General
Education Core
Student
Learning Outcomes Assessment Report
General Education Outcome Assessed: Critical Thinking in Area D
Natural Sciences--Combined results from, Biology, Chemistry, Anthropolo=
gy
and Geography, Geology, Physics and Astronomy
SUMMARY
Goals=
:&n=
bsp;
The charge of the Area D subcommittee of the Provost’s SACS
assessment team was to develop and implement assessment tools for the abili=
ty
of students exiting Gen Ed Area D courses to think critically. The first goal was to develop an
operational definition of Critical Thinking that could apply to all courses=
in
Area D. That definition is ou=
tlined
in the Description of outcomes
below. Second was to determin=
e how
each course had been teaching and testing critical thinking. Any mismatch in the two was then u=
sed to
inform strategies for changing the course to improve outcomes. Finally we developed end-of-term t=
esting
instruments that we hoped could be applied across sections of the same or
similar courses.
Resul=
ts: In the case of Chemistry and Physi=
cs,
nationally normed assessment instruments already
exist, and this has been of great benefit to our data collection process.
Futur=
e Plans:&n=
bsp;
Challenges that remain include getting buy-in to the process on the =
part
of those charged with carrying it out.&nbs=
p;
This has been a particular problem in Area D courses with part-time
instructors or grad students teaching the courses. There is a need for chairs to
communicate the importance of this effort to those involved in it, and to f=
ind
or be given some way to reward productive participation. In addition, communication between
different instructors for the same course, and use of the same assessment
tools, would greatly increase the reliability of the data. Conversations between departments =
and
colleges on what should be the learning goals for critical thinking instruc=
tion
would be very valuable in designing optimal instruments. Finally, we have outlined GSU’s need as well as a national need for
peer-reviewed assessment instruments in the fields of Biology, Geology, and
Geography. An NSF-funded
opportunity to develop such an instrument for Biology has become available =
and
Dr. Pallas is a collaborator on the effort. It is being tested now and will be
piloted in Bio 2108 in the fall.
=
Courses
in the natural sciences employ critical thinking in many ways, including the
development of analytical thought processes through working of new problems
using learned formulae or facts, the development of skeptical analysis of
scientific results reported in the lay and scientific literature, synthetic
thinking using learned information to predict what has not yet been learned,
asking scientific questions and formulating alternate hypotheses, designing
experiments to test hypotheses, carrying out those experiments, and
interpreting data.
Our goal is a 75%
achievement score, that is, at least 75% of the students should perform at =
the
criterion level that has been set by the department. That criterion level is set differ=
ently
in each department. For some,=
a 30%
success rates on a difficult assessment question is adequate, whereas for
others, a higher performance rate is expected. Part of this disparity depends on =
the
preparation of incoming students at the high school level; faculty may not have time t=
o both
remediate high school level skills and provide college level material. Writing and computational skills a=
re
prerequisite to a good performance on many critical thinking assessments in=
the
sciences, and these are often lacking in first year students.
We again performed a full-scale
implementation of our assessment procedures in Spring
term 2005. Each academic unit
provided a summary of their methods and outcomes. Where possible, performance outcom=
es are
expressed as % achievement of criterion level. Results will be used to inform
improvements to assessments in the Spring term.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>
=
Subcommittee
members in each department examine the results, looking at outcome in relat=
ion
to goals, and, for courses taught by more than one instructor, comparing ac=
ross
courses. The data are not
identified according to instructor.
This helps to avoid the negative connotations associated with evalua=
tion
of instruction by individual faculty and focuses the effort where it belong=
s,
on curriculum design across all instructors in each department. If improvement is needed, addition=
al
critical thinking exercises will be incorporated in lectures, labs, and/or =
projects,
along with additional training of TAs.
