201 5- 201 6 - southwestern university

2015-2016

Departments and Programs

Academic Assessment Plans

Southwestern University

Georgetown, Texas

ii

Southwestern University

Academic Assessment Plans

Departments and Programs

2015-2016

Academic Assessment Committee Reviewing the 2015-2016 Reports

Dr. Barbara Anthony

Associate Professor of Computer Science

Dr. Bruce Cain Associate Professor of Music

Dr. Alisa Gaunder

Dean of the Faculty Professor of Political Science

Dr. Stephen Marble

Associate Professor of Education

Dr. Kendall Richards Associate Dean of the Faculty

Professor of Mathematics

Dr. Natasha Williams Director of Institutional Research and Effectiveness

Ms. Susan Lamb

Senior Administrative Assistant - Academic Administration

iv

Introduction This book contains assessment plans based on student learning outcomes for academic departments and programs for the 2015-2016 academic year. Every year, Southwestern faculty engage in the following process: Faculty in departments and programs formulate desired student learning outcomes, describe mechanisms to assess those outcomes, present the results of assessment, and describe improvements resulting from assessment. The Academic Assessment Committee meets during the following academic year to discuss and provide written comment on draft assessment plans. The Committee returns assessment plans needing revision with detailed comments and suggestions for improvement to department and program chairs and meets with them as needed. This book contains the final versions of assessment plans and the Academic Assessment Committee’s comments on the first drafts of those plans. Also included are assessment plans based on programmatic objectives for offices directly supporting the academic mission. These plans undergo the same scrutiny and process as academic department and program plans.

v

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Art and Art History Department ............................................................................................................... 8

Assessment Plan (Studio Art) ............................................................................................................................... 8

Assessment Plan (Art History) ........................................................................................................................... 14

Biology Department .................................................................................................................................. 21

Chemistry Department ............................................................................................................................. 30

Classics Area.............................................................................................................................................. 40

Communication Studies Department ...................................................................................................... 47

Economics and Business Department ..................................................................................................... 51

Assessment Plan (Business) ............................................................................................................................... 51

Assessment Plan (Economics) ............................................................................................................................ 57

Education Department ............................................................................................................................. 61

English Department .................................................................................................................................. 68

Exercise and Sports Studies ..................................................................................................................... 81

History Department .................................................................................................................................. 85

Kinesiology Department ........................................................................................................................... 97

Mathematics and Computer Science Department ............................................................................... 102

Modern Languages and Literatures Department ................................................................................ 111

Assessment Plan (Chinese, French, German) .................................................................................................. 111

Assessment Plan (Spanish) ............................................................................................................................... 122

Music Department .................................................................................................................................. 126

Philosophy Department .......................................................................................................................... 145

Physics Department ................................................................................................................................ 150

Political Science Department ................................................................................................................. 156

Psychology Department .......................................................................................................................... 169

Religion Department ............................................................................................................................... 178

vi

Sociology and Anthropology Department ............................................................................................. 181

Assessment Plan (Sociology) ............................................................................................................................ 181

Assessment Plan (Anthropology) ..................................................................................................................... 189

Theatre Department ............................................................................................................................... 212

Animal Behavior Interdisciplinary Program ....................................................................................... 216

Environmental Studies Interdisciplinary Program ............................................................................. 226

Feminist Studies Interdisciplinary Program ........................................................................................ 234

International Studies Interdisciplinary Program ................................................................................ 238

Latin American and Border Studies Interdisciplinary Program ....................................................... 245

Race and Ethnicity Studies Interdisciplinary Program ...................................................................... 248

Center for Academic Success and Records ........................................................................................... 253

Office of Community-Engaged Learning ............................................................................................. 262

Debby Ellis Writing Center .................................................................................................................... 303

First Year Seminar ................................................................................................................................. 315

Advanced Entry Seminar ....................................................................................................................... 320

Office of Intercultural Learning ............................................................................................................ 324

Language Learning Center .................................................................................................................... 349

Academic Assessment Committee Comments ...................................................................................... 355

vii

Art and Art History Department Assessment Plan (Studio Art)

Academic Year: 2015-2016

Introduction There are several significant changes in this year’s assessment plan for studio art that respond both to the seven year review conducted in spring 2015 and to the recommendations of the SACS committee in the fall of 2015. Last year’s SACS committee requested a rubric for the written reports required in all studio art courses. These reports resulted from the Writing Across the Curriculum initiative and are intended as ways to make attendance at arts events more meaningful through thoughtful written reflection. We submitted a rubric largely based on the AACU rubric on Foundations and Skills for Lifelong Learning, attached.

At the recommendation of our reviewer for the seven year review, we: 1) changed the advanced courses to accommodate intermedia art of the type prevalent in contemporary art; 2) made the art history requirements for studio majors more flexible by allowing more options; and 3) designated the most advanced seminar as a capstone class to replace the capstone that was heretofore achieved outside course structures. The latter curricular change responds to the SACS grid data we collected in the past several years, which revealed that the B.F.A. students were performing at a higher level than the B.A. students in their senior exhibitions, and we hope to see positive results in the coming years from this curricular change.

Because the assessment committee changes annually, we reiterate: no national examinations are available for studio artists like those in other departments. We are not a data-collecting discipline. Our only access to national evaluation is recognition for the eleventh consecutive year in the Fiske Guide as among “twenty-five small colleges and universities strong in art and design.” (Previous Guides are unknown to us). If interested in our alumni achievements, the committee may view the Alumni Accolades section of our S.U. Studio Art website at: http://www.southwestern.edu/departments/art/aftersouthwestern/accolades.php

Rather than continually refining the grid as we have done annually since the assessment program’s inception, we hope that the committee will find the new grid below acceptable, as is, for use over five consecutive years, which would allow us to gather longer-term, useful data. Thank you for your assistance throughout the years in our departmental development.

Attachments: AACU Creative Thinking Value Rubric; departmental rubrics for portfolio/capstone; Lifelong learning skills rubric

8

http://www.southwestern.edu/departments/art/aftersouthwestern/accolades.php

Mission The Art and Art History Department educates students in two different disciplines, studio art and art history, which deal with the visual arts as an expressive medium. The Studio Art faculty intends that majors practice art as an interdisciplinary discipline within the rich intellectual context of a liberal arts education. Students produce artworks with technical proficiency in a variety of media supported by liberal arts breadth in critical and verbal skills. Students advance to produce a cohesive body of creative works in a principal medium, hybrid media, or experimental practices, locating their ideas and artworks within a contemporary cultural and theoretical framework. Southwestern offers two degrees in studio art: the B.A. and B.F.A. The B.A. degree program accommodates students who wish to acquire a liberal arts degree with less specialization in art and a greater breadth of general studies. The B.F.A. degree requires more focused and specialized preparation. Both may lead to work in a wide variety of fields in graduate school both inside and outside the world of art (such as studio art graduate study, art history, architecture, commercial art, design, arts administration, museum work, etc.) or professional work as artists, designers, arts administrators, or any career benefited by the skilled practice of critical and creative thinking.

1. Goal To develop students’ abilities to think critically and creatively about art practice and the influences that inform art as a discipline.

Learning Outcome

1a. Students taking studio art classes will demonstrate a rudimentary understanding of the elements of art and principles of design and knowledge of formal analysis. Studio art majors and minors will acquire further knowledge through experience in a variety of media and advanced work in the focus media.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement

Description of mechanism:

The annual student art

exhibition provides a venue for faculty assessment in two forms: first we must assess and select work from our own classes for the exhibit; and second, we compare our class work to other classes represented in the exhibit. Faculty fill out a survey rating all student work in the exhibition using standards consistent with the Creative Thinking Value Rubric

from the AACU for initial selections and group ratings. Target group: all students taking art classes at all levels, roughly 60-75% FAP students: majors, minors, non-majors.

Goal: 80% of students represented in the annual student art exhibition will demonstrate this learning outcome at level 3 (‘milestone 2’) or level 4 (‘capstone’ level’) for “acquiring competencies,” in the AACU Creative Thinking Value Rubric,

The four full-time faculty rated the combined works in the student art exhibition yielding the following average percentages for each level: Benchmark 1: 5.5% Milestone 1: 9.75% Milestone 2: 41.25 % Capstone 4: 43.5% 2015-16: 84.75% of artworks in student art exhibit were rated level 3 or higher. 2014-15: 80%

GOAL MET The department changed this assessment mechanism to correlate directly with the AACU rubric (using the four levels listed at left) last year, which should provide better statistics for long-term tracking. Will continue to monitor.

9

1b. Students in studio art classes (majors, minors, non-majors) will demonstrate creative thinking through the technical, formal and conceptual choices made in solving visual problems by using a range of influences.


Description of mechanism:

The studio faculty use the AACU Rubric for Creative Thinking, and per the Assessment Committee’s request, the department selected one of the components of creative thinking: risk-taking. Four faculty rated their own class for the level of risk-taking in the final projects in: Abstract

Sculpture, Abstract Painting, and

Architecture I, and Ceramics:

Handforming Target group: FAP non-majors, majors, minors taking beginning classes. Goal: 80% of students will achieve level #3 (‘milestone 2’) or above (#4, ‘capstone’) in risk-taking.

In 2015-16, one faculty member reported on all projects rather than the final one. Since risk-taking should increase throughout the semester, ranking all projects lowers the final results and skews the data. Benchmark 1 – (n.1 of 213 projects) Milestone 1 – (n.29 of 213) Milestone 2 - (n144 of 213) Capstone 4 – (n.39 of 213 ) 183 of 213 projects (86%) reached level 3 or above.

GOAL MET

In 2014-15: 34 of 36 students (94%) performed at levels 3 and 4 (of 4 levels) on final projects, so this year was lower, though not enough to concern us, since we met our goal. For the second year, this mechanism gives us different information than aesthetic evaluation and grades and is useful in reminding us that risk-taking should be encouraged. In the coming year, 2016-17, two faculty members will be on sabbatical, so the data collection must come from different courses next year. We will return to rating only the final project to gather more reliable data on final projects.

Description of mechanism: A senior survey is given to graduating seniors after grades have been submitted. Goal: 80% of seniors responding to a survey will strongly agree that this learning outcome 1b was reached in a senior survey.

Eight seniors graduated; six returned the survey. 100% (n6) of seniors “strongly agree” that the department met this goal.

GOAL MET.

Will continue to monitor.

2. Goal

To impart a basic knowledge of the central theoretical concepts in contemporary art and art practice.

attached.

Description of mechanism: A senior survey is given to graduating seniors after grades have been submitted. Goal: 80% of seniors will strongly agree that learning outcome 1a was reached in a senior survey.

Nine seniors graduated in 2014-15; six returned the survey. 100% of respondents “strongly agreed” that the department met this goal.

GOAL MET Will continue to monitor.

10

Learning Outcome 2a. Studio art majors will demonstrate knowledge of theoretical frameworks in studio practice and contemporary art through their own artworks.


Description of mechanism: a capstone evaluation form is completed by each of the three full-time studio art faculty for each senior capstone ranking the quality of the body of artworks and the quality of each artist’s statement on a scale from 1-10. Target group for assessment: Senior art majors. Goal: 80% of senior capstones will demonstrate this learning outcome through a) the artworks and b) written statements at a level of 8 or higher on a 10 point scale.

100% as follows: Student 1-BFA 9.5 Student 2 – BFA 9.38 Student 3 – BFA 9.21 Student 4 –BFA 9.46 ----------- BFA average 9.3875 Student 5 – BA 8.79 Student 6 – BA 9.68 Student 7 – BA 8.25 Student 8 – BA 8.96 -----------BA average 8.92 Average: 9.154

GOAL MET.

The three full-time studio art faculty rated all capstones, and this year all seniors produced art exhibitions. Because BA student capstone have tended to rank lower than BFAs on quality assessment, the department changed its curriculum to require a capstone class. We anticipate that all BA seniors will perform at a higher level as a result.

Goal: 80% of seniors responding to a survey will strongly agree that learning outcome 2a was reached in a senior survey.

100% of respondents (n6) “strongly agree” that the department met this goal.

GOAL MET. Will continue to monitor

2b. Students will demonstrate their knowledge of contemporary approaches to art practice by successfully analyzing the work of other artists, contemporary art exhibitions and museum exhibits.


Description of mechanism: Students document their observations of visiting artist lectures and professional art exhibitions in short written

reports, part of the Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) initiative. Faculty rate them according to our adapted AACU rubric on lifelong learning skills, attached. Target group: studio art majors, minors and non-majors enrolled in beginning studio classes; they are asked to attend a specified number of exhibitions, lectures, presentations, and visiting artist demonstrations. Goal: 50% of students (majors,

40% of students reached level 3 or 4 of 4 levels on their reports. Benchmark 1: 19 of 97 papers Milestone 1: 39 of 97 Milestone 2: 23 of 97 Capstone 4: 16 of 97

GOAL NOT MET.

This is a new goal. At the committee’s suggestion, we switched from reporting on number of reports written (compliance) to reporting on quality of the reports turned in. Because these are low stakes writing assignments, this places a heavier burden on faculty grading time for such a small percentage of student grades (1 - 2% in one faculty member’s classes). The value of attending art events is in the experience, not the quality of writing about it. Nevertheless, we will accommodate the committee’s request, and we will take more class time to explain the criteria to achieve better results next year.

11

minors, non-majors) taking art classes in a focus medium (ceramics, sculpture, painting) will write reports at level 3 or 4 (of 4 ) on the attached rubric.

80% of seniors responding to a survey will strongly agree that learning outcome 2b was reached in a senior survey.


GOAL MET:

Will continue to monitor this learning outcome.

3. Goal

To provide the basis for a life of sustained intellectual and creative inquiry with interdisciplinary frames of references.

Learning Outcome

3a. Studio art majors will demonstrate the ability to create ideas anew from their own and other disciplines in their artworks.


Assessment mechanism: Faculty survey evaluation/ratings of senior exhibitions and capstones using two rubrics: the departmental writing rubric and the AACU Creative Thinking rubric. Target group: senior art majors Goal: 80% of students will rate 8 or above on a scale of 10 (high) in synthesizing interdisciplinary concepts to create new ideas in visual form.

Student 1-BFA 8.67 Student 2 – BFA 9.75 Student 3 – BFA 9.17 Student 4 –BFA 9.67 ----------- BFA average 9.315 Student 5 – BA 8.58 Student 6 – BA 9.50 Student 7 – BA 7.58 Student 8 – BA 8.83 -----------BA average 8.623 Total average: 8.969 7 of 8 students reached a level of 8 or above (87.5%) 2014-15 9.18 average 2015-16 8.969 average

GOAL MET.

In the new seminar classes (Intermedia Seminars, Intermedia Capstones), studio faculty will stress the importance of interdisciplinary approaches. Studio Art is deepening the interdisciplinary experience in connection with two Paideia clusters: Drawing II and Ceramics: Hand Forming in the Investigating Identity cluster; and six courses in the Design cluster. To provide professional examples of interdisciplinary art and to serve the University community, we are offering two supporting professional art exhibits in the gallery this year: our first on a Paideia theme, identity, and a second exhibit in connection with the Brown Symposium.

80% of seniors responding to a survey will strongly agree that learning outcome 3a was reached in a senior survey.

100% of respondents (n6) seniors “strongly agree” that the department met this goal.

GOAL MET:

The department will continue to monitor this learning outcome.

3b. Studio art majors will demonstrate skills and professional strategies that provide opportunities for their further development as artists or in preparation for graduate study.

12


Assessment mechanism: faculty rankings based on capstone rubric and faculty capstone review forms. Target group: Graduating seniors in the B.A. and B.F.A degree programs. Goal: 80% of senior art majors will rate an 8 or above on the professional quality of their capstone portfolio: a resume, an artist’s statement, and a digital art portfolio that documents their achievements, ideas, and art works in a professional format.

100 % rated 8 or above as follows: Student 1-BFA 9.75 Student 2 – BFA 9.5 Student 3 – BFA 8.92 Student 4 –BFA 9.25 ----------- BFA average 9.355 Student 5 – BA 8.58 Student 6 – BA 9.39 Student 7 – BA 9.16 Student 8 – BA 9.5 -----------BA average 9.158 Total average: 9.256 2014-15: BFAs 9.915, BAs 8.728, average: 9.322

GOAL MET

This year’s seniors were given departmental documents on the capstone expectations at the beginning of the year by the chair, which improved the outcome for the fourth consecutive year. Because the department will be shifting in 2016-17 from a capstone achieved outside the class structure to regular capstone classes in each faculty member’s areas, the capstone criteria will in the future be at the discretion of individual faculty, though we all agree on the standards. Academic freedom requires that we respect faculty rights to choose their own evaluative measures for capstone classes. To achieve departmental oversight related to this SACS grid, we will make all capstone portfolios available for review and evaluation by the studio faculty collectively in ‘16-17 for this SACS document.

80% of seniors responding to a survey will strongly agree that learning outcome 3b was reached in a senior survey.


GOAL MET:

Will continue to monitor

13

Art and Art History Department Assessment Plan (Art History)


Standards in nearly all areas were met this year. We have focused intentionally on developing students’ writing abilities through a combination of short writing exercises and longer research papers. Skills specific to art history continue to be a priority, mainly formal analysis, contextual understanding, critical reading of disciplinary texts, and art historical research skills. One area did not quite meet expectations: exam essays. This evaluation measures students’ ability to understand the complex meanings of works of art within specific cultural contexts. This outcome is key to the discipline, so we will continue to monitor performance on exam essays. (See comments under the program/department improvement.) The results of our ten year study are not yet reflected in this assessment plan, since 2015-16 was a planning year. The ten year study produced helpful suggestions for updating and refining a program curriculum that was already very strong. However, the study identified key areas where we could further improve our offerings, especially by making better use of all of our faculty and their areas of expertise. As a result, we spent considerable time during 2015-16 revising our curriculum. In addition to changes to course offerings made by individual faculty in their teaching areas, as a group, we decided to significantly change our foundation courses: the Introduction to Art History course, previously taught only by Smith, and World Architecture, taught by Howe. These will be replaced by a new Introductory structure consisting of a thematic course focusing on a faculty member’s area of expertise (e.g. Latin American art, East Asian art, modern art, or Renaissance art), and use this thematic focus as a way of introducing students to the basic methods and analytical approaches of art history. Although content will continue to be an important factor of the Introductory courses, emphasis will be put on developing the kinds of fundamental art historical learning outcomes outlined in this plan. The new Intro rotation will be rolled out in 2016-17, and the department will evaluate the plan accordingly to see if changes need to be made to either outcomes or mechanisms.

A note on the reach of these measurements: with the exception of the Theory and Methods seminar and the capstone seminar, ALL courses offered in the art history program have no pre-requisites, and are open to majors and non-majors. Enrollments in these courses are typically capped at 25, and they often fill. The typical course includes students from various majors across campus, including art history and studio art, as well as students from all years (first year to senior). Thus in every learning outcome listed in this plan, both majors and non-majors are represented, with the exception of the assessment mechanisms focusing on the capstone and methods seminars. Mission The Art History program enables students to assess the complex meanings of visual culture, including its ideological, historical, and political dimensions. The Art History major develops students’ skills in visual literacy, contextual interpretation, written communication, critical analysis, and historical research. It also provides an awareness of the basic theoretical models of the discipline and the global diversity of artistic production. The major provides the basis for a life of continued intellectual engagement with the history of art, regardless of future occupation, but also prepares those who specifically plan on pursuing graduate study in the field.

14

Goal

To develop students’ ability to recognize, describe and analyze the formal elements and historical contexts of works of art.

Learning Outcome 1a. Students will recognize, describe and analyze the formal elements of works of art (i.e. visual literacy).


80% of students in applicable courses will demonstrate competent to excellent proficiency as evidenced by written formal analyses when measured against item b) in the Writing Rubric.

Fall 2015 (F1; F2; F3): 47 out of 56 students (83%) / Spring 2016 (S1; S2; S4; S5; S6): 101 out of 124 students (81%) demonstrated competent to excellent proficiency. Longitudinal comparison:

• Fall 2014: 115 out of 134 students (85%) / Spring 2015: 135 out of 148 students (91%) • Fall 2013: 31 out of 43 students (72%) / Spring 2014: 54 out of 67 students (80%) • Fall 2012: 57 out of 70 students (81%) / Spring 2013: 113 out of 148 students (86%)

Standard achieved. Will continue to monitor.

