University of Arkansas at Little Rock

April 1, 2003

College of Science and Mathematics Assessment Committee

• Jim Fulmer, Committee Chair, Department of Mathematics
• Cindy Gilbert, Department of Nursing
• Larry Coleman, Department of Physics and Astronomy
• Marian Douglas, Department of Chemistry
• Paul Akers, Department of Biology
• Thea Spatz, Department of Health Sciences
• Jeff Connelly, Department of Earth Science

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.

Program	Use	Faculty & Stakeholder	Approach	Overall
B.S., Biology	2.8 Reasonable	2.9 Reasonable	2.7 Reasonable	2.8 Reasonable
M.S., Biology*	*	*	*	*
B.S. & B.A. Chemistry	3.2 Reasonable	3.0 Reasonable	3.0 Reasonable	3.1 Reasonable
M.S. & M.A. Chemistry	1.5 Limited	2.0 Limited	1.5 Limited	1.7 Limited
B.S., Environmental Health Science	2.0 Limited	2.0 Limited	2.0 Limited	2.0 Limited
B.S., Geology	3.5 Exceptional	3.6 Exceptional	3.6 Exceptional	3.6 Exceptional
B.S., Health Science	3.4 Reasonable	3.3 Reasonable	3.2 Reasonable	3.3 Reasonable
M.S., Integrated Science and Mathematics	1.0 Inadequate	1.0 Inadequate	2.0 Limited	1.3 Inadequate
B.S. & B.A., Mathematics	3.7 Exceptional	3.2 Reasonable	3.2 Reasonable	3.5 Exceptional
M.S., Applied Mathematics	3.5 Exceptional	3.3 Reasonable	3.0 Reasonable	3.5 Exceptional
A.S., Nursing	3.9 Exceptional	3.9 Exceptional	4.0 Exceptional	3.9 Exceptional
B.S. & B.A., Physics	2.8 Reasonable	2.5 Reasonable	2.0 Limited	2.5 Reasonable
Totals:	Inadequate: 1 Limited: 2 Reasonable: 4 Exceptional: 4	Inadequate: 1 Limited: 2 Reasonable: 6 Exceptional: 2	Inadequate: 0 Limited: 4 Reasonable: 5 Exceptional: 2	Inadequate: 1 Limited: 2 Reasonable: 4 Exceptional: 4

*No report was generated for the M.S. in Biology

All but one 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 the undergraduate programs in the college. The step between
reasonable and exceptional in every category is a difficult step to make. Two
programs have made that step, the B.S. in Geology and A.S. in Nursing. Two other
programs have made the step to exceptional in at least one category, the
B.S./B.A. in Mathematics and the M.S. in Applied Mathematics.

The graduate programs have the most room for improvement in their assessment
activities. There are two newer graduate programs (Biology and Integrated
Science) and two established programs (Applied Mathematics and Chemistry) in the
college. The Applied Mathematics program is the only graduate program in the
college that has a reasonable/exceptional assessment plan. Both the Chemistry
and the MSISM program have limited assessment activities in place. The Biology
program did not submit a report this year, but has submitted an assessment plan
to the college committee. Therefore, the graduate program in Biology will submit
an assessment progress report next year.

Strengths:

• 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 the goals of
  their programs. In addition most programs have methods to assess the learning
  objectives.

• There is evidence that the “assessment feedback loop” is closed in more
  programs this year than in previous years.

• 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 participation 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
  areas in which they need improvement. Faculty have become involved in assessment
  and have a more comprehensive idea of the program and its goals as a whole
  rather than the narrower view of individual courses.

• Data are being collected from a wider range of sources, covering more diverse
  areas of assessment.

• Validity and reliability are being measured by some programs.

Areas of concern:

• It concerns to be apparent that MS programs are struggling with the
  assessment process.

• Departments are collecting information from stakeholders, but are we sharing
  the results of assessment with our stakeholders (students, alumni, and
  employers)?

• How can the Assessment Committee determine the reliability and validity of the
  program evaluations?

• There is some concern regarding the assessment and programs with statistics
  involving small number

Recommendations and Comments:

• There is a risk that programs and people external to the assessment process
  may look at a score as a measure of worth or worthless. A high score does not
  indicate a good academic program and a poor score does not mean that the
  academic program is bad.

• We recommend that a reward system be developed for programs that are doing
  exceptional assessment. Possible reward is release time or stipend.
  • Evaluations that receive a rating of 3 or better be moved to a 2-year written
    cycle. This does not mean that they do not need to assess the next year. The
    program’s next report would simply contain the assessment data of a 2-year
    cycle. This reward is less report writing, not doing less assessment.
• We suggest that college think about a college-wide assessment that is
  applicable to all programs. Specifically, we recommend exploring the use of a
  critical thinking exam college-wide in capstone courses. All programs have
  critical thinking embedded in their program goals in some way. This may provide
  a useful way of doing assessment at both the program and at the college level.

• An external assessment expert would be beneficial, especially if this is a
  yearly event. The Assessment Committee itself would benefit from consulting a
  professional in this area.

• A formula be developed for the distribution of “assessment monies” that
  includes a constant amount across programs and also includes numbers of majors
  served within the programs. Programs should decide on their use of these monies,
  thus eliminating the time spent by the assessment committee concerning these
  plans

• Use Excellent instead of Exceptional as a descriptor for “highest level”
  assessment score.

• The assessment funds are not being made available in the appropriate time
  frame. They are made available in October and then must all be spent by the end
  of the fiscal year.

• Mentoring could assist programs in preparation of assessment reports.
• Assessment is an evolving process and programs should view their plans as
  works in progress no matter what their program rating. There is no room for
  improvement in all aspects of their assessment plans.

• Recognize the limits and reliability of the assessment evaluation on our 11
  programs.

• Remind and enforce the 10-page limit rule with 10-12 font size.
• Change the order of items on the assessment progress report form to
  1) approach, 2) use, 3) faculty/stakeholder, 4) overall.