Program Annual Assessment Report

Program Annual Assessment Report 2016-17 Programs: Biology B.S., and Biology B.A. Date: 27. July 2017 Outcome: Students will exhibit peer-level understanding of biology subject material Number of Artifacts Collected: 16 Number of Artifacts Reviewed: 16 Reviewers: Anni Moore internal Education Testing Services (ETS) o external How were the artifacts reviewed selected: All collected artifacts were selected for review. Describe how the artifacts were used to assess student learning. (If a rubric was used please attach it to the report.): The assessment test: In the 2016-17 academic year we continued using the ETS Major Field Test in Biology for the assessment of biology BA and BS programs. This was our second year using this test. From 2014 through 2016 the Major Field Test in Biology has been employed by over 450 schools, and compared the results of over 21,000 students across the US. The test is a nationally normed multiple-choice exam that uses two one-hour exam periods where students content knowledge is examined in four primary categories: 1. Cell Biology 2. Molecular Biology and Genetics 3. Organismal Biology 4. Population Biology, Ecology, and Evolution In addition, the ETS breaks the above categories down into an additional nine sub-categories (referred to as Assessment Indicators ): 1. Biochemistry and Cell Energetics 2. Cellular Structure, Organization, and Function 3. Molecular Biology and Molecular Genetics 4. Diversity of Organisms 5. Organismal Biology animals 6. Organismal Biology plants 7. Population Genetics and Evolution 8. Ecology 9. Analytical Skills More information about the ETS Majors Field Test can be found on the ETS website (http://www.ets.org/mft). The comparative data guide together with the individual reports can be found in the appendices of this document. Expected knowledge of biology subject material: The biology core curriculum consists of six courses, which include two semesters of general biology, genetics, physiology, ecology, and biology capstone class. The general biology

Biology Assessment 2016-17 2 sequence, taken over the students freshman year, is a prerequisite for all other core curricular classes. The core curriculum together with elective courses should adequately cover the material in order to prepare the students for the ETS Major Field Test. The 2016-17 cohort: 16 students took the test during their capstone seminar (BIOL460) in the fall semester of 2016. Similarly to last year, due to budgetary reasons ($27 per paper copy of the test) we did not administer the test to the additional 26 students who took the capstone course in the spring semester of their senior year. The cohort of this assessment included 11 students in biology BS and 5 students in biology BA program. Of the 11 biology BS students, 4 completed chemistry minor, 2 chemistry BA, and one chemistry BS requirements. There were 5 students who also completed either biology or chemistry education programs (2 with biology BS, 3 with biology BA). Table 1: Breakdown of 2016-17 cohort by degree and GPA. Student Degree(s)* Overall GPA** Major GPA*** Hitz, Marti BA 3.288 3.132 Hudson, Taylor BA 2.817 2.344 Graves, Danny BA/Ed 3.639 3.442 Groff, Quinn BA/Ed 3.271 2.837 Skillers, Sean BA/Ed 3.219 2.433 Edge, Evelyn BS/Chem BS/Ed 3.709 3.463 Gubbels, Katie BS/Ag BS/Ed 4.000 4.000 Brockhoff, Kirsten BS 2.832 2.351 Duvall, Samantha BS 3.513 3.234 Yaneff, Nicholas BS 3.905 3.859 Gates, Tracy BS/Chem minor 3.860 3.789 Hartman, Isaac BS/Chem minor 3.312 3.017 Martens, Brianna BS/Chem minor 3.924 3.849 Wagner, Jennifer BS/ Chem minor 3.569 3.386 Carlson, Jacqueline BS/Chem BA 3.893 3.888 Martin, Bryton BS/ Chem BA 3.555 3.468 Average: 3.519 3.281 *The type of biology degree is noted first (BS or BA); Chemistry degree or minor is noted second for assessment purpose. It is also noted whether the student completed the degree in biology education (Ed). In one instance, Ag BS is also included to indicate a triple major. **Overall GPA scores only reflect Morningside GPA and do not take into account transfer courses. *** Major GPA for each student was hand-calculated and includes only BIOL and CHEM courses. It does not include math, physics, education, business, or other courses, which are within each student s

Biology Assessment 2016-17 3 major requirement(s), as these courses are generally not relevant for the Biology Major Field Test used in the assessments reported here. Again, only Morningside classes were used for GPA calculations. All these students had senior status, and had completed the biology core curriculum. All were full-time students. Two students in the cohort were transfer students. Three students reported language other than English as their first language. Ten students had plans to pursue postbaccalaureate degrees. Conclusions of the review regarding student learning in the outcome with rationale supported by evidence from the artifacts: Overall biology knowledge: Even though the assessment test was administered to only a third of the graduating class, conclusions can be drawn about the overall standing of Morningside graduating biology majors. Based on these results, our students place a little below the average nationally in their overall ETS Majors Field Test scores. However, while the distribution of overall raw scores was normal, the results should still be treated with some caution, as the sample size of 16 is still relatively small, and the student performance throughout the test is very uneven (standard deviation of the scores was 11.9, and the overall range in percentile ranks is 2-90). The overall results are seen in table 2. Table 2: The 2016-17 cohort ETS major field test scores and percentile ranks as compared to 21,334 peers. The national mean score was 153.0 (standard deviation 13.0). Student ETS test score ile rank Brockhoff, Kirsten 140 14 Carlson, Jacqueline 166 82 Duvall, Samantha 143 20 Edge, Evelyn 151 41 Gates, Tracy 160 69 Graves, Danny 133 5 Groff, Quinn 128 2 Gubbels, Katie 156 57 Hartman, Isaac 171 90 Hitz, Marti 143 20 Hudson, Taylor 138 12 Martens, Brianna 156 57 Martin, Bryton 154 51 Skillers, Sean 140 14 Wagner, Jennifer 155 55 Yaneff, Nicholas 154 51 The Morningside institutional mean was 149.3, with standard deviation of 11.9. This places Morningside at 40 th percentile rank as compared to 450 institutions. The average institutional mean score was 151.9, with standard deviation of 7.5.

