.

2011 Resource Guide for Approval and

Re-Approval of Undergraduate Food
Science Programs

Table of Contents
Section 1. Background, Purpose and Scope of Resource Guide ................................................................ 1
Section 2. Rationale for Assessment in Approval and Re-Approval Guidelines .......................................... 2
Section 3. Higher Education Review Board (HERB) ................................................................................... 4
Section 4. Undergraduate Education Standards for Degrees in Food Science (2011 Revision) ................ 4
Section 5. Procedure for applying for Initial Approval .................................................................................. 8
Section 6. Review Process and Criteria for Evaluation of Applications ....................................................... 9
Section 7. Annual Requirements for Maintaining Approval ....................................................................... 11
Section 8. Procedure for applying for 5-Year Re-approval ........................................................................ 12
Section 9. Training in Best Practices in Outcomes and Assessment ........................................................ 12
References ................................................................................................................................................. 12
Appendix A. Request for Initial Approval of Undergraduate Degrees in Food Science/Technology ........ 14
Appendix B. Application for Initial Approval of Undergraduate Degrees in Food Science/Technology .... 17
Appendix C. Template for Curriculum Map ............................................................................................... 22
Appendix D. Template for Coverage of IFT Core Competencies .............................................................. 23
Appendix E. Assessment Progress Report ............................................................................................... 24
Appendix F. Application for 5-Year Re-Approval of Undergraduate Degrees in Food
Science/Technology .................................................................................................................................... 28
Appendix G. Rubric for Evaluating Assessment Progress Reports .......................................................... 32

Knowing has shifted from being able to remember and repeat information to being able
to find and use it The role of content must be to drive the development of lifelong
learning skills, thinking abilities, and communication skills crucial to students success
content is not an end in itself.
From Issues to Consider: Helping Students Change, NEA Advocate, October, 2008.

Section 1. Background, Purpose and Scope of Resource Guide

The primary goal of the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) Education Standards is to enhance
excellence in food science education. Outcome-based measures of student learning are used heavily in
this process. The use of learning outcomes follows a general trend in academia towards a greater focus
on student learning rather than simply on knowledge in course content. Development of a comprehensive
set of course learning outcomes and well-designed tools for assessing how students have met these
outcomes has been shown to lead to improved learning. These standards are valuable as a guide for:
colleges and universities to evaluate existing food science programs or establish new programs, students
to select approved food science programs, and for government and industry to realize the basic
standards of professional competence for the graduates of approved food science programs.
This guide provides a general overview of what an IFT program approval requires and its relationship to
re-approvals. It also explains the two key features of the program review process addressed in this guide:
outcomes-based assessment of student learning and evidence-based claims and decision-making based
on assessment results. Combined, these two features 1) shifts program improvement from a traditional
input-based model to an outcomes-based model, 2) improves the quality of student learning by shifting
the focus from conducting an effective program appraisal to using the results effectively, and 3) facilitates
the integration of program-level evaluations with departmental missions and goals.
IFT first established minimum standards for undergraduate curricula in food science in 1966, and over the
years, these standards have evolved significantly. IFT reviews the minimum standards for approval of
food science programs about every ten years. The major changes in the recent revision (2001) were the
addition of outcomes-based measures of student learning. Another goal of the 2001 Standards was to
provide significant flexibility so that each program can best utilize the resources available to them. In a
move away from IFT approval based on specific courses, the Standards allowed each program to design
a curriculum that best suits its needs as long as the required learning outcomes are met.
In the 2001 Guidelines, a three-part approach was chosen as being most flexible, while maintaining the
rigor of the previous minimum standards. In the first part, specific content areas and accompanying
competencies were defined. Each of the content areas must have been met for a program to qualify as an
IFT-approved program. The second part required that specific learning outcomes be written for each food
science course and an assessment program be developed to measure how well students met those
learning outcomes. Programmatic outcomes and assessment were also required. The third part required
that a formal program be put in place for curricular improvement based on the results of the assessment
data. As in the past, only students attending universities with IFT-approved programs were eligible for IFT
scholarships.
In the 2011 Guidelines, IFT has kept the same Education Standards for food science programs as in the
past. However, the new guide contains 1) one document containing all the necessary information
1

for approval; 2) updated requirements for a programs approval process; 3) a process for
recording program assessment results on an annual basis; and 4) a simple process for reapproval. These changes were made in response to suggestions that the approval process be
streamlined, that an application/renewal process be developed that met the needs of programs and IFT,
that two approval documents be combined into one, that useful examples of types of assessment be
provided, and that all food science courses have skills objectives as well as the more conventional
knowledge-based objectives. These new requirements focus on incorporating an outcomes-based
analysis of student learning into a program appraisal and integrating the results of program appraisal into
a food science programs overall quality assurance processes.
A programs appraisal is a cyclical process for evaluating and continuously enhancing the quality and
currency of food science programs. The evaluation is conducted through a combination of self-evaluation
within the food science program, followed by peer-evaluation by members of IFTs Higher Education
Review Board (HERB). It provides an opportunity for a food science program to systematically and
comprehensively analyze a wide variety of data about its curricula, its student performance, and the
quality of its baccalaureate graduates. The results of this evaluation process can be used to make
appropriate changes that are incorporated into the programs overall quality assurance system.
This resource guide is designed to assist food science departments with meeting the new program
appraisal expectations within IFTs revised approval guidelines. This resource guide is not designed as a
comprehensive instruction manual for how to implement outcomes-based program appraisal. There are
many existing resources that serve this purpose (Allen, 2004; Angelo & Cross, 1993; Bresciani, 2006;
Bresciani, Zelna & Anderson, 2004; Huba & Freed, 2000; Maki, 2004; Suskie, 2004; Palomba & Banta,
1999; Walvoord, 1998; Walvoord, 2004). Nor is this an instruction manual for how to integrate program
appraisal into broader departmental, college, or institutional quality assurance. Instead, it describes some
of the key concepts and good practices implicit in an outcomes-based program appraisal process in an
effort to assist food science programs with understanding the new IFT guidelines.
In addition, food science programs are encouraged to submit samples of their own outcomesbased program appraisal guidelines so IFTs HERB has a variety of resources to consider and
share. If you have a sample to share, please submit it electronically to: knowledge@ift.org.

