For more information about becoming an Assessment Fellow, contact assess@uri.edu

Peer Review and Faculty/Program Recognition

Each year, the peer review process surfaces reports that are exemplary, recognizing the faculty lead report writers. These faculty typically coordinate the assessment effort for their program, managing logistics, summarizing data to write to document the programs’ efforts to understand student learning. The following programs received top recognition for excellence in assessment reporting by demonstrating use of strong assessment processes and documentation. Click the faculty member’s name below to read a summary brief of their program assessment projects. Reach out to them if you’d like to connect to learn more!

Program	Department	College	Faculty Lead Writer(s); with link to assessment brief
Animal Science and Technology, BS	Fisheries, Animal, and Veterinary Sciences	College of the Environment and Life Sciences	Justin Richard*
Biology/Biological Sciences, BA, BS	Biological Sciences	College of Environment and Life Sciences	Evan Preisser
Data Science, BS	Data Science	College of Arts and Sciences	Natallia Katenka
Health Studies, BS	Public Health	College of Health Sciences	Molly Greaney*, Natalie Sabik*
Interdisciplinary Neuroscience, BS	Interdisciplinary Neuroscience	Graduate School	Jessica Alber, Vanessa Harwood, Nicole Logan
International Studies and Diplomacy, BS	Political Science	College of Arts and Sciences	LeAnne Spino-Seijas*
Mathematics, BA, BS	Mathematics and Applied Mathematical Science	College of Arts and Sciences	Bill Kinnersley, Li Wu
Political Science, BA	Political Science	College of Arts and Sciences	Marc Hutchison, Ashlea Rundlett*

Assessment Project Summaries For Exemplar Undergraduate Programs

College of Arts & Sciences

Data Science, BS
Lead Writer: Natallia Katenka

This is a newer program and this was the first program-level assessment report. Faculty chose to examine learning in the first required course for the major looking for established foundational knowledge and skills in 3 areas of learning: coherence, visualization and validity noting that there was improvement in all 3 criteria between years which was attributed to the introduction of preliminary feedback provided to students on their projects. Final project grades were also reviewed. This program used a comprehensive and thoughtful assessment process which resulted in the two pedagogical recommendations going forward: spending more time on a challenging content area, and the use of preliminary feedback to improve student learning. Faculty are using this first assessment experience to plan ahead for the next reporting cycle to pursue another outcome related to the same content area.

International Studies and Diplomacy, BS
Lead Writer: LeAnne Spino-Seijas

As an interdisciplinary major, this program relies on other programs to deliver their required and elective curriculum. This can create challenges for measuring student learning, however, required study abroad and language proficiency expectations provide an opportunity to assess learning using pre/post study abroad evaluations and a validated language proficiency scale which ensures reliable data on student language acquisition and skills. Results indicated overall improvement in language proficiency from the study abroad experience, and noted the degree of difficulty of the language impacted the improvement. Regardless of the success found, the program identified several changes to improve the strength of their testing protocol. among them: an improved pre/post testing timeline, site-specific suggestions for students, a course on language development so students understand how to learn best.

Mathematics, BA, BS
Lead Writers: Bill Kinnersley and Li Wu

Faculty examined student’s ability to use methods to solve problems in other disciplines, focusing mostly on upper level students with results for the BA versus BS majors provided. Answers to exam questions were used to evaluate achievement using a rubric with defined levels of criteria which generated results that indicate the strength of all students to interpret a problem. Results also indicated an area of strength for the BA majors (most are education double majors) in presentation which highlights their professional need to explain mathematics.  This round, areas for improvement to the assessment process were identified including planning ahead for alignment of the assignments/student work to rubric criteria used for assessment to be able to confirm students are being asked to achieve all aspects of the outcome. Additionally, plans to conduct the next round of assessment included updates to the curriculum map, sampling methods, and expanded faculty engagement.

Political Science, BA
Lead Writers: Marc Hutchison and Ashlea Rundlett

The program examined student learning for all 4 outcomes critical for graduates to master, using multiple semesters, lower and upper-level courses, and multiple types of student work including quizzes, assignments, and a capstone which are aligned to shared criteria.  Looking across the curriculum provides insight into the building of knowledge and skills. Faculty regularly share the results and implement changes to improve learning including by retaining the best of the online pedagogical components (embedding video lectures), integrating applied learning opportunities within courses such as lab sessions, and including opportunities for students to apply their knowledge within discussion sessions. Faculty found that students performed better when asked to apply knowledge than memorize and relay, and are considering shifting the format of teaching and assessment for one outcome.