Biology Assessment 2016-17 4 Comparing the results of this cohort to the cohort of last year (2015-16), there has been a significant improvement in the ETS scores, although a lot of the credit for this should be placed on better motivation of the student to score well on the test. During our first year of using this test, the test scores did not have any direct impact on the student s capstone grade, nor was any extra credit attached to the score. As a result, (and as discussed in last year s assessment report), many strong students for various reasons did poorly on the test. This year, students were offered up to 5% extra credit in the class based on the test scores. As a result, the overall mean test score rose from 146.3 to 149.3, placing Morningside College at 40 th percentile rank among all participating institutions (as compared to 29 th percentile rank in 2015-16). Several factors, such as overall and majors GPA, number of elective courses, and program of study were considered as predictors of the test scores. Because several students with high GPA were not motivated to do well on the assessment test last year, there was no correlation between their major GPA and ETS test scores (r 2 <0.3). While the students were definitely more motivated this year, the results were the similar no strong correlation was found with the ETS test scores to student major GPA (r 2 =0.3398), or overall GPA (r 2 =0.2916). The number of elective classes also showed little effect on the test scores (r 2 =0.2201). The strongest predictor of overall ETS score is the program of study. Students pursuing biology BA degree did score significantly lower (p = 0.000812) in their test scores then students pursuing biology BS degree (figure 1). 170.0 160.0 BS VS. BA 150.0 140.0 130.0 120.0 155.1 BS 136.4 BA Figure 1: The difference between average overall ETS scores between biology BS and biology BA students. However, looking beyond the BA/BS dichotomy may be even more insightful. There is a significant difference (p = 0.0003) in the test scores when we take into account whether students are just pursuing their biology BA or BS degree, whether they attempt chemistry minor or chemistry BA together with their biology degree, or whether they pursue biology education degree (figure 2). Students with biology and chemistry double majors performed significantly better than those pursuing just BS or BA, or those that pursue biology education degree. Students pursuing education degree in addition to a science double major were assessed separately from other education majors, and performed significantly better than the other education majors.

Biology Assessment 2016-17 5 170.0 Average score 160.0 150.0 160.3 153.5 140.0 143.6 130.0 120.0 133.7 BS/BA BS/BA w Chem BA/Minor BA/Ed Double major+ed Figure 2: The comparison of the average overall ETS scores according to the specific program of study within biology department. Specific areas of knowledge: In addition to overall biology knowledge, the test also looked at student knowledge in four primary categories cell biology, molecular biology and genetics, organismal biology, and population biology, ecology and evolution. Students were given the individual scores for the four primary categories (table 3). Based on these results, Morningside students perform either a little below or right at the national average (figure 3). Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Student score / rank score / rank score / rank score / rank Brockhoff, Kirsten 28 1 49 35 39 12 46 28 Carlson, Jacqueline 67 83 64 66 58 60 69 89 Duvall, Samantha 32 3 43 20 54 49 41 19 Edge, Evelyn 49 33 40 14 50 37 60 68 Gates, Tracy 54 50 64 77 60 66 58 63 Graves, Danny 28 1 37 9 39 12 36 11 Groff, Quinn 24 1 33 5 34 6 34 7 Gubbels, Katie 54 50 43 20 56 55 64 78 Hartman, Isaac 76 94 59 65 71 90 69 89 Hitz, Marti 36 6 46 28 54 49 36 11 Hudson, Taylor 36 6 30 2 42 4 48 33 Martens, Brianna 54 50 40 14 56 55 65 82 Martin, Bryton 59 66 57 58 48 31 54 51 Skillers, Sean 49 33 30 2 46 25 39 14 Wagner, Jennifer 57 58 46 28 58 60 56 57 Yaneff, Nicholas 54 50 52 43 56 55 52 45 Mean 47.3 37 45.8 30 51.3 42 51.6 47 Table 3: Morningside student scores and percentile ranks in the four primary categories: 1: Cell biology; 2: Molecular biology and genetics; 3: Organismal biology; and 4: Population biology, evolution, and ecology. The scores range from 20-100 in each category.

Biology Assessment 2016-17 6 70 2016-17 National mean (n=21,334) Institutional mean (n=450) 65 60 55 50 45 40 47.3 53.0 52.2 45.8 52.7 52 51.3 53.3 52.2 51.7 52.7 51.1 35 30 Cell biology Molecular biology and genetics Organismal biology Population biology, ecology, and evolution Figure 3: Comparison of Morningside 2016-17 cohort mean scores in each primary category to the national data. The national mean is the mean of all students taking the test. The institutional mean is the average of means from all participating institutions. Overall, on average, Morningside students in the 2016-17 cohort scored below the national average in the cell biology and molecular biology and genetics section, while they scored right around the average in organismal biology and population biology, ecology, and evolution sections. However, there was a considerable variation in the scores from these categories (table 3), with standard deviations across the subsections for Morningside being 15.1, 11.1, 9.5, and 12.1. The national standard deviations for the four categories were equally variable (respectively 12.9, 13.3, 12.9, and 13.3), and the institutional comparison standard deviations were 6.3, 6.7, 7.0, and 7.2 respectively. Primary categories can also be evaluated individually in order to see whether taking specific classes can have impact on the scores. For example, since cell biology is not a required class at Morningside, students who take cell biology or biochemistry would have the advantage in answering questions in category 1 (cell biology). Unfortunately, cell biology is only offered every two years, and only two students in this cohort had taken it, which does not allow for good analysis. However, five students had taken biochemistry, and there was a moderate correlation (r 2 =0.436) between the higher category 1 scores and students who had had biochemistry. No relevant classes can be used for comparison for the other primary categories, since both genetics (category 2) and ecology (category 4) are required classes. As expected, comparing the results of the four primary category scores from this year to last year, there are considerable differences. The mean scores from 2016-17 cohort were higher than the mean scores from the 2015-16 cohort in all categories (figure 4). Because individual the percentile ranks of both 2015-16 and 2016-17 cohort vary so drastically (table 4), the increase in

