Minnesota
State Colleges
Program Collaboration and Transfer
Discipline/Department Action Work Plan Final Report
Lead Faculty Facilitator instructions: Please complete the form for each issue/problem (use as much space as necessary as the size of the boxes will expand) and return an electronic copy to the Office of Program Collaboration and Transfer. Attach additional information as appropriate (i.e., discipline/department reports, project samples, meeting notes, etc.).
|
Discipline/Department: Physics |
Facilitator Name: Ron Ulseth |
|
Transfer issue/problem one: |
Content (syllabi) of Physics courses – including standardization of content, lecture lab; course numbering; credit length/value; course numbering and titles; lower vs. upper division; on-line; transfer outside of MnSCU, particularly to UMN. |
|
Describe below the strategies used and the progress made to address transfer issue/problem one. |
|
Through three meetings of MnSCU physics faculty, it was determined that the of the issues listed in problem one, the only change that makes sense is to change the course names to minimize confusion for students and their advisors as physics courses are transferred from institution to institution. In an effort to minimize confusion for students transferring between MnSCU institutions, it is recommended: 1. The two-semester algebra-based physics sequence of courses which typically consist of topics ranging from mechanics through optics be named: College Physics I and II 2. The two-semester calculus-based physics sequence of courses which typically consist of topics ranging from mechanics through optics be named: Calculus Physics I and II or University Physics I and II This recommendation to change course names is
not a mandate, rather a strongly encouraged suggestion to help
students and those people who assist them in transfer. The recommendation
was made by a group of nine two-year college faculty and eight
state university faculty on |
|
Describe below any remaining work needed to address transfer issue/problem one and describe suggested future strategies to accomplish this remaining work. |
|
The above recommendations need to be communicated to physics departments across the system. Follow-up then needs to occur to determine how many institutions make the changes. |
|
Transfer issue/problem two: |
Collaboration |
|
Describe below the strategies used and the progress made to address transfer issue/problem two. |
|
1. Through the course of the three meetings that were held between April 2003 and April 2004 many relationships were built between faculty and collaborations are under way. 2. During the April 2004 meeting, Bob Carlson of Minneapolis CTC presented a great workshop on “on-line” physics instruction. 3. As a direct result of this initiative, a proposal has been made to and funded by CTL to hold a collaborative discipline workshop in Fall 2004. |
|
Describe below any remaining work needed to address transfer issue/problem two and describe suggested future strategies to accomplish this remaining work. |
|
The key to success is continued opportunities
for faculty to interact. The group has taken it upon themselves
to arrange for future meetings and will coordinate with the |
|
Transfer issue/problem three: |
Advising for transfer |
|
Describe below the strategies used and the progress made to address transfer issue/problem three. |
|
During the April 2004 meeting Gina Boeckermann from the Office of the Chancellor presented on MNTRANSFER.ORG and DARS and CAS. |
|
Describe below any remaining work needed to address transfer issue/problem three and describe suggested future strategies to accomplish this remaining work. |
|
Faculty will continue keep transfer advising as a part of their continual discussions. |