STUDENT LEARNING ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
SUMMARY FORM AY 2012-2014
Degree and
Program Name:
Submitted By:
B.S. in Geography
David Viertel
Please use size 10 font or larger.
Please complete a separate worksheet for each academic program
(major, minor) at each level (undergraduate, graduate) in your
department. Worksheets are due to CASA this year by June
13, 2014. Worksheets should be sent electronically to
kjsanders@eiu.edu and should also be submitted to your college
dean. For information about assessment or help with your
assessment plans, visit the Assessment webpage at
http://www.eiu.edu/~assess/ or contact Karla Sanders in CASA at
581-6056.
PART ONE
A major component of formal student learning assessment in the Geography program consists of level-appropriate assessment tools
delivered at all levels of instruction: major core classes, major electives, and general education offerings. Normally, the majority of
the students in upper division core classes are departmental majors. Majors and non-majors are (approximately) equally represented
in upper division elective classes. Introductory general education classes that are part of the core are also assessed, though the bulk of
the students in these classes are not majors in the department. Due to class rotations and on-going changes in faculty and curriculum,
not all classes will be assessed in a particular year. While most classes were assessed over the two-year period in question (20122104), certain courses were not offered within this window (e.g. GEG3620, a component of the previous Geography assessment
report). Within the major, we have added several courses and instituted other curricular changes. We are working to add assessment
for the new offerings as they cycle through the rotation under permanent course numbers. These new courses and curricular shifts are
discussed in more detail in Part Four below.
All tenured/tenure-track Geography faculty members are involved in the assessment process. In addition to tenured/tenure-track
faculty members, many Unit B members within our department also participate in the assessment process. All courses in the Major
Core were assessed, as well as upper-division elective courses (excepting one-time seminars or independent studies). All Learning
Objectives related to the original 5 major educational Goals have been addressed by a variety of assessment methods, and the results
from the recently-adopted speaking rubric have been included within a new 6th Goal.
Note: 1. Regarding expectations, class assessments employ a five-point scale to determine how well the students meet the learning
objectives in all pre-and post-tests, embedded questions and exercises. A score of 90% or higher indicates a Superior
grasp of the information, 75% to 89% indicates a Significant grasp, 60%-74% indicates a Satisfactory grasp, a score of
45%-59% represents a less than satisfactory, but Nominal grasp of material, while those scoring below 45% are
considered to demonstrate No Discernible Grasp of the material.
2. In regards to how the results are shared, all tenured/tenure-track Geography faculty share assessment duties and meet as a
committee several times per year to review procedures. Both tenured/tenure-track and Unit B faculty provide
contributions to the Annual Student Learning Assessment Program Summary and receive copies of the finished product as
well as feedback from the Assessment Office.
What are the learning
objectives?
How, where, and when are they
assessed?
What are the expectations?
What are the results?
Goal 1. Students will
develop an expertise in using
and creating maps, databases
and other geographic tools to
present Physical and human
characteristics, and organize
and critically analyze
information in a spatial
context.
GEG 3800 Cartography, by
using a mapping project to
determine the student’s
understanding of basic
cartographic techniques and
concepts. Fall of 2012 thru
Spring of 2014
In GEG 3800, students are
expected to be able to
understand essential
cartographic techniques and
concepts and relate them to
compositional challenges
presented by a specific
mapping assignment. Student
should demonstrate a strong
understanding of the scale,
projection, and visualization
elements of the mapping
process. Meets objectives 1.1
and 1.2
During the evaluation
period, 25 students were
assessed for GEG 3800.
The majority of these
students were majors in the
Geography program.
Results of the mapping
project during the evaluation
period included: 52% of the
students produced a
superior project that scored
above a 90%, 40% of the
students produced a
significant project that
scored between 75% and
89%, and 8% produced a
satisfactory project that
scored between 60% and
74%.
Learning Objectives
1.1 Uses and creates maps to
interpret physical and human
characteristics such as scale,
distance, climate, soils,
resource distribution, and
other spatial information in
determining geographic
patterns.
1.2 Critically analyzes
geographic data and presents
them in charts, graphs, tables
and other forms.
Committee/ person
responsible? How are
results shared?
David Viertel was
responsible for
assessment of GEG 3800
Cartography.
GEG 3820 Remote Sensing I,
by means of a one-page essay
question on the final exam
demonstrating knowledge of
basic remote sensing concepts
and image processing
techniques. Fall 2012 and Fall
2013.
In GEG 3820, students are
expected to develop familiarity
with the basic principles and
applications of remote sensing.
Students must demonstrate the
ability to interpret aerial and
satellite imagery, recognize
geographic features, and
analyze spatial processes on
the landscape. The ability to
manipulate images and apply
statistical techniques and
pattern recognition algorithms
to spatial datasets is essential
to the course. Meets objective
1.1 and 1.2
In GEG 3820 there were 38
students taking the final
exam (30 majors) during the
assessment period. Of these
students, 17 scored above a
90% showing superior
performance, 16 scored
between 75% and 90%
indicating a significant
grasp of the material, and 4
scored between 70% and
75% demonstrating a
satisfactory grasp of the
material.
David Viertel was
responsible for
assessment of GEG 3820
Remote Sensing I
GEG 3870 Remote Sensing II,
by means of a one-page essay
question on the final exam
relating student comprehension
of advanced remote sensing
techniques and applications to
other coursework undertaken
during their time at EIU. Spring
2013 and Spring 2014.
