Review Assessment Report

Part 1: Contact & Program Identification

Report Year and Contact Information
Academic Year	Modified By	Date Modified
2021-2022	jbrogers@cnm.edu	2022-10-14T18:23:46.694Z

School	Name of Program	Courses
MSE	Earth and Planetary Science Degree	None

Part 2: Program Summary

Provide a high level review of the program to include highlights, successes, challenges, significant changes, and significant resources needed to support the program
The Geology program continues to operate smoothly with repeated successes and highlights seen in previous years. Some of these include scholarships to professional meetings, book awards, and professional publications and presentations by some students. We are working to make the requirements for obtaining an associate's degree more efficient.

Part 3: Data Review

	2019-2020	2020-2021	2021-2022
Annual number of graduate awards is greater than 10	1	4	1
Number of declared majors	73	62	56
Average Class Size	n/a	n/a	n/a
Annual Average Class withdrawal rate is 30% or below (SAGE 35%)	n/a	n/a	n/a
Annual C-Pass rate for coursework is 60% or above	n/a	n/a	n/a
Average class fill rate at 60% or above capacity within a term or over a year	n/a	n/a	n/a
Graduate Transfer to 4-year Schools	n/a	n/a	n/a
Full-time Faculty Coverage by Section	n/a	n/a	n/a

Summarize how your program met or did not meet the target measures based on the data above
The annual number of graduates is low. This biggest hurdle has been the math requirements. We are working to make these more flexible. The number of declared majors is slightly down. Making the math requirements more flexible and adding some additional program-approved electives may help with this. There are not data for most of the targets listed above.

Part 4: Program Learning Outcome Analysis

Learning Outcome	Population or Course(s) Assessed	Description	Summary of Assessment Results
Communicate effectively about scientific ideas and topics, in oral and/or written formats	1110 or 1101L2110 or 2110L This was accomplished through the 3-part “groundwater pollution” problem where students communicated the first steps of the scientific method (A), communicated the groundwater flow direction (B), and communicated their subsequent determination of the polluter (C).	Final Exam	Results (Fall 2021) • Number of students 20; number of correct answers 15; % correct 75 • Number of students 20; number of correct answers 17; %correct 85 • Number of students 20; number of correct answers 15; %correct 75 Results (Spring 2022) • Number of students 33; number of correct answers 28; % correct 85 • Number of students 33; number of correct answers 19; % correct 58 • Number of students 33; number of correct answers 16; % correct 48
Demonstrate proper operation of laboratory and/or field equipment to collect relevant and quality data.	1101L	Final Exam	Results (Spring 2022) • Number of students 21; number of correct answers 17; % correct 81
Communicate effectively about scientific ideas and topics, in oral and/or written formats	1110 or 1101L2110 or 2110L This was accomplished through the 3-part “groundwater pollution” problem where students communicated the first steps of the scientific method (A), communicated the groundwater flow direction (B), and communicated their subsequent determination of the polluter (C).	Final Exam	Results (Fall 2021) • Number of students 20; number of correct answers 15; % correct 75 • Number of students 20; number of correct answers 17; %correct 85 • Number of students 20; number of correct answers 15; %correct 75 Results (Spring 2022) • Number of students 33; number of correct answers 28; % correct 85 • Number of students 33; number of correct answers 19; % correct 58 • Number of students 33; number of correct answers 16; % correct 48
Demonstrate proper operation of laboratory and/or field equipment to collect relevant and quality data.	1101L	Final Exam	Results (Spring 2022) • Number of students 21; number of correct answers 17; % correct 81

Interpretation of Assessment findings
The results for many of the assessments questions were >= 75% correct and well above the C-Pass rate of 60%. The results that fell below this threshold need attention, either through an evaluation of the assessment methodology or a change in the teaching approach. Sometimes the low numbers are best explained by the scoring rubric used. Some instructors award partial credit while others use an all-or- nothing approach for the same problem. The all-or-nothing approach yields low percentages that may not fairly assess student knowledge. In the future, we must strive for uniformity in grading methodology (Assessment methodology Revision) to improve the meaningfulness of our results.

Interpretation of Assessment findings

The results for many of the assessments questions were >= 75% correct and well above the C-Pass rate of 60%. The results that fell below this threshold need attention, either through an evaluation of the assessment methodology or a change in the teaching approach. Sometimes the low numbers are best explained by the scoring rubric used. Some instructors award partial credit while others use an all-or- nothing approach for the same problem. The all-or-nothing approach yields low percentages that may not fairly assess student knowledge. In the future, we must strive for uniformity in grading methodology (Assessment methodology Revision) to improve the meaningfulness of our results.

Part 5: Additional Action Plan in Support of Student Learning (If Appropriate)

Upcoming Year	Changes Planned for the upcoming year	Data Motivating this change
2021-2022
2021-2022
2021-2022

Please select all of the following that characterize the types of changes described in the above action plan

Back