Programmatic Assessment within Food Science and

Technology

Thomas H. ShellhammerNor’wester Professor of Fermentation Science

Important points we’ve learned since our start in 2005

• Seek advice• Start small• Don’t expect all faculty to engage in the O&A

process• Accept that the data will not be clean• Resist collecting too much assessment data• Focus on closing the loop• Be flexible and adapt

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Academic year (beginning in Fall)

Enro

llmen

tFST Undergraduate Enrollment

Our approach – historical perspective

2000Notice from IFT to start implementing O&A

Institute of Food Technologists

• International, non-profit professional organization for the advancement of food science and technology

• ~22,000 members• Higher Education Review Board

– Each program must have an assessment plan and show how they implement that plan

– Each program must document how the results of the assessment plan are used to continually improve food science education.

Curriculum Matrix

Our approach – historical perspective

2000Notice from IFT to start implementing O&A

2004OSU asks for O&A plan

2005IFT renewal - full O&A req’d in 5 years

Barb Walvoord visits OSU and FSTRich Hartel visits FSTFall retreat FST identifies initial programmaticoutcomes

Seek advice

Expert(s)Practitioner(s)

Office of Academic Planning and Assessment

Barbara E. Walvoord, Ph.D

• Professor Emerita at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana.  

• Coordinated Notre Dame’s self-study and re-accreditation visit by the North Central Association’s Higher Learning Commission, 2004.  

• Have consulted or led workshops at more than 350 institutions of higher education throughout the U.S., on topics of assessment, teaching and learning, and writing across the curriculum.  

• Founding director of faculty-development programs at Central College in Iowa, Loyola College in Maryland, University of Cincinnati, University of Notre Dame. Each program has won national recognition.  

Rich Hartel

• Professor, University of Wisconsin, Department of Food Science

• UW Teaching Academy Executive Committee 2004 – 2007

• IFT HERB member

Start small

First round looked just at two outcomes

Fall 2005 Faculty Retreat

1. We developed student learning outcomes for all of our undergraduate courses.

2. We learned about how rubrics can help define and consequently assess high level learning.

3. We identified 4 programmatic outcomes.

a. Core knowledge skills

b. Oral/written communication ability

c. Problem solving skills

d. Student engagement that leads to life-long learning

4. We engaged in thoughtful, meaningful, and holistic discussions about we want our students to learn

Results from 2005-2006 academic year

1. Assessed written communicationin FST 424, FST 460 and FST 468

2. Assessed technical problem solving skillsin FST 424

3. Reviewed these data at the beginning of the coming academic year (9/22/06)

Accept that the data will not be clean

Plan for ‘06-’07 yearWritten Communication Assessment

1. Begin tracking students over time by assessing writing skills in FST 210

2. Correlate course grade against “reasoning” scores

3. Provide students with the writing skills rubric in their first year via FST 101

4. Assess written communication skills in FST 210, FST 424, FST 461, FST 468

 

Oral Communication Assessment

1. Assess oral communication skills in FST 407 – Senior seminar

2. Assess oral communication skills in FST 25 – Sensory Science

 

Core Knowledge

1. Identify venue to administer a core knowledge exam in the senior year

2. Prepare a core knowledge exam (all faculty to contribute questions)

 

Student Engagement

1. There is continued interest in a Fermentation Science alumni association…looking for support to initiate this endeavor.

Results from ‘06-’07 year

Written Communication Assessment

88% achieved “meets expectation” or better

Creating new WIC course coincided with improved writing performance (writing scores moving from 2.14 to 2.41) by Fermentation Science students and brought enrollment in FST 424 within the guidelines of the Writing Program for a writing intensive course..

Oral Communication Assessment

95% achieved “meets expectation” or better

 Oral communication skills looked good.

 

Critical Thinking Skills Assessment

Concern over students’ understanding of the foundational knowledge in our discipline.

Hi Dan,

 

After long thought, I decided to pull FST 468 from this. 

I did this for numerous reasons: 

1) I have recurring concerns about how it's objective application.

2) I was extremely busy this past academic year and this was the easiest thing to let go of

3) FST 468 is a course that will soon be discontinued and therefore the collection of data on this course seems like a waste of my most limited resource: time

 

Sorry,

Not all faculty engage in programmatic outcomes assessment

Need enough to have a critical mass

Plan for ‘07-’08 year

Written Communication Assessment

Reduce written assessment in favor of spending energy on the Core Knowledge outcome

Oral Communication Assessment

Reduce oral communication assessment in favor of spending energy on the Core Knowledge outcome

Critical Thinking Skills Assessment

Postpone further assessment of this area until we have Core Knowledge assessment data

Student Engagement

Examine alumni survey instrument for use with UG student engagement assessment

Begin moving FST Alumni Association forward

Plan for ‘07-’08 yearCore Knowledge Assessment

1. Four disciplinary groups formedFood Chemistry - Penner (leading), Qian, Kennedy, McGorrin, Smith, Park, Ross

Food Microbiology - Osborne (leading), Daeschel, Bakalinsky, Goddik, Su, Sarker, Bruslind

Food Engineering - Shellhammer (leading), Zhao, Torres, Chaplen, Wells

Sensory Science - Lim (leading), Marin, Lederer, Colonna

2. Each group to identify key core knowledge concepts within each discipline that are required of food scientists

3. Each group to map these concepts to our curriculum

4. Examine upstream course performance and correlate with performance in foundational food science course - will aid in recruitment and long term student performance

Be flexible and adapt if necessary

Resist simply collecting assessment data

Try to close the loop

Examples of closing the loop

• Adding writing intensive course improved written communication scores

• Expanding credit load in two courses led to improved quantitative scores– Statistics sessions for Sensory Science course– Problem solving sessions for Food Processing and

Packaging courses

2010 IFT renewal applicationProgrammatic Outcomes

• Students graduating with a B.S. in Food Science and Technology will be able to:

• Effectively express themselves orally, graphically, and in writing.(Communication Skills ).

• Apply scientific principles to solve problems in Food Science.(Critical Thinking and Technical Problem Solving Skills ).

• Identify and explain essential foundational principles in Food Science.(Core Knowledge).

• Engage in activities that enhance their professional development.(Professional Engagement).

Assessment Techniques

• Rubric-based assessment of specific learning outcomesOral and written communication, core knowledge, technical problem solving, etc.

• Exit interviews performed by the Department Head with all graduating seniors.

• Program growth and job placement data. • Employer survey.

Important points we’ve learned since our start in 2005

• Seek advice• Start small• Don’t expect all faculty to engage in the O&A

process• Accept that the data will not be clean• Resist collecting too much assessment data• Focus on closing the loop• Be flexible and adapt