Program Student Learning Outcome Assessment Report

Academic Senate Approved, May 3, 2011

Program Student Learning Outcome Assessment Report San José City College

Program/Division: Biology Program Submitted by: Biology Department Semester & Year of Review: _Fall 2011 ___ Date Submitted: ____03/22/12_________ STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSED Include the Program Student Learning Outcome being evaluated and the date of previous assessment (if available). Biology Program SLO’s #2 & 3:

2. Describe the ideal scientific method and use it to design a simple study in biology. 3. Use some scientific instrumentation (i.e. weighing, testing pH) to measure experimental

outcomes. DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT TOOL Describe the method(s) being used to evaluate the SLO; for example: tests, lab exercises, surveys, final projects, portfolios. Include criteria used for evaluation; for example, rubrics or scoring guidelines. The Biology Department collected data from full-time and adjunct Biology faculty to determine 1) what students are being taught about the ideal scientific method; and 2) if students are being provided opportunities to use scientific instrumentation to collect data. In a following semester, the students in particular biology classes will be surveyed to get their input. A 10 question survey about our two SLO’s was posted on-line using Survey Monkey, and faculty were asked to respond. This instrument contained both multiple choice and open answer questions. Fifteen of 19 faculty (79 %) responded; all lecture/laboratory classes taught at SJCC in Fall 2011 were represented in the survey. DATA COLLECTED Describe the evidence collected; for example: number of students taking exam and grade breakdown; number of surveys administered and responses. The responses are listed below: 1. Please mark the courses that you are teaching SJCC in Fall 2011. The number of faculty is given in parentheses.

BIOL 001 (2) BIOL 061 BIOL 002 BIOL 063 BIOL 003 (1) BIOL 064 BIOL 020 (1) BIOL 066 BIOL 021 (5) BIOL 071 (1) ENVIR 010 (3) BIOL 072 (1)

BIOL 074 (1)


2. Do you teach the ideal scientific method (observation, hypothesis, prediction, test, & conclusion) in your course(s)?

a. yes 15 (100%) b. no 0 (0%)

3. Do your students identify dependent variables, independent variables, standardized

variables, control group, and experimental groups? a. yes 10 (66.7%)

b. no 5 (33.3%) 4. Check all of the instruments/techniques used by your students in laboratory classes.

a. microscopes 13 (100%) b. pH analysis 13 (100%) c. assay of biological molecules, inorganic compounds 7 (62%) d. spectrophotometer 6 (46%) e. digital balances 10 (76.9%)

1. What other scientific instrumentation do students use to gather data in your laboratory

classes? • Refractometer – determining salinity • dissolved oxygen test kit • Water testing • soil nutrient analysis • Graduated cylinders, pipettes, micropipettes • Incubators, water baths • Urinalysis • Blood typing • Gel electrophoresis • Tissue culture hood • Centrifuges • PCR thermal cyclers

2. Do students have activities where they have to ____? (Check all that apply)

a. make observations 13 (92.9%) b. propose a hypothesis 13 (92.9%) c. design a scientific study 9 (64.3%) d. make predictions 12 (85.7%)

7. Do you have an activity where students _______? (Check all that apply)

a. collect data 9 (64.3%) b. tabulate data 5 (35.7%) c. graphically represent the data 6 (42.9%) d. interpret their data 9 (64.3%)


8. Do you have an activity where students use simulation software tools to simulate long-term studies?

a. yes, I use a licensed software 4 (26.7%) b. yes, I use a website where the software is free and available on line 4 (26.7%) c. no, I do not use any such software 8 (53.3%)

9. Students in this class are required to access the internet _______ for research purposes

during this class. a. never 0 (0.0%) b. occasionally 10 (66.6%) c. regularly 5 (33.3%)

10. How do students present compiled scientific information?

a. written reports 12 (80%) b. research paper 5 (33.3%) c. oral presentation 5 (33.3%) d. poster presentation 4 (26.7%) e. do not present 3 (20%)

ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS Describe your findings in terms of the Program SLO. Does the data reflect the SLO accurately? Our data indicate all responding faculty are teaching the ideal scientific method in their courses. Other answers generally suggest that generally we are doing a good job providing students learning experiences with scientific method. However, there is variation in the depth of experience students are receiving as evidenced by responses to questions #3, 6, and 7. Some of these responses may indicate areas that need closer examination; it is likely we will find a dichotomy between majors and non-majors classes, and we will need to consider if the latter need to be changed fundamentally. About one-third of the responders indicated that their students did not a) identify variables or treatment groups, b) design scientific investigations, or c) interpret data. Only 5 responses (35.7% indicated that students tabulated data, and just 6 respondents (42.9%) have their students graphically represent data. Students are required to present their data in a variety of ways (question #10). Questions #4, 5, and 7 indicate that our students receive ample opportunity to use a variety of scientific instrumentation to gather quantitative & qualitative data. Additionally, we have included use of simulation software and internet research (questions 8 and 9) under SLO #2 (we should rewrite) and it appears that nearly half our classes do use such software, and that all the surveyed classes require students to access information on the internet. The variation in amount of scientific process emphasized and instrumentation used may well be related to the level (i.e. majors or non-majors) of the course. RECOMMENDATIONS Describe any recommendations and timeline for change in terms of instructional delivery, the SLO as currently written, the curriculum or Institutional SLOs.


The following are recommendations: 1. Rewrite SLO #3 to include simulation software and/or internet research. 2. Determine what proportion of our classes do not appear to be good opportunities for the

acquisition of scientific data. For instance, it may be that students learning human anatomy will never have opportunities to gather data; but these same allied health students will have that experience in human physiology and microbiology.

3. Beginning in Spring 2012 some faculty will work to incorporate more quantitative tests of hypotheses lab or field exercise into classes missing such opportunities.

4. Lobby the higher administration for funds to acquire more instrumentation and relevant simulation software.

COMMUNICATION Briefly describe the manner in which faculty/staff discussed the findings and arrived at recommendations. Include dates if available. This report was circulated to full-time faculty for comment, discussion, and revision. Further discussion is scheduled for the Professional Development Day on 23March 2012.



Program/Division: MATH & SCIENCE Submitted by: JOSE A. CABRERA Semester & Year of Review: FALL 2011 Date Submitted: 3/2/2012 STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSED Include the Program Student Learning Outcome being evaluated and the date of previous assessment (if available). PSLO-1: Students will be able to apply increasingly challenging deductive and inductive reasoning to further develop critical thinking, problem solving, and abstract reasoning skills as they progress through the sequence. In addressing the latter PLO the department in turn will also move forward towards addressing the achievement gap as discussed in Section VB of the program review. PSLO-4: Student will have developed practical laboratory skills involving safe operation of laboratory equipment and materials. DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT TOOL Describe the method(s) being used to evaluate the SLO; for example: tests, lab exercises, surveys, final projects, portfolios. Include criteria used for evaluation; for example, rubrics or scoring guidelines. Survey Monkey was employed to assess PSLO-1 and PSLO-4 as described above. A question aimed to determine the extent to which faculty employ instructional technology in their teaching was employed to assess PSLO-1. This latter question addresses how well, as a department, we employ technology to address the diverse learning style of the students we serve. A question carefully chosen to assess the extent to which available instrumentation is employed by faculty in the laboratory, addresses PSLO-4. Each of the questions sent to the chemistry faculty is shown below. To assess PSLO-1, during the fall 2011 semester, faculty were asked Question-1 as stated below: Question-1: As an instructor in chemistry which of the following do you employ either in lab and/or lecture. Check all that apply.

1 Excel 2 Moodle 3 PowerPoint 4 Poster Presentations 5 Oral Presentations 6 Instructional LCD Projector 7 Chemistry Dept. Laptops


To assess PSLO-4, during the fall 2011 semester, faculty were asked Question-2 as stated below: Question-2: Which of the following Instruments do you employ in your courses. Check all that apply.

1 Digital pH meters 8 Refractometer 2 NMR Spectrometer 9 Ocean Optics Spectrometer 3 FTIR 10 Atomic Absorption Spectrometer 4 Gas Chromatograph 11 Analytical Balance 5 HPLC 12 Melting Point Apparatus 6 Spectroctronic-20 Spectrometer 13 Hand Held UV Lamp 7 Polarimeter 14 Geiger Counter

DATA COLLECTED Describe the evidence collected; for example: number of students taking exam and grade breakdown; number of surveys administered and responses. Data Collected from Question-1 to assess PSLO-1.

Figure 1: Assessment of PSLO-1 data. Percent response for usage of Instructional Technology.


