STUDENT LEARNING ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
SUMMARY FORM AY 2013-2014
Degree and
Program Name:
B.S Geology
Submitted By:
Katie Lewandowski
Please complete a separate worksheet for each academic program
(major, minor) at each level (undergraduate, graduate) in your
department. Worksheets are due to CASA this year by June
13, 2014. Worksheets should be sent electronically to
kjsanders@eiu.edu and should also be submitted to your college
dean. For information about assessment or help with your
assessment plans, visit the Assessment webpage at
http://www.eiu.edu/~assess/ or contact Karla Sanders in CASA at
581-6056.
Please use size 10 font or larger.
PART ONE
What are the learning objectives?
How, where, and when are
they assessed?
What are the
expectations?
What are the results?
Committee/ person
responsible? How are
results shared?
1.Geology graduates will develop
skills to carry out scientific inquiry
in the earth sciences.
A. Graduating seniors were
given a questionnaire in the
last few weeks of the
semester to complete with the
following question: How
well did you achieve the
following goals? 1. Geology
graduates will develop skills
to carry out scientific inquiry
in the earth sciences.
Extremely well/very
well/adequately well/not very
well/not at all.
A. Our expectation is
that all (100%) of
graduating seniors
will feel they have
achieved the goal at
the level of
“adequately well” or
better.
A. 50% (1/2) graduating
seniors returned the survey.
That student replied that s/he
has achieved the goal at the
level of “very well.”
A. The surveys are
distributed by
Lewandowski through email. Students are
encouraged to return them
anonymously to
Lewandowski’s box. The
results are shared with
geology faculty and the
department chair through
this report and a meeting
at the beginning of the
school year to go over the
report.
B. Graduating seniors are
required to submit a portfolio
to the department in their last
semester. Within the
portfolio binder, students
submit artifacts (lab reports,
B. Our expectation is
that 100% of
graduating seniors
will have achieved
each goal to at least a
level of 3. Our range
B. 100% (2/2) of graduating
seniors turned in the
portfolio. 100% met Goal 1
with a score of at least 3.
The average score for this
Goal was 3.8.
B. Students are informed
of the requirement for
putting together a portfolio
in one of the early core
major classes (mineralogy
or petrology). They may
2. Geology graduates should have a through
knowledge and understanding of ocre
concepts in the earth sciences including the
following areas:
2.1 Major physical and historical events of
the Earth, and the methods used to interpret
these events.
2.2 Common rock, mineral, and soil
physical processes; the identification and
classification of common minerals, rocks,
and soils; and their genesis.
2.3 Surface geologic processes and their
impact on development of landforms, and
the ability to identify and interpret landform
development.
abstracts, research papers, or
other assignments) from their
classes that address each of
our department goals. The
portfolios are assessed by
faculty in the geology
program (Burns, Chesner,
Lewandowski, and Stimac).
is 1-5, with 1 being
the lowest and 5 being
the highest rating.
A. Graduating seniors were
given a questionnaire in the
last few weeks of the
semester to complete with the
following question: How
well did you achieve the
following goals? They were
asked to indicate which of the
following responses was
appropriate for him/her:
Extremely well/very
well/adequately well/not very
well/not at all.
Open ended questions were
also asked regading what
students found valuable or
lacking in the program.
A. Our expectations
is that all (100%) of
the graduating seniors
will feel they have
achieved the goal at
the level of
“adequately well” or
better.
seek help from advisers or
from the assessment chair.
The portfolios are assessed
by all faculty in the
program towards the end
of the semester.
Lewandowski collates the
scores and includes them
in this report. The results
are shared with geology
faculty and the department
chair through this report
and a meeting at the
beginning of the school
year to go over the report.
A. 50% (1/2) graduating
seniors returned the survey.
Goal 2.1 That student replied
that s/he has achieved the
goal at the level of “very
well.”
Goal 2.2 The student replied
“not very well.”
Goal 2.3 The student replied
“very well.”
2.4 Basic tectonic processes, and the ability
to interpret structural relations from
geologic data.
Goal 2.4 The student replied
“adequately well.”
2.5 Processes occurring at different types of
lithospheric boundaries.
Goal 2.5 The student replied
“very well.”
2.6 Interactions between and major
Goal 2.6The student replied
A. The surveys are
distributed by
Lewandowski through email. Students are
encouraged to return them
anonymously to
Lewandowski’s box. The
results are shared with
geology faculty and the
department chair through
this report and a meeting
at the beginning of the
school year to go over the
report.
