Division of
Agriculture
Annual Assessment Report
2004
1. How
does the academic unit’s (the Division of Agriculture) mission statement and
goals flow from and contribute to the University’s mission statement?
The mission
statement of the Division of Agriculture at the UAM states:
“1 It is the mission of the Division of Agriculture to provide
educational programs on both the theory and practice of agricultural science
enabling the graduate to compete within and contribute to this diverse field at
the producer, industry, and graduate student level. 2This mission is accomplished
through degree options in Agribusiness, Animal Science, Plant and Soil Science,
and General Agriculture. 3 An
agriculture minor is also offered. 4Those
desiring agriculture degree programs not offered at the University of
Arkansas-Monticello are provided introductory course work and advising designed
to facilitate transfer to another institution.
5In addition, students desiring to enter veterinary school
are provided course work and advising aimed at meeting the requirements of
institutions offering a degree in veterinary medicine.”
The Division of Agriculture’s (DAG) mission to “provide educational
programs on both the theory and practice of agricultural science…” corresponds
to the University’s mission of producing a student who is educated for
‘critical thought’. Critical thought
requires both an understanding of the theory and practice of knowledge. The DAG mission to produce a student capable
of contributing at the producer, industry, and graduate student level also
reflects the contribution to the overall mission of the University. The mission of the DAG is accomplished
through a curriculum containing three critical areas for student preparation:
general education, an agriculture core and program core of courses and
experiences.
2. How
are the major field assessments based on the mission and goals of the academic
unit and University?”
The major fields of the DAG are in the core career areas of the
agriculture industry in the state, nation and world: agriculture business,
animal science, and plant and soil science.
These areas of concentration reflect the traditional and most prevalent
needs in the agriculture community for educated, baccalaureate level
personnel. Additionally, the DAG has an
option in general agriculture, which combines the fundamental courses for each
of the three core areas. A two-year
applied science degree is also offered in conjunction with the McGehee campus. Students in the applied science program take
the lower division core agriculture courses in addition to technical courses
and an apprenticeship through the vocational school.
It is the responsibility of the faculty to assess the program in their
area of specialization. The DAG has
full-time, Ph.D. professional educators in the three main fields: animal
science, agriculture business, and plant and soil science. In addition, adjunct faculty employed by
SEREC teach courses in their area of expertise, including entomology, weed
science and plant pathology. The faculty
is active in their prospective discipline’s professional societies, the
National Association of Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture and the agriculture
industry. In 2004 the faculty met on
various occasions to critique the curriculum in the program areas. Adjustments were made to the Ag Business
program and the Animal Science program to require the students to take either
Plant Pathology or Weed Science. This
allows our teaching program to take better advantage of the expertise at our
disposal and provide a better informed graduate. In the process of critiquing, emphasis was
placed on preparation of a student who is marketable, independent, and
knowledgeable. This product, the
competent graduate in the DAG, is the primary mission of UAM and the DAG.
3. How are the data being
gathered to support assessment of the academic unit’s goals and mission?
Informal and
formal interviews with graduates and leaders in the agriculture community
provide data to support our assessment.
In 2004 our faculty attended and participated in several professional
meetings which involved interaction with other agriculture educators and
industry representatives. Through informal
visits with colleagues who employ our graduates, we gain information on how our
graduates are performing in industry or graduate school. For example, in recent years inquiries have
indicated that our graduates need better verbal, written and social
communication skills, which has prompted faculty to incorporate activities
within their courses, such as written reports and verbal presentations. In 2004 a student working as a rice consultant
indicated that more education in weed science would have helped him in his
present job. We also learn of trends
being observed at other Universities through our professional contacts. In 2004 two of our faculty participated in the
National Association of Colleges and Teachers of
Agriculture annual meeting which is entirely focused on issues related to
teaching agriculture at colleges and universities. Since our mission is to produce a graduate who
can compete within and contribute to the agriculture field, we survey the field
to assess our accomplishments.
4. Describe how faculty are involved in the
process(es) of assessing student learning.
The DAG faculty
are the front line for assessing student learning. This is done primarily by student performance
in his/her agriculture courses. Course
grades are a good indication of student learning, but student performance on
individual assignments is also a good indication to the faculty member how well
a student has learned certain material.
In 2004 the percentage of enrolled students successfully completing our
core agriculture courses ranged from 80% in Agricultural Economics to 100% in
Soils.