Section 2. Rationale for Assessment in Approval and Re-Approval

Guidelines
Definition of Terms
Definitions and explanation of common assessment terms used in this document are as follows.
Student Learning Outcomes are statements of what students will be able to do, know, or
value as a result of one or more learning activities. Research has shown that learning
outcomes enable students to understand better what they can expect to learn, what they are
learning, and what they have learned.
Course Learning Outcomes are statements of what students will be able to do, know, or
value after successfully completing a particular course. They help instructors more precisely
tell students what is expected of them in a particular course.
Program is a sequence of courses, instructional activities, and internships that culminate in a
degree or certificate of achievement conferred by a college or university.
Program Outcomes are the general and specific knowledge, skills, attitudes, and abilities that
students of the program will be able to demonstrate by the time they finish required
coursework and internship experiences.
2

The Purpose and Value of Assessment

Assessment provides the greatest value to the faculty, administrators, and students within the program
being assessed.
It provides a structure to foster continuous improvement that is aligned with departmental and
college goals.
Assessment is designed to inform decision making while taking the programs resources,
context, and other sources of evaluative information into consideration.
Assessment can be used to communicate standards, document successes, and identify
resource needs.
Assessment can help faculty achieve objectives and avoid unintended consequences.
Assessment should not to be used to evaluate an individual faculty member or staff member.

Improvements Made as a Result of Assessment May Include:

Developing or refining individual course learning outcomes and identifying appropriate means

for assessing their achievement.

Developing or refining program outcomes and identifying appropriate means for assessing their

achievement.
Better aligning department, college, and/or institutional goals.
Making curricular and other changes to improve student learning.
Purchasing new laboratory equipment and/or upgrading facilities.
Refining, reorganizing, or refocusing curricula to reflect changes in the discipline or profession.
Reorganizing or improving student support systems, including advising, food science clubs, and

student development initiatives to support the academic success of students in the program.
Designing needed professional development programs, including programs to help faculty learn

how to develop and assess course learning outcomes, improve pedagogy, and improve
curricular cohesion.
Reorganizing or refocusing resources to advance student learning or specific research
agendas.
Developing long- and short-term action plans for modifications and improvements.

Distinguishing Features of This Resource Guide

Brief explanations follow for the two essential features embedded in the program assessment model
discussed in this guide.
Any conclusions drawn during assessment activities are to be informed or described by
evidence. That is, all claims about a course and/or programs strengths, weaknesses, and
proposed improvement plans are to be supported by relevant qualitative and/or quantitative
evidence. This contrasts, for instance, with program appraisals that are largely descriptive
and based on advocacy. Hence, the section of this document (Appendix E) describing the
components of an Assessment Progress Report identifies types of evidence useful for
answering questions about various aspects of a programs quality or viability.
Evidence-based assessment includes the ongoing evaluation of how well a programs students
are achieving the Course Learning Outcomes and Program Outcomes. While assessment of
Course Learning Outcomes is independent of Program Outcome Assessment and part of
ongoing faculty processes for program improvement, program reviews need to incorporate an
analysis of a program-wide assessment of student learning. This includes a review of
3

program outcomes; evaluation of the methods employed to assess achievement of these

outcomes; analysis and reflection on learning results, graduate placement in the food
industry, and other outcomes data (qualitative as well as quantitative) over a multiple-year
period. All programs should provide completed matrixes showing how the outcomes are
supported and how they are assessed throughout the program and through summative
assessments.

Section 3. Higher Education Review Board (HERB)

IFTs Higher Education Review Board was created to assist programs through assessment of learning
outcomes, to enhance excellence in food science education; assist programs to gain IFT approval; review
approved programs every five years, ensuring that they continue to maintain to these Education
Standards; and review the Education Standards at least every ten years, making needed changes as
appropriate. The current IFT Education Standards were developed by the 2011 Guidelines Task Force in
conjunction with IFTs Higher Education Review Board, as charged by the Board of Directors of IFT.
If a program desires technical assistance in putting together an application, IFT will provide names of
volunteers who are familiar with the application and review process and who are willing to work with new
and existing programs. HERB will also provide assistance as needed to programs in preparing their
review documentation. Requests for assistance should be addressed to the Chair of HERB, who will
identify an appropriate committee member as the primary contact person. HERB will also provide
examples of classroom activities, example rubrics, and other resources for developing knowledge and
skills in the classroom and laboratories.

Section 4. Undergraduate Education Standards for Degrees in Food

Science (2011 Revision)
Definition of the Field of Study
Food Science is the discipline in which the engineering, biological, and physical sciences are used to
study the nature of foods, the causes of deterioration, the principles underlying food processing, and the
improvement of foods for the consuming public.
Food Technology is the application of food science to the selection, preservation, processing,
packaging, distribution, and use of safe, nutritious, and wholesome food.
In practice, the terms food science and food technology are often used interchangeably.

Objectives
The primary objective of the educational program of IFT is the professional development of food scientists
to the highest degree possible. To this end, IFT has developed these Education Standards to provide
assistance to colleges and universities for evaluating the effectiveness of academic selection, guidance,
and preparation of undergraduate students. Application of these education standards is intended to
promote continued excellence in food science education. Students with the skills designated by these
standards will have the foundation for continued professional development. It is the intent of these
standards to foster rigorous scientific training and to develop professional skills for students enrolled in a
Bachelor of Science food science curriculum.

Education Standards: Administrative and Physical

Organization. The instructional program will preferably be administered by an independent administrative
unit, ideally a separate organized department with an identifiable budget, that can adequately sustain a
quality academic program.
Faculty. The food science faculty will be of a size and competence commensurate with the diversity of
courses deemed necessary to meet the desired competencies (must have a minimum of four (4) faculty
members with food science degrees). Most faculty members should have earned doctoral degrees; some
may have extensive professional experience in lieu of a doctoral degree. It is expected that the food
science faculty, in addition to faculty from other departments of the institution, can adequately assist
students in learning the skills and competencies outlined in these standards. The fields of faculty
specialization must be distributed over the sub-disciplines required for the food science courses. In
general, courses will be taught by faculty whose graduate training or recent experience has involved
specialization in the area of the course.
Where it is not practical to include the entire faculty in a single administrative unit, the college or university
administration must define a faculty with the qualifications outlined to perform the necessary functions of
supervising, teaching, and guiding the program.
Facilities. Teaching laboratories will have up-to-date and adequate facilities and equipment to conduct
the chemical, engineering, processing, and microbiological exercises. Pilot-plant facilities will be available
to teach principles of unit operations and unit processes involved in food science. Library facilities and
holdings concerning food science need to be adequate to support, encourage, and stimulate independent
study and research by both students and faculty.

