2019-2020 Year 0 report BS in Sustainable Food and Bioenergy Systems

A printable PDF of this information can be found here.

Year 0 Assessment Plan Report is due September 15th .

Assessment Plan – Year 0 Report

College: EHHD and College of Agriculture

Department: The SFBS Program is an interdisciplinary degree across four departments (Health and Human Development (HHD), Plant Sciences and Plant Pathology (PSPP), Land Resources and Environmental Sciences (LRES) and Animal and Range Sciences (ANRS)

Submitted by: Mary Stein, MS. Program Leader, SFBS Program

Indicate all majors, minors, certificates and/or options that are included in this new assessment Plan

Majors/Minors/Certificate	Options
Sustainable Food and Bioenergy Systems	Sustainable Food Systems (HHD)
	Sustainable Crop Production (PSPP)
	Agroecology (LRES)
	Sustainable Livestock Production (ANRS)

Part 1: Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs):

Students who graduate with a degree in SFBS will:

PLO#	PLO Description
1.	Analyze food systems through a transdisciplinary approach, guided by sustainability principles (systems thinking).
2.	Be effective communicatorsthrough oral, written and visual formats to diverse audiences.
3.	Demonstrate practical skillsin the food system based on sustainability principles.
4.	Design, implement, and assess food system solutions across scales. (Problem-solving)
5.
6.
7.

Part 2: Development of Assessment Plan

Each plan will require the following information:

2a. Curriculum Map

ASSESSMENT PLANNING CHART
Program Learning Outcomes	Course Alignments: Include rubric, number and course title	Identification of Assessment Artifact
1 (systemsthinking)	SFBS146: Intro to Sustainable Food and Bioenergy Systems	Artifact: Eat Montana Project Assignment
	SFBS466: Food System Resilience, Vulnerability and Transformation	Artifact: Illusion of Water Assignment
2 (communications)	SFBS296: Practicum – Towne’s Harvest Garden	Artifact: Favorite Tool Assignment – (oral presentation)
	SFBS499: Capstone	Artifact: Systems Thinking Dialogue – Discussion Preparation (written response to prompt)
3 (practical skills)	SFBS296: Practicum – Towne’s Harvest Garden	Artifact: Weed Identification Activity
	SFBS498: Internship	Artifact: Mentor Feedback Survey: Practical Skills Likert Scale Section
4 (problem- solving)	SFBS296:	Artifact: Individual Practicum Project
	SFBS466:	Artifact: Local Food in School Meals Campaign Assignment
ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
		Year to be assessed
PLO	Course	2020- 2021	2021- 2022	2022- 2023	2023- 2024	2024- 2025
1	SFBS146	X				X
1	SFBS466			X
2	SFBS296			X
2	SFBS499				X
3	SFBS296		X
3	SFBS498				X
4	SFBS296	X				X
4	SFBS466		X

Part 3: Program Assessment:

1. How will assessment artifacts be identified?

Assessment artifacts have been identified through consultation with program faculty. Additionally, the SFBS Program faculty have recently completed a multi-institutional

examination of sustainable food system pedagogy and associated assessment with collaborators from the University of Minnesota and University of British Columbia. Outcomes from this research project have informed the specific learning outcomes embedded in this updated SFBS Program Assessment Plan, and MSU faculty further endeavored to identify specific assignments (artifacts) and their associated rubrics that would provide measurable data for each learning outcome.

2. How will they be collected (and by whom)?

During the annual SFBS Program Faculty Meeting (annually in early September), the SFBS Program Leader will outline the Program Assessment Plan for the upcoming academic year, indicating which courses will be contributing to program assessment data and which assignments (artifacts) will be used for collecting that data. Course instructors will administer the assignment identified as the artifact for the specific learning outcomes. Two SFBS faculty (not instructor) will be identified as “graders” for each artifact and will grade a sampling of artifact assignments using the assignment rubric for that specific program learning outcome. All graded data will be sent to Program Leader for inclusion in the annual Program Assessment Report.

3. Who will be assessing the artifacts?

SFBS instructional faculty will serve as “graders” for all assessment assignments. Graders will not be the instructor of record for the course from which the assessment data is arising.

Additionally, program learning outcome assessment scores for the specific artifact assignment will not influence the student’s earned grade in the course.

Part 4: Program Assessment Plan:

The following rubrics will be for each of the learning outcomes included in program assessment. Artifacts for each learning outcome will be scored according to the appropriate rubric for that program learning outcome (PLO).

