Biology Information Systems
Summary Analysis and Changes for Improvement 2012-13
Goal 1
One of the five students who graduated from the program during this assessment period did not obtain the basic knowledge benchmarks of no upper division biology course grades below C and a major field GPA of at least 3.0. Consequently, those benchmarks were not met, but clearly the sample size was very small, and the performance of this single student had a large effect on results.
Interestingly, all of the students scored above the benchmark for the nationally-normed Major Field Biology Assessment Test. These results are consistent with the pattern of the last several years where students who are successful in biology courses also do well on the exit exam. The biology faculty has asked the assessment office for a regression analysis to see how well overall and major GPA predicted student success on the major field test.
Action: Continue to monitor.
Suggestions for Change: None at this time.
Goal 2
The five students who graduated from the program during this assessment period met the benchmarks for this goal.
Action: Continue to monitor.
Suggestions for Change: None at this time.
Goal 3
Students take a locally developed technology exam during the semester that they complete the second general education technology course. One of the 4 students completing this test did not meet the target score for Goal 2a.4 for this year. Other benchmarks were all met.
Action: Continue to monitor.
Suggestions for Change:
None.
Goal 4
The assessment tool 4a.1 was changed in 2012 to “an upper level writing intensive course” because students were sometimes taking different courses to meet the writing requirement. Almost all students now take ENGL 379 Technical Communication.
All of the students met the benchmarks for this goal.
Action: Continue to monitor
Suggestions for Change: None at this time.
Biology Information Systems
Summary Analysis and Changes for Improvement 2011-12
Beginning with this cohort, exit exam procedure was changed to include recording quantitative student responses to questions that are used as assessment tools. The students were asked to respond using a 4-point likert scale 1=Very Dissatisfied 2=Dissatisfied 3=Satisfied 4= Very Satisfied. Benchmarks for these questions is an average score greater than 3.0 indicating satisfaction with the goal.
Goal 1
One of the three students who graduated from the program during this assessment period did not obtain the minimum GPA to meet the benchmark and also did not do well on the major field assessment test. Consequently, those benchmarks were not met, but clearly the sample size was very small, and the performance of this single student had a large effect on results.
These results are consistent with the pattern of the last several years where students who are successful in biology courses also do well on the exit exam. The biology faculty has asked the assessment office for a regression analysis to see how well overall and major GPA predicted student success on the major field test.
Action: Continue to monitor.
Suggestions for Change: None at this time.
Goal 2
The three students who graduated from the program during this assessment period met the benchmarks for this goal.
Action: Continue to monitor.
Suggestions for Change: None at this time.
Goal 3
Students at DSU no longer take the technology exam used in previous years. A new instrument is being developed on campus to assess this goal. Therefore, no results are available for Goal 2a.4 for this year. Other benchmarks were all met.
Action: Continue to monitor.
Suggestions for Change:
Include results from the revised technology exam when available.
Goal 4
The assessment tool 4a.1 was changed to “an upper level writing intensive course” because students may sometimes take different courses to meet the writing requirement.
One of the three students did not receive the benchmark grade in the writing intensive course. Again, this has a large effect on the average.
Action: Continue to monitor
Suggestions for Change: None at this time.
Biology Information Systems
Changes for Improvement 2010-11
Goal 1
The six students who graduated from the program during this assessment period were all very good students. Consequently, all benchmarks were met.
Looking at the last several years of data, the pattern is clearly that good students (higher grades) are successful in achieving benchmarks involving standardized tests, while students with lower grades are much less successful. Is all of this testing and data analysis providing us with any useful information for improving the programs?
Action: Continue to monitor.
Suggestions for Change:
Biology faculty removed assessment tool 1b.2: Graduates will complete a special topics course with a minimum grade of C. The special topics courses are no longer offered on a regular basis and are not required in the curriculum.
Goal 2
The six students who graduated from the program during this assessment period were all very good students. Consequently, all benchmarks were met.
Action: Continue to monitor.
Suggestions for Change:
The course title of the SCTC 303 course has changed, but still meets the assessment criterion.
Employer and alumni survey benchmarks were changed to match the different response categories now used on the instruments.
Goal 3
The six students who graduated from the program during this assessment period were all very good students. Consequently, all benchmarks were met.
Action: Continue to monitor.
Suggestions for Change:
The course title of the SCTC 303 course has changed, but still meets the assessment criterion.
The technology exam switched to one developed at DSU. Biology faculty suggested a benchmark based on the campus average score. The target will be evaluated as more data are available.
Employer and alumni survey benchmarks were changed to match the different response categories now used on the instruments.
Goal 4
The six students who graduated from the program during this assessment period were all very good students. Consequently, all benchmarks were met.
Action: employer surveys are needed and will be examined when they become available.
Suggestions for Change:
The course title of the SCTC 303 course has changed, but still meets the assessment criterion.
Employer and alumni survey benchmarks were changed to match the different response categories now used on the instruments.
Biology Information Systems2009 Changes for Improvement
Because of the large impact of a single student on cohort results, many of our plans for change remain the same.
Goal 1
Continue to closely monitor test scores and GPA to see if the pattern of low scores continues or is an isolated occurrence.
The biology faculty will discuss whether the MFAT is an appropriate assessment instrument for our program and explore alternatives.
Biology faculty will also discuss what the goal should be for student GPA. The benchmark goal of 90% of students exceeding 3.0 was chosen somewhat arbitrarily and may not be realistic. We will examine GPA over the last several years to evaluate this goal.
Goal 2
Carefully monitor this objective in future assessment reviews. (2.a.3)
Goal 3
Continue to monitor results.
Revise the undergraduate research process to get students involved earlier and stress the importance of acquiring research skills.
Action: Dr. Bakker is leading a curriculum and process change that will address these issues.
Goal 4
Continue to monitor results.
To monitor benchmarks in several of the goals we will revise the format and questions of the exit exam.
Biology Information Systems2008 Changes for Improvement
Goal 1
Continue to closely monitor test scores and GPA to see if the pattern of low scores continues or is an isolated occurrence.
The biology faculty will discuss whether the MFAT is an appropriate assessment instrument for our program and explore alternatives.
Biology faculty will also discuss what the goal should be for student GPA. The benchmark goal of 90% of students exceeding 3.0 was chosen somewhat arbitrarily and may not be realistic. We will examine GPA over the last several years to evaluate this goal.
Goal 2
Carefully monitor this objective in future assessment reviews. (2.a.3)
Single response from an employer is difficult to analyze. The negative nature of the evaluation is of concern, however. Action: analyze trend as more data become available.
Goal 3
Continue to monitor results.
Goal 4
Continue to monitor results.