2011­12 Truckee Meadows Community College School of Sciences BIOLOGY PROGRAM/UNIT REVIEW SELF STUDY Biology
DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM/UNIT
The Biology Department at Truckee Meadows Community College operates within the School of Sciences and boasts
10 full-time faculty members with expertise in the areas of ecology, evolution, physiology, organismal, and cell and
molecular biology. The department offers an Associates of Science with Biology Emphasis degree and supports the
College’s allied health programs through the offering of program pre-requisite courses at both the Dandini and
Redfield campus locations. On average, close to 1,400 students enroll in our courses annually. Still, many students
go unserved. Curriculum is rigorous and encourages critical thinking, problem solving, and data analysis as part of
the scientific process.
Mission Statement
The mission of the Biology Department is to provide students the basic principles and concepts of modern
biology in order to establish a foundation for those pursuing careers in the natural sciences as well as allied
health professions. As such, the Biology Department offers college transfer courses for biology majors,
provides prerequisite classes for allied health and other programs, and supports the College general
education requirements in the natural sciences.
Degrees, Certificates, and/or Non-Credit Courses offered
A.S., Biology Emphasis
Primary Goals and Objectives
The primary niche of the Biology Department at this time is a service department to other students at
TMCC, namely allied health majors. Towards this, a goal of the Biology Department is to continue to
prepare these students by providing them a foundation in biological concepts. We recognize the highly competitive
nature of acceptance into allied health programs and thus aim to better serve these students by communicating
alternative career paths and developing a new A.S. Health Science emphasis and a dual enrollment program with the
University of Nevada, Reno. In this way, students could apply their biology courses towards Bachelor's level degrees
in life sciences. Finally, the Department aims to establish a new culture of biological research by implementing a
more inquiry-driven pedagogy in both the lecture and laboratory setting and developing a new Research
Methodologies course.
Factors Expected to Affect Future
A number of factors should be taken into consideration when examining the future of the Biology
Department. Of the factors that may impact the department, the most worrisome is the affect of the failing
state budget on the college and department. In the fall of 2011 the college requested the department cut
25% classes even though student demand for these courses remained strong. The decline in the state budget
has also curtailed the hiring of a new Biology faculty member, which was originally slated for 2009. Since
then, one faculty member rejoined the department and one retired, so the department still has a need for one
new faculty member at this time to come back to its pre-budget-crisis level. In lieu of hiring an additional
permanent faculty member, the department continues to rely heavily on part time faculty to teach courses,
Truckee Meadows Community College | Description of Program/Unit
1
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
some of which have taught in the department for over 7 years. That provides a wealth of experience, but
also points to the fact that new hires are very hard to find unless they are recent graduates. Of those, many
soon move on to more stable careers.
A considerable number of Biology faculty have assumed roles within Faculty Senate and its standing
committees and not been teaching their normal loads for the last 7 years. This exacerbates the problem of
having sufficient qualified faculty. In any given semester, there have been at least 3 (30%) of Biology
faculty earning release time for such activities. In addition, two faculty members are on sabbatical this year
and one plans to take a sabbatical next year. Faculty members have also submitted two grant proposals this
year. If funded, these grants would generate additional release time. All of this points to the need for an
extra faculty member that could help the department take up the slack as their colleagues accept
responsibilities outside the department and complete grant activities.
Another factor that may impact the department is the decline in allied health program cohorts. However, the
reduced number of allied health cohorts does not seem to be affecting biology enrollments at this time as our
enrollments have been buoyed by people returning to school during the economic downturn. That said, it
will mean that our current level of staffing may only be satisfactory until the economy in Nevada recovers
substantially. In addition, since Biology courses serve as pre-requisites to allied health programs, any
changes to the admission requirements for these programs would also impact our enrollment.
Loss of support staff is also a constant worry. The Biology Department relies on student workers to run the
Biology preparatory laboratory, help teach Microbiology lab courses as Teaching Assistants, and help
students through tutoring and running open labs. The preparatory laboratory prepares all solutions, media
and specimens for biology labs and our Teaching Assistants ensure our Microbiology labs are safe by
providing extra supervision. The department could not operate without this help and funding for these
positions is as important as funding for any biology position.
On a more positive note, Biology faculty members submitted an application and a grant proposal that would
allow the department to continue to move forward pedagogically. If funded they will offset the impact
reduced state funding may have on such departmental activities. The application to the Community College
Undergraduate Research Initiative aims to bring authentic biological research to TMCC. The second
proposal to the National Institute of Health seeks to increase the number of underrepresented students who
earn an associate’s degree in biomedical or behavioral sciences, transfer to a 4-year institution, and successfully
complete a bachelor’s degree in one of these fields by partnering with the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR).
Although relying on grant funding does not make long term planning easy, it is an important activity for the
department to develop an expertise in, as it will help expand our commitment to student learning.
Factors that will also positively affect the Biology Department are the increased Accuplacer and enrollment
standards. Although this is sure to cause a short term decrease in enrollments in introductory courses,
students who do register under these new standards should be better prepared for more advanced college
courses and experience more success towards obtaining their goals. The Biology Department currently has
2
| Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
an appreciable number of students who repeat courses, and so increasing these standards should lessen the
inefficiency of this situation.
School of Sciences |
3
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
CURRICULUM
Program/Unit Review Assessment Reports
2015-16
2014-15
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
2010-11
2009-10
2008-09
X
2007-08
2005-06
Biology
2006-07
List title(s) of past Program/Unit Reviews; indicate whether a
program, discipline, or course review.
The Biology Department’s last Program/Unit Review took place in the 2005-2006 academic year. Curricular
recommendations (from then Vice President Laguerre) that resulted from this review were to (1) establish an A.S. for
students who may be interested in biological science fields and articulate such a degree with UNR and UNLV, and (2)
further develop assessment of learning outcomes. An A.S., Biology Emphasis, was completed in 2006-2007. The
department has continued to expand its course assessment efforts from three courses in 2005-2006 (BIOL 100,
BIOL188B, and BIOL 190) to near 100% in 2010-2011. The only offered courses lacking formal assessment by way
of course assessment reports (CARs) at this time are BIOL 290 (Internship) and BIOL 299 (Special Topics). A
summary of the assessment results and ensuing modifications to each course are described in the table below:
Course Assessment Report Summaries
Prefix
BIOL
Number
Title
100
General Biology for
Non-majors
Indicate the date
of assessment in
the department
assessment cycle
PDCAR Date
2011-2012
2010-2011
Summary of Results and Modifications:
From fall 2006 through fall 2008 the Biology 100 course assessment consisted of a 20 question pre- and
post-test of key concepts. During those five semesters pre-test scores ranged from 49% to 65% with an
average of 58%, and post-test scores ranged from 62% to 82%, with an average of 71%. Individual
question analysis over that time lead to dissatisfaction with the assessment tool, as the percent
improvement scores ranged from below zero to 34%. Data on individual sections also suggested the need
for a more standardized and clearly delineated curriculum. These data lead to a revision of the curriculum
during the fall of 2008, including a new list of course topics and specific objectives. Furthermore, the
assessment tool was redesigned, reduced from 20 questions to 10, and refocused on one of the major
course outcomes (Outcome: To be able to explain the major characteristics of science and recognize the
difference between scientific and non-scientific ideas). In spring 2009 the new curriculum was finalized
and accepted. Starting the fall 2009 semester, the course coordinator distributed and discussed the new
curriculum and assessment tool with full-time and part-time instructors of the course. Special effort was
made to provide guidance to part-time instructors or anyone who was new to teaching the course. Data
have been collected for the four semesters since the changes were implemented. We believe the more
focused assessment tool has allowed faculty to identify and address problem areas of understanding as
they become accustomed to implementing changes based on the results of the previous semester. For
example, the fall 2010 assessment showed only 3 percentage points of increase between pre- and post-test
scores and 6 out of 10 questions showed gains, while the following semester (spring 2011) the increase
was up to 9% and 9 out of the 10 questions showed gains. While this is a continual process and we are
never completely satisfied with the assessment tool, the iterative process of collecting, analyzing, and
making improvements based on data has been established for this course.
4
Curriculum | Truckee Meadows Community College
Prefix
Number
BIOL
110
Title
Biology for
Elementary/Middle
Level Education
Biology
2011-12
Indicate the date
of assessment in
the department
assessment cycle
PDCAR Date
2011-2012
2010-2011*
Summary of Results and Modifications:
In 2010-2011 the course was assessed for the first time using the assessment tool of 10 questions
developed for the Biology 100 course. This course covers similar material with a focus on educating
future teachers (K-12). The assessment addresses the course outcome that students will understand the
scientific method and the nature of science following the course. In fall 2010 the average pre-test score
was 56.5% and the average post-test score was 63.6%. The questions were individually analyzed to try to
better understand which specific concepts needed focus, with gains on individual questions ranging from
below zero to 43%. The instructor has proposed and will implement in the next round of the course
improvements to the hands-on activities in the course that are designed to deepen student understanding
of key aspects of the nature of science. The current assessment tool will be used to evaluate the impacts
of these changes in the next round of the course.
BIOL
113
Life in the Oceans
Summary of Results and Modifications:
2011-2012
2009-2010
In 2009-2010 Biology 113, Life in the Ocean, was assessed for the first time using the same 20 questions
that were developed at that time for Biology 100. Both courses were attempting to assess the same
outcome: that students be able to explain the major characteristics of science. Pre- and post-test analysis
showed a gain in score with an overall average pre-test score of 64% and overall average post-test score
of 74%. The same assessment tool was used the following year but expanded to include an analysis of
individual questions so that the instructor could better analyze the tool. Scores increased from 55% to
61% in fall 2010 and from 65% to 69% in spring 2011. The analysis of individual questions lead to the
modification of the tool into a ten question multiple choice assessment including questions on the
characteristics of science and basic content information related to marine biology. This tool was
implemented for the first time in summer 2011, with gains made in all questions except one and the
average pre-test score was 31% and it increased to almost 40% in the post-test. This new tool will be
used over the next two semesters and the reevaluated.
BIOL
141
Human Structure
and Function I
2011-2012
2009-2010
Results and Modifications:
A pre and post-test model was used to assess the learning outcome: Students will have a basic
understanding of the scientific method, chemistry, cell and tissue structure, and the skeletal, muscular,
cardiovascular, digestive, and lymphatic systems and their interrelationships. A 17.7 % increase in the
post-test score compared to the pre-test score was observed in 2009-2010, and a 14.7 % increase in 2010
– 2011. Hake gains (see description in BIOL 190 assessment) were also calculated for these two years at
0.310 in 2009-2010, and 0.284 in 2010- 2011. Current assessment-driven improvements are focusing on
developing a more appropriate assessment instrument. A question by question analysis of the post
assessment results identified a deficiency in teaching the digestive system. Analysis of pre assessment
results revealed that Students scored greater than 50% on 5 questions of the 15 questions. These were
rewritten for the 2011- 2012 assessment to better identify content areas in need of improvement.
School of Sciences | Curriculum
5
2011-12
Prefix
BIOL
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Number
142
Title
Human Structure
and Function II
Indicate the date
of assessment in
the department
assessment cycle
2011-2012
PDCAR Date
2009-2010
Summary of Results and Modifications:
Using the pretest and posttest model, the percent increase for one class assessed was 44.3% for 2009 –
2010 and 16.4% for 2010 – 2011. A question by question analysis of the post test revealed no academic
areas of concern. Analysis of the pre-test results revealed that greater than 50% of students correctly
responded to only one question. This question was rewritten for 2011 – 2012 assessment.
BIOL
188
Foundations of
Scientific Literacy
2011-2012
2010-2011
Summary of Results and Modifications:
BIOL 188 was assessed for one semester for the first time in the 2010-2011 academic year.
However, the sole official learning outcome for this course was that "Students will be successful
in BIOL 190", and this is not possible to determine when assessing the current students'
understanding of the course content. Instead, a 12-question pre and post assessment instrument
was developed to assess learning outcomes that reflected the content of the course: (1) Students
will perform metric conversations and mathematical calculations related to concentrations of
solutions. (2) Students will understand fundamental concepts associated with atomic structure,
chemical bonding, water chemistry, and pH. On average the students got 19.9% of the questions
correct on the pretest and 75.8% correct on the post test. The average percent increase was
55.3% with an average Hake gain of 0.68. A question by question analysis revealed the
assessment tool to be sound; there was no question where greater than 50% of the students
answered correctly on the pre-test. Percent gains on each question ranged from 23.5% to 90.9%.
It is suggested that learning outcomes that reflect the content of the course be added and that we attempt
to assess the outcome that "Students will be successful in BIOL 190" by tracking students who have
completed BIOL 188 and seeing if they complete BIOL 190 with a grade of a C or better.
BIOL
190
Introduction to
Cell and Molecular
Biology
2011-12
2010-2011*
Summary of Results and Modifications:
BIOL 190 has been assessed since the 2006-2007 academic year, where we have seen an average 21.0%
increase in knowledge of course concepts over the 5-year period. Still, common areas where
improvement is needed persist in pH, macromolecules, metabolism, Mendelian genetics. The initial
2006-2007 assessment, coupled with data from our 2005-2006 PUR report showing that students who
took ENG 101 and MATH 120 did better in BIOL 190, lead to the adoption of new math (MATH 120 or
higher or qualifying ACCUPLACER or SAT/ACT scores) and English (ENG 101 or higher or qualifying
ACCUPLACER or SAT/ACT score) pre-requisites to help ensure that students had basic skills at the
college level prior to taking this course. These pre-requisites went into effect in Fall 2008. Also in Fall
2008, the Department began to assess averaged normalized gain values, <g>, otherwise known as Hake
Gains1-3 (named after Richard R. Hake, who first proposed them), were reported. The advantage of <g>
values is that they consider the improvement relative to the pre-assessment score. As a hypothetical
6
Curriculum | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
Indicate the date
of assessment in
the department
Prefix
Number
Title
assessment cycle
PDCAR Date
example, a student scoring a 90% on the post-assessment test, which would be a favorable score, might
still have a low <g> if the student had a pre-assessment score of 80%. By comparison, a student with a
59% post-assessment score, which is considered a failing percentage by most faculty, would still
demonstrate a high <g> if the student had a pre-assessment score of 10% or less. According to Hake, <g>
> 0.7 is considered a high gain, <g> of 0.3-0.7 is considered a medium gain, and <g> of less than 0.3 is
considered a low gain4. Since 2008, the department has seen an average 0.43 hake gain.
Assessment in 2008-2009 lead faculty to establish new theme-based course objectives to provide
instructors with a standardized set of learner outcomes, which we continue to assess in our current efforts.
We continue to revise the pre and post-assessment instrument to better reflect these themes. Our next
strategy is to make systematic pedagogical changes in order to address the reoccurring content
deficiencies observed.
R.R. Hake, "Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of
mechanics test data for introductory physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66, 64-74 (1998) and on the Web at
<http://carini.physics.indiana.edu/SDI/>, and also the Harvard Galileo server at
<http://galileo.harvard.edu/> under "Hands On Methods."
2
R.R. Hake, "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory mechanics courses," on the Web at
<http://carini.physics.indiana.edu/SDI/> and submitted on 6/19/98 to the Physics Education Research
Supplement to AJP ( for information on this new journal see
<http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/ripe/perg/pers/>.
3
R.R. Hake, "Interactive-engagement vs. Traditional Methods in Mechanics Instruction," APS Forum on
Education Newsletter, Summer 1998, p. 5-7, also at <http://carini.physics.indiana.edu/SDI/>. Some
criticisms of ref. 2 and of physics-education reform generally are countered.
4
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/AnalyzingChange-Gain.pdf
BIOL
190L
Introduction to
Cell and Molecular
Biology
Laboratory
2011-12
2010-2011*
Summary of Results and Modifications:
Assessment of BIOL 190L began in Spring 2007 as a pilot set of 5 pre and post questions that were
administered to only one lab section. This initial assessment revealed that students were able to interpret
graphs and a statistical result (p-value) but were still lacking in designing a controlled experiment,
identifying a primary source of scientific information, and understanding what statistical significance
meant. This prompted a systematic implementation of laboratory assessment by all sections in 20072008 and was accomplished by infusing these laboratory-based questions within the BIOL 190
assessment instrument. Although BIOL 190L had been separated from BIOL 190 as its own 1.0 credit
course to comply with common course numbering, the Department continued to treat it as merged with
BIOL 190. At this time, a trend emerged among a number of full-time faculty members to opt not to
teach their matching lab sections, which lead to a number of part-time faculty members teaching labs. As
a result, it was decided to create a separate assessment instrument for BIOL 190L. The assessment
consisted of 11 questions and was administered for the first time in Spring 2009. In addition to the
School of Sciences | Curriculum
7
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Indicate the date
of assessment in
the department
Prefix
Number
Title
assessment cycle
PDCAR Date
previous questions on designing a controlled experiment, interpreting graphs and statistical p-value, and
understanding statistical significance, the new assessment included questions on metric conversion,
molarity calculations, scientific hypotheses, laboratory equipment use, and inductive reasoning. Percent
improvement ranged from 3.69% to 50%, and Hake gains ranged from 0.08 to 0.54. In 2010-2011, 78%
of the sections taught observed a Hake gain >0.3, which is considered an acceptable gain. Throughout
this time, metric conversions and molarity calculations as well as designing a controlled experiment have
continued to be identified as areas needing improvement for the past 3 years.
As laboratory skills and not re-enforcement of lecture concepts became more of a focus in BIOL 190L,
the department voted (not without controversy) to administratively separate BIOL 190L from BIOL 190,
so that 190L was treated as its own course and given a separate grade (beginning Fall 2011).
Consequently, the department also adopted new learning outcomes in Spring 2011 to begin in Fall 2011.
These were: (1) Students will perform metric conversions and mathematical calculations related to
concentrations of solutions. (2) Students will identify and demonstrate proficiency in the use of standard
laboratory equipment. (3) Students will understand and apply the scientific method by designing a
controlled experiment, and analyzing and interpreting data. Only 3 of 11 questions in the current
assessment instrument address outcomes #1 and #2. A new or supplementary assessment tool will have
to be devised in order to assess this learning outcome. Outcome #3 is fundamental to the process of
science and may now be the focal point of BIOL 190L. The development of more inquiry and
hypothesis-driven labs will be critical to its proper implementation.
BIOL
191
Introduction to
Organismal
Biology
2012-2013
2010-2011
Summary of Results and Modifications:
Assessment for BIOL 191 and 191L began in the 2006-2007 academic year. The major outcome assessed
was: Students shall acquire a basic knowledge of ecology, evolution, diversity and adaptation of
organisms. They shall be able to apply basic physico-chemical laws to explain an organism’s structure,
function, and ecology. They shall be able to explain the science of evolution. Since this assessment
period, a statistical analysis of pre and post test scores indicated a significant improvement (Student's ttest, p<0.05) in overall knowledge in these topic areas comprising the learning objective. A question-byquestion analysis performed in 2009-2010, however, revealed problems with the assessment instrument.
Of the 30 questions, greater than 50% of the students answered 16 of them correctly on the pre-test. This
would suggest that a small number of questions are responsible for the statistically significant gains seen
over the last 4 academic years. As a result, we should really consider an overhaul of the assessment if
those high pre-test scoring questions are instrumental to assessing this learning objective.
BIOL
191L
Intro to
Organismal
Biology Lab
2012-2013
2010-2011
Summary of Results and Modifications:
Since only one section of BIOL 191 and 191L is currently offered, and BIOL 191L is a co-requisite of
BIOL 191, BIOL 191L has been assessed with the same pre and post-assessment set of questions. The
last 3 questions on the assessment tool addressed the lab-related learning objective: Students shall
8
Curriculum | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
Indicate the date
of assessment in
the department
Prefix
Number
Title
assessment cycle
PDCAR Date
understand the scientific method, be able to design and carry out a scientific experiment, analyze
collected data utilizing accepted statistical methods and write a clear and readable report following an
accepted research report format. Since 2007, a statistically significant gain in knowledge between pre and
post scores on this section of the assessment has been observed each year that the assessment has been
given with one exception in the Spring 2010 semester. In this particular semester, the instructor was
unable to conduct the featured scientific experiment. This highlights the importance of students doing
science to understand the scientific process. Students also continued to show confusion on the use of the
microscope in scientific investigation. It was determined that this question may have been unclear, so the
question was re-written in 2008. In addition, students conducted a scientific experiment, performed
statistical analysis and wrote a scientific format report. The report was graded for accuracy and clarity of
communication, and those students whose reports were substandard rewrote their reports until they met
established course standards.
BIOL
198
Special Topics in
Biology
As offered
N/A
Summary of Results and Modifications:
The Biology Department offers Special Topics in Biology courses at two levels, BIOL 198, which has no
course pre-requisites, and BIOL 299 (see below), which has course pre-requisite relevant to the topic of
the course. Over the past 5 years, the Department has only offered BIOL 299; the Department has not
offered BIOL 198. BIOL 198 will therefore be assessed when offered.
BIOL
200
Elements of
Human Anatomy
& Physiology
As offered
2009-2010
Summary of Results and Modifications:
This course has been assessed and PDCARs reported for 2009 – 2010 and 2010 – 2011. Only 1 class of
BIOL 200 is offered per year, so assessment data from only one class per year. In 2009 – 1010, a 29.6
percent difference was measured between pretest and posttest scores, in 2010 – 2011, a 15.6% increase
was measured. However, even though students scored better on the posttest as compared to the pretest,
the assessment exam needs to be revised significantly; over 50% of students were able to answer 5 out of
the 10 questions correctly on the pretest, so the current instrument assesses what the students already
know prior to completing the course.
BIOL
201
General Zoology
Summary of Results and Modifications:
If offered
2010-2011*
General Zoology is taught by the Biology Department as a pre-requisite course for the Veterinary
Technician Program. Beginning 2009-2010 this course, which is taught once per year in the spring, was
assessed using a pre- and post-test consisting of open-ended responses regarding the characteristics of the
nine major animal phyla. This instrument was designed to evaluate outcome for the course that students
should be able to distinguish and explain the major characteristics of the nine major animal phyla. In the
first year of assessment students demonstrated a notable increase in content knowledge going from the
most common answer of “nothing” to detailed descriptions of the correct characteristics. The assessment
was repeated in 2010-2011 for the spring 2011 section with similar results for a different instructor.
School of Sciences | Curriculum
9
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Indicate the date
of assessment in
the department
Prefix
Number
Title
assessment cycle
PDCAR Date
These rounds of data have lead both of the faculty involved in the teaching of this course that a less
subjective assessment, one that could be more easily quantified, is desirable for future evaluations.
Development of a multiple choice question based assessment will be pursued if this course is taught again
in the future. At the time of writing this report, the Course Assessment and Programs (CAP) committee
just approved program changes brought forth by the Veterinary Technician Program, which resulted in
General Zoology no longer being a program pre-requisite.
BIOL
202
Summary of Results and Modifications:
General Botany
2011-2012
2010-2011*
General Botany was originally taught as part of the Landscaping Program but resurrected and offered for
the first time by the Biology Department in Fall 2010 and again in Spring 2011. An assessment
questionnaire was developed that covered a variety of topics in general botany; however, we recognize
that the assessment does not match the official learning outcomes for this course. For Fall 2010, each
question was missed by 2 to 14 students in the pre-assessment. In the post-assessment, 0 to 10 students
missed each question. Unfortunately, data were not calculated as percentages in this semester. In Spring
2011, improvement in the percentage of students who answered questions correctly was seen for each of
the question topics except cells (no change) and hormones (reduction of 35.71%). Still, at least 50% of
students missed questions in the areas of water movement, hormones, classification, and tissues on the
post test. The assessment suggests that most students improved their knowledge of botany, particularly
in the area of ecology. The low score on the hormone question reflected less emphasis on memorizing
plant hormones compared to how the material was presented in Fall.
In the future, new learning outcomes will have to be developed to reflect the nature of this course.
Additionally, the department is considering converting this to a3.0-credit, general education course with 4
laboratory experiences rather than a 4.0 credit course with weekly labs. This is due to the type of student
that the course has attracted so far as well as the difficulty of including this course as part of the A.S.
Biology Emphasis.
BIOL
223
Human Anatomy
and Physiology I
2011-2012
2010-2011*
Summary of Results and Modifications:
From 2006 – 2010, BIOL 223 (Human Anatomy & Physiology I) was assessed using a pre- and post-test
method. Students would take a multiple choice quiz (typically 10 – 15 questions in length) addressing
key topics covered in the course. The quiz would be taken at the start of the term and again at the end of
the term with mean improvement determined for each section. In the years that this method was used, the
mean departmental improvement was consistently on the order of 25 – 30%, with variation among
sections and typical post-test scores between 65 and 70%. The high level of consistency from semesterto-semester was deemed to indicate consistency of instruction across sections and from year-to-year.
Problematic topics that showed up every year included molecular interactions and ionic functions in the
nervous system, and as these are very molecular in nature were attributed to poor retention of material
covered in BIOL 190 (Cell and Molecular Biology).
Detailed analysis in the spring of 2010 revealed problems with many of the questions used in the
assessment tool. Prior to that point there had not been detailed consideration of pretest performance or
10
Curriculum | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
Indicate the date
of assessment in
the department
Prefix
Number
Title
assessment cycle
PDCAR Date
individual question performance outside of the pre- to post- comparison. Closer examination revealed
that for as many as 40% of the questions, 50% or more of the students (as high as 80% in some cases)
were consistently getting correct answers on the pretest, implying (1) students had already learned this,
(2) the questions were too easy, or (3) the questions were poorly constructed. Given the nature of the
topics at issue, it was determined that the problem was with question structure. During the 2010-11
academic year, a different assessment – involving construction of a concept inventory – was used.
Students in each class were given, at the end of the semester, one of four sets of four open-ended
questions, with every question (16 in all) addressed by at least four sections. These open-ended questions
were used to identify common misconceptions students were typically taking with them from the course.
At the end of the year, these open-ended questions were used to generate new multiple-choice questions
in which the distracters were derived from the common student misconceptions. As such, the correct
answers were less obvious to a student unfamiliar with the topic and distracters would directly tap into
incorrect student perceptions rather than faculty expectations of student misconceptions. The newly
generated assessment tool consisted of 8 questions (2 linked to material from prior courses, 6 linked to 2 –
3 major topic areas for BIOL 223) with additional open-ended questions to be added to the post-test each
semester to generate additional future multiple-choice questions. The new assessment tool was put into
use for the first time in fall 2011.
BIOL
224
Human Anatomy
and Physiology II
2011-2012
2010-11*
Summary of Results and Modifications:
From 2006 – 2010, BIOL 224 (Human Anatomy & Physiology II) was assessed using a pre- and post-test
method. Students would take a multiple choice quiz (typically 10 – 15 questions in length) addressing
key topics covered in the course. The quiz would be taken at the start of the term and again at the end of
the term with mean improvement determined for each section. In the years that this method was used, the
mean departmental improvement was consistently on the order of 15 – 20%, with variation among
sections and typical post-test scores around 60%. Hake gain analysis was also done in 2009 and 2010,
with Hake gains being highly variable among sections and with most sections reporting gains < 0.3,
which is not considered strong. Problematic topics that showed up every year included endocrinology
and immunology, and as these are very molecular in nature were attributed to poor retention of material
covered in BIOL 190 (Cell and Molecular Biology).
As with BIOL 223, detailed analysis in the spring of 2010 revealed problems with many of the questions
used in the assessment tool. The same procedure used in BIOL 223 to generate student-based distracters
was used in BIOL 224, with an open-ended question style assessment in 2010-11 was used to generate
new multiple-choice questions. The same new format is being used in both courses effective fall 2011.
See BIOL 223 assessment for more details.
BIOL
251
General
Microbiology
2011-2012
2009-10*
Summary of Results and Modifications:
The Biology department has filed an assessment report for every section of BIOL 251 since the 2007-08
academic year. The microbiology instructors, however, began assessing every section of the course for
their own edification two years prior. The assessment instrument began as a 10 question, multiple
School of Sciences | Curriculum
11
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Indicate the date
of assessment in
the department
Prefix
Number
Title
assessment cycle
PDCAR Date
choice, pre- and post-test. The assessment covered only one learning outcome: Students will acquire
general knowledge of the various types of microorganisms known to exist and learn their general
characteristics including cell morphology and physiology, taxonomy, roles in infectious diseases, and
environmental importance. We modified our assessment instrument for the 2010-2011 academic year to
measure quantitative and interpretive (graph reading) skills, beginning with the 2010-11 academic year.
Students demonstrate a solid grasp of most topics. The lowest performance level is consistently recorded
in the clinical applications section. While our course is not specifically designed as a clinical
microbiology course, this is an area that needs improvement. The other weak area of comprehension for
our students is in metabolism. This is not surprising since chemistry is not an enforced prerequisite for
this course. As previously mentioned, the quantitative skills assessment has only two semesters worth of
data.
Our second learning outcome: Students will be able to perform basic microbiological skills including
proper sterile technique, bacterial cell culture and identification, and microscopy skills. Students will also
be able to design and conduct simple scientific experiments using the scientific method, we plan to begin
to evaluate next year using results from instructors’ research poster evaluation data.
There have, as yet, been no formal modifications made to the course delivery strategies or modalities by
our department. Instructors are aware of the weaknesses and are addressing the problems individually.
BIOL
290
Internship in
Biology
When offered
Summary of Results and Modifications:
BIOL 290, Internship in Biology, is offered intermittently and is tailored to individual learning outcomes
depending on the nature of the internship. It has not been assessed in the past. The department plans to
assess individualized learning outcomes when this course is offered again in the future.
BIOL
299
Special Topics in
2011-2012
Biology
Summary of Results and Modifications:
Since the Biology Department’s last PUR in 2005-2006, we have offered Special Topics courses in
Dissection (beginning Spring 2008) and Infectious Disease (beginning Fall 2009). These classes are
offered intermittently and have not yet been assessed. BIOL 299: Dissection is being offered again in
Spring 2012, and we plan to assess this course for the first time at that point. BIOL 299: Infectious
Diseases is being submitted to CAP committee as a new course, BIOL 295: Current Topics in Infectious
Disease. If approved, an assessment plan will be developed for this course.
In summary, the Department currently assesses close to 100% of its courses and is continues to assess each
course on a yearly basis as part of a 5-year assessment cycle. Assessment has lead to an iterative process of
fine tuning the assessment instrument and new course learning outcomes for BIOL 100, 110, 141, 142, 188
(in progress), 190, 190L, 191, 191L, 201, 223, 224, 251, 290, and 299. While the development and
administration of an assessment tool, and collection and analysis of data is well established, the Department
12
Curriculum | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
is somewhat lacking in closing the loop by implementing systemic, assessment-driven pedagogical changes
to address the content area deficiencies we have observed in each of our courses. However, a general plan
is outlined in the Evaluating Course Content and Assessment Findings and Strategies sections of this report.
Assessment Driven Improvements
At the course level, assessment revealed the need for a more standardized and clearly delineated curriculum
in BIOL 100 and lead to a revision of the curriculum during the fall of 2008, including a new list of course
topics and specific objectives. Course assessment also contributed to the curricular separation of BIOL
190L from BIOL 190 and a new set of learning outcomes for this course that focus on laboratory skills and
application of the scientific method instead of attempting to closely tie lab content to lecture content.
Assessment has allowed us to critically evaluate the AS Biology emphasis degree. This has lead to
establishment of new learning objectives in Spring 2011. Furthermore, the Department has redesigned the
emphasis to more closely align as a transfer degree with the UNR Baccalaureate degree in Biology.
Evaluating Relevancy of Curriculum
Course Content
The majority of biology courses are university transfer courses and therefore their course content must remain
within the overall guidelines for the particular course across NSHE institutions. To this end, Biology faculty
maintain communication with the faculty at the University of Nevada, Reno, Western Nevada Community
College, and the University of Nevada School of Medicine. As with any scientific discipline, Biology faculty
must also remain abreast of recent scientific discoveries and trends, and incorporate them appropriately into
course curriculum.
As a general course evaluation protocol, each academic year the Biology Department assesses its courses
using pre-established measures to ensure they are meeting the requirements of the course objectives and
student learning outcomes. Participation in the assessment process involves the entire biology faculty
and includes part time instructors. Our general protocol is as follows:
1. Development of learning outcomes and measures: The department has identified "Curriculum
Coordinators" to oversee our major multiple section courses. These individuals oversee course
curriculum, objectives, testing strategies, learning outcomes and measures, and assessment strategy.
They meet periodically with instructors of their respective course in "focus groups" and established
course parameters. Where only a single section of a course is offered, the individual course instructor
establishes these parameters with review by selected department members assigned by the Chair. To
insure our requirements are in concert with national trends in biological education, we now reference the
"Core Competencies and Disciplinary Practices" published by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science and National Science Foundation's Vision and Change for Undergraduate
Biology Education. These guidelines were published in 2011 to outline the foundations of biological
literacy.
School of Sciences | Curriculum
13
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2. The assessment instrument: Focus groups or course instructors establish an assessment instrument
that is administered to students on the first day of instruction and then again at the end of the semester.
Each semester, at least one of the course learning outcomes is evaluated through this instrument. The
outcome selected may change when the department believes sufficient progress has been made in that
particular academic area. The assessment instrument takes a variety of forms to include a multiple choice
quiz, essay questions, laboratory practicals or class project evaluations.
3. Analysis: Each instructor analyzes their own assessment data prior to sending their summarized data
to their respective curriculum coordinator. Curriculum coordinators compile data from all their courses
into a single Course Assessment Report (CAR). Single section courses will be analyzed by the individual
course instructor. As part of the required process, all CARs are sent to the Chair for review who
forwards them to the Dean of the School of Sciences.
4. Review: The following semester, course focus groups meet to review the assessment findings and
propose modifications in their objectives, outcomes, measures, assessment, etc. A particular effort is
made to include part-time faculty in these discussions. For single section courses, the course instructor
will meets with selected department members assigned by the Chair.
5. Closing the loop: Each semester, curriculum coordinators and individual course instructors will
present the results of their assessment reviews and proposed modifications to the department at our inservices which precede each department meeting. An established schedule shows the sequence of these
reviews. These modifications will appear in the subsequent CAR and be evaluated the following year.
Degree/Certificate Requirements
Requirements for the A.S. Biology Emphasis are designed to align with the B.S. Biology degree offered
at the University of Nevada, Reno, so that students completing the A.S. Biology Emphasis transfer to the
university at Junior standing. We continue to monitor any changes made to UNR’s B.S. Biology degree
to ensure that this transfer status remains. The Department is also cognizant of mandates made by the
Board of Regents, including the recent mandate to make all A.S. degrees 60 credits. At the time of this
writing, we have revised our emphasis’s course sequence to ensure that it totals 60 credits (see Appendix
B for program worksheets).
Methods of Instruction
The department offers a variety of instructional delivery methods, including traditional in-person, online,
hybrid, and web-assisted. In-person classes largely utilize traditional lectures, but instructors strive to
infuse technology and active-learning pedagogies in order to create an interactive teaching and learning
environment. Instructors routinely incorporate computer-generated animations to help students visualize
complex biological interactions, such as DNA replication in BIOL 100 and BIOL 190, and excitationcontraction coupling in BIOL 223. YouTube or other video clips are also used to help students make
connections between a biological concept and a contemporary interest or societal concern. Recently,
14
Curriculum | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
individual faculty members have utilized Poll Everywhere (http://www.polleverywhere.com/) in the
classroom. This product (free for less than 30 students) allows instructors to create free-response or
multiple choice questions, incorporate them into PowerPoint presentations, and have students text their
responses with their cell phones. This replaces the need for proprietary automatic response systems, i.e.
“clickers.” Like the clicker system, however, responses are displayed in real time to allow for immediate
instructor feedback and correction.
U
U
Within the last few years, individual instructors have moved away from lecture-centered and towards
discussion-based teaching by utilizing preparatory worksheet assignments and case studies. In this
approach, students complete worksheet assignments in preparation for class on mostly fundamental,
Bloom’s level 1 (Knowing) pieces of information. With these guided notes in front of them, students are
then asked to discuss the material outright or, more often, apply it towards a given problem. Individual
faculty have coupled these worksheets with the Case Study Method (CSM) of instruction, thereby
fostering critical thinking, problem-solving, and relevancy of science. Faculty members Steve Schenk
(attendee and presenter), Melissa Deadmond (attendee and presenter), and Jamie Campbell (attendee)
have attended and presented posters at the University of Buffalo’s Annual Conference on Case Study
Teaching in Science since 2009. The focus of Dr. Campbell’s recent sabbatical was on case study writing
in Human Anatomy and Physiology. Faculty have begun to incorporate case studies in the laboratory as
well as the classroom. In BIOL 190L, a multi-week, case-based laboratory series on cellulosic biofuels is
being piloted for possible implementation in all lab sections. Along these lines, the Department has
submitted an application to become part of a Community College Undergraduate Research Initiative,
which includes further training in CSM towards the development of case-study modules with associated
laboratories. Additional details on this application are discussed in the Curriculum Strategies Section of
the report.
Faculty Qualifications
Faculty qualifications have not changed as a result of course and program assessment efforts. A
minimum of a Master’s degree in Biology or closely-related discipline remains sufficient. Part-time
faculty must possess similar credentials. Two trends in science education have emerged since our last
PUR, however, and show no sign of waning any time soon: formalized assessment-driven teaching, and
active-learning pedagogy. Should full-time tenure-track positions become available to the Biology
Department in the future, it may behoove us to consider a candidate's training and experience in these
areas in addition to their degree.
Post Completion Objectives (transfer, job placement, etc.)
While the number of declared A.S. Biology Emphasis majors has increased dramatically since
implementation of the degree in 2006, the Biology Department’s primary niche is to service students from
other majors and, most notably, allied health programs (see Demographics section). Acceptance into one of
School of Sciences | Curriculum
15
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
these programs is the primary objective of students taking Biology classes, but completion of this goal is
restricted to the number of students accepted per cohort. Consequently, the Department can prepare
students for allied health programs with a rigorous and comprehensive curriculum in pre-requisite Biology
courses, but it cannot increase the acceptance rate. Strategies to better serve these students by development
of an “Applied Life Science” degree are discussed in the Demographics Development Strategies section.
For students who do pursue an A.S. Biology Emphasis, the degree aligns with the B.S. Biology degree
offered at UNR so that students completing the A.S. Biology Emphasis transfer to the university at Junior
standing. The transfer agreement between TMCC and UNR is published at
https://www.cis.unr.edu/TransferArticulation/TransferData/MajorAgreement?TransInstPk=3 and is included
in the Appendix. Plans to encourage declared Biology majors to complete an Associate’s degree and
transition to a Bachelor’s degree by exposing them to authentic research experiences are discussed in the
Curriculum Development Strategies section.
Secondary Student Preparation Efforts
The Biology Department has been involved in formally preparing incoming secondary students since 2006
through the NIH-funded Biomedical Student Pipeline Program. From 2006-2009 the Pipeline Bridge
Workshop offered select incoming freshmen a 5-week summer experience designed to increase their college
preparedness and expand their understanding of careers within biomedical science. The program targeted
low-income, first-generation, and underrepresented students interested in life science. Approximately 18
students participated in the TMCC Bridge Workshop per year from 2006-2009. Identical workshops took
place at CSN during these years and a total of 130 students completed these workshops statewide (65%
first-generation, 60% low income, 50% Hispanic, 15% African American, and 5% Native American).
During these years the following Biology Department faculty were involved in the preparation and teaching
of the program: Laura Briggs, Melissa Deadmond, Julie Ellsworth, and Steve Schenk. Participating
students exhibited higher college retention and persistence rates (70% persistence from Freshman to
Sophomore year compared to less than 50% in a comparable group). Exit surveys showed they highly
valued the training, specifically in areas of time management, study skills, accessing college resources,
professionalism, and career awareness.
In 2011 the Biology Department, with the support of a new 5-year NIH grant, began collaborating with the
TMCC Success First Initiative in the implementation of the Success First Summer Bridge Workshop. The
Success First Bridge Workshop targets low-income and first-generation incoming freshmen with the goal of
increasing their college success, regardless of their discipline or educational track. There were 233 Success
First Bridge Workshop students in summer 2011. Students took College Success (EPY 101) and
introductory English (ENG 098), while also attending morning workshops designed to expand their
knowledge and preparation. The 2011 Summer Bridge cohort had 95% course retention for their six
summer credits compared to a course completion rate of 58% in a control group of similar students taking
summer credits. Julie Ellsworth served as the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Math) liaison to
Success First. She trained EPY instructors to incorporate the best activities from the Pipeline Bridge
Workshop into their EPY curricula and she presented Success First morning workshops on Academic
Lingo, Math and Your Life, and Careers in Science & Engineering. In addition, NIH funding supported 90
16
Curriculum | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
Success First Bridge students to enroll in the Math Skills Center in Fall 2011. The Math Skills Center
provides foundation level mathematics education for entering students whose math placement scores
indicate preparation levels below Math 095.
External Review
The Biology Department is not subject to an external accrediting body and at present does not seek an
external review of its curriculum. However, as part of the Nevada INBRE grant certain activities within the
department have been evaluated by an External Advisory Board (EAB). The board reviews the objectives
and accomplishments of all aspects of the grant at least twice during each five-year grant period. Current
board members are:
1. Jeffrey Arterburn, Ph.D., Director, New Mexico INBRE, Professor of Chemistry and
Biochemistry, New Mexico State University
2. Carolyn Hovde Bohach, Ph.D., PI and Director, Idaho INBRE, Professor of Microbiology,
Molecular Biology & Biochemistry, University of Idaho
3. John Iandolo, Ph.D., Chair of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Oklahoma Health
Sciences Center
4. Charles F. Louis, Ph.D., Vice Chancellor for Research, Professor of Cell Biology &
Neuroscience, University of California, Riverside
Feedback from the INBRE EAB has been exceedingly positive regarding our initiatives to increase the
number of low-income, first-generation, and underrepresented minority students pursuing life science
related degree programs.
Non-credit Training Offered
Bio-Prep Workshop:
The Biology Department has been involved in non-credit training of underrepresented students since 2007
through the NIH-funded Biomedical Student Pipeline Program. For four summers (2007-2009 and 2011)
faculty in the department have offered the 5-week summer BioPrep Workshop designed to immerse students
in hands-on molecular biology, critical thinking, data analysis, and the presentation of scientific information
during the summer before their sophomore year. Laura Briggs, Melissa Deadmond, and Julie Ellsworth are
the faculty who have been involved in the planning and implementation of the program. Participants are
recruited from Summer Bridge students who show an interest in laboratory science and have a successful
Freshmen year (see Secondary Preparation section). Since 2007 there have been 40 TMCC students
successfully complete the BioPrep Workshop; there are 73 students who have completed the experience
state-wide, with similar workshops conducted at CSN in 2007-2009. Of the students who have completed
the two-workshop sequence, 88% have completed a bachelors or are still enrolled in college, 7% have
transitioned to a technical program such as nursing, and only 5% have dropped out compared to greater than
50% drop out rates for similar students.
Laboratory and Mentoring/Tutoring Experience:
School of Sciences | Curriculum
17
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
In addition to large-scale programs like the Biomedical Pipeline, the Biology department has taken on
several smaller, focused initiatives to help advance student preparedness for overall workplace readiness.
These include providing instructor’s aide (IA) positions in Microbiology, affording experience for students
as open lab tutors and prep lab workers, and establishing a pilot dissection team to dissect cadavers, which
are then used by all sections of Human Anatomy and Physiology (BIOL 223/224 and BIOL 141/142). We
currently offer IA positions in all sections of Biology 251 (approximately 18 sections annually), and average
10 biology tutoring positions and 6 prep lab workers annually. Students are trained in the Biology Prep Lab
by Laura Briggs and Tina Slowan-Pomeroy in the areas of cell and molecular biology, microbiology,
solution prep, biohazards and chemical waste management, laboratory support and purchasing. Students are
expected to maintain accurate lab notebooks and follow standard operating procedures. The pilot dissection
team had 8 members, and this number has held steady each time the dissection class has been offered as a
BIOL 299 (Special Topics) course.
The development of projects and positions like these has been extremely beneficial for the department. Not
only does the department gain valuable laboratory assistance, but our students gain valuable work
experience and training in areas of their interest. In many cases, this has lead to progression to Bachelor
and Master level course work as well as full time employment.
Internships:
The Biology department works to place students in internships with local academic and private research labs
and facilities. During the last four years we have placed five students in local labs. One student completed a
summer internship before entering a four-year college, three students were hired after their internship and
worked through the completion of their bachelor’s degree. One student is still in college working as an
intern. Many other students have gained valuable knowledge through our programs, heading off in various
scientific endeavors. Principle Investigators have been very enthusiastic about our students, supporting
many of our other programs including the Microbiology Poster Contest and the Biomedical Pipeline
Program, a component of the INBRE grant.
Curriculum Development Strategies
Assessment Findings and Strategies
Course-level Assessment:
Assessment efforts at the course level have lead to the positive changes described in the course
assessment summaries in the table above. Participation in the assessment process involves the entire
biology faculty and includes part time instructors. As indicated in the table above, the Biology
Department plans to assess all courses on a yearly basis over the next 5-year cycle using the general
approach outlined in the Evaluating Relevance of the Curriculum: Course Content section of this
document. The exceptions are courses offered intermittently; those courses will be assessed when
offered. To date, the Biology Department has been commendable in the in the data gathering and
analysis phases of the course assessment process. Full-time faculty are aware of the weaknesses
identified in the assessment and have addressed these areas individually; however the department could
improve on communication of this information to part-time faculty and a more systematic
18
Curriculum | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
implementation of pedagogical strategies to address problem areas. In recognition of this, the department
strategies are to review the data as a course focus group (rather than individually viewing the CAR on the
Division's S drive), develop ideas for pedagogical interventions and more formally present the findings
and focus group discussions to the department entire at the in-service sessions that precede department
meetings.
Program-level Assessment:
Assessment at the program level is in its infancy and was completed for the first time in Spring 2011 for
one program objective (Objective #4): Students completing the Associate of Science Degree: Biology
Emphasis will demonstrate proficient use of standard laboratory equipment and follow safe laboratory
practices; apply the method of scientific inquiry by designing a controlled experiment, and collecting,
analyzing and interpreting data; and present findings in written and oral formats. To assess this objective,
we evaluated student research poster presentations in BIOL 251, General Microbiology. BIOL 251
represents a capstone biology course for students pursuing allied health tracks as well those pursuing the
AS Biology Emphasis, who can take this course as an emphasis elective. A standard feature of the
laboratory curriculum is the research project in which every microbiology student participates. The
students prepare poster presentations which contain their findings. The results clearly demonstrated that
to various degrees of competency, BIOL 251 students applied methods of scientific inquiry, collected,
analyzed and interpreted their data, as well as presented them in a written format. The evidence collected
was not in a quantitative format, so a rubric for evaluating research posters will have to be developed so
that each instructor’s evaluation of students’ research will be consistent, quantified and suitable for
comparison.
Beyond evaluating the single learning objective described above, the Department, frankly, is uncertain as
to how to best assess at the program level. One strategy is to track students who have completed the AS
Biology Emphasis degree and evaluate their success once they have matriculated into a Bachelor's level
program. At this time, however, this is not feasible because of the low number of emphasis graduates in
the past 4 years (see Demographics Section); FERPA regulations prohibit the use of data where a student
could be identified. The strategy at this time is thus to look for model examples of implementation at
other institutions and try to implement them ourselves.
External Resource Recommendations and Implementation Plans
The Biology Department is not subject to an external accrediting body and at present does not seek an
external review of its curriculum. However, as part of the Nevada INBRE grant certain activities within
the department have been evaluated by an External Advisory Board (EAB). The four-person board
reviews the objectives and accomplishments of all aspects of the grant at least twice during each five-year
grant period (board members listed in the External Review section of this document). During the last
review, which took place in Las Vegas on December 13-14, 2010, the INBRE External Advisory Board
strongly endorsed the proposed collaboration with the Success First Summer Bridge Workshop to expose
School of Sciences | Curriculum
19
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
more underrepresented students to opportunities and careers in biomedical science. Members of the
board have evaluated outreach initiatives at a wide variety of institutions and commented on the need for
more collaborations, such as ours, between science discipline departments and student services offices.
The board was impressed with our department and institution’s commitment to students and the plethora
of programs designed to address deficiencies in preparation, including the Math Skills Center and EPY
courses. They approved of the grant initiatives to support students in the Math Skills Center and infuse
science content and career awareness into all EPY sections as ways to promote the science track among
underrepresented students. Furthermore, all board members believe in the importance and positive
impact of hands-on laboratory learning and strongly advocate for the continuation of the BioPrep
Workshop portion of the grant, the renovation of the prep lab space to support research activities, and the
adoption of new curricular strategies to expose as many students as possible to the excitement of
scientific discovery.
Anticipated Factors Affecting Curriculum and Strategies
The current budget situation has already affected and will likely continue course offerings. Demand for
our courses remains high at this time; however, this may change in response to the allied health programs'
reduction in the number of cohorts admitted to their programs per year. It is difficult to predict whether
this will cause a further increase in course demand as students become more desperate to complete course
pre-requisites, or whether it will reduce demand if students begin to view acceptance into these programs
as improbable. The only strategy is to continue to review enrollment trends and adjust course offerings
accordingly.
As we continue to emphasize and assess student application of the scientific method, more opportunities
for inquiry-based laboratories and authentic scientific research will have to be developed. Members of
the faculty are committed to this charge, but this will require additional training and funding beyond a
state-supported budget can provide. The obvious strategy is to seek external training and funding from
private and government agencies. The Biology Department has already begun to employ this strategy
towards the curricular goal of developing a Research Methodologies course, where students would work
on semester-long research projects in one of four areas identified by the National Research Council’s A
New Biology for the 21st Century (2009) as needing biology-based solutions to societal problems--food,
environment, energy and health. We currently have two ideas in the areas of health and energy,
respectively: study the effects of mitogen-activated protein kinases on cancer cell proliferation, and clone
and express the gene for a cellulase enzyme towards the production of cellulosic biofuel. We have
applied to be part of a Community College Research Initiative as part of a National Science Foundation
(NSF) grant awarded to Finger Lakes Community College in Canandaigua, NY to implement their
biological research model across the country. Acceptance into the cohort would provide for additional
research training. Development of this Research Methodologies course is also one of the aims in a grant
submitted to the National Institutes of Health, which seeks to increase the number of underrepresented
students who earn an associate’s degree in biomedical or behavioral sciences, transfer to a 4-year institution,
and successfully complete a bachelor’s degree in one of these fields by partnering with the University of
Nevada, Reno (UNR). Awarding of this grant would provide a 5-year period of funding towards the
20
Curriculum | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
Research Methodologies course and the other grant initiatives. Collectively, these proposals would help to
establish a new culture of biological research here at the College .
School of Sciences | Curriculum
21
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
DEMOGRAPHICS AND ENROLLMENT
Overall Enrollment
The Biology Department services its majors as well as a host of other students from other majors and
various Allied Health career tracks. The data provided by the PUR committee for analysis (breakdowns
based on age, gender, etc.) mainly focus on those students who are declared Biology majors and are
pursuing the AS degree with an emphasis in Biology. However, to get a complete picture of the impact of
the department, it is important to understand its role as a service department to other students at TMCC. In
addition to providing a popular non-majors science core course (Biology 100, General Biology for NonMajors), the introductory major’s course (Biology 190, Introduction to Cell and Molecular Biology) is
recommended or required within or as a prerequisite in a number of programs on campus:
AA Degrees:

Psychology Emphasis
AS Degrees:





Biology Emphasis
Dietetic Degree
Education Emphases (Elementary, Integrated Elementary & Special Education, and Secondary)
Environmental Science Emphasis
Horticulture Emphasis
AAS Degrees:






