Annual Report to the Provost
Outcomes Assessment for 2014-2015 AY
Department of Agricultural Business
This report documents the Department of Agricultural Business’ ongoing efforts to refine
assessment of student learning outcomes for the Agricultural Business major. Outcomes
assessment is being used to: 1) determine baseline measures of performance for appropriate
outcome/course combinations; 2) aid in determining our strengths and weaknesses; and 3) update
curriculum with new areas of focus, as well as new instructional techniques. Our ultimate goal is
to better prepare graduates for successful professional careers. These assessment efforts will also
result in a revised SOAP for fall 2015. The revised SOAP will be posted on the following web
site: http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/oie/assessment/s-prsoaps.html.
Each year our department carefully considers the comments from the previous year’s assessment
review and makes adjustments to our assessment process. The remainder of this discussion
focuses on assessment activities completed during the 2014-15 academic year.
1. What learning outcomes did you assess?
Outcome 1: Students will apply statistical and/or quantitative analyses to agribusiness
problems and interpret the results.
Outcome 3: Students will demonstrate communication proficiency both orally and in writing
in relation to the global agribusiness industry. They will communicate in a
knowledgeable, coherent, and persuasive manner on an array of contemporary
agribusiness topics.
The following courses were assessed for each outcome:
Outcome 1: Agricultural Business Statistics (AGBS 071)
Outcome 3: International Agricultural Economics (AGBS 140) – Spring 2015
Agricultural Market Analysis (AGBS 160) – Fall 2014
Note: The explanations and results contained in this report are those of the instructors for
each assessed course.
2. What instruments did you use to assess them?
Outcome 1: AGBS 071 – Dr. Pei Xu
The instruments used were a group project and 11 quizzes administered at the beginning of
class. The project was utilized to assess students’ ability to gather statistical data, analyze the
data, explain the results, prepare a written report, and present the results to the class. The
quizzes were utilized to test students’ understanding about principles of statistics,
computation procedures and interpretation of the results. Students were provided about 15
minutes for each quiz.
Outcome 3: AGBS 140 – Dr. Srini Konduru
A class presentation and a term paper were used as instruments to assess outcome No. 3. The
students are required to select a topic of relevance to international agriculture and write and
present it to class. A scoring rubric was utilized in assessing the performance of the students
(see appendix). A benchmark score of 3.5 out of 5.0 was set to assess the student’s
performance in the criteria.
AGBS 160 – Dr. Srini Konduru
A case study analysis was used as an instrument to assess outcome No. 3. The students were
required to analyze a case study and submit a report. A scoring rubric was utilized in
assessing the reports (see appendix). A benchmark score of 3.5 out of 5.0 was set to assess
the student’s performance in the criteria.
3. What did you discover from these data?
Outcome 1: AGBS 071 – Group project and quizzes (Dr. Pei Xu)
The standard for student performance on both instruments is 75% of the students will score
70% or better.
Group project: Data indicate students met teaching expectations in terms of their quantitative
analyses, problem solving, and results interpretation. The average score was 80 out of 100.
Quizzes: Students did not meet teaching expectations on quizzes. The average score was
50%. Although the majority of students seem to understand the concepts, many of them
cannot follow procedures to get the correct results. For example, when asking them to follow
the procedure to compute probabilities for a continuous variable, some students could not
clearly show the computation steps and could not correctly interpret the results.
Outcome 3: AGBS 140 – Term paper and presentation (Dr. Srini Konduru)
Student performances met expectations in 2 of the 3 criteria for the case study as seen in the
below table. A score of 3.5 out of 5.0 in each criterion is set as a benchmark and is
considered to be satisfactory.
Average Scores
(out of 5.0)
Criterion 1
4.4
Criterion 2
4.3
Criterion 3
3.4
Though the performance of most of the students was satisfactory, some students were not
able to effectively communicate in writing about the topic they chose.
Annual Assessment Report
Ag. Business 2014/15
Page |2
AGBS 160 – Case study analysis (Dr. Srini Konduru)
Student performances met expectations in 2 of the 3 criteria as seen in the below table. A
score of 3.5 out of 5.0 in each criterion is set as a benchmark and is considered to be
satisfactory.
Average Scores
(out of 5.0)
Criterion 1
4.5
Criterion 2
3.6
Criterion 3
3.2
Though the performance of a majority of the students was satisfactory, some students were
not able to effectively communicate about the issues in the case study nor the analysis of
those issues. The difference in the scores may be attributed to the level of difficulty of the
case study being used. It may be also due to the difference in the composition of the class as
there was a mix of junior and senior students.
4. What changes did you make as a result of these findings?
The following changes will be implemented for the fall 2015 semester.
Outcome 1: AGBS 071 (Dr. Pei Xu)
To improve students’ performance, I suggest:
• spending more time in the lecture to explain and review computation steps for
important statistics;
• giving students a chance to share their computation steps with peers by calling them
to present their answers on the whiteboard; and
• starting a weekly summary session to better review the concepts learned that week.
Outcome 3: AGBS 140 (Dr. Srini Konduru)
As a result of these findings, I plan to do the following:
• provide more information about writing skills; and
• provide practice in writing by giving short writing assignments in the class.
AGBS 160 (Dr. Srini Konduru)
As a result of these findings, I plan to do the following:
• give more detailed guidelines and examples as to how to identify and analyze the
issues in the case study;
Annual Assessment Report
Ag. Business 2014/15
Page |3
•
•
provide more practice regarding how to connect and apply the concepts that they
learn in theory to the issues in the case study; and
use a case study example earlier in the semester to allow the students to experience
the analysis techniques and report preparation in relation to scoring expectations.
5. What assessment activities will be conducted in the 2015-16 academic year?
Faculty discussions of the assessment process and contemplation of previous assessment
results indicate an update of the department’s SOAP is in order. Suggested revisions with
respect to learning outcomes, appropriate assessment instruments, defined standards of
performance for each instrument, and the timeline for assessment are nearing completion.
Continued development and refinement of scoring rubrics for presentations, projects, etc. is
also taking place.
The probable outcomes to be assessed during the 2015-16 academic year are:
Outcome 2: Students will integrate fundamental agribusiness principles and/or analysis
techniques to identify benefit-cost decisions at all levels of global agribusiness
and make recommendations based on an understanding of the policy and/or
regulatory environment within which agriculture operates.
Outcome 4: Students will apply the formal language and concepts of economics while
demonstrating appropriate informational and technical competencies.
Student performance on homework assignments, project reports and case studies will be
evaluated using rubrics. The indirect methods of assessment outlined in our SOAP will
continue to be administered each academic year. Instruments such as the senior survey,
internship evaluations, industry advisory group, etc. provide feedback on the abilities of
graduates. Such information, when combined with results obtained from direct methods of
assessment, help to more fully evaluate success in obtaining our learner outcomes.
6. What progress has been made on items from your last program review action plan?
Program Review of BS in AGBS in May 2011:
Areas of Improvement/Recommendations Made by External Committee
1) Increase involvement in outcomes assessment and the use of assessment result for
curricular changes and program improvement.
2) Increase involvement in research and scholarly activity.
3) Reactivate or create a new industry advisory committee.
4) Continue to develop a more cohesive nature among departmental faculty.
5) Development of a long-term plan and a vision focusing on the program’s comparative
advantages.
6) Capitalize on location within the Peters Building to collaborate with the Department of
Economics and the Craig School of Business.
Annual Assessment Report
Ag. Business 2014/15
Page |4
Changes Made by Department of AGBS since May 2011
1) Prior to May 2011 the AGBS Department had an assessment plan with 75 student learner
outcomes (SLOs). As can be seen now, the department has a workable plan with five
SLOs. Most faculty contribute to the ongoing process of assessment. Outcomes are
discussed at faculty meetings and retreats. Issues regarding how we can improve content
and delivery are also discussed due to assessment results. Some faculty continue to not be
fully engaged in the assessment process. Part of our goals for 2015/15 is to improve
faculty understanding and use of SOAPS.
2) Our department continues to have scholarly success. This is due to: 1) two faculty that
just got promoted to associate 2) having an engaged visiting scholar with interest in
collaboration, 3) hiring a new tenure-track faculty who has been publishing with our
current faculty, and 4) collaboration with the Center for Agricultural Business (CAB).
Overall the department has become more relative to when the program review was done.
3) An officially recognized Ag. Business Advisory Board convened in August 2013. The
Board is about to establish a formal mentoring program with our students; they have
sponsored student field trips, and are program advocates in a variety of venues.
4) Our department has only six full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty, and one full-time
lecturer who are all agricultural economists. We continue to have weekly meetings
regarding our curriculum, student success, and resource needs given the large number of
majors we currently have.
5) The department will be developing a strategic plan this year. Our hope is to complete this
by May 2016.
6) We have worked with Economics on small curricular issues. Our department has worked
with departments in the Craig School of Business in order to ensure our students can get
required courses in their courses. Likewise discussions have taken place with the
Department of Math. No other direct discussions have taken place.
Closing the Loop –2014/15 Academic Year
The Department of Agricultural Business views the assessment process of student learning as
a series of steps. The first step involves data collection, compilation, and analysis. During the
second step discussions of the results take place and alternative courses of action are
delineated. The final step deals with implementation of an agreed upon course(s) of action
before the process starts anew. Each time the process is completed, our students and
stakeholders benefit.
The department will continue to educate faculty regarding the assessment process and its
importance. The assessment of learning outcomes will be conducted on a rotational basis,
rather than each outcome every academic year. It is felt that assessing fewer outcomes each
academic year will result in more useful, quality information. Faculty believes assessing the
same outcome in several courses should provide a good measure of performance across
student strata for each outcome. We view our SOAP as an evolving document and are
finalizing revisions at this time.
The assessment process has resulted in changes within our program during the past year.
First, course prerequisites have been realigned to better prepare students for success in upper
Annual Assessment Report
Ag. Business 2014/15
Page |5
division courses where learner outcomes are reinforced and advanced. Second, faculty have
refined existing teaching practices and methodologies, and adopted new ones, to facilitate
student success in attaining learner outcomes.
Annual Assessment Report
Ag. Business 2014/15
Page |6
Appendix A
Outcome 3 – Scoring Rubric for term paper and associated presentation (AGBS 140)
Criteria
Grading Scale
3
4
Presents
Presents
thorough
thorough
analysis of the analysis of the
topic, but not topic and the
much about
solutions being
the solutions. applied to
resolve the
issue.
1
Presents an
incomplete
analysis of
the topic
identified.
2
Presents
superficial
analysis of
some aspects
of the topic.
Effectiveness
of
Presentation
Presentatio
n is poorly
structured
and is not
clear to the
audience.
Presentation
is
satisfactorily
structured
and is clear
to the
audience for
most part.
Presentation
is
satisfactorily
structured and
is clear to the
audience.
Presentation is
well structured
and is clear to
the audience.
Key points
highlighted.
Effectiveness
of writing in
the term
paper.
Writing
skills are
poor.
Writing
lacked
overall
effectiveness.
Writing
described the
issue in the
case study and
the analysis.
Writing was
effective in
describing the
issue in the
case study and
the analysis.
Analysis and
evaluation of
the topic
related to
international
agricultural
business.
5
Presents
insightful and
thorough
analysis of
topic and the
solutions, as
well as
recommending
alternative
solutions.
Presentation is
very well
structured and
is clear to the
audience. Key
points
highlighted and
captured the
interest of the
audience.
Writing was
highly
effective in
describing the
issue in the
case study and
the analysis.
Annual Assessment Report
Ag. Business 2014/15
Page |7
Outcome 3 - Scoring Rubric for Case Study Reports (AGBS 160)
Criteria
1. The student
identifies the
issue in the
case study.
2. Analysis and
evaluation of
the case study.
1
No specific
problem is
identified.
2
General
issues about
the case
study are
stated.
Presents an
incomplete
analysis of
the issues
identified.
Presents
superficial
analysis of
some issues.
3. Effectiveness Writing
of writing.
skills are
poor.
Writing
lacked
overall
effectiveness.
Grading Scale
3
4
Additional
Circumstantial
problems
problems
related to
derived from
circumstantial the main issue
problems are
are identified
implied.
but the main
problem is
implied.
Presents
Presents
thorough
thorough
analysis of
analysis of
most issues
most issues
identified.
identified,
focusing on the
main problem.
Writing
described the
issue in the
case study and
the analysis.
Writing was
effective in
describing the
issue in the
case study and
the analysis.
5
The main
problem of the
case study is
clearly
identified and
stated.
Presents
insightful and
thorough
analysis of all
issues
identified,
focusing on the
main problem.
Writing was
highly
effective in
describing the
issue in the
case study and
the analysis.
Annual Assessment Report
Ag. Business 2014/15
Page |8
Department of Animal Sciences and Agricultural Education
Animal Sciences – Student Outcomes Assessment Report
September 2015
1. What learning outcomes have been assessed this year.
Senior Exit Survey
Specific Learning Outcomes – 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.4, 5.1, 7.1 and 7.2
In addition to the specific learning outcomes that were assessed, the senior exit survey also gathered data
concerning the value of other activities within our department such as our internship program, judging and show
teams, involvement at our farm laboratory units, and the quality of advising provided by our faculty members and
our department.
Culminating Project Presentations – Senior Seminar Course
Specific Learning Outcomes – 1.2, 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3
2. What instruments have been used to assess the learning outcomes.
Two assessment activities have been conducted since we first started getting engaged in outcomes assessment
during the Spring 2009 semester: the senor exit survey and the culminating project as part of the senior seminar
course.
Senior Exit Survey. The senior exit survey instrument was developed during the 2008/09 academic year. It was
sent to graduating seniors during the spring 2009 semester for the first time and has been used again during most of
the following academic years. The survey instrument is administered via the Internet. Students are contacted
and the results are submitted electronically. The results are then summarized by one of our faculty members
that has been coordinating this assessment activity.
During the first year, 85 seniors were contacted and 29 students responded for a response rate of 34 %. During the
spring of 2010, 31 students were contacted and 13 students responded for a response rate of 42 %. During the
spring of 2011, 29 students were contacted and 16 students responded for a response rate of 55 %. In 2012, 28
students were contacted and only 3 students responded for a very poor response of 11 %. At that time, we decided
to start sending the survey to students currently enrolled in our senior seminar course during either the fall or spring
semester instead of all graduating seniors. In the fall of 2013, 39 students were contacted and 26 students
responded for a response rate of 67 %. During this last spring semester (2015), 31 students were sent the electronic
survey and 26 students responded for an excellent response rate of 84 %.
Culminating Project – Senior Seminar Course. The senior seminar course (A Sci 186) is a required course that
all of our students take during their senior year. In the past, students were required to do career development
activities such as development of a resume and cover letter and practice interviewing. In addition, they presented a
short oral seminar on a topic of interest. Students are still required to do the career development activities,
1
however, the oral seminar has been replaced by a culminating project that is done on a group basis.
For the first 3 semesters (Fall 2009, Spring 2010 and Fall 2010), students were evaluating real world production
operations. This activity was patterned after The Dairy Challenge Team Contests in which our department
participates. These contests involve student teams that visit an actual production operation, analyze production
and financial records, and interview employees. The teams summarize the information and make a formal oral
presentation consisting of strengths and weaknesses of the operation and suggestions for improvement
consisting of the financial impact of those recommendations.
These presentations have served as excellent assessment measures of student’s oral and written communication
skills and critical thinking skills. However, in addition, we were attempting to use these presentations as an
assessment of student abilities in the areas of animal physiology and management. The problem was that some
of the students were working in species areas that were not their areas of expertise or in areas in which they had
not taken an advanced management course. This created problems as the students simply did not have the
background to answer the questions that were being asked of them.
Those problems led us to refine this activity during the Spring 2011 semester to a format in which student
groups debated a current industry issue or problem. We feel this activity has worked extremely well since that
time. It has been conducted 4 different times since then: Spring 2013, Fall 2013, Spring 2014 and Fall 2014
semesters. This activity will continue to be used as an assessment of communication skills, critical thinking
skills, and industry knowledge. Examples of some of the issues that were addressed include the Horse Slaughter
Act, organic livestock and dairy production, influence of confinement on animal welfare, proper animal
handling procedures to reduce animal stress, surgical procedures for cosmetic reasons, radiation of food animal
products for food safety purposes, regulations concerning veterinary procedures and commodity pricing, federal
milk marketing order, and the use of genetically modified organisms.
In addition to the faculty member that teaches the seminar course during the specific semester, we try to get as
many different faculty members as possible to come in and do evaluations of the student presentations. We
have a core group of faculty members that have listened to the majority of these presentations over the years.
Thus their input and their analyses of the results and trends that we are seeing in the data is very valuable to our
department.
3. What was learned from the assessment data.
Senior Exit Survey. Our initial plan was to conduct this survey each spring and then evaluate the results every 3rd
or 4th year. We felt that we needed to have more than 1 years worth of data to add validity to the results. We have
discussed the results each summer during our summer retreat. We summarized the first five years of data last
summer and that summary is included as part of our report as Appendix 1. In addition, a copy of the survey results
from the Spring 2015 semester is included with the written comments included as part of this report as Appendix 2.
As we gather additional years of data, we will compile these results in a multiple year table as we did for the first
five years. These results have been remarkably consistent in many areas from the first year that we started
collecting data through the last time that the survey was conducted last spring.
The most important or significant things that have been learned from this activity are described below:
1) The farm laboratory is an important component of our program in terms of providing practical, “hands on”
2
experience. In addition, it is valued very highly by our students. This result has been consistent in every
assessment activity that we have ever conducted in our department.