PLO #1 Analyze food systems through a transdisciplinary approach, guided by sustainability principles (systems thinking). (Adapted from: Hiller Connell, KY, et al, Assessing Systems Thinking Skills in Two Undergraduate Sustainability Courses: A Comparison of Teaching Strategies Journal of Sustainability Education Vol. 3, March 2012).					Threshold Values
Indicators	Level 1	Level2	Level 3	Level 4	Upon program completion, 80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Identification and	Identifies and	Identifies and	Identifies and	Identifies and
explanation of food	explains issues,	explains issues,	explains issues,	explains issues,
system components	goals, and/or	goals, and/or	goals and/or	goals, and/or
and relationships,	problems	problems	problems	problems within
guided by sustainability	within the food	within the food	within the food	the food system
principles.	system as	system as a	system from a	from a wide, “big
	individual	series of	“big picture”	picture” view.
	details.	interrelated details.	view. Seeks out and	Gathers information about
			considers	the food system to
			different	form an
			perspectives,	overarching
			interactions	assessment of a
			and sectors.	specific challenge or situation.
Representation of food	Creates a	Creates a	Creates a	Creates a concise
system components,	model of the	model of the	model of the	model of a system,
relationships and	food system	food system	food system’s	aggregating
ability to apply	that includes	that begins to	relevant set of	detailed
representation across a	only discreet,	convey	components	information to
variety of issues,	unrelated or	relationships	and associated	represent the
situations or processes.	inconsequential elements.	between components of	complex relationships by	whole-system perspective on an
		the system, but	taking a whole-	issue or process.
		in a simplistic	system
		(unidirectional	perspective of
		or incomplete)	an issue,
		manner.	problem or process.
Holistic integration of	Student	Student	Student	Student identifies
social, environmental	struggles to	identifies some	identifies most	all of the social,
and economic factors	understand the	of the social,	of the social,	environmental, &
guided by sustainability	tenets of	environmental,	environmental,	economic
principles.	sustainability,	& economic	& economic	challenges
	and therefore,	challenges	challenges	represented in the
	is able to	represented in	represented in	scenario.
	identify	the scenario.	the scenario.
	challenges but
	not necessarily
	pertaining to
	sustainability

PLO #2: Be effective communicatorsthrough oral, written and visual formats to diverse audiences.					Threshold Values
Indicators	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4	Upon program completion, 80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Purpose	Purpose is unclear or not	Identifies the purpose. Some	Clearly identifies the purpose.	Clearly identifies purpose and
	overtly stated	of content is	Majority of	content fully serves
	when	appropriate to	content is	to contribute to
	appropriate.	the purpose.	appropriate to purpose.	identified purpose.
Audience	Demonstrates minimal	Demonstrates some attention	Demonstrates awareness of	Demonstrates awareness of
	attention to the	to the	audience’s	audience’s identity
	audience’s	audience’s	identity,	knowledge and
	identify,	identify,	knowledge and	context AND
	knowledge, and context.	knowledge and context.	context.	engaged with/connected to audience.
Content Development	Little evidence of understanding of	Uses appropriate and	Uses appropriate and	Demonstrates understanding of
	the topic.	relevant content	relevant content	issues or topics by
	Disconnect from	to develop	to develop and	analyzing and
	relevant class	ideas. Shows	explore ideas.	synthesizing
	content.	some		relevant
	content.	understanding of issue or topic.		information.
Clarity/Organization	Main idea unclear and	Main idea clear, needs to	Main idea clear. Examples follow	Clearly developed thesis. Organized
	insufficiently	improve logical	logical order.	topics which offer
	supported by	order of		support for main
	detail.	examples		topic. Effective
		and/or		introductions and
		relevance/qualit y of evidence.		conclusions.
Grammar/Language	Errors in grammar and	Grammar and/or language	Communication is grammatically	Communication is grammatically
	format (spelling,	usage	correct,	correct, interesting,
	punctuation,	occasionally	interesting,	demonstrates
	capitalization).	interferes with	demonstrates	subject area
	Errors in	communication.	subject area	knowledge,
	language usage	Includes some	knowledge.	connects with
	sometimes	errors.	Limited errors.	audience and flows
	impedes meaning.			well. Free of errors.
Sources/Evidence	Struggles to cite sources. Few	Citations mostly correct.	Cited correctly, but too few or	Work is appropriately cited.
	references.	Demonstrates	too many	Demonstrates
	Demonstrates	an attempt to	examples.	skillful use of high-
	weak attempts to	use credible and	Demonstrates	quality, credible,
	use credible	relevant sources	use of sources	relevant sources
	sources to	to support ideas	that are	appropriate for the
	support ideas.	that are appropriate for discipline.	appropriate for discipline.	discipline.

