Brancaccio-Taras Loretta, Pape-Lindstrom Pamela, Peteroy-Kelly Marcy, Aguirre Karen, Awong-Taylor Judy, Balser Teri, Cahill Michael J, Frey Regina F, Jack Thomas, Kelrick Michael, Marley Kate, Miller Kathryn G, Osgood Marcy, Romano Sandra, Uzman J Akif, Zhao Jiuqing
Department of Biological Sciences, Kingsborough Community College-CUNY, Brooklyn, NY 11235.
Life Sciences Department, Everett Community College, Everett, WA 98201.
CBE Life Sci Educ. 2016 winter;15(4). doi: 10.1187/cbe.15-12-0260.
The PULSE Vision & Change Rubrics, version 1.0, assess life sciences departments' progress toward implementation of the principles of the Vision and Change report. This paper reports on the development of the rubrics, their validation, and their reliability in measuring departmental change aligned with the Vision and Change recommendations. The rubrics assess 66 different criteria across five areas: Curriculum Alignment, Assessment, Faculty Practice/Faculty Support, Infrastructure, and Climate for Change. The results from this work demonstrate the rubrics can be used to evaluate departmental transformation equitably across institution types and represent baseline data about the adoption of the Vision and Change recommendations by life sciences programs across the United States. While all institution types have made progress, liberal arts institutions are farther along in implementing these recommendations. Generally, institutions earned the highest scores on the Curriculum Alignment rubric and the lowest scores on the Assessment rubric. The results of this study clearly indicate that the Vision & Change Rubrics, version 1.0, are valid and equitable and can track long-term progress of the transformation of life sciences departments. In addition, four of the five rubrics have broad applicability and can be used to evaluate departmental transformation by other science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines.
《脉搏:愿景与变革评估标准》1.0版评估生命科学系在落实《愿景与变革》报告原则方面的进展情况。本文报告了这些评估标准的制定、验证以及在衡量与《愿景与变革》建议相符的系级变革方面的可靠性。这些评估标准在五个领域评估66个不同的标准:课程一致性、评估、教师实践/教师支持、基础设施以及变革氛围。这项工作的结果表明,这些评估标准可用于公平地评估不同类型机构的系级变革,并代表美国生命科学项目采纳《愿景与变革》建议的基线数据。虽然所有类型的机构都取得了进展,但文理学院在落实这些建议方面走得更远。总体而言,各机构在课程一致性评估标准上得分最高,在评估评估标准上得分最低。这项研究的结果清楚地表明,《脉搏:愿景与变革评估标准》1.0版是有效且公平的,能够追踪生命科学系变革的长期进展。此外,五个评估标准中的四个具有广泛的适用性,可用于评估其他科学、技术、工程和数学学科的系级变革。