2021 Animal Science Assessment Report

Animal Science Program

Click to download Animal Science Assessment Report

Academic Year Assessed: 2020-2021
College: Agriculture
Department: Animal and Range Sciences
Submitted by: Carl Yeoman

Program(s) Assessed: Animal Science
Indicate all majors, minors, certificates and/or options that are included in this assessment:

Annual Assessment Process 

1. Data are collected as defined by Assessment Plan:

Answer: YES

2. Population or unbiased samples of collected assignments are scored by at least two faculty members using scoring rubrics to ensure inter-rater reliability.

Answer: YES

3. Areas where the acceptable performance threshold has not been met are highlighted.

Answer: YES

4. Assessment scores were presented at a program/unit faculty

  Answer: YES

5. The faculty reviewed the assessment results, and responded accordingly (Check all appropriate lines)

      Gather additional data to verify or refute the result. - X

       Identify potential curriculum changes to try to address the problem - X

       Change the acceptable performance threshold, reassess  

       Choose a different assignment to assess the outcome - X

       Faculty may reconsider thresholds

       Evaluate the rubric to assure outcomes meet student skill level

       Use Bloom’s Taxonomy to consider stronger learning outcomes

OTHER: The assessment committee gathered additional data to verify or refute the results of this evaluation. New instructors and challenging learning environments may have influenced the results of this data.

6. Does your report demonstrate changes made because of previous assessment results (closing the loop)?

 Answer: NO

1. Assessment Plan, Schedule and Data

    a) Please provide a multi-year assessment schedule that will show when all program learning outcomes will                  be assessed, and by what criteria (data).

Assessment Planning Chart

*Data sources can be items such as randomly selected student essays or projects, specifically designed exam questions, student presentations or performances, or a final paper. Do not use course evaluations or surveys as primary sources for data collection.

     b)  What are your threshold values for which you demonstrate student achievement? 

2. What Was Done

       a) Was the completed assessment consistent with the plan provided? 

       Answer:  YES

        If no, please explain why the plan was altered.

The plan utilized written assignments selected from one of the courses identified through the curriculum mapping for Critical Thinking (ANSC 432R, Sheep Management), but also utilized results from an Equine course (EQUS 346) not identified through the curriculum map. This was done in an attempt to get a broader cross-section of students in the analysis.

       b) Please provide a rubric that demonstrates how your data was evaluated. 

The Rubric for the Assessment of: Critical Thinking (Learning outcome 2) was used in evaluating these assignments (see below).

3. How Data Were Collected

a) How were data collected? (Please include method of collection and sample size).

A writing assignment was selected from the ANSC 432R Sheep Management course to serve as the medium for assessing critical thinking in students. The assignment was a case study and students were tasked with utilizing previous data and management information to determine the cause of decreasing reproductive performance in the MSU Red Bluff Research Ranch flock. Students were to review the scenario and provide recommendations for improving performance based on sheep management knowledge and research. A total of 11 student assignments from ANSC 432R were evaluated for this assessment, including only those students who were undergraduates and majoring in one of the options for a B.S. in Animal Science.

Assignments were collected via D2L and the ungraded files were shared with the evaluators who scored them according to rubric designed to assess Learning Objective 2, critical thinking. Two faculty members within Animal and Range Sciences independently scored each assignment according to the rubric.

An additional assignment was selected from EQUS 346 to achieve a better representation of Equine Science majors within the program and to gather a larger sample size of students. Students who were enrolled in both classes were only assessed once to avoid dilution of the data. For this writing assignment, students were tasked with authoring a research abstract on a relevant equine reproductive topic. A total of 9 student assignments from EQUS 346 were evaluated for this assessment, including only those students who were undergraduates and majoring in one of the options for a B.S. in Animal Science. The raw assignments were shared with the evaluators via D2L, and they were scored using the rubric for Learning Objective 2, critical thinking.

b) Explain the assessment process, and who participated in the analysis of the data.

The ANSC 432R assignment was manually scored using the rubric for assessment of Learning Objective 2 by Dr. Rachel Frost and Dr. Amanda Bradbery. The assignment for EQUS 346 was manually scored using the above mentioned rubric by Dr. Rachel Frost and Dr. Carl Yeoman. Dr. Bradbery teaches the EQUS 346 course, so Dr. Yeoman did the evaluation to avoid any potential bias from previously grading the assignment. For both assignments, each student’s final score was calculated from an average of the scores of the 2 evaluators. The number of the final scores above 2.0 were divided by the total number of scores to determine the percent of scores above 2.0.