2) The quality of advising in our department has improved considerably in recent years. Although advisement
is not part of outcomes assessment, we have chosen to include this in our report because of the strong
relationship between teaching and advising. We have always regarded ourselves as good and very
dedicated advisors. When we first started conducting this survey we were surprised to learn that a higher
percentage of our students regarded our faculty members as good or average advisors as compared to
excellent advisors. We changed a number of things in our department in regards to advising and now for
the last two times that we have conducted this survey, we have a higher percentage of our students rating
our advising as excellent as compared to good or average.
3) Our benchmarks for the level of preparation in subject matter areas and core coursework areas have been
4.0 on a 5 point scale. For the most part we have exceeded those benchmarks in most subject matter areas
and in most years. The ranking for different areas have switched around some over the years which is to be
expected in our opinion. The good thing is that we have not had any group of courses or subject matter
area that has consistently been below our benchmark.
4) The other result that has been pretty consistent over the years is that our students think that we have too
many science courses in our curriculum. That result is something that we would expect as many our
students like the production courses much better than they do the more difficult science based courses.
Culminating Project – Senior Seminar Course. This activity has now been conducted a number of times. We
feel we have learned a great deal from this activity. We have continued to refine it and make it a more useful
assessment activity for our department. We now have the activity refined to the point where we believe it is a
valuable assessment activity. We use two different rubrics as part of this activity. One in the area of critical
thinking and one in the area of oral communication skills. Those rubrics are included as part of this report as
Appendix 3.
At the end of each semester, we prepare a numerical summary of this activity. That summary for the Fall 2014
semester is included as part of this report as Appendix 4. In addition, this year we summarized this activity for the
6 semesters that it has been conducted since we refined the assessment. That summary is also included as part of
this report as Appendix 5.
The most important or significant things that have been learned from our involvement in this assessment activity
are listed below:
1) Students that have been involved in industry internships and/or have traveled to industry conferences as
part of our extra-curricular clubs and activities have a much broader depth of knowledge of industry issues
and/or problems. This result does not show up in the numerical data but rather is something that was
apparent to those faculty members that were doing the evaluations in comparing the performance of the
students that had this experience versus those that did not.
2) Our students have improved their communication or public speaking skills significantly since we first
starting getting involved in outcomes assessment. The average score by semester clearly indicate this trend.
When we first started this activity, the benchmark was a 3.0 on a 4 point scale. The only time that we did
not achieve that benchmark was for oral delivery during the first year of our revised activity. Over the
years, we have raised our benchmark to a 3.25 on a 4 point scale. We have had individual group
presentations fall below this benchmark in certain areas every semester. However, during the last three
semesters that we have conducted this assessment activity, the average scores for all of the presentations
3
during that semester have exceeded the benchmark in every area that we evaluate. Our next step with this
activity may be to evaluate what percentage of the presentations or what percentage of the presenters are
falling short of meeting these benchmarks.
4. What changes were made as a result of the findings.
The most significant changes that have been made in response to the outcomes assessment findings are described
below:
1) We completed a revision of our curriculum during the 2013-14 academic year. Those changes were
approved last year and are now in effect in our department.
2) The farm laboratory continues to be a centerpiece of our animal sciences program. Having a group of
faculty members that have both the experiences and the interest in staying engaged in the management of
the farm laboratory units continues to be a major advantage for us versus other animal sciences programs in
the state. Outcomes assessment results have not changed the direction of our program in this area but
rather they continue to indicate to us the importance of this “hands-on” experience for our students.
3) In the area of advising, we have made a number of changes. We formalized the assignment of advisors by
option. We have added group advising nights and also group advising sessions over the lunch hour. In
addition, last year we used a senior level student to mentor younger students in the area of general
education. We believe that all of these changes have improved the level of student success in our
department.
4) We have continued to maintain the subject matter areas and scientific core courses that make up the real
substance of our animal science core curriculum. Again in this area, we have not made major changes as
assessment results have indicated to us that these areas were important and valuable to our students and
they felt they were being adequately trained in these areas.
5) We have added student clubs in the area of Equine Science and also Animal Welfare. These clubs were
added to increase involvement, knowledge and experiences in these industries. Our evaluations of the
student presentations is what led us to the realization that these student clubs and extra-curricular activities
enhance our program greatly.
6) We are encouraged by the improvements that our students have made in the area of communication and
critical thinking skills.
5. What assessment activities will you be conducting in the 2015-16 academic year?
A number of assessment activities that were included in our Student Outcomes Assessment Plan have not yet been
formally conducted. We have conducted informal assessments during different semesters as part of the laboratory
practicums in our lower division production courses. We have also conducted informal assessments as part of our
advanced management courses. Neither of these assessment activities has been formalized to the point where
assessment results can be summarized.
The two other assessment activities that were part of our assessment plan that have not been conducted are an
alumni survey and an employer survey. We are planning on developing and conducting the employer survey
during the 2015-16 academic year. In addition, we will continue to conduct the senior exit survey and the
assessments of the culminating project as part of our senior seminar course. We are in the process of filling two
positions in our department. If we are successful in filling these positions, it is our hope that these new faculty
4
members will provide us assistance in this area and hopefully they will have some expertise and experience in the
area of outcomes assessment.
6. What progress has been made on items from your last program review action plan?
Described below are the changes that we have made in the animal sciences program in response to the
recommendations associated with our last program review conducted in 2007.
1) Increase level of involvement in outcomes assessment. Although we fully admit that we need to become
even more engaged, we have increased our level of involvement in outcomes assessment significantly since
our last round of program review.
2) Increase level of scholarly activity within the department. The new faculty members that have already
been added to our department have improved the level of scholarly activity in our program. If we are
successful in the filling the two positions that we currently have advertised, these two new faculty members
should help us even more in the area of involvement in scholarly activity.
3) Increase use of current technology both in the classroom and on the farm laboratory. We have
increased the use of new technology significantly both in the classroom and on the farm laboratory. We
still have a few faculty members that have not embraced the use of new technology as aggressively as
others. However, they are outstanding teachers using methods and technology that some may feel are a
little “old fashioned.” As a department, we believe firmly that people who have the true ability to “teach”
are good teachers regardless if they use new technology or not. And on the flip side of that, just because
somebody uses new technology does not mean they are an excellent “teacher.”
4) Limit the growth of your program. Although we did not respond favorably to this recommendation back
in 2007, we have come to the realization that we cannot continue to grow. We are presently serving about
600 majors in the department (animal sciences and agricultural education combined) with basically the
same number of faculty members that we had when our department had 250 majors. With impaction and
the ability to start setting enrollment targets, we should be able to start strategically planning on how many
students that we can service in a timely manner.
5) Development of a Micro 20 course in the department. We have started the process of developing a
micro course within our department. One of our new faculty members is currently developing a food safety
course that is going to be used by a number of departments in the college. After she completes the
development of that course, she is going to start developing a micro course that will be a part of our animal
sciences core.
5
Appendix 1 – Animal Science Senior Exit Survey Summary
2009
85
29
34
96.4
3.6
2
2010
31
13
42
61.5
38.5
0
2011
29
16
55
92.9
7.1
2
2012
28
3
11
100
0
0
2013
39
26
67
76.9
23.1
0
Age (n - %)
18-20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36+
0
28 - 96.6
0
0
1 - 3.4
0
12 - 92.3
0
0
1 - 7.7
0
13 - 81.3
2 - 12.5
0
1 - 7.1
0
2 - 66.7
0
0
1 - 33.3
2 - 8.0
21 - 84.0
1 - 4.0
1 - 4.0
0
Emphasis Area (n - %)
Pre Vet
Pre Professional
Livestock Bus. Mgt.
Dairy Sci.
Equine Sci.
Meat Tech.
10 - 34.5
8 - 27.6
4 - 13.7
2 - 6.9
5 - 17.2
0
2 - 15.4
4 - 30.8
1 - 7.7
3 - 23.1
2 - 15.4
1 - 7.7
6 - 42.9
0
3 - 21.4
2 - 14.3
2 - 14.3
1 - 7.1
1 - 33.3
1 - 33.3
1 - 33.3
0
0
0
12 - 46.2
3 - 11.5
2 - 7.7
4 - 15.4
2 - 7.7
3 - 11.5
GPA (n - %)
2.0 or less
2.1 - 2.5
2.6 - 3.0
3.1 - 3.5
3.6 or above
1 - 3.4
7 - 24.1
7 - 24.1
11 - 37.9
3 - 10.3
0
2 - 15.4
6 - 46.2
5 - 38.5
0
0
2 - 14.3
5 - 35.7
4 - 28.6
3 - 21.4
0
0
2 - 66.7
1 - 33.3
0
3 - 11.5
2 - 7.7
10 - 38.5
10 - 38.5
1 - 3.8
Advisor Meetings (n - %)
None
Once / semester
Twice / semester
3 or more / semester
0
14 - 48.3
10 - 34.5
5 - 17.2
0
5 - 38.5
5 - 38.5
3 - 23.1
1 - 7.1
6 - 42.9
4 - 28.6
3 - 21.4
0
1 - 33.3
1 - 33.3
1 - 33.3
2 - 7.7
7 - 26.9
11 - 42.3
6 - 23.1
Advisor Rating (n - %)
Excellent
Good
Average
Below Average
Poor
6 - 20.7
11 - 37.9
10 - 34.5
1 - 3.5
1 - 3.5
2 - 15.4
5 - 38.5
5 - 38.5
1 - 7.7
0
2 - 14.3
8 - 57.1
3 - 21.4
1 - 7.1
0
1 - 33.3
2 - 66.7
0
0
0
13 - 50.0
4 - 15.4
7 - 26.9
1 - 3.8
1 - 3.8
Contacts (n)
Responses (n)
Percent
Female %
Male %
No response to gender question
6
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
4.29 / .76
4.14 / 1.29
4.33 / 1.01
3.89 / 1.15
4.11 / 1.01
4.35 / .80
4.08 / .93
4.31 / .84
3.04 / 1.37
4.32 / .99
3.85 / 1.28
3.42 / 1.17
3.92 / .86
3.54 / .78
3.54 / 1.27
3.62 / 1.12
3.92 / .64
4.17 / .84
3.08 / 1.38
4.23 / 1.17
4.17 / 1.21
4.64 / 1.12
4.34 / 1.05
3.93 / 1.13
3.93 / 1.19
3.99 / 1.17
4.38 / .81
4.52 / .97
3.82 / 1.22
4.19 / 1.16
4.66 / .57
5.00 / 0
4.66 / .57
4.66 / .57
4.00 / 1.00
4.66 / .57
5.00 / 0
4.33 / 1.16
4.33 / 1.16
4.39 / .84
4.21 / .84
3.77 / .60
3.95 / 1.11
4.00 / .85
4.07 / 1.07
4.18 / .88
4.30 / .77
3.68 / 1.06
4.46 / .95
Core Coursework Areas
(Level of Preparation; mean / SD)
Subject matter knowledge - A Sci
Critical Thinking Skills
Communication Skills
Computer Skills
4.38 / .73
4.14 / .74
4.14 / .88
3.38 / 1.05
4.08 / .76
3.92 / .76
4.00 / .91
3.46 / .78
4.34 / .92
4.05 / .81
4.11 / .81
3.29 / 1.20
4.66 / .57
5.00 / 0
5.00 / 0
3.66 / 1/16
4.50 / .71
4.58 / .58
4.46 / .71
3.92 / 1.11
Courses or Aspects - Program
(Level of Importance; mean / SD)
Hands-on experience at animal
units
Core A Sci courses
Production courses
Science courses
Additional requirement courses
Clubs / extracurricular activities
4.93 / .26
4.72 / .53
4.86 / .44
2.38 / .62
3.10 / 1.08
3.97 / .91
4.77 / .60
4.69 / .48
4.62 / .87
3.50 / 1.17
3.62 / 1.04
3.62 / 1.50
5.00 / 0
4.58 / .99
4.46 / .96
3.70 / 1.06
3.35 / 1.04
3.70 / .99
5.00 / 0
5.00 / 0
5.00 / 0
4.66 / .57
4.33 / 1.16
4.66 / .57
4.81 / .49
4.73 / .53
4.65 / .63
4.08 / 1.13
4.04 / .96
4.38 / .80
4.52 / .91
4.10 / .67
4.38 / .73
4.15 / 1.07
3.85 / .80
4.08 / .64
4.46 / 1.03
4.17 / .97
4.28 / .89
5.00 / 0
4.66 / .57
4.66 / .57
4.62 / .75
4.46 / .57
4.46 / .57
4.24 / .91
3.93 / .80
3.79 / 1.15
3.72 / 1.25
3.81 / .88
3.63 / 1.21
4.08 / .76
3.46 / 1.05
3.54 / .88
3.31 / 1.18
3.67 / 1.30
3.00 / 1.16
3.58 / .93
3.93 / .94
4.00 / 1.10
3.58 / 1.29
3.82 / .97
3.29 / .89
4.66 / .57
4.66 / .57
5.00 / 0
5.00 / 0
4.66 / .57
4.00 / 0
4.35 / .89
4.38 / .64
4.38 / 1.06
4.35 / .89
4.19 / 1.02
3.62 / 1.39
Subject Matter Areas
(Level of Preparation; mean / SD)
Gen. Animal Sci. ( A Sci 1)
Animal Eval. (11, 81 & 181)
Meat Science (71 & 171)
Animal Nutrition (35 & 135)
Animal Health (65 & 165)
Environment (101)
Genetics / Breeding (125)
Reproduction (155 & 156)
Anat / Physiology (145)
A Sci Seminar (186)
Overall Experience or Importance
(Level of experience or
importance)
(mean / SD)
Value of farm lab
Overall quality of major
Usefulness of info learned
Efforts to maintain contact with
dept.
Teaching effectiveness of faculty
Accessibility of faculty for advising
Effectiveness of dept. advisors
Value of internships
Value of judging & show teams
7
2009
Emphasis - Program Courses or
Aspects
(Not enough / Enough / Too
Many; %)
Hands-on experience at animal
units
Core A Sci courses
Production courses
Science courses
Additional requirement courses
Clubs / extracurricular activities
24.1/75.8/0
21.4/75.0/3.6
46.2/58.6/0
7.4/59.2/33.3
75.9/24.1/0
7.1/89.3/3.6
2010
2011
2012
2013
61.5/30.8/7.7 33.3/60.0/6.7
66.7/33.3/0
42.3/57.7/0
30.8/69.2/3.6
6.7/93.3/0
33.3/66.7/0
7.7/88.5/3.8
30.8/69.2/0
20.0/80.0/0
0/100.0/0
7.7/92.3/0
7.7/46.2/38.5
0/100/0
33.3/33.3/33.3 11.5/50.0/38.5
15.4/61.5/23.1 0/73.3/26.7
33.3/66.7/0
7.7/65.4/26.9
15.4/76.9/0
20.0/80.0/0
0/66.7/33.3
11.5/88.5/33.3
8
Appendix 2
California State University, Fresno
Animal Science Senior Survey
Spring 2015
Summary of General Information
Response Rate
Thirty-one Animal Science majors enrolled in the ASCI 186 Senior Seminar course were identified and invited
to participate in this online survey at the end of the spring 2015 semester. Through an email invitation usable
responses were received from 26 students for a response rate of 84%.
Gender of Respondents
Of the 26 respondents, 84.0% (n=21) were female and 16.0% were male.
Age of Respondents (Table 1)
Table 1. Frequency Summary of Age of Respondents
Age of Respondents
f
%
18-20
21-25
26-30
0
20
4
0.0
83.3
16.7
31-35
36+
0
0
4.0
0.0
Mean age – 22.5 years
Degree Emphasis Area (Table 2)
Table 2. Frequency Summary of Degree Emphasis Areas of Respondents
Emphasis Area
f
%
Pre-Veterinary Medicine
Livestock Business Management
Basic Animal Science/Pre-Professional
7
7
5
28.0
28.0
20.0
Meat Technology
Equine Science
Dairy Science
2
2
2
8.0
8.0
8.0
9
Cumulative Grade Point Average (Table 3)
Table 3. Frequency Summary of Respondents Cumulative G.P.A.
Emphasis Area
f
2.0 or less
2.1 – 2.5
2.6 – 3.0
3.1 – 3.5
3.6 or above
0
3
13
6
3
%
0.0
12.0
52.0
24.0
12.0
Average Number of Meetings with Academic Advisor (Table 4)
Table 4. Frequency Summary of Respondents Meetings with Academic
Advisor
Number of Meetings
f
%
None
Once per semester
Twice per semester
Three or more times per semester
0
9
12
4
0.0
36.0
48.0
16.0
Overall Evaluation/Rating of Academic Advising Provided by Animal Science Faculty (Table 5)
Table 5. Frequency Summary of Overall Evaluation/Rating of Academic
Advising in Animal Science
Quality of Advising
f
%
Excellent
Good
Average
Below Average
Poor
12
10
2
1
0
10
48.0
40.0
8.0
4.0
0.0
Summaries of Survey Items #1 through #5
Question #1 - How well do you feel you were prepared (your level of competence, knowledge or learning)
in each of the core subject matter areas shown below?
Scale: 5 =Very Prepared to 1 = Not at All Prepared.
5 = very well prepared or became very competent or knowledgeable as a result of attending the class(es) in each
area
1 = you feel you were not well prepared or became competent or knowledgeable as a result of attending the
class(es) in each area.
