- Email: [email protected]
Developing an Assessment Plan in an Animal Science Department
Abstracts / Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 31 (2011) 230-356
study was to understand the conceptualization of legitimacy rather than answer specific questions about legitimacy, the constant comparative method for qualitative research was used [1]. Results and Discussion: The theorized six sources and three forms of legitimacy were found along with newly discovered building blocks of legitimacy. Rather than an all-or-none phenomenon, legitimacy appears to resonate around an institutionalized threshold of legitimacy that tips a discipline into being seen as legitimate enough to be offered at a given place at a given time. In this sense, legitimacy is found to be determined more within the walls of a particular institution than to be driven by overall views of the academy. Among the key findings in this study: 1) Views of discipline legitimacy are linked to the ways a discipline is seen by its audience as aligning with socially constructed norms at a particular institution. The extent of familiarity with the discipline impacts these views. 2) Tipping Points [6] exist that shift perceptions of new discipline legitimacy; the most persuasive is perception of fiscal outcomes most commonly related to student enrollment and/or externally funded research. 3) Discipline outcomes are emphasized more than graduate outcomes when considering the legitimacy of the equine discipline; legitimacy appears wrapped more in the views of what a student is prepared to do at graduation than what a student actually does after graduation. 4) Internal views of legitimacy and external views of legitimacy combine in a powerful feedback loop that underscores the importance of faculty belief in, and advocacy for, a discipline. Conclusion: This study provides insight into the ways in which legitimacy is considered within new kinds of highly specialized and career oriented disciplines. Findings are anticipated to be useful to those working to establish and/or build legitimacy in the equine discipline as well as other highly specialized occupationally oriented undergraduate disciplines.
Reference [1] Boeije HA. purposeful Approach to the Constant Comparative Method in the Analysis of Qualitative Interviews. Quality & Quantity 2002;36:391-409. [2] Boulding K. The legitimacy of Economics. In: Kenneth Boulding: Collected papers: Vol 2: Economics. Colorado Associated University Press; 1971. p. 415-25. [3] Bump, K. The emergence of equine studies as an academic discipline in US Higher Education. From http://www.naeaa.com [4] Cohen, A.M. Shaping of American Higher Education. San Francisco California Jossey-Bass. Inc. 1998. [5] Freeman, Carroll, and Hannan, The liability of newness; 1983. Am Soc Rev [6] Gladwell M. The Tipping Point. Little, Brown & Company 2002. [7] Grubb WN, Lazerson M. The Education Gospel. Cambridge Massachusetts. Harvard University Press; 2004. [8] Kinser K. Faculty at the University of Phoenix: A Study of NonTraditional Roles. Association for the study of Higher Education Annual Meeting Richmond VA 17 November 2001. [9] Levy DC. Legitimacy in Central and Eastern European Private higher Education. International Higher Education newsletter #38 2005; Center for International Higher Education Boston College. [10] Neave G. Higher Education in Transition: Twenty-Five Years On. Higher Education Management: Journal of the Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education 1996;8(3):15-25. [11] Rudolph J. Selected Characteristics of Equine Education Programs at Colleges and Universities. Ph.D. diss. Oklahoma State University; 1979. [12] Stake R. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995. [13] Suchman M. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 1995;20:571-610.
