The General Education Assessment Working Group

Final Report and Recommendations

 

September 26, 2005

 

  

Working Group Members

Sandy Grunwald, Working Group Chair Summer 2004 & 2005, Faculty in Chemistry

Mike Abler, Member Summer 2004 & 2005, Faculty in Biology

Gwen Achenreiner, Member Summer 2004 & 2005, Faculty in Marketing

Eric Kraemer, Member Summer 2005, Faculty in Philosophy

David Reineke, Member Summer 2005, Statistical Consulting Center

Bruce Riley, Member Summer 2005, Faculty in Mathematics

Rachelle Toupence, Member Summer 2004, Faculty in Recreation and Therapeutic Management

Brad Seebach, Member Summer 2004 & 2005, Faculty in Biology

 

 

 

 

REPORT CONTENTS

 

PAGE

Executive Summary

 

2-4

Appendix A - Global Perspective Assessment Instrument

5-17

Section 1: Background

5

Section 2: Results & Student Demographics

5-10

Section 3: Assessment Instrument / Questions / Demographic Questions

 

10-17

Appendix B - Genetically Modified Foods Assessment Instrument

 

Section 1: Background

18

Section 2: Results

18-22

Section 3: Statistical Analysis & Conclusions

22

Section 4: Student Demographics

23-24

Section 5: Assessment Instrument / Questions / Demographic Questions

 

25-33

Appendix C - Medicine Without Doctors (HIV) Assessment Instrument

34-51

Section 1: Background

34

Section 2: Results

35-40

Section 3: Statistical Analysis & Conclusions

40-41

Section 4: Student Demographics

41-43

Section 5: Assessment Instrument / Questions / Demographic Questions

44-51

 

           


 

Introduction

            The General Education Assessment Working Group was appointed by the General Education Committee to develop, pilot test, and implement assessment instruments which assess student learning at UW-La Crosse in the broad areas of critical thinking, global perspective and science knowledge.

 


Working Group Activities and Background Information

           In Summer 2004 the group developed two different assessment instruments designed to assess student learning using the outcomes generated by the General Education Committee (4/28/03).  These outcomes were based in the broad categories of analytic and problem-solving skills; quantitative reasoning skills; content knowledge in science; and global perspective.  Both assessment instruments were pilot tested in Fall 2004 to approximately 30 students, revised, and rubrics were developed to score the student responses.  In Spring 2005 these instruments, along with an assessment instrument previously developed by the General Education Assessment Committee focused exclusively on global perspective, were administered to a larger cohort of UWL students with varying demographics.  Finally in Summer 2005 the working group reviewers scored the student responses.  These scores were statistically analyzed to determine any correlation between score and student demographic.  A complete report on each instrument, including correlation results, can be found in Appendix A, Appendix B and Appendix C. 

Along with these assessment instruments another working group developed an instrument focused on assessing student learning in written communication, responsible citizenship and integration of knowledge.  The results of that assessment instrument are not included in this report. 

 

Summary of Results

A.                  Global Perspective

            All three assessment instruments that were administered in Spring 2005 assessed student’s global perspective, specifically the student’s ability to “explain the rationales for cultural behaviors different from one’s own”.  The mean score for Instrument #1 was 2.12 (competent) on a scale of 1 (naïve) to 4 (sophisticated).  The mean score for Instrument #2 was 0.67 (scale 0 to 2) and for Instrument #3 was 1.08 (scale 0 to 2).  It was hypothesized that the student’s ability would increase with completion of courses having global awareness as a focus, increased age, more years in college, and participation in a study abroad experience (see Table 1 summary).

            The expected correlation was observed between student ability and number of global awareness courses in 1 of 3 assessment instruments.  Though no statistical difference was observed in the other 2 assessment instruments the data did show a trend in these 2 instruments whereby the mean student score increased with greater number of global awareness courses.  

            No statistical difference was observed between global perspective student ability and participation in a study abroad experience; however, in 2 of 3 instruments the data showed a slight trend of a higher score for students having some global experience versus students who had no global experience.  

            The expected correlation was observed between student ability and age in 1 of 3 assessment instruments.  Though no statistical difference was observed in the other 2 assessment instruments the data showed a trend in 1 of the instruments whereby the mean student score increased with age.

            The expected correlation was observed between student ability and year in college in 1 of 3 assessment instruments.  Though no statistical difference was observed in the other 2 assessment instruments the data showed a trend in 1 of the instruments whereby the mean student score increased with year in college.

            The students were also asked at the end of the demographic information “Have you had any experiences which you felt were helpful in interpreting the story/article which you read and answered questions on?  If so, please describe them below.”  There was a correlation between a Yes response and increased student ability in 2 of 3 instruments.  Though no statistical difference was observed in the other assessment instrument the data showed a trend whereby the mean student score was higher for students answering Yes to this question.  Further analysis on what type of experiences were reported and student ability needs to be undertaken.

            Furthermore the student’s ability was correlated with “what college is your academic major”.  Students associated with the College of Business Administration showed a statistically significant lower mean global perspective score in 2 of 3 instruments.  Though no statistical difference was observed in the other instrument the data showed a trend whereby the mean student score was lower for students in CBA than the other colleges.  However, upon further analysis it was determined that of the students in CBA who were administered the instruments, they were unproportionately freshmen/sophomore level vs. junior/senior level.  This discrepancy in student demographics likely accounts for the results observed. 

 

Table 1:  Summary of Correlations/Trends with Global Perspective Student Ability

 

 

Correlation

Trend

 

Instrument #1

N

Y

# Courses

Instrument #2

N

Y

 

Instrument #3

Y

Y

 

Instrument #1

N

Y

Study Abroad

Instrument #2

N

Y

 

Instrument #3

N

N

 

Instrument #1

N

Y

Age

Instrument #2

Y

Y

 

Instrument #3

N

N

 

Instrument #1

N

N

Yr in College

Instrument #2

Y

Y

 

Instrument #3

N

Y

 

Instrument #1

Y

Y

Other Experience

Instrument #2

Y

Y

 

Instrument #3

N

Y

*Instrument #1 is the Global Perspective Assessment Instrument summarized in Appendix A; Instrument #2 is the Genetically Modified Foods Instrument summarized in Appendix B; Instrument #3 is the Medicine Without Doctors/HIV Instrument summarized in Appendix C

 

 

 

B.      Critical Thinking – Analytic Reasoning

            Two of the three assessment instruments that were administered in Spring 2005 assessed the critical thinking ability of students specifically the student’s ability to “formulate and support ideas with sufficient reasoning, evidence and persuasive appeals, and proper attribution”.  The mean overall student score was consistent between the 2 assessment instruments at 0.98 and 0.99 (scale 0 to 2).  It was hypothesized that there would be a correlation between student’s ability and increased age and more years in college. Also correlation of the student’s ability with “what college is your academic major” was analyzed. 

            No statistical correlation was observed between student ability and increased age; however, in 1 instrument the data showed a slight trend of a higher score for students from age 18 to age 22.   

            No statistical correlation was observed between student ability and year in college. Though no statistical difference was observed in the 2 assessment instruments, the data did show a trend in these 2 instruments whereby the mean student score was higher for seniors than for freshmen.

            Furthermore there were inconsistent correlations between student ability and college of their academic major between the 2 assessment instruments.  Thus no conclusions can be made regarding this correlation.  

 

      Critical Thinking – Quantitative Reasoning (interpreting tables and graphs)

            Two of the three assessment instruments that were administered in Spring 2005 assessed the critical thinking ability of students specifically the student’s ability to “use mathematical and logical methods to solve problems” in the form of interpreting tables and graphs.  In one of the instruments students were asked a question whereby they had to interpret a basic table to obtain the correct data (Q5, Appendix C).  In the other instrument students were asked a question whereby they had to interpret a basic pie chart (Q7, Appendix B).  Students who were successful in this basic quantitative reasoning were 87% and 85%, respectively, showing consistency between the two assessment instruments.  There was no statistical correlation between student ability and any of the student demographic information.

            In one of the instruments students were asked a question whereby they had to interpret a more complex bar graph (Q6, Appendix B).  Only 40% of the students were successful in their ability to perform this task, leaving 60% unsuccessful.  Again there was no statistical correlation between student ability and any of the student demographic information.

 

 

C.                  Science Content Knowledge

Two of the three assessment instruments that were administered in Spring 2005 assessed the science content knowledge of students.  This was done by asking questions that addressed science knowledge that should be acquired through in awareness of issues addressed in the popular press.  There were also a few that addressed science content specific to the main focus of the assessment instrument.  The mean student score for the various science questions varied dramatically between the different questions.  For example the mean score was 1.73 on a 0 to 2 point scale for a question that asked how the AIDS virus could be acquired and the mean score was 0.83 on a 0 to 2 point scale for a question that asked if antibiotics should be used to treat HIV/AIDS.  Both of these questions are deemed as important science knowledge needed to understand issues that are addressed in the popular press. 

            There was not an overall consistent correlation of mean score and student demographics for the various science content questions; however, in several cases the following was seen:

  • students in SAH performed better than students in other colleges
  • seniors performed better than freshmen
  • performance was higher for students having taken more courses with a science focus.   

 

(see Appendix B and C for details on statistically relevant correlations)

 

 

 

Brief Recommendations

 

The Working Group recommends:

 

1.       implementation of a process for administering assessment instruments to lower and upper level students, besides asking instructors to volunteer a class period.

 

2.       exploration of methods to increase student ability in interpreting data in graphs/tables that are beyond basic level.

 

3.       that the General Education Committee communicates the student learning outcome findings pertaining to global perspective to the UWL International Task Force.

 

4.       further analysis of the correlation between global perspective learning and “other experience” be undertaken to determine what experiences enhanced student’s global perspective ability.

 

5.       that the General Education Committee use the results of these assessments instruments to provide benchmarks of student learning and watch for changes over time. 

 


 

Appendix A

Analysis of Global Perspective Assessment Instrument

 

Section 1: Background – In Fall 2003 the General Education Committee established an Assessment Sub-Committee whose goal was to develop, pilot test and implement an assessment instrument to measure student learning in the area of global perspective, specifically if students are “able to explain the rationales for cultural behaviors different from one’s own”.  This has been identified as a student learning outcome for the general education program (approved outcome 9/12/05 Gen Ed Committee).  Members of this committee were Terry Beck (consultant), John Betton, Sandy Grunwald, and Jean Hindson.  This assessment instrument consists of a reading from the book "Ponds of Kalambayi" by Mike Tidwell (1990) pub Lyons and Burford and the student responses to 4 questions pertaining to that reading (see Global Perspective Instrument at the end of Appendix A). 

 

The assessment instrument was piloted in Fall 2003 to 17 modern language students.  The student’s responses were scored using a rubric that defined sophisticated, knowledgeable, competent or naïve responses (see end of Appendix A).  Before scoring, the reviewers standardized their responses by scoring and reviewing these scores to determine that all reviewers used consistent methods of analysis.  Every student response was scored by at least 2 reviewers. 

 

After this initial pilot the Assessment Sub-Committee deemed this global perspective assessment instrument worthy of being used for further assessment purposes; therefore, in the Spring of 2004 the instrument was administered to 67 students enrolled in upper level management courses.  The student’s responses were scored by 2 reviewers from the Assessment Sub-Committee and their scores was analyzed by the UWL Statistical Consulting Center versus various student demographics (age, study abroad experience, number of courses with a global awareness emphasis, and outside experience).   The results of this assessment can be found in the Results section of Appendix A.

 

In Spring 2005 this assessment instrument was administered on a larger scale to UWL students.  The students varied in age, year in college, college of their major, study abroad experience etc…  Again each student response was scored by 2 reviewers (Sandy Grunwald, chemistry and Bradley Seebach, biology) who were part of the General Education Assessment Summer Working Group.  They used the scoring matrix described above to evaluate student responses.  Results and analysis of this more extensive assessment can be found in the Results section of Appendix A.

 

 

Section 2: Results & Demographics– The following shows the results of the student responses to the global perspective assessment instrument.  Note that the results will be divided into 3 trials for the 3 different times that the instrument was administered. 

 

 

Trial 1 - Initial pilot group, 17 modern language students, Fall 2003

Mean Score – 2.14 which is slightly higher than competent

           

 

 


 

Trial 2 – 67 upper level management students, Spring 2004

Mean Score – 2.01 which is rated as competent

For the raw data see Sandra Grunwald, Chemistry or David Reineke, Mathematics

Analysis of results by David Reineke, Statistical Consulting Center:

 

Correlation coefficients were obtained for the relationship between the average global perspective score and age group (r = 0.203, P = 0.123) as well as for average global perspective score and the number of courses with international or other cultural content (r = 0.069, P = 0.598).  Neither relationship was found to be statistically significant at the 5% level of significance. Furthermore, due to the low number of cases where study abroad was indicated, no statistical relationship could be established with the average global perspective score.

