2019-2020 Year 0 report BS in Sustainable Food and Bioenergy Systems
A printable PDF of this information can be found here.
|
Assessment Plan – Year 0 Report
College: EHHD and College of Agriculture
Department: The SFBS Program is an interdisciplinary degree across four departments (Health and Human Development (HHD), Plant Sciences and Plant Pathology (PSPP), Land Resources and Environmental Sciences (LRES) and Animal and Range Sciences (ANRS)
Submitted by: Mary Stein, MS. Program Leader, SFBS Program
Indicate all majors, minors, certificates and/or options that are included in this new assessment Plan
Majors/Minors/Certificate |
Options |
Sustainable Food and Bioenergy Systems |
Sustainable Food Systems (HHD) |
|
Sustainable Crop Production (PSPP) |
|
Agroecology (LRES) |
|
Sustainable Livestock Production (ANRS) |
Part 1: Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs):
Students who graduate with a degree in SFBS will:
|
Part 2: Development of Assessment Plan
Each plan will require the following information:
2a. Curriculum Map
ASSESSMENT PLANNING CHART |
|
|||||
Program Learning Outcomes |
Course Alignments: Include rubric, number and course title |
Identification of Assessment Artifact |
||||
1 (systemsthinking) |
SFBS146: Intro to Sustainable Food and Bioenergy Systems |
Artifact: Eat Montana Project Assignment |
||||
|
SFBS466: Food System Resilience, Vulnerability and Transformation |
Artifact: Illusion of Water Assignment |
||||
2 (communications) |
SFBS296: Practicum – Towne’s Harvest Garden |
Artifact: Favorite Tool Assignment – (oral presentation) |
||||
|
SFBS499: Capstone |
Artifact: Systems Thinking Dialogue – Discussion Preparation (written response to prompt) |
||||
3 (practical skills) |
SFBS296: Practicum – Towne’s Harvest Garden |
Artifact: Weed Identification Activity |
||||
|
SFBS498: Internship |
Artifact: Mentor Feedback Survey: Practical Skills Likert Scale Section |
||||
4 (problem- solving) |
SFBS296: |
Artifact: Individual Practicum Project |
||||
|
SFBS466: |
Artifact: Local Food in School Meals Campaign Assignment |
||||
ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE |
||||||
|
|
Year to be assessed |
||||
PLO |
Course |
2020- 2021 |
2021- 2022 |
2022- 2023 |
2023- 2024 |
2024- 2025 |
1 |
SFBS146 |
X |
|
|
|
X |
1 |
SFBS466 |
|
|
X |
|
|
2 |
SFBS296 |
|
|
X |
|
|
2 |
SFBS499 |
|
|
|
X |
|
3 |
SFBS296 |
|
X |
|
|
|
3 |
SFBS498 |
|
|
|
X |
|
4 |
SFBS296 |
X |
|
|
|
X |
4 |
SFBS466 |
|
X |
|
|
|
Part 3: Program Assessment:
1. How will assessment artifacts be identified?
Assessment artifacts have been identified through consultation with program faculty. Additionally, the SFBS Program faculty have recently completed a multi-institutional
examination of sustainable food system pedagogy and associated assessment with collaborators from the University of Minnesota and University of British Columbia. Outcomes from this research project have informed the specific learning outcomes embedded in this updated SFBS Program Assessment Plan, and MSU faculty further endeavored to identify specific assignments (artifacts) and their associated rubrics that would provide measurable data for each learning outcome.
2. How will they be collected (and by whom)?
During the annual SFBS Program Faculty Meeting (annually in early September), the SFBS Program Leader will outline the Program Assessment Plan for the upcoming academic year, indicating which courses will be contributing to program assessment data and which assignments (artifacts) will be used for collecting that data. Course instructors will administer the assignment identified as the artifact for the specific learning outcomes. Two SFBS faculty (not instructor) will be identified as “graders” for each artifact and will grade a sampling of artifact assignments using the assignment rubric for that specific program learning outcome. All graded data will be sent to Program Leader for inclusion in the annual Program Assessment Report.
3. Who will be assessing the artifacts?
SFBS instructional faculty will serve as “graders” for all assessment assignments. Graders will not be the instructor of record for the course from which the assessment data is arising.
