|
Abstract
The Biological Sciences Department at Marshall University
was finding it difficult to offer the required courses for
Biology majors as each curriculum stated. In addition, it
was unclear if the course offerings truly represented the
best training for the specialized majors. As a starting
point for evaluating the curriculum we chose to measure
current student satisfaction with introductory courses,
preparation for upper-level courses and course offerings.
Student satisfaction with their academic agenda has been
linked to program strengths, and an assessment was
undertaken to identify effective (and ineffective) areas of
the curriculum as perceived by students. In particular, was
the inclusion of defined core classes, currently set at
three, giving students the necessary skills for their
upper-level courses, and were
there courses within the curriculum that contributed to
success following graduation?
A survey questionnaire was developed and administered to
students in eleven biological science courses. These courses
spanned the biology curriculum and included the
participation of freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, and
graduate students A selected complement of controls embedded
within the administered assessment tool, determined that
being enrolled in all three core courses was the only
variable that was statistically significant and a positive
impact on the students’ perceptions of the quality of their
scientific education. An outcome of this study revealed that
completing, or currently being enrolled in, all three
designated core courses resulted in students rating the
quality of their scientific education significantly higher
than students who have not taken all core courses. These
findings were at the beginning of a restructuring of the
Biological Sciences curriculum, with their associated
required and recommended courses, and resulted in placing
the core courses earlier in the academic programs.
Introduction
The curriculum at Marshall University Biological Sciences
Department (BSC) was long overdue for evaluation regarding
its effectiveness in preparing future Biologists. It was
already noted that faculty attrition was negatively
impacting the department’s ability to offer some required
courses in a timely fashion. Recent faculty hires had
changed the range of biological specializations present in
our department resulting in some courses not being covered
and new elective courses that were not specified for any of
the six majors. An identification of current students’
perceptions was undertaken to help evaluate effective (and
ineffective) areas of the curriculum.
BSC originally offered six majors to undergraduate students:
Biology; Botany; Environmental Biology; Microbiology;
Physiology/Molecular Biology; and Zoology. All BSC
undergraduates were required to successfully complete two
prerequisite introductory courses and three core courses:
Principles of Ecology, Principles of Cell Biology, and
Principles of Genetics. Their remaining BSC credit hours
were selected from upper-level classes that reflected their
chosen specialization. The majority of students chose the
Biology major, which, after the completion of the core
classes, had no restrictions on the choices between
remaining upper-level courses. The traditional majors,
considered strengths within the department, Botany and
Zoology, lost most of their students to the general Biology
major when the department was unable to offer the
appropriate specialized upper-level courses for more than
three years. Additionally, recent faculty hires had added
new expertise in areas not represented by the current
curricula and new course offerings that were not included as
acceptable electives. It was past time to re-evaluate the
BSC curriculum and determine its effectiveness to students.
It is arguable that students’ perceptions of collegiate
experience are subjective in that they merely reflect the
students’ feelings, and are influenced by their emotions.
Administrators, as well as people outside of higher
education, tend to consider student performance indicators
such as standardized test scores, grade point averages,
college retention, and graduation rates to be objective.
Although these student performance indicators certainly
measure various aspects of an institution’s success, they
are unable to thoroughly provide significant information on
the students’ perceptions, attitudes, and personal
development of their educational experience (Cheng, 2001).
Student outcomes such as satisfaction with academic courses,
self-perception of knowledge and skills learned through
course work, and their future ambitions are valid
educational goals that should be used when performing an
assessment (Stark et al., 1989; Corts et al.,
2000). It is valid when investigating curriculum
effectiveness to determine student opinions. It has been
reported that involving students in this process can lead to
better retention rates (Johnson, 1997), and measuring
student satisfaction has identified areas for improvement in
academic programs as a starting point for curriculum reform
(Corts et al., 2000).
