6/14/10

Central Washington UniversityAssessment of Student LearningDepartment and Program Report

Please enter the appropriate information concerning your student learning assessment activities for this year.

Academic Year of Report: _2009-2010______ College: _COTS________________ Department ___PHYSICS________________ Program: __B.S./B.A._______________

General OverviewDuring the 2009-2010 academic year the Physics Department Assessment Committee met to continue its discussion on the instruments used for Departmental assessment and their relation to Department, College, and University learning objectives and program goals. Along with beginning an evaluation of the department’s Student Learning Outcome #2, the committee, at the request of the Office of Undergraduate Studies, has evaluated the learning outcomes for its general education courses and their relationship to the outcomes of the general education program.

1. What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why?In answering this question, please identify the specific student learning outcomes you assessed this year, reasons for assessing these outcomes, with the outcomes written in clear, measurable terms, and note how the outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and goals.

Over the past two years, the Physics Department Assessment Committee has begun evaluating four (of the Department’s six) SLOs:

SLO 1 Content Knowledge: Graduates demonstrate a comprehensive knowledge base of the major areas of physics and related disciplines.

SLO 3 Intellectual Skills: Graduates demonstrate critical thinking skills.SLO 4 Communication Skills: Graduates demonstrate an ability to communicate

effectively.SLO 5 Civic Engagement: Graduates demonstrate civic engagement.

This year, the physics department will begin its assessment ofSLO 2 Technical Skills: Graduates perform experimental, computational and analytical

techniques in solving physics and physics-related problems.

Why were this SLO chosen?SLO 2 The physics department has yet to assess this Student Learning Outcome.

The above SLO is related to the following Department, College and University Goals.

6/14/10

Physics Department: Goal 1: Promote Student Learning; Goal 2: Faculty and students engage in scholarly activities.

COTS: Goals I & II: Maintain and strengthen an outstanding academic and student life at all sites.

University: Goals I & II: Maintain and strengthen an outstanding academic and student life at all sites; Goal V: Achieve regional and national prominence for the university.

2. How were they assessed?In answering these questions, please concisely describe the specific methods used in assessing student learning. Please also specify the population assessed, when the assessment took place, and the standard of mastery (criterion) against which you will compare your assessment results. If appropriate, please list survey or questionnaire response rate from total population.

A) What methods were used?SLO 2

Faculty evaluated the experimental techniques of students in the experimental physics course PHYS 331 (Laboratory Practices and Techniques). This course is required by the BS and BA degrees. Included in this evaluation was the review by the PHYS 489 instructor of the students’ experimental artifacts from their portfolios (where appropriate).

Criteria used to assess the practicum exercises administered to students in PHYS 331

Exceeds standard means students can effectively follow written instructions in order to construct, troubleshoot, and perform measurements on an experimental apparatus. Students accomplished this without instructor intervention, quickly and efficiently. Practicum scores for students meeting this criteria were 95%.

Meets standard means students can effectively follow written instructions in order to construct, troubleshoot, and perform measurements on an experimental apparatus. Students accomplished this with minimal instructor intervention in the time allotted. Practicum scores for students meeting this criteria were 95% > score 70%.

Fails standard means students were unable to effectively follow written instructions in order to construct, troubleshoot, and perform measurements on an experimental apparatus without instructor direction and/or intervention. Practicum scores for students meeting this criteria were below 70%.

6/14/10

During the 2009-2010 academic year, practicum assessments were based on the numerical average of the scores on three practicum exercises. For the 2008-2009 academic year, practicum assessments were based on the numerical average of the scores on two practicum exercises. In the 2007-2008 academic year, practicum assessments were based on the score on a single practicum exercise. Finally, 2005-2006 practicum assessments were based on the score of a class exercise that extended over several class periods in which students individually selected an electronic application, constructed it, troubleshot it, and identified and carried out an appropriate set of measurements to establish the functioning of the application.

Criteria used to assess items in the PortfolioExceeds standard means the artifact: 1) clearly addresses the outcome, 2) is exceptionally well presented, 3) has no errors or the errors have been corrected or reflected upon in a written reflection, and 4) provides overwhelming evidence that the student has met the outcome.

Meets standard means the artifact: 1) clearly addresses the outcome, 2) is well presented, 3) has no distracting errors, and 4) provides sufficient evidence that the student has met the outcome.

Fails standard means the artifact: 1) does not address the outcome OR 1) is not well presented and 2) has numerous errors.