GEG 3870 students undertake
an advanced study in remote
sensing theory and practice.
This includes in-depth
explorations of classification
and multi-temporal spatial
analysis procedures. A
capstone project requires the
application of acquired skills
to all portions of the remote
sensing process including
image acquisition, radiometric
correction, geo-registration,
filtering, classification,
analysis and communication of
results. Meets objective 1.1
and 1.2.
In GEG 3870 there were 18
students taking the final
exam (12 majors) during the
evaluation period. Of these
students, 10 scored above a
90% showing superior
performance, 5 scored
between 75% and 90%
indicating a significant
grasp of the material, and 3
scored between 60% and
74%, indicating a
satisfactory grasp of the
material.
David Viertel was
responsible for
assessment of GEG 3870
Remote Sensing II
Goal 2. Students will gain an
understanding of the complex
and diverse human, physical
and environmental
characteristics that provide the
basic concepts of places and
regions.
GEG 1200G World Regional
Geography, by using a pre-test,
post-test question set. The course
is assessed every semester.
Students in GEG 1200G were
expected to show improvement
in mean scores of a set of 15
questions given early in the
course, and again near the end
of the course. Questions were
selected to determine if
students met learning
objectives 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3
For GEG 1200G, some 216
students were assessed
during the 4 semesters in
question. Results indicate
these students (primarily
general education, nonmajors) improved their
collective achievement level
from a nominal to a
satisfactory grasp in each
section. The mean
improvement in
performance was +30.8%
from pre-test to post-test
during this interval.
Brett Anderson was
responsible for
assessment of GEG 1200
World Regional
Geography
GEG 3025 Geography of the
U.S. and Canada, by using an
embedded question on the final
exam. Fall 2011
In GEG 3025, an essay
question was used so students
could demonstrate their ability
to understand the concept of
“regions” and various ways
they could be defined and
critically analyzed. The
question addressed learning
objectives 2.1 and 2.2.
Students in GEG 3025 did
reasonably well on the
embedded question,
collectively attaining a
significant grasp of the
subject matter. Students
included both majors and
non-majors. A mean score
of 76% was produced by the
class collectively in Fall
2012, while an 86% was
achieved on the same
embedded question in the
Fall of 2013. This indicates
that students have a
significant grasp of the
geographic relationships
amongst various topics in
North America.
Chris Laingen was
responsible for
assessment of GEG 3025
Geography of the
United States and
Canada
Learning Objectives
2.1 Understand and apply
geographic themes and
attributes to develop concepts
of places and regions.
2.2 Develop Criteria needed
to form regions and be able to
explain and critically analyze
why physical, human, and
environmental regions are
essential.
2.3 Be able to determine how
physical, human, and
environmental regions evolve
and how they are important.
GEG 3050 Geography and
Culture of Africa, by using an
embedded question on the first
two exams in the class. Fall
2013.
In GEG 3050, two essay
questions are used to
determine if the students had
an understanding of the major
concepts presented in the class.
The questions addressed
learning objectives 2.1, 2.2,
and 2.3.
In GEG 3050, some 9
students took the exams
containing the two
embedded questions. The
average score on the first
was 7.8/10 (78%) illustrating
a significant grasp of the
concept. The average on the
second question 8.5/10 on
the second (85%) likewise
indicates a significant grasp
of the concept. This
illustrates that the class
collectively had a good
understanding of the
historical, economic,
political and geographical
realities and problems in
Africa
Jim Davis was
responsible for
assessment of GEG 3050
Geography and Culture
of Africa
GEG 3060 Geography of
Europe, by using an embedded
question on the final exam in the
Spring 2014.
In GEG 3060, a
comprehensive essay question
on the final exam tested the
student’s critical analysis of
the impact which the European
Union has had on the
continent. The questions
addressed learning objectives
2.1, 2.2, and 2.3
In GEG 3060, 5 students
took the final exam which
contained the embedded
question. The average score
was an 8.6/10 (86%). This
result illustrates that the
class as a whole
demonstrated a significant
grasp of the major course
material.
Jim Davis was
responsible for
assessment of GEG 3060
Geography of Europe
Goal 3. Students will acquire
a comprehensive
understanding of the physical
processes that lead to the
formation of unique patterns
and shapes on the surface of
the earth. Moreover, they will
develop an appreciation of
how physical environments
affect human systems and
how human actions modify
the physical environment.
ESC 1400G, Weather and
Climate, by using pre-test the
first week of class and post-test
at the end of the course, the
course is assessed. This class is
assessed every semester.
ESC 1400G, Weather and
Climate. Students are
expected to gain an
understanding of how physical
attributes of the earth system
impact humans, both as
individuals and within society.
A set of questions are given to
students at the beginning of the
semester the same questions
were administered at the end of
the semester. The “pre” test
and “post” test questions were
similar in nature to assessment
objectives outlined in Learning
Objectives 3. Positive
differences would indicate the
degree of learning goal
achievement in the course.
In ESC 1400G, the
assessments were taken by
307 students representing 6
sections of the class. Being a
large, general education
course (fulfilling general
education core
requirements), the
participants were students
from a variety of majors
across campus. ESC 1400
students through the last two
years averaged a 43%
(nominal grasp) on the pretest and a 77% (significant
grasp) on the post-test. The
mean improvement for this
course was +34.2%. It
should be noted that these
numbers were remarkably
stable across sections,
semesters and instructors.