In capstone courses, following the rubric for evaluating capstone research papers, student research papers will demonstrate competent to excellent proficiency in their use of formal analysis when measured against item b) in the Capstone Rubric.

Fall 2015: 8 out of 8 (100%) demonstrated competent to excellent proficiency. Longitudinal comparison: • Fall 2014: 5 out of 5 (100%) • Fall 2013: 4 out of 4 (100%) • Fall 2012: 9 out of 9 (100%)

Capstone is only offered in the fall. Our majors in the senior seminar consistently demonstrate mastery of this outcome. Standard achieved. Will continue to monitor.

1b. Students will be able to interpret works of art within their specific cultural and historical contexts.


80% of students in applicable courses will be rated competent or excellent on written responses requiring them to describe the relationship of art to its cultural and historical context when measured against all the items in the Exam Essay Rubric.

Fall 2015 (F1; F2; F3): 73 out of 97 students (75%) / Spring 2016 (S1; S2; S3; S4; S6): 85 out of 106 students (80%) demonstrated competent to excellent proficiency. Longitudinal comparison: • Fall 2014: 154 out of 189 students (81%) / Spring 2015: 113 out of 129 students (87%) • Fall 2013: 54 out of 67 students (80%) / Spring 2014: 86 out of 105

Standard achieved in spring only. This mechanism focuses on students’ ability to understand the complex meanings of works of art within cultural contexts. Most faculty already review test material and provide study flashcards. This outcome is key to the

15

students (81%) • Fall 2012: 96 out of 117 students (82%) / Spring 2013: 174 out of 201 students (86%)

discipline, so we will discuss ways to strengthen these results. Possible improvements might include required review sessions, additional review handouts and flashcards, or online preparatory quizzes.

80% of students will demonstrate competent to excellent proficiency as evidenced by research papers in which students analyze works of art within their historical context when measured against item b) in the Writing Rubric.

Fall 2015 (F1; F2; F3; F4; F5): 61 out of 69 students (88%) / Spring 2016 (S1; S2; S3; S4; S5; S6): 113 out of 124 students (91%) demonstrated competent to excellent proficiency. Longitudinal comparison: • Fall 2014: 109 out of 127 students (85%) / Spring 2015: 128 out of 142 students (90%)

• Fall 2013: 35 out of 47 students

(74%) / Spring 2014: 86 out of 105 students (81%) • Fall 2012: 67 out of 83 students (81%) / Spring 2013: 121 out of 146 students (82%)


In capstone courses, following the rubric for evaluating capstone research papers, 80% of majors will be rated competent or excellent on research papers in which students analyze works of art within their historical context when measured against item b) in the Writing Rubric.

Fall 2015: 8 out of 8 students (100%) demonstrated competent to excellent proficiency. Longitudinal comparison: • Fall 2014: 5 out of 5 (100%) • Fall 2013: 4 out of 4 (100%) • Fall 2012: 9 out of 9 (100%)


1c. Students will communicate their ideas in written form effectively in a variety of contexts


Following the rubric for evaluating writing, 80% of students in applicable courses will demonstrate competent to excellent proficiency in written communication on short, non-research writing exercises when measured against item e) in the Writing Rubric.

Fall 2015 (F1; F2; F3): 53 out of 55 students (96%) / Spring 2016 (S1; S2; S3; S4; S5; S6): 107 out of 124 students (86%) demonstrated competent to excellent proficiency. Longitudinal comparison: • Fall 2014: 52 out of 63 students (82%) / Spring 2015: 59 out of 67 students (88%) • Fall 2013: 29 out of 43 students (67%) / Spring 2014: 48 out of 63 students (76%)

These numbers continue to be strong after last year’s improvements. Faculty have focused on developing solid writing skills in these assignments, often in consultation with the writing center fellows. Standard achieved. Will continue to monitor.

16

• Fall 2012: 100 out of 119 students (84%) / Spring 2013: 158 out of 190 (83%)

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept

Improvement Following the rubric for evaluating writing, 80% of students in applicable courses will demonstrate competent to excellent proficiency in written communication in formal research papers when measured against item e) in the Writing Rubric.

Fall 2015 (F1; F2; F3; F4; F5): 61 out of 69 students (88%) / Spring 2016 (S1; S2; S3; S4; S5; S6): 113 out of 124 students (91%) demonstrated competent to excellent proficiency. Longitudinal comparison: • Fall 2014: 109 out of 127 students (85%) / Spring 2015: 128 out of 142 students (90%) • Fall 2013: 35 out of 47 students (74%) / Spring 2014: 86 out of 105 students (81%) • Fall 2012/Spring 2013: Mechanism not used.


1d. Students will communicate their ideas in oral form effectively in a variety of contexts.


In capstone courses, following the rubric for evaluating capstone presentations, students will demonstrate competent to excellent proficiency articulating their research in an oral presentation when measured against item h) in the Capstone Rubric.



1e. Students will think critically and inventively about the history of art.


By survey, 90% of graduating majors will agree or strongly agree with the statement: “I have acquired the ability to think critically and inventively about art historical issues” (Question 1 of the senior exit survey).

100% of survey respondents (7 out of 7) agreed or strongly agreed. Longitudinal comparison: • 2015: 4 out of 4 (100%) • 2014: 3 out of 3 (100%) • 2013: 7 out of 7 (100%)


17

1g. Students will demonstrate the ability to conduct art historical research.


In applicable courses 80% of students will demonstrate competent to excellent proficiency as evidenced by research papers when measured against item b) in the Writing Rubric.

Fall 2015 (F1; F2; F3; F4; F5): 61 out of 69 students (88%) / Spring 2016 (S1; S2; S3; S4; S5; S6): 113 out of 124 students (91%) demonstrated competent to excellent proficiency. Longitudinal comparison: • Fall 2014: 109 out of 127 students (85%) / Spring 2015: 128 out of 142 students (90%) • Fall 2013: 35 out of 47 students (74%) / Spring 2014: 86 out of 105 students (81%) • Fall 2012: 67 out of 83 students (81%) / Spring 2013: 121 out of 146 students (82%)


80% of students in applicable courses will demonstrate competent to excellent proficiency in creating an annotated bibliography when measured against item a) in the Annotated Bibliography rubric.

Fall 2015 (F1; F2; F5): 45 out of 49 (91%) / Spring 2016 (S1, S5; S6): 50 out of 60 students (83%) demonstrated competent to excellent proficiency. Longitudinal comparison: • Fall 2014: 62 out of 67 (92%) / Spring 2015: 38 out of 46 students (82%) • Fall 2013: 30 out of 43 (70%) / Spring 2014: 33 out of 42 students (78%) • Fall 2012: 23 out of 23 students (100%) / Spring 2013: 65 out of 79 students (82%)

Standard achieved. 2013-14 low percentages in this category led us to focus even more on these skills in 2014-15, with good results, and this year the results continue to demonstrate successful acquisition of research skills for students in a range of courses. Will continue to monitor.

Goal

To provide an awareness of the basic theoretical models of the discipline.

Learning Outcome

2a. Students will become versed in the methodological and theoretical frameworks typically used by art historians.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement In the Theories and Methods course, 80% of students will demonstrate competent to excellent proficiency as evidenced by research papers measured against item c) in the

Fall 2015: 5 out of 5 students (100%) demonstrated competent to excellent proficiency. Longitudinal comparison: • Fall 2014: 5 out of 5 students (100%)


18

Writing Rubric. • Spring 2014: 4 out of 4 students (100%)

• Fall 2012: 4 out of 4 students

(100%)

2b. Students will demonstrate the ability to read art history texts carefully and critically.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement In capstone courses, following the capstone paper rubric, 100% of art history majors will demonstrate competent to excellent proficiency as evidenced by seminar discussion and reading responses measured against item i) in the Capstone Rubric.



Goal

To provide the basis for a life of continued intellectual engagement with the history of art.

Learning Outcome

3a. Students will demonstrate a level of preparedness that will allow them to succeed in graduate school in art history and related fields.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement By survey, 80% of seniors and recent graduates who choose to apply to a graduate program in art history or related field will be accepted.

100% (2 out of 2) seniors and recent graduates were accepted to graduate programs in art history or a related field.* Longitudinal comparison: 2015: 100% (3 out of 3) 2014: 100% (1 out of 1) 2013: 100% (2 out of 2)


By survey, 80% of alumni who continued to graduate school in art history or a related field will agree or strongly agree with the statement: “My time at Southwestern as an Art History major prepared me well for graduate school.”

100% (8 out of 8) alumni who attended graduate school in art history or a related field agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: “My time at Southwestern as an Art History major prepared me well for graduate school.” Longitudinal comparison: Alumni survey was distributed in April 2011 to 47 alumni. (2000-2010 graduates.) 23 of 47 alumni responded (48% response rate.) 100% (23 out of 23) of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed with this statement.

Standard achieved. The alumni survey was distributed to art history majors who had graduated between 2011 and 2015. 17 out of 25 alumni completed the survey (68% response rate). 8 out of 17 respondents are attending or have attended graduate school in art history or a related field.

19

3b. Students will demonstrate a commitment to continued learning and engagement with art and its histories.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement By survey, 80% of graduating majors will agree or strongly agree with the statement: “I feel my work in the Art History major has significantly enhanced my understanding of and interest in the history of art.” (Question 2 of the senior exit survey)

100% of survey respondents (7 out of 7) agreed or strongly agreed. Longitudinal comparison: • 2015: 100% (4 out of 4) • 2014: 100% (3 out of 3) • 2013: 100% (7 out of 7)


*Appendix: Guide to courses: Fall 2015 F1: Hellenistic Art F2: Art of Mesoamerica F3: Art Since 1945 F4: Theory and Methods seminar F5: Capstone Seminar Spring 2016 S1: Introduction to the History of Art S2: Introduction to Latin American Art S3: Art of the Andes S4: Spanish Golden Age Painting S5: Gender and Art S6: Modern Architecture Graduates and alumni who applied to graduate school in 2015-16 : Emily McWilliams (‘13) • Masters in Arts Leadership at the University of Houston (accepted) Olivia Huffstetter (’15) • MA Program in Art History at Oklahoma State University (accepted)

20

Biology Department

Assessment Plan Academic Year: 2015-2016

Mission:

The Biology Department fosters student understanding of diverse questions and concepts about living systems and the procedures used to study them. We help develop students’ abilities in critical thinking, quantitative reasoning and analysis, written communication and information fluency. The courses and experiences offered by the Biology Department prepare students for postgraduate education and a variety of personal and career objectives. The faculty members in the Department teach with rigorous academic standards and commitment to student learning. Based on the committee’s feedback last academic year we added the following to this year’s assessment: 1. We implemented pre and post-test to assess gain in knowledge in the non-majors course; and (2) made it clearer the places in our curriculum where we were already assessing our students (second year courses and advanced level courses). In addition, we implemented assessment of Learning Outcome 2a and 2b in our sophomore level Methods Courses, and designed an assessment of Learning Outcome 3f to give in our introductory level courses (predominantly first year students). Summary:

Goal

Students will understand and apply knowledge and concepts about the functioning of living systems. Learning Outcomes

1a. Students will understand and apply detailed knowledge and concepts in cellular, molecular, organismal, ecological, and evolutionary biology.


Senior majors will take the Biology Major Field Test, a standard, nationally-normed test designed to “assess mastery of concepts, principles and knowledge expected of students who have completed or are nearing completion” of a major in Biology. Our institutional mean should be at or above the 85th percentile.

Our institutional mean (n=20) placed us in the 92nd percentile of the hundreds of institutions using the MFT nationally.

For the entire period for which we have been administering the test to our seniors (Fall 2012-Spring 2016), our institutional mean is at the 96th percentile. Student learning of detailed concepts in the biological sciences appears to be a notable strength of our program that we will seek to maintain.

21

Non-majors students took a pre and post-test evaluating gain of knowledge. We expect at least a score of 70% on the post test.

Average performance in non-majors classes (n=28) increased from 58% (pre) to 72% (post).

Goal met.

Goal Students will accurately and appropriately apply quantitative reasoning and methods to biological problems. Learning Outcomes

2a. Students will choose and accurately conduct appropriate analytical (statistical) methods to quantitative data.


Second year majors will answer a set of quantitative reasoning questions requiring statistical analysis in a pre and post-test format. We would expect 75% of students to successfully answer these questions by the time of the post-test.

For n=12 students in sophomore-level Methods class, average performance increased from 46% (pre) to 83% (post).

Goal met.

Senior majors will answer a set of quantitative reasoning questions requiring statistical analysis added to the Biology Major Field Test. Seniors should average 75% correct answers.

For n=20 seniors, the average was 52%

Goal not met. This performance is essentially unchanged from the previous year (55%). The questions given to the seniors are very different in scope from those given to the sophomore-level class, so no direct comparison can be made. One question is whether the test we give our students is a valid one, as our students perform better on more contextually-rich and complicated statistical problems.

22

2b. Students will appropriately and accurately apply quantitative approaches in laboratory and field settings, such as calculation of concentrations to make solutions, use of standard curves to derive measurement values, calculation of quantities from concentrations and volumes.


Second year majors will answer quantitative reasoning questions in a pre and post-test format. We would expect 75% of students to successfully answer these questions by the time of the post-test.

For n=15 students in sophomore-level Methods class, average performance increased from 46% (pre) to 68% (post).

Goal not met. Our students continue to have challenges with quantitative work associated with molecular biology. Inclusion of more work in the first year will hopefully improve this and we will discuss instituting some tutorials or on-line resources.

Senior majors will answer quantitative reasoning questions added to the Biology Major Field Test. Questions will require students to perform a variety of different types of calculations that are inherent in the design of molecular biology experiments. These include problems related to molarity, concentrations, percentages (weight/volume; volume/volume) and unit conversions. Seniors should average 75% correct answers.

For n= 20 seniors, the average was 69%.

Goal not met. The Major Field Test has implemented a new quantitative literacy test. We will give that to our senior students to obtain further information about our students’ quantitative performance. As a department we will address in our department meetings strategies to implement in order to address this deficiency in quantitative skills. Quantitative performance is also a concern across the sciences at Southwestern and is expected to be a focus of the institution’s next HHMI proposal.

23

Goal

Students will effectively communicate scientific knowledge both in writing and in oral presentations. .

Learning Outcomes

3a. Students will write clear and organized scientific presentations.


Faculty will evaluate an example of a substantial written assignment (e.g., proposal, lab report, primary research literature critique, case study analysis) in an upper-level course.

The assessment result is the

collective data for senior

students from all advanced

courses taught by different

faculty using the Biology

Dept. writing rubric. 75% of students will meet the rubric criteria for “accomplished” or “exemplary.”

86% (n=25 of 29) of seniors were assessed as “accomplished” or “exemplary” for this measure on the Writing Rubric – Content and Supporting Evidence.

Goal met.

3b. Students will determine, acquire and integrate appropriate primary literature to evaluate and support written scientific arguments,


Task is in the form of a substantial written assignment (e.g. proposal, lab report, primary research literature critique, case study analysis).







76% (n=22 of 29) of seniors were assessed as “accomplished” or “exemplary” for this measure

Goal met.

24

3c. Students will illustrate substantive understanding and engagement with biological concepts in their writing.










Goal met.

3d. Student writing will demonstrate mastery of writing mechanics










Goal not met. We will be more explicit about the writing conventions in the sciences and encourage students to rely on our Biology Department Writing Guide. This guide is posted on the department’s website. However, we will make sure students receive a copy the first day of classes together with the writing rubric we used to evaluate their writing assignment. This could also be attributed to the student’s lack of time management skills; waiting until the last minute to begin working on the particular written assignment and thus not paying attention to the nuances of scientific writing.

25

3e. Student writing will appropriately allocate coverage to various aspects of their written presentations arguments










Goal met.

Learning Outcomes

3f- Students will make clear, accurate and stylistically appropriate oral presentations on biological topics.


Task is in the form of a substantial oral presentation (e.g. proposal, lab report, primary research literature critique, case study analysis). The assessment result is the collective data for First year students using the

Biology Dept. oral

presentation rubric.

The decision to extend this measure to the first-year classes was made mid-year and we did not collect any data in these classes using the rubric.

We will make sure to gather this data this year.

b) Students in advanced



Dept. oral presentation

rubric. Six different aspects of student performance will be assessed: Organization, Content, Comprehension, Delivery, Aids and text, and Timing. 75% of students will meet the rubric criteria for “accomplished” or “exemplary.”

b) Student performance was “accomplished” or “exemplary” for at least 86% (n= 19 of 22) of students for each of the six measured aspects of performance, with an average of 90% (n=22 for each measure).

Goal met.

26

Chemistry Department

Assessment Plan

Academic Year: 2015-2016 Mission The mission of the Chemistry and Biochemistry Department consists of two specific goals. The first goal is to present the discipline of chemistry as a dynamic and challenging field of study that will serve students either as the primary area of expertise used to fulfill a life-long career or as a necessary supple- ment to another area of study that requires the knowledge of chemistry. Within that goal, the department will provide a stimulating and rigorous learning environment to give students a strong foundation in chemistry and biochemistry and promote student inquiry, as well as sustain a vibrant collaborative student-faculty research program to advance scientific discovery. The second goal of the department is for non-science students to learn the fundamental principles of chemistry, and the impact of chemistry on society and everyday life. Goal Chemistry and biochemistry students will have a mastery of the central concepts within core areas of our discipline (sub-disciplines including analytical, biochemistry, organic, inorganic, and physical chemistry). Learning Outcome

1a. Students will demonstrate a high-level of understanding within the major sub-disciplines in our curriculum. These courses include Instrumental Methods of Analysis (analytical), Biochemistry I and II, General Chemistry I and II, Organic Chemistry I and II, Intermediate Inorganic Chemistry, Bioinorganic, and Physical Chemistry I and II.


General Chemistry American Chemical Society (ACS) standardized final exams will be administered in General Chemistry courses. Class averages should be at least at the

70th percentile nationally. Collect data annually, assess every 5 years.

General Chemistry 1 (Fall 2015): Overall, among all General Chemistry sections (w/out tutorial), the mean scores

were at the 75th percentile (st dev = 24, n=73). Two General Chemistry I sections had mean

scores at the 69th (Bruns) and

90th (Bruns) percentiles. The tutorial section designed for students with weaker

General Chemistry 1 (Fall

2015): Although the mean of 68th

percentile achieved by our students falls slightly below our stated goal of 70% the difference can be explained by the wide range of preparation of our students for a college level course in chemistry. The department will explore incentives to encourage

30

backgrounds in math that includes an extra hour of meeting time per week had a mean at the

45th percentile (st dev = 22; n=23). The combined mean percentile of all three sectionswas

68th (standard deviation = 23.5;

range from 100th to 7th

percentile) (n= 96) General Chemistry 2 (Spring 2016): The ACS standardized

exam for the 2nd semester general chemistry material was given again this year. The three sections had average scores at the

72nd (Zewail-Foote), 70th

(Zewail-Foote) and 63rd

(Cooper) percentiles. The combined mean percentile of all

three sections was 67th

(standard deviation = 24; range

from 2nd to 100th percentile) (n= 71) This is considerable higher than last year’s (2015) average

percentile (57th; range 0 to 100th percentile; n = 80) which was also lower than our target. Past second-semester ACS percentiles

were 68th (2014), 66th (2013),

79th percentile (2012), and 80th

percentile (2011).

students to take advantage of opportunities for outside of classroom learning experiences, such as active-learning and SciGuide sessions.

General Chemistry 2 (Spring 2016): Goal not met. The average percentile for the second semester General Chemistry

exam (67th) was only slightly

lower than the target 70th

percentile and an improvement from last year. The department will continue to make modifications to help improve student success. We will continue to use ALEKS to help prepare students and utilize active learning instructional pedagogies. For the first-semester tutorial section, we are making major revisions. There will be more active learning pedagogies and more problem solving. Both sections of general chemistry will use a SmartBook which contains assessment mechanisms on students’ reading and understanding of the material. We implemented ALEKS between the two semester courses to get students prepared.