Two curriculum development workshops were convened for BSC
faculty and staff. Discussions led to a decision to define
individual majors with a restricted selection of classes
that clearly defined each specialty as selected by faculty
within each discipline. Courses defining the specialty
majors were classified as either “required for major” or
“allowable electives.” The required courses were to be
offered annually, and the electives every two years, to
ensure appropriate matriculation time for students. As this
restructuring was approached, it became unclear whether all
the traditional core classes were needed, or if only one or
two would prepare students for their upper-level courses.
Were the core classes really defining a BSC student,
providing a solid, broad background, and paving the way for
more intensive study? Should each Biological major have its
own single core class that would track students into
specialties during their sophomore year? Were there courses
that delineate success in biological sciences, at our
institution and in the work force? Certainly a core
curriculum is designed to promote a more coherent set of
learning goals (Ratcliff, 1992) but it was unclear if the
BSC core was accomplishing their departmental and university
mission.
This project was conceptualized according to what overall
skills the university and biology department is committed to
in educating its students. Also included were determinations
for scientific and biological knowledge that a student is
expected to attain. The assessment furthermore included the
demographics of the students and opinions of what they
believed were important for their general collegiate
experience. Finally the assessment tool embedded the basic
question: what factors contribute to determining differences
among students with regard to their judgment of the quality
of the scientific education they receive as biology majors?
Materials & Methods
The survey instrument for this study was designed to
evaluate student perceptions of skills (as defined by both
university and departmental mission statements), content
knowledge, student demographics, and to gather opinions of
what students believed was important for their general
collegiate experience. The questionnaire included a total of
thirty-seven items (see Figure 1). Questionnaire items one
through eleven pertained to the student demographics. These
items included (1) sex; (2) major; (3) class status; (4)
ethnicity; (5) parents’ approximate annual income; (6)
parents’ education level; (7) approximate high school grade
point average (GPA); (8) ACT score; (9) SAT score; (10) GRE
score; and (11) current college GPA. The next seven items
determined which biological science prerequisite courses and
core courses the students had completed or were currently
enrolled in. These included (1) Introduction to Biology 1
for non-majors; (2) Introduction to Biology 2 for
non-majors; (3) Principles of Biology 1 for majors; (4)
Principles of Biology 2 for majors; (5) Principles of
Ecology; (6) Principles of Cell Biology; and (7) Principles
of Genetics. The final nineteen items assessed the general
education skills attained by the students, the biological
science knowledge gained by the students, and the
practicality of their coursework.
Figure 1- Assessment Survey Questionnaire Directions:
Please answer all of the following questions.
1. Sex (male or female) _______
2. Major (Biology, Chemistry, Math, Non-science, or
Undecided) _______
3. Class status (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, or
graduate) _______
4. Ethnicity (Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, or Other)
_______
5. Parents approximant annual income $_______
6. Parents highest educational level (High School,
Associate, Bachelor, Master, Beyond Master) _____
7. Your approximant high school GPA _______
8. ACT composite score (N/A for not applicable) _______
9. SAT composite score (N/A for not applicable) _______
10. General GRE composite score (N/A for not applicable)
_______
11. Your current college GPA _______
Directions: Please check the following courses you have
taken or are currently taking.
12. BSC 104 (Intro) _______
13. BSC 105 (Intro) _______
14. BSC 120 (Principles) _______
15. BSC 121 (Principles) _______
16. BSC 320 (Ecology) _______
17. BSC 322 (Cell) _______
18. BSC 324 (Genetics) _______
Directions: Please indicate one response for each
question.