=
6.&n= bsp; Goals for the future
The main difficulty is instructor compliance with the goals of =
the
Area D team. The lower level
courses in the different departments are taught not only by tenure track
faculty, but also by part-time temporary faculty that may have little
investment in the process. So=
me
chairs and subcommittee members have been successful in encouraging these faculty to get on board, and some have had less
success. We suggest that the
institution find a more effective way to encourage investment in the
process. Keys to success are
clarifying goals, reducing the workload for faculty assessment efforts, and
allowing flexibility in assessment tools.&=
nbsp;
Although all 5 disciplines fall under the category of Natural Scienc=
es,
the disciplines are quite different in the way they are taught and in the t=
ools
that are nationally available, and it is important to consider this in plan=
ning
efforts.
=
=
=
TABLE 1: Courses assessed
DEPT
|
Course #
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Biolog=
y |
Biol 1107K =
|
Biol 1108K |
Biol 2107K |
|
|
|
||||
|
Chemis=
try |
Chem 1152K<= o:p> |
Chem 1211K =
|
Chem 1212K<= o:p> |
|
|
|
||||
|
Geogra=
phy |
Geog 1=
112K |
Geog 1=
113K |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Geolog=
y |
Geol 1=
121K |
Geol 1=
122K |
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Physic=
s |
Astr 1010K<= o:p> |
Astr 1020K |
Phys 1=
111K |
Phys 1=
112K |
Phys 2=
211K |
Phys 2=
212K |
||||
Assessment of Critical Thinking in Biology
Courses Assessed:&n=
bsp;
Biol 1107K, 1108K, 2107K
Assessment Tools:&n=
bsp;
&=
nbsp; Questions
were given in lab sections for 1107, 2107 and 1108. In 2108 a writing assignment was g=
iven.
Below
is a summary of the assessment results for biology obtained during the Spring semester of 2005. In each case, a subset of students=
was
evaluated (41% for Biol 1107/1108K and 43% for =
Biol 2107K/2108K))
Biol
1107K*
Students=
were
given two multiple-choice critical thinking questions. The first involved the analysis of=
data
presented in graphic form; the second involved a prediction of the conseque=
nces
of environmental disturbance. 93
students took the test.
The resu=
lts
were:
Question=
#1: 76% correct
Question
#2: 66% correct
[performance
criterion missing]
Biol
1108K
Two appr=
oaches
were used to assess Biol 1108K.
1. Students were given questions on
homeostasis at two different time points in the class. Those receiving partial or full cr=
edit
for the questions were considered to be exhibiting critical thinking. 132 students took the test. The results were:
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; Evidence
of critical thinking
First qu=
estion: &n=
bsp; =
; &n=
bsp; 31%
Second q=
uestion: &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; =
41%
[performance
criterion missing]
2. Questions on tests given in class were eva= luated for their ability to assess critical thinking. Evidence of critical thinking for = each test was defined as at least 50% of students responding correctly to at lea= st half of the questions. 134 st= udents were enrolled. Scores on these questions are given below. = ;
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p;
Exam 1:<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> &n=
bsp; 69%
correct responses (for 7 total questions)
Exam 2:<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &=
nbsp; 80%
correct responses (for 4 total questions)
Final:
*Biol 1107K and 2107K used the same questions
Biol
2107K*
Students=
were
required to answer two multiple-choice critical thinking questions. The first involved the analysis of=
data
presented in graphic form; the second involved a prediction of the conseque=
nces
of environmental disturbance. 72
students were enrolled. The r=
esults
were:
Question=
#1 73% correct
Question
#2: 72% correct
[performance
criterion missing]=
Biol
2108K
Students=
were
given two optional writing assignments that could count for extra credit.
Rubric:<= o:p>
4 =3D st=
udent
listed more than one plausible experiment that could work, had appropriate
controls, and listed methods in detail
3 =3D st=
udent
listed ONE method, had appropriate controls, and listed the method in
sufficient detail
2=3D stu=
dent
devised an experiment that probably will not work or is too confusing, had
questionable controls, but no methods.
1 =3D st=
udent
proposed an experiment that will not work, had no controls, and did not list
methods.
