Annual Assessment Report to the College 2010-11
College: ___________Health and Human Development___
Department: ________Kinesiology____________________
Program: _______Program SLO’s Kinesiology____________
Note: Please submit your report to (1) the director of academic assessment, (2) your department chair or program coordinator and (3) the
Associate Dean of your College by September 30, 2011. You may submit a separate report for each program which conducted assessment
activities.
Liaison: ____Mary Jo Sariscsany____________________________
1. Overview of Annual Assessment Project(s)
1a. Assessment Process Overview: Provide a brief overview of the intended plan to assess the program this year. Is assessment under the
oversight of one person or a committee?
Faculty in the Department of Kinesiology engage in ongoing and systematic data gathering from undergraduate and graduate course work (e.g.,
at entry, mid, and exit transition points). This evaluation yields insight into student ability to apply and integrate the skills stressed in earlier
phases of the degree program. Throughout the academic year, discussions, interpretation and impact of data, and future assessment planning
has taken place during monthly and special faculty meetings. In addition to informing faculty about their teaching, this process has led to several
key changes. These changes include, but are not limited to, creation and revision of undergraduate and graduate Student Learning Outcomes
(SLOs), creation and/or modification of key courses (e.g., KIN 200 and 201/L), exploration of student expectations/professional qualities (e.g.,
soft skills), the redesign of assessment project/assignments and tools, and modification of advisement practices.
At the end of the academic year (May 2011), faculty reviewed the program learning outcomes and began work on clarify P-SLO #4 Demonstrate
knowledge of kinesthetic forms, processes, and structures as they apply to the personal expression and culture of human movement. The
department matrix for latest SLOs and matching Kinesiology courses at entry, mid, and capstone levels of assessment) faculty updated these as
well. Faculty had one work session in which they “unpacked the standards in order to determine specific student behaviors associated with each
P-SLO in order to objectively assess and at what level.
July 18, 2011, Bonnie Paller
Department assessment is under the oversight of the department liaison ~ however~ multiple faculty (those that teach the targeted courses)
participate in data gathering and dialogue.
1b. Implementation and Modifications: Did the actual assessment process deviate from what was intended? If so, please describe any
modification to your assessment process and why it occurred.
In addition to the scheduled classes that continued to asses P-SLO’s #3 according to the pre-planned assessment activities, preliminary data was
collected for KIN 200 (entry level course for all KIN students and KIN 325 capstone course for most KIN students) as part of Simplify Assessment.
All faculty were asked to update current course syllabuses to reflect the current KIN P-SLO’s and matching course SLO’s.
2. Student Learning Outcome Assessment Project: Answer questions according to the individual SLOs assessed this year. If you assessed more
than one SLO, please duplicate this chart for each one as needed.
2a. Which Student Learning Outcome was assessed this year?
SLO #3; SLO #4 was selected but faculty deemed it unclear and thus it is under review to enhance clarity and understanding.
2b. What assessment instrument(s) were used to gather evidence about this SLO?
A variety of instruments were used to evaluate the SLOs including, student surveys, embedded test question, student portfolios (with rubrics),
concept maps (with rubrics) and Critical thinking rubrics for capstone activities.
2c. Describe the participants sampled to assess this SLO: discuss sample/participant and population size for this SLO. For example, what type of
students, which courses, how decisions were made to include certain participants.
Students assessed were mostly at exit levels of academic study (juniors, seniors and graduate students). The courses selected were determined
by the faculty with consult from the assessment liaison. Specific course evaluated included KIN 200, KINKIN 325, KIN 346, KIN 462. Because PSLO #3 states: “ Demonstrate competent problem solving strategies through intentional practice”, KIN 325, KIN 346 and KIN 462 were selected,
each has been identified as a capstone course. KIN 200 was part of the Simplify Assessment.
2d. Describe the assessment design methodology: For example, was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different points) or was
a cross-sectional comparison used (comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
Cross-sectional data were gathered
July 18, 2011, Bonnie Paller
2e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the evidence was analyzed and highlight important findings from the
collected evidence.
Value added assessment
Students
Kin 200 (gateway course) a total of 60 students/freshman
KIN 325 (capstone course) a total 84 (2 sections of this class) mostly seniors
Signature Assignment
Both groups were given a prompt targeting PLO 1. Students created a concept map depicting their understanding of the prompt. During the
fall of 2010 the KIN 200 class completed their signature assignment during the first 3 weeks of the semester. During the spring of 2011 the
KIN 325 students completed their concept map at the end of May.