Compared with when you first entered college, how would
you now describe your:
19. Problem solving skills
(A) much stronger (B) somewhat stronger (C) a little
stronger (D) no change (E) diminished
20. Writing skills
(A) much stronger (B) somewhat stronger (C) a little
stronger (D) no change (E) diminished
21. Public speaking skills
(A) much stronger (B) somewhat stronger (C) a little
stronger (D) no change (E) diminished
22. Critical thinking skills
(A) much stronger (B) somewhat stronger (C) a little
stronger (D) no change (E) diminished
23. Ability to synthesize/integrate ideas/information
(A) much stronger (B) somewhat stronger (C) a little
stronger (D) no change (E) diminished
24. Ability to plan/execute complex projects
(A) much stronger (B) somewhat stronger (C) a little
stronger (D) no change (E) diminished
25. Understanding of the role science has in society
(A) much stronger (B) somewhat stronger (C) a little
stronger (D) no change (E) diminished
26. Understanding the application of scientific method
(A) much stronger (B) somewhat stronger (C) a little
stronger (D) no change (E) diminished
27. Understanding cellular aspects of biology
(A) much stronger (B) somewhat stronger (C) a little
stronger (D) no change (E) diminished
28. Understanding molecular/genetic aspects of biology
(A) much stronger (B) somewhat stronger (C) a little
stronger (D) no change (E) diminished
29. Understanding "whole organism" aspects of biology
(A) much stronger (B) somewhat stronger (C) a little
stronger (D) no change (E) diminished
30. Understanding ecological aspects of biology
(A) much stronger (B) somewhat stronger (C) a little
stronger (D) no change (E) diminished
31. Confidence in the ability to meet the demands of a
biological related job
(A) much stronger (B) somewhat stronger (C) a little
stronger (D) no change (E) diminished
32. Overall satisfaction with biology courses enhancing
your college experience
(A) much stronger (B) somewhat stronger (C) a little
stronger (D) no change (E) diminished
Directions: Please rate the following as to what is
important for your college experience.
33. Acquiring knowledge/skills for a specific
job/employment
(A) most important (B) somewhat important (C) a little
important (D) doesn't matter (E) least important
34. Preparing for professional exams (GRE, MCAT, etc.)
(A) most important (B) somewhat important (C) a little
important (D) doesn't matter (E) least important
35. Acquiring a broad educational background in the
biological sciences
(A) most important (B) somewhat important (C) a little
important (D) doesn't matter (E) least important
36. Enhancing critical thinking skills
(A) most important (B) somewhat important (C) a little
important (D) doesn't matter (E) least important
37. Understanding the relevance or practical value of
biology coursework to real world issues
(A) most important (B) somewhat important (C) a little
important (D) doesn't matter (E) least important
Students responded to these questionnaire items using a
scale. The scale consisted of five Likert items, commonly
used in research of this kind (Pedhazur et al.,
1991). The scale for both the general academic education
skills and the biological science knowledge items was
constructed using the following Likert items: (A) much
stronger; (B) somewhat stronger; (C) a little stronger; (D)
no change; and (E) diminished. The practicality scale used
the following Likert items: (A) most important; (B) somewhat
important; (C) a little important; (D) doesn’t matter; and
(E) least important.
The questionnaire was administered to currently enrolled
students of eleven undergraduate and graduate biological
science courses for a total of 255 students. The
questionnaires were then collected and the students’
responses were analyzed with the Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS) software package. SPSS permitted
determination of significant differences between groups
(e.g., t-tests, analysis of variance), and relationships
among variables (e.g., correlation, multiple regression).
The students’ responses to the demographic information
were entered as they appeared on the questionnaire with the
exceptions of sex, major, class status, ethnicity, and
parents’ education level. Sex was entered as a “1” for male
and a “0” for female. The student’ major was entered as a
“1” for Biology, “2” for Chemistry, “3” for Math, “4” for
non-science, and “5” for undecided. The student’s class
status was entered as a “1” for freshman, “2” for sophomore,
“3” for junior, “4” for senior, and “5” for graduate
student. One high school student was enrolled in BSC 121;
this was designated as a “0”. The student’s ethnicity was
entered as a “0” for white or a “1” for other. The student’s
parents’ education level was entered as a “1” for high
school, “2” for Associate degree or some college, “3” for
Bachelor degree, “4” for Master degree, and “5” for beyond a
Master’s degree. Answers pertaining to the biological
science prerequisite courses were entered as a “1” if the
student had completed the course or was currently enrolled
in the course. Courses not taken by a student were entered
as a “0”. The final nineteen items containing the Likert-based
responses were entered as a numeral corresponding to which
item the student selected. A value of “5” was assigned to
the response of “much stronger”; “4”.as assigned to
“somewhat stronger”; “3” was assigned to “a little
stronger”; “2” was assigned to “no change”; and “1” was
assigned to “diminished”. For the practicality of the
students’ coursework section, a similar scale was assigned.