B) Who was assessed?SLO 2: Physics majors (and some students outside the major)

C) When was it assessed?SLO 2: Typically Sophomore or Junior Years.

3. What was learned?In answering this question, please report results in specific qualitative or quantitative terms, with the results linked to the outcomes you assessed, and compared to the standard of mastery (criterion) you noted above. Please also include a concise interpretation or analysis of the results.

SLO 2

Using the PHYS 331 practicum, approximately 19% of students exceeded the standard, 16% of students failed the standard, and the remainder (65%) of students met the standard. This is consistent with the overall grade distribution given to students enrolled in this course over the past several years.

Table 1: Preliminary Assessment of Experimental Techniques using PHYS 331

6/14/10

Name Major PHYS 331 Practicum Portfolio

Evaluation2005-2006Kangas,Eric Charles BS B (Meets) FailsLabar,Rebekah J Minor A (Exceeds) N/AMasters,Evan Joseph BS C (Meets) MeetsRuud,Blaze J BS C (Meets) MissingSmith,Anthony R BS A (Exceeds) Missing

2007-2008Abdul-Wahid,Sami BS A Meets N/AEwell,Kevin Scott BS A Meets MeetsHagemeier,Nathan Andrew BS B Fails TBEHouk,Adam David BS B Meets MeetsKratzer,Joshua Evans BA A- Meets N/ALeiseth,Jeff W BS B+ Meets MeetsParker,Christopher Alan BA A Meets MeetsReeves,Eli Jared Ind. Studies F Fails N/ASaucedo,Nicolas D BS B- Fails MeetsVogt,Steve Joseph DNP N/AWojcik,Peter Myles BS A Meets Meets

2008-2009Magenis,Marilyn Alice BS/Astro. A- Meets N/ANelson,Jonah Cleveland Dual-degree A Exceeds N/ASizemore Jr,William Allen BA A- Meets MeetsVogt,Steve Joseph DNP F Fails N/AWasilowski,Benjamin Gary Minor A Exceeds N/AWirth,Mark George BA A- Meets TBE

2009-2010Aberle,Cedric Alan Dual-degree A- Meets TBEAlves,Henrique Bernardi BS C Exceeds TBEAnaya,Paulinne Olga BS F Fails TBEBailey,McKinley Jaysen Dual-degree B- Exceeds TBEBerg,Michael Allen Dual-degree B Meets TBECastro,Raul BA C Meets TBEEbbay,Ross Benedict Pajel Dual-degree B Meets TBEEncorporado,Welland Lopez Dual-degree A Meets TBEFredsti,Feliciti D BA/Astro. B Meets TBE

6/14/10

Gray,Michael Alex Dual-degree B Meets TBEIngham,Matthew John Dual-degree A Exceeds TBEMcClure,Jennifer Ann Dual-degree C Fails TBEMilne,Jason Andrew BS B+ Meets TBENeal,Colby Marshall Al BS/Astro. B Meets TBETucker,Trevor Edger Dual-degree B+ Meets TBEWrest,Teagan James Dual-degree F Meets TBETBE means To Be Evaluated.N/A means the student was not required to submit a portfolio.

4. What will the department or program do as a result of that information?In answering this question, please note specific changes to your program as they affect student learning, and as they are related to results from the assessment process. If no changes are planned, please describe why no changes are needed. In addition, how will the department report the results and changes to internal and external constituents (e.g., advisory groups, newsletters, forums, etc.).

SLO 2 Background : To handle enrollment demands, the physics department has

doubled the capacity of the PHYS 331 course. The current deficiencies faced in experimental physics courses include the lock of equipment, space, and instructional support.

Concerns : For PHYS 331, there are now two students per experimental station; for the large number of students enrolled in the course, there must be a departure from open-ended, real life problems replaced by structured, canned experiments. This is disappointing because unstructured laboratory exercises are a good preparation for undergraduate research projects and work performed in industry. It is not feasible to maintain the use of unstructured projects because they need a significantly larger amount of instructor guidance than canned experiments.

Proposed solution : a. resources for new equipment; b. resources for a new tenure-track position whose instructional load would include another section of PHYS 331.

The Department will continue to investigate whether there are better methods for assessing the experimental techniques of students.

5. What did the department or program do in response to last year’s assessment information?

6/14/10

In answering this question, please describe any changes that have been made to improve student learning based on previous assessment results. Please also discuss any changes you have made to your assessment plan or assessment methods.

