BIO 101 – Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Study
Fall 2011 Final Report
By Ezdehar Abu hatab, Bagher Bagheri, Frank Duroy, Lawrence Pitts & Lynn Wilson
____________________________________________________________________
Introduction
BIO 101 is a course designed to develop, from a conceptual approach, meaningful understanding
of some fundamental principles of the living world. Particular emphasis is placed on the unity
and diversity of life forms and their relationship to each other and to their environment. This
course can be taken to satisfy the general education science requirement of non-science degree
programs, and can be taken independent of, before, or after BIO 102. Materials for the course
can be found at http://eccbiology.blogspot.com.
The course goals of BIO 101 are as follows:
Course Goal #1 - use the scientific method to solve a problem
Course Goal #2 - write a research paper on a topic in biology
Note: The Measurable Course Performance Objectives (MPOs) given below were developed to
demonstrate the students’ ability to achieve each of these goals.
Measurable Course Performance Objectives (MPOs): Upon successful completion of this course,
students should specifically be able to do the following:
1. Use the scientific method to solve a problem:
1.1 list the major steps of the scientific method; and
1.2 demonstrate the proper use of the scientific method in an laboratory exercise
2. Write a research paper on a topic in biology:
2.1 identify valid internet sources to prepare a research paper; and
2.2 use the source material as evidence for the development of a research paper
It is important to note that BIO 101 is also affirmed in the Scientific Knowledge and Reasoning
General Education Foundation Category, the goal of which is as follows: students will use the
scientific method of inquiry through the acquisition of scientific knowledge. Related learning
objectives are as follows: applying the scientific method, students will analyze a problem and
draw conclusions from data and evidence; and students will distinguish between scientific theory
and scientific discover, and between science and its scientific technological applications, and
they will explain the impact of each on society.
There is clearly some overlap between the Scientific Knowledge and Reasoning General
Education Goal and Course Goal #1, which also addresses the scientific method. Since they are
BIO 101 – 1
so similar, it was decided that student outcomes related to Course Goal #1 may be used to
determine the level of student mastery of the Scientific Knowledge and Reasoning General
Education Goal as well.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this SLO assessment study was to assess the level of student mastery of course
learning objectives related to the two BIO 101 course goals (i.e., the similar Scientific
Knowledge and Reasoning General Education too). This mastery was evaluated by three
different strategies throughout the semester of study, which are as follows: 1) faculty embedded
four specific questions into an examination with the expressed purpose of ascertaining the
students’ knowledge of the terms related to the scientific method; 2) faculty directed the students
through an exercise that demonstrated the students ability to apply the scientific method to a reallife historical situation; and 3) faculty required students to write a research paper on a topic in
biology.
Methodology
For this assessment study, eighteen sections of BIO 101 were chosen to participate during the
Fall 2011 semester. Eight of these sections were taught by adjunct professors and the remaining
ten sections were taught by full-time faculty members. A total of 403 students were given the
four questions embedded on their first examination of the semester. We chose to embed our
assessment questions on the standard course exam. These four questions were blueprinted to
course learning objectives, and student outcomes data was collected by each faculty member.
Second, fourteen of these sections were chosen to examine the students’ ability to apply the
scientific method in a real-life historical situation (i.e., Semmelweis’ hypothesis concerning
Childbed fever from 1844 – 1848). This task was performed by a total of 317 BIO 101 students
from four sections taught by four adjunct professors and nine sections taught by four full-time
faculty.
Finally, thirteen of these sections were chosen to require their students to write a research paper
on a topic in biology that was covered in the course. This task was required of a total of 289
students from two sections taught by two adjunct professors and eleven sections taught by five
full-time faculty members.
Results
The student learning outcomes data collected can be found in BIO 101 Appendix A at the end of
this report.
