-term projects 4 2.7 3(25) 1(8) 3(25) 5(42) c. Listen and take notes 2 2.9 1(8) 5(42) 2 (17) 4(33) d. write a report/paper 3 3.2 0(0) 1(9) 6(55) 4(36) e. write in journals or logs 4 3.5 0(0) 1(8) 3(25) 8(67) f. collect and interpret data 1 2.0 5(42) 3(25) 4(33) 0(0) g. follow procedures to do an

investigation or solve a problem

3 2.8 0(0) 3(25) 7(58) 2(17)

h. review homework in class 4 3.2 2(17) 0(0) 3(25) 7(58) i. engage in out-of-class

activities (including fieldtrips)

3 3.3 0(0) 1(8) 6(50) 5(42)

j. complete worksheets or answer written questions 4 2.9 1(8) 3(25) 3(25) 5(42)

k. give oral reports or presentations of their work 3 3.3 0(0) 0(0) 8(67) 4(33)

l. design experiments or solve novel problems 3 3.0 1(8) 1(8) 6(50) 4(33)


2 2.4 1(8) 8(67) 2(17) 1(8)

n. use manipulatives/ equipment (not calculators) 2 2.4 3(27) 4(36) 2(18) 2(18)

o. use a textbook to do assignments in class 4 3.9 0(0) 0(0) 1(8) 11(92)

p. Read a textbook in class 4 4.0 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 12(100) q.


3 2.8 1(8) 2(17) 9(75) 0(0)


3 2.3 4(33) 2(17) 6(50) 0(0)


4 3.1 1(8) 3(25) 4(33) 4(33)

t. use laboratory investigations and problem solving to introduce and explore concepts.

3 3.1 1(9) 2(18) 5(45) 3(27)

u. demonstrations as part of the lecture 3 2.6 2(17) 3(25) 6(50) 1(8)

Scale: 1= Almost every day; 2 = >1-2 times per unit; 3 = 1-2 times per unit; 4 = Never


3.9 Overcoming Obstacles

The hope of the PARTICLE Program is that all teachers can implement

PARTICLE effortlessly in their schools, but this may not always be the case. This

section of the report explores barriers that teachers encounter in setting up programs

at their schools and reasons why teacher choose to not participate any longer. The

most successful programs are those in which the teacher provides assistance to the

students and works as member of the research team.

In my interviews with teachers, I asked them what barriers they encountered

in setting up a PARTICLE program at their school. Even the successful teachers have

encountered obstacles of some kind. One of the teachers did not successfully

implement the program at all due to equipment malfunctions. While most people do

not seem to have significant equipment problems, this can be a huge obstacle for

those who do. Teachers are often unfamiliar with the Linux operating system on the

computers, which makes it harder for them to troubleshoot computer problems on

their own. The university staff is available for technical support, but sometimes the

schools are far away and the graduate students can not respond quickly to problems.

One problem is that teachers are very busy and often do not test the equipment in

advance. When using such complex equipment such as the cosmic ray telescopes, it

needs to be tested and working before the students begin using it for their research.

A couple of teachers mentioned that there was doubt at their schools about

whether or not high school students are capable of doing independent research

projects. One approach is to make the program more accessible is to make the

research as simple as possible. Doing these less complex experiments allows all

students to get involved with the research projects regardless of skill level. The

science may be less complicated in these situations, but the students are still learning

valuable research skills. The teacher of this class said that students are often inspired

by the research project to go and do independent research over the summer, maybe

not in physics, but elsewhere in science [14]. Another option is to do research projects

with Advanced Placement (AP) classes which have more advanced students. Some


teachers feel that using PARTICLE in AP classes has been successful because the

students are more dedicated and have more of a science background, but this

approach makes the program available to fewer students. Both methods have worked,

but reach two different groups of students.

Several teachers have mentioned that only having one cosmic ray telescope

set up was a problem for doing research projects as a part of the course. Some

teachers even share one set-up between two schools. One way to overcome this

barrier is by using PARTICLE as an after-school program in which fewer students are

involved. They can work in small groups and do more involved projects than would

be possible in class. Alternatively, several teachers have conquered this problem by

having students work on project throughout the year. These teachers start the course

with an introduction to the standard model or a unit on modern physics and begin

working on the projects at that time. The students then work on their projects

independently throughout the year in the background as the class moves on to other

topics.

In the follow-up survey, Teachers were asked about how easy it was to

implement PARTICLE in their classrooms (see Table 3.20). Only eight of the

nineteen teachers replied that it was easy to implement particle physics into the

courses they teach. Most of the obstacles teachers reported are beyond the control of

the program. The biggest problem is time; ten teachers said they do not have enough

time to include particle physics in their classes and another eleven did not have time

to develop curriculum materials. Another issue is flexibility of curriculum; only eight

teachers have flexibility to alter the curriculum.

On the positive side, fifteen teachers reported having the resources needed to

incorporate particle physics into their classes. Also, all of the teachers said that

PARTICLE has provided technical support when needed. Most teachers reported that

their colleagues and administrations supported their participation in the program, but

three teachers in each case indicated colleagues and administrations that were not

supportive. A supportive school is crucial in a successful program.


Table 3.20 Ease of Implementing PARTICLE in the Classroom # Teachers Responding (%)

n = 19 Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree about the following statements related to implementing particle physics topics/lessons in your classroom.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree

Strongly Disagree

a. I have had sufficient time to include particle physics in the course(s) I teach. 2 (11) 7 (37) 8 (42) 2 (11)

b. I have found is easy to incorporate particle physics into the course(s) I teach. 3 (16) 5 (26) 10 (53) 1 (5.3)

c. I have flexibility to choose what I teach and alter the curriculum. 3 (16) 5 (26) 7 (37) 4 (21)

d. I have sufficient resources to enable me to incorporate particle physics into the course(s) I teach

4 (22) 11 (61) 3 (17) 0 (0)

e. I have had sufficient time to develop materials. 1 (5.6) 6 (33) 7 (39) 4 (22)

f. My colleagues support my participation in the PARTICLE Program. 3 (19) 10 (63) 2 (13) 1 (6.3)

g. My administration supports my participation in the PARTICLE Program. 2 (11) 14 (74) 2 (11) 1 (53)

h. PARTICLE has provided technical support for me when needed. 7 (39) 11 (61) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Most of the teachers that I spoke with said that their schools were supportive

of the program. The schools do not go out of their way to help with the program, but

they do not actively stand in the way. Much of the support depends on the school and

what type of mood the administration is in on the day the teacher asks permission.

One teacher mentioned having trouble taking the equipment to other parts of the

school outside the classroom, but teachers in other schools have done such

experiments successfully. Another teacher indicated that her colleagues were not very

supportive of the program. Some teachers mentioned that transportation to

PARTICLE Day can be an issue, but in the past PARTICLE has been able to arrange

for buses to pick students up and bring them to the University of Rochester. Some

schools do not allow teachers to take the students on the field trip due to budget

restrictions or conflicts in the school schedule. Often students who do not attend

PARTICLE Day still present their research to their peers at school poster sessions.

Teachers were asked to rate the support they received from their schools to

implement what they learn in professional development activities, such as


PARTICLE (see Table 3.21). One indicated they receive ‘very much encouragement’

and four indicated no encouragement at all. Schools were behind the teachers in spirit

in implementing programs such as PARTICLE, but in practice teachers must

overcome the practical obstacles. Most teachers received ‘very much’ or ‘some’

encouragement from their schools to implement what they learned. But almost half

(ten out of 21) responded that they have ‘little’ or ‘not at all’ resources to implement

what they learned. However, the teachers did indicate that PARTICLE provides

resources, so teachers are still capable of implementing particle physics activities at

their schools. The other significant barrier is that 13 out of 21 have little or no time to

develop materials in order to implement professional development activities, which

agrees with the results from the follow-up survey presented above. The budget was

also a problem for many people, but because we give teachers the equipment they

need to implement the program, this is not a real obstacle for implementing

PARTICLE.

The two surveys gave mixed results on the issue of flexibility in curriculum.

More than half said they did have flexibility to choose which topics they teach when

asked about school support, but only eight reported flexibility in the follow-up survey

(see Table 3.20). In addition to the problem of the flexibility, the teachers are not sure

how exactly PARTICLE can be integrated with the Regents curriculum and are

overwhelmed at the thought of trying to fit it in.


Table 3.21 School Support for PARTICLE # Teachers (%) How much does your school provide each

of the following types of support for teaching your science classes?

Very Much

Some-what

A Little

Not at all

a. resources to implement what I learn through professional development activities

2 (10) 9 (43) 8 (38) 2 (10)

b. encouragement to implement what I learn through professional development activities

8 (38) 7 (33) 3 (14) 3 (14)

c. time to develop materials in order to implement what I learn in professional development activities

1 (5) 7 (33) 7 (33) 6 (29)

d. flexibility to choose topics covered in courses I teach

6 (29) 7 (33) 5 (24) 3 (14)

e. Yearly budget to obtain materials 4 (19) 6 (29) 9 (43) 2 (10)

Five teachers who are no longer involved with PARTICLE reported on why

they chose to no longer participate in the program. We also asked teachers who were

planning on using the program this year the same questions. Some who did use

PARTICLE answered in regard to why they did not do more with the program. The

biggest factors were that they did not see how PARTICLE could fit with the Regents

or AP curriculum and that there was not enough time in the schedule; eleven teachers

each said these reasons had ‘some influence’ or ‘strong influence’ on why they did

not participate (or participate more). Eight teachers reported that no student interest

had an influence (two strong, two some, and four little) on why they chose not

participate. This indicates that a successful program must not only have an actively

involved teacher, but also interested students.

A comment on the follow-up survey summed up the feelings of many teachers

who choose to leave the program:

The paddles are a major part of the particle program. However, using the paddles actually give you little direct association with the state required curriculum. The research experience offers great insight and opportunities but doesn’t contribute to knowledge that’s testable on either the Regents physics or the AP physics tests. I have found that over the last few years my student interest has been declining and doing research with the paddles becomes less and less opportunistic. The experiments that I am capable of running and analyzing (with the paddles) are few and seem repetitive each year. It appears


difficult for students to get excited over detecting muons when they can neither see nor fully comprehend their significance or relevance in their lives. This has led to a decision that I will not be using the paddles in the future [19].

While it is disappointing that this teacher, who has been with the program for several

years, will no longer be participating, we can learn a lot from what he has said. Two

main points are that teachers are not sure how to integrate PARTICLE into the

Regents curriculum and that they do not have enough resources to help students come

up with new experiments. This same idea was mentioned to me in an interview and

the suggestion was made for a brainstorming session to come up with unique ideas for

experiments. The Regents curriculum will be discussed in more detail in the next

chapter.

Other teachers leave because of more practical concerns. Two teachers

mentioned equipment problems, but the rest said this was not an issue. Although not a

problem for everyone, the equipment problems are a big issue to the unfortunate

teachers who have them. While most teachers indicated that the tech support they

received from the University of Rochester was sufficient (including teachers who

have chosen to withdraw), some people are discouraged when equipment does not

work right the first time. Alas, this is a part of experimental research, but one that can

be harmful to the success of the program.

Three teachers reported that not being comfortable using the detectors had

‘some influence’ on their decision. Again, this is a major issue. One veteran

PARTICLE teacher remarked on the follow-up survey that not being comfortable

with the equipment is becoming more of a concern each year. Perhaps if teachers had

more time to work with the detectors in the Summer Institute or had help when

setting them up during the school year, they would feel more confident about using

them in the classroom. Also, inviting returning teachers to come for a longer, more

involved Summer Institute will help them maintain their skills and remain confident

when using the equipment.


Not all teachers who no longer participate have had problems with the

program; some have just moved on to teach other subjects. Four teachers indicated

that they no longer teach the appropriate classes, which is often beyond the control of

the teacher. This is also true of some of the other former PARTICLE teachers who

did not respond to the questionnaire. Two indicated that another teacher at the school

uses PARTICLE and it would be redundant for students to do it twice. The program

cannot be faulted for the reasons these teachers left PARTICLE.

People who are still working with the program are also concerned about many

of these issues, especially curriculum and time. To entice more teachers to stay

involved, there needs to be a way to show them how using the muon detectors can fit

in with their existing curriculum and not take away too much class time from other

topics. Most teachers who successfully use the detectors claim that it really does not

take more than one class period to get the students started and that it fits in nicely

with the Regents laboratory requirements.

Based on the demographics presented earlier in Chapter 3.3, there are

relatively few new (less than five years experience) teachers participating in

PARTICLE. More experienced teachers are involved in the program because it can be

harder for new teachers to start programs at their school while they are still learning

the basics of teaching and getting adjusted to their school. Having been a new teacher,

I can attest to how overwhelming designing the core curriculum is without having to

worry about integrating special projects. More experienced teachers are comfortable

enough with the material to expand their curricula and try new things. In general, the

less experience a teacher has, the harder it has been for him/her to implement

PARTICLE in his/her school. A possible solution to this would be to pair relatively

new teachers with more experienced teachers who have been successful in the

program. The mentor could offer the teacher support and help him/her get a program

started without putting too much stress on the new teacher.

Most teachers have worked around any barriers put before them and have

implemented programs successfully at their schools. The barriers that teachers


encounter include integrating the program with the Regents curriculum, support from

their administration, and time to develop materials and there are things that the

PARTICLE program can do to help teachers overcome these obstacles. We can learn

from the teachers who are no longer participating and work to improve the program to

meet everyone’s needs. See Chapter 5 for recommendations for program

improvement.

3.10 Conclusion

Overall, PARTICLE has been successful in helping teachers to begin student

research program at their schools. The case studies show examples of how the

PARTICLE Program has been implemented in a variety of different ways.

PARTICLE Day 2005 had record attendance and was a favorite part of the program

for many students. As can be seen by comparison to teachers not involved in the

program, the time spent on modern physics topic increases after participation in the

program. The classroom practices are also more inquiry-based in the modern physics

units of PARTICLE teachers.

Despite all of its success, there are obstacles that teachers have encountered

when trying to set up the program. We can learn from the troubles that these teachers

have seen to prevent them from happening again. Part of the reason that PARTICLE

has been so successful is that it takes participants’ suggestions seriously and is

constantly changing to meet their needs. The last chapter will follow up with

recommendations for program improvement.

The next chapter will prove that PARTICLE is not only successful on its own

merits, but also lives up to established national education standards.

