Anthropology
Discipline Assessment 2006-2007
Scope
of assessment activities
___⇒__Course-embedded
assessment
___⇒___
Pre- and post-testing
______
Outside the classroom
______
Across the discipline
Direct
measures of student learning
___⇒__
Capstone experience
______
Portfolio assessment
______
Standardized tests
______
Performance on national licensure, certification or
preprofessional
exams
______
Qualitative internal and external juried review of
of
comprehensive senior projects
______
Externally reviewed exhibitions and performances in
the
arts
______
External evaluation of performance during internships
Discussion
and Description
Discipline
goals, direct measures, and improved student learning
1.
Anthropology discipline goals. The goals of the discipline are to
á
acquaint students with the concerns, theories, and
methods of the discipline through comparative understanding of the range of
human societies in both humanistic and scientific terms
á
enhance student competency in applying anthropology as
a science
á
provide students with competency in a major subfield of
anthropology that addresses biological variation, human evolution, and the
human capacity to create culture.
The
sociology curriculum supplements anthropology.
2.
Course-embedded assessment. Pre- and post-test.
Physical
anthropology. Physical anthropology, the
study of human biology in the framework of evolution, is a major subfield of
anthropology. This course satisfies the science lab general education
requirement.
The
course seeks to develop student understanding in three broad areas:
i. the
biological basis of human life through the study of genetic inheritance, human
adaptation, and variation
ii. the
study of living non-human primates and their social behavior
iii. the principles
of evolution as well as the evolutionary history of fossil anthropoids,
hominoids, and ancestral humans.
All
three areas were assessed by using pre- and post-testing methods. The tests
consisted of a string of concrete questions that looked at different aspects of
the area.
For
the first area, for example, the pre- and post-test focus was on five aspects
of the relationship of human adaptation and variation to the notion of human
race. Learning strategies between the pre- and post-test included laboratory
exercises such as precise cranio-facial measurements, besides in-class lecture
and discussion, and out-of-class reading. The pre- and post-test consisted of
questions to assess student learning in each of the five aspects of this
relationship. The instructor recorded the frequency with which students
demonstrated that they had achieved each learning objective.
The
assessment for the other two areas was similarly designed and implemented.[1]
The
instructor has implemented a number of new learning strategies for the course
based on student performance over the past few years. The assessment outlined
above and presented in detail in the full report in the appendices was first
used in the fall of 2006.
General
education categories spanned by the discipline
Anthropology
courses carry one of the following general education designators: SS, human
behavior, social processes, and institutions; Sci-L, physical and biological
sciences, with lab; HDiv, human diversity; IP, international perspective; Envt,
people and the environment; or E/CR, ethical and civic responsibility.
Exceptions are directed study, seminar in anthropological theory, and senior
seminar, which bear no general education designator.
Art
History Discipline Assessment 2006-2007
Scope
of assessment activities
___⇒__Course-embedded
assessment
___⇒___
Pre- and post-testing
______
Outside the classroom
______
Across the discipline
Direct
measures of student learning
___⇒__
Capstone experience
______
Portfolio assessment
______
Standardized tests
______
Performance on national licensure, certification or
preprofessional
exams
______
Qualitative internal and external juried review of
of
comprehensive senior projects
______
Externally reviewed exhibitions and performances in
the
arts
______
External evaluation of performance during internships
Discussion
and Description
Discipline
goals, direct measures, and improved student learning
1.
Art History discipline goals. The purposes of the art history curriculum are to
á
develop studentsÕ understanding of some of the
historical traditions in the visual arts
á
teach students methods of analysis and interpretation
of works of art
á
help students discover the rich and complex
relationship of art to other aspects of culture.
2.
Course-embedded assessment. Pre-test/post-test.
Principles
of Art and Renaissance to Modern
Art. Both are required for the art history
major and are also taken by non-majors for general education credits. Principles is the first course in the major. Neither has prerequisites.
Both have the same learning objectives, which reflect the discipline learning
goals:
á
to become familiar with important works of art
á
to develop the ability to analyze the formal properties
of works of art
á
to develop an understanding of the relationship of art
to its social context.