Dental Assisting
Dental Hygiene
Dietetic Technician
Nursing
Radiologic Technology
Veterinary Technician
The number of declared Biology majors has increased dramatically, from 5 in fall 2006 to 152 in spring
2011. This may indicate an increased interest in the major, or be the result of a concerted campus effort to
encourage students to declare majors and make them aware of the benefits of transferring after earning an
AS degree.
22
Demographics and Enrollment | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
Declared Majors
Declared Biology Majors over the last 5 years
200
150
100
50
0
While the number of declared majors has grown, it is still relatively small. However, in comparison to
Chemistry, a department that has also seen increasing numbers, the growth is notable. And when the
Biology Department is seen within the context of all of the majors that it potentially serves through the
Biology 190 course, its tremendous service role is clear. Below is a table of declared majors in a selection
of majors on campus and their 2-5 year averages as well as a graph that illustrates that the number of
students who declare Allied Health majors compared to Biology, Chemistry, and Psychology. The Allied
Health majors dwarf the number in the traditional AS Departments, even though very few of those declared
majors will ultimately obtain their declared degrees. For example, over 1,400 students were declared
Nursing majors in spring 2011, and only 32 students are accepted into each of two Nursing cohorts each
year. Faculty in the Biology Department, with the support of the President, are currently working on a NIH
grant proposal designed to encourage, prepare, and transition more allied health declared majors into
Associate’s paths that ultimately lead to a Bachelor’s degree.
Number of Declared Majors in a comparable AS science major (Chemistry) and in seven majors that
recommend or require Biology 190 as part of their program
Fall 06 Spring 07 Fall 07 Spring 08 Fall 08 Spring 09 Fall 09 Spring 10 Fall 10 Spring 11 Average Biology
Chemistry
Psychology
Nursing
Dental
Hyg.
168
135
142
105
67
66
54
52
180
180
Radiological
Tech.
200
195
198
210
218
252
257
269
294
314
Dental
Asst.
33 36 43 39 48 44 58 57 49 50 Vet.
Tech.
69
79
92
94
89
84
98
100
127
138
Total
898
927
983
998
1093
1126
1258
1239
1360
1423
Dietetic
Tech.
28
26
31
24
27
25
26
25
27
27
5 20 51 70 114 128 152 164 150 152 100.6 2 5 16 23 30 36 33 41 23.3 48 103 251 274 169 1130.5
26.6
114.9
240.7 45.7 97
1842.2
School of Sciences | Demographics and Enrollment
1401
1418
1542
1545
1672
1748
1981
2045
2471
2599
23
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
Declared Majors
Number of Declared Majors in Biology (AS), Chemistry (AS), Psychology (AA), Nursing (AAS), and other Allied Health Programs (*Dietic Tech, Dental Hygiene, Radiological Technology, Dental Assisting, Veterinary Technician)
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Biology
Chemistry
Psychology
Nursing
Other Allied Health*
General Student Demographics
General Student Demographics
Age
5 -year Average Headcount
Biology
TMCC
77%
55%
17%
2%
18-24 yrs.
Under 18
yrs.
Spr 07
Fall 07
Spr 08
24
13%
5%
3%
Under 18 yrs.
Fall 06
24%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
25-34 yrs.
0%
35-49 yrs.
6%
50+ yrs.
18-24 yrs.
25-34 yrs.
35-49 yrs.
50+ yrs.
Total
1
3
1
0
0
5
20%
60%
20%
0%
0%
100%
2
14
3
1
0
20
10%
70%
15%
5%
0%
100%
1
42
4
4
0
51
2%
82%
8%
8%
0%
100%
0
55
8
7
0
70
0%
79%
11%
10%
0%
100%
Demographics and Enrollment | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
Fall 08
Spr 09
Fall 09
Spr 10
Fall 10
Spr 11
Bio. Avg
TMCC
Avg
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
%
%
2011-12
6
90
12
6
0
114
5%
79%
11%
5%
0%
100%
3
95
22
8
0
128
2%
74%
17%
6%
0%
100%
2
114
32
4
0
152
1%
75%
21%
3%
0%
100%
0
124
32
7
1
164
0%
76%
20%
4%
1%
100%
1
116
23
9
1
150
1%
77%
15%
6%
1%
100%
1
117
29
4
1
152
1%
77%
19%
3%
1%
100%
2%
77%
17%
5%
<1%
100%
3%
55%
24%
13%
6%
100%
The above data show the enrollment by age of those who have declared the Biology emphasis (AS) as their major.
Compared to TMCC as a whole, declared Biology majors tend to be younger, with a higher percentage of
individuals in the 18-24 years category and a lower percentage in older age categories. However the number of
Biology majors is so small relative to TMCC overall that it is unknown if these differences are statistically
significant. If the difference is real, it may be because most students who are pursuing a Biology emphasis AS
degree are planning to transfer and obtain a Bachelor’s degree, and those students tend to be younger and less
likely to be returning or retraining.
Gender
The above data show the enrollment by gender of those who have declared the Biology emphasis (AS) as their
major. The data for Biology majors is very similar to the data for TMCC overall, with a female bias (56% female
to 43% male). This probably reflects the national trend toward more women pursing college degrees than males.
We do not believe it represents a skewed interest in the discipline based on gender. In fact, Biology majors are far
less female biased than some other majors, including Psychology and Nursing that are overwhelmingly female.
Gender Profile of Biology compared to TMCC, Chemistry, Psychology, and Nursing
Averages based on the years included in the prior analysis
*Other Allied Health Programs similar to Nursing
TMCC
Biology
Chemistry
Psychology
Nursing*
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
55% 45% 56% 43%
55%
45%
72%
28% 87%
13%
School of Sciences | Demographics and Enrollment
25
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
Gender Profile for TMCC overall and Majors in Biology, Chemistry, Psychology, and Nursing
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male
TMCC
Biology
Chemistry
Psychology
Nursing
Ethnicity
5-year Average Headcount
Biology
TMCC
68%
58%
18%
11%
3% 3%
African
American
26
15%
6%
0% 0%
Asian
Hawaiian or Hispanic
Pacific
Islander
2% 2%
Native
American
0% 1%
White
0% 1%
Two or more
Interraces
national
Students
Demographics and Enrollment | Truckee Meadows Community College
7% 4%
Unreported
Biology
African
Am erica
n
Fall N
06
%
Spr N
07
%
Fall N
07
%
Spr N
08
%
Fall N
08
%
Spr N
09
%
Fall N
09
%
Spr N
10
%
Fall N
10
%
Spr N
11
%
Bio. Avg
TMCC Avg
Native
Haw aiian
Am erica
or Pacific
n
Islander Hispanic
Asian
International
UnStudents reported
Tw o or
m ore
races
White
2011-12
Total
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
5
0%
0%
40%
0%
60%
0%
0%
100%
1
2
5
0
11
0
1
20
5%
10%
25%
0%
55%
0%
5%
100%
2
6
8
2
32
0
1
51
4%
12%
16%
4%
63%
0%
2%
100%
3
6
10
2
48
0
1
70
4%
9%
14%
3%
69%
0%
1%
100%
5
13
23
3
68
0
2
114
4%
11%
20%
3%
60%
0%
2%
100%
3
18
23
4
77
0
3
128
2%
14%
18%
3%
60%
0%
2%
100%
4
3%
21
14%
32
21%
4
3%
85
56%
0
0%
6
4%
152
100%
5
24
33
7
87
1
7
164
3%
15%
20%
4%
53%
1%
4%
100%
3
15
0
24
2
93
0
2
11
150
2%
10%
0%
16%
1%
62%
0%
1%
7%
100%
0
0%
10
7%
0
0%
24
16%
1
1%
81
53%
0
0%
2
1%
34
22%
152
100%
3%
11%
<1%
18%
2%
58%
<1%
<1%
7%
100%
3%
6%
<1%
15%
2%
68%
1%
1%
4%
100%
The above data show the enrollment by ethnicity of those who have declared the Biology emphasis (AS) as their
major. Compared to TMCC as a whole, declared Biology majors tend to exhibit higher representation in the Asian
and Hispanic groups and fewer Whites. However the number of Biology majors is so small relative to TMCC
overall that it is unknown if these differences are statistically significant. If the differences are real, it may be
because there are more young students pursuing a Biology emphasis AS degree, and those students tend to be from
the local community and are ethnically diverse. This may be the most likely explanation for the higher percentages
of Hispanics. Asians have a historical prevalence in science (particularly life science), and that may explain the
higher rates of Asian students in the major. In fact Asians are not counted as underrepresented minorities by most
science granting agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Lower representation of Whites may
be due to fewer older and retaining students, who tend to be less ethnically diverse. There does not seem to be any
evidence that the major attracts a less diverse population than TMCC overall, in fact there is some suggestion that it
is a particularly diverse major. Biology has the highest average percentage of underrepresented students, at 26%,
compared to other majors. The table below shows the average percentage of underrepresented students compared
to Whites and Asians by major and the total average percentage of students in each major who are underserved
based on science granting agency criteria.
TMCC Biology Average Percentage of Students in Underrepresented Groups based on Declared Major
Averages based on the years included in the prior analysis
UR Groups (Under represented) Non‐UR Groups African American Hispanic Native American White Asian 3% 15%
2%
69%
3% 21%
2%
59%
School of Sciences | Demographics and Enrollment
6%
10%
27
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
Chemistry Psychology Nursing 3% 3% 4% 15%
16%
17%
0%
2%
2%
67% 64% 62% Percent of students by ethnicity for TMCC overall and Majors in Biology, Chemistry, Psychology, and Nursing 70%
60%
50%
African American
40%
Hispanic
30%
Native American
20%
White
Asian
10%
0%
TMCC
‐10%
Biology
Chemistry Psychology
Nursing
Percent of students from NIH UR* Groups for TMCC overall and Majors in Biology, Chemistry, Psychology and Nursing (*African American, Hispanic, and Native American)
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
TMCC
28
Biology
Chemistry
Psychology
Demographics and Enrollment | Truckee Meadows Community College
Nursing
7%
5%
11%
Biology
2011-12
Student Status
Educational Goals
5-year Average Headcount
BIOL
TMCC
87%
75%
5%
2%
Earn a Degree
Spr 07
Fall 07
Spr 08
Fall 08
Spr 09
Fall 09
Spr 10
Fall 10
Spr 11
BIOL Avg
TMCC Avg
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
%
%
5%
2%
Earn a Certificate Improve Job Skills
Earn a
Degree
Fall 06
0%
Earn a
Certificate
12%
Personal
Enrichment
Improve
Job Skills
3%
2%
Personal
Enrichment
Transfer
Transfer
3%
3%
Undecided
Undecided
Total
785
21
6
34
12
53
911
86%
2%
1%
4%
1%
6%
100%
752
24
1
38
16
49
880
85%
3%
0%
4%
2%
6%
100%
728
16
5
47
19
37
852
85%
2%
1%
6%
2%
4%
100%
777
23
2
56
16
30
904
86%
3%
0%
6%
2%
3%
100%
791
20
3
78
17
38
947
84%
2%
0%
8%
2%
4%
100%
886
21
7
88
26
39
1,067
83%
2%
1%
8%
2%
4%
100%
935
24
1
77
21
34
1,092
86%
2%
0%
7%
2%
3%
100%
964
15
7
85
24
28
1,123
86%
1%
1%
8%
2%
2%
100%
1,109
19
2
21
24
2
1,177
94%
2%
0%
2%
2%
0%
100%
1,065
20
6
24
32
1
1,148
93%
2%
1%
2%
3%
0%
100%
87%
2%
<1%
5%
2%
3%
100%
75%
5%
2%
12%
3%
3%
100%
Unlike the previous data tables, the above data represent all students enrolled in Biology sections, and not
declared majors. The data suggest that students enrolled in Biology courses are more interested in
earning a degree than TMCC students overall, and less interested in other enrollment motivators.
Without the raw data from TMCC it is not possible to ascertain if the differences are statistically
significant. However, if they are real, then it may be due to the fact that Biology courses are rigorous and
students do not tend to take them for some of these other reasons, such as personal enrichment.
Furthermore, Biology courses are not part of general job skill advancement or certificate programs.
School of Sciences | Demographics and Enrollment
29
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
Educational Status
5-year Average Headcount
Biology
72%
77%
11%
Continuing Students
Spr 07
Fall 07
Spr 08
Fall 08
Spr 09
Fall 09
Spr 10
Fall 10
Spr 11
Bio. Avg
TMCC Avg
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
17%
13%
10%
New Transfers
Continuing Students
Fall 06
TMCC
New Students
New Transfers
New Students
Total
3
1
1
5
60%
20%
20%
100%
6
9
5
20
30%
45%
25%
100%
25
8
18
51
49%
16%
35%
100%
53
9
8
70
76%
13%
11%
100%
67
13
34
114
59%
11%
30%
100%
102
18
8
128
80%
14%
6%
100%
101
15
36
152
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
66%
10%
24%
100%
128
9
15
152
84%
6%
10%
100%
%
%
72%
11%
17%
100%
77%
10%
13%
100%
135
17
12
164
82%
10%
7%
100%
103
12
35
150
69%
8%
23%
100%
The above data show the enrollment by educational status (continuing vs. new transfer students vs. new
students) of those who have declared the Biology emphasis (AS) as their major. The data suggest that
more Biology students are new than continuing compared to TMCC as a whole, although the numbers of
Biology majors is so small that it is unknown if this difference is statistically significant. If it is a real
difference, then it may be due to the fact that there are more young students in the major. It could also
30
Demographics and Enrollment | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
represent a burgeoning interest in the discipline or that students in the major are serious and thus spend
less time as continuing students before transitioning or transferring compared to TMCC students overall.
Enrollment Status
5-year Average Headcount
Biology
TMCC
48%
32%
29%
24%
17%
12+
20%
15%
15%
9-11.9
6-8.9
Less than 6 credits
Credits Earned
12+
Fall 06
Spr 07
Fall 07
Spr 08
Fall 08
Spr 09
Fall 09
Spr 10
Fall 10
Spr 11
Bio. Avg
TMCC Avg
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
%
%
9-11.9
Total
Less than 6
credits
6-8.9
3
0
1
1
5
60%
0%
20%
20%
100%
8
3
5
4
20
40%
15%
25%
20%
100%
33
6
7
5
51
65%
12%
14%
10%
100%
38
9
13
10
70
54%
13%
19%
14%
100%
52
20
25
17
114
46%
18%
22%
15%
100%
64
15
25
24
128
50%
12%
20%
19%
100%
84
19
27
22
152
55%
13%
18%
14%
100%
83
30
32
19
164
51%
18%
20%
12%
100%
61
34
28
27
150
41%
23%
19%
18%
100%
60
37
37
18
152
39%
24%
24%
12%
100%
48%
17%
20%
15%
100%
29%
15%
24%
32%
100%
The above data show the enrollment by credits earned for those who have declared the Biology emphasis
(AS) as their major compared to TMCC as a whole. The data suggest that Biology majors complete more
School of Sciences | Demographics and Enrollment
31
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
credits per semester than typical TMCC students. There appear to be higher proportions of students in
Biology completing more than 12 credits and fewer who are completing a partial load of less than six
credits. This may help explain the previous analysis as to having fewer continuing students in Biology
than in TMCC overall; Biology majors are taking full loads and completing them.
Student Recruitment Activities
Over the last five years the Biology Department has been involved in many activities that promote a positive
image of TMCC in the community and help recruit students to the college, including participation in the
following activities:






Yearly campus Welcome Fairs to promote the department and related careers
Bring Our Sons and Daughters to Work yearly event in April
Outreach at local elementary schools to promote scientific thinking and experimentation
Serving various roles to support the regional K-12 science fair held yearly in March
Serving various roles to support the INTEL International Science and Engineering Fair held in Reno
in May 2009
Outreach to local and regional high schools in promotion of grant-funded INBRE Pipeline program,
including communication with high school counselors, science teachers, parents and students
The Biology Department has hosted a table at the yearly campus Welcome Fairs, either held during the day
or in the evenings, in order to promote the department and careers related to the field, interact with students
and help promote the college overall. In addition, various faculty members, including Lance Bowen, Laura
Briggs, Edmund Burke, Jamie Campbell, Julie Ellsworth, and Dan Williams have hosted science-based
activities for children visiting campus during the yearly Bring Our Sons and Daughters to Work event held
every April.
Various faculty members have volunteered over the last five years at local K-12 schools, including Brown
Elementary, Pleasant Valley Elementary, Glen Duncan Elementary, Rita Cannan, Sara Winnemucca
Elementary, Sierra Vista Elementary, Sun Valley Elementary, Lois Allen Elementary, Dilworth Middle
School, and Galena High School. Faculty members, including Lance Bowen, Laura Briggs, Edmund Burke,
Jamie Campbell, Melissa Deadmond, Julie Ellsworth, Steve Schenk, have volunteered in classrooms to help
teachers conduct class science fair projects and/or volunteered to serve as judges or judging coordinators at
school science fairs. These volunteer services and faculty expertise are highly appreciated at the schools.
Julie Ellsworth and Steve Schenk serve on the advisory board and volunteer to help run the annual Western
Nevada Regional Science & Engineering Fair, and many other department faculty have volunteered or
served as judges for this annual event (including Laura Briggs, Jamie Campbell, and others). This fair hosts
a competition among the winners from individual school fairs, K-12th grades, and is the top fair through
middle school. High school winners advance to the INTEL International Science and Engineering Fair. In
32
Demographics and Enrollment | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
2011 over 1,000 Projects and Inventions were exhibited at the fair (12 Nevada Counties, over 100 different
public, private, charter and parochial elementary, middle and high schools) representing students from Ely
to Zephyr Cove, and Gerlach to Minden. Over 20,000 students participated in local, school, & county fairs
to reach this regional fair. The Science Fair is an exciting experience for both the students and teachers who
participate; this event is an inspiration to the next generation of scientist, engineers and state leaders of
tomorrow (http://www.nevadasciencefair.net)
In 2009 Reno hosted the INTEL International Science & Engineering Fair (INTEL ISEF). Julie Ellsworth
helped recruit this event to the region over the previous five years, was on the organizing committee
(chaired by Dr. Steve Well, President of DRI), and served as the Registration Chair for the event. Laura
Briggs, Scott Huber, Melissa Deadmond and others served as judges and volunteer, respectively at this
prestigious competition. Northern Nevada welcomed more than 6,000 visitors to the area and the event
showcased the work of more than 1,500 exceptional high school science students from more than 50
countries who came to Reno to compete for nearly $4 million in scholarships and prizes
(http://www.intelisef2009.org/). The Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority estimated the event
brought $6.6 million in tourist revenue to the region. The committee that ran the fair has evolved into a
non-profit legacy group, known as Gathering Genius, dedicated to promoting science in the community.
Through the first Nevada INBRE grant (2005-2010) Julie Ellsworth and Melissa Deadmond recruited
students from 10 local high schools, as well as from across northern Nevada, focusing on schools with high
minority populations. Recruitment took place via campus visits and presentations, as well as through email
and phone communication with students, parents, high school counselors, and science teachers.
Underserved Student Populations
As presented in the ethnicity analysis in the demographics and enrollment section of this document, those
who declare the Biology emphasis (AS) as their major are relatively diverse. There is higher representation
of Asians (10%) and Hispanics (21%), and fewer Whites (59%), although it is unknown if the differences in
comparison to TMCC as a whole are statistically significant (overall at TMCC: Asians 6%, Hispanics 15%,
and Whites 69%, based on 5-year averages). There is no evidence to suggest that the major/discipline
attracts a less diverse population than TMCC overall. In fact the trend suggests it is a particularly diverse
major, particularly when analyzed based on National Institutes of Health (NIH) criteria of underrepresented
in science (includes African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans). Biology has the highest
average percentage of underrepresented students, at 26%, compared to Chemistry, Psychology, and Nursing
(which range from 18%-23% based on 5-year averages).
Past and current extracurricular funding has focused on increasing the number of underrepresented students
who successfully pursue a biomedical career, including low-income and first generation students. The
INBRE funded Bridge Workshops (2006-2009) offered college preparedness and career exploration for 130
students; 65% first-generation, 60% low income, 50% Hispanic, 15% African American, and 5% Native
American. In 2011 the new collaborative Success First Summer Bridge Workshop served 233 first
generation students, 68% of whom where underrepresented minorities.
School of Sciences | Demographics and Enrollment
33
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Although the course of study in the biology department is rigorous and very challenging, we believe the
demographic data suggest that the department is welcoming to all students. Furthermore the department has
made a concerted effort to reach out to underserved populations through grant-funded programs. A
departmental goal is to maintain and support student diversity as the number of majors continues to increase
in the future. There are many ways to support underserved students in the department and in the classroom,
including being cost conscious when selecting course materials, using culturally neutral examples in class,
and making sure that students are aware of campus resources that are available to enhance their success.
34
Demographics and Enrollment | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
Enrollment Patterns
Number of Sections
Number of Sections: Fall Semesters
80
75
70
65
60
64
55
50
60
57
54
54
45
40
Fall 06
Fall 07
Fall 08
Fall 09
Fall 10
Number of Sections: Spring Semesters
80
75
70
65
60
62
55
50
63
64
57
56
45
40
Spr 07
Academic Years
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
BIOL (5 yr Avg)
SOSC (5 yr Avg)
TMCC (5 yr Avg)
*SOSC = School of Science
Spr 08
Fall
57
54
54
60
64
58
717
1629
Spr 09
Number of Sections
% Change
--5%
0%
11%
7%
3%
1%
0%
Spr 10
Spring
56
57
62
63
64
60
709
1623
Spr 11
% Change
-2%
9%
2%
2%
3%
0%
0%
The number of course sections offered by the Biology Department has been trending upward in both the fall and
spring semesters since 2006-2007. However, as only 5-year average data are present for School of Sciences and
the College as a whole, we are not able to ascertain whether this upward trend mimics that of the division or the
School of Sciences | Demographics and Enrollment
35
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
institution. The Biology Department trend likely reflects a modest expansion of course offerings at the High Tech
Center at Redfield (HTCR) campus as well as the addition of more dynamic, 8-week course sections, so that two
different sections instead of one can be offered during the same time slot over the 16-week semester.
Full Time Equivalent Enrollment
FTE: Fall Semesters
400
350
300
322
299
250
200
248
264
244
150
100
Fall 06
Fall 07
Fall 08
Fall 09
Fall 10
FTE: Spring Semesters
400
350
300
322
250
200
291
304
253
232
150
100
Spr 07
Academic Years
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
BIOL (5 yr Avg)
SOSC (5 yr Avg)
TMCC (5 yr Avg)
*SOSC = School of Science
36
Spr 08
Fall
248
244
264
299
322
275
2801
6809
Spr 09
Spr 10
FTE
% Change
--1%
8%
13%
8%
7%
4%
4%
Spring
232
253
291
304
322
280
2789
6692
Demographics and Enrollment | Truckee Meadows Community College
Spr 11
% Change
-9%
15%
4%
6%
9%
4%
4%
Biology
2011-12
Enrollments in the biology department have been trending upward over the past 5 years. However, we
are not able to evaluate whether or not this trend is mirroring the enrollment patterns of TMCC as a
whole, or if demand for our classes is outpacing that of the institution entire. If we are outpacing the
institution, then we may indeed have further need for full-time Biology faculty.
Retention Rates
Fall 2010 Retention Rates
BIOL
SOSC
TMCC
83%
75%
72%
Retention Rate
Retention by Semester - Fall 06 to Spring 11
Term
Total Enrollments
Number Retained
Fall 06
1,240
869
Spr 07
1,150
829
Fall 07
1,199
894
Spr 08
1,271
974
Fall 08
1,304
1,031
Spr 09
1,480
1,176
Fall 09
1,506
1,192
Spr 10
1,566
1,240
Fall 10
1,604
1,331
Spring 11
1,581
1,326
BIOL (5 year Avg)
1,390
1,086
SOSC Fall 10
14,440
10,896
TMCC Fall 10
36,505
26,346
*SOSC = School of Science
Retention Rate
70%
72%
75%
77%
79%
79%
79%
79%
83%
84%
78%
75%
72%
The graph above is difficult to evaluate. There are errors in the data and the significance of the
differences is not discernible except through the eye of vain imagining. The appropriate comparison to
make would be between the 5-year average retention rate values for Biology, the School of Sciences, and
the College as a whole; however, those data are not provided.
School of Sciences | Demographics and Enrollment
37
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
Student to Faculty Ratios
Student to Faculty Ratio: Fall Semesters
46.0
41.0
36.0
31.0
26.0
21.0
22.1
22.6
Fall 06
Fall 07
24.9
25.6
25.4
Fall 08
Fall 09
Fall 10
16.0
11.0
6.0
1.0
Student to Faculty Ratio: Spring Semesters
46.0
41.0
36.0
31.0
26.0
22.1
24.0
25.6
24.7
21.0
Spr 07
Spr 08
Spr 09
Spr 10
Spr 11
21.0
16.0
11.0
6.0
1.0
Academic Years
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
BIOL (5 yr Avg)
SOSC (5 yr Avg)
TMCC (5 yr Avg)
*SOSC = School of Science
Fall
22.1
22.6
24.9
25.6
25.4
24.1
19.1
20.7
Student to Faculty Ratio
% Change
-2%
10%
3%
-1%
4%
4%
4%
Spring
21.0
22.1
24.0
25.6
24.7
23.5
19.0
20.4
% Change
-5%
9%
7%
-3%
4%
4%
5%
The student to faculty ratio (5yr average) in the Biology Department is 24.1, and has consistently been
higher than both the TMCC and School of Science averages 20.7 and 19.1, respectively. This is likely due
to the high student demand for our courses. As funding has been the limiting resource in the college over
the last few years the department was asked to maximize our class utilization by increasing our student to
38
Demographics and Enrollment | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
faculty ratio. This was accomplished by systematically increasing Anatomy and Physiology classes from 28
to 32 students (unless specifically requested by an instructor not to), which is the maximum number of
students that the laboratory can hold. As a result, we hit the ceiling in our ability to increase class sizes due
to lab space limit. We continue to run our courses at or close to maximum enrollment.
Number of Declared Degree/Emphasis Seekers
Declared Majors
Declared Biology Majors over the last 5 years
200
150
100
50
0
The number of declared Biology majors has increased dramatically, from 5 in fall 2006 to 152 in spring
2011. This may indicate an increased interest in the major, or be the result of a concerted campus effort
to encourage students to declare majors and make them aware of the benefits of transferring after earning
an AS degree.
Student Success Rates
Number of Students Earning a Degree
2006-2011
1
0
0
0
0
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
School of Sciences | Demographics and Enrollment
39
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Number of Graduates by Academic Year
2006 - 2011
Year
# of Graduates
2006-07
0
2007-08
2008-09
0
0
2009-10
0
2010-11
1
The A.S. Biology Emphasis was introduced in Spring 2007 and is thus relatively young. The number of
declared emphasis seekers has increased over the past 5 years with an average of 100.6 declared over that
period. Noticeably, we have had only one graduate in that 5-year span. This may be for a number of
reasons: (1) Declared majors may see little value in obtaining an Associate's degree before matriculating
to the Bachelor's program at UNR or another institution, as many biology-related entry level positions,
such as a lab technician, require a Bachelor's level degree. (2) The degree is rigorous and has little
biology. In order to complete the sequence in 4 semesters, students must, at a minimum, begin with
MATH 127 in their first semester. As many students place into developmental levels of math, students
may see this as an improbable feat. Also, a Bachelor's level Biology major is grounded in math, physics,
and chemistry in the freshman and sophomore years, while much of the actual biology comes at the junior
and senior level. Students interested in biology may lose interest. (3) Students declaring the A.S.
Biology Emphasis may really be interested in allied health tracks and simply declare the emphasis
because it's the gateway to an allied health career. Once accepted to a program, they then abandon the
degree.
Enrollment Development Strategies
Demographic Findings and Strategies
According to these data of questionable applicability, it appears that the growing pool of TMCC Biology
majors is relatively young, ethnically diverse, and serious about completing a degree. The major appears
to be attracting more males and more underrepresented minorities than other related majors. Increasing
the number of males pursuing college and the number of minorities pursuing science degrees are goals
for a number of national organizations, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Beyond its
majors, the Biology Department provides courses to a large number of individuals pursing other majors,
including many in Allied Health tracks. The Department must continue to attract diverse populations
while serving both Biology and other majors. To this end, the Bridges to Baccalaureate grant submitted
to the NIH (see the Resources Development Strategies section) focuses on traditionally underserved
student populations, including first-generation college and minorities.
40
Demographics and Enrollment | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
Student Status Findings and Strategies
The percentage of continuing students appears similar to the college as a whole; however, more
noticeable differences in the percentage of full-time, degree-seeking Biology students compared to the
college are observed. Unfortunately, we cannot determine whether these differences are statistically
significant since raw data for the College is not provided. If real, these data imply that students taking
Biology courses are intent on earning a degree and more routinely take a full course load to complete one.
Based on five-year semester averages from fall 2006 through spring 2011, 48% of students who are
declared Biology emphasis majors attempt 12+ credits compared to 29% of TMCC students overall, and
23% of Biology emphasis majors complete 12+ credits compared to only 17% of TMCC students overall.
U
U
U
U
Since the Educational Goal Status data reflect students taking Biology courses rather than declared
Biology majors, we presume that the majority of these students are interested in pursuing a degree other
than the AS Biology Emphasis. Given the number of declared Nursing majors, Nursing is the most likely
sought after degree. The concern is that only a fraction of these students are actually accepted to the
Nursing program, and this number has shrunk further with the budget-driven reduction in cohorts
admitted. As a department, we must advise students on how they can best increase their chances of
success in Biology course pre-requisites in addition to alternative careers in life sciences. We propose
two strategies to address this concern:
Dedicated Biology Faculty Advisor:
U
In addition to the services provided by Academic Advising, students who take Biology courses would be
even better served by an in-house faculty advisor with first-hand knowledge of our courses and
alternative careers in life sciences. We therefore propose a new position with release time for a Biology
faculty member who serves 0.5 FTE as a Biology faculty advisor and 0.5 FTE as regular teaching faculty.
Biology faculty would apply for this position on a 2-3 year cycle and be responsible for developing and
hosting success workshops for students taking Biology courses as well as the go-to person for 1 on 1
Biology-specific advising. Alternatively, a paid position could be made open to a part-time Biology
faculty member who has taught with us long term.
Bridges to Baccalaureate Grant:
U
Faculty members in the Biology department (PI, Dr. Laura Briggs) recently submitted a proposal to the
National Institutes of Health entitled Bridges to Baccalaureate Program. The premise of this grant is that
few students (only 30% according to grant survey data) have an alternative plan if they are not accepted
into their choice program of study, primarily because they lack an understanding of alternate careers in
life sciences and an appreciation of the variety of pathways that begin with a traditional bachelor’s
degree. To expose students to alternative careers, one aim of the grant calls for infusion of careerinforming curriculum into BIOL 190L, since it is required of both life science and allied health majors
alike. Career modules will be delivered with the assistance of "Peer Coaches", as previous studies
support the use of peer influence to effect positive and significant change in undergraduate students.
Other aims of the grant seek to (1) bring authentic biological research to students by way of a new
Research Methodologies course, where the use of students as "Peer Mentors" will continue the model of
positive peer influence; (2) establish formal, paid internships in laboratories in local companies, public
School of Sciences | Demographics and Enrollment
41
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
entities and UNR; and, (3) negotiate and implement a seamless joint degree partnership (i.e., AS/BS
linked enrollment) between the biology departments at TMCC and UNR, in which participating students
feel part of a bachelor’s degree program while they are earning their associate’s degree.
Enrollment Patterns and Strategies
Spring 2006
Full-time
Parttime
117
49
Spring 2007
Full-time
Parttime
120
52
Program
Biology
Faculty and Staff FTE
Spring 2008
Full-time
Parttime
120
62
Data
Sections
Student FTE
Retention Rate
Fall
2006
57
248
70%
Spring 2009
Full-time
Parttime
129
49
Fall
2007
54
244
75%
Fall
2008
54
264
79%
Spring 2010
Full-time
Parttime
104
91
Fall
2009
60
299
79%
Fall
2010
64
322
83%
Over the past 5 years, the Biology Department has seen an improvement in retention rates across all sections,
climbing to as high as 83% in Fall 2010. This is especially encouraging considering the rigor of our courses and
that student FTE and the number of sections offered by our department have risen as well. Consequently, we are
not sacrificing retention when trying to meet student demand for our courses.
Currently, the greatest demand for our courses comes from students interested in pursuing allied health degrees.
While this may decline in the future due to the reduction in accepted cohorts by these programs, we must presently
find ways through creative scheduling to meet student demands. This is difficult given the laboratory requirements
for our courses. Lab space is at a premium and is maxed out during the regular teaching days of Monday through
Thursday from 8:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. One way to address this is by offering dynamic, 8-week course sessions
during the regular semester. That way, two courses can be scheduled at the same time period instead of one.
While we have done this for a number of semesters for a BIOL 223/BIOL 224 “fast track” so that students can
complete both Human Anatomy & Physiology I and II in a single semester, we recently implemented a BIOL
190/BIOL 190L/BIOL 251 fast track sequence. Students complete BIOL 190 and 190L in the first 8 weeks and
then BIOL 251 in the second 8-weeks. Since this frees the Microbiology lab in the first 8-weeks, we offer a standalone BIOL 251 (General Microbiology) course to continue to meet student demand. This has provided us the
additional benefit of increasing our General Microbiology offerings from 6 to 8 sections. However, we must take
care to ensure that retention is not compromised given the faster pace of the dynamic course offerings.
Another way to address the demand for lab space is by offering online sections, including the laboratory
component. We have accomplished this with BIOL 223, Human Anatomy & Physiology I, and the part-time
instructor who teaches this course is working on an online version of BIOL 224, Human Anatomy & Physiology II.
However, we do have some reservations about online instruction. First and foremost, retention rates in crossdiscipline online sections historically lag behind those of traditional sections. Second, comparable assessment of
content mastery through exams must not be compromised and thus requires exam proctoring. While we have
utilized the Proctoring Center for this purpose in the past, departments are now being asked to cover the cost of this
service. For the Biology Department, this amounts to over $1,200 annually. Unlike laboratories, where we can
recuperate funds for sustaining future course offerings with lab fees, we have no means of recovering this cost. If
the department decides to pursue this fully, we must take care to ensure that retention does not suffer, find an
42
Demographics and Enrollment | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
alternative solution to use of the Proctoring Center, and strive to offer at least one online section in the allied health
track (BIOL 190/190L, BIOL 223, BIOL 224, BIOL 251) to meet student demand.
Student Success Rates and Strategies
The data on the large number of declared majors in some of the Allied Health areas compared to the
small number of spots in select programs is worth noting. Based on this data, we believe there is a large
and growing number of TMCC students interested in life science and that many more of them could be
well served by pursing the AS degree with an emphasis in Biology on their way toward achieving a
Bachelor’s degree. After implementation of the AS with Biology emphasis enrollment climbed and
leveled off at approximately 150 students.
However, the number of students graduating with this degree has lagged behind enrollment and we are
concerned that we are not serving a rapidly growing cohort of students. In the spring semester of 2011
there were approximately 2600 students in seven majors that require biology at TMCC, with the largest
group being in nursing (1423 students). However, only a fraction of these students were actually
admitted to the nursing program. The majority of these students are clearly interested in health science,
but we are not providing them a vehicle for success.
An Associate of Science in Health Science degree would provide students who have pursued nursing,
dental hygiene, dental assisting, radiation technology or veterinary technology an opportunity for
academic advancement into baccalaureate level programs. A review of degrees offered at UNR quickly
illustrates that there are at least 10 bachelor’s degrees that we could funnel students into. These include
but are not limited to: Agricultural Science, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Biotechnology
(combined BS/MS program), Community Health Sciences, Environmental Science, Forest Management
and Ecology, Neuroscience, Nursing, Rangeland Ecology and Management, & Veterinary Science.
Furthermore, this degree would provide an opportunity for individuals who hold current certification or
licensure in related health science disciplines an opportunity to advance their current employment
opportunities. We have reviewed several model degrees at other institutions, including Weber State
(documents.weber.edu/catalog/1011/~hthscia.htm), Arkansas State University,
(http://www3.asub.edu/advising/checklists/degree_ASH/index_AS_Health_Sciences.htm), AnokaRamsey Community College (http://www.anokaramsey.edu/en/classes/TwoYear%20Degree%20Programs/ASDegree/HealthSciencesASDeg.aspx), Caberrus College
(http://www.cabarruscollege.edu/programs/ls/ls-as.cfm), National University
(http://www.nu.edu/OurPrograms/CollegeOfLettersAndSciences/MathematicsAndNaturalSciences/Progr
ams/Associate-Science-Health-Science-PreNursing.html), and Raritan Valley Community College
(http://raritanval.catalog.acalog.com/preview_program.php?catoid=2&poid=155&returnto=58&print%20).
Development of this degree is currently underway, and implementation could be a soon as the fall
semester of 2013.
School of Sciences | Demographics and Enrollment
43
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
RESOURCES
Faculty and Staff
Required Faculty Credentials
The Biology Department consists of 10 full-time faculty members with expertise in the areas of ecology, evolution,
physiology, organismal, and cell and molecular biology; all hold a minimum of a Master’s degree in Biology or a
closely-related field, as indicated in the table below.
44
Resources | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
Name
Degree(s), Certificates
FTE List conferring institutions
John D. Adlish
1.0
Lance Bowen
1.0
B.S. Biology, University
of Nevada, Reno
Ph.D. Cell and Molecular
Biology, University of
Nevada, Reno
B.S. Biochemistry,
University of Nevada,
Reno
Professional Certification
List agency/organization
2011-12
Years at
TMCC
Total
Years
20
25
10 (3
adjunct,
7
faculty)
10 (3
adjunct,
7
faculty)
5
15 years
in the
science
field
15
25
14
18
M.S. Cellular and
Molecular Biology,
University of Nevada,
Reno
Laura Briggs
Edmund Burke
1.0
1.0
Ph.D. Environmental
Science and Health,
University of Nevada,
Reno
B.S. Nutrition, University
of Nevada, Reno
Ph.D. Environmental
Science, University of
Nevada, Reno
Higher National Diploma,
Ulster Polytechnic,
Belfast, N. Ireland
(Applied Biology)
B.Sc. Ulster Polytechnic,
Belfast, N. Ireland
(Biology/Ecology)
M.Phil. University of
Ulster, Belfast, N. Ireland
(Physiology )
Jamie D. Campbell
1.0
Ph.D. University of
Nevada, Reno, NV (Cell
and Molecular Biology )
B.A. Biology, University
of Cincinnati
Ph.D., Physiology and
Biophysics, University of
Cincinnati
School of Sciences | Resources
45
2011-12
Jim Collier
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
1.0
Doctor of Arts, Idaho
State University
22
33
8 (2
adjunct,
6
faculty)
10 (2
post-doc,
8
teaching)
9
9
15
Over
15* (We
Master of Science,
University of Denver
Bachelor of Arts,
Carleton College
Melissa A. Deadmond,
Julie A. Ellsworth
Scott Huber
1.0
1.0
1.0
B.S. Biology and French,
Albertson College (now
the College of Idaho),
Ph.D. Cellular and
Molecular Biology,
University of Nevada,
Reno
B.S. Natural Resources,
University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor
Ph.D. Ecology, Evolution,
and Conservation Biology,
University of Nevada,
Reno
BGS General Studies,
University of Idaho
were not
able to
contact
Prof.
Huber,
who is on
sabbatical
M.S. Biology/Zoology,
Idaho State University
Steve Schenk
1.0
B.S. Biology, Duke
University
M.S. Biology, The Florida
State University
46
Resources | Truckee Meadows Community College
5
21 in
biology,
15
teaching,
10 as
full-time
commun
ity
college
faculty
Biology
Daniel Williams
1.0
2011-12
B.S. Zoology, Arizona
State University
B.A.Ed. Secondary
Education, Biological
Sciences, Arizona State
University
M.S. Fisheries, Auburn
University
ABD Biology, George
Mason University
Full-Time to Part-Time Faculty Ratio
School of Sciences | Resources
47
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
Percentage of Credit Hours Taught by Full-time Faculty
Fall Semesters
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
74%
75%
75%
70%
63%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Fall 06
Fall 07
Fall 08
Fall 09
Fall 10
Percentage of Credit Hours Taught by Full-time Faculty
Spring Semesters
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
70%
70%
66%
72%
53%
Spr 07
Spr 08
Spr 09
Spr 10
Percentage of Credit Hours Taught by Full-time Faculty - BIOL
Academic Years
Fall
% Change
Spring
2006-07
74%
-70%
2007-08
75%
1%
70%
2008-09
75%
0%
66%
2009-10
70%
-5%
72%
2010-11
63%
-7%
53%
BIOL (5 yr Avg)
71%
-3%
66%
SOSC (5 yr Avg)
56%
1%
56%
TMCC (5 yr Avg)
48%
1%
47%
*SOSC = School of Science
Spr 11
% Change
--1%
-4%
7%
-19%
-4%
0%
0%
The percentage of credit hours taught by full-time faculty has been 68.5% for the 5 year average; however, we have
seen a large drop in this number in the 2010-11 academic year. We attribute this decrease to attrition of biology
faculty without replacement (Professor Mehm), and the acceptance of 1-year sabbatical releases from two of our fulltime faculty (professors Huber and Collier). The realized loss of full time faculty in the classroom due to these events
is a 19% reduction in credit hours taught by full time faculty from Spring 2010 (72%) to Spring 2011 (53%).
48
Resources | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
Required Classified Credentials
Laboratory Coordinator (Professional Status), 1.0 FTE:
U
The department has a full-time Science Laboratory Coordinator, Dr. Laura Briggs, whose position is Professional
status. She reports directly to the Dean of the School of Sciences. Dr. Briggs holds a B.S. in Nutrition Science and
Biochemistry and a Ph.D. in Environmental Science and Toxicology and teaches in the Biology Department. She
has also served as the Vice President of Research and Discovery at Sierra Sciences, LLC. Dr. Briggs was hired in
Spring 2006 to coordinate all laboratory activities of the Biology Department, including lab management,
budgeting, purchasing, personnel, scheduling, laboratory safety, and waste management. Towards laboratory
safety, Dr. Briggs and her full-time staff are required to update OSHA safety certifications periodically. Her
responsibilities have since grown to include overseeing the laboratory activities of 3 additional
departments/programs: Natural Sciences, Nutrition, and Veterinary Technician. In addition, Dr. Briggs teaches 1-2
biology courses in any given semester.
Classified FTE
Laboratory Manager, 1.0 FE:
U
In addition to the Science Lab Coordinator, the department is supported full-time by a Laboratory
Manager dedicated solely to Biology. The Lab Manager, Ms. Tina Slowan-Pomeroy, oversees the dayto-day operations of the prep lab by ensuring that materials are prepared for all Biology classes. (An
equivalent position exists for Physical Sciences.) Ms. Slowan-Pomeroy also helps to train student
workers and has even taught numerous labs for the Department. This position requires that the
employee meet the criteria of a Laboratory Technician II as defined by the State of Nevada, including a
Bachelor's degree in Biology or closely-related field or comparable laboratory experience. In addition,
the Laboratory Manager is also required to update OSHA safety certifications periodically.
Administrative Assistant II, 1.0 FTE:
U
The Biology Department is supported by one full-time Administrative Assistant II position, which is
filled by Ms. Racheal Rotter. Ms. Rotter joined the department in November 2010 after an extended
period of no full-time administrative assistant, so she has been a welcome addition to our team. Her
duties include handling student inquiries in regards to registration, input of course schedules into
PeopleSoft, assisting with book orders, and general office maintenance. No specialized credentials are
required of this position.
Facilities
The majority of Biology lecture sections are offered in traditional classrooms. The Biology lab sections are
offered in specialized teaching labs at the Dandini Campus, Red Mountain Building (RDMT) and at the
High Tech Center Redfield campus (HTCR). Each laboratory is equipped with the necessary components
for classroom instruction and/or hands-on training specifically dedicated to the subject matter. The table
below lists the rooms utilized by the Biology Department and the special characteristics of each.
School of Sciences | Resources
49
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
The laboratory space RDMT 310 is dedicated to the Anatomy and Physiology (A&P) courses (Biol 141,
142, 223, 224) and is a Tier 1 teaching laboratory. During a typical semester, we run ~14 sections of A&P
(~44 hr/week) and ~26 hr/week of Open Lab where peer tutors are available to help students with Biology
course work. Open Lab also provides students with the opportunity to study using the A&P models, slides,
specimens and cadavers outside of class time. In addition to the teaching lab, this space includes a Model
Room (310A) where all of the anatomical models, skeletons and bones are housed, a Cadaver and Specimen
Room (310B) where the two cadavers and dissection specimens are housed, and a storage room (310C)
where additional supplies are kept. It is basically adequate for the program with one serious flaw, the lack of
ventilation and temperature control in the Cadaver Room (310C). This teaching facility was opened in
Spring 2006 and according to faculty accounts, the remodeling plans were to include dedicated temperature
control and increased ventilation. This is critical to the success of the A&P program as the cadavers ($2000
each plus hours of dissection) need to be kept colder than typical room temperature to prevent decay. The
proper ventilation of the room is also critical for potential safety issues. We are currently seeking quotes to
correct these issues. Please refer to the Resources development strategies, Facilities and desired capital
improvements.
The laboratory space RDMT 301 is dedicated to the Microbiology course (Biol 251) and is a Tier 1
teaching laboratory. This laboratory needs to be updated. Microbiology courses require specialized
equipment and are very demanding in terms of preparatory time and consumables. In addition the course
content requires us to treat this laboratory as a Biosafety Level 2 laboratory (BSL 2) as defined by Biosafety
in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories 5th Edition, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health (HHS Publication
No. (CDC 21-1112). BSL 2 includes work involving agents that pose moderate hazards to personnel and the
environment e.g. Salmonella serotypes. BSL 2 lab requirements include standard secondary barriers,
method for decontamination of wastes (Autoclave + mandatory service contract), primary barriers
(Biological safety cabinet + required certification), and standard microbiological practices (as outlined by
NIH/CDC and Washoe Co. requirements). The demand on the room for electricity has been an issue and we
are currently maxed out in terms of the sections we can offer due to space, equipment, and electrical
requirements. Each section requires, at minimum, one-half refrigerator to store ongoing lab experiments, an
incubator used to grow microbes, and dedicated space for student supplies, including lab coats which are
required during laboratory work and must remain in the lab. In Fall 2006 the Biology department added one
section, bringing the total offerings from six to seven. One-time state funding was obtained to purchase one
refrigerator, one incubator, lab coats and free standing cubicles for student supplies. The seventh section has
remained at capacity since its inception. In Fall 2010 we developed a strategy that allowed us to add an
additional section. We are now offering Fast-track Microbiology; two back-to-back 8 wk sections. This was
initially designed to increase our offerings, and has now become a component of a Fast-track Biol 190 into
Biol 251 where students are able to complete two semesters of Biology courses in one semester. Basically
we are at capacity for this room, in order to add more sections of Microbiology in this laboratory we need to
remodel. It is not practical to offer Microbiology in other laboratories without purchasing the needed
equipment (See Appendix A for detailed budget analysis).
The laboratory space RDMT 302 houses Cell and Molecular Biology (Biol 190), General Biology (Biol
100), Organismal Biology (Biology 191), Botany (Biol 202), Foundations in Scientific Literacy (Biol 188),
Anatomy and Physiology (Biol 224) and is a Tier 1 teaching laboratory. This laboratory needs to be
updated. The overall design of the laboratory is not conducive to effective teaching strategies because onethird of the student workstations are very deep into the room and students can’t practically see the boards
50
Resources | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
and routinely lose their focus. The designated capacity of the room is 28 students, and we routinely reach
capacity. The problem is that there are only 24 experimental stations and so students are oddly perched at
the workstations. The parameter of the laboratory is completely filled with equipment and supplies which
constricts our ability to add more diversity, equipment and technology. Additionally the Biology
department has recently submitted two competitive grant proposals to increase student exposure to
undergraduate research opportunities and provide continued education in laboratory methods. If these grants
are funded we will be in dire need of more laboratory space to accommodate new equipment and higher
occupancy loads.
The laboratory space RDMT 320 is not a Tier 1 room for the Biology department and is a shared laboratory.
We are currently not using this facility on a routine basis. We offer Biol 110 in this laboratory during the
Fall semester only. This space is adequate for our current needs.
The laboratory space HTCR 121 is a shared teaching laboratory. This facility was opened in Fall 2005 and
the Biology department was the first department to begin offering classes in the Spring 2006. We teach a
number of Biology courses in this laboratory (Biol 100, 190, 141, 142, 223, 224 and 201). Equipment,
consumables and teaching materials was funded by State funds in excess of $100,000. This equipment is
now shared with other departments teaching at this facility including Nutrition. We have considered offering
Microbiology at this location and have been working towards that end. Summer 2011 we installed a fully
operational autoclave at the HTCR (119). We are actively seeking funding to purchase other required
supplies (See Appendix X for detailed budget analysis).
The laboratory space RDMT 301A is a shared preparatory lab where the majority of the management of and
preparations for the instructional laboratories are carried out. Our Laboratory Technician II works out of this
facility. The autoclave and the biological safety cabinet are housed in this laboratory, along with chemicals,
reagents and supplies for the labs. We recently made some upgrades to this area with funds ($112,500)
awarded by National Institute of Health (NIH) through the INBRE grant (see Grant section for more
details). The majority of this funding went to asbestos abatement and a new floor and ceiling. Upgrades
which actually translated into meaningful improvements to the functions of the laboratory were minimal
(≤10% of total) and included 32 sq. ft. additional work surface and upgrades to the ventilation system of the
solvent room.
The laboratory space HTCR 119 is a shared preparatory lab where preparations are made for the labs
offered at the HTCR. This lab houses our second autoclave, the repaired autoclave from the Dandini
campus. We are hoping to get a few more years of service from this autoclave since the generator was
rebuilt in 2008. The autoclave was installed over the Summer 2011 using end-of-year money (~$18,000).
We have submitted a Mid-year funding request to purchase a biological safety cabinet and specialized CO2
incubator, two main pieces of equipment needed to offer Microbiology at this facility. Additional supplies
will be needed before we can offer a Microbiology section independent of those offered at the Dandini
campus (See Appendix A for detailed budget analysis).
School of Sciences | Resources
51
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Room
Course
Characteristics
RDMT 301
Microbiology









1,250 sq. ft.
Smart classroom
6 computer workstations
24 seat capacity
8 section capacity
6 refrigerators
5 incubators
24 student microscopes
Instructors’ microscope with digital imaging
RDMT 302
Biol 100, 190, 191, 202, 224









1,170 sq. ft.
Smart classroom
6 computer workstations
28 seat capacity
2 refrigerators
28 student microscopes
Gel Imaging System
6 spectrophotometers
RDMT 310, 310A, 310B, 310C
Biol 141, 142, 223, 224







1,656 sq. ft.
Smart classroom
16 laptops
32 seat capacity
>$50,000 of anatomical models and skeletons
2 cadavers
18 student microscopes
Instructors’ microscope with digital imaging
52
Resources | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
Room
Course
RDMT 301A
Preparatory Lab
2011-12
Characteristics








587 sq. ft.
2 classified staff
computers, 1 IA/student
computer
Autoclave
Biological Safety
cabinet
Fume Hood
Solvent Room
Ice machine
Refrigerator
Working surface
Inventory shelving


HTCR 119
Preparatory Lab






320 sq. ft.
1 computer workstation
Autoclave
Refrigerator
Fume Hood
Storage
HTRC 121
Biol 190, 100, 141, 142, 201,
223. 224







1,112 sq. ft.
Smart classroom
24 seat capacity
1 refrigerator
1 incubator
24 student microscopes
>$20,000 anatomical
models and skeletons
Gel Imaging system
PCR machine
6 spectrophotometers