Education Standards 88

Chapter 4: The PARTICLE Program and Established Education Standards

4.1 Introduction 88

4.2 National Science Education Standards 89

4.3 Regents and Advanced Placement Curricula 91

4.4 Seven Principles of Effective Education 96

4.5 Authentic Inquiry 103

4.6 Conclusion 115

4.1 Introduction

The previous two chapters evaluated the PARTICLE Program on its own

merits to show how well it is meeting its goals, but it is also useful to see how

PARTICLE stands next to established standards in the field of education. The

standards I will examine include bureaucratic standards, the New York State Board of

Regents and Advanced Placement curricula and the National Science Education

Standards [2], and also two frameworks for evaluating education programs,

Chickering and Gamson’s Seven Principles of Effective Education [3] and the

Authentic Inquiry framework established by Chinn and Malhotra [1]. These standards

and frameworks give us a reference point and an objective way to evaluate the

program. It will also be helpful to the teacher-participants to see how their work with

PARTICLE is part of a broader movement towards inquiry-based education.

The method for evaluating PARTICLE against these standards was primarily

observational. I used what I have learned about the program through working with the

program staff (Kevin McFarland, Susen Clark, and Joseph Willie), observations,

surveys, and teacher interviews. There is some statistical data presented based on the

results of the questionnaires, but more useful were the comments made by teachers on

the surveys or directly to me in interviews and informal conversations. The

frameworks I chose to use in evaluating the program, Chickering’s Seven Principles

and Chinn’s Authentic Inquiry, were recommended to me by Vicki Roth and April

Luehman, respectively, both experts in the field of education. Dr. Roth is the Dean of


Sophomores and Director of Learning Assistance Services and Dr. Luehman is a

professor of education in the Warner School of Education, both at the University of

Rochester.

4.2 National Science Education Standards

To help better understand the importance of PARTICLE, we turn to the

National Science Education Standards (NSES). The NSES are “designed to guide our

nation toward a more scientifically literate society” [2]. These standards were written

by the National Academy of Science in 1996 with the goal of the providing guidelines

for teachers and school districts to ensure that students receive a good science

education. They aim to give students an appreciation of science which they will carry

with them throughout life. While these are not federal or state requirements, many

schools and educators use the NSES as a guide when planning their science curricula

and professional development opportunities.

The Standards are broken down into the following categories: Teaching,

Content, Professional Development, Assessment, Program, and System. Many of the

Standards in the first three categories coincide very nicely with goals of the

PARTICLE program. The primary aim of PARTICLE is to have teachers and

students doing authentic scientific research, the type of research that scientists are

doing in the real world. These Standards do not expect that students will perform

original research projects, but emphasize a need for inquiry-based learning and

having students feel as though they are a part of a community of learners. Inquiry-

based learning means that students are discovering relationships and concepts for

themselves instead of being told what to expect by the teacher. While an inquiry-

based curriculum does not imply that students are doing authentic research, the

reverse is almost always true: doing experimental research is an example of inquiry-

based learning.

PARTICLE’s goals correspond to the following Standards:

• TEACHING STANDARD A: Teachers of science plan an inquiry-based science program for their students.


• TEACHING STANDARD E: Teachers of science develop communities of science learners that reflect the intellectual rigor of scientific inquiry and the attitudes and social values conducive to science learning.

• CONTENT STANDARD A: As a result of activities in grades 9-12, all students should develop

o Abilities necessary to do scientific inquiry o Understandings about scientific inquiry

• CONTENT STANDARD B: As a result of their activities in grades 9-12, all students should develop an understanding of

o Structure of atoms o Structure and properties of matter o Chemical reactions o Motions and forces o Conservation of energy and increase in disorder o Interactions of energy and matter

• PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARD A: Professional development for teachers of science requires learning essential science content through the perspectives and methods of inquiry [2].

This inquiry-based approach to teaching science differs dramatically from the

traditional “cook-book” style labs that are heavily used in many classrooms still

today. Authentic science research is by its very nature inquiry-based; there is no

cook-book telling scientists what to do. Thus by having students involved in

scientific inquiry in the classrooms, the students are being exposed to authentic

experimental research as done by real scientists.

Teachers who participated in PARTICLE learned the skills needed to

implement an inquiry-based program in their schools. Many schools are encouraging

teachers to move towards a more inquiry-based curriculum, and PARTICLE provides

the tools teachers need to improve their science classes. PARTICLE helps teachers

plan an inquiry-based course for their students in accordance with Teaching Standard

A. Teachers who participate in PARTICLE fulfill Teaching Standard E by having

their students work together to do experimental research; the students become part of

a scientific community and learn first hand the values needed to be successful in

collaboration with other students. Content Standard A specifies the need for students

to learn the methods of scientific inquiry, which is also a primary goal of PARTICLE.


PARTICLE also aims to increase the amount of modern and particle physics

being taught in the classroom. Content Standard B outlines topics in physical science

that should be covered in a student’s high school education. Of the topics mentioned,

particle physics and the work students do with the cosmic ray telescopes fits in best

with the “structure of the atom”, “conservation of energy”, and “interactions of

energy and matter.” These topics are very broad and, while they do not specifically

mention teaching topics in modern physics, it is difficult to teach modern physics

without these concepts.

Professional Development Standard A requires exactly what PARTICLE

provides: an opportunity for teachers to expand their knowledge of the subject and to

gain practical experience working in the laboratory. In the Summer Institute, teachers

go through the same process of scientific inquiry that students will go through during

the year. If teachers are expected to be more inquiry-based, PARTICLE (and other

professional development opportunities) must give them the tools to do it, such as

providing equipment at no cost to the school. No school should be denied the

opportunity to do real experimental research because of a limited budget.

The National Science Education Standards were written to help improve the

quality of science education that students receive in public schools. The PARTICLE

program shares the goal of making science education inquiry-based, while exposing

students to authentic scientific research. See Chapter 3 for more detail on how exactly

PARTICLE accomplishes this goal.

4.3 Regents and Advanced Placement Curriculum

As mentioned in Chapter 3, teachers are heavily influenced by the

requirements of the Regents Examinations, which are required for all students in most

subjects by the New York State Board of Regents. (Note the recent change, Regents

Exams used to be a sort of honors curriculum, but now all students take the tests.)

Likewise, teachers of Advanced Placement (AP) courses are bound to a curriculum

set by the College Board. Because these curricula play such an important and


influential role in determining what is taught in high school science classes, they are

examined here with respect to topics in modern physics. Teachers often find is

difficult to integrate PARTICLE into these required curricula and so the program

needs to do a better job of showing teachers how exactly the two fit together.

The Regents curriculum for physics requires that students be exposed to topics

in modern physics such as the standard model and the concepts of quantum

mechanics, but many teachers fail to see it as an integral part of the course. The New

York State Regents Exam in Physics requires the following topics in modern physics

to be covered in the course (the sequence and core reference numbers follow the text

of each topic):

• States of matter and energy are restricted to discrete values (quantized) (V.1, 5.3a).

• Charge is quantized on two levels. On the atomic level, charge is restricted to the elementary charge. On the sub-nuclear level charge appears as fractional values of the elementary charge (quarks) (V.2, 5.3b).

• On the atomic level, energy is emitted or absorbed in discrete packets called photons (V.3, 5.3c).

• The energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency (V.4, 5.3d). • On the atomic level, energy and matter exhibit the characteristics of both

waves and particles (V.5, 5.3e). • Among other things, mass-energy and charge are conserved at all levels (from

subnuclear to cosmic) (V.6, 5.3f). • The Standard Model of Particle Physics has evolved from previous attempts to

explain the nature of the atom and states that: 1. Atomic particles are composed of sub-nuclear particles. 2. The nucleus is a conglomeration of quarks which manifest themselves

as protons and neutrons. 3. Each elementary particle has a corresponding antiparticle (V.7, 5.3g).

• Behaviors and characteristics of matter, from the microscopic to the cosmic levels, are manifestations of its atomic structure. The macroscopic characteristics of matter, such as electrical and optical properties, are the result of microscopic interactions (V.8, 5.3h).

• The total of the fundamental interactions is responsible for the appearance and behavior of the objects in the universe (V.9, 5.3i).

• The fundamental source of all energy in the universe is the conversion of mass into energy (V.10, 5.3j) [20].


The state curriculum requires that the above topics be covered, but in the Process

Skills part of the curriculum, the only thing students are required to be able to do is

“interpret energy-level diagrams” and “correlate spectral lines with an energy-level

diagram”(both core reference: 4.3f, 5.3 a-g) [20]. The curriculum guide has no

mention of the other topics at all. The Regents curriculum should be given credit for

mentioning the topics in modern physics, but it is a double standard that teachers are

not actually required to teach that information for the exam.

Since the changes made to the Regents curriculum in 2000, topics in modern

physics have appeared on the exam, but not in significant quantities. For example, in

the 2003 Physics exam, only 3 out of 47 questions in the multiple choice section

(6.4%) and two out of 27 free-response questions related to modern physics [21]. Of

these questions, many of the answers could have been deduced from the tables given.

Students are given a detailed table of the standard model and a flow chart of the

classifications of matter, which includes everything from molecules and atoms to

hadrons and quarks [22]. Because students can easily figure out the answers, teachers

point out the tables to their classes, but do not spend time on the material.

Teachers often also use PARTICLE in Advanced Placement (AP) Physics. AP

Physics teachers are influenced by the required curriculum set forth by the College

Board, the sponsors of the AP exams. There are two AP Physics courses: AP Physics

B, which is not calculus based, is a course with a great amount of breadth and not

much depth and AP Physics C, which is calculus based, studies fewer topics that AP

B but in more detail. The AP Physics B test requires the following topics in modern

physics:

• Atomic Physics and Quantum Effects o Rutherford Scattering o Photoelectric Effect o Energy Level Diagrams o DeBroglie Wavelengths o X-ray Production o Compton Scattering


• Nuclear Physics o Radioactivity/Half-life o Mass number and charge of nuclei o Nuclear Force o Nuclear Fission o Mass-Energy Equivalence [23]

This is a fairly comprehensive list of modern physics topics. But the AP Physics B

test is not much better than the Regents Physics Exam in number of modern physics

questions that actually appear on the test. The latest released exam had six modern

physics questions out of a total of 70 multiple choice questions (8.6%) [24]. The AP

exam also includes a free response section of ten questions, which rarely include

anything having to do with modern physics. The AP Physics B course covers so many

topics that teachers generally feel overwhelmed and, understandably, there is little

chance of PARTICLE being implemented in this course.

On the other hand, the AP Physics C course is less intense and would give

teachers a chance to implement PARTICLE, but unfortunately because the

curriculum does not require modern physics topics, teachers are hesitant to add to the

curriculum before the AP exams. Several teachers have had success with doing

PARTICLE research projects after the AP Exams. The end of the year can be a good

time to do research experiments because students are ready for a change of pace. The

disadvantage is that there is not enough time for long-term projects and the students

miss the chance to present at PARTICLE Day in May.

The Physics, Chemistry, and Earth Science Regents requirements all stipulate

1200 minutes (20 hours) must be spent doing laboratory activities [20, 25, 26]. In

addition to the written portion of the exam, students are required to demonstrate

laboratory skills to pass the course. The College Board recommends one double

period per week, which works out to about 2400 minutes of lab time before the AP

exams [23]. All of these curricula require labs and more specifically encourage open-

ended, inquiry-based labs, which theoretically would make it the perfect place to use

PARTICLE. The lab requirement, as well as the curriculum guidelines that require

modern physics should help to make it relatively easy for teachers to implement


PARTICLE in their classes. The problem is that teachers are not coming away from

the Summer Institute with a clear idea of how they can integrate PARTICLE into the

Regents curriculum. They need to be shown more explicitly how the program can be

implemented successfully.

Table 4.1 summarizes what topics in modern physics are covered by which

Regents and AP courses. The column on the left lists modern physics topics that were

included in the survey of the PARTICLE and non-PARTICLE teachers that was

examined in Chapter 3. All of these topics could be covered at the high school level.

Throughout the course of a student’s high school career, he/she should at least learn

about most of the subjects listed below. Only relativity and materials science are not

included in any curricula, and this agrees with the findings in Chapter 3 that these

were the least taught topics. Note that topics in modern physics are included in

Physics, Chemistry, and Earth Science, so PARTICLE could be successfully

implemented in any of these classes.

Table 4.1 Modern Physics in Regents and AP Curricula Covered on Regents Exam? On AP Exam?

Modern Physics Topic Physics [20] Chemistry

[26] Earth

Science [27] AP B [23] AP C [23]

Standard Model (Particle Physics)

No No No No

Relativity

No No No No No

Wave-Particle Duality

No No No

Models of the atom

No No No

Quantum Mechanics Experiments

No No No

Cosmic Rays

No No No No

Radioactivity/Nuclear Power

No No No

Materials Science (Semi-conductors/super-conductors)

No No No No No

Cosmology (Origins of the Universe)

No No No No

Required Lab Time (AP recommended)

1200 minutes

1200 minutes

1200 minutes

2400 minutes

2400 minutes


The Regents and AP curricula are very structured, but include modern physics

topics and required laboratory time that can be correlated to PARTICLE research

projects. As shown in Chapter 3, many PARTICLE teachers had success doing

experimental research in these classes and also spending more time on topics in

modern physics than their peers. Teachers often feel overwhelmed by the amount of

material they are required to teach and thus need to be shown how easily PARTICLE

can be used in their classrooms. One of my recommendations given in Chapter 5 is to

give teachers a guide to help them use PARTICLE with the Regents curricula. This

guide would include concrete examples and curriculum guidelines for implementing

PARTICLE from more experienced, successful PARTICLE teachers.

4.4 Seven Principles of Effective Education

In this section of the report, the PARTICLE Program will be evaluated using

the framework for effective education laid out by A. W. Chickering and Z. F. Gamson

[3]. The Summer Institute is where new teachers learn about particle physics through

lectures, demonstrations, and field trips and also have the opportunity to build and use

cosmic ray detectors. Because the Summer Institute is taught using the seven

principles, it provides a good model for how teaching can be done more effectively

through experimental research. First, I will explore how the Summer Institute uses the

seven principles and then how teachers then apply these principles to their own

classes. (See Appendix B for the complete Summer Institute schedule.)

Chickering and Gamson’s theory is written with regard to an undergraduate

education, but the same principles apply in a graduate level course, as well as in a

high school classroom. Their seven principles are widely accepted and used

throughout the world of education as a model for how to run a class and a way to

evaluate programs for their effectiveness. The seven principles “are intended as

guidelines for faculty members, students, and administrators…to improve teaching

and learning. These principles seem like good common sense, and they are – because


many teachers and students have experienced them and because research supports

them” [3]. According to Chickering and Gamson, an effective course:

1. encourages contact between students and faculty, 2. develops reciprocity and cooperation among students, 3. encourages active learning, 4. gives prompt feedback, 5. emphasizes time on task, 6. communicates high expectations, and 7. respects diverse talents and ways of learning [3].

