Central Washington University
Assessment of Student Learning
Department and Program Report
Please enter the appropriate information concerning your student learning assessment activities for this year.
Academic Year of Report: 2010-11
Department Science Education
College: COTS
Program: All secondary science teaching majors
1. What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why?
In answering this question, please identify the specific student learning outcomes you assessed this year, reasons for
assessing these outcomes, with the outcomes written in clear, measurable terms, and note how the outcomes are
linked to department, college and university mission and goals.
We assessed general education related goal 3b, “Students will achieve fluency in writing.” All science teacher
education majors must be proficient in a variety of writing tasks such as lesson planning, formative assessment,
summative assessment, and communication of scientific knowledge. We chose to focus on this last type of writing
because it is linked to many science education department goals.
SCED Department Goal 1: Increase scientific literacy for all students. Effective scientific communication is an
aspect of science literacy.
SCED Department Goal 2: Use best-practice pedagogy to improve student learning outcomes. Incorporating writing
assessment into assignments such as a research project is best-practice pedagogy.
SCED Department Goal 3: Promote quality training of pre-service science teachers. Teachers need to be effective
writers and they need models of how to incorporate writing assessment into assignments they’ll use as teachers.
Please see http://www.cwu.edu/~gen_ed/docs/assessgened.pdf for the description of how the CWU general
education program are linked to the university mission and goals.
2. How were they assessed?
In answering these questions, please concisely describe the specific methods used in assessing student learning.
Please also specify the population assessed, when the assessment took place, and the standard of mastery (criterion)
against which you will compare your assessment results. If appropriate, please list survey or questionnaire response
rate from total population.
A) What methods were used?
Instead of using the CWU writing rubric
(http://www.cwu.edu/~lundin/Book/Good%20Pages/photos/CWU%20Writing%20Rubric%205-10-10_23.pdf),
the science education faculty aligned the different components of the CWU writing rubric with the
corresponding sections of the research poster rubric we use for every science education course-related research
project. This rubric is on Livetext (https://www.livetext.com/) which allows us to easily download the data to a
spreadsheet and analyze it as appropriate. One section of the rubric addresses content, three sections address
reasoning, two sections address organization, three sections address rhetoric of the discipline, and two sections
address conventions and presentation.
B) Who was assessed?
The instructor of SCED 401 (Interdisciplinary Secondary Science inquiry) used the SCED research poster
rubric to evaluate every student research poster in that class. The following data is based on the eight students
enrolled in SCED 401 spring 2011. All of the students in this class were secondary science teaching majors as
this is a required course for all secondary science teaching majors.
C) When was it assessed?
The poster was the culminating report for a quarter-long project. Students received feedback on their research
project and various components of their project throughout the quarter. The summative assessment was done at
the end of the quarter using the rubric in the appendix. The criteria are stated on the rubric.
3. What was learned?
In answering this question, please report results in specific qualitative or quantitative terms, with the results linked to
the outcomes you assessed, and compared to the standard of mastery (criterion) you noted above. Please also include
a concise interpretation or analysis of the results.
According to the science education research poster rubric, the students exhibited excellent scientific writing skills in
the content of a science research poster. Their two weakest areas were qualitative results (rhetoric of the discipline)
and bibliography (conventions and presentations). The bibliography section was weak because students did not
follow the required format. As for qualitative results, students were so focused on getting measurable and
quantifiable results, they overlooked the need to communicate their findings through pictures, descriptions, and
general observations.
SCED 401 General Education Related Goal Writing Assessment 2010-11
Incomp.
Alignment with
Partially
or
Research Poster
CWU writing
Excellent Good
Proficient Proficient Absent
Component
rubric
(6 pts)
(5 pts) (4 pts)
(3 pts)
(0 pts)
Introduction
Content
7
1
0
0
0
Question,
Hypothesis,
Rhetoric of the
Prediction
discipline
8
0
0
0
0
Materials
Organization
6
2
0
0
0
Methods
Organization
6
2
0
0
0
Quantitative
Rhetoric of the
Results
discipline
7
1
0
0
0
Qualitative
Rhetoric of the
Results
discipline
1
7
0
0
0
Data
Relationships
Reasoning
5
3
0
0
0
Experimental
Confounds
Reasoning
8
0
0
0
0
Conclusions
Reasoning
7
1
0
0
0
Conventions &
Bibliography
Presentation
3
2
3
0
0
Format, Spelling
Conventions &
and Grammar
Presentation
7
1
0
0
0
Summary
Content score
5.875
Reasoning score
5.83333
Organization score
5.75
Rhetoric of the
discipline score
5.66667
Conventions &
Presentation score
5.4375
Mean
5.88
6
5.75
5.75
5.88
5.13
5.63
6
5.88
5
5.88
4. What will the department or program do as a result of that information?
In answering this question, please note specific changes to your program as they affect student learning, and as they
are related to results from the assessment process. If no changes are planned, please describe why no changes are
needed. In addition, how will the department report the results and changes to internal and external constituents
(e.g., advisory groups, newsletters, forums, etc.).
