Download PHY 104

Student Learning Outcomes (SLO) Assessment Report
PHY 104 General Physics II – Fall 2011
Prepared by María Cecilia Rozak, Course Coordinator for PHY 104
I.
Introduction
General Physics I1 (PHY 104) is the second semester of a two-semester course sequence.
It is a calculus-based course in general physics intended for engineering, mathematics and
computer science majors, which covers selected topics in electrostatics, direct and alternate current
circuits, electromagnetism, magnetic properties of matter, electromagnetic oscillations, and waves, with
emphasis placed on problem solving and applications to laboratory experience. The purpose of
this assessment study is to determine the level of student mastery of one of the PHY 104 course
goals and its related measurable course performance objectives (MPOs). The course goals of
PHY 104 are as follows:
Course Goal 1: Translate quantifiable problems into mathematical terms and solve these
problems using mathematical or statistical operations.
Course Goal 2: Use accurate terminology and notation in written and/or oral form to
describe and explain the sequence of steps in the analysis of a particular
physical phenomenon or problems in the areas of electricity and
magnetism.
Course Goal 3: Use the scientific method to analyze a problem and draw conclusions from
data and observations.
II.
Methodology
The Fall 2011 SLO assessment of PHY 104 focused on course goal 2 only. All relevant
questions from on tests and on the cumulative final exam were blueprinted to the MPOs related
to course goal 2, which are listed below:
MPOs related to Course Goal 2: Use accurate terminology and notation in written and/or
oral form to describe and explain the sequence of steps in the analysis of a particular
physical phenomenon or problems in the areas of electricity and magnetism:
2.1 define Coulomb’s law and electric fields; apply, analyze and calculate electric forces
and electric fields for discrete charges and for distributed charge distributions;
2.2 define electric flux and Gauss’s law; apply Gauss’s law to calculate electric fields for
continuous charge distributions on conductors and insulators;
PHY 104 – 1
2.3
distinguish between electric energy and electric potential difference, analyze and
calculate electric potential difference of discrete charges and continuous charge
distributions;
2.4 define capacitance and dielectrics; calculate the capacitance for various
configurations and combinations of capacitors with and without dielectrics, and the
energy stored in charged capacitors;
2.5 define and solve problems involving electric current, resistance, resistivity and
electric power, define Ohm’s law;
2.6 apply Ohm’s law to solve direct current circuits and use Kirchhoff rules for circuits
with more than one potential source, calculate electric power and analyze and solve
RC circuits;
2.7 define magnetic field, analyze and calculate magnetic forces on current-carrying
conductors torque on current loops and motion of charged particles in a magnetic
field;
2.8 define the Biot-Savart law, Ampere’s law and magnetic flux, use the laws to analyze
and calculate magnetic fields of various configurations;
2.9 analyze and solve problems in electromagnetism by applying Faraday’s and Lenz’s
laws and solve RL and LC circuits and simple alternating current circuits; and
2.10 construct graphs and charts, interpret them, and utilize them to solve problems.
Data was collected on all students enrolled in both PHY 104 sections offered at ECC in
Fall 2011. The following classes and instructors participated in this study:
PHY 104 – 001
PHY 104 – 0AC
M. C. Rozak (full-time instructor, day section)
Nadhezda Lvov (full-time instructor, evening section)
All tests and the final exam given in the course included 8 to 10 multiple-choice questions
that were blueprinted to the MPOs of course goal 2. Each multiple-choice question was used to
measure student mastery of a single component of a learning objective.
III
Results and Data Analysis
Based on SLO assessment results of Tests 1 through 4 administered throughout the
semester (shown in Figure 1 below), this assessment study findings were as follows:

three of the eight MPOs (specifically MPOs 2.6, 2.7 & 2.8) were fully achieved by
students given that student achievement of an MPO is defined as when 70% or more of
student responses to all questions blueprinted to this MPO are correct; and

five of the eight MPOs (specifically MPOs 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 & 2.5) were partially
achieved by students where an MPO where student partial achievement of an MPO is
defined as when between 50% and 69% of student responses to all questions
blueprinted to this MPO are correct.
Student mastery of MPOs 2.9 and 2.10 were assessed only on the final exam. In addition,
it should be noted that each of these MPOs were measured in a somewhat limited way; i.e., by
PHY 104 – 2
using only multiple-choice questions on the test, which assess student achievement of only one
concept. Since most physics problems require multiple steps and a combined application of
principles and concepts in their solutions, open-ended questions should be included for a more
comprehensive analysis of student learning.
Figure 1
Based on SLO assessment results of the Final Exam shown in Figure 2 below, this
assessment study findings were as follows

seven of the ten MPOs (specifically MPOs 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6. 2.7, 2.8 & 2.10) were fully
achieved by students; and

three of the ten MPOs (specifically MPOs 2.2, 2.5 & 2.9) were partially achieved by
students.
These findings are quite positive and may possibly be the result of the fact that students
enrolled in PHY 104 have been exposed to the scientific method, which has helped them learn
how to read and extract physical information and solve problems using multiple steps. Even
though the concepts in PHY 104 are more difficult than in previous physics courses, the SLO
results regarding MPO achievement were better – every MPO was either fully or partially
achieved by the assessed cohort.
PHY 104 – 3
Figure 2
Students enrolled in both assessed sections of PHY 104 were required to complete online
homework problems via WebAssign. These problems were ideally selected to enhance student
mastery of the course learning objectives. The results show that all students who successfully
completed at least 70% of the assigned online homework achieved a passing grade in PHY 104
for the Fall 2011 semester. Thus, it seems that requiring students to satisfactorily complete
online homework may improve student success in the course.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations:

Using multiple-choice questions to assess student learning outcomes has the advantage
that grading across multiple sections is consistent and may be compared. However,
using a rubric to assess fully assess multiple-step problems allows the instructor to
determine how well students are able to read and interpret physical information and to
synthesize different concepts to solve a problem. This method will be included in
future assessment studies.

Not all MPOs related to course goal 2 were fully met by the assessed student cohort.
Yet, there was much improvement from student performance on the first assessment
opportunity to student performance on the final exam.
PHY 104 – 4

The policy of using departmental exams in PHY 104 should be continued to ensure that
the level of instruction is comparable in all course sections.

Students who successfully completed 70% or more of the WebAssign online homework
problems performed better in the course than those who did not consistently finish the
assigned homework. Many ECC students have overcommitted extracurricular
schedules and do not or cannot schedule sufficient time to do homework and study the
difficult course material. Therefore, it might be a good idea to include, as an incentive
for them to set aside sufficient time for practice problem solving, the overall online
homework average as a percentage of the final course grade.
PHY 104 – 5