A value of “5” was assigned to the response of “most
important”; “4” was assigned to “somewhat important”; “3”
was assigned to “a little important”; “2” was assigned to
“doesn’t matter”; and “1” was assigned to “least important”.
Included in the data collection were students enrolled in
graduate BSC courses. The graduate courses had as
pre-requisites the stated undergraduate core classes. Random
coefficient regression and restricted maximum likelihood
estimators were used in place of ordinary least squares
estimators. This accommodates potentially confounding
intra-class correlation and contributes to the accuracy of
coefficient estimates and the validity of tests of
significance. By choosing these analyses we corrected for
any intra-class correlation from group commonality among
students. This can occur when students in a group, by being
together all semester, become more alike with regard to
extraneous contaminating variables than students who are in
different groups. Group commonality artificially deflates
standard errors of regression coefficients, increases the
probability that null hypotheses will be erroneously
rejected, and inflates R2 values (Schroeder et al.,
1986).
The assessment survey’s total sample size included the
participation of 255 students. However, due to attrition or
missing data on sixteen questionnaires, the sample size used
for the statistical analysis of the assessment project
totaled 239 students. After data had been collected,
preliminary analyses were performed, and the research
question became more specific and concrete: Does
completion of all three core courses in the biology program
increase students’ perception of the quality of scientific
education received at Marshall University?
(Core courses are BSC 320 Principles of Ecology, BSC 322
Principles of Cell Biology, and BSC 324 Principles of
Genetics). Since the question is framed in a way that
permits the answer as “improvement, yes or no”, the null
hypothesis is that there has been no improvement in the
students’ evaluation of the quality of scientific education
at Marshall University and is the basis for statistical
comparison. We are asking if the relationship between the
number of our designated core classes the student has
completed (CORE1, CORE2, or CORE3), and areas of scientific
knowledge (SCIENCE), is readily attributable to random
error, or if it actually reflects a non-zero relationship in
the population of interest. Table 1 shows the coding for
CORE1, 2 or 3.
Table 1 - Composite Variable SCIENCE: Principal Component
Loadings

Variance Explained = 58.2%
Cronbach’s Alpha = .82
N = 239
The composite variable SCIENCE incorporated survey
questionnaire items that pertained to the students’
scientific education. These items correspond to questions 26
through 30 on the survey questionnaire (See Fig. 1).
Collectively, these items reflect scientific knowledge
gained through taking the biological science core courses.
The areas of scientific knowledge included the students’
understanding of the scientific method, as well as cellular,
genetic, molecular, ecological, and whole organism aspects
of biology.
Factor analysis, combining the correlated variables into
SCIENCE, was accomplished with principal component loading
(see Table 2).
Table 2- Composite Variable ACADEMIC: Principal Component
Loadings

Variance Explained = 60.7%
Cronbach’s Alpha (coefficient of reliability)= .86
N = 239
These items correspond to questions 19 through 25 on the
survey questionnaire (Fig. 1). Collectively, these items
reflect general academic skills attained by students during
their collegiate experience. These areas included problem
solving, writing, and critical thinking skills, the ability
to synthesize information and plan complex projects, and
understanding the role science has in society.
The other dependent variable, ACADEMIC, measured students’
perceptions of scientific skills drawn from their collegiate
experience. Items used in constructing ACADEMIC are reported
in Table 3, along with principal component loadings
corresponding to each. The composite variable PRACTICL
incorporated survey questionnaire items that pertained to
the practical aspects of the students’ collegiate
experience. Items used in constructing PRACTICL are reported
in Table 4, along with principal component loadings
corresponding to each.