31

ALEKS is an internet based tutoring and assessment program. It uses an initial assessment and adaptive questioning to determine accurately what students do and do not know. ALEKS then instructs students on topics they need to master. We selected important concepts from the first semester course that are essential for the second semester course. This also helped students who did not take chemistry here the previous semester. The department also tracked the success of the students taking General Chemistry 2 who were from the General Chemistry with Tutorial section to determine if the course is helping prepare students who may not otherwise succeed in chemistry. 13 out of the 23 tutorial students (57%) took the second semester General Chemistry course. The average 2nd semester ACS percentile score for students who took the

tutorial section was 54th (47th in 2015).

In addition, 7 of the 13 students (54%) did not pass (D, F, or W) the course. Of the remaining 6 students, 5 received a C.

Comparatively, 25% of the students (not including the Chemistry with Tutorial students; n=58) did not pass second semester General Chemistry, similar to last year.

Overall, 30% of all 71 students

taking 2nd semester General Chemistry received below a C-.

32


Organic Chemistry Twenty-four questions from the American Chemical Society (ACS) standardized exam will be categorized according to twelve learning goals with two questions per goal. Class averages should be 20% above the national average for each learning goal for Organic Chemistry 1 and 30% above the national average for each learning goal for Organic Chemistry 2. (Gesinski)

Organic Chemistry I (Fall)

Students met expectations in 6/12 learning goals. Scores were particularly high in four areas: (2) resonance (+5.8) (6) mechanisms (+6.8) (8) eliminations (+4.1) (9) alkene additions (+3.7) Students scores were approximately at expectations in four areas: (1) nomenclature (+3.3) - (3) acidity (-2.6) - (10) radicals (+3.4) (11) spectroscopy (-1.4) Students scored below expectations in four areas: (4) conformations (-11.9) (5) stereochemistry (-27.3) (7) substitutions (-7.0) - (12) synthesis (-3.8) (n = 49)

Organic Chemistry II (Spring)

Students met expectations in 10/12 learning goals. Scores were particularly high in seven areas: - (1) alkynes (+29.8) (2) conj. systems (+10.9) (4) aromatic subs (+9.9) - (5) ketones (+15.5) - (7) enols (+30.3) (10) organometallics (+16.9) - (12) synthesis (+10.1) Students scored were either at or slightly above expectations in three areas: (6) carb. acid der (+0.6) (8) conj. additions (+2.6) - (9) amines (+7.7)

Organic Chemistry I Goals not met in 50% of areas. Compared to the last year, students performed worse on every learning goal except goal (6). While this is disappointing, it is not surprising. The overall failure rate this year was 29% with 22% receiving an F. This is the first year we have encountered a significant number of students who not only struggled with this class, but were completely unprepared from the outset. This is consistent with poor assessment results from General Chemistry II (Spring 2015). Please see the assessment information for that class last year for an analysis of these changes in our student body.

Organic Chemistry II Goals met in 83% of areas. Overall, students did exceptionally well in this assessment test. Seven areas were well above expectations and eight areas saw substantial improvement from last year. The two areas that were below expectations are notable: Area (11) is a topic covered initially in Organic I and then continued through the Spring. It is likely that a lack of understanding evident from

33

Students scored below expectations in four areas (3) aromatics (-8.4) (11) spectroscopy (-8.2) (n = 32)

the Fall carried through. Area (3) is a bit more telling and is consistent with exam scores on this topic. More work in the future will be focused on students’ understanding of aromaticity, including additional problem sets and lecture time.


Inorganic Chemistry and

Biological Systems (Spring)

Fifteen questions from the American Chemical Society (ACS) standardized exam have been selected. No national averages are available for these questions at the time due to low national participation. The class average should be above 70%. (Gesinski)

While students scores varied between 40% and 100%, the average was 71% (n =24)

Standard Met. This was the first time the course was offered. I will continue to monitor.


American Chemical Society (ACS) standardized final exams will be administered in the major sub-disciplines in chemistry and biochemistry majors (when exams are available). Class averages should be at least at the

70th percentile nationally. When individual ACS exam questions are administered in a particular course, at least 70% of students in the class should answer the question correctly. Collect data

Instrumental (Niemeyer): Eleven questions from the ACS standardized exam in Instrumental Analysis were administered to students throughout the semester. The questions covered topics in three major areas (calibration/error, spectroscopy, and chromatography/mass spectrometry). In fall 2015, greater than 70% of students (n = 13) correctly answered 7 of the

Instrumental (Niemeyer):

Standard not met. This is the first year that this assessment was administered so we will continue to monitor student performance in this area.

34

annually, assess every 5 years with submission of ACS accreditation report to Committee on Professional Training.

11 ACS exam questions. For 3 of the questions, 100% of students in the course answered correctly.

Biochemistry 2 (Bruns): The ACS standardized final exam for a 2-semester course in Biochemistry (2003 form) was given to the class of 13 students.

The class performed well (84th

percentile, standard deviation = 13.8 with range from 64-99).

Thermo and Kinetics (Cooper): The ACS standardized exam for Physical Chemistry Combined Semester Topics Thermodynamics and Kinetics was given this year. The class

had average scores at the 83rd

percentile for the TK (thermodynamics and kinetics) exam (standard deviation = 27;

range from 23rd to 99th

percentile) (n= 8) and the 78th

percentile for the TKS (thermodynamics, kinetics, and statistical mechanics) sections. (standard deviation = 30; range

from 27th to 97th percentile) (n= 8)

Quantum Chemistry (Cooper): The ACS standardized exam for Physical Chemistry Combined Semester Topics Quantum Mechanics was given this year. The class had average scores at

the 70th percentile.(standard

deviation = 30; range from 24th

to 96th percentile) (n= 5)

Biochemistry (Bruns): Standard met.

Thermo and Kinetics (Cooper): Standard met.

Quantum Chemistry (Cooper): Standard met.

35


For Biochemistry I, students will demonstrate an understanding of core knowledge in biochemistry (protein structure). Students will be evaluated based on a set of multiple-choice questions within a cumulative final exam (Zewail-Foote).

For Fall 2015, the average raw score on questions pertaining to protein structure was 12/14 (87.5%) (n=30).

Standard met.

Goal Majors will have competency in conducting chemical or biochemical research. Learning Outcome

2a. All chemistry and biochemistry majors will develop competency in: conducting chemical/biochemical research; using the library and/or electronic resources for their research; writing a scientific manuscript; and, presenting their results to the scientific community.


100% of all majors will be rated as fair to excellent in various components of the research process; the primary advisor will provide ratings following student completion of a research experience. (Velez)

100% of our graduates were rated fair to excellent by their research advisors in the specific criteria related to research. Results from research advisors (1= Excellent, 2= Fair, 3=Poor): using analytical instrumentation (avg.=1.3); interpreting analytical data (avg.=1.4); carrying out laboratory procedures (avg.=1.3); works safely in a laboratory setting (avg.=1.4); maintain a laboratory notebook (avg.=1.4).

Standard was met. Nine of our students were involved in research for at least one year, which we believe contributes to high ratings in research areas by their faculty members. We had three students complete an honors capstone project, 2 students completed the literature research capstone project and 9 of our 11 (82%) seniors participated in both summer and academic year research.

36


A senior exit survey will be administered to all chemistry and biochemistry majors. 75% of graduates will rate themselves as very confident (1) or somewhat confident (2) in research-related skills. The survey will employ a Likert-style scale where not very confident (3) and not confident at all (4) will be the other response options. (Velez) 80% of student majors in the capstone course will write scientific papers ranked as fair to excellent based on the writing and presentation rubrics established by the department. (Velez)

Results from the 2016 senior exit survey (n = 10) indicate that our graduates: 90% feel very confident or confident in reading and understanding an article from the primary literature (avg. = 1.4), 90% feel confident interpreting the literature (avg. =2.1), 100% feel confident about working safely in the laboratory (avg. = 1.6), 100% feel confident working independently in the lab (avg. = 2.0), 100% feel confident conducting chemical research (avg. = 2.2), 80% feel confident about using library resources to investigate a problem related to chemistry (avg. = 2.0), 100% feel confident about interpreting analytical data (avg.= 1.9), 80% feel confident carrying out a detailed synthesis (avg. = 1.5), 90% feel confident about giving a scientific presentation (avg. = 2.1), and 100% feel confident in writing a scientific manuscript (avg. = 2.3). Our graduates successfully completed the chemistry research capstone course. Results from the evaluation (1= Excellent, 2= Fair, 3=Poor) of the overall quality of the capstone paper by a 2-person faculty committee:100% of our graduates scored fair to excellent. The mean overall score per student was 1.5 (range 1 to 3).

Our students met the criteria of rating themselves as very confident or somewhat confident in all of the criteria from the senior evaluation. We have to monitor closely the skills of interpreting data, writing scientific manuscripts and performing scientific presentations. The average was between 2.0- 2.3. We are incorporating intensive writing assignments to General Chemistry, Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry labs. That will help students to gain confidence in scientific writing, analyzing data and presentation skills. Standards were met. All of our seniors for presented in the Creative Works Symposium and wrote a capstone paper.

37

Results from the evaluation of student presentations by the faculty (1=Excellent, 2=Fair, 3=Poor): 94% of our majors ranked fair to excellent in their students presentations. 100% of our students provided the audience with a sufficient introduction (avg. = 1.5), 94% of students gave a clear and concise overview of the project (avg.=1.6), 96% of students clearly described experimental procedures (avg=1.5), 90% of students summarized and explained the data in a succinct way (avg=1.7), 93% of students effectively explained the scientific implications of the results (avg.=1.8), and 91% of students answered questions from students and faculty (avg.=1.6).

75% of our graduates’ research projects will be reviewed by faculty at an excellent level, high enough for presentation at a regional or national scientific conference. (All faculty) At least one graduate a year will co-author a peer-reviewed scientific article with her/his faculty mentor. (Zewail-Foote)

7 out of 12 (58%) of our graduates presented at national or regional meetings. Three graduates co-authored a peer-reviewed article. Zane Johnson (2015) and Jace Venters (2013) were co-authors on a publication with Dr. Zewail-Foote. Zachary Jenner (2014) was a co-author with Dr. Bruns.

Standard not met. Standard met and exceeded goal.

38

Goal Non-science students will demonstrate a basic level of understanding of the fundamental principles of chemistry. Learning Outcome

Students will demonstrate a basic understanding of fundamental chemical concepts.


Eight questions from the ACS standardized exam for Chemistry in Context will be administered on the final exam for the course. Questions cover major topics discussed during the semester (e.g, stratospheric ozone depletion, global warming). More than 70% of students in the class will answer each of these questions correctly. (Niemeyer)

For 5 of the 8 ACS questions, more than 70% of the class (n = 23) answered correctly. One question (which dealt with the earth’s greenhouse effect) was answered correctly by 100% of students.

This is the first year that these exam questions have been administered to non-science majors. It is necessary to collect further data to provide a baseline comparison for this group of students.

39

Classics Area

Assessment Plan


Changes, responses, new mechanisms

There are no significant changes to the curriculum. Per the responses received last year, we now track changes over the past several years, and have developed tools for the assessment of language proficiency.

Mission

Through the study of primary material (Latin and Greek texts, in the original or in translation; archaeological and art historical artifacts), students gain an appreciation for ancient societies that continue to illuminate our own. As Classics involves a range of connected approaches and content, including historical, art historical, philosophical, literary, biological (e.g. forensic biology), mathematical, anthropological, astronomical, and others, students must not only master basic factual material, but also learn how to synthesize seemingly disparate material. The program provides a serious intellectual foundation for work in any field and for life-long learning. The inter-institutional initiative “Sunoikisis,” an integral part of the SU Classics Program, is a national consortium of Classics programs. Sunoikisis has yielded new collaborative and interdisciplinary paradigms of learning in the liberal arts for the 21st century. Sunoikisis courses are intended for advanced, mature students, who can effectively and conscientiously work through the readings and fulfill the assignments with minimal supervision. Students are expected to take advantage of every resource to ensure that they thoroughly understand the readings and have a command of the interpretive issues that will form the basis of the lectures, discussions, and tutorial sessions.

Goal

To attain a deep understanding of classical languages. Learning Outcome

1a. Students will be able to read, translate and interpret ancient Greek and Latin texts at an advanced level.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement Each major must and each advanced student should take at least one Latin or Greek literature cross-institutional Sunoikisis course. During this experience, advanced students will complete rigorous translations and textual analyses, as assessed on a set of common translation and textual analysis questions; a collaborative team of inter-institutional faculty will assess this student work through a double-blind exam assessment process (neither the student nor faculty member knows who is at the other end of the evaluation line).

Since fall 2010, 10 of 14 (71%) students have achieved this criterion..

Goal met. For 2016/2017, mechanisms are being developed assess grammar, content, and morphology separately.

40

TRANSLATION/TEXTUAL ANALYSIS ASSESSMENT CRITERIA: students will demonstrate an advanced understanding of grammar, content, and morphology of original texts (n.b. that most reading texts in the first and second levels are adapted or edited passages). TARGET: 50% of students in a single year, 75% of students over a five year period.

Majors demonstrate an in-depth understanding of classical language(s) through successful completion of the capstone experience; over the course of the capstone project, the student will demonstrate to the supervising mentor and to the committee translation expertise through detailed discussions of specific texts.

There were no graduates in 2015/2016.

Goal met. Every capstone project on an historical period literature topic will have as an explicit requirement extensive reading in the original. Projects on archaeological subjects must demonstrate student’s deep engagement with interdisciplinary approaches.

Students in lower level classes (000’s-100’s) must demonstrate basic grasp of grammar. ASSESSMENT MECHANISM: students should at a minimum answer correctly 75% of grammar questions (morphology and syntax) posed on examinations.

Although exams have always been graded by grammar and by translation and the scores then combined, grammar scores have not yet been recorded separately from translation (next rubric).

Record and track component parts of examinations (grammar and translation), beginning with spring 2017.

Students in lower level classes (000’s-100’s) must demonstrate basic grasp of translation. ASSESSMENT MECHANISM: students should at a minimum answer correctly 75% of translation (one unit of credit for meaning of each word, one unit of credit for syntactical usage of each word) posed on examinations.

Although exams have always been graded by grammar and by translation and the scores then combined, translation scores have not yet been recorded separately from grammar (previous rubric).

Record and track component parts of examinations (grammar and translation), beginning with spring 2017.

Goal

To develop a broad understanding of classical culture, placed within a global environment. Learning Outcome

2a. Students will be able to research, synthesize, and draw reasoned arguments from the evidence of literature, history, philosophy, art and archaeology.

41

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement Each major must and each advanced student should take at least one Latin or Greek literature cross-institutional Sunoikisis course. During this, advanced students will engage in careful exploration of the literature, history, culture and society of the classical world as it is reflected in and forms a context for the literature studied for each course, as assessed on a set of common interpretive questions. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA: weekly essays must demonstrate identifiable theses, familiarity with primary and secondary evidence, appropriate documentation, clear organization, and grammatical correctness. TARGET: 50% of students in a single year, 75% of students over a five year period.

Since fall 2010, 17 of 18 (100%) students have scored at least a B on this segment. As Classics is an integrative field, one cannot provide discrete assessments for “literature, history, culture and society of the classical world.”

Record and report annual as well as longer term results.

All upper level literature students on required papers will demonstrate their grasp of civilization, history, philosophy, and art history. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA: essays and papers must demonstrate identifiable theses, familiarity with primary and secondary evidence, appropriate documentation, clear organization, and grammatical correctness. N.b. that outcomes for majors and non-majors are the same. Students in Sunoikisis literature classes are required to submit paper abstracts for double-blind assessment. An acceptance by Sunoikisis will be the equivalent of at least a “B.” N.b. that outcomes for majors and non-majors are the same. TARGET: 50% of students in a single year, 75% of students over a five year period.

Inconsistent application of this criterion.

All upper level literature classes will have a required research paper (Sunoikisis courses require a research paper abstract, and students will be required to write the paper even if the abstract is rejected by Sunoikisis).

42

All classical civilization (07-) students on required papers will demonstrate their grasp of civilization, history, philosophy, and art history. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA: essays and papers must demonstrate identifiable theses, familiarity with primary and secondary evidence, appropriate documentation, clear organization, and grammatical correctness. N.b. that outcomes for majors and non-majors are the same. TARGET: 50% of students in a single year, 75% of students over a five year period.

Not yet tracked separately. Track this criterion.

All majors demonstrate an in-depth understanding of interdisciplinary approaches through successful completion of the capstone experience; over the course of the capstone project, the student will demonstrate to the supervising mentor and to the committee his/her ability to apply various interrelated disciplinary approaches to issues of classical antiquity. TARGET: 50% of students in a single year, 75% of students over a five year period.

The one graduating senior in 2014/5 [correct date] developed a deep understanding of ancient ship technology, theoretical models of trade (e.g. tramp, down-the-line, elite gift exchange), faunal and floral issues (seasons, cargo [including dunnage], environment), and the inseparable connection between economic power and political power, among other areas.

Goal met.

2b. Students will develop a deep understanding of the physical contexts for classical literature, history, philosophy, art and archaeology.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement Immersion: as a result of attending an immersive study abroad program such as College Year in Athens or the Intercollegiate Center for Classical Studies in Rome, or another appropriate immersive experience, students must demonstrate deeper understanding of literature, history, philosophy, art and architecture. Assessment is documented by grades and narratives provided by program instructors.

No student participated in an immersive experience abroad in 2015/16.

Goal not met. Until Southwestern is financially committed to supporting study abroad, such an experience can only be recommended rather than required. The Program will develop assessment criteria to capture the difference in student attitude, critical thinking, and cultural awareness before and after study abroad.

Goal

Students will develop a sophisticated understanding of advanced research.

43

Learning Outcome

3a. Students will be able to conduct sophisticated, advanced research.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement Abstracts to the Sunoikisis Undergraduate Research Symposium to be accepted/rejected based on inter-institutional blind review. TARGET: 50% of students in a single year, 75% of students over a five year period..

No student submitted abstracts for the Sunoikisis Undergraduate Research Symposium in 2015/20-16.

n/a. No student submitted. r

All advanced students will conduct advanced Capstone research under the guidance of a faculty mentor, from abstract preparation through presentation. The Capstone must be sufficiently broad to draw upon the student’s experience throughout the major but narrow enough to enable in-depth research and analysis. Capstones are evaluated on comprehension and translation of ancient texts at an advanced level, strong grasp of historical and cultural context, sophisticated understanding of literal, historical, and materials analysis.

No student made a public presentation (other than Capstone presentation).

n/a. No student submitted.

Goal

To develop an appreciation for the interrelatedness of various approaches in Classics of learning and thinking, including historical, art historical, philosophical, literary, biological (e.g. forensic biology), mathematical, anthropological, astronomical, and others.

Learning Outcome 4a. Students will be able to articulate connections among seemingly disparate areas of thinking and knowing

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement Required integrative component (“paideia flashes”) in lower level Latin and Greek sequence. In addition to recording observations throughout the semester in a shared google document or blog on Moodle, each student also will develop an essay of about 100 words in length, in which s/he will develop and assess a particular

Since 2014/15, the “paideia flashes” component developed by first year Latin students intentionally captured connections between Latin class discussion and issues addressed in other classes (Creative Works presentation), resulting in fresh understandings of the effects of ancient cultures on later cultures.

Track assessments blog and essay posts.

44

theme arising from the class; the essay must demonstrate an understanding of the continuity of learning and knowing across at least two areas of learning (disciplines). ASSESSMENT CRITERIA: blog: at least 7 of the required weekly blog posts must address interdisciplinarity; essay: an acceptable essay must demonstrate that the student has synthesized intellectually connections among areas of inquiry at a level beyond discrete “flashes.” TARGET: 50% of students in a single year, 75% of students over a five year period.

This component is conceived of as a sustained conversation.

Upper level students necessarily demonstrate competence in this regard in Goal 2 above.

See Goal 2.

Goal

To develop an appreciation of the presence in later cultures of the Roman and Graeco-Asiatic past.

Learning Outcome

5a. Students will learn to critically assess how later cultures have been shaped through stealing, conquest, revival, survival, translation, exchange, or imitation of ancient Graeco-Asiatic and Roman cultures.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement Required integrative component (“paideia flashes”) in lower level Latin and Greek sequence. In addition to recording observations throughout the semester in a shared google document or blog on Moodle, each student also will develop an essay of about 100 words in length, in which s/he will develop and assess a particular theme arising from the class; the essay must demonstrate an understanding of connections to the contemporary condition. ASSESSMENT CRITERIA. blog: at least 7 of the required weekly blog posts must address a connection to the contemporary condition; essay: an acceptable essay must demonstrate that the student has synthesized connections with the present at a level beyond discrete “flashes.”