The four embedded questions were administered by both the full-time and adjunct professors on
their first examination of the semester. The intent of these matching questions was to examine
the students understanding of the terminology and basic concepts of the scientific method. Of
BIO 101 – 2
the 403 students who completed this examination, 81% answered the first question correctly;
91% answered the second question correctly; 90% answered the third question correctly; and
77% answered the fourth question correctly. The questions embedded in the examination can be
found in Appendix B of this report. This data indicates student achievement of MPO 1.1.
Eighty-one percent (81%) of the 317 students in fourteen sections that were chosen to examine
the students’ ability to apply the scientific method in a real-life historical situation (i.e.,
Semmelweis’ hypothesis concerning Childbed fever from 1844 – 1848) successfully completed
this exercise. Four adjunct professors teaching four sections and four full-time faculty teaching
nine sections participated in this student assessment activity. The complete text taken from
Scientific Inquiry: Invention and Test (The Case of Semmelweis) (taken from Chapter 2 of Carl
G. Hampel, Philosophy of Natural Science) can be found in Appendix C of this report. Also
contained in Appendix C are the eight questions that collectively asked the students to
demonstrate their ability to apply the steps of the scientific method to the case study presented in
this historical presentation. This data indicates student achievement of MPO 1.2.
Finally, thirteen of these sections were chosen to require their students to write a research paper
on a topic in biology that was covered in the course. This task was required of a total of 239
BIO 101 students from two sections taught by two adjunct professors and eleven sections taught
by five full-time faculty members. 271 of these students or ninety-four percent (94%) were able
to successfully complete this task. The directions and the format for this research paper can be
found in Appendix D of this report.
Conclusion
While our results were strong with 85% of the students involved in this study successfully
achieving the MPOs, we find that our biggest problem of this assessment study is the lack of
participation of the entire faculty who taught the course. Of the 25 sections of BIO 101 offered
in the Fall 2011 semester, eighteen sections were involved in the study for first MPO 1.1, 14
sections were involved in the study for MPO 1.2, and only thirteen sections completed the
research paper requirement to assess MPOs 2.1 and 2.2.
Our plan for the future is to provide all faculty who teach this course with detailed instructions
on the activities that must be included in all courses to develop student learning outcomes data
that will allow us to determine the level of student mastery of the course MPOs. Also, we must
improve the reporting system of the data by using the methodology in place at the newly-opened
Faculty Assessment Center (FAC).
This assessment study committee needs to identify benchmarks for future assessment studies.
The majority of BIO 101 sections are offered each Fall semester; therefore, future SLO
assessment of this course will occur during Fall 2012.
BIO 101 – 3
SLO Assessment Data For BIO 101 MPOs – Fall 2011
MPO 1.1
Instructor
Alberto, Luis
Sec
#
# of
Students
21
24
23
22
18
21
20
23
22
26
16
25
24
21
005
004
CW3
Bagheri, Bagher
008
Totals 18
20
28
26
