Biology

Bachelor of Science in Biology (46)

Contact Person:
Dr. Gary A Heidt
Department of Biology
(501) 569-3511
gaheidt@ualr.edu

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK Plan No. 46
Assessment Progress Report Form - Calendar Year 2004

I. USE OF ASSESSMENT FOR PROGRAM BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENT:

The most important goal for any assessment project is to provide information to build and improve programs.  This section should, therefore, be weighted the most heavily of all in your overall score evaluation.

Please discuss how you have used assessment findings this past year to understand, improve, and/or make decisions regarding the program.  What have been your main findings?  How did you analyze them?  How do you interpret them?  Have these findings led to making any significant changes in your program?  If so, what are they?  Please focus on evidence for or proposed changes that will lead to improvements in student learning outcomes.

This past fall (2004) the Long Range Planning Committee proposed some far reaching curriculum changes (see Attachment 3). These changes were made taking into account several factors including: assessment reports, interviews with graduating students, changes in curricula in other institutions, and responses to changing biological career paths. The proposal in currently under debate in the department. If enacted, changes in our assessment plan will be affected.

At present we are relatively satisfied with our assessment plan and the results we have obtained. As mentioned, we are not happy with ACAT scores over the past two years and will do a detailed study of the scores and test. Individual assessment by faculty have demonstrated the need for technology in the classroom. All faculty now use some form of technology. Several have taken and are implementing WEB-CT in the classroom and report that this is well received by students. One section of BIOL 1401 was put on-line this past fall. All faculty are taking the assessment of their courses seriously.

II. FACULTY AND STAKE HOLDER INVOLVEMENT:

An undergraduate student, graduate student, and alumnus are full members of the Assessment Committee. They provided major input in the development of the survey instrument for alumni and employers. In addition, the students have interacted to provide information for exit interviews with seniors. Exit interviews have not yet been conducted except on a trial basis with several graduating seniors. The exact methodology of these interviews has not been determined. However, they too will be used for assessing Objective 5 in 2005. Students are also involved through student course evaluations as well as individual consultations.

Data from these surveys and interviews will be shared with the department for discussion and recommendations will be forwarded to the Curriculum Committee and/or other appropriate departmental committees for evaluation and/or implementation to the departmental program.

Our assessment plan and reports are on both the CSAM and departmental web pages. When available, will also add the survey results.

III. APPROACH:

Goals:

The mission of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Biology Department is to contribute to the development of the scientific intellect of the student, to provide the student with a foundation of biological knowledge, provide experiences in problem solving, and critical thinking and to encourage free inquiry.  This mission complies with the UALR mission to develop the intellect of students, to discover and disseminate knowledge, and to serve and strengthen society by enhancing awareness in the scientific arena.  Furthermore, the department contributes to the UALR mission through quality teaching, involvement of students in research, and service to the local, regional and national community.

Educational goals of the Biology Department include educating students to: (1) become scientifically literate citizens who understand the basic principles underlying modem biology and understanding biological issues and their impact on the individual and society for today as well as the future; (2) develop innovative critical thinking in biology to make reasoned decisions and ethical choices; (3) develop the desire and initiative to become a lifelong learner and understand new scientific !information; and  (4) prepare them to be successful in pursuing careers in biological science.

It is further the goal of the Biology Department to provide an environment that is highly conducive to learning. This includes, but is not limited, to: (1) the use of modern biological equipment and instrumentation; (2) access to laboratories (both research and teaching) and classrooms which reflect modern furnishings and a pleasant physical setting; (3) providing technology-based educational opportunities;(4) providing modem computer facilities for student use; and (5) encouraging interested students to participate in independent study/research activities with faculty. While these are not necessarily educational goals, they must remain Departmental goals to facilitate our students= educational experiences including learning and satisfaction with those experiences. By indicating them in our assessment report, the Department will remain cognizant of this aspect of the students= education and the goals will remain a Departmental priority.

Objectives:

 1.  Students should have competence in the following basic biological areas: botany, zoology, microbiology, genetics, and ecology.
 2.  Students should exhibit critical thinking skills in both written and oral presentations.
 3.  Students should exhibit skills in scientific writing/reporting and the presentation and reporting of scientific data.
 4.  Students should have mastered the scientific method and be able to evaluate scientific and popular media literature as to scientific merit.
 5.  Students should have acquired the specialized knowledge and skills (field or laboratory) to successfully compete for career goals.

This year we planned on addressing objective 5 through a survey to alumni and their employers. After attending a workshop on telephone surveys (by the UALR Institute of Government) we decided to have them conduct such a survey and use our assessment funds to pay for the survey. We thought that this survey would be done during fall 2004, however, several other CSAM departments and the CSAM Assessment Committee wanted to also participate. The survey was postponed until this spring. Our departmental assessment committee did prepare the instrument for Biology’s use (see Attachment 1)

Upon realizing that we would not be able to address Objective 5, we again addressed Objectives 1-4, as they are interrelated. With over 350 majors and 17 full-time faculty, assessment in some areas is difficult. In courses above the core (BIOL 1400-Science of Biology or 1401–Evolutionary and Environmental Biology, 2401-Microbiology, 2402-Botany, 2403-Zoology, 3300-Genetic, 3303-Ecology, and 4190-Senior Seminar) assessment other than by individual instructors is problematic due to the wide variety of courses taken by students to complete their 17 hours of electives; during 2004 there were 18 non-core undergraduate courses taught in the department. All majors must take the core courses, making these easier to determine if assessment techniques are working and where changes need to be made in course structure. All faculty (by departmental constitution) must teach a core course at least once per year.