Table 3 - Practical Education: Principal Component Loadings

Variance Explained = 65.4%
Cronbach’s Alpha = .73
N = 239
Table 4 - Coding for Reflection of Student Enrollment
in/Completion of BSC Core Courses

Student responses to questionnaire items 14-18 led to coding
based on the number of BSC core courses in which the student
was either currently enrolled or had completed. Biological
science prerequisite courses were entered as a “1”. If no
core courses had been taken then value was entered as a “0”.
These items correspond to questions 35 through 37 on the
survey questionnaire. Collectively, these items reflect the
students’ aspirations for attending college. These areas
included such things as acquiring a broad educational
background in the biological sciences, enhancing critical
thinking skills, and understanding the relevance or
practical value of biology coursework to real world issues.
The composite variables were defined according to three
criteria: face validity, principal component configurations,
and Alpha values. The face validity criterion is that the
survey questionnaire items constituting the composite
variables made sense. The items were intuitively appealing
and consistent with everyday knowledge for participants in
an academic setting. A principle component analysis was
performed to further ensure the validity of the composite
variables and all loadings were greater than the
conventional cutoff value of .300. Finally, the Cronbach’s
alpha criterion requires that all alpha values be at least
.700, meaning that no more than thirty percent of the
variability in a composite is due to random error. The
independent variable of primary interest is CORE3 (Table 1),
the variable that identifies students who have taken or are
enrolled in all three core courses of the biology
curriculum. In this instance, the alternative hypothesis is
that the relationship is different from zero. Using null
hypotheses and alternative hypotheses is conventional in
applications of multiple regression analysis (Schroeder
et al., 1986). If the unstandardized regression
coefficient corresponding to CORE3 is statistically
significant and positive, we will tentatively
conclude that completion or enrollment in all three core
courses, BSC 320, 322, and 324, in the biology program at
Marshall University improves students’ assessment of the
quality of scientific education offered at the University.
Any other outcome will result in failure to reject the null
hypothesis of no improvement.
Results
The demographics of the sample population were calculated
from survey questions 1 through 4, 6 and 11 (see Figure 1)
and closely matched the general student population of
Marshall University as reported by the Marshall University
Office of Institutional Research. The average value for sex
was .41 indicating slightly more females than males in the
sample, and ethnicity averaged .09, strongly skewed to all
white respondents. The average class STATUS for the students
was 2.95, or nearly junior standing (see Table 5). The
average student’s parents’ education level, PARSED, was
2.78, nearly equivalent to a Bachelor’s degree, and the
average MUGPA for the students was 3.40 and typically varied
by .42 points (see Table 5).
Table 5 - Descriptive Statistics for Each Variable.

N = 239
CORE1, CORE2 and CORE3 indicated if respondent had taken any
of the three BSC core courses. STATUS measured respondent
current class standing with high school level being coded 0
up to graduate level coded 5. The ACADEMIC variable was the
sum of items for General Academic Education. SCIENCE was sum
of items for Scientific Education and PRACTICL sum of items
for Practical Education Expectations. These were combined
from multiple questions on our questionnaire. SEX was coded
1 for male and 0 for female and ETHNIC coded 0 for white and
1 other. Parents’ education level, PARSED, was coded 1 for
high school through 5 for beyond Masters level. Current
grade point average, MUGPA, used a 4.0 scale rounded to
nearest hundredth.
Table 5 lists the descriptive statistics with means and
standard deviations. The composite variable SCIENCE could
have a maximum value of 25, if a student reported that their
scientific knowledge was much stronger as a result of taking
specified courses. The minimum value for SCIENCE was 5, if a
student reported that their scientific knowledge had
diminished as a result of taking specified courses. The mean
for SCIENCE was 19.67 and typically varied by 3.51 points.
The composite variable ACADEMIC could have a maximum value
of 30 if the student reported that their general academic
education skills were much stronger as a result of taking
specified courses, and a minimum value of 6, if the student
reported that their general academic education skills had
diminished as a result of taking specified courses. The mean
for ACADEMIC was 23.16 and typically varied by 4.21 points.
