revised 3/19/07
Spring 2007 Semester Program Assessment Report
(Please provide electronic and hard copy to your college facilitator.)
Degree program*: Kinesiology (UG)
Department: Kinesiology
Chair: Shirley Reekie
Department Phone: 924-3010
Report Prepared by: Jim Kao
Date: May 1, 2007
*Where multiple program curricula are almost identical, and SLOs and assessment plans are identical,
it is acceptable to list more than one program in this report.
Please list all Student Learning Outcomes/Objectives (SLOs) for this program in Tables 1A & 1B.
Table 1A. Learning Outcomes (all outcomes if one program reported, or common outcomes if
multiple programs reported on this form.)
SLO #
Exact wording of Student Learning Outcome (SLO)
1
Students will be able to demonstrate the ability to research, organize, evaluate, and
communicate information in the discipline of Kinesiology, using technological
resources and communication tools
2
The student will be able to describe movement and analyze how mechanical concepts
and principles apply to effective and efficient movement.
3
The student will be able to describe the reciprocal relationship between sport and the
philosophical, historical, or sociological perspectives of society.
4
The student will be able to examine and analyze physical activity as it relates to the
physiological responses and adaptations to exercise.
5
The student will be able to describe and analyze the acquisition and enhancement of
motor skill performance and utilize methods and strategies to minimize the decline of
motor skill performance.
6
The student will be able to utilize measurement concepts and theory to assess and
evaluate changes in movement performance and program effectiveness.
Table 1B. Unique Learning Outcomes, if multiple programs reported on this form.
Program Name:
SLO #
Exact wording of Student Learning Outcome (SLO)
Program Name:
SLO#
Exact wording of Student Learning Outcome (SLO)
Page 1
revised 3/19/07
Please complete the schedule of learning outcome assessment below by listing all program SLOs by
number down the left column and indicating whether data were/will be collected (C), when they
were/will be discussed by your faculty (D) and when changes resulting from those discussions
were/will be implemented (I).
NOTE: * SJSU must provide data to WASC for all SLOs by the end of Sp07.
Table 2
C = data Collected
SLO #
1
2
3
4
5
6
F05 or
earlier
C
D = results Discussed
Sp06
F 06
D
C
D
D
C
I = changes (if any) Implemented
Sp07
F07
Sp08
I
I
C
C
C
D
1. Check the SLOs listed at the UGS Website (www.sjsu.edu/ugs/assessment/programs/objectives).
Do they match the SLOs listed in Tables 1A and 1B?
____X____ YES
_____NO
2. Fall 2006 Performance Data: Describe the direct assessment (performance) data that were
collected in fall 2006 (‘C’ in F06 column of Table 2), how much and by whom. Be specific, for
example: Instructors in two sections (60 students) of PSYC 150, Anagnos and Cooper, gave an embedded
exam question and in their summary report indicated the % of students who earned a ’B’ or better, ‘C’, or
less than ‘C’ using the same grading rubric for that question.
SLO #
1
Data collected, how much, by whom**
This objective was assessed in KIN 175 – Measurement and Evaluation by Dr. Bethany
Shifflett (34 students).
For this SLO, concepts and practice opportunities were provided and reinforced through
classroom activities and labs. Assessment was based on the students’ performance on
their research project. The rubric used (see below) gave substantial weight to both their
analytical skills and their ability to organize, evaluate, interpret, and communicate
findings. The project called upon the students to collect data from which they could
examine a relationships question. The topic, selected by the student, could be playful but
the analysis was serious. Examples of topics included:
-Is there a relationship between gender and use of turn signals among auto
drivers?
-Is there a relationship between health insurance and use of the student health
center?
Page 2
revised 3/19/07
Project Rubric:
Ex
Good Acc
Fair
Poor
Project Description
Data File & Labels
Error Checks
Output File
Summary Stats
Variable 1
Explanations
Variable 2
Explanations
Variable 3
Explanations
Variable 4
Explanations
Variable 5
Explanations
Main Question Analysis
Explanations
Effect of other Variables
Analysis
Explanation
Analysis
Explanation
Analysis
Explanation
Excellent: Complete and accurate analyses/explanations
Good: Detailed analyses/explanations provided but not complete
Acceptable: Very minimal but accurate analyses/explanations
Fair: Incomplete/Inappropriate analyses or incomplete/inaccurate explanations
Poor: Inappropriate analyses and inaccurate explanations
6
This objective was assessed in KIN 175 – Measurement and Evaluation by Dr. Bethany
Shifflett (34 students).
For this SLO, concepts and practice opportunities have been and will continue to be
provided and reinforced through classroom activities and labs. The point at which
assessment is best conducted is at the end of the course. Thus, the final exam has both a
practical and conceptual component. Assessment of the conceptual component will be
made by recording percent correct on the final exam items that are focused on reliability,
Page 3
revised 3/19/07
objectivity, validity, fitness assessment, program assessment, assessment in the affective
domain, grading and performance assessment. Evaluation of the students’ practical skills
will be done through use of a rubric. The task will be for students to “analyze data from
three different marketing programs presently employed by other universities, compare to
their current marketing program, and assess its effectiveness with respect to a positive
perception of the university's intercollegiate athletic program.” Based on their analyses,
students will “suggest to the administration which marketing scheme(s) to adopt and who
to target for the next fund raising campaign.”