The PARTICLE Summer Institute encouraged contact between students and

faculty by providing a question and answer (Q&A) session every morning for

students to interact with the lecturer from the previous day. Of the six hours of class

time each day, one hour was devoted entirely to student-faculty interactions. In the

final survey, many participants stated that the Q&A session was where they really

started to understand difficult topics. Many people enjoyed the relaxed atmosphere

that allowed them to discuss not only the topic at hand, but also other areas of

interest. Comments on the surveys included: “I liked that the discussions were open

and not rigid. We could ask about any topic without adhering to lecture content.” and

“I liked the informality – willingness of instructors to help explain questions on a

variety of topics and sharing with other teacher-participants” [27]. Participants were

also encouraged to ask questions during lectures, which sometimes became

discussions rather than straight lectures. During afternoon lab time, the mentoring

professor and lead teacher were available to interact with the teacher participants and

assist them with their experiments.

Reciprocity and cooperation among students was abundant in the Summer

Institute. Participants worked in pairs to perform experiments using the cosmic ray

telescopes. They collaborated to develop an original experiment or adapt a previously

performed experiment, analyze data, and prepare a presentation for the rest of the

class. During the last week of the institute, previous participants returned to share

their experiences in the classroom. New teachers had the opportunity to learn from

their more experienced peers. All participants, new and returning, orally presented


their research or their students’ research. These presentations led to discussions

between participants and faculty. Many teachers left the institute with ideas to

implement PARTICLE that they got from talking with their peers.

On the survey at the end of the course, several people noted the interactions

with other teacher-participants as the most useful part of the institute. As was

discussed in detail in Chapter 2, seven out of eleven participants agreed that they

would “use the data presented [by other participants] to compare results.” All ten

participants, who answered the question, agreed that “The lectures gave me ideas for

experiments to try at my school.” Ten out of eleven agreed with the statement “I

found it helpful to talk with teachers who had been through PARTICLE and

successfully implemented it in their classrooms.” These survey results show that the

participants worked together and made plans for future collaboration.

Active learning was a core component to the 2004 Summer Institute. Most

afternoons were devoted to working in the lab with the cosmic ray telescopes.

Participants learned how the cosmic ray telescopes worked by actually building the

detectors and performing experiments. Active learning also occurred in the data

analysis tutorials where participants manipulated previously collected data to create

graphs to help them better understand the data. Here they learned skills that they

could apply to the data they collected in their experiment. When asked how the

program helped them gain an appreciation for experimental physics, one participant

wrote “Overcoming data analysis roadblocks reminds you how time consuming and

frustrating unique experiments can be, but also rewarding when solutions are found.”

This statement was representative of the class’ general sentiment that experimental

research is hard work, but also very fulfilling.

Teachers also learned how to use active learning in their classrooms. Time

was allotted for the teachers to use demonstrations, such as the e/m apparatus, the

cloud chamber, and the speed of light demonstration that could be taken to their home

classrooms. Participants also visited Cornell University where they toured the Cornell

Electron Storage Ring (CESR), an electron/positron accelerator. The lab work, data


analysis tutorials, demonstrations, and field trip together account for 60.9% of the

total class time in the Summer Institute (see Table 4.2). When participants were asked

“What was the most useful part of the institute?” eleven out of twelve total responded

using the telescopes, doing experiments, or learning data analysis techniques, which

are all active learning activities.

Table 4.2 Methods of Learning in the Summer Institute Method of Learning Percentage of Total

Class Time Lecture 22.6% Q&A (faculty-participant interaction) 16.4% Active Learning 60.9%

Working on experiments (39.0%) Data Analysis Tutorials (11.0%) Presentations to peers (6.8%) Field Trip (CESR) (4.1%)

The PARTICLE instructors also gave prompt feedback to students. Each day

during the afternoon lab time, the mentoring faculty member and lead teacher ‘made

the rounds’ to find out what each group was doing, to make sure they were on the

right track, and to help them figure out where to go next with the experiments.

Participants were also given feedback during presentations. Each group gave two

presentations, the first just three days into the course to present a plan for their

experiment and the second at the end of the course to present final results. At both

presentation sessions, participants received feedback from their peers and faculty

members.

The PARTICLE Summer Institute was structured to emphasize time on task.

For the most part, the days in the summer workshop were scheduled to have lecture or

demonstrations in the morning and unstructured lab time in the afternoon. In the final

survey, ten of the eleven responses stated that they strongly agreed or agreed with the

statement “The experimental time was well defined; I knew what I was to be doing.”

Adequate time was allotted to perform an experiment, analyze data, and prepare a

presentation. Participants were also encouraged to brainstorm how to improve or


expand their experiment if more time was available without feeling pressure to

accomplish more than was reasonable in the allotted time.

The PARTICLE Program staff communicated their high expectations of the

Summer Institute and of the implementation of the PARTICLE Program in their

home schools. The mentoring professor and lead teacher encouraged participants to

design original experiments for the cosmic ray telescopes rather than repeating

previously performed experiments. During the experimental time, participants were

often encouraged to take the research and analysis one step farther. This constant

pushing to a higher level demonstrates the high expectations that the PARTICLE staff

have for the participants.

To give an example, Richard Thorley, a teacher new to PARTICLE this year,

took the detectors home over the weekend to measure differences in muon rate at

different locations. This level of dedication would not be seen if the instructors did

not communicate their high level of expectations. Another example is the experiment

that Carol Hoffman and I did during the institute. We used the detectors to measure

muon rate, but used the time of flight function, rather than just counting muons,

because it gave us information about the direction of the muons. We were encouraged

to use this technique that had not really been used before and then write a tutorial for

others who may want to take data in this manner.

Teachers who had already implemented programs in their schools returned to

share what their students had done. Experiments as elaborate as taking the cosmic ray

detectors on an airplane to measure how altitude affects muon rate demonstrated what

could be done when teachers and students are encouraged to try something new and

challenging and also receive adequate support from the university. By having these

experienced teachers to talk to the new participants, the new teachers see what can be

done with their classes. Giving teachers the goal of having their students present their

research at PARTICLE Day showed that the mentoring professor and lead teacher

had high expectations of the program participants even after they left the Summer

Institute.


The PARTICLE Summer Institute used a variety of learning styles by

including lectures, discussion time, and active learning activities such as analysis

tutorials and hands-on experiments and demonstrations (see Table 4.2). The theory

and background information were presented in lecture and then applied in the

laboratory portion of the course. The experimental research portion of the class was

tailored to meet the individual needs of the teacher-participants and was regarded by

the participants as the most useful part of the course. There was also ample teacher-

faculty interaction to address the individual needs of the student-teachers. Some

teachers complained that two hour lectures were too long and that more variety is

needed in the lecture part of the course, but they enjoyed the follow-up Q&A sessions

with the professors the next day.

The PARTICLE Summer Institute is very well aligned with the Seven

Practices in Effective Education. The leaders of the institute, Kevin McFarland and

Susen Clark, set goals for the participants, emphasize time on task, and spend a great

deal of time interacting with and giving feedback to the teacher participants. The

program could improve by making the non-laboratory part of the course more

interactive and less lecture based. Overall, the workshop addressed a variety of

learning styles by including active learning and opportunities to individualize the

curriculum.

The teachers learn from this model and apply the same principles in their

classes. In the classroom, the research projects are such that students and teachers

often work together as a team; the students see the teachers in an unusual context, one

in which the teachers are also learning. The program develops reciprocity and

cooperation among students as they work together in groups and share their results

with their peers. Active learning is fundamental to the program. Students use the

detectors to conduct experiments and analyze data using Excel or other computer

program. Everything they do is active; there is no way they can conduct a research

experiment without getting out of their seats and doing something.


The teachers I spoke with indicated that they often work closely with students

so they can help guide them on the right path. They give prompt feedback to students

to ensure that they are conducting scientifically valid research projects. Students often

submit proposals before beginning the experiments to the teachers can approve their

procedure and offer feedback even before the research begins. The teachers also

emphasize time on task, especially as tight as time is in high school classes. The

students decide how much time they need for taking data and are held to it so as not

to monopolize the equipment. There is also limited time provided in class, so students

must work efficiently to finish their project in the allotted time.

Having students do a project of this magnitude demonstrates that the

PARTTICLE teachers have high expectations for their students. Beyond this, many

teachers encourage students to do original projects that have not been done before.

This is an incredible thing to ask a high school student to do, but students rise to the

occasion, use their critical thinking skills and do incredible projects. The reason so

many students are successful at doing these research experiments is that they can

tailor the projects to meet their individual needs. All types of learners can find a way

to be involved with PARTICLE. For example, if they are visual, they can design

graphs or the display; if they are logical they may enjoy analyzing data; or if they are

kinesthetic they probably prefer working with the equipment and gathering data.

Both the PARTICLE teachers and the staff who run the Summer Institute, are

doing a good job of following Chickering’s Seven Principles (even if they may not be

aware they are doing so). The model provided by the Summer Institute shows

teachers how they can actively engage their students in learning and work with them

to perform successful research. Teachers experience what it is like to be a student

learning how to use the equipment and collect data, which makes them better able to

use the seven principles when teaching their students how to become good research

scientists.


4.5 Authentic Inquiry

True experimental research is not being done in most schools today and so

students are not learning the scientific reasoning skills needed to conduct good

science research [1]. The PARTICLE Program is thus very important because it aims

to expose students to real scientific research and teach them the skills needed to be

successful in the sciences. As outlined previously in this chapter, the National Science

Education Standards (NSES) call for a more inquiry-based approach to teaching

science [2]. To help students gain an appreciation of real science they need to be

exposed to experimental science as it is done in the real world. By doing research,

students learn critical thinking and analytical skills can then be applied to work they

may do in any discipline.

In their 2002 paper, Chinn and Malhotra argue that most demonstrations and

experiments done in classrooms fall into three categories: “Simple Experiments”,

“Simple Observations”, and “Simple Illustrations”, but very few in the category of

“Authentic Inquiry” [1]. The first three are what Chinn calls “Simple Inquiry Tasks”

in which students are given a definite procedure and are looking for a specific result

that has most likely already been revealed to them. They may make observations or

collect data, but they have no choice in what to observe or what data to collect. The

students often have an idea of what the results should be; they are trying to prove a

specific problem that has been outlined for them.

On the other hand, “Authentic Inquiry” is the type of reasoning done in real

scientific research. Authentic inquiry tasks are open-ended experiments, where

students do not know what the final answer will be and are not given a procedure to

follow. These experiments often involve complex equipment and analysis tools not

readily available to most high school teachers, so it is not surprising that high schools

are lacking in authentic inquiry laboratory experiments. Although this is an obstacle

for many schools, most teachers are creative and find a way to do demonstrations and

labs with the equipment they have available. However, Chinn argues that just because

students are using hands-on inquiry tasks in science classes does not mean that they


are being exposed to authentic inquiry; many of the inquiry tasks that students do are

actually conflicting with scientific epistemology.

Chinn and Malhotra have created a taxonomy defining several cognitive

processes in relation to scientific reasoning tasks for both simple and authentic

inquiry tasks. This framework can be used to evaluate laboratory experiments and

determine into which of the categories they fall. Chinn also defines several

dimensions of scientific epistemology. He states that epistemology “refers to people’s

basic beliefs about what knowledge is and when it should be changed” [1]. The basis

of Chinn’s argument is that “simple inquiry tasks promote an epistemology that is

opposed to the epistemology of authentic science. As a result, students who learn

about scientific reasoning through simple inquiry tasks may actually learn a

nonscientific epistemology” (author’s emphasis) [1]. In other words, students are not

learning what science really is as a result of using the simple inquiry tasks in schools.

The PARTICLE program aims to fix this problem by encouraging students to use

authentic inquiry reasoning skills to perform unique scientific research and gain an

appreciation for experimental science.

To prove their point about hands-on activities not all being inquiry based,

Chinn and Malhotra examined 468 activities in nine middle school textbooks and 26

researcher developed activities. They defined eleven features of authentic inquiry

tasks that they feel should be present in these activities. The eleven features of

authentic inquiry tasks are: generating own research questions, selecting own

variables, developing relatively complex controls, making multiple observations,

observing intervening variables, using analog models, complex transformations of

observations, consideration of methodological flaws, developing theories about

mechanisms, multiple studies of different types, and studying expert research reports

[1]. As shown below in Tables 4.3 and 4.4, all of these features are present in the

PARTICLE Program. This is a marked increase from the results reported by Chinn

and Malhotra; they found that the textbook tasks averaged 0.5 features per task and

the researcher developed tasks averaged 2.9 features per task [1].


Many of the tasks that students do through their work with PARTICLE are

directly aligned with the authentic inquiry framework defined by Chinn. I will apply

Chinn’s framework for evaluating inquiry tasks to the PARTICLE Program. The

examples given after the tables highlight how PARTICLE students are using the

cognitive processes and how they are exposed to the dimensions of epistemology of

authentic inquiry. Tables 4.3 and 4.4 give specific examples of how PARTICLE

students accomplish these authentic inquiry reasoning tasks outlined by Chinn.

Table 4.3 Authentic Inquiry Cognitive Processes Cognitive Process Authentic Inquiry Reasoning

Task [1] Example in PARTICLE

Generating research questions

Scientists generate their own research questions.

In all PARTICLE classrooms, students are responsible for generating research questions on their own. Students often do preliminary research before deciding on a topic to study.

Designing studies Selecting

variables Scientists select and even invent variables to investigate. There are many possible variables.

All students who do experimental research quickly realize that there are many variables to be controlled for. The extent of teacher involvement varies from school to school, but in most cases, teachers assist students in choosing which variables to measure and control because the options are so overwhelming.

Scientists invent complex procedures to address questions of interest.

In all cases, students are responsible for inventing their own procedures for their experiments.

Planning procedures

Scientists often devise analog models to address the research questions.

Students have access to see what has been done before them and can base their procedure on these models.

Scientists often employ multiple controls.

There are many variables to be controlled for in these experiments. For example, a class may be taking measurements of the muon rate to compare against solar activity, but the data will be adjusted for pressure variations before the real analysis of muon rate versus solar activity can begin.

Controlling Variables

It can be difficult to determine what the controls should be or how to set them up.

As mentioned above, teachers often assist students in establishing which variables to control. It can be difficult for students to determine this on their own because they have limited experience designing experiments.