“very well.”
processes occurring within the major
spheres (biosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere,
and atmosphere) and cycles (e.g.
geochemical) of Earth.
B. Graduating seniors are
required to submit a portfolio
to the department in their last
semester. Within the
portfolio binder, students
submit artifacts (lab reports,
abstracts, research papers, or
other assignments) from their
classes that address each of
our department goals. The
portfolios are assessed by
faculty in the geology
program (Burns, Chesner,
Lewandowski, and Stimac).
B. Our expectation is
that 100% of
graduating seniors
will have achieved
each goal to at least a
level of 3. Our range
is 1-5, with 1 being
the lowest and 5 being
the highest rating.
B. 100% (2/2) of graduating
seniors turned in the
portfolio. All Sub-goals
within Goal 2 were met to a
level of 3 except Sub-goal
2.5 (Processes occurring at
different types of lithospheric
boundaries), where the one
student scored 1.25 on the
goal, bringing the average
down below 3.
Here are the results for each
Sub-goal:
Goal 2.1
Average = 4
Range = 3.75-4
Goal 2.2
Average = 3.25
Range = 3-3.5
Goal 2.3
Average = 3.6
Range = 3.5-3.75
Goal 2.4
Average = 3.1
Range = 3-3.25
Goal 2.5
Average = 2.4
Range = 1.25-3.5
One student did not meet this
goal at the level of our
expectations.
B. Students are informed
of the requirement for
putting together a portfolio
in one of the early core
major classes (mineralogy
or petrology). They may
seek help from advisers or
from the assessment chair.
The portfolios are assessed
by all faculty in the
program towards the end
of the semester.
Lewandowski collates the
scores and includes them
in this report. The results
are shared with geology
faculty and the department
chair through this report
and a meeting at the
beginning of the school
year to go over the report.
Goal 2.6
Average = 3
Range 2-4
One student did not meet this
goal at the level of our
expectations.
C. Pre and Post Tests were
given in our introductory
courses, which are also
general education courses
(ESC/GEL
1300G/1320G/2450G) These
tests were given in D. Burn’s,
J. Stimac and K.
Lewandowski’s classes in the
fall and spring semesters. A
large portion of ESC/GEL
1300G was taught by a new
ACF, who was informed of
our assessment plan, but
never returned data. These
tests consist of 10-24
questions that are relevant to
our program goals. The pre
test and post test questions
are identical. Pre-tests are
administered in the first week
of classes. Post-tests are
administered during the last
week of classes or
incorporated into the final
exam.
C. Our expectations
were that students
would increase their
knowledge per goal
by at least 25 %.
C. Results for 2013-2014
We taught 428 students in the
following general education
classes: ESC/GEL 1300G,
ESC/GEL 1320G, GEL
1390G, and ESC/GEL
2450G. These classes were
taught by Burns, Stimac,
Lewandowski, Chesner, and
ACF, Ashley Burkett.
212 of the 428 students
(~50%) were given pre/post
tests for the purpose of
departmental assessment.
Goal 2.1:
Averaging the gains in %
correct for 2.1, we saw a
70% gain in knowledge
across the students in our
introductory classes.
Of the 35 questions
circulated in all of the
pre/post-tests, 3 of them
pertained to Goal 2.1.
Goal 2.2:
Averaging the gains in %
correct for 2.2, we saw a 60%
gain in knowledge across the
students in our introductory
C. The pre and post-tests
are created by each
instructor for their classes
based on our program
goals. The pre-test is
administered within the
first few days of class.
The post-test is given in
the last week of classes or
incorporated into the final
exam. The questions are
identical for the pre-test
and post-test, to check for
gains in understanding.
The results are collected
by individual instructors
(D. Burns, J. Stimac, K.
Lewandowski) and shared
with the assessment chair
(Lewandowski).
Lewandowski collates the
scores and includes them
in this report. The results
are shared with geology
faculty and the department
chair through this report
and a meeting at the
beginning of the school
year to go over the report.
students.
Of the 35 questions
circulated in all of the
pre/post-tests, nine of them
pertained to Goal 2.2
Goal 2.3:
Averaging the gains in %
correct for 2.3, we saw a 42%
gain in knowledge across the
students in our introductory
classes.
Of the 35 questions
circulated in all of the
pre/post-tests, 7 of them
pertained to Goal 2.3.