Student
learning was tracked with three exams in Principles and four in Renaissance. The two courses together provided six opportunities
for measuring improved learning of the course objectives in moving from one
exam to the next. In moving from the first to the second exam, improvement was
detected in five of the six objectives, and in three instances the improvment
was quite dramatic. In Principles,
the instructor attributed the improved learning to Òan increasing focus on
stressing these data in the classroomÓ and on implementing a study guide. In Renaissance, students achieved high marks on the first exam on
two of the objectives. The instructor notes that the relatively poor
performance on the third objective seemed due to a confusion of material, which
was cleared up in subsequent class meetings, as revealed by a strong
performance on the second exam. Generally students possessed correct
information and any weakness in their written work was due to lack of precision
or thoroughness. He concludes his report with the happy observation, ÒThis was
the best 1000 level class I have ever taught.Ó[2]
General
education categories spanned by the discipline
Art
History courses all bear the FA, fine arts, general education designator with
the exception of directed study, Italian Renaissance and Baroque Art in
Context, and the Capstone Assessment of Student Experience in Art History,
which bear none.
Biology
Discipline Assessment 2006-2007
Scope
of assessment activities
___⇒__Course-embedded
assessment
___⇒___
Pre- and post-testing
______
Outside the classroom
______
Across the discipline
Direct
measures of student learning
___⇒__
Capstone experience
______
Portfolio assessment
______
Standardized tests
______
Performance on national licensure, certification or
preprofessional
exams
______
Qualitative internal and external juried review of
of
comprehensive senior projects
______
Externally reviewed exhibitions and performances in
the
arts
______
External evaluation of performance during internships
Discussion
and Description
Discipline
goals, direct measures, and improved student learning
1.
The biology curriculum is designed to provide students with
á
biological knowledge
á
scientific skills as part of their general education
á
the skills to conduct and interpret scientific research
á
the ability to communicate scientific information both
verbally and in writing.
2.
The Capstone Course: Senior Seminar.
Senior
seminar is the majorÕs capstone course, in which students present an hour-long
seminar on a biological topic, thereby demonstrating their ability to
communicate scientific information verbally. The course is intimately related
to the acquisition of writing skills, since it is often the case that the topic
written about in Biological Communications is the subject of the talk in Senior
Seminar.
A
number of changes based on assessment have been made over the years to improve
student learning. The change in grading from S/N to A/F has both improved
student effort and provided students better feedback on their efforts. The
interaction of student and faculty advisor in the run-up to the seminar has
been greatly intensified, that is to say, there is a much more hands-on
approach by the faculty. A schedule has been instituted in which students must
meet a series of benchmarks before the seminar. Qualitatively, the faculty has
seen great improvement in the seminars.
3.
Assessment-based curricular changes to improve student learning.
3.1.
Fundamentals of Genetics, Evolution, and Development.
This,
the new gateway to the major, is designed to give students a firm evolutionary
framework for subsequent course-work. It replaces the previous gateway course,
Principles of Biology, which was taught at a less introductory level, producing
students with uneven levels of knowledge and skills.
3.2.
Biological Communications II.
The
new Fundamentals course is less writing-intensive than the Principles course it
replaced. The addition of this course to the already existing Biological
Communications I compensates for this change.
3.3.
Molecular Biology.
This
course has been required for the major for a long time, but has been aimed at
juniors, and was often not taken until the senior year. However, it became
apparent that knowledge of molecular biology was often needed by students in
Biological Communications and in preparing for Senior Seminar, and that too
many students struggled because they hadnÕt yet taken the course. Hence, the
course is being reconfigured to make it appropriate for sophomores, and will be
taken in the spring semester of the sophomore year.
3.4.
Breadth and width.
The
Biology faculty judged that the balance between breadth and depth was skewed
away from the former. To correct this imbalance, the major now consists of five
core courses and four electives instead of the previous six and three. Genetics
was dropped as a core course, but the topic became part of the new Fundamentals
course to guarantee that majors have knowledge of the field.
4.
Course-embedded assessment: pre- and post-testing.
Pre-
and post-testing has been used in two of the majorÕs core courses, Evolution of
Biodiversity and Ecology, both taught by the same instructor. He has used two
different multiple-choice exams as the assessment tool. The first exam used in
Ecology was based on questions appearing in the Graduate Record Exam. However,
some of the questions were so easy that high scores on the pre-test resulted,
leaving little room for measuring improvement. Other questions were esoteric,
which made it Òhard to map the results to particular units of my class.Ó[3]
For both courses, the instructor now uses questions drawn from the test bank
that accompanies textbooks. In all five instances where the pre-test/post-test
format was used, the class showed improvements in student learning.[4]
4.
Course evaluation by students
Instructors
often use end-of-course questionnaires for student feedback and evaluation of
their courses. These are useful for improving courses. An example for Biol 3121,
Molecular Biology, is included in the discipline summary.
General
education categories spanned by the discipline
Biology
courses bear one of two general education designators: Sci or Sci-L, physical
and biological sciences without and with lab, respectively. Exceptions are
directed study, human anatomy, biological communication I & II, practicum
in biology, biochemistry lab, and senior seminar, none of which carry a general
education designator.