Table 4.3 Continued Cognitive Process Authentic Inquiry Reasoning

Task Example in PARTICLE

Planning measures

Scientists typically incorporate multiple measures of independent, intermediate, and dependent variables.

Students usually take multiple runs in their experiments. Between runs they may change such variables as the position of the paddles or the shielding between the paddles. They also monitor independent variables such as pressure and solar activity. If time allows, measurements are taken twice to check for consistency.

Making observations

Scientists employ elaborate techniques to guard against observer bias.

The data collection system is automated by computer, so observer bias is not a significant factor in these experiments.

Explaining Results Transforming

observations Observations are often repeatedly transformed into other data formats.

In every class that collects data, data analysis is done, often using spreadsheet programs such as Excel. Students make tables and graphs, find best fit lines, and do error analysis on their data.

Finding flaws Scientists constantly question whether their own results and others’ results are correct or artifacts of experimental flaws.

Students learn that their results could be unusual because they found something new or because there was a problem with their experimental set-up. If they suspect the set-up to be a problem, students will retake the suspect data points. Students also do error analysis on their data to determine its statistical significance.

Observations are related to research questions by complex chains of inference.

Students use indirect reasoning to interpret graphs and analyze what their results mean for the scope of the project.

Indirect reasoning

Observed variables are not identical to the theoretical variables of interest.

Students often encounter this problem. For example, in a class that measured the speed of a muon, students discounted all values over the speed of light because they assumed they were unphysical. While this may not have been the correct procedure to take, they recognized these data points as a problem and dealt with the problem by eliminating them.

Generalizations Scientists must judge whether to generalize to situations that are dissimilar in some respects from the experimental situation.

Students can apply what they learn about cosmic rays and muons in the experiments to the broader field of particle physics.

Types of Reasoning

Scientists employ multiple forms of argument.

In the final reports that students do, they often must argue their hypothesis to be correct or not using multiple graphs and data.


Table 4.3 Continued Cognitive Process Authentic Inquiry Reasoning

Task Example in PARTICLE

Developing Theories Level of theory Scientists construct theories

postulating mechanisms with observable entities.

Many students form and test hypotheses and then revise their theories to fit the data. An example of a group that constructed a theory is the AP class at Nazareth Academy. They took muon rate measurements around the school, got unexpected results, and changed their theory to fit the data. After more exploration of the situation, they discovered that their new theory was correct.

Scientists coordinate results from multiple studies.

Depending on the experiment, students can coordinate results quite easily with what teachers, students, or other universities have done in the past. Previously recorded data is now posted on the website for easy access for students and teachers. Even if the students choose a project that has not been done before, they can still check measurements such as the muon rate-pressure correlation against previous data.

Results from different studies may be partially conflicting, which requires use of strategies to resolve inconsistencies.

All teachers using PARTICLE spend a great deal of time talking about inconsistencies and why results may not make any sense. Students are often surprised to find that the teachers can not always explain why they find inconsistencies. They talk about the difference between experimental error and an actual new result.

Coordinating results from multiple studies

There are different types of studies, including studies at the level of mechanism and studies at the level of observable regularities.

Although almost all classes measure muon rate, it depends on many different variables and there are a variety of studies that can be done. Some classes also measure the time of flight between paddles to determine other characteristics such as muon speed. This allows students to see the range of possibilities in just a small branch of physics, studying cosmic rays with muon telescopes.

Study research reports

Scientists study other scientists’ research reports for several purposes.

Students look at previous muon research reports to gain background knowledge and also to compare data and results.

The first step in the research process is deciding what to investigate and how

to investigate it. Chinn defines these cognitive processes as ‘generating research

questions’ and ‘designing studies’. In general, students in PARTICLE begin by

reading about experiments done by students and teachers in the past on the


PARTICLE website [12] and on websites from other research labs such as the

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) [11] and the University of Adelaide [15].

They then generate a research question based on the background research they have

done. The students next design a procedure for the experiment, which includes

deciding which variable to measure and how much data to collect. The procedure is

also often based on past experiments that they have read about.

Many teachers noted that the students easily become overwhelmed by the

difficulty of isolating one variable and thus teachers assist the students in figuring out

the best way to set up the experiment. This factor is recognized in Chinn’s framework

in the reasoning task: “It can be difficult to determine what the controls should be and

how to set them up” [1]. Often one variable cannot be isolated and students must

factor in what affect this variable may have on the outcome of their experiment.

Students with little experience in experimental research need advice and guidance and

so teachers act as facilitators, asking the students probing questions to guide their

thinking when planning the experiment. The one teacher I interviewed who did not

give much guidance to her students was not very successful. Communication and

collaboration is an important part of the research process (as well as the learning

process); students should not be left on their own, but have the opportunity to discuss

and build on previous research.

Once the PARTICLE students have picked a research topic, they will

formulate a hypothesis about what they expect the outcome of the experiment to be.

Chinn defines several reasoning tasks required for the next steps in the research

process as ‘explaining results’ and ‘developing theories’. After the experiment has

run, the data needs to be transformed into a more user-friendly format such as a graph

or chart. This is something most students have learned how to do in previous lab

work, but now they must decide for themselves what to graph and what kind of graph

to make. Unique to the PARTICLE experiment is that the results may not be what

they expect. Many times their initial hypotheses are not correct and must be revised to

fit the data. On the other hand, sometimes students get results that fit very nicely with


what they predicted. For example, students in Joe Willie’s class compared their result

of air pressure versus muon rate to the data from the University of Adelaide and

found that they both got the same result [14].

Sometimes students get results that are unexpected, such as Richard

Hendrick’s 2004 AP Physics class at Nazareth Academy [10]. In an experiment

inspired by an article they read about finding hidden chambers in Mayan tombs using

muon rates, the students measured the muon rates at different location in their school

building. They theorized that the rate would be lower in the first floor hallways than

in the auditorium where there was less material overhead. The rates that the students

measured were actually opposite to what they predicted. The students revised their

theory to fit with the data. Now they suspected there was more building material over

the auditorium than the hallways. An investigation led them to discover several false

ceilings above the auditorium due to repairs and restoration. This is an example of

how students revise their theories and also how they account for unexpected or

inconsistent data.

Students account for inconsistent data by thinking critically about their

experiments. Inconsistent data could be due to a procedural error, a systematic error,

or a new phenomenon and, like scientists, students must “question whether their own

results and others’ results are correct or artifacts of experimental flaws” [1]. Students

must question their data and compare it to what has been previously reported to

determine if they are wrong, or if the old data was wrong. In an experiment at Naples,

students were measuring the speed of muons and threw out all data points that were

greater than the speed of light as being unphysical [8]. This may not have been the

correct procedure, but the students were thinking critically about the individual data

points and making decisions about which points were valid and which were not based

on their experience. Another thing unique to PARTICLE is that students also do error

analysis which tells them of the significance of their findings. The teachers hope the

students will learn that not all trends are significant and could be due to statistical

fluctuations in rate measurements. Although students often learn about error and


uncertainty, this is something very new to them; they are not used to measurements

not being exact.

For most of the teachers I spoke to, the most valuable part of the research

experience was having the students perform an experiment in which they did not

know the answer and they had to figure out whether or not their data was valid. If the

data they got seemed unusual, they had to think about whether it was due to their

procedure, or if it could be the result was simply counter-intuitive and against their

theory. One teacher remarked in an interview, “I think that [finding inconsistencies is]

one of the most valuable things. When you always get the right answer, you don’t

learn as much as when you stumble” [7]. This fits nicely with Chinn’s reasoning task

that scientists find “results from different studies may be partially conflicting, which

requires use of strategies to resolve inconsistencies” [1]. The students have to think

about the data in new ways, and the reaction from students to these inconsistencies is

not always positive. Initially, they are confused and frustrated that the teacher does

not have the answer hidden away somewhere. Then, the teacher is thus brought down

the student’s level and they work together as a team to solve the problem. The

students also have the opportunity to see their teacher in a different light as a

collaborator, where the student and teacher teach each other. For some students, this

thrill of exploring uncharted territory inspires them to continue to work on the project

and sparks their interest in science.

An example that highlights how PARTICLE uses Authentic Inquiry is the

experiment conducted by the students in Briana Wood’s program at Byron-Bergen

High School in 2004 [16]. These students designed their experiment to measure the

muon rate as a function of altitude. To do this, they did a great amount of planning

and arranged for the detectors to collect data while being flown in an airplane at

different heights. This unique experiment required the students to design the entire

experimental procedure from scratch because nothing like it had ever been done

before. The students then predicted, based on the muon lifetime, what the muon rate

should be at each altitude. When the plane landed and they had their data, they had to


make decisions about which data points were valid and which were from when the

plane was changing altitudes. Once they had decided which points were legitimate,

they compared the data to their predictions. They discovered that the rates were very

different from what they expected and had to use their critical thinking skills to figure

out why. The students discovered that they must take into account the effects due to

relativity because muons travel very close to the speed of light. This was a fairly

complex analysis, but the students did it with the help of the graduate student and

learned the benefit of collaboration. To their delight, the revised prediction matched

the experimental data very closely. The results were then presented at PARTICLE

Day and the students had the opportunity to share with their peers.

In the end, the students have analyzed their data and determined the

significance of the results. They revised their theory to fit the data and often have

developed new theories. The students also compare their results to previous research.

The experiments are presented in the form of a paper or a presentation to their peers

at PARTICLE Day. The students get a feeling for what it is like to be doing research

in a scientific community where they can share ideas and get feedback on their

research. This is a unique experience for most high school students who usually do

cook-book style labs with little interaction with university professors and peers from

other schools.


Table 4.4 Authentic Inquiry Epistemology Epistemology Authentic Inquiry Reasoning


Purpose of Research

Scientists aim to build and revise theoretical models with unobservable mechanisms.

Students do not perform their experiments with the goal of changing established theories, but sometimes discover new things and must revise their theories. They are always forming theories that are new to them.

Scientists coordinate theoretical models with multiple sets of complex, partially conflicting data.

Students compare their data with previous results and formulate hypotheses about any inconsistencies.

Theory-data coordination

Scientists seek global consistency.

Students aim to reproduce results or else explain why they can not be reproduced.

Theory-ladenness of methods

Methods are partially theory laden.

The way the students set up the equipment is partially theory laden. For example, the paddles are placed as far apart as possible to detect vertically traveling muons. This is using the established theory that most muons are coming from space and thus are traveling vertically towards the earth.

Responses to anomalous data.

Scientists rationally and regularly discount anomalous data.

Discounting anomalous data points is a difficult thing for students to understand, but something they will inevitably have to do over the course of their experiment. Students often realize on their own that they must retake certain measurements because their data does not make sense.

Scientists employ heuristic, non-algorithmic reasoning.

Students use various modes of reasoning when analyzing data and interpreting results depending on the experiment. Some of their experiments have not been done before, so an algorithm has not even been developed.

Scientists employ multiple acceptable argument forms.

Students usually form their arguments based on their data and analysis. More advanced students may use more forms of argument because they do more advanced data analysis.

Nature of reasoning

Reasoning is uncertain. This is one of the most important things that students learn. They may perform an experiment in which no one knows the answer, not even their teacher. They can make hypotheses and formulate theories, but until more work is done, they do not know for certain whether or not their analysis is correct. The students also use error analysis to analyze the significance of their data.


Table 4.4 continued Epistemology Authentic Inquiry Reasoning


Scientists construct knowledge in collaborative groups.

In most of the schools using the muon telescopes for experimental research, students work in small groups to perform experiments or work together as a class. In some cases, students work individually, but they still interact with their peers and teacher, who are working on similar projects. They have peers with whom they can talk about ideas and results.

Scientists build on previous research by many scientists.

As mentioned above, students often look at previous research to get ideas for experiments. An explicit example would be of Ms. Wood’s school’s experiment which took a muon telescope in an airplane last year. She plans to do the same experiment with her students this year to compare results and further the research.

Social construct of knowledge

Institutional norms are established through expert review processes and exemplary models of research.

The students’ research is presented to their peers at PARTICLE Day, where they are questioned and undergo a sort of review process. They also have the chance to see what other students have done, which may provide future models of research.

These authentic inquiry tasks teach students critical thinking skills that are

required for the epistemological reasoning tasks. Some of the epistemological

reasoning tasks seem to require higher levels of analysis than can be expected from

some high school students, but even just exposing students to these types of skills will

help build a foundation for further scientific study. Students can be introduced to the

ideas of higher levels of data analysis, even if they would not be expected to do it on

their own. Then when they see the analysis techniques again, they will make the

connection and have a better understanding of the experiment. Specifically, ‘theory–

data correlation’ is not something that is done to a great extent in high school

classrooms because they already know what they are expected to find. This makes it

especially important that theory development be done in the context of PARTICLE.

While the students are not expected to challenge or revise established theories, the

data and results they find may do just that. No one has published their research from


PARTICLE at this point, but it is not beyond reason that someone may do so in the

future.

Other epistemological reasoning tasks, such as collaborative group work and

building off of previous experiments, are foundations of the PARTICLE program. As

mentioned above, students have the opportunity to share ideas and results with their

fellow group members, their teacher, and the greater PARTICLE community. The

experiments that students do are often based on previous research that has been done

at their school or possibly at a university on the other side of the world. They learn

that their data must coordinate with what other scientists have found or they must

construct a new theory to explain why it does not. After working with PARTICLE,

students truly have a sense of the ‘social construct of knowledge’.

Although students may only design and execute an experiment once during

the year, hopefully they will use the skills they learned through PARTICLE in other

science labs. Through PARTICLE, the students gain the analytical skills needed to

conduct an authentic scientific experiment. The typical high school may not be

prepared to have students doing advanced scientific research, but even a rudimentary

exposure to research will give the students critical thinking skills that will help them

in the future. The students can then apply these skills in other situations: other science

classes, college research projects, and even research papers in humanities classes.

PARTICLE proves to be a program that is effective at using authentic inquiry

tasks to expose students to the methods of real scientific research. The goal in

PARTICLE is to give students research skills that they can apply later in life and an

appreciation of what authentic scientific research is like. Although Chinn and

Malhotra showed that many textbook and researcher developed tasks were not

upholding the ideals of scientific epistemology, the PARTICLE Program is a place

where authentic inquiry is the rule rather than the exception. The students who

participate in this program have an appreciation of how real scientific research is

done because they have done it themselves. They have learned the hardships of


research, but also been rewarded by the joys of successful experiments and interesting

results.

