Daniel Holland
Illinois State
University
Department of
Physics
September 13,
2002
Current
Vita
Section
I: Overview of Teaching
A. Teaching
Philosophy
B. Courses
Taught at ISU
· Catalog
Description of Courses Taught
· Courses
Taught by Semester including enrollments
C. Teaching
Strategies
D. Summary
of Teaching Evaluations
· Description
of Evaluation Instrument
· Summary
of Teaching Evaluation for Each Semester
· Comparison
of Teaching Evaluations with the Physics Department
E. Research
Students Activities
· List
of Past and Present Research Students and Their Projects
· Student
Papers Presented at Undergraduate Research Symposiums
· Student
Co-Authored Papers Presented at National/International Meetings
· Student
Co-Authored Publications
F. Curriculum
Development
G. Out
of Class Activities with Students
H. Instructional
Activities Outside of Assigned Classes
· Presentations
for Elementary Through College Level Classes
· Additional
General Audience Presentations
· Work
with the ETS
I. Honors
and Awards for Teaching
As an Associate Professor of
Physics, it is both my pleasure and obligation to impart my love and enthusiasm
for the subject to my students. In the
general population physics has a reputation as being impenetrable and far
removed from daily life. Nothing could
be farther from the truth. Physics is
more than just a collection of cold, hard facts. It is a systematic approach to
any problem, starting with the most basic understanding of the situation and
adding complexities in a systematic fashion. When a physicist looks at a
problem, he/she begins by stripping away all of the nonessential features to
produce the simplest reasonable model. (This has lead to the joke in which a
physicist who is trying to aid a dairy farmer starts with the assumption of a
spherical cow.) Once a basic
understanding of a phenomenon has been achieved, more details are added one at
a time. Thus a basic education in physics not only gives the students a deeper
understanding of the world around them, which improves the quality of their
lives, it also provides them with analytic skills that may be applied in many
other areas.
In all of my classes I
strive to maintain an informal environment where the students feel comfortable
in asking questions about even the simplest concepts. I have found that it is often a single point that is holding the
students back from an understanding of the material. No matter what topic I am covering in a lecture, I try to recall
which ideas were the most difficult for me to grasp when I first met them, and
give these special emphasis. I
encourage my students to come by my office any time that they have questions,
whether or not it is a scheduled office hour.
It is far better to get simple questions cleared up early on than to
wait until the student is so lost that they don’t even know what to ask.
Many students only take an interest in physics when they see how it can be applied to situations that have a direct bearing on their life or when it can be used to explain some interesting phenomena. Thus, I strive to provide examples and demonstrations that stimulate the students’ imagination. For example, in the section on ohmic dissipation in electrical circuits, rather than using a traditional resistor, I electrocute a large pickle. There is something about a glowing pickle that makes the students sit up and take notice. I also continually make connections between the various topics presented in the class so that the students may see physics as a unified discipline rather than a series of unrelated facts. For the laboratory sections, I select experiments that are designed to reinforce the major concepts that have been presented in the class as well as to give the students an appreciation for the high degree of accuracy one can obtain even using relatively simple instruments.
Finally, I believe that it is critical for a professor (particularly in the sciences) to maintain an active research program. This not only keeps them current in their field and brings vitality to the classroom, it also gives more advanced students the opportunity to experience first hand the excitement of participating in the creation of knowledge.
Since coming to Illinois State University in the Fall of 1993, I have taught ten different courses (listed below) that span the gamut of class that are offered by the Illinois State University Physics department, from introductory general education classes to senior level majors classes:
· Catalog Description of Courses Taught
|
Course |
Title |
Catalog Description |
|
Physics 390 |
Computational Research in Physics |
This course provides students in the computational
physics sequence with a capstone experience during the Spring semester of
their senior year. It is an independent research project course, where each
student applies a particular computational technique to a problem in physics.
