1. The pHunger Games: Assessing Learning in the Chemistry Major Our Assessment Tool: Seniors review an altered journal article; they evaluate data and the validity of chemical arguments presented There is a short individual work time, then students compete in teams to create the final review Team that writes the best review receives a cash prize; all participants receive a token gift and go out to dinner with the department Have begun to include one team of sophomores for comparison Outcomes/Lessons Learned: We can obtain data about our learning outcomes across the curriculum; it took time to create an assessment at the right level for our students Students are enthusiastic about this form of assessment; it is important to have an ongoing conversation with them about our goals and expectations Not always the “star students” who write the best review Provides an opportunity for faculty in the dept. to work together to develop an effective assessment tool Encourages regular reflection on our learning outcomes; identifies areas in the curriculum for change (Ex: problem sets that prompt student recognition and questioning of unreasonable “outlier” data) Have received inquiries from faculty at other institutions about trying something similar Moving Forward: Analyze individual vs. team results; sophomore vs. senior results; continue to revise curriculum from data obtained Thanks to Smith Chemistry Dept., especially D. Gorin, R. Linck, and K. Queeney Starting Point: Department created a list of learning outcomes for our majors Wanted a way to assess learning outcomes that was a “real life” task, would require no dedicated preparation, and would cause minimal stress to our majors

2. Thinking Like A Scientist: Assessing Learning in the Psychology Major Starting Point: One professor’s questions about transfer (or lack thereof) of research methods knowledge turned into… The collective goal of understanding how our majors learn to think as scientists across the arc of our curriculum Our Assessment Tool: Open-ended assessment demanding engagement with a messy, real-world problem—high school start time Task: to make recommendation to a local psychologist on the basis of the evidence provided to them Materials include newspaper article, an editorial, and two synopses of scientific papers (including statistical tables) Crafted a rubric (inspired by AAC&U’s VALUE rubric) for assessing methods knowledge and critical thinking skills Outcomes/Lessons Learned: The process was iterative and thorny, but owned by the faculty and made possible by their good will and the college’s support The assessment (and rubric) resulted in productive, ongoing conversations about learning in our discipline We discovered that different assessment approaches (sequestered problem-solving vs. preparation for future learning) yielded different perceptions of learning Faculty generated a number of hypotheses to explain our (sometimes surprising) results Ultimately, this project provided the impetus for a substantive curricular revision, the first in well over two decades, in order to emphasize and support student learning in thinking like a scientist It provided a model of faculty-driven assessment that helped seed assessment conversations on campus and strengthened PSY’s midterm review process Moving Forward: We will use assessment data to test the impact of our revised curriculum in the major as well as compare pedagogical approaches to achieve transfer Thanks to Lauren Duncan, Minh Ly, Bill Peterson, Beth Powell, Cate Rowan, and Al Rudnitsky