The composite variable PRACTICL could have a maximum value
of 15, if the student reported that certain aspects of their
collegiate experience were most important, and a minimum
value of 3, if the student reported that certain aspects of
their collegiate experience were least important. The mean
for PRACTICL was 11.99 and typically varied by 2.24 points.
All independent variables except CORE1, CORE2, and CORE3,
served as controls in multiple regression analyses (see
Table 6). Having taken all three core classes (CORE3) might
be strongly related to STATUS, simply meaning that students
who have been at Marshall longer are more likely to have
completed all three core courses. An association between
CORE3 and the dependent variable SCIENCE (students’
assessment of scientific education) might be due to CORE3
being associated with STATUS. The composite variable SCIENCE
incorporated survey questionnaire items that pertained to
the students’ scientific education (Figure 1, items 26 -
30). Collectively, these items reflect scientific knowledge
gained through taking the BSC core courses. To guard against
making erroneous inferences due to the uncontrolled
influence of STATUS, the SCIENCE variable was introduced as
an additional independent variable. The unstandardized
regression coefficient corresponding to CORE3 is
statistically significant and positive (Table 6). In this
instance, completing or being enrolled in all three core
courses resulted in an increase of 1.12 points in the
composite dependent variable, SCIENCE, relative to students
who had taken none of the courses. The only other variable
with a statistically significant coefficient is the ACADEMIC
composite variable, which incorporated survey questionnaire
items pertaining to the students’ general academic education
(Figure 1, items 19 - 25). Collectively, these items
reflect general academic skills attained by students during
their collegiate experience. These areas included problem
solving, writing, and critical thinking skills, the ability
to synthesize information and plan complex projects, and
understanding the role science has in society (see Table 6).
Table 6 - Scientific Education as Dependent Variable. Random
Coefficient Regression Results

R2L =
13.8%
ICC = 0.112
Bold-Faced, Italicized Coefficients Statistically
Significant, p<.05, One-Tailed Test
To further analyze the results, we combined CORE1, CORE2,
and CORE3 into one variable, TOTCORE (Table 7). In this
instance, instead of using three categorical independent
variables, we used one variable, meaning that the variables
can take on only the values of 0, 1, 2, or 3. As with Table
6, Table 7 shows that the more BSC core courses a student
had completed, the higher the SCIENCE composite scale.
Construing the independent variable in this way indicates
that each course completed yields, on the average, a 0.48
point increase on the SCIENCE composite scale. The analysis
does not enable us to distinguish among specific courses
with regard to their independent effects on SCIENCE, but
does show that taking core classes is cumulative, without
regard to the order in which courses are taken.
Table 7 - Scientific Education as Dependent Variable. Random
Coefficient Regression Results

R2L =
13.7%
ICC = 0.112
Bold-Faced Coefficients Statistically Significant,
p<.05, One-Tailed Test
Discussion
The results from the questionnaire administered to students
enrolled in Marshall’s Department of Biological Sciences
Department indicates that students are self-reporting
significant gains in confidence in their ability to handle
upper-level courses after they have experienced the required
core courses. Students who have completed or are enrolled in
the BSC core courses reported significant gains in academic
skills, and an increased understanding of the scientific
method, cellular, molecular, genetic, ecological, and whole
organism biological aspects. These skills were seen as
necessary by the faculty for success in the upper-level
courses. By controlling for various factors such as
students’ class status, gender, ethnicity, current grade
point average, and parents’ education level, the only
variables that made a significant difference in the
students’ perception of the quality of scientific education
were the defined core classes. Simply put, the three core
courses are making a significant difference in the students’
satisfaction with their scientific education. The results
also significantly demonstrate that the more core biology
courses students have completed, the more the students
favorably evaluate the quality of their science education.
Students self reported significant gains in problem solving
skills, critical thinking skills, writing skills, public
speaking skills, expanding their ability to execute complex
projects, and understanding the role science plays in
shaping our society. Students are benefiting from and
appreciating their scientific education more through
advanced biological coursework. On the average, students who
are enrolled in or have completed all three core biology
courses rated the quality of the scientific education they
are receiving 0.48 points higher than students who had not
completed the BSC core courses before enrolling in
upper-level BSC courses.