Biology Assessment 2016-17 7 the scores is not significant. However, there is a visible trend in increasing average percentile ranks. ile rank 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 2015-16 Morningside mean 20160-17 Morningside mean: 46.6 41.6 36.6 32 30.4 29 15 11 0 Cell biology Molecular biology and genetics Organismal biology Population biology, ecology, and evolution Figure 4: Comparison of the average percentile ranks in the four subject areas between 2015-16 and 2016-17 cohorts. Table 4: The range of percentile ranks for the two cohorts in the four subject areas. Range 2015-16 Range 2016-17 Overall percentile 4 99 2 90 Cell Biology 3 99 1 94 Molecular biology and genetics 5 97 2 77 Organismal biology 1 99 4 90 Population biology, ecology, and evolution 1 96 7 89 Additionally, the material in the four primary categories was further divided up into nine subsections (called assessment indicators in the ETS report) that were designed to reflect student knowledge in eight specific areas of biology and analytical thinking skills (figure 5). In most of these areas, Morningside students performed close to the national average, either placing slightly below or slightly above. As with the results from the four primary categories, this cohort showed weakness in molecular biology and genetics, and to lesser extent in biochemistry and cellular energetics sections, performing below national average as well as below 2015-16 average. On the positive side, Morningside students clearly showed their strength in ecology and organismal diversity sections.

Biology Assessment 2016-17 8 2015-16 2016-17 national mean 1: Biochemistry and Cell Energetics 38 42 44.4 2: Cellular Structure, Organization, Function 34 40 44.9 3: Molecular Biology and Genetics 35 39 42.8 4: Diversity of Organisms 45 56 53.1 5: Organismal - Animals 34 39 41.7 6: Organismal Plants 29 33 37.1 7: Population Genetics and Evolution 38 42 41.5 8. Ecology 44 47 46.1 9: Analytical Skills 42 43 44.6 % correct answers Figure 5: Comparison of the average percentage of correct answers given in each of the nine assessment indicators between 2015-16 cohort, 2016-17 cohort, and the national average. Standard deviations were not included in the ETS report. When comparing the percentile ranks of 2016-17 Morningside cohort to the 2015-16 cohort, this year s students placed lower in the molecular biology and genetics section, and in biochemistry and cellular energetics sections (assessment indicator #3), which were the two areas where neither the average scores not percentiles did not increase (figure 6). Unfortunately we do not currently have access to the itemized report, which provides question-by-question analysis to see whether there is a specific area(s) in genetics and molecular biology in which our students are underperforming.

Biology Assessment 2016-17 9 2015-16 2016-17 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1: Biochemistry and Cell Energetics 2: Cellular Structure, Organization, Function 3: Molecular Biology and Genetics 4: Diversity of Organisms 5: Organismal - Animals 6: Organismal Plants 7: Population Genetics and Evolution 8. Ecology 9: Analytical Skills 15 10 14 13 14 11 23 36 27 30 33 36 34 32 39 47 50 58 PERCENTILE RANK Figure 6: Comparison of percentile ranks of Morningside students in the 2015-16 and 2016-17 cohorts. Because our department lacks a specific plant biology course, the students knowledge in this are has been rather low (last year s cohort placed in 11 th percentile in the plant biology sub-section). However, in the past three years our general biology curriculum has been more focused on plant biology in order to mitigate this shortcoming. It may be that this strategy has been successful, since the 2016-17 cohort was the first one to benefit from this re-structuring, and placed on the 23 rd percentile in this assessment. While this is still a rather low placement, we have doubled our ranking while still lacking a specific plant biology class, and competing against schools that require students to take at least one plant biology course. Overall, these results show that on average, Morningside biology students are performing at or slightly below the national average in most areas of biology. Our strengths are clearly in ecology and organismal biology, while we tend to lag a bit in genetics and molecular biology. These results also suggest that making the test results count (in our case, as extra credit) clearly motivates the students to take the assessment test seriously. Suggestions (if any) to improve student learning relative to this outcome. If no suggestions explain why not: Several things could be done to improve both student learning outcome as well as our assessment methods. The first involves developing strategies in order to pay more attention to our weakest

Biology Assessment 2016-17 10 areas. The latter involves modifying our assessment practices to compare our students to a more appropriate peer group as well as implementing an in-house assessment test in order to measure student progress throughout their career at Morningside. Improving student learning: While the 2016-17 cohort of Morningside students showed relative strength in areas of organismal biology, population biology, and ecology, there is clearly room for improvement in areas of cell biology, molecular biology, and genetics, where our students performed below national average. When looking at the nine assessment indicator categories, the areas of plant and animal diversity also need improvement. One relatively easy way our department has addressed this in the past few years is to increase the amount of time spent on plant biology section in general biology. Because this has been a relatively new strategy, the students who would have benefitted from this instruction will not be graduating until next year, and we will not know the effects until then. However, it is also clear that our students would benefit from the opportunity to take more elective classes, especially in the areas of cell biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and plant biology, which is currently not feasible with the 56-credit cap in their major area of study. While it is clear that not all our students will be high performers in all the areas, especially students who are pursuing biology BA (or biology BA with biology education) degrees, it is important to recognize that advising students to take wider variety of biology and chemistry classes will benefit them. For our stronger students, it is important to encourage them to take biochemistry (positive correlation with higher scores in cell biology section), and pursue either chemistry minor or chemistry BA. It is clear from the data that when comparing biology BS students with similar GPA, students with chemistry minor or chemistry BA outperformed the students who pursued only biology BS. It is also important to keep in mind that while standardized tests are an easy method for measuring the progress, it is not by any means give the most accurate picture of the students overall competency within subject matter. There will always be weaker students who are excellent at taking standardized tests, and strong students who are not good at it, which is an important point to keep in mind while passing judgment on the abilities of each cohort. Improving the assessment: Modifying our assessment practices may also help to compare our students in a fairer manner that is more reflective of our type of institution as well as our student body. For improving the assessment methods, the following possibilities will be considered: 1. In the past two years, the department has employed the Education Testing Services to test our students against all other schools that take the test (over 450 colleges and universities, including large state universities, such as University of Nebraska, Lincoln). This is clearly not the kind of peer group we should be comparing ourselves to, and a subset of