 

However, a significant difference in average global perspective score was found between students who have had experiences with other cultures and students who have not. Using a two-sample t-test, it was determined that the average global perspective score for students who have had experiences with other cultures is significantly higher than for students who have not (P = 0.001).  In fact, with 95% confidence we can say that the average global perspective score is 0.42 to 1.47 units higher for such students.  The sample mean of the average score for the 11 students who have had experiences with other cultures is 2.7, roughly translated as “knowledgeable,” whereas the sample mean for the 49 students who did not indicate having some other cultural experience is 1.8, or “competent.”  (Note:  cases where the global perspective scores differed by more than 1 were excluded – however, the results would not have differed if they had been).

 

 

 

Trial 3 – 189 students with varying demographics, Spring 2005

Mean Score – 2.13 which is slightly higher than competent

For the raw data see Sandra Grunwald, Chemistry or David Reineke, Mathematics

Statistical Analysis and Conclusions by David Reineke, UWL Statistical Consulting Center:

 

Analysis of variance was used to determine if significant differences exist among the mean Global Perspective scores for age, year in college, college of academic major, and number of courses involving global awareness while t-tests for independent samples were used for the dichotomous variables of time spent studying abroad and whether or not the student had other helpful experiences.  Although the amount of time spent studying abroad had five categories, the small number of students in the study who have studied abroad made it necessary to collapse the variable into two categories: “None” and “Some.” 

 

In every case, the normality and equal variance assumptions were examined, and where appropriate, the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test or Mann-Whitney U-test was used instead of the analysis of variance or t-test, respectively.  A level of significance of 0.05 was used for each test.

 

Only two significant differences in mean Global Perspective score emerged.  Students in the College of Liberal Studies had a significantly greater mean Global Perspective score than those in the College of Business Administration (P = 0.010) and students who reported having an experience that was helpful in interpreting the story or article had a significantly greater mean Global Perspective score (P = 0.013) than those who did not report such an experience. Demographic and descriptive statistics are given in the tables that follow. 

 

 

 

  1. Trial 3 Descriptive Statistics

 

The following tables contain descriptive statistics for the Global Perspective score according to each of the demographic variables: age, year in college, college of academic major, time spent studying abroad, number of courses with global awareness, and whether or not the student had other helpful experiences.  Asterisks with accompanying footnotes indicate significant differences.

 

Note: Student Score 1 = naïve, 2 = competent, 3=knowledgeable, 4=sophisticated

 

Age

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

18

19

2.0921

.87087

1.00

4.00

19

46

2.1467

.68023

1.00

3.50

20

34

1.8603

.61911

1.00

3.25

21

26

2.2212

.60550

1.00

3.50

22

34

2.1618

.77088

1.00

3.50

over 22

30

2.3333

.72912

1.00

3.75

 

 

Year

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Freshman

53

2.1934

.76999

1.00

4.00

Sophomore

43

1.9593

.62424

1.00

3.50

Junior

22

2.0568

.73165

1.00

3.50

Senior

70

2.1929

.68521

1.00

3.50

 

 

College

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

SAH

66

2.1136

.66677

1.00

4.00

CLS*

51

2.3235

.75547

1.00

3.50

CBA*

32

1.7656

.59885

1.00

3.00

CEESHR

27

2.1759

.68576

1.00

3.75

Undeclared

11

2.2955

.77313

1.00

3.25

*The mean Global Perspective score for CLS is significantly greater than for CBA (P = 0.010)

 

 

Study Abroad

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

None

172

2.1279

.70994

1.00

4.00

Under 3 months

10

2.0250

.70168

1.25

3.00

1 semester

6

2.4167

.90370

1.00

3.50

More than a year

1

2.2500

.

2.25

2.25

 

 

Study Abroad

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

None

172

2.1279

.70994

1.00

4.00

Some

17

2.1765

.75397

1.00

3.50

 

 

No. Courses w/Global Awareness

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

None

18

1.7778

.55498

1.00

2.75

1

42

2.0417

.71123

1.00

3.25

2

60

2.1833

.72467

1.00

4.00

3

37

2.0743

.69688

1.00

3.50

4

11

2.4318

.47554

1.50

3.25

>4

18

2.3611

.73376

1.00

3.50

 

 

Helpful Experience

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

No*

117

2.0321

.68192

1.00

3.50

Yes*

72

2.2951

.73438

1.00

4.00

*Those who answered “Yes” had a significantly greater mean Global Perspective score (P = 0.013)

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1. Trial 3 Demographics

Age

 

 

Frequency

Percent

18

19

10.1

19

46

24.3

20

34

18.0

21

26

13.8

22

34

18.0

over 22

30

15.9

Total

189

100.0

 

Year

 

 

Frequency

Percent

Freshman

53

28.2

Sophomore

43

22.9

Junior

22

11.7

Senior

70

37.2

Total

188

100.0

 

 

 

 

College

 

 

Frequency

Percent

SAH

66

35.3

CLS

51

27.3

CBA

32

17.1

CEESHR

27

14.4

Undeclared

11

5.9

Total

187

100.0

 

 

Time Spent Studying Abroad

 

 

Frequency

Percent

None

172

91.0

Under 3 months

10

5.3

1 semester

6

3.2

More than a year

1

.5

Total

189

100.0

 

 

 

Number of Courses with Global Awareness

 

 

Frequency

Percent

None

18

9.6

1

43

22.9

2

61

32.4

3

37

19.7

4

11

5.9

>4

18

9.6

Total

188

100.0

 

 

Helpful Experiences

 

 

Frequency

Percent

No

117

61.9

Yes

72

38.1

Total

189

100.0

 

 

 

 

College

Total

 

 

SAH

CLS

CBA

CEESHR

Undeclared

 

Year

Fresh.

Count

19

12

16

0

6

53

 

 

% within College

28.8%

23.5%

50.0%

.0%

54.5%

28.5%

 

Soph.

Count

10

11

9

7

5

42

 

 

% within College

15.2%

21.6%

28.1%

26.9%

45.5%

22.6%

 

Junior

Count

7

8

5

2

0

22

 

 

% within College

10.6%

15.7%

15.6%

7.7%

.0%

11.8%

 

Senior

Count

30

20

2

17

0

69

 

 

% within College

45.5%

39.2%

6.3%

65.4%

.0%

37.1%

Total

Count

66

51

32

26

11

186

 

% within College

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

 

 

 

 

Section 3: Global Perspective Assessment Instrument/Questions/Demographic Questions

 

Please read the following description of an event and then answer the short questions which follow. As your answers will reflect the quality of students at UW-L, it is important that you answer the questions to the BEST of YOUR ABILITY.  You are allowed 55 minutes to complete the exercise so take your time and do your best work.  Thanks.

 

Extract from the book "Ponds of Kalambayi" by Mike Tidwell (1990) pub Lyons and Burford.

 

“MY WIFE HAS LEFT ME, AND I’VE GOT TO HARVEST MY POND,” Chief Ilunga said. It was two o'clock on a Sunday afternoon and he was breathing hard. He had just walked the five miles from his village of Ntita Kalambayi to my house in Lulenga. He had walked quickly, stopping only once to drink tshitshampa with friends along the way. Now his speech was excited, full of the fast cadence of personal crisis. "My wife has left me, and I've got to harvest my pond. I've got to harvest it tomorrow and use the money to get her back.”

It was a dowry dispute. Ilunga’s father-in-law claimed Ilunga still owed thirty dollars in bridewealth from the marriage to his daughter five years earlier. To emphasize the point, he had ordered his daughter home to their village thirty miles away. She had obeyed, taking with her all the children. Now Ilunga was humiliated and alone, with no one to cook his food or wash his clothes. He needed money fast.

The development was something of a blow to me, too. Never had I expected the first fruits of my extension work to go toward something as inglorious as roping in a runaway wife. But that's what the Fates had snipped off. I told Ilunga I would be at his pond the next morning to help with the harvest.

Ilunga’s wife had picked a bad time to leave him. His pond was in its fifth month of production, one month short of the gestation period considered best for harvesting. Still, after only five months, things looked good. Ilunga had fed his fish like a man possessed, and as far as we could tell a considerable bounty waited below.

Part of the pond’s success was due to a strategy I had developed not long after arriving in Kalambayi. The plan was simple: get Ilunga and the other farmers to feed their fish with the same intensity they fed me fufu, and they would surely raise some of the biggest tilapia ever recorded.

“Imagine a fish is like an important visitor who has traveled over mountains and through rivers to see you,” I had told Ilunga after he finished his pond. “If, when you set a meal down in front of that visitor, he finishes all the food in two or three minutes and then stares back at you from across the table, how do you feel?”

He grimaced. “Terrible,” he said. “The visitor is still hungry. He should always be given more food than he can eat. He shouldn't be able to finish it. That's how you know he's full.”

“Exactly,” I said.

Exactly. Every day for five months, Ilunga dumped more food into his pond than his fish could possibly eat. He covered the surface with sweet potato leaves and manioc leaves and papaya leaves, and the fish poked and chewed and started to grow.

Helping things out was an unexpected gift. Two months after we stocked the pond, an official of the United Nations Children’s Fund in Mbuji Mayi donated two sturdy wheelbarrows to the Kalambayi fish project. The wheelbarrows were blue with “UNICEF” painted neatly on the sides in white. When I called all the farmers together to present the tools, the shiny steel basins and rubber tires inspired a great amount of whistling and head-shaking. I felt as if I had just delivered two mint-condition Mack trucks. The men ran their hands along the rims and grew dizzy contemplating the wealth the tools might bring. Using the village of Kabala as a dividing point, the farmers split up into two committees representing the upper and lower stretches of the Lubilashi. After establishing rules for their use, the men took possession of the wheelbarrows.

Ilunga, as much as anyone, parlayed the UNICEF largess into bigger fish. He used the upper Kalambayi wheelbarrow to gather leaves and termites for fish food. To fill his pond’s stick compost bins he went most Thursdays to the weekly outdoor market in Ntita Konyukua. There, he used the wheelbarrow to collect manioc peels and fruit rinds and the other rubbish village markets leave scattered about the ground. These materials rot quickly in pond water, stimulating a plankton growth essential for intensive tilapia culture. But to get the goods, Ilunga had to swallow his pride. He had to hunt through the crowd of marketeers and bend over and compete with hungry dogs and goats and chickens along the ground. It was something of a spectacle. Ilunga was thirty years old and the chief of a village – and he was shooing away goats to get at banana peels in the marketplace dirt. People started to talk. After a while, one of Ilunga’s bothers tried to dissuade him of the practice. “You're embarrassing yourself,” he said. “The pond isn't worth this.”

But Ilunga didn't listen, just as he hadn't listened back in the beginning when I told him he was digging a pond so large it might kill him. He kept going to the market. Stares and whispers didn't stop him.

Most amazing was the fact that Ilunga was doing all this work in addition to tending his fields every day like everyone else. He was squeezing two jobs from the daily fuel of protein-deficient fufu.

Eventually it started to show. I walked to his house one afternoon and found him outside, fast asleep in the coddling embrace of the UNICEF wheelbarrow. He had lined the basin with a burlap sack and reposed himself, his arms and legs drooping over the edges. From the trail fifty feet away, I watched. The imagery was potent, almost unbearable with its themes of hope and struggle and want all bound up in that exhausted face, those closed eyes, those dirty black limbs hanging down to the ground. God, how I had set Ilunga’s soul ablaze with my talk of rising out of poverty, of beating back the worst aspects of village life with a few fish ponds. He had listened to me and followed every line of advice and now he lay knocked out in the hold of a donated wheelbarrow. Deciding it would be criminal to wake him, I walked away, praying like hell that all the promises I had made were true.

And now we would find out. It was time for the denouement: the harvest. Five months had passed, Ilunga’s wife had left him and we would discover what had been happening all this time under the pond’s surface. I was anxious because, in a way, owning a fish pond is like owning a lottery ticket. Unlike corn, which you can watch as it grows, or, say, chickens, which you can weigh as they get big, there is no way to positively assess the progress of a pond until you harvest it. The fish are under water, so you can't count them or get a good look at them. You just have to work and work and wait. You hang on to your lottery ticket and wait for the drawing, never sure what number will come up until you drain the pond.

Ilunga and I had a pretty good idea his fish were big, of course. God knows they had been given enough to eat. We also had seen lots of offspring along the pond’s edges. But the water was now so well fertilized and pea-green with plankton that neither of us had seen a fish in nearly two months. (Ilunga had refused to eat any fish in order to maximize the harvest.) We knew the tilapia were there, but how many exactly? How big? And what about the birds? How many fish had the thieving kingfishers taken? We would soon know all the answers. An unacknowledged, icy fear ran through both of us as we agreed that Sunday afternoon at my house to harvest his pond the next day.