# of stu=
dents
assessed: 43 (of 57 members o=
f the
class)
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Percent
receiving a 3 or 4 (evidence of critical thinking)
&=
nbsp; Assignment
#1: &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; 89%
&=
nbsp; Assignment
#2: &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; 75%
Conclusions and Future Plans: As can be seen, the scores and methods of reporting vari=
ed
widely, although most classes reported results that were positive (values of
75% or greater for the number of responses indicative of critical
thinking. The biology departm=
ent
has hired a GLA to help us bring some uniformity to the assessment process.=
*Biol 1107K and 2107K used the same questions.
Assessment of Critical Thinking in
Chemistry
Assessment Tools:&n=
bsp;
The American Chemical Society provides national-level exit exams for=
all
of the area D courses within the chemistry program. A representative faculty committee=
for
area D was formed and functioned by forming subcommittees. Subcommittee recommendations provi=
ded a
set of critical thinking questions from each of these exit exams. The departmental committee was com=
posed
of tenured faculty and lecturers.
The subcommittees consisted of the faculty that =
teach
the particular courses as well as ad hoc members (instructors) that teach in
area D. The departmental comm=
ittee
voted unanimously for both the set of questions and the expected number of
correct answers for each course.
After the exit exams were given, we tallied how many students met the
expected standard of 2 or better correct on the selected critical thinking
questions. The percentage of
students meeting this standard is also given. The expected outcome was based on =
the
Department of Chemistry Learning Outcome rubric submitted to the Provosts
Office prior to the fall 2004 semester.&nb=
sp;
The following data were collected.
Results:
Chemi=
stry
1151 (first semest=
er
Survey of Chemistry)
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Raw
Score &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp;
Expected
Performance 2 of 7 on 1151 exi=
t exam &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p;
Actual C=
lass
Performance &n=
bsp; 67
of 68 scored 2 or better (98.5 % were successful)
The Aver=
age
Score &n=
bsp; 4.4
of 7
Chemi=
stry
1152 (second semes=
ter
Survey of Chemistry)
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Raw
Score &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp;
Expected
Performance 2 of 7 on 1152 exi=
t exam &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p;
Actual C=
lass
Performance &n=
bsp; 62
of 65 scored 2 or better (95.4 % were successful)
The Aver=
age
Score &n=
bsp; 3.4
of 8
Chemi=
stry
1211 (first semest=
er
General Chemistry for Majors)
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Raw
Score &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p;
Expected
Performance 2 of 8 on 1211 exi=
t exam &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p;
Actual C=
lass
Performance &n=
bsp; 85
of 90 scored 2 or better (94.4 % were successful)
The Aver=
age
Score &n=
bsp; 5.1
of 8
Chemi=
stry
1212 (second semes=
ter
General Chemistry for Majors)
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Raw
Score &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp;
Expected
Performance 2 of 8 on 1212 exi=
t exam &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p;
Actual C=
lass
Performance &n=
bsp; 91
of 99 scored 2 or better (91.9 % were successful)
The Aver=
age
Score &n=
bsp; 3.9
of 8
Conclusions and Future Plans: The expected score for each area D course is 2 correct o=
ut
of the questions selected and all students should be able to meet this
standard. We found that our
students do meet the expected standard in every course. Most of this data is quite consist=
ent
with the data obtained for the fall 2004 semester. We will continue to monitor the
performance of our students in these courses.
Assessment of Critical
Thinking in Geography
Courses Assessed:&n=
bsp;
Geog 1112K, 1113K
Introduction: An assessment of critical thinking by students in Geography 1112 (Introduction= to Weather and Climate) and Geography 1113 (Introduction to Landforms) has been made through evaluations of exam responses and group essays. The assessment involved one lecture session in Geography 1112 and two lecture sessions in Geography 1113. Unfortunately, only the Geography = 1112 course produced complete and valid data.&n= bsp; Since the Geography 1113 instructor used an “open-book” format for his examinations, only several of the critical-thinking questions produced valid data. In addit= ion, the instructor chose not to have his students do the essay assignment. Consequently, the following assess= ment is focused on the aforementioned Geography 1112 course, with supplemental assessment involving the Geography 1113 course with partial data.