Education Standards: Curricular

Background Courses
For food science students to meet the core competencies, several background courses will be necessary.
These will generally include:
Chemistry: Two courses in general chemistry followed by one course each in organic chemistry and
biochemistry. Analytical chemistry and physical chemistry are recommended.
Biological Sciences: One course in biology, and one course in general microbiology that has a
laboratory.
Nutrition: One course dealing with the basic concepts of human nutrition and the relationship of
consumption of foods to health and well-being.
Physics and Mathematics: One course in calculus and one in general physics.
Statistics: One course.
Communications: Two courses, generally taught outside of the food science program, that provide the
fundamentals of speaking and writing skills.
The choice of background courses for a program will be based on the resources available at the
university and any constraints within which the program must operate (e.g., credit hour limitations). The
IFT Higher Education Review Board will work with each program to ensure that the courses selected
5

provide the necessary background for students to meet the food science competencies.
Food Science Courses: The "Core Competencies in Food Science" (see table below) provide guidelines
to prepare students for the B.S. degree in food science. The curricular standards encompass two
elements: specific curricular content and desired competencies of student learning. Note that these are
minimum competencies, are deliberately broad, and it is expected that each food science program will
develop its own set of detailed outcomes for each food science course and for the program as a whole.
Each of the Success Skills should be incorporated into as many courses as possible, starting simply and
then progressing to higher level performance toward the third and fourth years. The term "outcomes"
refers to measurable results of learning. Outcomes need to specify the level of learning, based on
Bloom's Taxonomy or other similar taxonomic approaches. Each program also will need to develop the
assessment tools used to measure the learning outcomes. HERB members will be available to provide
assistance in developing specific outcomes and methods of assessment.

Table 1. Core Competencies in Food Science

Core competency
Food Chemistry and
analysis

Content

By the completion of food science

program, the student should:

Structure and properties of food

components, including water,
carbohydrates, protein, lipids, other
nutrients and food additives
Chemistry of changes occurring
during processing, storage and
utilization

Principles, methods, and

techniques of qualitative and
quantitative physical, chemical, and
biological analyses of food and
food ingredients.

Food safety and

microbiology

Pathogenic and spoilage

microorganisms in foods

Beneficial microorganisms in food

systems
Influence of the food system on the
growth and survival of
microorganisms

Control of microorganisms

Know the chemistry underlying the properties

and reactions of various food components
Have sufficient knowledge of food chemistry
to control reactions in foods.
Know the major chemical reactions that limit
shelf life of foods.
Use the laboratory techniques common to
basic and applied food chemistry.
Know the principles behind analytical
techniques associated with food.
Be able to select the appropriate analytical
technique when presented with a practical
problem.
Demonstrate practical proficiency in a food
analysis laboratory.
Identify the important pathogens and spoilage
microorganisms in foods and the
conditions under which they will grow.
Identify the conditions under which the
important pathogens are commonly
inactivated, killed or made harmless in
foods.
Utilize laboratory techniques to identify
microorganisms in foods.
Know the principles involving food
preservation via fermentation processes.
Know the role and significance of microbial
inactivation, adaptation and environmental
factors (i.e., aW, pH, temperature) on
growth and response of microorganisms in
various environments.
Identify the conditions, including sanitation
practices, under which the important

pathogens and spoilage microorganisms

are commonly inactivated, killed or made
harmless in foods.
Food processing and
engineering

Characteristics of raw food

material
Principles of food preservation
including low and high temperature
processes, water activity, etc.

Engineering principles including

mass and energy balances,
thermodynamics, fluid flow, and
heat and mass transfer

Principles of food processing

techniques, such as drying, high
pressure, aseptic processing,
extrusion, etc.
Packaging materials and methods
Cleaning and sanitation

Water and waste management

Applied food science

Integration and application of food

science principles (food chemistry,
microbiology,
engineering/processing, etc.)
Computer skills
Statistical skills
Quality assurance

Analytical and affective methods of

assessing sensory properties of
food utilizing statistical methods
Current issues in food science
Food laws and regulations

Success skills
(Success skills should be
introduced in lower level
courses and practiced in as
many upper division courses
as possible)

Communication skills (i.e., oral and

written communication, listening,
interviewing, etc.)

Know the source and variability of raw food

material and their impact on food
processing operations.
Know the spoilage and deterioration
mechanisms in foods and methods to
control deterioration and spoilage.
Know the principles that make a food product
safe for consumption.
Know the transport processes and unit
operations in food processing as
demonstrated both conceptually and in
practical laboratory settings.
Be able to use the mass and energy balances
for a given food process.
Know the unit operations required to produce
a given food product.
Know the principles and current practices of
processing techniques and the effects of
processing parameters on product quality.
Know the properties and uses of various
packaging materials.
Know the basic principles and practices of
cleaning and sanitation in food processing
operations.
Know the requirements for water utilization
and waste management in food and food
processing.
Be able to apply and incorporate the
principles of food science in practical, realworld situations and problems.
Know how to use computers to solve food
science problems.
Be able to apply statistical principles to food
science applications.
Be able to apply the principles of food
science to control and assure the quality
of food products.
Know the basic principles of sensory
analysis.
Be aware of current topics of importance to
the food industry.
Know government regulations required for the
manufacture and sale of food products.
Demonstrate the use and practice of different
levels of oral and written communication
skills. This includes such skills as writing
technical reports, letters and memos;
communicating technical information to a
non-technical audience; and making
formal and informal presentations.

Critical thinking/problem solving

skills (i.e., creativity, common
sense, resourcefulness, scientific
reasoning, analytical thinking, etc.)

Professionalism skills (i.e., ethics,

integrity, respect for diversity)

Life-long learning skills

Interaction skills (i.e., teamwork,
mentoring, leadership, networking,
interpersonal skills, etc.)
Information acquisition skills (i.e.,
written and electronic searches,
databases, Internet, etc.)
Organizational skills (i.e., time
management, project management,
etc.)

Be able to develop a process for solving and

preventing reoccurrences of ill-defined
problems; know how to use library and
internet resources to search for quality
information, and solve a problem; and
make thoughtful recommendations.
Apply critical thinking skills to new situations.
Commit to the highest standards of
professional integrity and ethical values.
Work and/or interact with individuals from
diverse cultures.
Explain the skills necessary to continually
educate oneself.
Work effectively with others.
Provide leadership in a variety of situations.
Deal with individual and/or group conflict.
Independently research scientific and
nonscientific information.
Competently use library resources.
Manage time effectively.
Know how to facilitate group projects as well
as be a good team member.
Handle multiple tasks and pressures.