Not yet tracked systematically. Track assessments of this aspect of “paideia flashes”

45

Incorporation in Latin and Greek classes of, and assessment of, “stolen” elements in subsequent cultures. This is part of graded work in Latin III (exams).

Fall 2015 Latin III students read The Great Gatsby, a novel inspired in part by their Latin text for this course, Petronius’ Satyricon (cena section). This was an eye opening experience for most of the students, as the connections are clear.

Goal not met. Similar components are to be developed for other courses. Scores for this component in Latin III (fall 2016) are recoverable and will be tracked.

46

Communication Studies Department Assessment Plan


Introduction: In 2015-2016, we continued to adapt our curriculum to create flexibility, reduce empty seats, and promote a quality program that is efficient and focused. We eliminated one required elective for majors, reducing the major to 9 courses. This followed our decision to replace 3 junior-level writing courses with a single writing course required for all majors. These changes have already produced results: class sizes are more predictable (we have not had a class under-enrolled since making these changes) and we can more easily anticipate demands on our major curriculum.

Our assessment goal for 2015-2016 was to continue monitoring and managing relatively recent changes to our major. We did this well, identifying areas where we could make the major more efficient, more flexible and more robust in terms of preparing students academically. As we stated in last year’s assessment, we are planning to monitor changes (the reduction of electives, the change in our junior-level writing course, and increased efforts to manage Public Speaking enrollments) through Spring 2017 before making any changes to our program or our assessment agenda.

Mission

It is the mission of the Communication Studies department to engage students in critical inquiry into the functions of language and media, preparing students to act as reflexive consumers, producers and critics of communication.

1. Goal: Theoretical Proficiency

To lead students to theoretical proficiency in engaging scholarship, theory and methodology in the two main cognate areas: rhetorical studies and critical media studies. Learning Outcomes

1a. Students will demonstrate fluency in communication theories central to the critical study of rhetoric and media.


On focused questions in exams, as well as individual and/or group projects in Critical/Cultural Communication Studies, 80% of students will articulate foundational rhetorical and media studies theories and concepts, scoring 70% or greater on key questions. Foundational theories and concepts might include but are not limited to: rhetoric, medium, audience, culture,

In Fall 2015, faculty analysis confirmed that 45/50 students across two sections mastered 70% of the questions focused on key theories and concepts from rhetoric and media studies on the midterm. For the final exam, 45/50 students mastered 70% or more of key questions. In Spring 2016, 47/52 students mastered 70% or more of these questions. The total for the academic year is 92/102, or 90%. For comparison, Fall 2014 numbers were 46/49 (93%); spring 2015 data was missing.

Objective met. Annual review of results reveals we are on track. The new rubric and increasing efforts to match the Intro course to the upper-level courses in the major have been successful.

47

discourse, performance, narrative, metaphor, genre, ideology and semiotics. Majors will demonstrate mastery of at least one theoretical orientation from Communication Studies in their capstone project Prospectus by explicitly articulating their theoretical frameworks in relation to other theoretical frameworks within the discipline; the faculty will rate 80% of students’ Prospectus as strong or excellent based on the departmental Capstone Rubric before the project may proceed. Theoretical orientations might include discourse analysis, semiotics, feminist rhetorical criticism, and material culture analysis.

Faculty analysis of each Capstone Research Seminar Prospectus during the 2015-2016 academic year (2 sections, 33) confirmed that all capstone projects were explicitly critically engaged with theoretical approaches in communication. Revision workshops ensured that deficiencies in this area were addressed before the final draft was graded. For the final projects, 28/33 students had robust articulations of theoretical frameworks (84%; last year was 83%).

Capstone projects were excellent. We will continue to monitor, especially given a significant change in our curriculum designed to prepare students for Capstone. We are also working to adjust to Capstone sections with 16 or more students (compared to the cap of 12 students).

1b. Majors will demonstrate in-depth mastery of at least one body of critical communication theory.


Majors will demonstrate in-depth mastery in their capstone projects by explicitly situating their projects within particular theoretical frameworks. Faculty will assess capstone projects using the departmental Capstone Rubric, and at least 80% of students will achieve strong or excellent in this area. This item is assessed using the Rubric “Methodology” and “Critical Engagement” rows.

Faculty analysis of Capstone Research Seminar projects from Fall 2015 and Spring 2016 confirmed that all capstone projects in the Seminar are now explicitly critically engaged with a particular body of communication theory; all projects meet criteria for good, strong, and/or excellent. Data derived from use of the Capstone Rubric to assess the 33 projects showed that 24/33 are Strong or Excellent in this area (73%). (Last year: 87%)

Students continue to demonstrate proficiency in theoretical paradigms. Our numbers declined, possibly due to two unusual situations (one involving a significant Honor Code incident). In addition, the numbers are likely affected by our growing class sizes and the challenges of providing students with individualized mentoring at the level we have strived for in past semesters.

2. Goal: Methodological and Research Proficiency

To lead students to proficiency in research methods by learning how to do critical analysis that critically engages scholarship, theory, and methods in the two main cognate areas: rhetorical studies and critical media studies. Learning Outcomes

2a. Students will gain practical mastery of a range of critical methods designed to identify, gather, synthesize, analyze, and produce communication texts, events, artifacts and performances.

48


Targeted exam questions will assess mastery of students’ ability to analyze communicative texts in order to describe their function in relation to culture, identity, and power. At least 80% of students will master at least 70% of targeted exam questions.

Faculty analysis of midterm and final exams for Intro for Fall 2015 showed that 45/50 students mastered at least 70% of the questions focused on the dominant methods in rhetorical studies and critical media studies. In Spring 2016, 47/52 demonstrated this mastery. (Total: 92/102; 90%).

We will continue to monitor and work to acquire comprehensive data.

Majors will present a written capstone project Prospectus that explicitly articulates the methodology to be used; the faculty will rate at least 80% of students’ Prospectus as strong or excellent using the departmental Capstone Rubric before the project may proceed. A prospectus must meet all of the criteria in the rubric except for presentation- and revision-related measurements.

Faculty analysis of each Capstone Research Seminar Prospectus during the 2015-2016 academic year (33students total) confirmed that 30/33 (91%) capstone projects are now explicitly critically engaged with theoretically-informed methodological approaches in communication. Last year = 83%

Requiring an explicit methodology section in the capstone prospectus continues to pay off as we see student progress in these areas. We will continue to monitor progress and we expect to be able to do so with more focus as we specify, as a department, the particular research methodologies appropriate to critical media studies and rhetorical studies.

All majors will successfully complete a capstone project that focuses on a well-defined research object analyzed using a practical, written application of one or more communication studies methods. Faculty will assess capstone projects using the department’s standard Capstone Research Seminar Rubric, and at least 80% of students will achieve Good, Strong, or Excellent in this area. This is assessed using the rubric rows “Analysis & Interpretation,” as well as “Context, Evidence, and Comprehension.”

Faculty analysis of each Capstone Research Seminar final Paper during the 2015-2016 academic year (33 students total) confirmed that all capstone projects in the Seminar explicitly articulate their methodology and use it to structure their analysis. Revision workshops ensured that deficiencies in this area were addressed before the final draft was graded. For the final projects, 30/33 (91%) students scored at either strong or excellent on the departmental Capstone Rubric regarding methodological and research proficiency.

Three parts of the Seminar--the Capstone Prospectus, Research Paper and Presentation--all require that the student explicitly identify the method(s) they are employing in their projects, and all of our students are now demonstrating proficiency in this area. Students are also demonstrating various levels of proficiency in integrating their argument and methodology. Meanwhile, we have also developed Common Course elements and standard SLOs for all faculty teaching our required Core Courses that include theoretical engagement in multiple assignments, including original research projects.

49

3. Goal: Reflexive Engagement

To prepare students to become critically engaged in local and global issues with a commitment to understanding their own embodied roles as communicators acting in the world.

Learning Outcomes

3a. Students will understand the connections between Communication Studies and the world and will be able to articulate how disciplinary knowledge is a way of engaging with the world.


On targeted questions on exams, as well as individual and/or group projects, at least 80% of students will identify, describe, and evaluate how rhetoric and media studies are integral components of the major, an interdisciplinary liberal arts curriculum, and public advocacy for social change, mastering at least 70% of questions.

Faculty analysis of midterm and final exams for Intro for 2015-2016 confirmed that 92/102 students in both sections mastered 70% of the questions focused on interrelating the core areas and situating the analysis of communication within larger cultural discourses. (91%)

Annual review of results reveals we are on track..

Majors will present a written capstone project Prospectus that explicitly locates their project in relation to our two Core Areas--rhetorical studies and critical media studies--as well as in relation to broader ethical, political and social issues; the faculty will rate at least 80% of students’ Prospectus as strong or excellent before the project may proceed.

Faculty analysis of each Capstone Research Seminar Prospectus during the 2015-2016 academic year (33 students total) confirmed that all capstone projects are now explicitly critically engaged with theoretical approaches in communication. Revision workshops ensured that deficiencies in this area were addressed before the final draft was graded.

Requiring an explicit response to this question in the prospectus has ensured that students will meet this target in the Capstone Seminar.

All majors will successfully complete a Capstone project that argues for the value of their work as a both a contribution to Communication Studies scholarship and a way of engaging with broader social, political and ethical issues. Faculty will assess capstone projects using the departmental Capstone Rubric, and at least 80% of students will achieve strong or excellent in this area.

Faculty analysis of each Capstone Research Seminar Final Paper during the 2015-2016 academic year (33 students total) confirmed that all capstone projects in the Seminar now explicitly articulate their projects in relation to the discipline and articulate the broader social significance of the study. Revision workshops ensured that deficiencies in this area were addressed before the final draft was graded. For the final projects, 31/33 (93%) scored at either strong or excellent on the departmental Capstone Rubric regarding reflexive engagement.

Three parts of the Seminar--the Capstone Prospectus, Research Paper and Presentation--all require that the student explicitly show how their projects critically engage not only specific scholars but the discipline as a whole, and all of our students are now demonstrating proficiency in this area.

50

Economics and Business Department

Assessment Plan (Business)


Mission The business program at Southwestern participates in the liberal arts education of our students by using business as a lens through which our students can better understand and participate in the world as it is today, and will be tomorrow. The program helps student identify and achieve their personal objectives by engaging with them in many different ways. We help students learn to analytically evaluate issues, communicate orally and verbally, research topics of interest and synthesize findings, integrate a wide array of variables, and have the capacity to learn and grow intellectually on their own. Business majors are required to integrate a wide spectrum of topics at many levels of aggregation in the Southwestern business curriculum. The business core includes economics, accounting, management, finance, marketing, ethics and social responsibility. The spectrum of topics in business range from individual to global issues. These issues relate to psychology, sociology, math, science, philosophy, language, and many others. Therefore, we study business systems from multiple perspectives that help students understand these connections. To evaluate our progress toward this mission, we are continuing to assess our progress toward three main goals: Goal 1: Develop business majors’ business literacy and core business knowledge at level comparable to other institutions. Goal 2: Develop an understanding of how major business disciplines are interrelated. Goal 3: Develop students writing and presentation skills.

1. Goal

Develop business majors’ business literacy and core business knowledge at level comparable to other institutions.

Learning Outcome 1a. Students demonstrate an in-depth understanding of core business concepts upon completion of Foundations of Business (FOB).

Assessment mechanism Assessment Result Program/Dept Improvement Students will achieve an average score of 85% or more on each of four sections of the final exam in Foundations of Business (FOB).

We track student performance on questions in the following areas:

Management

Marketing

Legal/Social/Environmental

Information Systems

During the 2015/2016 academic year, we collected data in four FOB sections totaling 77 students. These sections were taught by three different faculty members, but we used the same final exam to ensure consistency in the data. The final exam in the course covered four areas listed in the first column. The following are the four measured areas and the total

Target met for Legal/Social/Environmental and Info Systems, but are just below the target for Management and for Marketing. We have only been tracking this measure for two years. We will continue to collect data to see if any trends are apparent.

51

percentage of correct answers on questions in those areas: 2015/2016 results: Management – 80% Marketing – 79% Legal/Social – 96% Info Systems – 96%

Spring 2015 results: Management – 78% Marketing – 80% Legal/Social – 93% Info Systems – 94%

Learning Outcome

1b. Students demonstrate an in-depth understanding of core business concepts upon completion of Capstone. This is intended to measure student success over the course of the entire program.

Assessment mechanism Assessment Result Program/Dept Improvement

The ETS MFT in Business, an externally administered and nationally comparative exam, will be administered during the student’s capstone course.

As a cumulative measure of performance, we hope to achieve scores that allow us to demonstrate the SU students have mastered core business concepts. Since 2013, this test also provides comparative data in the same areas we will assess in FOB, plus an assessment of Accounting and Economics knowledge:

Accounting

Economics

Management

Quantitative Business Analysis

Finance

Marketing

Legal/Social/Environmental

Information Systems

International Business

In 2015/2016, Southwestern ranked in the 72nd percentile of all colleges/universities who administered the test. Here is how that relates to previous years:

Year: Percentile:

2015/2016 72nd

2014/2015 83rd

2013/2014 89th

2012/2013 82nd

2011/2012 78th

2010/2011 65th

See below for additional outcomes from previous years.

The overall score is lower than it has been in the four previous years. This outcome seems particularly related to two key areas of domain knowledge that were weaker than previous results.

Two related areas with noticeable decreases are Management and Legal/Social Environment. We had a retirement of a faculty member who taught in these two important areas two years ago following a year-long Fulbright away from campus. That led to a significant decrease in management-related courses we have offered for the last several years. Fortunately, we have been able to replace that position and a tenure-track faculty member in Management will be joining us in the fall of 2016. We believe that an increased availability of management courses will improve these scores over time. International business also had a large decrease for this cohort.

52

We do not have a good explanation for why this occurred. One possibility is that the MFT test in this area changed in 2015 from “International Business” to “International Issues.” We will investigate whether this caused a significant change to the material covered by the test. Our new faculty member is also teaching an elective course titled “International Management” that will provide students the opportunity to study these issues more deeply. We are also continuing our international business program in Granada, Spain in 2017.

The significant drop in quantitative analysis is in many ways the most troubling. In the last several years, we have focused on building these skills in our students. We have increased the quantitative rigor across all of our courses and added a Calculus requirement for the major. The 2015/2016 class was the first with the Calculus requirement, but the quantitative scores fell instead of increasing. We will need to do more analysis to determine what is happening in this area. On a positive note, we have been able to maintain a very high score on Finance even though the scores on quantitative analysis have fallen dramatically.

53

Domain knowledge percentiles:

2015/2016 2014/2015 2013/2014

Accounting 57th 61st 64th

Economics 76th 84th 95th

Management 57th 75th 87th

Quantitative Business Analysis 58th 90th 91st

Finance 93th 95th 88th

Marketing 91st 98th 97th

Legal/Social Environment 52th 57th 94th

Information Systems 45th 43rd 24th

International Issues 49th 82nd 75th

2. Goal

Develop an understanding of how major business disciplines are interrelated

Learning Outcome 2a. Students demonstrate the ability to integrate the core business disciplines in Foundations of Business (FOB).

Assessment mechanism Assessment Result Program/Dept Improvement In FOB, 70 percent of students will be rated as “Excellent” or “Good” in their ability to integrate major business sub-disciplines (i.e., marketing, operations, management, finance, accounting, etc.) using case method to discuss the experience of Ben & Jerry’s. A score of A is considered “Excellent” and a score of B is considered “Good.”

In FOB we administered a test over the Ben & Jerry’s case. Here is the score distribution on that assignment and a comparison with how students performed in 2014/2015.

Grade 15-16 14-15

A (90-100%) 33% 35%

B (80-89%) 43% 37%

C (70-79%) 19% 20%

D (60-69%) 3% 3%

F (Below 59%) 4% 5%

Median Score 865 85

Average Score 84 83

Target met. This is the second year that we are tracking the test in this manner. We will continue to report on the changes in scores. Given the results we have seen to date, we do not believe any

corrective action is necessary.

Learning Outcome 2b. Students demonstrate the ability to integrate the core business disciplines in Capstone.

Assessment Mechanism Assessment Result Program/Dept Improvement 80 percent of teams in Capstone will score an 80 or above on deliverables focusing on each of the following areas: (1) mission; internal and external analysis; key success factors, (2) financial analysis, benchmarks, target analysis, and (3) marketing

In our fall 2015 Capstone, student teams were assessed on their ability to create an in-depth project that covered all of the business disciplines outlined in the table below. The team scores for each project deliverable are included below.

Target met for (2) and (3), and nearly met (75%) for (1). This is the first time this particular course design has been used. We will repeat this course design again in the fall of 2016 and we will track/compare results.

54

strategy, team staffing, organizational structure.

Figure 1: Fall 2015 Capstone Team Results

Assessment Mechanism Assessment Result Program/Dept Improvement Our spring 2016 Capstone course used the Business Strategy Game (BSG) simulation. In the words of the authors, “the Business Strategy Game is the most widely played computer simulation in the strategic management market and is used in business schools all across the world. It is a powerful hands-on exercise that gives students valuable practice in using core concepts and analytical tools to craft winning strategies.” At Southwestern, we have used this simulation for over a decade as a way to challenge students’ abilities to deeply understand the way that marketing, social responsibility, management, finance, operations, human resource management and other disciplines are intertwined with the question of how a firm should perform strategically. In this Capstone design, we are assessing students’ performance in the BSG simulation and comparing that performance to the

In spring 2016, this simulation was used in hundreds of schools around the world. The table below reports the results of where Southwestern fell on a percentile basis.

We have only been tracking this measure for the last three classes completing the simulation. To date, the scores have varied widely and do not appear to have a consistent pattern. We will continue to evaluate whether this is a useful measure of our performance or whether we should substitute another measure in its place. In the 2016/2017 academic year, we will have three different instructors teaching our business capstone. We will work together to determine if there are better or more consistent ways to evaluate our programs’ performance.

Team 1

Team 2

Team 3

Team 4

Project Deliverable 1 Project Deliverable 2 Project Deliverable 3

Covered: Company Missions, Internal

(SWOT) and External Analysis

(Porter's 5 Forces; Strategic Group

Map); Key Success Factors

Covered: Financial Analysis and

Financial Benchmarking with peer

level companies; Target market

analysis (in-depth industry research)

Covered: Marketing strategy

developed, project team staffing

strategy (HR) analyzed, and

organizational structure examined

80 94 92

92 100 83

77 83 85

94 95 96

55

average performances off all other institutions using the simulation. It is important to note that schools use the simulation in different ways. Many schools “teach” the simulation and generate very high scores as a result. We are using the simulation as an assessment of our students’ abilities to integrate knowledge from different areas.

Spring

2016

Spring

2015

Fall

2014

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 48 77 45

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 59 22 27

OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT 37 50 37

MARKETING MANAGEMENT 63 41 60

HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 56 70 49

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 29 42 58

3. Goal

Develop students writing and presentation skills. Another objective of Foundations of Business (FOB) is to introduce students to domain-specific business writing. This includes memo writing guidelines and the use of the “Paramedic Method” editing style. In FOB, each student creates an “Application Exercise” that includes both a written component and a class presentation. In the business capstone, students are required to complete a final written project and presentation that demonstrate their learning over the course of the semester.

Learning Outcome 3a. Students demonstrate their ability to convey, using the professional conventions of business, their research in writing and through presentation of their work. .

Assessment Mechanism Assessment Result Program/Dept Improvement

In FOB, students will independently apply theoretical research to a real business situation by doing an “Application Exercise” orally and in writing. TARGET: 95 percent of students will score an 80 or above on this assessment.

On the “application exercise”, the results were as follows:

Grade 15-16 14-15

A (90-100%) 47% 52%

B (80-89%) 48% 38%

C (70-79%) 4% 6%

D (60-69%) 0% 3%

F (Below 59%) 1% 1%

Median Score 89 90

Average Score 88 88

Target met. In the 15-16 AY, 95% of our students performed at an 80% or better. Given the amount of time dedicated to student performance on this assignment, this is a very good result. Given the results we have seen to date, we do not believe any corrective action is necessary.

