The Department of Biological Sciences has endeavored to maintain high quality instructional programs and research activities throughout a year during which the department was being divided between two colleges. The inevitable tension within faculty and between colleges made 1997-98 an almost unbearable year, and it has taken an enormous toll in faculty morale and energy. Having made this point at the beginning, this report summarizes our progress, and does not dwell on our defeats, which are entirely beyond our control. It describes goals, processes we have used to assess accomplishment of the goals, analysis of data and identification of strengths and weaknesses, evidence for or against accomplishment of the goals, improvements and enhancements we have made, and recommendations of future changes in academic programs and assessment processes.

Departmental goals remain as they were stated in 1997. These are as follow.

Undergraduate. The department’s goals for its undergraduate majors are three-fold. Firstly, we aim for our students to gain a broad base of general knowledge, focused particularly in the biological sciences, and capped with in-depth knowledge specific to their particular major program. We expect our students --regardless of major program -- to be biologists, with a breadth of knowledge across the sub-disciplines to enable our graduates to communicate and appreciate biological sub-disciplines other than their specific major. Our second goal is that our students have broad knowledge in humanities, mathematics, social sciences, and natural sciences, coupled with analytical, oral and compositional skills, to promote good citizenship and the capacity for life-long learning. Finally, our goal is to prepare our students with sufficient depth of knowledge in their specific major programs to assure successful employment in the field, successful entry and completion of graduate and professional schools for advanced study, and to have a high level of satisfaction with the preparation they received in their major.

Graduate. The department’s goals for its graduate students are for them to have a depth of knowledge in their area of specialization sufficient to enable them to be successfully employed in their field and to function as a mature and independent scientists. Toward this end, our goal is to assure that our graduate students have sophisticated skills in designing and conducting scientific experiments, excellent analytical skills appropriate to the specialization area, and excellent authoring experience in the scientific literature. Our goals include preparing graduates sufficiently that they are employed in doctoral and research universities as tenure-track faculty and professional scientists or industrial research scientists and that they have a high level of satisfaction with their graduate program.

Goal Development. These goals have been developed over the past decade by several groups of faculty representing the department’s curricular and research focus groups. These groups have been charged by the current and previous department chairs with addressing curricular issues and outcome success issues that our internal assessments have brought to our attention. Small group recommendations are taken to all the faculty at departmental meetings for discussion and modification by the entire faculty. There is broad, but not total, agreement among department faculty about each of the above goals. The greatest degree of tension resides in the portions of the goals that deal with curricular breadth both within and without biological sciences per se; however, a strong majority of the faculty of this department supports the stated goals.

Recent Changes in Departmental Goals. None since 1997.

Testing Instruments, Methods, and Processes Used to Collect Assessment Data. A variety of assessment methods, including both quantitative and qualitative processes, are being used to determine whether our goals are being met.

At the undergraduate level, quantitative methods include performance on the Medical College Aptitude Test (MCAT) and the Graduate Record Examination (GRE). Both of these tests are administered nationally, and both provide invaluable information about the preparedness of our students at the beginning of their senior year. Additionally, both are valuable because many students from all of our major areas of study take both examinations each year, thereby giving us an across-the-board objective assessment of what our students know at that stage of their studies. However, for practical reasons, we can rely only on the MCAT at present because we get a complete report of the scores our students earn on this test, but we have been unable to obtain such complete reporting concerning the GRE. Additionally, we have strong objective data from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) on matriculation of our students into allopathic medical schools each year. This is a further measure, across-the-board, of the preparedness of our students mid-way through their senior year.

Qualitative methods employed in assessing success in meeting our goals for our undergraduate students include reports (Career and Further Education Study and the Long-term Educational Outcomes Study) from Ohio University Institutional Research, direct feedback from graduates, and the quality of the professional and graduate schools into which our students are admitted.

At the graduate level, we rely on statistical data which include the number of peer-reviewed papers published, the number of papers given at meetings, the mean time to complete the degree, and success in finding employment or further education as objective measures of success in meeting our goals for our graduate students. Qualitative measures include teaching evaluations and awards received by our students, and periodic questionnaires for our graduates to complete.

