geological sciences - csun.edu · web viewb.s. geology option majors will also upload their geol...

Geological SciencesB.S. Program Assessment Report

2016-17

Summary2016-17 was the second year our department taught its new Tier 2 core classes for majors (GEOL 303, 306, 309, 314). During this second year of implementing an entirely new curriculum, we modified assessment pieces (e.g. signature assignments, oral presentations) and their respective rubrics and began collecting and archiving student work. We are currently building a departmental database that will allow us to: (a) establish a baseline for student performance upon entering our first tier of core classes, (b) assess the mastery of SLOs as students move through the tiers of core classes; and (c) monitor the success of our new B.S. program.

College: Science and MathDepartment: Geological SciencesProgram: B.S.Assessment liaison: Robinson Cecil1. Please check off whichever is applicable:

A. _____X_____ Measured student work.B. _preliminary_ Analyzed results of measurement.C. ____________ Applied results of analysis to program review/curriculum/review/revision.

BackgroundOur department recently received approval for a program modification to the B.S. that

was part of a multi-year curriculum redesign. 2016-17 is the second year of implementation of our new course sequence, which includes a number of brand new courses.

Our program modification outlined a comprehensive assessment plan which included longitudinal assessment of both B.S. options using data collected in Tier 2, Tier 3 and Tier 4 to provide a measure of performance gain of the majors as a whole over their entire programs. The Senior Capstone in Tier 4 is structured as an authentic assessment of mastery of all four SLO’s, which are introduced and practiced in Tiers 2 and 3. We are using five assessment tools: signature assignments, oral presentation rubrics, progressively revealed case studies, the Earth and Environmental Science Concept Inventory, and online peer-assessments.

GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES B.S. Student Learning Outcomes

1. Demonstrate conceptual understanding of different earth materials and systems and the processes that shape them throughout their history.

2. Identify geologic problems, use scientific problem solving to aid in their solution, and reflect on the findings, both independently and in collaboration with others.

3. Demonstrate skills in standard data-collection and data-analysis methods in both lab and field settings.

4. Communicate geoscience discoveries to scientific and public audiences with precision, clarity and conviction.

Geological Sciences B.S. Program Assessment Report 2016-17 1

Progress Report

The following sections outline our progress, referencing specific sections of our assessment plan from our recently approved program modification (subsections labeled ‘Plan’). We also include a summary of activities from the 2016-17 year, results from signature assignments in Tier 2 (GEOL 306, 309, and 314) and a new Tier 3 class (GEOL 341), and next steps. Appendices at the end of the report provide supporting examples.

Signature assignmentsPlan: “These are the team research reports uploaded by students into the Geology Assessment Moodle site from one Fall Tier 2 and one Fall Tier 3 class each year, as well as the Tier 4 Capstone Reports. B.S. Geology Option majors will also upload their GEOL 430A/B final reports. After completing norming exercises, two geology faculty will read and score each report using appropriate rubrics. Where scores differ by more than an acceptable margin, a third reader will score the report. All four SLOs will be assessed in the signature assignments.”

Activities: o Reviewed and modified signature assignments implemented in year 2015-16 in

GEOL 306, 309, and 314.o Archived 2016-17 student work and compiled with previous year for future

longitudinal analysis.o Modified rubrics for SLOs 2 and 3, breaking the SLOs down into sub-skills (See

Appendix 1). Each subskill has its own rubric with four developmental levels. We assume that most students enter at level 1 after a standard GE course. Most students earning B’s and C’s should achieve level 2. Students earning A’s will rate at level 3. Level 4 is our dream, and our past experience is that each year one or two students reach this level of performance.

Our signature assignments measure students’ abilities to solve scientific problems. We define scientific problem solving as several related practices. Students engage in these practices iteratively; science is not conducted by following a linear recipe. While each of these practices blends together and most expert scientists employ them unconsciously, there have been many attempts to define these practices explicitly. Below, we show one such attempt based on our work designing progressively revealed case studies in 2013-14. Since that time, California has adopted new science and engineering standards for K-12 schools, the California Next Generation Science Standards (CA NGSS). This year, we ensured that our previous thinking aligns properly with what incoming students will learn in K-12. The italicized labels in parentheses are from the CA NGSS. At the end of each bullet item, we list the SLO from our program that assesses this stage.