23
403
Brookens, Tanya
Yerneni, Lakshmi
Adusei-Danso,Felix
Asaolu,Monisola
Wilson, Lynn
BIO 101 – Appendix A – 1
AbuHatab,Ezdehar
Madhavi,Arikkah
Pitts, Lawrence
Duroy, Frank
18
25
22
23
328
2
3
4
0
75
Question 2
Correct
Incorrect
20
1
24
0
23
0
21
1
18
0
21
0
15
5
23
0
20
2
22
4
15
1
24
1
20
4
19
2
18
26
22
17
368
2
2
4
6
35
Question 3
Correct
Incorrect
20
1
22
2
22
1
20
2
14
4
19
2
16
4
12
11
20
2
25
1
15
1
25
0
22
2
19
2
19
25
25
21
361
1
3
1
2
42
Correct
Incorrrect
90%
77%
10%
23%
Total # of Students tested: 403 in eighteen sections
Question #1
Question #2
Correct
Incorrect
81%
91%
17%
9%
Question #3
Question #4
Question 4
Correct
Incorrect
17
4
17
7
20
3
11
11
17
1
21
0
12
8
23
0
16
6
18
8
10
6
23
2
19
5
14
7
17
23
18
15
311
3
5
8
8
92
Appendix A – BIO 101 Fall 2011 SLO Assessment Data
ICA
2WC
3WC
KN1
CW4
CWC
0AC
003
001
010
011
006
007
009
Question 1
Correct
Incorrect
18
3
18
6
20
3
11
11
15
3
19
2
16
4
12
11
18
4
22
4
11
5
22
3
20
4
18
3
MPO 1.2
Philosophy of Natural Science - The Semmelweis Hypothesis
Sec
#
Asaolu,Monisola
0AC
002
Wilson, Lynn
003
2WC
Brookens, Tanya
3WC
Yerneni, Lakshmi
KN1
Madhavi,Arikkah
011
Pitts, Lawrence
006
007
001
AbuHatab, Ezdehar
010
009
Duroy, Frank
005
004
Totals
14
Instructor
# of Students
BIO 101 – Appendix A – 2
23
26
24
26
25
19
21
24
23
22
22
23
20
19
317
Completed
18
18
9
23
24
19
19
19
15
21
16
20
18
19
258
Did Not
Complete
5
8
15
3
1
0
2
5
8
1
6
3
2
0
59
Results
Total #
317
Successful Unsuccessful
258
59
81%
19%
MPOs 2.1 & 2.2
Internet Research Paper
Instructor
Asaolu,Monisola
Madhavi,Arikkah
Pitts, Lawrence
Wilson, Lynn
Duroy, Frank
BIO 101 – Appendix A – 3
AbuHatab,Ezdehar
Bagheri,Bagher
Totals
Sec
#
0AC
011
006
007
002
003
009
005
004
001
010
CW3
008
13
21
19
24
23
24
23
23
20
19
22
22
26
23
20
19
22
22
22
21
23
20
19
20
22
21
20
Did Not
Complete
1
0
2
1
2
2
0
0
0
2
0
5
3
289
271
18
# of Students
Completed
Results
Total #
289
Successful
271
94%
Unsuccessful
18
6%
Appendix B – BIO 101 Scientific Method Embedded Test Questions
To address MPOs 1.1 &1.2, please include in your test on the scientific method the following
matching questions:
_____15. An approach used to gather information
A. theory
_____16. All experiments must be
B. scientific method
_____17. Educated guess
C. controlled & repeatable
_____18. Conceptual scheme supported by a board range
of observations, experiments and data
D. hypothesis
BIO 101 – Appendix B – 1
Appendix C – BIO 101 Scientific Method Assessment Exercise
Scientific Method
Philosophy of Natural Science
1. What was Semmelweis' hypothesis concerning the priest and puerperal fever (Childbed
fever)?
2. How did he test his hypothesis? What were his results?
3. Identify the method of childbirth that Semmelweis adapted from the Second Maternity
Division. Did this method of childbirth increase, decrease or have no effect on the mortality
rates of the patients in the First Division?
4. Other than Semmelweis, who treated the patients in the First Division? Who treated the
patients in the Second Division?
5. What tragic incident "opened Semmelweis' eyes" and eventually helped him formulate a
strong hypothesis that contributed to solving the problem he was confronted with?
6. State Semmelweis' hypothesis using the conditional format.
7. What protocol did he implement after examining his results?
8. Further clinical experiences soon led Semmelweis to broaden his hypothesis. Based on your
reading, what would your formal hypothesis be regarding the causes of puerperal fever?