4.6 Conclusion

Not only is the PARTICLE Program successful at meeting its goals and

objectives, but this chapter also proves that is has been successful when held next to

established standards in the field of education. The goals of the program are well

aligned with the National Science Education Standards, which are used by many

schools and educators to plan their curricula. The PARTICLE Program also helps

teachers to have more modern and particle physics topics in their classrooms. Even

though many teachers do not see how PARTICLE fits into the Regents and AP

curricula, there are ways that the program can be integrated successfully. PARTICLE

could improve its teacher training by showing them more concretely how the program

can be implemented in their classes.

PARTICLE’s Summer Institute fits in well with the Seven Principles of

Effective Education. The institute provides an environment where faculty and

teacher-participants can interact and cooperate on experiments. The teachers are

involved in active learning through tutorials, field trips, and time to work in the

laboratory on experiments. The lead teacher and mentoring professor provide a

climate of high expectations for participants that they take with them to their

classrooms. The teachers then take their experience to the classroom and use these

seven principles with their students.

The PARTICLE Program also incorporates many of the authentic inquiry

reasoning tasks that are defined by Chinn and Malhotra. It provides students an

opportunity to design and execute an experiment entirely on their own. Students learn

about gathering and analyzing data, dealing with inconsistencies, and communicating

with their peers. PARTICLE is a unique experience for the students that helps them

develop critical thinking skills that they will use for the rest of their academic careers.

Indeed, PARTICLE is a success based on Chinn’s authentic inquiry framework.

Conclusion 116

Chapter 5: Conclusion

5.1 Is PARTICLE meeting its goals? 116

5.2 Recommendations for Program Improvement 121

5.3 Recommendations for Future Study 128

5.4 Conclusion 128

5.1 Is PARTICLE meeting its goals?

This evaluation study has documented how PARTICLE prepares teachers to

implement experimental research in their classrooms and how exactly teachers

implement the program in their schools. It also examines PARTICLE in the context

of educational frameworks, such as the National Science Education Standards [2], the

Seven Principles of Effective Education [3], and Authentic Inquiry [1]. To conclude

the report, I will summarize how well PARTICLE is meeting its goals and objectives

as defined in Chapter 1. Please refer to the appropriate sections of the report for more

information on a given topic.

For reference, the goals of PARTICLE are to:

• Increase knowledge of the scientific process by giving teachers experience

doing experimental research and data analysis;

• Have students participate in and gain an appreciation for authentic science

research;

• Increase teachers’ knowledge of elementary particle physics and give them

tools to present it to their classes;

• Increase students’ awareness and knowledge of modern physics, including

particle physics; and

• Develop relationships between high school teachers and university professors.

Conclusion 117

How are teachers increasing their knowledge of the scientific process?

The Summer Institute is the place where teachers learn about the mechanics of

the scientific process by using the cosmic ray telescopes. Many teachers stated that

the most useful part of the Summer Institute was the opportunity to do real scientific

research and sharpen their experimental skills. The participants in the Summer

Institute learn by doing; they design experiments, collect and analyze data, and

present findings to their peers. The types of activities they are doing are authentic

inquiry reasoning tasks, which expose them to the methods of real scientific research.

They experience the difficulty in coming up with an experiment, isolating variables,

collecting and analyzing data, and explaining results and anomalous data points. The

participants then share results with their peers through formal presentations and

informal conversations; they learn to be a part of a scientific community.

Teachers also learn about recent developments in experimental, specifically

high-energy physics, through talking with University of Rochester physicists and

visiting the Cornell Electron Storage Ring, an electron accelerator. In the Summer

Institute, the teachers experience the same process that we hope the students will go

through as they complete their research projects later in the school year. The teachers

can then present these methods of the scientific process to their students and share

with the students the recent advances made in the field of particle physics.

See Chapter 2 and Chapter 4.4 for more detail on how the Summer Institute

teaches participants the scientific process.

How are students participating in and gaining an appreciation for authentic science

research?

The way PARTICLE is implemented varies from school to school, but has

been successful in many different environments. Students participate in experimental

research through class research projects, after-school activities, or a combination of

both. However the program is set up, students are responsible for generating research

questions, designing experiments, analyzing data, developing theories, and presenting

Conclusion 118

results. The students gain the experience of being in a scientific community where

they can share ideas and results with their peers, not only at their school, but also with

the greater PARTICLE family. Each of these elements of the research process shows

how students are exposed to authentic inquiry, the type of inquiry done by actual

scientists, as opposed to the cook-book style experiments that are typical in high

school classrooms.

Conversations with teachers indicated that students get very excited about

doing original research and PARTICLE is often mentioned as one of their favorite

parts of the course. The student talks I heard at PARTICLE Day shared not only

results, but also the joys and frustrations of research. The enthusiasm was contagious

and all students who attended enjoyed the research conference. Several groups of

students who attended PARTICLE Day had not done their own research, but they

gained an appreciation of the research process by hearing about the experiments that

other students had done. In this way, the PARTICLE Program reaches out to more

students than only those who do their own research. Many teachers mentioned

PARTICLE Day as the highlight of the program for their students.

For more detail on how students are involved in the research process, see

Chapter 3.4: Case Studies, Chapter 3.5: Classroom Implementation, Chapter 3.6:

PARTICLE Day and Student Responses, and Chapter 4.5: Authentic Inquiry.

How is the teachers’ knowledge of elementary particle physics increased? What tools

are given to teachers to present modern physics to their classes?

All PARTICLE teachers participate in the Summer Institute where they attend

lectures on the standard model, cosmic rays, neutrinos, relativity, astrophysics, and

accelerator and detector physics. Returning teachers are also given the opportunity to

attend lectures when they return for their one week Summer Institute and are invited

to attend any new lectures during the rest of the institute. The lectures at the institute

are designed to begin on a basic level that all participants can understand, but then

Conclusion 119

move on to more advanced material to challenge the teachers with a higher level

physics background.

In conversations with teachers, all feel that their knowledge of particle and

modern physics increased as a result of their participation in the Summer Institute.

Even teachers who have chosen to no longer use the detectors in their classrooms still

use the material they learned in the Summer Institute throughout their courses. One

teacher, who no longer uses the detectors wrote, “I have very much enjoyed the

program and do teach many parts of the program in chemistry. Please thank Kevin

[McFarland] for me for all of his contributions to our knowledge” [17]. This

sentiment is common among current and former PARTICLE participants.

The program also has many resources for the participating teachers to use in

their classrooms, which facilitate the learning about modern and particle physics.

PARTICLE gives teachers the use of cosmic ray telescope set ups, which include

three paddles (scintillator, light guide, and photomultipler assemblies), a data

acquisition board, and a laptop computer. Teachers also have the use of several

modern physics demonstrations that are owned by PARTICLE. These demonstrations

include a liquid nitrogen cloud chamber, an e/m apparatus that is used to measure the

charge-mass ratio of the electron, a set up for measuring the speed of light, and

magnetic marbles to illustrate detector physics. Also, the information binder given to

teachers at the Summer Institute provides class activities, worksheets for internet

activities, and lab ideas.

During the Summer Institute, teachers also learn how to present modern

physics topics to their classes. Some of the lectures given can be easily adapted for

use in a high school science class, either by the teacher or a visitor from the

University of Rochester. The lectures from the Summer Institute are available on the

PARTICLE website for teachers to download and use with their classes. Also

available on the website are data and results from previous experiments [12].

Some comments were made on Summer Institute surveys that more time

could be spent on pedagogy. Many teachers leave the Summer Institute unsure of how

Conclusion 120

exactly they will implement the program in their schools. While PARTICLE gives

teachers the physical tools they need to present modern physics to their classes, the

program needs to spend more time giving concrete examples of how modern physics

can be integrated into the curriculum, especially the Regents curriculum.

See Chapter 1.2 for background on PARTICLE and the tools that it provides

to teachers. For more information on the Summer Institute, see Chapter 2 and

Appendix A for the 2004 schedule. Chapter 3.7 details changes that have been made

to teacher’s curriculum due to PARTICLE.

Are students exposed to topics in particle and modern physics?

Students are being exposed to more particle and modern physics than their

peers in classes where the teacher does not participate in PARTICLE. Due to the

strict nature of the Regents curriculum, the PARTICLE teachers teach the same topics

in particle and modern physics as their peers who have not participate in the program.

However, they do spend more time on these topics. The majority of teachers (both in

and out of PARTICLE) include the standard model, models of the atom, wave-

particle duality, and the photoelectric effect in their units on modern physics.

PARTICLE teachers spend approximately 80 more minutes, or about two class

periods on modern physics than non-PARTICLE teachers do. They also spend about

50 more minutes on lab than the non-PARTICLE teachers.

Many non-PARTICLE teachers stated that they did not do labs because there

is a lack of good laboratory experiments for the subject. PARTICLE can provide

exactly these resources, which make it easier for teachers to increase the amount of

particle and modern physics that students are exposed to. Another thing that

PARTICLE does is educate teachers about topics in particle and modern physics, so

they are more comfortable presenting the material to their students. Teachers who are

more comfortable with the material are more likely to get excited about it and teach it

to their students.

Conclusion 121

See Chapter 3.7: Curriculum and 3.8: Classroom Practices for more about

how students are exposed to particle and modern physics.

Are relationships being developed between high school teachers and the university?

Teachers are forming relationships with University of Rochester faculty

through their participation in PARTICLE. During the Summer Institute, the

PARTICLE teachers meet and interact with several University of Rochester physics

faculty members. They also have the opportunity to meet other high school teachers

who share common interests. The high school students are also exposed to the

PARTICLE graduate student who comes to give talks at the schools. Students and

teachers both are exposed to current physics research on PARTICLE Day. University

faculty members can see what research the students have done and both teachers and

students have the opportunity to tour labs and learn about research done at the

University of Rochester.

Each year, several teachers are involved in leading the Summer Institute.

Susen Clark has worked for many years as the lead teacher and for the past several

years, Joseph Willie has led several workshops on data analysis. They work closely

with Kevin McFarland, the mentoring professor, and other university staff to make

the program a success. Additionally, in the summer of 2004, four teachers did

summer research at the university with eight students from their schools. They

constructed and tested a new giant muon telescope that will provide data for the

PARTICLE community. Other PARTICLE teachers have done research at the

University of Rochester in other areas in the physics department through the Research

Experience for Teachers program.

5.2 Recommendations for Program Improvement

The PARTICLE Program has been continually improved over the years and

each year meets the needs of teachers more effectively. The program leaders, Kevin

McFarland and Susen Clark, are always open to suggestions from the participating

Conclusion 122

teachers and do their best to implement changes. Many returning teachers remarked

how satisfying it was that their suggestions were taken seriously. One teacher, who

has participated in the program since the beginning, wrote “I think the progress that

has been made since year [one] is amazing. Every year there are improvements and

the equipment and labs become more teacher and student friendly” [27].

Overall, the PARTICLE teachers are doing a great job implementing the

program in their classrooms. Even teachers who have had trouble implementing the

research part of the program take advantage of resources such as having a graduate

student visit and attending PARTICLE Day. Unfortunately, although the participants

seem to be happy with the quality of the Summer Institute, many do not have their

students doing research. Most of the recommendations for program improvement

have to do with the way teachers are trained to utilize the program because that is

where the university is most involved. After the teachers leave the Summer Institute,

there is not much contact with the university unless there is a problem with the

equipment.

As a result of the evaluation study, I concluded that the following issues need

to be addressed. These recommendations have come from my own observations and

comments from participating teachers during interviews and on written surveys.

1. Teachers need to be prepared before the Summer Institute.

Some participants, especially those who did not have a background in physics,

felt behind at the beginning of the Summer Institute. Lectures too quickly went over

their heads and they had trouble following along. Even though everyone was

generally satisfied with the lectures, background information would help them to get

more out of the lectures from the start.

Suggestions:

• Have a reading list, including books and websites, sent to all participants

before the start of the institute, so they can do background reading if they feel

Conclusion 123

so inclined. This would also provide a good list of resources where students

can go for more information.

2. The Summer Institute needs to include more pedagogy.

By the end of the Summer Institute, many new teachers are still not sure how

exactly the program will be implemented in their schools. One teacher specifically

requested more information on pedagogy writing, “Are there other ways to teach this

besides lecturing on the particle periodic table?” [27]. While the institute does expose

teachers to demonstrations they can use in their classrooms, it does not directly

address other ways the material can be presented. Some additional information is

included in the binder that all participants receive, but if it is not highlighted many

teachers may not realize it is there. If the program is realistically expected to be

implemented, the teachers need to leave the Summer Institute with a clear plan for

how they will use the program. The teachers have little time to plan once school starts

so need to have a good idea of what they are going to do with their students before the

end of the institute.

Some teachers (both new and returning) are also unsure of how PARTICLE

can be integrated into the Regents curriculum. The requirements of the Regents

curriculum are the major reason that teachers do not get more involved in

PARTICLE. This issue needs to be specifically outlined for teachers; someone needs

to say, ‘Using PARTICLE can help you meet x, y, and z requirements including the

required laboratory portion of the course.’

Suggestions:

• Tell teachers exactly how PARTICLE can be integrated with the Regents

curriculum; perhaps design a curriculum guide to help the teachers implement

the program. Include models for different courses (Physics and Earth Science

and possibly Chemistry and Math) and different lengths of time (1 week unit,

2 week unit, etc.).

Conclusion 124

• Design PARTICLE experiments to investigate concepts that are a bigger piece

of the Regents curriculum, such as energy, electricity, and statistics and data

analysis.

• More information needs to be provided on how to incorporate PARTICLE

into a below-average class, such as ideas for simple experiments and easy data

analysis.

• Returning teachers could give specific examples of classroom methods, such

as internet activities, that have been used successfully. Have a buddy system

to help new teachers get started where returning teachers meet individually

with new teachers to give them advice on starting a program and form a

partnership that will last throughout the year.

• Encourage teachers to use telescopes the first year, even if only for a

demonstration. They can always expand the program later when they are more

comfortable with the equipment.

• Give teachers time for curriculum planning in addition to lab time during the

Summer Instiute.

• Have a brainstorming session to come up with a list of possible experiments

that could be done with the detectors. Several teachers mentioned running out

of ideas for new experiments and this would give them somewhere to look.

• Share the study I’ve done of the National Science Education Standards and

Authentic Inquiry with the teachers. Seeing that the program meets these

standards may help justify their participation in the program to themselves and

to their school districts.

3. Teachers need to be trained in troubleshooting.

The easiest way to kill a PARTICLE program is with equipment problems.

Teachers get frustrated when they do not know how to fix the problems and students’

experiments are abandoned. The Summer Institute needs to include some basic

troubleshooting advice in case teachers run into problems. Teachers have also had

Conclusion 125

problems with upgrades during the school year. When upgrades are made after the

Summer Institute, the teachers do not have time to learn how the new system works

and can easily become confused.