PLO #3: Demonstrate practical skillsin the food system based on sustainability principles.					Threshold Values
Indicators	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4	Upon program completion, 80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Task Completion	Unable to complete the	The task was completed but	The task was completed but	The task was completed
	task.	needed several	needed minor	according to
	task.	major modifications.	modifications.	criteria.
Ability to Follow Directions	Did not follow directions.	Followed directions with limited effectiveness.	Followed directions with moderate effectiveness.	Followed directions with high degree of effectiveness.
Demonstrated Knowledge of Theory Behind Application of Practical Skills	Student unable to identify and describe theories foundational to task/work.	Student is able to identify and describe theories related to task/work	Student is able to identify and describe necessary theories related	Student is able to identify and describe theories foundational to completion of
		with limited effectiveness.	to task/work with minor assistance.	task/work.
Student Preparedness	Student did not have needed	Student missing some of the	Student gathered most	Student gathered all materials and was
	materials to	needed	materials but	completely ready to
	perform	materials to	required	go to work.
	work/task and	perform	minimal
	therefore unable	work/task.	reminders/assist
	to perform work/task.		ance.
Level of Assistance Needed	Student unable to complete task/work.	Student able to complete the task/work with	Student able to complete the task/work with	Student able to complete the task/work without
	Student unable to complete task/work.	significant assistance.	minimal assistance.	assistance.
Application of Safety Practices	Student did not follow safety rules/protocols.	Student needed occasional reminders to	Student follows safety rules/ protocols but	Student knowledgeable of and followed all
		follow safety	unable to	safety rules and
		rules/protocols.	explain purpose	protocols.
			behind
			rules/protocols.

PLO #4: Design, implement, and assess food system solutions across scales. (Problem-solving)					Threshold Values
Indicators	Level 1	Level2	Level 3	Level 4	Upon program completion, 80% of students will meet or exceed Level 3 competency
Analysis of Information, Ideas, or Concepts	Identifies problem types	Focuses on difficult problems with persistence	Understands complexity of a problem	Provides logical interpretations of data
Application of Information, Ideas, or Concepts	Uses standard solution methods	Provides a logical interpretation of the data	Employs creativity in search of a solution	Achieves clear, unambiguous conclusions from the data
Synthesis	Identifies intermediate steps required that connects previous material	Recognizes and values alternative problem solving methods	Connects ideas or develops solutions in a clear coherent order	Develops multiple solutions, positions, or perspectives
Evaluation	Check the solutions against the issue	Identifies what the final solution should determine	Recognizes hidden assumptions and implied premises	Evaluates premises, relevance to a conclusion and adequacy of support for conclusion.

Part 5: Program Assessment Plan:

1. How will annual assessment be communicated to faculty within the department? How will faculty participating in the collecting of assessment data (student work/artifacts) be notified?

At the annual faculty meeting for the SFBS program, the SFBS Program Leader will outline which PLO’s and associated artifacts will be included in the assessment for the upcoming academic year. The instructors for the courses that are part of the annual assessment schedule for that academic year will administer the artifact assignment. Samples of the completed artifact assignment will be distributed to two SFBS faculty (not course instructor) who will serve as “graders” for that year. Graders will also be identified at the annual faculty meeting. Graders will turn in their assessment grades to the SFBS Program Leader, and the data will be incorporated into the annual assessment report.

Also, the Program Assessment report from the previous year will be reviewed with all SFBS program faculty at the SFBS annual program meeting (September, annually).

2. When will the data be collected and reviewed, and by whom?

The data will be collected throughout the academic year, as the courses from which assessment data will be derived are offered either in Fall, Spring or Summer terms. The schedule of these target courses is as follows:

SFBS146: Spring
SFBS296: Summer
SFBS466: Spring
SFBS498: Summer
SFBS499: Fall

3. Who will be responsible for the writing of the report?

The SFBS Program Leader will be responsible for the writing of the annual program assessment report.

4. How, when, and by whom, will the report be shared?

The annual program assessment report will be submitted to the Provost’s office annually, no later than September 15^th. The report will be shared with all SFBS program faculty during the annual program meeting (held annually in September).

5. How will past assessments be used to inform changes and improvements? (How will Closing the Loop be documented)?

During the annual SFBS program faculty meeting, a review of the program assessment report for the previous academic year will be discussed in detail. The discussion will focus on interpretation of the report results, in combination with other sources of data including student surveys from Capstone class, exit interview information from graduating seniors and alumni feedback. Faculty will then agree upon any actionable tasks for the next academic year that are realistic and tenable. For example, are curriculum changes needed (schedule of course offerings, addition or removal of courses from program of study, inclusion of specific courses across all program options, revision of course content or assignments, revisiting course prerequisites, inclusion of other courses in program assessment, changes in artifact assignments)? Are budgetary or resource allocation changes needed (increasing or decreasing class capacities, changes in course fee structure to support student learning)? Are changes to advising protocols needed?

Agreed upon changes will be documented by the Program Leader and included in the discussion of the subsequent program assessment report.

6. Other Comments:

The SFBS faculty contributing to this program assessment report represent four different departments at MSU. The interdisciplinary nature of the program combines rich content knowledge and varied pedagogical approaches. The SFBS program endeavors to be an excellent model of interdisciplinary program assessment that can inform future interdisciplinary academic programs at MSU. t

Submit report to [email protected]

Assessment Plan – Year 0 Report