347
Developing an Assessment Plan in an Animal Science Department S. Burk, M. Rossano, E. Vanzant, W. Silvia, and R. Harmon University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, US Introduction: Departmental assessment is an increasingly hot topic at educational institutions throughout the country, and it has become an integral part of transformational change in colleges of agriculture [1]. The University of Kentucky, like many other higher education institutions, has mandated that each department within the university construct a plan for assessment. Although departmental assessment is important for determining effectiveness of programs, developing specific strategies presents a challenge to faculty who are unfamiliar with the subject. Here, we describe the assessment strategy and methods developed at University of Kentucky by the Animal and Food Sciences (AFS) Department, which has a large number of Equine Science majors. Materials and Methods: The AFS Department initiated departmental assessment to evaluate and improve programs as well as to meet standards for accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). According to SACS, an accredited institute “identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes, and provides evidence of improvement based on the analysis of results in educational programs, to include student learning outcomes [2].” The department formed an assessment committee that drafted student learning outcomes, which were approved by a vote of the entire faculty. Each teaching faculty member then responded to a survey detailing which learning outcomes were introduced, reinforced, emphasized, or applied in his/her course. The assessment program will be implemented in stages, starting with outcomes A and D (see results). This initial step was implemented in the fall of 2010, and began with educational measurements of students in our introductory course, Domestic Animal Biology (ASC 101), and seniors in Capstone for Animal Agriculture (ASC 470). One assessment tool given to both groups of students was a background knowledge test, written by the instructor of ASC 101, including questions that graduates of the program would be expected to answer correctly. The purpose of this test was twofold: to determine what subject knowledge freshman-level students enter the program with, and to measure senior students' mastery of subject matter. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) [3], was also given to both classes to address the critical thinking components of outcome D. This measures the development of critical thinking skills during our undergraduate program, and provides a comparison of students in the AFS program with a national reference population. Finally, students in both classes completed a demographic survey, which included questions about previous agricultural experience, education, and general demographic information. At the completion of the semester, final course grades for both classes were obtained for analysis to determine predictors for student success. Initial analyses of the data will compare freshmen to senior students in a cross-sectional study design. Course grades, CCTST scores, and background knowledge test data will be collected yearly, as the assessment plan includes a prospective study that will follow students as a cohort from ASC 101 to ASC 470. Additionally, the demographic survey data will be analyzed with other measurements to identify student factors associated with academic performance, critical thinking skills, retention in the program, and graduation. Results and Discussion: The following learning objectives were developed by the AFS department at the University of Kentucky: A. Students will demonstrate knowledge of scientific principles and the application of those principles to animal and food production systems.
348
Abstracts / Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 31 (2011) 230-356
B. Students will formulate and coherently support positions using written, oral, and visual communication skills. C. Students will recognize and respect diverse viewpoints when deriving solutions to challenges related to animal and food systems. D. Students will effectively acquire, assimilate, analyze, and report scientific information. E. Students will demonstrate the ability to work effectively in team environments. Data from the background knowledge test, the CCTST, demographic survey, and course grades will be used to evaluate program effectiveness and achievement of student learning outcomes A and D. Remaining learning outcomes will be addressed during the next assessment phase, through the evaluation of writing samples, group presentations, and peer evaluations. Descriptive statistics will be used to describe demographic information for incoming students, including age, gender, major, home location, and year in college. Statistics on students' high school GPA, type of high school attended, agricultural classes taken in high school or college, previous livestock experience, and participation in agriculturally-based clubs or organizations will also be summarized. To identify possible predictors for student success or failures/withdrawals, additional analyses will examine the relationship between CCTST score and final ASC 101 course grade, changes in CCTST and background knowledge test scores over time, and correlations between certain survey responses and test scores/grades. Differences in responses and scores of students in each major (Animal Science, Equine Science, or Agricultural Education) within the department will also be studied. Once these questions are answered, faculty members will be able to identify potential areas for improvement within the department, and make appropriate changes to the curriculum. Conclusion: Assessment is an invaluable tool for gaining new perspectives on student learning and the effectiveness of programs. In academia, it is vital for faculty to focus not only on assessing students, but on assessing programs and curriculum, so that programs can continually evolve to meet the changing needs of students. Although the methodology described here is for an animal science department, the approach used could be employed by other departments.
References [1] Fields A. Changes at U.S. Colleges of Agriculture. NACTA Journal 2005; 49(4):14-8. [2] Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, 2010. [3] Facione PA. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test, Form 2009. Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press; 2009.
