MATH 241 After implementing
assessment, faculty in the math department discovered weaknesses in the tool
used. They are revisiting the questions asked on the tool to be sure they
refer to the course outcomes and that higher-order thinking is required of
HST 245 Faculty suggested
that the course outcomes be reduced from nine to five. They also saw that
the assessment tool used did not measure students’ knowledge of the
twentieth century, and so will develop a tool that does so and reassess the
course in 2005-6. Overall weakness in student reading and writing was noted
HST 141 Faculty identified a
specific outcome as giving students a hard time and subsequently will
increase the amount of time spent on teaching that outcome during the
CIS 111 From the assessment
process, CIS faculty realized that certain outcomes were not being addressed
by faculty. They also gave this course prerequisite status to ensure that
students took this course before entering into higher-level CIS courses.
BIO 205 Through a pre- and
post-test, Biology faculty identified which outcomes students had more
knowledge of. This assessment examined the many variables affecting student
performance, including preparation, outcome requirements, and revision of
course materials. Also, faculty will link this assessment with the
assessment of BIO 206 to see where improvement in the course sequence can be
FOS 160 Faculty reinforced
that their course was meeting the standards they wanted.
BUS 122 Faculty noted that
attendance and participation correlated with class grades.
ART 156 Art faculty will
continue dialogue concerning the amount of guidelines available to students
in their final project and the emphasis to be placed in composition
requirements of photography.
PHL 127 Faculty noted that
course outcomes were being met by students, but that the low number of
classes offered made assessment of the course difficult.
Through their analysis of results, DVE faculty
discovered that students needed work on transitional devices. They plan to
devote faculty meeting time to discussion about how to better teach this
skill and also to reexamine text books to ensure that that skill is
Math faculty infused critical thinking requirements in
its course and its assessment. “In our courses, a writing problem…was
included in our assessment.” Faculty also discovered that including
pictorial displays of information/data to be used in solving math questions
greatly increased student success rate on their questions. Last, faculty is
grappling with ways in which to improve student ability to complete the test
in the allotted time.
The English department continued its discussion of
English 102 and decided to require a particular amount of pages to be
written by students, rather than a set number of papers.
After performing an analysis between BIO 205 and 206,
faculty plan to “improve learning by creating better assessment tools,
revising course outcomes, and finding ways to help students overcome poor
preparation.” Faculty also noted that performance on the two outcomes
central to BIO 206 was exceptionally high while the two that are covered in
205 was lower. The results re-emphasized that the prerequisite for BIO 205
may be set too low and be the reason for low performance in that course.
Likewise, students who perform poorly in that course often do not take BIO
206, which helps to explain the high performance in that course. The
biology faculty have changed the timing of administering the post-test for
BIO 205 assessment to give students time to decompress after taking their
final unit exam. Finally, the results indicated a potential need to
communicate the importance of emphasizing the difference between course
objectives and course outcomes to the entire faculty.
Faculty found that they needed to “incorporate more of
[interactive learning] into the instruction in [their] introductory physics
classes” to enhance student learning of Newtonian concepts. To do this, the
faculty is currently reviewing literature about integration of these
pedagogical skills with physics classes; experimenting with a Personal
Response System, which allows them “to carefully select review questions
during a lecture;” and experimenting with animated demonstrations of
The English 101 assessment revealed that more
consistency in the requirements for the research paper could be offered.
Hence, from the assessment, English 101 now requires students to write
research paper with a minimum of 1200 words and at least five reliable
resources. They also allow students to document sources according to MLA,
APA, or Chicago format. Last, the assessment has lead to a change in the
policy-making structure of the English department, where each course will
have a standing committee responsible for overseeing any academic issues
associated with that course. One of the responsibilities of each committee
will be to make recommendations for department approval about revisions in
the course’s master syllabus and any materials that appear in the adjunct
handbook corresponding to that course.