Geography 1112 Assessment Methods: =
Nine exam questions were give=
n to
students throughout the Geography 1112 course. Each question was designed to asse=
ss
student performance on at least one of five components of critical thinking=
: 1)
discussion of central concepts and relationships; 2) presentation of eviden=
ce
for accepting an argument; 3) presentation of evidence for doubting an
argument; 4) explanation for the acceptance of a conclusion; and 5)
identification of additional information needed to make a sound judgment.
Group essay=
s were
constructed by 42 student groups in response to a summary of atmospheric
research on precipitation enhancement that appeared in a peer-reviewed jour=
nal
(see Appendix). Students were
provided with several forms of data and then asked to address the following
questions/statement in their essays:
·
·
·
·
If you neither accept nor reject t=
he
conclusion, then explain why you have that stance.
Each
question/statement represented a component of critical thinking, and respon=
ses
from each group were assigned scores than ranged from poor (1) to excellent
(4). Since expressing thoughts
through writing is a central component of critical thinking, this exercise
might be a better critical-thinking assessment tool than are the exam quest=
ions.
Geography 1112 Results: Based on the student responses to the exam questions, the
over-all critical-thinking ability of undergraduate students in Geography 1=
112
can be rated as fair (i.e. composite score was a 1.6). Student performance on Questions 2=
, 5,
and 8 was poor. For Question =
2, a
decent proportion of students did not realize that the summer season in the
Southern Hemisphere occurs six months after the summer season in the Northe=
rn
Hemisphere. Only one of the 41
students gave a “correct” response (i.e. additional information=
is
needed) to Question 5; consequently, it appears that nearly all students fe=
el
that if numbers are presented in the question, then a numerical response is
expected. Question 7 was the =
most
difficult question, and none of the students gave a correct response. It was hoped that at least several
students would provide adequate responses.=
The difficulty of Question 7 was offset partially by the simplicity =
of
Question 6; however, many students chose not to explain the position they t=
ook
for Question 6.
The exam sc=
ores
indicated that a large proportion of the students possess poor
critical-thinking ability. The
percentages of students in each of the four critical-thinking performance
categories are as follows: poor (41%), fair (56%), good=
(2%), and excellent (0%). As a
whole, nearly all students were poor to fair at critical thinking, while fe=
w to
none of the students were good to excellent critical thinkers.
Results fro=
m the
42 group essays echoed the results from the exam-question responses: Geogra=
phy
1112 students are fair critical thinkers.&=
nbsp;
The composite critical-thinking score was a 1.7. The congruence between results fro=
m the
exam questions and the essays is an indication that the over-all results are
valid. The percentages of
students/groups in each of the four critical-thinking performance categories
are as follows: poor (24%), fair (71%), good (5%=
), and
excellent (0%). These results
combined with the exam-question percentages indicate the following: nearly =
one-quarter
of the students are poor critical thinkers; and it is very likely the not a
single student in class of 120 students is an excellent critical thinker.
Close exami=
nation
of the group essays revealed some interesting findings concerning student t=
hinking. Some of those findings are as foll=
ows:
·
·
·
·
·
·
several groups did note that the study per=
iod
– which was three years – was not long enough.
Geography 1113 Assessment Methods: =
Ten
exam questions were given to students throughout the Geography 1112
course. Similar to the Geogra=
phy
1112 questions, these questions were designed to assess the major component=
s of
critical thinking. Unfortunat=
ely,
student responses to only three questions (2, 3, and 5) are valid.
The format =
of the
group-essay assignment was modeled after the Geography 1112 assignment;
however, instead of being provided with data and actual research results, t=
he
students were given a hypothetical situation. Unfortunately, the Geography 1113
instructor chose not to distribute the assignment; therefore, no data exist
from the critical-thinking assignment.
Geography 1113 Results: Student responses to the exam questions indicated that t=
he
over-all critical-thinking ability of undergraduate students in Geography 1=
113
is fair (Table 3). Since the =
full suite of critical-thinking questions were not used, th=
e exam
scores should be treated as a loose cross-validation of the Geography 1112 =
exam
scores. One notable result wa=
s the
poor performance of every student on Question 4. Many of the students do not know t=
he
difference between continental drift and plate tectonics. The percentages of students in eac=
h of
the four critical-thinking performance categories are as follows: poor (32%=
),
fair (50%), good (18%), and excellent (0%).