A project may be a current research project of a faculty member or any other
substantial computational project |
|
Physics 320 |
Mechanics II |
Coordinate transformations, nonlinear oscillations,
Hamilton's principle, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, rigid body
motion. Required Courses: PHY 220 and MAT 340 req. |
|
Physics 290 |
Research in Physics |
An introduction to the scientific discovery process
through participation in a department research program. Required Courses: 20 hrs Physics req. |
|
Physics 220 |
Mechanics I |
Newton's laws applied to the study of motion of
point masses subjected to viscous, frictional, elastic, central, harmonic,
interparticle, and conservative forces. Required Courses: PHY 112 and MAT 147 req. |
|
Physics 217 |
Mathematical Methods of Physics |
Mathematics applied to physics; multivariable
calculus, vector and tensor analysis, curvilinear coordinates, complex
numbers, differential equations, numerical methods. Required Courses: PHY 111; MAT 147 and 175 or
conc.reg req. |
|
Physics 207 |
Energy and Society |
Scientific, technological, environmental, economic,
health, ethical, and political aspects of energy production and use, from
fossil and nuclear fuels to renewable energy sources. Required Courses: Inner Core req. |
|
Physics 111 |
Physics for Scientists and Engineers II |
Thermodynamics, electrostatics, electrical currents
and circuits, magnetism, Faraday's Law. Required Courses: PHY 110 and MAT 146 or conc reg
req. |
|
Physics 109 |
College Physics II |
Electrostatics, electrical currents, magnetism,
light and optical instruments, quantum, atomic, and nuclear physics, special
relativity. Required Courses: PHY 108 or 110 req |
|
Physics 102 |
Atoms to Galaxies |
Concepts, history, and methodology of physical ideas such as motion,
thermodynamics, electromagnetism, quanta, and relativity with
interrelationships and applications. The theme or focus may vary by section. Required courses:IDS 100 or conc reg req. |
|
Physics 100 |
Energy and the Environment. |
Scientific and technological aspects of energy and
related environmental issues; fossil fuels, solar and nuclear energy. |
·
Courses
Taught by Semester including enrollments
|
Semester |
Course(s) Taught |
Enrollment |
|
Fall 1993 |
Physics 111 Physics 220 |
28 29 |
|
Spring 1994 |
Physics 100 Physics 111 |
46 31 |
|
Fall 1994 |
Physics 111 Physics 220 |
36 21 |
|
Spring 1995 |
Physics 100 Physics 111 |
77 32 |
|
Summer 1995 |
Physics 100 |
16 |
|
Fall 1995 |
Physics 111 Physics 220 |
22 21 |
|
Spring 1996 |
Physics 109 Physics 111 |
40 18 |
|
Fall 1996 |
Physics 111 Physics 220 Physics 189.11 (lab) |
15 13 (lab) |
|
Spring 1997 |
Physics 109 Physics 111 |
37 36 |
|
Fall 1997 |
Physics 111 Physics 220 |
27 9 |
|
Spring 1998 |
Physics 100 Physics 111 |
81 34 |
|
Fall 1998 |
Physics 111 Physics 220 |
38 20 |
|
Spring 1999 |
Physics 102 Physics 111 |
85 45 |
|
Fall 1999 |
Physics 111 Physics 220 |
23 25 |
|
Spring 2000 |
Physics 111 Physics 217 |
36 30 |
|
Fall 2000 |
Physics 111 Physics 220 |
30 22 |
|
Spring 2001 |
Sabbatical |
NA |
|
Fall 2001 |
Physics 207 Physics 220 |
35 23 |
|
Spring 2002 |
Physics 217 Physics 320 |
28 5 |
|
Fall 2002 |
Physics 207 Physics 220 |
69 25 |
I have not listed Physics 290 or 390 above, but
anytime I have had a research student I will typically have a Physics 290 or 390 student.
As
can be seen in the previous section, my teaching assignments may be have been
for both physics majors (Physics 111, 217, 220, 290, 320, and 390), and
non-majors (Physics 100, 102 109 and 207).
My goals and strategies for each of the classes vary depending on what
it is that I believe that the students need at their particular level. In all of the courses, however, I try to
maintain a relaxed atmosphere in which the students feel free to ask questions
at any time.
For
Physics majors, I am a strong believer in the spiral approach to learning
physics. In this method, students will
see the same material several times during their education, each time with a
different emphasis and developing more and more sophisticated problem solving
techniques. For example in the 100
level courses the primary goal is to have the students understand the basic
physical concepts /laws and to develop some intuition as to how the world
works. This is often an uphill battle
since time and time again, research has shown that most people’s basic
intuition about how the world works is “pre-Newtonian”. To counteract this, I
use as many examples and demonstrations as possible. Since the students are
just learning calculus at the same time they are taking the 100 level physics courses,
the mathematical sophistication of the presentation is necessarily limited and
the homework problems are of mostly of the “plug and chug” variety. It is critical that students do not fall
behind at this stage so I use weekly quizzes on Mallard encourage them to keep
up.
