1 / 20

EPPOG outreach meeting, CERN, 4.10.2007 Michael Kobel

Planning for the 4. International Masterclasses “Hands on Particle Physics“ 28.2.-14.3.2008 (?) http://www.physicsmasterclasses.org. EPPOG outreach meeting, CERN, 4.10.2007 Michael Kobel. Outline. Basics Participation Organisation Team Evaluation Needs Personnel Material and In-Kind

muncel
Download Presentation

EPPOG outreach meeting, CERN, 4.10.2007 Michael Kobel

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Planning for the4. International Masterclasses“Hands on Particle Physics“ 28.2.-14.3.2008 (?)http://www.physicsmasterclasses.org EPPOG outreach meeting, CERN, 4.10.2007 Michael Kobel

  2. Outline • Basics • Participation • Organisation Team • Evaluation • Needs • Personnel • Material and In-Kind • Amendments • Collected Comments • Exercises • Video Session • Organisation • Next Steps

  3. Basics I: Participation 2007(2006) • 74 (59)institutes from 20 (18) countries • countries • new: South Africa and re-joined: Finland • Interest for 2008: Brasil, France • 14 new institutes (not counting re-joiners) • CH: Bern • DE: Göttingen, Wuppertal, Erlangen, Freiburg, • GR: Crete • SA: Witwatersrand • UK: QM-London, Bristol, Manchester • US: Baltimore, Tallahassee, Cincinnati, Notre Dame • 16(8)institutes w/ more than one student day • 6(5)institutes w/ additional teacher´s day • Estimated number of students: 4589(3135) • HUGE SUCCESS and WORLDWIDE INTEREST

  4. Basics II: Organisation Team 2007continuing .vs. ending • Central organisation • People and infrastructure at Dresden • Michael Kobel (needs more support!) • Gisela Fischer (ATLAS/BABAR group secretary) retiredsuccessor (> 12/07 or 01/08) largely with other tasks • Felix Krüger (physics student) CD and Web Site • EVO Video Conference • technics: • Joao Fernandez, Viktor Michalcin, Marek Domarackyplus EVObeta team (CERN, Caltech, VK Slovakia) • moderators: • Silvia Schuh, Dave Barney, Mike Lamont, Salvatore Mele • Quiz: • Silvia Schuh, Ken Cecire et al • National Organisation • contact persons in each country • esp. big support in US by Quarknet (Ken) • Local responsibles for each institute

  5. Basics III: Evaluation • Important, esp. for new concepts and exercises • So far: • Tedious work, typing in all answers into SPSS by hand • 2005: M.K. and Erik, with help from IPN • just published in Physics Education • 2007 (and 2006?): two groups (last EPPOG meeting) • Slovak Virtual Collab (esp. Kosice, Presov, Zilina) • Quarknet (Ken et al) • Plans for 2008 and beyond (proposal): • Charge professionial survey group at TU Dresden with • making questionaire machine-readable • Reading data into SPSS • Making pre-defined set of standard plots • Sending SPSS data to us for further/deeper evaluation

  6. Conclusion for „Basics“ • We can be happy that most people continue • CERN IT stresses: no increase of person power or time • Central Organization was overloaded in 2007 • We are at (have passed?) the limit ofperson power, i.e. work / (time*person) • Developing or trying new or amended concepts? • So far no resources (people and funding) • Conclusion: • Long-term structure desperately needed w.r.t. • People • Funding

  7. Needs I: central personnel • Long-Term vision: • Get lasting (EU?) funding for many (> 5?) years incl. *enough* personnel • Medium-Term plan • Find a ½ - time person for next (3?) years • Help in most of central organization tasks • Integrate new concepts and exercises (e.g. as,LHC) • Prepare and organize long-term funding applications • Status: • Striving for finding such a person together with DESY • Short-Term success (TU Dresden) • Got 1/3 – time Ph.D. student (Peter Steinbach) for 6 months • Help in most of central organization tasks • Test new concepts and exercises (e.g. as, LHC)

  8. Needs II: material and in-kind funding • So far (often in-kind): • Distributed material (CD, brochures, comics, card games)2005: EPS-HEPP(CDs) + CERN(comics) + DESY(brochures)2006: BMBF(CDs) + CERN(prizes) + DESY(brochures)2007: EPS-HEPP(CDs) + CERN(prizes) + DESY(brochures) • VRVS/EVO support (continuing!)2005-2007 CERN + Caltech + Slovak ministry • Amounts: • CD-production and shipping: ~6000 Euro /year • Future automatic evaluation: ~4000 Euro / year • Short- and medium-term prospects • EPS-HEPP (via Erik): Continuing? (at their limit, barely enough for CDs) • Germany: Chances for some money from 4-year BMBF „Awareness of CERN“ program (application pending) • Is there a chance via US DOE/NSF Outreach ??? (rehearsal October 07)

  9. Conclusion and Items for “Needs” • Do we agree on • Needs? • Personell (Organisation, Web, CD, exercise development, …) • Material (CDs, Brochures, …) • In-Kind (prizes, EVO support, evaluation, …) • Short-, Medium-, Long-Term Plan? • Other Ideas for funding Sources? • Short-Term 2008 • Long-Term (to be done by medium-term person)

  10. Amendments I: Collected Comments • “Brainstorming Meeting” at CERN, 17.7.2007 • Participants • Coordinators: M.K., Erik, Ken (via EVO) • Moderators: Dave, Silvia, Mike • EVO: Joao, Marek • France: Alain, Didier • Comments collected beforehand (Dave) • Exercises (Z + 2nd exercise, LHC?, other?) • Video Session (earlier time, tech quality, aim, collection of results, Questions&Answers) • National masterclass days • Information flow • No comments on • Teacher involvement • CD •  my conclusions and suggestions