Both graduate and undergraduate students tell us that they are most appreciative of the education and opportunities they have gained from the department and we rely on this information as a gauge of how well are students are being served. This year, the feedback that we have received from students in graduate and professional schools, as well as from faculty at these institutions, has been especially frequent and laudatory.

We have not altered our methods since last year.

The Medical College Aptitude Test (MCAT) is taken by all students who are applying to medial schools and some other types of professional schools. Because students in several of our majors take this test and because it is designed to test general knowledge as well as knowledge specific to biological sciences, it is very useful as an overall indicator of how well our students are being educated in our programs. The department receives MCAT scores for each Ohio University student who takes the test, as well as means for students across the university and the nation. Each year we can follow the success of our own students against the university and national averages. The data also allow us to delineate among general categories of subjects, including verbal ability, physical sciences, writing, and biological sciences. Our goal is for our students to outperform the national average in each category. Additionally, because we have records on this test for many years, we can determine whether changes are occurring and in which direction for each category, as well as the overall score. We would consider a downward drift of scores by our students, especially in comparison with the national means, to be a major area of concern, and conversely, a consistent upward movement of our students’ scores would be evidence that we are making progress toward our goals.

In similar fashion, we receive a complete listing of applicants from Ohio University who have applied to a college of allopathic medicine. We also are informed as to which school, if any, an applicant has been admitted. We are supplied with data on the national applicant pool with summaries of the numbers of applicants and the successes they have nation-wide. These data allow us to determine the success rate of our students in comparison to national trends. We have these data for many years, and we can observe changes in the successes of our students in comparison to the national trends, and in correlation with MCAT scores and GPAs. As in the case with MCAT scores, a downward change in our students’ acceptance rates versus the national mean would be cause for concern, while an upward shift would be evidence for progress.

Results from Ohio University Institutional Research, likewise, are available over a period of many years. We can compare the results for more recent graduates with those from previous classes, and we can compare the results for our graduates with those across the College of Arts and Sciences and the entire university. We focus on several summary statistics from these reports. In particular, we track the employment rate of our graduates, the length of time to become employed, average salaries, satisfaction with major courses, how well they were prepared for their career goals, and how well they were prepared for additional academic work. We also use the long-term educational outcomes results to assess graduates’ satisfaction with their academic preparation five years after graduation. We analyze these data for evidence that graduates are not satisfied with any aspect of their experiences at Ohio University, and we note any changing patterns occurring over a span of several years. Dissatisfaction rates greater than 10% concern us, as do downward shifts in satisfaction rates. Conversely, satisfaction rates of greater than 90% are indications that we are making progress toward our goals.

For our graduate programs, we note whether students completing degrees publish their thesis or dissertation results in peer-reviewed papers within one year of completing their degrees. We expect all of our Ph.D. graduates to have met this goal and 67% of our M.S. graduates to have met the goal. We expect that each graduate student will have presented a minimum of one research presentation at a scientific meeting before he or she is graduated. Our goal is for all graduate students to be employed within three months of graduation or to be enrolled in further educational pursuits. All of our graduate students must teach during their program of study, and each course is evaluated by the students taught. Our goal is to have our graduate TA’s earn high scores from the students they teach, and if a student earns below average scores, they are counseled to help them improve their scores. In our periodic questionnaires, we seek information on the satisfaction students have with their program, the degree to which they perceive it prepared them for them career aspirations, and suggestions for changes that should be made in the graduate program. Satisfaction rates under 90% are considered significant reasons for concern.

Undergraduate

1. MCAT scores. MCAT scores are centered at approximately 8.0 in each category nationally. At present, (1997 data are the most recent) our students’ MCAT scores are at or near the national average in all areas. This pattern has been in existence for the past five years. However, in 1991, our students scored significantly below the national average in all categories. The data are summarized in the table below. Before 1991, the MCAT had six subcategores, and direct comparisons are not possible, but proportionately, our students were performing much more poorly than the national average prior to 1991. These data reveal that our students have improved their performance, but we still have much to do to attain our goal of having our students perform significantly higher than the national average. Furthermore, the consistently poorer performance of our students in writing samples on the MCAT concerns us, and we realize that we must take steps to correct this deficit.