Contributions of an Animal Sciences Major with Equine Science Option to Department and College Enrollment Trends at a Land Grant University E. Wagner, and C. McCall Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA Introduction: Auburn University is the 1862 Land Grant designated institution for the state of Alabama, and home to one of two accredited veterinary schools in the state. The forerunners of the current Department of Animal Sciences have offered instruction in animal husbandry for nearly a century. Equine classes have been part of the Department's program for over 30 years. The Department of Animal Sciences expanded its equine course
offerings beginning in academic year 2006-2007. This coincided with a restructuring of the entire undergraduate curriculum to define four options within the Animal Sciences major: pre-veterinary/pre-professional (ANPV), equine science (ANEQ), production management (ANPM), and muscle foods (ANMF). The 2010-2011 academic year marks the fifth year of the restructured curriculum in the Department of Animal Sciences. The objectives of this evaluation are to characterize enrollment and graduation trends within the major over the last five years, compare changes in the five-year periods preceding and following the 2006 restructure, and examine the changing impact of the Department of Animal Sciences on the undergraduate enrollment in the College of Agriculture at Auburn University. The Department has been aware of annual enrollment increases within the major and has hypothesized that the majority of the increase has been due to the launch of the equine science option. As University, College and Department budgets have become tighter, this formal evaluation of enrollment trends also serves to characterize the impact of the equine science degree option within these administrative units. Materials and Methods: This review focuses on enrollment and graduation figures from 2001 through 2010 for the Department of Animal Sciences at Auburn University and comparisons to like data for the College of Agriculture as a whole. Fall term figures were selected to represent enrollment for the academic year beginning that semester (i.e. Fall semester 2010 represents enrollment for the 2010-2011 academic year) and academic years were named by the calendar year of the fall term. Enrollment data were obtained from the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA) at Auburn University. Graduation numbers were obtained from records maintained by the undergraduate program officer in the Department of Animal Sciences, as reported by the Office of the Registrar following each term. Graduation values for each academic year counted students that graduated at any time within that year. Graduation data from academic years beginning in 2001-2009 were used, with 2010 data excluded because the 2010-2011 academic year was not complete at the time of analysis. Results and Discussion: From 2001 to 2005, enrollment in the Animal Sciences major rose from 269 to 320 undergraduate students, or an increase of 19.0%. Enrollment grew nearly twice as fast from 2006 to 2010, with an increase of 32.5% (from 351 to 465 students). However, graduation rates did not reflect this dramatic growth. The Department of Animal Sciences graduated 231 students, or an average of 46 per year, during the five academic years preceding the restructure, and realized 208 graduates, or 52 per year, for the four full academic years following the restructure. It is understandable that a delay would occur between an increase in enrollment and the resulting graduation of that incoming class, however there appears to be a large gap in enrollment between freshmen and sophomore years of the same cohort. This could be due to students failing to complete 30 credit hours during their first academic year, changing majors within the university, or withdrawing from the university. Students declared enrolled in the equine science option rose from 14 in the first year it was offered (2006) to 75 students in 2010. Of the 465 Animal Sciences students during the 2010 academic year, 16.1% were in the equine science option, second only to pre-vet (76.8%). It is important to note that students currently enrolled in the ANEQ curriculum could have been in that option since their enrollment freshman year, transferred in, or changed their option or major. The number of freshmen identified as ANEQ students has risen from 11 in 2006 to 26 in 2010, which represents 9.2% and 14.9% of the respective freshman cohorts. Growth in the Department of Animal Sciences outpaced increases in the undergraduate enrollment in the College of Agriculture for both periods of interest. College enrollment increased 9.6% over
study was to understand the conceptualization of legitimacy rather than answer specific questions about legitimacy, the constant comparative method for qualitative research was used [1]. Results and Discussion: The theorized six sources and three forms of legitimacy were found along with newly discovered building blocks of legitimacy. Rather than an all-or-none phenomenon, legitimacy appears to resonate around an institutionalized threshold of legitimacy that tips a discipline into being seen as legitimate enough to be offered at a given place at a given time. In this sense, legitimacy is found to be determined more within the walls of a particular institution than to be driven by overall views of the academy. Among the key findings in this study: 1) Views of discipline legitimacy are linked to the ways a discipline is seen by its audience as aligning with socially constructed norms at a particular institution. The extent of familiarity with the discipline impacts these views. 2) Tipping Points [6] exist that shift perceptions of new discipline legitimacy; the most persuasive is perception of fiscal outcomes most commonly related to student enrollment and/or externally funded research. 3) Discipline outcomes are emphasized more than graduate outcomes when considering the legitimacy of the equine discipline; legitimacy appears wrapped more in the views of what a student is prepared to do at graduation than what a student actually does after graduation. 4) Internal views of legitimacy and external views of legitimacy combine in a powerful feedback loop that underscores the importance of faculty belief in, and advocacy for, a discipline. Conclusion: This study provides insight into the ways in which legitimacy is considered within new kinds of highly specialized and career oriented disciplines. Findings are anticipated to be useful to those working to establish and/or build legitimacy in the equine discipline as well as other highly specialized occupationally oriented undergraduate disciplines.