Section 5. Procedure for Applying for Initial Approval

Any university wishing to considered for IFT approval, should complete the Request for Initial Approval of
Undergraduate Degrees in Food Science/Technology (See APPENDIX A). After request for approval has
been made, IFT will provide a date for submitting the Application for Initial Approval. Because HERB has
to continue reviewing programs that are currently approved, all requests for Initial Approval will need to be
phased into HERBs current workload.
Each department (or appropriate subunit) must submit six (6) copies of the application and supporting
materials to IFTs headquarters office at least 10 weeks prior to the scheduled review date. Any formerly
approved program that has not been approved for two years or more will need to submit the Application
for Initial Approval. The review process will typically take place at regularly scheduled HERB meetings,
typically in March or October of each year.
Format. To ensure consistency in program applications and to ensure fair evaluation of all programs,
HERB requests that a standard form be used for preparing applications. The Application for Initial
Approval can be accessed as a Microsoft Word document or as a PDF form (See APPENDIX B). Be
sure to include a Table of Contents with page numbers clearly listed so HERB members can quickly
and easily move from section to section as needed. Please keep within the page guidelines stated in the
application form.

Specific Requirements for IFT Approval

Each program must provide the following documentation:
I.

Date of application

II.

Name of person completing application

III.

Description of Administrative Unit

IV.

Description of Faculty (Please do not submit full CVs for each faculty member, but
DO list the university from which each faculty member received his/her terminal
degree.)

V.
VI.

VII.

Description and photos of required facilities

Description of curriculum (Course requirements for each curriculum intended to meet the
IFT Education Standards)

Clearly show all course requirements for each curriculum to be approved.

Provide syllabi for all required Food Science courses with clearly identified
knowledge and skills-based measurable student learning outcomes (maximum of two
pages).

Provide a road map to document the expected student progress through the
curriculum (See APPENDIX C).
Coverage of IFT Core Competencies
Show where each of the IFT Core Competencies is covered within the curriculum of
required food science courses, with some level of depth or scope using Blooms
taxonomy or other similar categorization.

Complete a check list or grid, or equivalent, for competencies within the curriculum
(See APPENDIX D).

VIII.

Course Learning Outcomes and Assessment (This section is required to document that
student learning outcomes have been established for each required food science course in
each curriculum for IFT approval, and how these specific outcomes are assessed)

Document the learning outcomes for each Food Science course required to meet the
competencies.

Describe briefly how students are assessed (using multiple tools) in each course.

Indicate of the level of assessment (e.g., Blooms taxonomy or other commonly used
taxonomy). Summarize (briefly) results of assessment program to date (if any).

IX.

Food Science Program Outcomes (Use this section to show how program outcomes for
graduates have been defined and how these specific outcomes are assessed).

Document program outcomes.

Describe how these outcomes are or will be assessed.

Summarize (briefly) results of assessment (if any).

X.

Use of Results to Improve Learning (This section shows how the results of outcome
assessment are used to improve student learning through curricular modification).

Describe (briefly) the plan for using data obtained from all assessment activities for
curricular modifications.

Summarize (briefly) results (modifications, etc.) to date (if any).

Section 6. Review Process and Criteria for Evaluation of Applications

Review Process. A team of three (3) HERB members will be assigned as the primary reviewers for each
program. One Lead Reviewer will be assigned as the primary contact with that program (department) and
will be responsible for presenting the document to the rest of the HERB at a regularly scheduled review
meeting. This person also will be responsible for obtaining any information deemed necessary to clarify
9

information in the review document. A representative of the program under review should be available
(via teleconference) during the HERB meeting to answer questions and address any concerns of HERB
members. After an initial period of open discussion with the program representative, HERB will go into
closed session if needed to discuss the application and to reach a consensus on what action to take.
Feedback will be provided to the program representative once a decision has been reached. A formal
letter from IFT will be sent to the Chair/ Head of the department with a summary of the appraisal process
and recommendations.
Criteria for Evaluation of Applications. Evaluation of each program for approval are based on the
following guidelines:
Items I V in Application in APPENDIX B: All facilities and resources meet the minimum requirements.
VI.

Description of Curriculum.

All required Background Courses must be clearly detailed, including the course
number, title and credits. If a required Background Course is missing, a program can still
be approved as long as they can document where the students are getting the material
normally covered in the specified class and that they are assessing appropriate learning
outcomes for that background material prior to starting required FS classes with that
course as prerequisite. Note: In principle, this means that a program does not have to
require, for example, an Organic Chemistry class, as long as the students have learned
the material elsewhere (as in a combined General and Organic Chemistry course, or
through college preparatory classes, as found in some international programs) and that
learning outcomes are being assessed at the point where that knowledge is needed in
the FS courses. Clear documentation of both points is needed for IFT approval. This
approach puts the burden of proof on the program seeking approval and is consistent
with IFTs commitment to education based on assessment of learning outcomes.

All required courses of a Food Science curriculum (those used to complete the
Competency Grid) are clearly detailed, including course numbers, titles and credits. A
suggested course sequence for each program (road map) is required to quickly allow
the committee to see what courses are required and where and when in the curriculum
the students take each course.

VII. Coverage of IFT Core Competencies

The Competency Grid, or its equivalent, must be provided so that HERB can quickly
ascertain that all competencies are covered in the curriculum. Some indication of the
taxonomic (e.g., Blooms taxonomy or other commonly used taxonomy) level(s) at which
each competency is taught would be a valuable addition.
VIII. Course Outcomes and Assessment
Student learning outcomes for all required core food science courses have been clearly
written (agreement by the full faculty is implicit). Learning outcomes for each course
should contain both knowledge and skill domains. Individual course student learning
outcomes must contribute or support a food science general programs outcomes.
Specific examples of deep assessment of student learning must be provided. Provide
an example of assessment in each required course (beyond whats provided in the
summary sheets). Assessment above and beyond traditional homework and exams are
strongly encouraged, especially in upper level courses where higher levels of Blooms
taxonomy are developed.
IX.

Program Outcomes and Assessment

10

Outcomes for the food science program as a whole have been clearly written
(agreement by the full faculty is implicit). These should be detailed in one -two pages at
the most.

Also provide several examples of programmatic assessment of outcomes that are

proposed (exit surveys or interviews, employer surveys, alumni survey after 5 years,
etc.).

A comprehensive assessment program, including assessment at both the course and

program levels and that has been thought out at all levels of student learning, is under
development. HERB can provide additional input and assistance to help the continued
development of an assessment program. Current status and future plans should be
provided.

X.

Use of Results to Improve Learning

This section should show how the results of assessment are used to improve student
learning through curricular modification. It should describe (briefly) the plan for using
data obtained from program assessment for curricular modifications.

There should be a summary of results or modifications, etc. to date (if any).

