PNCAP 07 Survey

1. PNCAP 07 Survey David Terrell Warner Pacific College

2. Results • 74 Answered the Survey • 57 Institutions

3. Institutions • Albertson College of Idaho • Big Bend Community College • Boise State University • BYU-Idaho Dept of Physics • Brigham Young University • Central Washington University • Chemeketa Community College • Clackamas Community College • Clark College • Clatsop Community college

4. Institutions • Columbia Basin College • Concordia University • Dawson Community College • Eastern Oregon University • The Evergreen State College • Green River Community College • Highline Community College • Idaho State University • Lane Community College • Linfield College

5. Institutions • Linn-Benton Community College • Marylhurst University • Miles Community College • Montana State University • Mt. Hood Community College • North Idaho College • North Seattle Community College • Olympic College • Pacific Lutheran University • Pacific University

6. Institutions • Peninsula College • Pierce College Puyallup • Portland Community College • Reed College • Saint Martin's Univ. • Seattle Pacific University • Seattle University • Seattle Central Community College • Shoreline Community College • Southern Oregon University

7. Institutions • South Seattle CC • Southwestern Oregon Community College • Spokane Falls Community College • Tacoma Community College • Umpqua Community College • University of Alaska Anchorage • University of Idaho • University of Portland • University of Puget Sound • University of Oregon

8. Institutions • Walla Walla Community College • Walla Walla University • Warner Pacific College • Wenatchee Valley College • Western Washington University • Whatcom Community college • Whitman College

9. Physics degree and Institutions • E: other> Math-physics major

10. Faculty and Institutions A=1; B < 5 < C < 10 < D < 20 < E

12. Collaboration A = We have B = We are not but we would like to C = We can’t

13. Comments: • - Collaboration via Oregon Space Grant • - We maintain contact for transfer success • - Depends on what you mean by collaboration

14. - What do you mean by collaboration? • - Collaboration in what? • - No teaching collaboration done • - We are not collaborating and while it would be nice, we probably don't have the energy to. • - I collaborate with Fermi Lab and Argonne National Lab.

15. - at least one collaboration may take place this year, but is in the planning stages • - We don't, might conceivably like to • - Geographically it is very difficult if physical travel is involved.

16. - Some collaboration- some with other institutions/ plus a lot with other depts and colleges within institution • - Nothing currently • - Might be interested if the right situation came along

17. - We don't have ongoing collaborations • - We are not but might if we had the time- Have attempted to do so, but teaching workload is severe.

18. Faculty Load

19. How do you feel about Undergraduate research? • Important • Almost as important as correct spelling in a survey question • Can be valuable, difficult in a two year school as most students who have enough Physics are graduated • I am actively engaged in physics education research with students

20. Undergraduate Research Funding • Necessary • It should be easy to obtain because I don’t have time to write lenghty grant proposals • Is critical and more is needed specially for small institutions

21. How can PNACP be strengthened? • - By using the correct form of a verb (strengthened, not strengthen). Written communication reflects on how we appear to others • - More involvement from the 'major' universities • - don't know much about PNACP • - Improving communication between members • - Its fine the way it is.

22. - I would attend more meetings if they were any other day other than Saturday • - By providing political pressure on legislature to reduce teaching loads and increase release time for developing physics curriculum. • - Organizing more meeting even informal one or creating local chapters like where member meet more regularly. • - Perhaps by fostering relationships between smaller schools and larger schools. It would be great to form research teams that would break off parts of larger projects that can be done at an undergraduate level. This would make undergraduate research part of a more meaningful whole.

