BL A260 Human Physiology, Prof. Stark
Fall 2006 Assessment report

Material from the assessment form that was administered is in plain text.
Student replies and material added during analysis is in italics. Eight students responded.

Here are the stated objectives of the course:

BL A260 Human Physiology was created in 2004 by chairs of Biology and Biomedical Engineering (BME). It is the third and final biology requirement (after Principles of Biology I & II [BIOL 104 & 106]) for BME students. BME majors successfully completing Human Physiology will know systems physiology (homeostasis, circulation, respiration, digestion, nervous system, etc.) comprehensively at a level that does not have those prerequisites (biological chemistry and cell biology) needed for biology students.

"The course fulfilled these objectives."
1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree
Average=1.75

"These objectives were reasonable."
1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree
Average=1.5

Comment:
There was a large amount of material to
cover, but with work it was possible

"BIOL 104 & 106 provided adequate preparation for this course."
1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree
Average=2.31

"This Human Physiology course a good idea for your third semester requirement."
1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree
Average=1.25

"The selection of topics for emphasis was reasonable."
1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree
Average=1.

"The level of the textbook was appropriate."
1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree
Average=1.38

"The level of the lecture coverage was appropriate."
1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree
Average=1.63

Comment
Difficult to keep up with the amount of
information being given

"Having outlines on the web was useful."
1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree
Average=1.13

"Having applicable test questions from the last two years on each outline helped for learning and for studying for tests."
1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree
Avrage=1.0

"Having several stories from recent literature, e.g. heart tissue engineering, women's health initiative study, etc.) was useful."
1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree
Average=1.63

Delete? Keep? Add more?

keep, maybe add more as more
recent stories emerge

I didn't really use them due to
time, I would have enjoyed reading them if I had more time.

"Having figures and condensed portions of the outline on PowerPoint presentations was appreciated." (new 2006)
1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree
Average=1.0
Comment

Though sometimes it would have been
nice to see the text and explanation before the picture or
figure.

Are there any topics you would like to be added to the syllabus in future years?

No

Not that I know of

No

None that I can think of

No

Maybe a stronger emphasis on the
skeletal system and systems in general. The skeletal
especially because we have many joint and bone problems that
we encounter in other classes.


Are there any topics you think should be reduced or eliminated?

No

The circuits that we tried to cover confused me a lot because I had never
done anything with circuits yet. If they were covered later in the year
(after we did a lot of work with circuits in physics 2) it would be
significantly easier.

The biochemistry was challenging, considering we've never taken any
classes that covered that material.

No

No

Possibly not as much of an emphasis on hormones.

A few comments about assessment for this course:

An interesting event occurred this year (2006). Biomedical engineering was getting an external review. In my capacity as the teacher for the biology department's service course for BME, I was involved. I met with Cameron Wright, the site visitor on Oct 9. The chair of BME and the dean of Parks had suggested that he might be especially interested in assessment, and, several years earlier, the chair had indicated that what I did seemed OK. So I addressed the moving target of "assessment" (see http://starklab.slu.edu/HistoryOfAssessment.htm) and told him that our interpretation these days was one of "course assessment" as a means of feedback from students about the course content. He laughed and replied that the students have only part of the opinion of what should be in the course and that his institution interpreted it more as "outcomes assessment."

Comment

The class had 20 students, 18 of whom were biomedical engineering majors. Sixteen were sophomores, 3 junior, 1 senior.

Plan for next year:

It is clear that only fine tuning will be necessary
(1) There will be substantial effort to adjust to the next edition of the text.
(2) I intended to improve on the PowerPoint slides as one comment suggested
(3) I will take the other comments under consideration

Return to WSStark assessment (main page)

or

Return to Human Physiology Syllabus (Information Page)

Return to Stark Home Page

this page was last revised 1/4/07