56

Economics and Business Department Assessment Plan (Economics)

Academic Year: 2015-2016 The curriculum, mission, goals, and learning outcomes were unchanged for 2015-2016. Changes in assessment included tracking assessment results from previous years, breaking down the performance of capstone projects into the two most crucial areas, appropriate use of economic theory and appropriate use of empirical methods, and tying student perception of learning in Intermediate Microeconomics to specific exam assessments. Mission The mission of the Economics and Business Department is threefold: to provide students with a broad understanding of the nature of economic forces and institutions; to prepare students with skills needed for entry into the job market; and to equip students with the knowledge and skills needed for success in graduate school.

1. Goal

Students obtain an understanding of economic theory.

Learning Outcome

1a. Students demonstrate an in-depth understanding and application of the theories of microeconomics and macroeconomics.


70 percent of students in Principles of Economics receive a score of 80 percent or higher on the Basic Economic Knowledge (BEK) assessment exam. Results from previous years are in brackets [t-3, t-2, t-1].

10/67 (15 percent) of students scored 80 percent or higher. [NA, NA, 12%]

Faculty will discuss how to interpret and improve these results. Adjunct faculty will be provided the quiz at the beginning of the semester so that they can orient their course toward the main concepts covered.

80 percent of students in

Intermediate

Microeconomics receive a score of 80 percent (proficient) or higher on the microeconomic theory assessment exam (which includes theoretical applications). Results from previous years are in brackets [t-3, t-2, t-1].

Standard met. 10/12 (83 percent) students scored at least an 80 percent on the theory assessment exam. [86%, 53%,93%]

No noticeable trends. Will continue to monitor.

In a survey of Intermediate

Microeconomics students 80% agree or strongly agree they are confident in their understanding of:

Standard met for all learning outcomes. 1) 91% of students agreed or strongly agreed (10 of 11) [86%, 100%, 93%]

Being more consistent in the description of the methods, e.g. using the term “constrained optimization” during the semester seems to have

57

1. the workings of markets and their benefits. 2. market failures. 3. the ways government intervenes in markets. 4. how constrained optimization is applied to economic theory. 5. the theories/models of consumer choice. 6. theories/models of firm behavior. 7. various market structures Results from previous years are in brackets [t-3, t-2, t-1].

2) 91% of students agreed or strongly agreed (10 of 11) [79%, 88%, 93%] 3) 100% of students agreed or strongly agreed (11 of 11) [86%, 88%, 86%] 4) 100% of students agreed or strongly agreed (11 of 11) [57%, 100%, 100%] 5) 91% of students agreed or strongly agreed (10 of 11). [93%, 88%, 93%] 6) 91% of students agreed or strongly agreed (10 of 11). [100%, 100%, 93%] 7) 91 of students agreed or strongly agreed (10 of 11). [86%, 100%, 71%]

improved student confidence in their understanding of key concepts. Will continue to monitor.

During exam/project based assessments of Intermediate

Microeconomics students 80 percent showed a basic or thorough understanding of the following: 1. the workings of markets and their benefits. 2. market failures. 3. the ways government intervenes in markets. 4. how constrained optimization is applied to economic theory. 5. the theories/models of consumer choice. 6. theories/models of firm behavior. 7. various market structures. Results from previous years are in brackets [t-3, t-2, t-1].

Standards met. 1) 83% (10 of 12) showed a basic

or thorough understanding of the workings of markets and their benefits. 2) showed a basic or thorough

understanding of market failures

was not assessed. 3) 92% (11 of 12) showed a basic

or thorough understanding of the ways government intervenes in markets. 4) 92% (11 of 12) showed a basic

or thorough understanding of how constrained optimization is applied to economic theory. 5) 83% (10 of 12) showed a basic

or thorough understanding of the theories/models of consumer choice. 6) 100% (12 of 12) showed a

basic or thorough understanding of theories/models of firm behavior. 7) 100% (12 of 12) showed a

basic or thorough understanding of various market structures.

This is the first time specific aspects of exams were used to assess student learning. Hence, no historical data are available. An understanding of market failures are assessed as a small part of a number of projects and exam questions making it difficult to summarize the level of understanding for each student. The instructor will develop better assessment mechanisms for that outcome next semester.

80 percent of students in Intermediate

Macroeconomics receive a score of 80 percent or higher

17/23 (74 percent) students scored at least an 80 percent on the macroeconomic theory assessment exam.

The exam and survey were revised last year. Hence, no trends are detectable. Will

58

on the macroeconomic theory assessment exam (which includes theoretical applications) [t-3, t-2, t-1].

[NA, 25%, NA] monitor as we move forward.

By survey of Intermediate

Macroeconomic students, 80 percent report that the course’s learning objective “I learned about current macroeconomic events,” was “achieved” or “mostly achieved.” [t-3, t-2, t-1]

21/22 (95 percent) indicated they “achieved” or “mostly achieved” the course learning objective “I learned about current macroeconomic events.” [NA, 100%, NA].

The exam and survey were revised last year. Hence, no trends are detectable. Will monitor as we move forward.

In a survey of capstone students 80% agree or strongly agree to: 1) I am confident in my understanding of microeconomic theory. 2) I am confident in my understanding of macroeconomic theory. 3) I am aware of economic events. 4) I am confident in my understanding of the economic issues presented in publications such as the Wall

Street Journal and the Economist magazine. 5) I am aware of environmental problems and I understand how Economics addresses them. 6) I am aware of economic inequality by gender and I understand how Economics addresses it. 7) I am aware of economic inequality by race and ethnicity and I understand how Economics addresses it. Results from previous years are in brackets [t-3, t-2, t-1].

Standard met for all learning outcomes except 2 and 3. 1) 100% of students agreed or strongly agreed (7 of 7 students) [100%, 100%, 88%] 2) 71% of students agreed or strongly agreed (5 of 7) [100%, 88%, 50%] 3) 71% of students agreed or strongly agreed (5 of 7) [100%, 88%, 75%] 4) 100% of students agreed or strongly agreed (7 of 7) [67%, 100%, 88%] 5) 100% of students agreed or strongly agreed (7 of 7). [78%, 88%, 100%] 6) 100% of students agreed or strongly agreed (7 of 7). [45%, 100%, 88%] 7) 86% of students agreed or strongly agreed (6 of 7). [56%, 100%, 88%]

Given the capstone had a stronger emphasis on microeconomics, the lower score on 2 is not surprising. For some students, their last course in macroeconomics would have been their sophomore year. We stress current events and interpretation of those events through the economic lens throughout the curriculum, so are surprised about the lack of confidence in item 3. This is the second year both items fell below our standard. The economists are discussing ways to address both items within the curriculum.

2. Goal

Students develop their skills of analysis.

Learning Outcome

2a. Students demonstrate competency in research and writing about economics.

59


Eighty percent of capstone students will complete a significant Economics research paper rated (according to rubric) at the “proficient” or “advanced” level. Results from previous years are in brackets [t-3, t-2, t-1].

Standard not met. 75% (6 of 8) of Capstone students completed a significant Economics research paper rated at proficient or advanced. [90%, 100%, 100%]

Slightly below our assessment goal. Will continue to monitor.

Eighty percent of capstone students will complete a significant Economics research paper rated (according to rubric) at the “proficient” or “advanced” level in the following areas, use of appropriate economic theory and use of appropriate empirical methods.

Standard met. 88% (7 of 8) of capstone students performed at a “proficient” or “advanced” level in appropriate use of economic theory. Standard not met. 75% (6 of 8) of capstone students performed at a “proficient” or “advanced” level in appropriate use of empirical methods.

Use of economic theory met our assessment goals, but only 75% met the goal in terms of empirical methods. One student’s paper did not use sophisticated empirical techniques and one was lacking in terms of understanding the techniques being used. More individual work on empirical models will be added next year. Will continue to monitor.

2b. Students demonstrate competency in the use a standard statistical package, e.g., Stata program, and in the analysis of their results.


Eighty percent of majors will complete a significant research

project that requires the use of the standard statistical package rated (according to rubric) at the “proficient” or “advanced” level. Results from previous years are in brackets [t-3, t-2, t-1].

Standard met. 88% (7 of 8) of Capstone students completed a significant research project that required the use of statistical package at proficient or advanced level. [100%, 100%, 100%]

In the Capstone, one project did not include the use of standard statistical packages. However, that student did complete a major research project using a standard statistical package during Econometrics. We are confident all of our majors completed a significant research project at the proficient or advanced level, but not all are required to use regression analysis in the Capstone.

In a survey of capstone students 80 percent will agree or strongly agree to: 1) I am confident in my ability to analyze data using standard econometric methods. Results from previous years are in brackets [t-3, t-2, t-1]. 2) I am confident in my ability to work with standard statistical packages.

Standards met. 1) 100% of students met the desired level (7 of 7) [78%, 82%, 100%] 2) 86% of students agreed or strongly agreed (6 of 7) [78%, 55%, 88%]

Standard met. Will continue to monitor.

60

Education Department Assessment Plan


Introduction

This year’s version of the Education Department’s assessment report includes a number of clarifications, adjustments, and formatting changes that should be noted.

● The Mission statement has been revised to make it more readable.

● We have also analyzed the match between the goals, learning outcomes and data

reported to ensure these inform each other. As a result of that analysis, some items

have been moved, and some broken down to provide clearer information. For

example, the mechanism using the TExES Test results (previously lumping three

separate tests together: the Content Test; the Professional Practices Test; and the

Special Education test) has been broken up and moved to inform three different and

appropriate outcomes, using each test results as a mechanism.

● All expectations are set here at 80%. The department is considering revising these

upward significantly, but needs time to discuss and agree on a department wide

standard. Meeting a 95% threshold carries considerable weight compared to an 80%

target; our students typically perform at an even higher level. But this high target

sets us up for problems in courses with small numbers, like the capstone student

teaching.

● In addition and where possible, data from multiple years are now reported, making

trends over time more visible.

● Student teaching evaluation mechanisms now report only the Cooperating Teachers’

scores, even though the students are rated by their supervising professor and

themselves as well. Using just the placement teacher’s independent measure

provides an external view of the quality of our students and their efforts.

● We have made considerable adjustments to our curriculum beginning with the 2016-

17 catalog. However, these changes will have no impact on our assessment data

collection and reporting.

Finally, There is a heavy reliance on data generated by external sources in this report. Five data items are drawn from the Student Teaching Evaluation completed by the Cooperating Teachers during the final semester placements. Three data items are drawn from the Texas official examinations for teachers. And two items are drawn from our survey of returning graduates during the Homecoming event SOS. These measures, however, concentrate on the BSEd program and do not inform the quality of experiences, skills, and accomplishments of students in the BA and non-majors. The Department will be working this fall (2016) to revise and develop new mechanisms that capture how well our students in these areas perform in the coming year.

61

Mission

The Education Department provides future educators with the philosophical, theoretical and experiential groundwork for promoting excellence in contemporary classrooms, school districts, educational research, policymaking, and other professional environments. Graduates will demonstrate sophisticated understandings of the diverse practices, policies, and philosophies that characterize the world of professional education, including the growing needs of Special Education and Teaching English Language Learners. Coursework and field experiences are designed to develop the analytic, creative, and evaluative thinking skills required for lifelong learning and problem solving in a fluid, evolving and frequently unjust world.

Goal 1. Students understand the variety and diversity of philosophical and theoretical

arguments and the influences these have on educational systems, both historical and

present.

Learning Outcome 1a. Non-majors will connect education theory, theory about innovation sustainability, and practical approaches to curriculum and pedagogy and relate these understandings to their area of interest or their major.


80% of students enrolled in Innovative schools will complete the Design A

School assignment at the “meet expectations” level as defined by the rubric.

Fall 2015 results (n=9) Accomplished 4

Meet expectations 4

Below expectations 1

8/9 (88.8%) meet target

Target met. The Department struggles with how to assess success in small classes. In the coming year we will review this mechanism and all our targets. Our goal is to capture the outcomes in courses with more non-majors, like Survey and Schools, Society and Diversity.

Learning Outcomes 1b. Students who graduate with a BA in Education will be able articulate a scholarly argument focused on an issue in their area of specialization.


80% of students completing the senior capstone paper for the BA in Education will achieve a rating of “Meets Expectations”

2015: 3/3 met expectations

2016: 3/3 met expectations

Target met. This mechanism will be revisited as well. We have a rubric for the BA capstone, but it is unclear whether it was applied this past year.

62

Learning Outcome 1c. BSEd seniors will be able to articulate a personal teaching philosophy.


80% of BSEd Seniors will score a 2 or better (using a 3 level writing rubric) on their statement of personal teaching philosophy.

score 2015 n=10

2016 n=16

2017

1.5

2 2 4

2.5 4 3

3 4 9

% met

100% 100%

Target met. While this target was met, the mechanism has an internal issue that needs addressing: the rubric does not assess their statement of philosophy beyond their general writing ability.

Goal 2. Students will demonstrate an understanding of social justice issues in education

and the inequities created and reinforced by educational practices.

Learning Outcome 2a. BSEd graduates will be able to address the learning needs of diverse students.


80% of the students completing student teaching will be scored by the Cooperating teacher as “expected” or “accomplished” in DIFFERENTIATED

INSTRUCTION on the Student Teaching Evaluation Rubric.

Differentiated Instruction

Score 2015 n=11

2016 n=15*

2017

2 3 8

2.5 2 1

3 6 6

% meets 2+

100% 100%

* Final evaluations for one student were not reported.

Target met. While the mechanisms in this learning outcome describe our students’ skills and abilities with regard to differentiating instruction, none of them address the social justice component of the Learning Goal. We will work to create a new measure, 2b, to correct this oversight.

63

On a survey of BSEd graduates attending the Semester of Support program, 95% will report that they are “Sufficiently” or “Well prepared” to respond to the diverse needs of student. (Question #27)

Responding to the diverse needs of students

response 2015 n=10

2016 n=7

Sufficiently prepared

1 -

Well prepared

9 7

% met 100% 100%

Target met. This measure will also be reviewed when we meet to discuss the report. It works well for those who participate, but that is only a bare majority of those who graduate the year before and find work as teachers.

95% of students approved to take the Special Education TExES Exam will pass the first attempt (240 scaled score passing)

2016 results

4/4 passed 100% of those attempting passed

on the first attempt

Target met.

One graduate has not yet been approved to take this test based on their practice score and efforts to address shortcomings.

Goal 3. BSEd graduates will demonstrate the required levels of academic content and

pedagogical knowledge and skills in their field(s).

Learning Outcome 3a. Students will demonstrate professional qualities that support student learning, such as: knowledge of subject taught.


80% of those approved to take the appropriate state teacher content exam will receive a “Passing” score on the first attempt (240 or better scaled score).

TEXes Content Test Results

12/13 Passed on first attempt

1 failed (224/240) and has not yet made a second attempt.

92.4% met target.

Target met. The state content tests are challenging to say the least. We provide a practice test and specific remediation recommendations to all students, but this plan is labor intensive and not guaranteed. To make this clear, the graduate who did not pass the state content test had received a BA degree in the content field the same semester as he failed this content exam. The failure was close to the passing mark, however, and with practice and the prior experience, we expect this graduate to successfully pass the test on the second attempt.

64

80% of the students completing student teaching will be scored by their Cooperating Teacher as “Expected” or better on the Content Knowledge

item on the Student Teaching Evaluation. Scores translate to

numbers as follows:

Beginning=1

Expected = 2

Accomplished =3

Goal is <= 2

Content Knowledge

Score 2015 n=11

2016 n=15*

2017

1.5 1

2 1 6

2.5 2 1

3.0 7 8

% meets (2+)

91% 100%

Target met. This mechanism is a critical one, as it describes how well our student teachers can address the very specific content requirements in their classrooms.

* Final evaluations for one student were not reported.

On a survey conducted during the Semester of Support activity for BSEd returning graduates, 80% will report that they have been “sufficiently prepared” to achieve a positive, equitable and engaging learning environment. (question #10)

Achieving a positive, equitable and engaging learning environment

response 2015 n=9

2016 n=7

Sufficiently prepared

2

Well prepared

7 7

% meets 100% 100%

Target met. See the comments on the second mechanism of Learning outcome 2a.

Learning Outcome 3b. Students demonstrate increasing confidence and improving competence in teaching.


80% of the students completing student teaching receive “Expected” or higher on Communication and Professionalism on their student teaching Evaluation. Scores

translate to numbers as

follows:

Beginning=1

Expected = 2

Accomplished =3

Goal is <= 2

Communication

score 2015 n=11

2016 n=15

2017

1.5

2 1 4

2.5 4 2

3 6 9

% meets (2+)

100% 100%

Targets met. The department will revisit these measures to determine if all of them are needed to inform the learning outcome.

65

Professionalism

score 2015 n=11

2016 n=15

2017

1.5

2 1 2

2.5 1

3 9 13

% meets (2+)

100% 100%

80% of the students completing student teaching will be scored by the Cooperating teacher as “expected” or “accomplished” in PLANNING on the Student Teaching Evaluation Rubric.

Planning

Score 2015 (n=11)

2016 (n=15

*

2017

1 1

1.5 1

2 1 6

2.5 2 1

3 7 7

% meets 2+

91% 93%

Target met. While we met this target (80%), our goal is to have not even one student marked below a 2 on the rubric, the “accomplished” level. It is a constant challenge to balance the relationships between mentors and student teachers. The process can be confounded by a school’s prior practices, as in this case. The school had existing plans for the year well before the student teacher entered the classroom. By trying to interject new ideas into his day to day teaching, this student did not meet the cooperating teacher’s approval. Though as supervisors we mediate these differences as much as possible, struggles between competing interests in classrooms will arise. Using the cooperating teachers’ independent assessments of our students will make these anomalies more visible so we can address them if they prove to be systemic. *One student’s final evaluation was not submitted.

66

80% of those approved to take the Professional Practices and Responsibilities (PPR) TExES exam will receive a “Passing” score on the first attempt (240 or better scaled score).

2016 data

13/13 (100%) graduates passed this exam on the first attempt.

Target met. Three students have not yet been approved to take this test based on practice scores and efforts to remediate.

Summary

The Education Department continues to meet its’ assessment goals for the year. The quality of our BSEd students’ abilities to work in the professional field of education remains very high. Changes in the way data is reported will help refine our understanding of several potential problem areas, most notably in Goal 1. All three mechanisms in that Goal are in need of reconsideration, and that will be the goal of the Department in the coming year. For example, capturing our students’ understanding of social justice will inform not only the BSEd program, but also the BA and non-majors experiences in our courses.

67

English Department Assessment Plan


Introduction

In response to the Assessment Committee’s most recent evaluation of departmental assessment mechanisms (2014-2015), the English department has revamped its methods to conform with best practices across the university.

Mission

The English Department seeks to provide: 1) a strong grounding in English and American literature, an understanding of the relations among literature, culture and history, and a familiarity with the basic questions of literary and cultural theory. 2) a skillful engagement with literature through writing, research, analysis and interpretation, leading to confidence and proficiency in oral and written presentation of original ideas.

Goal: Content mastery: Students in three levels (Introductory, Intermediate, Capstone) will demonstrate

appropriate levels of proficiency in writing and demonstrate mastery of content, which includes

literary materials ranging from poetry to novels and films, as well as cultural and theoretical

frames of reference, and analytical logic.

Learning Outcome Students will demonstrate elements of proficiency in writing, to reflect the development of content

mastery appropriate to three levels of coursework in the English department.

1a. Students in Introductory English classes (ENG 100’s-200’s) will demonstrate proficiency in

writing and demonstrate mastery of analytical logic appropriate to an introductory course with a

wide audience of students.

Mechanism overview:

Within a set of Introductory courses (ENG 114, 124, 154, 164, 174, 244, 254), one class will be

selected randomly, as a sample of English department teaching success to a general population of

students, including prospective majors, majors, minors and interested non-majors. Papers of

between 5-7 pages will be reviewed in reference to the grading performed by the instructor of

record in the course.