Also difficult for teachers is the fact that very few of them have experience

with Linux and do not know what to do when something unexpected happens. The

graphical interface that is being tested now will help to make the computer easier for

both students and teachers to use. In the past, teachers have had some trouble with

data analysis (i.e. downloading and using SLAC and air pressure data), but the recent

updates to the webpage have made a variety of tutorials readily available for both

teachers and students.

Suggestions:

• Include a section in the binder on troubleshooting including common

equipment and computer problems, how to solve them, and when to call for

help.

• Do not make upgrades during the year. Only introduce new software/

equipment in the summer when teachers have time to learn. For example, the

new graphical interface should be introduced in a summer session.

• Offer set-up assistance in the fall for both new and returning teachers. The

PARTICLE Fellow (graduate student) could help the teachers set-up the

equipment at their schools and make sure that everything is running properly.

4. Minor Restructure of the Summer Institute

Although overall a success, some participants were very confused by the

material in the more advanced talks because they had not first been exposed to the

basic concepts. The 2004 Summer Institute that I attended did not have the Standard

Model lecture until the fourth day of class and the material was referred to several

times before that in other talks which left many people confused. Also, several

teachers noted that the two hour lectures were too long. Many teachers do not have a

Conclusion 126

solid background in physics and were lost in the long lectures. Lectures should be

shortened, or broken into more manageable lengths. A suggestion was also made to

make the talks more interactive. The PARTICLE program is trying to encourage

teachers to adapt more inquiry-based approaches to teaching, yet relies heavily on

traditional lecturing to teach the non-lab part of the Summer Institute.

The most useful part of the institute for many teachers was working with the

cosmic ray telescopes in the lab and many stated that they would like to spend more

time in the lab. Several PARTICLE teachers replied that not being comfortable with

the telescopes was a reason they did not return and others mentioned feeling less

comfortable the longer they were away from the Summer Institute.

Suggestions:

• The introductory lectures, such as the Standard Model and Cosmic Ray talks,

should be at the beginning of the institute.

• Lectures need to be shorter, maybe two one hour lectures with a break doing

something else in the middle to replace the two hour lectures. Lectures should

also be more interactive.

• Expand pedagogy portion of the workshop. Have teachers model lesson plans

to go with the demonstrations that PARTICLE has available for teachers to

borrow.

• Extend workshop from 13 days to three full weeks. This would allow more

time for pedagogy and lab work.

5. Help Returning Teachers Maintain their Programs

Many new teachers attend the Summer Institute each year, but not as many

stick with the program for longer than one year. For the most part, the new teachers

that I worked with were excited about PARTICLE, but just didn’t have time to

implement the program their first year. They were still trying to figure out how the

detectors worked and concentrated on improving their particle and modern physics

Conclusion 127

curriculum. These teachers almost all plan on doing more next year, but will they

follow through? This is where many teachers drop out of the program; they intend to

continue the second year, but that means a longer gap since they learned how to use

the equipment and less confidence than before. PARTICLE needs to help these

teachers maintain their enthusiasm and set up a program at their school. I heard from

several veteran teachers in the program who were leaving because they felt bored or

inadequate.

As of May 2005, applications for new teachers in the Summer Institute were

down and so returning teachers are being invited back for a longer session. This

refresher course would probably be good for many of the teachers who are beginning

to doubt their skills as the equipment has changed and improved over the years. Also

having more experienced teachers around would help the new teachers feel more

comfortable using the equipment. Again, pairing new and returning teachers together

may help the returning teachers stay motivated while encouraging the first year

teachers to start programs at their schools.

Suggestions:

• The new approach to the Summer Institute is a step in the right direction. It

will need to be evaluated after this summer to see how effective it is at

helping the returning teachers.

• Encourage first year teachers to return to the next Summer Institute. They

will feel more confident in their abilities and be more likely to expand their

programs.

• Find ways for teacher and students to become involved with summer

research projects. This keeps the interest level high; working in a university

lab is more exciting for both teachers and students than working in the

classroom.

Conclusion 128

5.3 Recommendations for Future Study

This evaluation study has documented what teachers have done with

PARTICLE over the course of one year. A more complete analysis would look at the

progress the program makes over a period of years and follow the progress of the

teachers who are participating in PARTICLE. Below are suggestions for future study

based on the research that has been done for this report.

Questions for Future Study:

• Do students do better on Regents/AP tests after participating in PARTICLE?

• Are PARTICLE students continuing to study science in college or summer

research programs? Are they more likely to be successful than their peers who

have not participated in the program?

• Will the number of students and teachers involved in PARTICLE continue to

rise or has the market been saturated?

• Is the new approach to the Summer Institute working?

• What is the impact of the summer research opportunities for teachers and

students?

• What efforts are being made by local schools to increase inquiry-based

teaching? What other programs are teachers involved with to increase inquiry-

based teaching?

• How are teachers using inquiry-based teaching methods throughout their

courses?

• Have teachers evaluate their individual programs using the Authentic Inquiry

framework.

5.4 Conclusion

This report has documented what teachers and students have done through the

PARTICLE Program. Overall, the PARTICLE Program is doing an excellent job of

meeting its goals and objectives. This program provides a way for teachers to

Conclusion 129

introduce their students to the scientific method and teach them the critical thinking

skills required to do experimental research. The program stands up well next to

established frameworks for evaluating education program and inquiry tasks and meets

many of the recommendations in the National Science Education Standards.

Hopefully the recommendations provided here will help the program to continue its

success for years to come.

References 130

References [1] C.A. Chinn and B. A. Malhotra, Sci. Ed. 86, (2002) 175. [2] National Research Council, National Science Education Standards, (National

Academy Press, 1996). [3] A.W. Chickering and Z. F. Gamson, AAHE Bulletin, (March 1987) 3. [4] G. Beal and M. J. Young, QuarkNet Participant Information Form, (MJ

Young & Associates, April 2003). [5] G. Beal and M. J. Young, QuarkNet Follow Up Survey, (MJ Young &

Associates, April 2003). [6] Population Overview: Genesee County, NY, (12/1/2004)

http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=22474; Population Overview: Livingston County, NY, (12/1/2004) http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=22481; Population Overview: Monroe County, NY, (11/16/2004) http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=22483; Population Overview: Ontario County, NY, (12/1/2004) http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=22490; Population Overview: Orleans County, NY, (12/1/2004) http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=22492; Population Overview: Wayne County, NY, (12/1/2004) http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=22514.

[7] Susen Clark, Personal Interview, Rochester, NY (October 19, 2004). [8] Patrick Freivald, Personal Interview, Rochester, NY (October 25, 2004).

[9] Particle Adventure, (11/23/2004) www.particleadventure.org. [10] Richard Hendrick, Personal Interview, Rochester, NY (October 25, 2004).

[11] Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, (11/23/2004) www.slac.stanford.edu. [12] PARTICLE at the University of Rochester, (11/23/2004)

www.pas.rochester.edu/particle. [13] Donna Smith, Personal Interview, Gates, NY (October 21, 2004). [14] Joseph Willie, Personal Interview, Pittsford, NY (October 18, 2004).

http://www.particleadventure.org/

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/particle

References 131

[15] University of Adelaide Cosmic Ray Muon Monitor, (6/6/2005)

www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/astrophysics/muon/. [16] Briana Wood, Personal Interview, Byron-Bergen, NY (October 19, 2004). [17] Anonymous written comments, Initial Survey of PARTICLE Teachers,

(PARTICLE Program, October 2004). [18] Anonymous written comments, Follow-Up Survey of PARTICLE Teachers,

(PARTICLE Program, June 2005). [19] G. Beal and M. J. Young. QuarkNet, Pre and Post Survey Report, Year Three,

(MJ Young & Associates, April 21, 2003). [20] Physical Setting/Physics: Core Curriculum, (Board of Regents, New York

State Education Department, 2001). [21] Regents High School Examination: Physical Setting/Physics, (Board of

Regents, New York State Education Department, June 17, 2003). [22] Reference Table for Physical Setting/PHYSICS, 2002 edition, (Board of

Regents, New York State Education Department, 2002). [23] Elizabeth Cutler, Teacher’s Guide – AP Physics, (College Board, New York,

NY, 2001) 180. [24] The College Board, Released Exams: AP Physics B and Physics C,

(Educational Testing Services, New York, NY, 1998). [25] Physical Setting/Earth Science: Core Curriculum, (Board of Regents, New

York State Education Department, 2000). [26] Physical Setting/ Chemistry: Core Curriculum, (Board of Regents, New York State

Education Department, 2001). [27] Anonymous written comments, Summer Institute Survey, (PARTICLE

Program, August 2004).

Appendix A 132

Appendix A: Instruments

A.1 Summer Institute Survey 133

A.2 Initial Survey of PARTICLE Teachers 139

A.3 Classroom Practices Survey (PARTICLE Teachers) 143

A.4 Follow-Up Survey (PARTICLE Teachers) 145

A.5 Former PARTICLE Teacher Survey 149

A.6 Non-PARTICLE Teacher Survey 152

A.7 PARTICLE Day Student Questionnaire 155

Appendix A 133

PARTICLE Teacher Institute Survey July 27- August 13, 2004

The purpose of this survey is to evaluate the PARTICLE Summer Institute. This will help us in planning for next year as well as help up know how we can help you throughout the coming year. Note that if you were not here for the entire course, just fill out the parts for which you participated. Teacher Information Years teaching experience: ___________ Major subject in college: ______________ Major subject in graduate school (if any): ___________ Highest degree: Bachelors Masters Doctorate School Information Circle all that apply. Grades you teach: 9 10 11 12 Subjects you teach: Regents Physics AP Physics

non-Regents Physics Physical Science Chemistry Other: _______________

Classes in which you plan to implement what you learned in PARTICLE: Regents Physics AP Physics non-Regents Physics Physical Science Chemistry Other: _______________ Number of class you teach: _____________ Total number of students you teach: ________________

1. Why did you decided to take this class?

2. What did you like/dislike about the Q&A sessions each morning?

3. What will you be most likely to use in the classroom (muon detectors, knowledge of particle physics, demos etc.)?

Appendix A 134

4. How will you be able to incorporate the use of the muon telescopes into your classroom? If not, what will prevent you from doing so?

5. How has the program helped you gain an appreciation for experimental physics?

6. What was the most useful part of the Institute?

7. How could the Institute be improved? What would you add or delete?

8. Have you used the PARTICLE website? What would you like have access to through the website?

9. How would you like us to assist you throughout the year (classroom visits, demos, technical support, etc.)?

10. What are your expectations for school visits?

11. When would you be interested in a follow-up meeting in the fall semester?

12. What are your expectations for PARTICLE Day in May?

13. How did you find out about this program?

Appendix A 135

Summer Institute In this portion of the survey, you will be asked several questions about the lectures and activities. Please feel free to write additional comments as you see fit. If you did not attend the lecture/activity, please skip it. Program Overview/Cloud Chamber Demo (Kevin McFarland, Julie Langenbrunner) I had an easy time understanding the lecture. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree The speaker went at an appropriate pace. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree I learned something new that I will take back to my classroom.

Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree

I learned something that will be good for background information, but not for general classroom use.


Comments: Cosmic Ray Lecture (Kevin McFarland) I had an easy time understanding the lecture. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree The speaker went at an appropriate pace. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree I learned something new that I will take back to my classroom.




Comments: Detector and Accelerator Lectures (Tom Ferbel) I had an easy time understanding the lecture. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree The speaker went at an appropriate pace. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree I learned something new that I will take back to my classroom.




Comments: Introduction to Statistics (Kevin McFarland) I had an easy time understanding the lecture. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree The speaker went at an appropriate pace. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree I learned something new that I will take back to my classroom.




I will use what I learned for data analysis in labs. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree Comments:

Appendix A 136

Excel Data Analysis Tutorials (Joe Willie) I had an easy time understanding the lecture. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree The speaker went at an appropriate pace. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree I learned something new that I will take back to my classroom.




I will use what I learned for data analysis in labs. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree Comments: Standard Model Lecture (Julie Langenbrunner) I had an easy time understanding the lecture. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree The speaker went at an appropriate pace. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree I learned something new that I will take back to my classroom.




Comments: Cornell Tour and Lecture I had an easy time understanding the lecture. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree The speaker went at an appropriate pace. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree I learned something new that I will take back to my classroom.




The tour was a good introduction to accelerators and detectors.


Comments: Astrophysics Lecture/Computer Demonstration (Alice Quillen) I had an easy time understanding the lecture. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree The speaker went at an appropriate pace. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree I learned something new that I will take back to my classroom.




I will use what I learned for data analysis in labs. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree Comments:

Appendix A 137

Relativity Lecture (Steve Manly) I had an easy time understanding the lecture. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree The speaker went at an appropriate pace. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree I learned something new that I will take back to my classroom.




Comments: Neutrinos Lecture (Kevin) I had an easy time understanding the lecture. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree The speaker went at an appropriate pace. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree I learned something new that I will take back to my classroom.




Comments: Presentations (new and returning PARTICLE participants) I enjoyed hearing about other research projects. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree I will use the data presented to compare results from my home school. (assuming it is available)


The lectures gave me ideas for experiments to try at my school.


I found it helpful to talk with teachers who had been through PARTICLE and successfully implemented it in their classrooms.


Comments: Modern Physics Demonstrations (Julie) I had an easy time understanding the lecture/explanation of demos.


The speaker went at an appropriate pace. Agree 1 2 3 4 5 Disagree I learned something new that I will take back to my classroom.




Comments:

Appendix A 138

Lab Work and Experiments (Susen, Kevin, Julie) I gained an understanding and appreciation of experimental physics.


The experimental time was well defined; I knew what I was to be doing.


I learned how to use data analysis techniques with my data.


I learned how to design and run an original experiment.


I have a good understanding of how the equipment (muon detectors, computers, etc) works.


Comments: Any additional comments?? Thank you for participating! Enjoy the rest of your summer!!