School of Sciences | Resources
53
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Technology
The courses offered by the Biology Department are dependent upon technology and must maintain current
scientific protocols to provide students with meaningful and applicable instruction and training. The table
above provides a list of equipment and technologies employed in the labs. As indicated above, the
successful awarding of submitted grants will impact our facility resources, particularly in terms of space and
required equipment. It will be necessary to update curriculum, software, and equipment with these
emerging technologies to remain relevant to the workplace. This will be paramount if the submitted grants
are awarded.
Funding Sources
Day-to-day operations in the Biology department are funded through a combination of state operating
budgets and student lab fees. The department has secured additional funds and equipment through a wide
variety of resources, including state funding through the SOS division, TMCC Foundation grants, agency
grants, and industry donations. Appendix A includes a summary of additional state funds, grants, gifts, and
other donations made to the programs in recent years.
Generally, funding sources are adequate for daily departmental operations. The consumable and equipmentintensive nature of many of our courses present an on-going challenge. Administrators and faculty members
are continually seeking funding and donations from outside sources to replace worn and outdated equipment
and to maintain currency with the workplace.
Resource Development Strategies
Staffing Issues and Strategies
Administrative and laboratory support are adequate at this time; however, if we continue to expand course
offerings at the Redfield campus, we may need to consider additional assistance, especially with labs.
Right now our laboratory support staff is able to commute from the Dandini to the Redfield campus once
or twice a week to assist with the few laboratory offerings we currently have. This may not be feasible if
offerings increase substantially.
The Biology Department is managing with its existing number of full-time faculty in spite of continued
demand for our courses, a recent retirement (Professor Mehm), and the amount of release time for extradepartmental service. It is difficult to predict whether the current economic cycle will lead to a further
increase or a decrease in course demand due to the reduction of allied health cohorts. Should demand
increase, we would have need for an additional full-time faculty member for this reason alone. Indeed,
enrollments in the biology department have been trending upward over the past 5 years (see
Demographics Section), and this rate may be outpacing the institution, then we may indeed have further
need for full-time Biology faculty. We may still have need, however, to be successful at bringing
undergraduate research to our department. If accepted into the Community College Undergraduate
Research Initiative described in the other sections of this report, the scope of the projects are such that we
would have to broaden our research expertise.
54
Resources | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
Facilities and Desired Capital Improvements
Microbiology (Biol 251)
Microbiology is our most labor and consumable intensive course. Current student lab fees are capped at
$50.00 per student and the maximum occupancy for the Microbiology teaching lab is 24 students.
Revenues from each section totals $1200.00. Costs to the Student Lab fees account per section total
$2836.48. Over the last five years costs have increased and student lab fees have not. For example, the
cost of autoclave service has risen ~50% from $3500 in 2006 to $7300 in 2011. This leaves the Student
Lab fees account with a $1636.48 deficit. We have been able to manage the deficit, in part because the
$7300 autoclave service contract was included with the purchase price of the autoclave purchased FY11.
Budget for Biology 251 Lab
Micro Media
Micro Reagents
Micro Consumables
Micro Non-Consumables
Micro Bugs
Laundry costs
Autoclave Service
Biological Safety Cabinet certification
Microscope service
Total Lab Expenses
Student Lab Fees
Expense/Cost
Lab
Fee
$50.00
Students
Total
$
780.57
$
123.22
$
687.71
$
278.01
$
22.47
$
35.00
$
750.00
$
34.50
$
125.00
$ 2,836.48
$
1,200.00
$ (1,636.48)
24
In order to offer Microbiology in other teaching laboratories we would need to purchase supplies and
equipment. Funding needed is outlined below. This outlines funding needed to offer one section of
Microbiology at HTCR. Costs to offer this course in another laboratory on the Dandini campus would be
reduced.
Total
Budget for Biology 251 Lab (Class of 24)
To duplicate Dandini resources
$
45,763.80
Consumables
$
18,739.38
Nonconsumables
$
27,024.42
Laundry costs
$
35.00
Autoclave Service
$
7,500.00
Biological Safety Cabinet certification
$
275.00
Microscope service
$
500.00
Instructional Assistants
$
3,500.00
To duplicate Dandini resources
$ 57,573.80
School of Sciences | Resources
55
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
If Microbiology were to be run at the HTCR operating costs would far exceed the revenue from student lab
fees. This is mainly due to the lack of multiple sections to share the costs of service contracts. An offering
of Microbiology at the HTCR would require State funded support of ~$10,000.
Budget for Redfield 251 (Class of 24) Lab Fee Students Total Micro Media
$
780.57
Micro Reagents
$
123.22
Micro Consumables
$
687.71
$
$
278.01
22.47
Laundry costs
$
35.00
Autoclave Service
$
7,500.00
Biological Safety Cabinet certification
$
275.00
Microscope service
$
1,000.00
Total Lab Expenses
$ 13,538.47
Micro Non-Consumables
Micro Bugs
Student Lab Fees
Expense/Cost
$ 50.00
$
-
24
$
1,200.00
0
$ 12,338.47
Funding Allocations and Development Strategies
Bridges to the Baccalaureate Degree Program
On October 31, 2011, the Biology Department submitted a grant proposal entitled “Bridges to the
Baccalaureate Degree Program” to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for $2,432,746 plus 8%
indirect ($194,619) for a total of $2,627,365 over 5 years. A synopsis of the challenge (Preparing
students and diversifying the economy) and the proposal’s solution (Building a solution) follow:
Preparing students and diversifying the economy
The goal of the TMCC program is to increase the number of community college students from
underrepresented backgrounds who pursue four-year degrees and careers related to biomedical and
behavioral sciences. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that employment opportunities in
science related fields will continue to grow through 2018. In particular, research related to biotechnology
will be a primary driver of employment growth alongside development and research of technical
products. Employment will include biological technicians, environmental science and protection
technicians, and forensic science technicians. In addition, medical industry expansion and bioscience
technology development were defined as one the new initiatives by the Nevada Commission on
Economic Development to improve the state’s economy at the Nevada 2.0 symposium held January
2011. However, the state must have a trained workforce to grow. Currently, the Nevada has one of the
lowest baccalaureate degree attainment rates in the country – just 21.5% of Nevadans have obtained a
four-year degree or higher (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).
Building a solution
56
Resources | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
Although many TMCC students are interested in biomedical and behavioral sciences, relatively few
transfer to a four-year institution to complete a bachelor’s degree due to 1) limited exposure to careers in
the field, 2) limited training in research methods, 3) limited opportunities to conduct authentic research,
and 4) an inability to transfer credits. We have designed our Bridges to the Baccalaureate Program to
overcome these four obstacles. The TMCC Bridges to Baccalaureate Program will develop and
implement curricula to increase exposure to alternate career paths to students in gateway classes for the
life sciences and allied health majors; develop and implement a new research course designed to engage
students in science and advance the knowledge and skills they need to pursue biomedical and behavioral
scientific research; coordinate internships for select students to work at local laboratories (public and
private) to gain real world experience in research; and partner with the university to build a seamless
dual-enrollment program in life science programs where students feel integrated into a bachelor’s degree
program while they are earning their associate’s degree through co-advising, access to university
resources and activities, and automatic credit transfer.
School of Sciences |
57
Biology
2011-12
APPENDIX A
Analysis of Funding Resources
TRUCKEE MEADOWS COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Account Expense Analysis Trend
Biology
Actual
Budget
2010
2011
2012
15.00 13.00 13.00
Expense Type
Letters of Appointment
Salaries & Wages
Fringe Benefits
Operating Expense
Total Expenses
$ 124,392
973,375
239,522
75,340
$ 1,412,629
$ 173,334
1,001,010
233,236
124,195
$ 1,531,775
Student FTE (annual)
Expense/Student FTE
301.50
$ 4,685
322.00
$ 4,757
Permanent Employee FTE
(1)
$ 1,200
854,083
247,750
98,220
$ 1,201,253
2013
‐
Projected
2014
‐
2015
‐
$ ‐
‐
‐
‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
‐
‐
‐
$ ‐
$ ‐
‐
‐
‐
$ ‐
‐
#DIV/0!
‐
#DIV/0!
‐
#DIV/0!
Notes:
(1) Amounts shown are budget for the respective period.
Budgets remain adequate to maintain our current course offerings. Increases in course offerings would
require additional state funding. Increases in Operating Expense for fiscal year 2011 reflect major purchases
including a new autoclave at the Dandini campus ($10,000), installation of an autoclave at the Redfield
campus ($17,000), replacement of laboratory equipment including a gel documentation system ($8,000),
several student microscopes ($10,000), ice machine ($2,000) and various other small lab equipment and
anatomical models. This funding was obtained, in part, from Year-End Budget Requests. It also reflects the
transfer of funds from the Tutoring Center to the Instructional Assistant account ($13,000) to cover wages
for tutors in the Biology Open Lab.
State-Supported Operating Budgets
The Department’s state-supported operating budget (HM01) are sufficient at this time. The instructional
assistant budget (HM02), however, will need augmentation if we expand laboratory course offerings.
Lab Fees
Lab fees are currently sufficient for all lab courses with the exception of BIOL 251, General
Microbiology. The present fee of $50/student does not fully cover the cost of replacing consumables or
equipment. Unfortunately, though, $50 is the maximum allowable fee by the Board of Regents. We
School of Sciences | APPENDIX A
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
would require additional funding sources to offer additional course sections, which we have outlined in
the Facilities and Desired Capital Improvements section.
Special Fees
None
Grants
The TMCC Biology Department has been a partner in the Nevada INBRE grant since 2005. INBRE – IDeA
Network of Biomedical Research Excellence – is a National Institutes of Health (NIH) program designed to
help traditionally underfunded states build the infrastructure they need to compete successfully for federal
NIH funding.
Nevada INBRE’s first funding cycle ran from 2005 to 2010. During that period Nevada INBRE supported
researchers at the state’s primary research institutions: University of Nevada, Reno; University of Nevada,
Las Vegas and Nevada Cancer Institute. This support included funds for early career investigators as well as
funds to establish and expand a series of statewide research service facilities. The total budget was $17
million over five years.
As part it its collaboration with TMCC, from 2005 to 2010, INBRE established and developed a Biomedical
Students Pipeline Program. The goal of the TMCC Biomedical Students Pipeline Program is to increase the
number of low-income, first-generation, and underrepresented minority undergraduates interested in and
successfully working toward biomedical careers. The strategy is to expose targeted incoming community
college students to the excitement of science and potential career opportunities in the field. This is
accomplished through the collaborative Summer Bridge Workshop, an intensive five-week experience prior
to freshman year. The Summer Bridge Workshop is designed to remedy math and language skill
deficiencies, and improve general scientific literacy, career awareness, study skills, and overall college
preparedness. Program participants receive coaching and personal advising during the academic year and
can apply to participate in a second workshop experience the summer prior to sophomore year, called the
BioPrep Workshop. During the BioPrep Workshop students conduct hands-on laboratory experiments in
molecular biology. The experience is designed to prepare students for long-term success as life science
majors by focusing on specific content knowledge, as well as essential laboratory and critical thinking skills,
and the analysis and presentation of scientific information.
During the first funding cycle, from 2005-2010, the Biomedical Students Pipeline Program implemented
and assessed the following two activities:
 Bridge Workshop recruited graduating high school seniors throughout the state to participate in 5week summer workshops focused on college preparedness and career exploration (Summer 2006,
2007, 2008, and 2009 at TMCC and CSN)
o 130 students completed these workshops; 65% first-generation, 60% low income, 50%
Hispanic, 15% African American, and 5% Native American
o 70% college retention from Freshman to Sophomore years compared to less than 50% in
comparable group
 BioPrep Workshop trained successful Bridge students in hands-on molecular biology, critical
thinking, and the presentation of information during the following summer to build their confidence
in the laboratory (Summer 2007, 2008, 2009)
60
Appendix A | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
o 61 students completed both workshops
o 88% have completed a bachelors or are still enrolled in college, 7% have transitioned to
technical programs such as nursing, and 5% have dropped out (compared to greater than 50%
drop out rates for similar students)
Nevada INBRE’s second funding cycle runs from 2010-2015, with a total budget of $17 million over five
years. The focus of this cycle is to build on the infrastructure developed during the first five years and to
build new programs based on new NIH initiatives in clinical translational research as well as building and
supporting more programs to serve and develop research skills in under-represented undergraduates and
encourage high school students to pursue degrees in the sciences.
During this funding cycle, INBRE is funding independent programs at TMCC, CSN, NSC, and GBC all
designed to recruit the next generation of biomedical researchers. At TMCC the INBRE program teamed
up with the Success First Initiative to offer a joint Summer Bridge experience to incoming underrepresented Freshmen as well as continuing the BioPrep Workshop for those on-track in the sciences.
In 2011 the Summer Bridge Workshop served 233 first-time, first-generation college students, 68% of
whom were members of minority groups underrepresented in science (i.e., Native American, African
American, Pacific Islander, and Hispanic). Students participated in morning workshops on a variety of
science and career-related topics. In addition, participants took a three-credit study skills course (EPY 101:
Educational, Career & Personal Development) and a three-credit remedial English course (ENG 98R:
Preparatory Composition). Students identified as needing intensive math remediation were enrolled into the
TMCC Math Skills Center during fall 2011 (http://www.tmcc.edu/skillscenter/). Participants received a
stipend, were provided lunch every day, and those with transportation challenges were given bus passes.
96% of students persisted from summer 2011 to fall 2011, which is 37% higher than the persistence of a
control group of similar students (first-time, first-generation, and low-income), 92% of students completed
the remedial English course with a C- or better (24% higher than traditional degree-seekers during summer
school), and 78% of students earned a summer GPA of 3.0 or higher.
The following TMCC Biology faculty have served significant roles in Nevada INBRE activities:
Julie Ellsworth, TMCC INBRE Coordinator (2005-2011)
Melissa Deadmond, Workshop Instructor (2006-2009, 2011)
Steve Schenk, Workshop Instructor (2008, 2009)
Laura Briggs, Laboratory Coordinator (2006-2011)
The yearly INBRE subaward to TMCC is approximately $200,000 per year (during the first and second
rounds of the award), plus 30% indirect costs on all allowable expenses. This indirect costs rate was
negotiated during the second year of the grant and represents a significant accomplishment. Rate
negotiations with NIH are an arduous process and most community colleges have rates well below 20%
School of Sciences | APPENDIX A
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
(typically 12-15%). Nevada INBRE support has provided all of the curriculum development, equipment,
supplies, science teaching support, mentoring and assessment for all of the workshops, as well as direct
student support in the form of participant stipends, course materials, bus passes, field trips, and access to the
Math Skills Center. In addition, in the first year of the second round of the award, INBRE provided
$112,500 toward the renovation of the Biology Laboratory Prep Area, Red Mountain 301A.
In addition to the Nevada INBRE award, the Biology Department has been awarded a total of $37,210.22 in
TMCC Foundation Grant awards since 2005. These grants support the acquisition of instructional materials,
which are listed below by year.
Foundation Grants awarded to Biology
Department
Year
Total
2005/06
$2,537.00
2006/07
$8,440.50
2007/08
$11,376.60
2008/09
$4,282.00
2009/10
$8,005.12
2010/11
$2,569.00
2010-2011
Human spinal cord cross section model
$310.00
Laura Briggs
Human vertebrae set; 1/2 skeleton
$525.00
Will Mehm
Functional eye model
$435.00
Jamie Campbell
Human brain model, flexible skeleton
$1,299.00
John Adlish
$2,569.00
2009-2010
Hominid and great ape skull sets (6)
$2,978.22
Melissa Deadmond
Ohaus Balances (6)
$670.80
Edmund Burke
Somso Leg Model
$1,299.00
Lance Bowen
62
Appendix A | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
YSI Multiparameter probe
$3,057.10
2011-12
Jim Collier
$8,005.12
2008-2009
Functional knee joint model
$205.00
William Mehm
Human Eye model
$310.00
Edmund Burke
Vascular Brain model
$167.00
Dan Williams
CX 21 student microscopes
$3,600.00
Melissa Deadmond
$4,282.00
2007/2008
micropipettes
$500.00
Laura Briggs
Female skulls (4)
$544.00
William Mehm
$3,404.00
Edmund Burke
$986.20
Dan Williams
Digital microscope camera
CX41 microscope
CX41 microscope and digital camera
$5,942.40
Melissa Deadmond
$11,376.60
2006-2007
Edvotek Gel Documentation System
$4,520.00
Melissa Deadmond
Balances (10)
$749.90
Edmund Burke
Microhematocrit System, connect & epithelial
slides
$2410.60
Laura Briggs
Disarticulated skull
$760.00
William Mehm
$8,440.50
2005-2006
animal skulls, skeletons, limbs
$2,537.00
Jim Collier
School of Sciences | APPENDIX A
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Non-Credit Training Income
None
Donations
Sierra Sciences donation to Micro poster contest
Other
None
64
Appendix A | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
APPENDIX B
Degree and Certificate Worksheets
School of Sciences | APPENDIX B
Biology Emphasis
Associate of Science
This is a two-year transferable program leading to an associate
of science with an emphasis in biology. The curriculum includes
a core of courses in the biological and physical sciences and
mathematics. All courses recommended will partially satisfy the
bachelor of science in biology at the University of Nevada, Reno.
Emphasis Requirements
Emphasis Outcomes
BIOL251
BIOL191/191L
PHYS 152
IS 101
Students completing the emphasis will:
• Apply principles of mathematics and physical sciences to laboratory
practices and biological processes.
• Explain concepts and theories in molecular structure and function,
cellular processes, and genetics.
• Demonstrate knowledge of the structural and physiological
functions of organisms, their ecological context, and the evolutionary
relationships and hierarchical organization of biological diversity.
• Demonstrate proficient use of standard laboratory equipment and
follow safe laboratory practices; apply the method of scientific inquiry
by designing a controlled experiment, and collecting, analyzing and
interpreting data; and present findings in written and oral formats.
6 credits
ENG 101 and 102 or ENG 113 and 114.
Fine Arts
3 credits
See list of courses under the Associate of Science degree requirements. The
following courses are highly recommended for students wishing to major in
Biology at UNR: ART 100, ART 160, ART 260, ART 261, HUM 101, HUM 102,
HUM 106, MUS 121, MUS 123, MUS 124, THTR 100, THTR 105, THTR 180,
THTR 210.
Humanities
Choose 3-4 credits from the following:
STAT152
MATH181
BIOL223
BIOL251
3 credits
6 credits
12 credits
See list of courses under the Associate of Science degree requirements.
The following courses are highly recommended for students wishing to
major in Biology at UNR: CHEM 121, BIOL 190/190L, PHYS 151.
Social Science
6 credits
3 credits
See list of courses under the Associate of Science degree requirements.
CH 203 or PSC 101 is required for students wishing to major in Biology
at UNR.
3-4 Credits
61-62 Credits
Suggested Course Sequence
First Year
Course #
Diversity/Social
Science
Social Science
English
Emphasis
Mathematics
Elective
Choose from recommended list
Elective
ENG101
IS 101
MATH126
Choose from recommended list
Composition I
Introduction to Information Systems
Pre-Calculus I
Science
Second Year
Emphasis
Humanities
Science
Emphasis
See list of courses under the Associate of Science degree requirements.
CH 202 is highly recommended for students wishing to major in Biology Elective
at UNR. Choosing from one of the following courses will also meet the
diversity requirement: ANTH 201, ANTH 205, EDU 203, HIST 208, HIST
209, HIST 227, HIST 247, PSY 276, SOC 205 or SOC 276.
Emphasis
U.S. and Nevada Constitutions
Introduction to Statistics.....................................3
Calculus I.............................................................4
Human Anatomy and Physiology I **..................4
General Microbiology**......................................4
* IS 101 can be waived and replaced by elective credits under
certain circumstances. Please contact the Biology Department Chair.
** If not chosen in the emphasis requirements
MATH126 or higher. Additional credits may be used to satisfy electives. Emphasis
Science
19 Credits
Elective Requirements
See list of courses under the Associate of Science degree requirements. Science
CH 201 is highly recommended for students wishing to major in Biology English
Mathematics
at UNR.
Mathematics
– or –
General Microbiology....................................... (4)
Introduction to Organismal Biology ....................4
General Physics II................................................4
Introduction to Information Systems*.................3
Total Emphasis Requirements
(3 credits)
See list of courses under the Associate of Science degree requirements.
Choosing from ANTH201, ANTH205, EDU 203, HIST 208, HIST 209, HIST
227, HIST 247, PSY 276, SOC 205, or SOC 276 will meet this requirement
and also satisfy 3 credits in Social Science.
English
Total Elective Requirements Total Degree Requirements
General Education Requirements
Diversity
CHEM122 General Chemistry II............................................4
BIOL223 Human Anatomy and
Physiology I...................................................... (4)
Fine Arts
U.S. and Nevada
Constitutions
Title
1st Semester
Credits
3
3
3
3
3
Total 15
2nd Semester
Introduction to Cell and Molecular Biology/
BIOL 190/190L
4
Lab
CHEM121
General Chemistry I
4
ENG102
Composition II
3
MATH127
Pre-Calculus II
3
Total 14
Course #
Title
Credits
1st Semester
BIOL191/191L Introduction to Organismal Biology/Lab 4
CHEM122
General Chemistry II
4
Elective
Choose from recommended list
3
PHYS 151
General Physics I
4
Total 15
2nd Semester
BIOL223 or
Human Anatomy and Physiology I or
(4)
BIOL251
General Microbiology
(4)
BIOL223 or
Human Anatomy and Physiology I or
(4)
BIOL251 or
General Microbiology or
(4)
STAT152
Introduction to Statistics
(3-4)
or
or
MATH181
Calculus I
(3-4)
PHYS 152
General Physics II
4
Elective
Choose from recommended list
3
Elective
Choose from list
3
2011-2012
Total General Education Requirements 39 Credits
B-32 2011-2012 TMCC College Catalog
Total 17-18
Degree Total 61-62
Academic Standards – Form C
TEMPLATE FOR ACADEMIC PROPOSALS
Complete one template for each certificate of achievement, emphasis, or degree proposal.
Official Name of Certificate of Achievement/Emphasis/Degree:
Description of Certificate of Achievement/Emphasis/Degree (will appear in catalog): Associate of
Science – Biology Emphasis
Effective Date: Fall 2012
Statement of Need/Rationale for Proposal: per NSHE code revisions
Industry/Advisory Board Support: (attach additional documents as needed)
Requirements for Certificate of Achievement/Emphasis/Degree
Select one table from pages 2-7 that is appropriate for the certificate of achievement,
emphasis, or degree you are proposing. If recommended or required courses are being
proposed, list the course number and title in the space provided. Attach a rationale and/or
supporting documentation for *required courses.
Revised 3/02/11
1
Academic Standards – Form C
ASSOCIATE OF ARTS
Emphasis:
General Education Requirements: Courses which satisfy the General Education requirements will be as listed in the current TMCC
catalog unless previously approved by the General Education Committee. Programs may recommend or require students to complete specific
courses to satisfy General Education requirements (indicated below). * Required courses must have support documentation attached, i.e.
accreditation mandate.
English
Recommended:
*Required: ENG 102 or ENG 114
Fine Arts
Recommended:
*Required:
Humanities
Recommended:
*Required:
Mathematics
Recommended:
*Required:
Science
Recommended:
*Required:
Social Sciences
Recommended:
*Required:
Diversity (Can be used to fulfill another Gen Ed, Degree/Emphasis or Elective Requirement.)
Recommended:
*Required:
US and Nevada Constitutions (Can be used to fulfill another Gen Ed, Degree/Emphasis or
Elective Requirement.)
Recommended:
*Required:
Total General Education Requirements
Degree/Emphasis Requirements:
Course #
3-6 credits
3 credits
3 credits
3 credits
6 credits
3 credits
(3 credits)
(3 credits)
21-24 Credits
Credits
Course Title
Total Emphasis Requirements
Elective Requirements - Choose from the following:
Course #
Course Title
Credits
Total Elective Requirements
TOTAL DEGREE REQUIREMENT
Revised 3/02/11
2
Min 0-3
Academic Standards – Form C
ASSOCIATE OF SCIENCE
Emphasis:
General Education Requirements: Courses which satisfy the General Education requirements will be as listed in the current TMCC
catalog unless previously approved by the General Education Committee. Programs may recommend or require students to complete specific
courses to satisfy General Education requirements (indicated below). * Required courses must have support documentation attached, i.e.
accreditation mandate.
English
Recommended:
*Required: ENG 102 or ENG 114
Fine Arts
Recommended:ART 263, ART 270, orTHTR 210 (fulfills FA and diversity)
*Required:
Humanities
Recommended: CH 202
*Required:
Mathematics
Recommended: MATH 127
*Required:
Science
Recommended:
*Required:CHEM 121, & CHEM 122
Social Sciences
Recommended:CH 201
*Required:
Diversity (Can be used to fulfill another Gen Ed, Degree/Emphasis or Elective Requirement.)
Recommended:Satisfied with Fine Arts
*Required:
US and Nevada Constitutions (Can be used to fulfill another Gen Ed, Degree/Emphasis or
Elective Requirement.)
Recommended:CH 203
*Required:
Total General Education Requirements
Degree/Emphasis Requirements:
Course #
Math 127
CHEM 122
CHEM 241
CHEM 242
STAT 152
MATH 181
BIOL 190
BIOL 190L
BIOL 191
BIOL 191L
PHYS 151
CH 203
3 credits
3 credits
3 credits
6 credits
3 credits
(3 credits)
(3 credits)
24 Credits
Credits
Course #
Course Title
or higher
Minimum additional 6 credits in science
General Chemistry II (additional credits)
Organic Chemistry I
Organic Chemistry II
Introduction to Statistics
Calculus I
Introduction to Cell and Molecular Biology
Introduction to Cell and Molecular Biology Laboratory
Introduction to Organismal Biology
Intro to Organismal Biology Lab
General Physics I
American Experiences and Constitutional Change
Total Emphasis Requirements
Elective Requirements - Choose from the following:
Revised 3/02/11
6 credits
2
3
3
3
4
3
1
3
1
4
3
30
Credits
3
Academic Standards – Form C
Course #
BIOL 201
BIOL 202
BIOL 223
BIOL 224
BIOL 251
BIOL 290
BIOL 295
BIOL 299
Course Title
Course #
3
4
4
4
4
4
1-8
1-3
1-3
General Zoology
General Botany
Human Anatomy and Physiology I
Human Anatomy and Physiology II
General Microbiology
Internship in Biology
Current Topics in Infectious Disease
Selected Topics in Biology
Total Elective Requirements
TOTAL DEGREE REQUIREMENT
Revised 3/02/11
4
6
Academic Standards – Form C
ASSOCIATE OF APPLIED SCIENCE
Emphasis:
General Education Requirements: Courses which satisfy the General Education requirements will be as listed in the current TMCC
catalog unless previously approved by the General Education Committee. Programs may recommend or require students to complete specific
courses to satisfy General Education requirements (indicated below). * Required courses must have support documentation attached, i.e.
accreditation mandate.
Diversity (May apply to two subject areas.)
Recommended:
*Required:
English/Communications
Recommended:
*Required:
Human Relations
Recommended:
*Required:
Quantitative Reasoning
Recommended:
*Required:
Science
Recommended:
*Required:
Social Sciences/Humanities
Recommended:
*Required:
US and Nevada Constitutions
Recommended:
*Required:
(3 credits)
6 credits
3 credits
3 credits
3 credits
3 credits
3 credits
Total General Education Requirements
Emphasis Requirements:
Course #
24 Credits
Credits
Course Title
Total Emphasis Requirements
Electives - Choose from the following:
Course #
Credits
Course Title
Total Elective Requirements
TOTAL DEGREE REQUIREMENT
Revised 3/02/11
5
Academic Standards – Form C
ASSOCIATE OF GENERAL STUDIES
General Education Requirements: Courses which satisfy the General Education requirements will be as listed in the current TMCC
catalog unless previously approved by the General Education Committee. Programs may recommend or require students to complete specific
courses to satisfy General Education requirements (indicated below). * Required courses must have support documentation attached, i.e.
accreditation mandate.
Diversity (May apply to two subject areas.)
Recommended:
*Required:
Computer Science
Recommended:
*Required:
English/Communications
Recommended:
*Required:
Fine Arts
Recommended:
*Required:
Humanities
Recommended:
*Required:
Human Relations
Recommended:
*Required:
Quantitative Reasoning
Recommended:
*Required:
Science
Recommended:
*Required:
Social Sciences
Recommended:
*Required:
US and Nevada Constitutions
Recommended:
*Required:
(3 credits)
3 credits
9 credits
3 credits
3 credits
3 credits
3 credits
3 credits
3 credits
3 credits
Total General Education Requirements
Electives - Choose from the following:
Course #
Credits
Course Title
Total Elective Requirements
TOTAL DEGREE REQUIREMENT
Revised 3/02/11
33 Credits
6
Academic Standards – Form C
CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT
Emphasis:
General Education Requirements: Courses which satisfy the General Education requirements will be as listed in the current TMCC
catalog unless previously approved by the General Education Committee. Programs may recommend or require students to complete specific
courses to satisfy General Education requirements (indicated below). * Required courses must have support documentation attached, i.e.
accreditation mandate.
Communications
Recommended:
*Required:
Human Relations
Recommended:
*Required:
Quantitative Reasoning **
Recommended:
*Required:
3 credits
3 credits
3 credits
(Human relations and quantitative reasoning skills may be embedded in other required courses for a certificate
rather than required as specific general education courses.)
Total General Education Requirements
Emphasis Requirements:
Course #
9 Credits
Credits
Course Title
Total Emphasis Requirements
Electives - Choose from the following:
Course #
Credits
Course Title
Total Elective Requirements
TOTAL CERTIFICATE REQUIREMENT
Revised 3/02/11
7
Academic Standards – Form C
CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT - GENERAL STUDIES
General Education Requirements: Courses which satisfy the General Education requirements will be as listed in the current TMCC
catalog unless previously approved by the General Education Committee. Programs may recommend or require students to complete specific
courses to satisfy General Education requirements (indicated below). * Required courses must have support documentation attached, i.e.
accreditation mandate.
English/Communications
Recommended:
*Required:
Fine Arts/ Humanities
Recommended:
*Required:
Human Relations
Recommended:
*Required:
Science/Quantitative Reasoning/Computer Science
Recommended:
*Required:
Social Sciences
Recommended:
*Required:
6 credits
3 credits
3 credits
3 credits
3 credits
Total General Education Requirements
Electives – Minimum of 12 credits required.
Course #
Credits
Course Title
Total Elective Requirements
TOTAL DEGREE REQUIREMENT
Revised 3/02/11
18 Credits
8
Academic Standards – Form C
Additional notes or comments:
Suggested Course Sequence
Semester 1
Course #
CHEM 121
Course Title
General Chemistry I
4
ENG 101
Composition I
3
MATH 127
Pre-Calculus II
3
Diversity/Fine
Arts
STAT 152
Credits Prerequisites
Introduction to Statistics
Total For Semester 1
Semester 2
Course #
Course Title
General Chemistry II
CHEM 122
3
none
3
MATH 126 or equivalent or qualifying Accuplacer ,
ACT/SAT test results
16
Credits Prerequisites
4
MATH 181
Calculus I
4
ENG 102
BIOL 190
Composition II
3
3
BIOL 190L
Introduction to Cell and
Molecular Biology Laboratory
Introduction to Cell and
Molecular Biology
Total For Semester 2
Semester 3
Course #
Course Title
Organic Chemistry I
CHEM 241
Ancient and Medieval
CH 201
BIOL 191
BIOL 191L
Cultures
Introduction to Organismal
Biology
Intro to Organismal Biology
Lab
General Physics I
PHYS 151
Total For Semester 3
Semester 4
Course #
Course Title
Organic Chemistry II
CHEM 242
The Modern World
CH 202
American Experiences and
CH 203
Constitutional Change
1
CHEM 121 or CHEM 121R and MATH 126 or
equivalent or qualifying Accuplacer, ACT/SAT test
results
A grade of C or better in MATH 127 or 128 or
equivalent or qualifying ACCUPLACER, ACT/SAT test
results
ENG 101 or equivalent or SAT/ACT test results
ENG 101 or 113; MATH 120, 126 or higher; or
qualifying Accuplacer, SAT or ACT scores for these
courses
ENG 101 or 113; MATH 120, 126 or higher; or
qualifying Accuplacer, SAT or ACT scores for these
courses
15
Credits Prerequisites
3
3
CHEM 122 or 202
3
BIOL 190 and 190L
1
BIOL 190 and 190L
ENG 102 or ENG 114
Completion of MATH 127 or MATH 128
4
14
Credits Prerequisites
3
3
3
Elective
Elective
Total For Semester 4
4
2
15
TOTAL FOR CERTIFICATE/DEGREE
60
9
Revised 3/02/11
MATH 120 or equivalent or qualifying Accuplacer,
ACT/SAT test results
Grade of C- or better in ENG 90 or 98R; or
qualifying Accuplacer placement or SAT/ACT test
results
A grade of C or better in MATH 126 or equivalent or
qualifying ACCUPLACER, ACT/SAT test results
CHEM 241
ENG 102 or ENG 114
ENG 102 or ENG 114
Academic Standards – Form C
Revised 3/02/11
10
Academic Standards – Form C
Program Outcomes Statements and Measures:
Outcome Statement 1:
Measure:
Outcome Statement 2:
Measure:
Outcome Statement 3:
Measure:
List of Attachments: (i.e. articulation agreements, Advisory Committee support documents, needs
assessment, etc.)
Revised 3/02/11
11
Biology
2011-12
APPENDIX C
Program, Discipline, and Course Assessment Reports
School of Sciences | APPENDIX C
Biology
2011-12
TMCC Program and Discipline Report
Program/Discipline: Biology 100, Non-Majors Biology
Division: SOS
Submitted by: J. Ellsworth
Academic Year: 2010-2011
Complete and submit your assessment report to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a narrative
description of the assessment activities in your program/discipline.
Program/Discipline
Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the outcomes
assessed in your program or
discipline during the last
year.
Assessment Measures
Assessment Results
Use of Results
Effect on the Program/Discipline
In the boxes below,
summarize the methods
used to assess program
or discipline outcomes
during the last year.
In the boxes below, summarize the
results of your assessment
activities during the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you are or
how you plan to use the
results to improve student
learning.
Based on the results of this year,
will you revise your assessment
plan? If so, please summarize how
and why in the boxes below.
Outcome #1: Be able to
explain the major
characteristics of science and
recognize the difference
between scientific vs. nonscientific ideas.
Pre-test questions at
beginning of class and
compare to post-test of
same questions
following instruction.
There are 10 questions
(see attached answer
key). This was a new
tool developed for Fall
2010 and also used
Spring 2011. The
questions were designed
to assess a combination
of basic content
(genetics, inheritance,
evolution, and ecology)
as well as the general
process of science
Data were submitted from three
sections in Fall 2010 and five
sections in Spring 2011. In the
first round of using this assessment
tool, in Fall 2010, pre-post
individual scores were collected
from one section and question
based data were collected from the
other two. Both assessments
showed student gains with 3
percentage points of increase in the
individual pre-post scores and 6
out of 10 questions showing
improvements in student answers.
In Spring 2011, the highest
increase in pre-post individual
scores was 9 percentage points
gained, and 9 out of 10 questions
improved (see attached data).
Based on these data there
are a few problematic
questions, which will be
addressed in a revision of
the tool. This assessment
also points out some
trouble areas for students
in general science process
literacy, which should be
further emphasized in all
sections of the course.
Our general assessment plan
remains the same, to try to use pre
and post data to improve the
course.
School of Sciences | APPENDIX C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Outcome #2:
Outcome #:3
Biology 100 Assessment Questions - KEY
Carefully read the following questions and chose the single best answer for each. Fill in each of your answers on the scantron sheet provided.
1. Which of the following best describes the logic of the scientific method?
a. If I generate a testable hypothesis, tests and observations will support it.
b. If my prediction is correct, it will lead to a testable hypothesis.
c. If my observations are accurate, they will support my hypothesis.
d. If my hypothesis is correct, I can predict & expect certain test results. *****
2. Which of the following statements best distinguishes hypotheses from theories in science?
a. Theories are hypotheses that have been proven.
b. Hypotheses are tentative guesses; theories are correct answers to questions about nature.
c. Hypotheses usually are narrow in scope; theories have broad explanatory power.*****
d. Hypotheses and theories mean essentially the same thing in science.
3. Which of the following statements about science is false?
a. Scientists use empirical evidence, logic, and skepticism to strive for the best explanation.
b. The goal of science is to replace other ways of knowing, such as art, religion, and philosophy.*****
c. Scientists can only investigate natural explanations of phenomena.
70
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
d. Not all sources of information should be given equal weight when scientifically evaluating a subject.
4. Which of the following is an example of a testable scientific hypothesis?
a. The use of human embryos for cloning is immoral and should be banned.
b. Consuming vitamin C reduces the risk of catching a cold.*****
c. Biology lab is more fun than chemistry lab.
d. God created Earth and all living creatures.
5. Which of the following statements is true?
a. The genes that you inherit form your parents are made of protein.
b. The set of genes contained in one of your skin cells is completely different from the set of genes contained in one of your liver cells.
c. The process by which cellular genetic instructions are followed is essentially the same in all living organisms.*****
d. Genetic mutations are always harmful.
6. Which of the following in not an observation or inference on which Darwin’s theory of natural selection is based?
a. There is heritable variation among individuals.
b. Poorly adapted individuals never produce offspring. *****
c. Because excessive numbers of offspring are produced, there is competition for limited resources.
d. Individuals whose inherited traits best fit them to the environment will generally produce more offspring.
7. If a couple have two boys, what is the chance that their next child will be a girl?
a. Less than 50%
b. 50% *****
c. More than 50%
d. Impossible to determine based on available information
8. The recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is mainly a result of ____.
a. an increase in primary productivity.
b. an increase in the intensity of the sun.
c. an increase in the burning of fossil fuels and wood. *****
d. an increase in cellular respiration from the increasing human population.
9. Which of the following would be the strongest scientific evidence for the effectiveness of coenzyme Q10 to reduce the incidence of kidney infections?
a. A survey of 100 people showing that those who take Q10 have fewer kidney problems than those who do not take Q10.
b. A survey of 10,000 people showing that those who take Q10 have fewer kidney problems than those who do not take Q10.
c. A controlled study of 100 people, where 50 people were given Q10 and 50 people were given nothing, which found 35% fewer kidney infections in
the people given Q10.
d. A controlled study of 1,000 people, where 500 people were given Q10 and 500 people were given a placebo, which found 30% fewer kidney
infections in the people given Q10. *****
School of Sciences | APPENDIX C
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Average Length of Cold
(days)
2011-12
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Never
Sometimes
Often
Exercise Frequency
10. A survey is conducted to determine if there is a correlation between exercise and the length of time it takes to recover from a cold. The graph
above represents the results. Which of the following statements best summarizes these findings?
a. People who exercised more often had quicker recovery times than people who did not exercise. *****
b. People who exercised more often did not get colds.
c. People who do not exercise have a higher chance of getting a cold.
d. The results prove that exercise reduces the length of a cold.
Supporting Data (by section)
Fall 2010
Student
Assessment-Start
1
2
3
4
5
72
Assessment-Start %
7
8
4
5
5
Assessment-End
70
80
40
50
50
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Assessment-End %
5
10
5
5
3
% Difference
50
100
50
50
30
-20
20
10
0
-20
Biology
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
8
8
7
2
5
3
3
80
80
70
20
50
30
30
54.16666667
5
6
6
4
6
9
4
2011-12
50
60
60
40
60
90
40
56.66666667
-30
-20
-10
20
10
60
10
5 out of 12 decreased (got
worse)
1 stayed the same
6 out of 12 increased
(improved)
Section 1013 & 1017 Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 topic scientific method (1) hypothesis vs. theory (1) nature of science (1) testable hypothesis (1) genetics (2) evolution (2) genetics problem (3) ecology (3) scientific method (1) scientific analysis pre # missed pre % missed 9
9
8
1
5
9
8
5
7
4
post # missed 64.3
64.3
57.1
7.1
35.7
64.3
57.1
35.7
50.0
28.6
25 20 17 4 26 20 15 13 24 16 post % missed 54.3 down 43.5 down 37.0 down 8.7 up 56.5 up 43.5 down 32.6 down 28.3 down 52.2 up 34.8 up 6 out of 10 questions improved (went down) 4 out of 10 questions were worse (went up) I suspect that the way the questions were modified in the post test has impacted the results. To make these questions consistent with the other final exam questions, a 5th option of none of the above was added. School of Sciences | APPENDIX C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Spring 2011
Section 3003 & 3005 Student Name or identifier LMB DB JB Jben NB SB CB NB KB CC LC JC Jcl GD DE AE HF RF CG BG JG MG CH EH AJ RJ 74
Pre‐lecture (number correct) 4 8 7 6 4 6 5 6 4 6 8 5 5 6 6 7 4 7 5 7 5 8 7 2 7 7 Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
% 40
50
70
60
40
60
50
60
40
60
80
50
50
60
60
70
40
70
50
70
50
80
70
20
70
70
Post‐lecture (# correct) 6 5 6 8 9 6 8 6 8 7 9 4 7 7 7 7 8 9 6 5 5 8 10 1 5 8 % 60
50
60
80
75
60
80
60
80
70
90
40
70
70
70
70
80
90
60
50
50
80
100
10
50
80
% Difference 20
0
‐10
20
35
0
30
0
40
10
10
‐10
20
10
10
0
40
20
10
‐20
0
0
30
‐10
‐20
10
Hake 0.333333
0
‐0.33333
0.5
0.583333
0
0.6
0
0.666667
0.25
0.5
‐0.2
0.4
0.25
0.25
0
0.666667
0.666667
0.2
‐0.66667
0
0
1
‐0.125
‐0.66667
0.333333
Biology
EK SK CLP PAP JL TL JM WM CM PP DR Drec LR MR SS CS NS RS CV SW average count 7 5 3 4 7 6 2 7 8 8 6 3 9 6 8 5 6 4 5 8 70
50
30
40
70
60
20
70
80
80
60
30
90
60
80
50
60
40
50
80
2011-12
10 5 7 5 8 9 3 9 9 9 8 4 9 5 10 8 6 4 9 9 100
50
70
50
80
90
30
90
90
90
80
40
90
50
100
80
60
40
90
90
57.82609
46
Question 1 2 3 4 5 topic scientific method (1) hypothesis vs. theory (1) nature of science (1) testable hypothesis (1) genetics (2) pre # missed 69.45652
14
post # missed pre % missed 41
39
20
5
0
71.9 68.4 35.1 8.8 0.0 School of Sciences | APPENDIX C
25
16
13
2
25
30
0
40
10
10
30
10
20
10
10
20
10
0
‐10
20
30
0
0
40
10
1
0
0.571429
0.166667
0.333333
0.75
0.125
0.666667
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.142857
0
‐0.25
1
0.6
0
0
0.8
0.5
12.5 0.253571
14
14
post % missed 54.3
34.8
28.3
4.3
54.3
down down down down up PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
6 7 8 9 10 evolution (2) genetics problem (3) ecology (3) scientific method (1) scientific analysis 15
41
16
21
18
26.3 71.9 28.1 36.8 31.6 7
11
10
16
12
15.2
23.9
21.7
34.8
26.1
9 out of 10 down (improved) Section 2001 Student Name or identifier 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 76
Pre‐lecture (number correct) 6 7 7 10 6 10 5 5 9 8 4 7 7 7 9 9 4 2 6 8 % 60
70
70
100
60
100
50
50
90
80
40
70
70
70
90
90
40
20
60
80
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Post‐lecture (# correct) 4
6
5
9
6
8
4
4
7
3
6
4
7
5
9
5
7
3
7
7
% 40
60
50
90
60
80
40
40
70
30
60
40
70
50
90
50
70
30
70
70
% Difference Hake ‐20
‐0.5
‐10 ‐0.33333
‐20 ‐0.66667
‐10
0
0
‐20
‐10
‐0.2
‐10
‐0.2
‐20
‐2
‐50
‐2.5
20 0.333333
‐30
‐1
0
0
‐20 ‐0.66667
0
0
‐40
‐4
30
0.5
10
0.125
10
0.25
‐10
‐0.5
down down down down down Biology
21 22 23 24 25 26 4 9 7 9 6 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Pre‐lecture (number correct) 10 5 5 7 8 5 7 5 3 8 2 8 4 4 4 4 6 2 5 average count 40
90
70
90
60
50
67.69231
26
4
9
7
6
4
7
2011-12
40
90
70
60
40
70
58.84615
26
0
0
0
‐30
‐20
20
‐8.846153846
26
0
0
0
‐3
‐0.5
0.4
‐0.60243
23
Section 1001 Student Name or identifier % 100
50
50
70
80
50
70
50
30
80
20
80
40
40
40
40
60
20
50
Post‐lecture (# correct) 9 7 4 9 6 4 8 6 3 7 4 8 6 6 5 7 6 6 5 % 90 70 40 90 60 40 80 60 30 70 40 80 60 60 50 70 60 60 50 % Difference ‐10
20
‐10
20
‐20
‐10
10
10
0
‐10
20
0
20
20
10
30
0
40
0
School of Sciences | APPENDIX C
Hake 0.4
‐0.2
0.666667
‐1
‐0.2
0.333333
0.2
0
‐0.5
0.25
0
0.333333
0.333333
0.166667
0.5
0
0.5
0
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
20 9 average count 90
7 55.5
20
Question topic 1 scientific method hypothesis vs. 2 theory 3 nature of science testable 4 hypothesis 5 genetics 6 evolution 7 genetics problem 8 ecology 9 scientific method 10 scientific analysis pre # missed 70 ‐20
‐2
61.5 20 1.818181818
20
‐0.005
19
post # missed 18
pre % missed 90 12 post % missed 60 down 15
11
75 55 18 2 90 up 10 down 1
12
8
17
9
14
12
5 60 40 85 45 70 60 1 15 6 3 4 15 5 5
75
30
15
20
75
25
same up down down down up down 6 out of 10 down (improved) 1 the same 3 out of 10 up (worse) Section 1003 Student Name or identifier LA DB KD 78
Pre‐lecture (number correct) 6 5 4 % 60
50
40
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Post‐lecture (# correct) 10 7 5 % 100 70 50 % Difference 40
20
10
Hake 1
0.4
0.166666667
Biology
TD BE BF PF CH DL NM AP MP SP JS KS SS MS PT AW AW2 7 5 6 9 5 5 5 5 9 9 9 9 6 7 8 8 5 70
50
60
90
50
50
50
50
90
90
90
90
60
70
80
80
50
average count Question 7 6 7 6 5 7 7 9 4 7 9 8 5 8 8 9 5 66
20
topic 1 scientific method hypothesis vs. 2 theory 3 nature of science pre # missed pre % missed 9
45.0 12
8
2011-12
60.0 40.0 70 60 70 60 50 70 70 90 40 70 90 80 50 80 80 90 50 0
10
10
‐30
0
20
20
40
‐50
‐20
0
‐10
‐10
10
0
10
0
0
0.2
0.25
‐3
0
0.4
0.4
0.8
‐5
‐2
0
‐1
‐0.25
0.333333333
0
0.5
0
69.5 20 5
20
‐0.455952381
20
post # missed post % missed 13 65.0 up 13 3 School of Sciences | APPENDIX C
65.0 up 15.0 down PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 testable hypothesis genetics evolution genetics problem ecology scientific method scientific analysis 2
9
6
7
2
5
7
10.0 45.0 30.0 35.0 10.0 25.0 35.0 0 11 3 7 1 4 6 0.0
55.0
15.0
35.0
5.0
20.0
30.0
down up down same down down down 6 out of 10 down (improved) 1 the same 3 out of 10 up (worse) 80
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
Program/Discipline/Course Assessment Report
Program: Biology
Discipline: Biology
Course Number: BIOL 110
School/Unit: SOSc
Submitted by: Yvonne Geary
Contributing Faculty: Yvonne Geary
Academic Year: 2010-2011
Complete and submit your assessment report electronically to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a narrative description of the assessment
activities in your program or discipline.
Program, Discipline or
Course Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the outcomes
assessed in your program or
discipline during the last
year.
Outcome #1:
Students will understand the
scientific method and the
nature of science
Assessment Measures
Assessment Results
Use of Results
In the boxes below,
summarize the methods
used to assess program,
discipline, or course
outcomes during the last
year.
A 10 question multiple
choice questionnaire
was given as an pre and
post assessment.
In the boxes below, summarize the
results of your assessment
activities during the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you are or
how you plan to use the
results to improve student
learning.
Over all there was improvement
Between the pre and post
assessment. See supporting data.
Though there was overall
improvement in the pre and
post scores, I think more
hands on work in lab
would help deepen the
students understanding of
the nature of science.
Outcome #2:
Students will gain
knowledge of the
terminology and concepts of
general biology
School of Sciences | APPENDIX C
Effect on Program, Discipline or
Course
Based on the results of this
assessment, will you revise your
outcomes? If so, please summarize
how and why in the boxes below.
I would not change the outcomes
and instead continue to gather
more data with the same
assessment tool.
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Outcome #3
Students will be able to
apple biological concepts to
contemporary issues
Supporting Data:
Table 1. Assessment by Student (Fall 2010). The table represents unpaired data for individual students (n) who took the pre‐assessment and post‐assessment survey in each course section for % Increase. Hake Gain is based on paired data (n = # students who took the post‐assessment). Content areas where improvement is needed reflect questions that > 50% of students answered incorrectly on the post‐assessment. Overall analysis reflects totals for n, averages for percentages and Hake Gain, and content areas where improvement is needed in at least 50% of the participating sections. Pre‐lecture Student Name or identifier 82
Post‐lecture
(number correct) % (# correct) % Difference (Gain) % Hake 1 4 40 6 60 20 0.333333 2 4 50 6 60 10 0.2 3 5 50 5 50 0 0 4 7 70 7 70 0 0 5 4 40 6 50 6 7 70 5 50 ‐20 ‐0.66667 7 6 60 7 70 10 0.25 Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
10 0.166667 Biology
Average 2011-12
8 5 50 8 80 30 0.6 9 5 50 8 80 30 0.6 10 7 70 7 70 0 0 11 6 60 7 70 10 0.25 12 8 80 8 80 0 0 13 6 60 8 80 20 0.5 14 5 50 2 20 ‐30 ‐0.6 15 5 50 16 6 60 17 5 50 63.6 6.4 0.12 56.5 School of Sciences | APPENDIX C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Table 2. Assessment by Content Area (Fall 2010). The table represents percent gains in learning by content area. Parentheses for each topic indicate which learning objective the topic best addresses. Gains were observed in 6 of the 10 content areas, with genetics showing the largest increase (43.3%; 78.6% of students answering correctly on the post‐assessment). Fifty percent of students still missed questions on hypothesis vs. theory and evolution on the post‐
assessment. Question topic pre % missed post # missed post % missed % correct % Difference (Gain) 1 scientific method (1) 9
52.9
9 64.3
35.7
‐11.3 hypothesis vs. theory 2 (1) 12
70.6
7 50.0
50.0
20.6 3 nature of science (1) 8
47.1
4 28.6
71.4
18.5 4 testable hypothesis (1) 0
0.0
1 7.1
92.9
‐7.1 5 genetics (2) 7
41.2
6 42.9
57.1
‐1.7 6 evolution (2) 4
23.5
7 50.0
50.0
‐26.5 11
64.7
3 21.4
78.6
43.3 6
35.3
4 28.6
71.4
6.7 10
58.8
6 42.9
57.1
16.0 7
41.2
3 21.4
78.6
19.7 7 genetics problem (3) 8 ecology (3) 9 scientific method (1) 10 scientific analysis 84
pre # missed Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
TMCC Program and Discipline Report
Program/Discipline: Biology 113, Life in the Ocean
Division: SOS
Submitted by: J. Ellsworth
Academic Year: 2010-2011
Complete and submit your assessment report to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a narrative
description of the assessment activities in your program/discipline.
Program/Discipline
Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the outcomes
assessed in your program or
discipline during the last
year.
Assessment Measures
Assessment Results
Use of Results
Effect on the Program/Discipline
In the boxes below,
summarize the methods
used to assess program
or discipline outcomes
during the last year.
In the boxes below, summarize the
results of your assessment
activities during the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you are or
how you plan to use the
results to improve student
learning.
Based on the results of this year,
will you revise your assessment
plan? If so, please summarize how
and why in the boxes below.
Outcome #1: Be able to
explain the major
characteristics of science and
recognize the difference
between scientific vs. nonscientific ideas.
Pre-test questions at
beginning of class and
compare to post-test of
same questions
following instruction.
There are 20 questions
(see attached,
Assessment 113 through
Spring 2011).
Data were submitted from the
single section of the course for Fall
2010 and Spring 2011. In Fall
2010 the average pre-test score
was 54.5% and the average posttest score was 60.5%. In Spring
2011 the average pre-test score
was 64.9% and the average post
test score was 69.3%. In Spring
2011 questions were analyzed
individually (see attached,
113AssessmentDataFall2010 and
113AssessmentDataSpring 2011).
From Fall 2010 to Spring
2011 the pre vs. post test
analysis was expanded to
include individual question
analysis. These analyses
lead the instructor to
update the assessment tool
so that it is in better
alignment with course
content (see attached,
Assessment 113 beginning
Summer 2011).
The new assessment will be
administered beginning Summer
2011. As with other non-majors
introductory science courses, it
continues to be a challenge to find
an appropriate assessment tool. It
is easier to measure changes in
specific content knowledge and
more difficult to assess general
understanding of scientific
processes.
School of Sciences | APPENDIX C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Supplementary Data and Assessment Question Sets
BIOL 113 FALL 2010 Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Pre‐lecture (number correct) 10
15
15
16
13
10
12
9
16
15
12
15
10
12
11
11
12
15
average count Post‐lecture (# correct) 13 16 18 18 15 12 14 13 16 15 15 17 12 15 10 11 14 10 % 50
75
75
80
65
50
60
45
80
75
60
75
50
60
55
55
60
75
63.61
21
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
65
80
90
90
75
60
70
65
80
75
75
85
60
75
50
55
70
50
70.56
21
86
% % Difference Hake 15
0.3
5
0.2
15
0.6
10
0.5
10 0.285714
10
0.2
10
0.25
20 0.363636
0
0
0
0
15
0.375
10
0.4
10
0.2
15
0.375
‐5 ‐0.11111
0
0
10
0.25
‐25
‐1
10.36
21
0.29
21
Biology
Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2011-12
These data unavailable for this semester. pre # post # topic missed pre % missed missed scientific method 0.0 evidence of conclusion 0.0 goal of science 0.0 empirical evidence
0.0 natural explanations 0.0 scientific theory 0.0 hypothesis 0.0 genes 0.0 heterotrophs 0.0 seaweed 0.0 DNA 0.0 gametes 0.0 scientific method 0.0 hypothesis 0.0 seawater 0.0 smallest ocean 0.0 genetics (math) 0.0 medicine (math) 0.0 eye color (math) 0.0 smoking (math) 0.0 School of Sciences | APPENDIX C
post % missed 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
BIOL 113 SPRING 2011 Pre‐lecture (number correct) 9
16
10
12
13
13
10
16
14
14
9
12
14
18
15
8
13
13
13
16
12
Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 average count 88
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
% 45
80
50
60
65
65
50
80
70
70
45
60
70
90
75
40
65
65
65
80
60
64.29 21
Post‐lecture (# correct) 8
11
12
13
12
19
17
18
16
14
7
16
11
18
15
15
11
16
15
14
13
% 40
55
60
65
60
95
85
90
80
70
35
80
55
90
75
75
55
80
75
70
65
69.29
21
% Difference ‐5
‐25
10
5
‐5
30
35
10
10
0
‐10
20
‐15
0
0
35
‐10
15
10
‐10
5
4.29
21
Hake ‐0.090909091
‐1.25
0.2
0.125
‐0.142857143
0.857142857
0.7
0.5
0.333333333
0
‐0.181818182
0.5
‐0.5
0
0
0.583333333
‐0.285714286
0.428571429
0.285714286
‐0.5
0.125
0.07
21
Biology
Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2011-12
post # topic pre # missed pre % missed missed post % missed scientific method 1
4.8
1
4.8
evidence of conclusion 9
42.9
10
47.6
goal of science 3
14.3
3
14.3
empirical evidence 2
9.5
6
28.6
natural explanations 6
28.6
10
47.6
scientific theory 5
23.8
6
28.6
hypothesis 2
9.5
3
14.3
genes 14
66.7
15
71.4
heterotrophs 7
33.3
6
28.6
seaweed 20
95.2
11
52.4 DNA 4
19.0
5
23.8
gametes 3
14.3
1
4.8
scientific method 12
57.1
9
42.9
hypothesis 10
47.6
3
14.3
seawater 10
47.6
7
33.3
smallest ocean 12
57.1
8
38.1
genetics (math) 6
28.6
4
19.0
medicine (math) 3
14.3
2
9.5
eye color (math) 11
52.4
6
28.6
smoking (math) 10
47.6
9
42.9
School of Sciences | APPENDIX C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Assessment BIOL 113
Administered Fall 2010 and Spring 2011
Q: All scientific knowledge is, in principle, subject to change as new evidence
becomes available.
A. True
B. False
Q: Science works by deciding upon a conclusion and then looking for
evidence to support the conclusion.
A. True
B. False
B. False
Q: Seaweeds are ocean plants.
A. True
B. False
Q: DNA is the energy of cells.
A. True
B. False
Q: The goal of science is to replace others ways of knowing, such as art,
religion, and philosophy.
A. True
B. False
Q: Gametes contain 23 chromosomes.
A. True
B. False
Q: Scientists use empirical evidence, logic, and skepticism to strive for the
best explanation.
A. True
B. False
Q: The correct order to the scientific method is
A. observation, hypothesis, conclusion, results, experiment
B. conclusion, observation, experiment, results, hypothesis
C. observation, hypothesis, experiment, results, conclusion
D. hypothesis, experiment, observation, conclusion, results
E. hypothesis, observation, results, experiment, conclusion
Q: Scientists can only investigate natural explanations of phenomena.
A. True
B. False
Q: A scientific theory is a highly controversial idea that does not have much
support.
A. True
B. False
