The SASS is administered online during the last week of instruction, to be completed before the final exam.
The results for SASS from this semester are compiled below. Values for the mean and standard deviations are given next to the modal response category for each question. Also listed is the percentage of students who have self-assessed themselves as having successfully achieving a learning outcome (responding "average," "above average," or "excellent") as opposed to not achieving success with a learning outcome (responding "very poor" or "below average").
Cuesta College
Student Assessment of Skills Survey (SASS)
Astronomy 210 spring semester 2011 sections 30674, 30676
The questions below are designed to characterize your achievement of each
of the learning outcomes by filling in a bubble on the rating scale
provided to the right of each statement.
Mark the level of achievement that best describes your learning at the
completion of the course.
1. Predict positions and cycles of stars, using a starwheel.
(Achieved: 90%, unachieved: 10%)
1. Very poor 0 :
2. Below average 7 : *******
3. Average 30 : ****************************** [3.6 +/- 0.9]
4. Above average 19 : *******************
5. Excellent 16 : ****************
2. Explain sun cycles and seasons.
(Achieved: 92%, unachieved: 8%)
1. Very poor 0 :
2. Below average 6 : ******
3. Average 29 : ***************************** [3.6 +/- 0.9]
4. Above average 23 : ***********************
5. Excellent 14 : **************
3. Explain and predict lunar phases and times.
(Achieved: 94%, unachieved: 6%)
1. Very poor 2 : **
2. Below average 2 : **
3. Average 29 : ***************************** [3.6 +/- 0.9]
4. Above average 28 : ****************************
5. Excellent 10 : **********
4. Relate planets in the sky to a solar system map.
(Achieved: 90%, unachieved: 10%)
1. Very poor 1 : *
2. Below average 6 : ******
3. Average 35 : *********************************** [3.4 +/- 0.8]
4. Above average 24 : ************************
5. Excellent 6 : ******
5. Explain differences between models of planetary motion.
(Achieved: 89%, unachieved: 11%)
1. Very poor 2 : **
2. Below average 6 : ******
3. Average 29 : ***************************** [3.4 +/- 0.9]
4. Above average 28 : ****************************
5. Excellent 7 : *******
6. Explain evidence for the heliocentric model of planetary motion.
(Achieved: 83%, unachieved: 17%)
1. Very poor 1 : *
2. Below average 11 : ***********
3. Average 34 : ********************************** [3.3 +/- 0.9]
4. Above average 16 : ****************
5. Excellent 10 : **********
7. Describe how optical telescopes work.
(Achieved: 81%, unachieved: 19%)
1. Very poor 3 : ***
2. Below average 11 : ***********
3. Average 31 : ******************************* [3.3 +/- 1.1]
4. Above average 15 : ***************
5. Excellent 12 : ************
8. Describe different powers of optical telescopes.
(Achieved: 81%, unachieved: 19%)
1. Very poor 2 : **
2. Below average 12 : ************
3. Average 26 : ************************** [3.4 +/- 1.0]
4. Above average 21 : *********************
5. Excellent 11 : ***********
9. Explain which telescopes should be funded based on relevant criteria.
(Achieved: 88%, unachieved: 13%)
1. Very poor 1 : *
2. Below average 8 : ********
3. Average 23 : *********************** [3.7 +/- 1.0]
4. Above average 21 : *********************
5. Excellent 19 : *******************
10. Explain how stars produce energy.
(Achieved: 83%, umachieved: 17%)
1. Very poor 1 : *
2. Below average 11 : ***********
3. Average 27 : *************************** [3.4 +/- 1.0]
4. Above average 22 : **********************
5. Excellent 11 : ***********
11. Explain the relationship between star brightness and distances.
(Achieved: 92%, unachieved: 8%)
1. Very poor 1 : *
2. Below average 5 : *****
3. Average 19 : *******************
4. Above average 23 : *********************** [3.9 +/- 1.0]
5. Excellent 24 : ************************
12. Predict the size of a star based on brightness and temperature.
(Achieved: 97%, unachieved: 3%)
1. Very poor 0 :
2. Below average 2 : **
3. Average 22 : **********************
4. Above average 25 : ************************* [3.9 +/- 0.9]
5. Excellent 22 : **********************
13. Explain different stages a star will go through, based on its mass.
(Achieved: 83%, unachieved: 17%)
1. Very poor 3 : ***
2. Below average 9 : *********
3. Average 24 : ************************
4. Above average 23 : *********************** [3.5 +/- 1.1]
5. Excellent 13 : *************
14. Explain evidence for the shape/size/composition of our Milky Way galaxy.
(Achieved: 85%, unachieved: 15%)
1. Very poor 1 : *
2. Below average 10 : **********
3. Average 28 : **************************** [3.5 +/- 1.0]
4. Above average 20 : ********************
5. Excellent 13 : *************
15. Explain evidence for how our Milky Way galaxy came to be.
(Achieved: 80%, unachieved: 20%)