Chris Laingen and Brett
Anderson were
responsible for
assessment of ESC
1400G Weather and
Climate
ESC 1500 Physical Geography,
by using pre-test the first week
of class and post-test at the end
of the course, the course is
assessed. Fall 2012, Fall 2013,
and Spring 2014.
In ESC 1500, Physical
Geography, students are
expected to gain an
understanding of the Earth’s
physical geography; the
atmosphere, hydrosphere,
lithosphere, and biosphere.
The questions addressed
learning objectives 3.1, 3.2,
and 3.3.
In ESC 1500, the
participants were students
from a variety of majors
across campus. 56 students,
from 3 sections of the class
were evaluated during this 2year period. The pre-test
average for students was a
43% (nominal grasp), while
the post-test average rose to
68% (satisfactory grasp).
This represents a mean
improvement of +25% in
score from the beginning of
the semester to the
conclusion.
Chris Laingen and Jim
Riley were responsible
for assessment of ESC
1500 Physical
Geography
Learning Objectives
3.1 Identify and demonstrate
how physical attributes of a
landform determine the
human activities of a region.
3.2 Identify and demonstrate
how the human activity within
a region modifies the physical
properties of the region and
the significance of the
modification to the overall
environment.
3.3 Understands the dynamic
nature of the physical and
human processes of the earth
3.4 To think critically about
how humans interact with,
and impact, the physical
environment
GEG/ESC 3020 Natural
Disasters: Processes and
Effects, by using an imbedded
question on the final exam. Fall,
2012 and Fall 2013.
In GEG/ESC 3020, students
are expected to comprehend
the physical processes behind
natural disasters, human
responses while considering
the spatial context of these
events. The question
addressed learning objectives
3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4
In GEG/ESC 3020, 16 of
the 40 students were
Geography majors. Of the
these students, 9 scored
above a 90% (superior), 24
scored between 75% and
89% (significant), and 7
scored between 60% and
74% (satisfactory). The
overall average was an 82%
demonstrating a significant
grasp of the course material
by the class.
Jim Riley was
responsible for
assessment of GEG/ESC
3020 Natural Disasters:
Processes and Effects.
GEG 3320 Natural Resource
Conservation, by using an
embedded question on the final
exam. Fall 2012.
In GEG 3320, students are
expected to identify and
demonstrate how the human
activity within a region
modifies the physical
properties of the region. They
are also expected to understand
the significance of the
modification to the overall
environment. The question
addressed learning objectives
3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4.
In GEG 3320, students
average 84% on the
embedded question
demonstrating a significant
grasp of the major topics of
the course.
Chris Laingen was
responsible for
assessment of GEG 3320
Natural Resource
Conservation.
GEG 3420 Geomorphology, by
using an embedded question on
the final exam discussing the
physical landscape of eastcentral Illinois. Spring 2013
and Spring 2014.
In GEG 3420, students are
expected to recognize and
think critically about the varied
surface forms and patterns of
our planet, the physical
processes responsible for these
forms, and the process-form
interaction that controls
evolution of landforms through
time. The comprehensive
question on the final exam
addressed objectives 3.1, 3.2
3.3 and 3.4.
In GEG 3420 some 58
students were enrolled
during this time period. Of
these (38 Geography
majors). Of these, 13 scored
90% or above (superior), 28
scored between 60% and
74% (significant), 12 scored
between 60% and 74%
(satisfactory), and 4 scored
between 45% and 59%,
(nominal). Overall, student
scores averaged 82.5%,
demonstrating a significant
grasp of the course material.
Jim Riley was
responsible for
assessment of GEG 3420
Geomorphology.
GEG 3550 Surface Waters:
Processes/Resources, by
embedded question on the final
exam. Spring 2013.
In GEG 3550, students are
expected to comprehend the
physical processes and
resultant landforms associated
with surface water activity.
Students are also compelled to
think critically about human
impacts on fluvial systems and
management of water as
perhaps the most essential
natural resource. The questions
address learning objectives 3.1,
3.2, 3.3 and 3.4.
In GEG 3550, 15 students
were enrolled in the class
(14 Geography majors).
There were 3 students
scoring a 90% or above,
(superior), 3 scored
between 75% and 89%,
(significant), and 6 students
scored between 60% and
74% (satisfactory). The
average score for the
question was 82%
demonstrating a significant
grasp of the key concepts in
the class.
Jim Riley was
responsible for
assessment of GEG 3550
Surface Water:
Processes/Resources
Goal 4. Students will develop
understanding of spatial
patterns and distribution of
ecosystems, population,
cultural mosaics, human
settlement, and economic
interdependence, along with
an understanding of how
global production, usage, and
distribution of resources are
vital to humanity.
GEG 1100G Cultural
Geography, by using a pre-test
given on the first day of class
and a post-test given on the last
day of class. Assessed every
semester.
In GEG 1100G students were
expected to show improvement
on the post-test. The same
questions were used for both
exams and an improvement
would illustrate overall success
in the class. Questions were
designed to assess the degree
to which students met learning
objectives 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3.
