PhD Program Learning Outcomes. Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Measures and CriteriaAssessment Schedule 1. Demonstrate knowledge of broad and specialty.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
What Behaviors Indicate a Student is Meeting Course Goals and Objectives? “Indicators”
Advertisements

Assessment Report Computer Science School of Science and Mathematics Kad Lakshmanan Chair Sandeep R. Mitra Assessment Coordinator.
 What is Advanced Placement?  What is the International Baccalaureate?  How are they different and alike?  How do the Honors programs fit in?  What.
Del Mar College Planning and Assessment Process Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness January 10, 2005.
MS Program Learning Outcomes. Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Measures and CriteriaAssessment Schedule 1. Demonstrate knowledge of broad and specialty.
Utilization-focused Assessment in Foundations Curriculum: Examining RCLS 2601: Leisure in Society Clifton E. Watts, PhD Dept. of Recreation & Leisure Studies.
Graduate Research Fellowship Program Operations Center NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program National Science Foundation.
FAMU ASSESSMENT PLAN PhD Degree Program in Entomology Dr. Lambert Kanga / CESTA.
Graduate Program Assessment Report. University of Central Florida Mission Communication M.A. Program is dedicated to serving its students, faculty, the.
Dallas Baptist University College of Education Graduate Programs
Advances research methods and proposal writing Ronan Fitzpatrick School of Computing, Dublin Institute of Technology. September 2008.
Computer Science Department Program Improvement Plan December 3, 2004.
Introduction to Student Learning Outcomes in the Major
1 Southern Connecticut State University Graduate Council Academic Standards Committee Procedures for Southern Connecticut State University.
STRATEGIC PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT PLANNING Presentation to CLAS Unit Heads Nov. 16, 2005 Maria Cimitile Julie Guevara Carol Griffin.
PPA Advisory Board Meeting, May 12, 2006 Assessment Summary.
1 Some Tips on Comprehensive Exams in Sociology at UBC Fall 2010.
LIFE SKILLS: ASSESSMENT IN THE THREE STUDY AREAS PERSONAL AND SOCIAL WELL-BEING (PSW) PHYSICAL EDUCATION (PE) CREATIVE ARTS (CA)
October 22, 2009 Report to the Faculty Senate Professor John Stevenson Senator Sandy Jean Hicks UCGE-Subcommittee on Assessment of General Education (SAGE)
Fostering Continuous Improvement of Curriculum - Learning Outcomes Peter Wolf Director, Centre for Open Learning Educational Support University of Guelph.
Measuring Learning Outcomes Evaluation
Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European
Revised Requirement Course Proposal.  Change the Requirements for the Bachelor’s Degree from A to B. Successfully complete the General Education Requirements.
FLCC knows a lot about assessment – J will send examples
Assessment Report Department of Environmental Science and Biology School of Sciences and Mathematics Chair: Christopher Norment Assessment Coordinator:
Texas Tech University College of Human Sciences Lubbock, TX.
CHEN Program Assessment Advisory Board Meeting June 3 rd, 2012.
Graduate Program Review Where We Are, Where We Are Headed and Why Duane K. Larick, Associate Graduate Dean Presentation to Directors of Graduate Programs.
Providing Opportunities for Scholarship and Research Department of Chemistry Howard University Washington, D.C.
Foundations of Educating Healthcare Providers
Sheila Roberts Department of Geology Bowling Green State University.
Johann K. Brunner "Modernizing the 3 rd cycle at the University of Prishtina and Developing a PhD Program at the Faculty of Economics" March 26-28, 2014.
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC)
Chemistry B.S. Degree Program Assessment Plan Dr. Glenn Cunningham Professor and Chair University of Central Florida April 21, 2004.
Arizona State University College of Education Curriculum and Instruction Science Education Mathematics Education Language and Literacy.
 What is Advanced Placement?  What is the International Baccalaureate?  How are they different and alike?  How do the Honors programs fit in?  What.
Designing and implementing of the NQF Tempus Project N° TEMPUS-2008-SE-SMHES ( )
ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING Manal bait Gharim.
Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research 2010 Institutional Planning, Assessment & Research Assessment Review Committee Report Brody School of Medicine.
Preceptor Orientation
Year Seven Self-Evaluation Workshop OR Getting from Here to There Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.
Deconstructing Standard 2c Dr. Mike Mahan Gordon College 1.
February 28, 2008The Teaching Center, Washington University The Teaching Citation Program & Creating a Teaching Portfolio Beth Fisher, Ph.D. Assistant.
 This prepares educators to work in P-12 schools (1)  It provides direction (1)  It is knowledge-based, articulated, shared, coherent, consistent with.
The Redesigned Elements of Statistics Course University of West Florida March 2008.
Transparency in Searching and Choosing Peer Reviewers Doris DEKLEVA SMREKAR, M.Sc.Arch. Central Technological Library at the University of Ljubljana, Trg.
College of Natural and Applied Sciences Master of Science in Biology Master of Science in Biology Degree 8 Faculty: From CNAS, WERI & Marine Lab 8 Faculty:
PROF. DR. MOHD ADAM BAKAR HF :
Graduate studies - Master of Pharmacy (MPharm) 1 st and 2 nd cycle integrated, 5 yrs, 10 semesters, 300 ECTS-credits 1 Integrated master's degrees qualifications.
Department of Engineering Management, Information & Systems Systems Engineering Program Proposed PhD with a Major in Systems Engineering Jerrell Stracener,
Assessing Your Assessments: The Authentic Assessment Challenge Dr. Diane King Director, Curriculum Development School of Computer & Engineering Technologies.
Changes in the Faculty Review Process for United Academics Faculty Presenter: Patricia Linton, College of Arts & Sciences.
ABET is Coming! What I need to know about ABET, but was afraid to ask.
What Are the Characteristics of an Effective Portfolio? By Jay Barrett.
What Your Program Needs to Know about Learning Outcomes Assessment at UGA.
Assessing Student Learning Workshop for Department Chairs & Program Directors Workshop for Department Chairs & Program Directors January 9, 2007.
Department of Engineering Management, Information & Systems Systems Engineering Program Proposed PhD with a Major in Systems Engineering Jerrell Stracener,
Research Assignment Design Kerri Carter – ext Diane VanderPol
1 DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS TO ENSURE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES RECEIVE A QUALITY HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAM Performance Measurement, Program and Project Evaluation.
Deconstructing Standard 2c Laura Frizzell Coastal Plains RESA 1.
Making assessment in PhD programs more useful for faculty and students
Program requirements Linguistics new graduate student orientation
MASTER’S RESEARCH GUIDELINES
AOC Program Report November 28, 2016
US Graduate Education Model
Expectations and Quality Control for Ph.D. Students
Assessment of GE Synthesis
Internal and External Quality Assurance Systems for Cycle 3 (Doctoral) programmes "PROMOTING INTERNATIONALIZATION OF RESEARCH THROUGH ESTABLISHMENT AND.
Atmospheric Sciences On the Journey to Assessing Learning Outcomes
S-STEM (NSF ) NSF Scholarships for Science, Technology, Engineering, & Mathematics Information Materials 6 Welcome! This is the seventh in a series.
Presentation transcript:

