Consultant Recommendation
Program Review
Planning and Review Committee 2000-2001
I.
Program: General Education Assessment: Natural Sciences Component
Program Coordinator: Janice Gehrke
PRC Consultants: George Smeaton and Janet Polansky
Purpose of the Review: To assess the ability of the recommended natural sciences component to
fulfill the Recommended General Education Objectives:
General Skills and Abilities: Think creatively, analyze critically, synthesize
clearly and act responsibly
General Knowledge, Appreciation, and Values: Comprehend and value the natural
and physical sciences and their impacts on society as well as the specific criteria listed for
the Natural Sciences in the General Education Category Definitions and the adequacy
of the assessment process to guide the implementation of the program and demonstrate
the university’s commitment to a responsible and quality program for enhancing student
learning, as defined in the Principles for Assessment of Student Academic
Achievement.
Committee Findings: The Planning and Review Committee recommends that the slate of courses
designed to satisfy this general education component continue through the next seven-year cycle
and that the committee’s recommendations be implemented.
II.
Abstract: The natural sciences component of general education relates to UW-Stout’s Mission
and Goals and the General Education Objectives by fulfilling all of the following criteria for
primary instructional intent for courses so defined:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Introduction to major concepts of a natural science discipline, providing insights into
its breadth and its relationship to other disciplines.
Illustration of relationships between experiments, models, theories and laws.
Illustration of the generation and testing of data and the application of concepts and
knowledge to the solution of problems.
Discussion of the limitations of data and the possibility of alternative interpretations.
At least one of the required courses must include laboratory or field experience.
The assessment procedure accompanying this review has been in use as a unified area assessment
since Spring 1997. Baseline pre and post-test data began to be collected in Spring 1998. The 15item assessment instrument, at this point, continues to yield mixed results, with no clear indication
of accomplishment, possibly due to variation in the population and the fact that students assessed
usually have coursework in only one discipline in the three-discipline assessment. Possible
changes include redesigning the instrument to be discipline-specific and reflecting process rather
than goals. Additional survey data from graduates and instructors indicate that planned
improvements to the Jarvis Hall facility and enhancement of the 4-credit, one-discipline
requirement would benefit the program
III.
Process Followed for Current Review:
The coordinator and advisory committee followed guidelines from the PRC and models from
review of other components in conjunction with the assessment procedure in place earlier to gather
1
data for the review. Surveys of graduates and key instructors were used in conjunction with the
assessment data to analyze outcomes.
IV.
Previous Reviews: This is the initial review for this component.
V.
Current Review
Program Strengths:
Assessment methodology is clearly a major strength of the natural sciences general education
component. Faculty in the program demonstrated a high degree of collaboration, flexibility, and
attention to student needs as they interpret data from the feedback, redesign the instrument, and
consider changes in content and methodology to reflect their discoveries. Specifically, the
General Education Assessment Natural Sciences Component Committee used the following
approach to develop a valid assessment tool.
 Generated a large pool of assessment items from each of the three disciplines.
 Limited the pool to five items from each area on the basis of agreement of the committee
as a whole.
 Pilot tested the instrument on random sample of introductory biology, chemistry, and
physics courses.
 Used the pilot data to conduct item analysis of the instrument.
Since the construction of the initial measure, they have continued to assess its validity. As a
result, quantitative and qualitative modifications are being planned for the future.
Source: Assessment records, key instructor survey, and coordinator’s report.
A. Quality and dedication of faculty and staff in the program is demonstrated in the level of
performance reflected in implementing the assessment program and transforming instruction.
Members of the assessment committee have met formally and informally on numerous
occasions during the past few semesters to collect and interpret data on the effectiveness of
this program. The coordinator’s report recommends that the committee meet formally once a
year and that the committee chair should meet at least once a year with each of the 19 key
instructors to discuss test results and any other concerns.
Source: Student surveys, instructor surveys, and coordinator’s report.
B. Planned upgrading of facilities in Jarvis Hall will be an asset when it comes to be. Whereas
the current facilities have limited science education to pencil and paper methods, the new
facilities will allow Internet access, more effective use of laptop computers and multimedia
facilities, and additional space for in-class active learning activities.