Hypothesis/Idea generation (asking questions and defining problems): Students can generate multiple ideas that are scientifically testable. SLO 2a.

Planning Investigations (planning and conducting investigations): Students can figure out what information is needed to test an idea. SLO3a, SLO3b.


Conducting Investigations (planning and conducting investigations): Students can collect data. SLO3a, SLO3b.

Analyzing Data (analyzing and interpreting data; mathematical and computational thinking). Students can read graphs, spot trends and patterns, see signal in the noise, and identify outliers. SLO3c.

Communicating results (Constructing scientific explanations; Obtaining, Evaluating, and Communicating Information). SLO4.

Reflect on Conclusions (engaging in argument from evidence). Students can think critically, evaluate and respond to criticism, retreat when necessary! SLO2c.

Results & Commentary: An example of a modified and re-implemented signature assignment from GEOL 306 is discussed below.

GEOL 306 (Earth Materials) is a gateway course and one of the first that all majors take beyond the GE-level. At the end of the semester, students are organized into groups and asked to present an original research poster based on a rock unit sampled by the students on an earlier field trip. In the first year of teaching this class (Fall 2015), all posters scored low, with none reaching level 3 or 4 on any subscale. All posters scored at level 1 on the SLO2c (Reflect on Scientific Findings) rubric, perhaps because the assignment did not encourage students to do so. Faculty were invited to the poster session and asked to speak to the students about their work, but they were not given scoring rubrics. Last Fall (2016), a new rubric was adopted (see appendix table A1.1) and faculty were asked use it when scoring. Additionally, students were asked to use the rubric to score one another’s posters. Four posters and 16 students were evaluated. Although students still struggled with SLO2c, clarifying expectations by sharing the rubric with students prior to the poster session yielded improvement in SLO2a (identifying scientific problems) and SLO2b (using scientific problem solving). These skills are reinforced in the practice of final research paper writing in GEOL 314 (Earth Systems) and GEOL 309 (Earth Tectonics and Structure).

A new signature assignment was implemented in the new Tier 3 GEOL 341 course in which students were asked to construct a measured stratigraphic section based on group work performed in the field and in labs. An example of a scored rubric from this assignment is included in the appendices. This assignment was intended to develop skills in data collection and analysis (SLOs3a,b,c). Student work from this assignment has been archived, but not yet analyzed.

Next Steps: Design signature assignments for GEOL 307 and 310. Refine rubrics for SLOs 2 and 3 as a department through a department-wide

evaluation of archived signature assignments at a faculty meeting. Discuss how our conception of scientific problem solving relates to the new

California standards for K-12 science education so that we can build on what students already know.

Analyze student work in 2017-18.


Oral presentation rubricsPlan: “Oral presentations in Tier 2 GEOL 303 and in one Tier 3 class will be assessed by rubric by the individual course instructors. Oral presentations in Tier 4 GEOL 490 will be presented in department-wide public talks and evaluated by at least three faculty members. These assessments are part of the overall assessment of SLO 4.”

Activities: GEOL 303, Communicating Geoscience, was taught for the second time in Spring 2017. This course introduces students to key elements of scientific communication in a range of mediums/formats (written, oral, visual, and 21st century ‘new media’). Students learn that they must always consider the same key specifications when they prepare to communicate in any format: who is the audience, what is the purpose of the communication, and what are the restrictions on the length/format. From these criteria, students determine their main message and create a storyline where they weave in the scientific evidence and process. Each element in their final communication product should align with and support this main message.

