Annual Program Assessment Report
Assessment Report
AY: 2019-2020
College: College of Letters and Science
Department: Mathematical Sciences
Submitted by: Elizabeth Burroughs, Department Head
1 Assessment Plan, Schedule, and Data Source
Programs Assessed
|
Majors/Minors/Certificate
|
Options
|
|---|---|
|
Mathematics (Major)
|
Applied Math, Math, Math Teaching, Statistics
|
|
Mathematics (Minor)
|
|
|
Statistics (Minor)
|
|
Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)
| PLO# | PLO Description |
|---|---|
| 1. | Students will demonstrate mathematical reasoning or statistical thinking |
| 2. | Students will demonstrate effective mathematical or statistical communication |
| 3. | Students will develop a range of appropriate mathematical or statistical methods for proving, problem solving, and modeling |
Threshold Values, Method of Assessment, and Data Source
| PLO# | Threshold Value | Data Source |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | The threshold value for t his outcome is for 70% of assessed students to score acceptable or proficient on the scoring rubric. | M 242 signature assignment |
| 2. | The threshold value for t his outcome is for 70% of assessed students to score acceptable or proficient on the scoring rubric. | M 242 signature assignment |
| 3. | The threshold value for t his outcome is for 70% of assessed students to score acceptable or proficient on the scoring rubric. | Not assessed this cycle. M 384, M 329, and STAT 412 signature assignment |
Assessment Planning Chart and Schedule
| PLO# | 19-20 | 20-21 | 21-22 | 22-23 | Data Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | X | X | M 242 signature assignment | ||
| 2. | X | X | M 242 signature assignment | ||
| 3. | X | X | M 384, M 329, STAT 412 signature assignments |
2 What Was Done
Assessment Rubric
|
PLO
|
Unacceptable
|
Acceptable
|
Proficient
|
Threshold Values
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Outcome
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
1. Students will demonstrated mathematical reasoning or statistical thinking.
|
Displays limited or inappropriate reasoning strategies in the mathematical or statistical content focus. In neither problem does the student demonstrate an understanding of appropriate mathematical reasoning. |
Adequately displays appropriate reasoning strategies in the mathematical or statistical content focus. In at least one problem, the student demonstrates an acceptable level of mathematical understanding. Some errors may occur, but the spirit of the problem is correctly addressed through mathematical reasoning. |
Displays thorough and appropriate reasoning strategies in the mathematical or statistical content focus. In both problems, the student demonstrates understanding of mathematical understanding. Minor errors may be present in one or both problems. |
The threshold value for this outcome is 70% of assessed students to score acceptable
or proficient on the scoring rubric.
|
|
2. Students will demonstrated effective mathematical or statistical communication.
|
Communication is incomplete or unclear. Terms are used improperly or key definitions are missing. In neither problem does the student demonstrate appropriate use of mathematical communication. |
Terms are properly used and flow is logical, though organization lacks the attention to detail that would lead to a clearly communicated result. In at least one problem, the student demonstrates appropriate use of mathematical communication. |
Work is fully correct and complete with relevant terms properly employed. Ideas are well-organized into a logical sequence. In both problems, the student demonstrates appropriate use of mathematical communication. |
The threshold value for this outcome is 70% of assessed students to score acceptable
or proficient on the scoring rubric.
|
3 How Data Were Collected
Data Collection
All final portfolios were collected by the instructor and shared with the Department Head. The Department Head identified 10 exams from a list of math majors at random, removed identifying information, and stored them in a secure Box file for the Task Force to access and assess.
Assessment Process
The undergraduate program members are Mary Alice Carlson, Jack Dockery, Stacey Hancock, and Tianyu Zhang. They appointed Tianyu Zhang and JenniferLuebeck to the program assessment task force (neither of the two most recent faculty who taught M 242 are currently instructional faculty).
The signature assignment chosen was the final portfolio. The two problems assessed are from the bank of comparable prior final exam problems. (Problems blinded for posting but are maintained in department records.)
Ten students who are math majors were selected at random from the 38 students enrolled in the two sections of the course (3 math teaching option; 2 math option; 1 stat option; 4 applied math option).
Assessment Results
| Student | Level of Outcome 1 | Level of Outcome 2 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | 2 |
| 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 4 | 3 | 3 |
| 5 | 3 | 3 |
| 6 | 2 | 2 |
| 7 | 3 | 3 |
| 8 | 3 | 3 |
| 9 | 2 | 2 |
| 10 | 3 | 3 |
| Overall Results | 90% of students are aceptable or proficient at Outcome 1 (70% are proficient) | 90% of students are aceptable or proficient at Outcome 2 (50% are proficient) |
4 What Was Learned
Areas of strength
The experiences provided in M 242 are sufficient to meet the threshold of at least 70% of students at acceptable or better. The course prepares more students to be proficient at mathematical reasoning than mathematical communication.
Areas that need improvement
The experiences in courses that have M 242 as a prerequisite should continue to focus on mathematical and statistical communication, with an aim to ensuring more students move beyond acceptability and achieve proficiency in their junior- and senior- level coursework.
5 How We Responded
Communication
The task force submitted the results below to the undergraduate program committee and the DH on September 8. It was circulated among the faculty and discussed at the (online) September faculty meeting on September 11.
Curriculum assessment changes
No changes.
Assessment of changes
NA
6 Program Action
Demonstration of improvements from changes
Since our last program assessment, we have refined our program outcomes and realigned our assessment process. This is our first round of assessment with the new outcomes and process.