Reference [1] Boeije HA. purposeful Approach to the Constant Comparative Method in the Analysis of Qualitative Interviews. Quality & Quantity 2002;36:391-409. [2] Boulding K. The legitimacy of Economics. In: Kenneth Boulding: Collected papers: Vol 2: Economics. Colorado Associated University Press; 1971. p. 415-25. [3] Bump, K. The emergence of equine studies as an academic discipline in US Higher Education. From http://www.naeaa.com [4] Cohen, A.M. Shaping of American Higher Education. San Francisco California Jossey-Bass. Inc. 1998. [5] Freeman, Carroll, and Hannan, The liability of newness; 1983. Am Soc Rev [6] Gladwell M. The Tipping Point. Little, Brown & Company 2002. [7] Grubb WN, Lazerson M. The Education Gospel. Cambridge Massachusetts. Harvard University Press; 2004. [8] Kinser K. Faculty at the University of Phoenix: A Study of NonTraditional Roles. Association for the study of Higher Education Annual Meeting Richmond VA 17 November 2001. [9] Levy DC. Legitimacy in Central and Eastern European Private higher Education. International Higher Education newsletter #38 2005; Center for International Higher Education Boston College. [10] Neave G. Higher Education in Transition: Twenty-Five Years On. Higher Education Management: Journal of the Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education 1996;8(3):15-25. [11] Rudolph J. Selected Characteristics of Equine Education Programs at Colleges and Universities. Ph.D. diss. Oklahoma State University; 1979. [12] Stake R. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995. [13] Suchman M. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 1995;20:571-610.
347
Developing an Assessment Plan in an Animal Science Department S. Burk, M. Rossano, E. Vanzant, W. Silvia, and R. Harmon University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, US Introduction: Departmental assessment is an increasingly hot topic at educational institutions throughout the country, and it has become an integral part of transformational change in colleges of agriculture [1]. The University of Kentucky, like many other higher education institutions, has mandated that each department within the university construct a plan for assessment. Although departmental assessment is important for determining effectiveness of programs, developing specific strategies presents a challenge to faculty who are unfamiliar with the subject. Here, we describe the assessment strategy and methods developed at University of Kentucky by the Animal and Food Sciences (AFS) Department, which has a large number of Equine Science majors. Materials and Methods: The AFS Department initiated departmental assessment to evaluate and improve programs as well as to meet standards for accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). According to SACS, an accredited institute “identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes, and provides evidence of improvement based on the analysis of results in educational programs, to include student learning outcomes [2].” The department formed an assessment committee that drafted student learning outcomes, which were approved by a vote of the entire faculty. Each teaching faculty member then responded to a survey detailing which learning outcomes were introduced, reinforced, emphasized, or applied in his/her course. The assessment program will be implemented in stages, starting with outcomes A and D (see results). This initial step was implemented in the fall of 2010, and began with educational measurements of students in our introductory course, Domestic Animal Biology (ASC 101), and seniors in Capstone for Animal Agriculture (ASC 470). One assessment tool given to both groups of students was a background knowledge test, written by the instructor of ASC 101, including questions that graduates of the program would be expected to answer correctly. The purpose of this test was twofold: to determine what subject knowledge freshman-level students enter the program with, and to measure senior students' mastery of subject matter. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test (CCTST) [3], was also given to both classes to address the critical thinking components of outcome D. This measures the development of critical thinking skills during our undergraduate program, and provides a comparison of students in the AFS program with a national reference population. Finally, students in both classes completed a demographic survey, which included questions about previous agricultural experience, education, and general demographic information. At the completion of the semester, final course grades for both classes were obtained for analysis to determine predictors for student success. Initial analyses of the data will compare freshmen to senior students in a cross-sectional study design. Course grades, CCTST scores, and background knowledge test data will be collected yearly, as the assessment plan includes a prospective study that will follow students as a cohort from ASC 101 to ASC 470. Additionally, the demographic survey data will be analyzed with other measurements to identify student factors associated with academic performance, critical thinking skills, retention in the program, and graduation. Results and Discussion: The following learning objectives were developed by the AFS department at the University of Kentucky: A. Students will demonstrate knowledge of scientific principles and the application of those principles to animal and food production systems.
348
Abstracts / Journal of Equine Veterinary Science 31 (2011) 230-356
B. Students will formulate and coherently support positions using written, oral, and visual communication skills. C. Students will recognize and respect diverse viewpoints when deriving solutions to challenges related to animal and food systems. D. Students will effectively acquire, assimilate, analyze, and report scientific information. E. Students will demonstrate the ability to work effectively in team environments. Data from the background knowledge test, the CCTST, demographic survey, and course grades will be used to evaluate program effectiveness and achievement of student learning outcomes A and D. Remaining learning outcomes will be addressed during the next assessment phase, through the evaluation of writing samples, group presentations, and peer evaluations. Descriptive statistics will be used to describe demographic information for incoming students, including age, gender, major, home location, and year in college. Statistics on students' high school GPA, type of high school attended, agricultural classes taken in high school or college, previous livestock experience, and participation in agriculturally-based clubs or organizations will also be summarized. To identify possible predictors for student success or failures/withdrawals, additional analyses will examine the relationship between CCTST score and final ASC 101 course grade, changes in CCTST and background knowledge test scores over time, and correlations between certain survey responses and test scores/grades. Differences in responses and scores of students in each major (Animal Science, Equine Science, or Agricultural Education) within the department will also be studied. Once these questions are answered, faculty members will be able to identify potential areas for improvement within the department, and make appropriate changes to the curriculum. Conclusion: Assessment is an invaluable tool for gaining new perspectives on student learning and the effectiveness of programs. In academia, it is vital for faculty to focus not only on assessing students, but on assessing programs and curriculum, so that programs can continually evolve to meet the changing needs of students. Although the methodology described here is for an animal science department, the approach used could be employed by other departments.