Instructional Technology

Number of Faculty

Participants

Response Percent

Response Count

1 Excel 8 75.0 % 6 2 Moodle 8 75.0 % 6 3 PowerPoint 8 75.0 % 6 4 Poster Presentations 8 62.5 % 5 5 Oral Presentations 8 75.0 % 6 6 Instructor LCD Projector 8 10.00% 8 7 Chemistry Department Laptops 8 62.5 % 5

Data Collected from Question-2 to assess PSLO-4.

Instrument Number of Faculty

Participants

Response Percent

Response Count

1 Digital pH meter 8 50.0% 4 2 NMR Spectrometer 8 37.5% 3 3 FTIR 8 37.5% 3 4 Gas Chromatograph 8 0 0 5 HPLC 8 12.5% 1 6 Spec-20 8 50.0% 4 7 Polarimeter 8 25.0% 2 8 Refractometer 8 25.0% 2 9 Ocean Optics Spectrometer 8 62.5% 5 10 Atomic Absorption Spectrometer 8 25.0% 2 11 Analytical Balance 8 100.0% 8 12 Melting Point Apparatus 8 37.5% 3 13 Hand Held UV Lamp 8 50.0% 4 14 Geiger Counter 8 37.5% 3


Figure 2: Assessment of PSLO-4 data: Percent response for usage of laboratory instrumentation.


ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS Describe your findings in terms of the Program SLO. Does the data reflect the SLO accurately? PSLO (Student will have developed practical laboratory skills involving safe operation of laboratory equipment and materials.). The data presented above illustrates the extent to which lab equipment is employed throughout the chemistry curriculum. The data also provides the department with information that may be employed to prioritize department funds. RECOMMENDATIONS Describe any recommendations and timeline for change in terms of instructional delivery, the SLO as currently written, the curriculum or Institutional SLOs. In the spring of 2012 students will be asked to respond to respond the following question: Which of the following Instruments have you employed in your chemistry course. Check all that apply. This will assess the level of sophistication, in terms of laboratory equipment, that students are exposed to as they progress through the chemistry curriculum. COMMUNICATION Briefly describe the manner in which faculty/staff discussed the findings and arrived at recommendations. Include dates if available. The assessment report, which included the analyzed data, was provided to chemistry faculty on March 2, 2012. Faculty teaching the course sent their recommendations



Program/Division: _Physical Science__ Submitted by: __Jessica Smay___ Semester & Year of Review: _Fall 2011_ Date Submitted: ___03-19-12_______ STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSED Include the Program Student Learning Outcome being evaluated and the date of previous assessment (if available). Think critically about physical science, including physical science related to their lives and the general process of science. (ISLO #2) DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT TOOL Describe the method(s) being used to evaluate the SLO; for example: tests, lab exercises, surveys, final projects, portfolios. Include criteria used for evaluation; for example, rubrics or scoring guidelines. All of the physical science courses assessed related SLO’s, so if students take one physical science course, the SLO assessed is the SLO tested for the program. We also added a question about the process of science to the end of each of the course end of the semester assessments to see if there were comparisons that could be made between classes and labs. DATA COLLECTED Describe the evidence collected; for example: number of students taking exam and grade breakdown; number of surveys administered and responses. Surveys were given in all physical science courses, assessing SLO’s related to the Program Student Learning Outcome listed above. There were 3 astronomy classes, 2 geology classes, 1 geology lab, 1 astronomy lab, 1 oceanography class and 1 meteorology class. Data about the question about the process of science are below. Astronomy: 39% Astronomy lab: 58% Geology:30% Geology lab: 27% Meteorology: 30% Oceanography: 26% ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS Describe your findings in terms of the Program SLO. Does the data reflect the SLO accurately? Students are thinking critically about physical science and able to relate independent subjects to overarching questions. However, students have a difficult time understanding the process of


science. The student responses to the question about the process of science indicates that many of them are leaving our physical science classes not really understanding that science is a process. RECOMMENDATIONS Describe any recommendations and timeline for change in terms of instructional delivery, the SLO as currently written, the curriculum or Institutional SLOs. Research about teaching the process of science shows that students do not just learn the process of science by listening to lecture or even by running experiments in the lab. They need to be taught the process of science explicitly. We will try changing a few classes to address the process of science several times throughout the semester. If this works, we will try implementing similar changes to all of the courses. COMMUNICATION Briefly describe the manner in which faculty/staff discussed the findings and arrived at recommendations. Include dates if available. The faculty involved in working on these Program SLO’s primarily communicated via email and at the PDD meeting in March 2012.