Section 7. Annual Requirements for Maintaining Approval

As a condition for maintaining IFT approval, each approved Food Science program must submit on an
annual basis (by August 31 of each year) an Assessment Progress Report (See APPENDIX E).
Assessment of course and program outcomes of the food science academic program should be occurring
annually between initial approval and re-approval. However, HERB recognizes that it would be difficult to
make changes to each course each time it is offered as a result of the assessment findings. HERB is
requesting that the annual Assessment Progress Report record only the actions taken on a subset of the
course learning outcomes or program outcomes. Food science programs should report on the
interpretation of the assessment results in light of course learning outcomes and program expectations for
student achievement. Programs are then requested to summarize how the assessment of the subset of
courses was used to implement changes to course(s) or the food science program to improve student
learning. Because action (or a deliberate vote of no action) should be taken on the assessment results
of all course learning outcomes and program outcomes by the time of that programs re-approval, the
learning assessment schedule should have been completed after a five-year period. The annual
Assessment Progress Report should provide details for actions taken (or not taken) for only that subset of
learning outcomes that were selected for work during the previous academic year. The other two
components of the Assessment Progress Report are: (1) a summary of what the assessment showed,
and (2) a detailed description of how the information was/is being used to improve the program and/or
student learning. If your university requires annual reports, you may submit a copy of that annual report
in lieu of IFTs Assessment Progress Report. However, be sure your program report has a summary of
what your assessment showed and what your program is modifying or changing to improve program
outcomes or student learning. HERB will send out notices in June reminding food science programs that
annual reports are due at the end of August.
All food science programs approved under the 2001 guidelines that would come up for re-approval after
the new 2011 guidelines are implemented must submit an Assessment Progress Report for the years
remaining until re-approval. For example, if a program was approved for 5 years in 2012, an initial
Assessment Progress Report must be submitted by August 31, 2013. HERB members familiar with
assessment processes of student learning outcomes will provide feedback on each programs
Assessment Progress Report by December 31 of that year. Failure to submit two consecutive
Assessment Progress Reports without notification or reason will result in disapproval of a food science
program.
11

Section 8. Procedure for applying for 5-Year Re-approval

IFT will notify programs approximately nine (9) months in advance of when they are scheduled for review
for re-approval. Six (6) copies of the APPLICATION FOR RE-APPROVAL OF FOOD SCIENCE
PROGRAMS (See APPENDIX F) are due at the IFT Chicago office at least 10 weeks in advance of the
scheduled review date. A team of three (3) HERB members will be assigned as the primary reviewers for
each program. One Lead Reviewer will be assigned as the primary contact with that department and will
be responsible for presenting the document to the rest of the HERB at the review meeting. This person
also will be responsible for obtaining any information deemed necessary to clarify the review document as
needed.
Review: The review process for re-approval will take place at a regularly scheduled HERB meeting,
typically in October or March. A representative of the program under review should be available (via
teleconference) during the review meeting to answer questions and to provide support as needed for
HERB. After an initial period of open discussion with the program representative, HERB will go into
closed session if needed to discuss the application and to reach a consensus on what action to take.
Feedback will be provided to the program representative once a decision has been reached.

Section 9. Training in Best Practices in Outcomes and Assessment

To assist programs to continually improve the development of their food science students, HERB and
IFT's Education Division will develop and sponsor Webcasts as well as educational workshops at IFT
Annual Meetings on best practices in the scholarship of teaching and learning, and in outcomes and
assessment. The seminars and workshops can feature speakers/activities/examples of current best
practices and latest innovations. Online seminars and educational workshops can provide a means for
IFT to close the loop if and when feedback from programs determines that many of the approved
programs are facing similar instructional challenges and concerns. Face-to-face workshops can also
provide a forum for interested persons to meet instructional faculty and experts in the field and to discuss
their mutual concerns.

References
Allen, MJ. 2004. Assessing academic programs in higher education. Bolton, MA: Anker.
Angelo, T & Cross P. 1993. Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bean, JC. 2001. Engaging Ideas: The Professors Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and
Active Learning in the Classroom. (Recommended for Instructional Faculty)
Bresciani, MJ. 2006. Outcomes-based academic and co-curricular program review: A compilation of
institutional good practices. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Bresciani, MJ, Zelna, CL, & Anderson, JA. 2004. Techniques for assessing student learning and
development: A handbook for practitioners. Washington, DC: NASPA.
Huba, ME & Freed, JE. 2000. Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus
from teaching to learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

12

Maki, PL. 2004. Assessing for learning: Building a sustainable commitment across the institution. Sterling,
VA: Stylus. (Recommended for Assessment coordinators).
Nichols, KW & Nichols, JO. 2000. The Department Head's Guide to Assessment Implementation in
Administrative and Educational Support Units. NY: Agathon. (Recommended for Assessment
coordinators)
Palomba, C & Banta, T. 1999. Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, and improving
assessment in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Richlin, L. 2006. Blueprint for Learning: Constructing College Courses to Facilitate, Assess, and
Document Learning. Sterling, VA. Stylus. (Recommended for Instructional Faculty)
Riodan, T and Roth, J (Eds). 2005. Disciplines as Frameworks for Student Learning: Teaching Practice
of the Disciplines. Sterling, VA: Stylus. (Recommended for Instructional Faculty)
Suskie, L. 2009. Assessing student learning: A common sense guide (2nd ed). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Walvoord, B & Anderson, VJ. 1998. Effective grading: A tool for learning and assessment. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Walvoord, BA. 2004. Assessment clear and simple: A practical guide for institutions, departments
and general education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (Recommended for Assessment coordinators).

13

APPENDIX A
Request for Initial Approval of Undergraduate Degrees in Food Science/Technology
To complete the form, fill in the grey shaded boxes. Request should be written in English using Arial 12
point font. Please conform to the following headings and sequence, and your entire request should not
exceed five pages. Do not send supporting document unless it is requested by IFT.
Save the document as University_Name_ IFT_Approval_Request and send it as an attachment to
aylijoki@ift.org.
I. Date of request

Enter text here

II. Person completing request

Professional title
Departmental duties
Mailing address

Email address
Office phone number
Fax number
III. Description of administrative unit
A. Name of Institution

B. Name of College

C. Name of Department (or other administrative unit)

14

D. Name of Department Head/Chair

E. All undergraduate degrees including emphases (e.g., BS in Food Science, BS in Food Technology with
Food Industry Emphasis, BS in Nutritional Science) granted by the Department. Please check the box to
the right if you intend on requesting IFT approval for that program.
Degrees and Emphases

Requesting IFT Approval?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

F. How many years does it take most students to complete the degree(s) listed above?

IV. Use of IFT Education Standards for Degrees in Food Science

A. IFT Education Standards can be found online at: http://www.ift.org/Knowledge-Center/Learn-AboutFood-Science/Become-a-Food-Scientist/Approved-Undergrad-Programs/Education-Standards.aspx. For
how many years have you been using the IFT Education Standards for Degrees in Food Science in your
curriculum?