It was just past 6 a.m. when I arrived for the harvest. Ilunga and his brother Tshibamba were calling and waving their arms as I moved down the valley slope toward the pond. “Michel, Michel. Come quickly. Hurry, Michel.” I had driven my motorcycle to Ilunga’s house in the predawn dark, using my headlight along the way. Now, as I finished the last of the twenty-minute walk to the valley floor, the sky was breaking blue and a crazy montage of pink and silver clouds lay woven on the horizon. The morning beauty was shattered, however, by the cries of the men waiting for me at the pond. They were yelling something I didn't want to hear. It was something my mind refused to accept.

“There are no fish, Michel,” they said. “Hurry. The fish aren't here.”

I reached the pond and cast an incredulous stare into the water. They were right. There were no fish. The men had spent most of the night digging out a vertical section of the lower dike and slowly draining the water until there now remained only a muddy, five-by-five-foot pool in the lower-most corner of the pond. The pool was about six inches deep. And it was empty.

Tshibamba was screaming, running along the dikes and pointing an accusing finger at the pond bottom. “Where are they?” he demanded of the pond. “Where are the fish?”

Ilunga was past the yelling stage. He gazed at the shallow pool, his face sleepy and creased, and said nothing. He was a wreck; as forlorn and defeated as the pond scarecrow ten feet to his left with its straw limbs akimbo and head splotched with bird excrement.

“Wait a minute,” I said to the men, suddenly spotting something at one end of the pool. “Look!”

I pointed to a fan-shaped object sticking out of the water and looking a lot like a dorsal fin. We all looked. It moved. A fish. Before we could celebrate, other fins appeared throughout the pool, dozens of them, then hundreds. The pond water, which had continued all the while to flow out through a net placed over the cut dike, had suddenly reached a depth lower than the vertical height of the bottom-hugging fish. The fish had been hiding under the muddy water and were revealed only at the last moment and all at the same time, a phenomenon of harvesting we eventually became nervously accustomed to in Kalambayi. Ilunga's fish – big, medium and small – had been corralled by the dropping water into the small pool where they waited like scaly cattle. They looked stupid and restless. “Yeah, now what?” they seemed to ask.

Ilunga showed them. He threw off his shirt and made a quick banzai charge into the congested fray, his arms set to scoop up hard-won booty. There ensued an explosion of jumping fish and flying mud, and Ilunga absorbed the rat-tat-tat of a thousand mud dots from his feet to his face. By the time his hands reached the pool, the fish had scattered everywhere into the surrounding mud like thinking atoms suddenly released from some central, binding force. Ilunga raised his empty hands. He looked up at us – his face covered with mud dots, his feet sinking into the pond-bottom gook – and flashed a wide smile. The harvest had begun.

“The small ones,” I yelled, hurriedly discarding my shirt and shoes. “Get the small fish first to restock with.”

I jumped into the pond and, like Ilunga, was immediately pelted with mud. Two more of Ilunga’s brothers had arrived by then, and together, five strong, we gave battle with the tenacity of warriors waging jihad. We chased the flapping, flopping, fleeing fish through the pond-bottom sludge. When we caught them, we stepped on them and throttled them and herded them into tin buckets. Ilunga took charge of capturing and counting three hundred thumb-sized stocking fish and putting them in a small holding pond. The rest of us collected the other fish, segregating the original stockers, which were now hand-sized, from the multitudinous offspring. The work was dirty and sloppy and hypnotically fun.

So engrossed was I in the harvest, in fact, that I barely noticed the tops of the pond dikes were growing crowded with onlookers. By the time we finished capturing all the fish, people had surrounded the square pond bottom like spectators around a boxing ring. A quarter of the men, women, and children in the village had come to see the harvest. I was impressed by their show of support for Ilunga’s work.

Ilunga ordered the crowd to clear back from a spot on the upper dike. Filthy like pigs, we carried the fish out of the pond in four large buckets and set them down at the clearing. We rinsed them off with canal water and began weighing them with a small handheld scale I had brought. The total came to forty-four kilos. It was an excellent harvest. After only five months, Ilunga had coaxed three hundred tilapia fingerlings into forty-four kilos of valuable protein. It was enough to bring home his wife and then some.

Whistling and laughing, I grabbed Ilunga by the shoulders and shook him and told him what a great harvest it was. I had expected a lot of fish, but not this many. It was marvelous, I told him, simply marvelous. He smiled and agreed. But he wasn’t nearly as happy as he should have been. Something was wrong. His eyes telegraphed fear.

Tshibamba made the first move.

“Go get some leaves from that banana tree over there,” he told a child standing on the pond bank.

When the child returned, Tshibamba scooped about a dozen fish onto one of the leaves and wrapped them up.

“I'm going to take these up to the house,” he said to Ilunga. “It’s been a while since the children have had fresh fish.”

“Yes, yes,” Ilunga said. “Take some.”

“I’ll have a little, too,” said Kazadi, Ilunga’s youngest brother, reaching into a bucket.

“Go ahead. Take what you need.”

Then a third brother stepped forward. Then a fourth. Then other villagers. My stomach sank.

It was suddenly all clear – the crowd, the well-wishers, the brothers of Ilunga who had never even seen the pond until that morning. They had come to divide up the harvest. A cultural imperative was playing itself out. It was time for Ilunga to share his wealth. He stood by the buckets and started placing fish in the hands of every relative and friend who stepped forth. It would have driven Rayleen McGarity stark raving mad. He was just giving the harvest away.

There was no trace of anger on his face as he did it, either. Nor was there a suggestion of duty or obligation. It was less precise than that. This was Ilunga’s village and he had a sudden surplus and so he shared it. It just happened. It was automatic. But the disappointment was there, weighing down on the corners of his eyes. He needed the fish. Getting his wife back had depended on them.

Caked in mud, I sat on the grassy bank and watched an entire bucket of tilapia disappear. Fury and frustration crashed through me with the force of a booming waterfall. All that work. All my visits. All the digging and battling kingfishers. All for what? For this? For a twenty-minute free-for-all giveaway? Didn't these people realize the ponds were different? Ilunga had worked hard to produce this harvest. He had tried to get ahead. Where were they when he dug his pond? Where were they when he heaved and hoed and dislodged from the earth 4000 cubic feet of dirt?

I knew the answer. They had been laughing. They had been whispering among themselves that Ilunga was wasting his time, that moving so much dirt with a shovel was pure lunacy. And they 1aughed even harder when they saw him bending over to pick up fruit rinds in the marketplace in competition with goats and dogs. But they weren't laughing now. Ilunga had proved them wrong. He had raised more fish than any of them had seen in their lives, and now they were taking the spoils.

The fish continued to disappear and I began bursting with a desire to intervene. I wanted to ask Ilunga what the hell he was doing and to tell him to stop it. I wanted to turn over the bucket already emptied of fish and stand on it and shoo everyone away like I had shooed Mutoba Muenyi those first few times she came to my door. “Giving is virtuous and all that,” I wanted to tell the crowd. “But this is different. These are Ilunga’s fish. They’re his. Leave them alone. He needs them.”

But I said nothing. I summoned every ounce of self-restraint in my body and remained silent. This was something between Ilunga and his village. My job was to teach him how to raise fish. I had done my job. What he did with the fish afterward really was none of my business. Even so, I didn't have to watch. I went over to the canal and washed up. Ilunga was well into the second bucket when I told him I was leaving.

“Wait,” he said. “Here.”

He thrust into my hands a large bundle of fish.

Oh, no, I thought. Not me. I’m not going to be party to this gouging. I tried to hand the bundle back.

“But these fish are for you,” he said. “You’ve taught me how to raise fish, and this is to say thank you.”

“No, Ilunga. This is your harvest. You earned it. You keep it.”

He gave me a wounded look, as if I had just spit in his face, and suddenly I wanted to scream and kick and smash things. I couldn’t refuse his offer without devastating him. I took the fish and headed up the hill, feeling like a real parasite.

“Wait for me at the house,” he said as I walked away.

It was 8:30 when I reached the village and stretched out, dizzy with disappointment, on a reed mat next to Ilunga’s house. He arrived about thirty minutes later with his sister Ngala who had helped at the harvest. Both of their faces looked drained from the great hemorrhaging they had just gone through. Without even the benefit of loaves of bread, they had fed a mass of about fifty villagers, and now Ngala carried all that was left in one big tin basin. I estimated there were about twenty-five kilos. To my dismay, though, Ilunga wasn’t finished. He scooped out another couple of kilos to give to older relatives who hadn’t made it to the pond. Then he sent Ngala off to the market in Lulenga with roughly twenty-three kilos of fish, barely half the harvest total.

At the going market price of 100 zaires a kilo, Ilunga stood to make 2300 zaires ($23). It was far short of what he needed to get his wife back. Far short, in fact, of anything I could expect village men to accept as fair return for months of punishing shovel work and more months of maniacal feeding. The problem wasn't the technology. Ilunga had produced forty-four kilos of fish in one pond in five months. That was outstanding. The problem, rather, was generosity. It was a habit of sharing so entrenched in the culture that it made me look to the project’s future with foreboding. What incentive did men like Ilunga have to improve their lives – through fish culture or any other means – if so much of the gain immediately melted into a hundred empty hands? Why work harder? Why develop? Better just to farm enough to eat. Better to stay poor like all the rest.

After Ilunga’s sister left for the market, I couldn’t hold my tongue any longer. We were alone at his house.

“I can't believe you gave away all those fish, Ilunga. Why did you even bother digging a pond if all you were going to do with the harvest was give it away?”

He knew I was upset, and he didn’t want to talk about it.

“Why did you dig a pond?” I repeated.

“You know why,” he said. “To get more money. To help my family.”

“So how can you help your family if you give away half the fish?”

“But there’s still a lot left,” he said. “You act like I gave them all away.”

I suddenly realized he was about ten times less upset by what had happened than I was. My frustration doubled.

“What do you mean there’s still a lot left? There’s not enough to get your wife back, is there? You gave away too much for that. Your pond hasn't done you much good, and I guess I’ve wasted my time working with you.”

The last sentence really annoyed him.

“Look,” he said, “what could I have done? After I drained my pond I had hundreds and hundreds of fish. There were four buckets full. You saw them. If my brother comes and asks for ten fish, can I say no? For ten fish? That's crazy. I can't refuse.”

“No, it’s not crazy, Ilunga. You have six brothers and ten uncles and fifty cousins. And then there are all the other villagers. You’re right. Ten fish aren’t very many. But when you give ten to everyone you have little left for yourself.”

“So what would you have done?” he asked me. “Would you have refused fish to all those people?”

“Yes,” I said, and I meant it.

“You mean you would have taken all the fish and walked past all those people and children and gone up to the house and locked the door.”

“Don't say it like that,” I said. “You could have explained to them that the pond was your way of making money, that the harvest was for your wife.”

“They already know I need my wife,” he said. “And they know I’ll get her back somehow.”

“Yeah, how? You were counting on the harvest to do that, and now it’s over. You gave away too much, Ilunga. You can’t keep doing this. You can’t feed the whole village by yourself. It’s impossible. You have to feed your own children and take care of your own immediate family. Let your brothers worry about their families. Let them dig ponds if they want to. You’ve got to stop giving away your harvests.”

Thus spoke Michel, the agent of change, the man whose job it was to try to rewrite the society’s molecular code. Sharing fufu and produce and other possessions was one thing. With time, I had come around to the habit myself, seen its virtuosity. But the ponds were different, and I had assumed the farmers realized that. Raising fish was meant to creak surplus wealth; to carry the farmers and their immediate families to a level where they had more for themselves – better clothes, extra income. That was the incentive upon which the project was built. It was the whole reason I was there.

So when Ilunga harvested his pond that early morning and started giving away the fish, I wanted to retreat. I wanted to renounce my conversion to the local system and move back to the old impulse I had arrived with, the one that had me eating secret, solitary meals and guarding my things in the self-interested way prized by my own society.

“Stop the giving” – that was the real, the final, message I wanted to bring to Ilunga and the other fish farmers. Stop the giving and the community-oriented attitude and you can escape the worst ravages of poverty. Build a pond and make it yours. And when you harvest it, don’t give away the fish. Forget, for now, the bigger society. Forget the extended family. Step back and start thinking like self-enriching entrepreneurs, like good little capitalists.

