Assessment Reporting

Assessment Reporting

Spring 2009 – Spring 2010

As you now know an interim report on the assessment of student learning is due to WASC in fall of 2010. We have been asked to demonstrate that we are using assessment data to improve student learning (i.e., “closing the assessment loop”) and that the assessment process is sustainable. To that end, we are asking programs to report on their most complete student learning outcome (SLO) during this reporting cycle. Please identify your selected SLO in the box below and provide the requested information.

Program Information

Student Learning Outcome (SLO)

Evidence for Need:

[We start with backstory that helps clarify how/why we are grappling with SLO #4.]

The geological sciences are rooted in field studies of the rocks, soils, and surface features of the earth. While many geoscientists ultimately devote their attention to theoretical, computational, or modeling studies, solid grounding in field fundamentals in a key component of preparation in graduate programs worldwide.

Through the 1980s and well into the 1990s, almost all graduate students entering the M.S. program in Geology at SJSU had completed a traditional undergraduate program in Geology for their B.S. Such traditional programs culminate in a 4- to 6-week capstone course of field work—generally in the summer, and typically termed “summer field camp” or field camp.

Once at SJSU, a particular graduate student’s field skills traditionally have been assessed by a single faculty member—the student’s thesis adviser. In rare cases, a second committee member also works directly with the student in the field and can provide a “second opinion.” (Many graduate classes include a multi-day field trip that enables the faculty instructor to observe student field skills, but none of these classes is required of all students.)

Through the mid-1990s, this combination of prior field-camp experience and a supervisor’s in-person assessment of field techniques was sufficient to ensure adequate mastery of field skills. The strong reputation of our graduates among employers and Ph.D. programs over the years suggests that this time-tested procedure has been successful.

Since the late 1990s, applicants to our graduate program have come from a wide range of backgrounds: not only geology, but also physics, computer science, engineering, soils science, sociology (!), and other fields. Students from non-geologic backgrounds usually spend their first 1, 2, or even 3 semesters making up geology courses required for our B.S. degree, including field camp. Thus, the field skills of these students are assessed using the same criteria used for traditional students (field camp plus thesis supervisor). SLO #7 was written in this context.

In the last three years, the department hired two young faculty members who have very active research programs and already have attracted many graduate students. Most of these graduate students (a) do not have an undergraduate degree in geology, and have not taken field camp, and (b) intend to pursue careers or further graduate work that do not require traditional mapping preparation. These faculty members point out that the traditional field camp does not serve their students well (and in fact poses onerous fiscal and time burdens), that the field skills developed by our students vary greatly, and that the variation is so significant that existing assessment measures are inadequate. Strong differences of opinion began to surface among the faculty—collegial, but clearly requiring some attention.

Changes to Curriculum or Pedagogy:

Spring 2009: e selected this SLO for analysis, assessment of student progress, and possible modification, thereby fully confronting the different perspectives that we have about graduate field skills. [Note that here we are considering only the field component of SLO #4; laboratory skills are fundamentally different, and perhaps should be in a separate SLO.]

Sp 10: Discussions of graduate field skills have been the chief non-budget-related topic of discussion in formal faculty meetings and informal get-togethers for over a year. As these discussions progressed, we found ourselves analyzing fundamental questions about our expectations of our graduate students and graduate program. These unanticipated queries necessarily diverted us from assessing student progress toward SLO #4 because of the uncertainty in the assessment procedure itself. Everyone agrees that field skills are a prerequisite for obtaining the M.S. degree, but opinions vary about (1) which field skills are relevant or appropriate, and (2) valid means of acquiring these skills (field camp? alternative field courses taught elsewhere? field apprenticeships with other researchers? the student’s own thesis work?).

Evidence for Impact:

Sp10: We were asked to provide a closed loop, but this past year’s work on the field component of SLO #4 opened the proverbial Pandora’s Box, taking far more of our time than we projected. An outside observer might conclude that we got bogged down on the conceptual side at the expense of collecting and analyzing assessment data. We, however, see the positive side of the delay; the “which” and “how acquired” questions about graduate field skills have revealed unexpected nuances in not only what we meant by SLO #4, but also in our expectations of our graduate students and graduate program. As discussions have unfolded and the extent of possible impacts has become clearer, we have undertaken modifications of SLO #4, and possibly other SLOs, for our M.S. program. We expect to complete these revisions by the end of Spring 2010.
sp10: The long-term result of this somewhat frustrating year of deliberations will be a stronger, more precisely worded set of SLOs, clearer perception of our expectations for students, more easily assessed SLOs, and students with stronger skills and better preparation.

Page 1