Q: What is a hypothesis?
A. the same thing as a theory
B. an un-testable idea
C. fact
D. tentative explanation
E. a law
Q: If a hypothesis is logical and scientific, then it must be true.
A. True
B. False
Q: The genes that you inherit from your parents are made of protein.
A. True
B. False
Q: Heterotrophs consume pre-made food.
A. True
90
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Q: Seawater is a solution. Which of the following is correct?
A. water is the solvent and salt is the solute
B. water is the solute and salt is the solvent
C. both water and salt are the solvents
D. neither water nor salt are the solvents
E. both water and salt are the solutes
Biology
2011-12
B. 20 ml
C. 30 ml
D. 40 ml
E. 80 ml
Q: This is the smallest ocean:
A. Arctic
B. Atlantic
C. Pacific
D. Indian
E. Antarctic
Q: If 20% of Americans have a particular gene, then in a sample of 10,000
people you would expect to find that gene in ______ people.
A. 2
B. 20
C. 200
D. 2000
E. 40000
Q: If a full dose of medicine for an adult is 60 ml and the doctor prescribes a
child one-third of an adult dose, the child should receive _____.
A. 3 ml
Q: If a couple have two boys, what is the chance that their next child will be a
girl?
A. 0%
B. 25%
C. 50%
D. 75%
E. 100%
Q: A survey of national medical records shows that the risk of premature
death is 20% higher in smokers compared to non-smokers. This means that
______.
A. non-smokers can expect to live 20% longer than smokers
B. if you smoke, the chance that you will die early is 20 times higher than the
chance a non-smoker will die early
C. if the risk of premature death for non-smokers is 0.5%, then the risk of
premature death for smokers is 20.5%
D. All of the above
E. All of the above
School of Sciences | APPENDIX C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Assessment BIOL 113 (answers are bolded)
To be administered beginning Summer 2011
Q: The correct order to the scientific method is
A. observation, hypothesis, conclusion, results, experiment
B. conclusion, observation, experiment, results, hypothesis
C. observation, hypothesis, experiment, results, conclusion
D. hypothesis, experiment, observation, conclusion, results
Q: What is a hypothesis?
A. the same thing as a theory
B. an un-testable idea
C. fact
D. tentative explanation
Q: Marine biology is the study of
A. the physical characteristics of the ocean
B. the organisms that inhabit the sea and their relationships to each
other and their environment
C. the organisms found in the open ocean but not along the shoreline
D. marine fishes but not mammals
Q: Seawater is a solution. Which of the following is correct?
A. water is the solvent and salt is the solute
B. water is the solute and salt is the solvent
C. both water and salt are the solvents
D. both water and salt are the solutes
Q: This is the smallest ocean:
A. Arctic
B. Atlantic
C. Pacific
D. Indian
Q: Which of the following is not a type of tide?
A. lunar
B. diurnal
C. neap
D. semidiurnal
Q: The skeletons of sharks and rays are composed of
92
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
A. bone
B. cartilage
C. soft tissue
D. fluid
Q: Sea otters have
A. a 4 chambered hear
B. thick dense fur
C. 5 fingered forelimbs
D. all of the above
Q: All of the following are types of coral reefs except:
A. fringing
B. barrier
C. tidal
D. atolls
Q: Kelps need all of the following except:
A. light
B. clear water
C. soft substrate
D. upwelling
Biology
2011-12
TMCC Program and Discipline Report
Program/Discipline: Biology 141B – Human Structure and Function I
Division: MSET
Submitted by: James A. Collier– May 16, 2011
Academic Year: 2010 - 2011
Complete and submit your assessment report to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a narrative description of the
assessment activities in your program/discipline.
Program/Discipline
Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the
outcomes assessed in
your program or
discipline during the
last year.
Outcome #1: Students
will have a basic
understanding of the
scientific method,
chemistry, cell and
tissue structure and the
skeletal, muscular,
cardiovascular,
digestive and
lymphatic systems and
their
interrelationships.
Assessment
Measures
In the boxes below,
summarize the
methods used to
assess program or
discipline outcomes
during the last year.
Students were given a
15 question quiz on
the first and last day
of class. Quiz
questions were based
on overall course
content and
developed by faulty.
They are believed to
be the major take
home points of the
course.
See attached
narrative.
Assessment Results
Use of Results
In the boxes below,
summarize the results of your
assessment activities during
the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you
are or how you plan
to use the results to
improve student
learning.
Results indicate a
moderate increase in
learning with a Hake
score gain of .284.
A t test p value of
0.051 indicates no
significant change in
the pretest and
posttest results.
The quiz scores for two
sections were compared and
tabulated. There was one
section of BIOL 141B
offered each semester: Fall,
2010 and Spring, 2010. The
percent increase in scores
between the pretest and the
posttest in both semesters
averaged 14.7% with an
average Hake score of .284.
See attached narrative.
Effect on the
Program/Discipline
Based on the results of this
year, will you revise your
assessment plan? If so, please
summarize how and why in
the boxes below.
The assessment quiz
administered in 2010 – 2011
has been utilized for three
semesters and will be revised
in the future following the
suggestions of Jamie
Campbell in the first
assessment review.
School of Sciences | Appendix C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Outcome #2: There is
only one outcome for
this course.
Outcome #3 There is
only one outcome for
this course.
94
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
Annual Biology Assessment Report
BIOL 141B - Human Structure and Function I
2010-2011
1. Contributing faculty: James A. Collier
Data supplied by: Edmund Burke
2. Summary of assessment activities:
a. Educational philosophy, course and laboratory curriculum
BIOL 141B and 142B are sequential laboratory based courses dealing with the anatomical structure and physiological function of body systems.
The lectures and laboratories focus on the structure and the complimentary function of each body system. Elementary chemistry and cell &
molecular biology are taught as background along with basic histology. Then all 11 human body systems are covered over the two semesters.
These courses are required for the allied health programs training Radiological Technicians, Dietetic Technicians, Massage Therapists, and
Paramedics. This course is not a prerequisite for RN Nursing programs or Dental Hygiene.
A set of objectives was developed and submitted for the course at its inception.
The laboratory supports the lecture material by presenting the anatomy using histology slides, models, websites, pictures, organ specimens, a
human cadaver, and lab manual exercises.
Evaluations of the lecture material is accomplished via written examinations and assignments measuring the students understanding of conceptual
information.
Evaluations of the laboratory material is accomplished via written examinations where the students are required to identify tissues, organs &
specimens and describe physical principles.
b. Learning outcomes
One learning outcome has been established for BIOL 141B:
1. Students will have a basic understanding of the scientific method, chemistry, cell and tissue structure and the skeletal, muscular, cardiovascular,
digestive and lymphatic systems and their interrelationships.
School of Sciences | Appendix C
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
c. Methods
Assessment was accomplished in BIOL 142B lecture by administering a 15 question, multiple choice quiz to students the first day of class and
again before or with the final exam on the last day of class. The questions were written to address a sampling of the course curriculum including a
few laboratory-based questions, but with the majority of the questions addressing lecture curriculum. The assessment results were analyzed by
calculating the Hake gain designed by Dr. Richard Hake, Department of Physics, Indiana University. Hake gain <g> scores were calculated for
comparing student learning relative to where they started. This was calculated as follows:
<g> = (post-test score – pre-test score)/(100% - pre-test score)
A t-test was also performed on the raw pretest and posttest quiz scores.
d. Results
The results were tabulated for fall semester 2010 and spring semester 2011 as there was only one section offered per semester. Pre-test and posttest scores for individual students in these sections were assembled in pairs and the mean improvement and percent difference determined for each
class. Data from students who took only the pretest or only the posttest were excluded from analysis.
Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 Data
Table 1 – All Sections Above – BIOL 141B Assessment Data
Pre-test
Post-test
Hake
Section
N
Mean Score
Mean Score
% Increase
gain
F 2010
18
54.4%
63.3%
8.9%
.195
S 2011
17
45.1%
65.5%
20.4%
.372
49.8%
64.4%
OVERALL
14.7%
.284
Assessments were performed and results reported for 2 sections as described above, N is the number of students in each section.
A t-test p value of 0.051 indicates no significant change between the pretest and posttest scores.
96
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
TMCC Program and Discipline Report
Program/Discipline: Biology 142B – Human Structure & Function II
Division: MSET
Submitted by: James A. Collier, May 16, 2011
Academic Year: 2010/11
Complete and submit your assessment report to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a narrative description of
the assessment activities in your program/discipline.
Program/Discipline
Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the
outcomes assessed in
your program or
discipline during the
last year.
Outcome #1: Students
will have a basic
understanding of the
special senses and
nervous,
integumentary,
respiratory, endocrine,
urinary, reproductive
and immune systems
and their
interrelationships.
Assessment
Measures
In the boxes below,
summarize the
methods used to
assess program or
discipline outcomes
during the last year.
Students were given a
15 question quiz the
first day of class and
last day of class.
The quiz was based
on overall course
objectives and
covered a sampling
of the major themes.
See attached
narrative.
Assessment Results
Use of Results
In the boxes below,
summarize the results of your
assessment activities during
the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you
are or how you plan
to use the results to
improve student
learning.
The assessment quiz
questions identified
assessment questions
to be modified. See
attached narrative.
The quiz scores were
compared and tabulated.
This is the first semester for
assessing this course and this
semester there was only 1
section of BIOL 142B.
Assessment data for this
section show an average
improvement of 16.4 % when
comparing pre and posttests.
A highly significant p value
of the t test indicates
significant learning occurred
in both the fall, 2010 and
spring, 2011 semesters. See
attached narrative.
Effect on the
Program/Discipline
Based on the results of this
year, will you revise your
assessment plan? If so, please
summarize how and why in
the boxes below.
The quiz questions will be
examined to identify any
problems and revised to
address those problems.
Some questions will be
replaced to address
application of knowledge.
See attached narrative.
School of Sciences | Appendix C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Outcome #2: There is
only one outcome for
BIOL 142B.
Outcome #3: There is
only one outcome for
BIOL 142B.
98
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
Annual Biology Assessment Report
Biol 142B - Human Structure and Function II
2010 - 2011
1. Contributing faculty: James A. Collier
Data supplied by: James A. Collier
2. Summary of assessment activities:
a. Educational philosophy, course and laboratory curriculum
BIOL 141B and 142B are sequential laboratory based courses dealing with the anatomical structure and physiological function of body systems.
The lectures and laboratories focus on the structure and the complimentary function of each body system. Elementary chemistry and cell &
molecular biology are taught as background along with basic histology. Then all 11 human body systems are covered over the two semesters.
These courses are required for the allied health programs training Radiological Technicians, Dietetic Technicians, Massage Therapists, and
Paramedics. This course is not a prerequisite for RN Nursing programs or Dental Hygiene.
A set of objectives was developed and submitted for the course at its inception.
The laboratory supports the lecture material by presenting the anatomy using histology slides, models, websites, pictures, organ specimens, a
human cadaver, and lab manual exercises.
Evaluations of the lecture material is accomplished via written examinations and assignments measuring the students understanding of conceptual
information.
Evaluations of the laboratory material is accomplished via written examinations where the students are required to identify tissues, organs &
specimens and describe physical principles.
One learning outcomes has been established for Biol 142B:
1. Students will have a basic understanding of the special senses and nervous, integumentary, respiratory, endocrine, urinary, reproductive and
immune systems and their interrelationships.
c. Methods
School of Sciences | Appendix C
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
Assessment was accomplished in BIOL 142B lecture by administering a 15 question, multiple choice quiz to students the first day of class and
again with the final exam on the last day of class. The questions were written to address a sampling of the course curriculum including a few
laboratory-based questions, but with the majority of the questions addressing lecture curriculum.
The results were tabulated for spring semester. Pre-test and post-test scores for the only section offered and were assembled in pair-wise fashion
with the mean improvement determined for each class. Data from students who took only the pre-test or only the post-test were excluded from
analysis.
This year Hake gain <g> scores were calculated for comparing student learning relative to where they started. This was calculated as follows:
<g> = (post-test score – pre-test score)/(100% - pre-test score)
In addition, data for this one section was aggregated to allow a question-by-question comparison of student performance on both the pre-test and
the posttest.
A t test was run on the pretest and posttest raw scores for both fall, 2010 and spring, 2011.
3. Results:
Fall, 2010 and Spring, 2011 Data
Assessments were performed and results reported for the fall semester, 2010 and the spring semester, 2011.
Table 1 – Fall, 2010 and Spring, 2011 – BIOL 142B Assessment Data
Pre-test
Post-test
Hake
Section
N
Mean Score
Mean Score
Fall, 2010
20
32.4%
43.7%
11.3%
.167
Spring, 2011
12
36.8%
58.3%
21.5%
.305
34.6%
51.0%
OVERALL
100
% Increase
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
16.4%
gain
.236
Biology
2011-12
The data observed in Table 1 are consistent with other Biology courses. Hake score averages were .236 demonstrating that for each student
relative to the number of questions they scored correctly on the pretest, each student made moderate increases on their posttest.
Individual Question Analyses
Table 2: Questions-by-question breakdown of aggregate data for 27 students in one section. All values reported at the
PRE and POST rows are percentages of students who answered the question correctly. The DIFF row represents the
difference between the PRE and POST rows. DIFF average was 11.4%
Question Number
%
Correct
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
PRE
3.1
28.1
46.9
15.6
28.1
37.5
40.6
40.6
62.5
50.0
21.9
46.9
62.5
43.8
3.1
POST
56.3
56.3
68.8
25.0
6.2
56.3
43.8
87.5
68.8
34.4
31.3
43.8
62.5
34.4
3.1
DIFF
53.2
28.2
21.7
9.4
21.3
18.8
3.2
46.9
6.3
15.6
9.3
-3.1
23.1
-9.4
0.0
All the questions on these tests represent material covered in BIOL 142B and they were designed so that the majority of students entering the
course would not be familiar with their answers. Data aggregated from 32 students in this two section of BIOL 142B held in the fall, 2010 and the
spring of 2011 are shown in Table 2. Questions with a negative learning result could be considered problematic.
A t-test comparing pretest and posttest scores for the fall, 2010 semester yielded a p value of 0.004; a t test comparing pretest and posttest scores
for the spring, 2011 semester yielded a p value of 0.009. Both of these p values indicate a highly significant difference between pretest and
posttest scores; this difference indicates that positive learning took place in both the fall, 2010 and spring, 2011 semesters.
4. Improvement of student learning:
Assessment questions were designed to address the basic knowledge of a variety of course topics, and the results suggest that students know more
about these topics after the course than before as there was a 16.4% increase in their individualized posttest scores. When examining each
question, the class as a whole increased an average of 11.4% for each question.
School of Sciences | Appendix C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
However, there is a wide range of individual question improvement with some questions showing significant improvement and others, 5, 10, 12
and 14, showing a loss of knowledge with a negative improvement. These last questions need to be examined for improvement and/or the students
need to take the posttest more seriously.
5. Assessment revision plans:
To see if students can demonstrate the application of their knowledge, a few existing questions will be eliminated and new ones requiring such
application will be added for the 2011-2012 academic year.
102
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
Program/Discipline/Course Assessment Report
Program: Biology Department
Discipline: Biology Department
Course Number: BIOL188
School/Unit: SOSc
Submitted by: Theresa Nordquist
Contributing Faculty:
Academic Year: 2010-2011
Complete and submit your assessment report electronically to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a narrative description of
the assessment activities in your program or discipline.
Program, Discipline or
Course Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the outcomes
assessed in your program or
discipline during the last
year.
Outcome #1: Students will
be successful in Biology
190.
Assessment Measures
Assessment Results
Use of Results
In the boxes below,
summarize the methods
used to assess program,
discipline, or course
outcomes during the last
year.
I felt the official, posted
learning outcomes for
BIOL188 were not
assessable. Instead, I
assessed the following:
In the boxes below, summarize the
results of your assessment
activities during the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you are or
how you plan to use the
results to improve student
learning.
On average the students got 19.9%
of the questions correct on the
pretest and 75.8% correct on the
post test. The average percent
increase was 55.3% with an
average Hake gain of 0.68.
Looking at the specific questions,
each shows an increase in the
number of students who answered
correctly.
One area needs
improvement: percent
solution. I think as an
instructor I spent more
time on calculations related
to molarity than percent
solution because I felt
these type of calculations
are harder. It is great to
see that the students did do
well on the molarity
questions, but realize I
should not necessarily
devote less attention to a
topic just because I think
it’s easy.
Outcome #1:Students
will perform metric
conversations and
mathematical
calculations related to
concentrations of
solutions.
Outcome #2: Students
will understand
fundamental concepts
associated with atomic
structure, chemical
bonding, water
Effect on Program, Discipline or
Course
Based on the results of this
assessment, will you revise your
outcomes? If so, please summarize
how and why in the boxes below.
Based on the results of this
assessment I would suggest
changing the learning outcomes of
the course to the learning outcomes
that I actually assessed. Focusing
on these outcomes will help a
student to be successful in Biol
190.
It is clear from the pre-test that the
students do not have a god grasp
on the ideas prior to the class.
It is clear from the post test that the
learning outcomes assessed are
attainable for the student in the
time frame of the class.
School of Sciences | Appendix C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
chemistry, and pH.
These outcomes were
assessed using an
identical, 12-question
pre and post test.
Supplementary Narrative and Data:
The learning outcome listed for BIOL188 is: Learning Outcome #1: Students will be successful in Biology 190. Though this is a
valuable goal, it cannot be assessed within the BIOL 188 course; therefore, applicable learning outcome statements for BIOL190 and
BIOL190L were used to assess the students. Specifically, the learning outcomes assessed for BIOL188 were:
Learning Outcome #1: Students will perform metric conversations and mathematical calculations related to concentrations of
solutions.
Learning Outcome #2: Students will understand fundamental concepts associated with atomic structure, chemical bonding, water
chemistry, and pH.
The hypothesis was that if the students begin BIOL 190 and BIOL 190L with an understanding of these concepts gained in BIOL 188,
then they will be able to grasp the subsequent concepts in these courses. Further, these learning outcomes for both the BIOL190
lecture and lab are fundamental to the rest of the concepts presented in BIOL 190 and 190L. Having a good understanding of them
improve a student’s chance to be successful in BIOL 190 and BIOL 190L.
Data from the assessment tool follows:
Student identifier 1 2 3 4 5 104
(# correct) 7 2 3 3 2 % 58.33333
16.66667
25
25
16.66667
(# correct) 11 % 91.66666667 % Difference 33.33333333
Hake 0.8
8 8 8 66.66666667 66.66666667 66.66666667 41.66666667
41.66666667
50
0.555556
0.555556
0.6
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 COUNT AVERAGE 2 1 4 2 16.66667
8.333333
33.33333
16.66667
2 1 2 16.66667
8.333333
16.66667
58.33333333 91.66666667 83.33333333 91.66666667 91.66666667 33.33333333 91.66666667 12
21.5 Learning Outcome 7 11 10 11 11 4 11 2011-12
Question 1 1
1 2 2
3
1 2 2 2 4
5
6
7
2 1 1 1 1 8
9
10
11
12
topic Scientific Notation Metric conversions Chemical bonds Solvent vs. solution pH Periodic table Isotomes Molecular weight Moles Molarity Molarity Percent Solution 11 75.8 pre # missed pre % missed 50
58.33333333
66.66666667
0.545455
0.875
0.8
75
25
75
0.9
0.272727
0.9
10
0.68 51.7
post # missed post % missed % Difference 12
100.0 4
36.4
63.6
5
12
41.7 100.0 2
1
18.2
9.1
23.5
90.9
10
9
9
11
83.3 75.0 75.0 91.7 3
2
0
6
27.3
18.2
0.0
54.5
56.1
56.8
75.0
37.1
12
13
8
13
10
100.0 108.3 66.7 108.3 83.3 1
2
4
2
5
9.1
18.2
36.4
18.2
45.5
90.9
90.2
30.3
90.2
37.9
School of Sciences | Appendix C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Program/Discipline/Course Assessment Report
Program: Biology
Discipline: Biology
Course Number: BIOL 190
School/Unit: SOSc
Submitted by: Melissa A. Deadmond
Contributing Faculty (data): Melissa Deadmond, Julie Ellsworth, Yvonne Geary, Scott Huber, Veronica Kirchoff, Theresa
Nordquist, Jeff Weinert, Beate Wone, Bernard Wone
Academic Year: 2010-2011
Complete and submit your assessment report electronically to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a narrative description of the
assessment activities in your program or discipline.
Program, Discipline or
Course Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the outcomes
assessed in your program or
discipline during the last
year.
Outcome #1:
Students will understand
fundamental concepts
associated with atomic
structure, chemical bonding,
water chemistry, and pH,
and relate these concepts to
the functioning of biological
systems.
106
Assessment Measures
Assessment Results
Use of Results
In the boxes below,
summarize the methods
used to assess program,
discipline, or course
outcomes during the last
year.
All course sections
administered a 12question, multiplechoice knowledge and
analysis-based
assessment survey to
students at the beginning
of the first day of class
and at the end of the last
class meeting before the
final exam. This
assessment tool
addresses all learning
outcomes for BIOL 190.
In the boxes below, summarize the
results of your assessment
activities during the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you are or
how you plan to use the
results to improve student
learning.
We observed a range of 12.742.2% improvement on the postassessment survey, which is down
from last academic year. Students
averaged 32.5% and 32.0%
improvements for fall and spring
semesters, respectively. Hake
gains for ranged from 0.32 – 0.57
throughout the academic year, with
average <g> values of 0.46 and
0.43 for the fall and spring
semesters, respectively. This is a
slight decline from the respective
fall and spring semester values of
0.47 and 0.45 observed in the
Certain content areas have
continued to be identified
as areas needing
improvement within the
past 3-5 assessment cycles.
While this may be a
reflection of how the
questions in these areas are
written, most likely they
really are difficult for
students. To date we have
done a poor job on
“closing the loop,” namely
because the majority of
sections are taught by parttime instructors, with
whom we often fail to
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Effect on Program, Discipline or
Course
Based on the results of this
assessment, will you revise your
outcomes? If so, please summarize
how and why in the boxes below.
Outcomes were revised this year to
indicate the content areas that we
wanted students to “acquire a basic
knowledge of in cellular and
molecular biology” (language of
the previous learning outcome
statement). In other words, we
made the outcomes more specific.
While our assessment tool contains
questions in each of these content
areas, these questions may not
necessarily assess the main ideas
that we would like our students to
come away with from these areas.
For example, our mitosis/cell cycle
question asks which of the
following events do not occur in
Biology
previous year. These values still
fall in the medium gain category
for hake gain, which is acceptable;
however, it is disconcerting that
students are still scoring averages
of 60.0 and 58.6% on the post test,
which would be considered near
failing or failing by most
instructors’ regular exam
standards.
Outcome #2:
Students will know the basic
structures and understand
the functions of biological
macromolecules and cellular
components, including
eukaryotic organelles and
membranes.
See above measures for
Outcome #1.
Outcome #3
Students will be able to
explain the processes of
cellular transport, signaling,
metabolism, photosynthesis,
cell division (mitosis and
meiosis), heredity, gene
expression and gene
See above measures for
Outcome #1.
Macromolecules, mitosis/cell
cycle, gene regulation and
Mendelian genetics were identified
as areas that students performed
poorly on. Macromolecules and
Mendelian genetics continue to be
observed as areas that students do
poorly in on the post assessment.
See above results for Outcome #1.
See above results for Outcome #1.
2011-12
share our assessment
results. We therefore plan
to hold a series of planning
sessions with full-time and
part-time instructors,
where the assessment
results are first shared, and
then specific strategies
developed among all 190
faculty to address deficient
areas in the classroom.
mitosis (synthesis of DNA);
however, the main idea with
respect to mitosis is that
genetically-identical daughter cells
that conserve the number of
parental chromosomes are
produced as a result. Therefore,
we plan to more clearly define the
main ideas in each content area and
revise the assessment questionnaire
to reflect these ideas.
See above plan for
Outcome #1.
See above plan for Outcome #1.
See above plan for
Outcome #1.
See above plan for Outcome #1.
School of Sciences | Appendix C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
regulation and understand
their significance to the
functions of biological
systems.
108
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
Program/Discipline/Course Assessment Report
Program: Biology
Discipline: Biology
Course Number: BIOL 190L
School/Unit: SOSc
Submitted by: Melissa A. Deadmond
Contributing Faculty: Monica Baze, Melissa Deadmond, Julie Ellsworth, Yvonne Geary, Theresa Nordquist, Jeff Weinert, Beate
Wone, Bernard Wone
Academic Year: 2010-2011
Complete and submit your assessment report electronically to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a narrative description of
the assessment activities in your program or discipline.
Program, Discipline or
Course Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the outcomes
assessed in your program or
discipline during the last
year.
Outcome #1:
Students will perform metric
conversions and
mathematical calculations
related to concentrations of
solutions.
Assessment Measures
Assessment Results
Use of Results
In the boxes below,
summarize the methods
used to assess program,
discipline, or course
outcomes during the last
year.
All course sections
administered an 11question, multiplechoice knowledge and
analysis-based
assessment survey to
students at the beginning
of the first day of lab
and at the end of the last
lab meeting before the
final practical exam.
This assessment tool
also indirectly addresses
experimental design and
the analysis and
In the boxes below, summarize the
results of your assessment
activities during the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you are or
how you plan to use the
results to improve student
learning.
Throughout the academic year, we
observed a range of 8.3-50.0%
improvement with an average %
learning increase of 23.1 and
22.5% for the fall and spring
semesters, respectively. The
50.0% upper end of the range is
almost double that of the 25.4%
upper range end observed last year.
The average % increase values for
both fall and spring semesters are
also greater than last year’s values
of 13.8% and 17.1% increase,
respectively. For the third year in
a row, however, questions on
Metric conversions and
molarity calculations have
continued to be identified
as areas needing
improvement for the past 3
years. While the use of a
simple, non-scientific
calculator may facilitate
the calculation of molarity,
most likely these
mathematically-based
skills remain difficult for
students. To date we have
done a poor job on
“closing the loop,” namely
Effect on Program, Discipline or
Course
Based on the results of this
assessment, will you revise your
outcomes? If so, please summarize
how and why in the boxes below.
BIOL 190L was separated from the
4-credit BIOL 190 in 2005. Since
this time, the department has
continued to treat BIOL 190/190L
as an integrated course; however,
faculty recently voted to separate
190 and 190L curriculum so that
the lab did not necessarily have to
tie so intimately to the lecture.
Consequently, we revised the
learning outcomes to address
laboratory skills, including
mathematical calculations, and
application of the scientific
method. The assessment tool we
School of Sciences | Appendix C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
interpretation of data in
learning outcome #3.
Outcome #2:
Students will identify and
demonstrate proficiency in
the use of standard
laboratory equipment.
Outcome #3:
Students will understand and
apply the scientific method
by designing a controlled
experiment, and analyzing
and interpreting data.
110
One question on the
assessment survey dealt
indirectly with proper
equipment use: choice
of glassware to measure
volumes.
Five of the 11 questions
on the assessment survey
deal with understanding
or application of the
scientific method in the
areas of knowing what a
hypothesis is, designing a
controlled experiment,
interpreting data
molarity calculation and metric
conversion were answered
incorrectly by > 50% of the
students in at least half of all lab
sections. Hake gains ranged from
0.15-0.54 with averages of 0.37
and 0.34 for the fall and spring
semesters, respectively. The
average Hake gains are a slight
improvement from the previous
fall (0.32) and spring semesters
(0.28). In addition, 14of 18 total
sections assessed, or 78%, obtained
a Hake gain > 0.3, which is
considered a medium or acceptable
gain. This is also an improvement
from last year, where only 60% of
the sections assessed showed a
hake gain > 0.3.
This content area on the
assessment survey was not
identified on the post assessment
as an area where improvement is
needed. In fact, an average of
70.5% of students answered this
question correctly on the post test
across all fall and spring sections.
While students demonstrated that
they could interpret graphs,
understand statistical significance,
and draw proper conclusions about
experimental data, they had trouble
understanding the experimental
design that goes into a properly
controlled experiment. In addition,
they could choose the proper
definition of a hypothesis but did
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
because the majority of
sections are taught by parttime instructors, with
whom we often fail to
share our assessment
results. We therefore plan
to hold a series of planning
sessions with full-time and
part-time instructors,
where the assessment
results are first shared, and
then specific strategies
developed among all 190
faculty to specifically
address application of math
in the laboratory.
have been using for 3 years does
address this learning outcome, but
not to a great extent (2 of 11
questions). We will keep the
learning outcome but likely revise
the assessment tool.
The departmental vote to
separate BIOL 190L from
BIOL 190 (see Effect on
With only one question, the
assessment survey does not
adequately address laboratory
equipment use. A new or
supplementary assessment tool will
have to be devised in order to
assess this learning outcome. We
will keep the learning outcome but
likely revise the assessment tool.
Program, Discipline, or
Course for learning outcome
#1) will allow us to better
focus on proper laboratory
equipment use without
being limited to
demonstrating lecture
topics in lab.
The departmental vote to
separate BIOL 190L from
BIOL 190 (see Effect on
Program, Discipline, or
Course for learning outcome
#1) will allow the freedom
to develop more inquiry and
hypothesis-driven labs that
are not merely a
demonstration of lecture
This learning outcome is
fundamental to the process of
science and may now be the focal
point of BIOL 190L. The
development of more inquiry and
hypothesis-driven labs will be
critical to its proper implementation.
Biology
2011-12
topics. We plan to seek
external funding to aid us in
this curricular overhaul.
not understand the logic of
hypothesis testing.
Supplementary Data:
Table 1. Biology 190 Lab Assessment: Fall 2010. The table represents unpaired data for individual students (n) who took the pre‐assessment and post‐assessment survey in each course section for % Increase. Hake Gain is based on paired data (n = # students who took the post‐
assessment). Content areas where improvement is needed reflect questions that > 50% of students answered incorrectly on the post‐
assessment. Overall analysis reflects totals for n, averages for percentages and Hake Gain, and content areas observed to be troublesome in at least 50% of the participating sections. n/a = data not available. Pre‐assessment Post Assessment n n Section % Correct % Correct % Difference Hake Improvement Needed D01 (summer) 26 40.7 19
62.7
21.5
0.35
Controlled experiment, Metric conversion, Logic of hypothesis testing D02 (summer) 27 41.4 17
60.8
17.6
0.29
Controlled experiment, Metric conversion, Logic of hypothesis testing, inductive/deductive reasoning D03 (summer) 27 41.4 23
57.6
18.8
0.30
Molar calculation, Metric conversion, Logic of hypothesis testing, inductive/deductive reasoning 1002 26 46.5 22
76.5
29.8
0.52 Metric conversion School of Sciences | Appendix C
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
1003 Instructor did not submit assessment data 1004 28 40.2 21
63.9
22.6
0.38 Metric conversion 1005 26 39.1 21
67.5
30.6
0.45
Scientific information, Molar calculation, Metric conversion Controlled experiment, Molar calculation, Metric n/a conversion, What is a hypothesis?, Logic of hypothesis testing 1006 0 n/a 23
55.4
n/a
1007 25 42.3 24
59.4
21.5
0.3
1009 18 43.1 18
65.7
22.7
0.39
23.1
0.37 Metric conversion, Logic of hypothesis testing 1010 Instructor did not submit assessment data 1011 Instructor did not submit assessment data 1012 Instructor did not submit assessment data Overall Averages or Total n 203 41.8 188
63.3
Scientific information, Molar calculation, Metric conversion Controlled experiment, scientific information, Logic of hypothesis testing Table 2. Biology 190 Lab Assessment: Spring 2011. The table represents unpaired data for individual students (n) who took the pre‐assessment and post‐assessment survey in each course section for % Increase. Hake Gain is based on paired data (n = # students who took the post‐
assessment). Content areas where improvement is needed reflect questions that > 50% of students answered incorrectly on the post‐
assessment. Overall analysis reflects totals for n, averages for percentages and Hake Gain, and content areas observed to be troublesome in at least 50% of the participating sections. n/a = data not available. 112
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
Pre‐assessment Post Assessment n n 2011-12
Section % Correct % Correct % Difference Hake Improvement Needed 1001 29 46.7 21
65.8
21.2
0.37 Metric conversion, Logic of hypothesis testing 1002 28 44.3 22
56.8
8.3
0.15
Molar calculation, Metric conversion, Logic of hypothesis testing 1003 26 41.3 23
55.8
15.6
0.26
Molar calculation, Metric conversion, Logic of hypothesis testing 1005 28 37.2 23
59.1
21.4
0.31
Molar calculation, Metric conversion, Logic of hypothesis testing 25 45.0 23
61.1
19.8
Scientific information, Metric conversion, Logic of 0.27 hypothesis testing 1007 21 32.1 20
62.5
29.6
0.43 (none above 50% missed) 1091 29 36.6 23
70.7
32.6
0.51 Metric conversion 1092 25 44.3 20
63.3
17.5
0.30 (none above 50% missed) 2001 26 38.1 23
67.0
35.6
0.52 Metric conversion, Logic of hypothesis testing 2002 28 7.4 22
57.57576
50.0
0.54
Molar calculation, Metric conversion, Logic of hypothesis testing 39.9 177
62.0
22.5
0.34
Metric conversion, Logic of hypothesis testing; Molar calculation high too 1006 Overall Averages 208 or Total n School of Sciences | Appendix C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
TMCC Program and Discipline Report
Program/Discipline: Biology 191 and 191L Organismal Biology Lecture and Lab
Division: MSET
Submitted by: Dr. James A. Collier, May 16, 2011
Academic Year: 2010- 2011
Complete and submit your assessment report to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a narrative description of the
assessment activities in your program/discipline.
Program/Discipline
Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the outcomes
assessed in your program or
discipline during the last
year.
Assessment Measures
Assessment Results
Use of Results
Effect on the Program/Discipline
In the boxes below,
summarize the methods
used to assess program
or discipline outcomes
during the last year.
In the boxes below, summarize the
results of your assessment
activities during the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you are or
how you plan to use the
results to improve student
learning.
Based on the results of this year,
will you revise your assessment
plan? If so, please summarize how
and why in the boxes below.
Outcome #1: Students shall
understand the scientific
method, be able to design
and carry out a scientific
experiment, analyze
collected data utilizing
accepted statistical methods
and produce a report.
Two assessment
measures were used to
assess understanding of
the scientific method:
1. Students conducted a
scientific experiment,
performed statistical
analysis and wrote a
report. 2. A pre and post
test was administered
with questions
pertaining to the
scientific method.
A pre and post test was
administered with
questions pertaining to
student knowledge and
understanding of
ecology, evolution,
diversity and structure
and adaptation of
organisms.
A statistical comparison of pre and
post test scores using the student’s
t test indicated a highly statistically
significant improvement in student
scores for the fall and spring
semester (p value of t test =
10-11 and 10-13) A Hake score of
0.516 indicates a significant gain in
student learning through the
course.
Analysis of individual
questions indicate that
student success increased
between the pre-test and
post-test in all topics
covered in the scientific
method portion of the
assessment exam.
However, statistical results
did not increase as much as
other areas.
I plan to use the same assessment
plan to plot student success over
multiple semesters with the
exception of question 3 (see
discussion below).
A statistical comparison of pre and
post test scores using the student’s
t test indicated a highly statistically
significant improvement in student
understanding of ecology,
evolution diversity and structure
and for the 2010-2011 academic
year. A Hake score of 0.516
indicates a significant gain in
Analysis of individual
questions indicate that
student increased between
the pre-test and post-test in
all topics covered in the
basic knowledge portion of
the assessment exam.
Systematics, evolution, and
statistical results should be
I plan to use the same assessment
plan to plot student success over
multiple semesters with the
exception of question 3 (see
discussion below).
Outcome #2: Students shall
acquire a basic knowledge of
ecology, evolution, diversity
and adaptation of organisms.
They shall be able to apply
basic physico-chemical laws
to explain an organism’s
structure, function, and
ecology. They shall be able
114
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
to explain the science of
evolution.
student learning through the
course. (p value of t test for the fall
2009 semester is 1.25 x 10-11,p
value of t test for the spring, 2010
semester is (4.09x 10-13). See
discussion below.
2011-12
emphasized more in class
and lab in the future.
Annual Biology Assessment Report
Biol 191 and 191L - Organismal Biology
2010 - 2011
1. Contributing faculty: James A. Collier
Data supplied by: James A. Collier
2. Summary of assessment activities:
a. Educational philosophy, course and laboratory curriculum
Organismal Biology, Biology 191, is designed to interest the general student in organismic biology, ecology and evolution. This
course will provide a foundation of biological knowledge which will enable the student to understand more advanced biological
concepts. The successful student in Organismal Biology will acquire an understanding of organism structure, function, diversity and of
fundamental ecological and evolutionary concepts. They will also acquire an understanding of how an organism’s structure and
function allows it to survive in its chosen environment. Specifically, the student will be able to: briefly define the field of biology,
define fundamental characteristics of life, describe the basic characteristics of organisms in each of the five kingdoms, monera,
protista, fungi, plant and animal, compare and contrast the general structure and function among different phyla of plants and animals.
Students will be able to discuss the organismic functions of transport, feeding, gas exchange, water balance, stimulus reception,
neuronal and hormonal control, movement and reproduction in plants and animals, discuss the major concepts in evolutionary theory
and speciation, define ecosystem, nutrient cycling, energy flow, populations and communities, and discuss the interrelationships
among these components.
Classroom activities may include lecture, class discussion, small group discussion, individual presentations to the class.
Written assignments are required of students. Laboratory activities will provide opportunities for observation of living and preserved
School of Sciences | Appendix C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
organisms, practical experience in handling biological materials, collecting and analyzing biological data. Field trips and written
assignments may be required of students.
Course Learning Outcomes:
Biology 191: Introduction to Organismal Biology (3 credits)
Learning Outcome Statement 1:
Student’s will demonstrate cognitive knowledge of: biology as a science, classification, diversity, basic structural and physiological
functions of organisms, abiotic and biotic ecosystem structure and function, and processes of evolution.
Learning Outcome Statement 2:
Students will demonstrate competency in the ability to read, listen, interpret, and communicate the above biological concepts through
appropriate spoken or written forms.
Biology 191L: Introduction to Organismal Biology Laboratory (1 credits)
Learning Outcome Statement 1:
Students will demonstrate knowledge of laboratory safety procedures and proficiency in the use of laboratory equipment and
materials.
Learning Outcome Statement 2:
Student’s will demonstrate an understanding of the methods and principles of scientific inquiry by designing an experiment, collecting
data, statistically evaluating the data and drawing conclusions. c. Methods
Assessment was accomplished in Biology 191 and 191L by administering a 30 question, multiple choice quiz to students the first day
of class and again with the final exam on the last day of class. The questions were written to address a sampling of the course
curriculum including a few laboratory-based questions, but with the majority of the questions addressing lecture curriculum.
The results were tabulated for both spring and fall semester. Pre-test and post-test scores for the only section offered and were
assembled in pair-wise fashion with the mean improvement determined for each class. Data from students who took only the pre-test
or only the post-test were excluded from analysis.
This year Hake gain <g> scores were calculated for comparing student learning relative to where they started. This was calculated as
follows:
<g> = (post-test score – pre-test score)/(100% - pre-test score)
116
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
In addition, data for this one section was aggregated to allow a question-by-question comparison of student performance on both the
pre-test and the posttest.
A t test was run on the pretest and posttest raw scores for both fall, 2010 and spring, 2011.
3. Results:
Fall, 2010 and Spring, 2011 Data
Assessments were performed and results reported for the fall semester, 2010 and the spring semester, 2011.
Table 1 – Fall, 2010 and Spring, 2011 – BIOL 191 and 191L Assessment Data
Pre-test
Post-test
Hake
Section
N
Mean Score Mean Score
% Increase
gain
Fall, 2010
25
38.0%
62.4%
24.4%
.394
Spring, 2011
12
45.0%
80.1%
35.1%
.638
Overall
41.5%
71.3%
29.8%
.516
Average
The data observed in Table 1 are very good when compared to other Biology courses. Hake score averages were .516 demonstrating
that for each student relative to the number of questions they scored correctly on the pretest, each student made significant increases
on their posttest.
The p value for the t test comparing pretest and posttest scores for the fall, 2010 semester was 1.25 x 10-11; the p value for the t test
comparing pretest and posttest scores for the spring, 2011 semester was 4.09x 10-13. Both of these p values are very small and indicate
a statistically highly significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores.
Individual Question Analyses
Table 2: Questions-by-question breakdown of aggregate data for 26 students in the spring, 2011 section. All values reported
at the PRE and POST rows are percentages of students who answered the question correctly. The DIFF row represents the
difference between the PRE and POST rows. DIFF average was 27.8%
Question Number
% Correct
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
School of Sciences | Appendix C
14
15
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
PRE
POST
73
100
57
80
97
97
40
77
40
73
53
94
83
100
77
97
57
83
17
30
63
83
53
90
30
80
67
77
60
90
DIFF
27
23
0
37
33
41
17
20
26
13
20
37
50
10
30
Table 2: Questions-by-question breakdown of aggregate data for 26 students in the spring, 2011 section. All values reported
at the PRE and POST rows are percentages of students who answered the question correctly. The DIFF row represents the
difference between the PRE and POST rows. DIFF average was 27.8%
Question Number
% Correct
PRE
POST
16
53
57
17
27
67
18
50
57
19
40
90
20
43
100
21
50
80
22
47
90
23
67
100
24
33
87
25
67
80
26
47
90
27
27
83
28
83
90
29
43
87
30
77
80
DIFF
4
40
7
50
57
30
43
33
54
13
43
56
7
44
3
4. Improvement of assessment and student learning:
Assessment questions were designed to address the basic knowledge of a variety of course topics, and the results suggest that students
know more about these topics after the course than before as there was a 29.8% increase in their individualized posttest scores. When
examining each question, the class as a whole increased an average of 27.8% for each question. All of the questions except one,
question 3, showed improvement.
Since 97% of students could answer this question both before and after class it should be eliminated from the assessment exam.
However, there is a wide range of individual question improvement with some questions showing significant improvement and others,
16, 18, 28 and 30, showing a lesser improvement. These last questions involving systematics, evolution, and statistical results should
be emphasized more in class and lab in the future.
118
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
TMCC Program and Discipline Report
Program/Discipline: Biology 200 – Elements of Human Anatomy & Physiology
Division: SOSc
Submitted by: Deborah Christianson – May 17, 2010
Academic Year: 2010 - 2011
Complete and submit your assessment report to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a narrative description of the
assessment activities in your program/discipline.
Program/Discipline
Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the
outcomes assessed in
your program or
discipline during the
last year.
Outcome #1: Students
will be able to
describe basic
anatomical structures
for all organ systems.
Outcome #2:
Students will learn
basic physiological
mechanisms for all
organ systems.
Assessment
Measures
In the boxes below,
summarize the
methods used to
assess program or
discipline outcomes
during the last year.
Students were given a
10 question quiz on
the first and last day
of class. Quiz
questions were based
on overall course
content and
developed by faculty.
See attached
narrative.
One out of ten
questions addressed
physiological
mechanisms.
Assessment Results
Use of Results
In the boxes below,
summarize the results of your
assessment activities during
the last year.
The quiz scores for one
section was compared and
tabulated in a non-paired
fashion. The average percent
increase in scores between
the pretest and the posttest
averaged 15.6%. See attached
narrative.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you
are or how you plan
to use the results to
improve student
learning.
Results indicate an
increase in learning.
The area of cell
organization should
be addressed based
on decreased posttest
scores. See attached
narrative.
The Physiology question
showed a 44.4% increase
from pretest to post test.
The result indicates
an increase in
learning.
Effect on the
Program/Discipline
Based on the results of this
year, will you revise your
assessment plan? If so, please
summarize how and why in
the boxes below.
The assessment quiz
administered in 2010-2-11
was the second quiz designed
for this course. Six out of 10
questions were scored above
50% during the pretest
indicating that these
questions should be rewritten
for 2011-2012. See attached
narrative.
More questions should be
written to address physiology
in order to more completely
assess Outcome #2.
School of Sciences | Appendix C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Outcome #3 There are
only two outcomes for
this course.
Supplementary Narrative and Data:
Annual Biology Assessment Report
BIOL 200 – Elements of Human Anatomy & Physiology
2010-2011
1. Contributing faculty: Deborah Christianson
2. Summary of assessment activities:
a. Educational philosophy, course and laboratory curriculum
Biology 200 is a very basic course in Anatomy and Physiology. The course was originally designed to train medical office personnel
in the Computer Sciences Department at TMCC, but was found to be similar enough to a course offered at Western Nevada College
(WNC) to be renumbered and renamed to conform to common course numbering within the NSHE system. The course does not have
a laboratory component at TMCC, but does at WNC. The course is used as a general training course for medical office personnel,
billing personnel, and operating technicians. Along with the laboratory component, it serves as a prerequisite for the Surgical
Technician program offered at Western Nevada College.
A set of objectives was rewritten and submitted for the course when it was renumbered and renamed.
Evaluations of the lecture material is accomplished via written examinations and assignments measuring the students understanding of
conceptual information.
b. Learning outcomes
Two learning outcomes were established for BIOL 200:
120
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
1. Students will be able to describe basic anatomical structures for all organ systems.
2. Students will learn basic physiological mechanisms for all organ systems.
c. Methods
Assessment was accomplished for learning outcomes #1 and 2 by administering a 10 question, multiple choice quiz to students the
first day of class and again with the final exam on the last day of class. The questions were written to address a sampling of the course
curriculum. The results were tabulated for spring semester 2011 and there is only one section offered per year. Pre-test and post-test
scores were averaged for all students the mean improvement and percent differences determined for the class. Eighteen students
participated in the pretest and post test.
Data for these sections was aggregated to allow a question-by-question comparison of student performance on both the pre-test and
the post test.
3. Results:
Spring 2011 Data
Pre-test
Post-test
Section
N
Mean Score
Mean Score
% Increase
Spring 2011
18
51.1%
66.7%
15.6%
51.1%
66.7%
15.6%
OVERALL
Assessments were performed and results reported for just 1 section as described above. This data shows a significant increase in
posttest scores.
Individual Question Analyses
%
School of Sciences | Appendix C
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
Correct
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
PRE
50.0 72.2 66.7 55.6 72.2 55.6 33.3 44.4 77.8 27.8 18
POST
77.8 66.7 94.4 77.8 77.8 61.1 61.1 77.8 83.3 72.2 18
The effectiveness of this quiz to measure learning was addressed by Individual Question Analysis. Data were aggregated for 18
students for the one section of BIOL 200 offered in the spring semester of 2011.
The pretest average was 51.1 % and the posttest average was 67.7%. Pretest questions that over 50% of students answered correctly
are #2 (cell organization), #3 (serous membranes), #4 (muscle classification), #5 (special sensory receptors), and #6 (plasma
composition). Question #9 (nephron structure) needs to be rewritten due to lack of clarity. These questions will be rewritten or
replaced for 2011-2012 assessment.
4. Improvement of student learning:
A 15.6% increase in student learning points to an increase in student knowledge of anatomy after completing this course. The quiz
should include questions that test physiology to a greater degree in order to document fully the success of Outcomes #1 and #2. Of
course, there is still room for improvement, so instructors should continue to improve methodology.
Question analysis suggest that the teaching curriculum needs additional development. Question #2 addressing cellular structure had a
decrease in correct responses in the posttest, despite addressing this knowledge subject level on multiple occasions. New approaches
should be developed for determining the learning success during class time.
5. Assessment revision plans:
As noted above, questions 2,3,4,5,6 and 9 will be targeted for revision or replacement. In addition, these questions were testing
mainly rote memorization so some questions will be added so students can demonstrate the application of their anatomical and
physiological knowledge.
Biol 200 Assessment Exam
1. The correct sequence of the level of organization is:
a. cellular, chemical, tissue, organ
b. chemical, cellular, tissue, organ
122
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
2011-12
c. chemical, cellular, organ, tissue
d. chemical, tissue, cellular, organ
The organelles that are the “power plants” of the cells are the:
a. ribosomes
b. mitochondria
c. Golgi apparatus
d. centrioles
The membrane covering the lungs is called the:
a. visceral pleura
b. visceral peritoneum
c. parietal pleura
d. parietal peritoneum
Striations are found in:
a. smooth muscle
b. skeletal muscle
c. cardiac muscle
d. both B and C
The sense of hearing can be classified as a:
a. proprioceptor
b. mechanoreceptor
c. thermoreceptor
d. photoreceptor
Plasma contains:
a. digested food
b. metabolic waste products
c. proteins
d. all of the above
The name of the lymphatic vessels in the walls of the small intestine is:
a. lacteals
b. cisterna chili
c. villi
d. none of the above
School of Sciences | Appendix C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
8. Enamel is found in the:
a. root of the tooth
b. crown of the tooth
c. neck of the tooth
d. all of the above
9. The glomerulus is:
a. part of the renal tubules
b. a network of blood capillaries
c. the cup-shaped top part of the nephron
d. both A and B above
10. pH is a measurement of the:
a. hydrogen ion concentration of a solution
b. hydroxide ion concentration of a solution
c. amount of buffer needed in a solution
d. both B and C above
124
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
Program/Discipline/Course Assessment Report
Program: Biology
Discipline:
Course Number: BIOL 201
School/Unit: SOS
Submitted by: Steve C. Schenk
Contributing Faculty: Steve C. Schenk
Academic Year: 2010-11
Complete and submit your assessment report electronically to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a narrative description of
the assessment activities in your program or discipline.
Program, Discipline or
Course Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the outcomes
assessed in your program or
discipline during the last
year.
Outcome #1: Be able to
distinguish and explain the
major characteristics of the
nine major animal phyla.
Assessment Measures
Assessment Results
Use of Results
In the boxes below,
summarize the methods
used to assess program,
discipline, or course
outcomes during the last
year.
Pre-test assessment
where students are asked
to fill in their knowledge
and then the same
format asked again on
the final exam (see
attached).
In the boxes below, summarize the
results of your assessment
activities during the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you are or
how you plan to use the
results to improve student
learning.
Nineteen students took both the
pre-assessment and the final exam.
For a summary of the gains in
knowledge, see below:
The students gained
tremendous knowledge in
the nine major animal
phyla, demonstrating that
the vast majority
succeeded in meeting
course goals; see below:
Effect on Program, Discipline or
Course
Based on the results of this
assessment, will you revise your
outcomes? If so, please summarize
how and why in the boxes below.
The instructor teaching the course
was doing so for the first time and
used the same open-ended
assessment previously developed.
Development of a less subjective
assessment will continue,
particularly with multiple
instructors teaching the course.
School of Sciences | Appendix C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Summary of data for 9 Phyla from 16 students (omitting the one student who retook the course):
Phylum Name
Porifera (sponges)
Characteristics listed on the Pre-Assessment