But Ilunga didn’t fit the plan. Nor did any of the other farmers who harvested after him. “If my brother comes and asks for ten fish, can I say no?” he had asked. His logic was stronger than it seemed. Like everyone else in Kalambayi, Ilunga needed badly the help fish culture could provide. What he didn’t need, however, were lessons on how to stay alive. And that, I eventually grew to understand, was what all the sharing was really about. It was a survival strategy; an unwritten agreement by the group that no one would be allowed to fall off the societal boat no matter how low provisions ran on board. No matter how bad the roads became or how much the national economy constricted, sharing and mutual aide meant everyone in each village stayed afloat. If a beggar like Mutoba Muenyi came to your house in the predawn darkness, you gave her food. If you harvested a pond and fifty malnourished relatives showed up, you shared what you had. Then you made the most of what was left. If it was twenty-three dollars, that was okay. It was still a lot of money in a country where the average annual income is $170 and falling. It might not pay off a marriage debt, but $23 satisfied other basic needs.

In the end, despite my fears, sharing didn’t destroy the fish project. Farmers went on building and harvesting ponds, giving away twenty to fifty percent of their fish, and selling the rest to earn money for their wives and their children. It was a process I simply couldn’t change and eventually I stopped trying.

And perhaps it was just as well Ilunga and the others weren’t in a hurry to become the kind of producers I wanted them to be. They might develop along Western lines with time, but why push them? The local system worked. Everyone was taken care of. Everyone did stay afloat. Besides, there were already plenty of myopic, self-enriching producers in the world – entrepreneurs and businesses guided by the sole principle of increasing their own wealth above all else. So many were there in fact that the planetary boat, battered by breakneck production and consumption, was in ever-increasing danger of sinking, taking with it the ultimate extended family: the species. There seemed to be no survival strategy at work for the planet as a whole as there was for this small patch of Africa; no thread of broader community interest that ensured against total collapse. Indeed, sitting in my lamplit cotton warehouse at night, listening to growing reports of global environmental degradation over my shortwave radio, the thought occurred to me more than once that, in several important respects, Kalambayi needed far less instruction from the West than the other way around.

At the moment, however, no one needed anything as much as Ilunga needed his wife. He had given away nearly half his fish and now the opportunity had all but vanished. I stopped back by his house after the market closed in Lulenga and watched him count the money from the harvest two thousand zaires. Even less than I had thought. I reached into my pocket and pulled out all I had, two hundred zaires. l handed it to him. He was still short.

“What are you going to do?”

“I don't know,” he said. “I’ve got to think about it.”

Three days later, on my way to Tshipanzula, I pulled up to Ilunga’s house to see what solution he had come up with. I was surprised when he wasn’t there and his neighbors said he had gone to Baluba Shankadi, his wife’s tribe.

Another week went by before I saw Ilunga again. It was in the market in Ntita Konyukna and he was standing under a mimosa tree, gesturing and talking with two other fish farmers. As I made my way through the crowd of marketeers, getting closer, I saw Ilunga’s wife standing behind him, carrying their youngest child.

“How?” I asked when I reached him, shaking his hand, delighted by the sight of mother and child. “How did you do it?”

At first he didn’t answer. He talked instead about his pond, telling me he had returned the day before and now was trying to track down the UNICEF wheelbarrow to start feeding his fish again.

“But your wife,” I said. “How did you get her back?”

“Oh, yes, she’s back,” he said. “Well, I really don’t know how I did it. After you left my house that day I still needed eight hundred zaires. One of my brothers gave me a hundred, but it still wasn’t enough. I tried, but I couldn’t come up with the rest of the money so I decided to leave with what I had. I walked for two days and reached my wife’s village and handed the money to my father-in-law. He counted it and told me I was short. I told him I knew I was but that I didn’t have any more. Then I knew there was going to be a big argument.”

“Was there?”

“No. That’s the really strange part. He told me to sit down, and his wife brought out some fufu and we ate. Then it got dark and we went inside to sleep. I still hadn’t seen my wife. The next morning my father-in-law called me outside. Then he called my wife and my sons out from another house. We were all standing in the middle of the compound, wondering what to do. Then he just told us to leave. “That’s it?” I said. “It's over?” He told me yes, that I could go home. I didn't think I understood him correctly, so I asked him if he was sure he didn’t want any more money. “No, you’ve done enough,” he said. “Go back to your village.” I was afraid to say anything else. I put my wife and my sons in front of me and we started walking away before he could change his mind.”

 

 

Questions for Article

 

1.  What is your reaction to Ilunga giving away his fish?

 

  1. Why do you think he gave the fish away?

 

  1. Why do you think Michel was upset about Ilunga giving the fish away?

 

  1. What do you think Michel believed was the reason Ilunga gave away the fish?

 

 

Scoring Rubric of Student Responses

Sophisticated – Provides complex and contextually based description of behavior that distinguishes between individual and reciprocal norms and provides rich descriptions of the different perspectives of the individuals in interpreting the narrative.

 

Knowledgeable – Recognizes that individuals from different cultures bring different cultural values to situations and is able to articulate this with appropriate examples.  Recognizes that individuals’ accounts in narrative are influenced by their cultures.

 

Competent – Provides a description that recognizes that individuals have different perspectives on events described.  Interprets events described in analytical manner.

 

Naïve – Demonstrates difficulty understanding behavior described and is unable to offer reasoned explanation of different perceptions: Interprets events solely from own cultural viewpoint.

Student Demographic Questions

To help us identify differences in student experiences, please answer the following questions:

 

1.  What is your age?

a.       18

b.       19

c.       20

d.       21

e.       22

f.         >22

 

2.  What year are you in your college career?

  1. Freshman
  2. Sophomore
  3. Junior
  4. Senior
  5. 5th year Senior
  6. Non-degree/2nd Degree

 

3.  In what college is your academic major?

  1. College of Science and Allied Health
  2. College of Liberal Studies
  3. College of Business Administration
  4. College of Education, Exercise Science, Health and Recreation
  5. Undeclared

 

4.  If you have participated in a study abroad program or have lived outside the U.S, please indicate the period of time involved.

a.       None

b.       Under 3 months

c.       1 semester

d.       1 year

e.       More than a year

 

5.  How many courses have you taken which you feel involve “global awareness” as a focus?

a.       None

b.       1

c.       2

d.       3

e.       4

f.         >4

 

6.  Have you had any experiences which you felt were helpful in interpreting the story/article which you read and answered questions on?  If so, please describe them below.

 

                       


 

Appendix B

Analysis of Genetically Modified Foods Assessment Instrument

 

Section 1 - Background – In Summer 2004 the General Education Assessment Summer Working Group consisting of Gwen Achenreiner, Marketing; Michael Abler, Biology; Sandy Grunwald, chemistry; and Rachelle Toupence; Rec Management developed as assessment instrument that would assess student learning in the broad topics of science content, critical thinking and global perspective.  The assessment instrument consisted of a student dialogue followed by newspaper articles from the New York Times and from the Baltimore Sun which contained conflicting points of views in response to the same National Academy of Sciences report on the use of genetically engineered crops.  The readings were followed by questions that the reviewers used to score student learning (see Section 5 below). 

 

The assessment instrument was piloted in Fall 2004 to 35 rec management students.  The student’s responses were scored using a rubric developed by the reviewers and the instrument was modified and improved for further use. 

 

In Spring 2005 this assessment instrument was administered on a larger scale to 189 UWL students.  The students varied in age, year in college, college of their major, study abroad experience etc…  Again each student response was scored by 2 reviewers (Mike Abler, biology and Bruce Riley, mathematics) who were part of the General Education Assessment Summer Working Group.  Before scoring, the reviewers standardized their responses by scoring and reviewing several scores to determine that all reviewers were using similar scoring methods.  Each student response was scored by 2 reviewers. 

 

 

Section 2 – Results – Several questions were asked of students who participated in this assessment exercise.  The questions were designed to assess various different student learning outcomes and rubrics were set up to score each question.  Below is shown the particular question asked, the student learning outcome that is assessed in this question, the rubric used for scoring, the mean score and any correlation between student performance and student demographic that was determined by the Statistical Consulting Center.  Note only student scores which showed a correlation with a particular student demographic have been separated out and are reported below.  Otherwise the overall mean student score is reported.

 

Question 1:

Using the attached newspaper articles and graphics, take a position on whether or not GM food should be part of worldwide agricultural production.  Support your answer.

 

Outcome to be assessed: 

Formulate and support ideas with sufficient reasoning, evidence and persuasive appeals, and proper attribution.  (approved outcome 9/12/05 Gen Ed Committee).

 

Rubric:

2  takes position and provides solid evidence

1  provides evidence without taking position or only weakly supports position

0  does not support position

 

Overall Mean Student Score: 

0.99

 

Correlation:

The mean score for SAH is significantly higher than for CEESHR (P = 0.013).

 

 

 

 

      College

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

SAH*

70

1.1393

.56085

.00

2.00

CLS

41

.9085

.47354

.00

2.00

CBA

37

1.0270

.57065

.00

2.00

CEESHR*

32

.8203

.52837

.00

2.00

Undeclared

6

.5833

.51640

.00

1.25

 

 

 

Question 2:

What is a gene?

 

Outcome to be assessed: 

Identify fundamental principles, theories, concepts, methodologies, tools and issues from various disciplines.  (approved outcome 9/12/05 Gen Ed Committee).

 

Rubric:

2  specifically says “DNA”

1  on the right track

0  clueless

 

Overall Mean Student Score: 

1.10

 

Correlation:

The mean score for SAH is significantly higher than for CEESHR (P = 0.008).

 

College

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

SAH*

70

1.3214

.74350

.00

2.00

CLS

41

1.1585

.76190

.00

2.00

CBA

37

1.0135

.77268

.00

2.00

CEESHR*

32

.7344

.72384

.00

2.00

Undeclared

6

.8750

.89093

.00

2.00

 

 

 

Question 3:

The Baltimore Sun article states “…current analytical methods can provide a detailed assessment of food composition…”  What sort of components of food products might be analyzed?

 

Outcome to be assessed: 

Identify fundamental principles, theories, concepts, methodologies, tools and issues from various disciplines.  (approved outcome 9/12/05 Gen Ed Committee).

 

Rubric:

Possible Responses : proteins, sugars, fat          

2  specifically states 2 or more components

1  does not state specific components but says something about chemical content

0  clueless

 

Overall Mean Student Score: 

0.70

 


 

 

Correlations:

The mean score for SAH is significantly higher than for all other colleges (P < 0.0005).

 

The mean score for students with more than 4 science focus courses is significantly higher than for students with 1 or 2 such courses (P = 0.001).

 

College

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

SAH*

70

1.0036

.62770

.00

2.00

CLS*

41

.6159

.58121

.00

2.00

CBA*

37

.4324

.49529

.00

1.50

CEESHR*

32

.5000

.62217

.00

2.00

Undeclared*

6

.2500

.41833

.00

1.00

 

 

No. Courses w/Science Focus

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

None

4

.2500

.50000

.00

1.00

1*

34

.3897

.48536

.00

1.50

2*

41

.5976

.52105

.00

1.50

3

29

.6638

.66237

.00

2.00

4

12

.6042

.62576

.00

1.50

>4*

66

.9659

.66778

.00

2.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 4:

How might “superweeds” result from the use of GM crops?

a.       pollination of weed by crop plant

b.       physical contact between weed and plant

c.       plant crops near polluted areas

d.       Both a and b

e.       Both b and c

 

Outcome to be assessed: 

Identify fundamental principles, theories, concepts, methodologies, tools and issues from various disciplines.  (approved outcome 9/12/05 Gen Ed Committee).

 

Rubric:

1  got correct answer of a

0  did not get correct answer

 

Overall Mean Student Score: 

0.29

 

Correlation:

No correlation found

 

 


 

 

Question 5:

Europeans are less accepting of GM foods than Americans.  What issues may be impacting the difference in acceptance of GM foods by Europeans versus Americans?

 

Outcome to be assessed: 

Explain the rationales for cultural behaviors different from one’s own (approved outcome 9/12/05 Gen Ed Committee).

 

Rubric:

2 – has specificity & evidence of differences between cultures

1 – weak evidence of differences

0 – does not recognize differences between cultures

 

Overall Mean Student Score: 

0.67

 

Correlation:

The mean score for students with 4 or more courses with global awareness is significantly higher than for students with only 1 such course (P = 0.008).

 

No. Courses w/Global Awareness

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

None

34

.5956

.50383

.00

2.00

1*

47

.5532

.45125

.00

1.50

2

50

.6800

.46026

.00

1.50

3

26

.5673

.55479

.00

1.75

4*

14

1.0179

.63899

.25

2.00

>4*

15

1.0167

.48612

.00

1.75

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 6:

How much corn containing both the insect resistance and herbicide tolerance traits was planted in 2002? (graphic was shown)

 

Outcome to be assessed: 

Use mathematical and logical methods to solve problems (approved outcome 9/12/05 Gen Ed Committee).