Even though this assessment report is based on the spring 2011 SCED 401 course, the results apply to all SCED
undergraduate courses that require a research project (SCED 301, SCED 322, SCED 401). Thus, the following
program changes will apply to every SCED undergraduate course that requires a research project.
1. SCED faculty will provide a better bibliography template and better model its use.
2. In the communication of all class investigations, SCED faculty will stress the communication of both
quantitative AND qualitative results.
3.
While “format, spelling, and grammar” were not an issue in this assessment, we realized that this part of the
rubric is too general and covers two components of the CWU Writing rubric: aspects of organization and
conventions & presentation. SCED faculty will revise the rubric to separate out formatting criteria and
criteria more closely related to the mechanics of writing.
5. What did the department or program do in response to last year’s assessment information?
In answering this question, please describe any changes that have been made to improve student learning based on
previous assessment results. Please also discuss any changes you have made to your assessment plan or assessment
methods.
The following was included in every secondary science report last year: “Some aspects of the [specific science
department] Teaching portfolio need greater specificity and should be shared with students early in the program so
they better understand what is expected. Over the past year, we have revised our advising process so students are not
admitted to the major unless they have met with a science education advisor, reviewed the Livetext portfolio, and
submitted a four-year-plan.
6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Student Learning at Central Washington University:
None.
Appendix: Science Education Department research poster rubric
Element
Introduction
Excellent (6 pts)
Good (5 pts)
Proficient (4 pts)
Partially Proficient (3 pts)
Incomplete or Absent (0 pts)
Background is thorough, detailed,
understandable, and provides
outstanding context for research.
Clearly establishes personal
relevance for reader. Included
pictures and graphics clearly
support context for research.
Background is reasonably
thorough, detailed, and provides
good context for research.
Establishes personal relevance for
reader. Included pictures and
graphics mostly support research
context.
Background information, context
for research, and reader
relevance are average. There are
few pictures and graphics that are
peripherally related to context.
Background information, context
for research, and reader
relevance are below average. No
pictures or graphics are included.
Background description, context
for research, and reader
relevance are absent. No pictures
or graphics are included.
Question,
Hypothesis,
Prediction
Questions are insightful,
descriptive, and written so that
comparative relationships
between experimental variables
are very clearly understood.
Hypotheses are clear, articulate,
and include explanatory
statements. Predictions are highly
specific and tightly connected
with research questions and
hypotheses.
Questions are descriptive and
written so that comparative
relationships between
experimental variables are clearly
understood. Hypotheses are
mostly clear and include
explanatory statements.
Predictions are specific and tightly
connected with research
questions and hypotheses.
Questions are reasonably
descriptive and written so that
comparative relationships
between experimental variables
are mostly understood.
Hypotheses are reasonably clear
and include explanatory
statements. Predictions are
specific and reasonably
connected with research
questions and hypotheses.
Questions are somewhat
descriptive. Comparative
relationships between
experimental variables are not
well articulated. Hypotheses are
somewhat unclear and
explanatory statements are not
readily evident. Predictions are
unspecific and are not well
connected with research
questions and hypotheses.
Questions are not descriptive and
comparative relationships
between experimental variables
are not evident. Hypotheses are
unclear or absent and explanatory
statements are not present.
Predictions are unspecific and are
not connected with research
questions and hypotheses.
Materials
Materials are highly descriptive,
complete, and thorough. The
experiment could be easily
replicated using listed materials.
Materials are descriptive,
complete, and reasonably
thorough. The experiment could
be reasonably replicated using
listed materials.
Materials are somewhat
descriptive and mostly complete.
Some additional information is
needed in order to replicate the
experiment from listed materials.
Materials are inaccurately
described and incomplete.
Considerable additional
information is needed in order to
replicate the experiment from
listed materials.