Program/Division: _______Physics_____ Submitted by: ______Marc Frodyma______ Semester & Year of Review: __Fall 2011_ Date Submitted: December 2011___ STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME ASSESSED Demonstrate comprehension of the basic laws of Physics. DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT TOOL

DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY

A survey of all current physics students was carried out during the week of December 5, 2011. The survey consisted of ten true/false questions, and a space for student comments. The survey form is below:

Physics Program Student Learning Outcome Assessment

This survey is part of an overall assessment of the Physics Program at SJCC. As such, it is not connected with any particular course or instructor, but rather is an overall evaluation of the quality and goals of the Physics Program. For this reason, your name, the instructor's name, and the Physics course number will not be part of the data reported from this survey. If you wish to include a comment, a space for this is provided at the bottom. The questions are related to the following program student learning outcome: Demonstrate a comprehension of the basic laws of physics. The survey should require no more than about fifteen minutes.

For each question below, circle either True or False

True False There are only at most about ten basic laws of Physics including: Newton's three laws of motion, Maxwell's four laws of electricity and magnetism, conservation of energy, and conservation of linear and angular momentum.

True False There are many more than ten basic laws of Physics because most of the formulas used to solve exam problems are basic laws.

True False It is not possible to count the basic laws of Physics because new basic laws are continually being discovered.

True False Newton's second law, F = ma, provides the foundation for everything that follows, so it is the most fundamental law of Physics.

True False The conservation of energy principle is more fundamental than Newton's second law, because it deals with all forms of energy including heat and light.


True False The conservation of momentum principle is the most fundamental because it can be used to derive the other laws and principles.

True False If the total energy of a system is conserved, then its total momentum must be conserved also.

True False If the total momentum of a system is conserved, then its total kinetic energy (energy of motion) must also be conserved.

True False If a small mass collides with a large mass, the large mass exerts a bigger force on the small mass than the force of the small mass on the larger one.

True False If two masses have an inelastic collision, this will generate heat energy which is lost, so then the total momentum of the two-mass system must decrease.

Comment:

DATA COLLECTED One hundred and twenty six students completed the survey above. The raw scores are shown in the table below followed by student comments.

TABLE OF RAW SCORES FROM THE SURVEY

STUDENT SCORE (%) SCORES BY QUESTION 1 90 ccccccccxc 2 40 cxcxxcxxcx 3 50 xcccxcxcxx 4 30 cxxxcxcxxx 5 60 xccxcxxccc 6 90 xccccccccc 7 30 xccxxxcxxx 8 70 xccxcccxcc 9 90 cccxcccccc 10 50 cxxccxccxx 11 50 ccxcxccxxx 12 80 cxxccccccc 13 80 xcccccxccc 14 20 cxxxxxxxcx 15 50 ccxxxcxccx 16 60 ccxcxccxcx 17 60 xxcccxcxcc 18 80 ccxcccxccc 19 40 xccxxcxxcx 20 40 cxcxxccxxx 21 30 cxcxxcxxxx 22 40 cxcxcxcxxx


23 30 cxxxxcxxcx 24 60 ccccccxxxx 25 30 xcxxxcxxcx 26 50 xccxxccxcx 27 40 xcccxxxcxx 28 30 cxxxxcxxcx 29 40 xccxxccxxx 30 60 xccxcccxxc 31 40 xccxxcxxcx 32 50 ccxcxxxcxc 33 40 xccxcxcxxx 34 30 xccxxcxxxx 35 50 xcxxccxcxc 36 40 xccxcxcxxx 37 60 xcccccxxcx 38 30 cxcxxxxxcx 39 40 xccxcxxxxc 40 50 cxcxxxxccc 41 30 cxxxcxxxcx 42 30 xccxxcxxxx 43 60 cxxccxxccc 44 30 cxcxxxxxcx 45 40 xcxxcxxxcc 46 80 cxccccxccc 47 60 cccxxccxcx 48 60 ccccxcxxcx 49 80 xccccccxcc 50 40 xccxcxxcxx 51 60 cxccxccxxc 52 70 xcccccxcxc 53 60 cxcccxcxcx 54 70 xcccccxccx 55 50 xxxccxcxcc 56 50 cxccxxcxcx 57 50 ccccxxxxcx 58 50 cxxxxcccxc 59 60 cxxccxcxcc 60 40 cxcxxccxxx 61 50 ccxxxccxcx 62 50 cxcxcxxxcc 63 60 cxccxxcxcc 64 60 xcccccxxcx 65 40 xxxxxcxccc 66 40 xcxxcccxxx 67 50 ccxcxcxxxc 68 40 cxcxxxxccx 69 70 ccccxcxxcc 70 80 cxxccccccc 71 90 ccccxccccc 72 60 cxcxcxcccx