2. Medical school admissions data. In the period from 1990 through 1996, 69.0% of our premedicine students were admitted to medical schools. In that same time interval, the national average of medical school admissions, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges, was 44.6% of all applicants to allopathic medical schools. (Unfortunately, we do not have access to the data for all osteopathic medical schools.) When we compare admissions only to allopathic medical schools, we find that in 1990, 58.8% of all applicants were admitted nationally, while for our own applicants to allopathic medical schools, only 34.5% were admitted. Yet, in 1996, 48.4% of our applicants to allopathic medical schools were admitted, while across the nation, the acceptance rate was 38%. The data indicate that the number of applicants sharply increased during these years, so the competition became much more intense. The fact that our students’ acceptance rates have risen sharply in comparison to the national mean is evidence of our having made progress, but there is still much to be done to assure that all our qualified students gain admission. The data for 1997 admissions are not yet available.

3. Ohio University Career and Further Education Study data. Only 3% of our undergraduates were unable to find employment within the first year after graduation. Most of those seeking employment were able to get a job within three months of graduation. These patterns have remained constant in the interval from 1990 through 1996, the most recent year for which we have data. While we would prefer for all of our graduates to have employment immediately upon graduation, we feel that the employment rates are quite good considering the job availability during this time period. In addition, the employment rates are similar to the College of Arts and Sciences, except that a higher proportion of our graduates are in graduate or professional schools, and are not currently seeking employment. Seventy-nine percent of our graduates were satisfied with major courses at Ohio University; however, 21% were "not at all satisfied". Clearly, this is cause for concern, although it is lower than it was last year (32%). We hope to identify the reasons for such a high rate of dissatisfaction with our courses. We recognize that one possible reason that a graduate might be dissatisfied is that if a he or she failed to gain admission to a professional school and, instead, began employment in an unrelated field, many of the majors’ courses may not seem pertinent. In such an event, it may not be possible to gain satisfaction from these graduates because their career plans changed at the conclusion of their undergraduate program. On the other hand, 94% of our graduates felt that Ohio University prepared them for their career goals, and 100% felt that they were prepared for additional academic work. These data are similar to those for the College of Arts and Sciences and for the university as a whole. Our graduates averaged salaries of $22,842 in 1996. This is somewhat below the mean for Arts and Sciences and the mean for all university graduates.
4. Ohio University Long-term Educational Outcomes data. In most of the categories examined in this study, our graduates in 1986 and 1987, 1988 and 1989, and 1990 and 1991 were very well satisfied with their education and experiences at Ohio University. This pattern was generally the case for areas relating to their major area of study. There were several types of competencies graduates felt they needed and which they felt Ohio University might have prepared them better. One of these was in the area of coping with complex moral and ethical issues. Seventy-seven percent felt this is important, but only 76% stated that Ohio University had been helpful in this area. Ninety-four percent stated that sensitivity to the feelings and perceptions of others is needed, while 75% thought that Ohio University was helpful in this regard. Sixty-nine percent felt that the ability to use computers is important, but 62% said that Ohio University was helpful. While 57% felt that participating in community service is needed, 71% felt that Ohio University was helpful for this need. In all these areas, we note that our program has room to improve. Most of these perceived needs are not easily met entirely within major courses, but there are avenues both within courses and within university experiences that can be employed to help address these issues. It is interesting to note also that the perceived need for computer literacy progressively diminished among our graduates from 1986 to 1991, while the perception that Ohio University was helpful increased slightly over that time. We plan to follow this trend over the next several cycles because we have done much to increase computer use among our students since 1991. Another statistic from this study caught our attention. While graduates feel that they were "very satisfied to extremely satisfied" with their interactions with faculty, the percent who were not at all satisfied increased form 8% in 1986 and 1987 to 12% in 1990 and 1991. While this may reflect only the large increase in the numbers of students we have as majors, it is something we must watch carefully. We have no new data from this source since last year because the study is conducted every two years.
5. Qualitative information. Reports we have received from our graduates in medical, physical therapy, veterinary schools and graduate schools indicate that very few, if any, of our students have difficulty completing their programs of study, once admitted. Furthermore, students continue to be admitted to well-respected schools. Examples of such institutions to which our students were admitted in 1996-97 are Washington University, Duke University, Northwestern University, Ohio State University, Brown University, and Yale University.
6. Graduate student statistics for 1997-1998

M.S. Students:

Ph.D. Students:

7. Qualitative measures of graduate program success include receiving highly competitive university-wide fellowships. One student was awarded the John Cady Graduate Fellowship and another is in the second year of a three-year University Doctoral Fellowship. In addition, two students, Adam Weaver and Lee Morris, were selected to organize a satellite conference to a major national meeting (the Society for Neuroscience)

Changes in the Undergraduate Program.