Additionally, program learning outcome assessment scores for the specific artifact assignment will not influence the student’s earned grade in the course.
Part 4: Program Assessment Plan:
The following rubrics will be for each of the learning outcomes included in program assessment. Artifacts for each learning outcome will be scored according to the appropriate rubric for that program learning outcome (PLO).
PLO #1 Analyze food systems through a transdisciplinary approach, guided by sustainability principles (systems thinking). (Adapted from: Hiller Connell, KY, et al, Assessing Systems Thinking Skills in Two Undergraduate Sustainability Courses: A Comparison of Teaching Strategies Journal of Sustainability Education Vol. 3, March 2012). |
Threshold Values |
||||
Indicators |
Level 1 |
Level2 |
Level 3 |
Level 4 |
Upon program completion, 80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency |
Identification and |
Identifies and |
Identifies and |
Identifies and |
Identifies and |
|
explanation of food |
explains issues, |
explains issues, |
explains issues, |
explains issues, |
|
system components |
goals, and/or |
goals, and/or |
goals and/or |
goals, and/or |
|
and relationships, |
problems |
problems |
problems |
problems within |
|
guided by sustainability |
within the food |
within the food |
within the food |
the food system |
|
principles. |
system as |
system as a |
system from a |
from a wide, “big |
|
|
individual |
series of |
“big picture” |
picture” view. |
|
|
details. |
interrelated details. |
view. Seeks out and |
Gathers information about |
|
|
|
|
considers |
the food system to |
|
|
|
|
different |
form an |
|
|
|
|
perspectives, |
overarching |
|
|
|
|
interactions |
assessment of a |
|
|
|
|
and sectors. |
specific challenge or situation. |
|
Representation of food |
Creates a |
Creates a |
Creates a |
Creates a concise |
|
system components, |
model of the |
model of the |
model of the |
model of a system, |
|
relationships and |
food system |
food system |
food system’s |
aggregating |
|
ability to apply |
that includes |
that begins to |
relevant set of |
detailed |
|
representation across a |
only discreet, |
convey |
components |
information to |
|
variety of issues, |
unrelated or |
relationships |
and associated |
represent the |
|
situations or processes. |
inconsequential elements. |
between components of |
complex relationships by |
whole-system perspective on an |
|
|
|
the system, but |
taking a whole- |
issue or process. |
|
|
|
in a simplistic |
system |
|
|
|
|
(unidirectional |
perspective of |
|
|
|
|
or incomplete) |
an issue, |
|
|
|
|
manner. |
problem or process. |
|
|
Holistic integration of |
Student |
Student |
Student |
Student identifies |
|
social, environmental |
struggles to |
identifies some |
identifies most |
all of the social, |
|
and economic factors |
understand the |
of the social, |
of the social, |
environmental, & |
|
guided by sustainability |
tenets of |
environmental, |
environmental, |
economic |
|
principles. |
sustainability, |
& economic |
& economic |
challenges |
|
|
and therefore, |
challenges |
challenges |
represented in the |
|
|
is able to |
represented in |
represented in |
scenario. |
|
|
identify |
the scenario. |
the scenario. |
|
|
|
challenges but |
|
|
|
|
|
not necessarily |
|
|
|
|
|
pertaining to |
|
|
|
|
|
sustainability |
|
|
|
PLO #2: Be effective communicatorsthrough oral, written and visual formats to diverse audiences. |
Threshold Values |
||||
Indicators |
Level 1 |
Level 2 |
Level 3 |
Level 4 |
Upon program completion, 80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency |
Purpose |
Purpose is unclear or not |
Identifies the purpose. Some |
Clearly identifies the purpose. |
Clearly identifies purpose and |
|
|
overtly stated |
of content is |
Majority of |
content fully serves |
|
|
when |
appropriate to |
content is |
to contribute to |
|
|
appropriate. |
the purpose. |
appropriate to purpose. |
identified purpose. |
|
Audience |
Demonstrates minimal |
Demonstrates some attention |
Demonstrates awareness of |
Demonstrates awareness of |
|
|
attention to the |
to the |
audience’s |
audience’s identity |
|
|
audience’s |
audience’s |
identity, |
knowledge and |
|
|
identify, |
identify, |
knowledge and |
context AND |
|
|
knowledge, and context. |
knowledge and context. |
context. |
engaged with/connected to audience. |
|
Content Development |
Little evidence of understanding of |
Uses appropriate and |
Uses appropriate and |