BIO 101 – Appendix C – 1
SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY: INVENTION AND TEST (The Case of Semmelweis)
(taken from Chapter 2 of Carl G. Hempel, Philosophy of Natural Science)
As a simple illustration of some important aspects of scientific inquiry, let us consider
Semmelweis' work on childbed fever. Ignaz Semmelweis, a physician of Hungarian birth, did
this work during the years from 1844 to 1848 at the Vienna General Hospital. As a member of
the medical staff of the First Maternity Division in the hospital, Semmelweis was distressed to
find that a large proportion of the women who were delivered of their babies in that division
contracted a serious and often fatal illness known as puerperal fever or childbed fever. In 1844,
as many as 260 out of 3,157 mothers in the First Division, or 8.2 per cent, died of the disease; for
1845, the death rate was 6.8 per cent, and for 1846, it was 11.4 per cent. These figures were all
the more alarming because in the adjacent Second Maternity Division of the same hospital,
which accommodated almost as many women as the First, the death toll from childbed fever was
much lower: 2.3, 2.0, and 2.7 per cent for the same years. In a book that he wrote later on the
causation and the prevention of childbed fever, Semmelweis describes his efforts to resolve the
dreadful puzzle.1
1
The story of Semmelweis' work and of the difficulties he encountered forms a
fascinating page in the history of medicine. A detailed account, which includes
translations and paraphrases of large portions of Semmelweis' writings, is given
in W. I. Sinclair, Semmelweis: His Life and His Doctrine (Manchester,
England: Manchester University Press, 1909). Brief quoted phrases in this
chapter are taken from this work. The highlights of Semmelweis' career are
recounted in the first chapter of P. de Kruif, Men Against Death (New York:
Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1932).
He began by considering various explanations that were current at the time; some of
these he rejected out of hand as incompatible with well-established facts; others he subjected
to specific tests.
One widely accepted view attributed the ravages of puerperal fever to "epidemic
influences", which were vaguely described as "atmospheric cosmic-telluric changes" spreading
over whole districts and causing childbed fever in women in confinement. But how,
Semmelweis reasons, could such influences have plagued the First Division for years and yet
spared the Second? And how could this view be reconciled with the fact that while the fever
was raging in the hospital, hardly a case occurred in the city of Vienna or in its surroundings: a
genuine epidemic, such as cholera, would not be so selective. Finally, Semmelweis notes that
some of the women admitted to the First Division, living far from the hospital, had been
overcome by labor on their way and had given birth in the street: yet despite these adverse
conditions. The death rate from childbed fever among these cases of "street birth" was lower
than the average for the First Division.
On another view, overcrowding was a cause of mortality in the First Division. But
Semmelweis points out that in fact the crowding was heavier in the Second Division, partly as
a result of the desperate efforts of patients to avoid assignment to the notorious First Division.
He also rejects two similar conjectures that were current, by noting that there were no
differences between the two Divisions in regard to diet or general care of the patients.
BIO 101 – Appendix C – 2
In 1846, a commission that had been appointed to investigate the matter attributed the
prevalence of illness in the First Division to injuries resulting from rough examination by the
medical students, all of whom received their obstetrical training in the First Division.
Semmelweis notes in refutation of this view that (a) the injuries resulting naturally from the
process of birth are much more extensive than those that might be caused by rough
examination; (b) the midwives who received their training in the Second Division examined
their patients in much the same manner but without the same ill effects; (c) when, in response
to the commission's report, the number of medical students was halved and their examinations
of the women were reduced to a minimum, the mortality, after a brief decline, rose to higher
levels than ever before.
Various psychological explanations were attempted. One of them noted that the First
Division was so arranged that a priest bearing the last sacrament to a dying woman had to pass
through five wards before reaching the sickroom beyond: the appearance of the priest, preceded
by an attendant ringing a bell, was held to have a terrifying and debilitating effect upon the
patients in the wards and thus to make them more likely victims of childbed fever. In the Second
Division, this adverse factor was absent, since the priest) had direct access to the sickroom.
Semmelweis decided to test this conjecture. He persuaded the priest to come by a roundabout
route and without ringing of the bell, in order to reach the sick chamber silently and unobserved.
But the mortality in the First Division did not decrease.
A new idea was suggested to Semmelweis by the observation that in the First Division
the women were delivered lying on their backs; in the Second Division. on their sides. Though
he thought it unlikely, he decided "like a drowning man clutching at a straw", to test whether
this difference in procedure was significant. He introduced the use of the lateral position in the
First Division, but again, the mortality remained unaffected.