In ESC 1100G, results
represent 5 separate sections
of the course over 4
semesters. Being a large,
general education course
(fulfilling general education
core requirements), the
participants were students
from a variety of majors
across campus. ESC 1100
students through the last two
years averaged a 39%
(nominal grasp) on the pretest and a 62% (satisfactory
grasp) on the post-test. The
mean improvement for this
course was +23%
throughout this time period.
Improvements on individual
pre/post-test questions
ranged from 3% to 56%.
Mike Cornebise and Jim
Davis were responsible
for assessing a section of
GEG 1100 in Fall 2013
GEG 3600 Economic
Geography, by an embedded
question on the final exam. Fall
2012.
In GEG 3600, students were
expected to know how the
different sectors of the
economy are related and how
spatial patterns have changed
throughout history. The
question addressed learning
objectives 4.2 and 4.3.
In GEG 3600, 12 students
answered the embedded
question on the final exam
that measured their overall
understanding of core
concepts in the class. The
class averaged 87.5%. This
demonstrates a significant
grasp of the subject matter.
Jim Davis is responsible
for assessment of GEG
3600 Economic
Geography.
GEG 3750 Population
Geography, by using an
embedded question on the final
exam. Spring 2014.
The embedded question in
GEG 3750 was designed to
test the student’s ability to
make geographic connections
related to broad themes in
global population changes.
Answers would illustrate if
students met Objectives 4.1
and 4.4.
In GEG 3750, 13 students
answered the embedded
question on the final exam
and 11 scored an average of
80% demonstrating a
significant grasp of the
subject matter. The
remaining 2 students
demonstrated at least a
satisfactory grasp.
Mike Cornebise was
responsible for
assessment of GEG 3750
Population Geography.
Learning Objectives
4.1 To understand and
interpret geographic patterns
of population, culture,
religion, and their
interrelationships from a
broad perspective.
4.2 Have an awareness of how
certain economic resources
and their spatial distribution is
vital in the global community.
4.3 Demonstrates the
interdependences between
regions and communities in
terms of resources.
4.4 Think critically about the
interrelationships of human
geographic traits and patterns.
Goal 5. Students will apply
geographic knowledge to
interpret the past, present, and
future of physical, human and
environmental patterns.
GEG 3700, Historical
Geography of the United
States by using an embedded
question on the final exam.
Spring 2013.
The embedded question for
GEG 3700 dealt with student’s
ability to address learning
objectives 5.1 and 5.2. They
answered a question dealing
with the identification and
contextualization of two
predominate historical
geographic themes developed
in the course.
In GEG 3700, 14 students
addressed the final
embedded question and 11
scored at least 75%,
demonstrating significant
grasp of the subject matter.
The remaining 3 students
were able to demonstrate at
least satisfactory grasp.
Mike Cornebise was
responsible for
assessment of GEG 3700
Historical Geography of
the U.S.
GEG 3875 Field Methods in
Geography, by using an
embedded question on the final
exam. Fall 2012 and Fall 2013.
In GEG 3875, students are
expected to conduct field
investigations with increasing
levels of sophistication and
technology. The embedded
question required critical
thinking and analysis of spatial
relationships to develop a field
project. The question
addressed learning objectives
5.1, 5.2 and 5.3.
In GEG 3875, 45 students
completed the embedded
question. Some 44 of these
students were Geography
majors. Of the 45 students
completing the question, 11
scored above a 90%
(superior), 26 people scored
between 75% to 89%
(significant), and 8 students
scored between 60% and
74% (satisfactory). The
average score was an 84%,
demonstrating a significant
grasp of the material.
Jim Riley was
responsible for
assessment of GEG 3875
Field Methods in
Geography.
Learning Objectives
5.1 To understand how to
apply geographic knowledge
to interpret and synthesize the
past.
5.2 To understand how to
apply geographic knowledge
to interpret and synthesize the
present, and make forecasts
for the future.
5.3 Think critically about
geographic interpretations of
physical, human and
environmental patterns.
Goal 6. Students will use
effective presentation and
verbal communication skills
to convey geographic
knowledge, explain spatial
patterns and relate
disciplinary principles.
GEG 3050 Geography and
Culture of Africa, by means of
a formal classroom presentation
at the end of the semester. Fall
2013.
In GEG 3050, students
demonstrate their ability to
communicate important
concepts about African
development via a research
project and related
presentation. This addresses
learning objectives 6.1, 6.2,
and 6.3.
In GEG 3050, 8 students
delivered speeches,
averaging a grade of 22/25,
or 88%. This indicates a
significant ability to
communicate research
results.
Jim Davis was
responsible for
assessment of GEG 3050
Geography and Culture
of Africa.
GEG 3060 Geography of
Europe, by means of a formal
classroom presentation at the end
of the semester. Spring 2014.
In GEG 3060, students
demonstrate their ability to
intelligently discuss important
European issues via a research
project and related
presentation. This addresses
learning objectives 6.1, 6.2,
and 6.3.
In GEG 3060, 5 students
delivered speeches,
averaging a grade of
21.3/25, or 85.2%. This
indicates a significant
ability to communicate
research results.
Jim Davis was
responsible for
assessment of GEG 3060
Geography of Europe.
GEG 3320 Natural Resource
Conservation, by utilizing a
short speech summarizing their
individual research. Fall 2012.