Demonstrates understanding of |
|
|
the topic. |
relevant content |
relevant content |
issues or topics by |
|
|
Disconnect from |
to develop |
to develop and |
analyzing and |
|
|
relevant class |
ideas. Shows |
explore ideas. |
synthesizing |
|
|
content. |
some |
|
relevant |
|
|
understanding of issue or topic. |
|
information. |
||
Clarity/Organization |
Main idea unclear and |
Main idea clear, needs to |
Main idea clear. Examples follow |
Clearly developed thesis. Organized |
|
|
insufficiently |
improve logical |
logical order. |
topics which offer |
|
|
supported by |
order of |
|
support for main |
|
|
detail. |
examples |
|
topic. Effective |
|
|
|
and/or |
|
introductions and |
|
|
|
relevance/qualit y of evidence. |
|
conclusions. |
|
Grammar/Language |
Errors in grammar and |
Grammar and/or language |
Communication is grammatically |
Communication is grammatically |
|
|
format (spelling, |
usage |
correct, |
correct, interesting, |
|
|
punctuation, |
occasionally |
interesting, |
demonstrates |
|
|
capitalization). |
interferes with |
demonstrates |
subject area |
|
|
Errors in |
communication. |
subject area |
knowledge, |
|
|
language usage |
Includes some |
knowledge. |
connects with |
|
|
sometimes |
errors. |
Limited errors. |
audience and flows |
|
|
impedes meaning. |
|
|
well. Free of errors. |
|
Sources/Evidence |
Struggles to cite sources. Few |
Citations mostly correct. |
Cited correctly, but too few or |
Work is appropriately cited. |
|
|
references. |
Demonstrates |
too many |
Demonstrates |
|
|
Demonstrates |
an attempt to |
examples. |
skillful use of high- |
|
|
weak attempts to |
use credible and |
Demonstrates |
quality, credible, |
|
|
use credible |
relevant sources |
use of sources |
relevant sources |
|
|
sources to |
to support ideas |
that are |
appropriate for the |
|
|
support ideas. |
that are appropriate for discipline. |
appropriate for discipline. |
discipline. |
PLO #3: Demonstrate practical skillsin the food system based on sustainability principles. |
Threshold Values |
||||
Indicators |
Level 1 |
Level 2 |
Level 3 |
Level 4 |
Upon program completion, 80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency |
Task Completion |
Unable to complete the |
The task was completed but |
The task was completed but |
The task was completed |
|
|
task. |
needed several |
needed minor |
according to |
|
|
major modifications. |
modifications. |
criteria. |
||
Ability to Follow Directions |
Did not follow directions. |
Followed directions with limited effectiveness. |
Followed directions with moderate effectiveness. |
Followed directions with high degree of effectiveness. |
|
Demonstrated Knowledge of Theory Behind Application of Practical Skills |
Student unable to identify and describe theories foundational to task/work. |
Student is able to identify and describe theories related to task/work |
Student is able to identify and describe necessary theories related |
Student is able to identify and describe theories foundational to completion of |
|
|
with limited effectiveness. |
to task/work with minor assistance. |
task/work. |
||
Student Preparedness |
Student did not have needed |
Student missing some of the |
Student gathered most |
Student gathered all materials and was |
|
|
materials to |
needed |
materials but |
completely ready to |
|
|
perform |
materials to |
required |
go to work. |
|
|
work/task and |
perform |
minimal |
|
|
|
therefore unable |
work/task. |
reminders/assist |
|
|
|
to perform work/task. |
|
ance. |
|
|
Level of Assistance Needed |
Student unable to complete task/work. |
Student able to complete the task/work with |
Student able to complete the task/work with |
Student able to complete the task/work without |
|
|
significant assistance. |
minimal assistance. |
assistance. |
||
Application of Safety Practices |
Student did not follow safety rules/protocols. |
Student needed occasional reminders to |
Student follows safety rules/ protocols but |
Student knowledgeable of and followed all |
|
|
|
follow safety |
unable to |
safety rules and |
|
|
|
rules/protocols. |
explain purpose |
protocols. |
|
|
|
|
behind |
|
|
|
|
|
rules/protocols. |
|
PLO #4: Design, implement, and assess food system solutions across scales. (Problem-solving) |
Threshold Values |
||||
Indicators |
Level 1 |
Level2 |
Level 3 |
Level 4 |
Upon program completion, 80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency |
Analysis of Information, Ideas, or Concepts |
Identifies problem types |