Table 6. Question #1 Summary
Core Subject Matter Area
n
Mean
General Animal Science (ASci 1)
22
4.59
.79
Animal Evaluation (ASci 11, 81, 181)
Animal Reproduction (ASci 155)
16
25
4.56
4.52
.63
.51
Animal Science Seminar (ASci 186)
Animal Anatomy/Physiology (ASci 145)
Animal Health (ASci 165)
Animal Nutrition (ASci 35, 135)
Animal Environment (ASci 101)
Animal Genetics/Breeding (ASci 125)
Meat Science (ASci 71, 171)
26
23
18
25
23
22
16
4.50
4.35
4.28
4.16
4.08
4.05
3.94
.65
.65
.83
.75
.79
.84
.99
SD
Question #2 - What is your overall evaluation of the core coursework as it pertains to your overall
preparation in the following areas?
Scale: 5 =Very Prepared to 1 = Not at All Prepared
Table 7. Question #2 Summary
Area
n
Mean
Communication Skills
Subject Matter Knowledge in Animal Science
Critical Thinking Skills
26
26
26
4.61
4.54
4.50
.64
.65
.64
Computer Skills
26
4.00
.89
11
SD
Question #3 - How important are the following courses or aspects of the B.S. degree program in Animal
Science?
Scale: 5 =Very Important to 1 = Not Important at All
Table 8. Question #3 Summary
Courses or Aspects of Program
Hands-on experience at animal units (beef, dairy, horse, meats,
sheep and swine units)
Core Animal Science courses (nutrition, reproduction, genetics)
Production courses (horse, dairy, sheep, swine, poultry, beef)
Clubs or extracurricular activities (i.e. Dairy club, Rodeo Team,
Red Wave Show/Sale Committee)
Science courses (chemistry, biology, etc.)
Additional requirement courses (Ag business, food science,
additional chemistry and biology courses
n
Mean
SD
26
4.92
.39
26
26
4.76
4.65
.43
.56
26
4.38
.70
26
4.19
.85
26
3.92
.80
Question #4 – For the following courses or aspects of the Bachelor’s of Science degree program in Animal
Science, please indicate if you perceive there are not enough, enough, or too many.
Table 9. Question #4 Summary
n
Not
Enough
Enough
26
23.1%
76.9%
0.0%
26
15.4%
80.8%
3.8%
26
0.0%
80.8%
19.2%
26
3.8%
80.8%
15.4%
26
38.5%
61.5%
0.0%
26
23.1%
76.9%
0.0%
Courses or Aspects of Program
Production courses (horse, dairy, sheep, swine,
poultry, beef
Core Animal Science courses (nutrition,
reproduction, genetics)
Science courses (chemistry, biology, etc.)
Additional requirement courses (Ag business, food
science, additional chemistry and biology
courses
Hands-on experience at animal units (beef, dairy,
horse, meats, sheep and swine units)
Clubs or extracurricular activities (i.e. Dairy club,
Rodeo Team, Red Wave Show/Sale Committee)
12
Too
Many
Question #5 – Please rate the following with regard to your overall experience in the Bachelor’s of
Science degree program in Animal Science at Fresno State.
Scale: 5 = High to 1 = Low
Table 10. Question #5 Summary
Aspects of Program
Value of the farm laboratory to support the educational program
Usefulness of what you learned in the major
Overall quality of the major you completed
Accessibility of the department faculty for advising
Effectiveness of department advisors
Teaching effectiveness of the faculty in the department
Your efforts as a student to maintain contact with the department
while completing your degree
Value of internships
Value of judging teams or show projects
n
Mean
SD
26
26
26
26
26
26
4.73
4.73
4.54
4.50
4.50
4.46
.60
.53
.76
.86
.86
.81
26
4.26
.82
26
26
4.26
3.85
.91
.92
Open-ended Comments and Suggestions
Question #6 – Was there a significant factor or activity related to the Department or the B.S. Degree
program in Animal Science that had an impact on your experience at Fresno State or your career plans?
This could be anything positive or negative.
 I came in as an Ag Business major, and after 2 years and having taken Animals and Society, I
realized the department I really belonged in was Animal Science. The professors and advisors are
all willing to help and easy to talk to; it really feels like a family. After switching majors, I
realized what a great decision I had made in coming to Fresno State instead of Chico.
 Getting involved in Red Wave and FFA Field Day Competitions allowed me to gain more
interest in Animal Science. For the most part the teachers in the Animal Science Department are
amazing.
 I liked how the teachers were pretty understanding of their students. I have general education
classes were the teachers seem to not care what happens to their students. Working on the farm
also help me to understand the value of veterinarian medicine.
 All of the hands-on experience has helped me in learning for the future.
 I felt I learned much more with hands-on experiences, such as milking at the dairy and the
multiple dissections I was able to do.
 I really enjoyed the hands-on experience I received here at Fresno state in the Animal Science
program. The instructors are very knowledgeable in the material they are teaching. I wish some
instructors were more open to questions without negative feedback for the question.
 I was a part of the beef show team, it allowed me to connect with fellow students and learn how
to communicate within a large group of people. Dr. Perry was a great advisor and was helpful
during the whole time.
13
 One of the most significant factors I have learned throughout these past years is having the
opportunity to work with some of the animals at the unit. Also, I believe my internship this
semester have also taught me a lot for the future. The only negative thing I have is that I wish
there was a lab portion for animal genetics ASCI 125.
 The advisors provided adequate amount of time and advising when needed. They are always
willing to help in any way possible. The classes that provide hands-on experience at the farm
units are also extremely helpful and provide a unique learning environment to students.
 Thanks to professor Ganci, I felt differently about the importance of dressing, meeting, and
presenting your knowledge of the material.
 I like the hands-on experience available in classes with lab.
 I feel like a lot of the professor that I took in my animal science courses have impacted and
inspired a lot of their students. Whether it's taking the time in class to explain the course material
or setting office hours to help their students out, they have worked endless and tireless to make
sure that we have the knowledge to move on with our future career.
 When I began at Fresno State I was a business major, but knew it wouldn't make me happy in the
long run. I took ASCI 67 with Michelle Ganci and it opened my eyes up to Animal Science and I
fell in love. The following semester I decided to take a production class, if I did not end in
Animal Science it could be an elective. I took ASCI 71 with Dr. Henson and my interest in Meat
Science took off from there. I truly owe my future to Michelle Ganci and John Henson, I am not
sure where I would be if I didn't change my major to Animal Science with an emphasis in Meat
Technology. I have been involved with the Meat Science Club and the Poultry Science Club and
have had amazing experiences and met leaders in my industry. I have nothing but positive
thoughts and words about the Animal Science program at California State University of Fresno.
 I honestly really enjoyed all of the professors. They seem to care about all the students and put
forth a lot of effort to help each student succeed. I enjoyed my classes that had labs on the units
that were hands on. I learned a lot from these classes.
 The run around with the Equine Emphasis major has been very frustrating. It has made my
experience with the industry quite negative, and when I graduate I honestly don't want to pursue
anything within the Ag industry as a whole. If a higher learning institution is going to require
specific courses, they should have someone qualified to teach them. There is probably a reason
why those courses were determined important in the first place. If they cannot be offered, how
valuable is the learning experience then?
 The most significant activities would be the lab portions of the animal science course. The hands
on experience that comes with attending labs and participating has proven to be beneficial.
14
Question #7 – Is there anything else you would like to tell the Department of Animal Science
and Agricultural Education about your experience in the B.S. degree program in Animal
Science, or any suggestions you might make for the improvement of the B.S. degree program.
 I know this might be out of reach and there might be limitations, but it was just difficult and
annoying not being able to register for required Ag Business courses without having to get a
permission number. Our courses are available to other majors, so I don't think that it is fair that
their courses aren't.
 The scheduling of course times in even/odd years got confusing and hard to graduate in the
expected 4 years.
 All of the teachers are great. There's nothing I would change. All the teachers are fair and great
advisors.
 A little more hands-on experience would be nice. But overall, all the teachers did a great job.
Everybody is nice and helpful.
 To be more inclusive of students who do not have an agriculture background.
 It was a great experience!
 I was a little disappointed to have a graduate student teacher for the poultry class. I have heard
many good things about professor Ganci and I was hoping that she would be teaching the class.
 When Dogs Days are going on be able to help students choose their classes, more one on one
advising during that time. Keep old records of advising sheets from previous years.
 Very good experience in the B.S. degree program in Animal Science.
 I would personally love more hands-on classes. I am a hands-on learner, but it is something that I
truly love about the department. We have so many opportunities for the students to be hands-on
and personally I would love more chances to be hands-on. I would also love to see more Meat
Science courses. Having a professor like Dr. Henson teach courses makes you excited about the
lecture and what you are going to be doing in lab.
 I do not agree with meat science as a mandatory course for the pre-veterinary science option. I
understand that it is necessary to recognize muscles of livestock carcasses, however, watching an
animal be slaughtered for human consumption should not be something that students are forced
to experience in order to earn a degree.
15
Appendix 3
Animal Science Seminar - A Sci 186 – Spring 2015 - Assessment Activity
Group ID
Date
Issue/Topic
Evaluator
Area Evaluated – Critical Thinking
Score
1.
4
Explanation of Issues
4
3
2
1
2.
3
2
1
3.
3
2
1
1
4
3
2
1
Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/evaluation to develop a
comprehensive analysis or synthesis.
Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/evaluation to develop a
coherent analysis or synthesis.
Information is taken from source(s) with some interpretation/evaluation, but not enough to
to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis.
Information is taken from source(s) without any interpretation/evaluation.
Conclusions and Related Outcomes
4
2
Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated clearly and described comprehensively,
delivering all relevant information necessary for full understanding.
Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated, described and clarified so that
understanding is not seriously impeded by omissions.
Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated but description leaves some terms
undefined, boundaries undetermined, and/or backgrounds unknown.
Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated without clarification or description.
Evidence
4
3
4
3
2
1
Conclusions and related outcomes (consequences and implications) are logical and reflect
student’s informed evaluation and ability to place evidence and perspectives discussed in
priority order.
Conclusions are logically tied to a range of information, including opposing viewpoints;
related outcomes are indentified clearly.
Conclusions are logically tied to information (because information is chosen to fit the
desired conclusion); some related outcomes are identified clearly.
Conclusions are inconsistently tied to some of the information discussed; related outcomes
are oversimplified.
Average Score______________________
16
Area Evaluated – Oral Communication
Score
1.
Organization
4
3
2
1
4
Organizational pattern is clearly and consistently observable and makes the content of the
presentation cohesive.
3
Organizational pattern is clearly and consistently observable within the presentation.
2
Organizational pattern is intermittently observable within the presentation.
1
Organizational pattern is not observable within the presentation.
2.
Language
4
3
2
1
4
Language choices are correct, compelling and enhance the effectiveness of the
presentation. Language is appropriate to the audience.
3
Language choices are thoughtful and generally support the effectiveness of the
presentation. Language in presentation is appropriate to the audience.
2
Language choices are mundane and partially support the effectiveness of the presentation.
Language in presentation is appropriate to the audience.
1
Language choices are unclear and minimally support the effectiveness of the presentation.
Language in presentations is not appropriate to the audience.
3.
Delivery
4
3
2
1
4
Delivery techniques (posture, gesture, eye contact and vocal expressions) make the
presentation compelling, and the speakers appear polished and confident.
3
Delivery techniques make the presentation interesting, and the speakers appear
comfortable.
2
Delivery techniques make the presentation understandable, and the speakers appear
tentative.
1
Delivery techniques detract from the understandability of the presentation, and the
speakers appear uncomfortable.
4.
Answering of Questions
4
3
2
1
4
Students answer questions clearly and confidently using the information that is presented
as the basis for their answers. All students in the group contribute in some way to the
answering of questions.
3
Students answer questions clearly and confidently using the information that is presented as the
basis for their answers. However, not all of the students in the group contribute to the answering of
questions.
2
Students answer questions somewhat clearly. However the information that is presented is not
always used as the basis for their answers.
1
Answers to some questions are vague and unclear and students do not use the information
that is presented as the basis for their answers.
Average Score______________________
17
Appendix 4 – Animal Science Senior Seminar Assessment – Fall 2014
Semester
Total/avg
Date
Group Topic
No. of members
10/27
Dairy
7
11/3
Equine
5
11/10
Meats
4
11/24
Pre vet
3
12/1
Poultry
5
12/8
Beef
4
28
4
1
1
2
1
2
1.83
Organization
Language
Delivery
Answering of questions
3.25
3.25
3.13
3.38
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
3.25
3.25
3.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.25
3.50
3.50
3.25
3.42
3.50
3.48
3.61
Average Score
3.25
4.00
3.25
3.13
4.00
3.38
3.50
4
1
1
2
1
2
1.83
Explanation of issues
Evidence
Conclusions / outcomes
3.50
4.00
3.63
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.50
3.25
3.25
3.50
3.54
3.48
Average Score
3.71
4.00
3.00
3.00
4.00
3.33
3.51
Oral Communication (1-4)
No. of evaluators
Critical Thinking (1-4)
No. of evaluators
18
Appendix 5 – Animal Science Senior Seminar Assessment – Overall Summary
Overall
Totals
Overall
Averages
Spr.
2011
Spr.
2013
Fall
2013
Spr.
2014
Fall
2014
8
31
6
28
7
39
6
28
6
28
33
154
20
13
24
12
11
80
Organization
Language
Delivery
Answering of questions
3.36
3.12
2.88
3.43
3.35
3.47
3.43
3.54
3.57
3.58
3.40
3.73
3.69
3.64
3.51
3.76
3.42
3.50
3.48
3.61
3.48
3.46
3.34
3.61
Average Score
3.20
3.45
3.57
3.65
3.50
3.47
20
13
24
12
11
Explanation of issues
Evidence
Conclusions / outcomes
3.29
3.23
3.11
3.21
3.31
3.13
3.65
3.64
3.54
3.61
3.60
3.58
3.50
3.54
3.48
3.45
3.46
3.37
Average Score
3.21
3.22
3.61
3.60
3.51
3.43
Semester
No. of Group
Presentations
No. of Students
Oral Communication (1-4)
No. of Faculty Evaluations
Critical Thinking (1-4)
No. of Faculty Evaluations
Scores are semester averages in each category
19
80
Assessment Annual Report
Department of Child, Family & Consumer Sciences
September 1, 2015
1. What learning outcomes were assessed?
Knowledge
The first learning goal for the Child and Family Science programs (we have combined
them into one SOAP to reflect their significant overlap and our current proposal to
combine them into a single degree) is knowledge. The first outcome (1a) is knowledge
of child and family theory, the second (1b) is knowledge of milestones of development
at various ages, the third (1c) is research methods, and the fourth (1d) is the influence
of law and society on children and families. These knowledge outcomes were assessed
using our departmental comprehensive exam.
Skills
The second learning goal for the Child and Family Science programs is Skills and
Application. One of these (2e) is professionalism appropriate for seeking and retaining
employment. This outcome was assessed in those graduating seniors who were
enrolled in CFS 193 – Internship.
Indirect: Knowledge, Skills, Dispositions
We used a senior survey and an alumni survey to indirectly assess many of our learning
outcomes including knowledge (1b), skills for professional success (2e), writing skills
(2c), and engaged citizenship (3c). These outcomes were assessed for all three of our
programs via senior surveys and an alumni survey.
Note: All of the goals and learning outcomes in our current SOAPS (Child and Family
Science revised 2015; Fashion Merchandising revised 2013) are listed at the end of this
document as Appendix A.
2. What instruments were used to assess them?
Knowledge
Knowledge was assessed in Child Development and Family Science students using a
Comprehensive Exam for graduating seniors that is required of all students in a
culminating experience class (CFS 139, 145b, and 193) for these two majors. There are
two versions of the exam: one specifically for Child Development, and one for Family
Science. All students are required to take one of these three classes, and to have senior
standing before doing so. We have reported on the development and validity of this
exam in previous years. During the past academic year, we formed a departmental
1
committee to conduct an item analysis. We compiled data from all years to identify
those questions missed by a large fraction of our students, and the committee went
through those items. We revised questions we felt were misleading, deleted items that
we felt were unrepresentative of course content or not uniform across sections of each
class, and made note of items we felt to be fair but are apparently not being taught
thoroughly. We believe that the revisions represent a further improvement to the quality
of this assessment instrument. The exam items will not be attached because, obviously,
they need to be held in the strictest confidence to assure the validity of the exam.
Students in the culminating classes are encouraged to take a pre-test in
January/February. The comprehensive exam was made available for one week in the
Academic Testing Center. It had 100 items on it, and students were allowed up to 2
hours. Each student was given an overall score as well as their subsection scores so
that they could determine how to focus their studies if they did not pass. For those who
did not pass the first time, another version of the exam was offered in April/May, again
for one week in the Academic Testing Center.
Skills
In order to assess skills related to professionalism, we required students in one of our
culminating classes (CFS 193 – Internship) to submit a resume and cover letter for a
potential job. A committee consisting of three faculty members reviewed existing
grading rubrics found online from other universities, and selected the ones that we were
most comfortable with. The rubrics were extraordinarily simple. Each of the following
dimensions was scored from 0 (absent) to 1 (poor), 2 (average), and 3 (excellent).
Cover Letter:
a) Use of appropriate form of address including title
b) Description of the job being applied for
c) Explanation of how one is qualified
d) Active follow-up plan
e) Attractive formatting
f) Free of Errors
Resume:
a) Includes contact information
b) Avoids disclosure of information about protected statuses
c) Complete information about education and experience
d) Professional and neat appearance
e) Free of errors
2
The submitted documents were scored by only one faculty member, because the task
was not approached until summer break. Notes were made about the suitability (or lack
of it) of the simplistic rubrics for consideration of revisions in the future.