Students who took this class in Spring 2016, were asked to give oral presentations in the Tier 3 GEOL 341 course in Fall 2016. Student presentations and scored rubrics from GEOL 341 presentations have been archived and will be analyzed to assess development of communication skills taught in GEOL 303. An individual oral presentation was also required of all students in GEOL 309, which is taught concurrently with GEOL 303.

Results & Commentary: We are still in the process of analyzing results from oral presentations given in GEOL 303 and GEOL 309. Preliminary evaluation of student work suggests that it may help our assessment efforts – and help students to develop the desired skills – to create a uniform grading rubric to be used for oral presentations at all instructional levels. Examples of scoring rubrics from Fall 2015 GEOL 303, Fall 2016 GEOL 341 and Spring 2017 GEOL 309 are included in Appendix 2. These highlight the diversity of rubrics used.

Next steps: GEOL 303 is a gateway level course. Our hope is that continued practice and maturity will help students improve. Specific actions we need to do include:

More practice at oral presentations in upper level courses. Ensure that key principles of GEOL 303 are echoed in upper level courses.

This is an important issue that requires faculty attention. The faculty themselves did not attend GEOL 303 and need a crash course on key elements that they should highlight.

Develop a common scoring rubric to be used in all classes assigning oral presentations.

Progressively revealed case studies

Plan: “This tool assesses SLO 2 and the data analysis component of SLO 3. We have presented the case studies in the Geologic Problem Solving Night format, but we may integrate the case studies as exercises in Tier 2 and 4 classes.”

Activities: We designed these activities over 2013-14 and 2014-15 but did not implement them in 2016-17.

Next steps: Administer our “Case of the Muddy Fish” in Spring 2018.


Earth and Environmental Science Concept Inventory Plan: “SLO 1 will be evaluated in a Tier 2 class and Tier 4 GEOL 490 using the Earth and Environmental Science Concept Inventory.”

We designed this activity during 2013-14 but did not implement it in 2016-17. This was a missed opportunity for benchmarking student knowledge.

Next steps: Administer the concept inventory at the beginning of GEOL 314 annually

(starting Fall 2017). Administer the concept inventory annually at the end of GEOL 490 (starting in

Fall 2017 when the course is taught for the first time).

Online Peer-Assessments Plan: “At the end of the team research modules in Tier 2 and Tier 4 Senior Capstone, students will complete online peer-assessments that use a well-tested and robust method to assess how well a team functioned and what areas were strongest and weakness in collaborative work (Michaelsen et al., 2002; Freeman and Mackenzie, 2002). These data address the collaborative component of SLO 2.”

Activities: We designed the peer assessment forms and assessment liaison Matthew d’Alessio set up an automated system for students to complete the online assessment in Moodle and then review their responses (Appendix 3). He tested the system in his GE-level courses but the department has not yet implemented them for core undergraduate courses. This year will be the pilot year for these assessments. The teams in the core geology courses are smaller and essentially cohorted, so the social dynamics are different than the GE courses. We need to think about how to introduce the idea to the geology majors in a way that is constructive and does not damage the long term dynamics of the cohort. This is not a technical issue, but an important social component of assessing team participation.

Next steps: Discuss how to implement anonymous peer assessments in group projects in

core courses. Pilot in GEOL 306 at the end of Fall 2017.


Appendix 1: Rubrics for Assessing Signature Assignments for SLO2 and SLO3

SLO2a. Identify Geologic ProblemsLevel 4 Students understand how a specific geologic problem fits into broader geologic

understanding. They can identify a big picture question and then sub-questions about how a specific geologic setting might answer that bigger picture question. They use observations at one scale to make predictions at another scale (i.e., based on an ideal about global processes, what would I expect to see at the outcrop or thin section scale?)

Level 3 Students understand that the tools of geology help explain the geologic history of a region and can ask sub-questions that clarify different pieces of that history.

Level 2 Students understand that the tools of geology allow them to ask questions about the geologic history of a region or about specific observations within that region. While they can ask specific questions at one scale (regional, outcrop, thin section), they do not relate the two very coherently.

