2019 Assessment Analysis Report
Academic Year Assessed: 2018-19
College: Agriculture
Department: Animal & Range Sciences
Department Head: Patrick Hatfield
| Majors/Minors/Certificate: | Options |
|---|---|
| Program(s) Submitted for Assessment by AOC |
|
| BS Animal & Range Sciences | Equine Science, Livestock Management & Industry, Animal Science |
| BS Natural Resources/Rangeland Ecology | Wildlife Habitat Ecology & Management, Rangeland Ecology/Management |
| BS Sustainable Food and Bioenergy | Livestock Production* |
| Year 0 Reports | None submitted |
| Programs Not Reported | Genetics Minor (listed under this department, but interdisciplinary in nature) |
| PhD & MS Animal & Range Sciences | Submitted (but not due until 2020 – will be reviewed in the fall) |
| BS Ranching Systems (New)** |
departments: Livestock Production – Animal & Range Sciences; Agroecology – Land Resources and
Environmental Science; and Crop Production – Plant Sciences/Plan Pathology; and Health and Human
Development. The Department of Health and Human Development is spearheading an assessment plan that will
include all options and have been working collaboratively with the departments in the college of agriculture to
develop this strategy.
** For your new program, BS Ranching Systems, please work with your faculty in the development of an
assessment plan (Year 0). A Year 0 form will be available on the Provost’s Webpage that can be submitted in the
fall of 2020, and a full plan can be then submitted in 2021 (with the first cycle of assessment occurring in the
academic year of 2021-22).
Overview: The assessment process includes several sections (as described in the assessments form). The first
section is a self-evaluation of the process, which directs faculty to consider the main points to which need to be
reported. The remaining sections request information on the program learning outcomes, threshold analysis,
rubrics used to assess outcomes, results, and analysis. Lastly, we request programs to consider the analysis and
reflect on potential programmatic improvements. We also want programs to reflect on past assessments and
improvements, and how these changes are reflected in student success (Closing the Loop).
programs will be identified individually.
The faculty reviewed the assessment results, and responded accordingly:
Animal Sciences - Revision of PLO's to be more assessable and consistent with industry standards of ethics.
Natural Resources/Rangeland Ecology - revised the PLO’s to be more quantifiable and better match the industry
standards of ethics.
Does your report demonstrate changes made because of previous assessment results (closing the loop)? NO
1. Assessment Plan, Schedule and Data Source.
- Was a multi-year assessment schedule provided that shows when all program learning
outcomes will be
assessed, and by what criteria (data)?
Comments: Criteria was completely addressed - Where threshold values that will demonstrate student achievement included in the report?
Comments: Criteria was completely addressed
2. What Was Done
Was the submitted assessment report consistent with assessment plan (if plan was included)
Was a rubric included in the report that demonstrated how the assessment artifacts
were assessed?
Comments: Yes, the information provided in both reports was through and well-constructed.
3. How Data Were Collected
How were data collected? (including method of collection and sample size).
Was there an explanation on the assessment process, and who participated in the analysis
of the data?
Comments: Information well described, no recommendations, the process looks fine.
4. What Was Learned
assessment?
- Areas of strength – in both programs the strengths identified are consistent with data and program learning outcomes
- Areas that need improvement – no identifiable areas for improvement were identified
(based on the data
analysis).
5. How the Department Responded
- How as “What Was Learned” communicated to the department, or program faculty? Was
there a forum for
faculty to provide feedback and recommendations?
Comments: Yes, both programs identified the method of communication and faculty feedback. - Based on the faculty responses, will there any curricular or assessment changes (such
as plans for measurable
improvements, or realignment of learning outcomes)?
Comments: No - The programs did not identify areas for improvement
6. Closing the Loop
Was there any documentation from previous years that can demonstrate program level
changes that have led to
outcome improvements?
Both programs - The department has now completed one whole cycle of assessment for
all 5 learning outcomes.
In the next cycle they will be able to investigate outcome changes for Animal Sciences
and Natural
Resources/Rangeland Ecology
7. AOC Comments and Recommendations
Both programs This is a great example of assessing a difficult concept (ethics). The
exam may be further refined
by the development of a rubric (so a range of understanding or demonstration can be
observed).
Congratulations on the streamlining and definitions of your PLO's!
We concur that there is probably no need to consider curricular changes, but we would recommend these little
updates to your assessment process.
The use of "optional" sampling using extra credit may skew and limit the sample pool and having it required
could both increase participation and keep the sample more neutral.
NOTE: ALL PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS MUST BE SUBMITTED USING THE ASSESSMENT TEMPLATES PROVIDED ON THE PROVOST’S PROGRAM ASSESSMENT WEBPAGE
CHECK THE WEB SITE ANNUALLY AS THESE DOCUMENTS ARE UPDATED.