Central Washington University
Assessment of Student Learning
Department and Program Report
Academic Year of Report: 2012-2013
College: CEPS
Department: NEHS
Program: Food Science and Nutrition: BS Food Science and Nutrition
What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why?
Our program assessed one student learning outcome this year.
1. Program graduates will be able to conduct a research study complete with a proposal,
data collection, statistical analysis, manuscript preparation, and poster presentation.
This learning outcome goal is related to University Goals I. It is also related to CEPS
Goal 1: Provide for an outstanding and professional growth experience for students.
This learning outcome goal was chosen because of the importance of graduates to
properly interpret published research when they become practitioners in their field. The
demonstrated ability by program graduates to conduct a basic research project and
effectively communicate their findings significantly contributes to this ability to interpret
published research.
How were these student learning outcomes assessed?
1. The program goal “Program graduates will be able to conduct a research study complete
with a proposal, data collection, statistical analysis, manuscript preparation, and poster
presentation” was evaluated by their participation in a food research project started in
NUTR 440: Experimental Foods and completed in NUTR 445: Experimental Foods
Research. The major outcome products of this food research project was a manuscript
prepared to meet the author guidelines for publication in the Journal of the Academy of
Nutrition and Dietetics and a poster suitable for presentation at the annual meeting of the
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (Food and Nutrition Conference and Expo). This
learning outcome was assessed using the following tools:
a. Scores from the evaluation of their research manuscripts were assessed. The
evaluation was done independently by the instructor and in blind evaluation by
three students in the class. Students from NUTR 445 from winter 2013 were
included in this assessment.
b. Scores from the evaluation of the poster presentations were assessed by NUTR
faculty other than the course instructor. This allowed an unbiased evaluation of
the quality of the poster presentation as well as an assessment of the quality of
the research conducted. Students from NUTR 445 from winter 2013 were
included in this assessment.
c. Selected items that were related to the research project from SEOI’s from the
winter 2013 were assessed.
d. Laboratory report scores were assessed (NUTR 440: Experimental Foods). The
purpose of including this assessment was to determine if scientific report writing
improved over time. The instructor provided substantial feedback on both writing
quality and the critical thinking that was involved in writing the results and
discussion sections.
e. Surveying Dietetic Internship Directors who work with our graduates in a 1000+
hour ACEND accredited supervised practice. The survey was administered in
the fall of 2012 and was completed by 19 DI Directors. These directors were
asked about how well our graduates were able to demonstrate an ability to
critically evaluate nutrition research and literature.
What was learned?
1. Program graduates will be able to conduct a research study complete with a proposal,
data collection, statistical analysis, manuscript preparation, and poster presentation.
a. Manuscript scores: Students in NUTR 445 did well on their research projects as
evidenced by the 100% passing grade (>70%) on the manuscript and poster
presentation (Table 1). The evaluation rubric for the manuscript evaluated each
paper for accuracy in following Guidelines for Authors of Research Briefs for the
Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the clarity of the abstract, the
quality of the construction of the tables/figures, the clarity and accuracy of
describing of the methods used, the clarity and insightfulness of the results,
discussion, and conclusion sections, the overall quality of the writing, and the
design of the research. The manuscripts were evaluated by the course instructor
as well as by three peers (in a blind review process). Student evaluations were
typically higher than those given by the instructor.
b. Poster presentation scores: The evaluation rubric for the poster presentation
included an evaluation of the overall appearance of the poster, the quality and
clarity of the tables/figures, the clarity and organization of the written content, and
the clarity of the students’ oral presentation of their research. The evaluation of
the posters was done by fellow faculty members who were not familiar with the
specific research projects prior to viewing the posters. Table 1 below gives the
number of students in each level of competency for the manuscript and poster
presentations. Evaluation by the NUTR faculty indicated a high degree of quality.
Table 1
Below Expectations (<70%)
Met Expectations (70-79%)
Exceeded Expectations (80-89%)
Greatly Exceeded Expectations (90-100%)
Total
Research
Manuscript
Instructor
Peer
0
0
13
6
24
23
15
23
52
52
Poster
Presentation
0
3
19
30
52
c. Student Evaluation of Instruction: SEOI scores indicated that the students were
intellectually challenged, the course required a high amount of effort for one to
succeed, and a high degree of involvement in the course (Table 2). These
scores were substantially higher than the mean scores for the department,
college or university. The high degree of challenge, effort and involvement may
have contributed to the relatively lower overall rating of the course, particularly to
the mean of the department.
Table 2
SEOI
Course
Dept.
Course activities challenged students to think critically
4.52
4.50
Amount of work outside of class
4.48
3.29
Intellectual challenge presented to you
4.04
3.52
Course as a whole
4.09
4.44
d. Laboratory report grades. One of the goals of the laboratory reports was to
improve student writing quality using language and style appropriate for the
discipline. The instructor provided significant amounts of feedback for the first
two lab reports. The feedback was not only on grammar, style, and clarity, but
included comments regarding whether the students critically discussed their
research findings. The mean scores for lab reports 1, 2, and 3 were 82%, 92%,
and 90%, respectively. This continual improvement confirmed the success of the
instructor’s comments and better prepared the students to write their research
manuscripts.
e. Dietetic Internship Directors Survey. The survey was administered to 19 DI
Directors and we had a 52% response rate. On a 5 point scale (1=poorly
prepared, 3=average, 5=very well prepared), 83% of the directors scored our
graduates with a score of either 4 or 5 and 100% scored our graduates with at
least an average score.
What will the program do as a result of this information?
1. Program graduates will be able to conduct a research study complete with a proposal,
data collection, statistical analysis, manuscript preparation, and poster presentation.
The program is pleased with the feedback received related to the project. Students
found the research project intellectually challenging and required significant effort on
their part to produce a successful manuscript and poster. The instructor was pleased
with the improvement in the quality of the laboratory reports during the course.
Evaluation by Dietetic Internship Directors of recent graduates supports the continuing
use of this assignment as part of the program’s requirements. As this food research
project requires a significant commitment by students and faculty, it was important to find
that the project is meeting the student learning goal associated with it.
What did the program do in response to the feedback from last year’s assessment
report?
Based on previous SLO assessments, the original one quarter 5 credit Experimental Foods
class was divided into two separate courses offered in the fall (3 cr, NUTR 440) and winter (2 cr,
NUTR 445) beginning in the 2012 academic year. By spreading the research process over a
20-week period, we hoped to improve the quality of the food research as well as the research
experience for the students. We are still assessing whether this has occurred or not and have
implemented some changes to move towards our goals.