At last, early in 1847, an accident gave Semmelweis the decisive clue for his solution of
the problem. A colleague of his, Kolletschka, received a puncture wound in the finger, from the
scalpel of a student with whom he was performing an autopsy, and died after an agonizing
illness during which he displayed the same symptoms that Semmelweis had observed in the
victims of childbed fever. Although the role of microorganisms in such infections had not yet
been recognized at the time, Semmelweis realized that "cadaveric matter" which the student's
scalpel had introduced into Kolletschka's blood stream had caused his colleague's fatal illness.
And the similarities between the course of Kolletschka's disease and that of the women in his
clinic led Semmelweis to the conclusion that his patients had died of the same kind of blood
poisoning: he, his colleagues, and the medical students had been the carriers of the infectious
material, for he and his associates used to come to the wards directly from performing
dissections in the autopsy room, and examine the women in labor after only superficially
washing their hands, which often retained a characteristic foul odor.
Again, Semmelweis put his idea to a test. He reasoned that if he were right, then
childbed fever could be prevented by chemically destroying the infectious material adhering to
the hands. He therefore issued an order requiring all medical students to wash their hands in a
solution of chlorinated lime before making an examination. The mortality from childbed fever
promptly began to decrease, and for the year 1848 it fell to 1.27 per cent in the First Division,
compared to 1.33 in the Second.
In further support of his idea, or of his hypothesis, as we will also say, Semmelweis
notes that it accounts for the fact that the mortality in the Second Division consistently was so
much lower: the patients there were attended by midwives, whose training did not include
BIO 101 – Appendix C – 3
anatomical instruction by dissection of cadavers.
The hypothesis also explained the lower mortality among "street births": women
who arrived with babies in arms were rarely examined after admission and thus had a better
chance of escaping infection. Similarly, the hypothesis accounted for the fact that the
victims of childbed fever among the newborn babies were all among those whose mothers
had contracted the disease during labor; for then the infection could be transmitted to the
baby before birth, through the common bloodstream of mother and child, whereas this was
impossible when the mother remained healthy.
Further clinical experiences soon led Semmelweis to broaden his hypothesis. On
one occasion, for example, he and his associates, having carefully disinfected their hands,
examined first a woman in labor who was suffering from a festering cervical cancer; then
they proceeded to examine twelve other women in the same room, after only routine
washing without renewed disinfection. Eleven of the twelve patients died of puerperal
fever. Semmelweis concluded that childbed fever can be caused not only by cadaveric
material, but also by "putrid matter derived from living organisms."
BIO 101 – Appendix C – 4
Appendix D – Guidelines for Formatting BIO 101 Research Paper
By Student
This page is a sample of what your paper might look like (although your paper will be longer).
The first line should be a title. The next line should be your name as shown on this page (above).
The body of the paper should be next. All references should appear at the end of the text and
before any Appendix material (as shown below). You do not need to put in footnotes; however,
all references for this paper should come from Internet sources.
The body of the paper should be in 12-point Times New Roman, doubled spaced with normal
preset margins as established in Microsoft Word.
You may select you own topic for this paper. The topic can be about anything that we will
discuss during this semester. You can write a paper on an animal, plant or on evolution, Darwin,
organic molecules, diseases that affect animals or plants or anything else that suits you fancy.
When you have decided on a topic, you must get my approval before you begin to write it.
This paper will be equivalent to one test grade. The paper must be at least two pages in length,
but no longer than five pages. Your completed paper must be submitted to me by November 19,
2011 and no later than 6:35 PM. I will not accept a paper that has been submitted after this date
and time.
References
1. http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/
Appendix
This area will contain figures, tables, pictures, etc. They should be numbered and referred to in
the body text by their number (example: Figure 1, Table 1 etc.).
PS your final paper can be e-mailed to me at pitts@essex.edu
BIO 101 – Appendix D – 1