Conclusions: &n=
bsp; This critical-thinking-assessment exercise has
revealed that most students in Geography 1112 and Geography 1113 possess fa=
ir
critical-thinking abilities.
Possibly more importantly, the assessment revealed that at least 25%=
of
the students in those courses are poor critical thinkers. In addition, the lack of good and
excellent critical thinkers is somewhat discouraging.
Changes Planned for Spring
2005: The assessment tools described in t=
his
report were successful, but they were definitely not without problems. The major shortcoming of the asses=
sment
procedure was insufficient participation by one of the instructors. Future assessments should be compr=
ised
of at least ten questions and group essays in each lecture session of Geogr=
aphy
1112 and Geography 1113, especially those sessions taught by tenured and
tenure-track professors.
Courses Assessed:&n=
bsp;
Geol 1121, 1122
Introduction: The Department of
Geology has now participated in Area D of the University’s Critical
Thinking Initiative for three semesters.&n=
bsp;
Each faculty member in the department who teaches GEOL 1121 and GEOL
1122 (Introductory Geology 1 and II) is responsible for assigning a critical
thinking component to their assessments.&n=
bsp;
Most of the faculty assign critical think=
ing
questions as part of their class examinations that are used to determine the
student’s grade in the course. There are no routine pre-test/post-test
analyses in that limited classroom time and heavy faculty workloads do not
readily allow for such procedures.
The critical think=
ing
questions are typically designed to see how well students can take a concept
taught in the two introductory classes and apply it in a way that was not
specifically covered during the lecture.&n=
bsp;
Most of the questions represent small but meaningful steps in this
regard. The Geology Department
faculty believe that our entire curriculum in Introductory Geology has been
designed in such a manner that students must critically assess how our plan=
et
works. Students also use crit=
ical
thinking skills in the Geology laboratories that are separate from the lect=
ures
but are a required part of the GEOL 1121 and 1122 core sequence. However, d=
ue
to the length of these examinations we do not routinely enclose these
laboratory tests as part of this document.
=
This
document contains results from two full-time tenure track professors in the
Geology Department who taught either GEOL 1121 or GEOL 1122 during the Spri=
ng
Semester of 2005 and chose to contribute to the Critical Thinking Initiative.
Multiple Choice
questions on Critical Thinking or Analysis
:
Overall average for this exam was 74 and equal to average scores of=
all
tests given in the lecture section of this course.
Cross Section Interpretation:
The stud=
ents
achieved a grade of 40% on this interpretation. The material was covered in
class prior to the examination; however, they clearly had trouble on
integrating this information to make the proper interpretation.
=
Summary: Student performance in t=
he
critical thinking assessment questions varied greatly, between 30% - 90%
mastery of the goals. In general, it has been the experience of the Geology
Department faculty that students do somewhat worse on the critical thinking
questions than on the other examination questions. However, these questions are well-=
worth
putting on the examinations. =
There
is also a wide range of variation between the different classes (i.e. diffe=
rent
professors). In general, the
Geology faculty sees the value of placing Critical Thinking questions on the
examinations.
=
Changes Planned for Fall
2005: At this point we do=
not
believe that the format for assessing critical thinking in our two introduc=
tory
courses will undergo radical changes.
Every semester different faculty members teach the course and we are
currently in a state of flux with respect to our faculty. This semester one of the faculty m=
embers
who participates in this initiative gave some different types of questions =
that
involved cross-section and map interpretation as well as short essays. He was able to do this type of tes=
ting
because there were only 20 people in his course. The scores on these questions were=
very
low, and were illustrative of the difficulty our students have in integrati=
ng
and interpreting basic geological concepts. Future directions will depend on w=
ho is
teaching these courses, class sizes, the willingness of faculty to particip=
ate
in the initiative, and the creative input from our faculty.