Appendix A 139

PARTICLE Teacher Initial Survey October 4, 2004 Part I: Background Information

1. Number of years overall teaching experience: ___________ 2. Number of years teaching physics: _____________

3. Number of years involvement in PARTICLE (new teacher = 1 year):

_________

4. Gender: Male Female 5. Subject of study in college/grad school: ___________

6. Highest Degree: Bachelor’s Master’s Doctorate 7. My school is: Urban Rural Suburban

Public Private

8. Estimate the percentages of students in your classes (not the whole school) in

the following ethnic groups: White/Caucasian: _________ African American: _________ Asian: _____________ Native American: ___________ Hispanic: ___________ Other: ___________

9. What is the percentage of male and female students in your classes?

Male: ___________ Female: ____________

10. What would you like to see added to the PARTICLE webpage?

Appendix A 140

Part II: PARTICLE in your classroom (check all that apply) Last Year This Year’s Plan 1. Which topics in modern

physics do you teach in your classes (not only the classes that use PARTICLE)?

_____ Standard Model (Particle Physics)

_____ Relativity _____ Wave-Particle Duality

(Heisenberg Uncertainty and DeBroglie wavelength)

_____ Models of the atom (Rutherford, Bohr)

_____ Quantum Mechanics Experiments (Photoelectric Effect, Black Body Radiation, UV Catastrophe)

_____ Cosmic Rays _____ Radioactivity/Nuclear

Power _____ Semi-conductors/super-

conductors _____ Cosmology (Origins of

the Universe)

_____ Standard Model (Particle Physics)

_____ Relativity _____ Wave-Particle Duality

(Heisenberg Uncertainty and DeBroglie wavelength)

_____ Models of the atom (Rutherford, Bohr)

_____ Quantum Mechanics Experiments (Photoelectric Effect, Black Body Radiation, UV Catastrophe)

_____ Cosmic Rays _____ Radioactivity/Nuclear

Power _____ Semi-conductors/super-

conductors _____ Cosmology (Origins of

the Universe)

2. Estimate how many class periods are devoted to particle and modern physics topics.

_____ Periods _____ average time/period


3. How many lab periods are devoted to particle and modern physics?



4. In which classes do you use PARTICLE?

_____ Regents Physics _____ AP Physics _____ Earth Science _____ Chemistry _____ Other: ___________

_____ Regents Physics _____ AP Physics _____ Earth Science _____ Chemistry _____ Other: __________

5. How many students are involved in each of these ways?

_____ Class research projects _____ After school research

projects _____ Extra-credit work _____ Exposure in class to

particle physics and demos

_____ PARTICLE Day

_____ Class research projects _____ After school research

projects _____ Extra-credit work _____ Exposure in class to

particle physics and demos

_____ PARTICLE Day

Appendix A 141

Last Year This Year’s Plan 6. How do you use the

muon detectors in your school?

_____ Demonstrations _____ Student research as a class _____ Independent student

research _____ Other: ______________

_____ Demonstrations _____ Student research as a class _____ Independent student

research _____ Other: ______________

7. How much time (in hours) would you estimate your students spend doing experimental research using the muon detectors?

8. If you did not use the muon detectors in class, why not?

9. Has (will) someone from U of R visited your school?

10. How much time did they spend with the students?

11. If you are changing your plan from last year, why? 12. What from PARTICLE worked best last year in your classroom? 13. What worked worst? What was a complete disaster?

Appendix A 142

14. How much does your school provide each of the following types of support for teaching your science classes?

(Circle one on each line.)

Very Much Somewhat A Little Not at All

a. resources to implement what I learn through professional development activities 1 2 3 4

b. encouragement to implement what I learn through professional development activities 1 2 3 4 c. time to develop materials in order to implement what I learn through 1 2 3 4 professional development activities

d. flexibility to choose topics covered in 1 2 3 4 courses I teach

e. yearly budget to obtain materials 1 2 3 4

15. For those elements that are applicable in your school in relation to science, please indicate the extent of influence each has on your teaching.

(Circle one on each line.) Extensive Some Little No Not

Influence Influence Influence Influence Applicable

a. State curriculum guide/ State-mandated test 1 2 3 4 5

b. District curriculum guide/ District- or department-mandated test 1 2 3 4 5 c. National standards (e.g., Benchmarks, NCTM standards) 1 2 3 4 5 d. Local improvement effort (such as science, mathematics, and/or technology reform) 1 2 3 4 5

e. Textbook program (commercially-developed) 1 2 3 4 5

f. Self-developed curriculum or course 1 2 3 4 5

g. Laboratory facilities, equipment, and supplies 1 2 3 4 5

h. Availability of computers 1 2 3 4 5

i. Parental/community involvement 1 2 3 4 5

j. My own science content background 1 2 3 4 5

k. My own interests and experience 1 2 3 4 5

l. What other teachers with classes like this are doing 1 2 3 4 5

Thank You!!

PARTICLE Questionnaire-Classroom Practices___ October 25, 2004 How often do students in your classes participate in each of the following during class time? Answer in the first column for your entire course. For the second column, answer only in reference to when you use aspects of the PARTICLE Program (content, demos, telescopes, etc.); for example, in your modern physics unit in a physics class, muon telescope research projects, cosmic ray study in an earth science class, or as an after-school or extra credit program. FOR ENTIRE COURSE PARTICLE ONLY

Almost every day


Once or twice

a month

Once or twice a

semester


Almost every day

More than once or twice in the unit



a. work in groups 1 2 3 4

5 1 2 3 4

b. work on long-term projects 1 2 3 4

5 1 2 3 4

c. Listen and take notes 1 2 3 4

5 1 2 3 4

d. write a report/paper 1 2 3 4

5 1 2 3 4

e. write in journals or logs 1 2 3 4

5 1 2 3 4

f. collect and interpret data 1 2 3 4

5 1 2 3 4

g. follow procedures to do an investigation or solve a problem

1 2 3 4

5 1 2 3 4

h. review homework in class

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

i. engage in out-of-class activities (including fieldtrips)

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

j. complete worksheets or answer written questions

1 2 3 4

5 1 2 3 4

k. give oral reports or presentations of their work

1 2 3 4

5 1 2 3 4

l. design experiments or solve novel problems

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

Appendix A 143

FOR ENTIRE COURSE PARTICLE ONLY

Almost every day


Once or twice

a month

Once or twice a

semester

Never or

hardly ever

Almost every day

More than once or twice in the unit




1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

n. use manipulatives/equipment (not calculators)

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

o. use a textbook to do assignments in class

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

p. read a textbook in class

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

q.


1

2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4


1

2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4


1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4


1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

u. demonstrations as part of the lecture

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

Appendix A 144

Any Additional Comments?

Thank you!

Appendix A 145

Follow Up Questionnaire June 2005 This questionnaire is a follow-up to the one you filled out at the beginning of the school year and the last one for the evaluation. Thank you for helping with my study! PARTICLE in your classroom

1. Which topics in modern physics did you teach in your classes (not only the classes that use PARTICLE)? Please check all that apply.

Topic Regents

Physics AP Physics

Chemistry Earth Science

Other: _____

Standard Model (Particle Physics)

Relativity Wave-Particle Duality (Heisenberg Uncertainty and DeBroglie wavelength)

Models of the atom (Rutherford, Bohr)

Quantum Mechanics Experiments (Photoelectric Effect, Black Body Radiation)

Cosmic Rays Radioactivity/Nuclear Power Materials Science (semi-conductors/ super-conductors)

Cosmology (Origins of the Universe)

2. Please fill out the following table for each class that you teach. Please check

which classes you teach, which use PARTICLE, and approximately how much class and lab time was spent on particle and modern physics in each course (or will be before the end of the school year).

How much time is spent on particle / modern physics?

Course Teach? Use PARTICLE?

# Class Periods

Minutes/ Period

# Lab Periods

Minutes/ Period

Regents Physics

Yes / No Yes / No

AP Physics

Yes / No Yes / No

Earth Science

Yes / No Yes / No

Chemistry

Yes / No Yes / No

Other: _________

Yes / No Yes / No

Appendix A 146

3. Which demonstrations/resources did you use this year in your classes? (check all that apply)

_____ Cloud Chamber _____ e/m Apparatus _____ Marble Labs _____ Speed of Light Demo _____ Internet (Particle Adventure, SLAC, etc) _____ Excel Tutorials for data analysis _____ Big Paddle Data from U of R _____ Previous Experiment Data (including Adelaide) _____ Self-designed resources

If you did NOT use PARTICLE in your classroom, please skip to question #7. 4. How many students were involved in PARTICLE in each of these ways?

(please give a number) _____ Class research projects _____ After school research projects _____ Extra-credit work _____ Exposure in class to particle physics and demos _____ PARTICLE Day

5. How did you use the cosmic ray detectors in your school? (check all that apply)

_____ Demonstrations _____ Student research as a class _____ Independent student research _____ Small group research

6. How much time (in hours) would you estimate your students spent doing

experimental research using the muon detectors? (not counting running time)

7. If you did NOT use PARTICLE this year, indicate to what extent the following reasons contributed to the fact that you are not participating.

Strong

Influence Some

Influence Little

Influence No

Influence a. No student interest 1 2 3 4 b. Not enough time in schedule 1 2 3 4 c. Another teacher at my school does it. 1 2 3 4 d. Equipment problems in past. 1 2 3 4 e. Not required by Regents/AP Exam. 1 2 3 4 f. Not comfortable with material. 1 2 3 4 g. Not comfortable using detectors. 1 2 3 4 h. Don’t teach the appropriate classes anymore. 1 2 3 4 i. Personal reasons (illness, etc.) 1 2 3 4 j. Other: _____________________

1

2 3 4

Appendix A 147

8. Did your modern physics/PARTICLE curriculum differ significantly from what you originally planned?

Yes No

9. If so, why? (check all that apply) ____ Not enough time in class ____ Not enough time to plan ____ Not comfortable using muon telescopes ____ Not comfortable with material ____ Not enough tech support ____ No student interest ____ Other: ____________________________________

10. Will you have your students will use the muon telescopes to do research next year?

11. What were the students’ favorite parts of PARTICLE (i.e. research, demos,

Particle Day)?

12. How do you feel the students benefited from participating in PARTICLE?

13. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree about the following statements

related to implementing particle physics topics/lessons in your classroom.

(Circle one on each line.) Strongly


a. I have had sufficient time to include particle physics in the course(s) I teach. 1 2 3 4

b. I have found is easy to incorporate particle physics into the course(s) I teach. 1 2 3 4

c. I have flexibility to choose what I teach and alter the curriculum. 1 2 3 4

d. I have sufficient resources to enable me to incorporate particle physics into the course(s) I teach

1 2 3 4

e. I have had sufficient time to develop materials. 1 2 3 4

f. My colleagues support my participation in the PARTICLE Program. 1 2 3 4

g. My administration supports my participation in the PARTICLE Program. 1 2 3 4

h. PARTICLE has provided technical support for me when needed. 1 2 3 4

Appendix A 148

14. To what extent do you agree with each of the following statements about what has occurred since your participation in the program?

To a great extent

To some extent

To a small extent

Not at all

a. I have drawn on my program experiences for explanations and examples in my teaching

1 2 3 4

b. I have drawn on my program experiences for ideas for student independent projects

1 2 3 4

c. I have made curriculum changes based on what I have learned in the program

1 2 3 4

d. I have developed new materials for the course(s) I teach

1 2 3 4

e. I have shared my experience/knowledge from the program with colleagues informally

1 2 3 4


1 2 3 4

15. Indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements

based on your experience in the Summer Institute. Strongly


a. What I learned in the Summer Institute was sufficient for enabling me to incorporate particle physics into the course(s) I teach.

1 2 3 4

b. I was comfortable using the cosmic ray detectors in my classroom after my experience in the Summer Institute.

1 2 3 4

c. I was comfortable teaching the topics in particle and modern physics after attending the Summer Institute.

1 2 3 4

d. I learned from the experience of teachers who had already implemented the program.

1 2 3 4

e. The Summer Institute prepared me to do experimental research with my students.

1 2 3 4

f. The Summer Institute prepared me to do data analysis for experiments.

1 2 3 4

g. The Summer Institute gave me ideas for modern physics labs and demos. 1 2 3 4

Any other comments??

Thanks for all your help!

Appendix A 149

Former PARTICLE Teacher Survey October 26, 2004Part I: Classroom Practices 1. How often do students in your classes participate in each of the following during class time? (Circle one on each line.) Almost

every day


Once or twice

a month

Once or twice a

semester



5


5


5


5


5


5


1 2 3 4

5


1 2 3 4

5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4

5


1 2 3 4

5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5

q.


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5

u. demonstrations as part of the lecture 1 2 3 4 5

Appendix A 151

3. Indicate to what extent the following reasons contributed to the fact that you are not participating in PARTICLE (i.e. using the muon detectors) this year.

Strong

Influence Some

Influence Little

Influence No

Influence a. No student interest

1 2 3 4

b. Not enough time in schedule

1 2 3 4

c. Another teacher at my school does it.

1 2 3 4

d. Equipment problems in past.

1 2 3 4

e. Not required by Regents/AP Exam.

1 2 3 4

f. Not comfortable with material.

1 2 3 4

g. Not comfortable using detectors.

1 2 3 4

h. Don’t teach the appropriate classes anymore. 1

2 3 4

i. Personal reasons (illness, etc.) 1

2 3 4

j. Other: _____________________

1

2 3 4

Any other comments??

Thank you!!!

Appendix A 150

PART II: Your Experience with PARTICLE 16. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree about the following statements

related to implementing particle physics topics/lessons in your classroom.

(Circle one on each line.) Strongly


a. I have had sufficient time to include particle physics in the course(s) I teach.

1 2 3 4

b. I have found is easy to incorporate particle physics into the course(s) I teach.

1 2 3 4

c. What I learned in PARTICLE was sufficient for enabling me to incorporate particle physics into the course(s) I teach.

1 2 3 4

d. I have flexibility to choose what I teach and alter the curriculum.

1 2 3 4

e. I have sufficient resources to enable me to incorporate particle physics into the course(s) I teach

1 2 3 4

f. I have had sufficient time to develop materials.

1 2 3 4

g. My colleagues support my participation in the PARTICLE Program.

1 2 3 4

h. My administration supports my participation in the PARTICLE Program.

1 2 3 4

i. PARTICLE has provided technical support for me when needed.

1 2 3 4

17. To what extent do you agree with each of the following statements about what has occurred since your participation in the program?

(Circle one on each line.)