18 Final Papers from Introduction to Film Studies (ENG 254) were assessed.


Strong argument in Intro course final paper (Appendix B1a) 70% should be rated as

13 of 18 Competent or Excellent. 72% met goal

Target achieved

68

Competent or Excellent

Textual evidence in Intro course final paper (Appendix B1b) 70% should be rated as Competent or Excellent


Target achieved

Secondary research in Intro course final paper (Appendix B1c) 70% should be rated as Competent or Excellent


Target achieved

1b. Students in an Intermediate level course (ENG 300’s-800’s) will demonstrate proficiency in

writing and demonstrate mastery of analytical logic appropriate to an introductory course with a

wide audience of students.

Mechanism overview:

Within a set of Intermediate courses (ENG 304, 404, 454, 504, 524, 604, 624, 654, 664, 674, 714, 734,

864, 874), one class will be selected randomly, as a sample of English department teaching success

to a population of students which is primarily English majors and minors, but includes interested

non-majors. An analytic bibliography will be reviewed in reference to the grading performed by

the instructor of record in the course, because such an assignment is not typically given at the

introductory level, and represents skills required for Capstone work. 19 Annotated Bibliographies from Austin/Bronte (ENG 674) were assessed


Range and specificity of resources (Appendix B2a) 70% should be rated as Competent or Excellent

14 out of 19 rated Competent or Excellent 74% met goal

target achieved

Annotation (Appendix B2b)

70% should be rated as Competent or Excellent

16 out of 19 rated Competent or Excellent 84% met goal

target achieved

1c. Students in a Capstone class (ENG 934) will demonstrate proficiency in writing and

demonstrate mastery of analytical logic appropriate to an introductory course with a wide audience

of students.

Mechanism overview:

Within a set of Capstone courses (ENG 934), one class will be selected randomly, as a sample of

English department teaching success to a general population of students, including prospective

majors, majors, minors and interested non-majors. Papers of between 5-7 pages will be reviewed in

reference to the grading performed by the instructor of record in the course. NOTE: One student

received an incomplete for the course, so there were 11 students who completed all assignments at

the time of assessment, and one who had only completed some of the assignments, accounting for

the numerical discrepancy below.

12 Capstone final projects were assessed

69


Thesis clear and strong (Appendix B3a) 70% should be rated as Competent or Excellent

9 of 11 Competent or Excellent. 82% met goal.

Target achieved.

Primary text used effectively (Appendix B3b) 70% should be rated as Competent or Excellent


Target achieved.

Secondary text used effectively (Appendix B3c) 70% should be rated as Competent or Excellent


Target achieved.

Methodology (theory) used effectively (Appendix B3d) 70% should be rated as Competent or Excellent


Target achieved.

Oral presentation (Appendix B3h) 70% should be rated as Competent or Excellent


Target achieved.

Contribution to course (Appendix B3i) 70% should be rated as Competent or Excellent


Target achieved.

Goal: Mastery of form: Students in three levels (Introductory, Intermediate, Capstone) will demonstrate

appropriate levels of proficiency in writing and demonstrate a skillful engagement with literature

through writing, research, analysis and interpretation, leading to confidence and proficiency in oral

and written presentation of original ideas of personal and enduring value to the student and others.

Learning Outcome

Students will demonstrate elements of proficiency in writing, to reflect the development of content

mastery appropriate to three levels of coursework in the English department.

2a. Students in Introductory English classes (ENG 100’s-200’s) will demonstrate proficiency in

writing and demonstrate mastery of literary analysis in written and oral form appropriate to an

introductory course with a wide audience of students.

Mechanism overview:

Within a set of Introductory courses (ENG 114, 124, 154, 254), one class will be selected randomly,

as a sample of English department teaching success to a general population of students, including

70

prospective majors, majors, minors and interested non-majors. Papers of between 5-7 pages will be

reviewed in reference to the grading performed by the instructor of record in the course.

18 Final Papers from Introduction to Film Studies (ENG 254) were assessed.


Use of MLA Style appropriate to an Introductory course (Appendix B1d) 70% should be rated as Competent or Excellent


Target achieved

Demonstrated Organization appropriate to an Introductory course (Appendix B1e) 70% should be rated as Competent or Excellent


Target achieved

Demonstrated proficiency with style, grammar and cogency (Appendix B1f) 70% should be rated as Competent or Excellent


Target achieved

Learning Outcome

2b. Students in Intermediate English classes (300’s-800’s) will demonstrate proficiency in

writing and scholarly literary research in written form appropriate to an intermediate course, with

an audience consisting mostly of English majors.

Mechanism overview:

Within a set of Intermediate courses (ENG 304, 404, 454, 504, 524, 604, 624, 654, 664, 674, 714, 734,

864, 874), one class will be selected randomly, as a sample of English department teaching success

to a population of students which is primarily English majors and minors, but includes interested

non-majors. An analytic bibliography will be reviewed in reference to the grading performed by

the instructor of record in the course, because such an assignment is not typically given at the

introductory level, and represents skills required for Capstone work. 19 Annotated Bibliographies from Austin/Bronte (ENG 674) were assessed


Follows MLA format (Appendix B2c) 70% should be rated as Competent or Excellent

12 out of 19 Competent or Excellent 63% met goal

Target not achieved, Department will consider remedies

Contains correct number of sources (Appendix B2d) 70% should be rated as Competent or Excellent

17 out of 19 Competent or Excellent. 89% met goal

Target achieved

71

2c. Students in a Capstone class (ENG 934) will demonstrate proficiency in writing and

demonstrate mastery of formal writing appropriate to a Capstone course consisting entirely of

English majors.

Mechanism overview:

Out of two annual Capstone courses (ENG 934), one class will be selected randomly, as a sample of

English department teaching success to a population of majors. Papers of between 10-25 pages will

be reviewed in reference to the grading performed by the instructor of record in the course. 12 Capstone final projects were assessed


Organization (Appendix B3e) 70% should be rated as Competent or Excellent

10 out of 11 papers Competent or Excellent 91% met goal

Target achieved

Writing style (Appendix B3f) 70% should be rated as Competent or Excellent


Target achieved

Citation style (Appendix B3g) 70% should be rated as Competent or Excellent


Target achieved

72

Appendix A: Overview of the major in relationship to departmental review and critique of previous assessment

Structure of the Major:

While the major is loosely laddered, major requirements are in place so that students are exposed to a broad range of issues and texts that are representative of the discipline. This includes courses that present the historical and cultural range of literary and cinematic production, a required “bootcamp” survey of critical and methodological strategies for interpretation, a required upper level course in critical theory, and, under “emergent literatures,” a set of courses that exceed established national canons of literature. While courses in Creative Writing are offered at the introductory and advanced levels, they are not required for the major. We hope we can continue to offer a robust array of content and methodology courses despite staffing challenges.

Assessment:

In response to the Assessment Committee’s most recent evaluation of assessment mechanisms (2014-2015), the department has decided to revamp it methods in accordance with best practices across the university. Below we have listed the areas for improvement identified by the Committee, and at least one strategy we will begin utilizing for addressing specific issues. **Please note that all of the Assessment grids employed in the 2015-2016 academic year are brand new for English, and we have not had the chance to discuss and address together possible changes to our courses based on the new results. A second year of similar assessment will no doubt be necessary to achieve any actionable data for implementation. Critique: English needs a more robust and particularized assessment mechanism that identifies “who” is doing the assessment and “what” is being assessed. Response: English will no longer assess our majors and non-majors with a “round-robin” of paper evaluation at the end of each semester. Instead, we have developed four new assessment grids that we will begin to use for evaluation in Fall 2015. Courses will be identified at three levels for evaluation: Introductory, mid-level, and Capstone. Individual professors will assess one assignment for each student in chosen courses for assessment (Capstone evaluation will be more holistic, and include the component of oral presentation). Responsibility for assessment will rotate among professors and provide comparative data in coherent categories. For this initial 2015-2016 rotation, only 2 courses per term will be assessed; we will move on to three courses in the 2016-2017 year. Critique: English only seems to be assessing majors. Please include a mechanism for assessing non-majors. Response: English will identify at least one course per semester to assess at the introductory level that includes a high proportion of non-majors or at least undeclared majors. For example, this semester Cleere will assess one section of Introduction to Film Studies, a course that consistently populates with a higher proportion of non-majors than majors. Critique: English assessment may not capture the variety of learning that occurs across English courses, from introductory courses to Capstone, in a way that allows us to track for improvements. Response: English will now assess introductory writing and research as well as Capstone writing and research each semester. English will also begin to assess one of two standard assignments for mid-level literature and film courses per semester: the Annotated Bibliography or the Abstract.

73

Critique: The sampling methods used in English are laborious and inconsistent with best practices. Response: English hopes our response to 1, 2, and 3 will address most of the problems perceived in 4. Critique: English should carefully consider and respond to its recent 7-year review in the design of assessment mechanisms. Response: Professor Jane Hedley from Bryn Mawr College visited in early April 2015. Her advice included the observations that we should begin rotating our Chair (done), support its slender offerings in American Literature (challenging due to uncertain staffing), and integrate Creative Writing more thoroughly in the curriculum (challenging due to uncertain staffing). Her only advice that directly concerned our current assessment mechanism asked us to consider more longitudinal forms of assessment in both Intro to Literary Studies (our “bootcamp”) and

Capstone. We have already instituted evaluation of Capstone (Gaines, Fall 2015) and plan to begin to assess Intro to Literary Studies in the Spring (Meyers). We have here designed a new grid for ILS, and included grids for assessment at the mixed introductory, intermediate, and Capstone levels.

Materials Included in this Document:

We have included in this document our new mechanisms (rubrics) and the most recent results for the committee. Courses assessed include Introduction to Literary Studies (Writing Rubric, majors), Introduction to Film Studies (Writing Rubric, mixed majors), Austen and Bronte (Annotated Bibliography, Majors) and Capstone (Research, Writing, Critical Thinking, Majors). We assessed the Introductory Rubric and the Annotated Bibliography in the Fall; we assessed ILS and Capstone in the Spring. All assessment is done by the instructor of record in individual courses selected by the department as a whole.

Results:

Between 60-70% of all students, at all levels, are deemed “Excellent” or “Competent” in all areas assessed. Of those who fell below the “Competent” category, between 20-30% of all students achieved “Basic” levels, and very few (between 0-10%) fell “Below Expectations.” The department will be discussing, over the next semester, how we can bring more students up to “Excellent” or “Competent” status in assessment. Yet because these are newly employed assessment mechanisms, these results are also somewhat premature. The department expects more robust information as we chart our 4 levels of assessment over multiple semesters. We may decide to adjust some of the local assessment mechanisms in order to yield better or different information, but probably not until we’ve done at least one more round of these particular grids. We will again assess Introduction to Film Studies at the mixed introductory level in Fall 2016, as well as the intermediate Annotated Bibliography assignment and Capstone. ILS and Capstone will again be assessed in Spring 2017.

74

Appendix B: Data Collected in Evaluation Process

Chart B 1: Assessment data for Introductory course

Final Essay Introduction to Film Studies. 18 students.

This rubric is used to assess papers in broad introductory courses that include majors and non-majors. Papers to be assessed will be from 5-7 pages, and will include textual analysis, secondary research, and a bibliography of sources. Please note that the “text” analyzed may be a film or films, and that the Introductory Course under assessment, as in this case, may be Introduction to Film Studies. Writing assignment is assessed by the instructor of record.

Excellent Competent Basic/Minimal Below Expectations

a). Makes a strong argument; contains a thesis

Central point is strong and clear. Thesis reflects complexity and insight. 3 or 17%

Central point is evident. Thesis reflects adequate understanding of topic, minimal irrelevant material. 10 or 55%

Some good ideas, but unclear, or too broad. Marginal insight, basic understanding of topic. 4 or 22%

No recognizable thesis, few coherent points, little or no focus. 1 or 5.5%

b) Uses textual evidence effectively

Textual analysis and quotation is pervasive, demonstrates strong reading, advanced interpretation. 4 or 22%

Textual evidence present, passages chosen are relevant, integrated and demonstrate comprehension. 9 or 50%

Some use of quotation, but weak reading and interpretive skills, and minimal integration. 4 or 22%

No quotations from primary text or irrelevant quotations. Little or no interpretation or integration. 1 or 5.5%

c) Uses secondary research effectively. Demonstrates awareness of method.

Secondary material selected carefully, integrated into paper, processed in depth. 4 or 22%

Secondary materials somewhat relevant and appropriate, moderate integration. 11 or 61%

Secondary materials were ill-considered not carefully processed or integrated into main argument. 2 or 11%

No secondary materials. No methodology. 1 or 5.5%

d) Uses MLA style for citation and bibliography

Thorough knowledge and use of MLA style. 5 or 28%

Some mistakes, but competent use of MLA style. 8 or 44%

Basic or minimal knowledge of MLA style, or use of altogether different style. 3 or 17%

No coherent style used for quotation and citation, or no bibliography. 2 or 11%

e) Organization. Paper flows well, strong thesis

Thesis and concluding

Unclear or misplaced thesis

No discernible thesis or

75

paragraph and conclusion, good transitions between paragraphs. 4 or 22%

paragraphs evident, but transitions could be stronger. 10 or 56%

paragraph or conclusion. Weak transitions. 3 or 17%

concluding paragraph. Weak or nonexistent transitions. 1 or 5.5%

f) Writing style, tone, grammar and punctuation.

Strong, writing with a clear personal style. Engaging tone. No grammar or punctuation errors. 4 or 22%

Competent writing, appropriate tone, few grammar and punctuation errors. 14 or 78%

Acceptable style and/or tone, several grammar and punctuation errors. 0 or 0%

Difficult to read. Many grammar and punctuation errors. Tone may be off-putting or too casual for a formal paper. 0 or 0%

Chart B 2: Assessment Data for Intermediate Course

Annotated Bibliography Rubric, English: Austen and Bronte, 19 Students.

This rubric assesses a standard assignment in many mid-level English courses and seminars: the Annotated Bibliography. This assignment measures: 1) a student’s ability to understand, summarize and assess the most important elements of a critical essay in short form, and 2) a student’s mastery of MLA style. Usually, 3-6 sources will be used for the assignment, and each entry will be comprised of 1-2 paragraphs. Bibliography is assessed by the instructor of record.

A: Excellent B: competent C: basic

D: below

expectations

a) Range and specificity of resources.

The range includes scholarly articles relevant to the main object of analysis (literature or film), author, cultural or historical context 9 or 47%

The bibliography cites a range of sources, but is perhaps unfocused. 5 or 26%

Bibliography cites sources but not the full range. Bibliography is unfocused, includes illegitimate, non-scholarly sources. 5 or 26%

Bibliography does not cite sources or sources are not relevant. 0 or 0%

b) Annotation Short paragraph or two (4-8 lines) with each entry, summarizing the

The annotation is short, gives content and apparent thesis of

Summary of content, but no thesis, nor critical

No annotation, or perfunctory summary.

76

content, including a crucial evaluation and its relation to the final paper. 11 or 58%

the entry, but no critical evaluation or indication of response to thesis. 5 or 26%

evaluation. 2 or 11%

0 or 0%

c) Follows the recommended format (MLA Style for bibliography)

Paper follows the footnote formats below consistently. Scholarly sources evaluated are reliable and peer-reviewed. 8 or 42%

The format is irregular or leaves out some details (like date, full title, all authors). Sources are reliable and peer-reviewed. 4 or 21%

Format is non-standard, not complete. Contains both reliable and unreliable sources. 7 or 37%

d) Number of sources

To enable comparison of theses, each category should have at least 6 relevant sources. 13 or 68%

Fewer than 6 relevant sources. 4 or 21%

4-6 sources, some irrelevant or unreliable. 0 or 0%

Fewer than 4 sources. 0 or 0%

77

Spring 2016 Assessment Rubrics:

Capstone Rubric, English Department.

Like other Writing Rubrics in the English Department, this rubric assesses common elements of thesis, research, style, and organization. However, Capstone papers set a much higher standard for all of these categories, and the length of essays is considerably longer (20-30pp). Capstone projects also include an oral presentation, and students are partly graded on their contributions to the course over the semester. Work is assessed by the instructor of record.

A: Excellent B. Competent C. Basic D. Below Expectations

a) Quality of Thesis and Argument.

Strong, original thesis sustained over the course of a long and complex paper. Thesis is in sophisticated conversation with a relevant scholarly tradition or debate. 4 or 36%

Solid, identifiable thesis shows good understanding of topic. Focus is mostly on thesis throughout paper. Thesis set in a scholarly conversation or debate. 5 or 45%

Some interesting ideas, but thesis is weak, unfocused, or too broad. Minimal recognition that chosen topic is embedded within a scholarly tradition or debate. 2 or 18%

No recognizable thesis or focus in the paper. 0 or 0%

b) Primary evidence, including close reading and analysis of text or film.

Passages or scenes chosen for close reading are thoroughly and persuasively analyzed to support thesis. 4 or 36%

Passages or scenes chosen for close reading are relevant, but perhaps not extensive or not analyzed and incorporated. 5 or 45%

Some textual or visual evidence, but not enough to support the argument. Some evidence may be inaccurate, or inappropriate. 2 or 18%

Textual or visual evidence is weak and poorly chosen, little or no analysis is employed. 0 or 0%

c) Secondary evidence, including critical use and evaluation of peer-reviewed scholarship.

Paper shows significant, sophisticated knowledge of relevant scholarship. Scholarly sources persuasively

Previous scholarship on topic is summarized. Most important material is covered, evaluated, and smoothly

Some previous scholarship on the topic is mentioned, but important scholarship is missing, or is not evaluated critically,

Little or no attention to important scholarship on the topic; little or no attempt to locate ideas within a larger scholarly

78

incorporated into argument. 3 or 27%

incorporated into paper. 6 or 55%

perhaps is not peer-reviewed. 2 or 18%

conversation. 0 or 0%

d) Methodology (theory)

Paper locates itself correctly and cogently within a methodological perspective or theoretical model. 3 or 27%

Paper acknowledges methodological perspectives, and relevant theoretical categories. 6 or 55%

Paper does not locate itself within a methodological tradition or argument; paper has little theoretical focus. 2 or 18%

Paper does not attempt to locate itself within a theoretical tradition, and shows no awareness of method. 0 or 0%

e) Organization Paper is well organized, paragraphs well-developed and transitions smooth and clear. Introduction and conclusion are demarcated, and integrated. Conclusion emerges from a developed argument. 3 or 27%

Few organizational problems. Introduction and conclusion are effectively related to the whole. Transitions are smooth, with few digressions or instances where paragraphs seem poorly ordered. 7 or 64%

Organization is formulaic or lacks coherence. Some material may be irrelevant to the topic. Repetitious. Introduction and conclusion weakly related to whole. 1 or 9%

Organization is unclear throughout. Much irrelevant material. Introduction and conclusion may be illogical. Paper may fall short of required length. 0 or 0%

f) Quality of Writing. Elegance, style, tone, clarity, mechanics.

Paper demonstrates a strong personal style, appropriate to the assignment. Words chosen with precision, ideas expressed with clarity and control. No spelling or punctuation errors. 3 or 27%

Paper demonstrates a solid writing style, good vocabulary, few clichés. Paper is clear and expressed in an appropriate tone. Few spelling or punctuation errors. 7 or 64%

Paper demonstrates a basic vocabulary, but may be overwritten or riddled with cliché. Tone may be inappropriate at times. Many spelling and punctuation errors. 1 or 9%

Paper demonstrates little or no effort. Weak word choice, awkward sentences, unclear meaning. Paper may be riddled with spelling and punctuation errors. 0 or 0%

g) Style: citation and bibliography.

Paper demonstrates thorough and

Paper demonstrates imperfect, but

Paper makes some basic attempt to use

Paper shows no awareness of MLA style,

79

well-executed use of MLA style for citation and bibliography. 5 or 45%

competent use of MLA style for citation and bibliography. 5 or 45%

MLA style for citation and bibliography, or uses another style altogether. 1 or 9%

and is perhaps a mish-mash of styles. Paper has no bibliography. 0 or 0%

h) Oral presentation (5-10 minutes)

Presentation may be read or spoken, and delivery is lucid, engaging, and entertaining. Presenter draws listeners in to her thesis and presents research creatively and effectively. 4 or 36%

Presentation may be read or spoken, and delivery is lucid. Presentation of thesis is organized and logical, though perhaps not exciting. 8 or 73%

Presentation may be read too quickly, or without engaging the audience. Presentation lacks clarity, lucidity, and creativity, but still expresses thesis and some content. 0 or 0%

Dull, disorganized, too short or too long. Presenter shows little or no awareness of audience. 0 or 0%

i) Contribution to course.