Rubric Development
Instructors for both classes worked throughout the academic year to develop a rubric for the signature assignment. The rubric went through
multiple iterations. We are at a point where we need to use it several more times with multiple faculty to test it’s reliability.
Simplify Assessment Project
This signature assignment is part of a test project whereby the assignment and rubric will be stored online via a university repository.
Ultimately, the goal is for students to complete and upload their assignment, the faculty to score a random set (as generated by the
computer program), generate data and then store these data to be used for reporting. At this point we have all of the gateway assignments
and rubric online. We still need to upload the capstone assignments. Due to the nature of the signature assignment (i.e. drawings) we are
trying to resolve the issue of document size for scanning and uploading. So at this point not all concept maps have not been uploaded and
scoring has occurred off line
Results
The two criteria used for evaluation were Emphasis/Clarity and Association. There is no question that the students in the gateway course are
at an entry point for PLO 1. Specifically they are scoring 1s (Not Acceptable) and 2s (Below Standard). On the other hand, the capstone
students scored 3s (Meets the Standard) and 4s (Exceeds the Standard) on their maps. We note that the lowest scores seem to consistently
occur with for the Association (i.e. evaluates the critical thinking capability) criterion. These results are what we expect given the nature of
the classes (i.e. there is added value when comparing our incoming to exiting students). That is to say, that our students can make the
connections and apply their comprehensive kinesiological knowledge-base.
KIN 346:
Increase student engagement, performance and retention; reduce the percentage of students who receive D, U, or F.
Two methods of student support: Peer Learning Facilitator and Workshops (bi-monthly)
July 18, 2011, Bonnie Paller
Outcomes: 10% reduction in D, U or F, and Final exam scores increased from 69% to 74%.
Faculty Review of Program SLO’s: Student Skills Needed
SLO #1:
Skills Needed:
Background content knowledge on various subdisciplines of kinesiology
Knowledge of diverse populations
Knowledge of how subdisciplines link together
Define health and physically active lifestyle
Self-awareness: being a role model for a healthy lifestyle
People Skills – motivation, behavior modification, etc.
SLO #2:
Skills Needed:
Information Competency
Information Literacy
Critical Appraisal (assumes base knowledge of content)
Ability to translate information to practice
SLO/PLO 3: Behaviors/Skills/Content: reflective listener/observer
SLO/PLO4: Behaviors/Skills/Content: use physiological processes to achieve personal/meaningful goal, recognize cultural/personal
differences, know appropriate movement forms for specific populations, reflective listener/observer, awareness of new experiences,
sensitivity to personal experience (i.e. obesity)
2f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Think about all the different ways the resulting evidence was or will be used to improve academic
quality. For example, to recommend changes to course content/topics covered, course sequence, addition/deletion of courses in program,
student support services, revisions to program SLO’s, assessment instruments, academic programmatic changes, assessment plan changes, etc.
Please provide a clear and detailed description of how the assessment results were or will be used.
Value Added: Will continue to be implemented throughout the 2011-12 academic year. Closing the Loop
Because this is a new signature assignment, we want to implement it (as is) again this academic year (i.e. kin 200 fall and KIN 325 spring) and
then compare results. At which time we will make any revisions needed for the assignment and/or course experiences/activities.
July 18, 2011, Bonnie Paller
Faculty Review of Program SLOs: Based upon the identified behaviors faculty are being held accountable to develop one student assessment
they will use during 2011-12 to address SLO#2, or #3. Program SLO #4 will be revised during Fall 2011.
KIN 346:
Fall 2011: Same Peer learning Facilitator program will be implemented, incorporation of more active student involvement during workshops
including mini-assignments due at the end of each workshop.
3. How do this year’s assessment activities connect with your program’s strategic plan and/or 5-yr assessment plan?
Consideration will be given to all information provided from 2010-11 assessment outcomes in the development of the new 5 year
Assessment Plan. Faculty review of the Program SLO’s will be used to develop future assessment.
4. Overall, if this year’s program assessment evidence indicates that new resources are needed in order to improve and support student
learning, please discuss here.
No new resources
5. Other information, assessment or reflective activities not captured above.
No additional information.
July 18, 2011, Bonnie Paller
6. Has someone in your program completed, submitted or published a manuscript which uses or describes assessment activities in your
program? Please provide citation or discuss.
Not at this time.
July 18, 2011, Bonnie Paller