The physics department has agreed to use of the dispositional survey (developed by the Department of Science Education, in consultation with natural science chairs) to assess traits necessary for success in physics (and science in general). This exam will be administered as a pre- (prior to the major) and post-survey (in PHYS 489). This will hopefully address issues such as whether students acquire the values and beliefs inherent to physics (i.e. curiosity, tendency to rely on evidence, etc) while at CWU.

The physics department was uncertain about the feedback it received for section 2 in the 2008-2009 Assessment report. The feedback stated “Methods used to assess student learning were well conceived, collaboratively developed and employed, and should provide useful data over time. The reason a rubric score of 1 instead of a 3 was assigned was because there is no information about how many students were assessed. …” The department was confused by this given we had submitted two excel spreadsheets, one listing the students who had taken the MFT and the other listing the evaluation of their portfolios. We are uncertain why the committee thought there was no information on how many students were assessed.

Likewise, we are uncertain about the feedback “Quantitative results are not provided and would be helpful (e.g. a table of MFT performance). Whereas the program assessment framework is excellent (portfolio, MFT etc), no actual data appears to be provided or compared to standards of mastery. Summary and interpretation of results was excellent, but the intermediate step of data presentation was missing.”

6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Student Learning at Central Washington University:

Response to a concern that was brought to the attention of the physics department’s external reviewer: In his meeting with the physics department’s external reviewer, Associate

Vice President Dr. Tracy Pellett, raised a concern about the 30% W/D/F rate in PHYS 181. Using data from Safari, the physics department calculated a significantly lower value than that claimed by Dr. Pellett. Therefore, the physics department requests Dr. Pellett make available the data used to formulate his concern.

Remaining Concern: Documents outlining the dual-degree physics/engineering program with

Washington State University were submitted for approval to the COTS office on March 11, 2009. Despite numerous concerns raised in the 2008-2009 Assessment Report, the 2009 Physics Department Self Study, and in the 2009 External Review conducted by Dr. Ken Krane, the department has yet to receive any formal feedback on the progress of these documents. Due to the delay in paperwork, last February WSU decided to rewrite the agreement eliminating the guaranteed admission option for our students entering their program. This was a disappointing revision to the document. The failure to capitalize on

6/14/10

the original terms of the agreement rests solely on the shoulders of CWU’s Administrative Team. The department is deeply troubled by the apparent lack of support it has received from the administration on this issue; an observation independently made by the 2009 physics department external reviewer: “… In my conversations with CWU administrators, I did not come away with a sense of a strong commitment to the future of the Physics Department. Without such a commitment, it will be difficult to sustain the energy and enthusiasm that characterize the present physics faculty. It is rare to find an undergraduate physics program in which all tenure-track faculty are engaged in some sort of externally-funded activity, as is the case at CWU. Administrative support can provide faculty with the incentive to continue such an outstanding record.”

Action Items for 2011a. Evaluation of SLO #6 using data from the senior survey for the 2007-2008, 2008-

2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011 academic years will be combined and evaluated at the 2011 Physics Department Assessment Retreat.

b. Evaluation of SLO #1: Evaluation of the Force Concept Inventory for PHYS 181 from the Fall 2008, Fall 2009, Fall 2010, and Winter 2011 quarters.

c. Evaluation of SLO #1: Evaluation of the Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism for PHYS 183 from the Spring 2009, Spring 2010, and Spring 2011 quarters. A comparison with other institutions, such as PHY 204 from UW-La Crosse, may also be possible.

d. Continued evaluation of incorporating a lecture/lab format.

Discussion ItemsThe physics department discussed how it would assess students in the dual-degree physics/engineering program. The results of this discussion include the following.

a. Requiring all students (including dual-degree students) to take PHYS 489 (Senior Assessment) as well as the major field test in physics. Although dual-degree students will not have had a significant portion of the material covered on the exam, their test-taking ability and their performance on introductory material can still be evaluated.

b. The department will use student grades received from their engineering institution as an indicator to various aspects of the department’s curriculum and learning outcomes. For example, experimental courses and senior design projects for evaluating SLO #2, etc.. Any additional information received from the engineering institution, such as results from professional engineering exams, writing portfolios, etc., would also be considered by the department.

c. During the 2007-2008 academic year, the physics department had approximately 5.5 FTEF. Due to budgetary cuts, the department currently has 4.5 FTEF. To accommodate this decrease in staffing, the Department has gone to teaching many of its introductory courses in a lecture/lab model with class sizes of approximately 40 students. For the 2010 spring quarter, the predicted enrollment was to be between 40 to 50 students. When 68 students enrolled, Dr. Palmquist proposed an experiment to teach the PHYS 183 course in an inquiry-based format using a redesigned room that was able to hold about 40 students. The Department anticipated students having issues with the following items:

6/14/10

Facility (space and room design); Lack of equipment; Change of teaching style (and change of instructors); and Duration of class.