Indirect: Knowledge, Skills, Dispositions
Indirect Assessment was conducted first using a senior survey. It was administered
near the end of the semester in each of our three culminating experience classes for
Child Development and Family Science (CFS 139, 145b, and 193). Graduating seniors
in the Fashion Merchandising program were identified by Dr. Davis and personally
invited by her to complete the survey. The survey instrument is Attachment C. There are
three sections of the survey: 1) Demographic information about the student, 2)
Evaluation of the degree program (this is the section analyzed for outcomes
assessment purposes, and 3) the student’s employment and graduate school plans for
the future.
Next, indirect assessment included, for the first time, an Alumni Survey. It was
administered online via Qualtrics. The alumni survey was designed to match the senior
survey: for all of the topics they were asked to evaluate in the senior survey, we now
ask how important it is in their work place, and how well-prepared they are in that area.
We attempted to locate all students who graduated in 2010, 2011, or 2012. We used
their official email addresses in Peoplesoft, email addresses they left with us on the
senior survey when they graduated, and the department Facebook page to locate
alumni and invite their participation.
3. What was discovered from the findings?
Knowledge
Results of the Comprehensive Exit Exam for Child Development and Family Science
majors from spring 2015 are presented here alongside the results from spring 2014. For
both years, we used 60% as the cutoff for passing.
Number of Students
Average Score
(min-max)
Pass Rate
Overall Pass (all attempts so far)
Genetics Subscore Average
Pregnancy/Birth Subscore Average
Infancy Subscore Average
2014
2015
Jan
May
121
43
68%
62%
(44-88) (45-82)
79%
67%
98%
70%
57%
65%
Jan
May
103
18
68%
65%
(46-90) (52-87)
81%
67%
92%
63%
53%
58%
3
Preschool Subscore Average
Middle Childhood Subscore Average
Adolescence Subscore Average
Adult Development Subscore Average (FS
only)
Aging/Death Subscore Average (FS only)
Sexuality Subscore Average (FS only)
Theory Subscore Average
Research Methods Subscore Average
Diversity Subscore Average
Marriage Subscore Average (FS only)
Risk and Crisis Subscore Average
Law & Policy Subscore Average
Parenting Subscore Average
69%
67%
69%
66%
71%
69%
57%
58%
55%
61%
72%
54%
77%
69%
70%
68%
70%
63%
74%
72%
55%
77%
72%
72%
67%
76%
In three years of combined data (2013, 2014, and 2015), student scores on the first
attempt of the Comprehensive exam is correlated strongly (r=.40, p<.0001) with grade
point average. We take this as evidence of the validity of the Comprehensive Exam.
We continue to be dismayed by our students’ poor performance on what we believe to
be a test of very basic knowledge in our field. After multiple attempts, virtually all
students eventually pass. The few who have not passed have left the university, as best
we can tell, generally with other unmet requirements in the form of failed coursework.
However, the bar is set very low. We do not consider a grade of D to be passing in
major coursework, and yet we allow it on this exam.
We will continue to work to improve our exam, as the problem may lie there. In all years,
the highest score ever was a 91%, suggesting that a 10-point curve on the exam might
be appropriate. But after our careful analysis of exam questions during this most recent
academic year, we believe that the problem is with the lack of a strong core in our
major. Students are able to make numerous substitutions, and choose from among
options in several places in the current curriculum. We hope that a stronger core, as has
been proposed and is currently being considered by the University-level curriculum
committee, will evince an improvement in comprehensive exam scores. We will
continue to document performance over these next few years as the transition is made.
We note that the especially weak areas for our students are
Pregnancy/Childbirth/Infancy, Adult Development, and Research Methods.
Skills
As a direct measure of professional skills, we reviewed the cover letters and resumes
submitted by students in one of our capstone classes (CFS 193, n=40).
4
Overall, the students did very well on these tasks. The average score on every single
outcome is higher than 2.0 (2 being average, and 3 being excellent).
Cover Letter
Use of appropriate form of address including title
Description of the job being applied for
Explanation of how one is qualified
Active follow-up plan
Attractive formatting
Free of Errors
Resume
Includes contact information
Avoids disclosure of information about protected
statuses
Complete information about education and
experience
Professional and neat appearance
Free of errors
Average
Score
% Perfect
Score
2.1
2.3
2.5
2.1
2.6
2.7
58%
72%
65%
44%
70%
72%
2.9
93%
2.9
91%
2.6
67%
2.7
2.9
79%
93%
One point on which students seem to need the most work include appropriate address
of the letter. Many students wrote letters “To Whom it Concerns” that appeared as
generic as they were, and some even did this after including the name of the
addressee. A second weak area was their follow-up plans. Many students wrote things
like “I hope to hear from you” rather than indicating that they (the students) would place
a follow-up phone call in the near future.
Overall, the resumes were better than the cover letters. Many showed evidence of a
very organized and professional appearance, as well as clear description of job duties in
previous jobs and experiences.
5
Indirect: Knowledge, Skills, Dispositions
Results of the Senior Survey from spring 2015 are presented here alongside the results
from spring 2014. The table below presents average scores (from 1=strongly disagree
to 5=strongly agree), as well as percent who agree or strongly agree with items asking
students to evaluate their degree program.
Number of students surveyed
My major coursework gave me a strong
knowledge base in my field.
I have learned how to conduct myself
professionally in accordance with the
ethics and standards of my discipline.
I received adequate academic advising to
help me navigate my educational path
while in this major.
My major coursework adequately
prepared me for full-time work in my
discipline.
My major included classes that were a
waste of my time.
Classes in my degree program were too
difficult.
Classes in my degree program were too
easy.
I received adequate guidance to help me
choose a career path in my discipline.
I became a better writer because of the
classes I took in my major.
Most coursework for my major was
interesting and useful.
The classes in my major helped me to
become a better human being.
My coursework inspired me to become an
engaged citizen.
My classes in my major were intellectually
stimulating, and excited me about my
field.
The faculty in my program were
responsive to my needs and interests.
Average Rating
(percent agree or strongly agree)
2014 CFS
2015 CFS
2015 FM
92
98
9
4.7
4.6
4.3
(99%)
(99%)
(88%)
4.6
(95%)
4.5
(95%)
4.3
(75%)
4.0
(67%)
3.9
(79%)
4.1
(63%)
4.3
(92%)
4.2
(82%)
3.9
(63%)
2.0
(12%)
2.6
(19%)
2.4
(9%)
3.4
(52%)
4.0
(76%)
4.5
(100%)
4.5
(95%)
4.5
(95%)
2.0
(7%)
2.6
(23%)
2.3
(8%)
3.6
(56%)
3..8
(61%)
4.6
(96%)
4.5
(92%)
4.2
(82%)
2.3
(13%)
2.9
(38%)
2.4
(25%)
4.0
(63%)
3.1
(25%)
4.3
(100%)
3.5
(50%)
3.5
(38%)
4.6
(97%)
4.5
(92%)
4.4
(88%)
4.4
(92%)
4.2
(83%)
3.8
(63%)
Overall, students in both programs (CFS and Fashion) believe that they have gained
adequate knowledge of their field, and believe that their coursework has been useful
6
and interesting. The Child and Family students, in particular, were also very likely to
report that their coursework helped them become more engaged citizens and human
beings, and that the faculty were responsive to their needs. In both majors, they report
that our academic and career advising is only mediocre, and that they are not
necessarily improving their writing skills in our classes.
For the Child and Family Science students, we explored whether or not their academic
achievement (via their score on the Comprehensive Exit Exam) was associated with
their ratings of the program. Alarmingly, there was no correlation between their
knowledge as rated objectively with the exam and their self-rating of the strength of their
knowledge base. This is alarming because it appears that our students are overconfident, claiming to know things that they don’t actually understand very well.
Surprisingly, there was also no correlation between exam score or GPA and their
agreement with the statements that classes were too easy or too difficult. We had
anticipated that the weakest students would believe classes are too difficult, whereas
stronger students would believe classes are too easy, but this was not supported.
The only correlation with exam scores was the item about classes being interesting and
useful. There was a small negative correlation (r=-0.129, p=.040) such that the better
performing students were slightly less likely to report that classes were interesting. This
is a small suggestion that our coursework “aims low” toward the more poorly performing
students, which presents a disadvantage for the strong students. But this evidence is
not overwhelming. It is just something we will keep an eye out for in the future.
Another reason for our senior survey was to establish what plans our students have for
their futures. Combining all data from 2013-2015 (n=203), we see some patterns:
• Very few of our students go directly into graduate school. Only 3% report having
already been accepted into a graduate program. However, many students
believe that graduate school may be in their futures (26% report actively looking
into graduate programs, and 41% say they plan to return to school at some
point).
• Our students are more likely to stay in the Central Valley than to leave, but not by
much (51% say they are definitely or probably staying, while 35% say they are
definitely or probably leaving). Likelihood of leaving the region is not correlated
with academic performance (measured by GPA and by Comprehensive Exam
scores).
• Among Fashion Merchandising students (n=9), most want to be buyers (n=3) or
small business owners (n=4).
7
•
•
Among Child and Family students (n=194), the most common career ambitions
are: child care provider (n=55), marriage and family therapist (n=44), elementary
school teacher (n=42), child life specialist (n=35), child care administrator (n=34),
social worker (n=30), and family life educator (n=26).
Further information about the intention to pursue various credentials is provided
below in the section on the Alumni Survey.
The Alumni Survey targeted students who graduated during the calendar years of 2010,
2011, and 2012. This included a total of 357 students.
Number
Number of
(percent)
2010of
2012
completed
Graduates
surveys
Child Development
CD-Precredential Option
CD-Practitioner Option
Family Science
Fashion Merchandising
Minor-Child and Family
Minor-Fashion
199
28
26
40
39
21
9
74 (37%)
9 (32%)
3 (12%)
16 (40%)
5 (13%)
8 (38%)
1 (11%)
Graduate
Master’s
Degree
(have it,
working on
it)
Doctoral
Degree
(working
on it)
19% / 19%
4%
0% / 20%
75% / 13%
0% / 0%
0%
0%
0%
The Alumni Survey serves two purposes: 1) to ask graduates to reflect on their degree
program, after having a few years in the work world, and 2) to find out what graduates
have been doing since graduation. To answer the first question, we asked graduates
about how important certain knowledge and skills are in their jobs (rated from 1 to 10),
and then we asked how prepared they feel in those areas by their education (rated from
1 to 10). This analysis is limited to majors, at the exclusion of minors. The number of
CFS students allows for meaningful analysis, but the very small number of Fashion
Merchandising majors makes it impossible to infer much from those results.
Trait
Strong knowledge
base in my field
Conducting myself
professionally in
accordance with ethics
CFS: How
Important
in Job
(n=67)
CFS:
CFS:
FM: How
How Well Discrepancy
Important in
Prepared
Job (n=2)
(n=101)
FM: How
well
prepared
(n=5)
9.3
8.2
-1.1
10.0
7.2
9.6
9.2
-0.4
10.0
9.4
8
and standards in my
discipline
Knowledge of laws and
public policies
Writing skills
Computer skills
Oral presentation skills
Math skills
Critical thinking and
problem-solving skills
Interpersonal and
relationship skills
Cultural competence
Research skills
Leadership and adult
supervision skills
Civic Engagement
8.4
7.4
-1.0
9.0
7.6
8.1
7.6
8.1
6.2
8.4
8.3
8.1
6.8
0.3
0.7
0.0
0.6
10.0
9.0
10.0
8.5
9.0
8.8
8.4
6.6
8.9
8.7
-0.2
10.0
8.8
9.6
8.9
-0.7
10.0
9.0
9.1
7.2
8.8
7.9
-0.3
0.7
7.5
9.0
7.6
8.8
8.7
7.8
-0.9
10.0
9.2
6.8
6.7
-0.1
8.0
7.4
Graduates report that professionalism and interpersonal skills are the most important
skills in the workplace. Knowledge in the field and cultural competence are close
behind. This is noteworthy feedback from our graduates about what it takes to be
successful in the fields for which we prepare students.
The discrepancies between necessary and prepared reveal that graduates are not
adequately prepared with regard to general knowledge base, knowledge of laws and
policies, interpersonal and relationship skills, and leadership/adult supervision skills.
This confirms our conclusion based on Comprehensive Exit Exam results, that our
graduating students are inappropriately confident about their knowledge. In addition,
this suggests that leadership/supervision skills is an area that we have neglected.
The second purpose of the Alumni Survey was to determine where our students are
going and what they are doing after graduation. Response rate for the Alumni Survey
was only about 30%, therefore the following estimates are imprecise, and likely quite
biased. Our guess is that our most accomplished graduates were the ones who felt
proud of their accomplishments, and thus we believe this may overestimate their
accomplishments. But we might at least estimate the relative frequency of these
credentials. Many of our graduates have returned to school for a master’s degree (43%)
or they obtained a Child Development permit (47%). Those permits were mostly at the
Site Supervisor level (23%). The Pupil Personnel Services credential was also
frequently (12%) obtained, much more often, in fact, than had been anticipated. It is
also noteworthy that on 22% of the Pre-Credential Option graduates have pursued a
Multiple Subject Teaching Credential. That is more than other Child Development
9
graduates, but still not impressive given that the option is designed specifically for
students who definitely intend to pursue a teaching credential.
Post-Bac Credential
Child Devel – Teacher Permit
Child Devel – Master Teacher Permit
Child Devel – Site Supervisor Permit
Child Devel – Program Director Permit
Percent
anticipated in
2013, 2014, and
2015 Senior
Surveys (n=262)
6%
13%
16%
10%
Multiple Subject Teaching Credential
18% (42% of PreCredential seniors)
Single Subject Teaching Credential
Behavior Analyst Certification
Certified Family Life Educator
Marriage and Family Therapy License
Pupil Personnel Services Credential
Master’s Degree
Doctoral Degree
7%
5%
7%
10%
5%
47%
6%
Percent
Achieved by
Alumni Survey
(have it or
working on it)
11%
8%
23%
5%
7% (22% of PreCredential
Option grads)
1%
2%
1%
7%
12%
43%
4%
With regard to post-graduation jobs, the Alumni Survey respondents reported that 6%
have still not been employed, 23% had a first job unrelated to their college major, and
68% had a first job that was related to their major. Of those who are employed, 48% are
employed full-time, 10% are employed part-time because they want to be, and 3% are
employed part-time because that’s all they can find. Furthermore, most 86% report
being satisfied with their current job.
The
4. What changes were made as a result of the findings?
Knowledge
We have continued to discuss performance on the Departmental Comprehensive Exam
at great length, as we have done during the years of its construction. We would like to
use 70% as the cutoff for passing, as we think it’s reasonable that a graduate of our
program be able to perform at that level. However, similar to last year, performance on
the exam is poor. If we used 70% as passing, only 46% of our students would have
passed the exam (in 2013, the pass rate would have been 32%). We remain, frankly,
horrified by the state of affairs. Last year we prepared and submitted a set of proposals
10
for curriculum changes to address what we believe are the causes of this poor
performance. The curriculum change proposal has been making its way through the
approval process. The JCAST Programs Committee has sent it back to us for additional
clarification on a few points. We expect that this proposal will be approved very soon
and implemented in fall 2016.
Last year we submitted an extensive analysis of the reasons for our students’ poor
performance on our measure of knowledge. Please refer to that report for more
substance, but to summarize a few of the major points:
• We have experienced a dramatic increase in the number of students in our
majors along with a dramatic decrease in the number of faculty. Therefore, we
have large class sizes, classes taught by part-timers who may not have had
adequate insight into the goals of our program, and a growing proportion of
students who “land” in our majors after failing out of other majors across
campus. All of this has resulted in a problem with grade inflation and low
expectations for performance.
• In an effort to respond to the needs of students entering diverse work
environments, and because our classes are always full to capacity or beyond,
and many of our majors cannot be served, we have allowed more major elective
units and more choice of courses, thus producing a smaller body of knowledge
common to our graduates. We make too many exceptions to required classes.
We have been forced to do so by the sheer number of students trying to get into
our classes and our limited faculty, but it has helped produce this problem.
These problems will be addressed by the curriculum change proposal that is working its
way through the system. Our proposal will drastically reduce our number of majors (by
increasing requirements to get in via a pre-major), force prerequisties to be taken before
upper-division major classes, and increase the number of core required classes.
Skills
Right now, no changes will be made to the professionalism training components of our
capstone classes. Currently, some teach this material and some don’t. Our new
curriculum will move this instruction from the capstone class to an earlier class that will
be required of all majors earlier on. The ones who are getting it seem to be doing fine,
so we will standardize the requirement by placing it in a class that everyone must take.
Indirect: Knowledge, Skills, Dispositions
Despite our discovery that our graduates are woefully lacking in disciplinary knowledge,
they leave our program believing that they have learned a lot. We are encouraged that
11
they find the faculty responsive and the coursework meaningful. We feel this gives us
some social capital that will be necessary to make the changes we have proposed.
The two issues that emerged from the senior survey are writing instruction, and
advising. Writing instruction is addressed in the proposal for curriculum changes that we
made last year. Advising is also addressed, but there is something else we did last year
to address advising. We began a conversion to a group advising model. All students are
now required to attend group advising before they have access to one-on-one with a
faculty advisor. This was necessary because, with the dramatic increase in student
numbers and decrease in faculty numbers, the advising burden was unbearable for
those few faculty who advise. We expected a bumpy transition, and we have had one.
In fact, on the 2014 senior survey, their already lackluster evaluation of advising
dropped even lower. We expect those numbers to increase as the expectation for group
advising becomes normative, and as people attend that session earlier in their degree
progress.