Throughout the semester, student was a leader in capstone community, creating dialogue about texts and ideas, helping other students develop. 4 or 36%

Student attended class, was prepared for, and participated frequently in discussions about texts and ideas. 5 or 45%

Student’s participation in and preparation for the course over the semester was uneven. Some missed classes. 2 or 18%

Student did not participate in course discussion or debate. Inadequate preparation for class. Attendance was poor. 0 or 0%

80

Exercise and Sports Studies Assessment Plan


Mission

The Exercise and Sports Study Program offers a minor designed to provide a variety of courses which connect the physical, business, philosophical and legal aspects of exercise and sport. This minor exposes students to various perspectives as they relate to teaching/coaching or the sports industry. The ESS program supports all students and the general education requirements with Fitness and Recreational Activities courses designed to improve physical activity and/or individual skill level in specific sports.

1. Goal

Students will develop a practical as well theoretical understanding of the sports industry from a legal, management, philosophical and/or finance perspective.

Learning Outcomes

1a. Students will demonstrate an understanding of theoretical and practical aspects of the sport industry from a legal, management, philosophical and/or finance perspective.


Students will demonstrate knowledge of the content area in the Sport & Society class by 90% of the Students scoring 80% or higher on the written part of the Sports Observation Project assignment that was evaluated for clarity, grammar and content.

100% of students scored 80% or higher in the Sport & Society class on the written part of the Sports Observation Project assignment that was evaluated for clarity, grammar and content.

The Sport & Society course clearly met its goal and the department will continue to use written projects to evaluate this outcome.

Goal Met

Students will demonstrate knowledge in the content area by 90% of the students scoring 80% on the research paper on a Sport Management topic covered throughout the semester.

100% of the students scored 80% or higher on the research paper in Sport Management that was evaluated for clarity, content and grammar.

The goal was clearly met and the department will continue to use this type of assignment because it tasks the student to evaluate and understand the information

Goal Met

Students will demonstrate knowledge of the content area in the Foundations of ESS class by 90% of the students scoring 80% on the final

100% of the students scored 80% or higher on the final paper in the Foundations of ESS class. The paper was evaluated for clarity, content and grammar

The students did an outstanding job. The department feels that using this type of assignment enhances the student learning and understanding

81

paper. The paper displayed a broad understanding of content area by relating 4 topics discussed in the course book

of the area.

Goal Met

1b. In successful oral presentations, students will demonstrate an understanding of the theoretical and practical aspects of the sports industry from a legal, management, philosophical and/or finance perspective.


85% of the students will demonstrate knowledge of the content area in the Sports & Society class by scoring 80% or higher on the oral presentation part of the Ethical Issue assignment that was evaluated for organization, clarity, coherence and understanding of the sport and culture

95% of students scored 80% of higher on the Ethical Issue assignment that was evaluated for organization, clarity, coherence and understanding of the sport and culture.

The Ethical issue assignments enabled the students to clearly demonstrate their knowledge of the content area across many areas. Will continue to use Ethical Issue assignments as learning tool for understanding society and culture.

Goal Met

85% of the students will demonstrate knowledge (score 80% or higher) of the content area in the oral presentation of the research paper assignment in Sports Management that was evaluated for clarity, organization of thought and presentation of ideas.

100% of student scored 80% or higher on the research paper assignment in Sports Management that was evaluated for clarity, organization of thought and presentation of ideas.

This assignment tasked the students to demonstrate their understanding of the content area.

Goal Met

85% of the students will demonstrate knowledge of the content area in the Foundations of ESS course by scoring 80% on the oral presentation assignment that was evaluated for research, clarity of presentation and specificity of knowledge of the area

100% of the students scored 80% or higher on the oral presentation assignment in Foundations of ESS class.

This assignment clearly demonstrated the students grasp of the content area.

Goal Met

82

2. Goal

To understand the theoretical and practical connections of exercise and sports to teaching and coaching

Learning Outcomes

2a Students will recognize, demonstrate and analyze the elements of effective teaching and coaching in Sport.


90% of the students will demonstrate their ability to recognize, demonstrate and analyze effective teaching/coaching by scoring 80% or higher on the 30 for 30 position papers in Sport and Society that were evaluated for understanding of the issue, clarity of evaluation of issue and analysis of the issue.

100% of the students scored 80% or higher indicating their ability to recognize, demonstrate and analyze effective teaching/coaching on the 30 for 30 position papers.

The assignment was a little of a stretch for reaching this goal due to being a new course. Department will work on making the assignment closer to the topic in the years that we do not teach Philosophy of Coaching and Philosophy of Leadership

GOAL MET

2b In successful oral presentations which is defined as mastery of the topic and clarity of presented information, students will recognize, demonstrate and analyze the elements of effective teaching and coaching of sport.


90% of the students will demonstrate their ability to recognize, demonstrate and analyze effective teaching/coaching by scoring 80% or higher on the 30 for 30 oral presentation in Sport and Society that were evaluated for understanding of the issue, clarity oral presentation and analysis of the issue

100% of the students scored 80% or higher indicating their ability to recognize, demonstrate and analyze effective teaching/coaching on the 30 for 30 oral discussions

Department will work on making the assignment tailored more closely to the topic in the years that we do not teach Philosophy of Coaching and Philosophy of Leadership

GOAL MET

83

3. Goal

Through the Fitness and Recreational Activity Program, students will acquire the skills and knowledge of select physical activity courses in order to continue in an active physical lifestyle.

Learning Outcomes

3a. Students will demonstrate skill proficiency in selected activity courses.


90% of the students will be rated as good to excellent (greater than 80%) on skill evaluations for the particular activity in the course

100% of students enrolled in relevant courses successfully accomplished this goal.

Will continue to monitor and offer classes that fit student interest and abilities and looking into ways to make the courses more relevant to the general student body.

Goal Met

When appropriate, 90% of the students will be able to use individual skills in a team/competitive situation.

100% of students enrolled in relevant courses successfully accomplished this goal.

Will continue to monitor and offer classes that fit student interest and abilities and looking into ways to make the courses more relevant to the general student body

Goal Met

84

History Department Assessment Plan


This year brought some significant staffing changes. Dr. Steve Davidson transitioned to part-time (phased retirement); Dr. Joe Hower joined us as a full-time visitor for US history; and Dr. Melissa Byrnes took over as chair from Dr. Thom McClendon in January. Dr. Byrnes taught for the SU London Program in the fall. The department opted not to hire any adjuncts for course replacements, with an eye both to course enrollments and to concerns about declining student performance in Capstone (see 1b below). In terms of curricular change, we have added a “transregional” category to the 2016-17 catalog. This both recognizes the multi-continental approach of some courses we already offer and allows majors to fulfill the requirement of taking courses from four areas more easily in the wake of Dr. Thom McClendon’s retirement (and the subsequent unlikelihood of courses on Africa). While this will not show up as a distinct learning metric in future assessments, it will be interesting to see if there will be any movement in 1b or 2a that might be connected with this change. We have added data for the past three years to each metric (or as many years as we have been tracking a given outcome) in order to better see and understand patterns. Metrics 1a and 3b track our general education contributions as well as our majors’ progress (the majority of students in our world history and upper-level courses are non-majors). Next year, we hope to add a survey for Capstone students to gain additional assessment insight and other useful information for recruitment, retention, and overall department development. Mission

The mission of the Southwestern University History program is to provide students with a strong global perspective and a solid grounding in the methods and fields of History, while also encouraging interdisciplinary connections. We believe the study of history promotes both individual and collective self-understanding by analyzing the record of the past in its myriad forms. Historians learn to appreciate both the limits and the possibilities of our own age by poring over the stories of those who have come before us, piecing together the powerful elements of social movements and scientific innovation, and developing an understanding of how contemporary cultures and societies emerged out of the confluence of their past conditions.

1. Goal Students will develop a world historical perspective that identifies global patterns and connections across time and space.

Learning Outcome

1a. Students will learn to write essays that analyze the past in a transnational, comparative, and/or global framework.


60% of all final student essays in all world history courses will

28/45 or 62% Goal met. Numbers for Dr. Byrnes’s spring section

85

be evaluated as either good or excellent on the basis of the course writing rubric

Previous Years

2014-15: 27/39 or 69%

2013-14: 57/89 or 64%

2012-13: 58/82 or 71% Note: The total number of

students was halved in 2014 as

we began to offer only one

section per semester instead of

two.

derived from a final exam and not a take-home essay (making room for a new research project)—this accounts for some of the reduction in good/excellent results, but we still remain above our goal of 60%.

1b. History majors will, by the time of graduation, have an advanced understanding of global patterns and connections across time and space.


80% of capstone papers will demonstrate a good or excellent grasp of the historical patterns and connections that have shaped the topic of their paper. These papers’ discussions of relevant historical context should be transnational and/or world historical whenever appropriate. (Good or excellent grasp will be judged on the basis of the course writing rubric.)

10/13 or 77% Previous Years

2014-15: 10/12 or 83%

2013-14: 14/15 or 93%

2012-13: 9/10 or 90%

Goal not met (or met, given the following). One fall capstone student faced serious medical problems and neither submitted a final paper nor gave a presentation. If numbers are adjusted to account for this, all of the Capstone outcomes do reach our 80% goal (10/12 or 83%). Note: all Capstone numbers

include a similar evaluation

for our two Honors students. Capstone performance has declined in recent years. So far this tracks an earlier decline in lower level courses (see 3b), as well as significant staffing instability. The latter has meant that some students arrived to Capstone having taken a majority of their courses with non-permanent faculty and struggled to meet the department’s standards. Our concerns on this front informed our decision to reduce our use of adjuncts and short-term visitors. We hope to see stronger numbers in coming years.

86

Fewer Capstone students have been choosing transnational or world historical topics. This however, is not an explicit requirement in most of our seminars—but it is an interesting trend to watch (particularly as we add a transregional option to the major).

2. Goal Students will be able to demonstrate an understanding of the basic historical developments within a defined geographical region or civilization tradition.

Learning Outcome 2a. History majors will, by the time of graduation, gain a solid grounding in the history of at least one defined geographical region or civilizational tradition.


80% of capstone papers will demonstrate a good or excellent grasp of the broader historical context for the relevant geographical region for their specific topic. (Good or excellent grasp will be judged on the basis of the course writing rubric.)

10/13 or 77%

Previous Years

2014-15: 10/12 or 83%

2013-14: 14/15 or 93%

2012-13: 9/10 or 90%

Goal not met (or met). See 1b. In 2016-17, we will consider adding an assessment mechanism to track students’ understanding of particular geographic areas in the regional survey courses. This could be important information for deciphering the downward trend in these numbers.

3. Goal Students will be able to recognize and critically evaluate multiple perspectives on, and interpretations of, significant questions raised by students of the past, including themselves.

Learning Outcome 3a. Students will be able to evaluate at least three different interpretations of a significant historical controversy.


87

80% of Historiography final papers, an assignment which requires evaluating three different interpretations of a significant historical controversy, will be judged as being good or excellent on the basis of the course writing rubric.

9/11 or 82%

Previous Years

2014-15: 9/12 or 75%

2013-14: 9/11 or 82%

2012-13: 18/22 or 82%

Goal met. We are happy to see that last year’s dip was not sustained. More of our lower-level courses are introducing students to historiographical concepts and providing research opportunities, which appears to be providing better preparation. Historiography has proven to be an effective course (and a significant factor in our students’ ability to succeed in Capstone). We are considering ways to make the course more appealing to non-majors (to aid enrollment numbers) without negatively affecting these outcomes.

3b. Students will be able to critically analyze primary and/or secondary sources.


60% of final papers in upper-level courses above the 200-level (excluding the capstone) will be deemed “good” or “excellent” on the basis of the course writing rubric.

100/149 or 67%

Previous Years

2014-15: 141/198 or 71%

2013-14: 215/253 or 85%

2012-13: 213/256 or 83%

Goal met. While the drop from last year is not that large, the three-year pattern does show a distinct decline. At the same time, we remain well above our goal.

Note: this figure does not

include final papers that were

also research papers (all

research papers are listed

below). In the coming year,

we will detail a policy to deal

with such cases.

60% of research papers in upper-level courses above the 200-level (excluding Historiography and the capstone) will be deemed “good” or “excellent” in terms of their work in locating and using primary and secondary sources on the basis of the course writing rubric.

82/121 or 68%

Previous Years

2014-15: 100/136 or 74%

Research skills not measured

separately before 2014-15.

Goal met. We are happy with our decision to start tracking research results in earlier courses as an additional metric for our majors (and a means of tracking their development over the course of the curriculum). From 2016-17, we should be able to begin to draw conclusions from these numbers. For now, we remain above our goal. We will also consider

88

whether it would be worthwhile to track performance on research assignments in the world history classes. Note: not all courses in this

category require research

projects.

4. Goal Students will develop an appreciation for, and the ability to engage in, historical research, including demonstrated familiarity with historical sources, methodologies, and argumentation.

Learning Outcome 4a. Students will use the accepted conventions of historical scholarship in their written and oral presentations on a broad historical theme.


80% of students’ oral seminar presentations will be judged good or excellent in their ability to place their argument within a historiographical context, based on evaluation by department faculty.

10/13 or 77%

Previous Years

2014-15: 12/12 or 100%

2013-14: 13/15 or 86%

2012-13: 9/10 or 90%

Goal not met (or met). See 1b. This year’s lower results corresponds with last year’s decline in Historiography performance. We hope to see a return to higher numbers next year, given stronger Historiography performance this year (students typically take these courses in subsequent years).

80% of final papers in the research seminar will be deemed good or excellent, judged according to the criteria in the capstone writing rubric.

10/13 or 77% Previous Years

2014-15: 10/12 or 84%

2013-14: 15/15 or 100%

2012-13: 9/10 or 90%

Goal not met (or met). See 1b.

4b. Students will be able to locate and use primary sources in historical research.


80% of capstone papers will make substantial use of at least one primary source and multiple secondary sources.

11/13 or 85%

Previous Years

2014-15: 12/12 or 100%

2013-14: 14/15 or 93%

2012-13: 9/10 or 90%

Goal met. See 1b (if adjusted, this measure reaches 92%). Finding suitable primary sources is often a struggle for Capstone students (especially if they do not have proficiency in the language of the area they wish to study). We are engaging students

89

with primary source work more explicitly at all levels of the curriculum and hope to see improvement on this front. We will also tracking primary source assignments separately under 3b and/or including a look at primary-source work in the regional survey under 2a.

90

Syllabus, rubric and assessment requirements

for courses taught in the History Department, Southwestern University Elements that must appear in all syllabi & assessment requirements 1. A list of course objectives or student learning goals. Below, you can find recommended language for

the different types of courses that our department offers. You can tweak the language as you see fit, but these objectives must appear in your syllabus in some form.

At the end of the semester, the History department chair will ask you to send information required for departmental assessment and university accreditation. For each of the learning objectives above that apply to your courses, please keep records of how many students received an evaluation of good or excellent (generally, a grade of A or B).

It is up to you to decide which assignment(s) best suit that learning objective, though it is often the final paper or exam.

a. World history courses (16-0xx)

i. Students will learn to write essays that analyze the past in a transnational, comparative, and/or global framework. [Please keep track of how many students receive an evaluation of good or excellent on an assignment or assignments that require this kind of thinking/writing.]

b. Other upper-level courses (16-2XX and above)

i. Students will learn to critically analyze primary and secondary sources in history. [Please keep track of how many students receive an evaluation of good or excellent on this aspect of an assignment or assignments that require this kind of thinking/writing.]

ii. (If your course includes a research paper or other relevant assignment:) Students will learn to locate and use primary and secondary sources in historical research. [Please keep track of how many students receive an evaluation of good or excellent for their work in locating and using primary and secondary sources.]

c. Historiography

i. Students will be able to evaluate at least three different interpretations of a significant historical controversy. [Please keep track of how many students receive an evaluation of good or excellent on their final paper.]

d. Research seminar

i. Students will learn the best practices for successfully completing a 25-30 page original research paper in history. [Please keep track of how many students’ final papers earned a good or excellent evaluation.]

ii. Students will learn to apply their broader knowledge of a particular region to contextualize and explain a more specific historical process. [Please keep track of how many students’ final papers performed this skill at a good or excellent level.]

iii. Students will also learn to incorporate their knowledge of relevant transnational and global contexts into a research on a more specific historical process. [Please keep track of how many students’ final papers performed this skill at a good or excellent level.]

iv. Students will learn to place their own original historical argument within a historiographic context. [Faculty who teach research seminar will track this by distributing a survey to the other department faculty at the start of the seminar’s oral

91

presentations. The survey will ask faculty to evaluate on a 0-5 scale how successfully each student placed their argument within a historiographic framework.]

v. Students will learn to locate and make substantive use of primary sources in their historical research. [Please keep track of how many students’ final papers make substantive use of at least one primary source.]

2. Your attendance policy.

3. Any events, field trips, film screenings, etc. outside of regular class times that students are required to attend.

Rubrics

Attached are rubrics that you should use when evaluating writing in your History courses. You do not have to use these forms in situ – and you may certainly add criteria of your own – but you must share the attached evaluation criteria in some form with your students in advance of the first writing assignment. Preferably they will appear in your syllabus.

92

Rubric for Research Seminar (Capstone) and Other Major Research Papers History Department, Southwestern University

Below Basic Basic Good Excellent

Ideas Shows minimal engagement with the research topic; fails to recognize multiple dimensions and/or perspectives; lacks even basic observations.

Shows some engagement with the research topic without elaboration; offers basic observations but rarely original insight.

Demonstrates engagement with the research topic, recognizing multiple dimensions and/or perspectives; offers some insight.

Demonstrates rich engagement with the research topic, recognizing multiple dimensions and/or perspectives with elaboration and depth; offers considerable insight.

Focus and Thesis

Paper lacks focus and/or a discernible thesis.

Some intelligible ideas, but thesis is weak, unclear, or too broad.

Identifiable thesis representing adequate understanding of the assigned topic; minimal irrelevant material.

Clear, focused thesis representing full understanding of the assignment; every word counts.

Evidence Little to no evidence. Some evidence but not enough to develop argument in unified way (e.g., lacks engagement with primary sources). Evidence inaccurate, irrelevant, or inappropriate for purpose of the paper. Citations incomplete.

Evidence accurate, well documented, and relevant, but not complete (e.g., limited engagement with primary sources), well integrated, and/or appropriate for the purpose of the paper.

Evidence is relevant, accurate, complete, well integrated, well documented, and appropriate for the purpose of the paper. Evidence includes substantive engagement with primary sources.

Organization

Organization is missing both overall and within paragraphs. Introduction and conclusion may be lacking or illogical.

Organization, overall and/or within paragraphs, is formulaic or occasionally lacking in coherence; few evident transitions. Introduction and conclusion may lack logic.

Few organizational problems at any level (overall, paragraph, transitions). Introduction and conclusion are effectively related to the whole.

Organization logical and appropriate to assignment; paragraphs well developed and appropriately divided; ideas linked with smooth and effective transitions. Introduction and conclusion are effectively related to the whole.

Style and Mechanics

Multiple and serious errors of sentence structure; frequent errors in spelling and capitalization; intrusive and/or inaccurate punctuation such that communication is hindered. Proofreading not evident.

Sentences show errors of structure and little or no variety; many errors of punctuation, spelling and/or capitalization. Errors interfere with meaning in places. Careful proofreading not evident.

Effective and varied sentences; some errors in sentence construction; only occasional punctuation, spelling and/or capitalization errors.

Each sentence structured effectively, powerfully; rich, well-chosen variety of sentence styles and length; virtually free of punctuation, spelling, capitalization errors.

93

Southwestern University / Last updated 9/26/14 / Originally adapted from Mary Allen, Roanoke College

Rubric for Written Analyses (including essay exams and response papers) History Department, Southwestern University

Below Basic Basic Good Excellent

Ideas Shows minimal engagement with the topic; fails to recognize multiple dimensions and/or perspectives; lacks even basic observations.

Shows some engagement with the topic without elaboration; offers basic observations but rarely original insight.

Demonstrates engagement with the topic, recognizing multiple dimensions and/or perspectives; offers some insight.