In GEG 3320, students present
a brief prepared speech
detailing connections between
human activity and the
physical properties of the
landscape. This speech
addressed learning objectives
6.1, 6.2, and 6.3.
In GEG 3320, 16 students
averaged 18.79/25 on their
speeches, indicating a 75%
or significant ability to
communicate research
results.
Chris Laingen was
responsible for
assessment of GEG 3320
Natural Resource
Conservation.
GEG 3600 Economic
Geography, by means of a
formal classroom presentation at
the end of the semester. Fall
2012.
In GEG 3600, students deliver
a presentation over research
topics related to the dynamic,
interconnected nature of the
global economic system. This
addresses learning objectives
6.1, 6.2, and 6.3.
In GEG 3600, 8 students
delivered speeches,
averaging a grade of
22.8/25, or 91.2%. This
indicates a superior ability
to communicate research
results.
Jim Davis is responsible
for assessment of GEG
3600 Economic
Geography.
Learning Objectives
6.1 To utilize audienceappropriate language and
visual aids to relate relevant
information to the class and
instructor.
6.2 To explain geographic
patterns within a coherent and
communicative formal
presentation.
6.3 To draw connections
between presentation
elements, conveying
appropriate analytical
conclusions.
GEG 3640 Geography of
Sports, by means of a brief
presentation relating to the
geographic distribution of
athletic-related variables.
Spring 2013 and Spring 2014.
In GEG 3600, students deliver
a presentation relating to the
distribution of sports or the
production of players, either
regionally or globally. This
addresses learning objectives
6.1, 6.2, and 6.3.
In GEG 3600, 42 students
delivered speeches
throughout the overall time
period, averaging a grade of
21.8/25, or 87.2%. This
indicates a significant
ability to communicate
research results.
Jim Davis is responsible
for assessment of GEG
3600 Economic
Geography.
GEG 3750 Population
Geography, utilizing a research
presentation. Spring 2014.
The presentation in GEG 3750
tests the student’s ability to
clearly convey geographic
knowledge in a formal
classroom speech. This
presentation meets objectives
6.1 and 6.2.
In GEG 3750, 13 students
presented their research to
the class in the Spring of
2014. The class average was
a 23/25 or 92%,
demonstration superior
communication skills.
Mike Cornebise was
responsible for
assessment of GEG 3750
Population Geography.
GEG 3820 Remote Sensing I,
by presenting the results of the
student’s research project. Fall
2012.
In GEG 3820, students are
expected to research and relate
contemporary methods of
applied remote sensing. The
results are presented in brief
minute speech. Meets
objectives 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3.
In GEG 3820 there were 21
students presenting their
work in the Fall of 2012.
The class average was a
17.75/25 or 71%, showing
satisfactory communication
abilities.
David Viertel was
responsible for
assessment of GEG 3820
Remote Sensing I
GEG 3870 Remote Sensing II,
by presenting the results and
analysis of an in-depth, studentdriven research project. Spring
2013 and Spring 2014.
In GEG 3870, students are
expected to research advanced
remote sensing methods and
apply these techniques to a
study area of their choice. The
results of this work are
presented at the end of the
semester. Meets objectives
6.1, 6.2, and 6.3.
In GEG 3870 there were 18
students speaking during the
evaluation period. The class
average was a 23/25 or
92%, demonstrating
superior communication
abilities.
David Viertel was
responsible for
assessment of GEG 3870
Remote Sensing II
GEG 3875 Field Methods in
Geography, by using a
presentation. Fall 2013.
In GEG 3875, students
conduct an individual project
involving repeat photography.
Students must explain methods
used, challenges encountered,
historical background, and the
significance of visible
differences. The presentation
addressed learning objectives
6.1, 6.2 and 6.3.
In GEG 3875, 18 students
presented the results of their
project. The class average
was a 19.66/25 or 78%,
reflecting a significant
ability to communicate.
Jim Riley was
responsible for
assessment of GEG 3875
Field Methods in
Geography.
GEG 4000 Seminar (Urban
Lidar), by means of a
presentation detailing the
methodology of an applied
project. Spring 2014.
In this GEG 4000 Seminar,
focused primarily on the
acquisition and
implementation of lidar
processing techniques, each
student presented a short,
illustrated methodology for
their chosen lidar processing
technique. The presentation
addressed learning objectives
6.1 and 6.3.
For the Spring 2014
semester, there were 13
students presenting in the
GEG 4000 Seminar. The
class produced a mean result
of 22.9/25, or a 91.6%. This
represents a superior ability
to publicly communicate
their methods.
David Viertel was
responsible for the
assessment of GEG 4000
Seminar (Urban Lidar) in
the Spring 2014 semester.
PART TWO
The other significant component in our Department Assessment Plan is the student portfolio folder. From the student’s first meeting
with their departmental advisor, each Geography major is provided a folder in which he/she is asked to assemble papers and projects
from completed major courses (please see Appendix A). This tool gives faculty a more holistic look at the department during the
assessment cycle, focusing on an individual student’s comprehensive experience as opposed to summary statistics generated by class
section. Portfolio material consists almost entirely of research papers, reports, maps, or graphics; this provides a complementary
alternative to the class assessment tools summarized in Part One (most often consisting of focused essay questions or multiple choice
tests).