  11. Amendments II: Exercises 2008 • General comments on *mandatory* exercises • *easy* counting exercises needed • 2nd mandatory exercise good for some sites • must be possible to cover in video conf • Should ideally build on 1st exercise • Transition LEP  LHC needed on medium-term • Candidate for LHC exercise • ASEC (ATLAS Student Event Challenge, Athens)http://asec.phy.bg.ac.yu/ • Judged to be not on high-school level • Let’s have (2?-)4trial days for 2nd exercises • as from 2jets/3jets in DELPHI data (easier than OPAL) • BR(W+W-) in OPAL data (easier than DELPHI) • Let’s have 0(-1?) trial day for ASEC as 1st exercise • Can we “simplify” ASEC exercises already for 2008? • Volunteers?

  12. Amendments IIIa: Video Session • General comments: • Video Session  Central connecting element! • Great for students if technically working and lively • Question of time • Generally stay at usual time (16:30-18:00 CET) • Make very few special days • Max 2 days: 15:30-17:00 CET (8:30 – 10:00 FNAL) • Max 1 day: 22:30-24:00 CET (15:30 – 17:00 FNAL) • Technical Quality • Strict admission procedure after successful testwith final equipment at final place • More thoroughly prepared test sessions,planned well in advance • Assure two screens at most places(summary sheet + video conf) • Test bandwidth and audio with several sites in parallel

  13. Amendments IIIb: Video Session • Content • Collect results beforehand(at least for days with >~ 5 sites) • Locally prepare questions for Q&A at each site • Prize for most funny / mind-boggling / difficult question? • discussion topics • Better adjustment of items for local vs central discussion? • Ask students for summary of local discussion? • More central discussion on statistics issues? • Discussion of one special / questionable event display? • Initiate student-to-student discussion? • local language video confs on “national days” • Only in exceptional cases (1 French day in first year?) • students should learn that English is lingua franca

  14. Amendments IV: Organisation • Continue and expand teacher’s days • Ideally before or parallel w/ students • Same exercises, discussion among teachers • support preparation and wrap-up at school • Aim to initiate development of teaching material • Might be important for long-term funding • Improve Information flow (aller-retour) • Mails? Hypernews? Wiki? all? • Mailing list w/ subscription? • Web forms? • How to make return from institutes more efficient?

  15. Next Steps • Today: • Agree on date: Th 28.2. - Fr 14.3.2008 ? • Agree on suggestions above • Next week(s) • Get process going for next year • Peter Steinbach: starting 1.11. • Fix schedule begin of November with • Special exercise days • Special teacher’s days • Special video time day(s)

  16. Backup slides from last meeting

  17. J´avais des HAUTs , j´avais des BAS  • Making of… schedule worked out well, faster than 2006 (not easy to distribute74 institutes evenly, very cooperative  ) • Web pages of new institutes:again a nightmare (with few exceptions)still: nice and useful to have them on Web and CDrom ! • Distribution of CDs and DESY brochures (too few…)Thanks to CD company (CUE) and Veronika Werschner (DESY)ready and shipped well in time only few delivery problems, solved in time • Communications to (some) institutes(„… as already explained in my previous emails and on the Web...“) need shorter (and thus even more?) e-mails, Wiki?, both?, …. • Distribution of DELPHI and OPAL over the days: fineEverybody knew, what to measure and to report in EVO Conf.

  18. Bad Technical preparation of EVO *in quite some institutes*Good technical quality of EVO hidden by lack of local preparation(maybe the 1st EVO test was announced on too short notice?)Most Frequent flaws: • Equipment not tested in relevant environment • No echo cancelling devices used • Problems with H323 and EVO (at least in the beginning) All this made some video conferences *really* bad! Clear consequence for 2008: Need *very* strict admission procedure to Video Conf Video Conf is *the* part which makes the Corporate ID! • Admirable: • Patience and competence of EVObeta team • Amount of testing by EVObeta team with 74 institutes • Patience of moderators in case of • Sound problems • Quiet or tired students Video Conf part is still the weakest part of the program, but also the central connecting part! We need to work on it, but should really keep it!

  19. 4) Long term planning (assuming 4 years funding) a) MAIN needs and questions Most to be coordinated by new management person to hire: • New exercises • ASEC LHC exercise (Athens) • Other new LHC exercises? Advanced (like WW, alpha_s)? • Maybe astro-particlephysics exercise (France, Erlangen?) • Trial sessions / trial days • Involvement of teachers • Preparation and wrap-up at school (example: quarknet) • Teacher‘s day(s)? • same fomat, more/different discussions? • Combined with in-service training? • Develop special material for that? • Video conference • Needs thorough revisiting! • Strict technical quality rules to be assured • Assure long-term technical support(EVO should be interested in us as use-case!?) • Make moderator team (even) larger? • Assure long-term funding • Ample time for applications during 4 years • Exercise developpers, in-service training material • Do we need funding for that? • Or e.g. cover it in student teacher theses?

  20. b) Further points for future discussion • Improve Media coverage, articles • Travels of students (and teachers) as prizes? • Automatize evaluation (see plans above) • Schedule • How many days maximum? • How many institutes/day maximum? • How many masterclasses outside of central weeks? • Some separated Masterclasses in other time zones?(US, Brasil, ..) • …

More Related