PhD Program Learning Outcomes

Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Measures and CriteriaAssessment Schedule 1. Demonstrate knowledge of broad and specialty content areas. 1a. Measure: The results of the Comprehensive Examination are reviewed by the AOSC examination committee in order to provide immediate feedback on the courses. The AOSC Department Curriculum Committee (ADCC) will select an appropriate problem from each Qualifying Examination and analyze the solutions of all the students. 1a. Criteria: The Qualifying Examination question used will be one that makes extensive use of the concepts of the core courses (covering dynamics, physics/chemistry, and climate/general meteorology) in the solution of the problem. The following criteria will be used when the ADCC evaluates solutions based on: relevance, and correctness of the solution. We will expect a 75% success rate for the ADCC evaluation based on these criteria. 1b. Measure The Graduate Director will consult with the faculty members teaching each course to ascertain the strengths and weaknesses of the course and the level of preparation of the students. 1b. Criteria A subjective experience-based set of criteria evaluating scientific breadth and depth will be used based on past course offerings at UMD and elsewhere and then on a yearly basis

Assessment Criteria and Impact of Results 1a. Comprehensive Exam Assessment Criteria Evaluate one question from the Comprehensive examination. There are three potential outcome to this test: Failure in summarizing the basic theories implies that the student has not got sufficient knowledge to pursue atmospheric science research. In this case, (s)he may be asked to either retake the course or the exam, pending the scores of other questions. Demonstrates sufficient knowledge in the theory, but fail to apply it to solve a real problem. This may indicate that the student is a good learner, but may not be suitable for pursuing original scientific research. (S)he may be recommended to receive a M.Sc. degree, but not for a Ph.D, if he has similar performance in other exams. Good in both theory and application. The student will be recommended for a Ph.D. study, if good achievements are also accomplished in other exams. Impact Assessment: Question examined for spring 2007: Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry: Part I (METO620) This question tests how well students can apply the basic cloud physics theories learned in the classroom to solve a practical problem that has been a hot topic in the arena of climate change. It deals with both the fundamentals of cloud formation, droplet growth and initiation of precipitation, as well as the modern cloud observation techniques. Consequences: the faculty is still mulling thee consequences of these results

Assessment Criteria and Impact of Results 1b. Core Course Review Assessment Criteria A subjective experience-based set of criteria evaluating scientific breadth and depth will be used based on past course offerings at UMD and elsewhere. Impact Assessment results: A survey of the current course offerings (winter ) based on discussions with the instructors, exit interviews, and review of the student evaluations finds the following strengths and weaknesses of the academic program: 1) Strengths: students are exposed not only to traditional dynamics and physics of the atmosphere and oceans, but also to interdisciplinary research areas within earth system science. The core courses are exceptional among those offered at competitor institutions in that they encourage students in areas of critical thinking, scientific presentations and proposal development. 2) Weakness: Students are currently lacking education in synoptic meteorology. Consequences: synoptic meteorology should be taught regularly.