The portfolio consists of five sections corresponding to the first five goals listed in Part One. Appropriate class material is chosen by
the student to demonstrate the stated objectives. Over the past 2 years, 24 graduating seniors submitted their completed folders for
assessment by the Geography faculty. After review, the folders were returned. Students were encouraged to utilize the writing
samples and maps for job interviews as well as graduate school applications. The portfolios, therefore, serve two important functions:
as key indicators of student performance and as a useful tool for students seeking employment or to further their studies.
The scale used for evaluation is as follows:
5- The student demonstrates a superior grasp of the goals and objectives
4- The student demonstrates a significant grasp of the goals and objectives
3- The student demonstrates a satisfactory grasp of the goals and objectives
2- The student demonstrates a less than satisfactory, but still nominal grasp of the goals and objectives
1- The student demonstrates no discernible grasp of the goals and objectives
The portfolio evaluations completed between Fall 2012 and Spring 2014 showed that the majors returning portfolios are producing
work that averages a mean of 3.56/5 overall. By Geography faculty standards, this is judged satisfactory to significant. Average for
each of the goals was as follows: Goal 1 (3.68), Goal 2 (3.49), Goal 3 (3.68), Goal 4 (3.44), and Goal 5 (3.53). Again, these goals
each were judged satisfactory to significant, overall.
On the basis of the 5 point scale, more than half the majors scored a 4 or 5 for their portfolio submissions which in the judgment of the
faculty reveals a significant to superior grasp of goals and objectives. Indeed, faculty judged 25.2% of submissions to be Superior
(5) and 32.3% of submissions to be Significant (4): that represents a total of 57.5% of the submissions in the top two categories
(down from 67% in 2011-2012 and 74% in the 2009-2010 report). While this represents a noticeable drop, it should be noted these
numbers are impacted by aggregating the data. For instance, in both Spring and Fall of 2013, results for the top two categories
(superior and significant) accounted for over 70% of the assessments. While the percentage declines remain a concern, we wish to
underline the trend is not one of continuous decline (as the two-year statistics imply). In situations where students were graded at a 3
or below, it appears that most were adversely affected by the presence of short or incomplete submissions.
Reflection by faculty has produced several possible explanations for the decrease in the portion of students achieving significant or
superior. First, a smaller percentage of graduating students are turning in portfolios each semester. The presence of just six portfolios
(rather than ten or more in some previous semesters) allows a single outlier to have a greater impact. When asked about declining to
participate, students often indicate a lack of knowledge regarding the portfolio evaluation and related expectations. Even amongst
participants, a growing percentage of respondents never received a portfolio in advance of the pre-graduation deadline. Consequently,
many participants turn in a rushed binder consisting of the most convenient (rather than the most appropriate) material. Second,
faculty evaluations of the same portfolio sometimes display radically different assessments. One possible explanation for this
disparity (and indeed the lack of portfolio information being communicated to students) may relate to the fact that 50% of
participating Geography faculty were hired well after the Student Learning Assessment Program was implemented. Greater
communication about the department’s purpose and expectations in the portfolio process might alleviate the problem. For specific
plans to address the issue, please see Part Three below.
PART THREE
Describe your program’s assessment accomplishments since your last report was submitted. Discuss ways in which you have responded to the
CASA Director’s comments on last year’s report or simply describe what assessment work was initiated, continued, or completed.
This is the tenth anniversary of the department instituting a unique Assessment Plan for the Geography major. Faculty continue to
employ multiple assessment methods, including: “pre” and “post” testing, embedded activities, student portfolios, and oral
presentation evaluation forms. Though not specifically denoted above, all embedded questions and many pre/post test activities
address the university’s Critical Thinking goal. The Responsible Citizenship goal is also a natural fit for geography, with most
classes addressing diverse cultures, ethical reasoning, and civic engagement as part and parcel of their curriculum (examples
include GEG1100G: Cultural Geography, GEG1200G :World Regional Geography, GEG3200 :Human Impacts on Environment,
GEG3320: Natural Resource Conservation, and GEG3780: Land Use Planning and others too numerous to mention).
As reported in the last Assessment document, a unified speaking rubric has been implemented for Geography classes (see Appendix
B, below). This was intended to directly address the Speaking and Listening learning goal. Though a lack of data was noted in the
2012 CASA response (it was only approved that Spring), two full years of data are now included. The summary results of these
speaking assessments have been reported, by class, in the chart above (Please see the newly-added Goal 6).
The Writing and Critical Reading goal has, in the past, been assessed within the overall portfolio numbers (4 out of 5 sections of the
departmental learning goals rely on written research projects to assess student achievement levels). As pointed out by CASA in the
last assessment, no hard numbers directly related to writing are broken out in the assessment chart. Portfolio Assessments rank each
section based on a single number. While this one rating encompasses writing skills, it also covers quality of research, accuracy of
facts, appropriateness to purpose, cogency of analysis, and all other components of the written paper. To address this shortcoming, the
department is moving to institute a single writing rubric across upper level classes, similar to the speaking rubric recently adopted.
This document is still undergoing revisions, but should be implemented in time for the next Assessment Plan. This more direct
assessment of writing quality will allow the inclusion of relevant numbers in the chart above.
Though the Quantitative Reasoning goal has only recently been adopted, Geography faculty discussed the potentials for
implementing this element at the last assessment meeting of Spring 2014. We have tentatively identified a number of classes which
might provide appropriate measures of student mathematical skill and technical implementation.