This coming year will bring even more changes to the advising model. The Jordan
College has hired advisors who will be trained to help us with our very heavy advising
load. We anticipate another bumpy transition, so that our advising satisfaction numbers
might take another dip before they go up again. We hope that the centralized advising
will allow faculty members to spend more time advising on career issues, which will
ultimately improve student satisfaction with the guidance they get in that area.
5. What assessment activities will be conducted 2015-2016?
Our Child and Family Science SOAP prescribes employer surveys for the upcoming
academic year. Therefore, this year we will:
a) Continue to require the Comprehensive Exam of all Child Development and
Family Science students in culminating experience classes, and analyze
those data as we have been doing.
b) Administer the Senior Survey to students in all three of our majors via the
culminating experience classes.
c) Conduct mock interviews in our culminating experience classes during the
spring semester, again for all three majors, and evaluate student performance
by criteria that are currently being developed by the instructors of those
classes.
d) Use data from Turnitin.com to assess our students’ ability to find research
and cite it appropriately in professional writing.
12
6. Progress on items from last program review action plan?
Our most recent self-study for program review was written during the academic year
2012-2013. At that time, we wrote the following report on progress the action items from
the prior review. The program review following that most recent self-study was not
completed until April of 2015. Therefore, we have not received a final action plan based
on that review.
The review team from the program review of 2005-2006, which pertained both to the BA in FCS and to the
BS in Child Development, made the following recommendations:
1.
Conduct outcomes assessment.
ACTION: Outcomes assessment has been conducted every year since our last program review.
2.
Recruit and retain faculty.
ACTION: While we are eager to rebuild our diminishing numbers, the budget crisis has reduced our
agency in this regard. We have requested faculty positions every year, and have been granted
searches four times. The searches have yielded four new hires during the period since our last
program review, but we have failed to retain three of those four faculty hires.
3.
Add a course to help students understand career options.
ACTION: We have not so far accomplished this, as the budget crisis has mandated a nearmoratorium on new courses. However, we have decided as a faculty on the content of a new
introductory course (CFS 100) for our Child Development and our Family Science students that will
meet the objectives proposed by the review team. This course, along with other programmatic
changes, is being proposed as part of a package proposal that has been submitted for review of
the JCAST Academic Programs Committee.
4.
Institute a capstone or culminating activity in all program emphases.
ACTION: We have accomplished this recommendation. Currently, Child Development majors are
required to take of the following three classes: CFS 139 – Advanced Practicum, in which they work
in a child development lab on campus, CFS 145b – Observation of Children, in which they are
placed in an elementary school setting for guided observations, or CFS 193 – Internship, in which
they are placed in a local family social service agency. Family Science majors are required to take
CFS 193 – Internship during the spring semester of their senior year. This course requires
placement in a local family social service agency for 130 hours, and it includes classroom work on
professionalism and career development. Fashion Merchandising students are required to take FM
140 – Fashion Entrepreneurship as a capstone class.
5.
Pursue Family Life Education certification from the National Council on Family Relations.
ACTION: The Family Science curriculum was designed in accordance with the requirements of the
National Council on Family Relations (NCFR) with the intention of becoming an “approved”
program. This would mean that the course of study for our students was pre-approved, and
graduates would not have to take the national certification exam in order to become Certified
Family Life Educators; they would need only to complete the requisite hours of field experience. We
pursued this with some vigor a few years ago. However, we were informed that our program could
not be approved as it currently exists for two reasons: 1) we teach family life education methods in
the internship class, but NCFR requires that the internship be a stand-alone experience. 2) The
professional ethics class (Phil 122) required for program approval has ceased to be regularly
available for Fresno State students. Since the onset of the budget crisis, its availability has been
reduced to once every four semesters, and we have observed that to be unreliable. Therefore, we
can pursue program approval once we are able to offer a family life education methods class that is
independent of the internship and that incorporates the study of professional ethics in the field of
family life education. This course has been proposed as part of the curriculum redesign that is
described in detail
13
6.
Continue efforts to diversify faculty.
ACTION: Again, while the faculty is fully supportive of this change, the budget crisis has severely
limited our ability to hire, and therefore we have simply been unable to address the issue of faculty
diversity.
7.
Move department culture toward research and scholarship.
ACTION: We have not been able to grow the department faculty due to constraints of the budget
crisis. Meanwhile, we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of declared majors served by
our department. Subsequently, the teaching, service, and advising loads have dramatically
increased for existing faculty. Any hope that additional scholarship will be successful in this climate
is not realistic.
8.
Reinstatement of the master’s program.
ACTION: After the 2005 program review, we created a committee for the reconstruction of our
master’s degree program. Considerable time and effort produced a plan for a master’s degree in
Child and Family Science with a set of 15 units of core classes and four potential specializations:
College Teaching, Early Childhood Education, Agency Administration, and Health and Nutrition.
We developed course proposals for the five courses that would constitute our core. We submitted a
proposal for our master’s degree program to the JCAST Academic Programs Committee, and a
budget analysis for the University Budget Committee in 2008. However, this coincided with the first
major budget cuts due to the broader budget crisis. The budget crisis, combined with the surprise
loss of tenure-track faculty member, meant that we simply did not have adequate resources to
reinstate the program. Our proposal was denied purely on the grounds of budget considerations.
So far, neither the budget nor our faculty resources have improved enough to allow another attempt
to reinstate the master’s program.
9.
Create an advisory committee.
ACTION: This recommendation has not so far been accomplished. We have discussed this at
length. The Family Science advisory board could reasonably be the same as an advisory board for
Child Development, as these disciplines overlap considerably. We decided to pursue that curricular
design issue during Academic Years 2012-14, and will work on constructing advisory boards in
2015.
10. Recruitment plan to attract the best, most qualified students
ACTION: The Child Development major has grown beyond our capacity to respond adequately.
The budget crisis has produced fewer sections of classes, but increasing enrollment has produced
more students in each section, to a degree that is not sustainable. We have not changed the
academic profile, however, of our student body. The average SAT score of our incoming freshmen
has remained virtually unchanged, from 863 in 2008 to 887 in 2012. The average high school GPA
of our incoming freshmen has also remained virtually unchanged: 3.23 in 2008 to 3.11 in 2012. We
are currently pursuing possible strategies to limit the number of majors served, and to
simultaneously select out those most likely to succeed in the program. We are considering
implementing a Pre-Child Development major, and requiring students to complete a set of
prerequisites at a specified level before proceeding on to full admittance as a Child Development
major.
11. Continue excellent teaching and meaningful content of coursework.
ACTION: The faculty in the Child Development program are, as ever, committed to excellence in
teaching and meeting the needs of our student body. We have, since the most recent program
review, made efforts toward continued improvement with such activities as: a) regular departmental
meetings to talk about pedagogy, sharing strategies, experiences, and challenges, and b) creation
of a departmental policy with regard to grade distributions as a means of exploring and eliminating
grade inflation that may be evidenced in some of our classes.
14
15
Appendix A
Goals and Learning Outcomes
Child and Family Science Goals and Learning Outcomes
1. Goal: Knowledge: To prepare graduates who are knowledgeable about child development
through the study of multiple theoretical perspectives and cultural contexts.
Outcomes: Graduates will be able to:
a. Describe, compare, and contrast the assertions of the major theories of child and family
science.
b. Construct a timeline of milestones of development and typical behaviors, identified through
research, of children conception through old age and death, identifying and describing
development in the following domains: physical, cognitive, emotional, and social.
c. Critique research methods used to investigate children and families by analyzing the
strengths of limitations of study designs, temporal orientation of studies, and methods of
data collection.
d. Explain the influence of the broader social context (e.g., cultural, societal, economic,
political, and legal contexts) on children and families.
2. Goal: Skills and Application: To prepare graduates who contribute to the quality of life for
children and families through effective application of cognitive, technical, and interpersonal
skills.
Outcomes: Graduates will be able to:
a. Apply critical thinking, problem solving, decision making, and self-reflection skills through
classroom and practical experiences.
b. Interpret, effectively demonstrate, and communicate knowledge and principles associated
with child and family science.
c. Locate, investigate, organize, analyze and effectively present data and other information in
oral, written, and technology-based formats.
d. Apply theories and engage in practices that foster healthy child development and family
relationships in the home, work place, and community.
e. Demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary for professional success,
including those for seeking and retaining employment.
3. Goal: Dispositions: To prepare graduates who have examined themselves in relation to their
values, beliefs, expectations, capabilities, needs, and professional interests.
Outcomes: Graduates will be able to:
a. Examine themselves with respect to issues of diversity.
b. Evaluate the core values and core values embraced by the child development field in light of
their own values and ethics.
16
c. Practice civic engagement through community and professional service.
Fashion Merchandising Goals and Learning Outcomes
1.
Knowledge
To prepare graduates to be knowledgeable about the fashion industry, fashion business, fashion market
and consumers, and fashion merchandising tools and strategies.
a.
b.
c.
d.
2.
Skills and Application
To prepare graduates who can contribute to the success of fashion business through effective application
of cognitive, technical, and interpersonal skills.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
3.
Outline and describe the structure, operation, and social, economic and political environment of the
fashion industry.
Identify and analyze fashion products from the perspective of material, structure and esthetics.
Describe basic merchandising tools and principles, and develop basic merchandising strategies.
Identify and analyze fashion consumer characteristics and demand. Compare and contrast major
theories regarding fashion consumer behavior.
Apply critical thinking, problem-solving, decision-making, and self-reflection skills.
Interpret, effectively demonstrate, and communicate knowledge and principles of fashion
merchandising.
Locate, investigate, organize, analyze, cite, and effectively present data and other information in
oral, written, and technology-based formats.
Utilize appropriate market research methods to increase the understanding of the fashion market
and consumers.
Apply merchandising principles and tools to enhance the profitability of fashion business.
Demonstrate knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary for professional success, including those
for seeking and retaining employment.
Dispositions
To prepare graduates who have examined themselves in relation to their values, beliefs, expectations,
capabilities, needs and professional interests.
a.
b.
c.
Examine their own beliefs and behaviors in light of multiple perspectives.
Evaluate core values and ethics embraced by the fashion industry in light of their own values and
ethics.
Practice civic engagement through community and professional service.
17
Appendix B
Senior Survey
Information About You
What is your major? Circle
Child Development
Child Development – Pre-Credential
Child Development – Practitioner
Family Science
Fashion Merchandising
When do you anticipate that you will graduate?
May 2013
August 2013
December 2013
May 2014
What is your gender?
Male
Female
What is your race or ethnicity? Circle all that
apply.
White/European American
Black/ African American
Latino/Hispanic
Asian: Hmong
Asian: Other
Native American
Other: _________________________
Did you start your education at Fresno State?
No, I started at a community college
and then transferred to Fresno State
No, I started at another university and
then transferred to Fresno State
Yes, I came to Fresno State as a
freshman
Did you declare another major before you
decided on the one you are graduating with?
No. I started with this major.
Yes.
What other major(s) did you have?
_______________________________
Why did you change from your original
major into your final one?
It was too difficult.
I didn’t enjoy it.
I fell in love with this major.
Other: ___________________________
18
Reflecting on Your Degree Program
Strong
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
We want to know your thoughts about your major classes during your time at Fresno State. Please put
an X in the box that corresponds to your level of agreement with each statement.
My major coursework gave me a strong knowledge base in my field.
I have learned how to conduct myself professionally in accordance with the
ethics and standards of my discipline.
I received adequate academic advising to help me navigate my educational
path while in this major.
My major coursework adequately prepared me for full-time work in my
discipline.
My major included classes that were a waste of my time.
If so, which ones? ________________________________________
Classes in my degree program were too difficult.
If so, which ones? ________________________________________
Classes in my degree program were too easy.
If so, which ones? ________________________________________
I received adequate guidance to help me choose a career path in my
discipline.
I became a better writer because of the classes I took in my major.
Most coursework for my major was interesting and useful.
The classes in my major helped me to become a better human being.
My coursework inspired me to become an engaged citizen.
My classes in my major were intellectually stimulating, and excited me about
my field.
The faculty in my program were responsive to my needs and interests.
Is there any other feedback you would like to give us about your experience in your major?
19
Your Plans After Graduation
Are you planning to pursue any certificates or licenses after you graduate? Circle all that apply.
Single subject teaching credential
None
Behavior Analyst Certification
Child development permit for child care
Certification as a family life educator
o Master Teacher Level
License in marriage and family therapy
o Site Supervisor Level
Pupil Personnel Services credential
o Program Director Level
Multiple subject teaching credential
What are your plans for employment after graduating?
I’ve already got a job lined up for after graduation.
I’m actively looking, but no job yet.
I’m not looking for a job.
If you’ve already got a job lined up, where will you be working?
____________________________________________________
Whether or not you have a job, what is your INTENTION with regard to your eventual work?
I would like to find a job directly related to my college major.
I plan to work, but not in a field related to my college major.
I am not seeking employment because I plan to be at home caring for my family.
I just don’t know yet.
If you are a Fashion Merchandising major, what career would you like to pursue?
Fashion designer
Retail buyer
Stylist
Store manager
Small store owner
Visual merchandiser
Other: ________________
Show organizer
If you are a Child Development or Family Science major, what career would you like to pursue?
applied behavior analysis
child care provider
family life educator
child care administrator
social worker
elementary school teacher
probation or corrections officer
high school teacher
child life specialist
college professor
victim services advocate
school psychologist
non-profit agency administrator
after-school program administrator
other: ___________________________
coach
therapist/counselor
20
Do you have plans to go to graduate school?
No, it’s not in my plans
Not at this time, but I haven’t ruled it out for the future.
Yes, I’d like to get a graduate degree, but I don’t have any firm plans yet.
Yes, I’m actively exploring options for graduate school.
Yes, I’ve been accepted into a graduate program and will start within the next year.
Where will you be going? What will you be studying? ___________________________
If you are considering graduate school, how far do you intend to go with your education?
Teaching credential
Master’s degree
Doctoral degree
If you are considering graduate school, what do you think you will study? Circle more than one if they are
serious contenders.
Teaching credential
Child development
Family science
Marriage and Family Therapy
Social work
Psychology
School counseling
Applied Behavior Analysis
Educational leadership
Fashion merchandising
Business
How likely is it that you will be staying in the Central Valley after graduation?
I’m definitely staying in the area.
I’d like to stay, but it’s not certain.
I just don’t know.
I’d like to leave, but it’s not certain.
I’m definitely leaving the area.
Contact Information
How can we reach you after you leave campus? Do you have a non-mail.fresnostate.edu email address
that you intend to keep? Do you have a permanent address that you’re willing to leave with us?
______________________________________________________________
21
22
Academic Year 2014/2015 Assessment Report Bachelor of Science in Enology, Department of Viticulture and Enology Due to changes in faculty assignments, there was no SOAP coordinator for the Department of Viticulture and Enology for Academic Year 2014/2015. As a result, there are no assessment data to report for the Bachelor of Science in Enology. The Department recognizes that this is a serious gap, and has taken steps to address this concern by appointing a new Assessment Coordinator and completely revising the B.S. in Enology SOAP as part of the self-­‐study for the program review. In Summer 2015, the Department assessment coordinator met with the university assessment coordinator to review the revised SOAP. Attached is the final draft of the revised SOAP, which will be used as the assessment plan for AY2015/2016. As part of the SOAP revision, the following timeline has been developed to address the remaining steps to complete the SOAP: Fall 2015 September •
Appoint members to the Department Assessment Committee •
•
Determine final assessment measurement methods Establish protocol and infrastructure for reporting assessment data October JCAST Department of Viticulture and Enology, B.S. in Enology Student Outcomes Assessment Plan (SOAP) I.
Mission Statement The mission of the Department of Viticulture and Enology at California State University, Fresno, is: -­‐
To train the future leaders of viticulture and enology through education and research -­‐
To conduct solution-­‐driven research for the grape and wine industry -­‐
To disseminate knowledge and information to the grape and wine industry, and community II. Goals and Student Learning Outcomes Goal I: To educate students in theoretical and practical knowledge of wine science Upon culmination of the Bachelor of Science in Enology, students will be able to: Outcome 1.1 Name and identify key microorganisms for wine science, and utilize them in the winemaking process 1.2 Understand key elements and chemical processes of grapes and wine, and utilize them appropriately in the winemaking process 1.3 Identify and define organoleptic properties of wine, including their chemical and/or microbiological origin, and evaluate and manage these properties in wine 1.4 Analyze wine through standard industry practices and create wine profiles from resulting data Goal II: To educate students in current wine production practices in the field and winery Upon culmination of the Bachelor of Science in Enology, students will be able to: Outcome 2.2 Analyze grape quality through organoleptic and technical methods and apply resulting data in vineyard, harvest, and wine management 2.2 Identify major and key minor grape varieties and describe their properties and resulting wine style 2.3 Practice vinification techniques, demonstrating knowledge of fermentation, maceration, and other early wine production variables 2.4 Practice cellaring techniques, demonstrating knowledge of post-­‐fermentation processing of wine and associated chemical changes 2.5 Practice blending techniques, demonstrating knowledge of sensory evaluation and resulting practices related to managing wine style and quality attributes 2.6 Demonstrate understanding and application of final wine processing and packaging technologies 2.7 Know and demonstrate proper use of winery technology and equipment Goal III: To educate students in current regulations as well as best practices in wine business and marketing Upon culmination of the Bachelor of Science in Enology, students will be able to: Outcome 3.1 Demonstrate a general knowledge of wine and winery regulations at the federal and California state levels, including the ability to identify appropriate sources for regulatory compliance information 3.2 Compare and contrast established wine business best practices and models, and create a plan using these practices as related to identified business objectives in establishment, maintenance, and expansion phases 3.3 Compare and contrast established wine marketing and sales practices and create a marketing and sales plan using these practices as related to identified business objectives in establishment, maintenance, and expansion phases Goal IV: To prepare students with practice in applied skills necessary for wine industry workplace leadership Upon culmination of the Bachelor of Science in Enology, students will be able to: Outcome 4.1 Demonstrate the ability to access grape industry knowledge through core resources 4.2 Manage knowledge and information towards achieving project objectives 4.3 Synthesize knowledge and information to achieve objectives and products as assigned 4.4 Communicate, interpret, and evaluate knowledge effectively through oral, written, and visual mediums JCAST
Department of Food Science and Nutrition
Outcomes Assessment (2014-5)
I. Department Narrative
The mission of the Department is to offer high quality, dynamic undergraduate and graduate
academic programs through transformational learning, to promote and integrate applied
research, and to engage in mutually beneficial collaborations with industry, professional
organizations and public agencies regionally, nationally, and globally.