References [1] Fields A. Changes at U.S. Colleges of Agriculture. NACTA Journal 2005; 49(4):14-8. [2] Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, 2010. [3] Facione PA. The California Critical Thinking Skills Test, Form 2009. Millbrae, CA: The California Academic Press; 2009.
Contributions of an Animal Sciences Major with Equine Science Option to Department and College Enrollment Trends at a Land Grant University E. Wagner, and C. McCall Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA Introduction: Auburn University is the 1862 Land Grant designated institution for the state of Alabama, and home to one of two accredited veterinary schools in the state. The forerunners of the current Department of Animal Sciences have offered instruction in animal husbandry for nearly a century. Equine classes have been part of the Department's program for over 30 years. The Department of Animal Sciences expanded its equine course
offerings beginning in academic year 2006-2007. This coincided with a restructuring of the entire undergraduate curriculum to define four options within the Animal Sciences major: pre-veterinary/pre-professional (ANPV), equine science (ANEQ), production management (ANPM), and muscle foods (ANMF). The 2010-2011 academic year marks the fifth year of the restructured curriculum in the Department of Animal Sciences. The objectives of this evaluation are to characterize enrollment and graduation trends within the major over the last five years, compare changes in the five-year periods preceding and following the 2006 restructure, and examine the changing impact of the Department of Animal Sciences on the undergraduate enrollment in the College of Agriculture at Auburn University. The Department has been aware of annual enrollment increases within the major and has hypothesized that the majority of the increase has been due to the launch of the equine science option. As University, College and Department budgets have become tighter, this formal evaluation of enrollment trends also serves to characterize the impact of the equine science degree option within these administrative units. Materials and Methods: This review focuses on enrollment and graduation figures from 2001 through 2010 for the Department of Animal Sciences at Auburn University and comparisons to like data for the College of Agriculture as a whole. Fall term figures were selected to represent enrollment for the academic year beginning that semester (i.e. Fall semester 2010 represents enrollment for the 2010-2011 academic year) and academic years were named by the calendar year of the fall term. Enrollment data were obtained from the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA) at Auburn University. Graduation numbers were obtained from records maintained by the undergraduate program officer in the Department of Animal Sciences, as reported by the Office of the Registrar following each term. Graduation values for each academic year counted students that graduated at any time within that year. Graduation data from academic years beginning in 2001-2009 were used, with 2010 data excluded because the 2010-2011 academic year was not complete at the time of analysis. Results and Discussion: From 2001 to 2005, enrollment in the Animal Sciences major rose from 269 to 320 undergraduate students, or an increase of 19.0%. Enrollment grew nearly twice as fast from 2006 to 2010, with an increase of 32.5% (from 351 to 465 students). However, graduation rates did not reflect this dramatic growth. The Department of Animal Sciences graduated 231 students, or an average of 46 per year, during the five academic years preceding the restructure, and realized 208 graduates, or 52 per year, for the four full academic years following the restructure. It is understandable that a delay would occur between an increase in enrollment and the resulting graduation of that incoming class, however there appears to be a large gap in enrollment between freshmen and sophomore years of the same cohort. This could be due to students failing to complete 30 credit hours during their first academic year, changing majors within the university, or withdrawing from the university. Students declared enrolled in the equine science option rose from 14 in the first year it was offered (2006) to 75 students in 2010. Of the 465 Animal Sciences students during the 2010 academic year, 16.1% were in the equine science option, second only to pre-vet (76.8%). It is important to note that students currently enrolled in the ANEQ curriculum could have been in that option since their enrollment freshman year, transferred in, or changed their option or major. The number of freshmen identified as ANEQ students has risen from 11 in 2006 to 26 in 2010, which represents 9.2% and 14.9% of the respective freshman cohorts. Growth in the Department of Animal Sciences outpaced increases in the undergraduate enrollment in the College of Agriculture for both periods of interest. College enrollment increased 9.6% over