 

Rubric:

correct answer - 2.2 million hectares                   

2 – specifically states 2.2 million hectares

1 – 2.2 or 2.2 million

0 – wrong number/answer

 

Overall Mean Student Score: 

0.63

 

Correlation:

No correlation found

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Question 7:

What percentage of GM crops was grown in Mexico in 2003? (graphic was shown)

a)       1%        

b)       5%

c)       0.1%

d)       0.08%

e)       Impossible to be certain with the data provided.

 

Outcome to be assessed: 

Use mathematical and logical methods to solve problems (approved outcome 9/12/05 Gen Ed Committee).

 

Rubric:

1  got correct answer of e

0  did not get correct answer

 

Overall Mean Student Score: 

0.85

 

Correlation:

No correlation found

 

 

 

Section 3 - Statistical Analysis and Conclusions (by David Reineke, Statistical Consulting Center)

 

Analysis of variance was used to determine if significant differences exist among the mean scores on questions relating to critical thinking, science, quantitative skills, and global perspective for age, year in college, college of academic major, number of courses involving global awareness, and the number of courses involving science as a focus while t-tests for independent samples were used for the dichotomous variables of time spent studying abroad and whether or not the student had other helpful experiences.  Although the amount of time spent studying abroad had five categories, the small number of students in the study who have studied abroad made it necessary to collapse the variable into two categories: “None” and “Some.” 

 

In every case, the normality and equal variance assumptions were examined, and where appropriate, the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test or Mann-Whitney U-test was used instead of the analysis of variance or t-test, respectively.  A level of significance of 0.05 was used for each test.

 

Students in SAH received a higher mean score on the critical thinking question regarding the student’s position on genetically modified foods than students in CEESHR (P = 0.013).

 

The average “science” score on the question relating to food components was significantly higher for students who reported having more than four courses with science as a focus than for those having only one or two such courses (P = 0.001) and was also higher for students in SAH than in all other colleges (P < 0.0005).  The average “science” score on the gene question was greater for SAH students than for CEESHR students (P = 0.008).

 

Students age 21 had a greater mean global perspective score (European issues) than students age 19 (P = 0.009) and students who reported having “4” or “more than 4” courses involving global awareness as a focus had a greater mean global perspective score than students reporting only having one such course (P = 0.008).

 

No other significant differences were found.  It is important, however, to remember that lack of statistical significance does not necessarily imply a lack of practical significance.  That is, sometimes non-significant statistical conclusions are just as important as significant ones.

 

 

 

Section 4 - Overall Student Demographics

Age

 

Frequency

Percent

18

14

7.5

19

38

20.4

20

50

26.9

21

30

16.1

22

25

13.4

over 22

29

15.6

Total

186

100.0

 

 

Year

 

Frequency

Percent

Freshman

38

20.4

Sophomore

60

32.3

Junior

23

12.4

Senior

63

33.9

Non-degree/2nd Degree

2

1.1

Total

186

100.0

 

 

College

 

Frequency

Percent

SAH

70

37.6

CLS

41

22.0

CBA

37

19.9

CEESHR

32

17.2

Undeclared

6

3.2

Total

186

100.0

 

 

Time Spent Studying Abroad

 

Frequency

Percent

None

159

85.5

Under 3 months

15

8.1

1 semester

8

4.3

More than a year

4

2.2

Total

186

100.0

 

 

Number of Courses with Global Awareness

 

Frequency

Percent

None

34

18.3

1

47

25.3

2

50

26.9

3

26

14.0

4

14

7.5

>4

15

8.1

Total

186

100.0

 

 

Number of Courses with Science Focus

 

Frequency

Percent

None

4

2.2

1

34

18.3

2

41

22.0

3

29

15.6

4

12

6.5

>4

66

35.5

Total

186

100.0

 

 

Helpful Experience

 

Frequency

Percent

No

111

59.7

Yes

75

40.3

Total

186

100.0

 

 

 

 

College

Total

 

 

SAH

CLS

CBA

CEESHR

Undeclared

 

Year

Freshman

Count

16

5

13

3

2

39

 

 

% within College

22.9%

12.2%

34.2%

9.4%

33.3%

20.9%

 

Sophomore

Count

16

12

23

5

4

60

 

 

% within College

22.9%

29.3%

60.5%

15.6%

66.7%

32.1%

 

Junior

Count

12

6

1

4

0

23

 

 

% within College

17.1%

14.6%

2.6%

12.5%

.0%

12.3%

 

Senior

Count

26

17

1

19

0

63

 

 

% within College

37.1%

41.5%

2.6%

59.4%

.0%

33.7%

 

Non-degree/2nd Degree

Count

0

1

0

1

0

2

 

 

% within College

.0%

2.4%

.0%

3.1%

.0%

1.1%

Total

Count

70

41

38

32

6

187

 

% within College

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

 

Section 5 - Genetically Modified Foods General Education Assessment Instrument

Spring 2005

 

Please read the following passage and the two attached articles from the Baltimore Sun and the New York Times and then answer the short questions which follow. As your answers will reflect the quality of students at UW-L, it is important that you answer the questions to the BEST of YOUR ABILITY.  You are allowed 55 minutes to complete the exercise so take your time and do your best work.  Thanks.

 

 

Passage:

“Hi Jan,” Cindy said as they met to walk to class, “new jeans?”

 

 “Yeah,” replied Jan, “they’re made from organically grown cotton without any dye.”

 

“You’re not going all granola on me, are you?” teased Cindy. 

 

“No, at least not yet,” said Jan.  “I’m just a little unsure whether genetically engineering plants is a wise thing for us to be doing.  I just read an article in the Baltimore Sun that scientists think genetically modified plants and foods may not be good for the environment, and they may pose future health risks.”

 

“Hmmm, I just saw an article in the New York Times that said genetically engineered plants did not pose any more risk than other plant-breeding methods,” replied Cindy.  “I do know that most of the soybeans and cotton grown in the United States are already genetically modified (GM), so your breakfast bars have oil that likely came from a genetically modified soybean plant.  I don’t really think there’s any noticeable difference between GM and non-GM food.  I mean, nobody has gotten sick or died from eating GM fruits or vegetables.”

 

“Not yet,” said Jan, “not yet.”

 

“Oh come on.  Stop being so dramatic” said Cindy.  “Did you know that my grandpa is a farmer in Central Wisconsin and he now grows GM corn that is much more insect resistant than normal corn?  The corn makes its own insecticide so now my grandpa doesn’t have to spray the corn with so many nasty chemicals and he produces more corn than normal – thus more food to feed the hungry.  Now you can’t argue about the good of that.”

 

“Well actually I can” replied Jan.  “Making the corn toxic to some nasty little corn eating worm is just fine, but I heard on CNN that this technology could now wipe out the monarch butterflies because the monarch caterpillars get exposed to the corn pollen and die.  And what happens when the smart little insects adapt and no longer are susceptible to the plant’s insecticide then it is back again to the drawing board.”

 

“Wait a second” interrupted Cindy.  “You know that monarch butterfly thing was in the front page news for awhile.  Headlines read ‘Monarch Butterflies Will Be Destroyed” but I saw an article later that said the initial study was somewhat faulty and the effects are not really that bad.  Too bad that later study wasn’t well publicized. 

 

“Hum I didn’t see that article.  Well anyways I can argue against the ‘more food to feed the hungry’ argument” Jan responded.  “The US has plenty of food.  I know that some third world countries don’t have enough food, but there are other issues in those countries that cause food problems.  You know Cindy I don’t want to sound all negative.  I do think there are some good things about GM foods.  I heard from my Genetics professor that there is a strain of rice being made called ‘golden rice’ that produces vitamin A.  In many countries a lack of vitamin A in the diet results in thousands of people going blind a year.  But if people eat this golden rice many cases of blindness can be prevented.  Now that in my opinion is a good thing.”

 

“I’m glad that you can see a positive side to this issue” replied Cindy.  “You know I am a bit worried too about what will happen in the future with the use of GM technology.  What I am worried about is making plants herbicide resistant so that farmers can spray fields and selectively kill just the weeds.  But aren’t weeds pretty smart too and adapt.  Then we could have Superweeds that cannot be killed with sprays – again not a good thing.  But I sure am not an expert on plants and therefore should not be speculating much.  Well I guess time will tell.”

 


 

The New York Times

July 28, 2004

 

Panel Sees No Unique Risk From Genetic Engineering

 

By Andrew Pollack

 

Genetically engineered crops do not pose health risks that cannot also arise from crops created by other techniques, including conventional breeding, the National Academy of Sciences said in a report issued yesterday.

 

The conclusion backs the basic approach now underlying government oversight of biotech foods, that special food safety regulations are not needed just because foods are genetically engineered.

 

Nevertheless, the report said that genetic engineering and other techniques used to create novel crops could result in unintended, harmful changes to the composition of food, and that scrutiny of such crops should be tightened before they go to market.

 

“The most important message from this report is that it’s the product that matters, not the system you are using to produce it,” Jennifer Hillard, a consumer advocate from Canada who was on the committee that wrote the report, said in a telephone news conference. Committee members said the genetically engineered foods already on the market are safe.

 

The study, “Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects,” is somewhat vague on how regulations should change, but rather deals more with the science needed to determine whether food from genetically engineered crops and animals might be harmful.

 

It does not, for instance, explicitly recommend mandatory reviews of new genetically engineered foods by the Food and Drug Administration. It says that assessments should be made on a case-by-case basis. Right now, companies that create such crops voluntarily consult with the F.D.A.

 

The report suggests that in some cases, surveillance might be needed after a food gets to the market to check for possible health effects, something not done now. It also calls for some information on the composition of genetically modified foods to be made public rather than kept proprietary.

 

Both sides in the polarized debate about genetically engineered foods found things to like and not like in the report.

 

“They’ve clearly identified that there are significant problems with our technological ability to both identify changes that might happen in G.E. crops as well as to evaluate what those changes might mean,” said Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist at the Center for Food Safety in Washington, which opposes biotech crops.

 

But backers of biotech were heartened by the report's determination that the risks of biotech foods are not unique. Michael Phillips, vice president of agricultural science and regulatory policy of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, said in a statement that the report “should lay to rest the few naysayers who continue to question the safety of these crops.”

 

The report was commissioned by the three agencies that regulate genetically engineered crops: the F.D.A., the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency. It was produced by a committee of mostly academic scientists led by Bettie Sue Masters, of the department of biochemistry at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio.

 

Genetic engineering involves the transfer of a specific gene from one organism to another. Crossbreeding, by contrast, involves the mixing of thousands of genes, most unknown. Another breeding technique is to bombard plants with radiation or expose them to chemicals to induce hundreds of random mutations in hopes of finding one that will confer a desirable trait.

 

The report said that genetic engineering was more likely to cause unintended effects than the other techniques used to develop plants except for the mutation-inducing technique.

 

Right now, crops produced by techniques other than genetic engineering go through virtually no regulatory scrutiny.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Baltimore Sun

July 28, 2004

 

Potential dangers in modified foods seen

Panel of scientists says genetic engineering is not only source of hazards; Higher vigilance recommended

 

By Frank D. Roylance

Sun Staff

 

The federal government and industry should step up efforts to spot potential hazards in all genetically modified foods before they reach the marketplace, a National Research Council panel concluded yesterday.

 

In a report likely to re-ignite a long-smoldering debate between agricultural interests and critics of genetically engineered foods, scientists said there’s a potential for danger whenever the genetic makeup of a food is deliberately changed.

 

“All evidence to date indicates that any breeding technique that alters a plant or animal - whether by genetic engineering or other methods - has the potential to create unintended changes in the quality or amounts of food components that could harm health,” said Bettie Sue Masters, the University of Texas chemist who headed the group.

 

With skepticism about genetically engineered crops and animals running high abroad and among a small group of vocal critics here, three federal agencies asked the National Academy of Science to devise an approach for screening all genetically modified foods before they reach the market.

 

Although the panel of 14 experts said it found no evidence that genetically engineered foods have harmed humans, it recommend that government agencies and food producers:

 

• Update the science they use to identify toxins or other new- substances in all genetically modified foods, and to spot changes in the amounts of those and other compounds that could [See Genetics, 9a] [Genetics, from Page la] affect human health.

 

• Develop food databases that producers and regulators can use to compare newly modified foods against established varieties and to assess potential health impacts.

 

• Improve public health surveillance to identify any problems after a genetically modified food product has been marketed.

 

The panel also called for a “broad research and technology development agenda” to clarify the connections between what’s in our food and how it affects our health.

 

“Although current analytical methods can provide a detailed assessment of food composition, limitations exist in identifying specific differences in composition and interpreting their biological significance,” the report said.

 

The panel included specialists in food science and human nutrition, food policy, epidemiology, plant science, pharmacology, consumer issues and molecular biology.