15

B. Do you believe you currently meet IFTs faculty requirements?

Yes
No
Additional Comment:
C. Do you believe you currently meet IFTs facilities requirements?
Yes
No
Additional Comment:
D. Do you believe you currently meet IFTs core competency requirements?
Yes
No
Additional Comment:
E. Have learning outcomes been established for each course in the food science curriculum?
Yes
No
Additional Comment:
F. Are course learning outcomes assessed using multiple such as portfolios, oral presentations, papers,
reports, projects, academic journals, quizzes and exams?
Yes
No
Additional Comment:
G. Are program outcomes defined and assessed using tools such as exit interviews or examinations,
alumni surveys, employer surveys, and food industry advisory boards?
Yes
No
Additional Comment:
H. Can you provide examples of how the results of your program outcome assessment are being used to
improve student learning?
Yes
No
Additional Comment:
V. Timeline for Approval
Most universities need at least six months to prepare a thorough application. In addition, the Higher
Education Review Board needs at least two months to carefully review each application in anticipation of
its annual meeting in October or November. Given this information, when is your preferred date to submit
an application?
September 1, 2013
September 1, 2014
September 1, 2015
Other
16

APPENDIX B
Application for Initial Approval of Undergraduate Degrees in Food Science/Technology
(Application format should conform to the following headings, sequence, and page limitations, using 12
point font. Any additional material should be attached as appendices.)
I. Date of application submission ___________________________
II. Name of person completing this application _____________________________________
Professional title

__________________________________

Mail address

__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________

E-mail address

__________________________________

Office phone number

__________________________________

Fax number

__________________________________

III. Description of administrative unit

A. Name of Institution

______________________________________

B. Name of College

______________________________________

C. Name of Department (or other administrative unit)

______________________________________

D. Name of Department Head/Chair

______________________________________

E. All undergraduate degrees (including emphases) granted by the Department (e.g., BSA in Food
Science, BS in Food Technology with Food Industry Emphasis, BS in Nutritional Science)
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
F. Of those above, degree(s) (including emphases) to be evaluated for IFT approval
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

17

IV. Description of faculty (1-2 pages)

A. Food Science and other faculty members teaching in the program (place an asterisk by course
numbers of required courses)

Name
Jane Doe

Highest Degree
and Institution
Ph.D., Ohio State Univ.

Appointment
Specialization(s)
member, full time Food Chemistry,
Quality Assurance

Courses Taught
FS 105, 215*, 450*

1.
2.
3.
etc.
B. Additional faculty (including those from other departments) teaching Food Science courses (place an
asterisk by course numbers of required courses)
Highest Degree

Name
and Institution
Appointment
Specialization(s)
Courses Taught
1.
2.
3.
etc.
C. Any extenuating circumstances regarding faculty that should be considered

Explain appointment status in the Department, e.g., member, adjunct, courtesy, joint, full-time, part-time)

V. Description of facilities (1 page)

A. Website describing and providing pictures of Department facilities __________________________
B. Equipment available for teaching undergraduates in the program

C. Teaching laboratories (include food chemistry/analysis, food microbiology, food engineering)

18

D. Pilot plant/processing capabilities

E. Explanations of accessibility if above facilities are not in-department or on-campus

F. Any extenuating circumstances regarding facilities that should be considered

VI. Description of curriculum (2 pages)

(Repeat this section for each degree or emphasis to be evaluated)
A. Specific website containing course descriptions for both background and departmental courses
______________________________ (If not available online, include as an appendix or include a copy of
the undergraduate catalog in application submission)
B. Required courses in each of the following background subjects:
Dept. Number Credits
Chem 103
4 credits

Lab included
Yes )

_____ _____

_____

_____

_____ _____

_____

_____

Organic Chemistry

_____ _____

_____

_____

Biochemistry

_____ _____

_____

_____

Other Chem courses

_____ _____

_____

_____

_____ _____

_____

_____

_____ _____

_____

_____

_____ _____

_____

_____

General micro

_____ _____

_____

_____

General micro lab

_____ _____

_____

_____

(e.g.
Chemistry
General Chemistry

Biological Sciences
Biology

19

Other biology courses

_____ _____

_____

_____

_____ _____

_____

_____

_____ _____

_____

_____

Other physics courses _____ _____

_____

_____

_____ _____

_____

_____

_____ _____

_____

_____

_____ _____

_____

_____

Statistics

_____ _____

_____

_____

Communications
Written

_____ _____

_____

_____

_____ _____

_____

_____

Human Nutrition
Physics
General physics

Mathematics
Calculus
Other math courses

Oral

C. Any extenuating circumstances regarding background courses that should be considered

VI. Description of curriculum cont.

D. Required courses (excluding background courses), listed in numerical order
Course
Number

Credit
Hours

Title

E. Elective courses offered, listed in numerical order

Course
Number

Credit
Hours

Title

F. Road map of suggested student progress through the curriculum (one for each curriculum under
review). (See APPENDIX C)
VII. Coverage of IFT Core Competencies (1 spreadsheet or checklist. See APPENDIX D)
(Repeat this section for each degree or emphasis to be evaluated)
A. Show on the template where each of the IFT Core Competencies is covered within the curriculum of
required food science courses and indicate some level of depth or extent of coverage (Blooms taxonomy
or similar scale).

20

VIII. Course learning outcomes and assessments (1-3 pages per course)
(Repeat this section for each degree or emphasis to be evaluated)
For each required food science course:
A. Please specify the student learning outcomes for this course (if not yet developed for all
courses, plans in place to accomplish this).
B. Tools used to assess learning outcomes (portfolios, oral presentations, papers, reports,
projects, academic journals, quizzes and exams, etc.), indicating level of assessment (e.g.,
Blooms taxonomy)
C. Brief summary of assessment results to date
IX. Program outcomes and assessments (1-3 pages)
For the program as a whole:
A. List specific food science program outcomes
B. Tools used to assess program outcomes (exit interviews or examinations, alumni surveys,
employer surveys, food industry advisory boards, etc.)
C. Brief summary of assessment results to date (if any)
X. Use of Results to Improve Learning (1-2 pages)
A. Plan for using assessment results to improve student learning through curricular modifications
B. Brief summary of improvements, modifications, etc. to date (if any)
XI. Submission.
Submit six (6) copies of this review document to the IFT headquarters office at least 10 weeks in
advance of the scheduled review date.