3. Fall 2006 Indirect Measurement (if any): Describe the indirect assessment data that were
collected in fall 2006 (‘C’ in F06 column of Table 2), how much and by whom. Be specific, for
example: 50 employers were surveyed by Margaret Wilkes, Career Planning and Placement about
performance of recent hires who graduated from our program in 2004-5.
SLO #
Data collected, how much, by whom**
1
2
etc.
4. Fall 2006 Findings/Analysis: Describe the findings that emerged from analysis of data collected in
F06. Be specific. For Example: less than 50% of students met criteria for teamwork outcome. OR
Employers indicated students have sufficient teamwork skills, no change needed.
Findings (SLO #1)
80% of the students (n=30) met or exceeded what can be considered a reasonable
level of mastery of this SLO. This cut off point represents obtaining at least 70%
of available points on the rubric. Of the remaining students who did not meet this
SLO the area most challenging was that of interpretation of findings.
Since interpretation problems were identified as problematic, greater attention was
given to this aspect during the remainder of the semester and is planned for
subsequent semesters. While no specific follow up assessment was conducted this
semester, the analytical portion of the final exam did provide a means to
determine that greater attention to interpretations did have an effect. Students’
explanations, when given, were more complete in general than had been observed
earlier in the semester on their projects.
Findings (SLO #6)
With respect to the conceptual portion of the exam, between 72% and 86%
(depending on the item) were able to correctly answer questions covering basic
concepts. Between 45% and 69% were able to correctly answer items requiring
application as well as understanding of concepts. With respect to higher level
reasoning that required an integrated understanding of material, between 8% and
38% were able to correctly answer items of this nature.
On the analytical portion of the exam, all but 3 students demonstrated the capacity
to correctly handle basic analyses that required no independent decision making.
Where the group diverged was at two points - both related to their ability to decide
for themselves what analyses to conduct. The first was at the point that students
Page 4
revised 3/19/07
needed to determine what to do in order to answer the question of who to target.
38% of the students were able to select appropriate analyses and explain their
findings. Among others, inappropriate analytical techniques were conducted that
were indicative of an attempt to do whatever they knew best (e.g.
crosstabulations) in hopes it might be helpful. Finally, the 2nd point where clear
difficulty emerged was in examining the psychometric properties of the data prior
to analyses. Only 14% conducted for example an examination of the reliability of
the data.
Clearly the challenge is centered on the capacity to handle tasks/questions that
require higher levels of reasoning. For example, on the analytical portion, had
directions been given on which analyses to do, performance on labs and class
activities suggests that most all students would have been able to execute the
appropriate analyses and explain quite well their findings. However, without that
guidance most were unable to go beyond basic procedures.
The next step is to discuss with colleagues the optimal level of support to provide
students. Since this course is their first exposure to measurement and evaluation
topics perhaps the best way to address the problem is to provide more structure in
the analytical portion as well as provide more classroom instruction on how to
systematically make analytical decisions.
Finding 3 (SLO # (s))
etc.
5. Fall 2006 Actions: What actions are planned and/or implemented to address the findings from fall
2006 data? These are indicated by ‘I’ in Table 2 for the SLO data collected in fall ’06. Examples of
actions taken include curricular revision, pedagogical changes, student support services, resource
management. Be specific. For example: revising ENGR 103 to include more teamwork.)
Planned
Planned
Implemented
Implemented
6. Fall 2006 Process Changes: Did your analysis of fall 2006 data result in revisiting/revising the
Student Learning Outcomes or assessment process? Yes __ No _X__.
If the answer is yes, please explain and submit an updated version of the Student Learning
Outcomes and/or assessment plan.
Page 5
revised 3/19/07
7. Spring 2007 Performance Data: Describe the direct assessment (performance) data that were
collected spring 2007 (‘C’ in Spr07 column of Table 2), how much and by whom. Be specific. For
example: Instructor for MATH 188 (30 students), Stone, gave 3 embedded exam questions and in his
summary report indicated the % of students who met or did not meet SLO #2.
SLO #
3
Data to be collected, how much, by whom**
This objective was assessed in KIN 161 – Philosophy of Sport by Dr. Matt Masucci (40
students).
The plan for assessing this student learning objective will be based on the successful
completion of the following KIN 161 evaluations (with a grade of “C” or better).
1. Professional Philosophy Assignment: Students will be asked to develop and
submit a professional philosophy statement relevant to their intended professional
work practice. The statement will synthesize elements of the students’ respective
professional subdisciplinary occupational code of ethics, in addition to the beliefs,
values, and attitudes that they may bring to the work place.