With this in mind, Dr. Palmquist prepared an instructor’s perspective on how the course went. This information will be used to determine whether the physics department should consider following the SCALE-UP model in handling its introductory courses.

PHYS 181 Lecture/lab configuration 68 students, sitting approximately 6 per table at 11 tables. The room has a reasonable

capacity of about 40 in its current design. Met MWF from noon to 1:50. Class activities consisted of a mixture of lecture, group problem solving, conceptual

worksheets, demonstrations, small-scale investigations (such as building circuits), and interactive computer activities from phet.colorado.edu.

There was a TA who was there every class to walk around and answer questions. This student was the SI leader.

Every class period consisted of at least two or three of these activities. Because of this, the lecture and lab assignments were combined in to a single grade. For example, if a student earns an A-, her transcript will show an A- for PHYS 183 and an A- for PHYS 183Lab.

Assessments consisted of two midquarter exams, MasteringPhysics online homework (mostly conceptual questions), take-home quizzes, and a final exam.

Advanced preparation for the quartero Find more tables and chairso Find more computers so there was at least one per table

Approximately 25% of the way through the spring quarter, Dr. Palmquist asked the students to summarize their likes and dislikes in PHYS 183/183Lab to date, along with suggested changes. The findings were

Likes Labs/lab format (14) Worksheets (11) Group work (5)

Dislikes/changes More examples (24) Two hour class (16) Step-by-step explanations (15) Room (14) [The room was hot and stuffy a few days. The windows were bolted shut.]

Based on this feedback, Dr. Palmquist began solving, step-by-step, one to three quantitative problems each class period AFTER asking them to work on the problem first. Even this early in the quarter, many students saw the benefit of integrating the lecture and lab. Very few picked this as a dislike.

Reflections by Dr. Palmquist

6/14/10

Regardless of the class size (whether it be a 40 student or an 80 student lecture/lab), Science Phase II MUST have a large enough classroom for CWU to effectively and efficiently use this research-based teaching model. There are several universities using these types of rooms, including the University of Minnesota and MIT

http://www.classroom.umn.edu/projects/alc.html http://scaleup.ncsu.edu/groups/adopters/wiki/817e4/

Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology.html. The lecture/lab format can work for the PHYS 180 series if certain challenges can be overcome. I’ll summarize the main ones below. Note that none of these solutions call for reducing the class size.

6/14/10

Challenge What I did spring 2010 What still needs to be doneNot enough seats for students enrolled.

Greg and I brought in one more table and many more chairs than were in the room before.We rearranged the tables to use more of the floor space. This significantly cut into the instructional space at the front of the room.

To increase student success in a lecture/lab format, we need to use a larger classroom so there is more room for the instructor to walk around and answer questions, to seat fewer students per table, to reduce the temptation to talk to the five classmates that are literally an arm’s length away.

Not enough table space to allow for computer work and problem solving.

I planned for a few computer use days during the quarter.

Larger tables are needed so students can use their textbook, notebook, lab materials, and a computer at the same time. It is more effective to have computers available every class for use when needed.

Not enough computers or room for more computers.

Students worked in groups that were too large to be pedagogically effective. Some of the online activities were started in class and finished as homework.

To increase student success in a lecture/lab format, we need to use a larger classroom with larger tables to hold computers. Wireless access would also benefit.

Two hour time block. I used many pedagogical approaches during each class period. I gave the students time to walk around during problem solving.

Four days a week for 1.5 hours may be a better approach. Although with an adequate classroom.

Answering questions during work time.

Used the SI tutor as a TA who walked around the classroom.

Continue to use an SI leader and/or hire a TA. Larger room for more space to walk around.

Organizing demos and other teaching materials at the teaching station.

I kept most demos on the cart. My notes barely fit on the tiny instructor station. Also, there was barely enough room to wheel in the demo cart given the extra table and chairs.