Level 1 Students do not necessarily understand the purpose of geology or geophysics. They focus on data or observations but do not place these in any broader regional or tectonic context.

SLO2b. Use Scientific Problem SolvingScientific problem solving refers to a series of related practices. The main text of this assessment report outlines those practices. There is some overlap between this SLO2 and SLO 3, data collection and analysis. High performing students in SLO3 use scientific problem solving to plan and organize their data collection. They analyze their data in a way that facilitates interpretation that will answer geologic questions, being mindful of trends, patterns, and outliers. The intent of SLO2b is to track students ability to engage holistically in the scientific problem solving enterprise. This means that they can employ the different practices at appropriate times and in an appropriate sequence. This holistic approach also measures students ability to build on and expand their existing knowledge as they solve geologic problems. In other words, they must relate what they do to what they know about crucial geologic and regional contexts.

This rubric is the most challenging to define because it is so holistic. In the CA NGSS, this holistic performance is called ‘three dimensional’ learning because it integrates what students know, what they do as scientists, and how they think.

Level 4 Students integrate what they know about geologic context, factual information, and the nature of science to move fluidly between different science practices.

Level 3 Students draw upon knowledge and tools from previous coursework, intelligently selecting factual information and geologic tools and practices.

Level 2 Students engage in science practices linearly. They march through correctly employing science practices and tools and the scientific knowledge currently being discussed.

Level 1 Students are novice scientific problem solvers. They employ equations or tools


out of context because they don’t understand what data the need to collect, how the tools work, or how things fit into a broader context.

SLO2c. Reflect on Scientific FindingsLevel 4 Students can recognize and comment on the limitations of their findings. They

use their findings to generate new and exciting research questions. As they reflect on their findings, they consider both bigger picture (“what do these findings mean for broader scientific understanding?”) and finer details (“how can I be more certain of this conclusion?”). They can suggest next steps for action that are specific and productive. Students constantly reflect on their conclusions and findings at every step of the process, noticing weak points in their arguments and using them to plan future investigations.

Level 3 Students can answer questions and generate new ones that may consider alternate hypotheses or limitations in the data. They can suggest general ideas about next steps. Students evaluate the conclusions of others and determine how strongly evidence supports those conclusions.

Level 2 Students can restate their findings and answer a specific geologic question presented to them. Their approach may be somewhat black and white (they consider their findings as conclusive and may not consider alternate hypotheses). When asked, students can evaluate conclusions of others.

Level 1 Students do not meaningfully reflect on their findings. They ‘get it done’ and then move on.

SLO2d. Work Collaboratively See Appendix 3 for an instrument to measure collaboration. We have not yet determined how to analyze these measurements as indicators of success or failure.

SLO 3a Data Collection in LabStudents identify and describe relevant minerals, structures, and spatial relationships in thin sections, rock, cuttings, or core samples. They can perform measurements of geophysical, geochemical, or hydrological properties using laboratory equipment with appropriate attention to variables in time and space. They can run simple computer simulations as virtual experiments. They document their results in lab notebooks with sketches, descriptions, and attention to appropriate units.Level 4 Students excel at data collection. Data collection is systematic and reasoned to

answer a geologic problem. Students adapt their data collection as they recognize or notice interesting trends and identify new questions. Students can identify a range of minerals, rocks, and structures and focus on essential features. Their measurements are accurate, and their notes and descriptions are detailed.

Level 3 Students can ‘plan’ and ‘do’ basic data collection. Given a geologic problem, students can determine what data to collect and then execute their plan. Students can identify a range of minerals, rocks, and structures and focus on essential


features. Their measurements are accurate, and their notes and descriptions are detailed.

Level 2 Students can ‘do’ basic data collection assignments. Students can identify basic minerals, rocks, or structures. They can collect measurements with occasional errors. They can run computer simulations. They document their work with most relevant details.

Level 1 Students cannot identify essential relevant minerals, structures, and spatial relationships beyond obvious features. Their lab measurements are riddled with errors and their notes do not describe relevant details.