 

Yesterday’s report includes a detailed “framework” to guide those assessments and decisions by regulators to prevent foods made with genetically modified crops from coming to market until they can be evaluated.

 

The guidelines would also alert authorities to any unexpected problems that arise after a food has been marketed.

 

“This approach has not been used up to now to evaluate any of the genetically modified or genetically engineered products currently on the market,” Masters said.

 

Groups opposed to genetically engineered crops were heartened by the report, saying it confirmed many of their long-term concerns.

 

“The NAS report tells us we’re eating potentially harmful genetically engineered foods that we don’t know much about,” said Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist with the Center for Food Safety, a Washington-based advocacy group critical of the government’s attitude toward genetically modified crops.

 

Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception, a book critical of the GM food industry and the FDA, said he was “gratified to see that they acknowledge that there have not been sufficient tests done on the health effects of GM food. There’s plenty of evidence to show that many of these foods are unsafe.”

 

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, at least 40 genetically engineered crops are currently marketed in the United States, including corn, soybeans, canola, tomatoes, squash, cotton and beets. Most genetic modifications make plants more resistant to weed-killers and pests.

 

The safety of genetically engineered foods has not been nearly as controversial in the United States as it has been in some other parts of the world. European consumers have been particularly suspicious although the European Union recently ended a five-year moratorium on marketing of new GM foods.

 

Some countries ban the import of genetically engineered foods, closing important markets to large food producers, mostly in the United States.

 

The National Academies’ panel said genetic engineering - the introduction of new traits through recombinant DNA technologies in the laboratory - “is not inherently hazardous.”

 

However, it said, “the products of this technology have the potential to be hazardous if inserted genes result in the production of hazardous substances.”

 

The panel noted that the EU evaluates all genetically “engineered” food products - those with new traits spliced into their DNA - before they can be marketed. But the EU exempts all foods genetically “modified” using other techniques.

 

The latter category includes thousands of food products developed by traditional cross-breeding or more modern technologies, such as “mutagenesis,” genetic alteration created by chemicals or radiation.

 

It’s a false distinction, the panel said.

 

“As with all other technologies for genetic modification, they also carry the potential for introducing unintended compositional changes that may have adverse effects on human health.”

 

The current system for evaluating the safety of new foods is inadequate because it focuses on the products’ intended and predictable effects on human health, the report said.

 

It recommended a system designed to identify any genetic modifications that might cause unexpected and unintended health consequences.

 

The report cited the example of the Lenape potato, a variety created by traditional cross-breeding, that had to be withdrawn from the market because it turned out to have dangerously high levels of a toxin called solanine.

 

The proposed assessment system would use advances in analytical technology to profile thousands of components in food products, measure the handful that are potentially harmful and then compare those levels with foods already safely on the market, the panel said.

 

New food products, Masters said, should be evaluated “on a case-by-case basis” to determine whether there is cause to order a full safety assessment.

 

“Some of those [genetic] changes may be totally irrelevant,” Masters said.

 

It would be up to federal regulators to ask producers for more information, to withhold a product from the market, or to require a product to be tracked for health impacts after it is marketed.

 

Panel members did not attempt to estimate the costs to the food industry or the government of the stepped-up food-safety assessments they’re recommending.

 

But panel member Jennifer Hillard, a former vice president of the Consumer’s Association of Canada, said the panel did not believe its recommendations represented a “regulatory burden.”

 


 

Questions for GM Foods Assessment Instrument

 

  1. Using the attached newspaper articles and graphics, take a position on whether or not GM food should be part of worldwide agricultural production.  Support your answer.

 

 

  1. What is a gene?

 

 

  1. The Baltimore Sun article states “…current analytical methods can provide a detailed assessment of food composition…”  What sort of components of food products might be analyzed?

 

 

  1. How might “superweeds” result from the use of GM crops?
    1. pollination of weed by crop plant
    2. physical contact between weed and plant
    3. plant crops near polluted areas
    4. Both a and b
    5. Both b and c

 

 

  1. Europeans are less accepting of GM foods than Americans.  What issues may be impacting the difference in acceptance of GM foods by Europeans versus Americans?

 

  1. How much corn containing both the insect resistance and herbicide tolerance traits was planted in 2002?

 

Countries producing GM crops in 2003

Text Box: Canada 6%

 

Text Box: Argentina 21%

 

Text Box: USA
63%
 
Text Box: China 4%

 

 

Text Box: Brazil 4%
Text Box: South Africa 1%
Text Box: Other: 1%
Text Box: Australia
India
Romania
Uruguay
Mexico
Honduras
Colombia
Spain 
Germany
Bulgaria
Phillippines
Indonesia
 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

7.  What percentage of GM crops was grown in Mexico in 2003?

a) 1%  

b) 5%

c) 0.1%

d) 0.08%

e) Impossible to be certain with the data provided.

 

 

 


 

Student Response Form

To help us identify differences in student experiences, please answer the following questions:

 

1.  What is your age?

g.       18

h.       19

i.         20

j.         21

k.       22

l.         >22

 

2.  What year are you in your college career?

  1. Freshman
  2. Sophomore
  3. Junior
  4. Senior
  5. 5th year Senior
  6. Non-degree/2nd Degree

 

3.  In what college is your academic major?

  1. College of Science and Allied Health
  2. College of Liberal Studies
  3. College of Business Administration
  4. College of Education, Exercise Science, Health and Recreation
  5. Undeclared

 

4.  If you have participated in a study abroad program or have lived outside the U.S, please indicate the period of time involved.

a.       None

b.       Under 3 months

c.       1 semester

d.       1 year

e.       More than a year

 

5.  How many courses have you taken which you feel involve “global awareness” as a focus?

a.       None

b.       1

c.       2

d.       3

e.       4

f.         >4

 

6.  How many courses have you taken which you feel involve science as a focus?

g.       None

h.       1

i.         2

j.         3

k.       4

l.         >4

 

7.  Have you had any experiences which you felt were helpful in interpreting the story/article which you read and answered questions on?  If so, please describe them below.

 

 


 

Appendix C

Analysis of Medicine Without Doctors (HIV) Assessment Instrument

 

Section 1 - Background – In Summer 2004 the General Education Assessment Summer Working Group consisting of Gwen Achenreiner, Marketing; Michael Abler, Biology; Sandy Grunwald, chemistry; and Rachelle Toupence; Rec Management developed as assessment instrument that would assess student learning in the broad topics of science content, critical thinking and global perspective.  The assessment instrument consists of a Newsweek article titled Medicine Without Doctors.  The reading was followed by questions that the reviewers used to score student learning (see Section 5 below). 

 

The assessment instrument was piloted in Fall 2004 to 35 marketing students.  The student’s responses were scored using a rubric developed by the reviewers and the instrument was modified and improved for further use. 

 

In Spring 2005 this assessment instrument was administered on a larger scale to 191 UWL students.  The students varied in age, year in college, college of their major, study abroad experience etc…  Again each student response was scored by 2 reviewers (Gwen Achenreiner, Marketing and Eric Kraemer, Philosophy) who were part of the General Education Assessment Summer Working Group.  Before scoring, the reviewers standardized their responses by scoring and reviewing several scores to determine that all reviewers were using similar scoring methods.  Each student response was scored by 2 reviewers. 

 

 


 

Section 2 - Results – Several questions were asked of students who participated in this assessment exercise.  The questions were designed to assess various different student learning outcomes and rubrics were set up to score each question.  Below is shown the particular question asked, the student learning outcome that is assessed in this question, the rubric used for scoring, the mean score and any correlation between student performance and student demographic that was determined by the Statistical Consulting Center.  Note only student scores which showed a correlation with a particular student demographic have been separated out and are reported below.  Otherwise the overall mean student score is reported.

 

Question 1:

Would it be appropriate for a medical doctor to prescribe antibiotics to treat HIV/AIDS? Why or why not?

 

Outcome to be assessed: 

Identify fundamental principles, theories, concepts, methodologies, tools and issues from various disciplines.  (approved outcome 9/12/05 Gen Ed Committee)

 

Rubric:

Correct Answer - No because you can’t use antibiotics to treat a virus

2   completely right

1   suggest something like by using antibiotics can treat secondary infections due to a weak immune system and thus keep people alive longer

0   clearly not right

 

Overall Mean Student Score: 

0.83

 

Correlations:

The average score for students over 22 years of age was significantly higher for Science Ability (Antibiotics for AIDS) than for students age 18 (P = 0.036).

 

The average score for seniors was significantly higher for Science Ability (Antibiotics for AIDS) than for freshmen (P = 0.046).

 

The average score for students with more than 4 courses with a science focus was significantly higher for Science Ability (Antibiotics for AIDS) than for students with 1 such course (P = 0.014).

 

 

 

 

 

Age

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

18*

17

.4265

.74877

.00

2.00

19

48

.6719

.85390

.00

2.00

20

36

.8611

.96074

.00

2.00

21

40

.9750

.86194

.00

2.00

22

27

.7593

.83632

.00

2.00

over 22*

19

1.3026

.88419

.00

2.00


 

 

Year

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Freshman*

50

.5300

.77532

.00

2.00

Sophomore

46

.8804

.92607

.00

2.00

Junior

22

.9545

.95005

.00

2.00

Senior*

67

.9664

.87678

.00

2.00

 

 

No. Courses w/Science Focus

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

None

6

1.0417

.98001

.00

2.00

1*

40

.6063

.84900

.00

2.00

2

36

.6806

.83583

.00

2.00

3

26

.8077

.84943

.00

2.00

4

14

.3929

.73846

.00

2.00

>4*

64

1.1133

.90186

.00

2.00

 

 

Question 2:

Identify 3 ways in which Mavuka may have acquired the AIDS virus?

 

Outcome to be assessed: 

Identify fundamental principles, theories, concepts, methodologies, tools and issues from various disciplines. (approved outcome 9/12/05 Gen Ed Committee)

 

Rubric:

2  stated 3 correct answers

1  stated 2 correct answers

0  stated only 1 or no correct answers

 

Overall Mean Student Score: 

1.73

 

Correlation:

No correlation found

 

 

 

Question 3:

What is the relationship between HIV and AIDS?

 

Outcome to be assessed: 

Identify fundamental principles, theories, concepts, methodologies, tools and issues from various disciplines.  (approved outcome 9/12/05 Gen Ed Committee)

 

Rubric:

Correct Answer - HIV virus causes the disease AIDS       

2  solid answer

1  somewhat right

0  clearly not right

 

Overall Mean Student Score: 

1.31

 

Correlation:

The average score for seniors was significantly higher for Science Ability (HIV and AIDS) than for freshmen (P = 0.032).

 

Year

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Freshman

48

1.1875

.51956

.00

2.00

Sophomore

46

1.2989

.45222

.00

2.00

Junior

21

1.2976

.57889

.00

2.00

Senior

69

1.4493

.41696

.00

2.00

 

 

 

Question 4:

Based on the information provided, which areas of the world have the most and least new HIV/AIDS infections?

 

Outcome to be assessed: 

Use mathematical and logical methods to solve problems (approved outcome 9/12/05 Gen Ed Committee).

 

Rubric:

Correct Answers - Most   Sub-Saharan Africa,   Least   Oceania

2   both right  

1  1 right

0  0 right               

 

Overall Mean Student Score: 

1.87

 

Correlation:

No correlation found

 

 

 

Question 5:

Of the people newly infected with AIDS, how many people can expect to receive ARV therapy? 

 

Number of people in Africa (Sub-Saharan)? ____________________

 

Number of people in Americas (North & Latin America)? ______________________

 

Outcome to be assessed: 

Use mathematical and logical methods to solve problems (approved outcome 9/12/05 Gen Ed Committee).

 

Rubric:

Correct Answers - Number of people in Africa? 60,000/2%

Number of people in Americas (North & Latin America)? 204,960/84%    

2          both numbers right

1          correct percent or one wrong #   

0          wrong % or #

 

2          correct calculation                     

1          wrong calculation

0          no calculations

 

Overall Mean Student Score: 

Disagreement by reviewers on how to score and if a # or % would be a valid answer.  Need to evaluate wording of question or expectations if used for future assessment.

 

Correlation:

N/A

 

Question 6:

Why do you think AIDS is so prevalent in Africa? What issues may be impacting differences in the spread of AIDS in different parts of the world?

 

Outcome to be assessed: 

Explain the rationales for cultural behaviors different from one’s own (approved outcome 9/12/05 Gen Ed Committee).

 

Rubric:

Correct answer - Culture – less education, women not equal – desperate to provide for one’s self            Economic – poor, less access to health care     Regulatory                                            

2 - 3 solid points addressed

1 - 2 solid points addressed

0 - 1 or less points addressed

 

Overall Mean Student Score: 

1.08

 

Correlations:

The mean Global Perspective score for students ages 21, 22, and over 22 was higher than for students age 18 (P = 0.001).