Once
the students advance to the 200 level courses the emphasis changes to
developing mathematical modeling and problem solving techniques. The two classes that form the gateway into
upper level physics courses are Physics 217, Mathematical Methods of Physics
and Physics 220, Mechanics I.
Either one is an equally valid first upper division course. In Physics 217, as the name implies, our
major objective is to develop the mathematical formalism necessary for solving
complicated physics problems. In this
course I will use examples from all areas of physics so as to give the students
a clear understanding of why the techniques they are learning are
important. The mathematics used in
Physics 220 is typically not as difficult as that found in Physics 217. The
most difficult thing for the students to master in this class is how to look at
a physical situation and write down a mathematical model that describes
it. Mechanics is a particularly good first
class to do this in since most people have a lot better physical intuition
about how things move than they do about thing such as quantum mechanics. At this stage in their careers the typical
homework problem could not be done during an hour-long exam, thus homework
becomes a much larger percentage of the student’s grade
Finally,
when students arrive at the 300 level courses the emphasis shifts to merging
their model building with even more sophisticated mathematical techniques. At this level, the students are beginning to
develop the advanced methods that are the stepping of points for graduate level
work and research in physics.
Obviously,
as the students move through the program, the difficulty level of the problems
continually increases. In fact, many
problems that the students are exposed to do not have closed form analytical
solutions and may only be solved on the computer using numerical
techniques. Since numerical modeling
has become a major tool in science and engineering, I include numerical
problems in all of my major’s classes beginning at the 200 level. This is a hallmark of the ISU Physics
Department that sets us apart from most undergraduate physics programs in the
nation
My
objectives for the general education courses are very different from those of
the science major courses. Most of the
students in these courses will be exposed to a limited amount of science in
their college careers and as such I do my very best to impress upon the
students the
importance
of science in determining their future and the quality of their lives in a
world of limited resources and increasing population pressures. In this sense I regard these classes as an
opportunity to produce more informed voters and to give good public relations
for science in general. I try to make the class interesting for the students by
using as many demonstrations as possible and by presenting the material with a
minimum amount of mathematics and in such a way that they can relate it to
their everyday life experiences. I am
willing to sacrifice mathematical rigor at this level for the sake of clarity.
Regardless
of the level of the courses I am teaching, I always welcome questions both in
class and out of class. I maintain an
open door policy, in that if I am around, the students may drop by at any time
and I will do my best to help them. I
believe that my teaching evaluations for my classes at all levels show that I
have had a lot of “satisfied customers”.
D. Summary of Teaching Evaluations.
· Description
of Evaluation Instrument
The instrument that the Department of Physics uses to evaluate an instructor’s ability in teaching a particular class consists of the 14 questions given below. The students are asked to assign a number from 1 to 5 for the instructor in each of the categories with 1 meaning always and 5 meaning never. Since questions 13 and 14 concern the overall experience of the students in the class, these are generally looked at in greater detail than the other questions. On the following pages there is a break down of my teaching evaluations for each class I have taught since the fall of 1993. The values for the individual sections are given as well as a cumulative average for each subject, an average for the 100, 200 and 300 level courses and an average for all classes taught. For the final four categories, I compare the scores with the departmental averages over the same time period and the departmental averages with my scores removed. I am especially pleased with my teaching reviews in comparison with the rest of the physics department, since this is a department that prides itself on excellence in teaching.