Biology Assessment 2016-17 11 similar small regional LAS colleges would be more useful for assessment. However, it would cost us an extra $300 per year to subscribe to this type of analysis. 2. It may also be beneficial to obtain also an itemized report that would allow question-byquestion comparison in order to see whether there are specific areas of the subjects in which our students are lagging. This would help us to pinpoint in which areas we need to pay more attention in our courses. Again, this would come at an added cost of $350 per year, or at $700 per year for the whole premium report package that includes the custom comparative data reports, ability to design our own analysis, itemized report, and subgroup reports. 3. In the past two years we have only collected the ETS test data from one section of capstone class, which was administered in the fall semester. This raises two issues first, the testing is only administered to a third of all biology graduating students, and second, the subset of students taking capstone during the fall semester may not necessarily be a fair representation of all biology students. Therefore, for a fair assessment, we should preferably test all the biology graduating seniors (fall and spring capstone classes), or if this is not feasible because of testing expenses ($25/per student), we should be testing students in one of the spring capstone sections instead for a more typical representations of our graduating seniors. 4. As other college-wide assessment data have shown (i.e. critical thinking assessment), the specific strength of Morningside College is not that majority of our students are performing at the same level of high-performing schools in the nation, but that we give a chance for students who may not necessarily be performing at a high level upon the entry to the college, and bring them to perform at a significantly higher level upon graduation. Therefore, it is necessary to assess not only how our students perform in comparison to other schools, but also the progress that has occurred during the four years these students have spent at Morningside. One possible way to do this would be to implement an in-house test checking the biology knowledge at the beginning of the freshman year (beginning of the general biology sequence), possibly at the end of the general biology course sequence, and at the senior level (capstone). This would allow us to monitor the progress of each cohort throughout the four years of college. This test would not be used instead of the ETS (which is still a great tool comparing our students to their peers across the US), but rather as a supplemental test to assess our student learning within the institution. All these points will be discussed at our department meetings this year to see whether these suggestions are something we would like to implement.

Biology Assessment 2016-17 12 List of appendices: Appendix A: Result Summary summary of overall raw scores and the scores of each four primary categories for all the participating students in this cohort; Appendix B: Test Summary summary of raw scores and percentiles in each four primary categories with means and standard deviations; Appendix C: Primary Categories Summary summary of the mean percent of correct answers in each assessment indicators; Appendix D: Demographic Summary summary of the demographics in this cohort as indicated by the students during the test; Appendix E: Individual Score Reports individual score reports for all the students in this cohort; Appendix F: Comparative Data Guide national and institutional reference group scaled scores and percentiles for comparative statistics;

Test: Biology Form Code: 4KMF Institution: Morningside College Cohort: PPT-2017/10 Closed on: December 04, 2016 STUDENT NAME STUDENT ID BROCKHOFF, KIRSTEN 240304 CARLSON, JACQUELINE 439537 DUVALL, SAMANTHA 440702 EDGE, EVELYN 445772 GATES, TRACY 444591 GRAVES, DANNY 441445 GROFF, QUINN 415087 GUBBELS, KAT IE 437607 HARTMAN, ISAAC 439434 HITZ, MARTI 447000 HUDSON, TAYLOR 438328 MARTENS, BRIANNA 414848 MARTIN, BRYTON 433507 SKILLERN, SEAN 422327 WAGNER, JENNIFER 421706 YANEFF, NICHOLAS 434907 Subscore 1: Cell Biology Subscore 2: Molecular Biology and Genetics Subscore 3: Organismal Biology Subscore 4: Population Biology, Evolution and Ecology Number of students tested: 16 Total score and subscores are reported as scale scores. The scale range for the total score process, should be considered when interpreting individual test results. See the "MFT Com measurement. * An asterisk preceding the name indicates that this student answered (marked) fewer than half o

DEPARTMENTAL ROSTER AUTHORIZATION TOTAL SCORE 1 6 140 28 15 166 67 14 143 32 5 151 49 2 160 54 7 133 28 12 128 24 10 156 54 16 171 76 8 143 36 3 138 36 4 156 54 17 154 59 13 140 49 11 155 57 9 154 54 e is 120-200. The standard error of measurement, an index of the variation in all test scores due to the im mparative Data Guide" on the web at www.ets.org/hea/mft/compare.html for an explanation and listing of the questions. The scores of this student are not included in the group means.