 

The mean Global Perspective score for seniors was higher than for freshmen (P < 0.0005).

 

The mean Global Perspective score for students in SAH was higher than for students in CBA (P = 0.004).

 

Students reporting a helpful experience had a significantly higher mean Global Perspective score than those who did not (P = 0.001).

 

Age

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

18*

16

.7188

.65749

.00

2.00

19

48

.9427

.57713

.00

2.00

20

35

1.0071

.45571

.00

2.00

21*

40

1.2000

.51640

.00

2.00

22*

29

1.2759

.59140

.00

2.00

over 22*

19

1.3553

.43554

.50

2.00

 

Year

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Freshman*

49

.8418

.58784

.00

2.00

Sophomore

45

1.0222

.52175

.00

2.00

Junior

22

1.1477

.55986

.00

2.00

Senior*

69

1.2500

.50366

.00

2.00

 

College

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

SAH*

61

1.2131

.53392

.00

2.00

CLS

54

1.0463

.59295

.00

2.00

CBA*

34

.8309

.48742

.00

2.00

CEESHR

28

1.1964

.59844

.00

2.00

Undeclared

9

1.0000

.50000

.50

2.00

 

 

Helpful Experience

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

No*

107

.9696

.57020

.00

2.00

Yes*

80

1.2375

.52001

.00

2.00

 

 

 

 

 

Question 7:

Do you think the administration of ARV medication by lay people (i.e., not doctors or medical personnel) is a smart strategy in Africa? In the U.S.? Why or why not?

 

Outcome to be assessed: 

Formulate and support ideas with sufficient reasoning, evidence and persuasive appeals, and proper attribution.  (approved outcome 9/12/05 Gen Ed Committee)

 

Rubric:

Evaluate subjectively                             

2  strongly supported                 

1  supported weakly

0  not supported

 

Overall Mean Student Score: 

0.98

 

Correlations:

Students in CEESHR had a significantly higher mean score on Critical Thinking (ARV by Lay People) than those in CBA (P = 0.008).

 

Students who have studied abroad had a significantly higher mean score on Critical Thinking (ARV by Lay People) than those who did not (P = 0.024).

 

College

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

SAH

61

1.0123

.50914

.00

2.00

CLS

55

.9682

.54232

.00

2.00

CBA

34

.7426

.49805

.00

2.00

CEESHR

28

1.1964

.61372

.00

2.00

Undeclared

9

.9167

.63738

.00

2.00

 

 

Study Abroad

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

None*

166

.9398

.54229

.00

2.00

Some*

20

1.2375

.57052

.00

2.00

 


 

 

Question 8/9:

Do you believe the data provided in this article is credible? Why/why not?

 

What could you do to check if the information in this article is true?

 

Outcome to be assessed: 

Use a variety of resources and current technology to locate, retrieve and evaluate relevant sources and information.  (approved outcome 9/12/05 Gen Ed Committee).

 

Rubric:

2  solid response – both questions                     

1  solid response 1 ques/ok response both ques

0  weak response both questions

 

Overall Mean Student Score: 

1.29

 

Correlations:

No correlation found

 

 

Section 3 - Statistical Analysis and Conclusions (by David Reineke, Statistical Consulting Center)

 

Analysis of variance was used to determine if significant differences exist among the mean scores on questions relating to science, quantitative skills, global perspective, and critical thinking for age, year in college, college of academic major, number of courses involving global awareness, and the number of courses involving science as a focus while t-tests for independent samples were used for the dichotomous variables of time spent studying abroad and whether or not the student had other helpful experiences.  Although the amount of time spent studying abroad had five categories, the small number of students in the study who have studied abroad made it necessary to collapse the variable into two categories: “None” and “Some.” 

 

In every case, the normality and equal variance assumptions were examined, and where appropriate, the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test or Mann-Whitney U-test was used instead of the analysis of variance or t-test, respectively.  A level of significance of 0.05 was used for each test.

 

Students over age 22 scored significantly higher, on average, than 18-year-olds on the science question on the appropriateness of a medical doctor prescribing antibiotics to treat HIV/AIDS (P = 0.036).  Similarly, seniors had a higher mean score than freshmen (P = 0.046) and, students reporting 4 courses with global awareness as a focus outscored those reporting only 2 such courses (P = 0.017) on the same question.  Not surprisingly, students having more than 4 courses with a science focus had a higher mean score on this question that did students who have taken only one science course (P = 0.014).

 

Seniors scored significantly higher than freshmen (P = 0.032) on the science question about the relationship between HIV and AIDS.

 

For the global perspective question about the prevalence of AIDS in Africa, students age 18 had a significantly lower mean score than students age 21, 21 or over 22 (P = 0.001), seniors scored higher than freshmen (P < 0.0005), students in SAH had a higher mean than students in CBA (P = 0.004).  Furthermore, students having more than 4 courses with a science focus received a higher mean score than those with none or only one such course (P = 0.006) and students who report having an experience that helped them interpret the article had a higher mean than those who did not (P = 0.001).

 

Students in CEESHR received a significantly higher mean score than students in CBA on the critical thinking question regarding the administration of ARV by lay people in Africa (P = 0.008).  Moreover, students who have studied abroad (for any length of time) scored higher on this question than those who did not, on average (P = 0.024).

 

 

 

Section 4 - Overall Student Demographics

Age

 

Frequency

Percent

18

17

8.9

19

48

25.3

20

36

18.9

21

41

21.6

22

29

15.3

over 22

19

10.0

Total

190

100.0

 

 

Year

 

Frequency

Percent

Freshman

50

26.3

Sophomore

46

24.2

Junior

23

12.1

Senior

69

36.3

Non-degree/2nd degree

2

1.1

Total

190

100.0

 

 

College

 

Frequency

Percent

SAH

62

32.8

CLS

55

29.1

CBA

35

18.5

CEESHR

28

14.8

Undeclared

9

4.8

Total

189

100.0

 


 

 

Time Spent Studying Abroad

 

Frequency

Percent

None

168

89.4

Under 3 months

14

7.4

1 semester

4

2.1

More than a year

2

1.1

Total

188

100.0

 

 

 

Number of Courses with Global Awareness

 

Frequency

Percent

None

15

7.9

1

51

26.8

2

59

31.1

3

35

18.4

4

8

4.2

>4

22

11.6

Total

190

100.0

 

 

Number of Courses with Science Focus

 

Frequency

Percent

None

6

3.2

1

41

21.6

2

37

19.5

3

27

14.2

4

14

7.4

>4

65

34.2

Total

190

100.0

 

 

Helpful Experience

 

Frequency

Percent

No

110

57.9

Yes

80

42.1

Total

190

100.0

 


 

 

 

 

College

Total

 

 

SAH

CLS

CBA

CEESHR

Undeclared

 

Year

Freshman

Count

14

14

13

1

8

50

 

 

% within College

22.2%

25.5%

37.1%

3.6%

88.9%

26.3%

 

Sophomore

Count

13

10

19

4

0

46

 

 

% within College

20.6%

18.2%

54.3%

14.3%

.0%

24.2%

 

Junior

Count

10

6

3

3

1

23

 

 

% within College

15.9%

10.9%

8.6%

10.7%

11.1%

12.1%

 

Senior

Count

26

25

0

18

0

69

 

 

% within College

41.3%

45.5%

.0%

64.3%

.0%

36.3%

 

Non-degree/2nd degree

Count

0

0

0

2

0

2

 

 

% within College

.0%

.0%

.0%

7.1%

.0%

1.1%

Total

Count

63

55

35

28

9

190

 

% within College

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

 

 

 


 

Section 5 – Medicine Without Doctors (HIV) General Education Assessment Instrument

Spring 2005

 

 

Please read the following Newsweek article[1] carefully and answer the short answers which follow the article. As your answers will reflect the quality of students at UW-L, it is important that you answer the questions to the BEST of YOUR ABILITY.  You are allowed 55 minutes to complete the exercise so take your time and do your best work. Thanks.

 

 



 

Title: MEDICINE WITHOUT DOCTORS ,  By: Cowley, Geoffrey, Newsweek, 00289604, 7/19/2004, Vol. 144, Issue 3
Database:
Business Source Elite

 

 

Section: Health

MEDICINE WITHOUT DOCTORS



 

In Africa, just 2 percent of people with AIDS get the treatment they need. But drugs are cheap, access to them is improving and a new grass-roots effort gives reason to hope.

The first part of Nozuko Mavuka's story is nothing unusual in sub-Saharan Africa. A young woman comes down with aches and diarrhea, and her strong limbs wither into twigs. As she grows too weak to gather firewood for her family, she makes her way to a provincial hospital, where she is promptly diagnosed with tuberculosis and AIDS. Six weeks of treatment will cure the TB, a medical officer explains, but there is little to be done for her HIV infection. It is destroying her immune system and will soon take her life. Mavuka becomes a pariah as word of her condition gets around the community. Reviled by her parents and ridiculed by her neighbors, she flees with her children to a shack in the weeds beyond the village, where she settles down to die.

In the usual version of this tragedy, the young mother perishes at 35, leaving her kids to beg or steal. But Mavuka's story doesn't end that way. While waiting to die last year, she started visiting a two-room clinic in Mpoza, a scruffy village near her home in South Africa's rural Eastern Cape. Health activists were setting up support groups for HIV-positive villagers, and Medecins sans Frontieres (also known as MSF or Doctors Without Borders) was spearheading a plan to bring lifesaving AIDS drugs to a dozen villages around the impoverished Lusikisiki district. Mavuka could hardly swallow water by the time she got her first dose of anti-HIV medicine in late January. But when I met her at the same clinic in May, I couldn't tell she had ever been sick. The clinic itself felt more like a social club than a medical facility. Patients from the surrounding hills had packed the place for an afternoon meeting, and their spirits and voices were soaring. As they stomped and clapped and sang about hope and survival, Mavuka thumbed through her treatment diary to show me how faithfully she'd taken the medicine and how much it had done for her. Her weight had shot from 104 pounds to 124, and her energy was high. "I feel strong," she said, eyes beaming. "I can fetch water, wash clothes--everything. My sons are glad to see me well again. My parents no longer shun me. I would like to find a job."

It would be rash to call Nozuko Mavuka the new face of AIDS in Africa. The disease killed more than 2 million people on the continent last year, and it could kill 20 million more by the end of the decade. The treatments that have made HIV survivable in wealthier parts of the world still reach fewer than 2 percent of the Africans who need them. Yet mass salvation is no longer a fool's dream. The cost of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs has fallen by 98 percent in the past few years, with the result that a life can be saved for less than a dollar a day. The Bush administration and the Geneva-based Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria are financing large international treatment initiatives, and the World Health Organization is orchestrating a global effort to get 3 million people onto ARVs by the end of 2005--an ambition on the scale of smallpox eradication. What will it take to make this hope a reality? Raising more money and buying more drugs are only first steps. The greater challenge is to mobilize millions of people to seek out testing and treatment, and to build health systems capable of delivering it. Those systems don't exist at the moment, and they won't be built in a year. But as I discovered on a recent journey through southern Africa, there's more than one way to get medicine to people who need it. This crisis may require a whole new approach--a grass-roots effort led not by doctors in high-tech hospitals but by nurses and peasants on bicycles.

Until recently, mainstream health experts despaired at the thought of treating AIDS in Africa. The drugs seemed too costly, the regimens too hard to manage. Unlike meningitis or malaria, which can be cured with a short course of strong medicine, HIV stays with you. A three-drug cocktail can suppress the virus and protect the immune system--but only if you take the medicine on schedule, every day, for life. Used haphazardly, the drugs foster less treatable strains of HIV, which can then spread. Strict adherence is a challenge even in rich countries, the experts reasoned, and it might prove impossible in poor ones. In light of the dangers, prevention seemed a more appropriate strategy.

Caregivers working on the front lines resented the idea that anyone should die for having the wrong address. So they set out to prove that treatment could work in tough settings, and by 2001 they'd succeeded. In a project led by Dr. Paul Farmer of Harvard, two physicians and a small army of community outreach workers introduced ARVs into 60 villages near the Haitian town of Cange. Around the same time, MSF teamed up with South Africa's Treatment Action Campaign to make the drugs available in an urban slum called Khayelitsha. The upstarts simplified the drug regimens and dialed back on lab tests, and most of the patients were monitored by nurses or outreach workers instead of physicians. But none of this made treatment less effective. The cocktails worked as well in the slums as they did in San Francisco--and the patients were often more steadfast than Americans about taking their pills. The obstacle to treatment was not a lack of infrastructure, the activists proclaimed. It was a lack of political will.