Materials are not described or are
incomplete. Experiment cannot
be replicated from materials list.
Methods
Experimental methods are highly
descriptive, complete, thorough,
and articulate. The experiment
could be easily replicated using
methods description.
Experimental methods are highly
descriptive, complete, and
thorough. The experiment could
be easily replicated using
methods description.
Experimental methods are mostly
well described and complete. The
experiment could be reasonably
replicated with some additional
information.
Methods are not described and
are incomplete. Experiment
cannot be replicated from
methods information.
Quantitative
Results
Graphs, statistics, and other
measurement data are clearly
described and provide compelling
evidential support for
experimental outcomes.
Graphs, statistics, and other
measurement data are clearly
described and provide persuasive
evidential support for
experimental outcomes.
Graphs, statistics, and other
measurement data are
reasonably described and provide
some evidential support for
experimental outcomes.
Experimental methods are not
well described and are
incomplete. The experiment could
only be replicated with
considerable additional
information.
Graphs, statistics, and other
measurement data are
incompletely described and
provide little evidential support
for experimental outcomes.
Qualitative
Results
Pictures, descriptions, and
general observations are clearly
described and provide compelling
evidential support for
experimental outcomes.
Pictures, descriptions, and
general observations are clearly
described and provide persuasive
evidential support for
experimental outcomes.
Pictures, descriptions, and
general observations are
reasonably described and provide
some evidential support for
experimental outcomes.
Pictures, descriptions, and
general observations are
incompletely described and
provide little evidential support
for experimental outcomes.
No qualitative data is provided for
experimental outcomes.
No quantitative data is provided
for experimental outcomes.
Data
Relationships
Descriptions of data relationships
are clear, thorough, and flow very
logically from results. Discussion
is compelling and thoughtprovoking. Results are explicitly
related to research question(s).
Descriptions of data relationships
are mostly clear and thorough
and flow somewhat logically from
results. Discussion is convincing
and somewhat thoughtprovoking. Results are solidly
related to research question(s).
Descriptions of data relationships
are mostly clear, reasonably
complete, and are based on
results. Discussion is believable.
Results are somewhat related to
research question(s).
Descriptions of data relationships
are somewhat unclear and
incomplete. Discussion is
somewhat believable. Results
have little relation to research
question(s).
Descriptions of data relationships
are absent or incomplete.
Discussion is not believable.
Results have no relation to
research question(s).
Experimental
Confounds
The effects of controlled and
uncontrolled variables on
experimental outcomes are
explicitly and thoroughly
described. Suggestions for
improving experiment are well
described and highly useful.
The effects of controlled and
uncontrolled variables on
experimental outcomes are
clearly described. Suggestions for
improving experiment are
reasonably well described and
mostly useful.
The effects of controlled and
uncontrolled variables on
experimental outcomes are
reasonably described. Suggestions
for improving experiment are
described in average detail and
have average usefulness.
The effects of controlled and
uncontrolled variables on
experimental outcomes are
incompletely described.
Suggestions for improving
experiment are incompletely
described and have limited
usefulness.
The effects of controlled and
uncontrolled variables on
experimental outcomes are not
described. No suggestions are
made for improving experiment.
Conclusions
Conclusions are solidly based on
collected data, are scientific, and
clearly answer the research
question(s).
Conclusions are reasonably based
on collected data, are scientific,
and mostly answer the research
question(s).
Conclusions are somewhat based
on collected data, are mostly
scientific, and reasonably answer
the research question(s).
Conclusions are incompletely
based on collected data, are
marginally scientific, and
incompletely answer the research
question(s).
Conclusions are not based on
collected data, are unscientific,
and do not answer the research
question(s).
Bibliography
References provide outstanding
literature support, are highly
appropriate, and are accurately
formatted.
References provide very good
literature support, are
appropriate, and are accurately
formatted.
References provide average
literature support, are mostly
appropriate, and are mostly
accurately formatted.
References provide below
average literature support, are
somewhat inappropriate, and are
inaccurately formatted.
References provide no literature
support or are absent. Provided
references are inaccurately
formatted.
Format,
Spelling, and
Grammar
Format, spelling, and grammar
errors are excellent with no
errors.
Format, spelling, and grammar
errors are good with few errors.
Format, spelling, and grammar
errors are reasonable with
noticeable errors.
Format, spelling, and grammar
errors are substandard with
frequent errors.
Format, spelling, and grammar
errors are unacceptable with
frequent errors.