In the Department, we have each major Program/Option Directors responsible for monitoring
the undergraduate program, suggesting curriculum and other catalog changes, and reviewing
changes proposed by others. Currently the Department Chair is the elected Assessment
Coordinator. The members of the Program/Option Directors are responsible for designing and
carrying out assessment activities with the help of the entire faculty as needed. The entire
department faculty also analyzes the resulting data and suggests changes to the program as
necessary. Assessment data and suggested program changes are presented to the entire faculty
in regular/weekly department faculty meeting, and the entire faculty decides whether to
implement any changes.
Dr. Dennis Ferris has served as Outcome Assessment Coordinator since the inception of this
program in 2010. He will be stepping down beginning Fall 2014 and Dr. Steven Pao will be
assuming the Outcome Assessment Coordinator role. Concurrent with this change will be a
revision of the Outcomes Assessment Plan for 2014-2015. The plan has served its role for the
last four years and has caused several changes on how our curriculum is presented, evaluated,
and taught. We will begin our new plan with this in mind.
II. Goals and Outcomes
Goal A. Undergraduate Food Science Option and Culinology Option students will be able to
better interpret statistical problems.
Outcome. After taking FSC100 Sensory Science, student improvement in statistical skills will be
demonstrated through scores on identical Pre-Test and Post-Tests given in the class.
Actual Measure. All students will show substantial improvement in the stated learning
outcome as indicated by increases in overall scores of ≥ 70% from baseline Pre-Test scores.
Actual Measure b. Overall class scores will also show substantial improvement in the stated
1
8-Oct-15
learning outcome as indicated by increases in overall scores of at least 70% from baseline PreTest scores.
Result a. 17/18 students (94.4%) improved their scores on the Post-Test. The one student who
did not improve their score decreased from 27.5% to 23.5%.
Result b. All other students improved their scores from 2.0 to 33.5%. The overall class mean
improved from 19.6% (sd 8.7%) to 36.7% (sd 10.7%). This difference is an 86.2% improvement
(16.9/19.6).
Closing the Loop. The instructor for the class responded to the results this way: “Discovery of
Data: This learning outcome for 7a above–HAS NOT BEEN MET for this year, while 7b has been
met. Changes to Findings: This is a new assessment for this year so there are no Changes to
Findings this year. However, several interesting and disturbing things have come out of this
investigation. 1) The students were only able to score an average of 19.6% on the Pre-Test.
This is VERY low considering they are required to take a basic statistical course before this one.
2) All of the students failed the Post-Test. In fact the highest score on the Post-Test was 53.5%!
There can be many reasons for these two factors, but as an instructor I am concerned that
these students who have now had an equivalent of 1½ statistics courses are still so unprepared
in statistical skills. The test itself asks very basic statistical information that was all covered in
the class (again). Perhaps the test itself is the problem, so it will be re-examined and
standardized before using it again in the fall.
Goal B. Dietetic Internship students will be able to produce professional presentations
Outcome. Students will be able to design, implement, and evaluate presentations considering
life experiences, cultural diversity and educational background of the target audience.
Actual Measure. 80% of students will receive a score of 7 or better (Note, outcome now uses
a1-10 scale, last year we used 1-5 scale) on classroom assignments using appropriate rubrics.
Outcome: Dietetic Internship: Development and delivery of group presentation to a community
group; presentation will include educational tools such as handouts and other media.
Result. 10/10 students (100%) of students evaluated earned a score of 7 or higher (0-10 point
scale), (90.0% last year).
Closing the Loop. The instructor for the class responded to the results this way: “This year’s
data reveals the assessment measure – HAS BEEN MET for this year. Interns are asked to
present presentations at most rotations throughout the internship, this year the instructor
chose to evaluation presentations that the interns prepared for their “elective rotation
experience” where they work 120 hours in an area or field of study they have not had exposure
to throughout the internship and/or have an interest as a possible career opportunity. After
2
8-Oct-15
the rotation experience the intern is given 1 week to prepare a 10-minutate presentation about
their experience to the instructor and the peers. The students are graded using a presentation
rubric that they are familiar with b/c it is used for all presentations and it is scored by the
instructor and in this case their peers. The certificate program went through a program review
and site visit and were grated continued accreditation from the Accreditation Council for
Education in Nutrition & Dietetics (ACEND) the accreditation agency for the Academy of
Nutrition & Dietetics (AND). One of the corrective actions for the reaccreditation was to rework
the program goals and assessment. Based on their report and recommendations, the program
has undergone a comprehensive review (with faculty, preceptors and stakeholder community)
and has made revision to all program goals and outcomes. The faculty committee has agreed
that we will be implementing some of those goals and outcome measures into this report for
next year.
Goal C. General Education Course students will be able to develop lifelong learning practices
Outcome. Students will be able to explain, model, or practice activities, skills, and behavior that
promote lifelong learning and development.
Actual Measure: 75% of students will meet outcome with 3/4 on the Nutrition Evaluation Essay
Scoring Rubric.
Result. 596/741 Students (80.43% of students earned a 3 or better on Nutritional Evaluation
Essay Scoring Rubric (65.41% last year).
Closing the loop. The instructor for the class responded to the results this way: “Discovery of
Data: This learning outcome is the same as last year. This year’s data reveals the assessment
measure –HAS BEEN MET for this year. Changes to Findings: The findings reveal a big
improvement, for the first time in 3 years. In addition, there were more students counted this
year than years past as well. Overall this reveals a different pattern, therefore we will need to
re-evaluate in the Fall 2015 with faculty to see what might be the contributors as to why such a
big improvement and if/how we can replicate the following year if we keep the same outcome
measure.
Goal D. Undergraduate Dietetic Option students will be able to integrate scientific information
and research into practice.
Outcome a. Students are able to demonstrate how to locate, interpret, evaluate and use
professional literature to make ethical evidence-based practice decisions.
Outcome b. Students are able to demonstrate effective and professional oral and written
communication and documentation and use of current information technologies when
communicating with individuals, groups and the public.
3
8-Oct-15
Actual Measure a. & b. 80% of students will receive a B or better on selected written or oral
documentation and communication in the following course assignments: 1) NUTR 160 Development of Nutrition Education Fact Sheet specifically designed for selected populations;
2) NUTR 156 - Four summaries of ADA Position Papers including use of ADA’s EAL in
summation; and 3) NUTR 149 - Development and delivery of a nutrition education lesson
including a lesson plan, goals/objectives, and educational handout developed for a specific
target audience demonstrating effective and professional written and oral communication skills
when writing and presenting for the public.
Result. 1) NUTR 160 Fact Sheet: 89 % of students received a B or better (62 of 70 students
received a B or Better on the Fact Sheet Assignment= 88.57% = 89%).
2) NUTR 156 – 70.0% of students received 80.0% or better. Group scores for each of the four
ADA Position Papers were as following: Position Paper #1 – 100% turned in paper and this was
not graded d/t purpose was to provide feedback to become more successful; Position Paper #2
– 67%; Position Paper #3 – 71%; and Position Paper #4 – 71%.
3) NUTR 149 – 100% of students received ≥ 80.0% on the Nutrition Education Lesson Plan.
Closing the Loop. The instructor for the class responded to the results this way: “Our goal is to
continue to improve the program. It is clear that these assignments are achievable and now it is
time to update the outcomes. I will be changing the outcomes to better reflect the AND
(Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics) accredited outcome data. This will be a better measurement
of success.”
We met the goal and will continue to provide students with the opportunity to turn in an initial
draft of the assignment for comments and feedback and a chance to make corrections.
Additionally, samples of previous fact sheets will be posted on BB and passed around to
students to give them an idea of what a fact sheet is.
We will continue to allow students to do a practice position paper and then all others will be
graded. Again, the issues were with plagiarism - therefore, I will make it mandatory that all
students take the University plagiarism workshop to ensure they do it correctly during NUTR 61
which will provide them with the foundation knowledge and skills needed to be successful
during their upper division courses. Secondly, I will lecture on writing a summary of a paper
that includes writing an abstract as well as making sure that they are referencing correctly.
Directions on BB are revised based on student comments and previous confusion to help with
their process. I will continue to be available to answer all questions and concerns. Finally, I will
provide detailed comments on their papers and if needed will allow another draft to be
submitted prior to assigning the final grade (per paper). I will consider allowing students to
work independently and not in a group.
4
8-Oct-15
III. Exit Interviews of Graduating Seniors
The following table summarizes responses of 19 graduating seniors to 12 statements as part of
the Exit Interview where:
5= excellent preparation, 4= more than adequate preparation, 3=adequate preparation, 2= less
than adequate preparation, and 1 = very inadequate preparation.
Statement
I am prepared to use techniques to build rapport with
customers or employers.
Result
More than adequate
preparation.
Average Std.
Score Dev.
4.1
0.85
I was taught how to organize my professional tasks.
More than adequate
preparation.
4.1
0.57
I am prepared to respond with fairness to disabled,
ethnically and linguistically diverse students/clients.
More than adequate
preparation.
4.4
0.77
More than adequate
to excellent
Adequate toi more
4.5
0.61
3.9
0.71
4.3
0.87
4.7
0.48
4.5
0.61
4.2
0.63
I have an appropriate knowledge base in my field.
I am familiar with the current research areas of my field.
My courses have provided me real life scenarios.
I know how to conduct myself in accordance with
professional ethics and standards.
I have skills to successfully collaborate with others in
the workplace.
I reflect upon and assess my own performance.
than adequate
i
More than adequate
preparation.
More than adequate
to excellent
i
More than adequate
to excellent
i
More than adequate
preparation.
I feel that I received a helpful and appropriate amount
of supervision/advisement.
More than adequate
preparation.
4.2
0.83
I can think critically about theory and research in my
field and put it into practice.
More than adequate
preparation.
4.3
0.65
My preparation has modeled the value of life-long
learning.
More than adequate
preparation.
4.2
0.76
5
8-Oct-15
Students were also asked to identify the strengths of their program of study, and
suggestions for the future of their program:
Please indicate the major strengths your area of study:
•
A. quality assurance, B. calculating material balance, C. calculating pearson square, D.
dairy processing
•
Doing research and experiments. Studying microorganisms.
•
Giving students in the program first-hand experience inside a kitchen and a laboratory.
The learning experience goes beyond the textbook; we get real life scenarios and work
together in order to solve them.
•
Quality Assurance and the food law aspect. I already work in Quality Assurance which
made it a little easier for me but what I enjoyed most food micro class and dairy class.
•
The Culinology courses made it. I absolutely loved the hands on courses. I think that I
gain the most knowledge and field skills from these types of classes.
•
A. There are many hands on education opportunities in lab courses and working in the
Fresno State Food Processing and Creamery. B. Faculty supports students. They seem to
really care about student learning and success. C. Great education! Students get a great
overview and base knowledge of the food industry along with delving further into certain
topics.
•
Family-like oriented having class with the same teachers and students. The education of
the professors.
•
I feel that Culinology helps develops skills that are looked in the food industry.
•
Sensory evaluation, Microbiology and Chemistry within Food and Dairy, Group
Projects.
•
A. Science, B. Chemistry, C. Processing
•
Working in a team/independently, analysis of quantitative data, critical thinking.
•
Product development, food chemistry, and food safety and sanitation.
•
A. Teachers build a personal relationship with their students and really do their best to
understand each person individually. They understand how each person learns and
always go above and beyond to help us succeed. I am very lucky that I chose this field of
study and was able to have my professors’ help guide me along the way and to a
successful future. B. The classes are hands on and each class relates to real life
situations. If it is a sensory class, we are doing sensory evaluations that matter to Fresno
State, such as sensory testing at the farm market. Fruit and vegetable processing, we are
going all over Fresno and learning about all the processing plants in the area to get a
more hands on experience and see how it works up close. In dairy processing we are
creating SOPs that the industry really uses. In food analysis, food chem and food
microbiology we are able to conduct our own research and it could develop into
something so more than a paper for class but an individual research project. C. Having a
required class that helps students transition from college to the real world.
•
A. Chemistry B. Quality Assurance C. Food Safety D. Nutrition through healthy
cooking.
6
8-Oct-15
•
A. Lab skills B. Culinary techniques C. Food systems management D. Working in a
group
•
A. DIVERSE B. CONTINUALLY GROWING C. INTRIGUING
•
A. Management Principles B. Food Safety C. Ethics D. Research
•
A. Preparing me for the real world. B. The labs do an excellent job representing what
may be done in careers. C. The writing assignments prepared me well to write
professionally. D. The amount of group projects really helped as well.
•
A. Proper cooking techniques. B. Food Safety. C. Food Science. D. Food
Production/development.
•
A. Food Chemistry, B. Food Microbiology, C. Food Processing, D. Food
Engineering.
Suggestions for the future of your area of study:
•
Three hour long classes is too long. Three days, 2 hours class would be a great help.
•
It is important that incoming students learn about the opportunities they have outside the
classrooms. There are many organizations that are located in campus and can give them
more information about the opportunities for the degree they are pursuing.
•
I would suggest that you have food science and culinology students take the FSC 199
senior seminar class earlier. I already am working in this field but I feel like students
would know what to expect at an earlier stage if they had to take this class during their
sophomore year.
•
A. More encouragement / education regarding summer internship opportunities. B. I
would suggest possibly doing a version of the senior seminar sophomore year it could
even be a webinar class. Students would learn about all of the opportunities open to them
as internship during school and jobs after graduation. They could meet Mary Willis
earlier this way. They would also have their resume ready and could continue to easily
build them through their college career. Then senior year they could take a more
advanced seminar course. C. Offering classes more often. There are often time conflicts.
The professors work well with the student to work around this, but it would be nice if
there were fewer issues with it.
•
More classes offered during both semesters. Updated Kitchen and classrooms.
•
I would like to see more food production courses like you look at an image or a food
manufacturing process and we discuss what was done to produce the food.
•
Help student get related with the industry sooner in their college career.
•
More emphasis on developing other areas such as packaging, beverages, and additives.
•
Have someone from career services talk to the classes before it is their last semester. I
would have liked to hear some of the things I learned in FSC 199 last year so I had more
time to take advantage of the opportunities being offered. B. The scheduling would my
only complaint about this program but I also am perfectly aware of why the classes are
not offered often. This is a very small major compared to other departments and classes
cannot be offered for only a few students but it might be helpful to have the roadmaps
7
8-Oct-15
planned out so students are aware of when each class is offered and what has to be done
before then.
•
A. More hands on opportunities when it comes to chemistry courses. B. Emphasize on SI
sessions and tutoring.
•
A. Resource for finding internships. B. Ways to connect with professionals in the field. C.
More opportunities to meet with professionals in the field. D. More field trips
•
The only thing that I would change is seeing my major advisor earlier. I probably would
have been finished two semesters ago if I would of seen my advisor earlier.
•
Environmental Issues. B. More Research Opportunities. C. Streamline Course Outlines
(A lot of material was repeated in various classes. Could have covered new material
instead.) D. A more organized club would have been nice to be a part of.
•
A. More labs. B. More class times offered. C. Less class conflicts within major. D.
Information about internships and summer jobs earlier in college career.
•
A. nutrition. B. product development. C. marketing D. food production
Closing the Loop:
It appears that we are doing excellent to more than adequate in all categories. The open ended
responses from students indicated that they like and respect their teachers and that they felt that
they were well advised. However, a general feeling from students was that they feel the
laboratories and equipment need to up-graded and modernized. The faculty is doing a very good
job of adding new and improved equipment to our classrooms. Dr. Dormedy has added new
equipment to the Food Microbiology Laboratory through a USDA grant and Dr. Ferris is doing
the same for the new Post Harvest Laboratory and the old Food Processing laboratory, so we are
making progress in improving equipment. The FFS 108 Lab Kitchen underwent a major
renovation over the 2015 summer. Several students remarked that they would like to receive
career counseling and professional development earlier than senior year. We have invited Mary
Willis, coordinator of Professional Experiences in the Jordan College to speak to our Freshman
and Sophomores during the Fall 2015 to get them engaged in professional development earlier in
their academic career.
IV. Future Assessment Plan
The Department will continue the current assessment plan. No revision has been made for the
next year/phase of assessment.