To a great extent

To some extent

To a small extent

Not at all

a. I have drawn on my program experiences for explanations and examples in my teaching

1 2 3 4

b. I have drawn on my program experiences for ideas for student independent projects

1 2 3 4

c. I have made curriculum changes based on what I have learned in the program

1 2 3 4

d. I have developed new materials for the course(s) I teach

1 2 3 4

e. I have shared my experience/knowledge from the program with colleagues informally

1 2 3 4


1 2 3 4

Appendix A 152

Non-PARTICLE Teacher Survey October 4, 2004 Part I: Background Information

11. Number of years overall teaching experience: ___________ 12. Number of years teaching physics: _____________

13. Gender: Male Female 14. Subject of study in college/grad school: ___________

15. Highest Degree: Bachelor’s Master’s Doctorate 16. My school is: Urban Rural Suburban

Public Private

17. Estimate the percentages of students in your classes in the following ethnic

groups: White/Caucasian: _________ African American: _________ Asian: _____________ Native American: ___________ Hispanic: ___________ Other: ___________

18. What is the percentage of male and female students in your classes?

Male: ___________ Female: ____________

19. What classes do you teach? _____ Regents Physics _____ AP Physics _____ Earth Science _____ Chemistry _____ Other: ___________

Appendix A 153

Part II: Modern Physics in the classroom

1. Which topics in modern physics do you teach in your classes? _____ Standard Model (Particle Physics) _____ Relativity _____ Wave-Particle Duality (Heisenberg Uncertainty and DeBroglie wavelength) _____ Models of the atom (Rutherford, Bohr) _____ Quantum Mechanics Experiments (Photoelectric Effect, Black Body Radiation, UV

Catastrophe) _____ Cosmic Rays _____ Radioactivity/Nuclear Power _____ Semi-conductors/super-conductors _____ Cosmology (Origins of the Universe)

2. In which classes do you teach any of the above subjects?

_____ Regents Physics _____ AP Physics _____ Earth Science _____ Chemistry _____ Other: ___________

3. How many students are in the classes that study modern physics topics?

4. Estimate how many class periods are devoted to particle and modern physics topics.


5. How many lab periods are devoted to particle and modern physics?


6. What prevents you from doing more modern physics in the classroom? (Check all that apply.) _____ Not enough time in schedule _____ I don’t have the flexibility to change the curriculum _____ Not required by Regent’s exam _____ Lack of knowledge of subject _____ No student interest _____ Other: _____________________________

Appendix A 154

Part III: Classroom Practices 1. How often do students in your classes participate in each of the following during class time? (Circle one on each line.) Almost

every day


Once or twice

a month

Once or twice a

semester



5


5


5


5


5


5


1 2 3 4

5


1 2 3 4

5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4

5


1 2 3 4

5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5

q.


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5

u. demonstrations as part of the lecture 1 2 3 4 5 Thank you!!!

Appendix A 155

PARTICLE Day Student Questionnaire May 16, 2005

1. Did you present (poster or oral presentation) your cosmic ray telescope project today?

Yes No

2. If no, do you plan on starting a project later in the school year?

Yes No Don’t know 3. How did your teacher present particle physics to your class? (mark all that

apply) ____ lecture ____ demos (cloud chamber, e/m apparatus, marbles, muon detectors, etc.) ____ experiments with muon detectors ____ other experiments/labs ____ U of R faculty/grad student visit ____ no teacher presentation

4. Circle the number the corresponds to how you feel (agree/disagree) about the

statements listed below. Strongly

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Not Applicable

a. I enjoyed doing experimental research. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

b. I enjoyed using the muon telescopes in my science class.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

c. Doing experimental research made me more interested in science.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

d. I want to learn more about particle physics/cosmic rays.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

e. I could explain the standard model to a friend.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

f. I enjoyed the visit from the U of R faculty/student.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

g. I have gained an appreciation of what real experimental science research is like.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Appendix A 156

Strongly

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Not Applicable

h. The muon telescope projects made me think differently about scientific research than I had in my other science classes.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

i. I will continue to study science in college. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

5. Circle one: Male Female 6. Grade: 9 10 11 12

Thanks for coming to PARTICLE Day!

Appendix B 157

Appendix B: 2004 Summer Institute Schedule

PARTICLE Summer 2004 Schedule Wednesday, July 28 9-12 Welcome (Rm. 271) Arie Bodek, Head of Physics Department Introductions, Distribution of Materials, Tour of Facilities, Muon Telescopes, Cloud

Chamber Demonstration, Detectors Kevin McFarland, Susen Clark, Julie Langenbrunner

12-1 Lunch (on your own)

1-4 Cosmic Ray Introduction (lab) Kevin McFarland Telescope Assembly and Testing Thursday, July 29 9-10 Question and Answer Session (Rm. 271)

10-12 Detectors (Rm. 372) Tom Ferbel


1-4 Introduction to Statistics Kevin McFarland Testing for Light Leaks/Optimum Voltage/Efficiency (lab) Lab #1 Friday, July 30 9-10 Question and Answer Session (Rm. 271)

10-12 Excel Data Analysis Tutorial #1 (computer room) Joe Willie


1-4 Accelerators (Rm. 372) Tom Ferbel Any additional lab work (lab)

Monday, August 2 9-10 Question and Answer Session (Rm. 271)

10-12 Standard Model Talk (Rm. 372) Julie Langenbrunner


1-4 Finish Data Collection & Data Analysis on Lab #1 (lab)

Appendix B 158

Tuesday, August 3 9:30 Leave for Cornell to Tour CESR Accelerator

12-1:30 CLEO Lecture/Lunch (provided) Hanna Mahlke-Kruger

1-3 Tour Cleo & Return Home Woochun Park

Wednesday, August 4 9-10 Question and Answer Session (Rm. 271)

10-12 Astrophysics & On-Line Data (G-108A Rush Rhees Library) Alice Quillen


1-4 Work on Lab #2 (lab, computer room) Thursday, August 5 9-10 Question and Answer Session (Rm. 271)

10-12 Relativity Discussion Steve Manly


1-4 Excel Data Analysis Tutorial #2 (computer room) Joe Willie

Experimenting with Telescopes – Lab #2 (lab)

Friday, August 6 9-10 Question and Answer Session (Rm. 271)

10-12 Neutrinos Lecture (Rm. 372) Kevin McFarland


1-4 Finish work on Lab #2 and Prepare Short Presentation (lab, computer lab)

Monday, August 99-10 Introductions, Question and Answer Session (Rm. 271)

10-12 Presentations – PARTICLE (new & returning) & RET Participants (Rm. 271) Get Organized for the Week


1-4 Performing Labs/Analyzing Results (lab, computer room)

Appendix B 159

Tuesday, August 10 9-10 Question and Answer Session (Rm. 271)

10-12 Statistics Tutorial – Advanced & Universal Analysis Groups (lab, computer

room) Kevin McFarland, Joe Willie, Susen Clark


1-4 Performing Labs/Analyzing Results (lab, computer room)

Wednesday, August 11 9-10 Question and Answer Session (Rm. 271)

10-12 Modern Physics Demonstrations (lab) Julie Langenbrunner


1-4 Experiments (lab, computer room)

Thursday, August 12 9-10 Question and Answer Session (Rm. 271)

10-12 Finish Data Analysis & Laboratory Write-ups


1-4 Presentations of Research (lab)

Friday, August 13 9-10 Question and Answer Session (Rm. 271)

10-11 Complete Unfinished Labs and Write-ups, Turn in a Disk with a Copy of your Write-up(s) (lab, computer room)

10:30-11:30 RET Poster Presentations (lobby)

11:30-12:30 Lunch (Rm. 208, lunch is provided)

12-2 Clean-up Lab, Pack-up Telescopes, Complete Inventory List (lab)

Appendix C 160

Appendix C: Student Research Projects Below is a list of presentations given at PARTICLE Day. Schools and names of students are given when available, but the records are incomplete. Also, not all student projects were documented in 2001 and 2002. 2005 Poster Presentations

• Muon Daily Cycle, Pittsford-Mendon, Period 2 Physics • Comparison of Muon Rate vs. Pressure Data using U of R’s Big Paddle,

Pittsford-Mendon, Period 4 Physics • Changes in Muon Rate due to Solar Flares, Pittsford-Mendon, Period 9

Physics • Muon Contour, Nazareth Academy, Emma Baillargion, Bridget Beavers,

Laura Byrnes, Colleen Clark, Jane Dowling, Adrianne Easterly, Meghan Estochen, Jane Lighthouse, Brittany Murty, Carolyn Ruday, Askley Toland, and Kathryn Woodward (research conducted Spring 2004)

• Developing an Aqueous Scintillator for Neutrino Detection, Summer 2004 Research Group

• Frame Building and Mounting Photomultiplier Tubes, Summer 2004 Research Group

• NuTeV Scintillator Restoration Overview, Summer 2004 Research Group • Two posters from Canandaigua Academy (titles unavailable)

2005 Power Point Presentations

• Muon Daily Cycle, Pittsford-Mendon, Period 2 Physics • Comparison of Muon Rate vs. Pressure Data using U of R’s Big Paddle,

Pittsford-Mendon, Period 4 Physics • Changes in Muon Rate due to Solar Flares, Pittsford-Mendon, Period 9

Physics • Construction of the Large Cosmic Ray Detector, Summer 2004 Research

Group 2004 Poster Presentations

• Muon Rate Angular Dependence • Coincidence Runs, Daryl Burke II and Mark Zschoche • The Effect of Paddle Area on Muon Coincidence • Correlation between Time of Day and Muon Rate • Speed of Muons, Naples High School, Chris Eleiott, Marcy McNamara, Joe

Miller, Ray Peiffer, and Matt Santangelo • The Haunting of the Halloween Forbush Decrease of 2003 (Muon Rate

Dependence on Solar Flare), Pittsford-Mendon High School • Muon Rate vs. Time of Day (Adelaide vs. Mendon) , Pittsford-Mendon High

School

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/%7Epavone/particle-www/Research%20Results/2004%20RET%20posters/Liquid%20Scintillator/Aqueous.htm

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/%7Epavone/particle-www/Research%20Results/2004%20RET%20posters/Framing%20and%20Testing%20PMTs/frames.htm

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/%7Epavone/particle-www/Research%20Results/2004%20RET%20posters/Framing%20and%20Testing%20PMTs/NuTeV.htm

Appendix C 161

• Shielding Muons, Franklin High School

2004 Power Point Presentations • Mendon Muon Research 2003-2004, Pittsford-Mendon High School • Cosmic Rays in Flight, Byron Bergen High School

2003 Poster Presentations

• Atmospheric Pressure and Muon Rate, Pittsford-Mendon High School, 9th period Honors Physics class

• Muon Rate vs. Time of Day, Pittsford-Mendon High School, 7th period Honors Physics class

• Paddle Separation, Franklin High School • Muon Triangle Experiment • Count Rate vs. Lead Thickness • Showering, Franklin High School, Vassana Praseutsinh, Maggie Cruz, and

Rafiquikka Collins • Map of the Sky, Franklin High School, Inna Nepliy, Amanda Kimbrew,

Grissel Rivera, and Alina Beley 2002 Power Point Presentations

• Lifetime of the Muon, Pittsford-Sutherland High School 2002 Poster Presentations

• Muon Rate and Direction/Shielding and Location • Muon Lifetime

2001 Poster Presentations

• Angular Dependence, Naples High School • Altitude Dependence, Naples High School • Relative Absorption of Lead and Water, Greece High School • Swimming Pool Absorption, Greece High School • Analysis of Experimental Set Up in Muon Signal Processing • Effect of Lead and Concrete on Muon Rate, Greece Acadia High School,

Lisa Turnia

Appendix D 162

Appendix D: 2005 PARTICLE Day Schedule

PARTICLE DAY Monday, May 16, 2005

The University of Rochester the May Room in Wilson Commons

Buses should drop off groups at the Rush Rhees Library, Libraray Road, U of Rochester campus 9:00 am Teachers/students arrive, pickup flyers, name tags, snack, setup posters informal poster session 9:40 Dr. Debbie Harris, Fermi Nat’l Lab "From Illinois to Minnesota in one 400th of

a second" 10:20 Student presentations include (and not necessarily in this order):

The Influence of Barometric Pressure on Cosmic Ray Muon Rate The Daily Cosmic Ray Muon Cycle Building the Big Paddle The Effect of Solar Activity on Cosmic Ray Muon Rate

10:45 poster session 11:15 lunch break – sodas and snacks only provided 11:45 Candandaigua Academy, Nazareth Academy, Bennett, Byron Bergen and

Oakfield-Alabama leave for the LLE in same transport that used to get to campus from the Rush Rhees Library; transport should return to LLE for final pickup and return to school

12:00 Dr. Steve Craxton speaks on "The Laboratory for Laser Energetics" in the Coliseum

12:45 Those viewing the Omega laser remain seated while the other group leaves for their tour (name of teacher and estimated number in group follows name of school)

Oakfield-Alabama (R. Meek; 16) View the Omega (with Steve Craxton) Canandaigua Acad (P. Sedita; 5) View the Omega (with Steve Craxton)

Byron-Bergen and Bennett (B. Wood, 6)(Dean; 4) remain in Coliseum; meet Megan Alexander

Nazareth Academy (B. Barker; 6) Visit S. Jacobs’ Lab (w/J DeGroote) 1:00 Oakfield-Alabama (R. Meek; 16) return to Coliseum; meet Megan Alexander Canandaigua Acad (P. Sedita;5) Visit S. Jacobs’ Lab (w/J DeGroote)

Byron-Bergen and Bennett View the Omega and depart Nazareth Academy (B. Barker; 6) View the Omega and depart

Appendix D 163

11:55 East High, Harley, Pittsford Mendon depart to tours on River campus East High (Conrow; 14) M. Bocko electronics lab Computer

Studies 423 Harley (Thorley; 8) B&L 169 Bigelow lab (C.

Haimberger) Pittsford (Willie; 8) A group B&L 170 Bigelow lab (K. Wright) Pittsford (Willie; 8) B group B&L 208; Physics concept demos Pittsford (Willie; 9) C group B&L 208; Physics concept demos 12:20 East High (Conrow; 14) B&L 208; Physics concept demos

Harley (Thorley; 8) M. Bocko electronics lab Computer Studies 423

Pittsford (Willie; 8) A group M. Bocko electronics lab Computer Studies 4232

Pittsford (Willie; 8) B group B&L 170 Bigelow lab Pittsford (Willie; 9) C group B&L 169 Bigelow lab 12:40 East High (Conrow; 7) A group B&L 170 Bigelow lab East High (Conrow; 7) B group B&L 169 Bigelow lab Harley (Thorley; 8) B&L 208; Physics concept demos

Pittsford (Willie; 8) A group meets with Ken Cecire (QuarkNet) in B&L 271

Pittsford (Willie; 8) B group M. Bocko electronics lab Computer Studies 423

Pittsford (Willie; 9) C group M. Bocko electronics lab Computer Studies 423

cosmic ray research in high school classrooms: an ...pavone/particle-www/rachel... · table 1.1...

Documents