No Changes were made since last year.

Changes in the Graduate Program.

The merger of the Doctoral Program in the Department of Environmental and Plant Biology with the Department of Biological Sciences, as mandated by the Ohio Board of Regents, was accomplished last year. As with any merger there were a number of minor issues that arose that were resolved with improved communication. The post-merger admissions process proceeded more smoothly this year, and faculty and new students are adjusting well to the merger.

With a large segment of the Department of Biological Sciences being split off to form the new Department of Biomedical Sciences in the College of Osteopathic Medicine, there was concern about how this could affect the Graduate Program. Meetings between members of the two departments have been held to identify issues and possible resolutions. There is general agreement that the impact on the Graduate Program should be minimal, but creation of a policy document between the two departments will have to wait until certain budgetary and academic issues are formally resolved by the Deans of the two colleges.

Greater financial support for travel for graduate students to conferences is being provided in response to our external doctoral review committee report in 1995. The department provided funds to support 21 graduate student presentations at meetings. Three students presented at International Conferences outside the United States.

To improve communication with the graduate students an e-mail address list of all graduate students was compiled.

Although most of our graduate students receive high ratings from students they teach and from the faculty mentor for each course, some do not. The new TA assessment process developed last year and implemented this year has allowed us to isolate better these unsatisfactory cases. It was decided this year that students with unsatisfactory evaluations should get a letter of concern from the graduate committee with the threat that continued unsatisfactory evaluations could cause loss of support. Suggestions for improving teaching performance including making use of the resources of the Center for Teaching Excellence are also made to these students.

The results of this year's graduate admissions process are as follows:

190 applications (partial + complete) were received by the department

83 complete applications were received (plus 13 PBIOS doctoral)

22 students were admitted including 6 PBIOS candidates (27% BIOS, 46% PBIOS)

14 of 22 students offered acceptance will attend Ohio University (64%: 9 of 16 BIOS,

5 of 6 PBIOS)

All 14 new students will be funded as teaching or research assistants

Quality of students continues to be high. Average undergraduate GPA is up and the average GRE scores increased 0-12 percentage points in every category over last year.

Admitted doctoral students (n=16)

Undergraduate GPA: 3.6

Graduate GPA: 3.6

GRE scores: verbal: 79%, quantitative: 75%, analytical: 71%

TOEFL (n=5) 633.

Admitted masters students (n=6)

Undergraduate GPA: 3.4

Graduate GPA (n=1): 3.5

GRE scores: verbal: 71%, quantitative: 72%, analytical: 64%

TOEFL (n=2) 627.

Academic Programs and Curriculum. We continue to work toward establishment of a molecular, cellular, and developmental biology concentration at both the graduate and the undergraduate levels. This is arising out of our assessment that we are not offering our undergraduates enough cellular and molecular biology, and from the recommendations of the external doctoral review committee that we enhance our graduate concentration in developmental biology by introducing more molecular biology in that area. Likewise the team suggested that we add molecular biology in our muscle biology-exercise physiology area, and we hope to be able to do that in the near future.

Although our students have improved their writing scores, we know that we need to emphasize writing more in our curriculum. We currently include writing (term papers, essays, and reports) in most of our upper level classes, but we need to do more. We will continue to stress, among the faculty, the need for more writing and support efforts to enhance writing across the curriculum at Ohio University.

We will need to identify the reasons why approximately one-third of our recent graduates are not satisfied with our major courses. We will attempt to gain the answers by questionnaires to be mailed to recent graduates. Once identified, we will try to eliminate the causes of dissatisfaction if possible.

We must continue to monitor the MCAT scores of our students and seek ways to help them score higher on the test, either through changes in courses or changes in scheduling courses or examinations near the time students must take the MCAT.

Changes in Assessment Processes. It is imperative that we get better data on the GRE scores of our students. We still have not been able to find a way to gather these data, yet they are potentially very important to our assessment process.

Back to Assessments