The study did not find parents’ educational level to have a
significant influence on the dependent variable SCIENCE.
Parents’ educational background has previously been shown to
be a predictor of a student’s academic success at the
college level (Zhu, 2003). The level of parents’ education
in the study ranged from 1.42 to 4.14; from just beyond high
school up to the equivalent of a master’s degree. The
average parents’ educational level reported was 2.78, or
nearly a bachelor’s degree. The data reveal that students
are attaining academic success in the core-centered
curriculum regardless of their family’s educational
background. This is particularly important at an institution
such as Marshall, where many students will be the first in
their families to complete a bachelor’s degree. Educating
students from families who have not traditionally completed
secondary or post-secondary degrees has always been a
challenge and priority at Marshall. To have negated the
potential influence of under-educated parents is a powerful
statement for the BSC core curriculum.
Undergraduate core curricula, courses, are well established
across American universities. Assessments of curriculum
revisions are important for determining whether the mission
of the institution is being met by a stated curriculum. It
is equally important that revisions be attempted with
faculty consensus, or they are less successful (Anderson
et al., 1975). Periodic departmental curriculum reviews
are also essential. The results of this assessment project
reflect that students do indeed benefit from taking a
defined set of core courses. In curriculum revisions,
maintaining core classes can and does promote a more
coherent set of learning goals (Ratcliff, 1992). For
Marshall University’s Department of Biological Sciences, it
was decided to maintain the present core classes and to add
an additional core class (Principles of Microbiology) which
then gave all our specialized majors an introductory level
course. The Department will be monitoring this addition for
its contribution to student satisfaction and preparation.
The results of this study also resulted in enforcing student
enrollment in core classes early in their collegiate years
(at the sophomore or early junior level), rather than
waiting until late junior and senior years. This study has
determined that student satisfaction with their experience
in the Department, in any of the biology majors, is
significantly impacted by maintaining core classes for all
students majoring in Biological Sciences.
Acknowledgement:
The authors wish to thank Susan Weinstein for her critical
reading of this manuscript.
References
Anderson, S.B., S. Ball, R.T. Murphy, and Associates. (1975)
Encyclopedia of Educational Evaluation, 1st ed.
Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, San Francisco, California.
pp. 26-29, 311-318, 408-411, 458-462.
Cheng, D.X. (2001) Assessing Student Collegiate Experience:
where do we begin? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education. 26: 525-538.
Corts, D. P., J. W. Lounsbury, R. A. Saudargas, and H. E.
Tatum. 2000. Assessing Undergraduate Satisfaction with an
Academic Department: A Method and Case Study.
College Student Journal
34: 399–408.
Harvard-MIT
Data Center’s Guide to SPSS. www.hmdc.harvard.edu/projects/SPSS_Tutorial/spsstut.shtml
(March, 2004)
Johnson, A. 1997. “Assessment, Outcomes Measurement, and
Attrition: Reflections, Definitions, and Delineations.”
College and University
73: 14–17.
Pedhazur, E., and L. Schmelkin. (1991) Chapter 2:
Measurement and Scientific Inquiry in Measurement, Design
and Analysis--An Integrated Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates: Mahwah, New Jersey.
Ratcliff, J.L., (ed.) (1992) Assessment and Curriculum
Reform: New Directions for Higher Education. No.80.
Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, San Francisco, California, pp.
37-44.
Schroeder, L.D., D.L. Sjoquist,, and P.E. Stephan.. (1986)
Understanding Regression Analysis An Introductory Guide.
SAGE Publications, Newbury Park, California, pp. 11-34.
Schuh, J. H. and M.L. Upcraft. 2001.
Assessment Practice in Student Affairs: An Applications
Manual.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zhu, L. (2003) Who attains a bachelor’s degree in four
years? Paper presented at the Northeast Association for
Institutional Research annual conference, Newport, RI. |