Waning participation in portfolio activities and a lack of consistency in faculty evaluation (as mentioned in Part Two), will be
addressed in the short term by a two-prong approach. First, faculty will meet near the beginning of the next academic year to revisit
our current portfolio system. First, the importance of encouraging advisees to participate will be addressed. Second, intent and
expectations for each of the five portfolio sections will be discussed with goal of encouraging buy-in by newer faculty. If need be,
changes to the portfolio format can be implemented (for instance, several evaluators have noted the lack of a “zero” or “n/a” category
if the student fails to include any material in a section). Third, a workshop will be held for graduating students mid-semester to
answer potential questions about portfolios, encourage early completion, and stress the benefits in their own job search or further
education.
Finally, in the longer term, the subject of moving the portfolios to an electronic format has been suggested (most recently in
CASA’s 2012 response). Some objections have been raised in department assessment meetings (students would lack a physical copy,
papers included would likely be “clean” or ungraded versions), yet many benefits have been identified as well (convenience for
students and professors, higher response rates, timeliness of feedback, persistence of electronic records). Geography faculty
members continue to explore this option. The pilot study this Spring of electronic portfolios for tenure-track evaluations at EIU was
informative, as one of our newer faculty took part. This allowed several faculty members to explore D2L’s potential in the
implementation of assessment.
PART FOUR
Summarize changes and improvements in curriculum, instruction, and learning that have resulted from the implementation of your assessment
program. How have you used the data? What have you learned? In light of what you have learned through your assessment efforts this year and
in past years, what are your plans for the future?
The Geography Department has instituted several curricular changes since the last formal report in 2012. For this period, the most
important changes have stemmed from the addition of classes.
In response to lower numbers for departmental goal 2 (an understanding of regions), we have added to elective regional offerings.
We replaced one class (Latin America) with two courses GEG3070: Middle America and GEG3080: South America, helping to
differentiate the regions of our own hemisphere. Likewise, we have brought back GEG3000: Geography of Illinois (which hadn’t
been taught for over a decade) as an online offering. Both efforts further help expose our majors to the nuance of regions.
GEG3500: Climate, Environment and History Since the Last Ice Age (co-taught and cross-listed with History) is another new offering
for our department. As an upper-division elective, this may help bolster student responses to departmental goal 5 (interpret the
past, present, and future of human and environmental patterns). Goal 5 has been another weak category within the department
portfolio assessment, often lacking materials from students.
In response to a perceived lack of technical and quantitative mastery amongst graduating major portfolios, we’ve added more classes
in the geographic techniques. Specifically, GEG3830: GIS Building Databases and GEG4910: GIS Programming were added to the
catalogue in the past year. Though the need for these offerings was recognized some time ago based on general reviews of assessment
and curricula, both classes are an excellent fit with the new Quantitative Reasoning goal established by the university.
In terms of reflection, reviews of the assessment data were the wake-up call highlighting the falling portfolio participation mentioned
earlier and have led to the faculty review and student workshops slated to begin in the Fall. Anecdotal accounts of less involvement
by students are easy to dismiss, but seeing the hard numbers in the assessment data make the scope of the issue clear. Likewise, the
review conducted for this report helped to highlight a few (very minor) inconsistencies in data collection methods from section to
section. These can now be easily addressed at upcoming meetings.
Though specific plans of action on several fronts were mentioned in Part Three above, an appropriate way to end this report would be
to summarize two specific lessons to emerge from this dynamic process. First, it seems clear that reporting can be further streamlined
simply by stressing consistency (both in data collection and reporting methods). Second, outreach to both faculty and students can
help overcome the danger of complacency by rekindling a common sense of purpose.
APPENDIX A: Geography Major Student Portfolio
Introduction
Since academic year 2004-2005, Geography majors have been required to maintain a portfolio that assists the department in assessing whether the Geography
Program curriculum is accomplishing several goals it has set for the geography majors to meet. The portfolio showcases the best examples of work that students
have created during their residency at Eastern. Materials incorporated in the portfolio may include clean copies of: term papers, field or laboratory reports, maps,
special projects, research reports, independent study papers or internship outputs. Students provide examples from several categories of classes and place them in
a portfolio provided by their advisor. Near the end of their senior year, students will
give their portfolio to their advisor for evaluation. The portfolios will be returned prior to the student graduating.
An additional benefit to the student is that the portfolio is suitable to share with prospective employers, graduate schools, etc. (they often want to see examples of
your writing skills).
In the future, your employees may require many of you to document your activities in portfolio form, so this will be good practice for what is to come. For
example, each professor in the university is required annually to turn in a portfolio of his/her accomplishments.
Items required for the portfolio
Please include at least one item from a course listed under each of the five goals.
Students must provide:
1 item from each of the five upper division core courses
= 6 items
2 items from the student’s selected concentration
= 2 items
1 item from a regional or other systematic course
= 1 item
minimum total of 9 items
The core courses are marked with an asterisk (*)
Students may elect to include additional significant items that may demonstrate their level of academic achievement while in the Geography program.
Goal 1
Students will develop an expertise in using and creating maps,
databases and other geographic tools to present physical and
human characteristics, and organize and analyze information in
a spatial context.
Objective 1.1
Uses and creates maps to interpret physical and human characteristics such as scale,
distance, climate, soils, resource distribution, and other spatial information in
determining geographic patterns;
Objective 1.2
Critically analyzes geographic data and presents them in charts, graphs, tables and other forms.