2. Sport Philosophy auto-narrative paper: This 5-7 page paper is intended to provide
a space for students to define and reflect upon issues of philosophical/moral
significance through the reflective space of sport participation and/or physical
activity. Students will be expected to incorporate one or more of the
philosophical and theoretical positions introduced throughout the semester. It is
expected that the students will (drawing upon a reflection of sport/play/game
activities) connect these explorations beyond the sporting context; paying
particular attention to identity formation, and personal and professional decision
making frameworks.
3. Ethical Position Debates: Students teams will present persuasive, philosophically
grounded arguments either for or against particularly controversial issues in
Kinesiology. Each team-member has a particular responsibility (opening or
closing statement, rebuttal, audience questions) and must submit a written outline
in addition to their oral contribution.
4
This objective was assessed in KIN 155 – Exercise Physiology by Dr. Craig Cisar (51
students).
Course Section
Number of Students Who
Exceeded
Met
Did not Meet
Lecture (Objective Assessment)
Neuromuscular (2-19)
Metabolism (3-19)
Cardiorespiratory and Circulatory
Performance and Training
Page 6
13
16
16
33
15
19
5
20
16
revised 3/19/07
Laboratory (Objective Assessment)
Neuromuscular and Metabolism (3-12/14)
11
Cardiorespirtory and Body Composition/Build
29
11
Application Paper (Subjective Assessment)
Lab Reports/Participation and
Quizzes (Subjective Assessment)
Overall Summary of Assessment
Note:
Scores of 88-100% = Exceeded, 70-87% = Met, and < 69% = Did not Meet.
Qualitative Evaluation
"Did not Meet" on 4 of 4 exams = 1 students
"Did not Meet" on 3 of 4 exams = 7 students
"Did not Meet" on 2 of 4 exams = 7 students
"Did not Meet" on 1 of 4 exams = 13 students
Greater number of students that "Did not Meet" the learning objective for lab exam #1
and particularly lecture exam #2 may in part reflect the timing of the exams which
occurred during the 2-week mid-term period preceding Spring Break.
Additional collection of assessment data will occur during the remainder of Spring
Semester 2007.
5
This objective was assessed in KIN 165 – Motor Development by Dr. Jim Kao (46
students).
Exam 1 Assessment
Students were given the following potential essay questions. Each question was designed
to address the student learning outcome.
1) List and describe the six (6) components of developmental change.
2) Define the term reflex. Explain how an infant reflex differs from a lifelong reflex.
Explain the four (4) reasons why infant reflexes are studied.
3) Which occurs first, crawling or creeping? Describe each. What is meant by the
term contralateral creeping?
4) Discuss the two (2) primary causes for the regression in coordination and speed of
performance that occur during middle and late adulthood. Describe the three (3)
Page 7
revised 3/19/07
major exceptions to the general rule that coordination and speed of performance in
fine motor movements regress in middle and late adulthood.
5) Describe the three (3) phases of walking and the three (3) phases of running.
What are the two (2) factors that influence the development of walking and
running? Explain the relationship between these two factors and the change in
movement patterns from immature to mature walking. How do these two factors
explain that children will always walk before they run?
Question #4 was included as a part of Exam 1.
Results (number of answers that)
Exceeded the SLO: 7 (see attached for an example answer that exceeded the SLO)
Met the SLO: 22 (see attached for two example answers that met the SLO)
Did not meet the SLO: 18 (see attached for two example answers that did not meet the
SLO)
Analysis
61% of the students met or exceeded the SLO on this exam. As the first opportunity for
students to demonstrate this knowledge, it was not unexpected that the percentage was
rather low. Students received written feedback on there written answers to this question.
With this feedback, it is expected that student performance will improve on exams 2 and
3. After exam 2, students will receive additional feedback on their performance.
Additional collection of assessment data will occur as a part to Exams 2 and 3.
8. Spring 2007 Indirect Measurement (if any): Describe the indirect assessment data that were
collected (‘C’ in Spr07 column of Table 2), how much and by whom. Be specific, for example: 100
alumni were surveyed by the department with questions related to SLOs #1 & #2.
SLO #
Data collected, how much, by whom**
1
2
etc.
9. Fall 2007 Direct Measurement: For the SLOs scheduled to be assessed in fall 2007, describe the
direct (performance) data that will be collected, how much and by whom.
Be specific, for example: Instructors in two sections of ART144, will assess SLOs #3 & #4 using a common
rubric on the students’ final paper.
SLO #
1
2
etc.
Page 8
Data to be collected, how much, by whom**
revised 3/19/07
10. Fall 2007 Indirect Measurement (if any): Describe the indirect assessment data that will be
collected (‘C’ in F07 column of Table 2), how much and by whom. Be specific, for example:
graduating seniors in all capstone course sections will be surveyed on curriculum strengths & weaknesses.
SLO #
1
2
etc.
Page 9
Data to be collected, how much, by whom**