1. Class time was well spent and provided a learning experience.
2. Assignments and exams were graded and returned promptly.
3. The instructor puts the material across in an interesting way.
4. The instructor was concerned about whether or not students understood course material.
5. The instructor provided adequate feedback to the students on papers, projects and/or exams.
6. The instructor used tests that reflect the content and emphasis of the course material.
7. The instructor was flexible and responsive to students’ needs.
8. The activities for the class periods showed planning and organization.
9. The instructor clearly stated objects and/or procedures.
10. The instructor expected high-quality work from the students.
11. The instructor is willing to help students outside of class.
12. The instructor evaluates students fairly.
13. The over-all teaching ability of the instructor for this course is very high.
14. My learning in this course compares favorably with my learning in other courses at ISU.
· Summary
of Teaching Evaluation for Each Semester
|
Semester |
Class |
# of Resp. |
All Questions |
Question 13 |
Question 14 |
|
Fall 1993 |
Physics 111 Physics 220 |
23 21 |
1.65 2.02 |
1.74 2.14 |
1.68 2.14 |
|
Spring 1994 |
Physics 100 Physics 111 |
29 27 |
1.68 2.02 |
1.66 2.26 |
2.00 2.52 |
|
Fall 1994 |
Physics 111 Physics 220 |
23 20 |
1.65 1.49 |
1.55 1.55 |
1.82 1.40 |
|
Spring 1995 |
Physics 100 Physics 111 |
61 23 |
1.70 2.15 |
1.56 2.35 |
1.87 2.82 |
|
Fall 1995 |
Physics 111 Physics 220 |
13 16 |
1.36 1.79 |
1.31 1.75 |
1.46 1.93 |
|
Spring 1996 |
Physics 109 Physics 111 |
37 23 |
1.35 1.94 |
1.78 2.27 |
1.60 1.77 |
|
Fall 1996 |
Physics 111 Physics 220 |
12 16 |
1.63 1.69 |
1.83 1.82 |
2.00 1.63 |
|
Spring 1997 |
Physics 109 Physics 111 |
25 25 |
1.81 2.24 |
1.84 2.12 |
2.13 2.48 |
|
Fall 1997 |
Physics 111 Physics 220 |
21 8 |
1.50 1.44 |
1.24 1.38 |
1.67 1.25 |
|
Spring 1998 |
Physics 100 Physics 111 |
49 25 |
1.78 1.62 |
1.71 1.40 |
1.98 1.74 |
|
Fall 1998 |
Physics 111 Physics 220 |
24 13 |
1.56 1.57 |
1.29 1.46 |
1.67 1.54 |
|
Spring 1999 |
Physics 102 Physics 111 |
57 39 |
2.39 1.91 |
2.43 1.85 |
2.85 2.16 |
|
Fall 1999 |
Physics 111 Physics 220 |
14 22 |
1.64 1.60 |
1.64 1.32 |
2.00 1.23 |
|
Spring 2000 |
Physics 111 Physics 217 |
29 25 |
1.62 1.60 |
1.31 1.48 |
1.90 1.40 |
|
Fall 2000 |
Physics 111 Physics 220 |
27 18 |
1.69 1.67 |
1.37 1.44 |
1.81 1.33 |
|
Fall 2001 |
Physics 207 Physics 220 |
31 20 |
1.40 1.57 |
1.42 1.30 |
1.52 1.35 |
|
Spring 2002 |
Physics 217 Physics 320 |
24 5 |
1.57 1.43 |
1.46 1.00 |
1.63 1.00 |
·
Comparison
of Teaching Evaluations with the Physics Department
|
Average (3) |
Physics 100 |
139 |
1.72 |
1.63 |
1.94 |
|
Average (1) |
Physics 102 |
57 |
2.39 |
2.43 |
2.85 |
|
Average (2) |
Physics 109 |
62 |
1.54 |
1.80 |
1.81 |
|
Average (15) |
Physics 111 |
348 |
1.77 |
1.72 |
1.99 |
|
Average (1) |
Physics 207 |
31 |
1.40 |
1.42 |
1.52 |
|
Average (2) |
Physics 217 |
49 |
1.58 |
1.47 |
1.51 |
|
Average (9) |
Physics 220 |
154 |
1.67 |
1.58 |
1.54 |
|
Average (1) |
Physics 320 |
5 |
1.43 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average (21) |
100 level |
606 |
1.79 |
1.77 |
2.04 |
|
Dept. Avg. |
100 level |
8248 |
2.10 |
2.21 |
2.53 |
|
Dept. w/o me |
100 level |
7642 |
2.12 |
2.24 |
2.57 |
|
Average (12) |
200 level |
234 |
1.62 |
1.54 |
1.53 |
|
Dept. Avg. |
200 level |
729 |
1.79 |
1.77 |
1.94 |
|
Dept. w/o me |
200 level |
495 |
1.87 |
1.88 |
2.13 |
|
Average (1) |
300 level |
5 |
1.43 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
|
Dept. Avg. |
300 level |
28 |
1.54 |
1.39 |
1.50 |
|
Dept. w/o me |
300 level |
23 |
1.56 |
1.47 |
1.61 |
|
Average |
All Classes |
845 |
1.74 |
1.70 |
1.89 |
|
Dept. Avg. |
All Classes |
9005 |
2.07 |
2.17 |
2.48 |
|
Dept. w/o me |
All Classes |
8160 |
2.10 |
2.22 |
2.54 |
An
essential aspect of the education of physics students is to have them
participate in research project. It
only by doing this that they are truly able to see the application and
interconnectedness of the material that they have learned in the classroom
setting Since coming to ISU I have involved seventeen undergraduate students in
may research program. They are divided between those working on magnetized
sheath problems and those working in theoretical and observational magnetospheric
physics. The students and a brief
summary of their research contributions are given below. As can be seen from the student problems,
the major thrust of my research in recent years has been in the area of
observational magnetospheric physics and chaotic particle dynamics.