8
8-Oct-15
2014-15 Annual Assessment Report
Department of Industrial Technology
1. What Learning Outcomes did you assess this year?
The Department assessed the following outcomes:
• Goal 1: demonstrate knowledge, skills and technical competencies for
employment advancement
• Goal 2: develop management competency based on students’ career objectives
• Goal 3: develop leadership skills through practice in organization, planning,
execution and assessment of projects and activities
• Goal 4: apply research principles and methodologies
• Goal 5: develop communication and interpersonal skills
2. What instruments did you use to assess them?
• Direct measures
1)
Standard exam (ATMAE CTM exam), make our “Pass rate” closer
to or above the national average pass rate.
• Indirect measures
1)
Exit survey, our target is to make all average scores from the 19
questions above 3.5 out of 5.
2)
Alumni survey
3. What did you discover from these data?
On Apr. 29 and Dec. 9, 2014, fourteen and ten potential graduates took the Certified
Technology Manager (CTM) exam respectively. CTM exam is the standard exam from
our national association – Association of Technology Management and Applied
Engineering (ATMAE). It covers all of the core courses required for our students. The
overall results indicated that our pass rate of 57.14% in Spring 2014 is above the national
average pass rate of 52.29%, but 40% in Fall 2014 is lower than the national average pass
rate of 62.3%, which are the averages among hundreds of peer departments nationwide.
Our Assessment Coordinator then did an analysis on the detailed results (see attached for
details). We found from the analysis report that our graduates performed much better in
several categories, which explained why we exceeded the national average results in
Spring 2014. ATMAE totally changed the CTM exam in Fall 2014, which is the principal
reason for our low pass rate in the Fall semester. The analysis report also showed the
analysis results for all sub-categories of the four major main-categories: Quality, Safety,
Production, and Management. So the instructors can easily find the weakness in their
classes.
38 alumni provided responses in our Alumni Survey, thanks to the OEI office for
establishing the online survey form. The major results from the Alumni Survey include:
• The average scores for all of the 21 “Overall quality” categories are above 3.5
target, with minimum average score of 3.72 and maximum average score of 4.47.
•
The average scores for the “Readiness” of the 19 skills learned in school are all
above 3.5 target, with minimum average score 3.74 and maximum average score
of 4.47.
• The average scores for the “Importance” of the 19 skills learned in school are all
above 3.5 target, with minimum average score 4.00 and maximum average score
of 4.80.
We are very confident our BSIT program is with a satisfied overall quality. We will
spend more time to discuss about our Alumni Survey results in the future department
meetings.
4. What changes did you make as a result of the findings?
The CTM standard exam analysis report has been presented at our department meeting to
let all faculty members understand our improvement targets. Faculty members were
satisfied with the improving trend of our results. All faculty members will consider the
possible changes and improvements on their courses according to the analysis of our
students’ performance in related sub-categories.
From the exit survey results, we have tried very hard to find financial assistance
opportunities for our students. But some students may not realized which financial
supports they may be eligible. Faculty members have agreed that we’ll increase the
advertisement efforts.
5. What assessment activities will you be conducting in the 2015-16 academic year?
•
Direct measures
Standard exam (ATMAE CTM exam)
•
Indirect measures
Exit survey
Employer survey
The above three activities will assess the following learning outcomes:
• Goal 1: demonstrate knowledge, skills and technical competencies for
employment advancement
• Goal 2: develop management competency based on students’ career objectives
• Goal 3: develop leadership skills through practice in organization, planning,
execution and assessment of projects and activities
• Goal 4: apply research principles and methodologies
• Goal 5: develop communication and interpersonal skills
6. What progress have you made on items from your last program review action plan?
Our ATMAE CTM exam results have been improved. In Spring 2014, our pass rate
exceeded the national average pass rate.
After we got the Exit Survey results, we have tried very hard to find internship
opportunities for our students. In this year’s Exit Survey, the three weakest items: #2 –
“Integration of current developments in my field”, #12 – “Internship opportunity”, and #
15 – “Technical knowledge” are no longer the weakest.
And, we have modified and updated our SOAP and posted to the university website.
2014 Exit Survey Results
Dr. Daming Zhang, Professor
Department of Industrial Technology
California State University, Fresno
Exit Survey Questions
Questions
Question
Academic standard in the program
1
Integration of current developments in my field
2
Program space and facility
3
Interaction between faculty and students
4
Overall quality of faculty
5
Intellectual quality of fellow students
6
Advising
7
Amount of course seems appropriate for the BS degree
8
Amount of work seems consistent among the department faculty
9
Interdisciplinary technological knowledge
10
Financial assistance opportunity
11
Internship opportunity
12
Career Services
13
Management knowledge
14
Technical knowledge
15
Research knowledge (Including Senior project IT 199)
16
Leadership knowledge (Including student clubs)
17
Communication knowledge (Including IT 198W)
18
Program content fits well to you career goal
19
2014 Spring Exit Survey Results
Question Ans 1 Ans 2 Ans 3 Ans 4 Ans 5 Ans 6 Ans 7 Ans 8 Ans 9 10 11 12 Average Min Max
1
3
3
5
4
4
4
5
3
4
5
5
5
4.17
3
5
2
3
3
5
4
4
4
3
4
3
5
5
5
4.00
3
5
3
4
2
5
4
3
4
5
4
3
5
4
5
4.00
2
5
4
4
4
5
5
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
4.42
3
5
5
3
3
5
5
3
4
4
3
4
5
4
5
4.00
3
5
6
2
4
4
4
3
5
3
4
5
5
5
5
4.08
2
5
7
5
3
5
5
3
5
4
3
5
5
5
5
4.42
3
5
8
3
3
5
5
4
5
4
4
4
5
5
5
4.33
3
5
9
3
3
5
5
4
5
3
2
4
5
5
5
4.08
2
5
10
3
3
5
5
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
5
4.25
3
5
11
1
3
5
3
4
5
1
3
3
5
3
5
3.42
1
5
12
1
3
5
5
4
3
3
5
3
5
4
5
3.83
1
5
13
4
4
5
5
4
4
2
4
3
5
4
5
4.08
2
5
14
4
4
5
4
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
5
4.58
3
5
15
2
4
4
5
5
4
5
3
4
5
5
5
4.25
2
5
16
2
5
5
5
5
3
4
3
4
5
4
5
4.17
2
5
17
5
5
5
4
5
5
4
3
3
5
4
5
4.42
3
5
18
2
4
5
5
5
5
4
3
4
5
5
5
4.33
2
5
19
4
4
5
5
5
5
4
2
5
5
5
5
4.50
2
5
3.05 3.53 4.89 4.58 4.05 4.37 3.74 3.37 4.00 5.00 4.53 5.00
2014 Fall Exit Survey Results
Question Ans 1 Ans 2 Ans 3 Ans 4 Ans 5 Ans 6 Ans 7 Ans 8 Ans 9 10 Average Min Max
1
3
4
4
4
4
2
3
4
3
4
3.50
2
4
2
4
5
5
4
4
2
3
3
4
4
3.80
2
5
3
3
1
3
4
3
2
4
3
5
3
3.10
1
5
4
5
4
2
5
4
3
4
5
4
4
4.00
2
5
5
4
5
4
5
2
3
4
5
4
4
4.00
2
5
6
3
4
4
5
4
3
4
5
4
4
4.00
3
5
7
3
5
2
5
3
4
4
5
3
3
3.70
2
5
8
4
5
5
5
3
4
3
4
4
3
4.00
3
5
9
3
3
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
3
3.80
3
5
10
4
3
5
4
4
4
3
4
3
3
3.70
3
5
11
3
3
1
4
4
3
3
3
4
3
3.10
1
4
12
5
3
1
2
5
2
5
4
4
4
3.50
1
5
13
5
3
2
3
5
1
5
4
3
4
3.50
1
5
14
4
3
4
4
5
3
5
5
4
4
4.10
3
5
15
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
2
4
4
4.00
2
5
16
5
4
4
4
5
4
1
4
4
3
3.80
1
5
17
4
5
4
5
5
5
3
4
4
3
4.20
3
5
18
5
5
4
5
5
3
3
4
4
3
4.10
3
5
19
5
5
4
4
5
3
4
4
4
3
4.10
3
5
4.00 3.89 3.53 4.26 4.11 3.11 3.68 4.00 3.84 3.47
2013 Spring Exit Survey Results
QuestionAns 1 Ans 2 Ans 3 Ans 4 Ans 5 Ans 6 Ans 7 Ans 8 Ans 9
1
4
4
4
4
2
3
5
4
4
2
3
3
4
4
2
4
5
3
4
3
5
4
5
3
2
3
4
1
3
4
4
3
5
5
1
4
4
4
4
5
4
3
4
5
3
4
5
4
4
6
5
3
4
5
3
4
4
4
4
7
4
4
4
4
1
4
4
5
4
8
4
4
5
4
3
4
3
5
4
9
4
4
5
4
2
3
4
5
5
10
5
4
5
5
2
4
3
3
3
11
5
3
4
5
2
3
4
4
3
12
4
1
5
5
1
2
3
2
5
13
4
3
5
4
2
4
3
4
4
14
5
4
4
4
3
4
4
5
5
15
4
5
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
16
3
4
4
5
3
4
3
4
4
17
3
4
5
4
3
3
3
2
5
18
4
4
5
5
3
4
4
4
5
19
4
4
5
4
3
4
3
5
4
4.11 3.58 4.53 4.37 2.32 3.63 3.79 3.74 4.05
10 11 12 13 14 Average Min Max
5
3
5
3
3
3.79
2
5
4
2
4
3
4
3.50
2
5
4
4
4
4
5
3.64
1
5
5
4
4
3
5
3.93
1
5
4
2
4
3
4
3.79
2
5
5
4
3
4
4
4.00
3
5
4
5
4
3
5
3.93
1
5
4
2
3
5
4
3.86
2
5
4
4
3
4
3
3.86
2
5
5
2
4
4
5
3.86
2
5
4
3
3
4
5
3.71
2
5
4
4
4
3
5
3.43
1
5
4
5
3
3
5
3.79
2
5
5
5
5
4
5
4.43
3
5
5
2
3
4
1
3.50
1
5
5
3
3
4
5
3.86
3
5
5
2
2
4
5
3.57
2
5
4
3
3
3
5
4.00
3
5
4
3
4
4
1
3.71
1
5
4.42 3.26 3.58 3.63 4.16
2013 Fall Exit Survey Results
QuestionAns 1 Ans 2 Ans 3 Ans 4 Ans 5 Ans 6 Ans 7 Ans 8 Ans 9 10 11 12 Average Min Max
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
4
5
4.33
4
5
2
4
5
3
4
4
3
5
4
5
5
4
4
4.17
3
5
3
4
2
3
4
5
3
4
4
4
5
4
4
3.83
2
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
1
5
4
4
5
2
5
4.08
1
5
5
5
4
5
4
4
2
5
4
5
5
4
5
4.33
2
5
6
5
4
4
4
3
4
5
4
4
5
4
4
4.17
3
5
7
5
4
5
4
5
3
5
4
5
5
4
5
4.50
3
5
8
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
4
5
4.42
4
5
9
5
4
5
4
3
4
5
4
4
5
4
5
4.33
3
5
10
5
3
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
5
3
4
4.08
3
5
11
4
4
5
4
5
2
4
4
5
5
3
4
4.08
2
5
12
4
4
5
4
5
3
5
4
5
5
3
5
4.33
3
5
13
4
4
5
4
5
3
5
4
5
5
3
5
4.33
3
5
14
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
5
4
5
4.58
4
5
15
4
5
5
4
4
2
5
4
4
5
4
5
4.25
2
5
16
4
4
5
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
3
5
4.33
3
5
17
4
5
5
4
3
3
5
4
5
5
3
4
4.17
3
5
18
5
5
5
4
3
2
5
4
5
5
4
5
4.33
2
5
19
5
5
5
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
4
5
4.58
4
5
4.53 4.11 4.58 4.00 4.16 3.11 4.89 4.00 4.68 5.00 3.58 4.68
2014-15 CTM Exam Results
Analysis
Dr. Daming Zhang, Professor
Department of Industrial Technology
California State University, Fresno
Trend and Comparison
Average-score & Pass-rate Compared to National
120
100
80
CSUF Ave
Nat Ave
60
CSUF Pas
Nat Pas
40
20
0
2010F
2011S
2011F
2012S
2012F
2013S
2013F
2014S
2014F
2015S
2014 Spring Category Breakdown
Question CSUF
CSUF
Natinal
National
Category
Count
Average Std Dev Average Std Dev
Chemistry
4
2.43
0.76
2.37
1.02
English
3
1.93
1.07
2.04
0.91
Industrial Safety Management33
19.71
7.14
19.84
6.07
Management
7
4.43
1.74
4.58
1.63
Math
19
10.71
2.73
10.69
3.64
Physics
3
0.93
0.83
1.05
0.89
Production
64
36
11.35
38.33
11.02
Psychology
3
2.07
0.92
1.74
1.01
Quality Control
24
10.21
3.51
10.78
4.04
2014 Spring Subcategory Breakdown
Category
Subcategory
# of Question CSUF Average National Average
Industrial Safety Management
Accident Prevention
1
0.71
0.68
Industrial Safety Management
Administrative Control
1
0.29
0.28
Industrial Safety Management
Engineering Controls
1
0.64
0.45
Industrial Safety Management
Environmental Controls
2
1.14
1.3
Industrial Safety Management
Fire Protection
5
4.21
3.74
Industrial Safety Management
Hazardous Materials
3
1.71
1.84
Industrial Safety Management
History/legislation
3
1.43
1.73
Industrial Safety Management
Hygiene
2
1.07
1.2
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Waste
1
0.36
0.31
Industrial Safety Management
OSHA
11
6.07
6.28
Industrial Safety Management
PPE
2
1.5
1.53
Industrial Safety Management
Workers Compensation
1
0.57
0.51
Management
Business Law
6
4.29
4.32
Management
Labor
1
0.14
0.26
Production
Facilities Layout &amp; Materials Handling
3
1.64
1.9
Production
Industrial Ergonomics
4
2.64
2.82
Production
Industrial Finance &amp; Accounting
3
1.14
1.37
Production
Industrial Management
11
6
6.45
Production
Industrial Supervision
12
6.64
7.84
Production
Lean Philosophy
3
1.79
1.63
Production
Manufacturing Processes
1
0.71
0.79
Production
Production Planning &amp; Control
15
9.36
9.02
Production
Project Management
4
1.64
1.93
Production
Time &amp; Motion Study
8
4.43
4.58
Quality Control
Charts
6
1.36
1.93
Quality Control
Control Systems
1
0.71
0.71
Quality Control
Curves/distributions
3
1.29
1.4
Quality Control
Military Standards
1
0.29
0.37
Quality Control
Probability
2
1.21
1.13
Quality Control
Reliability
4
1.86
2.08
Quality Control
Sampling
6
3.07
2.72
Quality Control
Total Quality Management
1
0.43
0.44
2014 Fall Category Breakdown
Question CSUF CSUF Std National National
Category
Count
Average
Dev
Average Std Dev
Leadership
10
5.3
2.36
5.82
1.96
Operations
19
9.9
3.67
11.23
3.96
People
19
11.5
2.37
11.95
3.46
Processes
19
10
3.62
11.21
4.02
Project
19
13.1
4.51
13.28
3.65
Quality
19
9.8
2.49
10.15
3.43
Risk
7
6
0.94
5.34
1.97
Safety
12
6.8
2.86
7.38
2.91
Self-Management
18
11.6
3.37
11.84
3.3
Systems
18
8.2
3.82
10.05
3.48
2014 Fall Subcategory Breakdown (1)
Category
Leadership
Leadership
Leadership
Leadership
Operations
Operations
Operations
Operations
People
People
People
People
People
People
Processes
Processes
Processes
Processes
Processes
Project
Project
Project
Quality
Quality
Quality
Quality
Quality
Quality
Subcategory
Decision Making
Leading
Management Principles
Psychology
Directing
Organizing
Planning and Control
Staffing
Empowerment
Industrial Management
Listening
Respect
Supervision
Team Building
Process Control
Process Design
Process Improvement
Process Methods
Productivity
Project Control
Project Management
Scheduling and Estimating
Control Charts
Probability
Quality Management
Reliability
Sampling
Statistics
# of Question
4
1
4
1
5
5
6
3
1
6
2
1
7
2
2
6
2
2
7
6
5
8
3
2
1
2
4
7
CSUF Average
National Average
2.4
2.54
0.4
0.46
2
2.25
0.5
0.57
2.7
3.21
2.1
2.69
3.4
3.36
1.7
1.97
0.7
0.57
3.5
3.59
1.5
1.74
0.6
0.61
4.4
4.57
0.8
0.87
0.8
1.07
3.9
3.79
0.8
1.07
1.5
1.72
3
3.57
4.3
4.26
4
3.66
4.8
5.36
0.6
0.61
1
0.97
0.4
0.57
1.3
1.15
2.3
2.85
4.2
4
2014 Fall Subcategory Breakdown (2)
Category
Risk
Risk
Risk
Safety
Safety
Safety
Safety
Safety
Safety
Safety
Safety
Safety
Safety
Safety
Safety
Self-Management
Self-Management
Self-Management
Self-Management
Self-Management
Self-Management
Systems
Systems
Systems
Systems
Systems
Systems
Subcategory
Ergonomics
Management Business Law
Patent Law
Accident Prevention
Admin Control
Engineering Controls
Environmental Controls
Fire Protection
Hazmat
History/Legislation
Hygiene
Industrial Waste
OSHA
PPE
Workers Compensation
Characteristics
Discipline
Integrity
Responsibility
Self-monitoring
Values and Ethics
Accounting and Finance
Facilities
Lean
Materials
Strategic Management
Supply Chain
# of Question
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
4
CSUF Average
National Average
1.8
1.61
3.7
3.15
0.5
0.59
0.5
0.59
0.3
0.31
0.4
0.48
1
0.82
0.6
0.61
0.6
0.74
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.67
0.3
0.43
0.5
0.59
0.8
0.85
0.4
0.49
3.9
4.08
2.1
2.11
1.6
1.54
1.4
1.31
0.7
0.82
1.9
1.97
1.4
1.44
1.7
1.89
1.7
1.98
0.5
0.9
1.1
1.66
1.8
2.18
2013 Spring Category Breakdown
Questio
CSUF
CSUF Std
Category
n Count
Average
Dev
Chemistry
4
2
0.65
English
3
1.93
0.8
Industrial Safety Management
33
20.8
5.02
Management
7
4.33
2.13
Math
19
9.47
3.11
Physics
3
1.13
0.92
Production
64
38
10.99
Psychology
3
1.73
0.88
Quality Control
24
10.6
2.64
National
Average
2.42
2.18
20.92
4.87
11.04
1.22
38.98
1.72
10.81
National
Std Dev
0.92
0.86
4.92
1.67
3.28
0.92
9.25
0.99
3.65
2013 Spring Subcategory Breakdown
Category
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Safety Management
Management
Management
Production
Production
Production
Production
Production
Production
Production
Production
Production
Production
Quality Control
Quality Control
Quality Control
Quality Control
Quality Control
Quality Control
Quality Control
Quality Control
Subcategory
# of Question
Accident Prevention
Administrative Control
Engineering Controls
Environmental Controls
Fire Protection
Hazardous Materials
History/legislation
Hygiene
Industrial Waste
OSHA
PPE
Workers Compensation
Business Law
Labor
Facilities Layout &amp; Materials Handling
Industrial Ergonomics
Industrial Finance &amp; Accounting
Industrial Management
Industrial Supervision
Lean Philosophy
Manufacturing Processes
Production Planning &amp; Control
Project Management
Time &amp; Motion Study
Charts
Control Systems
Curves/distributions
Military Standards
Probability
Reliability
Sampling
Total Quality Management
1
1
1
2
5
3
3
2
1
11
2
1
6
1
3
4
3
11
12
3
1
15
4
8
6
1
3
1
2
4
6
1
CSUF Average
0.6
0.2
0.4
1.4
4
2.13
2
1.33
0.2
6.67
1.47
0.4
4.07
0.27
1.73
2.8
1.33
6.53
7.67
1.8
0.87
8.73
2.07
4.47
1.47
0.8
1.87
0.13
1.47
1.67
2.53
0.67
National Average
0.64
0.22
0.44
1.33
3.95
1.94
1.81
1.39
0.31
6.64
1.69
0.55
4.61
0.26
1.94
2.85
1.4
6.64
8
1.57
0.79
8.94
2.04
4.8
1.87
0.69
1.5
0.27
1.17
2.11
2.71
0.51
2013 Fall Category Breakdown
Questio
CSUF
CSUF Std
Category
n Count
Average
Dev
Chemistry
4
2.15
0.69
English
3
1.85
0.9
Industrial Safety Management
33
18.46
5.55
Management
7
4.38
1.39
Math
19
10.54
3.1
Physics
3
1
0.82
Production
64
33.62
11.12
Psychology
3
1.54
1.05
Quality Control
24
8.69
3.33
National
Average
2.33
1.92
20.75
4.46
11.13
1.21
37.67
1.42
10.46
National
Std Dev
0.75
0.86
4.94
1.08
2.73
0.87
9.54
1
3.51
2013 Fall Subcategory Breakdown
Category
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Safety Management
Industrial Safety Management
Management
Management
Production
Production
Production
Production
Production
Production
Production
Production
Production
Production
Quality Control
Quality Control
Quality Control
Quality Control
Quality Control
Quality Control