23. - Raise the profile. This is an uphill job, as this country as a whole does not value educators. While this is most visible in the public K-12 range, some of this attitude trickles up. • - Not sure. • - Perhaps PNACP can coordinate with the NW APS section for a joint meeting. We have limited travel funds and typically attend a regular research conference once a year plus the NW section meeting of the APS, with no time or money left for the PNACP. However, the PNACP is highly relevant to our teaching as physics faculty in an undergraduate-only department. • - Be open to including high school teachers • - email newsletter

24. - We need to reach out and contact teachers at schools that are not active in the organization. A personal invitation might be enough to get some new people to meetings. • - Get more physics majors and have them come to the meetings. • - I am not sure. I have not had much contact with PNACP. I plan to change that in the next year. • - ? • - maintain a variety of topicsI think there is time for some reports on undergraduate research • - I don't know. I think it is good as it is.

25. - Somehow get more involvement from research faculty. • - Not very familiar with the organization.Connection with APS/AIP. • - More participation from members • - I think that it would be nice to have collaboration opportunities outside of the yearly meeting. • - I am currently working toward my doctorate in education through George Fox University. I hope to seek more involvement in PNACP after my degree is completed...target date: mid-2009. • - More frequent meetings would be nice.

26. - More direct marketing to faculty. I only heard about the organization through the full time faculty here. • - I'm not sure. Our institution should, and will this year, participate. • - I think that PNACP is doing fine. • - This is a tough question. I have no idea for the moment. • - Not sure.

27. - It seems strong already. How about a presence at area AAPT section meetings and at national AAPT meetings? • - I believe that collaboration at all levels strengthens organizations. • - I said a lot of things when I was running for Executive Director, but I was not chosen for the position, and was told by one of the voting members that I couldn't do what I proposed. So my ideas have already been rejected.

28. - Continue having annual meetings to discuss issues with colleagues at neighboring institutions. If something isn't scheduled regularly it is quickly dropped from the priority list. • - I don't have any ideas right now. • - a place to find out what others are doing • - More participants at the meetings. • - This is a great idea. I feel that there isn't very much communication between members other than at meetings. It would be great to have a member directory and a email listserv.

29. - We have to strongly encourage the younger faculty to come to meetings and to lobby their administrations, if necessary, to pay the dues to keep PNACP solvent. My teaching skills have benefited tremendously from PNACP meetings and contacts over the years. This also should be communicated to college administrations, so that they in turn encourage their faculty to participated in the organization. • - 1) More student involvement.2) Perhaps workshops instead of meetings.3) Poster Sessions. • - Better communication and advertisement of Spring meeting.

30. - Subgroup on astronomy and/or astronomy education. • - I tend to see the same people at most of the meetings, maybe we can encourage more of our colleagues to participate. I would like to see more active partnership between the 2-year and 4-year institutions in getting our 2-year students involved in research at the 4-year institutions. • - Find a way to include the major universities once again. Their leadership is important. Even if only a few faculty from UW, UO, WSU, and OSU participate, they add validity to PNACP. • - I am inactive in PNACP, so I am unsure about its role.

31. - 'strengthened'Good question. The problem is everyone is so busy, that the meeting has to be perceived as valuable to even get people to go. Once they go, they realize that the gathering itself is valuable, but you have to get people there. Topics of interest to a wide range of people work well, so having topical conferences I think is useful, with good speakers. Also changing the location works well. Another thing that might help is to set up a network so that people share the costs of attending and perhaps accommodations at the meeting. This should be possible on the website? Another thing that would make the meetings more valuable if the 'old boys' didn't assume everyone knew them, and that everyone made an effort to connect with the younger faculty members. • - Meetings relevant and interesting, not conflicting with other obligations • - Making available faculty research interests to facilitate collaboration among those with overlapping research topics.

32. - Hard to say. I've never gotten involved because I don't have the time. I am swamped with my regular teaching load + committee assignments. • - Have break-out sessions where collaboration opportunities can be advertised; invite PNNL, large universities, etc. who have outreach programs to come. • - Ah, now there's the question.....(Not very helpful, but I've given it my shot.)

33. Thanks Hope this survey will be useful giving us an insight about ways to improve our organization. Have a great day, and safe travel back home!