Source: Coordinator’s report and instructor survey
Issues of Concern:
The 4-credit natural science requirement. Perhaps the dominant issue of concern noted in the
review is the persistent and widespread belief that the 4-credit natural science requirement is
simply inadequate to fulfill the General Education Objectives. Even if the assessment data were to
reveal that student outcomes in the one course they normally take were positive it would probably
not rise to the level of value contained in the objectives, especially in the areas of “synthesize
clearly, act responsibly” and “impact on society.” Since 4-credit courses comprise nearly all of
those approved for the natural sciences general education component, unless students are required
to take additional science courses in their major, they will be exposed to only one of the natural
science areas. Although the faculty in many of these courses try to incorporate aspects of other
disciplines into their content, taking at least one course in each of two of the natural science areas
would greatly facilitate cross-disciplinary synthesis of knowledge.
2
The report notes that recent graduates rated their natural sciences background lower than those in
earlier cohorts. This is probably not as much a reflection of general education as it is of the
changing demographic of students at UW-Stout. At present the three most heavily enrolled
programs, for instance, require no more than the basic general education in the sciences, whereas
programs which require more science in their professional core, of which there are many at Stout,
comprise a smaller percentage of the student body than in the past.
At the same time the demands of UW-Stout's mission to address the needs of “a changing society”
are even more imperative, since advancing technology and pressing globalization make an
understanding of the sciences and of scientific reasoning even more important now than in the
past. As one faculty member noted in the instructor survey, “Only four science credits do not
allow our students a sufficient chance to learn scientific concepts that impact their lives multiple
times each day (such as health, safety, problem solving, impact on environment, and economy).”
Lack of Pre-test/Post-test Improvement. Across the 15 items included in the natural sciences
component assessment instrument, there are no significant differences between pre-test and posttest means. There are several possible explanations for the failure of students to improve their
scores following the completion of a science course. First, the program may be failing to provide
students with an adequate level of science knowledge. Second, the measure may contain too many
items that are discipline-specific. As a result, it may be possible that a student who takes only one
course in one area may never have been exposed to the material on which two-thirds of the
measure is based. Although faculty in the program have assumed that there is enough
commonality across the three disciplines so that a course in any area should provide a basic level
of knowledge about the other two, this may not be the case. Third, pre-test means for many of the
items in the measure may be too high for there to be any reasonable chance of any additional gain.
Clearly the advisory committee and the faculty of the program need to investigate the causes of the
lack of improvement on the assessment measure and to formulate a plan to address this issue.
Resource Limitations. Faculty in the program have reported experiencing great difficulties with
improperly functioning equipment and limited classroom space. Space limitations have been a
significant problem for the Biology Department. While the recommended square footage of
biology lab space per student is 65, only 35 square feet of space per student is available in the
department’s current lab facilities. This has made it difficult for students and faculty to move
throughout the lab to access various pieces of equipment. The problem has been compounded by
large class sizes. The Biology faculty feel that it is impossible for one faculty member to attend to
the laboratory needs of 32 introductory students. Although both of these concerns will be
addressed when the new Jarvis facilities become available, it is not clear when that will be the
case. For this reason, some type of interim solutions to these issues should be examined by the
science departments.
Recommendations:
The four-credit general education science requirement needs to be examined as part of a larger
evaluation of the parameters of general education as a whole. Consideration should not be limited
to the general education requirement itself, but could be expanded to include science required as
part of the professional section of students’ programs. Assessment results in the discipline will
help this effort, which should be the province of the General Education Committee and the
Provost’s Office.
Given current university and program credit requirements, however, adding an additional natural
science course requirement may not be feasible. For this reason, it may be necessary for the
faculty in this area to determine how a greater degree of interdisciplinary synthesis can be
achieved within the confines of the current requirement of a single course in the area. If the
assumption of commonality across the course areas is not valid, it would be advisable for faculty
3
in the three areas to determine what sort of modifications of their courses are needed so as to
achieve more common ground.
Evaluation. The lack of improvement on the assessment measure from pre-test to post-test
suggests that the advisory committee should reexamine the instrument. Rather than using items
that reflect knowledge that can be obtained only from a course in a specific subject area, the
assessment committee could construct an instrument that contains items pertaining to general
issues covered in courses in all three areas. Such a measure may provide a more valid assessment
of the general objectives of the natural science general education component.
Resource limitations placed upon laboratory classes during the period before the Jarvis Hall
renovation need to be addressed. The science departments and the Dean of CAS should explore
interim solutions in a search for relief.
4