CSAM Summary Report on Program Assessment

April 30, 2005 

College of Science and Mathematics Assessment Committee

• Jim Fulmer, Committee Chair, Department of Mathematics

• Cindy Gilbert, Department of Nursing

• Donna Quimby, Department of Health Sciences

• Marian Douglas, Department of Chemistry

• Paul Akers, Department of Biology

• Beth McMillan, Department of Earth Science

• André Rollefson, Department of Physics and Astronomy

The College of Science and Mathematics used to a 0 to 4 point scale to rate this year’s program assessment reports. This scale corresponds to the Exceptional (4), Reasonable (3), Limited (2), and Inadequate (1) criteria distributed by the Provost’s Office. A score of 0 indicates that the area of the report was not present. The following table is a summary of the scores for each program.

Most of the undergraduate programs in the College of Science and Mathematics are rated at reasonable level, or above, in program assessment based on the PAAG criteria rubric. In general, the undergraduate programs are doing a good job with assessment, although there is variable across the college and room for improvement. It is apparent that there is a culture of assessment that is now imbedded in most of the undergraduate programs in the college. The step between reasonable and exceptional is a difficult step to make. Three programs have made that step to exceptional in all categories: B.S. /B.A. in Chemistry, B.S. in Geology, and A.S. in Nursing.  Two programs have made the step to exceptional in two categories: B.S. in Health Sciences and B.S./B.A. in Mathematics. 

The assessment plan for the M.S. in Biology is being reviewed by the CSAM Assessment Committee and Department of Biology. The Dean and the College Assessment Committee are working with the programs with inadequate or limited rating to try to improve their assessment plans and assessment process.

Strengths:

• Our college won two of the four $1,000 awards for program posters at the recent Assessment Expo.

• A new approach to the process of evaluating the Assessment Progress Reports has been initiated that involves two levels of review before a final evaluation is made. The first level is by teams as in the past, making sure that no team member evaluates his/her department’s report.  The second level is the team will bring their evaluation reports for review by the entire Assessment Committee, with a majority vote need to approve the team evaluation recommendation.  This approach has now been used for two years. 

• Once the program is working with a feedback loop, there is evidence and consistency of maintenance. We have some mature programs.  

• The maturity of assessment programs has allowed programs to focus on fewer student learning objectives annually in the assessment timeline. 

• There is considerably more assessment data being collected. It is obvious that more implementation has occurred and this has resulted in more useful assessment data.

• Most programs have good learning objectives that are linked to goals of their programs. In addition most programs have methods to assess the learning objectives.

• There has been improvement in program assessment in the programs that comprise CSAM over the past few years. As a result of continued emphasis on assessment, the college is developing faculty expertise in the area of program assessment in the programs that are scoring well in the review process.

• A benefit of participating in the assessment process is that each program has had to examine and evaluate student learning in respect to learning objectives. Programs have discovered areas in which they are doing a good job as well as a whole rather than narrower view of individual courses.

• For the first time we are using the Institute of Government-Study Research Group, Ross Hall, 6th floor, in the process of administering and collecting data for alumni surveys and employer surveys. They seem to be well prepared to assist in this data collection.

• Some programs are seeing the need to re-evaluate their assessment plans.

Areas of Concern: 

• Not all programs are demonstrating a commitment to the assessment process.

We encourage consequences for those programs that do not comply and rewards for all that have a working plan.  

Recommendations and Comments:

• Assessment funds should be made available in early fall semester.

• Remind and enforce the 10-page limit rule with 10-12 font size.

• It would be helpful to have assessment plans posted on Assessment Central. The assessment plans have more information than the approach section of the Assessment Progress Report.

• Representation from MSISM on college assessment committee

• Compare transfer student grades with non-transfer student grades in the college.

• In the Assessment Progress Reports, be sure that Student Learning Expectations are carefully stated and identified for the evaluator’s use.

• Develop a glossary of vocabulary terms on Assessment Central for use of newcomers to college assessment committees.