Larger room, larger instructor station, more outlets in the front of the classroom.Better camera system to record and display demos. I had to twist the doc camera to display poor-angle shots of my demos.

Keeping students on the far side of the classroom engaged.

I walked around the classroom, lecturing near the far screen for part of class.

The instructor station should be more centrally located. Design a room where students could see and hear things clearly.

Students off task. Spent time every class working on problem solving and conceptual worksheets. Difficult to reach all students every class.

Larger room with computers or white boards that are “owned” by each table so instructor can teach to small groups as needed.

6/14/10

Not enough lab equipment.

I used inexpensive equipment and online simulations from phet.colorado.edu. These simulations can be used for guided and open-ended inquiry.

More space and more computers are needed so students can solve written, computer-based and real problems as a team using the most appropriate equipment available.

6/14/10

To: Michael Jackson, Chair, Physics

From: Tracy Pellett, Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies

Date: April 26, 2010

Subject: General Education Assessment

 Although the scope of CWU's general education program was believed to be “attractive in the framework of liberal arts training,” general education assessment processes were deemed to be “unsatisfactory” in our recent NWCCU comprehensive evaluation committee report. The need exists to implement an assessment process that will guide general education improvement. This need is time sensitive as the university is required to demonstrate significant progress in this area by fall, 2011 (as part of a focused report to the NWCCU). One of the first steps in implementing this process is to understand what significant general education outcomes are intended to be developed and met from each specific class within the general education program.

For each general education course listed (see below), please identify which general education outcome(s) is/are intended to be met. Although several general education outcomes may be addressed within any one course, it is important that only those outcome(s) which are truly intended to be met and achieved for all students in all sections of a particular course be listed. Also, please list and describe the type of assessment (e.g., rubric, test, project, etc.) that faculty currently use to measure each student learning outcome.

*Note that a PDF file is attached for each course providing the learner outcomes currently on file. If there is not a PDF file provided for one or more of the course(s) listed, there is/are no learner outcomes & assessments on file.

It would be greatly appreciated if this information (general education course, outcome, assessment identification and description) be completed on the attached word document and e-mailed to me by Monday, June 14th. Your prompt attention will be extremely helpful in CWU meeting NWCCU accreditation recommendations and standards and in furthering general education assessment planning.

 

6/14/10

Dept. Courses Gen. Ed. Outcome(s) Assessment Type/Description for Each Outcome

PHYS 101 4 (a, b, c), 8

Example: Students will predict, describe, and explain certain celestial motions and phenomena, including their evolution and history. Assessment is performed through evaluation of their observation notebook, completion of classroom and laboratory activities, as well as related exam and homework problems.

4b, 5a

Example: Students will apply important astronomical relationships (e.g., Kepler's laws, Wien's law) to predict and solve for an unknown quantity. Assessment is performed through the evaluation of completed classroom and laboratory activities as well as related exam and homework problems.

6, 7

Example: Students will use concepts from physics, chemistry, geology, and biology to infer and describe characteristics (e.g. distances, magnitude, compositions, motion) of celestial objects. Assessment is performed through the evaluation of completed classroom and laboratory activities as well as related exam and homework problems.

PHYS 102 4 (a, b, c), 8

Example: Students will identify, describe (and when appropriate, use) the tools that have been used to investigate and learn about the solar system and its history. Assessment is performed through evaluation of their observation notebook, completion of classroom and laboratory activities, as well as related exam and homework problems.

4b, 5a

Example: Students will apply Newton's and Kepler's laws to describe and predict motions in the solar system along with solving for an unknown quantity. Assessment is performed through the evaluation of completed classroom and laboratory activities as well as related exam and homework problems.

6, 7 Example: Students will use concepts from physics, chemistry, geology, and biology to infer and describe characteristics (e.g. distances,

6/14/10

magnitude, compositions, motion) of celestial objects. Assessment is performed through the evaluation of completed classroom and laboratory activities as well as related exam and homework problems.

PHYS 103

Since the Office of Undergraduate Studies does not have learner outcomes on file for this course, the physics department will not assess PHYS 103 at this time. At the 2011 physics department assessment meeting, this course will be re-evaluated and the paperwork resubmitted with an updated set of general education outcomes. Until then, the physics department will not offer the PHYS 103 general education course.