Goal 2.4:
Averaging the gains in %
correct for Goal 2.4, we saw
a 55% gain in knowledge
across the students in our
introductory classes.
Of the 35 questions
circulated in all of the
pre/post-tests, 5 of them
pertained to Goal 2.4.
Goal 2.5:
Averaging the gains in %
correct for Goal 2.5, we saw
a 57% gain in knowledge
across the students in our
introductory classes.
Of the 35 questions used in
the pre/post-tests, 3 of them
pertained to Goal 2.5.
Goal 2.6:
Averaging the gains in %
correct for Goal 2.6, we saw
a 25% gain in knowledge
across the students in our
introductory classes.
Of the 35 questions used in
the pre/post-tests, 2 of them
pertained to Goal 2.5.
D. Embedded Questions:
Certain questions are asked
on exams in core major
classes in order to assess the
understanding of program
goals. Questions were used
within GEL 4490
Invertebrate Paleontology
and GEG/GEL 3420
Geomorphology.
Within GEL 4490
(Invertebrate Paleontology),
which is an upper level core
class taken sometime after
GEL 1430 (Historical
Geology), an embedded
question was used to assess
knowledge pertaining to
Goals 2.1 and 2.6. On the
final exam, students were
required to answer a question
about changing biological
diversity over time. They
were allowed to choose one
of two questions about this:
“Choose either a or b to
answer: a. We have
discussed Sepkoski’s
evolutionary faunas this
D. Our expectations
for student
performance on these
embedded questions
was that 100% of
students would
receive 75% of
associated points for
these questions.
D. Results
GEL 4490:
Relates to Goals 2.1 and 2.6
The question was worth 15
points. There were 7
students (6 geology majors,
one earth science teacher
certification) enrolled in GEL
4490 in Fall semester 2013.
The students earned a range
of scores: a low of 11 to a
high of 15. The average
number of points earned was
13.7/15 (91%).
D. These embedded
questions are asked on the
final exam and results are
collected by the instructors
(K.Lewandowski and
J.Riley). K Lewandowski
incorporates the data into
the assessment report.
Lewandowski collates the
scores and includes them
in this report. The results
are shared with geology
faculty and the department
chair through this report
and a meeting at the
beginning of the school
year to go over the report.
semester. What are they?
Give at least 3 examples of
organisms that might be
found in each evolutionary
fauna. Why do the faunas
change through time? When
do the faunas change? What
sorts of things factor into
which organisms dominate
when?
b. One of my favorite
professors at The Ohio State
University is Dr. Bill Ausich.
He, along with Dr. Dave
Bottjer, published a bunch of
papers on tiering through
geologic time. What were
the findings? Explain to me
what tiering is and how it
changes over time.”
In ESC.GEL 3420
(Geomorphology), students
were give the following
embedded question:
Recalling all of the
geomorphic processes we
discussed during the
semester, describe the ones
that have shaped the
landscape of east central
Illinois. A) Identify the
erosional agents that have or
continue to impact our
region. B. Discuss the
processes involved with the
movement and transport of
landscape materials. C)
Describe the resultant
erosional and depositional
features found here.
ESC/GEL 3420:
Relates to Goal 2.3
25 students were enrolled in
spring of 2014 (15 were
geography majors, 8 were
geology majors, 1 was
science teacher certification,
and one was a journalism
major).
Of the 24 students that
completed the final exam
question, 5 scored 90% or
above (Superior), 12 scored
between 75-89%
(Significant), 5 students
scored between 60-74%
(Satisfactory), and 2 students
scored between 45-59%
(Nominal Grasp). The
average score for the
question was 82%.
3. Geology graduates should have a set of
fundamental skills that they can apply to a
variety of situations including:
3.1 Critical thinking skills- the ability to
formulate strategies, collect and synthesize
data, and apply mathematical and graphical
techniques to arrive at solutions, and
interpret results related to geological
processes;
3.2 Development and use of models,
visualizations, and three-dimensional
conceptualizations.
3.3 Communication Skills- the ability to
clearly express earth science concepts and
present results from analysis, laboratory,
and field work in written, oral, and graphic
format.
3.4 Global Citizenship- the ability to
function as responsible citizens by making
objective decisions informed by multiple
perspectives.