Chemistry
and Biochemistry Discipline Assessment 2006-2007
Scope
of assessment activities
___⇒__Course-embedded
assessment
___⇒___
Pre- and post-testing
______
Outside the classroom
______
Across the discipline
Direct
measures of student learning
___⇒__
Capstone experience
______
Portfolio assessment
___⇒__
Standardized tests
______
Performance on national licensure, certification or
preprofessional
exams
______
Qualitative internal and external juried review of
of
comprehensive senior projects
______
Externally reviewed exhibitions and performances in
the
arts
______
External evaluation of performance during internships
Discussion
and Description
Discipline
goals, direct measures, and improved student learning
1.
Chemistry and biochemistry discipline goals.
Students
study, at a level appropriate for undergraduates,
á
the structure of matter and
á
the conditions required for material change.
The
curriculum is designed to prepare students for post-graduate work in a wide
variety of fields, or for a career in industry, or in secondary teaching.
Students may earn either the traditional chemistry or the biochemistry major.
2.
Capstone course: the two-semester senior seminar.
Senior
chemistry majors should be able to
á
undertake an in-depth study of a specialized topic in
chemistry and
á
orally present the results of their research in a
professional manner.
There
are concrete expectations about the seminarÕs format and depth. Over the past
five years the faculty has assessed the seminar and instituted a number of
changes to improve student learning.
á
The first semester has been moved to the spring
semester of the junior year and a number of learning strategies instituted.
á
The grading basis has been changed from S/N to A/F.
á
The faculty has prepared guidelines for students to
follow during the semester of their seminar to assure timely and thorough
preparation.
á
Although one faculty member is formally assigned to
supervise the course, each faculty member supervises one or more students in
seminar preparation.
á
All faculty contribute to judging the degree to which
each student has met the goals of the seminar.
3.
Course-embedded assessment. Pre-test/post-test.
3a.
General chemistry.
This
course is required for the chemistry, biology, and geology majors, and
satisfies the general education requirement for physical and biological
sciences with lab. Lecture and lab in this course are designed to complement
each other. The instructor assessed student learning in lab with exam questions
in lecture. The learning objectives to be met were understanding
i. the
theory of density measurements
ii. the
concept of significant figures
iii. the concepts
of the limiting reagent and percent yield
iv. the concepts
of acid-base chemistry and solution stoichiometry
v. the
interplay between atomic spectroscopy and models of the atom.
The
instructor recorded the frequency[5]
with which students met the learning objectives. In general, student success
was high except for the second objective, which prompted the instructor to
create a strategy for improving student learning for significant figures.
3b.
Analytical chemistry.
The
learning objectives were understanding
i. multiple
ways to represent concentrations
ii. how
to convert between units
iii. propagation
of uncertainty
iv. dilution and
density
v. pH and
pOH, and the mathematical relationship between the two
vi. use of
correct significant figures.
The
pre-test would better be described as a first test, since students had studied
these ideas by attending lecture, reading, and working exercises. The post-test
was the final exam in which questions similar to those on the first test were
used to measure improvements in student learning. The first and final
frequencies of success were recorded. In between, students had the opportunity
to improve their mastery by studying the first exam with instructorÕs comments,
meeting with the instructor individually, encountering the ideas again in
different contexts in lecture and lab, and by revisiting their earlier studies.
3c.
Physical chemistry.
A
key discipline goal is that students should be able to understand Òthe conditions
required for material change.Ó The second law of thermodynamics is the most
general law governing material change. This suggested two related learning
objectives that students should be able to apply the second law to
i. phase
changes and
ii. chemical
changes.
The
pre-and post-test strategies were essentially the same as those in analytical
chemistry, with the exception that after the pre-test two concrete learning
difficulties were identified, brought to the attention of the class through a
couple of strategies, and then monitored on the final exam. One difficulty
persisted and the other disappeared completely.
4.
Nationally standardized exam. Organic chemistry.
The
American Chemical Society prepares comprehensive examinations in the subfields
of chemistry. The organic chemistry test, which is meant to be administered
after a year of study, has been
used at UMM three times in recent years. In all three instances UMM
students performed at two to five points above the national norms.
|
Year |
National Test Mean |
UMM Test Mean |
UMM National Percentile |
|
2001-2 |
43.3 |
48 |
62 |
|
2002-3 |
38.7 |
43 |
66 |
|
2006-7 |
43.1 |
45 |
55 |
General
education categories spanned by the discipline
Most
chemistry courses carry either the Sci-L or Sci general education designator
for physical and biological sciences with lab or without lab, resp. Exceptions
are directed study, chemistry seminar, and all one-credit[6]
laboratory courses, which have no general education designator.