The climate has changed since then. Yesterday's unacceptable risk is today's moral imperative, and the world's highest-ranking health authorities are pushing hard to realize it. "We still believe in prevention," the WHO's director-general, Dr. Jong-wook Lee, told me during an interview in Geneva this spring. "But 25 million HIV-positive Africans are facing certain death. If we fail to help them, it can't be because we didn't try." Since Lee took office last year, staffers in the agency's HIV/AIDS department have worked at a furious pace to devise a global treatment strategy and help besieged countries design programs that the Global Fund will pay for. Proposals are rolling in, and the fund is responding favorably. Grants approved so far could finance treatment for 1.6 million people over the next five years.

The trouble is, few of the countries winning those grants are ready to absorb them. Their health systems have withered under austerity plans imposed by foreign creditors. Doctors and nurses have left in droves to take private-sector jobs or work in wealthier countries. And those left behind are overwhelmed and exhausted. While traveling in Zambia, I visited Lusaka's University Teaching Hospital, the 1,600-bed facility at the forefront of the country's two-year-old treatment program. Dr. Peter Mwaba, the hospital's stout, vigorous chief of medicine, detailed the country's strategy for treating 100,000 people (50 times the current number) by the end of next year. Yet his own facility was half abandoned. In 1990 the hospital had 42 nurses for every shift. Today it has 24--and the patients are sicker. "I've been here for 30 years," Violet Nsemiwe, the hospital's grandmotherly head nurse, confided as we walked the dim corridors. "It has never been this bad."

In an ideal world, the clock would stop while countries in this predicament trained tens of thousands of health professionals, quintupled their salaries and dispatched them to underserved areas. But the clock is ticking at a rate of 56,000 deaths a week, so the WHO is embracing a different approach--one rooted in the populism of Cange and Khayelitsha. "AIDS care, as we practice it in the North, is about elite specialists using costly tests to monitor individual patients," says Dr. Charles Gilks, the English physician coordinating the WHO's "3 by 5" treatment initiative. "I've done that and it's great. But it's irrelevant in a place like Uganda, where there is one physician for every 18,000 people and that physician is busy at the moment. If we're going to make a difference in Africa, we've got to simplify the regimens and expand the pool of people who can administer them."

That's precisely the agenda that activists are pursuing in Lusikisiki, the remote South African district where Nozuko Mavuka got her life back. When MSF and the Treatment Action Campaign launched their project there last year, the local hospital was performing the occasional HIV test but had little to offer people who were positive--a population that includes 30 percent of pregnant women. Lusikisiki is the poorest part of the poorest province in South Africa, but the activists used what they found--a struggling hospital and a dozen small day clinics--to start a movement. A small team led by Dr. Hermann Reuter, a veteran of the Khayelitsha project, set up a voluntary testing center at each site, organized support groups for positive people and emboldened them to stand up to stigma. Before long, people like Mavuka were donning HIV-POSITIVE T shirts, singing about the virtue of condoms and quizzing each other on the difference between a nucleoside-analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitor and a non-nucleoside-analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitor.

By the time the first drugs arrived last fall, people in the support groups were poised not to receive treatment but to claim it. They shared an almost religious commitment to adherence, and some had become counselors and pharmacy assistants. Twenty-eight-year-old Akona Siziwe was as sick as Mavuka when she joined a support group in Lusikisiki last year. Weary of her husband's incessant criticism (he didn't like the way she limped), she had packed up her 7-year-old son and her HIV-positive toddler and gone home to die with her mom. But her health returned quickly when she started treatment in December, and she went to work as a community organizer. She now runs workshops and counsels patients in three villages. "What's a good CD4 count?" she asks. "The nurses don't have time to explain, but people want to know. When I share information that can help them, they're grateful and happy and full of praise. I can't even sleep because they are knocking on my door! They want testing and treatment tonight!"

The Lusikisiki project has only two nurses and two full-time doctors, but it was treating 255 patients when I visited in May, and people from the villages were flocking to the clinics as the good news spread. Many of them show up expecting a quick test and a jar of pills, but as the program's head nurse, Nozie Ntuli, likes to say, "Giving out pills is the final step in the process." First the patient has to join a support group and get treated for secondary infections such as thrush and TB. A counselor then conducts a home study to make sure the person is ready for a long-term commitment. When the supports are all in place, the counselor takes the patient's case to a community-based selection committee. And everyone shares the joy when a patient succeeds. "I see people transformed every day," Ntuli says. "It is a new dispensation."

This isn't the first time village volunteers have launched a successful health initiative. "Home-based care" is a tradition throughout southern Africa, and a cornerstone of countless successful programs. In rural Malawi, minimally trained community volunteers manage everything from pregnancy to cholera. They work with TB patients to ensure adherence, and they supply vitamins, aspirin and antibiotics to people living with HIV/AIDS. When Malawi's Health Ministry starts distributing antiretrovirals through a national program this fall, the volunteers will help administer those, too.

They'll play an especially important role in Thyolo, a desperately poor district surrounded by tall mountains and jade green tea plantations. Roughly 50,000 of Thyolo's half-million residents are HIV-positive, and 8,000 have reached advanced stages of illness. When I visited Thyolo this spring, MSF was treating several hundred of them at the local district hospital, a converted colonial-era country club run by nurses and clinical officers (non-M.D.s with four years of training). But the hospital was in no position to handle thousands more, even if the government provided the drugs. Its two-person AIDS staff was struggling just to keep up with the MSF program. Many of the untreated patients lived too far away to trek in for routine visits anyway.

Dr. Roger Teck, a fiftyish Belgian physician who runs MSF's Thyolo program, described the predicament during a bumpy jeep ride from the hospital to the outlying village of Kapichi, where 20 volunteers were waiting for us in a freshly painted one-room community center. Some were as young as 20, others as old as 70. After an hour of prayers and introductions and soulful choral chants, the group's leader, 49-year-old Kingsley Mathado, peppered us with facts about the 30 villages in his area (3,000 people living with HIV, 500 in need of treatment) and described the volunteers' program for supporting them. When the government drugs reach Thyolo district hospital, the patients will still have to walk a half day to queue up for an exam and an initial two-week supply. They'll also have to return for their first few refills so that a nurse or doctor can see how they're responding. But the volunteers will take over as soon as patients are stable, refilling prescriptions from a village-based pharmacy and charting adherence and side effects.

Could this strategy work on a grand scale? Lay health workers are already a mainstay of large-scale TB initiatives, and the Malawian government has assigned them a big role in AIDS treatment as well. The country's nascent ARV program uses a regimen simple enough for anyone to administer after a week of intensive training (three generic drugs in one pill--no substitutions). Physicians from Malawi's Ministry of Health are now traveling the country to conduct training courses for lay health workers. The first drugs should arrive in the fall. "We've taken a radical leap to ensure real access," says Dr. William Aldis, the WHO's Malawi representative and one of the plan's many architects. "We're either going to win a Nobel Prize or get shot."

Malawi's challenge is to foster the kind of engagement that has made treatment so effective in places like Cange, Khayelitsha and Lusikisiki. If 25 years of HIV/AIDS has taught us anything, it's that grass-roots involvement is critical. "One set of characteristics runs through nearly all of the success stories," the London-based Panos Institute concludes in a 2003 report on the pandemic: "ownership, participation and a politicized civil society." No one denies the need for trained experts to manage programs and handle medical emergencies. But people from affected communities are often better than experts at raising awareness, shattering stigmas and motivating people to take charge of their health. Reuter, the Lusikisiki project's director, recalls an experiment in which doctors teamed up with activists to extend a hospital-based ARV program into community clinics in the Cape Town slum of Gugulethu, where access would be easier and peer counselors could play a bigger role. The ghetto-based patients achieved 93 percent adherence during the first year. The hospital's program had never topped 63 percent a rate Reuter dismisses as "American-style adherence."

With access to treatment, millions of dying people could soon recover as dramatically as Nozuko Mavuka did in Mpoza--and their salvation could revive farms, schools and economies as well as families. But there are hazards, too, and drug resistance isn't the only one. Successful ARV therapy expands the pool of infected people simply by keeping people alive. Unless the survivors can reduce transmission, the epidemic will grow until the demand for treatment is unmanageable. "We can't focus blindly on treatment," Teck mused as our jeep lurched away from Kapichi. "If we don't reduce the infection rate, we're going to end up in a nightmare situation." The patients and counselors in the clinics I visited weren't singing and stomping only about pills. They were celebrating a shared commitment to ending what is already a nightmare. The rest of the world needs to lock arms with them.

Reporting for this story was supported by a grant from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

NEW PATTERNS OF A GLOBAL PLAGUE: Africa remains hardest hit by AIDS. But infections are booming in Asia and Eastern Europe. And most patients go without adequate therapy.

 

Figure 1: HIV Prevalence & Incidence by Region

 

Region

Total No. (%) Living with HIV/AIDS end of 2003

Newly Infected in 2003

Adult Prevalence Rate

 
 

Global Total

37.8 million (100%)

4.8 million

1.1%

 

Sub-Saharan Africa

25.0 million (66%)

3.0 million

7.5%

 

South/South-East Asia

6.5 million (17%)

850,000

0.6%

 

Latin America

1.6 million (4%)

200,000

0.6%

 

North America

1.0 million (3%)

44,000

0.6%

 

Eastern Europe/Central Asia

1.3 million (3%)

360,000

0.6%

 

East Asia

900,000 (2%)

200,000

0.1%

 

Western Europe

580,000 (2%)

20,000

0.3%

 

North Africa/Middle East

480,000 (1%)

75,000

0.2%

 

Caribbean

430,000 (1%)

52,000

2.3%

 

Oceania

32,000 (<1%)

5,000

0.2%

 

 

Source: Kaiser Family Foundation HIV/AIDS Policy Fact Sheet “The Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic, July 2004

 

 

 

 

*Eastern Europe/Central Asia 
Sources: UNAIDS, WHO

~~~~~~~~

By Geoffrey Cowley

 


Copyright of Newsweek is the property of Newsweek and its content may not be copied or e-mailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder`s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or e-mail articles for individual use.
Source: Newsweek, 7/19/2004, Vol. 144 Issue 3, p44, 5p
Item: 13727271

 

 

 

 

Questions for Article

“Medicine Without Doctors”

Newsweek 7/19/04

 

  1. Would it be appropriate for a medical doctor to prescribe antibiotics to treat HIV/AIDS? Why or why not?

 

 

  1. Identify 3 ways in which Mavuka may have acquired the AIDS virus?

 

·         ____________________________________

 

·         ____________________________________

 

·         ____________________________________

 

 

  1. What is the relationship between HIV and AIDS?

 

 

 

  1. Based on the information provided, which areas of the world have the most and least new HIV/AIDS infections?

 

Most ________________________

 

Least _______________________

 

 

  1. Of the people newly infected with AIDS, how many people can expect to receive ARV therapy? 

 

Number of people in Africa (Sub-Saharan)? ____________________

 

Number of people in Americas (North & Latin America)? ______________________

 

 

 

  1. Why do you think AIDS is so prevalent in Africa? What issues may be impacting differences in the spread of AIDS in different parts of the world?

 

 

 

  1. Do you think the administration of ARV medication by lay people (i.e., not doctors or medical personnel) is a smart strategy in Africa? In the U.S.? Why or why not?

 

 

 

  1. Do you believe the data provided in this article is credible? Why/why not?

 

 

 

  1. What could you do to check if the information in this article is true?

 

 

 

Student Response Form

To help us identify differences in student experiences, please answer the following questions:

 

1.  What is your age?

m.     18

n.       19

o.       20

p.       21

q.       22

r.        >22

 

2.  What year are you in your college career?

  1. Freshman
  2. Sophomore
  3. Junior
  4. Senior
  5. 5th year Senior
  6. Non-degree/2nd Degree

 

3.  In what college is your academic major?

  1. College of Science and Allied Health
  2. College of Liberal Studies
  3. College of Business Administration
  4. College of Education, Exercise Science, Health and Recreation
  5. Undeclared

 

4.  If you have participated in a study abroad program or have lived outside the U.S, please indicate the period of time involved.

a.       None

b.       Under 3 months

c.       1 semester

d.       1 year

e.       More than a year

 

5.  How many courses have you taken which you feel involve “global awareness” as a focus?

a.       None

b.       1

c.       2

d.       3

e.       4

f.         >4

 

6.  How many courses have you taken which you feel involve science as a focus?

g.       None

h.       1

i.         2

j.         3

k.       4

l.         >4

 

7.  Have you had any experiences which you felt were helpful in interpreting the story/article which you read and answered questions on?  If so, please describe them below.

 

 

 


 

[1] Quantitative data provided in original article has been supplemented and/or graphed