College of the Environment and Life Sciences

Animal Science and Technology, BS
Lead Writer: Justin Richard

The program provided an update on their collaborative efforts to improve outcome statements, follow-up on prior assessment work, and planning for current and future learning outcomes assessment which includes their intent to begin to assess all outcomes every cycle and continuously check on student achievement.   The report is both a guide for an excellent, thoughtful and meaningful assessment process because of the leadership and the faculty engagement and participation, as well as a sophisticated model of program-level assessment practice. Simplifying and improving learning outcomes clarified essential learning for graduates, focused on a common core for 2 tracks in the majors, and defined by the shared articulation of 12 skill components within 3 outcomes that guide the alignment of assignments and outcome expectations across courses. This round, the program collected student work from across the curriculum on the student’s ability to integrate cross disciplinary knowledge in providing care (theoretical and practical) yielding learning data which could be undiscovered due to the typically high success of their graduates. Several changes were recommended both to improve scaffolding and reinforcement of skills, specifically communication gaps in data, to check on validation of scoring across faculty, and to enhance student’s ability to achieve the milestone level 1 for learning across all skill areas through a faculty focus on pedagogy. Additionally, the program noted that they have embedded communication skills within each outcome within the context of knowledge or skills and shared that their new plan is so thoughtfully designed that faculty have flexibility rather than limitations in helping students achieve outcomes through course and assignment design due to the clarity of expectations at different points in the curriculum. Lastly, the program reported on improvements to their process in data collection which allows faculty flexible and efficient ways to submit their student learning data. The program reports that this multi-level examination of learning throughout the curriculum supports a more inclusive evaluation of learning.

Biology/Biological Sciences, BA, BS
Lead Writer: Evan Preisser

The program extended their investigation into learning by incorporating learning results from prior reporting to look more closely for patterns of strength or weakness within the major. They examined results at 2 course-levels, incorporated student demographics to dive more deeply into results across multiple courses and engaged several faculty. While students achieved expectations for learning at all levels, some areas for reinforcement surfaced for faculty to address, including in the lower-level courses, students need more training in the link between genes, traits, and the environment connected to evolution, and applying genetic concepts in natural selection; at the 200 level, more opportunity is needed for students to understand non-Darwinian mechanisms of evolution. The program was pleased that results for BIO majors and nonmajors in the lower-level courses were similar, however, in upper-level courses, BIO majors scores exceeded nonmajors indicating a strong developmental curriculum is building the foundation of evolutionary principles for majors. While the program was pleased with results, several options for further improving and reinforcing learning were identified.

College of Health Sciences

Health Studies, BS
Lead Writer: Molly Greaney and Natalie Sabik

The commitment to continuous improvement is evident through the detailed collection and examination of student work used for assessment as well as the reflection on results. The performance of students by academic classification is well documented and offers another dimension to the discussion of the results. Each action step provides for direction and insight about the program’s future enhancements and modifications. Program accountability for student performance is highlighted in a clear timeline for reassessment in each course in an effort to achieve higher level of student proficiency.

Graduate School

Interdisciplinary Neuroscience, BS
Lead Writers: Jessica Alber, Vanessa Harwood, and Nicole Logan

The interdisciplinary Neuroscience program has produced an exemplary assessment report, showcasing excellence in program evaluation. Their robust methodology for analysis and interpretation of results is particularly noteworthy, incorporating an impressive collection of direct and indirect evidence drawn from three distinct sources. The program has developed a solid process for creating a representative and random sample, with artifacts collected from courses across the curriculum over four semesters, including multiple sections of larger courses. Additionally, the assessment process is enhanced by the inclusion of a faculty member outside the evaluation group, ensuring objectivity. Notably, the program’s assessment committee reviews direct evidence rather than relying solely on course instructors’ evaluations, underscoring their commitment to accurate and effective learning outcomes assessment. This diligent and comprehensive approach sets a high standard for program assessment within our academic community.