1. EPPOG outreach meeting, CERN, 4.10.2007 Michael Kobel
Planning for the 4. International Masterclasses “Hands on Particle Physics“ (?)
EPPOG outreach meeting, CERN,
Michael Kobel

2. Outline Basics Needs Amendments Next Steps 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 2007 continuing .vs. ending
Central organisation
People and infrastructure at Dresden
Michael Kobel (needs more support!)
Gisela Fischer (ATLAS/BABAR group secretary) retired successor (> 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 Domaracky plus 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 of person 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
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!) 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,
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)
Judged to be not on high-school level
Let’s have (2?-)4 trial 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 test with 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: Next week(s)
Agree on date: Th Fr ?
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 (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 s and on the Web...“)  need shorter (and thus even more?) s, Wiki?, both?, ….
Distribution of DELPHI and OPAL over the days: fine Everybody knew, what to measure and to report in EVO Conf.

18. Equipment not tested in relevant environment
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, ..) …