1. Very poor 0 :
2. Below average 14 : **************
3. Average 25 : ************************* [3.3 +/- 0.9]
4. Above average 24 : ************************
5. Excellent 6 : ******
16. Explain how the speed of light affects observations of distant objects.
(Achieved: 88%, unachieved: 13%)
1. Very poor 0 :
2. Below average 9 : *********
3. Average 23 : ***********************
4. Above average 21 : ********************* [3.7 +/- 1.0]
5. Excellent 19 : *******************
17. Explain evidence for the expansion of the universe.
(Achieved: 85%, unachieved: 15%)
1. Very poor 2 : **
2. Below average 9 : *********
3. Average 28 : **************************** [3.4 +/- 1.0]
4. Above average 22 : **********************
5. Excellent 11 : ***********
18. Describe characteristics of the universe a long time ago.
(Achieved: 83%, unachieved: 17%)
1. Very poor 2 : **
2. Below average 10 : **********
3. Average 31 : ******************************* [3.3 +/- 0.9]
4. Above average 23 : ***********************
5. Excellent 6 : ******
19. Explain evidence for how our solar system came to be.
(Achieved: 88%, unachieved: 13%)
1. Very poor 1 : *
2. Below average 8 : ********
3. Average 38 : ************************************** [3.3 +/- 0.8]
4. Above average 18 : ******************
5. Excellent 7 : *******
20. Describe key features of terrestrial planets.
(Achieved: 92%, unachieved: 8%)
1. Very poor 1 : *
2. Below average 5 : *****
3. Average 23 : *************************
4. Above average 26 : ************************** [3.7 +/- 0.9]
5. Excellent 17 : *****************
21. Describe key features of jovian planets.
(Achieved: 93%, unachieved: 7%)
1. Very poor 1 : *
2. Below average 4 : ****
3. Average 25 : *************************
4. Above average 27 : *************************** [3.7 +/- 0.9]
5. Excellent 15 : ***************
22. Explain why Pluto is not currently categorized as a planet.
(Achieved: 94%, unachieved: 6%)
1. Very poor 0 :
2. Below average 4 : ****
3. Average 22 : **********************
4. Above average 24 : ************************ [3.9 +/- 0.9]
5. Excellent 22 : **********************
23. Describe plausible requirements for life.
(Achieved: 93%, unachieved: 7%)
1. Very poor 1 : *
2. Below average 4 : ****
3. Average 22 : **********************
4. Above average 28 : **************************** [3.8 +/- 0.9]
5. Excellent 17 : *****************
24. Explain difficulties in investigating the possibility for extraterrestial life.
(Achieved: 93%, unachieved: 7%)
1. Very poor 1 : *
2. Below average 4 : ****
3. Average 21 : *********************
4. Above average 28 : **************************** [3.8 +/- 0.9]
5. Excellent 18 : ******************
Of the 24 student learning outcomes in the SASS, 17 were self-reported as being achieved by at least 85% of students, listed below in order of decreasing success:
12. Predict the size of a star based on brightness and temperature. (97%)
3. Explain and predict lunar phases and times. (94%)
22. Explain why Pluto is not currently categorized as a planet. (94%)
21. Describe key features of jovian planets. (93%)
23. Describe plausible requirements for life. (93%)
24. Explain difficulties in investigating the possibility for extraterrestial life. (93%)
2. Explain sun cycles and seasons. (92%)
11. Explain the relationship between star brightness and distances. (92%)
20. Describe key features of terrestrial planets. (92%)
1. Predict positions and cycles of stars, using a starwheel. (90%)
4. Relate planets in the sky to a solar system map. (90%)
5. Explain differences between models of planetary motion. (89%)
9. Explain which telescopes should be funded based on relevant criteria. (88%)
16. Explain how the speed of light affects observations of distant objects. (88%)
19. Explain evidence for how our solar system came to be. (88%)
14. Explain evidence for the shape/size/composition of our Milky Way galaxy. (85%)
17. Explain evidence for the expansion of the universe. (85%)
However, 7 student learning outcomes were self-reported as being achieved by less than 85% of students, listed below in order of decreasing success:
6. Explain evidence for the heliocentric model of planetary motion. (83%)
10. Explain how stars produce energy. (83%)
13. Explain different stages a star will go through, based on its mass. (83%)
18. Describe characteristics of the universe a long time ago. (83%)
7. Describe how optical telescopes work. (81%)
8. Describe different powers of optical telescopes. (81%)
15. Explain evidence for how our Milky Way galaxy came to be. (80%)
As per the ACCJC (Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges), results from this assessment tool will be used for course/program improvement by increasing emphasis on these lowest seven student learning outcomes in instruction in future semesters.
Previous post:
2 comments:
The results for each outcome look very similar. By asking in terms of "average" and below or above average, that seems to be inevitable.
Suppose the outcomes were phrased as "I can ..." statements, and the students could say whether they could do this at the expected level, or could not, or could go beyond the expectations. Would the results look different? Would it make it easier to discriminate between areas of strength and weakness?
Inserting "I can..." to start out each statements sounds like a great idea to try on the next round. This SASS originated from a mandate to explicitly assess student understanding for accreditation purposes, but is definitely a work in progress, so thank you for your input. We'll see how results differ at the end of fall semester 2011.
Post a Comment