Computer
Science Discipline Assessment 2006-2007
Scope
of assessment activities
___⇒__Course-embedded
assessment
___⇒___
Pre- and post-testing
______
Outside the classroom
______
Across the discipline
Direct
measures of student learning
___⇒__
Capstone experience
______
Portfolio assessment
___⇒__
Standardized tests
___⇒__
Performance on national licensure, certification or
preprofessional
exams
______
Qualitative internal and external juried review of
of
comprehensive senior projects
______
Externally reviewed exhibitions and performances in
the
arts
______
External evaluation of performance during internships
Discussion
and Description
Discipline
goals, direct measures, and improved student learning
1.
Computer science discipline goals. The goals for students are to
á
learn the fundamentals of computing including
problem-solving skills, algorithm development, programming, and developing
effective solutions through group activities
á
acquire appropriate communication skills for the field
á
develop a broader perspective of the computing field.
2.
Capstone course: computer science seminar.
2.1.
Seminar I and II.
The
two seminars address specific discipline goals. Sophomore majors take Seminar
I, where they learn the fundamentals of reading, writing, and presenting
scientific literature, and study ethical issues in computing. In Seminar II,
senior majors research a current topic in the field, and work one-on-one with a
faculty member to develop a written document and professional oral
presentation. The wide variety of options and presentations helps students
achieve the desired broader perspective of the field. The
course culminates in a professional style conference where the students present
their papers.
2.2.
Assessment tools.
All
faculty and students attending the presentations in both seminars complete an
evaluation. At the end of the Seminar II conference, the faculty meet for the
formal assessment of the papers and presentations. The student papers are bound
as a conference proceedings and archived.
2.3.
Improving student learning.
This
occurs at both the formative and summative levels. Students work one-on-one
with faculty in developing their papers and presentations. They get feedback
from the post-conference evaluations. Assessment of what used to be ÒSenior
SeminarÓ led to splitting seminar into its sophomore and senior components. The
split introduces ethical issues earlier in the curriculum, and provides
students with increased and earlier opportunities to write and speak about the
field.
3.
Course-embedded assessment.
3.1.
Software Design and Development.
The
discipline regards this as a core course in reaching the first set of
disciplinary goals. Groups of students undertake a major class project, which
becomes the focus of assessment. ÒSome of the changes in this course over time
have included incorporating tools that allow the instructor to better assess a
studentÕs contribution to the class project (bug tracking, code commits,
software versioning, documentation, and testing tools). Since student learning
in the course would seem to be connected to the amount they contribute to the
project, the changing use of these tools over time is a story about assessing
student learning in the course.Ó[7]
3.2.
Two courses: Introduction to Digital Media Computation; and Foundations of
Computer Science.
These
are entry level courses that used similar assessment tools. In both, student
progress was tracked on certain topics or learning objectives, and course
activity was adjusted based on the outcomes. The tools for tracking progress
were quizzes, tests, and Òwhaddayaknows,Ó the last-named being assessments that
did not contribute directly to the course grade.
3.2.1.
The Digital Media course.
Several
key learning goals are incorporated into this course. One of them is
understanding the concept of recursion. Assessment suggested that the topic was
introduced too late in the courseÕs first offering. As a consequence, the
instructor not only introduced it earlier, but revisited it on a number of
occasions. The final measurements of this learning objective showed a
significant improvement in student learning of recursion.
3.2.2.
The Foundations course.
Online
quizzes provided instant feedback to students, and whaddayaknows feedback
within a day or two. The exams used in the course became a kind of continuing
pre-test/post-test assessment activity. The instructor used the results of one
exam to guide learning activities, and used the next exam to assess whether
these activities had improved student learning.
4.
Programming contests.
The
check mark next to performance (above) refers to these contests. ÒOur students
have been participating in the DigiKey programming contest for several years
and have taken many of the top places. This is a regional contest that our
students participate in by invitation.Ó[8]
General
education categories spanned by the discipline
Computer
science courses all bear the M/SR, mathematics/symbolic reasoning, general
education designator with the exception of seminar and directed study, which
carry none.
[1] The full report is in the appendices. It identifies
concretely the aspects that were evaluated and the frequencies with which
students met learning objectives.
[2] All quotes are from the art history assessment report
in the appendices, which also contains all of the numerical data collected as
well as the instructorsÕ observations and interpretations.
[3] Quoted from the Biology discipline report, which is in
the appendices.
[4] Numerical results along with some brief instructor
comments are in the discipline report.
[5] The numerical results are in the appendices.
[6] UMM policy is that a course must be worth at least two
credits to satisfy a general education requirement.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.