Each year all
faculty submit a self assessment of their individual performances in teaching,
service and scholarly service. In this
comprehensive self review, faculty critique their individual programs and
teaching efforts. Faculty submit supporting
documentation such as course syllabi, examples of class projects and student
evaluations of courses. The report also
includes narratives of successful activities and plans for improvement. The faculty member then meets with the
Division Head to discuss the self-evaluation and student learning and make
plans for improvement.
Additionally, faculty
are involved in annual meetings to discuss student learning. In 2004 the faculty met in April to award
scholarships. This serves as a good
venue for assessing student learning as well.
A recent trend
has been observed of students taking their math and science courses from other
universities. We theorize that this is
because those courses are easier at other universities. We also feel that student learning from these
math and science courses is not as good as if the students took those same courses
at UAM. Currently the only way we have
to assess student learning in courses taken at other universities is by that
student’s performance in upper level UAM ag courses.
5. Describe your use of multiple forms of data
gathering to assess student learning.
We rely heavily
on student performance in agricultural classes to assess student learning. Our faculty use writing assignments,
open-ended test questions, question requiring calculations, research
assignments, take-home exams, oral presentations and critical thinking
assignments to assess the student’s ability to read, comprehend, use knowledge,
decipher, think critically, form ideas and opinions and communicate their
answer in writing and verbally to a third party. By quizzing and testing students in multiple
ways, we are better able to assess their understanding of the subject
matter. Their course grade reflects
their level of mastery of the subject.
6. Describe how data are being used to make
programmatic changes in your academic unit.
In 2004 the
faculty met on various occasions to critique the curriculum in the program
areas. Adjustments were made to the Ag
Business program and the Animal Science program to require the students to take
either Plant Pathology or Weed Science.
This allows our teaching program to take better advantage of the
expertise at our disposal and provide a better informed graduate.
This year was
the first year students applied for acceptance into the upper division of the agriculture
degree program. In September of 2004 our
first co-hort had completed enough course work to apply. This policy was put in place in the 03-05
catalog. We hope that by requiring a
student to complete certain course work before taking upper level ag courses, the
faculty receive a student who is more capable of understanding and synthesizing
the material presented in upper level courses.
7. Describe how both faculty and students are
given feedback concerning assessment results.
Students receive immediate
feedback on their progress in individual courses through the grading
system. The small class size and open
door policy of faculty also provide more personal evaluations of student
performance of which many students take advantage. Most students are prepared to give feedback
on their learning experiences for individual courses, but it is the graduating
senior and alumni that are interested and competent to give an assessment of
the overall program in the DAG. Avenues
for this include employer/alumni surveys, course evaluations and graduating
senior surveys. Faculty receive feedback
on their specific programs through annual meetings with the unit Head to
discuss faculty performance and student evaluations of individual courses.
8. Describe how your assessment plan is cost
effective and reflects access, equity and diversity.
The DAG
assessment plan is based on readily available data compiled by each individual
faculty, senior seminar program evaluations, rising junior standardized test
scores (CAAP scores), student evaluations of individual courses, alumni
surveys, and faculty meetings to critique both individual and departmental
programs. Examples of individual program
critique are the annual assessment of individual annual faculty self evaluation
between the unit Head and each faculty member, faculty meetings to discuss
curricula, the mandated annual faculty assessment report, and informal meetings
with alumni and employers. Surveys,
student evaluations, regular meetings, informal and formal alumni and employer
interviews, and faculty networking with other professionals in their area of
specialization reflect a diverse and very cost effective program of
assessment.
9. How does your unit’s
assessment system link to research on learning theories, constructing vs.
acquiring knowledge, and active learning strategies?
The assessment system of the DAG
evaluates programs in accordance to the mission of both the DAG and the UAM
using the following hierarchy:
COURSE
à SUB-AREA à DIVISION à UNIVERSITY
The venues for assessment follow:
STUDENT COURSE EVALUATION à FACULTY SELF EVALUATION à FACULTY PEER
EVALUATION à FACULTY PROGRAM
EVALUATION à UNIT HEAD
EVALUATION à FACULTY AND UNIT
HEAD EVALUATION
Specific individual assessment
follows:
STUDENT COURSE ASSESSMENT à FACULTY COURSE ASSESSMENT à FACULTY PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT à UNIT HEAD PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT à GRADUATING SENIOR
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT à ALUMNI PROGRAM
ASSESSMENT
Faculty use the standards system
of learning success. Students are told
of the standards, or knowledge retention/synthesis that are the established
standards of the course, and students are told that they must meet these
standards. Standards are set by each
faculty in their field of expertise.