SUBSCORES 2 3 4 49 39 46 64 58 69 43 54 41 40 50 60 64 60 58 37 39 36 33 34 34 43 56 64 59 71 69 46 54 36 30 42 48 40 56 65 57 48 54 30 46 39 46 58 56 52 56 52 perfect precision of the measurement of the standard errors of

DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY OF TOTAL TEST AND SUBSCORES Test: Biology Form Code: 4KMF Institution: Morningside College Cohort: PPT-2017/10 Closed on: December 04, 2016 Scaled Score Range TOTAL TEST Number in Range 200 0 100 195-199 190-194 185-189 180-184 175-179 170-174 165-169 160-164 155-159 150-154 145-149 140-144 135-139 130-134 125-129 120-124 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 1 94 1 88 1 81 3 63 3 44 0 44 4 19 1 13 1 6 1 0 0 0 Scaled Score Range Subscore 1 Subscore 2 Subscore 3 Subscore 4 Cell Biology Number in Range Molecular Biology and Genetics Number in Range Organismal Biology Number in Range Population Biology, Evolution and Ecology Number in Range 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 95-99 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 90-94 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 85-89 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 80-84 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 75-79 1 94 0 100 0 100 0 100 70-74 0 94 0 100 1 94 0 100 65-69 1 88 0 100 0 94 3 81 60-64 0 88 2 88 1 88 2 69 55-59 2 75 2 75 5 56 2 56 50-54 4 50 1 69 3 38 2 44 45-49 2 38 3 50 2 25 2 31 40-44 0 38 4 25 1 19 1 25 35-39 2 25 1 19 2 6 3 6 30-34 1 19 3 0 1 0 1 0 25-29 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 20-24 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mean Standard Deviation Total Test Scaled Score 149 12 Subscore 1 47 15 Subscore 2 46 11 Subscore 3 51 10 Subscore 4 52 12 Students responding to less than 50% of the questions: 0 Students in frequency distribution: 16 Students tested: 16

DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT INDICATORS Test: Biology Form Code: 4KMF Institution: Morningside College Cohort: PPT-2017/10 Closed on: December 04, 2016 Assessment Indicator Number Assessment Indicator Title Mean Correct 1 Biochemistry and Cell Energetics 38 2 3 Cellular Structure, Organization, Function Molecular Biology and Molecular Genetics 40 35 4 Diversity of Organisms 56 5 Organismal - Animals 39 6 Organismal - Plants 33 7 Population Genetics and Evolution 42 8 Ecology 47 9 Analytical Skills 43 Students responding to less than 50% of the questions: 0 Students in frequency distribution: 16 Students tested: 16

DEPARTMENTAL DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY Test: Biology Form Code: 4KMF Institution: Morningside College Cohort: PPT-2017/10 Closed on: December 04, 2016 Gender Number of Students of Students Male 6 38 Female 10 63 No Response 0 0 Ethnicity American Indian or Alaskan Native 0 0 Asian American or Pacific Islander 0 0 Black or African American 0 0 Mexican American 0 0 Puerto Rican 0 0 Latin American or Other Hispanic 0 0 White 16 100 Other 0 0 No Response 0 0 Educational Level Freshman (0-30 credits) 0 0 Sophomore (31-60 credits) 0 0 Junior (61-90 credits) 0 0 Senior (91-120 credits) 16 100 Graduate (over 120 credits) 0 0 Other 0 0 No Response 0 0 Transfer Student No 14 88 Number of Students Major Distance Learning Courses of Students None 7 44 Less than 40% 8 50 40% to 90% 0 0 More than 90% 0 0 No Response 1 6 Overall Undergraduate GPA 3.50-4.00 9 56 3.00-3.49 6 38 2.50-2.99 1 6 2.00-2.49 0 0 1.00-1.99 0 0 Less than 1.00 0 0 No Response 0 0 Major Field GPA 3.50-4.00 10 63 3.00-3.49 3 19 2.50-2.99 3 19 2.00-2.49 0 0 1.00-1.99 0 0 Less than 1.00 0 0 No Response 0 0 Education Planned Associate 0 0 Bachelors 4 25 Masters 5 31 Doctorate 5 31

Yes 2 13 No Response 0 0 Other 0 0 Undecided 2 13 No Response 0 0 Enrollment Status Full-time 16 100 Part-time 0 0 No Response 0 0 Best Language English 13 81 Other 3 19 Both 0 0 No Response 0 0

2016 Major Field Test Comparative Data Guide Major Field Test for Biology The annual Comparative Data Guide (CDG) contains tables of scaled scores and percentiles for individual student scores and institutional means drawn directly from senior test takers across the nation. The report provides descriptive statistics based on the number of students that have completed the Major Field Test (MFT) for Biology since it was released in September 2014 through June 2016. Information about an institution gathered through MFT administrations cannot be released in any form attributable to or identifiable with an individual institution. The anonymity of each institution s performance is maintained by reporting only the aggregate performance of the selected reference group. are descriptions of the various tables provided in this guide: Individual Students Total Score/Subscore Distributions The distributions in these tables may be used to interpret individual student results by determining what percent of those taking the test at the selected institutions attained scores below that of a particular student. Each table shows scaled score intervals for Total Score and Subscores separately. By looking up the Total Score or Subscore and reading across the row to the corresponding number in the column headed, the percent of individuals scoring below any interval can be determined. Institutional Means Total Score/Subscore Distributions The distributions in these tables present the number of institutions at each mean score level. These tables provide a way to compare the Total Score and Subscore means for your institution with those of other participating institutions you selected. These tables show the mean of means (or the average of the mean scores for those institutions/programs selected) as well as the standard deviations of those means. Institutional Assessment Indicator Mean Score Distributions The assessment indicator summary information in these tables includes the frequency distribution of departmental/program means for each assessment indicator. These tables show the distribution of institutional rounded means as well as the average and standard deviations of those means. Note that not all MFT titles in all subject areas generate subscores or assessment indicators. Please refer to the test content description for your subject area of interest at www.ets.org/mft/about/content to determine which score types you should expect to generate for your MFT test subject. The following considerations should be kept in mind when interpreting comparative data: This data should be considered comparative rather than normative because the institutions included in the data do not represent proportionally the various types of higher education institutions and programs. The data are drawn entirely from institutions that choose to use MFT. Such a self-selected sample may not be representative of all institutions or programs. The number of students tested and sampling procedures vary from one institution to another. Therefore, it is impossible to verify that the students tested at each institution are representative of all the institution s students in that program. It is important that these comparisons involve students at approximately the same point in their educational careers. The tables report data for seniors only. Students who are not seniors are excluded from these calculations. The tables report data for institutions/programs that have tested five (5) or more seniors. Institutions/programs with fewer than five (5) test takers are excluded from these calculations. No single institution accounts for more than 3% percent of all the students included. For more information about this report or other ways the Major Field Tests can help your program, contact an ETS Advisor at highered@ets.org or call 1-800-745-0269. The following tables include tests taken as of June 30, 2016. Copyright 2016 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved. ETS and the ETS logo are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service (ETS). MEASURING THE POWER OF LEARNING is a trademark of ETS.