73 50 cxxcxccxcx 74 40 cxcxxcxxcx 75 50 cxccxcxxcx 76 40 cxxcxcxxxc 77 60 xccxxcxccc 78 50 cxcxccxxcx 79 60 xccxcccxcx 80 50 cxcxxccxcx 81 40 cccxxxxxcx 82 50 xccxxccxcx 83 70 cxcccxccxc 84 40 xccxxcxxcx 85 50 cxcxxcxccx 86 40 xcxxccxxcx 87 40 xcxxccxxcx 88 60 cccxxcxxcc 89 70 cxcccccxcx 90 50 cxccxccxxx 91 50 xccxccxxcx 92 50 xccxcccxxx 93 40 xcxxcxccxx 94 40 cxcxccxxxx 95 30 cxcxxxxxcx 96 40 cxxcccxxxx 97 40 xcxccxcxxx 98 30 cxcxxxxcxx 99 30 xxcxxxxxcc 100 30 xccxcxxxxx 101 50 xccxxcxcxc 102 10 xxxxcxxxxx 103 30 xcxxccxxxx 104 30 cxxccxxxxx 105 50 xxcxcxcxcc 106 40 cxcxxcxxcx 107 40 cxxxxcccxx 108 50 xccxcccxxx 109 40 xcxccxxxxc 110 40 cxcccxxxxx 111 30 cxcxxcxxxx 112 40 cxcccxxxxx 113 50 cxcxxxxccc 114 50 cxxxccxcxc 115 50 cxcxxcxcxc 116 60 ccxxccxxcc 117 40 cxcxxcxcxx 118 50 xccxccxxcx 119 20 xcxxxxxxxc 120 50 cxxccxxcxc 121 30 xxcxxxcxxc 122 50 cxcxccxxcx


123 60 cxcccxxxcc 124 20 xccxxxxxxx 125 60 cxccccxxxc 126 20 xxcxxxxcxx

STUDENT COMMENTS

#17 (60%): Tricky but helpful.

#19 (40%): No comment.

#22 (40%): No comments.

#29 (40%): Good labs and lecture. The book is below average, it speeds through some topics. The trigg [sic] is the hardest part, spend a week or so on it?

#32 (50%): We could have longer time period in physic [sic] lectures and structures encourage students to have active discussions in class.

#34 (30%): I like Physics!

#35 (50%): [Drawing of a person hanging by the neck from a gallows] AAAAAH!

#36 (40%): The basic law questions, confusing! Don't believe we really ever discuss all the laws of physics.

#42 (30%): [Written next to question nine on survey] Acceleration?

#44 (30%: I need a lot of help with physics. I strongly feel I don't understand almost everything we coverd [sic].

#45 (40%): What SJCC students need from physics dept: Less derivation/proof/history. More instruction on practical applications using equations. Way more organized, structured labs; no physics course I have taken at SJCC has had a lab schedule. (Take notes from Dr. Cabrera: Chemistry).

#48 (60%): I'm not sure what is meant by "Basic Law". I'm also not comforable defining it for myself. It seems the 3 laws that we "asked?" [ hard to read] about are all equally fundamental considering they were all used to prove each other in my physics classes.

#54 (70%): E = mc2. If energy is lost mass decreasing therefore momentum decreasing.

#55 (50%): [The word "basic" is circled with a question mark in first three questions, student got those three questions wrong.]

#64 (60%): ? [Just a question mark].


#69 (70%): This test is too relative! I find these questions impossible.

#73 (50%): p = mv.

#74 (40%): Questions somewhat ambiguous. [also following comment made next to question #4, student got the question wrong]: some say.

#78 (50%): [Comment made next to question #10] p = mv.

#90 (50%): Subjective and objective.

#94 (40%): This does not apply to what we learned in 2B. I don't remember everything from 2A.

#95 (30%): All Physics 2A.

#96 (40%): N/A.

