1. Report by Group 3 NEW LEARNING AND TEACHING METHODS

2. Report Group 3 Mihaly Benedict University of Szeged, HU Hans Joerg Jodl University of Kaiserslautern, GE Ivan Ruddock University of Strathclyde, UK Elena Sassi University of Naples Federico II, IT Robert Sporken University of Namur, BE Sonja Feiner-Valkier Eindhoven University of Technology NL

3. Main activities during 2006/2007, page 1 General questionnaire –More detailed information on new teaching methods differentiated on Bachelor and Master, regarding categories and quantity –Information on tools, scientific software and programming languages in Bachelor and Master

4. Main activities during 2006/2007, page 2 Alumni questionnaire among alumni: universities from all the EG-members of the STEPS-project on: –Information company, institution –Position of alumni and other physicists –Technical/scientific software, tools and programming languages –Soft skills

5. Main activities during 2006/2007, page 3 Selection of MM on Solid State Physics and Elementary Particles: –MPTL-workshop Wrocław next week Evaluation of MM-material in universities from EG3- members: –7 responses, 4 of them positive, all 4 used MM as demonstrationmaterial in lectures; –Other 3: no time, not appropriate

6. General questionnaire: new methods Inventory on courses and ECTS credits, for Bachelor and Master: –Distance- and Blended learning –Problem based learning, project oriented learning –Student centered learning, Peer Instruction

7. General questionnaire, 62 universities

10. General questionnaire: tools Use of: –Modelling environment –Sensor based (real time) lab –Remote virtual lab –Video analysis Use of: –Software (matlab, origin, labview,…) –Programming Languages (C++, Java,..)

11. General questionnaire, 68 universities

14. Conclusions General questionnaire, page 1 New teaching and learning methods: –Difficult to interpret data: great variety of methods; few universities have completely novel approach; –Bachelor: more PBL & projects –Master: more Distance and Blended learning –Student Centered & Peer Instruction: very few and no big difference

15. Conclusions General questionnaire, page 2 Software, math-packages and programming languages: –No significant difference between Ba and Ma –Matlab, Labview and Origin –Mathematica, Maple –C++, Java, Fortran

16. INFORMATION ALUMNI questionnaire Date & year of graduation Main activity company/institution Position of alumni in company/institution Type of tasks for physicists in company/institution Standard technical/scientific software in your field The same for advanced techniques The same for tools to collect information The same for programming languages Importance of soft skills

17. Main activity company institution

18. Position alumni in company/institution

19. Type of tasks for new physicists in co/inst

20. Standard technical/scientific software Phys based Industry, University and Research Center: NO difference: Matlab: 36% Labview: 20% Origin:11% All others, about 35, only once or twice mentioned.

21. Information tools and programming languages Research Based Industry, University and Research Center: NO difference: Google: 33% Wikipedia: 20% Specialized Databases: 13% Journals: 10% C++ and Java, no Fortran in industry

22. SOFT SKILLS ALUMNI Grouping in 8 new categories; importance measured in 1-5 scale. Teamwork, Social skills, Networking Independent working, Self-leadership Result-oriented attitude, Time management Analytical thinking, Problem solving Flexibility, Self-learning potential Initiative Oral and written communication Focus on customers, Financial aspects, Quality vs. Quantity

23. Average score total group 4,1 Physics based industry 4,7 Score on 1-to-5 scale on TEAMWORK, SOCIAL SKILLS, NETWORKING University 4,0

24. Average score total group 3,9 Physics based industry 4,1 Score on 1-to-5 scale on INDEPENDENT WORKING, SELF-LEADERSHIP University 4,0

25. Average score total group 3,8 Physics based industry 4,3 Score on 1-to-5 scale on RESULT ORIENTED ATTITUDE, TIME MANAGEMENT University 3,6

26. Average score total group 3.9 Physics based industry 4,2 Score on 1-to-5 scale on ANALYTICAL THINKING, PROBLEM SOLVING University 4,5

27. Average score total group 4,3 Physics based industry 4,1 Score on 1-to-5 scale on FLEXIBILITY, SELF-LEARNING POTENTIAL University 4,3

28. Average score total group 4,3 Physics based industry 3,8 Score on 1-to-5 scale on INITIATIVE University 4,0

29. Average score total group 4,0 Physics based industry 3,8 Score on 1-to-5 scale on ORAL & WRITTEN COMMUNICATION University 3,8

30. Average score total group 3,1 Physics based industry 4,1 Score on 1-to-5 scale on FOCUS ON CUSTOMERS, FINANCIAL ASPECTS, QU - QU University 2,8

31. Conclusions alumni questionnaire Hard to get sufficient data from various countries; mostly due to difficulties in contacting alumni No contradiction between data alumni and data from universities on tools, scientific software and programming languages Soft skills in general very important; small differences between industry and university

32. Outlook on future Continuation of MM- evaluation among the steps members Selection on good practice examples in new methods Further work on data from 2 alumni questionnaires Multimedia evaluation by MPTL: –Publication in 2008, Jodl and Mason, 4-6 years