in<=
span
style=3D'font-family:"Times New Roman";color:black'> Physics and Astronomy<=
/span>
Courses assessed:
Spring
2005:
&=
nbsp; Phys
1111K Introductio=
n to
Physics I &nbs=
p; 3
lectures, 8 sections
&=
nbsp; Phys
1112K Introductio=
n to
Physics II &nb=
sp; 4
lectures, 12 sections
&=
nbsp; Phys
2211K Principles =
of
Physics I &nbs=
p; 2
lectures, 6 sections
&=
nbsp; Phys
2212K Principles =
of
Physics II 3 lectures, 6 secti=
ons
Scores from 433 students in the lecture portion and 129 studen=
ts
from the laboratory portion of the 1000 and 2000 level Physics courses lect=
ures
were used in the assessment.
Assessment
Tools:=
For the Spring 2005 semester we continued using the approach we implemented in Fall 2004.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>
Each instructor include= d two targeted critical thinking questions on their final exam. These questions cannot be answered directly from memorized material, but require some critical analysis. One goal of our approach has been = to standardize the assessment tools used in each class so that we can compare results between instructors and from term to term. By using only final exam questions= we can use the same question over a number of semesters. In addition to standardizing the questions, we also established grading rubrics to be used by each instructo= r.
Assessment was also per= formed in the laboratory for the physics courses.= Quizzes were given containing identified critical thinking questions= to lab students during the next to last weeks of the labs. Students were given extra credit f= or this quiz. Since the chief difference in the 1000 and 2000 level classes is not the physics content but the mathematics applied to it, and since questions can be written that do n= ot used advanced mathematics, students in Phys 1111 and Phys 2211 took the same quiz as did students in Phys 1112 and Phys 2212. A random sample of papers was used= for the critical thinking analysis.
Results:
=
Phys1111K
=
&nb=
sp; =
Average Score
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Lecture
1 =
Lecture
2 =
Lecture
3 =
Question 1 &=
nbsp;
Question 2 &=
nbsp;
=
Phys1112K
=
&nb=
sp;
Av=
erage
Score
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Lecture
1 =
Lecture
2 =
Lecture
3 =
; Lecture
4 =
Question 1 &=
nbsp;
Question 2 &=
nbsp;
=
Phys2211K
=
&nb=
sp; =
Average Score
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Lecture
1 =
Lecture
2 =
Question 1 &=
nbsp;
Question 2 &=
nbsp;
=
Phys2212K
=
&nb=
sp; =
Average Score
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Lecture
1 =
Lecture
2 =
Lecture
3 =
Question 1 &=
nbsp;
Question 2 &=
nbsp;
=
Physics
Labs
=
=
&nb=
sp; Average
Score
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; Phys1111 =
Phys2211 =
Phys1112 =
Phys2212
Question 1 &=
nbsp;
Question 2 &=
nbsp;
Question 3 &=
nbsp;
Question 4 &=
nbsp;
Question 5 &=
nbsp;
Overall
Conclusions:
A
comparison of the performance of the students between the Fall
2004 and Spring 2005 shows considerable improvement on some of the question=
s in
both the lecture and lab portions of the assessment.
Several
things may have contributed to these improvements:
*
Most of the instructors involved in the assessment have made efforts to imp=
rove
the teaching and encouragement of critical thinking in lectures and on
examinations. Some have modif=
ied
their course goals and syllabi to better communicate these expectations to =
the
students.
*
A new textbook has been adopted in Physics 2211 and 2212 over the 2004/2005
school year, Physics for Scientists=
and
Engineers by Randall Knight.
This text emphasizes conceptual understanding and gives more explicit
problem solving and analysis procedures than most textbooks at this level.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> This textbook was used during Spring of 2005 for the first time in Physics 2212 and =
for
the second term in Physics 2211.
*
Graduate students teaching laboratories were given more explicit instruction
and training on teaching and encouraging critical thinking in the laboratory
reports.
The results are also more consistent from lecture to lecture
indicating some success at establishing a more consistent application of the
grading rubric.
Changes P=
lanned
for Summer 2005:
None.&n=
bsp;
Only the 1000 level physics courses are taught over the summer. The same assessment will be perfor=
med in
these courses over the summer including both lecture and lab portions of the
assessment.