During this past year, assessment has been discussed n department meetings and between faculty teaching core courses as well as in their specialties. Further, faculty outline their assessment plans on their PAR’s and these are discussed during annual evaluations. It is my belief that biology faculty are well aware of assessment and the goals and objective of the department. Further, they teach their courses in such a way as to meet those goals and objectives. For example, in all courses faculty require students to conduct experiments and write the results in scientific format, several require oral presentations, all give essay exams which are designed to demonstrate critical thinking and problem solving. Analytical skills are emphasized in laboratory exercises.

Biology 1400 and 1401 are university core courses and are assessed separately. The assessment reports on these courses have made excellent marks over the past several years, including fall 2004. Specifically we did the following to assess our core courses (other than 1400 and 1401) and the departmental objectives listed above:

1. In all core courses, students are required to make a 70% or better, this represents one method of assessment. We maintain the breakdown for core courses other than BIOL 1400 and 1401. Data accumulated do not include the number of students who have withdrawn from the classes. Over 75% of students finish the course with a ‘C’ or better. This tells us that our students are learning the material we deem important to our objectives. The main value of keeping these data is that it can rapidly alert us to potential problems in a course.

2. Although presentation and specific examples explaining biological concepts varies between instructors, each core course has similar objectives. Lab schedules in BIOL 2401 and 2403 are the same among instructors. As in upper level objectives, emphasis is placed on writing skills, critical thinking, and analytical skills. These are assessed through the students’ performance on reports and exams (see #1) and later in Senior Seminar. The core courses and labs are designed to provide competence in the basic biological areas of botany, zoology, microbiology, genetics, and ecology, which are later tested in the ACAT exam (see below).

3. Senior Seminar (BIOL 4190) serves as a capstone course and addresses objectives 1-4. Objective 1 has been assessed primarily through the use of the Area Concentration Achievement Test (ACAT) exam in Senior Seminar.  The exam is divided into five areas:  bacteriology, cell biology, ecology, genetics, and vascular botany. All of these areas except cell biology are included in the core Biology curriculum (cell biology is an elective).  Results are provided as follows: 

• Standard scores for the Department compared to the overall comparison group

• Raw score summary for Department only

• Relationship of content areas taken by examinees to content area scores

• Self-reported characteristics of examinee group

• Relationship between content area scores and self-reported GPA

• Individual examinees= standard scores

• Individual performance in stanines

Students enrolled in Senior Seminar are given the exam on the last day of class and the exams are sent to Austin Peay University for checking.  Results are returned to us within two to three months.

  National Percentile Scores by Subject Area and 
Total for the Examination

Percentile Scores By National Ranking

The 2004 scores continued to be lower than expected and we are not pleased with this trend. Additionally, 70% of the students taking the exam scored below the 50th. percentile. We plan to examine these data and attempt to determine what, if any, reasons may be accounting for the lower than expected scores. The Assessment Committee will then  recommend any corrective actions to the department.

Objective 2 is assessed, in part, by Senior Seminar. Students are required to pick a faculty mentor and then pick a research topic that is of interest to them.  They are to search the literature, provide background information on the topic, and then discuss the research in a major core paper. This presentation includes the purpose, methods and materials, results, and discussion.  Students are then asked to critique the research in both an oral and written format.  The mentor is to guide the student in picking topics and the student's presentation, including the use of visual aids. With the successful use of the mentoring system and the rubrics for evaluation, we have been able to quantify success of this objective.  In seminar, students must attain 70% or better to pass. Student results of their written and oral presentations over the past year are shown below.

             Summary Of Senior Seminar Oral And Written Results

These data indicate that our seniors are doing very well in both their oral and written presentations. In addition, results are comparable over semesters. The standard rubrics, which have been appended in previous reports, are attached so the reader can examine how students are being evaluated (see Attachment 2).

Objective 3 is intertwined with Objective 2 and both can be assessed in the same manner. However, it should be noted that students could be successful in this objective and fail to grasp the critical thinking expected in the previous objective.  Rubrics designed for general use in Senior Seminar will discern between skills and critical thinking.  It is the responsibility of individual faculty to develop classroom assessment techniques to develop both skills and critical thinking and devise assessment tools to evaluate their success.  In seminar, students must attain 70% or better to pass. 

Many of our undergraduate students participate in research activities of our faculty.  This often culminates in presentations at scientific meetings (e.g., Arkansas Undergraduate Research Forum, Arkansas Academy of Science, Southwestern Association of Naturalists, etc.) and co- authorship of published papers.  The successful participation of students in these endeavors provide positive assessment of the program. UALR biology students consistently place in the top three presentations at the Arkansas Academy of Science.   Further, students are encouraged to present their own research in Senior Seminar.

Objective 4 - the scientific method is taught in some form in every science course. Students are continuously being exposed to it and are asked to demonstrate its use.  In their Senior Seminar presentations students must demonstrate the use of the scientific method  (e.g., see Methods section in rubric) and be able to respond properly to questions from fellow students and faculty as to its use in their research topics.  

Our activities this past year fit very well with our original assessment plan. In response to last year’s feedback we only assessed objectives 1-4 as they are somewhat intertwined (especially 2-4). As previously mentioned, we were unable to use the survey which was to have been the centerpiece of the report this year. It is planned to be completed this year and used as the main assessment tool for 2005.

Attachment 1

Attachment 2

Attachment 3