PHYS 103 L

Since the Office of Undergraduate Studies does not have learner outcomes on file for this course, the physics department will not assess PHYS 103L at this time. At the 2011 physics department assessment meeting, this course will be re-evaluated and the paperwork resubmitted with an updated set of general education outcomes. Until then, the physics department will not offer the PHYS 103L general education course.

PHYS 106 4c, 5a

Example: Students will apply scientific investigative techniques to answer questions about matter, motion, electricity, and magnetism. Assessment is performed through evaluation of their laboratory notebook, completion of classroom and laboratory activities, as well as related exam and homework problems.

4 (a, b, c)

Example: Students will apply a quantitative approach to problem solving, such as predicting, describing, and analyzing electric circuits, motion, etc.. Assessment is performed through evaluation of their laboratory notebook, completion of classroom and laboratory activities, as well as related exam and homework problems.

6, 7

Example: Students will use concepts from other disciplines (such as chemistry) to infer and describe characteristics and states of matter. Assessment is performed through evaluation of their laboratory notebook, completion of classroom and laboratory activities, as well as related exam and homework problems.

PHYS 108 4c, 5a Example: Students will apply scientific

6/14/10

investigative techniques to answer questions about light and color. Assessment is performed through evaluation of their laboratory notebook, completion of classroom and laboratory activities, as well as related exam and homework problems.

4 (a, b, c)

Example: Students will apply a quantitative approach to problem solving, such as predicting, describing, and analyzing various lens and mirror configurations. Assessment is performed through evaluation of their laboratory notebook, completion of classroom and laboratory activities, as well as related exam and homework problems.

6, 7

Example: Students will integrate concepts from other disciplines (such as biology) to describe various optical phenomena (such as the human eye, color vision, and aberrations). Assessment is performed through evaluation of their laboratory notebook, completion of classroom and laboratory activities, as well as related exam and homework problems.

PHYS 111 4 (a, b, c)

Example: Students will apply a quantitative approach to problem solving using algebra and trigonometry. This includes predicting, describing, and analyzing the motion of objects. Assessment is performed through completion of classroom activities as well as related exam and homework problems.

5a, 6

Example: Students will apply physics concepts to other disciplines (such as engineering) to describe the motion of objects. Assessment is performed through completion of classroom activities as well as related exam and homework problems.

PHYS 111 L  4c, 5a

Example: Students will apply scientific investigative techniques to develop activities that test theoretical predictions concerning forces and motion. Assessment is performed through evaluation of their laboratory notebook, completion of laboratory activities, and related exam problems.

4b, 5a Example: Students will apply a quantitative

6/14/10

approach in analyzing experimental data to determine whether their results support the theoretical predictions concerning forces and motion. Assessment is performed through evaluation of their laboratory notebook, completion of laboratory activities, and related exam problems.

PHYS 181 4 (a, b, c)

Example: Students will apply a quantitative approach to problem solving using algebra, trigonometry, and calculus. This includes predicting, describing, and analyzing the motion of objects. Assessment is performed through completion of classroom activities as well as related exam and homework problems.

5a, 6

Example: Students will apply physics concepts to other disciplines (such as biology, engineering, and mathematics) to describe the motion of objects. Assessment is performed through completion of classroom activities as well as related exam and homework problems.

PHYS 181 L 4c, 5a

Example: Students will apply scientific investigative techniques to develop activities that test theoretical predictions concerning forces and motion. Assessment is performed through evaluation of their laboratory notebook, completion of laboratory activities, and related exam problems.

4b, 5a

Example: Students will apply a quantitative approach in analyzing experimental data to determine whether their results support the theoretical predictions concerning forces and motion. Assessment is performed through evaluation of their laboratory notebook, completion of laboratory activities, and related exam problems.

    

6/14/10

CWU General Education Outcomes

1. Students will become thoughtful and responsible members of society and stewards of the Earth. 2. Students will respect diversity of background, experience and belief, and will value the different perspectives that this diversity brings. 3. Students will achieve fluency in:

(a) Reading(b) Writing(c) Oral communication(d) Information technology

4. Students will master the basic principles of: (a) Logical reasoning(b) Mathematical reasoning(c) Scientific reasoning

5. Students will develop an appreciation of the breadth and depth of:(a) Scientific knowledge(b) Humanistic knowledge

6. Students will develop a sense of the interconnectedness of knowledge. 7. Students will integrate knowledge from diverse fields of study in order to solve real-world problems. 8. Students will become aware of the manifold ways that knowledge evolves. 9. Students will develop a disposition to ask incisive and insightful questions.