A total of 11 assignments, from students in the Science option (5) and the Livestock Management and Industry option (6) were evaluated for ANSC 432R. The average score was 2.0 with a range of 1.0 – 2.875 and 45% of students scoring above a 2. This is well below the threshold of 80% of students scoring above a 2 for Critical Thinking.

A total of 9 assignments, all from students in the Equine option, were evaluated for EQUS 346. The average score was 2.2 with a range of 1.625 – 2.875 and 67% of students scoring above a 2. This is below the threshold of 80% of students scoring above a 2 for Critical Thinking.

4. What Was Learned

Based on the analysis of the data, and compared to the threshold values provided, what was
learned from the assessment?

a) Areas of strength – The average score for all assignments in both classes was greater than 2.0. Therefore, a number of students in both classes are demonstrating a mastery of critical thinking. These students did exceptionally well identifying and utilizing appropriate references and connecting those references to the assignment. Students in EQUS 346 and ANSC 432R also were capable of clearly identifying and stating the main problem and subsidiary considerations in the assignments.

b) Areas that need improvement – Students in both courses struggled with effectively constructing and evaluating conclusions, as well as fleshing out the implications and consequences of the ideas presented in the assignment. This concept is section 4 of the rubric and was consistently the lowest scoring section for both assignments. There are several possible reasons for this. First, neither assignment was constructed specifically for assessment purposes, and may not have implicitly asked for some of the elements of critical thinking. Sharing the rubrics for assessment of critical thinking with all faculty in the department will help incorporate more specific
language related to critical thinking and detailed descriptions of expectations within their assignments. Secondly, there was disparity between the scores of the 2 evaluators. One was
consistently higher than the other, but there were also individual assignments that were evaluated quite differently. This is to be expected given the subjective nature of the evaluations and amplified by the assignments not being specifically designed to be evaluated by the Critical Thinking rubric used to conduct the assessment. However, more consistent scoring might be achieved if the rubric is discussed together prior to the faculty scoring the assignments individually.

5. How We Responded

a) Describe how “What Was Learned” was communicated to the department, or program
faculty. Was there a forum for faculty to provide feedback and recommendations?

The results of this assessment were presented to Animal Science faculty during a faculty retreat in August 2021. The faculty discussed the findings as a whole and then held breakout sessions to brainstorm new ways to increase critical thinking skills in students. The rubric used to assess critical thinking will be shared with all faculty to facilitate more active inclusion of critical thinking elements in assignments and discussions. A sophomore seminar class was suggested as one possible avenue to increase student awareness and skills and is being discussed further, while all faculty agreed to place greater emphasis on critical thinking in classes.

b) Based on the faculty responses, will there any curricular or assessment changes (such as plans for
measurable improvements, or realignment of learning outcomes)?

Answer: YES   

If yes, when will these changes be implemented?

The addition of the sophomore seminar is being explored currently and could be included as soon as Fall of 2022. All faculty have committed to incorporating more exercises in critical thinking into their classes, particularly at the sophomore and junior level.

Please include which outcome is targeted, and how changes will be measured for improvement. If
other criteria is used to recommend program changes (such as exit surveys, or employer satisfaction
surveys) please explain how the responses are driving department, or program decisions.

c) When will the changes be next assessed?

The learning outcome “Critical Thinking” will be assessed again in 2022-2023.

6. Closing the Loop

a) Based on assessment from previous years, can you demonstrate program level changes
that have led to outcome improvements?

In previous assessments of critical thinking, the students met the threshold of 80% scoring over 2.0. Whether this is an actual decline in the quality of the program, or an artifact of the unique nature of this assessment is unclear. The 3 years since the last assessment have brought many changes from the challenges of COVID, to multiple new
faculty in the department that have not been through a formal program assessment. Overall, the assessment process was an excellent learning experience for all involved and a great opportunity to have fruitful discussions on the importance of critical thinking and how all faculty within the Animal Science degree options can support each other to reinforce critical thinking in students.