Focuses on difficult problems with persistence |
Understands complexity of a problem |
Provides logical interpretations of data |
|
Application of Information, Ideas, or Concepts |
Uses standard solution methods |
Provides a logical interpretation of the data |
Employs creativity in search of a solution |
Achieves clear, unambiguous conclusions from the data |
|
Synthesis |
Identifies intermediate steps required that connects previous material |
Recognizes and values alternative problem solving methods |
Connects ideas or develops solutions in a clear coherent order |
Develops multiple solutions, positions, or perspectives |
|
Evaluation |
Check the solutions against the issue |
Identifies what the final solution should determine |
Recognizes hidden assumptions and implied premises |
Evaluates premises, relevance to a conclusion and adequacy of support for conclusion. |
|
Part 5: Program Assessment Plan:
1. How will annual assessment be communicated to faculty within the department? How will faculty participating in the collecting of assessment data (student work/artifacts) be notified?
At the annual faculty meeting for the SFBS program, the SFBS Program Leader will outline which PLO’s and associated artifacts will be included in the assessment for the upcoming academic year. The instructors for the courses that are part of the annual assessment schedule for that academic year will administer the artifact assignment. Samples of the completed artifact assignment will be distributed to two SFBS faculty (not course instructor) who will serve as “graders” for that year. Graders will also be identified at the annual faculty meeting. Graders will turn in their assessment grades to the SFBS Program Leader, and the data will be incorporated into the annual assessment report.
Also, the Program Assessment report from the previous year will be reviewed with all SFBS program faculty at the SFBS annual program meeting (September, annually).
2. When will the data be collected and reviewed, and by whom?
The data will be collected throughout the academic year, as the courses from which assessment data will be derived are offered either in Fall, Spring or Summer terms. The schedule of these target courses is as follows:
- SFBS146: Spring
- SFBS296: Summer
- SFBS466: Spring
- SFBS498: Summer
- SFBS499: Fall
3. Who will be responsible for the writing of the report?
The SFBS Program Leader will be responsible for the writing of the annual program assessment report.
4. How, when, and by whom, will the report be shared?
The annual program assessment report will be submitted to the Provost’s office annually, no later than September 15th. The report will be shared with all SFBS program faculty during the annual program meeting (held annually in September).
5. How will past assessments be used to inform changes and improvements? (How will Closing the Loop be documented)?
During the annual SFBS program faculty meeting, a review of the program assessment report for the previous academic year will be discussed in detail. The discussion will focus on interpretation of the report results, in combination with other sources of data including student surveys from Capstone class, exit interview information from graduating seniors and alumni feedback. Faculty will then agree upon any actionable tasks for the next academic year that are realistic and tenable. For example, are curriculum changes needed (schedule of course offerings, addition or removal of courses from program of study, inclusion of specific courses across all program options, revision of course content or assignments, revisiting course prerequisites, inclusion of other courses in program assessment, changes in artifact assignments)? Are budgetary or resource allocation changes needed (increasing or decreasing class capacities, changes in course fee structure to support student learning)? Are changes to advising protocols needed?
Agreed upon changes will be documented by the Program Leader and included in the discussion of the subsequent program assessment report.
6. Other Comments:
The SFBS faculty contributing to this program assessment report represent four different departments at MSU. The interdisciplinary nature of the program combines rich content knowledge and varied pedagogical approaches. The SFBS program endeavors to be an excellent model of interdisciplinary program assessment that can inform future interdisciplinary academic programs at MSU. t
Submit report to programassessment@montana.edu