·
List of Past and Present Research Students and
Their Projects
|
URA |
Year(s) |
Accomplishments |
|
Phil Valek |
1993-94 |
Investigated the
equilibrium structure of the PSBL-lobe interface including the effects of
finite plasma. |
|
David King |
1994-96 |
Investigated the
effects of "collisions" on phase space structures and distribution
function signatures due to nonlinear particle dynamics in the
magnetotail. Began an investigation
of pitch-angle resolved distribution functions. |
|
Steve Powell |
1994 |
Investigated the
sheath formed between a magnetized plasma and a particle absorbing wall in
the weak magnetic field limit. |
|
Aaron Starkey |
1994 |
Extended the
analysis begun by Phil Valek to include more realistic effects including a
diffuse rather than a sharp boundary. |
|
Steve Schierholz |
1994 |
Began an
investigation of the impact distribution of ions that strike the wall in a
magnetized plasma. |
|
Charles Wissmiller |
1996 |
Obtained and
installed magnetized bounded PIC simulations from the UC Berkeley plasma
physics group. |
|
Trevor Brightwell |
1996-97 |
Calculated the
impact distribution of plasma ions that strike the wall in an oblique
incidence magnetized plasma using self-consistent sheath fields. |
|
Ann Witmer |
1996-97 |
Assisted in the
analysis of ion data from the GEOTAIL satellite. |
|
James Woods |
1997-98 |
Continuing in the data analysis of Geotail CPI
data. Used simple models to characterize the effects of collisions on
nonlinear charged particle dynamics in the magnetotail. |
|
Daniel Goscha |
1997 |
Beginning to modify
the codes installed by Charles Wissmiller to allow for a time varying
magnetic field. |
|
Rebecca Braynard |
1998-99 |
Calculated the inpact distribution of plasma ions which strike the wall in an oblique incidence magnetized plasma. Assisted in updating UNIX operating system on my HP workstation. |
|
Michael Meyers |
1999 |
Assisted in analysis of Geotail CPI data. |
|
Ryan Rappa |
2000-01 |
Numerical simulations of chaotic particle dynamics in the magnetotail. Calculation of the Lyapunov exponent and escape rates. |
|
Steve Schultz |
2002 |
Analysis of Galileo data sets to study Jovian magnetotail |
|
Ben Richards |
2001-02 |
Extensive data analysis of Geotail CPI and
Magnetometer data sets. |
|
Craig Lennon |
2002- present |
Numerical simulations to determine fractal
dimension of chaotic particle entry region and analysis of Cluster II data
sets. |
|
Ingrid Ronquist |
2002-present |
Beginning analysis of Geotail CPI and magnetometer
data. |
·
Student Papers Presented at Undergraduate
Research Symposiums
Given below is a list
of papers presented by my students at undergraduate research symposiums. Research presentations at
national/international conferences that involve students are listed in the next
section. (Student names are underlined)
1.
Ryan Rappa and Daniel Holland, Characterization of Chaotic Particle Dynamics
in the Earth’s Magnetotail, 2001 ISU Undergraduate Research Symposium.
2.
Ryan Rappa and Daniel Holland, Characterization of Chaotic Particle Dynamics
in the Earth’s Magnetotail 2000 Argonne Undergraduate Research Symposium.