Students may provide examples from the following courses:
GEG 3800 (Introduction to Cartography)*
GEG 3855 (Computer Mapping)
GEG 3865 (Advanced Cartography)
GEG 3875 (Field Methods)*
GEG 3885 (Quantitative Methods in Geography)*
GEG 3810 (Geographic Information Systems 1)
GEG 3820 (Remote Sensing 1)
GEG 3860 (Geographic Information Systems 2)
GEG 3870 (Remote Sensing 2)
Goal 2
Students will gain an understanding of the complex and diverse
human, physical, and environmental characteristics that provide
the basic concepts of places and regions.
Objective 2.1
Understand and apply geographic themes and attributes to develop concepts of places
and regions;
Objective 2.2
Develop Criteria needed to form regions and be able to explain and critically analyze why physical, human, and environmental regions are essential.
Objective 2.3
Be able to determine how physical, human, and environmental landforms evolve and
how they are important.
Students may provide examples from the following courses:
GEG 3000 (Geography of Illinois)
GEG 3025 (Geography of the U.S. and Canada)*
GEG 3050 (Geography and Culture of Africa)
GEG 3055 (Geography and Culture of Asia)
GEG 3060 (Geography and Culture of Europe)
GEG 3070 (Geography and Culture of Middle America)
GEG 3080 (Geography and Culture of South America)
GEG 3650 (Advanced Cultural Geography
GEG 3700 (Historical Geography of the U.S.)
Goal 3
Students will acquire a comprehensive understanding of the physical processes that lead to the formation of unique patterns and shapes on the surface
of the earth. Moreover, they will develop an appreciation of how physical environments affect human systems and how human actions modify the
physical environment.
Objective 3.1
Identify and demonstrate how physical attributes of a landform determine the human
activities of a region;
Objective 3.2
Identify and demonstrate how the human activity within a region modifies the physical
properties of the region and the significance of the modification to the overall environment;
Objective 3.3
Understands the dynamic nature of the physical and human processes of the earth.
Objective 3.4
To think critically about how humans interact with, and impact, the physical environment
Students may provide examples from the following courses:
GEG 3020 (Natural Disasters)
GEG 3200 (Human Impacts on the Environment)*
GEG 3310 (Biogeography)
GEG 3320 (Natural Resource Conservation)
GEG 3420 (Principles of Geomorphology)*
ESC 3010G (Environmental Physical Science)
ESC 3300 (Soils)
ESC 3410 (Climatology)
ESC 3550 (Surface Water Processes)
GEG 3420 (Climate, Environment and History)
Goal 4
Students will develop understanding of spatial patterns and distribution
of ecosystems, population, cultural mosaics, human settlement, and economic interdependence, along with an understanding of how global production,
usage, and distribution of resources are vital to humanity.
Objective 4.1
To understand and interpret geographic patterns of population, culture, religion, and their interrelationships from a broad perspective;
Objective 4.2
Have an awareness of how certain economic resources and their spatial distribution is vital
in the global community;
Objective 4.3
Demonstrate the interdependences between regions and communities in terms of resources.
Objective 4.4
Think critically about the interrelationships of human geographic traits and patterns.
Students may provide examples from the following courses:
GEG 3200 (Human Impacts on the Environment)*
GEG 3320 (Agricultural Geography)
GEG 3600 (Economic Geography)
GEG 3620 (Geography of Tourism)
GEG 3750 (Population Geography)
GEG 3775 (Urban Geography)
GEG 3780 (Land Use Planning)
Goal 5
Students will apply geographic knowledge to interpret the past, present, and future of physical, human, and environmental patterns.
Objective 5.1
To understand how to apply geographic knowledge to interpret and synthesize the past;
Objective 5.2
To understand how to apply geographic knowledge to interpret and synthesize the present,
and make forecasts for the future.
Objective 5.3
Think critically about geographic interpretations of physical, human and environmental patterns.
Students may provide examples from the following courses:
GEG 3650 (Advanced Cultural Geography)
GEG 3700 (Historical Geography of the United States)
GEG 3750 (Population Geography)
GEG 3775 (Urban Geography)
GEG 3780 (Land Use Planning)
GEG 3875 (Field Methods)*
APPENDIX B: Geography Speech Evaluation Rubric
Geography Major
Speech Assessment Evaluation
Presenter:
Topic:
Semester:
Course:
Time of Presentation:
Time requirements met by the student.
5
4
3
2
1
0
Presentation Organization:
Ideas clearly organized, presenter prepared, flow of presentation
5
4
3
2
1
0
Information Presented:
Understandable, accurate, assignment relates to class/geography
5
4
3
2
1
0
Presentation Style:
Language used, articulate, eye contact, use of notes, pitch, free of fillers, professionalism
5
4
3
2
1
0
Graphics:
Use of visual aids ex: (maps, graphs, pictures, charts)
5
4
3
2
1
0
5
4
3
2
1
0
Overall Grade:
5
4
3
2
1
The student demonstrates a superior ability to communicate research ideas
The student demonstrates a significant ability to communicate research ideas
The student demonstrates a satisfactory ability to communicate research ideas
The student demonstrates a less than satisfactory ability to communicate research
The student demonstrates no discernible ability to communicate research.