A. Graduating seniors were
given a questionnaire in the
last few weeks of the
semester to complete with the
following question: How
well did you achieve the
following goals? They were
asked to indicate which of the
following responses was
appropriate for him/her:
Extremely well/very
well/adequately well/not very
well/not at all.
Open ended questions were
also asked regading what
students found valuable or
lacking in the program.
A. Our expectation is
that all (100%) of
graduating seniors
will feel they have
achieved the goal at
the level of
“adequately well” or
better.
B. Graduating seniors are
required to submit a portfolio
to the department in their last
semester. Within the
portfolio binder, students
submit artifacts (lab reports,
abstracts, research papers, or
other assignments) from their
classes that address each of
our department goals. The
portfolios are assessed by
faculty in the geology
program (Burns, Chesner,
Lewandowski, and Stimac).
B. Our expectation is
that 100% of
graduating seniors
will have achieved
each goal to at least a
level of 3. Our range
is 1-5, with 1 being
the lowest and 5 being
the highest rating.
A. 50% (1/2) graduating
seniors returned the survey.
Goal 3.1 The student replied
that s/he achieved this goal
“adequately well.”
Goal 3.2, The student replied
that s/he achieved this goal
“not at all.”
Goal 3.4 The student replied
that s/he achieved this goal
“extremely well.”
B. 100% (2/2) graduating
seniors turned in portfolios.
One student did not
satisfactorily meet Goals 3.1,
3.2, or 3.4. This student
earned below a 3 on each of
those goals. The other
student earned greater thana
3 on all these goals.
Goal 3.1
Average 3.25
Range 2.5-4
Goal 3.2
A. The surveys are
distributed by
Lewandowski through email. Students are
encouraged to return them
anonymously to
Lewandowski’s box. The
results are shared with
geology faculty and the
department chair through
this report and a meeting
at the beginning of the
school year to go over the
report.
B. Students are informed
of the requirement for
putting together a portfolio
in one of the early core
major classes (mineralogy
or petrology). They may
seek help from advisers or
from the assessment chair.
The portfolios are assessed
by all faculty in the
program towards the end
of the semester.
Lewandowski collates the
scores and includes them
in this report. The results
are shared with geology
Average 3.1
Range 2-3.1
Goal 3.3
Average 3.5
Range 3.25-3.75
faculty and the department
chair through this report
and a meeting at the
beginning of the school
year to go over the report.
Goal 3.4
Average 2.4
Range 1.25-3.5
C. Term Paper and Oral
Report Results: Term papers
are assigned in GEL 4490,
which is an upper level core
course in the geology major
(invertebrate paleontology).
Students are required to write
a 7-10 page term paper with
credible sources, relevant
information, correct
grammar, syntax, and style.
Within an upper level
elective course (GEL 3085Vertebrate
Paleoenvironments and
Depositional Settings) a term
paper is assigned. Students
also must present their paper
and findings to the class in a
10-15 minute presentation.
They are given a reubric
ahead of time so they know
how they will be evaluated.
Both the term papers and the
oral presentations relate to
program Goal 3.3
(Communication Skills).
C. Expectations: Our
expectations are that
all students will earn
at least a 75% on the
papers and
presentations.
C. Results:
GEL 4490 (Invertebrate
Paleontology):
Seven students were enrolled
in the course in the fall of
2013. Six were geology
majors; one was an earth
science teacher certification
student. Grades on the term
paper ranged from 30-95%.
The average grade was 78%.
All students, but one, earned
better than a 75%. One
student turned the paper in
very late and it was
incomplete.
GEL 3085 (Vertebrate
Paleoenvironments and
Depositional Settings):
Five students were enrolled
in this upper level geology
major elective. All five were
geology majors. All students
earned at least a 75% on the
term paper. The grades
ranged from 75% up to 93%.
C. These term papers and
oral presentations are
assigned and evaluated by
K. Lewandowski for GEL
4490 and GEL 3085. She
is also the assessment
chair for geology. She
collects, analyzes, and
shares the data with
faculty and the department
chair through this report,
as well as at a meeting at
the beginning of the next
academic year. The
results of this report are
discussed in the fall at a
meeting of the geology
faculty.
The average grade was 83%.
One student did superior
work (93%). Two student
did very good work (85%).
Two students did average
work (75%, 78%).
The students also had to
present their paper topics to
the class and try to
communicate to them what
they learned. All the students
did quite well on this
assignment. The average
grade was an 89%. The
grades ranged from 83% to
95%. Two presentations
were Superior (>90%). Two
presentations were Very
Good (>85%). One
presentation was Good
(>80%).