3.
Rebecca Braynard and Daniel Holland, The Effects
of Sheath Structure on Particle Sputtering in Obliquely Incident Magnetized
Plasmas, 1998 Argonne Undergraduate Research Symposium
4. James
Woods and Daniel Holland, Inferring the Current Sheet Structure Using Geotial CPI Data, 1998
Argonne Undergraduate Research Symposium
5.
James Woods and Daniel Holland, Inferring
the Current Sheet Structure Using Geotial CPI Data, 1998 ISU Undergraduate
Research Symposium
6. Trevor
Brightwell and Daniel Holland, Ion impact distributions in obliquely incident magnetized plasmas,
1997 ISU undergraduate research symposium
7. Ann
Witmer and Daniel Holland, Observational signatures of non-linear particle dynamics in Geotail
satellite data, 1997 ISU undergraduate research symposium
8. David
King and Daniel Holland, Characterization of Collisional Effects on the Nonlinear Particle
Dynamics in the Magnetotail. 1995 ISU undergraduate research symposium
9. S.
W. Powell and D. L. Holland, Sheath structure in a weakly magnetized plasma, 1994 Illinois State
University Undergraduate Research Symposium
10. David
King and Daniel Holland, Characterization of collisional effects on the nonlinear particle
dynamics in the magnetotail, 1994 Argonne Undergraduate Research Symposium.
11. P.
W. Valek and D. L. Holland, A finite b, kinetic equilibrium model of the PSBL-lobe interface,
1994 Spring Meeting of the Illinois Section of the Society of Physics Students
at Illinois Wesleyan University.
12. P.
W. Valek and D. L. Holland, A finite b, kinetic equilibrium model of the PSBL-lobe interface,
1994 Illinois State University Undergraduate Research Symposium.
The papers listed below were
all presented at major national and international meetings. The names of the students involved are
underlined.
1.
R. Rappa, H. Matsuoka, R. Martin, D. Holland, J. Ansher, On the Nature of the Particle Chaos in the Earth’s Magnetotail, AGU
Fall Meeting Paper SM21A-0771, San Francisco, CA, December, 2001.
2.
H. Matsuoka, D. Holland, R. F. Martin, Jr., R. Rappa, Chaotic Scattering in a Current Sheet
Magnetic Field, AGU Fall Meeting Paper SM21A-0774, San Francisco, CA,
December, 2001.
3.
H. Matsuoka, D. L. Holland, R. F. Martin Jr. and R. Rappa, On The Origin of Particle Chaos in the
Geomagnetic Tail, AGU Fall Meeting Paper SM 22A-26, San Francisco, CA,
December, 2000.
4.
Daniel Holland and James Woods, Determination of the Magnetotail Current
Sheet Topology Using Geotial CPI data, APS Centennial Meeting, Paper PP01.125, March, 1999.
5.
Rebecca Braynard
and Daniel Holland, The Effects of Sheath
Structures on the Ion Impact Distribution in Magnetized Plasmas, APS
Centennial Meeting, Paper RP01.139, March, 1999.
6.
D.L.
Holland and R. L. Braynard Determining
the Magnetotail Current Sheet Structure Using Geotial CPI Data, 1998 APS
Division of Plasma Physics Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, November, 1998.
7.
R. L. Braynard and D.L. Holland, The Effects of
Sheath Structure on Plasma Ion Impact Distributions in Obliquely Incident
Magnetized Plasmas, 1998 APS Division of Plasma Physics Meeting, New
Orleans, Louisiana, November, 1998.
8.
James Woods Inferring the Current Sheet
Structure Using Geotial CPI Data, 1998 National
Council for Undergraduate Research Conference, Salisbury, Maryland,
·
Student Co-Authored Publications
The papers listed below are either published in or
submitted to major international journals.
The names of the students co-authors are underlined
1. Daniel
Holland, Trevor Brightwell and Rebecca Braynard, Effects of the Sheath Electric Field on the
Ion Impact Distribution in a Magnetized Sheath, Submitted for publication
in J. Plasma Phys., 8/00.
2. R.
F. Martin, Jr., D. Delcourt, D. L.
Holland and M. J. Asbury,
Magnetotail Particle Distributions Associated with Pitch Angle Isotropization,
JASTP, 62, 513, 2000
3. Daniel
L. Holland, James Chen and Alex Agranov, Effects of a Constant Cross-Tail Magnetic Field on the Particle
Dynamics in the Magnetotail, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 24997, 1996.