Quality Control
Quality Control
Subcategory
# of Question
Accident Prevention
Administrative Control
Engineering Controls
Environmental Controls
Fire Protection
Hazardous Materials
History/legislation
Hygiene
Industrial Waste
OSHA
PPE
Workers Compensation
Business Law
Labor
Facilities Layout &amp; Materials Handling
Industrial Ergonomics
Industrial Finance &amp; Accounting
Industrial Management
Industrial Supervision
Lean Philosophy
Manufacturing Processes
Production Planning &amp; Control
Project Management
Time &amp; Motion Study
Charts
Control Systems
Curves/distributions
Military Standards
Probability
Reliability
Sampling
Total Quality Management
1
1
1
2
5
3
3
2
1
11
2
1
6
1
3
4
3
11
12
3
1
15
4
8
6
1
3
1
2
4
6
1
CSUF Average
0.62
0.38
0.38
1
3.85
1.85
1.62
1.08
0.15
5.85
1.46
0.23
4.23
0.15
1.85
2.46
1.15
5.69
6.92
1.23
1
7.62
1.77
3.92
1.85
0.54
0.92
0.38
0.62
1.92
2
0.46
National Average
0.71
0.33
0.33
1.21
3.96
2.04
1.83
1.29
0.21
6.75
1.58
0.5
4.29
0.17
2
2.71
1.33
6.71
7.67
1.46
0.92
8.63
1.71
4.54
2.13
0.71
1.25
0.46
0.92
2.33
2.25
0.42
Department of Plant Science—Graduate Program Outcomes Assessment Report
September 1, 2015
1. What learning outcome(s) (LO’s) did you assess this year?
The learning outcomes (LO’s) assessed were those identified in the Student Outcomes
Assessment Plan (SOAP) as relating to the oral Thesis Proposal Defense:
1.1: describe the environment of plants and its influence on their growth and development
2.1: formulate a research hypothesis and plan and design experiments to test that hypothesis
3.1: evaluate appropriate methods for sampling, sample processing and analysis with knowledge of
quality control procedures
3.2: select appropriate lab techniques for the thesis research project
5.2: present research findings in a scholarly manner through oral or poster presentation and be able
to respond to questions integrating scholarly knowledge into the response
During the oral proposal defense, the students present their thesis research (20-30 minute
Powerpoint presentation, open to all, including graduate student peers); after which the thesis
committee alone examines the student on their knowledge of the research hypothesis,
experimental design, methodology, timeline, and their knowledge of component areas specific
to their research topic. The thesis proposal defense is a key step in preparing our graduate
students for their thesis research. Outcomes of the proposal defense can be a Pass, Conditional
Pass, or No Pass.
2. What instruments did you use to assess them?
We reviewed written commentary provided by thesis committee members following the
student’s defense in order to assess progress on the LO’s listed above. A standard evaluation
form is being used, from which we will develop a rubric once this assessment activity is
completed. This instrument was included in the 2012-2013 assessment activities, but as we
have continued to revise the proposal defense process and have now obtained a larger
database for the written commentaries, we elected to continue with this assessment activity so
as to better determine if progress is being made on the LO’s listed above. [The revised SOAP
(appended) includes an updated timeline (Section VI) for Assessment Activities].
Regarding standards of performance, our thesis proposal defense system was instituted in
~2008 and given the small size of our graduate program, this was the first time that we had a
large enough pool of commentaries (30) to adequately assess performance…. hence there is no
existing standard to compare against. We will use data collected in this assessment period to
establish this baseline for use in future assessments.
3. What did you discover from these data?
Comments on the performance of 30 graduate students completing the thesis proposal defense
from ~2008 to 2015 were reviewed. Of these students, 15/30 (50%) passed the defense, 14/30
(46.7%) had a Conditional Pass and 1/30 (3.3%) did not pass. The student who did not pass was
given two more opportunities to defend, but this did not result in improvement and was
subsequently asked to leave the graduate program. Progress on the LO’s related to the thesis
proposal defense is summarized below.
1.1: describe the environment of plants and its influence on their growth and development
This LO determined to a large extent whether students were given a Pass or a Conditional
Pass. Several of our graduate courses cover plant interactions with the environment, but
approximately half of the students had difficulty relating those examples to their thesis
research during the proposal defense. Those given a conditional pass revealed that their
knowledge of plant physiology, plant growth and in particular plant interactions with the
environment, was not fully developed.
2.1: formulate a research hypothesis and plan and design experiments to test that hypothesis
Students typically knew what experimental design would be used for their research, but
oftentimes they did not know why, or they did know what the alternative choices might
have been.
3.1: evaluate appropriate methods for sampling, sample processing and analysis with
knowledge of quality control procedures
It was judged that most students, approximately 75%, were achieving this LO with
moderate success. However, oftentimes, the students could identify numerous field
measurements potentially suitable to their thesis research, but they had difficulty in
selecting amongst these techniques and knowing how those measurements related to their
research question.
3.2: select appropriate lab techniques for the thesis research project
With regard to laboratory analysis, the students were reasonably well-prepared, but some
improvement in their methodology for processing samples and their knowledge of proper
preparation of standard solutions, inclusion of appropriate standards and duplicate
samples, and the target (expected) values for their laboratory analyses would be desirable.
5.2: present research findings in a scholarly manner through oral or poster presentation and
be able to respond to questions integrating scholarly knowledge into the response
As judged by the thesis proposal defense presentations and presentations at local, state and
national conferences by our graduate students, most are achieving the first part of this
learning outcome. In general, their presentations are quite good– being professional, the
information is clearly communicated, and demonstrating adequate literature review. In
fact, our graduate students often win top prizes for poster and oral presentations at
regional and state meetings, successfully competing against students from the UC
campuses. However, a greater ability to respond to questions on their research and
integrate scholarly knowledge into the response, would be desirable
4. What changes did you make as a result of the findings?
LO 1:1: The action being taken for students not achieving this LO is to require an
independent study (PL290) with a comprehensive final paper to cover the subject matter in
which the deficiency was detected, or in some cases, a student has been asked to enroll in
an undergraduate course related to the deficient area, or work with the professor teaching
that course to develop course materials. This has worked out well thus far and the PL290
final papers have revealed that the students are better able to achieve this LO. Assessment
of this LO has also reinforced our decision to hold firm on our requirement for pre-requisite
courses in Plant Physiology and Soils, even as we receive an increasing number of applicants
to the program from majors other than Plant Science/Agronomy/Horticulture and in some
cases, from outside of the Life Sciences.
LO 2.1: The typical action for students not understanding their experimental design and/or
how the design of their experiments relates to the research hypothesis is to have discussion
during the thesis proposal defense as to why the chosen experimental design was
appropriate and/or why other designs were not chosen. If there was uncertainty amongst
the thesis committee member as to the appropriate experimental design, the student was
tasked with consulting with those more knowledgeable in statistics.
LO 3.1 and 3.2: For students not able to determine appropriate methods for sampling or
laboratory analysis, or having inadequate knowledge of quality control procedures,
discussion between the thesis committee and the student during the proposal defense
often resolves this shortcoming, or the committee will now request that the student revise
their written thesis proposal to include the rationale behind their selection of sampling
techniques. We also discussed placing more emphasis on these topics in the Lab
Techniques class (AGRI 201), a core courses in our graduate curriculum, or by developing a
workshop or short course for the subset of graduate students whose thesis research
involves a significant amount of laboratory analysis.
LO 5.2: Presenting research findings in a scholarly manner and integrating scholarly
knowledge when responding to questions: creating additional opportunities for graduate
students to present their thesis research and respond to questions from the audience is a
potential solution, although many do take advantage of on-campus, regional and state-wide
or national opportunities. Those doing multiple presentations, both poster and oral format,
generally show improvement in this LO and are better prepared for the thesis exit seminar
when they also need to integrate scholarly information when responding to questions from
the audience.
We also revised the approval sheets for the thesis proposal and the proposal defense. And with
the information gained on student mastery of the LO’s related to thesis proposal defense, we
can now develop a rubric for the thesis proposal defense. This would supplement the
qualitative comments provided on the revised approval sheets.
5. What assessment activities will you be conducting in the 2015-16 academic year?
In order to determine if our system of Conditional Pass on the Thesis Proposal Defense is
accurately assessing our desired LO’s, we will re-assess the student’s Thesis Proposals, including
those revised as a result of the discussions during the proposal defense and the conditions
placed on the student, e.g. independent studies to improve their knowledge of subject areas
related to the thesis research. We will utilize the thesis proposal rubric developed after the
thesis proposals were reviewed in 2013-2014.
*Included is the revised SOAP with updated Timeline and Closing the Loop sections (VI and VII.)
6. What progress have you made on items from your last program review action plan?
Items in the last Program Review are listed below with some commentary
1. Graduate student recruiting: graduate student numbers have remained fairly consistent
in the 7 years since our last program review (17-23 students). Small faculty size (difficulty
in filling key positions in the department) and the huge increase in undergraduate
students (60 to 230 during this time period) make it very difficult to increase the size of
our graduate program due to the challenge of adequately covering our undergraduate
courses. Recruiting efforts are primarily directed at improving the quality of our graduate
students. The lack of programmatic funds for recruiting graduate students makes this
difficult, but the Harvey Scholarship-Jordan Assistantship Graduate funding available from
our college has been very helpful in recruiting some very talented students, in particular
from outside of the San Joaquin Valley. Advertising in the on-line career centers of
professional societies such as the Agronomy, Soil Science, and Crop Science Societies of
America yield a suitable number of inquiries, but successful recruitment is limited by the
lack of funding to support graduate students.
2. New and renovated research space, including space for graduate students: the Jordan
Agricultural Research Center scheduled to open in 2016 will largely improve our graduate
student research capacity.
3. Improve student outcomes assessment and update the SOAP: a major update of the
Plant Science graduate SOAP was done in June 2011. The appended SOAP contains an
updated timeline for assessment activities.
4. Development efforts targeted toward department needs: major effort has been placed
on targeting development efforts toward upgrading our greenhouse facilities. Quotes for
the cost of construction of a new, research-grade greenhouse, as well as renovations to
existing greenhouses were submitted to the Dean’s office and the JCAST Development
office several times. We recognize that development efforts take time and equipping the
Jordan Research Center is also a key focus; however, we continue to point out the need
for adequate greenhouse facilities to enhance graduate student research opportunities.
The cooling system in greenhouse 8 was upgraded which is a step in the right direction.
Academic Year 2014/2015 Assessment Report Bachelor of Science in Viticulture, Department of Viticulture and Enology Due to changes in faculty assignments, there was no SOAP coordinator for the Department of Viticulture and Enology for Academic Year 2014/2015. As a result, there are no assessment data to report for the Bachelor of Science in Viticulture. The Department recognizes that this is a serious gap, and has taken steps to address this concern by appointing a new Assessment Coordinator and completely revising the B.S. in Enology SOAP as part of the self-­‐study for the program review. In Summer 2015, the Department assessment coordinator met with the university assessment coordinator to review the revised SOAP. Attached is the final draft of the revised SOAP, which will be used as the assessment plan for AY2015/2016. As part of the SOAP revision, the following timeline has been developed to address the remaining steps to complete the SOAP: Fall 2015 September •
Appoint members to the Department Assessment Committee •
•
Determine final assessment measurement methods Establish protocol and infrastructure for reporting assessment data October JCAST Department of Viticulture and Enology, B.S. in Viticulture Student Outcomes Assessment Plan (SOAP) I.
Mission Statement The mission of the Department of Viticulture and Enology at California State University, Fresno, is: -­‐
To train the future leaders of viticulture and enology through education and research -­‐
To conduct solution-­‐driven research for the grape and wine industry -­‐
To disseminate knowledge and information to the grape and wine industry, and community II. Goals and Student Learning Outcomes Goal I: To educate students in theoretical and practical knowledge of grapevine cultivation Upon culmination of the Bachelor of Science in Viticulture, students will be able to: Outcome 1.1 Identify and describe the function of grapevine anatomy 1.1a Explain and identify vine and berry growth stages as it relates to cultural practices 1.2 Analyze the chemical environment of the grapevine and identify related responses 1.3 Analyze the physical environment of the grapevine and identify related responses 1.4 Recognize core cultivars, clones, and rootstocks and compare and contrast their suitability for field, storage, and market/consumer environments 1.4a Practice the science of ampelography for vine identification and classification for core cultivars 1.5 Identify core pests and diseases of grapevines, and utilize appropriate measures for control of these pests and diseases Goal II: To educate students in current grape and grape commodity practices in the field and market/consumer setting Upon culmination of the Bachelor of Science in Viticulture, students will be able to: Outcome 2.1 Describe and manage the elements necessary for vineyard planning and propagation 2.2. Define and identify situational use of different training, trellising, and pruning systems 2.3 Define and identify situational use of different vineyard mechanization methods suitable for improving production efficiency 2.4 Utilize and manage harvest and post-­‐harvest methods as used in the grape commodity industries 2.5 Demonstrate understanding of the wine grape production process, including unique elements of cultural practices and impact on final product 2.6 Demonstrate understanding of the raisin grape production process, including unique elements of cultural practices and impact on final product 2.7 Demonstrate understanding of the table grape production process, including unique elements of cultural practices and impact on final product 2.8 Express knowledge of grape commodity market terms and practices at national and international levels 2.9 Compare and contrast established marketing and sales practices and demonstrate application to grape commodity markets Goal III: To prepare students with practice in applied skills necessary for grape industry workplace leadership Upon culmination of the Bachelor of Science in Viticulture, students will be able to: Outcome 3.1 Demonstrate the ability to access grape industry knowledge through core resources 3.2 Manage knowledge and information towards achieving project objectives 3.3. Synthesize knowledge and information to achieve objectives and products as assigned 3.4 Communicate, interpret, and evaluate knowledge effectively through oral, written, and visual mediums