2. Demonstrate ability to construct a research proposal Measure As part of their coursework students will have as an exercise the construction of a research proposal. The ADCC will consult with the course instructor for AOSC680 to ascertain the level of preparation of the students. Criteria: The following criteria will be used when the ADCC in concert with the student Advisor evaluates the research proposals: 1. Adherence to formatting requirements. 2. Depth of knowledge of problem being proposed. 3. Clarity of written presentation. We will expect a 75% success rate for the evaluation based on these criteria and then on a yearly basis Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Measures and CriteriaAssessment Schedule

Assessment Criteria Every year in AOSC 680 each student is required to prepare a mock proposal in response to an actual NASA Young Investigator proposal solicitation. The students are required to prepare a letter of intent, which is then assessed by the instructor and feedback is provided with respect to its suitability for a full proposal submission. Proposals are then prepared by each student according to the solicitation criteria in the announcement of opportunity. Each student presents their proposal in oral and written form. Each student’s oral proposal defense and written proposal are reviewed by their peers in class according to the review criteria in solicitation. Impact Assessment: Students gain first-hand experience on proposal preparation and review. Feedback and review comments are provided to each student. Input from each student is solicited regarding what he or she learned and how the process can be improved. Consequences: proceed with the same approach Assessment Criteria and Impact of Results 2. Demonstrate ability to construct a research proposal

Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Measures and CriteriaAssessment Schedule 3. Demonstrate competence in research 3a. Measure: Graduate students in AOSC doctoral program are expected to develop a mastery of their field. In particular, full-time doctoral students who arrive with a baccalaureate degree normally will: submit at least one paper for publication prior to graduation. 3a. Criteria: 75% of students will have at least one paper accepted for publication by a refereed journal or conference prior to graduation and then on a yearly basis 4. Demonstrate competence in oral exposition 4a. Measure: all students will make an oral presentation of their research in the department student seminar series. Students are also strongly encouraged to participate in national and international meetings. 4a. Criteria: 75% of students will make presentations of their research at national/international conferences during their degree program 2006 and then on a yearly basis

Assessment Criteria and Impact of Results 3 & 4. Demonstrate competence in research and oral exposition 3. Assessment Criteria: 75% of students will have at least one paper accepted for publication by a refereed journal or conference prior to graduation. 4. Assessment Criteria: 75% of students will make presentations of their research at national/international conferences during their degree program Assessment: 37 current PhD students responded to a survey. 28 of them you have presented research at a national or international meeting (75%) 28 have authored or coauthored a paper submitted for publication. (76%) Consequences: The Department seems to be providing sufficient encouragement for development of competence in research and oral exposition. No Changes are anticipated.

5. Students will be prepared to use their expertise in Atmospheric and Oceanic Science and more generally in scientific research skills in their future endeavors, not only within the discipline itself but also drawing on this information in other careers. Assessment and Measure: Students completing the Ph.D. program will be surveyed upon completing the program and again approximately two years after graduation. The survey instrument will be designed to assess the extent to which their preparation in Atmospheric Science advances their career directions toward a career in atmospheric and oceanic science, for example: working in academia, government or business. Criteria The emphasis in evaluating the responses will be to motivate a continuous process by which the Department addresses the most serious (commonly cited and important) issues first. Thus, continual improvement, reflected partly by a shift in the most commonly cited issues and partly by the enthusiasm expressed in the responses to general questions, is our Criteria for success. AOSC is already enhancing its database monitoring students in its MS and PhD programs and has developed an exit interview form for surveys of exiting students. The first surveys have been conducted in The Graduate Director will be responsible for collecting and analyzing this data and making recommendations from their analysis for the Ph.D. Program. Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Measures and CriteriaAssessment Schedule

Assessment Criteria and Impact of Results 5. Exit Interviews Assessment Criteria The emphasis in evaluating the responses will be to motivate a continuous process by which the Department addresses the most serious (commonly cited and important) issues first. Thus, continual improvement, reflected partly by a shift in the most commonly cited issues and partly by the enthusiasm expressed in the responses to general questions, is our Criteria for success. Impact Assessment: Coursework: Some students found the courses are generally well structured for them to study the processes regulating chemical and physical processes in the atmosphere and ocean. Advising: our faculty are helpful in advising students to conduct their research projects and present their scholarly work in conferences and journals. The students appreciate the fact that the Department organizes regular seminars, on average, twice a week to help our students learn how other scientists conduct their research and what is up-to-date in our science. Consequences: no specific consequences now.