10. How are students
required to present verbal and written explanations of how their work products
demonstrate attainment of publicly stated goals and objectives for their
learning?
Grades earned
on individual assignments and in the course are the primary way students show
they have obtained the goals and objectives for their learning.
Students are told of the standards, or knowledge
retention/synthesis that are the established standards of the course, and
students are told that they must meet these standards. Grades assigned indicate to what level the
student has obtained those goals. Our
faculty use writing assignments, open-ended test questions, question requiring
calculations, research assignments, take-home exams, oral presentations and
critical thinking assignments. This
requires the student to present verbal and written examples of their mastery of
the subject matter.
Students in the
DAG are provide anonymous, written
evaluations of each DAG course, and of the overall program of the DAG and the
UAM during the required senior seminar course.
Additionally, students in the DAG are treated with respect and faculty
have an open door policy where students are encouraged to visit and exchange
ideas on program improvement. Often, the
students provide excellent feedback. Examples
include a recommendation for a multi-media classroom and an upgraded and
expanded computer lab.
While most
students and alumni are not well versed on the goals and mission of the DAG and
the UAM, they are interested, based on informal discussions, in obtaining an
education that will make them competitive in the job market. Students and alumni are often eager to
provide feedback on program assessment.
11. How do course syllabi state measurable
objectives for student learning and provide for the assessment of students’
academic achievement?
Course syllabi
state the learning objectives for each course.
They also provide an outline of the material to be covered and the
resources required. The syllabi outline
the type and number of assignments that will be used to measure student learning
and they give the level of performance required in the course to obtain a
certain letter grade.
12. How are students involved in the assessment
process? For example, do students
participate in your unit’s assessment committee activities?
Students provide
feedback on our program in various ways.
During registration they provide immediate feedback on courses they have
taken recently or in which they are currently enrolled. These may be ag courses, general education
courses or supportive courses. Currently
our students are experiencing difficulty in their General Chemistry
classes. Some are opting to take these
classes elsewhere while others are taking multiple attempts at completing those
two courses at UAM.
Students
provide assessment data through course evaluations in our ag classes and a senior
seminar program evaluation at the completion of their final semester. They also express their feelings and concerns
during informal interaction with DAG faculty.
PART
II. SUPPORTIVE DATA THAT DEMONSTRATES
STUDENT
ACHIEVEMENT.
1. Graduating Senior Agriculture Major
Survey. (Appendix II)
Students
generally liked the program they received in the DAG.
One area often cited needing
improvement was better computer
laboratory
facilities.
2. Grade Distributions in the DAG core
courses of animal science,
plant and soil science, agriculture
economics and introductory soil
science. (Appendix III)
About 50 percent of the grades in the core courses are in
the A and B categories. One hundred
percent of the grades in the introductory soils class are A, B or C. The introductory soil science course requires
a thorough knowledge of basic chemistry.
These grades indicate that students in the DAG are obtaining
the learning goals and objectives of the DAG courses and programs, thus
contributing to the mission of the UAM.
Our number one problem currently is low enrollment. Of the ten academic units at UAM, the fall of
2004 saw five units with increased enrollment and five with decreased
enrollment. The DAG set a seven year
record low. Our number of freshmen
bottomed out in fall 2002 but has since recovered to levels seen in 2000 and
2001 but still half of those observed in 1996 and 1997. Casual conversations with faculty from ag
colleges at other universities leads me to believe this is a national
trend. Our problem is not that students
are majoring in agriculture at other universities rather than at UAM, it is that
students are not majoring in agriculture.
APPENDIX I
OUTLINE OF REQUIRED INFORMATION
IN THE UAM ANNUAL
FACULTY SELF EVALUATION
APPENDIX II
SENIOR SEMINAR SURVEY, 2004
APPENDIX III
GRADE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR
SELECTED DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE
CORE COURSES
APPENDIX IV
CORRELATION OF INCOMING STUDENT
ACT SCORES WITH GRADES IN CORE
AGRICULTURE COURSES.