2016 Comparative Data Guide - MFT for Biology Institution List Data includes seniors from domestic institutions who tested between September 2014 and June 2016. Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College, GA Adams State College, CO Adrian College, MI Alabama A&M University, AL Alabama State University, AL Albion College, MI Alice Lloyd College, KY Alma College, MI American International College, MA Anderson University (IN), IN Anderson University (SC), SC Andrews University, MI Angelo State University, TX Aquinas College (MI), MI Arkansas Tech University, AR Armstrong State University, GA Asbury University, KY Assumption College, MA Auburn University Montgomery, AL Augsburg College, MN Aurora University, IL Austin Peay State University, TN Baker University - CAS, KS Baldwin Wallace University, OH Barry University, FL Barton College, NC Baylor University, TX Bellarmine University, KY Belmont University, TN Benedict College, SC Benedictine College, KS Bennett College for Women, NC Berry College, GA Bethany Lutheran College, MN Bethel College (IN), IN Bethel College (KS), KS Bethel University (MN), MN Bethel University (TN), TN Bethune-Cookman University, FL Black Hills State University, SD Bloomsburg University, PA Bluefield College, VA Boise State University, ID Brenau University, GA Briar Cliff University, IA Bridgewater College, VA Brigham Young University (ID), ID Brigham Young University (UT), UT Buena Vista University, IA Butler University, IN Calvin College, MI Campbell University - Buies Creek, NC Carroll University, WI Carson-Newman College, TN Carthage College, WI Catawba College, NC Cedar Crest College, PA Cedarville University, OH Central Baptist College, AR Central Methodist University, MO Central Michigan University, MI Central Washington University - Ellensburg, WA Centre College, KY Chapman University, CA Christian Brothers University, TN Citadel, The, SC Claflin University, SC Clarkson University, NY Clayton State University, GA Coastal Carolina University, SC Coker College, SC College of Charleston, SC College of Coastal Georgia, GA College of Idaho, ID College of Mount Saint Vincent, NY College of Saint Benedict & Saint John's Univ., MN Colorado Christian University, CO Colorado College, CO Colorado Mesa University, CO Colorado State University - Pueblo, CO Columbia College (MO), MO Columbus State University, GA Concord University, WV Concordia College, MN Concordia University (CA), CA Concordia University Wisconsin, WI Converse College, SC Covenant College, GA Crown College, MN Culver-Stockton College, MO Dakota State University, SD Dakota Wesleyan University, SD Dallas Baptist University, TX DeSales University, PA Dickinson State University, ND Dillard University, LA Dixie State College of Utah, UT Dominican University, IL Drexel University, PA East Carolina University, NC East Georgia State College, GA East Tennessee State University, TN Eastern Nazarene College, MA Eastern Oregon University, OR Eastern University, PA Eckerd College, FL Edgewood College, WI Edward Waters College, FL Elizabeth City State University, NC Elmhurst College, IL Elon University, NC Emmanuel College (MA), MA Emory & Henry College, VA Emporia State University, KS Endicott College, MA Erskine College, SC Fairmont State University, WV Faulkner University, AL Felician University - Lodi, NJ Ferris State University, MI MFT 2016 Comparative Data Guide Page 2 MD-4KMF