SLO 3b Data Collection in FieldStudents demonstrate skill with mapping locations, determining structural orientations, describing rocks from outcrop and hand samples (including identifying notable minerals), measuring geophysical or hydrologic properties, and collecting relevant samples.Level 4 Students excel at data collection. Data collection is systematic and reasoned to

answer a geologic problem. Students adapt their data collection in the field as they recognize or notice interesting trends and identify new questions. Student maps are comprehensive, their measurements accurate, and their notes and descriptions are detailed.

Level 3 Students can ‘plan’ and ‘do’ basic data collection. Given a geologic problem, students can determine what data to collect and then execute their plan. Student maps are comprehensive, their measurements accurate, and their notes and descriptions are detailed.

Level 2 Students can ‘do’ basic data collection. Students exhibit basic skills (map locations, structural orientations) and field notes include most relevant details.

Level 1 Students data is riddled with errors (mislocated map locations, inconsistent strike and dip, etc.). Field notes are incomplete and do not describe relevant details. Data or sample collection is random or haphazard.

SLO3c Data AnalysisStudents can select and produce appropriate graphical illustrations of their data (maps, cross sections, photomicrographs, tertiary diagrams, stereonet plots, etc). Using these depictions, students recognize trends and patterns (spatial, temporal, compositional), and can distinguish between outliers that are likely due to data collection limitations from outliers that might offer significant scientific clues.Level 4 Students can determine the best way to present their data in order to facilitate

analysis. They use standard depictions of data to recognize trends and patterns and can distinguish between outliers that are likely due to data collection limitations from outliers that might offer significant scientific clues.

Level 3 Students can present data using appropriate depictions and can use them to identify basic trends and patterns.

Level 2 Students present their data with minimal analysis. They can plot data, given instructions about what to plot and how to plot it.

Level 1 Students do not know how to present their data.


Table A1-1. New rubric for scoring posters in GEOL 306.GROUP NUMBER: ____ POSTER TITLE (abbrieviated OK):____________JUDGE NAME: ____________Please score each category on a scale of 1-4, 4 being the best (see below).

Category 4 3 2 1

Main Message

SCORE:

__________________

The objective of the communications product is clear from the beginning and emphasized again at the end. Every idea relates back to the main message and supports it.

The objective is clear, but some of the product may be unrelated to the main message (or poorly related or the ties are not clearly articulated).ORThe work has a clear main objective, but it is not well articulated.

The communication product’s objective is not clear from the beginning and the work does not have a clear ‘story’ or message that ties ideas together.

The communications product is quite disjoint and no clear attempt is made to articulate a key message.

Visual Communication

(Visual)

SCORE:

__________________

- The layout helps organize the ideas.- Visual elements communicate information even without words, but the words are well targeted. - Colors are used effectively to highlight and emphasize.- There is a good balance between text and images (with only the minimum amount of text

Most sections meet the level 4 criteria, but each section has one area that could be significantly improved upon. Even if sections are “technically perfect,” they could have been laid out differently so that the layout provides visual

Most section meet the level 4 criteria, but as many as two or three sections might have two or more areas that need to be significantly improved.

Sections have a consistent pattern of problems. Few of the principles of effective figure design and poster design are evident.


required to convey the main messages).

support for the main idea (i.e., side-by-side comparisons are presented as two images side-by-side, cause and effect relationships are illustrated with arrows, etc…)

Design

(Visual)

SCORE:

__________________

Overall, the work is visually pleasing.- Uses high contrast colors and minimizes the use of distracting background elements.- Good use of space (enlarging images all the way to the edge, when appropriate). - Images are high resolution. - Uses professional typefaces.

Most sections meet the level 4 criteria, but each section has one area that could be significantly improved upon.

Most section meet the level 4 criteria, but as many as two or three sections might have two or more areas that need to be significantly improved.

Sections have a consistent pattern of problems. Few of the principles of effective figure design and poster design are evident.

