It is important to develop and assess student learning outcomes in order to determine whether academic department goals and standards are being reached. One aspect of this process involves alignment of learning outcomes with stakeholder criteria (expectations, beliefs) for assessment. The Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences at Texas A&M University has not previously developed a program assessment of student learning outcomes. However, a survey has been administered to undergraduate students enrolled in a mandatory class, Conservation and Management (WFSC 201). Among other questions, the survey asked students to provide information about their curriculum choice, agreement with value statements about wildlife and conservation issues, career interests, graduate school plans, and importance of issues related to wildlife and fisheries management and conservation. To evaluate alignment of student choice of curriculum with expectations and beliefs related to their choice of career, I tested the student responses to curriculum choice for relationships to responses to survey questions about career interests, gender, and graduate school plans for surveys administered in 2000 and 2008. For these same surveys, I also tested responses to value statements for relationships to responses for importance of issues, in addition to career interests, gender, and graduate school plans. Similar percentages (24%) of the total variation in curriculum choice and in agreement with value statements were explained: Career interests explained 18% of the variation related to curriculum choice and 8% of variation related to value statements. Year and gender combined explained only 2% of the variation in either dependent variable. Responses to important issues explained 11% of the variation in responses to value statements. Choice of curriculum was most strongly related to career interests and graduate school plans. Students who chose the teaching curriculum option were interested in careers in public school education and planned on attending graduate school. Students who chose curriculum options in aquaculture and fish ecology and management were interested in careers in aquaculture and as government fisheries biologists and conservation officers and planned on attending graduate school. Students who chose the curriculum options in wildlife ecology and management and other options were interested in a broad range of careers and were undecided about graduate school. Although importance of issues and career interests explained 19% of the variation in student agreement with value statements, this relationship was not statistically significant. Issues of greatest importance to females were endangered species, habitat destruction, water availability, loss of biodiversity, and water pollution. Females in 2000 tended to choose careers in public school education and as government wildlife biologists, and in 2008 chose careers in nature center education and as urban wildlife biologists. Issues of greatest importance to males were landowner rights to resources, such as high fences to enclose wildlife, access to rivers, water availability, and hunting of wildlife. Males in 2000 tended to choose careers as conservation officers, and in 2008 chose careers in ranch management, private consulting, and as government fish biologists and urban wildlife biologists. This data provides the Wildlife and Fisheries Department at Texas A&M University with information about its students and how they responded to curriculum options, career interests, value statements, and important issues.

This study examined the differences and patterns for three categories between an argument-based inquiry group and a traditional group over the period of the SWH (Science Writing Heuristic) project: (1) teacher talk time, (2) structure of questions (question types), and (3) student responses. The participating teachers were chosen randomly by a convenient sampling method because the data were collected previously from the SWH project. Each group had thirty teachers. A total of sixty teachers participated in the study. Student responses were part of the study to evaluate the effect of open-ended question types but students were not direct participants in the study. Each teacher was asked to send a recorded video clip of their class at the end of each semester (spring and fall) over two years. Each teacher sent four video clips for the project. A total of two hundred forty video clips was analyzed to gather the information regarding the three categories. The first category was teacher talk time. It was measured in seconds only when teachers interacted with students with the topic. The second category was the structure of questions (question types). It consisted of two question types (open-ended and close-ended). Under the open-ended question category, there were three sub-question types: (1) asking for explanation (AE), (2) asking for self-evaluation of reasoning (AF), and (3) asking for self-evaluation of others' reasoning (AFO). Under the close-ended question category, there were two sub-question types: (1) asking for factual information (AI) and (2) asking for confirmation (AC). Each sub- question type was counted numerically. The last category was student responses. Student responses consisted of higher-order thinking and lower-order thinking. Under the higher-order thinking category, there were three sub-types: (1) explanation responses (E), (2) self-evaluation of reasoning responses (SE), and (3) self-evaluation of others' reasoning responses (SEO). Under the lower-order thinking category, there was one sub-type: simple responses (S). Each sub type was counted numerically. Based on the descriptive results (the length of teacher talk time in seconds, the number of question types, and the number of student responses), repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to find any differences and patterns for teacher talk time, structure of questions and student responses between the treatment and control groups over the period of the project and across time (four different time points). The results showed that there were clear differences for teacher talk time, the structure of questions, and student responses between the treatment and control groups over the period of the project and across time. The treatment group teachers talked less and used more open-ended questions than the control group teachers. The treatment group students displayed more higher-order thinking responses than the control group students.

No description available.