1. Programmatic Assessment within Food Science and Technology Thomas H. Shellhammer Nor’wester Professor of Fermentation Science

2. Important points we’ve learned since our start in 2005 Seek advice Start small Don’t expect all faculty to engage in the O&A process Accept that the data will not be clean Resist collecting too much assessment data Focus on closing the loop Be flexible and adapt

3. FST Undergraduate Enrollment

4. Our approach – historical perspective 2000 Notice from IFT to start implementing O&A

5. Institute of Food Technologists International, non-profit professional organization for the advancement of food science and technology ~22,000 members Higher Education Review Board –Each program must have an assessment plan and show how they implement that plan –Each program must document how the results of the assessment plan are used to continually improve food science education.

6. Curriculum Matrix

7. Our approach – historical perspective 2000 Notice from IFT to start implementing O&A 2004 OSU asks for O&A plan 2005 IFT renewal - full O&A req’d in 5 years Barb Walvoord visits OSU and FST Rich Hartel visits FST Fall retreat FST identifies initial programmatic outcomes

8. Seek advice Expert(s) Practitioner(s) Office of Academic Planning and Assessment

9. Barbara E. Walvoord, Ph.D Professor Emerita at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana. Coordinated Notre Dame’s self-study and re-accreditation visit by the North Central Association’s Higher Learning Commission, 2004. Have consulted or led workshops at more than 350 institutions of higher education throughout the U.S., on topics of assessment, teaching and learning, and writing across the curriculum. Founding director of faculty-development programs at Central College in Iowa, Loyola College in Maryland, University of Cincinnati, University of Notre Dame. Each program has won national recognition.

10. Rich Hartel Professor, University of Wisconsin, Department of Food Science UW Teaching Academy Executive Committee 2004 – 2007 IFT HERB member

11. Start small First round looked just at two outcomes

12. Fall 2005 Faculty Retreat 1.We developed student learning outcomes for all of our undergraduate courses. 2.We learned about how rubrics can help define and consequently assess high level learning. 3.We identified 4 programmatic outcomes. a. Core knowledge skills b. Oral/written communication ability c. Problem solving skills d. Student engagement that leads to life-long learning 4.We engaged in thoughtful, meaningful, and holistic discussions about we want our students to learn

14. Results from 2005-2006 academic year 1. Assessed written communication in FST 424, FST 460 and FST 468 2. Assessed technical problem solving skills in FST 424 3. Reviewed these data at the beginning of the coming academic year (9/22/06)

15. Accept that the data will not be clean

16. Plan for ‘06-’07 year Written Communication Assessment 1. Begin tracking students over time by assessing writing skills in FST 210 2. Correlate course grade against “reasoning” scores 3. Provide students with the writing skills rubric in their first year via FST 101 4. Assess written communication skills in FST 210, FST 424, FST 461, FST 468 Oral Communication Assessment 1. Assess oral communication skills in FST 407 – Senior seminar 2. Assess oral communication skills in FST 25 – Sensory Science Core Knowledge 1. Identify venue to administer a core knowledge exam in the senior year 2. Prepare a core knowledge exam (all faculty to contribute questions) Student Engagement 1. There is continued interest in a Fermentation Science alumni association…looking for support to initiate this endeavor.

17. Results from ‘06-’07 year Written Communication Assessment 88% achieved “meets expectation” or better Creating new WIC course coincided with improved writing performance (writing scores moving from 2.14 to 2.41) by Fermentation Science students and brought enrollment in FST 424 within the guidelines of the Writing Program for a writing intensive course.. Oral Communication Assessment 95% achieved “meets expectation” or better Oral communication skills looked good. Critical Thinking Skills Assessment Concern over students’ understanding of the foundational knowledge in our discipline.

18. Hi Dan, After long thought, I decided to pull FST 468 from this. I did this for numerous reasons: 1) I have recurring concerns about how it's objective application. 2) I was extremely busy this past academic year and this was the easiest thing to let go of 3) FST 468 is a course that will soon be discontinued and therefore the collection of data on this course seems like a waste of my most limited resource: time Sorry,

19. Not all faculty engage in programmatic outcomes assessment Need enough to have a critical mass

20. Plan for ‘07-’08 year Written Communication Assessment Reduce written assessment in favor of spending energy on the Core Knowledge outcome Oral Communication Assessment Reduce oral communication assessment in favor of spending energy on the Core Knowledge outcome Critical Thinking Skills Assessment Postpone further assessment of this area until we have Core Knowledge assessment data Student Engagement Examine alumni survey instrument for use with UG student engagement assessment Begin moving FST Alumni Association forward

21. Plan for ‘07-’08 year Core Knowledge Assessment 1. Four disciplinary groups formed Food Chemistry - Penner (leading), Qian, Kennedy, McGorrin, Smith, Park, Ross Food Microbiology - Osborne (leading), Daeschel, Bakalinsky, Goddik, Su, Sarker, Bruslind Food Engineering - Shellhammer (leading), Zhao, Torres, Chaplen, Wells Sensory Science - Lim (leading), Marin, Lederer, Colonna 2. Each group to identify key core knowledge concepts within each discipline that are required of food scientists 3. Each group to map these concepts to our curriculum 4. Examine upstream course performance and correlate with performance in foundational food science course - will aid in recruitment and long term student performance

22. Be flexible and adapt if necessary Resist simply collecting assessment data Try to close the loop

23. Examples of closing the loop Adding writing intensive course improved written communication scores Expanding credit load in two courses led to improved quantitative scores –Statistics sessions for Sensory Science course –Problem solving sessions for Food Processing and Packaging courses

24. 2010 IFT renewal application Programmatic Outcomes Students graduating with a B.S. in Food Science and Technology will be able to: Effectively express themselves orally, graphically, and in writing. (Communication Skills ). Apply scientific principles to solve problems in Food Science. (Critical Thinking and Technical Problem Solving Skills ). Identify and explain essential foundational principles in Food Science. (Core Knowledge). Engage in activities that enhance their professional development. (Professional Engagement).

25. Assessment Techniques Rubric-based assessment of specific learning outcomes Oral and written communication, core knowledge, technical problem solving, etc. Exit interviews performed by the Department Head with all graduating seniors. Program growth and job placement data. Employer survey.

26. Important points we’ve learned since our start in 2005 Seek advice Start small Don’t expect all faculty to engage in the O&A process Accept that the data will not be clean Resist collecting too much assessment data Focus on closing the loop Be flexible and adapt