A printable PDF of this information can be found here. 

 

 

Year 0 Assessment Plan Report is due September 15th .
 

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:

PLO#

PLO Description

1.

Analyze food systems through a transdisciplinary approach, guided by sustainability principles (systems thinking).

2.

Be effective communicatorsthrough oral, written and visual formats to diverse audiences.

3.

Demonstrate practical skillsin the food system based on sustainability principles.

4.

Design, implement, and assess food system solutions across scales. (Problem-solving)

5.

 

6.

 

7.

 

 
 

 

 

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