Length

SCORE:

__________________

The product fits in the space, but also looks nice (not crammed). All text is written in a font large enough that all words

The product fits within the space but some sections are too crammed (or sparse). The font is large enough

The product has entirely too much information, or entirely too little. Sections of the font are too small to read without

The product appears incomplete.


(including and especially figure labels) can be read by a blind old professor from 6 feet away.

that most words can be read by a typical person from 6 feet away.

stepping close to the poster.

PUBLIC SPEAKING

(oral)

Overall, the presenter seems comfortable and professional.Speech is clear and loud enough to hear in the back of the room. Body language is open and relaxed. Speaker makes appropriate eye contact at appropriate times. Speaker stands in a place that does not obstruct the poster. Gestures are appropriate and support the message of the talk.

The presenter meets most of the level 4 criteria, but may have a consistent deficiency in one area, or may show signs of nervousness at the beginning that subside by the end of the presentation. These issues do not distract from the overall content of the presentation.

The presenter meets several of the level 4 criteria, but shows consistent patterns of deficiency on several of categories, or one or more aspects of the presenter’s delivery distract from the overall content of the presentation.

The presenter appears uncomfortable during the entire presentation. There is lots of stumbling over words and it is very hard to focus on the material being presented.

Please score each presenter on a scale of 1-4, 4 being the best (see table above).

NAME: ___________________________ NAME: ________________________

SCORE: __________ SCORE: __________

NAME: ___________________________ NAME: ________________________

SCORE: __________ SCORE: __________


Figure A1-1. Higher Performing Student Example from Fall 2016 GEOL 306


Table A1-2. Example of scored rubric for signature assignment from GEOL 341.

EVALUATION SHEET FOR FINAL VERSION OF OWL CANYON STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN possible points your scoreHeading proper title (includes location) 0.25 0.25author 0.25 0.25date 0.25 0.25measurement method 0.25 0.25 Columns correct headings 0.8 0.8column labels 0.4 0.4 Columnar Section and Data Column correct, descriptive lithology symbols used 1 0.8divisions of composite sections labeled correctly 0.5 0.5division between Upper and Lower Members indicated 0.2 0.2good choice of vertical scale 0.5 0.5attitude of bedding correctly plotted 0.5 0.5appropriate resistance of beds shown 0.5 0.5sections not separated by vertical lines 0.1 0.05 Descriptions quality of rock descriptions 3.5 3all beds are properly labeled 0.5 0.5format of description as given in guidelines 0.5 0.4 Grammar and spelling errors 1 0.8 Overall Neatness and Appearance includes adequate margins; neatly done lithology symbols; attractive lay-out; consistency in font(s) and size(s); alignment of descriptions

4 3.3

Index map

electronically annotated, bold lines, start and end indicated 1 0.5TOTAL POINTS 16 13.75

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL: 85.9


Appendix 2: Oral Presentation Scoring Rubrics

Table A2-1. Oral Communications Rubric from GEOL 303 (Spring 16)

Criteria for All Communication Products

Category 4 3 2 1

Audience The tone (formality), language complexity (vocabulary and sentence structure), and content are appropriate for the audience. More importantly, the storyline makes a personal connection to the audience by being relevant and interesting to them.

The tone is overall appropriate, but the connection to the audience interests is weak. OR The connection is strong but some sentences or phrases are too simple, too complex, too casual, or too formal.

The tone is overall appropriate, but some sentences or phrases are too simple, too complex, too casual, or too formal. Lacks connection to the audience’s interests.

The writing is not appropriate for the audience you identified. It’s either too simplistic, too complex, to casual, or too formal.

Purpose The tone and visuals are appropriate for the purpose (either to inform or persuade).

The tone and visuals are appropriate overall, but some phrases or images indicate that you have another purpose than the one stated.

The purpose is clear from the slide content and presentation style but is the opposite of what you identified.

The purpose is unclear from the slide content and presentation style.