21

APPENDIX C
Curriculum Map for _____________ Food Science Program
FALL SEMESTER

SPRING SEMESTER

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
First Year

Total

15

Total

17

Total Credit Hours 32

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Second Year

Total

14

Total

17

Total Credit Hours 31

______________________________________________________________________
Third Year

Total

16

Total

15

Total Credit Hours 31

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Fourth Year

Total

16

Total Credit Hours 32

Total Credit Hours Required for Graduation: 126

22

Total

16

APPENDIX D
Template for Documenting IFT Core Competencies
Please indicate where each of the IFT Core Competencies is covered within your curriculum of required
food science courses and to what level (of Blooms Taxonomy). This form is to be used for completing
Use the following abbreviations to indicate whether the competency is introduced (I), covered to some
extent (C) or covered in detail (D). For Blooms Taxonomy, use the following:
Coverage of competency abbreviations
abbreviations
I = introduced
C = covered to some extent
D = covered in detail

Food chemistry

Chemistry underlying properties

Blooms Taxonomy of Cognitive Domain

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

FS
course
#1

FS
course
#2

FS
course
#3

FS course
#4

FS
course
#5

FS
course
#6

I,1,2,3

C1,2,3

D
3,4,5,6
D

D
1,2,3,4,5,6
C

and reactions of food components

Chemistry knowledge to control

Knowledge (or recall)

Comprehension (or translate)
Application (or generalize)
Analysis (or breakdown/discover)
Synthesis (or compose)
Evaluation (or judge)

reactions
Know the major chemical reactions
that limit shelf life of foods
All the competencies will be
listed in the final document.
This example is a place holder in
lieu of a more detailed template.
List other food chemistry
competencies required by the
program

23

Etc.

APPENDIX E
Assessment Progress Report
(To be submitted to IFTs Higher Education Review Board By August 31 of each year after being granted
IFT Approval/Re-approval Status)
If your program proposed a learning assessment plan in your initial or re-approval application, completing
the Assessment Progress Report template will be straightforward. The Assessment Progress Report
entails specifying the program outcome(s) or course learning outcome(s) that were assessed and the
methods that were used to assess them each year after initial approval or re-approval. The other two
components of the Assessment Progress Report are: (1) a summary of what the assessment showed,
and (2) a detailed description of how the information was/is being used to improve the program and/or
student learning.
The Assessment Progress Report template is shown below.

ASSESSMENT PROGRESS PREPORT (_____ - _____ ACADEMIC YEARS)

Food Science Program:

Name of coordinator:
Title:
E-mail:

Faculty who participated in the development or approval of this

Assessment Progress Report (please list all):

I. PROGRAM OUTCOME(S) OR COURSE LEARNING OUTCOME(S) THAT WERE ASSESSED IN THE ____- ____
ACADEMIC YEARS, METHODS USED, AND KEY FINDINGS
List the outcomes that were assessed, the methods that were used to assess each outcome, and summarize key findings.
Attach all relevant rubrics. Add more boxes if more than three outcomes were assessed. The first set of boxes provides
an example of course learning outcomes, assessment techniques, and summary of key findings.

OUTCOME MEASURED

Example of course learning outcome:

Food Microbiology, F12
Identify sanitation practices to control important pathogens and spoilage microorganisms
in foods

Method(s) of Assessment

1. All students (35) completed a multiple-choice and short-answer written exam.

2. Students (groups of 3) recommended sanitation practices for meat processing
facilities after discussing a case study.
3. Each student completed a written laboratory report about techniques to control
spoilage organisms.
4. Students completed a delta-plus activity (anonymous report) to reflect about
learning strategies in the course.

24

Summary of Key Findings

OUTCOME MEASURED

1. Students identified pathogens and spoilage organisms on written exam with an

average score of 72%.
2. Ten/12 groups (83%) correctly identified all appropriate sanitation procedures for
the problems presented in their case study.
3. Average scores from a grading rubric for the lab report about methods of control for
spoilage microorganisms were: 4.0/5, 4.0/5, 4.5/5, and 3.0/5 for pH, temperature,
oxygen, and chemical, respectively. Overall average was 15.5/20 points = 77.5%.
4. The majority of students reported that the textbook was difficult to understand, but
lectures and lab experiences helped them learn about pathogens and spoilage
microorganisms in food. Over 90% of the responses indicated that the case study
was time-consuming but very effective in illustrating control of microorganisms in
industry.
Example of program learning outcome:
Demonstrate oral and written communication skills appropriate for food science
professionals

Method(s) of Assessment

1. Senior teams presented public demonstrations about their product development

projects to students, faculty and industry representatives. Ten industry
representatives used a rubric to evaluate the content, creativity, technical expertise
and oral communication ability demonstrated by the students.
2. Written reports and oral summaries of Journal of Food Science articles were
presented in the senior seminar course.
3. Employers of food science graduates for the past 3 years were surveyed by the
college.

Summary of Key Findings

1. All ratings on the rubric were in the competent category. The average score for
8 teams was 92%; the average score for oral communication was 98%, according
to the industry evaluators.
2. Students ability to summarize JFS research data was satisfactory but not
exemplary. Eighty-two percent of the students scored 80% on the oral summary
assignment but only 60% scored 80% on the written summaries.
3. Employer comments indicated high overall satisfaction with food science
graduates, but the response rate was low (n = 9). Scores (1 = not prepared to 5 =
very well prepared) for most survey questions were above 4 except the ability to
communicate effectively in technical reports was rated 3.5.

OUTCOME MEASURED

Method(s) of Assessment

25

Summary of Key Findings

OUTCOME MEASURED

Method(s) of Assessment

Summary of Key Findings

26

II. ACTIONS BEING TAKEN AS A RESULT OF THE ABOVE RESEARCH FINDINGS

In the space below, interpret the above research findings in light of program expectations for student achievement.
Discuss the meaning of the learning assessment findings in relation to desired student proficiency. Describe how
these findings were used, or are being used to improve student learning (very important). If changes are being
made to courses or the food science program, summarize these changes. If lessons were learned during
implementation of the learning assessment, and changes will be made to future assessments as a result, discuss
here. (Sometimes an assessment does not go exactly as planned and it is not possible to draw conclusions reliably.
If this occurred, describe what happened and what will be done in the future to remedy it.)

Resource: Permission to use this form granted by Lisa Kramer info@PAERconsulting.com.