Ferrum College, VA Fisk University, TN Florida International University, FL Franklin College, IN Freed-Hardeman University, TN Fresno Pacific University, CA Furman University, SC Gallaudet University, DC Gannon University, PA George Fox University (OR), OR Georgetown College, KY Georgia College & State University, GA Georgia Regents University, GA Georgia Southern University, GA Georgia Southwestern State University, GA Georgian Court University, NJ Gonzaga University, WA Gordon State College, GA Goshen College, IN Grace College & Seminary, IN Grand Valley State University, MI Grove City College, PA Gustavus Adolphus College, MN Gwynedd-Mercy College, PA Hampden-Sydney College, VA Hannibal-LaGrange University, MO Hanover College, IN Harding University, AR Hardin-Simmons University, TX Harris-Stowe State University, MO Heidelberg University, OH Henderson State University, AR Hendrix College, AR High Point University, NC Hillsdale College, MI Hofstra University, NY Hope College, MI Houghton College, NY Houston Baptist University, TX Howard Payne University, TX Huntingdon College, AL Illinois College, IL Indiana State University, IN Indiana University-Purdue University, IN Indiana Wesleyan University, IN Iona College, NY Jacksonville State University, AL Jacksonville University, FL Jamestown College, ND Jarvis Christian College, TX John Carroll University, OH Kalamazoo College, MI Keene State College, NH Kentucky Wesleyan College, KY Kenyon College, OH Keystone College, PA King University, TN Kings College, PA Kutztown University of Pennsylvania, PA La Sierra University, CA Lake Erie College, OH Lamar University, TX Lander University, SC Langston University, OK Lenoir-Rhyne University, NC Lewis University, IL Lewis-Clark State College, ID Liberty University, VA Lincoln Memorial University, TN Lincoln University (MO), MO Lindsey Wilson College, KY Lipscomb University, TN Lipscomb University, TN Livingstone College, NC Longwood University, VA Louisiana State University - Alexandria, LA Louisiana State University in Shreveport, LA Loyola University Maryland, MD Loyola University New Orleans, LA Lubbock Christian University, TX Lycoming College, PA Lynchburg College, VA MacMurray College, IL Malone University, OH Manhattan College, NY Maranatha Baptist University, WI Marietta College, OH Martin Methodist College, TN Mary Baldwin College, VA Maryville College, TN Master's College, The, CA McMurry University, TX McPherson College, KS Mercer University, GA Mercyhurst College, PA Messiah College, PA Methodist University, NC Metropolitan State College of Denver, CO Miami Dade College, FL Michigan Technological University, MI MidAmerica Nazarene University, KS Middle Tennessee State University, TN Midland University, NE Midwestern State University, TX Milligan College, TN Millikin University, IL Millsaps College, MS Mississippi University for Women, MS Missouri Baptist University, MO Missouri Southern State University, MO Missouri State University, MO Missouri University of Science and Technology, MO Missouri Valley College, MO Missouri Western State University, MO Montana State University - Billings, MT Montreat College, NC Morningside College, IA Morris College, SC Mount Aloysius College, PA Murray State University, KY Nazareth College of Rochester, NY Nebraska Wesleyan University, NE New Mexico Highlands University, NM Newberry College, SC Nicholls State University, LA North Carolina A&T State University, NC North Central College, IL North Park University, IL Northeastern Illinois University, IL Northeastern State University, OK Northern Kentucky University, KY Northern Michigan University, MI MFT 2016 Comparative Data Guide Page 3 MD-4KMF

Northern State University, SD Northwest Nazarene University, ID Oakland City University, IN Oakwood University, AL Oglethorpe University, GA Ohio Northern University, OH Ohio Valley University, WV Oklahoma Baptist University, OK Oklahoma Christian University, OK Oklahoma City University, OK Oklahoma Wesleyan University, OK Old Dominion University, VA Olivet Nazarene University, IL Oral Roberts University, OK Oregon State University, OR Ottawa University, KS Ouachita Baptist University, AR Our Lady of the Lake College, LA Pace University - New York, NY Pace University - Pleasantville/Briarcliff, NY Pacific Union College, CA Pacific University, OR Paine College, GA Palm Beach Atlantic University, FL Penn State IMBA, PA Pfeiffer University, NC Philander Smith College, AR Piedmont College, GA Pittsburg State University, KS Point Loma Nazarene University, CA Presbyterian College, SC Purdue University - Calumet, IN Purdue University North Central, IN Quincy University, IL Randolph College, VA Reinhardt University, GA Rhode Island College, RI Roanoke College, VA Roberts Wesleyan College, NY Rogers State University, OK Rollins College, FL Rosemont College, PA Saint Anselm College, NH Saint Francis University, PA Saint Leo University, FL Saint Mary's College of Maryland, MD Saint Thomas University, FL Saint Vincent College, PA Salem College, NC San Diego Christian College, CA Savannah State University, GA Schreiner University, TX Seattle University, WA Seton Hill University, PA Shaw University, NC Shenandoah University, VA Sierra Nevada College, NV Simpson University, CA Slippery Rock University of PA, PA Southeastern Oklahoma State University, OK Southern Adventist University, TN Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, IL Southern Oregon University, OR Southern Utah University, UT Southern Virginia University, VA Southern Wesleyan University, SC Southwest Baptist University, MO Southwestern Oklahoma State University, OK Southwestern University, TX Spelman College, GA Spring Hill College, AL St. Ambrose University, IA St. Andrews University, NC St. Francis College, NY St. Norbert College, WI St. Petersburg College, FL Stephen F. Austin State University, TX Sterling College, KS Stonehill College, MA Taylor University, IN Tennessee State University, TN Tennessee Wesleyan College, TN Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi, TX Texas A&M University - Texarkana, TX Texas A&M-Commerce, TX Texas Christian University, TX Texas Lutheran University, TX Texas Wesleyan University, TX Thomas More College, KY Thomas University, GA Toccoa Falls College, GA Tougaloo College, MS Transylvania University, KY Trevecca Nazarene University, TN Trinity Christian College, IL Trinity University, TX Troy University - Troy, AL Truman State University, MO Union University, TN United States Military Academy, NY Unity College, ME University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL University of Alabama in Huntsville, AL University of Alaska Anchorage, AK University of Alaska Fairbanks, AK University of Arkansas - Fort Smith, AR University of Central Arkansas, AR University of Central Florida, FL University of Central Missouri, MO University of Evansville, IN University of Findlay, The, OH University of Florida, FL University of Houston - Houston, TX University of Indianapolis, IN University of Louisiana at Monroe, LA University of Maine at Machias, ME University of Mary, ND University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, TX University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, MA University of Memphis, TN University of Mississippi, MS University of Missouri - Kansas City, MO University of Missouri - St. Louis, MO University of Mobile, AL University of Mount Olive, NC University of Nebraska - Lincoln, NE University of New Orleans, LA University of North Alabama, AL University of North Florida, FL University of Northern Colorado, CO University of Pikeville, KY University of Saint Francis (IN), IN MFT 2016 Comparative Data Guide Page 4 MD-4KMF

