On March 12 & 13, 1999, faculty from 15 California State University geology departments met to discuss and identify substantial student learning outcomes in undergraduate geology degree programs. This meeting was funded by the CSU Chancellor’s Office in conjunction with a series of similar discipline-specific systemwide meetings, intended to stimulate discussions on learning objectives by colleagues from similar programs.
MEETING ORGANIZERS
Nancy Fegan, Conference Director
(nfegan@csuhayward.edu)
Diane Williams, Conference Coordinator
(dwilliam@csuhayward.edu)
Department of Geological Sciences
California State University, Hayward
Hayward, California 94542
phone: (510) 885-3486 fax: (510) 885-2526
MEETING SUMMARY
After a well-received opening keynote address illuminating current skills and knowledge needed by professional geologists, participants began a general discussion of learning goals and student evaluation methods. One of the most productive activities on the first day involved breaking into small discussion groups based on the knowledge areas identified by the keynote speaker. Learning objectives identified by the small groups revealed specific skills and knowledge particular to geological specialties, but also highlighted general learning goals for geology programs overall. Discussion of overall learning goals became the emphasis of the second day of the meeting, with development of a comprehensive list of essential learning objectives for all geology majors. Concluding discussions involved program survey instruments, current student assessment models, and planning for progress reports at the annual chairs meeting in late 1999.
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
The meeting began Friday afternoon with a very pertinent keynote address given by Ms. Seena Hoose, President of the California Board of Registration for Geologists and Geophysicists. Ms. Hoose began by reviewing the process of obtaining board registration, a requirement for professional geologists to practice in California that involves passing a comprehensive exam after completing a specified combination of years of college education and work experience. Her talk also included an analysis of the Board’s research into the reasons behind the low pass rate on the exam, around 20-30%, that has been steadily dropping and has beleaguered test takers in recent years.
One area identified as predictive of examinee success is college preparation. Minimum coursework that enhances success on the exam includes classes in Physical Geology, Mineralogy, Petrology, Structural Geology, Stratigraphy and Field Geology. The importance of numerous and varied field experiences was emphasized, and additional course recommendations given were Historical Geology, Hydrogeology, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Paleontology, Resource Geology and Engineering Geology. These findings mirror those of a recent nationwide survey delineating the geological tasks at which working geologists spend the most time. The survey of professional geological tasks, conducted by the National Association of State Boards of Geology, represented geologists in 48 states and included responses that showed remarkable uniformity regardless of the respondent’s location of practice. One goal of the National Association is to develop nationwide standards for licensing exams, making state licenses more reciprocal.
Another area of concern brought to light by the CA Board’s research is the issue of maintaining high academic standards. Ms. Hoose presented data showing a correlation between examinee success rate and the university attended, implying that some schools could improve the rigor and depth of their programs, although other factors not accounted for may also be at work. The audience was strongly advised to hold students accountable to demanding academic standards as one means of improving future success. Ms. Hoose concluded by expressing the Board’s great willingness and desire to work more closely with academic institutions to create partnerships focused on providing the best possible academic preparation for future geologists.
OPENING DISCUSSION
After the keynote address and afternoon break, Dr. John Williams, Chair of Geology at San Jose State University, opened the first discussion of the group as a whole by offering comments regarding the difficulty of teaching students with widely varying pre-college preparation. There followed more dialogue on recognizing that our departments serve many different students with different future goals, including becoming professional geologists, but also going on to graduate work, teaching careers and other science fields.
A recurring theme of the discussion focused on the idea that most geology programs have built in assessment processes, including required oral presentations of field and laboratory work, production of maps and other geological illustrations, progression of courses requiring satisfactory completion of prerequisites, and capstone courses in fieldwork and advanced specialties. There were also many comments and questions concerning the need for assessment articulation within our programs. Participants expressed concern about why we were being asked by administrators to design assessment procedures, and apprehension that programs would be penalized in the future if students did not meet designated learning outcomes. Continued discussion evolved into recognition of the value of outlining specified learning goals for students as a method of evaluating and improving our undergraduate programs.
Participants were then broken up into small discussion groups of 3-6 each according to five main geologic specialty areas, with the purpose of identifying student learning goals in each area.
CONCLUDING DISCUSSION
The final portion of the meeting was devoted to hearing about examples of assessment models already in place at CSU San Bernardino and CSU Monterey Bay. Dr. John Stamm of CSUMB gave examples of methods that worked well (ongoing one-on-one advising based on individual student development plans) and others that did not work (evaluation of portfolios by multiple faculty — too time consuming). He also cautioned not to build assessment processes with built-in hurdles that not all students will satisfy, such as requiring attaining a particular grade in each course. Further discussion centered around the progressive nature of geology programs, and the ongoing evaluation already used by geology faculty as students are prepared to take capstone courses like field geology and advanced electives.
Examples of survey tools for gathering feedback from alumni, graduate schools, employers and professionals were provided in the meeting handouts, and were evaluated for applicability to individual programs. Copies of published articles on learning and assessment in the geosciences were also discussed. Final plans for reconvening a dialogue on goal-setting and assessment implementation were made for the annual CSU Geology Chairs meeting set for late 1999.
ASSESSING STUDENT OUTCOMES IN
THE GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES
A discussion of geology programs and student outcomes
in the California State Universities
CSU Hayward University Union, Room 311
March 12-13, 1999
AGENDA
Friday, March 12 |
| Student Learning Outcomes, Session I |
| 1:00 | WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION |
| 1:30 | KEYNOTE ADDRESS BY SEENA HOOSE, President
State Board of Registration for Geologists and Geophysicists |
| 2:30 | AFTERNOON TEA and INFORMAL DISCUSSION |
| 3:00 | IDENTIFICATION OF CSU STUDENT LEARNING GOALS
Small group discussions — setting goals for specific geology courses/subdisciplines |
| 4:30 | SMALL GROUP REPORTS |
| 5:00 | RECEPTION |
| |
Saturday, March 13 |
| Student Learning Outcomes, Session II |
| 8:30 | CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST and INTRODUCTION |
| 9:00 | EXAMPLES FROM CSUs, OTHER UNIVERSITIES |
| 9:30 | CREATING ASSESSMENT MODELS FOR CSU
Small group discussions — developing evaluation frameworks |
| 11:00 | SMALL GROUP REPORTS |
| 12:00 | WRAP-UP and FINAL DISSEMINATION PLANS |
| 12:30 | LUNCHEON HOSTED BY CSU HAYWARD |