27

APPENDIX F
Application for 5-Year Re-Approval of Undergraduate Degrees in Food
Science/Technology
This Re-Approval application is intended to aid a food science program in determining what
improvements to the program and to specific courses have been made in the previous five (5) years, and
those that will be made during the next 5-year approval cycle. It is intended to be reasonably brief, but
still sufficiently detailed overview of the program at the 5-year point since last review. It should provide a
summary of recent assessment evidence (from recent yearly assessment progress reports), a description
of future assessment plans, and a description of plans for continued program improvement. Because
many programmatic changes may occur in the 5 years since initial approval, this document must also
reflect any substantive changes in a programs status (faculty, facilities, required background courses,
etc.) that could influence the curriculum and the assessment program.
(Application format should conform to the following headings, sequence, and page limitations, using 12
point font. Any additional material should be attached as appendices.)
I. Date of application submission

___________________________

II. Name of person completing this application

_____________________________________

Professional title

__________________________________

Mail address

__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________
__________________________________

E-mail address

__________________________________

Office phone number

__________________________________

Fax number

__________________________________

III. Description of administrative unit

A. Name of Institution
__________________________________
B. Name of College

__________________________________

C. Name of Department (or other administrative unit)

______________________________________

D. Name of Department Head/Chair

______________________________________

E. All undergraduate degrees (including emphases) granted by the Department (e.g., BSA in Food
Science, BS in Food Technology with Food Industry Emphasis, BS in Nutritional Science)

28

_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
F. Of those above, degree(s) (including emphases) to be evaluated for IFT approval
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

IV. Description of faculty (1-2 pages)

A. Food Science and other faculty members teaching in the program (place an asterisk by course
numbers of required courses)

Name
Jane Doe

Highest Degree

and Institution
Appointment
Ph.D., Ohio State Univ. member, full time

Specialization(s)
Food Chemistry,
Quality Assurance

Courses Taught
FS 105, 215*, 450*

1.
2.
3.
etc.
B. Additional faculty (including those from other departments) teaching Food Science courses (place an
asterisk by course numbers of required courses)

Name

Highest Degree
and Institution

Appointment

Specialization(s)

Courses Taught

1.
2.
3.
etc.
C. Any extenuating circumstances regarding faculty that should be considered

Explain appointment status in the Department, e.g., member, adjunct, courtesy, joint, full-time, part-time)

29

V. Description of facilities (<1 page)

A. Website describing and providing pictures of Department facilities __________________________
B. Please examine the Description of Facilities section in your most recent approval application and list
any changes, additions, or deletions to your facilities since that time.
VI. Description of curriculum (2 pages)
(Repeat this section for each degree or emphasis to be evaluated)
A. Specific website containing course descriptions for both background and departmental courses
______________________________ (If not available online, include as an appendix or include a copy of
the undergraduate catalog in application submission)
B. Suggested Road Map, showing semester-by-semester progress through the entire curriculum (show
one for each curriculum being considered for approval)
C. Please examine the Description of Curriculum section in your most recent approval application and list
any changes, additions, or deletions to your curriculum since that time.
VII. Program outcomes
To insure adequate review, please provide the specific outcomes for the program as a whole. This will
remind both reviewers and program participants of the main outcomes set by the department.
VIII. Summary of assessments over the previous 5-year period
Please submit all Assessment Progress Reports submitted since the previous review. This section
should also include a summary reflection of the evidence for student learning gathered from the previous
annual reports as described below.
Summary Reflections. This section typically interprets the significance of the findings in the above
analysis of program evidence. Its purpose is to determine a programs strengths, weaknesses, and
opportunities for improvement. It is helpful to have questions that guide the interpretation of the findings,
such as:
Are the curriculum, practices, processes, and resources properly aligned with the outcomes of the
program?
Are department/program goals aligned with the goals of the food industry and graduate programs that the
program serves?
Is the level of program quality aligned with the college/universitys acceptable level of program quality? Is
the program quality aligned with the constituents acceptable level of quality?
Are program goals being achieved?
Are student learning outcomes being achieved at the expected level?

It is also helpful to have evaluation criteria in mind; that is, what guidelines will be used to determine what
the evidence suggests about the programs strengths and weaknesses? In some cases, an absolute
standard may be used. For example, it may be decided that a student-faculty ratio of 20 to one is
30

necessary to ensure program quality, and any ratio higher than that is unacceptable. In other cases, a
norm-referenced criterion may be more appropriate. For example, if an IFT food science national student
survey was used to assess student satisfaction with the program, the evaluation criterion might be that
your students satisfaction is at least as high as students at other similar institutions.
IX. Future Goals and Planning for Improvement.
This section is intended to aid a food science program in determining what improvements to the
program and to specific courses will be made during the next approval cycle. Assessment of a subset
of all outcomes for the food science academic program should have been occurring annually between
initial approval and re-approval. Because all outcomes for a food science program should be assessed
by the time of that programs re-approval, each program should have completed and reported the
assessment results of all its proposed course learning and program outcomes by the end of a five-year
period.
Please provide a brief (1-2 pages) summary of plans for future assessment strategies and goals, and
how curricular improvement will be maintained. There should be a short discussion of how results of the
assessments will continue to be used to improve the food science program or student learning.
This section might address such questions as:
What are the programs assessment goals for the next five years?
How will the program specifically address any weaknesses identified in previous assessments?
How will the program build on existing strengths?

X. Submission.
Submit six (6) copies of this document to the IFT Headquarters office at least 10 weeks in advance
of the scheduled review date.

31

APPENDIX G
Rubric for Evaluating Assessment Progress Reports

Not yet developed

In development

Developed

Degree to which
outcomes are defined
and lend themselves to
assessment and student
learning

There is little or no
evidence that outcomes
exist for the course or
program

Outcomes exist, but are

incomplete or do not address all
of the desired outcomes for the
course or program; or, student
learning outcomes exist, but
faculty are unable to assess them

Outcomes exist, and lend

themselves to assessment

Degree to which
assessments address
outcomes

There are little or no

assessments used to
assess course learning
outcomes or program
outcomes

Assessments exist, and

have been communicated
to faculty on a regular
basis

Degree to which faculty

meaningfully discuss
students achievement of
outcomes and make
recommendations to act

Faculty discussions about

assessments have not yet
occurred on a formal
basis, or have only been
discussed intermittently
and in starts
There is no evidence that
assessment-based
discussions have led to
action or to any change

Assessments exist, but have not

yet been summarized,
aggregated or analyzed for
communication to faculty; or,
assessments are reported only
episodically (not regularly)
Faculty discussions about
assessments have occurred, but
only informally and among a
few

There is some evidence that

assessment-based discussions
have led to action or change; or,
there is some evidence that
recommendations based on
assessment-based discussion
have been enacted

There is ample evidence to

demonstrate that
assessment-based
discussions have led to
action; or, there is ample
evidence demonstrating
that recommendations
based on assessment-based
discussions have been
enacted

Degree to which
discussed actions are
implemented in areas
such as instruction,
curriculum, course
learning objectives, etc.

32

Faculty discussions about

assessments directly
evaluate student learning
outcomes and occur on a
regular basis