(Continue objectives as needed. Cells will expand to accommodate your text.)
PART TWO
Describe your program’s assessment accomplishments since your last report was submitted. Discuss ways in which you have responded to the
CASA Director’s comments on last year’s report or simply describe what assessment work was initiated, continued, or completed.
We continue to improve and develop our assessment methods for the B.S. in geology program. Our assessment plan was approved in 2010. This is our second
full year using the graduating senior portfolio assessment. Two of our geology majors turned them in this year (100%). Some students lack the ability to choose
good artifacts for the portfolios, which leads to lower scores. We know the students have met the goals, because we teach them, but the portfolios don’t always
reflect that. We do give the students a list of suggested artifacts for each goal to help them with their selection. The portfolios are best for assessing our
programs Goals 1 and 3.1-3.4.
We have been administering pre-tests and post-tests to the students in our introductory courses for quite some time. Unfortunately, over the last couple of years
we have only surveyed about ½ of those students with the pre/post-tests. The assessment chair needs to do a better job of reminding faculty and ACFs to
administer the tests. Faculty and ACFs need to do a better job of actually administering the tests. These tests address Goal 2. We have seen quite good gains in
knowledge for Goals 2.1-2.5. Goal 2.6 only shows a 25% gain. Some of the goals are more tested than others. Goal 2.2 tends to be quite well addressed, with
close to 10 questions pertaining to that goal. This is because it is really much of the meat of what is taught in ESC/GEL 1300/1320. Goal 2.6 needs to be better
incorporated into the pre/post-tests. Only two questions pertain to that goal. Goal 2.6 addresses more complicated interactions and may not be touched on in
much detail in the intro classes.
Another assessment tool we use is the graduating senior survey. In that we give students the goals and ask them to circle how confident they feel about each.
This is self-reporting, which may be inaccurate. However, confidence probably does give us information about how much we expose students to certain
concepts. We only had one survey (50%) come back this year, so it is hard to interpret. Interestingly, the student reported that s/he was not confident “at all”
with models, visualizations, etc (Goal 3.2) and yet, our assessment of that student’s portfolio artifact for that goal was quite high. I think this goal is one that
students don’t quite understand. We need to do a better job of explaining what we mean. Overall, the student felt at least “adequately well” regarding all goals,
except Goal 2.2 and Goal 3.2. Last year we had a sabbatical replacement teaching mineralogy and petrology, which is where much of the students’ confidence
regarding Goal 2.2 comes from. Since we have been using the surveys, students historically feel confident about this goal. As mentioned before, the lack of
confidence regarding Goal 3.2 is related to confusion over what it means.
Last, we use some embedded questions on exams, term papers, and oral presentations in certain classes to assess understanding of our program goals. This is
mainly done in classes taught by K. Lewandowski, since she is the assessment chair. More of this needs to be done across our curriculum. All core classes
should be included in this part of the assessment. An effort will be made this coming year to do this. The results of these embedded questions were quite good
this year.
We have developed an alumni survey, but have yet to use it.
PART THREE
Summarize changes and improvements in curriculum, instruction, and learning that have resulted from the implementation of your assessment
program. How have you used the data? What have you learned? In light of what you have learned through your assessment efforts this year and
in past years, what are your plans for the future?
We are still developing and improving our assessment plan. We have quite small numbers of majors, so it can be quite difficult to get a handle on
trends. For instance, this year we only had one student complete the graduating senior survey and two students turn in portfolios.
As faculty in the geology program, we all need to invest in assessment. Every class in the major should be contributing to this report.
Part of the graduating senior survey is asking open-ended questions to get feedback from the students. Here are the questions and responses:
1. What aspects of your education in the Geology-Geography Department helped you with your learning and why were they helpful?
“I feel critical thinking is taught very well in the department. I also feel that geology blends several sciences and help leave students
prepared for job searches.”
2.
What might the Geology-Geography Department do differently that would help you learn more effectively, and why would these actions help?
“Some more focus on rock identification and cross sections were skipped in the class that they should have been taught in. I feel like these
would help students prepare for field camp better.
As far as changes in instruction and learning, some classes within the curriculum are becoming more project-based. Students in both the introductory classes and
upper level core and elective classes benefit from looking at and analyzing and interpreting data. There is an effort to incorporate more of this.