F.
Course
proposals, curriculum reviews and/or other curriculum development activities.
As shown above, since arriving at Illinois State
University in 1993, I have taught ten different
courses. Thus I have averaged
approximately one new course preparation per year. Whereas all but one of the courses I have taught were on the
books in the Fall of 1993, I have implemented significant changes in them.
For
example, in Physics 111, I have completely rewritten a large section of the lab
manual and instituted several new experiments (see Physics 111 in Section
II.). In particular, I have written an
introductory article on error analysis that is appropriate for this level of
class and completely reworked the labs on Specific Heats, Electric Field
Mapping and Ohm's Law. All of these
labs have been included in the newer version of the Physics 111 lab
manual. I am particularly proud of the
new version of the Ohm’s Law lab since it employs a result from thermodynamics
(i.e. Blackbody radiation) to show that the resistance of a tungsten filament
increases linearly with temperature. This is a novel combination of electric
circuits with thermodynamics that I have never seen done anywhere else. In
addition, I have written over two hundred questions for Mallard quizzes for the
course
In
Physics 220, I have had to completely rework the course two times. The first was when I originally taught the
class in the fall of 1993. The second occurred several years latter when we
revised the prerequisites and content for the 100 level physics classes,
thereby forcing a change in focus for
the 200 classes.
Other
major course development projects include Physics 320 and 217. Even though both of these courses have been
taught by other professors in the department, my implementation of the
curriculum was very different.
In
the spring of 1998, I was the principle author of the proposal for Physics 207, Energy and Society. This is a new outer core class that was
offered for the first time in the fall 0f 2001. Even though the course was offered at 4:00 PM on MWF, it still
attracted 35 students. I believe that
both my teaching evaluations for the course (see above) and the fact that I
have 69 students registered for the course this fall, speak well the overall
satisfaction of the students.
In
addition to my standard class preparation, I have been involved in a number of
other curriculum development projects. During the summer of 1994 I worked with
Drs. Skadron and Hassani to investigate commercially available software for
incorporation into the new general education classes. In the spring and summer of 1996 I worked with Rainer Grobe and
George Skadron to rewrite the Physics 105 Lab Manual. I took primary responsibility for writing the labs on 1) Simple
Harmonic Motion, 2) Ohm's Law and 3) a Study of Thin Lenses. (The new lab
manual is included in the pocket of the binder.)
I truly believe that my first responsibility as an
Associate Professor at ISU is to provide the best possible courses for my
students. I take this responsibility
very seriously and work very hard on the course content and presentation.
G.
Advisement,
Club Sponsorship, and/or Other Out-of-Class Work With Students.
1. Since
the fall of 1993 I have acted as the GRE coach for the senior physics
students. The scope of this project has
varied considerably over the years. In my first year I had a few informal
meetings to discuss the type of questions that the students could expect to see
and to pass out sample exams. For the
past few years, during the fall semester I have met with the students for one
to two hours every Friday afternoon to actually work through old copies of the
physics GRE and discuss test-taking strategies. Several of the students
involved have signed up for one hour of credit for participating in these
groups.
2. Each
semester I act as the academic advisor for between five and eight physics
students.
3. I
participated in the Faculty Mentor Program from Spring of 1995 through Fall
1997
4. I
have worked on in class honors projects with numerous students from the Physics
109, 111, 207, 217 and 220.
H.
Instructional
activities outside assigned classes (seminars, colloquiums, guest lectures,
etc).
·
Presentations for Elementary Through College
Level Classes
As part of my
community outreach activities, I regularly present Dr. Dan the Science Man
programs to elementary school students both to enrich their classroom activities
as well as to just have some fun and stimulate interest in science. Most of these presentations have been done
for the Thomas Metcalf School, however, I have done them for other groups as
well. A list of the presentations is
given below.