University of San Diego, CA University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma, OK University of Sciences in Philadelphia, PA University of South Carolina - Beaufort, SC University of South Carolina - Upstate, SC University of Southern Indiana, IN University of Southern Mississippi, MS University of St. Francis (IL), IL University of St. Thomas (TX), TX University of Tampa, FL University of Tennessee at Martin, TN University of Texas at Brownsville, The, TX University of Texas at Tyler, TX University of the Cumberlands, KY University of Toledo, OH University of Virginia's College at Wise, The, VA University of West Alabama, AL University of West Georgia, GA Ursuline College, OH Utah Valley University, UT Valdosta State University, GA Virginia Union University, VA Virginia Wesleyan College, VA Voorhees College, SC Walla Walla University, WA Warner Pacific College, OR Washburn University, KS Washington & Jefferson College, PA Washington Adventist University, MD Washington and Lee University, VA Washington College, MD Waynesburg University, PA Wesleyan College, GA West Chester University, PA West Virginia State University, WV West Virginia Wesleyan College, WV Western Connecticut State University, CT Western Illinois University, IL Western Oregon University, OR Westminster College (PA), PA Wheaton College, IL Wheeling Jesuit University, WV Wichita State University, KS Wiley College, TX Willamette University, OR William Carey University, MS William Paterson University, NJ William Woods University, MO Williams Baptist College, AR Wilmington College, OH Wisconsin Lutheran College, WI Wittenberg University, OH Wofford College, SC Yeshiva University, NY Young Harris College, GA Youngstown State University, OH Copyright 2016 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved. ETS and the ETS logo are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service (ETS). MEASURING THE POWER OF LEARNING is a trademark of ETS. MFT 2016 Comparative Data Guide Page 5 MD-4KMF

2016 Comparative Data Guide - MFT for Biology Individual Students Total Score Distribution Data includes seniors from domestic institutions who tested between September 2014 and June 2016. Number of Examinees Mean Median Standard Deviation 21,334 153.0 153.0 13.0 Individual Students Total Score Distribution Total Score Range (120-200) 184-200 99 183 98 182 98 181 98 180 97 179 97 178 97 177 96 176 95 175 94 174 94 173 92 172 92 171 90 170 89 169 88 168 85 167 84 166 82 165 81 164 78 163 75 162 74 161 71 160 69 159 66 158 62 157 60 156 57 155 55 154 51 153 47 152 45 151 41 150 39 149 35 148 33 147 31 146 27 145 25 144 24 143 20 142 19 141 17 140 14 139 13 MFT 2016 Comparative Data Guide Page 6 MD-4KMF

Total Score Range (120-200) 138 12 137 11 136 9 135 7 134 6 133 5 132 5 131 4 130 3 129 3 128 2 127 2 120-126 1 Total Scores are reported as scaled scores. based on percent below the lower limit of the score interval. Copyright 2016 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved. ETS and the ETS logo are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service (ETS). MEASURING THE POWER OF LEARNING is a trademark of ETS. MFT 2016 Comparative Data Guide Page 7 MD-4KMF

2016 Comparative Data Guide - MFT for Biology 1 Individual Students Subscore Distribution Data includes seniors from domestic institutions who tested between September 2014 and June 2016. Subscore Number of Examinees Mean Median Standard Deviation 1: Cell Biology 21,334 53.0 51.0 12.9 2: Molecular Biology and Genetics 21,334 52.7 52.0 13.3 3: Organismal Biology 21,334 53.3 54.0 12.9 4: Population Biology, Evolution, & Ecology 21,334 52.1 52.0 13.3 Individual Students Subscore Distribution Subscores Range (20 100) S1 2 S2 2 S3 2 S4 2 84-100 99 99 99 99 83 99 98 98 99 82 99 98 98 98 81 98 98 97 98 80 98 97 97 98 79 98 97 97 98 78 96 95 97 98 77 96 95 95 97 76 94 95 95 97 75 94 93 94 95 74 94 93 94 95 73 91 93 92 93 72 91 90 92 93 71 91 90 90 91 70 87 87 90 91 69 87 87 87 89 68 87 87 87 89 67 83 83 84 85 66 83 83 84 85 65 78 83 80 82 64 78 77 80 78 63 78 77 75 78 62 72 72 75 73 61 72 72 71 73 60 72 72 66 68 59 66 65 66 68 58 66 65 60 63 57 58 58 60 63 56 58 58 55 57 55 58 58 55 57 54 50 51 49 51 53 50 51 49 51 MFT 2016 Comparative Data Guide Page 8 MD-4KMF

Subscores Range (20 100) S1 2 S2 2 S3 2 S4 2 52 50 43 42 45 51 41 43 42 45 50 41 43 37 39 49 33 35 37 39 48 33 35 31 33 47 33 35 31 33 46 24 28 25 28 45 24 28 25 28 44 24 28 20 23 43 24 20 20 23 42 17 20 16 23 41 17 20 16 19 40 17 14 16 19 39 11 14 12 14 38 11 14 12 14 37 11 9 8 14 36 6 9 8 11 35 6 9 8 11 34 6 9 6 7 33 6 5 6 7 32 3 5 4 7 31 3 5 4 5 30 3 2 4 5 29 3 2 2 5 28 1 2 2 3 27 1 2 2 3 26 1 1 1 3 25 1 1 1 2 24 1 1 1 2 20-23 1 1 1 1 1 Subscores for this test cannot be compared to testing years prior to 2014 due to changes in the Biology Test that were introduced in 2014. 2 Subscore 1: Cell Biology Subscore 2: Molecular Biology and Genetics Subscore 3: Organismal Biology Subscore 4: Population Biology, Evolution, and Ecology Copyright 2016 by Educational Testing Service. All rights reserved. ETS and the ETS logo are registered trademarks of Educational Testing Service (ETS). MEASURING THE POWER OF LEARNING is a trademark of ETS. MFT 2016 Comparative Data Guide Page 9 MD-4KMF