University of Arkansas at Little Rock

April 15, 2004

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
• Beth McMillan, 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	3.5 Exceptional	3.5 Exceptional	3.5 Exceptional	3.5 Exceptional
M.S., Biology*	*	*	*	*
B.S. & B.A. Chemistry	3.6 Exceptional	3.6 Exceptional	3.5 Exceptional	3.6 Exceptional
M.S. & M.A. Chemistry	0.5 Inadequate	0.5 Inadequate	0.0 Inadequate	0.5 Inadequate
B.S., Environmental Health Science	**	**	**	**
B.S., Geology	3.8 Exceptional	4.0 Exceptional	4.0 Exceptional	3.9 Exceptional
B.S., Health Science	4.0 Exceptional	3.8 Exceptional	3.5 Exceptional	3.8 Exceptional
M.S., Integrated Science and Mathematics	1.0 Inadequate	1.0 Inadequate	2.0 Limited	1.3 Inadequate
B.S. & B.A., Mathematics	3.4 Reasonable	3.6 Exceptional	3.4 Reasonable	3.5 Exceptional
M.S., Applied Mathematics	3.4 Reasonable	3.4 Reasonable	3.2 Reasonable	3.4 Reasonable
A.S., Nursing	3.8 Exceptional	4.0 Exceptional	3.8 Exceptional	3.9 Exceptional
B.S. & B.A., Physics	2.0 Limited	2.0 Limited	2.0 Limited	2.0 Limited
Totals:	Inadequate: 2 Limited: 1 Reasonable: 2 Exceptional: 5	Inadequate: 2 Limited: 1 Reasonable: 1 Exceptional: 6	Inadequate: 1 Limited: 2 Reasonable: 2 Exceptional: 5	Inadequate: 2 Limited: 1 Reasonable: 1 Exceptional: 6

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

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. Five programs have made
that step: B.S. in Biology, B.S. /B.A. in Chemistry, B.S. in
Geology, B.S. in Health Science, and A.S. in Nursing. This
represents an increase from two to five programs in the
exceptional category since last year. One other program has made
the step to exceptional in two categories, the 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:

• 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.

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

• 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 is evidence that “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 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.

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

• Validity and reliability are being measured by some programs.

Areas of concern:

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

Recommendations and Comments:

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

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

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

• Consider 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.

• Consider developing a college-wide alumni survey and perhaps a
  college-wide employer survey as part of assessment.

• 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.