| Learning Outcomes | Assessment Procedures | Assessment Results | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| comprehensive knowledge of chemistry | a. Chemistry Pentathlon
(fall semester) b. ACS test results |
a. This assessment method
will be implemented for the first time in the fall of 2007. We
are currently working on the development of this exam. b. Data are provided in the table below. Overall, our results indicate that students in our chemistry courses score consistently above national average, as expected for students from a “Tech School.” Due to a lack of communication with the non-tenure track instructors for CHEM 104 (S 06) and CHEM 311 (F 06), the exams were not given in these courses. Table 1. ACS Standardized Exam Scores The numbers are the %tile ranking of our students versus the national average. For CHEM 104, the exam for CHEM 121 is used.
|
| Learning
Outcomes |
Assessment
Procedures |
Assessment
Results |
Use
of Results |
| Think and read critically | ENGL 111: pre/post alternate forms instrument: identification of logical fallacies in sample arguments | Instruction in logical fallacies, a key component of critical reading and thinking, improved scores significantly on instrument from an average of 57% to an average of 71% correct (p<.0001) | Results indicated significant improvement in identifying logical fallacies. Next year, we will try a stricter within-subjects design to see if we can replicate results. If we can, the next step is to try to increase instruction time and raise average performance on final instrument to 75%. |
| audience awareness | ENGL 112: exit research paper rated
by instructors normed (>70% reliability) on rating rubric . |
Category average improved 11% from last year, bringing it to an 85% rating. More importantly, ratings for the “pass” group (C or above on paper grade) averaged 90%, while ratings for fail group (C- or below) averaged 65%; this result suggests that audience awareness is a good indicator of overall success in ENGL 112, as it should be. | Results indicate that our pedagogical emphasis on audience awareness, building on last year’s emphasis on incorporating opposing views, was effective in bringing performance up to standards (80%+ average rating). Next year, we will shift ENGL 112 more toward the “exit exam” model tried out this year (i.e. looking at the correlation between passing grades and above-average performance on individual objectives) with ratings on all major objectives again. The goal is to provide empirical support for our claims that the students who pass ENGL 112 are prepared to take on the advanced writing tasks in ENGL 341. |
| Learning
Outcomes |
Assessment
Procedures |
Assessment
Results |
|
1. Student entering the calculus sequence will have adequate preparation. |
a. Monitor performance in Calculus I of
students passing Math 103, compared to those placing directly into
Calculus |
a. This was improved by changes made several years ago, and is now just being monitored. |
|
2. Students at the end of first year calculus will have a working understanding of single variable calculus. |
a. Examination of high/medium/low performances on Math 132, Calculus II, finals. | a. This is being monitored, to catch any changes. |
| 3. Improve the percentage of students receiving A, B or C in Math 103, Pre-calculus, and Math 104, Trigonometry | (A+B+C)/(A+B+C+D+F+W) should be at least 80% | Currently around 70% in the fall. Spring rates are worse, since most of the students in Spring have already failed the class in the fall. |
| Use of Results: We are looking for ideas of how to approach student who have already failed a class once. Dr. Inal’s Sandia program is producing DVDs with examples of how the material is actually used in engineering; we hope this will improve motivation. |
||