Assessment Details
Academic Year: 2021-2022 Level: Undergraduate
Campus Department: Morrissey College of Arts & Sciences [UG and Grad]
Program Type: Core [UG]
Program Name: Psychology and Neuroscience Core
Description of Data Collection:
1) An anonymous survey of students who take psychology core courses.
2) Direct evidence based on evaluation of samples of two kinds of student work:
a) Appropriate papers written by the students.
b) Appropriate essay questions on exams.
Review Process:
Each year the faculty meet to review the results, both qualitative and quantitative, of the analyses and to discuss changes that might be implemented to improve student learning. The faculty also discuss the strengths and weakness of the assessment procedures and consider potential changes in the procedures including the goals and the methods to evaluate them. In addition to the analyses of the department’s core committee, suggestions for improvement in undergraduate teaching are solicited from course instructors and thesis advisers. Analyses also focus on the results of specific changes that had been implemented on the basis of earlier analyses.
Resulting Program Changes:
The results of the major survey were relatively positive. Modal responses on the 5-point scale was a 5 for nine of the survey items, and a 4 for the remaining 11 of our traditional likert-scale items. As in previous years, students indicated most strongly that our major curriculum helped students master the ability to read a research article critically. “General knowledge of psychology” and “research skills” were rated second and fourth highest, and other items related to evaluating scientific argument and data were generally in the top half of the ranked order (though perhaps slightly lower than the rankings from the 2021 survey). These data suggest that we are succeeding best at Learning Outcomes 1b, 2b, and 1a. The lowest ranked item was related to preparation for graduate programs outside of the field of psychology, which is neither surprising, nor uncommon. (This has been true for the past two years.) This was likely due to the fact that relatively few of our majors plan on graduate school, and the training that would benefit them most for these career paths happens in research experiences only those on that path undertake. As in 2021, the second-lowest ranking was “statistical skills.” We have continued to discuss measures that could improve the retention of statistical training provided in the two required quantitative courses in the majors. We have also recently added a discussion/lab to our primary statistical course, and hope that in a couple of years, the students who took the course with this more supportive and rigorous format will rank this item more positively. “Ability to communicate yourself in writing” was also ranked relatively lowly for the second year in a row. We have continued our discussion of the challenges of providing quality training in writing, particularly in science writing, with the rapidly increasing size of our majors (and the corresponding increase in the size of our course rosters). This issue has only worsened in the last year, as our number of majors and size of course rosters has continued to rise. A good problem to have, of course, but one that does come with associated challenges.
Date of Most Recent Program Review:
The results of the major survey were relatively positive. Modal responses on the 5-point scale was a 5 for nine of the survey items, and a 4 for the remaining 11 of our traditional likert-scale items. As in previous years, students indicated most strongly that our major curriculum helped students master the ability to read a research article critically. “General knowledge of psychology” and “research skills” were rated second and fourth highest, and other items related to evaluating scientific argument and data were generally in the top half of the ranked order (though perhaps slightly lower than the rankings from the 2021 survey). These data suggest that we are succeeding best at Learning Outcomes 1b, 2b, and 1a. The lowest ranked item was related to preparation for graduate programs outside of the field of psychology, which is neither surprising, nor uncommon. (This has been true for the past two years.) This was likely due to the fact that relatively few of our majors plan on graduate school, and the training that would benefit them most for these career paths happens in research experiences only those on that path undertake. As in 2021, the second-lowest ranking was “statistical skills.” We have continued to discuss measures that could improve the retention of statistical training provided in the two required quantitative courses in the majors. We have also recently added a discussion/lab to our primary statistical course, and hope that in a couple of years, the students who took the course with this more supportive and rigorous format will rank this item more positively. “Ability to communicate yourself in writing” was also ranked relatively lowly for the second year in a row. We have continued our discussion of the challenges of providing quality training in writing, particularly in science writing, with the rapidly increasing size of our majors (and the corresponding increase in the size of our course rosters). This issue has only worsened in the last year, as our number of majors and size of course rosters has continued to rise. A good problem to have, of course, but one that does come with associated challenges.
Attachments (if available)