|
Title |
Date |
Audienece |
Hair Raising Electricity
|
March 1999 |
25 students (ISU Day Care Center) |
|
Really Hot and Really Cold, The Science of Heat |
April 1998 |
30 students (Mulberry School Kindergarten and Preschool) |
|
Weather Physics |
January 2001 January 2001 (2 times) January 2000 |
20 students (Metcalf Kindergarten) 40 students (Metcalf Kindergarten) 19 students (Metcalf Kindergarten) |
|
Dr. Dan the Science Man |
May 1999 November 1999 |
25 students (Trinity Lutheran School Kindergarten) 4 students (Pack 32 Tiger Cub Den) |
|
Magnets |
October 1997 |
15 students (Mulberry School Kindergarten) |
|
Stars, Rainbows and Light Bulbs, the Science of Light and Color |
February 1998 |
15 students (Mulberry School Kindergarten) |
|
States of Mater: Solids liquids gasses and plasma |
January 2001 (2 times) January 2000 |
45 students (Metcalf 1st grade) 21 students (Metcalf 1st grade) |
|
Bed of Nails Demonstration |
January 2000 December 1998 |
21 students (Metcalf 1st grade) 25 students (ISU Child Care Center) |
|
Physics of Sound |
February 2001 (2 times) December 2001 (2 times) |
45 students (Metcalf 2nd grade) 45 students (Metcalf 2nd grade) |
|
Dr. Dan the Science Man |
February 1999 (2 times) |
30 students (Trinity Lutheran School 1st-3rd grade) |
|
Phun with Physics (2 hour hands on workshop) |
February 2001 February 1999 February 1998 |
20 students (Metcalf 3rd–6th grade) 20 students (Metcalf 4th–6th grade) 20 students (Metcalf 4th–6th grade) |
|
Physics Field Trip (2 hour hands on workshop) |
February 2000 |
15 students (Metcalf 4th–6th grade) |
|
Light bulbs, lasers and rainbows (2 hour hands on workshop) |
February 1997 |
15 students (Metcalf 4th–6th grade) |
|
It’s a Hot Topic, The Physics of Heat (2 hour hands on workshop) |
February 1996 |
15 students (Metcalf 4th–6th grade) |
|
Taking the AP Physics Exam |
March 2000 |
20 students (Bloomington High School AP Physics class) |
|
The International Space Station |
October 1998 |
12 students (Second Saturday Lecture for various high school students) |
|
Magnetic Storms in Space |
September 1996 |
12 students (Second Saturday Lecture for various high school students) |
|
Physics of Light |
February 1996 |
15 students (ISU FCS 345: Guest lecture for architectural lighting class.) |
·
Additional General Audience Presentations
In addition to the
programs presented at local schools, I have presented more specialized general
audience talks for the ISU Physics Department and other organizations.
|
Title |
Date |
Organization |
|
Self-Consistent
Current Sheet Structures in the Quiet-Time Magnetotail |
September
28, 1993 |
ISU Physics
Department Colloquium |
|
Kinetic
modeling of short scale length plasma equilibria |
December 7,
1994 |
ISU Physics
Department Informal Seminar |
|
Kinetic
modeling of plasma equilibria |
March 6,
1995 |
ISU Physics
Department Informal Seminar |
|
Equilibrium
structures of boundary layers in the magnetosphere |
September
7, 1995 |
ISU Physics
Department Informal Seminar |
|
Sheath
Structures in a Magnetized Plasma |
April 28,
1996 |
ISU
Colloquium |
|
Magnetic
Substorms |
October
1996 |
Twin Cities
Amateur Astronomy Club |
|
Global
Consequences on nonlinear particle dynamics in the earth’s magnetotail |
November,
20 1997 |
SX meeting
at Illinois Wesleyan University |
|
The Cluster
II Mission |
November, 2001 |
ISU
Department of Physics AMO seminar |
·
Work with the Educational Testing Service
(ETS)
Every year,
approximately 40,000 high school students take one or two of a possible three
Advanced Placements exams in Physics.
For four of the last five years I have been one of approximately 90
graders selected from across the country to evaluate the exams. This has proven to be a great source of
In addition to grading
the long answer portion of the Advanced Placement exam in physics, I have also
been selected to write multiple choice questions to be included on the
exam. Finally, I served on a standards
setting board for the ETS CLEP test in the natural sciences.
I.
Awards
or honors for teaching.
Selected by David King
to be honored at the Red Tassel Chapter of Mortar Board Faculty/Staff
Reception, October 20, 1994.
Physics department nominee for the Teaching Initiative Award, 1997.