aquatic

aquatic

open circulatory system, aquatic

live in water

no bones, no organs, live in water











Cnidaria (jellies)



















Platyhelminthes (flatworms)
126






spongelike
they have many pores
porous
aquatic dwelling, slow moving, slow growth rate
aquatic
porri, no brain
nothing
often found underwater
holes, sea life
porous
porus, dry (on land) or under wawter, either soft or
hard to touch
I don’t know
mothing
nothing
aquatic
aquatic
stingers, tentacles, aquatic
no bones, live in water, tentacles
no bones, live in water
nothing
they have no brains
no skeletal structure
aquatic dwelling, trentacles with defense mechanism,
translucent, use tentacles to catch prey
aquatic invertebrate
tentickles, jelly like texture
nothing
have no skeleton
jelly texture, transparent
no backbone
smooth, solid formed, could be clear, transparent or
colored, soft to touch
they have see-thru skin, no actual arms & legs
nothing
nothing
nothing
terrestrial
nothing
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Characteristics listed on the Post-Assessment

no true tissues, choanocytes

no true tissues, made spongin spicules

no true tissues, spongin or spicules, choanocyes, osculum

no true tissues, osculum, choanocytes, spicules, amoebocytes

no “true tissues”, must have spongin bodies, coenocytes, osculum, spicules,
sponecoel

no true tissue, sponeocoel

no true tissues, collar cells, spongecoel, osculum

no true tissues, spongin

no true tissues, osculum, choanocytes

no true tissues, filter feeders

no true tissues, spicule or spongin skeleton, osculum, pores

no true tissue, live in marine & freshwater, hermaphroditic, suspension feeders

lack true tissues, suspension feeders

no true tissues, suspension feeders

choanocytes, no true tissues

sponges, lack organs & tissue












no true tissues, spongin
sponges, “holy”, visually “fake” or plantlike
no true body tissue, open circulatory system
cnidocytes, polyp and medusa form,p spicules or spongin
cnidocytes with cnimatocysts, polyp and medusa form
diploblastic, tentacles, nemaotcysts, gastrovascular cavity
nematocysts, cnidocytes, radially symmetric, gastrovascular cavity
diploblastic, radially symmetric, medusa or polyp body forms, cnidcytes w/
nematocysts, no circ system
gastrovascular cavity, no circulatory system, nematocyst
diploblastic, gastrovascular cavity, nematocysts, choanocytes
no circulatory system
cnidocytes, medusa & polyp







no circulatory system, gastrovascular cavity, cnidocytes, nematocysts
two different forms either polyp or medusa, diploblastic
st
lack a circulatory system, marine habitats, 1 stage of life in polyp form
diploblastic, radial symmetry, all marine/freshwater, polyp or medusa form
diploblastic, polyp or medusa, marine or freshwater, some colonial some solitary
jellies, nematocytes & cnidocytes, medusa and polyp forms
earthworm






2 forms medusa /polyp, tentacles, no circulatory system, nemocytsts
jellyfish, corals, crayfish, some have tentacles
open circulatory system, anal and mouth are same, jellyfish, polup form
flattened body, acoelomate, gastrovascular cavity
flatworms, parasitic or free living, triploblastic-aceolomate
flat body, acoelomate, no circulatory system, light sensitive eye spots
Biology
Nematoda (roundworms)









no bones
no bones, no limbs, like soil
nothing
brains
flat bodies
I am not familiar with this group.
parasitic
helmith, no eyes or mouthe
nothing













have no skeleton
legs, eyes
flat
flat, rigid or smooth, long skinny, no eyes or anything,
could be microscopic
no arms or legs, live underground
nothing
nothing
nothing
terrestrial
nothing
no bones; can reproduce body parts, live in earth
no bones, no limbs


















Mollusca (mollusks)
2011-12


















nothing
nothing
round bodies
unsure- some considered parasites?
parasitic
no eyes or mouthee, suckers, live off of other living
matter, helminth
nothing
have no skeleton
no legs, likes dirt, soil, no eyes
round










round, similar to flat worm, could be microscopic
no arms or legs
nothing
nothing
shells
hard shell covering; terrestrial & aquatic
aquatic
hard exoskeletons, live in water
hard shells
nothing











shells





flat, no segmentation
flatworms, gbilateral symmetry, triploblastic, acoelomate, gastrovascular cavity
flatworms, no circulatory system, mostly endoparasites
diploblastic, gastrovascular cavity, protonephridia
flat bodies, pseudoceolomates
thin body walls, no circulatory system, flatworms
flatworms, triploblastic, acoelomates, no circulatory system
some parasitic, flat shaped body, scolex for attachment in some
very flat, nutrients are obtained directly through skin, some parasitic, terrestrial &
freshwater
triploblastic, flat body, no circulatory system
parasitic, some scavengers, some predators
flat, double ventral nerve cords w/ ganglia, all cells in contact with environment
flat, pseudocoelomate, parasitic
flattened
flatworms
nothing
roundworms, thick outer cuticle, mostly endoparasites, longitudinal muscle
cuticle covered – molts, longitudinal muscle, whips around to move
tough cuticle shed periodically, tapered body shape, longitudinal muscle only
only longitudinal muscle
roundworms, no segmentation, thick cuticle, longitudinal muscle, tapers at end,
pseudocoelomate
roundworm, tapers to a point, mostly parasitic, most need a host, cuticle like skin
cuticle covering, pseudocoelmate
non segmented, aceolomates, round worms
segmented worms, heartlike structures/pumps
round worms, free living or parasitic
pseudocoelomate, round/cylindrical body, tapers to an end, no segments
no segments, mostly parasitic, separate sexes
parasites, roundwomrs, longitudinal muscles
tapering to a fine tip, acoelomate, parasitic
roundworms, most abundant phyla on Earth, lengthwise segmentation, tough
cuticle
little rings, parasitic
parasitic
parasite , lack basic nervous & reproductive system, worms, feed off host
nothing
visceral mass, mantle, muscular foot, hard exoskeleton
visceral mass, radula mantle cavity, foot
external or internal shell, visceral mass, mantle, muscular foot
foot, visceral mass, mantle, mantle cavity
muscular foot, visceral mass, mantle, radula is some
visceral mass, muscular foot, mantle, cephalopods only invert w/ closed circulatory
system
mantle tissue, visceral mass, muscular foot
School of Sciences | Appendix C
2011-12
Annelida (segmented worms)
Arthropoda (includes insects)
128
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW















2 shells on each side of body
unfamiliar
aquatic
shells, taste good
nothing
have an outer shell
sea life form
shells
nothing
not sure
“Nemo” movie
nothing
nothing
terrestrial
nothing

















nothing
no bones, no limbs



segmented















linear gastro-intestinal system
body appears to have many different segments
unfamiliar
nothing
helminth
nothing
nothing
legs, eyes, big, large
nothing
nothing
not sure
grow back
nothing
exoskeleton
















hard shell covering
hard shells made of chitin





lay eggs
wings, small
6 legs








segmented bodies, six legs
many feet
several legs
exoskeleton
have legs, bone structure





Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
shell present, reduced or gone, mantle, mantle cavity, tube feet
soft body, often utilize hard shells, muscular foot
muscular foot, radula, visceral mass, mantle
visceral mass & cavity, muscular foot, radula in some, most w/ shells
2 shelled organisms, mostly marine
have a foot, visceral mass, mantle, and sometimes protective shell
shell formations, mantle, radula, visceral mass
muscular foot, mantle, mouth & anus
hard exoskeleton
muscular foot, bivalve, shell, mantle
mussels, hard shell covering
multiple body segments, anal and mouth are separate
segments, chaetae
repeating segment, parapodia, chaetae, longitu and circular muscle
segmented bodies, some have closed circulatory system, chaetae, some
parapodia, longitudinal & circular muscle
segmentation
segmented worms, chaetae (bristles), some have parapodia, advanced
cephalization
segmented worms, chatae on some, pariapoda on some, closed circulatory
system
segmented worm, acoelomate, chaetae
segmented worms
cuticle covering body, complex life cycles involving 1+ hosts
segmented, chaeta, suction/attachment device, cuticle
segmented body, parapodia and/or chaetae, closed circulatory system
have cheate for moving, segmented worms, separate sexes
chaetae, parapodia, fused rings make up the body
series of fused rings
segmented bodyies (dorsal ventral)
cheatea, polyp & medusa, colonial forms
roundworms
worms, earth, round
body is divided in 3 segments
antennae, compound eyes (usually), usually 2 pr wings, 2-3 body segments,
specialized jointed appendages
chitin covered exoskeleton with jointed appendages, well dev. Sensory organs
jointed appendages, modified appendages for eating, sensory, etc., exoskeleton
made of chitin
jointed appendages
jointed appendage, sensory organs, exoskeleton made of chiton, body segments
chitonous exoskeleton, jointed appendages, body segmentation, open circulatory
system
jointed appendages, segmented bodies
jointed legs, ceolomates
jointed legs, often wings
segmented body, chelicerae, exoskeleton
segmented body, variety of diff. appendages, hard cutlice of chiton
Biology
Echinodermata (sea stars)
Chordata (includes vertebrates)
2011-12

nothing











have exo-skeletons
legs (a lot)
6 legs
nothing
have legs and eyes
nothing
nothing
nothing
hard covering
aquatic
















nothing
hard
nothing
nothing
can regrow limbs
aquatic or near water, defense built into skin































nothing
no brain, suction cups
nothing
can regenerate, live underwater, slow moving
prickily, suction, sea life forms
nothing
nothing
hard outer shell, don’t move fast
coral like
nothing
have a spinal cord
rigid back bone
nothing
have backbones
bones, limbs
has a spine, bones
bones
have spines
unfamiliar
nothing
nothing
has a spinal cord
nothing
nothing
have a backbone



























nothing
not sure


body separated into 2 – 3 segments, body covered by hard surface, highly
specialized appendages
jointed legs, segmented bodies, specialized appendages
triploblastic, some have antenna, eyes, appendages, segmented
jointed legs, segmented bodies
jointed legs, segmentes, sensory antennae, feelers, etc .
jointed appendages, body segmentation, exoskeleton made of chiton
insects, pinchers, 8 legs, spiders, scorpions
have 2 pair walking appendages, two body segments
spiny skin, water vascular system (tube feet)
spiny skin, water vascular system, tube feet
spiny skinned, bilat symmetery in larvae, pentaradial symmetry in adults, tube feet,
water vascular system
water vascular system, tube feet
tube feet, spiny skin, water vascular system
water vascular system, tube feet
spiny skin, pena radial symmetry
spiny skin
spiney exoskeleton, bilaterally symmetric young w/ almost “radially” symmetric
adults, water vascular system
water vascular system, spiny, tube feet
water vascular system w/ tube feet, calcerous body w/ spikes
single shelled, specialized mantle, hard foot for holding onto rocks
nothing
triploblastic, marine and freshwater, tube feet
water vascular system, pentaradial symmetry (adult)
“spiny,” moss like
water vascular system, mantle
dogfish, complex respiratory, complex reproductive, sharks & fish, birds
open circulatory system, post anal and tail
hollow dorsal nerve cord, notochord, post anal tail, pharangeal clefts, gill slits
dorsal hollow nerve chord, pharyngeal gill slits, post anal tail, notochord
notochord, dorsal hollow nerve cord, post anal tail, pharyngeal gills/clefts
notochord, nerve cord, pharyngeal slits/clefts, post-anal tail
notochord, hollow dorsal nerve cord, post-anal tail, pharyngeal slits/clefts
notochord, dorsal hollow nerve cord, post anal tail, pharyngeal slits/clefts
notochord, hollow dorsal nerve chord, post anal tail, pharyngeal slits
dorsal hollow nerve cord, pharyngeal slits, post anal tail
post-anal tail, notochord, dorsal hollow nerve chord
notochord, post-anal tail, hollow/dorsal chord, pharyngeal slits
notochord, post-anal tail, dorsal hollow nerve cord, pharingial slits/cleft
notochord, pharangeal slits, post anal tail, nerve cord
post-anal tail, hollow nerve chord, pharyngeal slits/cleft
pharnegal cleft/slit, notochord, post anal tail, skeleton cord for support
notochord, hollow dorsal nerve cord, pharangeal slits/clefts, post-anal muscular
tail
post-anal tail, dorsal hollow nerve cord, notochord
pharangeal gill slits, post anal tail
School of Sciences | Appendix C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW


“pinchers”, hard shelled
nothing


turtle, pig
anal and mouth, closed circulatory system
Program/Discipline/Course Assessment Report
Program: Biology
Discipline: Biology
Course Number:BIOL 200
School/Unit: SOSc
Submitted by: Susan Mortenson
Contributing Faculty: Susan Mortenson
Academic Year: 2010-1011
Complete and submit your assessment report electronically to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a narrative description of
the assessment activities in your program or discipline.
Program, Discipline or
Course Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the outcomes
assessed in your program or
discipline during the last
year.
Outcome #1:
Students will demonstrate competency in the use of light and dissecting microscopes as well as proper laboratory safety procedures. 130
Assessment Measures
Assessment Results
Use of Results
In the boxes below,
summarize the methods
used to assess program,
discipline, or course
outcomes during the last
year.
10-question pre- and
post- quiz with
questions spanning
subject areas covered in
General Botany.
In the boxes below, summarize the
results of your assessment
activities during the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you are or
how you plan to use the
results to improve student
learning.
The scores for the learning
assessment are in the attached
spreadsheet. For Fall 2010, each
question was missed by 2 to 14
students in the pre-assessment. In
the post-assessment, 0 to 10
students missed each question.
Unfortunately, data were not
calculated as percentages in this
semester. In Spring 2011,
improvement in the percentage of
students who answered questions
correctly was seen for each of the
question topics except cells (no
change) and hormones (reduction
of 35.71%). Still, at least 50% of
The assessment suggests
that most students
improved their knowledge
of botany, particularly in
the area of ecology. The
low score on the hormone
question reflects less
emphasis on memorizing
plant hormones this
semester. In the future I
will change the assessment
to focus on how hormones
work instead of
memorizing hormone
types.
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Effect on Program, Discipline or
Course
Based on the results of this
assessment, will you revise your
outcomes? If so, please summarize
how and why in the boxes below.
Note from Biology Department
assessment coordinator:
The assessment questionnaire
developed does not appear to
match any of the learning
outcomes for this course. These
are the original outcomes from the
Botany course that was part of the
Landscaping program and
subsequently resurrected by the
Biology Department. While the
learning outcomes were addressed
during the course in its current
form, the course will likely be
revised to more of a general
Biology
2011-12
students missed questions in the
areas of water movement,
hormones, classification, and
tissues on the post test.
Outcome #2:
education science course (like
BIOL 100) and the learning
outcomes subsequently changed.
Did not assess.
Students will be able to understand and use keys for identifying representative plants of various phyla in the plant kingdom. Outcome #3
Did not assess.
Students will be able to assess the importance of plant ecosystems at human and global levels. Supporting Data:
Fall 2010 Question # 1
2
3
4
Subject Area Cells Water movement Water movement Photosynthesis Pre‐class # missed Post‐class # missed 10 2
14 4
5 1
9 3
School of Sciences | Appendix C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
5
6
7
8
9
10
Genetics Hormones Classification Tissues Ecology Ecology 8 9 8 8 2 3 4
1
3
2
0
1
Spring 2011 Question # Subject Area 1 Cells Water 2 movement Water 3 movement 4 Photosynthesis 5 Genetics 6 Hormones 7 Classification 8 Tissues 9 Ecology 10 Ecology 132
Pre‐class # missed Pre‐class % missed Post‐class # missed Post‐class % missed Change
4
0.29
4
0.29
0.00
12
0.86
8
0.57
0.29
6
8
4
5
10
9
2
8
0.43
0.57
0.29
0.36
0.71
0.64
0.14
0.57
1
5
2
10
7
7
0
1
0.07
0.36
0.14
0.71
0.50
0.50
0.00
0.07
0.36
0.21
0.14
‐0.36
0.21
0.14
0.14
0.50
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
Truckee Meadows Community College
BIOL 202 - General Botany
Pre- and Post- Learning Assessment
Select the best answer. Mark the answer on your scantron.
1. Which of the following cell components is found in plant cells but not animal cells?
a) Cell wall
b) Mitochondria
c) Ribosomes
d) Nucleolus
e) Vacuole
2. What theory describes how water moves through plants?
a) Pressure-flow theory
b) Chemiosmosis theory
c) Vacuolar-pressure theory
d) Cohesion-tension theory
e) Calvin-respiration theory
3. Which plant cells regulate gas exchange through opening and closing?
a) Tracheid
b) Glyoxisome
c) Stomata
d) Rhizome
e) Basidium
4. Which type of plant undergoes CAM photosynthesis?
a) Grasses
b) Carrots
c) Tropical trees
d) Corn
e) Succulents
5. Who is known as the father of genetics?
a) Charles Darwin
b) Gregor Mendel
c) R.J. Hobbs
d) Nicholas Saussure
e) Carl Linnaeus
6. Which hormone is often used commercially to ripen fruits?
a) Ethylene
School of Sciences | Appen
2011-12
b)
c)
d)
e)
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Gibberellins
Auxins
Abscisic acid
Cytokinins
7. What terms is used to describe nonvascular plants?
a) Algae
b) Gnetophytes
c) Bryophytes
d) Ferns
e) Cycads
8. What group of cells produces annual growth rings in gymnosperms?
a) Megasporocytes
b) Vascular cambium
c) Integument
d) Pith
e) Cork
f) Hypodermis
9. Which biome contains more species of plants than all the other biomes combined?
a) Temperate deciduous forest
b) Grassland
c) Taiga
d) Tropical rain forest
e) Mountain and coastal forest
10. What is the most frequent and abundant invasive plant in the Great Basin?
a) Sagebrush
b) Kudzu
c) Tamarisk
d) Opuntia
e) Cheatgrass
134
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
Program/Discipline/Course Assessment Report
Program: Biology
Discipline:
Course Number: BIOL 223
School/Unit: SOS
Submitted by: Steve C. Schenk
Contributing Faculty: Eddie Burke, Jamie Campbell, Jim Collier, Will Mehm, Pamela Sandstrom, Steve C. Schenk, James Verdi,
Jeff Weinert, Dan Williams, and Beate Wone
Academic Year: 2010-11
Complete and submit your assessment report electronically to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a narrative description of
the assessment activities in your program or discipline.
Program, Discipline or
Course Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the outcomes
assessed in your program or
discipline during the last
year.
Outcome #1: Cognitive
knowledge of the structure
and function and
organization of the human
body
Assessment Measures
Assessment Results
Use of Results
In the boxes below,
summarize the methods
used to assess program,
discipline, or course
outcomes during the last
year.
Students were given one
of four 4-question
quizzes at the end of the
semester consisting of
short answer questions
derived from past
assessments. The
quizzes were used to
determine common
student misconceptions
which would serve as
the basis for building a
new assessment tool.
See attached narrative.
In the boxes below, summarize the
results of your assessment
activities during the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you are or
how you plan to use the
results to improve student
learning.
The majority of sections reported
results each semester yielding a
minimum of 40 student responses
per question. The most notable
topic areas indicating deficiencies
were:
 Histology
 Muscle contraction
 Neurophysiological
principles
 Sensory transduction
These areas of weakness are
largely consistent with past
assessment results.
Data generated in this
report will be used to
generate a new pre-/posttest multiple-choice
assessment tool, and will
serve as the basis for future
refinement of said tool.
The results underscored
longstanding analyses that
suggest challenges in
BIOL 223 are linked to
poor knowledge retention
from BIOL 190. While
this has not been
traditionally considered in
the BIOL 223 assessment
process, it will be in the
Effect on Program, Discipline or
Course
Based on the results of this
assessment, will you revise your
outcomes? If so, please summarize
how and why in the boxes below.
1.
2.
3.
Greater attention will be paid
to course-to-course continuity
of sequence courses,
particularly consideration of
BIOL 190 in BIOL 223.
By identifying student
misconceptions, data from this
assessment will yield more
effective short answer
questions and better future
assessment tools. This will
allow us to better identify
specific student weaknesses,
enabling us to better respond
to these weaknesses.
The short answer question
approach to data mining will
School of Sciences | Appendix C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
future.
See attached narrative for
details.
Outcome #2: Analytical
thinking skills
136
As above
As above
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
As above
be valuable for continued use
in refining future assessment
tools.
See attached narrative for details.
Outcomes are poorly constructed
and will be revised for the next
academic year.
As above
Biology
2011-12
2010-11 Assessment Report for BIOL 223 and BIOL 224
Report written and data analyzed by Steve C. Schenk
Data contributed by Eddie Burke, Jamie Campbell, Jim Collier, Will Mehm, Pamela
Sandstrom, Steve C. Schenk, James Verdi, Jeff Weinert, Dan Williams, and Beate Wone
Introduction
In recent years, BIOL 223 and 224 (Human Anatomy and Physiology I & II) have been assessed
using a multiple-choice tool that was given at the beginning and the ending of the course in order
to determine the growth and development of student understanding of core content. Detailed
analysis of these tests in the last two years has suggested quite strongly that the assessment tool
was deficient in ways that undermined its value in supporting and developing effective teaching of
anatomy and physiology. In particular, the following deficiencies were identified.

Some questions had >60% of students earning correct answers on the pre-test. This
suggested that a majority of students knew the material coming into the course (unlikely, as
this was core content of the course), that the concepts being covered were very easy (unlikely,
as these questions were often on topics/concepts universally identified as challenging by
instructors, or that the questions were poorly structured and lead competent students to the
right answer without knowledge of the material.

Some questions – particularly on topics grounded in cell biology – had poor performance tied
to them on the post-test. While these questions were often related to topics that are
challenging, the questions were not structured in a way that lead to easy changes in teaching
strategies based on the wrong answers and there were multiple concerns raised independently
by different instructors about different questions in terms of their appropriateness or relevance.
It should be noted that the problematic questions cannot be attributed to any one instructor or any
one teaching style. Rather, they all seem to be borne of the same root problem: the questions
were written purely from an instructor’s perspective without any sense of the deficiencies or
misconceptions our students take away from our courses.
In order to rectify this situation and generate a better assessment tool, the standard assessment
tool was eliminated for this academic year and replaced with a series of open-ended short answer
questions. Sixteen questions were developed for each course to address sixteen core concepts.
Students in each section were presented with four of these questions at the end of the semester
and asked to respond to them. These responses were then analyzed to determine what
misconceptions, errors in thinking, and misunderstandings appeared in students who have freshly
finished the course. It is important to note that this approach did NOT allow us to determine what
percentage of students successfully mastered subject A appropriately or how much their
knowledge improved from the end of the beginning to end of a semester. The goal here was to
collect data that could be used to generate a new set of multiple choice questions for future
assessment tools in which the distracters will be based on those things that are genuinely
confusing to students and not any given instructor’s impressions.
In each course (i.e. BIOL 223 and BIOL 224), the sixteen questions were split into four 4-question
assessment quizzes that were split evenly among the course sections. Only post-test
assessments were considered, as the focus here is on building a new assessment tool based on
misconceptions students take away from the course. In the two sections of this report below, the
School of Sciences | Appen
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
question categories will be presented, followed by the sixteen questions and analysis of
responses.
BIOL 223, Human Anatomy and Physiology I
Sixteen open-ended short answer questions were developed to assess student understanding of
and to identify major student misconceptions with reference to the following topics:
 Homeostasis, feedback, and feedback loops
 Tissue classification and membrane structure
 Anatomical directional terminology
 Protective function of the integument
 Bone matrix and bone repair
 Muscle contraction
 Fundamentals of neurophysiology
 Nervous system fundamentals
 Visual and auditory sensory transduction
For each question, major misconceptions are noted. These misconceptions will be used as the
basis for developing new multiple-choice questions that will be used to construct future
assessment exams that will allow a more accurate pre- and post- course view of student
understanding of central concepts.
General Misconceptions
 Ions often abbreviated incorrectly (e.g. calcium shown as not divalent or negative).
Homeostasis, feedback, and feedback loops
1. Define homeostasis in your own words and describe the structure of a homeostatic feedback
loop.
 Some confuse “similar” with “same” or “unchanged” in describing homeostasis.
 Positive and negative feedback, when discussed, are typically defined accurately.
However, many suggest that positive feedback can be used in homeostasis, confusing
feedback loops in general with homeostatic feedback loops in particular.
 In describing feedback loop structure: some students sometimes suggested that it had to
be neural, IDing afferent and efferent neurons as part of a generic feedback loop; none
demonstrated understanding that a single organ can serve as both receptor and integration
center/integration center and effector organ.
Tissue classification and membrane structure
2. Contrast the classification of epithelial tissues with the classification of connective tissues.
 In some cases, epithelia related to “outer surface” rather than surface in general; if
describing structures composed of epithelia, glands were not consistently included.
 Students often simply listed types of each tissue class rather than discuss features of their
classification.
 Cell shapes for epithelia not always correctly described (e.g. “round). One suggested that
all epithelia are hexaganol (a la surface view of a simple squamous epithelium).
 Very few made reference to the terms “protein fiber” (let alone types of fibers) and “ground
substance” when addressing connective tissue.
138
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology


2011-12
A few identified connective tissues as able to “attach to…skin, or bone” but few indicated
that skin contains connective tissue and that bone is connective tissue.
Several described tissue purely in terms of anatomical depth (i.e. epithelia = superficial,
connective = deep).
3. Describe the structure of a generic serous membrane.
 Vast majority could not answer this question.
 Most partially correct answers made reference to lining body cavities and/or serous fluid
secreted by epithelial cells within the membrane.
 Almost no references to visceral and parietal surfaces. (A couple specifically mentioned
terms like “epicardium” or “pericardium.”
Anatomical directional terminology
4. Provide one example of a proximal-distal anatomical relationship, and justify your answer.
 Vast majority provided a valid example with proper justification (i.e. relation to
attachment/origin point).
 Specific questions related to other anatomical terminology could be developed based on
instructor suggestions…it appears that some students may know this type of material from
other courses, but even those who don’t appear to be learning this effectively. Most
appropriate questions should simply select particular general terms and test them based on
common examples.
Protective function of the integument
5. Describe how the integument serves as a barrier that helps keep microorganisms out of the
body and water in the body.
 Many limited antimicrobial role of the skin to serving as a physical barrier; chemical barriers
were only occasionally included and often nonspecifically (e.g. “a special pH”). Only a few
(< 5) referenced antimicrobial cells (e.g. macrophages, Langerhans cells) within the
integument.
 Water barrier typically discussed in vague terms with specific role of the epidermis not
always identified. Hydrophobic lipids in epidermis occasionally but not consistently
identified.
 Several showed lack of understanding of orientation of skin with one identifying the
epidermis as the “middle layer” and many that identified specific epidermal layers with
reference to water balance attributed the hydrophobic layer to either the stratum corneum
or stratum basale, or identified its location as between two non-adjacent layers (e.g.
stratum granulosum and basale).
 Specific integumentary questions related to UV protection, abrasion resistance, and
calcium homeostasis could be developed based on future open-ended survey questions.
Bone matrix and bone repair
6. Identify the main components of bone matrix and the functions that can be attributed to each.
 Students were nearly as likely to identify “compact bone/spongy bone” or
“osteoblasts/osteocytes/osteoclasts” when asked to identify components of bone matrix.
 Not all that correctly related major attributes to matrix components when correctly
identifying them (i.e. collagen = flexibility, hydroxyapatite = rigidity/weight-bearing strength).
7. Summarize the process by which long bones lengthen.
School of Sciences | Appen
2011-12



PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
> 50% made reference to epiphyseal plate or growth plate as the location of bone
lengthening; a few < 5 made reference to zones of cartilage within the plate. Very few
made any reference to the process itself (e.g. growth of cartilage, breakdown of cartilage,
replacement with bones) in any fashion. Some suggested that closure of the plate (which
occurs at the end of puberty) is the process by which elongation occurs.
Some confused development of bone (e.g. endochondral/intramembranous ossification)
with bone elongation.
Some restricted explanation to role of osteoblasts and osteoclasts, suggesting references
to increasing bone diameter or secondary growth instead of elongation.
Muscle contraction
8. Describe how calcium and ATP are used within skeletal muscle cells during muscle
contraction.
 Many related the role of calcium to release of ACh by the synaptic terminal but did not
reference binding to troponin to act as a trigger for contraction.
 Most had understanding that ATP is used in a cross-bridge cycle, though not many used
that term. (Many did reference myelin.)
 Most likely points of confusion were to focus on ATP generation or to tie calcium to
changes in RMP of sarcolemma by influencing other channels.
 Specific questions on muscle metabolism, contraction types, fiber types, or controlling
strength of contraction could be developed based on future open-ended survey questions.
Fundamentals of neurophysiology
9. Describe how an action potential is generated in terms of the resting potential and movement
of ions.
 Most demonstrated clear understanding of the events occurring during depolarization,
repolarization, and hyperpolarization phases of AP. However, most did not demonstrate
clear understanding of trigger for AP to threshold.
o Not all described that threshold is reached from RMP through depolarization.
o Some suggested sodium was the only ion capable of getting MP to threshold.
o Few demonstrated basic understanding of generalized ion movements (i.e. + in =
depol’n; + out or – in = hyperpol’n).
o One identified threshold depolarization tied to sodium-potassium ligand gates (i.e. as
occurs at nicotinic cholinergic synapses) as the general means of reaching
threshold.
 Some include sodium-potassium pumps in explanation of depolarization phase of AP.
 Offered synaptic release of NT (specifically ACh) as “how an action potential is generated”
 Some had inaccurate syntax (e.g. “Sodium voltage gated channels open…They diffuse into
the cell…”)
 References to RMP not always accurate (e.g. 2 potassium out per sodium in)
 Specific questions related to establishment of RMP could be developed based on future
open-ended survey questions as this was not specifically considered in this
question…though some did address it an as noted, not always accurately.
10. Summarize how action potentials are propagated through an axon and how myelination affects
this process.
140
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology


2011-12
Majority demonstrated understanding that myelination increases the speed of AP
propagation; many (but less than half) clearly indicated the role of nodes of Ranvier and/or
“leaping from node-to-node.”
Almost none appeared able to explain how propagation occurs, with only a handful
referencing depolarization of adjacent downstream areas in an axon. Not all that
referenced depolarization did so accurately, with one referencing a cleft (presumably
synaptic) and then proceeding to indicate that “There is a lot more I could explain but don’t
feel like it…too many details for this little space.”
Nervous system fundamentals
11. Contrast the parasympathetic and sympathetic divisions of the autonomic nervous system
(ANS).
 Most common answer was to reference “fight or flight” and “rest and digest,” though not
always correctly attributed to division names.
 Several referenced “increased ventilation” inaccurately as result of sympathetic stimulation.
 Some accurate references to structural differences between sympathetic and
parasympathetic divisions, but they were very few in number.
 Several generally described the sympathetic as being “excitatory” and/or parasympathetic
as “inhibitory.”
 No references to sympathetic only functions (e.g. thermoregulation/metabolism).
12. How do the primary motor cortex (precentral gyrus), premotor cortex, and cerebellum work
together to produce voluntary movement.
 No strong answers to this question. The majority of students seemed to have no sense of
the basic functions of these brain regions, namely planning of voluntary motor activity
(premotor cortex), execution of voluntary activity via APs to muscles (primary motor cortex),
and accounting for body position to provide coordination of motor activity (cerebellum).
One student confused “balance” with “coordination.”
 While not all instructors cover the brain to the same level of detail, certain major regions
(such as those addressed here) should be covered by all instructors and other regions
could be identified by instructor input. As this question and any related question would
largely amount to knowing definitions of functions for brain regions, future short answer
assessments are unnecessary to generate questions.
13. Describe the composition of spinal reflex arc and provide one example of how these reflexes
can be used.
 Most had complete and correct lists of reflex arc components. The most often omitted
components where typically neurons (afferent/sensory and efferent/motor).
 Some referenced only “skin receptors” or “nociceptors” omitting other stimuli for major
somatic spinal reflexes
 Examples of reflexes offered are typically descriptive but terminologically non-specific (i.e.
reflex type is not named).
 Specific questions related to neural pathways/circuits (e.g. divergence and convergence)
could be developed based on future open-ended survey questions as this was not
specifically considered in this question…though at least one did correctly address
divergence and relate it to conscious awareness of stimulus after reflex.
School of Sciences | Appen
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
14. How would skeletal muscle and cardiac muscle each be affected if their acetylcholine
receptors were blocked in such a way that prevented acetylcholine from affecting them?
 Very few demonstrated understanding of the difference between nicotinic cholinergic and
muscarinic cholinergic receptors. That is, most suggested that both skeletal and cardiac
muscle would be affected in the same fashion by blocking ACh (i.e. paralysis).
 Some incorrectly incorporated calcium and ATP into their answers, suggesting a confusion
of the events occurring at the synaptic terminal of the axon, at the postsynaptic membrane
of a NMJ, and within the muscle fibers themselves.
Visual and auditory sensory transduction
15. Summarize the transduction of light to action potential occurs in the retina.
 Majority had difficulty with this question with a variety of answers.
 Several confused light conduction with AP transduction, focusing their answer on the role of
the lens and refraction of light. This suggests a disconnect on the subject of signal
transduction from BIOL 190.
 Many referenced “photoreceptors” without identifying rods or cones by name.
 Only around 25% made reference to the rod/bipolar cell/ganglionic cell interface with some
who did describe it doing so incorrectly (e.g. bipolar cell releasing glutamate to inhibit
ganglionic cell).
 Only around 33% made reference to rhodopsin and its associated shape changes that
occur when exposed to light; these were not always discussed accurately.
16. Summarize the transduction of sound to action potential occurs in the cochlea.
 As with vision, the majority had trouble with this and frequently confused transduction with
conduction. (This is particularly problematic for hearing.
 Some had a strong sense of how sound as vibration is passed through the fluids and
membranes of the cochlea to ultimately affect hair cells. None related bending of
stereocilia to opening of mechanically gated channels or ion movements to produce AP.
Summary: Developing the New Assessment Tool and Modifying It in the Future
A new assessment tool will be developed over the summer of 2011 and presented to the BIOL
223/224 focus group prior to the start of the fall 2011 semester for approval. This tool will have
the following components.
(1) A bank of multiple-choice questions will be developed based on student responses to the
questions asked in the 2010-11 open response assessment.
a. These questions will all have five choices and the distracters in each question will be
tied to specific misunderstandings and misconceptions exhibited by students in the
2010-11 assessment.
b. Some additional questions may be developed in places where instructor input but
not student input is needed. For example, some topics amount to knowing
definitions. An instructor-agreed upon list of terms is all that is really needed to
develop this type of question.
(2) A ten-question assessment will be developed to give each academic year.
a. Two of the questions will cover material specific to BIOL 190. As many of the most
challenging topics in this two-course sequence are grounded in cell biology, knowing
142
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
how strong a grasp students have on old material is germane to evaluating why they
do or do not grasp certain concepts in BIOL 223/224 and will certainly affect the way
material is covered. Incorporating questions from BIOL 190 will provide longitudinal
data for instructors of that course and also allow instructors of BIOL 223/224 to
assess how much of an impact they are having on promoting long-term retention of
knowledge and/or enhancing students understanding of core concepts.
b. The remaining eight questions will be pulled from the question bank. Questions will
be selected during each academic cycle to focus on a maximum of three systems
covered in that course. This will allow a more detailed assessment of specific topics
and the development of better questions, as we will no longer need 10 – 15
questions to cover an entire course.
(3) The 10 question assessment will be given as a pre- and post-test to assess student
knowledge and understanding upon both entering and leaving the course.
a. A threshold of 40% will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the pre-test as a
whole. If the departmental average is consistently greater than this, the assessment
will need to be reexamined for quality. (Assuming that students guess randomly (as
they should) on the 8 course specific questions and get both BIOL 190 questions
correct (as they should if they have retained the material), then averages scores
should typically fall between 30 and 40%. An average greater than 40% would
indicate that at least one question is being gotten right far more often that would be
expected on a pre-test.
b. Veracity of individual questions will be evaluated based on the percentage of
students that get them right on the pre-test. If more than 50% of students are getting
a question right on the pre-test (with the exception of the BIOL 190 questions), there
may be a problem with the question and in this case it needs to be examined.
(4) Two or three open-ended short answer questions will be used each year on the post-test.
a. These questions will be used along the lines as those in the 2010-11 assessment
tool to generate more data on student misconceptions.
b. Each academic year’s questions will need to be agreed upon by faculty during a fall
focus group meeting.
c. Each section will receive only one of the selected questions. Hence, each section
will do the 10 question pre-test and post-test. Each section will then have one openended question to answer and only on the post test.
d. Data collected from these questions will be considered in the annual assessment
report and will be used to generate new multiple-choice questions to expand the
question bank.
School of Sciences | Appen
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Program/Discipline/Course Assessment Report
Program: Biology
Discipline:
Course Number: BIOL 224
School/Unit: SOS
Submitted by: Steve C. Schenk
Contributing Faculty: Eddie Burke, Jamie Campbell, Jim Collier, Will Mehm, Pamela Sandstrom, Steve C. Schenk, James Verdi,
Jeff Weinert, Dan Williams, and Beate Wone
Academic Year: 2010-11
Complete and submit your assessment report electronically to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a narrative description of
the assessment activities in your program or discipline.
Program, Discipline or
Course Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the outcomes
assessed in your program or
discipline during the last
year.
Outcome #1: Students shall
acquire an understanding of
the physiological function
and anatomical structure of
the cardiovascular,
respiratory, immune,
endocrine, urinary,
reproductive and
gastrointestinal systems
including their
interrelationships.
144
Assessment Measures
Assessment Results
Use of Results
In the boxes below,
summarize the methods
used to assess program,
discipline, or course
outcomes during the last
year.
Students were given one
of four 4-question
quizzes at the end of the
semester consisting of
short answer questions
derived from past
assessments. The
quizzes were used to
determine common
student misconceptions
which would serve as
the basis for building a
new assessment tool.
See attached narrative.
In the boxes below, summarize the
results of your assessment
activities during the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you are or
how you plan to use the
results to improve student
learning.
The majority of sections reported
results each semester yielding a
minimum of 40 student responses
per question. The most notable
topic areas indicating deficiencies
were:
 Endocrinology
 Hematology
 Immunology
 Respiratory physiology
 Urinary physiology
These areas of weakness are
largely consistent with past
assessment results.
Data generated in this
report will be used to
generate a new pre-/posttest multiple-choice
assessment tool, and will
serve as the basis for future
refinement of said tool.
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
The results underscored
longstanding analyses that
suggest challenges in
BIOL 224 are linked to
poor knowledge retention
from BIOL 190. While
this has not been
traditionally considered in
the BIOL 224 assessment
process, it will be in the
Effect on Program, Discipline or
Course
Based on the results of this
assessment, will you revise your
outcomes? If so, please summarize
how and why in the boxes below.
4.
5.
6.
Greater attention will be paid
to course-to-course continuity
of sequence courses,
particularly consideration of
BIOL 190 in BIOL 224.
By identifying student
misconceptions, data from this
assessment will yield more
effective short answer
questions and better future
assessment tools. This will
allow us to better identify
specific student weaknesses,
enabling us to better respond
to these weaknesses.
The short answer question
approach to data mining will
Biology
2011-12
future.
See attached narrative for
details.
Outcome #2: Students shall
acquire the ability to apply
analytic thinking skills in
interpreting both qualitative
and quantitative data and
case studies.
As above
As above
As above
be valuable for continued use
in refining future assessment
tools.
See attached narrative for details.
Outcomes are poorly constructed
and will be revised for the next
academic year.
As above
School of Sciences | Appendix C
2011-12
146
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
2010-11 Assessment Report for BIOL 223 and BIOL 224
Report written and data analyzed by Steve C. Schenk
Data contributed by Eddie Burke, Jamie Campbell, Jim Collier, Will Mehm, Pamela
Sandstrom, Steve C. Schenk, James Verdi, Jeff Weinert, Dan Williams, and Beate Wone
Introduction
In recent years, BIOL 223 and 224 (Human Anatomy and Physiology I & II) have been assessed
using a multiple-choice tool that was given at the beginning and the ending of the course in order
to determine the growth and development of student understanding of core content. Detailed
analysis of these tests in the last two years has suggested quite strongly that the assessment tool
was deficient in ways that undermined its value in supporting and developing effective teaching of
anatomy and physiology. In particular, the following deficiencies were identified.

Some questions had >60% of students earning correct answers on the pre-test. This
suggested that a majority of students knew the material coming into the course (unlikely, as
this was core content of the course), that the concepts being covered were very easy (unlikely,
as these questions were often on topics/concepts universally identified as challenging by
instructors, or that the questions were poorly structured and lead competent students to the
right answer without knowledge of the material.

Some questions – particularly on topics grounded in cell biology – had poor performance tied
to them on the post-test. While these questions were often related to topics that are
challenging, the questions were not structured in a way that lead to easy changes in teaching
strategies based on the wrong answers and there were multiple concerns raised independently
by different instructors about different questions in terms of their appropriateness or relevance.
It should be noted that the problematic questions cannot be attributed to any one instructor or any
one teaching style. Rather, they all seem to be borne of the same root problem: the questions
were written purely from an instructor’s perspective without any sense of the deficiencies or
misconceptions our students take away from our courses.
In order to rectify this situation and generate a better assessment tool, the standard assessment
tool was eliminated for this academic year and replaced with a series of open-ended short answer
questions. Sixteen questions were developed for each course to address sixteen core concepts.
Students in each section were presented with four of these questions at the end of the semester
and asked to respond to them. These responses were then analyzed to determine what
misconceptions, errors in thinking, and misunderstandings appeared in students who have freshly
finished the course. It is important to note that this approach did NOT allow us to determine what
percentage of students successfully mastered subject A appropriately or how much their
knowledge improved from the end of the beginning to end of a semester. The goal here was to
collect data that could be used to generate a new set of multiple choice questions for future
assessment tools in which the distracters will be based on those things that are genuinely
confusing to students and not any given instructor’s impressions.
In each course (i.e. BIOL 223 and BIOL 224), the sixteen questions were split into four 4-question
assessment quizzes that were split evenly among the course sections. Only post-test
assessments were considered, as the focus here is on building a new assessment tool based on
misconceptions students take away from the course. In the two sections of this report below, the
School of Sciences | Appen
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
question categories will be presented, followed by the sixteen questions and analysis of
responses.
BIOL 224, Human Anatomy and Physiology II
Sixteen open-ended short answer questions were developed to assess student understanding of
and to identify major student misconceptions with reference to the following topics:








Endocrinology
Blood and cardiovascular physiology
Immunology
Respiratory physiology
Digestive physiology
Renal physiology
Reproduction and Development
Positive feedback
Endocrinology
1. Contrast peptide and steroid hormones in terms of transport, half-life, and receptor used.
 The vast majority could not answer this question on the post-test. Very few correct
answers were seen.
 Some focused on molecular size rather than being hydrophilic or hydrophobic.
 Some had molecules backwards with steroids requiring a membrane receptor and peptides
entering cells by diffusion.
 Not all that understood correct relationships (e.g. steroids having longer half lives,
intracellular receptors, and requiring transport proteins) could relate this to the molecule
being hydrophilic or hydrophobic.
 Specific questions on specific hormone functions could be generated based on instructor
input to determine on which hormones students should have the most universal grasp.
2. Describe the relationship between the hypothalamus and the pituitary gland.
 When the neural connection to the posterior pituitary is recognized, it is not always clear
that students understand hormones are transferred through this pathway for storage and
secretion. Some failed to indicate hormones are passed through this system; others failed
to recognize that hormones are secreted by the posterior pituitary and not simply stored
there.
 Some suggested that hormones transported to the anterior pituitary are then released by it,
rather than triggering the release of other hormones.
 Some students recognized one but not both connections between the hypothalamus and
pituitary.
Blood and cardiovascular physiology
3. Summarize the common coagulation pathway that leads to the formation of a blood clot.
 Diversity of answers but no fully correct responses.
 Many recognized the role of fibrinogen (being converted to fibrin) and could indicate names
of initiation pathways, but major clotting enzymes of the common pathway (prothrombin
activator, thrombin) were not included.
 Some confused platelet plug with coagulation or discussed three stages of hemostasis.
148
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology


2011-12
One referenced terms from bone repair (hard and soft callus) likely remembering the role of
blood clotting in that process and confusing the two.
The details of this process may need to be discussed in the focus group to determine the
level of detail universally agreed upon. The lack of complete answers here suggests that
many instructors may not require a detailed understanding of the common coagulation
pathway as part of their curriculum. The assessment of this topic (and related topics of
blood chemistry and hemostasis) need to be discussed in the focus group to determine the
appropriate level of detail for formal assessment.
4. There are three major arterial branches emerging from the top of the aortic arch. To which
body regions is blood in each of these three branches going?
 Very few correct answers; mostly blanks or fully wrong answers.
 Some could name the three vessels in question but could not necessarily tell where blood
was going.
 Several suggested that the lower body was fed by one of these branches.
 Several confused left and right sides of the body.
5. Focusing on the movement and distribution of ions, compare and contrast skeletal muscle
action potentials (APs) with those observed in cardiac muscle.
 Some could not describe the roles of ions (though many recognized the presence of the
plateau).
 Few discussed pacemaker APs and how these are different. (At least one suggested no
true RMP in cardiac muscle…true of pacemaker cells but not contractile cells).
 The majority could describe the common role of sodium and potassium in the
depolarization and repolarization phases of AP respectively.
 A good number could tie calcium to the plateau, though very few connected simultaneous
movement of calcium and potassium as producing the plateau; some suggested
simultaneous inward movement of sodium and calcium caused the plateau.
6. Summarize several ways in which sympathetic and parasympathetic stimulation of the heart
and blood vessels can be used to regulate blood pressure (BP).
 Many recognized the role of ANS stimulation in constriction and dilation of blood vessels
(with several noting the differences observed in different body regions (e.g. digestive vs.
skeletal muscle)).
 Many noted HR increased. However, many seemed to suggest an increase in BP (or
decrease in BP) as separate from the change in HR rather than the product of the change
in HR. In some cases, syntax errors (or flat out misunderstanding) lead to the suggestion
that the increase in HR was caused by dilation/constriction of vessels rather than the
changing ANS stimulation.
 None noted the difference in effect of sympathetic and parasympathetic stimulation on
SV/contractility. The term “cardiac output” was notably absent from all answers as was any
kind of reference to causes of changes in ANS stimulation (like the baroreceptor reflex).
 Specific questions related to long-term hormonal regulation of BP could be developed
based on future open-ended survey questions.
Immunology
7. Summarize the roles of a macrophage, a helper T cells, and B cells in promoting a humoral
(antibody-mediated) immune response.
School of Sciences | Appen
2011-12




PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Almost no answers here that qualify as correct in context of the question.
Macrophages frequently cited as engaging in phagocytosis, but almost no mention of acting
as a major antigen presenting cell (< 10) and no clear mentioning of use of MHC II in
presentation. Target of presentation (i.e. naïve helper T cells) almost never mentioned or
mentioned incorrectly as T cells in general.
Many noted that B cells lead to antibody production. Memory cells mentioned frequently for
either B or helper T cells (rarely both) and no clear mention of B cells presenting antigen
with MHC II for recognition and activation by helper T cells.
Specific questions related to innate immunity could be developed based on instructor input
(largely memorized processes that could be based on a commonly determined list of most
important innate topics) and questions related to cellular immunity could be developed
based on future open-ended survey questions.
8. In terms of antibodies and antigens, what does it mean for a person to have AB+ blood?
 Very few were able to indicate that antigens are present on RBCs.
 Several suggested that to be + is to lack Rh antigen.
 Some confused antibody and antigen, suggesting that people with AB blood have the A
and B antibodies.
 Some suggested both A and B antigens and antibodies were present.
 Some couched their answers entirely in terms of universal donor/recipient language and
made no specific reference to antigens or antibodies.
Respiratory physiology
9. Summarize the effects of temperature, pH, and PO2 on the delivery of oxygen to tissues in the
systemic circuit.
 Poor answers all around.
 Few references to the oxygen saturation curve, left and right shifts (particularly Bohr shifts),
and almost no recognition of how these variables relate to local metabolism.
 Several confused the systemic and pulmonary circuits, making reference to the lungs and
amount of oxygen carried.
 Specific questions related to gas laws could be developed based on future open-ended
survey questions.
10. Describe how a change in the rate of pulmonary ventilation (breathing) could produce a
decrease in plasma pH.
 Very few correct answers and many blank responses.
 Some students recognized the correct relationship between ventilation rate and pH (e.g.
hypoventilation = acidosis). However, many of these students stated this relationship
backwards, many related this to oxygen levels, and only a handful (~25% of those
recognizing the relationship) were able to relate pH to carbon dioxide. Of these, <5
correctly connected the carbonic acid-bicarbonate buffer system to carbon dioxide transport
and were able to identify it as the source of the change in pH.
 Specific questions related to oxygen transport and pulmonary ventilation could be
developed based on future open-ended survey questions.
Digestive physiology
150
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
11. Summarize the various ways in which the hormone cholesystokinin (CCK) influences the
digestive process.
 Many blank responses on post tests.
 One suggested it lead to release of pancreatic hormones to go into the small intestine.
 One suggested it has a negative feedback effect on secretin.
 Some connected it to release of bile by the gallbladder; more (just <50%) recognized its
role in inhibiting gastric motility and secretion; very few (< 5) noted its role in triggering the
release of digestive enzymes by the pancreas.
 Specific questions related to gastric cycling, deglutition, other digestive hormones, chemical
digestion, and nutrient absorption could be developed based on future open-ended survey
questions.
Renal physiology
12. Describe how you expect kidney function to change in a person who is dehydrated.
 Many recognized that kidney would retain water, urine would be more concentrated, and
ADH would play a role in this.
 Some suggested that ADH was produced by the kidney.
 Some suggested that baroreceptors would detect the dehydration which would be true for
isotonic or hypotonic dehydration, but not for hypertonic dehydration.
 None made specific reference to where ADH would act to change renal function.
 Several suggested the kidney would malfunction and filtration would be changed somehow,
though nothing specific in terms of a mechanism was identified.
 Specific questions related to glomerular filtration and transcellular reabsorption could be
developed based on future open-ended survey questions.
13. Summarize why the nephron loop (loop of Henle) is said to act as a countercurrent multiplier.
 Many poor answers.
 Very few mentioned the movement of ions, water, and urea in the loop of Henle. Some that
did had them backwards in terms of events of the ascending and descending limbs.
 Some confused the function of the vasa recta with that of the loop of Henle.
Reproduction and Development
14. Summarize how luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), and estrogen
(estradiol) promote follicle maturation and ovulation.
 Some very good answers here; majority (just > 50%) were blank or extremely short
responses.
 Some inclusion of male effects (not asked for in question).
 Most common deficiency was separating out LH from FSH in terms of specific effects.
 Second most common deficiency was failure to relate estrogen to LH/FSH surge and
subsequent ovulation.
 Specific questions related to uterine cycle, gametogenesis, and male hormonall effects
could be developed based on future open-ended survey questions.
15. Assuming that an ovum is fertilized, summarize the developmental events occurring between
ovulation and implantation.
School of Sciences | Appen
2011-12



PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
No genuinely accurate answers to this question. Many indicated they were covering it in
class that day.
Many expressed understanding of basics (i.e. where fertilization occurs, the difference
between fertilization and implantation) but there were no answers that contained proper
names for stages of embryonic development. Some even referred to the egg as becoming
an “ovum” upon fertilization.
This may reflect a general lack of emphasis on this topic by most instructors. Anecdotal
conversations with several instructors suggest that this is true and that as important as
development may be in certain areas of health science, it may not be sufficiently important
as a topic in this course to merit consideration as a topic for formal assessment. A
consensus on this point needs to be reached by faculty teaching this course during a future
focus group meeting.
Positive feedback
16. Identify one example of positive feedback used by the human body and explain why it is a
case of positive feedback.
 Many good examples here, though almost universally the example used involved the birth
process. Any questions developed based on this should focus on other prominent positive
feedback processes like blood clotting, the gastric phase of the gastric cycle, or neural
control of ventilation rather than using childbirth as an example of positive feedback.
Summary: Developing the New Assessment Tool and Modifying It in the Future
A new assessment tool will be developed over the summer of 2011 and presented to the BIOL
223/224 focus group prior to the start of the fall 2011 semester for approval. This tool will have
the following components.
(5) A bank of multiple-choice questions will be developed based on student responses to the
questions asked in the 2010-11 open response assessment.
a. These questions will all have five choices and the distracters in each question will be
tied to specific misunderstandings and misconceptions exhibited by students in the
2010-11 assessment.
b. Some additional questions may be developed in places where instructor input but
not student input is needed. For example, some topics amount to knowing
definitions. An instructor-agreed upon list of terms is all that is really needed to
develop this type of question.
(6) A ten-question assessment will be developed to give each academic year.
a. Two of the questions will cover material specific to BIOL 190. As many of the most
challenging topics in this two-course sequence are grounded in cell biology, knowing
how strong a grasp students have on old material is germane to evaluating why they
do or do not grasp certain concepts in BIOL 223/224 and will certainly affect the way
material is covered. Incorporating questions from BIOL 190 will provide longitudinal
data for instructors of that course and also allow instructors of BIOL 223/224 to
assess how much of an impact they are having on promoting long-term retention of
knowledge and/or enhancing students understanding of core concepts.
b. The remaining eight questions will be pulled from the question bank. Questions will
be selected during each academic cycle to focus on a maximum of three systems
152
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
covered in that course. This will allow a more detailed assessment of specific topics
and the development of better questions, as we will no longer need 10 – 15
questions to cover an entire course.
(7) The 10 question assessment will be given as a pre- and post-test to assess student
knowledge and understanding upon both entering and leaving the course.
a. A threshold of 40% will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the pre-test as a
whole. If the departmental average is consistently greater than this, the assessment
will need to be reexamined for quality. (Assuming that students guess randomly (as
they should) on the 8 course specific questions and get both BIOL 190 questions
correct (as they should if they have retained the material), then averages scores
should typically fall between 30 and 40%. An average greater than 40% would
indicate that at least one question is being gotten right far more often that would be
expected on a pre-test.
b. Veracity of individual questions will be evaluated based on the percentage of
students that get them right on the pre-test. If more than 50% of students are getting
a question right on the pre-test (with the exception of the BIOL 190 questions), there
may be a problem with the question and in this case it needs to be examined.
(8) Two or three open-ended short answer questions will be used each year on the post-test.
a. These questions will be used along the lines as those in the 2010-11 assessment
tool to generate more data on student misconceptions.
b. Each academic year’s questions will need to be agreed upon by faculty during a fall
focus group meeting.
c. Each section will receive only one of the selected questions. Hence, each section
will do the 10 question pre-test and post-test. Each section will then have one openended question to answer and only on the post test.
d. Data collected from these questions will be considered in the annual assessment
report and will be used to generate new multiple-choice questions to expand the
question bank.
School of Sciences | Appen
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
TMCC Program and Discipline Report
Program/Discipline: Biology 251, Microbiology
Division: SOS
Submitted by: Dan Williams
Academic Year: 2010-2011
Complete and submit your assessment report to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a
narrative description of the assessment activities in your program/discipline.
Program/Discipline
Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the outcomes
assessed in your program or
discipline during the last
year.
Assessment Measures
Assessment Results
Use of Results
Effect on the Program/Discipline
In the boxes below,
summarize the methods
used to assess program
or discipline outcomes
during the last year.
In the boxes below, summarize the
results of your assessment
activities during the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you are or
how you plan to use the
results to improve student
learning.
Based on the results of this year,
will you revise your assessment
plan? If so, please summarize how
and why in the boxes below.
The student will
correctly answer
questions requiring
conceptual
understanding.
Students took the same set of
15 questions on the first day
of class and on the last day
of class. Ten questions
address general content
knowledge, and 5 questions
address the interpretation of
quantitative information.
The post assessment scores
for general content
knowledge showed an
average improvement of
36% for all classes.
The essential concepts
of microbiology are
currently well
understood by our
students. Clinical
application of course
material continues to
be less understood
than the factual
information. We must
better isolate our data
concerning those
questions on future
analyses. Until then,
clinical application
remains an emphasis
for improvement.
As mentioned last year, we
intended to assess two other
Learning outcomes this year.
However, the Biology
department changed the
learning outcomes for Biol
251: Microbiology so that we
currently have only two
learning outcomes. Our
assessment instrument added
5 questions that address
quantitative thinking and
research skills.
Outcome #1:
Students will acquire
general knowledge of
the various types of
microorganisms
known to exist and
learn their general
characteristics
including cell
morphology and
physiology,
taxonomy, roles in
infectious diseases,
and environmental
importance.
154
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
Outcome #2:
Students will be able
to perform basic
microbiological skills
including proper
sterile technique,
bacterial cell culture
and identification,
and microscopy skills.
Students will also be
able to design and
conduct simple
scientific experiments
using the scientific
method.
To better assess our
students’ ability to
perform simple
experiments using
the scientific
method, we will be
developing a self
assessment
questionnaire that
the students will fill
in at the beginning
and the end of each
Biol 251 class. A
pilot questionnaire
will be administered
during the Fall,
2011 semester.
For the comprehension of
quantitative knowledge, a
key skill for understanding
and executing scientific
experiments, students
showed an average
improvement of 20.5% for
all classes.
This is the first set of
data we have collected
for interpreting
quantitative data.
Five Questions were added
to our assessment instrument
to evaluate students’
understanding of quantitative
data
Outcome #:3
Biol 251 no longer has
3 learning outcomes
School of Sciences | Appendix C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
# Missed Question #
Pre-Test
General Content Knowledge 1 184 2 126 3 150 4 169 5 149 6 188 7 128 8 148 9 45 10 122 Interpreting Quantitative Data 11 117 12 117 13 127 14 125 15 144 156
% Missed Pre-Test
# MissedPost-Test
% Missed Post-Test
Topic
81.4
55.8
66.4
74.8
65.9
83.2
56.6
65.5
19.9
54
83
80
35
35
64
101
30
69
7
79
41.5 40 17.5 17.5 32 50.5 15 34.5 3.5 39.5 Cell morphology Metabolic strategies Aerobic/anaerobic Bacterial counts Controlling growth Gene transfer Epidemiology Clinical applications Antibiotic resistance Acquired immunity 51.8
51.8
56.2
55.3
63.7
79
82
89
60
42
39.5 41 44.5 30 21 Reading Graphs Serial Dilution Generation Time Interpreting t‐test Antibiotic Sensitivity Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
TMCC Program and Discipline Report
Program/Discipline: Biology 100, Non-Majors Biology
Division: SOS
Submitted by: J. Ellsworth
Academic Year: 2009-2010
Complete and submit your assessment report to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a narrative description of the
assessment activities in your program/discipline.
Program/Discipline
Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the outcomes
assessed in your program or
discipline during the last
year.
Assessment Measures
Assessment Results
Use of Results
Effect on the Program/Discipline
In the boxes below,
summarize the methods
used to assess program
or discipline outcomes
during the last year.
In the boxes below, summarize the
results of your assessment
activities during the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you are or
how you plan to use the
results to improve student
learning.
Based on the results of this year,
will you revise your assessment
plan? If so, please summarize how
and why in the boxes below.
Outcome #1: Be able to
explain the major
characteristics of science and
recognize the difference
between scientific vs. nonscientific ideas.
Pre-test questions at
beginning of class and
compare to post-test of
same questions
following instruction.
There are 20 questions
(see attached).
Data were submitted from three
sections of the course. Each
section showed a gain in score over
the course of the semester. The
overall average pre-test score was
66% and the overall average posttest score was 70%.
We plan to develop new
assessment questions
focusing on the curriculum
update that was developed
Spring 2009 (see attached),
adopted Fall 2009, and first
implemented Spring 2010
The curriculum revision of Spring
2009 came out of dissatisfaction
with the current assessment tool
and the need to standardize the
course across sections and
instructors. Our new assessment
will focus on the new curriculum.
Outcome #2:
School of Sciences | Appendix C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Outcome #:3
Burke - Biol 100 - D01 - Spring 2010
Student_ID
Pre-test score
1
11
2
18
4
14
5
16
11
19
12
11
15
13
16
12
18
13
20
14
22
13
25
14
26
15
28
10
Pre-test %
Post-test score
Post-test %
Difference
55
90
70
80
95
55
65
60
65
70
65
70
75
50
10
12
18
16
18
13
15
16
12
16
14
12
17
14
50
60
90
80
90
65
75
80
60
80
70
60
85
70
-5
-30
20
0
-5
10
10
20
-5
10
5
-10
10
20
13.78571429
68.92857143
14.5
72.5
3.571428571
Sveta - Biol 100 - D02 - Spring 2010
1
10
3
9
4
12
5
13
7
15
8
15
50
45
60
65
75
75
12
14
14
18
13
14
60
70
70
90
65
70
10
25
10
25
-10
-5
n=14
158
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
12
16
18
19
24
25
27
2011-12
11
9
16
9
14
15
13
55
45
80
45
70
75
65
11
10
13
12
14
17
10
55
50
65
60
70
85
50
0
5
-15
15
0
10
-15
12.38461538
61.92307692
13.23076923
66.15384615
4.230769231
11
11
16
16
18
14
12
15
14
13
13
11
14
16
11
13
15
55
55
80
80
90
70
60
75
70
65
65
55
70
80
55
65
75
10
10
13
17
16
18
13
17
17
14
12
11
17
14
13
14
15
50
50
65
85
80
90
65
85
85
70
60
55
85
70
65
70
75
-5
-5
-15
5
-10
20
5
10
15
5
-5
0
15
-10
10
5
0
n=17
13.70588235
68.52941176
14.17647059
70.88235294
2.352941176
Overall, n=44
13.34090909
66.70454545
14
70
3.295454545
n=13
Sveta - Biol 100 - N01 - Spring 2010
2
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
26
School of Sciences | Appendix C
Biology
Biology 100 General Biology for Non-Majors
Course Topics and Objectives
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
2011-12
Updated February 5, 2009
Julie Ellsworth
Processes of Science
a. Understand the general process of the scientific method (hypothesis testing)
b. Understand that science is a particular way of knowing that seeks natural causes for
phenomenon and depends upon observations that can be confirmed
c. Understand that science is evidence-based and ideas can change in response to new
evidence, and theories are well-supported bodies of knowledge
d. Examples of how science, and biology in particular, has affected humanity
Introduction to Life and Cells
a. Cells are composed of molecules, molecules are composed of atoms, and atoms are composed
of subatomic particles
b. Define the characteristics of life
c. Understand the important properties of water
d. Introduce the major biological macromolecules – carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and nucleic
acids – and the concept of nutrients
e. Introduce major cell types (prokaryotic vs. eukaryotic), cellular organelles, and recognize that
viruses are not cells
f. Explain that all organisms convert food into energy at the cellular level and that photoautotrophs (like plants) convert sunlight energy into food
Introduction to Genetics
a. Understand the relationship of cellular division (mitosis) to organismal growth, cellular repair,
and diseases (such as cancer)
b. Understand the relationship of cellular division in certain cells (meiosis) to the inheritance of
genes and the variety in resulting offspring
c. Explain the flow of genetic information from genes to proteins and how those proteins influence
organismal traits
d. Introduce the inheritance patterns of traits dictated by one gene (qualitative traits) and how
many interesting traits are influenced by multiple genes
e. Examples of genetic technology (such as PCR and DNA profiling)
Introduction to Evolution
a. Introduce the variety of species and the principles of organismal classification
b. Understand that genetic variation is the raw material for evolution and that natural selection and
other processes lead to evolutionary change
c. Describe some of the major lines of evidence supporting the theory of common ancestry and
descent with modification (fossil record, vestigial structures, homologies, molecular similarities,
etc.)
d. Understand the relationship between reproductive isolation and speciation
Introduction to Ecology
a. Describe examples of population growth and relate them to limiting resources and carrying
capacity
b. Understand some basic interactions within ecological communities, such as competition,
predation, mutualism, and food-web dynamics
c. Introduce how energy flows through ecosystems and how nutrients, water, and carbon cycle
through ecosystems
d. Identify and describe the major biomes on the planet
e. Introduce the concept of biodiversity and how it relates to topics in conservation biology or
restoration ecology
f. Examples of how humans have impacted habitats, species, and ecosystems, including global
climate change issues
School of Sciences | Appen
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Biology 100 Assessment Questions
KEY
Carefully read the following questions and chose the single best answer for each. Fill in each of your answers on the
scantron sheet provided.
1. All scientific knowledge is, in principle, subject to change as new evidence becomes available.
a. ***True
b. False
2. Science works by deciding upon a conclusion and then looking for evidence to support the conclusion.
a. True
b. ***False
3. The goal of science is to replace others ways of knowing, such as art, religion, and philosophy.
a. True
b. ***False
4. Scientists use empirical evidence, logic, and skepticism to strive for the best explanation.
a. ***True
b. False
5. Science can only investigate natural explanations of phenomena.
a. ***True
b. False
6. A scientific theory is a highly controversial idea that does not have much support.
a. True
b. ***False
7. If a hypothesis is logical and scientific, then it must be true.
a. True
b. ***False
8. All sources of information on a subject must be given equal weight in order to be fair when scientifically
evaluating that subject.
a. True
b. ***False
9. The genes that you inherit from your parents are made of protein.
a. True
b. ***False
10. The set of genes contained in one of your skin cells is completely different from the set of genes contained in
one of your liver cells.
a. True
b. ***False
162
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
TMCC Program and Discipline Report
Program/Discipline: Biology 113, Life in the Ocean
Division: SOS
Submitted by: J. Ellsworth
Academic Year: 2009-2010
Complete and submit your assessment report to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a narrative description of the
assessment activities in your program/discipline.
Program/Discipline
Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the outcomes
assessed in your program or
discipline during the last
year.
Assessment Measures
Assessment Results
Use of Results
Effect on the Program/Discipline
In the boxes below,
summarize the methods
used to assess program
or discipline outcomes
during the last year.
In the boxes below, summarize the
results of your assessment
activities during the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you are or
how you plan to use the
results to improve student
learning.
Based on the results of this year,
will you revise your assessment
plan? If so, please summarize how
and why in the boxes below.
Outcome #1: Be able to
explain the major
characteristics of science and
learn basic content
information related to marine
biology
Pre-test questions at
beginning of class and
compare to post-test of
same questions
following instruction.
There are 20 questions
(see attached).
Data were submitted from one
section from Fall 2090 and one
section from Spring 2010. Each
section showed a gain in score.
The overall average pre-test score
was 64% and the overall average
post-test score was 74% (see
attached).
The instructor plans to
continue to focus content
delivery on the areas tested
with this assessment tool.
Over 5% gains were made
from Fall to Spring by
implementing this focus
following the initial
assessment.
This was the first time assessing
this course and the instructor was
pleased with the assessment tool
and how she was able to improve
student learning. We plan to use
the tool for one more year before
considering a change.
Outcome #2:
School of Sciences | Appendix C
Biology
Student_ID
Pre-test score
Pre-test %
Post-test score
2011-12
Post-test %
Difference
Biology 113 Fall 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
n=22
Biology 113 Spring 2010
1
2
3
14
9
8
12
16
10
11
14
12
12
18
12
12
14
11
16
12
13
17
13
15
13
70
65
14
13
9
13
16
14
12
13
17
14
17
10
17
15
17
20
10
13
16
13
20
13
12.90909091
64.54545455
13
9
14
65
45
70
45
40
60
80
50
55
70
60
60
90
60
60
70
55
80
60
65
85
65
75
70
0
65
20
45
5
65
5
80
0
70
20
60
5
65
-5
85
25
70
10
85
-5
50
-10
85
25
75
5
85
30
100
20
50
-10
65
0
80
-5
65
0
100
25
65
0
14.36363636
71.81818182
7.272727273
14
11
14
70
55
70
5
10
0
School of Sciences | Appen
2011-12
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
166
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
14
15
11
11
18
14
9
12
13
13
14
15
13
13
10
14
14
13
14
70
75
55
55
90
70
45
60
65
65
70
75
65
65
50
70
70
65
70
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
15
14
20
16
16
18
15
14
17
16
17
16
18
15
12
17
14
15
15
75
70
100
80
80
90
75
70
85
80
85
80
90
75
60
85
70
75
75
5
-5
45
25
-10
20
30
10
20
15
15
5
25
10
10
15
0
10
5
Biology
23
n=23
overall n=55
2011-12
8
40
13
65
25
12.7826087
63.91304348
15.30434783
76.52173913
12.60869565
12.84444444
64.22222222
14.84444444
74.22222222
10
School of Sciences | Appen
Biology
2011-12
TMCC Program and Discipline Report
Program/Discipline: Biology 141B – Human Structure and Function I
Division: MSET
Submitted by: Jamie Campbell– May 18, 2010
Academic Year: 2009 - 2010
Complete and submit your assessment report to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a
narrative description of the assessment activities in your program/discipline.
Program/Discipline
Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the
outcomes assessed in
your program or
discipline during the
last year.
Outcome #1: Students
will have a basic
understanding of the
scientific method,
chemistry, cell and
tissue structure and the
skeletal, muscular,
cardiovascular,
digestive and
lymphatic systems and
their
interrelationships.
Assessment
Measures
In the boxes below,
summarize the
methods used to
assess program or
discipline outcomes
during the last year.
Students were given a
15 question quiz on
the first and last day
of class. Quiz
questions were based
on overall course
content and
developed by faulty.
They are believed to
be the major take
home points of the
course.
See attached
narrative.
Assessment Results
Use of Results
In the boxes below,
summarize the results of your
assessment activities during
the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you
are or how you plan
to use the results to
improve student
learning.
Results indicate an
increase in learning
which is of similar
magnitude across all
three sections
assessed. The values
are also in line with
percent increases
seen in other Biology
courses. See attached
narrative.
The quiz scores for three
sections were compared and
tabulated. There was one
section of BIOL 141B
offered each semester:
Spring ’09, Fall ’09 and
Spring ’10. The percent
increase in scores between
the pretest and the posttest
averaged 17.7% with an
average Hake score of .310.
See attached narrative.
Effect on the
Program/Discipline
Based on the results of this
year, will you revise your
assessment plan? If so, please
summarize how and why in
the boxes below.
The assessment quiz
administered in 2009 – 2010
was the first one designed.
Question by question
analysis was performed and it
will be used for revision of
this assessment tool. See
attached narrative.
Outcome #2: There is
only one outcome for
this course.
Outcome #3 There is
only one outcome for
this course.
School of Sciences | Appen
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
TMCC Program and Discipline Report
Program/Discipline: Biology 141B – Human Structure & Function II
Division: MSET
Submitted by: Jamie Campbell – May 18th, 2010
Academic Year: 2009/10
Complete and submit your assessment report to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a
narrative description of the assessment activities in your program/discipline.
Program/Discipline
Assessment
Assessment Results
Use of Results
Effect on the
Outcomes
Measures
Program/Discipline
In the boxes below,
In the boxes below,
In the boxes below,
In the boxes below,
Based on the results of
summarize the
summarize the
summarize the results of your summarize how you
this year, will you revise
outcomes assessed in
methods used to
assessment activities during
are or how you plan
your assessment plan? If
your program or
assess program or
the last year.
to use the results to
so, please summarize
discipline during the
discipline outcomes
improve student
how and why in the
last year.
during the last year.
learning.
boxes below.
Outcome #1: Students Students were given a The quiz scores were
The assessment quiz
This is the first time this
will have a basic
15 question quiz the
compared and tabulated.
questions identified
course has been assessed
understanding of the
first day of class and
This is the first semester for
one possible
and, therefore, this is the
special senses and
last day of class.
assessing this course and this curricular areas for
first version of the
nervous,
The quiz was based
semester there was only 1
concern –fluid
assessment quiz. The
integumentary,
on overall course
section of BIOL 142B.
balance. See attached quiz questions will be
respiratory, endocrine, objectives and
Assessment data for this
narrative.
examined to identify any
urinary, reproductive
covered a sampling
section show an average
problems and revised to
and immune systems
of the major themes.
improvement of 36.4 % when
address those problems.
and their
See attached
comparing pre and posttests
Some questions will be
interrelationships.
narrative.
of individual students. See
replaced to address
attached narrative.
application of
knowledge. See attached
narrative.
Outcome #2: There is
only one outcome for
BIOL 142B.
Outcome #3: There is
only one outcome for
BIOL 142B.
170
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
(Please enter your name and section in the yellow boxes.) Instructor name: Beate Wone Student Name Taken Course or identifier Before (Yes/No) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 COUNT AVERAGE BIOL Section: 142B Pre‐lecture (number correct) 7
8
9
7
8
6
5
7
8
7
8
5
6
5
8
5
8
9
2
2
6
Post‐lecture (# correct) 10 12 11 7 11 8 12 7 11 13 10 11 8 12 13 6 7 7 8 10 7 % 58.3333
66.6667
75
58.3333
66.6667
50
41.6667
58.3333
66.6667
58.3333
66.6667
41.6667
50
41.6667
66.6667
41.6667
66.6667
75
16.6667
16.6667
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
37.7778 % 83.3333 100 91.6667 58.3333 91.6667 66.6667 100 58.3333 91.6667 108.333 83.3333 91.6667 66.6667 100 108.333 50 58.3333 58.3333 66.6667 83.3333 58.3333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 55.8333 % Difference
25
33.3333
16.6667
0
25
16.6667
58.3333
0
25
50
16.6667
50
16.6667
58.3333
41.6667
8.33333
‐8.3333
‐16.667
50
66.6667
8.33333
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
18.0556
Hake 0.6 1 0.66667 0 0.75 0.33333 1 0 0.75 1.2 0.5 0.85714 0.33333 1 1.25 0.14286 ‐0.25 ‐0.6667 0.6 0.8 0.16667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0.36778 School of Sciences | Appen
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
TMCC Program and Discipline Report
Program/Discipline: Biology 141B – Human Structure & Function II
Division: MSET
Submitted by: Jamie Campbell – May 18th, 2010
Academic Year: 2009/10
Complete and submit your assessment report to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach
supporting documents and/or a narrative description of the assessment activities in your
program/discipline.
Program/Discipline
Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the
outcomes assessed in
your program or
discipline during the
last year.
Outcome #1: Students
will have a basic
understanding of the
special senses and
nervous,
integumentary,
respiratory, endocrine,
urinary, reproductive
and immune systems
and their
interrelationships.
Assessment
Measures
In the boxes below,
summarize the
methods used to
assess program or
discipline outcomes
during the last year.
Students were given a
15 question quiz the
first day of class and
last day of class.
The quiz was based
on overall course
objectives and
covered a sampling
of the major themes.
See attached
narrative.
Assessment Results
Use of Results
In the boxes below,
summarize the results of your
assessment activities during
the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you
are or how you plan
to use the results to
improve student
learning.
The assessment quiz
questions identified
one possible
curricular areas for
concern –fluid
balance. See attached
narrative.
The quiz scores were
compared and tabulated.
This is the first semester for
assessing this course and this
semester there was only 1
section of BIOL 142B.
Assessment data for this
section show an average
improvement of 36.4 % when
comparing pre and posttests
of individual students. See
attached narrative.
Outcome #2: There is
only one outcome for
BIOL 142B.
Outcome #3: There is
only one outcome for
BIOL 142B.
172
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Effect on the
Program/Discipline
Based on the results of this
year, will you revise your
assessment plan? If so, please
summarize how and why in
the boxes below.
This is the first time this
course has been assessed and,
therefore, this is the first
version of the assessment
quiz. The quiz questions will
be examined to identify any
problems and revised to
address those problems.
Some questions will be
replaced to address
application of knowledge.
See attached narrative.
Biology
2011-12
Annual Biology Assessment Report
Biol 142B - Human Structure and Function II
2009 - 2010
1. Contributing faculty: Jamie Campbell
Data supplied by: Jamie Campbell
2. Summary of assessment activities:
a. Educational philosophy, course and laboratory curriculum
BIOL 141B and 142B are sequential laboratory based courses dealing with the anatomical structure and
physiological function of body systems. The lectures and laboratories focus on the structure and the
complimentary function of each body system. Elementary chemistry and cell & molecular biology are
taught as background along with basic histology. Then all 11 human body systems are covered over the two
semesters. These courses are required for the allied health programs training Radiological Technicians,
Dietetic Technicians, Massage Therapists, and Paramedics. This course is not a prerequisite for RN Nursing
programs or Dental Hygiene.
A set of objectives was developed and submitted for the course at its inception.
The laboratory supports the lecture material by presenting the anatomy using histology slides, models,
websites, pictures, organ specimens, a human cadaver, and lab manual exercises.
Evaluations of the lecture material is accomplished via written examinations and assignments measuring the
students understanding of conceptual information.
Evaluations of the laboratory material is accomplished via written examinations where the students are
required to identify tissues, organs & specimens and describe physical principles.
One learning outcomes has been established for Biol 142B:
1. Students will have a basic understanding of the special senses and nervous, integumentary, respiratory,
endocrine, urinary, reproductive and immune systems and their interrelationships.
c. Methods
Assessment was accomplished in BIOL 142B lecture by administering a 15 question, multiple choice quiz
to students the first day of class and again with the final exam on the last day of class. The questions were
written to address a sampling of the course curriculum including a few laboratory-based questions, but with
the majority of the questions addressing lecture curriculum.
The results were tabulated for spring semester. Pre-test and post-test scores for the only section offered and
were assembled in pair-wise fashion with the mean improvement determined for each class. Data from
students who took only the pre-test or only the post-test were excluded from analysis.
School of Sciences | Appen
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
This year Hake gain <g> scores were calculated for comparing student learning relative to where they
started. This was calculated as follows:
<g> = (post-test score – pre-test score)/(100% - pre-test score)
In addition, data for this one section was aggregated to allow a question-by-question comparison of student
performance on both the pre-test and the posttest.
3. Results:
Spring 2010 Data
Assessments were performed and results reported for the only section offered in the Spring semester, 2010.
Table 1 – Spring – BIOL 142B Assessment Data
Pre-test
Post-test
Section
N
Mean Score Mean Score
D01
15
29.5%
65.9%
OVERALL
29.5%
65.9%
% Increase
36.4%
36.4%
Hake
gain
.517
.517
The data observed in Table 1 are consistent with other Biology courses, although the percent increase 0f
36.4% might be slightly higher than other Biology courses. Hake score averages were .517 demonstrating
that for each student relative to the number of questions they scored correctly on the pretest, each student
made solid increases on their posttest. All but two students had a .517 Hake calculation or greater.
Comparisons will be made between this section and other BIOL 142B sections offered in the future.
Individual Question Analyses
Table 2: Questions-by-question breakdown of aggregate data for 27 students in one section. All
values reported at the PRE and POST rows are percentages of students who answered the
question correctly. The DIFF row represents the difference between the PRE and POST rows.
DIFF average was 44.3%
Question Number
%
Corr
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13
14
15
ect
15.
11. 30.
38.
42. 57.
0
46.2
7.7
30.8 3.8
0
3.8
34.6
0
PRE
4
5
8
5
3
7
46.
53.
34. 69.
96. 80. 84. 46. 80.
POS
80.8
46.2
69.2 84.6
50
65.4
2
8
6
2
2
8
6
2
8
T
46.
38.
23. 38.
57. 80. 80.
23.
34.2
38.5
38.4 80.8
3.9
15.4
65.4
DIFF
2
4
1
4
5
8
8
1
174
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
Biology
2011-12
All the questions on these tests represent material covered in BIOL 142B and they were designed so that the
majority of students entering the course would not be familiar with their answers. Data aggregated from 26
students in this one section of BIOL 142B held in the spring of 2010 are shown in Table 2. Performance on
individual questions was examined and those that > 44 % of students answered correctly on the pre-test or
those that < 44 % of students answered correctly on the post-test were considered potentially problematic.
Questions could be problematic because they were either written so poorly a student could figure out the
answer without having specific knowledge of it or students already knew the answer prior to starting the
class. Posttest questions could be problematic because they were just too difficult for the course content as
taught.
The question identified by pretest criteria was question 13 (Mendelian genetics). Question #13 will be
replaced, because when this topic was introduced in class, many students indicated they had studied
Mendelian genetics in prior coursework.
The questions identified as problematic using this posttest criteria was question 5. That question dealt with
epidermal function, and it appears that is was not written well, so it will be revised.
Another way of looking at the questions was to see which ones had poor increases in percentage between
pretest and posttest. This comparison is shown in the DIFF row of Table 2. Only question 12, showed a
less than average increase – an only 3.9 percent increase. See the next section for suggested remedies.
4. Improvement of student learning:
This is the first time this course has been assessed. Assessment questions were designed to address the
basic knowledge of a variety of course topics, and the results suggest that students know more about these
topics after the course than before as there was a 36.4% increase in their individualized posttest scores.
When examining each question, the class as a whole increased an average of 44.3% for each question.
However, there were some questions that too many students knew in the pretest (question 13) and that will
be replaced. Question 5 and 12 appeared to be problematic using posttest criteria. Question 5 will be
revised as it was poorly written. The topic of question 12 (fluid balance) will be targeted to make sure that
it is taught clearly and carefully as there doesn’t appear to be a problem with the question.
Overall, this was a good first step in BIOL 142B assessment, but the questions simply looked for knowledge
acquired and did not address specific applications of knowledge learned. Therefore, some application type
questions should be added for further refinement of assessment.
5. Assessment revision plans:
To see if students can demonstrate the application of their knowledge, a few existing questions will be
eliminated and new ones requiring such application will be added for FY 2010-11.
School of Sciences | Appen
Biology
2011-12
TMCC Program and Discipline Report
Program/Discipline: Biology 190
Division: SOS
Submitted by: Melissa Deadmond
Academic Year: 2009-2010
Complete and submit your assessment report to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a
narrative description of the assessment activities in your program/discipline.
Program/Discipline
Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the outcomes
assessed in your program or
discipline during the last
year.
Assessment Measures
Assessment Results
Use of Results
Effect on the Program/Discipline
In the boxes below,
summarize the methods
used to assess program
or discipline outcomes
during the last year.
In the boxes below, summarize the
results of your assessment
activities during the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you are or
how you plan to use the
results to improve student
learning.
Based on the results of this year,
will you revise your assessment
plan? If so, please summarize how
and why in the boxes below.
Outcome #1:
Students will acquire a basic
knowledge of cellular and
molecular biology.
We administered a 12question, multiplechoice knowledge and
analysis-based
assessment survey to
students at the beginning
of the first day of class
and at the end of the last
class meeting before the
final exam. This survey
reflected thematic-based
learner outcome topics
that, as opposed to
recalling specific pieces
of information, required
the student to either
synthesize or understand
the broader concept.
We observed a range of 23.847.7% improvement on the postassessment survey, which is an
improvement from the last
academic year. Students averaged
20.16% and 30.98% improvements
for fall and spring semesters,
respectively. Hake gains for
ranged from 0.30 – 0.58
throughout the academic year, with
average <g> values of 0.47 and
0.45 for the fall and spring
semesters, respectively. This is an
improvement from the respective
fall and spring semester values of
0.35 and 0.40 observed in the
previous year.
pH, macromolecules, cellular
respiration and Mendelian genetics
were identified as areas that
students performed poorly on.
These areas continue to be
observed as problematic.
We plan to emphasize pH
in our curriculum, possibly
by re-including a
laboratory exercise on pH.
We also plan to look more
closely at the question
about cellular respiration to
see if poor wording is
contributing to students’
poor performance in this
area.
No. Assessment questions
correspond to agreed-upon, themebased objectives. Since some of
the assessment questions were used
for the first time in the Spring 2009
semester, we would like to collect
more data.
School of Sciences | Appendix C
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Outcome #2:
Students will learn to
communicate about the
molecular and cellular basis
of life.
No assessment tool is
currently available for
this learning outcome.
Outcome #:3
Students shall understand the
scientific method, be able to
design and carry out a
scientific experiment,
analyze collected data
utilizing accepted methods,
and write a clear and
readable report following an
accepted research report
format.
We administered a 12question pre and postassessment survey that
addressed conducting
controlled scientific
experiments, sources of
scientific information,
statistical significance
and data analysis..
A lesser % improvement was
observed for this learning outcome.
Percent improvement values
ranged from 14.4-25.4% with an
average % increase of 13.8 and
17.1% for the fall and spring
semesters, respectively. This is an
improvement from the 3.69%19.44% range and 13.55% average
observed last year. For the second
year in a row, laboratory content
areas of molarity calculation,
metric conversion, logic of
hypothesis testing,
inductive/deductive reasoning
definition proved to be
troublesome; however, there was
improvement in the areas of
conducting a properly controlled
experiment and understanding
statistical significance. Hake
ranged from 0.18-0.40 with
averages of 0.32 and 0.28 for the
fall and spring semesters,
respectively. This is an
improvement from the 0.08 – 0.35
range observed last year. In
addition, 9 of 15 total sections
assessed obtained a Hake gain >
0.3, which is considered a medium
or acceptable gain.
178
Appendix C | Truckee Meadows Community College
We plan to emphasize
these topics in the
laboratory curriculum and
better communicate these
needs to part-time faculty,
since many part-time
faculty teach the lab
portion of this course.
Two faculty members are
also planning on writing an
NSF grant to improve
laboratory curriculum so
that the curriculum better
matches the assessment
tool.
No. Since Spring 2009 was the
first semester that the laboratorybased assessment survey was used,
we would like to collect more data.
Annual Biology Assessment Report BIOL 190: Introduction to Cell and Molecular Biology 2009‐2010 Submitted by: Melissa Deadmond Contributing faculty: Julie Ellsworth, Kristin Hoffbuhr, Scott Huber, Jeff Weinert, and Beate Wone, and Bernard Wone. Course Curriculum: Biology 190, Introduction to Cell and Molecular Biology, is the pre‐requisite to all 200‐level courses offered by the Biology Department, most notably BIOL 223 (Human Anatomy & Physiology I), BIOL 224 (Human Anatomy & Physiology II), and BIOL 251 (General Microbiology). This supports both pre‐
requisite classes for allied health programs and the science general education component for transferring Biology majors. The course pre‐requisites, ENG 101 or 113 and MATH 120 or 126 (or equivalent Accuplacer, SAT or ACT scores), are designed to promote success by having the students first demonstrate basic, college‐level skills in math and English. Because of its foundational nature, the Biology faculty have identified BIOL 190 as one of the most important courses taught. Faculty meet as a BIOL 190/190L focus group throughout the academic year to evaluate course curriculum and standardized learning objectives. Individual instructors used written exams and quizzes as the primary mechanisms of evaluating a student’s understanding of these concepts. Students more or less experienced a traditional lecture format with occasional active learning activities incorporated at the instructor’s discretion. The laboratory is designed to support lecture content as well as to emphasize application of the scientific method, including scientific analysis and interpretation of data, and to promote the communication of experimental outcomes both orally and in writing. In order to enhance analytical skills, instructors use a laboratory manual written and updated by Biology Department faculty, which emphasizes hypothesis‐driven experiments and incorporates more mathematical calculations, data organization and analysis, and elementary statistical testing. In addition, an exercise on evaluating sources of scientific information is used in order to emphasize the concepts of credibility, using data to support arguments, and primary versus secondary sources. To assess these concepts, individual instructors evaluated laboratory manual entries, formal written reports, and oral presentations. Instructors also administered laboratory practical exams to assess a student’s knowledge of equipment use, supporting mathematical calculations, and data interpretation. Course Learning Outcomes and Summary of Department‐Level Assessment Activities: 1. Students will acquire a basic knowledge of cellular and molecular biology. 2. Students shall understand the scientific method, be able to design and carry out a scientific experiment, analyze collected data utilizing accepted methods, and write a clear and readable report following an accepted research report format. 3. Students will learn to communicate about the molecular and cellular basis of life. At the department level, a 12‐question, multiple choice, knowledge and analysis‐based quiz to students at the beginning of the first day of class and at the end of the last class meeting before the final exam. Truckee Meadows Community College | Description of Program/Unit
179
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
The topics of Inorganic Chemistry, Organic Macromolecules, Cytology (cell structure), Membrane Physiology, Cell Signaling, Cellular Energetics (cellular respiration & photosynthesis), Cellular Growth & Division, Heredity, Gene Expression, and Gene Regulation form the basis of the lecture assessment survey. A separate laboratory assessment survey emphasizing the areas of controlled experimentation, metric conversion, molarity calculation, microscopy, statistical significance, hypothesis formulation, sources of scientific information, and data analysis was administered. These concepts were separated from the lecture assessment because there can be different lab and lecture instructors for a given section. Results of Lecture Assessment: Overall improvement ranged from 23.8‐47.7% with averages of 35.4 and 34.5 for the fall and spring semesters, respectively. This is an improvement from the 12.72%‐45.18% range and 20.16% and 30.98% fall and spring semesters averages observed last academic year. In addition, we consistently observed certain content areas that students still did not grasp at semester’s end. This was indicated by topics in which greater than 50% of the students missed the question in at least 1/2 of participating course sections. Troublesome lecture content areas were pH, macromolecules, cellular respiration, and Mendelian genetics. These were the same troublesome content areas observed last year. In addition to post‐assessment percentages and % improvement values, averaged normalized gain values, <g>, otherwise known as Hake Gains i (named after Richard R. Hake, who first proposed them), were reported. The advantage of <g> values is that they consider the improvement relative to the pre‐
assessment score. As a hypothetical example, a student scoring a 90% on the post‐assessment test, which would be a favorable score, might still have a low <g> if the student had a pre‐assessment score of 80%. By comparison, a student with a 59% post‐assessment score, which is considered a failing percentage by most faculty, would still demonstrate a high <g> if the student had a pre‐assessment score of 10% or less. According to Hake, <g> > 0.7 is considered a high gain, <g> of 0.3‐0.7 is considered a medium gain, and <g> of less than 0.3 is considered a low gain ii. Hake gains for ranged from 0.30 – 0.58 throughout the academic year, with average <g> values of 0.47 and 0.45 for the fall and spring semesters, respectively (Tables 1 and 2). This is an improvement from the respective fall and spring semester values of 0.35 and 0.40 observed in the previous year. Table 1. Biology 190 Lecture Assessment: Fall 2009 (including Summer 2009). The table represents unpaired data for individual students (n) who took the pre‐assessment and post‐assessment survey in each course section for % Increase. Hake Gain is based on paired data (n = # students who took the post‐assessment). Troublesome content areas reflect questions that > 50% of students answered incorrectly on the post‐assessment. Overall analysis reflects totals for n, averages for percentages and Hake Gain, and content areas observed to be troublesome in at least 50% of the participating sections. 0F
1F
Section D01 (Summer) D02 (Summer) D03 n Pre Ave. % n Post Ave. % % Increase Hake Gain (post‐pre) (100‐pre) 0.48
Troublesome Content Areas 23 23.9 25 62.0 37.7 26 25.0 24 58.0 34.0 0.45 (Analysis not conducted) 30 16.9 13 55.8 35.3 0.41 pH, macromolecules, cell signaling, mitosis/cell cycle, Mendelian inheritance 180
(Analysis not conducted) Biology
2011-12
D07 21 25.0 18 65.7 38.9 0.52 Macromolecules, gene expression Overall (Averages or total n) 100 25.0 80 60.4 35.4 0.47 Possibly macromolecules, although data are too few Table 2. Biology 190 Lecture Assessment: Spring 2010. The table represents unpaired data for individual students (n) who took the pre‐assessment and post‐assessment survey in each course section for % Increase. Hake Gain is based on paired data (n = # students who took the post‐assessment). Troublesome content areas reflect questions that > 50% of students answered incorrectly on the post‐
assessment. Overall analysis reflects totals for n, averages for percentages and Hake Gain, and content areas observed to be troublesome in at least 50% of the participating sections. n/a = data not available Section n Pre Ave. % n Post Ave. % % Increase D01 27 25.6 18 58.8
33.8
Hake Gain (post‐pre) (100‐pre) 0.45
D03 14 29.8 14 56.0
26.2
0.38
D04 D07 N02 18 22.7 18 62.5
39.8
0.52
24 28 18.4 27.7 18 21 66.2
54.8
47.7
23.8
0.58
0.30
N03 25 29.3 23 62.3
35.5
0.48
25.6 112 60.1
34.5
0.45
Overall 136 (Averages or total n) Troublesome Content Areas pH, macromolecules, cellular respiration, gene expression pH, macromolecules, cell signaling, gene expression, Mendelian inheritance pH, macromolecules, cellular respiration, Mendelian inheritance macromolecules macromolecules, cellular respiration, gene expression Macromolecules, cellular respiration, mitosis/cell cycle, Mendelian inheritance pH, Macromolecules, cellular respiration, Mendelian inheritance Results of Lab Assessment: A lesser % improvement was observed for objective 3‐based, laboratory knowledge. Percent improvement values ranged from 14.4‐25.4% with an average % increase of 13.8 and 17.1% for the fall and spring semesters, respectively. This is an improvement from the 3.69%‐19.44% range and 13.55% average observed last year. For the second year in a row, laboratory content areas of molarity calculation, metric conversion, logic of hypothesis testing, inductive/deductive reasoning definition proved to be troublesome; however, there was improvement in the areas of conducting a properly controlled experiment and understanding statistical significance. Hake ranged from 0.18‐0.40 with averages of 0.32 and 0.28 for the fall and spring semesters, respectively. This is an improvement from the 0.08 – 0.35 range observed last year. In addition, 9 of 15 total sections assessed obtained a Hake gain > 0.3, which is considered a medium or acceptable gain (Tables 3‐4). Table 3. Biology 190 Lab Assessment: Fall 2009. The table represents unpaired data for individual students (n) who took the pre‐assessment and post‐assessment survey in each course section for % Increase. Hake Gain is based on paired data (n = # students who took the post‐assessment). Troublesome content areas reflect questions that > 50% of students answered incorrectly on the post‐
181
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
assessment. Overall analysis reflects totals for n, averages for percentages and Hake Gain, and content areas observed to be troublesome in at least 50% of the participating sections. n/a = data not available. n Pre Ave. % n Post Ave. % % Increase Hake Gain (post‐pre) (100‐pre) Troublesome Content Areas 24 39.9 25 63.7 23.8 0.38 (Analysis not conducted) 24 28.8 25 53.7 25.0 0.33 (Analysis not conducted) 26 35.3 25 49.7 14.4 0.18 (Analysis not conducted) 30 35.6 13 59.0 17.3 0.32 28 27 22 38.1 35.2 43.6 19 25 55.7 15.4 0.23 28.7 25.0 0.36 (Analysis not conducted) E01 21 43.3 21 68.7 25.4 0.44 Overall (Averages or total n) 202 37.5 153 51.3 13.8 0.32 Section D01 (Summer) D02 (Summer) D02 (Fall) D03 D05 D06 D07 Scientific sources of information, molarity calculation, metric conversion Inductive reasoning definition (Analysis not conducted) (Analysis not conducted) Molarity calculation, metric conversion, logic of hypothesis‐based science, inductive reasoning definition Molarity calculation, metric conversion; Possibly logic of hypothesis‐based science, inductive reasoning definition Table 4. Biology 190 Lab Assessment: Spring 2010. The table represents unpaired data for individual students (n) who took the pre‐assessment and post‐assessment survey in each course section for % Increase. Hake Gain is based on paired data (n = # students who took the post‐assessment). Troublesome content areas reflect questions that > 50% of students answered incorrectly on the post‐
assessment. Overall analysis reflects totals for n, averages for percentages and Hake Gain, and content areas observed to be troublesome in at least 50% of the participating sections. n/a = data not available. n Pre Ave. % n Post Ave. % % Increase Hake Gain (post‐pre) (100‐pre) D01 27 37.7 18 56.0 19.0 0.25 D02 26 37.5 21 56.3 21.5 0.31 D03 15 45.6 15 60.0 14.4 0.27 D04 26 39.4 21 62.3 18.9 0.31 D06 27 40.7 25 56.0 16.0 0.24 D07 24 47.2 18 68.1 21.3 0.40 N01 29 44.5 21 58.7 13.5 0.18 N02 29 41.1 26 52.9 10.6 0.20 Section 182
Troublesome Content Areas Controlled experiment, metric conversion, logic of hypothesis testing, inductive/deductive reasoning definition Statistical significance, molarity calculation, metric conversion, inductive/deductive reasoning definition Statistical significance, scientific information, molar calculation, metric conversion, what is a hypothesis, logic of hypothesis testing Statistical significance, logic of hypothesis testing, inductive/deductive reasoning definition Controlled experiment, molar calculation, metric conversion, inductive/deductive reasoning definition Metric conversion, inductive/deductive reasoning definition Statistical significance, molarity calculation, metric conversion, logic of hypothesis testing, inductive/deductive reasoning definition Controlled experiment, statistical significance, molarity calculation, metric conversion, proper equipment selection, logic of hypothesis testing, inductive/deductive Biology
N03 27 39.8 24 56.9 16.3 0.25 E01 14 51.2 14 69.0 17.9 0.35 Overall (Averages or total n) 244 42.5 203 59.6 17.1 0.28 2011-12
reasoning definition Controlled experiment, molarity calculation, metric conversion, proper equipment selection, logic of hypothesis testing, inductive/deductive reasoning definition Sources of scientific information, molarity calculation, metric conversion, inductive/deductive reasoning definition Molarity calculation, metric conversion, logic of hypothesis testing, inductive/deductive reasoning definition Improvement on Student Learning: For the fourth consecutive academic year, we consistently observed a poor understanding of pH. pH is a chemical topic that not much time is devoted to because of the need to cover other biological concepts. In addition, it is usually covered very early on in the semester. Nonetheless, pH has tremendous ramifications on biological function, and so it is something that students, particularly those entering allied health programs, should have a grasp of. Since many of the allied health programs at TMCC, notably nursing, don’t require chemistry as part of their curriculum, we may need to reconsider the omission of two original laboratories on pH and biological buffering systems that were not incorporated into the lab manual in order to make way for more hypothesis‐driven and statistically‐based exercises. We may also want to reinforce the concept of pH throughout the semester as it applies to such things as the tertiary structure of proteins, enzymatic activity, and acidity of the intermembrane space of the mitochondrion during cellular respiration. Once again there was poor performance on the topics of macromolecules and Mendelian genetics. Given that these questions were newly incorporated in Fall 2008, these results beg an analysis of the questions to determine whether they are poorly written, or if students really have difficulty with these concepts. Compared to the last academic year, there was poor performance on cellular respiration. Anecdotally, cellular respiration annually seems like a difficult topic for students, who appear overwhelmed and disinterested in this material. Perhaps emphasizing the broader importance of generating ATP, especially in such cell types as muscle and neurons would improve interest and stimulate a stronger performance. Additionally, students who take BIOL 223 will revisit this topic while studying muscle physiology, so emphasizing its importance in subsequent courses might provoke more student effort. Results from the laboratory assessment survey implemented in the Spring semester indicate that students still have difficulty understanding the concepts of molarity calculation, metric conversion, logic of hypothesis‐based science, and the definition of inductive reasoning. A gain was seen, however, in the areas of conducting a controlled experiment and statistical significance. Poor post‐assessment scores on numerous topics and a poor % improvement and <g> values overall suggest a possible problem with the assessment survey and/or a lack of emphasis on these concepts during the laboratory experience. Relative to the lecture‐based assessment, the average pre‐assessment % was higher at 37.5 and 42.5% compared to 25.0% and 25.6% for the Fall and Spring semesters, respectively. A high pre‐assessment score would diminish <g>. In addition, students may already be coming in to BIOL 190 with an understanding of many of these concepts already, as concepts like data analysis and interpretation are not restricted to biological sciences. Therefore, students may have already been exposed to these concepts in other disciplines. 183
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Assessment Plan Revisions: Future assessment plans are to get more faculty involvement in the contribution of assessment questions, revise assessment surveys as needed, and devise a common tool that can assess writing a clear laboratory report in an acceptable format across all lab sections. At present, the Biology Department has no assessment tool for addressing objective 2, “Students will learn to communicate about the molecular and cellular basis of life.” An assessment tool for this objective will have to be devised. 184
Biology
2011-12
TMCC Program and Discipline Report
Program/Discipline: Biology – Human Anatomy & Physiology I – Biol 223
Division: MSET
Submitted by: Eddie Burke – May17th, 2010
Academic Year: 2009/10
Complete and submit your assessment report to your Academic Dean. As needed, please
attach supporting documents and/or a narrative description of the assessment activities in your
program/discipline.
Program/Discipline
Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the
outcomes assessed in
your program or
discipline during the
last year.
Outcome #1:Students
were assessed for an
understanding of
physiological function
and anatomical
structure of human
tissues as well as the
integumentary,
skeletal, muscular &
nervous systems
including their
interrelationships.
Assessment
Measures
In the boxes below,
summarize the
methods used to
assess program or
discipline outcomes
during the last year.
Students were given a
15 question quiz first
and last day of class.
The quiz was based
on overall course
objectives and
covered what the
faulty believe to be
the major take home
points of the course.
See attached
narrative.
Outcome #2: Students
shall acquire the
ability to apply
analytic thinking skills
in interpreting both
qualitative and
quantitative data and
case studies.
Outcome #3 Students
will read and
understand both
qualitative and
quantitative data
collected in lab or
supplied in case
studies. They must
interpret this data and
Assessment Results
Use of Results
In the boxes below,
summarize the results of your
assessment activities during
the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you
are or how you plan
to use the results to
improve student
learning.
The assessment quiz
questions which
caused most
problems on the
assessment quiz were
examined and
analyzed.
See attached
narrative.
Effect on the
Program/Discipline
Based on the results of this
year, will you revise your
assessment plan? If so, please
summarize how and why in
the boxes below.
As above
The quiz scores were
compared and tabulated.
Overall of 7 sections of Biol.
223 taught in the Fall of 2009
where data was returned
there was a 26.0%
improvement in the post
assessment scores as
compared to the preassessment scores.
Of the 6 sections of Biol.
223 taught in the Spring of
2010 where data was
returned there was a 29.2%
improvement in the post
assessment scores as
compared to the preassessment scores. See
attached narrative.
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above
185
The assessment quiz has been
substantially edited. A new
version of the assessment
quiz will be administered to
the students starting with the
summer classes of 2008.
See attached narrative.
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
supply written
interpretations and
conclusions.
Annual Biology Assessment Report
Biol 223 (Human Anatomy & Physiology I)
2009 - 2010
1. Submitted by: Eddie Burke
Data were contributed by the following faculty: Steve Schenk, Eddie Burke, Jim
Collier, Wil Mehm, Jamie Campbell, & Pamela Sandstrom.
2. Summary of assessment activities:
a. Educational philosophy, course and laboratory curriculum
Human anatomy and physiology consists of 2 parts (Biol 223 and Biol 224). Each course is an intensive
laboratory based course dealing with the morphology and physiology of body systems. Basic histology is
covered along with all of the 11 human body systems over 2 semesters (or 1 semester with the fast-track
courses). The lectures and laboratories focus on the structure and the complimentary function of each
body system. These courses are required for most allied health programs. Principles of chemistry and cell
& molecular biology are used throughout the semester.
The anatomy & physiology faculty had several meetings where course and laboratory content were
discussed. The general consensus was to establish a set of course objectives for each course which should
be used by all teaching faculty to standardize the material covered. These objectives emphasize
anatomical structure and underlying physiology of the human body systems. Relevant clinical examples
are presented throughout the course.
The laboratory supports the lecture material by presenting the anatomy using histology slides, skeletons,
models, websites, pictures, organ specimens, a human cadaver, computerized physiology demonstrations
using PhysioEx and lab manual exercises.
Evaluations of the lecture material is accomplished via written examinations and assignments measuring
the students understanding of conceptual information.
Evaluations of the laboratory material is accomplished via written examinations where the students are
required to identify tissues, organs & specimens and describe physical principles.
b. Learning outcomes
Three learning outcomes were established for Biol 223:
186
Biology
2011-12
1. Understand and appreciate scientific phenomena while acquiring an understanding of physiological
function and anatomical structure of human tissues, organs and organ systems, including their
interrelationships.
2. Students must demonstrate understanding and knowledge on both laboratory practical examinations
and written lecture examinations.
3. Students will read and understand both qualitative and quantitative data collected in lab or supplied in
case studies. They must interpret this data and supply written interpretations and conclusions.
c. Methods
Assessment was accomplished in each Biol 223 section by administering a 15 question, multiple choice
quiz to students. The questions were specifically written to address a sampling of the entire range of
material addressed in both courses.
These quizzes were given as a pre-assessment tool at the beginning of the first class session and as a postassessment tool at the end of the last class session before the final exam.
The results were tabulated and compared for both the fall and spring semesters. Our original assessment
tool as administered in Fall 06 was updated and administered in Spring 07. The Fall 07 and Spring 08
assessment contained questions contained application based questions evaluating student knowledge,
reasoning and synthesis. The Fall 08 and Spring 09 quizzes were again revised to address some
conceptual problems.
3. Results:
Fall 2009
In the Fall of 2009 a total of 8 sections of Biol 223 were taught & 7 sections returned data. The data
presented in table 1 below are taken from classes where the courses were assessed both before and after
the courses.
Table 1 - Fall 2009 – Biol 223 Assessment Data
Pre-test
Post-test
Av. score %
Av. score %
Section
D01
45.7
62.5
D02
No Data
No Data
D03
41.3
67.9
D04
41.1
73.3
D05
38.8
70.0
N01
39.4
74.5
N02
45.4
70.8
N03
40.6
55.0
OVERALL
41.7%
67.7%
% Increase
+16.8
No Data
+26.7
+32.2
+31.3
+35.1
+25.4
+14.4
+25.9±7.3%
As can be seen in table 1 above, there was an average 26.0% improvement in the post course
assessment scores as compared to the pre-assessment scores
187
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Spring 2010
In the Spring of 2010 a total of 7 sections of Biol 223 were taught & 6 sections returned data. The data
presented in table 2 below are taken from classes where the courses were assessed both before and after
the courses.
Table 2 - Spring 2010 – Biol 223 Assessment Data
Pre-test
Post-test
Section
D01
D02
D03
D04
D05
N01
N02
OVERALL
Av. score %
40.0
43.3
51.3
40.7
No Data
38.9
44.2
43.0
Av. score %
76.9
71.8
72.2
71.5
No Data
69.5
71.9
72.3
%
Increase
+36.9
+28.5
+20.9
+30.8
No Data
+30.5
+27.8
29.2±4.7
As can be seen in table 2 above, there was an average 29.2% improvement in the post course
assessment scores as compared to the pre-assessment scores.
4. Improvement of student learning:
The 2006-07 academic year was the first attempt at assessing the Biol 223 course. The initial assessment
tools of the Fall of 2006 had some conceptual problems and were then changed in the Spring of 2007 to
address those issues (Namely the quizzes contained primarily knowledge based questions and some of the
questions were true/false questions which meant that the students had a 50:50 chance of getting the
correct answer which would skew the results).
The assessment questions used from the Spring of 07 onwards contained all application based questions
assessing knowledge, reasoning and synthesis. The faculty believes that these questions more accurately
test the knowledge gained in the courses.
The data presented in table 3 below show the average results from all classes surveyed since the fall of
2006.
Table 3 - Biol 223 Assessment Data Summary – All Classes
% Start
% End
(Average)
(Average)
Biol 223 - Fall ‘06 (n=2 classes)
33.0
72.1
Biol 223 - Spring ‘07 (n=7 classes)
44.3
68.3
Biol 223 - Fall ‘07 (n=7 classes)
42.4
66.9
70.6
Biol 223 - Spring ‘08 (n=5 classes)
50.2
68.8
Biol 223 - Fall ‘08 (n=7 classes)
42.3
68.4
Biol 223 - Spring ‘09 (n=7 classes)
42.9
67.7
Biol 223 - Fall ‘09 (n=7 classes)
41.7
71.9
Biol 223 - Spring ‘10 (n=6 classes)
44.2
Average of Averages
42.6
69.3
188
% Difference
(Average)
+39.1
+24.1
+24.5
+20.4
+26.6
+26.4
+26.0
+27.8
+26.8±5.0
Biology
2011-12
As can be seen in table 3 above, since Biol 223 has been assessed there was an average 26.8%
improvement in the post course assessment scores as compared to the pre-assessment scores. The table
summarizes results from semester to semester for a total of 48 classes over 8 semesters. Ignoring the first
data from the fall of 2006 where only 2 classes were assessed, the results show remarkably consistency.
It should be noted that this data is coming from multiple classes with multiple instructors and yet the
average % improvement has not changed dramatically through the entire assessment period. This would
indicate that all instructors are following the course objectives and most likely covering the same basic
material in their courses.
There are some places where we do however see some issues with the assessment data. On further
analyzing the breakdown of the Biol 223 assessment quiz it is noticed that least improvement continues to
be in the following subject areas:



The role of ions in generation of membrane potentials
The sympathetic nervous system
The role of neuromuscular blockers in skeletal and cardiac muscle function
This has been consistent since the assessments quizzes were introduced in their present format.
Why this is so is not known but there are some similarities in the material poorly understood in other
biology courses especially Biol 190 (cell & molecular biology). Some ideas as to why students had
difficulty with these areas include:
1. The role of ions in the generation of membrane potentials is a complicated concept involving the
electrophysiology & the generation of action potentials. This concept involves many strands of
information which has to be systematically and logically assembled to make sense.
2. The sympathetic nervous system is again a difficult concept similar to above involving many pieces of
information. This section of the course consistently causes problems for students.
3. The role of neuromuscular blockers in skeletal and cardiac muscle function involves the understanding
of the sympathetic nervous system and some basic pharmacology. If the students do not have a firm
grasp of nervous system this would cause problems in all questions associated with these topics.
As outlined in reports from previous years, while all of the above areas can be addressed by the teaching
faculty during the semester, it is quite obvious that to fully understand the physiology requires the student
to synthesize a significant amount of knowledge and apply logic. In addition, the material and concepts
covered in other biology (and science) subjects is critical for an in depth understanding of human anatomy
and physiology (and vice versa for those other subjects). A student who performs well in one science
subject will most likely perform well in most other science subjects.
Overall however all sections of all courses showed an improvement in the retention and understanding of
the material. Generally, students showed improvement and ability to retain information presented and
show ability to reason through “thought questions” and arrive at appropriate solutions to problems
presented. The lecture material is no doubt being reinforced by the nature of the laboratory exercises.
5. Assessment revision plans:
These assessment questions for Biol 223 have been used in their present format since the summer of
2008. Analysis shows that there are several questions which consistently have higher performance ratings
on the pre-course quiz suggesting that these questions may not be rigorous enough and might need slight
editing.
189
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
These questions are:
Question #1 on Homeostasis
Question #2 on tissue types
Question #4 on Vitamin D & bone structure
Question #9 on brain function
There is also one question (Q14 on neuromuscular blockers) where there was consistently below 50%
average returns on the post-course quiz. This may suggest that this question is either too difficult or the
material is not being sufficiently covered in class.
The assessment questions may therefore need to be re-evaluated to address these concerns.
TMCC Program and Discipline Report
Program/Discipline: Biology – Human Anatomy & Physiology II 224
Division: MSET
Submitted by: Steve Schenk– May31st, 2010
Academic Year: 2009/10
Complete and submit your assessment report to your Academic Dean. As needed, please
attach supporting documents and/or a narrative description of the assessment activities in your
program/discipline.
Program/Discipline
Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the
outcomes assessed in
your program or
discipline during the
last year.
Outcome #1:Students
were assessed for an
understanding of
physiological function
and anatomical
structure of endocrine,
cardiovascular,
respiratory, immune,
urinary, digestive, and
reproductive systems
including their
interrelationships.
Assessment
Measures
In the boxes below,
summarize the
methods used to
assess program or
discipline outcomes
during the last year.
Students were given a
15 question quiz first
and last day of class.
The quiz was based
on overall course
objectives and
covered what the
faulty believe to be
the major take home
points of the course.
See attached
narrative.
Assessment Results
Use of Results
In the boxes below,
summarize the results of your
assessment activities during
the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you
are or how you plan
to use the results to
improve student
learning.
Data generated in this
report will be used in
conjunction with
reports from other
courses to determine
general topics
covered in our
department that need
to be addressed more
broadly.
The quiz scores were
compared and tabulated.
Overall of 4 sections of
BIOL. 224 reported
assessment data in the Fall
with an average 20.0%
improvement and an
aggregate Hake gain of
0.295. Overall 5 sections of
BIOL 224 reported
assessment data in the Spring
with an average 12.4%
improvement and an
aggregate Hake gain of
0.173. See attached
narrative.
190
Effect on the
Program/Discipline
Based on the results of this
year, will you revise your
assessment plan? If so, please
summarize how and why in
the boxes below.
The revised tool used this
year needs further
refinement, as problems of
length were identified for
easy administration. These
data should allow for more
effective identification of
general challenges
throughout our curriculum
and allow us to better address
these challenges in student
learning. See attached
narrative.
Biology
2011-12
Outcome #2: Students
shall acquire the
ability to apply
analytic thinking skills
in interpreting both
qualitative and
quantitative data and
case studies.
As above
As above
As above
As above
Outcome #3 Students
will read and
understand both
qualitative and
quantitative data
collected in lab or
supplied in case
studies. They must
interpret this data and
supply written
interpretations and
conclusions.
As above
As above
As above
As above
Annual Biology Assessment Report
Biol 224 (Human Anatomy & Physiology II)
2009 - 2010
1. Contributing faculty: Steve Schenk
Data supplied by: Steve Schenk, Will Mehm, Jamie Campbell. Dan Williams,
James Collier, and Jeff Weinert.
2. Summary of assessment activities:
a. Educational philosophy, course and laboratory curriculum
BIOL 223 and BIOL 224 are intensive laboratory based courses dealing with the morphology and
physiology of body systems. Basic histology is covered along with all of the 11 human body systems over
2 semesters (or 1 semester with the fast-track courses). The lectures and laboratories focus on the
structure and the complimentary function of each body system. These courses are required for most allied
health programs. Principles of chemistry and cell & molecular biology are used throughout the semester.
The laboratory supports the lecture material by presenting the anatomy using histology slides, models,
websites, pictures, organ specimens, a human cadaver, computerized physiology demonstrations using
PhysioEx and lab manual exercises.
Evaluations of the lecture material is accomplished via written examinations and assignments measuring
the students understanding of conceptual information.
Evaluations of the laboratory material is accomplished via written examinations where the students are
required to identify tissues, organs & specimens and describe physical principles.
b. Learning outcomes
191
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
Three learning outcomes were maintained for Biol 224:
1. Understand and appreciate scientific phenomena while acquiring an understanding of physiological
function and anatomical structure of human tissues, organs and organ systems, including their
interrelationships.
2. Students must demonstrate understanding and knowledge on both laboratory practical examinations
and written lecture examinations.
3. Students will read and understand both qualitative and quantitative data collected in lab or supplied in
case studies. They must interpret this data and supply written interpretations and conclusions.
c. Methods
Assessment was accomplished in 224 sections by administering a 15 question, multiple choice quiz to
students. The questions were specifically written to address a sampling of the entire range of material
addressed in both courses, and included laboratory-based as well as lecture-based questions. These
quizzes were given as a pre-assessment tool at the beginning of the first class session and as a postassessment tool at the end of the last course.
The results were tabulated and compared for both the fall and spring semesters. The assessment tool used
throughout the 2009-10 academic year were modified from those used previously to address problems
with certain questions in which too many students (> 60%) were getting right on the pre-test. Quesiton
modifications were completed by the course coordinator in conjunction with input from several different
faculty members. Pre-test and post-test scores for each section were assembled in pair-wise fashion the
mean improvement determined for each class. Data from students who took only the pre-test or only the
post-test were excluded from analysis.
This year Hake gain <g> scores were calculated for comparing student learning relative to where they
started. This was calculated as follows:
<g> = (post-test score – pre-test score)/(100% - pre-test score)
In addition, data for 8 sections was aggregated to allow a question-by-question comparison of student
performance on both the pre-test and the post test.
3. Results:
Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 Data
Assessments were performed and results reported for in 4 sections in fall of 2009 and 5 sections in the
spring of 2010.
Table 1 – Fall 2009 – BIOL 224 Assessment Data
Pre-test
Post-test
Section
N
Mean Score
Mean Score
D01
19
26.3%
53.0%
D04
23
21.3%
48.0%
D05
12
36.7%
50.6%
N02
19
44.2%
57.2%
OVERALL
52
32.1%
52.2%
Table 2 – Spring 2010 – BIOL 224 Assessment Data
Pre-test
Post-test
192
% Incerase
27.0%
26.7%
13.9%
13.0%
20.0%
Hake
gain
0.362
0.339
0.219
0.233
0.296
Hake
Biology
Section
D01
D02
D04
D05
N01
OVERALL
N
18
19
25
20
20
112
Mean Score
33.3%
26.7%
23.3%
36.2%
22.0%
28.3%
Mean Score
40.0%
31.2%
46.0%
49.7%
36.7%
40.7%
% Incerase
6.7%
4.6%
29.6%
13.5%
14.7%
12.4%
2011-12
gain
0.100
0.062
0.295
0.211
0.188
0.173
Unlike previous years, data are less consistent across sections in terms of both % Increase and Hake gain.
Due to certain problematic questions identified in last year’s report, several questions within the
assessment tool were substantially revised. The current assessment tool emphasizes critical thinking and
revised questions were changed specifically to address a problem with > 60% of students answering them
correctly on the pre-test. The result, as noted by several instructors, is an assessment tool that is longwinded and unwieldy. It is likely, given the consistency observed in past years and in BIOL 223, that the
decrease in scores and increase in variability is a function of the new assessment. This, coupled with the
failure of any reorting section to demonstrate a post-test score greater than 60%, is concerning. Revision
of this tool is necessary to get a better picture of what is happening in this course with reference to student
learning.
Individual Question Analyses
A cursory examination of pre-test data from several sections indicated that the problematic questions from
last year (those on which > 60% of students answered correctly on the pretest) were no longer
problematic. No questions could be identified this year where excessive numbers of students scored
correctly on the pretest.
In terms of performance on the post-test, four questions continued to be identified as problematic. These
questions addressed the following topics:



Endocrinology (1 and 2)
Immunology / Blood transfusion (3)
Respiratory gas transport (8)
The first two topics have identified as problematic each year assessments have been performed. While
these topics are notoriously challenging, they are also among the questions most closely tied to cell and
molecular biology (taught in BIOL 190).
4. Improvement of student learning:
The 2009/10 academic year represents a continuation of assessment for BIOL 224 as developed during
the previous academic year. The faculty continue to believe that an assessment tool based on application
and synthesis of knowledge acquired is most appropriate for this course. The low level of consistency
across sections in post-test improvement this year – in light of past consistency in this area – suggests that
the revised assessment tool is itself problematic. While previous problems with the assessment were
solved, new ones have arisen. It is clear that this assessment needs to be revised for the 2010/11
academic year. Questions need to be streamlined while retaining an emphasis on application and
synthesis of knowledge. Further, greater collaboration among faculty is needed to find a way to
consistently administer this assessment tool to get equitable results across sections.
193
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
While students generally demonstrated improvement in all areas, three surfaced as points of concern
given that 50% of more of reporting sections indicated that fewer than 50% of the students answered
these questions correctly on the post-test.
Immunology and endocrinology can be properly identify as among the most challenging topics covered in
BIOL 224, and much of their challenge is related to issues of molecular interaction and basic topics in
chemistry that have been observed as problematic in other courses such as BIOL 190 and BIOL 251. The
third topic identified as problematic on the post-test – gas transport – had not been addressed in this
format on previous assessments, but is traditionally considered one of the more difficult physiological
topics along with endocrinology and immunology. While the problems with these topics do not represent
a new problem, the fact that they have been consistently weak each year of assessment strongly suggests
that the faculty teaching this course may want to re-examine how these topics are presented to determine
if a better instructional strategy is possible. Further, greater communication between faculty teaching
BIOL 190 and BIOL 223/224 is warranted. Improved student learning in BIOL 223/224 may very well
be tied to improved acquisition and retention of knowledge from BIOL 190. It may be useful to consider
deeper assessment of knowledge retention (e.g. testing knowledge retention of BIOL 190 in BIOL 223
and BIOL 224) as a way to determine how much of the problem experienced with these topics is specific
to their teaching and how much is specific to retention of past knowledge.
5. Assessment revision plans:
Given concerns of the faculty over some assessment questions – particularly the lengthy nature of many
questions -- the full assessment tool will be overhauled by Steve Schenk over the summer of 2010. The
goal will be to streamline the questions such that all 25 fit on two sides of a page, all questions will result
in < 50% correct pretest answers, and the full set of questions will remain consistent with an emphasis on
application and synthesis over rote memorization.
194
TMCC Program and Discipline Report
Program/Discipline: Biology 251
Division: SOS
Submitted by: Dan Williams
Academic Year: 2009-2010
Complete and submit your assessment report to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a narrative
description of the assessment activities in your program/discipline.
Program/Discipline
Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the outcomes
assessed in your program or
discipline during the last
year.
Assessment Measures
Assessment Results
Use of Results
Effect on the Program/Discipline
In the boxes below,
summarize the methods
used to assess program
or discipline outcomes
during the last year.
In the boxes below, summarize the
results of your assessment
activities during the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you are or
how you plan to use the
results to improve student
learning.
Based on the results of this year,
will you revise your assessment
plan? If so, please summarize how
and why in the boxes below.
The student will
correctly answer
questions requiring
conceptual
understanding.
Students took the same set of
10 questions on the first day
of class and on the last day
of class. The post
assessment scores averaged
7.8 correct on the post test vs
4.2 correct on the pre test, an
improvement of 188%
We further divided the
students who were taking
microbiology for the first
time and compared them
with students who had
enrolled previously
First time students scores
improved by 183%,
The essential concepts
of microbiology are
currently well
understood by our
students. Clinical
applications of the
information learned
are not as strong as
they could be. We
plan to emphasize this
aspect of the material
more in the future.
We will be assessing two
other Learning outcomes in
the future. Our assessment
instrument has added 5
questions that address
quantitative thinking and
research skills.
Outcome #1:
The student will be able
to understand complex
concepts by building
upon pre-existing
knowledge
Truckee Meadows Community College | Description of Program/Unit
195
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Repeating students scores
improved only 139% Not all
classes identified their
students’ enrollment status.
We have been evaluating
new students separately from
those retaking Biol 251, but
have gained no useful
information or seen any
trends from the data
collection. Next year no
distinction will be made
between students enrolled in
Biol. 251.
Outcome #2:
Will be assessed next year
Outcome #:3
Will be assessed next year
196
Biology
2011-12
Table showing the performance of 2009-2010 Microbiology students on individual assessment questions:
Question 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 pre # missed 187 100 109 145 143 172 102 133 32 113 pre % missed 88.21 47.17 51.42 68.4 67.45 81.13 48.11 62.74 15.09 53.3 post # missed 69 54 30 16 50 64 22 61 11 65 post % missed 38.98 30.51 16.95 9.04 28.25 36.16 12.43 34.46 6.21 36.72 Topic Cell morphology Metabolic strategies Aerobic/anaerobic Bacterial counts Controlling growth Gene transfer Epidemiology Clinical applications Antibiotic resistance Acquired immunity 197
Annual Biology Assessment Report
BIOL 190: Introduction to Cell and Molecular Biology
2008-2009
Contributing faculty:
Melissa Deadmond (author), John Adlish Julie Ellsworth, Kristin Hoffbuhr, Scott Huber, Steve
Schenk, Amy Schneck, and Beate Wone.
Summary of Assessment Activities:
Biology 190, Introduction to Cell and Molecular Biology, is the pre-requisite to all 200-level
courses offered by the Biology Department, most notably BIOL 223 (Human Anatomy &
Physiology I), BIOL 224 (Human Anatomy & Physiology II), and BIOL 251 (General
Microbiology). This supports both pre-requisite classes for allied health programs and the
science general education component for transferring Biology majors. Because of its
foundational nature, the Biology faculty have identified BIOL 190 as one of the most important
courses taught.
One challenge faced by BIOL 190 faculty is that that students enrolling in this course often have
not been exposed to college-level science and furthermore lack college level math and English
composition skills. Based on a nation-wide study in Science magazine that indicated a positive
correlation between adequate math skills and success in natural sciences, the faculty chose to
implement new course pre-requisites of ENG 101 or 113 and MATH 120 or 126 (or equivalent
Accuplacer, SAT or ACT scores) rather than to enforce the previous CHEM 121 pre-requisite.
This change went into effect in Fall 2008.
The faculty also established new theme-based course objectives in order to provide instructors
with a standardized set of learner outcomes that are expected of students upon completion of
BIOL 190. Lecture now emphasizes Inorganic Chemistry, Organic Macromolecules, Cytology
(cell structure), Membrane Physiology, Cell Signaling, Cellular Energetics (cellular respiration &
photosynthesis), Cellular Growth & Division, Heredity, Gene Expression, and Gene Regulation.
As such, we hoped that students would demonstrate the following learning outcome:
4. Students will acquire a basic knowledge of cellular and molecular biology.
After further consideration, we realized that the assessment tool used does not address the
learning outcome that “Students will learn to communicate about the molecular and cellular
basis of life.” that was reported in past reports.
Individual instructors used written exams and quizzes as the primary mechanisms of evaluating
a student’s understanding of these concepts. Students more or less experienced a traditional
lecture format with occasional active learning activities incorporated at the instructor’s
discretion. At the department level, we assessed the above learning outcomes by administering
a 12-question, multiple choice, knowledge and analysis-based quiz to students at the beginning
of the first day of class and at the end of the last class meeting before the final exam. This quiz
reflected what we felt were central topics that, as opposed to recalling specific pieces of
information, required the student to either synthesize or understand the broader concept. A
total of 13 sections of BIOL 190 (4 in fall and 9 in spring) participated in this assessment.
The laboratory is designed to support lecture content as well as to emphasize application of the
scientific method, including scientific analysis and interpretation of data, and to promote the
communication of experimental outcomes both orally and in writing. As such, we hoped that
students would demonstrate the following learning outcome:
Truckee Meadows Community College | Description of Program/Unit
199
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Students shall understand the scientific method, be able to design and carry out a
scientific experiment, analyze collected data utilizing accepted methods, and write a
clear and readable report following an accepted research report format.
In order to enhance analytical skills, instructors use a laboratory manual written and updated by
Biology Department faculty, which emphasizes hypothesis-driven experiments and incorporates
more mathematical calculations, data organization and analysis, and elementary statistical
testing. In addition, an exercise on evaluating sources of scientific information is used in order
to emphasize the concepts of credibility, using data to support arguments, and primary versus
secondary sources. To assess these concepts, individual instructors evaluated laboratory
manual entries, formal written reports, and oral presentations. Instructors also administered
laboratory practical exams to assess a student’s knowledge of equipment use, supporting
mathematical calculations, and data interpretation. At the department level, a new assessment
survey, similar in format to the one administered for the first learning outcome, was given in
Spring 2009. This survey added to questions pertaining to lab topics that were already present
in the Fall 2008 survey. Laboratory concepts were separated out from the knowledge-based
assessment of learning outcome 1 because there can be different lab and lecture instructors for
a given section.
Results:
A more thorough analysis of pre-assessment scores, conducted for the first time in the Fall 2008
semester, revealed potential problems in the assessment tool. Faculty identified 3 questions in
which greater than 75% of the students were already answering correctly, suggesting that either
students were coming in to BIOL 190 with knowledge of that topic already, or the question was
unintentionally worded to single out a more obvious answer choice. To address the problem, 2
of the 3 questions regarding enzymes and cell signaling were replaced with alternative
questions. The third area involving graph interpretation was kept for lack of a better question.
Throughout the 2008-2009 academic year, overall improvement in objective 1-based knowledge
ranged from 12.72%-45.18% with averages of 20.16% and 30.98% for fall and spring
semesters, respectively. In addition, we consistently observed certain content areas that
students still did not grasp at semester’s end. This was indicated by topics in which greater
than 50% of the students missed the question in at least 1/2 of participating course sections.
Troublesome lecture content areas were pH, macromolecules, and Mendelian genetics.
Metabolism, specifically cellular respiration, showed to be troublesome in the Fall semester
more so than in the Spring semester (Tables 1 and 2).
A lesser % improvement was observed for objective 3-based, laboratory knowledge. Percent
improvement values ranged from 3.69%-19.44% with an average % increase of 13.55%.
Laboratory content areas of conducting a properly controlled experiment, statistical significance,
molarity calculation, metric conversion, logic of hypothesis-based science, and the definition of
inductive reasoning reflected a poor performance in greater than 80% of the participating
sections (Table 3).
In addition to post-assessment percentages and % improvement values, averaged normalized
gain values, <g>, otherwise known as Hake Gains iii (named after Richard R. Hake, who first
proposed them), were reported. The advantage of <g> values is that they consider the
improvement relative to the pre-assessment score. As a hypothetical example, a student
scoring a 90% on the post-assessment test, which would be a favorable score, might still have a
low <g> if the student had a pre-assessment score of 80%. By comparison, a student with a
59% post-assessment score, which is considered a failing percentage by most faculty, would
still demonstrate a high <g> if the student had a pre-assessment score of 10% or less.
200
2F
Biology
2011-12
According to Hake, <g> > 0.7 is considered a high gain, <g> of 0.3-0.7 is considered a medium
gain, and <g> of less than 0.3 is considered a low gain iv.
3F
Hake gains for objective 1-based assessments ranged from 0.15 – 0.58 throughout the
academic year, with average <g> values of 0.35 and 0.40 for the Fall and Spring semesters,
respectively (Tables 1 and 2). Hake gains for objective 3-based laboratory assessments,
conducted in the Spring semester, ranged from 0.08 – 0.35, with the majority of scores falling
below the 0.3 value of being considered a medium or acceptable gain (Table 3).
Table 1. Biology 190 (Introduction to Cell and Molecular Biology) Knowledge-based
Assessment: Fall 2008 (including Summer 2008). The table represents unpaired data for
individual students (n) who took the pre-assessment and post-assessment survey in each
course section for % Increase. Hake Gain is based on paired data (n = # students who took the
post-assessment). Troublesome content areas reflect questions that > 50% of students
answered incorrectly on the post-assessment. Overall analysis reflects totals for n, averages for
percentages and Hake Gain, and content areas observed to be troublesome in at least 50% of
the participating sections.
Section
n
Pre
Ave. %
n
Post
Ave. %
%
Increase
D02
(Summer)
D01
23
10.22
23
33.33
23.13
Hake Gain
(post-pre)
(100-pre)
0.55
26
34.95
19
53.95
19.00
0.30
D05
27
33.56
13
52.68
18.27
0.27
E01
24
39.58
12
59.80
20.22
0.26
Overall
(Averages)
100
29.56
67
49.94
20.16
0.35
201
Troublesome Content
Areas
(Analysis not conducted)
Statistical significance,
scientific sources, pH,
cellular respiration, gene
expression, Mendelian
inheritance
Statistical significance,
scientific sources, pH,
macromolecules, osmosis,
cellular respiration,
Mendelian inheritance
Statistical significance,
scientific sources, redox,
pH, macromolecules,
cellular respiration,
Mendelian inheritance
Statistical significance,
scientific sources, pH,
cellular respiration,
Mendelian inheritance
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
Table 2. Biology 190 (Introduction to Cell and Molecular Biology) Knowledge-based
Assessment: Spring 2009. The table represents unpaired data for individual students (n) who
took the pre-assessment and post-assessment survey in each course section for % Increase.
Hake Gain is based on paired data (n = # students who took the post-assessment).
Troublesome content areas reflect questions that > 50% of students answered incorrectly on the
post-assessment. Overall analysis reflects totals for n, averages for percentages and Hake
Gain, and content areas observed to be troublesome in at least 50% of the participating
sections. n/a = data not available
21
Pre
Ave.
%
21.03
21
Post
Ave.
%
56.67
35.63
Hake Gain
(post-pre)
(100-pre)
0.45
D03
27
23.15
20
68.33
45.18
0.58
D04
29
29.02
26
56.41
27.39
0.40
D05
D06
27
27
21.91
22.02
n/a
21
n/a
63.10
n/a
41.07
n/a
0.56
D07
N01
N02
15
25
27
17.22
28.67
23.15
17
n/a
23
47.06
n/a
35.87
29.84
n/a
12.72
0.33
n/a
0.15
E01
Overall
25
223
30.30
24.05
14
128
55.36
54.69
25.04
30.98
0.34
0.40
Section
n
D02
n
%
Increase
202
Troublesome Content Areas
pH, macromolecules, cellular
respiration, gene expression,
gene regulation, Mendelian
inheritance
pH, macromolecules, cell
signaling
pH, macromolecules, osmosis,
cellular respiration, Mendelian
inheritance
n/a
pH, macromolecules, cell
signaling, gene expression
(Analysis not conducted)
n/a
pH, macromolecules,
prokaryotic v. eukaryotic cells,
cellular respiration, meiosis, cell
signaling, gene expression,
gene regulation, Mendelian
inheritance
(Analysis not conducted)
pH, macromolecules,
Mendelian inheritance
Biology
2011-12
Table 3. Biology 190 Lab (Introduction to Cell and Molecular Biology Lab) Knowledgebased Assessment: Spring 2009. The table represents unpaired data for individual students
(n) who took the pre-assessment and post-assessment survey in each course section for %
Increase. Hake Gain is based on paired data (n = # students who took the post-assessment).
Troublesome content areas reflect questions that > 50% of students answered incorrectly on the
post-assessment. Overall analysis reflects totals for n, averages for percentages and Hake
Gain, and content areas observed to be troublesome in at least 50% of the participating
sections. n/a = data not available
Section
n
Pre
Ave. %
n
Post
Ave. %
%
Increase
D01
7
57.14
9
60.83
3.69
Hake Gain
(post-pre)
(100-pre)
n/a
D02
21
41.27
21
49.20
7.93
0.08
D03
28
42.86
21
62.30
19.44
0.28
D04
25
38.00
27
52.47
14.47
0.21
D05
28
47.92
20
62.92
15.00
0.18
D06
29
38.79
21
53/97
15.18
0.21
D07
N01
n/a
24
n/a
39.24
17
19
66.67
53.13
n/a
12.28
n/a
0.18
N02
28
37.80
23
56.52
18.72
0.28
N03
20
45.83
20
58.33
12.50
0.35
E01
25
42.00
20
58.33
16.33
0.23
Overall
235
43.09
197
63.47
13.55
0.20
Improvement on Student Learning:
203
Troublesome Content Areas
Statistical significance, molarity
calculation, metric conversion, inductive
reasoning definition
Controlled experiment, statistical
significance, molarity calculation, metric
conversion, logic of hypothesis-based
science, inductive reasoning definition
Controlled experiment, molarity
calculations, metric conversion, logic of
hypothesis-based science, inductive
reasoning definition
Controlled experiment, scientific
sources, molarity calculation, metric
conversion, logic of hypothesis-based
science, inductive reasoning definition
Scientific sources, molarity calculation,
metric conversion, logic of hypothesisbased science, inductive reasoning
definition
Controlled experiment, statistical
significance, molarity calculation, metric
conversion, logic of hypothesis-based
science, inductive reasoning definition
(Analysis not conducted)
Statistical significance, scientific
sources, molarity calculation, metric
conversion, logic of hypothesis-based
science, inductive reasoning definition
Statistical significance, molarity
calculation, metric conversion,
measuring equipment, logic of
hypothesis-based science, inductive
reasoning definition
Controlled experiment, molarity
calculation, metric conversion, logic of
hypothesis-based science, inductive
reasoning definition
Molarity calculation, metric conversion,
logic of hypothesis-based science,
inductive reasoning definition
Controlled experiment, statistical
significance, molarity calculation,
metric conversion, logic of
hypothesis-based science, inductive
reasoning definition
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
For the third consecutive academic year, we consistently observed a poor understanding of pH.
Macromolecules and Mendelian genetics were also problematic for students. pH is a chemical
topic that not much time is devoted to because of the need to cover other biological concepts.
In addition, it is usually covered very early on in the semester. Nonetheless, pH has
tremendous ramifications on biological function, and so it is something that students, particularly
those entering allied health programs, should have a grasp of. Since many of the allied health
programs at TMCC, notably nursing, don’t require chemistry as part of their curriculum, we may
need to reconsider the omission of two original laboratories on pH and biological buffering
systems that were not incorporated into the lab manual in order to make way for more
hypothesis-driven and statistically-based exercises. We may also want to reinforce the concept
of pH throughout the semester as it applies to such things as the tertiary structure of proteins,
enzymatic activity, and acidity of the intermembrane space of the mitochondrion during cellular
respiration.
We also noted poor performance on the topics of macromolecules and Mendelian genetics.
These are relatively new questions that were added to the assessment tool in Fall 2008 in order
to reflect the theme-based objectives and learner outcomes established by the BIOL 190
faculty. Given the relative infancy of the questions, it would be worth gathering a few semesters
more data to determine whether comprehension of these topics or the writing of the questions is
more problematic.
Compared to the last academic year, an improvement in the understanding of cellular
respiration was observed. Anecdotally, cellular respiration annually seems like a difficult topic
for students, who appear overwhelmed and disinterested in this material. Perhaps emphasizing
the broader importance of generating ATP, especially in such cell types as muscle and neurons
would improve interest and stimulate a stronger performance. Additionally, students who take
BIOL 223 will revisit this topic while studying muscle physiology, so emphasizing its importance
in subsequent courses might provoke more student effort.
Results from the new laboratory assessment survey implemented in the Spring semester
indicate that students still have difficulty understanding the concepts of conducting a properly
controlled experiment, statistical significance, molarity calculation, metric conversion, logic of
hypothesis-based science, and the definition of inductive reasoning. Poor post-assessment
scores on numerous topics and a poor % improvement and <g> values overall suggest a
possible problem with the assessment survey and/or a lack of emphasis on these concepts
during the laboratory experience. Relative to the objective 1 lecture-based assessment, the
average pre-assessment % was higher at 43.09% compared to 24.05% and 29.56% for the Fall
and Spring semesters, respectively. A high pre-assessment score would diminish <g>. In
addition, students may already be coming in to BIOL 190 with an understanding of many of
these concepts already, as concepts like data analysis and interpretation are not restricted to
biological sciences. Therefore, students may have already been exposed to these concepts in
other disciplines. Nonetheless, we can continue to reinforce such concepts as statistical
significance in future courses, which we have done as part of culminating group research
project that students complete in BIOL 251. We may also want to investigate alternative or
additional laboratory exercises in BIOL 223 and 224 that incorporate more quantitative data
collection and analytical thinking.
Beginning in Fall 2008, the Biology department implemented new BIOL 190 prerequisites of
ENG 101 and MATH 120 or higher, or equivalent Accuplacer scores. We have yet to review the
potential impact that these pre-requisites may be having, as our assessment survey
inadequately measures basic math and English skills. Students did perform poorly overall on
the two questions involving mathematical calculations, molarity and metric conversion; however,
204
Biology
2011-12
this may not reflect a lack of math skills but rather a lack of math application to biological math
uses.
Assessment Plan Revisions:
Future assessment plans are to get more faculty involvement in the contribution of assessment
questions, revise assessment surveys as needed, and focus more effort on learning objective 3,
a laboratory-based objective. At present, the Biology Department has no assessment tool for
addressing objective 2, “Students will learn to communicate about the molecular and cellular
basis of life.” An assessment tool for this objective will have to be devised.
205
TMCC Program and Discipline Report
Program/Discipline: Biology 190
Division: SOS
Submitted by: Melissa Deadmond
Academic Year: 2008-2009
Complete and submit your assessment report to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a narrative
description of the assessment activities in your program/discipline.
Program/Discipline
Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the outcomes
assessed in your program or
discipline during the last
year.
Assessment Measures
Assessment Results
Use of Results
Effect on the Program/Discipline
In the boxes below,
summarize the methods
used to assess program
or discipline outcomes
during the last year.
In the boxes below, summarize the
results of your assessment
activities during the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you are or
how you plan to use the
results to improve student
learning.
Based on the results of this year,
will you revise your assessment
plan? If so, please summarize how
and why in the boxes below.
Outcome #1:
Students will acquire a basic
knowledge of cellular and
molecular biology.
We administered a 15question, multiplechoice knowledge and
analysis-based
assessment survey to
students at the beginning
of the first day of class
and at the end of the last
class meeting before the
final exam. This survey
reflected thematic-based
learner outcome topics
that, as opposed to
recalling specific pieces
of information, required
the student to either
synthesize or understand
the broader concept.
We observed a range of 12.7245.18% improvement on the postassessment survey throughout the
academic year. Students averaged
20.16% and 30.98% improvements
for fall and spring semesters,
respectively. Hake gains (<g>) for
ranged from 0.15 – 0.58
throughout the academic year, with
average <g> values of 0.35 and
0.40 for the Fall and Spring
semesters, respectively. pH,
macromolecules, and Mendelian
genetics were identified as areas
that students performed poorly on.
Students showed an improvement
in metabolism (cellular respiration)
compared to the last academic
year.
We plan to emphasize pH
in our curriculum, possibly
by re-including a
laboratory exercise on pH.
The assessment survey
questions on
macromolecules and
Mendelian genetics were
used for the first time in
our assessment survey, so
we’d like to collect more
data with respect to these
areas.
No. This year we closely matched
the assessment questions to the
theme-based objectives created by
faculty last academic year, which
we indicated that we would do in
last year’s report. Since some of
the assessment questions were used
for the first time in the Spring 2009
semester, we would like to collect
more data.
Truckee Meadows Community College | Description of Program/Unit
207
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Outcome #2:
Students will learn to
communicate about the
molecular and cellular basis
of life.
We did not assess this
outcome at the
department level in the
2008-2009 academic
year.
Outcome #:3
Students shall understand the
scientific method, be able to
design and carry out a
scientific experiment,
analyze collected data
utilizing accepted methods,
and write a clear and
readable report following an
accepted research report
format.
In Spring 2009, we
separated out
laboratory-based
questions that assessed
understanding of how to
controlled experiments,
sources of scientific
information, statistical
significance and data
analysis from last year’s
assessment survey and
created a new, 12question survey that
more fully addressed
these topics.
We observed a lesser %
improvement and Hake gain values
on the laboratory post-assessment
survey than we did with the lecture
post-assessment survey for
outocome #1. Percent
improvement values ranged from
3.69%-19.44% with an average %
increase of 13.55%. Hake gains
ranged from 0.08 – 0.35, with the
majority of scores falling below
the 0.3 value of being considered a
medium or acceptable gain. How
to design a properly controlled
experiment, statistical significance,
calculating molarity, metric
conversion, logic of hypothesisbased science, and inductive
reasoning definition were
identified as areas that students
performed poorly on.
208
We plan to emphasize
these topics in the
laboratory curriculum and
better communicate these
needs to part-time faculty,
since many part-time
faculty teach the lab
portion of this course.
No. Since Spring 2009 was the
first semester that the laboratorybased assessment survey was used,
we would like to collect more data.
TMCC Program and Discipline Report
Program/Discipline: Biology – Human Anatomy & Physiology I 223
Division: MSET
Submitted by: Eddie Burke – May19th, 2009
Academic Year: 2008/09
Complete and submit your assessment report to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting
documents and/or a narrative description of the assessment activities in your program/discipline.
Program/Discipline
Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the
outcomes assessed in
your program or
discipline during the
last year.
Outcome #1:Students
were assessed for an
understanding of
physiological function
and anatomical
structure of human
tissues as well as the
integumentary,
skeletal, muscular &
nervous systems
including their
interrelationships.
Assessment
Measures
In the boxes below,
summarize the
methods used to
assess program or
discipline outcomes
during the last year.
Students were given a
15 question quiz first
and last day of class.
The quiz was based
on overall course
objectives and
covered what the
faulty believe to be
the major take home
points of the course.
See attached
narrative.
Outcome #2: Students
shall acquire the
ability to apply
analytic thinking skills
in interpreting both
qualitative and
quantitative data and
case studies.
Outcome #3 Students
will read and
understand both
qualitative and
quantitative data
collected in lab or
supplied in case
studies. They must
interpret this data and
supply written
interpretations and
conclusions.
Assessment Results
Use of Results
In the boxes below,
summarize the results of your
assessment activities during
the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you
are or how you plan
to use the results to
improve student
learning.
The assessment quiz
questions which
caused most
problems on the
assessment quiz were
examined and
analyzed.
See attached
narrative.
Effect on the
Program/Discipline
Based on the results of this
year, will you revise your
assessment plan? If so, please
summarize how and why in
the boxes below.
As above
The quiz scores were
compared and tabulated.
Overall of 7 sections of Biol.
223 taught in the Fall of 07
there was a 29.2%
improvement in the post
assessment scores as
compared to the preassessment scores.
Of the 5 sections of Biol.
223 taught in the Spring of
08 where data was returned
there was a 25.4%
improvement in the post
assessment scores as
compared to the preassessment scores. See
attached narrative.
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above
The assessment quiz has been
substantially edited. A new
version of the assessment
quiz will be administered to
the students starting with the
summer classes of 2008.
See attached narrative.
Truckee Meadows Community College | Description of Program/Unit
209
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Annual Biology Assessment Report
Biol 223 (Human Anatomy & Physiology I)
2008 - 2009
1. Contributing faculty: Eddie Burke
Data supplied by: Steve Schenk, Eddie Burke, Jim Collier, Melissa Deadmond,
Wil Mehm, Jamie Campbell, Lance Bowen, Dan Williams & Svetlanna
Khaiboulinna & Tim O’Donnell.
2. Summary of assessment activities:
a. Educational philosophy, course and laboratory curriculum
Human anatomy and physiology consists of 2 parts (Biol 223 and Biol 224). Each course is an intensive
laboratory based course dealing with the morphology and physiology of body systems. Basic histology is
covered along with all of the 11 human body systems over 2 semesters (or 1 semester with the fast-track
courses). The lectures and laboratories focus on the structure and the complimentary function of each
body system. These courses are required for most allied health programs. Principles of chemistry and cell
& molecular biology are used throughout the semester.
The anatomy & physiology faculty had several meetings where course and laboratory content were
discussed. The general consensus was to establish a set of course objectives for each course which should
be used by all teaching faculty to standardize the material covered. These objectives emphasize
anatomical structure and underlying physiology of the human body systems. Relevant clinical examples
are presented throughout the course.
The laboratory supports the lecture material by presenting the anatomy using histology slides, skeletons,
models, websites, pictures, organ specimens, a human cadaver, computerized physiology demonstrations
using PhysioEx and lab manual exercises.
Evaluations of the lecture material is accomplished via written examinations and assignments measuring
the students understanding of conceptual information.
Evaluations of the laboratory material is accomplished via written examinations where the students are
required to identify tissues, organs & specimens and describe physical principles.
b. Learning outcomes
Three learning outcomes were established for Biol 223:
1. Understand and appreciate scientific phenomena while acquiring an understanding of physiological
function and anatomical structure of human tissues, organs and organ systems, including their
interrelationships.
2. Students must demonstrate understanding and knowledge on both laboratory practical examinations
and written lecture examinations.
210
Biology
2011-12
3. Students will read and understand both qualitative and quantitative data collected in lab or supplied in
case studies. They must interpret this data and supply written interpretations and conclusions.
c. Methods
Assessment was accomplished in each Biol 223 section by administering a 15 question, multiple choice
quiz to students. The questions were specifically written to address a sampling of the entire range of
material addressed in both courses.
These quizzes were given as a pre-assessment tool at the beginning of the first class session and as a postassessment tool at the end of the last class session before the final exam.
The results were tabulated and compared for both the fall and spring semesters. Our original assessment
tool as administered in Fall 06 was updated and administered in Spring 07. The Fall 07 and Spring 08
assessment contained questions contained application based questions evaluating student knowledge,
reasoning and synthesis. The Fall 08 and Spring 09 quizzes were again revised to address some
conceptual problems.
3. Results:
Fall 2008
In the Fall of 2008 a total of 7 sections of Biol 223 were taught. The data presented in table 1 below are
taken from classes where the courses were assessed both before and after the courses.
Table 1 - Fall 2008 – Biol 223 Assessment Data
Pre-test
Post-test
Section
D01
D02
D03
D04
D05
N01
N02
OVERALL
Av. score %
43.2
38.5
44.8
38.0
51.3
40.9
39.2
42.3
Av. score %
64.1
67.0
68.1
73.1
76.9
61.3
71.4
68.8
%
Increase
+20.9
+28.5
+23.3
+35.1
+25.6
+20.4
+32.2
+26.9
As can be seen in table 1 above, there was an average 26.9% improvement in the post course assessment
scores as compared to the pre-assessment scores
211
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Spring 2009
In the Spring of 2009 a total of 7 sections of Biol 223 were taught & all sections returned data. The data
presented in table 2 below are taken from classes where the courses were assessed both before and after
the courses.
Table 2 - Spring 2009 – Biol 223 Assessment Data
Pre-test
Post-test
Section
D01
D02
D03
D04
D05
N01
N02
OVERALL
Av. score %
42.6
41.6
45.4
43.9
49.2
39.2
38.7
42.9
Av. score %
60.6
74.6
64.2
76.3
69.5
69.0
64.9
68.4
%
Increase
18.0
33.0
18.8
32.3
26.7
29.8
26.2
26.4±5.5
As can be seen in table 2 above, there was an average 26.4% improvement in the post course assessment
scores as compared to the pre-assessment scores.
4. Improvement of student learning:
The 2006-07 academic year was the first attempt at assessing the Biol 223 course. The initial assessment
tools of the Fall of 2006 had some conceptual problems and were then changed in the Spring of 2007 to
address those issues (Namely the quizzes contained primarily knowledge based questions and some of the
questions were true/false questions which meant that the students had a 50:50 chance of getting the
correct answer which would skew the results).
The assessment questions used from the Spring of 07 onwards contained all application based questions
assessing knowledge, reasoning and synthesis. The faculty believes that these questions more accurately
test the knowledge gained in the courses.
On analyzing the breakdown of the Biol 223 assessment quiz for both the Fall 08 and Spring 09 semesters
it was noticed that least improvement was observed in the subject areas of:



The role of ions in generation of membrane potentials
The sympathetic nervous system
The role of neuromuscular blockers in skeletal and cardiac muscle function
Why this is so is not known but there are some similarities in the material poorly understood in other
biology courses especially Biol 190 (cell & molecular biology). Some ideas as to why students had
difficulty with these areas include:
1. The role of ions in the generation of membrane potentials is a complicated concept involving the
electrophysiology & the generation of action potentials. This concept involves many strands of
information which has to be systematically and logically assembled to make sense.
2. The sympathetic nervous system is again a difficult concept similar to above involving many pieces of
information. This section of the course consistently causes problems for students.
212
Biology
2011-12
3. The role of neuromuscular blockers in skeletal and cardiac muscle function involves the understanding
of the sympathetic nervous system and some basic pharmacology. If the students do not have a firm
grasp of nervous system this would cause problems in all questions associated with these topics.
While all of the above areas can be addressed by the teaching faculty during the semester, it is quite
obvious that to fully understand the physiology requires the student to synthesize a significant amount of
knowledge and apply logic. In addition, the material and concepts covered in other biology (and science)
subjects is critical for an in depth understanding of human anatomy and physiology (and vice versa for
those other subjects). A student who performs well in one science subject will most likely perform well
in most other science subjects.
Overall however all sections of all courses showed an improvement in the retention and understanding of
the material. Generally, students showed improvement and ability to retain information presented and
show ability to reason through “thought questions” and arrive at appropriate solutions to problems
presented. The lecture material is no doubt being reinforced by the nature of the laboratory exercises.
5. Assessment revision plans:
Since the assessment questions were again re-edited in the summer of 2008, we will continue to use these
questions in the Fall of 09 and the Spring of 10.
213
TMCC Program and Discipline Report
Program/Discipline: Biology
Division: SOS
Submitted by: Melissa Deadmond
Academic Year: 2007-2008
Complete and submit your assessment report to your Academic Dean. As needed, please attach supporting documents and/or a narrative
description of the assessment activities in your program/discipline.
Program/Discipline
Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the outcomes
assessed in your program or
discipline during the last
year.
Assessment Measures
Assessment Results
Use of Results
Effect on the Program/Discipline
In the boxes below,
summarize the methods
used to assess program
or discipline outcomes
during the last year.
In the boxes below, summarize the
results of your assessment
activities during the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you are or
how you plan to use the
results to improve student
learning.
Based on the results of this year,
will you revise your assessment
plan? If so, please summarize how
and why in the boxes below.
Outcome #1:
Students will acquire a basic
knowledge of cellular and
molecular biology.
We conducted a 15question assessment
survey administering a
15-question, multiple
choice, knowledge and
analysis-based quiz to
students at the beginning
of the first day of class
and at the end of the last
class meeting before the
final exam. This quiz
reflected what we felt
were central topics that,
as opposed to recalling
specific pieces of
information, required
the student to either
synthesize or understand
the broader concept.
Students showed an average of
22.5% and 29.9% improvements
on the assessment questions in the
Fall 2007 and Spring 2008
semesters, respectively. pH and
metabolism were identified as
areas that students performed
poorly on.
We plan to emphasize pH
and metabolism in our
curriculum.
Yes. We will more closely match
the assessment questions to the
theme-based objectives created by
the faculty in the fall semester.
Truckee Meadows Community College | Description of Program/Unit
215
2011-12
Outcome #2:
Students shall understand the
scientific method, be able to
design and carry out a
scientific experiment,
analyze collected data
utilizing accepted methods,
and write a clear and
readable report following an
accepted research report
format.
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
The assessment survey
described for Outcome
#1 incorporated
laboratory-based
questions that assessed
understanding of how to
controlled experiments,
sources of scientific
information, statistical
significance and data
analysis.
An understanding of what is meant
by statistical significance was
identified as an area that students
performed poorly on.
Outcome #3
216
We plan to emphasize this
in the laboratory
curriculum by
incorporating more
statistical tests into existing
laboratory exercises or by
creating new exercises
designed to illustrate it.
No. Since Spring 2008 was the
first semester that these laboratorybased assessment questions were
used, we would like to collect
more data.
Annual Biology Assessment Report
BIOL 190: Introduction to Cell and Molecular Biology
2007-2008
Contributing faculty:
Melissa Deadmond, Laura Briggs, Julie Ellsworth, Scott Huber, Pamela Sandstrom, Steve
Schenk, and Beate Wone.
Summary of Assessment Activities:
Biology 190, Introduction to Cell and Molecular Biology, is the pre-requisite to all 200-level
courses offered by the Biology Department, most notably BIOL 223 (Human Anatomy &
Physiology I), BIOL 224 (Human Anatomy & Physiology II), and BIOL 251 (General
Microbiology). This supports both pre-requisite classes for allied health programs and the
science general education component for transferring Biology majors. Because of its
foundational nature, the Biology faculty have identified BIOL 190 as one of the most important
courses taught.
One challenge faced by BIOL 190 faculty is that that students enrolling in this course often have
not been exposed to college-level science and furthermore lack college level math and English
composition skills. Based on a nation-wide study in Science magazine that indicated a positive
correlation between adequate math skills and success in natural sciences, the faculty chose to
implement new course pre-requisites of ENG 101 or 113 and MATH 120 or 126 (or equivalent
Accuplacer, SAT or ACT scores) rather than to enforce the previous CHEM 121 pre-requisite.
This change will go into effect in Fall 2008.
The faculty also established new theme-based course objectives in order to provide instructors
with a standardized set of learner outcomes that are expected of students upon completion of
BIOL 190. Lecture now emphasizes Inorganic Chemistry, Organic Macromolecules, Cytology
(cell structure), Membrane Physiology, Cell Signaling, Cellular Energetics (cellular respiration &
photosynthesis), Cellular Growth & Division, Heredity, Gene Expression, and Gene Regulation.
As such, we hoped that students would demonstrate the following learning outcomes:
5. Students will acquire a basic knowledge of cellular and molecular biology, and
6. Students will learn to communicate about the molecular and cellular basis of life.
Individual instructors used written exams and quizzes as the primary mechanisms of evaluating
a student’s understanding of these concepts. Students more or less experienced a traditional
lecture format with occasional active learning activities incorporated at the instructor’s
discretion. At the department level, we assessed the above learning outcomes by administering
a 15-question, multiple choice, knowledge and analysis-based quiz to students at the beginning
of the first day of class and at the end of the last class meeting before the final exam. This quiz
reflected what we felt were central topics that, as opposed to recalling specific pieces of
information, required the student to either synthesize or understand the broader concept. The
wording but not the content of three questions were changed from last year because faculty felt
that students might be missing the question strictly because of how it was phrased. A total of 9
sections of BIOL 190 (8 in fall and 9 in spring) participated in this assessment.
The laboratory is designed to support lecture content as well as to emphasize application of the
scientific method, including scientific analysis and interpretation of data, and to promote the
communication of experimental outcomes both orally and in writing. As such, we hoped that
students would demonstrate the following learning outcome:
Truckee Meadows Community College | Description of Program/Unit
217
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Students shall understand the scientific method, be able to design and carry out a
scientific experiment, analyze collected data utilizing accepted methods, and write a
clear and readable report following an accepted research report format.
Faculty members created a new laboratory manual that was integrated into the laboratory
curriculum for the first time in Fall 2006. The philosophical approach of the laboratory manual is
to stress hypothesis-driven experiments and incorporate more mathematical calculations, data
organization and analysis, and elementary statistical testing. Overall, we hoped to enhance
analytical skills. I addition, a new exercise on evaluating sources of scientific information was
added in order to emphasize the concepts of credibility, using data to support arguments, and
primary versus secondary sources. To assess these concepts, individual instructors evaluated
laboratory manual entries, formal written reports, and oral presentations. Instructors also
administered laboratory practical exams to assess a student’s knowledge of equipment use,
supporting mathematical calculations, and data interpretation. At the department level, the
previous assessment survey was modified to include those laboratory-based questions used by
one instructor in a pilot study last academic year.
Results:
Throughout the 2007-2008 academic year, overall improvement in knowledge ranged from
12.0%-42.0% with averages of 22.5% and 29.9% for fall and spring semesters, respectively. It
is interesting to note that the course section with the smallest number of students, Fall section
D05, showed the highest percent improvement at 42.0%. This may support the notion that
smaller class sizes may yield greater success. In addition, we consistently observed certain
content areas that students still did not grasp at semester’s end. This was indicated by topics in
which greater than 50% of the students missed the question in at least 1/2 of participating
course sections. One laboratory content area showed poor performance: understanding the
meaning of statistical significance. In addition, distinguishing between primary and secondary
sources of scientific information was troublesome in 46% of participating course sections.
Troublesome lecture content areas were pH metabolism, which were the same areas reported
last academic year. In addition gene expression, in which the question specifically asked about
translation, was troublesome in 46% of participating course sections (Tables 1 and 2).
Compared to the last academic year, improvement was shown in organelle function and redox
reactions.
218
Biology
2011-12
Table 1. Biology 190 (Introduction to Cell and Molecular Biology) Knowledge-based
Assessment: Fall 2007. The table represents unpaired data for individual students (n) who
took both the pre-assessment and post-assessment survey in each course section.
Troublesome content areas reflect questions that > 50% of students answered incorrectly on the
post-assessment. Bolded content areas represent those observed to be troublesome in at least
50% of the participating sections throughout the year.
26
Pre-assessment
Average %
30.7
16
Post-assessment
Average %
47.3
%
Increase
16.7
D02
D03
18
27
33.3
34.5
18
18
52.6
58.0
19.3
23.5
D04
27
34.0
18
59.3
25.3
D05
D06
7
28
34.0
29.3
5
21
76.0
41.3
42.0
12.0
N04
E01
Overall
23
24
38.6
40.7
19
7
50.9
69.3
12.3
28.7
22.5
Section
n
D01
n
219
Troublesome Content Areas
Statistical significance,
drawing conclusions, scientific
sources, redox, pH, osmosis
metabolism, gene expression
(Analysis not conducted)
Primary v. secondary sources,
pH, metabolism, gene
expression
Controlled experiments,
drawing conclusions, pH,
metabolism, gene expression
(Analysis not conducted)
Statistical significance,
drawing conclusions, primary
v. secondary sources, redox,
pH, cell types, cell structures,
metabolism, gene expression
(Analysis not conducted)
Statistical significance, pH,
metabolism
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Table 2. Biology 190 (Introduction to Cell and Molecular Biology) Knowledge-based
Assessment: Spring 2008. The table represents paired data for individual students (n) who
took both the pre-assessment and post-assessment survey in each course section.
Troublesome content areas reflect questions that > 50% of students answered incorrectly on the
post-assessment. Bolded content areas represent those observed to be troublesome in at least
50% of the participating sections throughout the year.
28
27
Pre-assessment
Average %
34.7
36.7
12
22
Post-assessment
Average %
74.7
57.3
%
Increase
40.0
19.3
D03
D04
18
26
40.0
30.0
18
21
72.0
63.3
32.0
33.3
D05
25
31.3
17
53.3
22.0
D06
28
26.7
16
62.0
35.3
D07
N02
10
27
34.0
35.3
10
21
75.3
58.0
41.3
22.7
N03
27
33.3
21
54.7
21.3
Section
n
D01
D02
Overall
n
29.9
Troublesome Content Areas
metabolism
Statistical significance,
drawing conclusions, pH,
metabolism
Statistical significance,
primary v. secondary sources,
osmosis, metabolism
Statistical significance,
drawing conclusions, pH,
meiosis/genetic diversity
Statistical significance, redox
reactions, pH
(Analysis not conducted)
Statistical significance,
primary v. secondary sources,
pH, gene expression
Statistical significance,
primary v. secondary sources,
pH, metabolism, gene
expression
Statistical significance, pH,
metabolism
Improvement on Student Learning:
We consistently observed a poor understanding of pH and metabolism, and gene expression
did not fall far behind. pH is a chemical topic that not much time is devoted to because of the
need to cover other biological concepts. Nonetheless, pH has tremendous ramifications on
biological function, and so it is something that students, particularly those entering allied health
programs, should have a grasp of. Since many of the allied health programs at TMCC, notably
nursing, don’t require chemistry as part of their curriculum, we may need to reconsider the
omission of two original laboratories on pH and biological buffering systems that were not
incorporated into the new lab manual in order to make way for more hypothesis-driven and
statistically-based exercises.
We also noted poor performance on the topics of gene expression (specifically translation) and
cellular metabolism. It was somewhat surprising that students performed poorly on the
translation question, as compared to others it was a simple recall question, and many
instructors cover this topic just prior to the post-assessment quiz. After reviewing the question,
it may have been poorly written. Perhaps a simple restructuring would make the question
clearer, and more students would be able to answer it correctly. This is important to determine,
as concepts introduced in BIOL 251, including bacterial and viral genetics, depend on this
knowledge foundation.
Cellular metabolism seems particularly difficult for students, possibly because of the level of
detail that is involved. Students seem overwhelmed and disinterested in this topic. Perhaps
220
Biology
2011-12
emphasizing the broader importance of generating ATP, especially in such cell types as muscle
and neurons would improve interest and stimulate a stronger performance. Additionally,
students who take BIOL 223 will revisit this topic while studying muscle physiology, so
emphasizing its importance in subsequent courses might provoke more student effort.
Results from the laboratory assessment indicate that students still have difficulty understanding
the concept of statistical significance. Thus, it would behoove us to continue reinforcing these
skill sets in subsequent biology courses. One step that we have taken is to introduce statistical
analysis as part of culminating group research project that students complete in BIOL 251. We
may also want to investigate alternative or additional laboratory exercises in BIOL 223 and 224
that incorporate more quantitative data collection and analytical thinking.
Since the incorporation of the new lab manual we have noticed that students generally struggle
with basic mathematical calculations, and many struggle with writing. We believe that this is
because most students enter BIOL 190 without having taken college level math or English, or
even college courses at all. Many may also be returning to college after a lengthy hiatus and
have not practiced these basic skills. This makes teaching students data and statistical
analysis, as well as scientific report writing, an even more difficult task. In addition, we learned
from our program review self study that students taking ENG 101 and MATH 120 or higher did
better in BIOL 190 than students who did not. Consequently, revised the BIOL 190
prerequisites to ENG 101 and MATH 120 or higher, or equivalent Accuplacer scores. These
new pre-requisites will be implemented in Fall 2008, and it will be interesting to see what impact
they have.
Assessment Plan Revisions:
At this time we have not felt the need to revise our assessment plan other than to re-write the
assessment survey to reflect the theme-based objectives that faculty developed this year.
221
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
TMCC Program and Discipline Report
Program/Discipline: Biology – Human Anatomy & Physiology I 223
Division: MSET
Submitted by: Eddie Burke – May 21st, 2008
Academic Year: 2007/08
Complete and submit your assessment report to your Academic Dean. As needed, please
attach supporting documents and/or a narrative description of the assessment activities in your
program/discipline.
Program/Discipline
Outcomes
In the boxes below,
summarize the
outcomes assessed in
your program or
discipline during the
last year.
Outcome #1:Students
were assessed for an
understanding of
physiological function
and anatomical
structure of human
tissues as well as the
integumentary,
skeletal, muscular &
nervous systems
including their
interrelationships.
Assessment
Measures
In the boxes below,
summarize the
methods used to
assess program or
discipline outcomes
during the last year.
Students were given a
15 question quiz first
and last day of class.
The quiz was based
on overall course
objectives and
covered what the
faulty believe to be
the major take home
points of the course.
See attached
narrative.
Outcome #2: Students
shall acquire the
ability to apply
analytic thinking skills
in interpreting both
qualitative and
quantitative data and
case studies.
Outcome #3 Students
will read and
understand both
qualitative and
quantitative data
collected in lab or
supplied in case
studies. They must
interpret this data and
supply written
Assessment Results
Use of Results
In the boxes below,
summarize the results of your
assessment activities during
the last year.
In the boxes below,
summarize how you
are or how you plan
to use the results to
improve student
learning.
The assessment quiz
questions which
caused most
problems on the
assessment quiz were
examined and
analyzed.
See attached
narrative.
Effect on the
Program/Discipline
Based on the results of this
year, will you revise your
assessment plan? If so, please
summarize how and why in
the boxes below.
As above
The quiz scores were
compared and tabulated.
Overall of 7 sections of Biol.
223 taught in the Fall of 07
there was a 29.2%
improvement in the post
assessment scores as
compared to the preassessment scores.
Of the 5 sections of Biol.
223 taught in the Spring of
08 where data was returned
there was a 25.4%
improvement in the post
assessment scores as
compared to the preassessment scores. See
attached narrative.
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above
As above
222
The assessment quiz has been
substantially edited. A new
version of the assessment
quiz will be administered to
the students starting with the
summer classes of 2008.
See attached narrative.
Biology
2011-12
interpretations and
conclusions.
Annual Biology Assessment Report
Biol 223 (Human Anatomy & Physiology I)
2007 - 2008
1. Contributing faculty: Eddie Burke
Data supplied by: Steve Schenk, Eddie Burke, Jim Collier, Matt Halter, Melissa Deadmond, Wil
Mehm, Lisa Rogers, Jamie Campbell, Lance Bowen, Dan Williams & Svetlanna Khaiboulinna,
Heidi Schutz.
2. Summary of assessment activities:
a. Educational philosophy, course and laboratory curriculum
These 2 human anatomy and physiology courses are intensive laboratory based courses dealing
with the morphology and physiology of body systems. Basic histology is covered along with all
of the 11 human body systems over 2 semesters (or 1 semester with the fast-track courses). The
lectures and laboratories focus on the structure and the complimentary function of each body
system. These courses are required for most allied health programs. Principles of chemistry and
cell & molecular biology are used throughout the semester.
The anatomy & physiology faculty had several meetings where course and laboratory content
were discussed. The general consensus was to establish a set of course objectives for each
course which should be used by all teaching faculty to standardize the material covered. These
objectives emphasize anatomical structure and underlying physiology of the human body
systems. Relevant clinical examples are presented throughout the course.
The laboratory supports the lecture material by presenting the anatomy using histology slides,
skeletons, models, websites, pictures, organ specimens, a human cadaver, computerized
physiology demonstrations using PhysioEx and lab manual exercises.
Evaluations of the lecture material is accomplished via written examinations and assignments
measuring the students understanding of conceptual information.
Evaluations of the laboratory material is accomplished via written examinations where the
students are required to identify tissues, organs & specimens and describe physical principles.
b. Learning outcomes
Three learning outcomes were established for Biol 223:
223
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
1. Understand and appreciate scientific phenomena while acquiring an understanding of
physiological function and anatomical structure of human tissues, organs and organ systems,
including their interrelationships.
2. Students must demonstrate understanding and knowledge on both laboratory practical
examinations and written lecture examinations.
3. Students will read and understand both qualitative and quantitative data collected in lab or
supplied in case studies. They must interpret this data and supply written interpretations and
conclusions.
c. Methods
Assessment was accomplished in each Biol 223 section by administering a 15 question, multiple
choice quiz to students. The questions were specifically written to address a sampling of the
entire range of material addressed in both courses.
These quizzes were given as a pre-assessment tool at the beginning of the first class session and
as a post-assessment tool at the end of the last class session before the final exam.
The results were tabulated and compared for both the fall and spring semesters. Our original
assessment tool as administered in Fall 06 was updated and administered in Spring 07. The Fall
07 and Spring 08 assessment contained questions contained application based questions
evaluating student knowledge, reasoning and synthesis.
3. Results:
Fall 2007
In the Fall of 2007 a total of 7 sections of Biol 223 were taught. The data presented in table 1
below are taken from classes where the courses were assessed both before and after the courses.
Table 1 - Fall 2007 – Biol 223 Assessment
Data
Pre-test
Post-test
Section
DO1
D02
D03
D04
D05
N01
N02
OVERALL
Av. score %
43.5
48.4
43.1
40.3
40.0
38.2
43.3
40.0
Av. score %
62.5
68.1
63.9
72.3
67.3
67.3
67.3
69.1
%
Increase
18.9
19.6
20.8
32.0
27.3
29.1
24.0
29.2±6.9
As can be seen in the 7 sections of Biol 223 that were assessed there was an average 29.2%
improvement in the post course assessment scores as compared to the pre-assessment scores
224
Biology
2011-12
Spring 2008
In the Spring of 2008 a total of 7 sections of Biol 223 were taught & 5 sections returned data.
The data presented in table 2 below are taken from classes where the courses were assessed both
before and after the courses.
Table 2 - Spring 2008 – Biol 223 Assessment
Data
Pre-test
Post-test
Section
DO1
D02
D03
D04
D05
OVERALL
Av. score %
42.6
46.7
38.7
41.5
50.2
44.0
Av. score %
60.5
69.4
73.3
73.0
70.6
69.3
%
Increase
17.9
22.7
34.7
31.5
20.4
25.4±6.5
As can be seen in the 5 sections of Biol 223 that were assessed there was an average 25.4%
improvement in the post course assessment scores as compared to the pre-assessment scores.
4. Improvement of student learning:
The 2006-07 academic year was the first attempt at assessing the Biol 223 course. The initial
assessment tools of the Fall of 2006 had some conceptual problems and were then changed in the
Spring of 2007 to address those issues (Namely the quizzes contained primarily knowledge
based questions and some of the questions were true/false questions which meant that the
students had a 50:50 chance of getting the correct answer which would skew the results).
The assessment questions used from the Spring of 07 onwards contained all application based
questions assessing knowledge, reasoning and synthesis. The faculty believes that these
questions more accurately test the knowledge gained in the courses.
On analyzing the breakdown of the Biol 223 assessment quiz for both the Fall 07 and Spring 08
semesters it was noticed that least improvement was continued to be observed in the subject
areas of:



The function of myelin sheaths in nerves
The stretch reflex of muscles
Protection provided by epithelial tissues and mucosal membranes
Why this is so is not known but there are some similarities in the material poorly understood in
other biology courses especially Biol 190 (cell & molecular biology) and Biol 251
(microbiology). Some ideas as to why students had difficulty with these areas include:
1. The function of myelin sheaths in nerves is a complicated concept involving the
electrophysiology & the generation of action potentials. This concept involves many strands of
information which has to be systematically and logically assembled to make sense.
225
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2. The stretch reflex of muscles is again a difficult concept similar to above involving many
pieces of information.
3. Protection provided by epithelial tissues and mucosal membranes although relatively straight
forward, may not be covered by the entire faculty.
4. Embryology is a very complicated subject and again, may not be taught to any great depth by
all instructors.
While all of the above areas can be addressed by the teaching faculty during the semester, it is
quite obvious that to fully understand the physiology requires the student to synthesize a
significant amount of knowledge and apply logic. In addition, the material and concepts covered
in other biology (and science) subjects is critical for an in depth understanding of human
anatomy and physiology (and vice versa for those other subjects). A student who performs well
in one science subject will most likely perform well in most other science subjects.
It may also be that the assessment questions in these areas are the problem since these subject
areas also caused problems in the 06/07 assessment year. In order to address this, the assessment
questions have again been edited. While the subject matter has remained similar, the questions
have been re-worded in attempt to establish if it is the material or the actual assessment question.
Overall however all sections of all courses showed an improvement in the retention and
understanding of the material. Generally, students showed improvement and ability to retain
information presented and show ability to reason through “thought questions” and arrive at
appropriate solutions to problems presented. The lecture material is no doubt being reinforced
by the nature of the laboratory exercises.
5. Assessment revision plans:
The assessment questions have been edited again to address some conceptual problem areas. We
will start using the new assessment questions starting in the summer of 2008 and continue with
these questions in the Fall of 08 and the Spring of 09.
226
Biology
2011-12
Annual Biology Assessment Report
Biol 224 (Human Anatomy & Physiology II)
2007 - 2008
1. Contributing faculty: Steve Schenk & Eddie Burke
Data supplied by: Steve Schenk, Eddie Burke, Jim Collier, Will Mehm, Jamie Campbell, Lance
Bowen, & Dan Williams
2. Summary of assessment activities:
a. Educational philosophy, course and laboratory curriculum
BIOL 223 and BIOL 224 are intensive laboratory based courses dealing with the morphology
and physiology of body systems. Basic histology is covered along with all of the 11 human body
systems over 2 semesters (or 1 semester with the fast-track courses). The lectures and
laboratories focus on the structure and the complimentary function of each body system. These
courses are required for most allied health programs. Principles of chemistry and cell &
molecular biology are used throughout the semester.
The anatomy and physiology faculty met routinely over the course of the 2007-08 academic year
to discuss laboratory content and work on a set of more focused course objectives. A relatively
strong set of objectives was developed over the course of the academic year BIOL 223. A
proposed set of new objectives have been introduced for BIOL 224 and will be further developed
in the 2008-09 academic year. These new objectives in both courses will serve as a basis for
future development of assessment tools for these courses.
The laboratory supports the lecture material by presenting the anatomy using histology slides,
models, websites, pictures, organ specimens, a human cadaver, computerized physiology
demonstrations using PhysioEx and lab manual exercises.
Evaluations of the lecture material is accomplished via written examinations and assignments
measuring the students understanding of conceptual information.
Evaluations of the laboratory material is accomplished via written examinations where the
students are required to identify tissues, organs & specimens and describe physical principles.
b. Learning outcomes
Three learning outcomes were maintained for Biol 224:
1. Understand and appreciate scientific phenomena while acquiring an understanding of
physiological function and anatomical structure of human tissues, organs and organ systems,
including their interrelationships.
2. Students must demonstrate understanding and knowledge on both laboratory practical
examinations and written lecture examinations.
3. Students will read and understand both qualitative and quantitative data collected in lab or
supplied in case studies. They must interpret this data and supply written interpretations and
conclusions.
227
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
c. Methods
Assessment was accomplished in 224 section by administering a 15 question, multiple choice
quiz to students. The questions were specifically written to address a sampling of the entire
range of material addressed in both courses, and included laboratory-based as well as lecturebased questions. These quizzes were given as a pre-assessment tool at the beginning of the first
class session and as a post-assessment tool at the end of the last class session before the final
exam.
The results were tabulated and compared for both the fall and spring semesters. The assessment
tool used throughout the 2007-08 academic year was the same one used in the spring of 2007,
which focused on application-based and synthesis questions. Pre-test and post-test scores for
each section were assembled in pair-wise fashion the mean improvement determined for each
class. Data from students who took only the pre-test or only the post-test were excluded from
analysis.
3. Results:
Fall 2007 and Spring 2008 Data
Assessments were performed and results reported for in 6 sections in fall of 2007 and again in
spring of 2008.
Table 1 - Fall 2007 – Biol 224 Assessment
Data
Pre-test
Post-test
Section
Av.score % Av. score %
% Increase
D01
40.5%
63.1%
22.6%
D03
45.9%
68.1%
22.2%
D04
41.6%
67.6%
26.0%
D05
27.6%
57.1%
29.5%
N01
45.3%
59.3%
14.0%
N02
49.2%
64.6%
15.4%
OVERALL
41.7%
63.3%
21.6%
Table 2 – Spring 2008 – Biol 224
Assessment Data
Pre-test
Post-test
Section
Av.score % Av. score %
D01
36.7%
57.3%
D02
36.5%
57.8%
D03
43.0%
68.4%
D04
36.5%
61.4%
D05
33.3%
50.0%
N01
43.0%
67.4%
OVERALL
38.2%
60.4%
% Increase
20.6%
21.3%
25.4%
24.9%
16.7%
24.4%
22.2%
The data observed in Tables 1 and 2 are consistent no only with each other, but also with results
using a similar assessment tool in spring 2007, in which a mean improvement of 22.65% was
228
Biology
2011-12
observed. When the above data are combined with previous data using the same tool, the results
show a high degree of consistency with some – but minimal – variation, as percent increases for
the majority of sections are within one standard deviation of the mean and all samples are within
two standard deviations.
Individual Question Analyses
Ten of the twelve sections reporting data also identified certain questions as problem questions.
These questions were identified as questions in which < 50% of the students answered correctly
on the post-test. The most frequently reported problem questions (i.e. questions reported as
problem questions in 50% or more of reporting sections) involved the following topics:



Blood flow patterns
Endocrinology
Blood transfusions
The latter two of these topics were also identified as problem questions in the spring 2007 data.
4. Improvement of student learning:
The 2007-08 academic year represents a continuation of assessment for BIOL 224 as developed
during the previous academic year. The faculty continue to believe that an assessment tool based
on application and synthesis of knowledge acquired is most appropriate for this course. The high
level of consistency across sections in post-test improvement suggests that all faculty are
teaching in a manner that supports our underlying philosophy.
While students generally demonstrated improvement in all areas, three surfaced as points of
concern given that 50% of more of reporting sections indicated that fewer than 50% of the
students answered these questions correctly on the post-test. These topics are considered here.
1. Blood flow distribution patterns is a topic of fundamental concern for students in many
healthcare majors (especially nurses). The particular assessment question (#4) was generally
popular with the biology faculty given that it is application oriented and ties lecture material
that covered in laboratory. It is likely that a more active emphasis on the links between
lecture and laboratory would improve performance on this question.
2. The question on endocrinology (#12) surfaced as a problem question in spring 2007 as well
as in the 2007-08 academic year. As noted in the previous assessment report, this is one of
the most challenging topics covered in BIOL 224, and difficulty with this topic can be tied to
challenges with underpinning topics in BIOL 190 (Cell and Molecular Biology) and with
companion topics in BIOL 251 (Microbiology). This is another question well-liked by the
faculty for its synthesis take on endocrinology.
3. The science associated with blood transfusions (#15) is tightly associated with immunology,
which is another topic widely acknowledged as challenging for most students. It is likely
that the performance issues observed here – like those associated with endocrinology – can
be tied to similar issues observed in BIOIL 190 and BIOL 251.
It is clear that the connections between laboratory and lecture and increased attention by faculty
to the coverage of endocrinology and immunology will benefit the students, given the results
229
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
observed here. However, the overall trend was one of consistent improvement, suggesting that
faculty emphasis on critical thinking, application and synthesis of knowledge, and incorporation
of knowledge from a broad scientific base is leading to authentic student learning and not simply
short-term memorization without retention..
5. Assessment revision plans:
Given concerns of the faculty over some assessment questions, the full assessment tool will be
examined over the summer of 2008 with the intention to modify, improve, or replace questions
as needed. The input of the full faculty will be solicited before the new tool is in place for the
2008-09 academic year. The basic format of the assessment tool will remain the same, but
efforts will be made to link the questions more directly to the theme-based course objectives
being developed. Given that these objectives have not been finalized for BIOL 224, it is likely
the assessment tool will undergo revision throughout the 2008-09 academic year.
230
Biology
2011-12
Annual Biology Assessment Report
Biol 251 (General Microbiology)
2007 - 2008
1. Contributing faculty: William Mehm, Laura Briggs, Eddie Burke, Dan Williams, Lance
Bowen, and Melissa Deadmond
2. Summary of assessment activities:
a. Educational philosophy, course and laboratory curriculum- The microbiology faculty
had several meetings where course and laboratory content were discussed. The general
consensus was to emphasize clinical microbiology topics relevant to the needs of health care
professionals. Therefore, our lecture focuses on microbial structure, metabolism, genetics,
epidemiology, mechanisms of growth and pathogenesis, the etiology and nature of selected
diseases, antibiotics, and the basic human immunological defenses against disease. As such, the
prokaryotes, viruses, fungi and eukaryotes are presented. Topics including industrial, ecological
and plant microbiology are minimized. Evaluations are accomplished via written examinations
measuring the students understanding of conceptual information and their ability to reason
quantitatively and scientifically.
The laboratory supports lecture material by presenting basic microbiological techniques
used in the identification of pathogens found in the clinical setting. Thus, techniques presented
include aseptic technique, microscopy, staining methodology, statistical analysis, and bacterial
culture. This lays the foundation for the identification of unknown microorganisms using
standard selective media and biochemical tests. The laboratory culminates with students
performing group research projects where they use these techniques and prepare a poster for
presentation. This activity requires students to read and produce graphs, perform statistical
analyses (mean, standard deviation and “p” value), reference appropriate information sources for
data analysis, and produce a poster. Beginning in Fall 07, the department initiated a course-wide
poster competition at the end of each semester where students from all classes competed for the
top three prizes. Funding is provided by Sierra Sciences. Therefore, we were able to assess
student data analysis and presentation skills. We have also added experiments in bacterial
motility and PCR (polymerase chain reaction) to all of our laboratory sections. Laboratory
evaluations are accomplished via written examinations, quizzes, oral presentations and poster
sessions.
b. Learning outcomes- Three learning outcomes were established for Biol 251:
1) The student will develop the ability to reason quantitatively and scientifically.
2) The student will be able to understand complex concepts by building upon preexisting knowledge.
3) The student will develop the ability to find, assess, and use appropriate
information available to them for course activities.
c. Methods- Assessment of lecture and laboratory knowledge was accomplished by
administering a 10 question, multiple choice quiz to students. The quiz was given as a preassessment tool at the beginning of the first class session and as a post-assessment tool at the end
of the last class session before the final exam. The results were tabulated and compared for the
summer, fall and spring semesters.
3. Results:
231
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
a. Summer 07Biology 251 Assessment
Data
Summer 07
Pretest
Section
Instructor n
DO1/2
1
2
38
30
8
Posttest
Ave.
score
n
Ave.
score
4.4
4.1
5.5
27
22
6
8.0
8.1
7.6
36.0%
40.0%
21.0%
8.0
36.0%
4.4
OVERALL
%
Increase
The assessment tool presented application based questions assessing knowledge, reasoning and
synthesis. The two sections offered in Summer 07 had a single lecturer and two separate
laboratory sections. For purposes of this report, the two sections were combined and showed an
average improvement of 36%. The performance improvement for students enrolled for the first
time was 40%; and for repeat students, 21%. Course dropout rate was 29%. Least improvement
was observed in the subject areas of: 1) interpretation of the gram stain, 2) microbial metabolism,
and 3) mechanisms of pathogenicity.
b. Fall 07Biology 251 Assessment
Data
Fall
2007
Pretest
Section
DO1
DO1 (1)
DO1 (2)
DO2
DO2 (1)
DO2 (2)
DO3
DO3 (1)
DO3 (2)
DO4
DO4 (1)
Instructor n
23
19
4
24
14
10
21
16
5
23
15
(new version)
Posttest
Ave.
score
n
Ave.
score
4.2
3.8
5.7
3.9
3.2
4.8
4.3
3.9
5.6
4.0
3.6
17
15
2
19
9
10
13
11
2
19
14
7.3
7.2
8.0
7.6
7.6
7.6
8.7
8.9
8.0
7.1
7.2
232
%
Increase
31.0%
34.0%
23.0%
37.0%
44.0%
28.0%
44.0%
50.0%
24.0%
31.0%
36.0%
Biology
DO4 (2)
NO1
NO1 (1)
NO1 (2)
NO2
NO2 (1)
NO2 (2)
Total
1st
timers
2nd timers
8
20
14
6
23
15
8
134
4.7
3.8
3.6
4.1
5.3
5.0
6.1
4.3
5
20
16
4
22
17
5
110
6.8
6.6
6.5
7.2
7.9
7.7
8.4
7.5
21.0%
28.0%
29.0%
31.0%
26.0%
27.0%
23.0%
32.8%
93
41
3.9
5.2
82
28
7.5
7.6
36.5%
24.4%
2011-12
The assessment tool presented application based questions assessing knowledge, reasoning and
synthesis. In the six sections offered in Fall 07 divided among five instructors, there was an
average improvement of 32.8% with a range from 26% to 44%. The performance improvement
for students enrolled for the first time was 36.5%; and for repeat students, 24.4%. Course
dropout rate was 18%. Least improvement was observed in the subject areas of: 1) interpretation
of the gram stain and associated morphologies, 2) control of microbial growth, 3) mechanisms of
DNA transfer among microorganisms, 4) microbial resistance to antibiotics, and 5) immunology.
c. Spring 08Biology 251 Assessment
Data
Spring 2008
Pretest
Section
DO1
DO1 (1)
DO1 (2)
DO2
DO2 (1)
DO2 (2)
DO3
DO3 (1)
DO3 (2)
DO4
DO4 (1)
DO4 (2)
DO5
DO5 (1)
DO5 (2)
NO1
NO1 (1)
Instructor n
24
17
7
22
17
5
17
17
none
24
17
7
16
13
3
15
11
(new version)
Posttest
Ave.
score
4.6
4.5
5.0
4.4
4.0
5.8
3.7
3.7
4.8
3.7
7.2
4.6
4.3
5.6
4.5
3.9
n
16
12
4
19
14
5
13
13
none
19
16
3
16
11
5
14
10
233
Ave.
score
7.5
7.4
8.0
7.4
7.2
8.0
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.6
8.0
6.0
6.2
5.6
5.5
5.9
%
Increase
29.0%
29.0%
30.0%
30.0%
32.0%
22.0%
40.0%
40.0%
0.0%
28.0%
39.0%
8.0%
14.0%
19.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
NO1 (2)
NO2
NO2 (1)
NO2 (2)
Total
1st
timers
2nd timers
4
18
14
4
136
6.2
3.8
3.2
5.7
4.3
4
16
12
4
113
4.7
7.9
7.6
8.7
7.0
-15.0%
41.0%
44.0%
30.0%
27.0%
106
30
3.9
5.9
88
25
7.0
7.1
31.0%
12.0%
The assessment tool presented application based questions assessing knowledge, reasoning and
synthesis. In the seven sections offered in Spring 08 divided among six instructors, there was an
average improvement of 27.0% with a range from 10% to 41%. The performance improvement
for students enrolled for the first time was 31%; and for repeat students, 12%. Course dropout
rate was 20%. Least improvement was observed in the subject areas of: 1) interpretation of the
gram stain and associated morphologies, 2) control of microbial growth, 3) mechanisms of DNA
transfer among microorganisms, 4) microbial resistance to antibiotics, and 5) mechanisms of
pathogenicity.
4. Improvement of student learning:
a. Summer, 07- Summer school student improvement (36%) surpassed both Fall
performance (32.8%) and Spring performance (27.0%). First time students improved at a rate
twice that of second time students (40% vs. 21%). The stronger performance of first time
students compared to second time students is a pattern we will see repeated in the subsequent
two semesters. It appears that repeating students do not improve their study habits when
repeating the class and consequently their second attempt at the course is less than optimal. The
overall strong summer performance may be due to the fact that summer school offers an
immersion educational experience in a compressed period of time. Students must “commit” to
the course with concentrated study habits or they will quickly fall behind. Those uncommitted
generally drop out early in the semester leaving behind those willing to study (29% drop out
rate). This is the largest percentage of all three courses offering times (Summer, Fall and
Spring). As a result, summer school courses often perform better than those in the conventional
16 week semester. Consequently, summer had only three subject areas reflecting deficient
performance.
b. Fall 07- The Fall (32.8%) semester student improvement fell in between Summer
(36%) and Spring (27%). Once again, first time students improved at a better rate (36.5%) than
second time students (24.4%). We appeared to have a stronger student body in the fall compared
to the spring since the dropout rate was similar. Fall dropouts were 18% and Spring dropouts
were 20%.
We believe more emphasis needs to be placed on distinguishing the morphological and
physiological differences among the three major groups of pathogens: bacteria, viruses and
eukaryotes. Our assessment questions are designed to test an “integration” of lecture and
laboratory knowledge. Apparently, students are not connecting lab work with lecture as well as
we would like. We will consider developing a way to quantify the effects of the course-wide
laboratory poster contest and ways to improve the lecture-lab interface. Poor performance was
also noted in their retention of immunology. A point to note is that many instructors place
234
Biology
2011-12
immunology at the end or their course. Consequently our assessment could be detecting a
“fatigue” issue. Students also did not perform well in the areas of DNA transfer and metabolism.
These are areas that depend heavily on the student’s Biol 190 skills in molecular biology,
genetics and metabolism. This is a constant battle. Students frequently claim they did not
understand those topics in Biol 190 and therefore do not understand them now. We will meet on
this topic to discuss how the Biol 190 curriculum focus could be improved to enhance student
success in Microbiology.
c. Spring 08- The Spring (27%) semester student improvement was the poorest compared to
Summer (36%) and Fall (32.8%). This semester, first time students (31%) improved at a rate
almost three times better than second time students (12%). Spring drop out rate was 20%. We
believe that more emphasis needs to be placed on the mechanisms of “bacterial growth and
control,” specifically relating to the mechanisms of food preservation. Emphasizing bactericidal
vs. bacteriostatic concepts is critical to this issue and relates to the effects of refrigeration,
osmolarity, free radical damage, etc. Again, student lack of proficiency here may relate to their
poor understanding of diffusion, dialysis and osmosis presented in Biol 190. Secondly, students
had difficulty in the area of genetics, specifically in understanding lateral gene transfer
(transformation). This weakness relates back to the Biol 190 curriculum where genetics, DNA,
and the principles of molecular biology are introduced. In contrast to the Fall semester, students
performed much better in the area of immunology such that it was not identified as an
educational deficiency. Only one instructor moved the immunology material from the end of the
semester to the middle. Thus the fatigue-factor argument may not stand. Students had difficulty
distinguishing the morphological differences among bacterial types as differentiated by the Gram
stain. Again, this reflects on the interface between lecture and laboratory.
While our poster contest does not qualitatively appear to enhance the lecture-lab
interface, it has greatly improved student understanding of the scientific method and statistical
expression of laboratory data. The competitive posters had statistical analyses and the students
were able to discuss their data with respect to statistical significance during their presentations.
This enhanced student ability is directly related to an intense and coordinated faculty effort. It
may represent the faculty’s greatest contribution to student education in microbiology.
5. Assessment revision plans:
No plans at this time to change the assessment tool for the lecture section. We will run it
for another year and consider revisions at the end of the next school year. We will explore new
ways to quantitatively assess student critical thinking skills, their application of the scientific
method, and use of statistical analysis through the poster competition.
235
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
2011-12
Biology 100 Assessments
Fall
2006
Pretest
ave.
score=
ave %=
n=
15
26
10
24
27
21
123
13.0
12.1
11.8
13.1
9.8
11.3
65.0%
60.5%
59.0%
65.5%
49.0%
56.5%
123
11.7
58.5%
Section
Instructor
n=
D01
D02
D04
D05
N01
N02
Ellsworth
Deadmond
Halter
Beauchamp
Gipson
Brent
OVERALL
Question Analysis
Pre-test
Question
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
missed
14
65
19
27
78
35
16
97
71
56
33
48
96
39
17
40
41
102
63
58
Posttest
ave.
score=
ave %=
10
20
14
19
19
missing
82
15.0
14.1
12.5
16.4
12.4
missing
75.0%
70.5%
62.5%
82.0%
62.0%
missing
82
14.1
70.5%
Post-test
%
correct
88.6%
47.2%
84.6%
78.0%
36.6%
71.5%
87.0%
21.1%
42.3%
54.5%
73.2%
61.0%
22.0%
68.3%
86.2%
67.5%
66.7%
17.1%
48.8%
52.8%
missed
4
34
4
16
35
17
5
55
60
26
14
11
36
24
13
11
15
56
22
25
% correct
95.1%
58.5%
95.1%
80.5%
57.3%
79.3%
93.9%
32.9%
26.8%
68.3%
82.9%
86.6%
56.1%
70.7%
84.1%
86.6%
81.7%
31.7%
73.2%
69.5%
236
% improvement
6.5%
11.4%
10.6%
2.4%
20.7%
7.7%
6.9%
11.8%
-15.4%
13.8%
9.8%
25.6%
34.1%
2.4%
-2.0%
19.1%
15.0%
14.6%
24.4%
16.7%
Biology
2011-12
Annual Biology Assessment Report
BIOL 190: Introduction to Cell and Molecular Biology
2007-2008
Contributing faculty:
Melissa Deadmond, Laura Briggs, Julie Ellsworth, Scott Huber, Pamela Sandstrom, Steve
Schenk, and Beate Wone.
Summary of Assessment Activities:
Biology 190, Introduction to Cell and Molecular Biology, is the pre-requisite to all 200-level
courses offered by the Biology Department, most notably BIOL 223 (Human Anatomy &
Physiology I), BIOL 224 (Human Anatomy & Physiology II), and BIOL 251 (General
Microbiology). This supports both pre-requisite classes for allied health programs and the
science general education component for transferring Biology majors. Because of its
foundational nature, the Biology faculty have identified BIOL 190 as one of the most important
courses taught.
One challenge faced by BIOL 190 faculty is that that students enrolling in this course often have
not been exposed to college-level science and furthermore lack college level math and English
composition skills. Based on a nation-wide study in Science magazine that indicated a positive
correlation between adequate math skills and success in natural sciences, the faculty chose to
implement new course pre-requisites of ENG 101 or 113 and MATH 120 or 126 (or equivalent
Accuplacer, SAT or ACT scores) rather than to enforce the previous CHEM 121 pre-requisite.
This change will go into effect in Fall 2008.
The faculty also established new theme-based course objectives in order to provide instructors
with a standardized set of learner outcomes that are expected of students upon completion of
BIOL 190. Lecture now emphasizes Inorganic Chemistry, Organic Macromolecules, Cytology
(cell structure), Membrane Physiology, Cell Signaling, Cellular Energetics (cellular respiration &
photosynthesis), Cellular Growth & Division, Heredity, Gene Expression, and Gene Regulation.
As such, we hoped that students would demonstrate the following learning outcomes:
7. Students will acquire a basic knowledge of cellular and molecular biology, and
8. Students will learn to communicate about the molecular and cellular basis of life.
Individual instructors used written exams and quizzes as the primary mechanisms of evaluating
a student’s understanding of these concepts. Students more or less experienced a traditional
lecture format with occasional active learning activities incorporated at the instructor’s
discretion. At the department level, we assessed the above learning outcomes by administering
a 15-question, multiple choice, knowledge and analysis-based quiz to students at the beginning
of the first day of class and at the end of the last class meeting before the final exam. This quiz
reflected what we felt were central topics that, as opposed to recalling specific pieces of
information, required the student to either synthesize or understand the broader concept. A
total of 9 sections of BIOL 190 (8 in fall and 9 in spring) participated in this assessment.
The laboratory is designed to support lecture content as well as to emphasize application of the
scientific method, including scientific analysis and interpretation of data, and to promote the
communication of experimental outcomes both orally and in writing. Recently, faculty members
restructured laboratory exercises and created a new student laboratory manual in order to
emphasize the following learning outcome:
237
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Students shall understand the scientific method, be able to design and carry out a
scientific experiment, analyze collected data utilizing accepted methods, and write a
clear and readable report following an accepted research report format.
The philosophical approach of the laboratory manual, which was integrated into the laboratory
curriculum for the first time in Fall 2006, is to stress hypothesis-driven experiments and
incorporate more mathematical calculations, data organization and analysis, and elementary
statistical testing. Overall, we hoped to enhance analytical skills. To assess these concepts,
individual instructors evaluated laboratory manual entries, formal written reports, and oral
presentations. Instructors also administered laboratory practical exams to assess a student’s
knowledge of equipment use, supporting mathematical calculations, and data interpretation.
Laboratory-based learning outcomes were not directly assessed at the department level;
however, one instructor conducted a pilot pre and post laboratory assessment on a small
sample of students.
Results:
Throughout the 2007-2008 academic year, overall improvement in knowledge ranged from
11.4%-31.9% with averages of 22.5% and 22.4% for fall and spring semesters, respectively. It
is interesting to note that students taking the lecture portion of the course on-line showed a level
of improvement (22.9%) that was slightly above the average for all course sections. In addition,
we observed a remarkable consistency throughout the year and across all participating sections
in the content areas that students still performed poorly in at semester’s end. These were pH,
metabolism and gene expression, in which the question specifically asked about translation.
Organelle function and redox reactions also appeared as areas that were troublesome (Tables 1
and 2)
Table 1. Biology 190 (Introduction to Cell and Molecular Biology) Knowledge-based
Assessment: Fall 2007. The table represents unpaired data for individual students (n) who
took both the pre-assessment and post-assessment survey in each course section.
Troublesome content areas reflect questions that > 50% of students answered incorrectly on the
post-assessment.
Section
n
D01
14
Pre-assessment
Average Score
2.9
D02
16
D04
D05
Overall
n
Post-assessment
Average Score
4.1
11.4%
3.6
6.8
31.9%
16
3.7
5.4
16.9%
9
55
3.9
3.5
6.9
5.8
30.0%
22.5%
238
% Increase
Troublesome
Content Areas
pH, organelles,
osmosis,
metabolism, gene
expression
pH, metabolism,
gene expression
pH, organelles,
osmosis,
metabolism, gene
expression
pH, gene expression
pH, metabolism,
gene expression
Biology
2011-12
Table 2. Biology 190 (Introduction to Cell and Molecular Biology) Knowledge-based
Assessment: Spring 2008. The table represents paired data for individual students (n) who
took both the pre-assessment and post-assessment survey in each course section.
Troublesome content areas reflect questions that > 50% of students answered incorrectly on the
post-assessment.
Section
n
D01
14
Pre-assessment
Average Score
2.9
D02
16
D04
D05
Overall
n
Post-assessment
Average Score
4.1
% Increase
11.4%
3.6
6.8
31.9%
16
3.7
5.4
16.9%
9
55
3.9
3.5
6.9
5.8
30.0%
22.5%
Troublesome
Content Areas
pH, organelles,
osmosis,
metabolism, gene
expression
pH, metabolism,
gene expression
pH, organelles,
osmosis,
metabolism, gene
expression
pH, gene expression
pH, metabolism,
gene expression
In a pilot study over the spring semester, one instructor evaluated the laboratory-based learning
outcome by conducting a pre and post-assessment quiz on designing controlled experiments,
identifying primary sources of scientific information, interpreting graphical and statistical data,
and understanding statistical significance. The results indicated that by the end of the semester
students were able to correctly interpret a graph and p-value but still did not grasp the concepts
of designing an appropriately-controlled experiment, identifying a primary source of scientific
information and understanding statistical significance. (Table 3)
Table 3. Biology 190 (Introduction to Cell and Molecular Biology) Pilot Laboratory-based
Assessment: Spring 2007. The table represents the % of correct post-assessment responses
over the following analytical skills from 8 students in the spring semester.
Content Area
Designing a controlled experiment
Identifying a primary source of scientific information
Interpreting a statistical result (p-value)
Interpreting a graph
Understanding statistical significance
% of Correct Responses
37.5 %
25.0%
75.0%
75.0%
25.0%
Improvement on Student Learning:
We consistently observed a poor understanding of pH, metabolism and gene expression. pH is
a chemical topic that not much time is devoted to because of the need to cover other biological
concepts. Nonetheless, pH has tremendous ramifications on biological function, and so it is
something that students, particularly those entering allied health programs, should have a grasp
of. The department has had ongoing debates as to whether to enforce the CHEM 121
prerequisite, which would cover pH in more detail; however, data from our program review self
study indicated that students who have taken CHEM 121 do no better and, in fact, do worse in
BIOL 190 than students who have not taken it. Two original laboratories on pH and biological
buffering systems were not incorporated into the new lab manual in order to make way for more
hypothesis-driven and statistically-based exercises; we may need to reconsider these
omissions.
239
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
We also noted poor performance on the topics of gene expression (specifically translation) and
cellular metabolism. It was somewhat surprising that students performed poorly on the
translation question, as compared to others it was a simple recall question, and many
instructors cover this topic just prior to the post-assessment quiz. After reviewing the question,
it may have been poorly written. Perhaps a simple restructuring would make the question
clearer, and more students would be able to answer it correctly. This is important to determine,
as concepts introduced in BIOL 251, including bacterial and viral genetics, depend on this
knowledge foundation.
Cellular metabolism seems particularly difficult for students, possibly because of the level of
detail that is involved or because it is founded on the principle of redox reactions, which is
another content area that students performed poorly in. Either way, students seem
overwhelmed and disinterested in this topic. Perhaps emphasizing the broader importance of
generating ATP, especially in such cell types as muscle and neurons would improve interest
and stimulate a stronger performance. Additionally, students who take BIOL 223 will revisit this
topic while studying muscle physiology, so emphasizing its importance in subsequent courses
might provoke more student effort.
Results from the pilot laboratory assessment reflect an extremely small sample size but may still
yield preliminary indications as to the analytical skills that students need to improve. It should
be noted, however, that many practicing scientists still have difficulty with these skills. Thus, it
would behoove us to continue reinforcing these skill sets in subsequent biology courses. One
step that we have taken is to introduce statistical analysis as part of culminating group research
project that students complete in BIOL 251. We may also want to investigate alternative or
additional laboratory exercises in BIOL 223 and 224 that incorporate more quantitative data
collection and analytical thinking.
Since the incorporation of the new lab manual we have noticed that students generally struggle
with basic mathematical calculations, and many struggle with writing. We believe that this is
because most students enter BIOL 190 without having taken college level math or English, or
even college courses at all. Many may also be returning to college after a lengthy hiatus and
have not practiced these basic skills. This makes teaching students data and statistical
analysis, as well as scientific report writing, an even more difficult task. In addition, we learned
from our program review self study that students taking ENG 101 and MATH 120 or higher did
better in BIOL 190 than students who did not. Consequently, we plan to go before the
Curriculum Committee to revise the BIOL 190 prerequisites to ENG 101 and MATH 120 or
higher, or equivalent Accuplacer scores.
Assessment Plan Revisions:
At this time we have not felt the need to revise the assessment quiz other than to rewrite
questions more clearly; however, this is a topic that we can to address during the BIOL 190
focus group meeting just prior to the beginning of the semester. In the future we should also
incorporate a department level assessment of the laboratory component that includes an
evaluation of analytical skills. This in particular would be of interest for assessing the general
education component of this course.
240
Biology
2011-12
Annual Biology Assessment Report
Biol 223 & 224 (Human Anatomy & Physiology)
2006 - 2007
1. Contributing faculty: Eddie Burke, Melissa Deadmond & William Mehm.
Data supplied by: Steve Schenk, Eddie Burke, Jim Collier, Matt Halter, Melissa Deadmond, Wil
Mehm, Lisa Rogers, Jamie Campbell, Lance Bowen, Dan Williams & Svetlanna Khaiboulinna
2. Summary of assessment activities:
a. Educational philosophy, course and laboratory curriculum
These 2 human anatomy and physiology courses are intensive laboratory based courses dealing
with the morphology and physiology of body systems. Basic histology is covered along with all
of the 11 human body systems over 2 semesters (or 1 semester with the fast-track courses). The
lectures and laboratories focus on the structure and the complimentary function of each body
system. These courses are required for most allied health programs. Principles of chemistry and
cell & molecular biology are used throughout the semester.
The anatomy & physiology faculty had several meetings where course and laboratory content
were discussed. The general consensus was to establish a set of course objectives for each
course which should be used by all teaching faculty to standardize the material covered. These
objectives emphasize anatomical structure and underlying physiology of the human body
systems. Relevant clinical examples are presented throughout the course.
The laboratory supports the lecture material by presenting the anatomy using histology slides,
skeletons, models, websites, pictures, organ specimens, a human cadaver, computerized
physiology demonstrations using PhysioEx and lab manual exercises.
Evaluations of the lecture material is accomplished via written examinations and assignments
measuring the students understanding of conceptual information.
Evaluations of the laboratory material is accomplished via written examinations where the
students are required to identify tissues, organs & specimens and describe physical principles.
b. Learning outcomes
Three learning outcomes were established for Biol 223 & 224:
1. Understand and appreciate scientific phenomena while acquiring an understanding of
physiological function and anatomical structure of human tissues, organs and organ systems,
including their interrelationships.
2. Students must demonstrate understanding and knowledge on both laboratory practical
examinations and written lecture examinations.
241
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
3. Students will read and understand both qualitative and quantitative data collected in lab or
supplied in case studies. They must interpret this data and supply written interpretations and
conclusions.
c. Methods
Assessment was accomplished in each Biol 223 or 224 section by administering a 10-15
question, multiple choice quiz to students. The questions were specifically written to address a
sampling of the entire range of material addressed in both courses.
These quizzes were given as a pre-assessment tool at the beginning of the first class session and
as a post-assessment tool at the end of the last class session before the final exam.
The results were tabulated and compared for both the fall and spring semesters. Our original
assessment tool as administered in Fall 06 was updated and administered in Spring 07. The Fall
06 assessment contained questions primarily evaluating knowledge, while the Spring 07
assessment contained more application based questions evaluating student knowledge, reasoning
and synthesis.
3. Results:
Fall 2006
The Fall of 2006 was a trial run for assessing both of the Biol 223 & 224 courses. Assessment
questions were written and performed in a limited number of sections. In the Fall of 2006 a total
of 7 sections of Biol 223 and Biol 224 were assessed. The data presented in Tables 1 & 2 below
are taken from classes where the courses were assessed both before and after the courses. Each
assessment quiz had 10 questions.
Table 1 - Fall 2006 – Biol 223 Assessment
Data
Pre-test
Post-test
Section
NO1
N02
OVERALL
Av.score %
38.9
27.2
33.05
Av. score %
72.1
72.2
72.15
%
Increase
33.2
45
39.1
As can be seen in the 2 sections of Biol 223 that were assessed there was an average 39.1%
improvement in the post course assessment scores as compared to the pre-assessment scores.
Table 2 - Fall 2006 – Biol 224 Assessment
Data
Pre-test
Post-test
%
Section
Av. score % Av. score % Increase
D02
30.5
47.0
16.5
D03
40.7
65.0
24.3
D05
31.5
56.9
25.4
N01
57.8
60.0
2.2
OVERALL 40.1
57.2
17.2
242
Biology
2011-12
In the 4 sections of Biol 224 that were assessed there was an average 17.2% improvement in the
post course assessment scores as compared to the pre-assessment scores.
This original assessment tool emphasized primarily knowledge based questions. In addition,
some of the questions were true/false questions which meant that the students had a 50:50 chance
of getting the correct answer which would skew the results. To attempt to eliminate these errors,
the assessment questions for both courses were re-written to include application based questions
assessing knowledge, reasoning and synthesis.
Spring 2007
In the Spring of 2007 a total of 13 sections of Biol 223 and Biol 224 were assessed. The Biol
223 assessment quiz had 14 questions. The Biol 224 quiz was based on 15 questions. The data
presented in Tables 3 & 4 below are taken from classes where the courses were assessed both
before and after the courses.
Table 3 - Spring 2007 – Biol 223 Assessment
Data
Pre-test
Post-test
Section
DO1
D02
D03
D04
D05
N01
N02
OVERALL
Av. score %
44.4
46.4
44.0
46.6
50.0
41.2
37.9
44.3
Av. score %
67.4
69.6
69.0
83.6
62.9
69.4
56.6
68.3
%
Increase
23.0
23.2
25.0
37.0
12.9
28.2
18.7
24.0
As can be seen in the 7 sections of Biol 223 that were assessed there was an average 24.0%
improvement in the post course assessment scores as compared to the pre-assessment scores. On
analyzing the breakdown of the Biol 223 assessment quiz it was noticed that least improvement
was observed in the subject areas of:



The function of myelin sheaths in nerves
The stretch reflex of muscles
Protection provided by epithelial tissues and mucosal membranes
243
2011-12
PROGRAM UNIT REVIEW
Table 4 - Spring 2007 – Biol 224 Assessment
Data
Pre-test
Post-test
Section
DO1
D03
D04
D06
D07
N01
OVERALL
Av. score %
41.6
44.4
39.1
28.3
39.7
40.6
40.6
Av. score %
66.3
60.0
68.0
56.4
62.7
66.1
62.75
%
Increase
24.8
15.6
28.9
18.1
23.0
25.5
22.65
In the 6 sections of Biol 224 that were assessed there was an average 22.65% improvement in the
post course assessment scores as compared to the pre-assessment scores. On analyzing the
breakdown of the Biol 224 assessment quiz it was noticed that least improvement was observed
in the subject areas of:




Embryology
Blood acid/base balance
Endocrinology
Blood transfusions
4. Improvement of student learning:
The 2006-07 academic year was the first attempt at assessing the Biol 223 and 224 courses. The
initial assessment tools of the Fall of 2006 had some conceptual problems and were then changed
in the Spring of 2007 to address those issues (Namely the quizzes contained primarily knowledge
based questions and some of the questions were true/false questions which meant that the
students had a 50:50 chance of getting the correct answer which would skew the results).
The assessment questions used in the Spring of 07 contained all application based questions
assessing knowledge, reasoning and synthesis. The faculty believes that these questions more
accurately test the knowledge gained in the courses.
On analyzing the breakdown of the assessment quizzes it was noticed that least improvement
was observed in several subject areas. Why this is so is not known but there are some
similarities in the material poorly understood in other biology courses especially Biol 190 (cell &
molecular biology) and Biol 251 (microbiology). Some ideas as to why students had difficulty
with these areas include:
1. The function of myelin sheaths in nerves is a complicated concept involving the
electrophysiology & the generation of action potentials. This concept involves many strands of
information which has to be systematically and logically assembled to make sense.
2. The stretch reflex of muscles is again a difficult concept similar to above involving many
pieces of information.
3. Protection provided by epithelial tissues and mucosal membranes although relatively straight
forward, may not be covered by all of the faculty.
244
Biology
2011-12
4. Embryology is a very complicated subject and again, may not be taught to any great depth by
all instructors.
5. In the blood acid/base balance question lack of proficiency here is most likely related to poor
understanding of diffusion, dialysis and osmosis presented in Biol 190.
6. Endocrinology is foreign and complicated even for seasoned instructors and it is not surprising
that the students would have difficulties with this material.
7. The poor understanding of blood transfusions is most likely related to the lack of
understanding of immunology and concepts covered in both Biol 190 and Biol 251.
While all of the above areas can be addressed by the teaching faculty during the semester, it is
quite obvious that to fully understand the physiology requires the student to synthesize a
significant amount of knowledge and apply logic. In addition, the material and concepts covered
in other biology (and science) subjects is critical for an in depth understanding of human
anatomy and physiology (and vice versa for those other subjects). A student who performs well
in one science subject will most likely perform well in most other science subjects.
Overall however all sections of all courses showed an improvement in the retention and
understanding of the material. Generally, students showed improvement and ability to retain
information presented and show ability to reason through “thought questions” and arrive at
appropriate solutions to problems presented. The lecture material is no doubt being reinforced
by the nature of the laboratory exercises.
5. Assessment revision plans:
In the Spring of 2007 the Biol 223 assessment quiz had 14 questions (originally it had 15
questions but one of the questions was a duplicate and so was removed from the results).
Another question will be added in the Fall of 2007 to bring the quiz to 15 questions total for the
Biol 223 assessment quiz. The Biol 224 quiz will remain the same.
Apart from that minor change, there are no plans at this time to change the assessment tool for
the lecture section. Having revised the questions last semester, we want to run these same
questions for at least another year to assess their effectiveness. We will consider revisions at the
end of the next school year after evaluating the relevant data.
245
i
R.R. Hake, "Interactive‐engagement vs traditional methods: A six‐thousand‐student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66, 64‐74 (1998) and on the Web at <http://carini.physics.indiana.edu/SDI/>, and also the Harvard Galileo server at <http://galileo.harvard.edu/> under "Hands On Methods." R.R. Hake, "Interactive‐engagement methods in introductory mechanics courses," on the Web at <http://carini.physics.indiana.edu/SDI/> and submitted on 6/19/98 to the Physics Education Research Supplement to AJP ( for information on this new journal see <http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/ripe/perg/pers/>. R.R. Hake, "Interactive‐engagement vs Traditional Methods in Mechanics Instruction," APS Forumon Education Newsletter, Summer 1998, p. 5‐7, also at <http://carini.physics.indiana.edu/SDI/>. Some criticisms of ref. 2 and of physics‐education reform generally are countered. ii
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/AnalyzingChange‐Gain.pdf
iii
R.R. Hake, "Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of
mechanics test data for introductory physics courses," Am. J. Phys. 66, 64-74 (1998) and on the Web at
<http://carini.physics.indiana.edu/SDI/>, and also the Harvard Galileo server at
<http://galileo.harvard.edu/> under "Hands On Methods."
R.R. Hake, "Interactive-engagement methods in introductory mechanics courses," on the Web at
<http://carini.physics.indiana.edu/SDI/> and submitted on 6/19/98 to the Physics Education Research
Supplement to AJP ( for information on this new journal see
<http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/ripe/perg/pers/>.
R.R. Hake, "Interactive-engagement vs Traditional Methods in Mechanics Instruction," APS Forumon
Education Newsletter, Summer 1998, p. 5-7, also at <http://carini.physics.indiana.edu/SDI/>. Some
criticisms of ref. 2 and of physics-education reform generally are countered.
iv
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi/AnalyzingChange-Gain.pdf
Truckee Meadows Community College | Description of Program/Unit
247