Main Idea The objective of the communications product is clear from the beginning and emphasized again at the end. Each idea relates to the Main Idea

The objective is clear, but some of the product may be unrelated (or poorly related) to the main message.ORThe work has a clear main

The communication product’s objective is not clear from the beginning and the work does not have a clear ‘story’ or

The communications product is quite disjoint and no clear attempt is made to articulate a key message.


and supports it. objective, but it is not well articulated.

message that ties ideas together.

Criteria for Oral Communication

SLIDE CONTENT

Includes meaningful titles (probably expressed as sentence headlines) and all content on the slide relates to and supports the idea identified in the headline.

The slides have important information, but slide titles are not focused and specific sentence headlines. OR Some of the material on the slide doesn’t really match up with the main idea stated in the headline. Perhaps some slides include too much and should be split into multiple slides that each have a singular focus.

Slide headlines are largely topic headings (such as ‘Intro’ or ‘Conclusions’) OR Some slides combine ideas that are not really related to one another.

Individual slides do not appear to have a clear purpose.

LAYOUT Overall, slides are easy to read from the back of the room and look visually attractive. The slides communicate the main idea at a glance because of effective visual communication. There is a good balance between text and images (with only the minimum amount of text required to

Most slides meet the level 4 criteria, but each slide has one area that could be significantly improved upon. Even if slides are “technically perfect,” they could have been laid out differently so that the layout provides visual support for the main idea (i.e.,

Most slides meet the level 4 criteria, but as many as two or three slides might have two or more areas that need to be significantly improved.

Slides have a consistent pattern of problems. Few of the principles of effective figure design and slide design are evident in the slides.


convey the main messages). Good use of space (enlarging images all the way to the edge, when appropriate). Images are high resolution. Text is large enough and in a clear professional typeface. Uses high contrast colors and minimizes the use of distracting background elements.

side-by-side comparisons are presented as two images side-by-side, cause and effect relationships are illustrated with arrows, etc…)

PUBLIC SPEAKING

Overall, the presenter seems comfortable and professional.Speech is clear and loud enough to hear in the back of the room. Body language is open and relaxed. Speaker makes appropriate eye contact at appropriate times. Speaker stands in a place that does not obstruct the slides. Gestures are appropriate and support the message of the talk.

The presenter meets most of the level 4 criteria, but may have a consistent deficiency in one area, or may show signs of nervousness at the beginning that subside by the end of the presentation. These issues do not distract from the overall content of the presentation.

The presenter meets several of the level 4 criteria, but shows consistent patterns of deficiency on several of categories, or one or more aspects of the presenter’s delivery distract from the overall content of the presentation.

The presenter appears uncomfortable during the entire presentation. There is lots of stumbling over words and it is very hard to focus on the material being presented.

Length The product fits within the

The product fits approximately

The product is less than 3.5

The product was less than 2


specified time and was neither rushed nor sufficiently short.

within the specified time, but felt rushed (you were talking too fast) or drawn out (you repeated yourself a lot).

minutes or more than 6 minutes.

minutes or more than 8 minutes. You totally missed the instructions!

Table A2-2. Oral Communications Rubric from GEOL 309 (Spring 17) 16 18 20 22 25

poor insufficientadequat

eproficien

taccomplishe

dScientific problem identified Identification of geologic process being studied Importance/purpose of the work explained Hypothesis clearly identified in presentation Assessment of hypothesis: is it testable? Methods identified Methods explained Results identified Results explained Interpretations discussed Follow-up questions identified Quality of presentation: figures, color scheme, labels, format Organization of presentation STUDENT SCOREComments: out of 25


Table A2-1. Oral Communications Rubric from GEOL 341 (Fall 2016)


Appendix 3: Peer Assessment

Instructions for Semester-Long Peer Assessment in a Team-Based Learning Environment(Used in PHSC 170. This will need to be modified for use in GEOL core courses for group projects)Ten percent of your final class score depends on "Peer Assessment." This is where you evaluate your teammates' preparation and contributions to the team. You are given 100 total points to assign to your teammates (you do not get to rate yourself). You will distribute your points between them in the proportion you think is appropriate. For a perfectly functioning team with each teammate making equal valuable contributions, each teammate will receive an equal number of points.