#97 (40%): This is rather subjective, don't you think? [Following comment made next to question #2, student got the question correct] few principles, many equations. [Following comment made next to question #10, student got the question wrong] perfectly elastic.

#101 (50%): I don't remember the material, I took physics 2A ages ago.

#103 (30%): Nothing from this semester.

ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

ANALYSIS OF SURVEY RESULTS

One hundred and twenty six students completed the above survey, and the results and analysis are described below:

SAMPLE MEAN WITH 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL

Sample mean of the scores was 48%.

Using 125 degrees of freedom, the sample variance was 256.35, which yielded a sample standard deviation (square root) of 16.

The standard deviation of sample means was calculated by dividing the sample standard deviation by square root of 126, giving 1.43.

Using the student t distribution at the 95% confidence level (area in two tails = 0.05), a value of t = 1.981 was obtained by linear interpolation between 100 and 200 degrees of freedom. In the table of t values used, t(100) = 1.984, and t(200) = 1.972.

This yielded a final estimate of the sample mean as:

48 ± 1.981( ) 1.43( ) = 48 ± 3% at the 95% confidence level.


PERCENT AND NUMBER OF CORRECT ANSWERS BY QUESTION

#1: 58% (73 correct answers out of 126)

#2: 50% (63 correct answers)

#3: 67% (84 correct)

#4: 37% (47 correct)

#5: 49% (62 correct)

#6: 37% (47 correct)

#7: 30% (38 correct)

#8: 30% (38 correct)

#9: 56% (71 correct)

#10: 38%. (48 correct)

Gary Latshaw has prepared the histogram of the scores below:


RECOMMENDATIONS

INSTRUCTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS

Comments from Marc Frodyma:

The mean score was in the failing range (48%). This may be partly due to the vague nature of some of the survey questions. The word "basic" in the PSLO "Demonstrate comprehension of the basic laws of physics" caused noticeable confusion. This PSLO should be re-worded. Some of the student comments indicated a perception that the basic laws are only relevant for the first semester courses, either Physics 2A or Physics 4A. Perhaps we instructors could do more "spiraling back' on fundamentals in the succeeding classes (see "A Quide to Introductory Physics Teaching", Arnold Arons, Wiley, New York 1990.) Physics instructors need to have a meeting to discuss these and other issues.

Comments from Mehrdad Mohebi:

1- I think it is a very good idea to do this survey. 2- I believe the survey questions could improve to take into account some factors. First many of the students don't have sufficient command of the English reading comprehension to sit through reading one page of text. If the questions were designed more based on specific physical situations which could be depicted by a diagram, picture, or drawing, we may be better able to assess the understanding of a broader segment of the students. Second, perhaps the questions for the A series students should be different from the B series. For example students who are in A Series don't know what Maxwell's equations are, that could throw them off even if the question is more general in principle. To these students the Newton's laws (Q4) are the most fundamental and almost everything they know (short of gravitation) can drive from that. Also some of the students of the B series have taken the A course in another college many years ago (as some of their comments suggests) so the emphasis on mechanics would give a disproportional negative result, which does not reflect performance of our program here at SJCC. Finally, I agree with your recommendation for us to place more emphasis on the fundamentals in subsequent courses to reinforce the basics.

Comments from Mark Bunge:

I agree that we should have an early meetiing to discuss the learning outcomes of our physics program. I appreciate Marc's effort in constructing and evaluating the assessment results. It's a start but it's clear it needs a lot more development. I STRONGLY recommend that we have the meeting at our January PDD day, which is the only day we'll get most of the


instructors to attend. It's the only day the adjuncts get paid for their time. Also, it might be possible to have a folllow up meeting on the midsemester PDD day, if there is one.

Comments from Gary Latshaw:

We (the physics instructors) need to figure out how to incorporate the fundamental goal of physicists, which (as I see it) is to develop a fundamental physical theory from which all phenomena can be derived. The department as a whole may wish to consider what messages the students of all subjects should learn about science and the discipline of the scientific message.

When I give presentations on global warming, I stress the discipline of the scientific method often gives rise to uncomfortable and distasteful results. I draw on the experiences of Galileo.

COMMUNICATION

The survey format and questions were chosen by one of us (Marc Frodyma). Physics instructors need to have a meeting early next semester (Spring 2012) to discuss the survey results, how future surveys may be improved, and modifications of the program SLO's.

Documents

Program Student Learning Outcome Assessment Report