Criteria. Your score should factor in

Preparation (has your teammate done the homework/preparation) Participation (present, on time, awake, engaged in team activities) Contributes ideas (these might lead you toward the answer) Explains things (If a teammate always knows the correct answer and helps your

team earn points but never takes the time to teach others, they are not contributing to the team fully)

Seeks help (asks questions when he/she does not fully understand things. This is as valuable a contribution to the team as knowing all the answers)

Anonymous commentsYou will also have the opportunity to provide anonymous comments to your teammates. You must provide at least one positive comment and one area for improvement. I will strip off your name from the comment, but of course the student will know that it comes from somebody on the team. Please do not mention other names in the comments because it will reveal identities. Use words like "other teammates ask questions" instead of "Jack and Diane ask questions."

Points add to 100Please make sure the points you assign to your teammates add to 100. For reference, you might want to consider the following "equal division" teams.Number of team members (including you)

Number of teammates you will score (excludes you)

If each teammate gets an equal score

4 3 33.3 points each5 4 25 points each6 5 20 points each7 6 16.7 points eachIf your team is larger, you get fewer points from each teammate but more teammates rate you. There is no mathematical disadvantage to having a small or large team.


Example:Let's say your team has 5 students, including you. You think that Alfred did a great job with the reading, always has good ideas, and takes time to explain things. Zeb never did the reading and goofed around in class. Romulus and Remus were good overall team members, but not shining stars. They participated well and deserve credit for their contributions. Maybe you would award points like this: Alfred: 36 points; Romulus 27 points; Remus 27 points; Zeb 10 points. That works because 36+27+27+10 = 100.Notice: This is your chance to practice providing constructive and accurate feedback to people, something you'll need to do as future managers in scientific settings. To receive credit for completing this assignment, your responses must be thoughtful and detailed. One word responses or short phrases, saying that a student has 'nothing' to improve, or simply assigning all students equal scores when they do not deserve equal scores will result in zero credit for completing this assignment.

Figure A3-1. Note that the link to ‘View Comment by your teammates about you’ does not grant students access to their comments until after they have submitted their responses and the instructor has approved all comments.


Figure A3-2. Low scoring Peer Assessment Example (Note that comments are listed in alphabetical order of the text of the comment, essentially randomizing the positive comments and areas to improve).STUDENTYour Score is: 64.0 based upon the ratings from 5 teammates.

Positive

She always had positive attitude and always willingly to lend a hand if we needed. She was also very helpful when it came to giving other teammates rides to various

class locations. STUDENT is also a great teammate who arrives to class prepared and ready to do

work for the team! STUDENT was always very positive and smiley, so it was nice seeing that when

you come to class. Was in charge of all the mat that we had to do over the semester and she was

organized and always made sure our math work was correct

Areas to improve

I think provided us with the least help excuse many times she wouldn't show up to class when we needed her most as a team and this kind of would bother us as a team.

Just for her to show up more early to class and be more hands on with the projects that we are doing.

She was absent a lot and seemed to distance herself from the group. She would come to class late, which then we would have to fill her in one the

process. STUDENT should be more persistent with arriving to class and showing up on

team project days.

Figure A3-3. High Scoring Peer Assessment ExampleSTUDENTYour Score is: 105.0 based upon the ratings from 4 teammates

Positive

Participates in all the activities and is on time. She is very sweet and helpful when needed. STUDENT was an outstanding teammate to work with! She works well with

everybody and is always making sure that we are on top of our things.


very prepared; natural at working with children; vey dependable; glad she was on my team

Areas to improve

be on phone less? Just to use her phone a little less during class and group work. STUDENT can improve by not going on her phone as much. It's a huge distraction

to her and to the team. Would be better if she wasn't on her phone as much.


geological sciences - csun.edu · web viewb.s. geology option majors will also upload their geol...

Documents