Demonstrates rich engagement with the topic, recognizing multiple dimensions and/or perspectives with elaboration and depth; offers considerable insight.

Focus and Thesis

Paper lacks focus and/or a discernible thesis.

Some intelligible ideas, but thesis is weak, unclear, or too broad.

Identifiable thesis representing adequate understanding of the assigned topic; minimal irrelevant material.

Clear, focused thesis representing full understanding of the assignment; every word counts.

Evidence Little to no evidence. Some evidence but not enough to develop argument in unified way. Evidence inaccurate, irrelevant, or inappropriate for purpose of the paper. Citations incomplete.

Evidence accurate, well documented, and relevant, but not complete, well integrated, and/or appropriate for the purpose of the paper.

Evidence is relevant, accurate, complete, well integrated, well documented, and appropriate for the purpose of the paper.

Organization

Organization is missing both overall and within paragraphs. Introduction and conclusion may be lacking or illogical.

Organization, overall and/or within paragraphs, is formulaic or occasionally lacking in coherence; few evident transitions. Introduction and conclusion may lack logic.

Few organizational problems at any level (overall, paragraph, transitions). Introduction and conclusion are effectively related to the whole.

Organization logical and appropriate to assignment; paragraphs well developed and appropriately divided; ideas linked with smooth and effective transitions. Introduction and conclusion are effectively related to the whole.

Style and Mechanics

Multiple and serious errors of sentence structure; frequent errors in spelling and capitalization; intrusive and/or inaccurate punctuation such that communication is hindered. Proofreading not evident.

Sentences show errors of structure and little or no variety; many errors of punctuation, spelling and/or capitalization. Errors interfere with meaning in places. Careful proofreading not evident.

Effective and varied sentences; some errors in sentence construction; only occasional punctuation, spelling and/or capitalization errors.

Each sentence structured effectively, powerfully; rich, well-chosen variety of sentence styles and length; virtually free of punctuation, spelling, capitalization errors.

94

Capstone Evaluation Rubric

Department of History, Southwestern University The following broad rubric outlines both the process, writ large, and outcomes of the capstone project in the History Department. The History capstone experience is a culminating one that offers students the opportunity to draw on their history course work, as well as their broader educational experiences, to produce research projects of near-graduate level quality. A corollary purpose of the History capstone is to train students in the kind of collaborative work that characterizes graduate seminars, law school study groups, and project-centered work in all the professions. The final paper that History capstone students produce is an article-length piece (25-30 pages) of original, primary-source-based research that answers a significant historical question developed by the student, and that uses evidence from secondary sources to frame the investigation historically and historiographically. The cumulative structure of the capstone experience is designed to teach the student the standard stages of a research process in history. The student receives faculty (and often peer) feedback on each assignment, which the student is then expected to use to improve the remaining components. This recursive relationship between feedback and revision is one of the main ways that the History capstone fulfills the goal of training students in professional, collaborative work. Class participation is structured and evaluated in a way that also teaches this type of collaboration. (See below.) Specifically, the capstone experience includes the following elements that are evaluated by the faculty member: 1) The creation of a prospectus/annotated bibliography that helps students formulate their thesis as an intervention into the existing scholarship on their topics. The objective is to lay the groundwork for the research, including providing the disciplinary context and basis for the project. The following elements are among those evaluated:

(a) state the research question as a “problem,” including a discussion of the problem’s originality and why it is of interest to the student and to the discipline;

(b) situate the work in terms of the existing literature; (c) discuss methodology (i.e., how the paper will use primary sources to answer the

research question); (d) discuss the paper’s organization, including the number and content of sections; (e) outline a plan for research; (f) review the literature (annotated bibliography), demonstrating that the student has

surveyed the most relevant literature and can place it in a historiographic framework as determined by the student and the faculty member teaching the course, as well as in consultation with colleagues in the relevant field of study if necessary.

2) The presentation of the student’s thesis, evidence, analysis, and the paper’s significance

in a public forum, including other seminar participants and History department faculty. Students must demonstrate their ability to clearly, briefly, and professionally explain the project and succinctly report its findings. Students’ oral presentation of their project must include a substantive discussion of at least one major historiographic issue that their project engages. 3) The evaluation of drafts and a final document that meets the department’s expectations for an appropriately prepared capstone paper. Students must:

95

(a) generate a significant historical problem; (b) demonstrate that they learned to conduct original research using primary and secondary

sources that help address their problem; (c) engage and understand important issues in the field; (d) present a convincing and coherent argument based on the primary and secondary

evidence; (e) demonstrate that they revised their papers throughout the semester based on input from

critiques of drafts and of the presentation; (f) write clearly and without errors; (g) include complete citations and bibliography; (h) follow a format in accordance with Kate Turabian’s A Manual for Writers, the

professional standard in the field. 4) In-class discussion of the course’s common readings and students’ research. Individual faculty evaluate a student’s class participation using most or all of the following criteria:

(a) quality of comments in class discussion (the best comments being those that evidence the student’s careful reading of the course texts; intelligent development of ideas based on those texts; and thoughtful engagement with other students’ remarks)

(b) frequency of participation in discussion (that does not jeopardize other students’ ability to participate)

(c) quality of in-class or pre-class reflections that students write about the course readings and/or quality of discussion questions submitted for the class to discuss (in both cases here, quality means familiarity with the course texts, including frequent specific references to said texts; independent thinking about these texts that is rooted in evidence; and clear writing)

(d) frequency of attendance

96

Kinesiology Department Assessment Plan


The Kinesiology Department provides study toward the BA and BS degrees with a major or a minor in Kinesiology. Additional requirements for the BS degree are listed in the catalog under “University Degrees.” The major includes courses requisite for graduate study in the discipline and allied health fields, and that are needed for teaching certification.

Mission Statement:

The Department of Kinesiology at Southwestern University is committed to developing students as active participants in their community and in the world. We seek to prepare students for life-long learning by developing their critical thinking and analytical skills, communicating abilities, and providing them with a depth of knowledge commensurate with professionals in the field of kinesiology. This work is premised on the philosophy that scholarly activity resulting in the generation of knowledge serves as the foundation for a meaningful educational experience. Therefore, the mission of the Department of Kinesiology is to engage in the learning, generation, dissemination, integration, and application of knowledge to human movement. Students are encouraged to integrate scientific and humanistic perspectives; analyze movement within a health sciences context and apply this knowledge using diverse perspectives.

Department Goals:

1. Promote the understanding of knowledge in content areas, including the physiology of exercise, biomechanics, motor learning and control, biostatistics, human anatomy and concepts of health and wellness.

2. Apply theory and content in conducting and presenting research.

3. Prepare students for careers in the exercise sciences and related fields.

1. GOAL: Promote the understanding of knowledge in core content areas, including the physiology of exercise, biomechanics, motor learning and control, biostatistics, human anatomy and concepts of health and wellness.

Learning Outcome

a. To provide a learning experience within the discipline of Kinesiology that will prepare students for post-

graduate study in a field related to kinesiology.


100% of students applying to a graduate kinesiology program or a graduate clinical program (e.g., PT, OT, PA, medical school) will be admitted.

7 of 7 graduating seniors applied for and were accepted for graduate study in a kinesiology-related field (2 in PT, 1 in Public Health, 1 in PTA, 3 in exercise science graduate programs). In addition, 2 students are in the process of applying to graduate exercise science programs and 1 is applying to PT school.

TARGET MET: We continue to see a diverse set of post-graduate plans with more students choosing to pursue research-based graduate programs. This year we had our first student accepted into a public health program. This appears to be a new path that current majors are interested in (at least one rising senior will be applying next year). We will continue to our major to provide relevant content and experiences to prepare students for these diverse paths.

b. Current SU Kinesiology Majors will perform at an acceptable level in the core department curriculum

indicating a level of understanding appropriate for graduate study.

97


Long-term assessment was based on performance on a comprehensive exam administered to graduating seniors in the spring semester. Target was set at 80% achieving an overall level of 70% on the entire

comprehensive exam.

Note: With 2 December graduates –

we only have comprehensive exam

results from 14 of 16 graduates

Whole Exam: 11 of 14 (79%)

TARGET NOT MET: However, it was quite close (79% vs 80%). The exam has been revised by reviewing and modeling after nationally used accreditation exams from the American College of Sports Medicine. Some sections (e.g., biomechanics and motor learning and control) are not well represented in these exams. We are working to review additional national accreditation exams offered by other entities (e.g., NSCA).

Long-term assessment was based on performance on a comprehensive exam administered to graduating seniors in the spring semester. Target was set at 80% achieving an overall level of 70% on each section of the comprehensive exam.

Note: With 2 December graduates –

we only have comprehensive exam

results from 14 of 16 graduates

Human Anatomy: 9 of 14 (65%) Health & Fitness Concepts: 12 of 14 (86%) Research Methods: 9 of 14 (65%) MLMC: 10 of 14 (71%) Biomechanics: 11 of 14 (79%) Exercise Physiology: 9 of 14 (65%)

TARGET NOT MET: Only the Health and Fitness Concepts component was met. Two additional areas (biomechanics and motor learning and control) were close to the target. We have added a senior seminar to administer the exam and formalize post-capstone research. This will add academic weight to this exam so the students better prepare for it.

c. Current SU Non-Kinesiology Majors will perform at an acceptable level in department curriculum

indicating the acquisition of a level of understanding of areas in the field of kinesiology.


At least 80% of non-Kinesiology majors taking kinesiology courses in which they have met the pre-requisites will achieve a final course grade of a minimum of C-.

Human Anatomy: 25/26, 19/22 Kinesiology of Gait: 6/6 Health & Fitness Concepts: 11/12, 22/26 Research Methods: 0/0 Exercise, Health & Cognition: 2/2 Intro to Nutrition: 8/8 Intro to Epidemiology: 4/4 MLMC: 3/3 Biomechanics: 0/0 Exercise Physiology: 0/0 ExRx: 0/0 Total: 100/109 (92%)

TARGET MET

2. GOAL: Apply theory and content from the discipline in conducting and presenting research.

Learning Outcome

a. Kinesiology majors will independently perform laboratory research (under the supervision of a faculty

member of this or another institution).


100% of majors will have successfully completed a semester of independent research through the capstone experience under the supervision of a faculty member.

100% of current graduates completed the research based capstone experience.

TARGET MET

At least 10% of upper level majors (jr or sr) will participate in non-capstone related research experiences including independent study, summer research programs, or department honors thesis.

Independent Study: Fall- 6 Honors Thesis: 0 Summer Research: 6 Total 12 students participated (= 26%).

TARGET MET. This target has been

adjusted to reflect a percentage of the

upper level majors instead of an

absolute number.

98

b. Kinesiology majors will independently prepare formal written scientific report/document in a

discipline accepted format (e.g., APA) related to their independent research activity.


100% of graduates will successfully prepare and achieve a rubric score of “Meets Expectations” or “Exceeds Expectations” on a formal scientific report/document in an acceptable discipline format (e.g. APA) related to their independent research activity.

100% of graduates successfully prepared and achieved a rubric score of “Meets Expectations” or “Exceeds Expectations” on a formal scientific report/document in an acceptable discipline format (e.g. APA) related to their independent research activity.

TARGET MET. All 2015 graduates’ (n=16) senior capstone project papers met (56%) or exceeded expectations (44%) for preparation as a formal scientific document. A continued decrease in the number of students exceeding expectations was observed. We believe this was reflective of the large senior cohort finishing this year. There were some issues in supervising such a large number with only two faculty members. The additional writing assignments in Research in Kinesiology I were useful but the bottleneck in the process seems to be the development of a viable research question to drive the capstone experience. To address this we have now begun to implement additional work in the core courses that require the students to propose a capstone idea at the completion of each course. When the students begin their capstone work, they can then draw upon these ideas to begin the research process.

c. Kinesiology majors will participate in professional activities and/or conferences.


A minimum of 50% of graduates will have present in local, regional, and/or national professional conferences, workshops, and/or symposia.

75% (12 of 16) of current graduates participated in a local, regional, or national conference, workshop, or symposia. Ten students presented and two students attended but did not present at the Texas Chapter of the American College of Sports Medicine Meeting. Eight students (two of whom did not attend TACSM) presented at the Research and Creative Works Symposium at SU.

TARGET MET: We created separate targets for students presenting their research outside of the department and attendance at a professional conference. Both of these activities are important for the development of the student. The number of students presenting at Texas ACSM this year was up again this year. This target was set at 50% as we recognize that scheduling precludes all students from presenting and we often have students entering our major late in the process.

A minimum of 75% of graduates will attend a regional, and/or national professional conferences, workshops, and/or symposia.

75% (12 of 16) of current graduates attended the Texas Chapter of the American College of Sports Medicine Meeting.

TARGET MET: Participation/attendance in Texas ACSM was up again this year. As the department grows we may need to reconsider our target for participation as financial constraints may preclude such high participation.

d. Kinesiology majors will have a better understanding of the research process.

99


90% of students in the Research in Kinesiology I and II courses will receive a research rubric score of “Exceed or Meets Expectations” on their capstone proposal and final thesis.

13/16 (81%) of students in Research in Kinesiology I&II were rated as performing as Meeting or Exceeding Expectations.

TARGET NOT MET: Three students performed poorly in the capstone sequence. At least in part this was due to our struggles to provide adequate supervision to each project with only two faculty members, but this also reflected a lack of motivation on the part of these students. The second capstone course has been revised to include more graded components to be turned in during the semester instead of grading exclusively on the final product.

70% of current graduates will demonstrate proficiency on the Research Methods portion of the comprehensive exit exam.

65% of students met the proficiency score on the comprehensive exit exam.

TARGET NOT MET: This essentially reflected a score one student below the target. Several of these students were required to repeat the Research Methods course during their time at SU and this may reflect their performance. We have no plans to adjust the course or the expectations of the students.

e. Kinesiology majors will be better writers.


90% of students in the Research in Kinesiology I and II courses will receive a writing rubric score of “Exceed or Meets Expectations” on their capstone proposal and final thesis.

15 of 16 (94%) of students in Research in Kinesiology I&II were rated as performing as Meeting or Exceeding Expectations.

TARGET MET: Despite the troubles some students had with their capstone projects from a research perspective, their writing did meet expectations.

f. Kinesiology majors will have improved their analytical skills.


70% of current graduates will demonstrate proficiency on the analytical portions in Research Methods, Biomechanics and Exercise Physiology portions of the comprehensive exit exam by achieving scores in these sections of at least 70%.

Research Methods: 65% (9/14) Biomechanics: 86% (12/14) Exercise Physiology: 86% (12/14)

TARGET MET

90% of students in the Research in Kinesiology I and II courses will receive a research rubric score of “Exceed or Meets Expectations” on their capstone proposal and final thesis.

13 of 16 (81% ) students in Research in Kinesiology I&II were rated as performing as Meeting or Exceeding Expectations.

TARGET NOT MET: As reflected in the research component of the student assessment, several students struggled to apply and demonstrate appropriate analytical skills in their capstone projects. As these students struggled throughout their time at SU in this area

3. GOAL: To prepare students for careers in the exercise sciences and related fields.

Learning Outcome a. Students will perform work and be involved in activities relevant to their future career/program.

100


100% of graduates will have completed at least 1 semester of collaborative work with a faculty member of this or another institution.

All graduates (100%) successfully passed the capstone requirement with a C- or better.

TARGET MET

b. Students will participate in life/workplace experiences through internship opportunities.


A minimum of 50% of graduates will have been involved in life/workplace experiences through internship opportunities (either for academic

credit or as a volunteer).

50% (8/16) of current graduates participated in an internship activity while at SU.

TARGET MET

c. Graduates entering the workforce will successfully find employment in a field related to kinesiology.


A minimum of 80% of current graduates seeking to enter the workforce will find employment in a kinesiology-related field.

Unknown. Of the 6 graduates seeking employment after graduation, 4 have gained employment with 3 of those in kinesiology-related fields. We have no information on 2 of these graduates.

TARGET MET. If we use the data we have then 75% of the known job placements have been in kinesiology-related positions.

101

Mathematics and Computer Science Department Assessment Plan


Mission Statement Mathematics and Computer Science courses help students develop concise and logical patterns of analytical and algorithmic reasoning and encourage independent and creative work. The department seeks to develop in students an understanding of mathematical structures and models and a facility with problem-solving techniques.

1. Goal

To understand the fundamental principles, operations, and applications of the core content in the mathematical and computer sciences.

Learning Outcome

1a. Mathematics and Computer Science students will demonstrate mastery of fundamental concepts in core areas. (Targeted Student Learning Outcomes (SLO’s) are included below.)

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept. Improvement & Trends

The ETS Major Field Test (MFT) measures content mastery in selected fields of study. Targets: Southwestern University students to rank in upper 50% based on average scores. (Direct Measure)

Math Spring 2015 and Fall 2015: Southwestern University average score for 12 students was 156 (53rd percentile for the 256 institutions included in the Sep. 2012 – June 2015 data). Computer Science Spring 2016: SU average score for 13 students was 146 (40th percentile for the 214 institutions included in Sep. 2011-June 2015 data.)

Target exceeded in Math and target not met in Computer Science. Remarks: The CS MFT scores were lower than they’ve been in quite some time. We attribute that to having minimal staffing in CS over the last few years causing less electives to be offered, students in capstone without the required pre-requisites, and adjuncts teaching core courses (including the CS capstone this year). We believe with a fully staffed department and more attention to core courses these scores will improve.

Embedded final exam questions were used in selected courses to assess student mastery of targeted core content. Reported data reflects students meeting the minimum standard on each embedded exam problem, as determined by the supervising faculty member. Our goal is that at least 70% of students succeed on these questions. (Direct

2015-2016 Statistics

(9 sections reporting)

102

Measure) Statistics Targeted SLO 1:

Students will be able to perform calculations involving the normal distribution.

Statistics Targeted SLO 2:

Students should be able to conduct a test of hypothesis.

Statistics Targeted SLO 3: Students will be familiar with measures of center and spread.

Linear Algebra SLO 1: Students will be able to calculate the inverse of a square matrix.

Linear Algebra SLO 2: Students will be able to prove or disprove that a given subset of a vector space is a subspace.

Linear Algebra SLO 3: Students will be able to prove or disprove that a set of vectors in a vector space forms a basis for the vector space.

SLO 1: Result: 169 of 247 students (68.4%) SLO 2: Result: 153 of 247 students (61.9%)

SLO 3 Result: 203 of 247 students (82.1%)

2015-2016 Linear Algebra

(2 sections reporting)

SLO1 Result: 26 of 29 students (89.7%)



Target not quite met 2015-2016.

[4-year totals: 815 of 1155 (70.6%)]

Target not met 2015-2016. [4-year totals: 741 of 1155

(64.2%)]

Target exceeded 2015-2016. [4-year totals: 936 of 1155

(81.0%)]

Remarks: All three SLO numbers were down slightly from 2014-2015. However, SLO 1 and SLO 3 have 4 year averages above our target. More emphasis will be placed on making sure statistics faculty address SLO 2 next academic year.

Target exceeded 2015-2016. [4-year totals: 118 of 134

(88.1%)]

Target not met 2015-2016. [4-year totals: 89 of 134 (66.4%)] Remark: Recent faculty who have taught this course believe the question we’re currently using to test this SLO doesn’t accurately reflect students’ abilities as it’s too abstract in comparison to other types of problems related to this SLO. We plan on writing a new question for 2016-2017 that would better assess their ability.

Target exceeded 2015-2016.

[4-year totals: 112 of 134 (83.6%)]

103

CSII Targeted SLO1: Students should learn how to use and implement standard abstract data types such as queues, binary heap, stacks, and binary search trees, including both linked and contiguous implementations, as appropriate.

CSII Targeted SLO2: Students should learn how to analyze the runtime and space complexity of algorithms, first informally, with an introduction to more formal analyses.

CSII Targeted SLO 3: Students should understand the following sorting algorithms, and their tradeoffs: selection, insertion, heap, merge, binary tree, quick.

2015-2016 CS II

(1 section reporting)




Target not met 2015-2016.

[4-year totals: 60 of 87 (69.0%)]

Target not met 2015-2016. [4-year totals: 49 of 87 (56.3%)]

Target not met 2015-2016. [4-year totals: 57 of 87 (65.5%)] Remarks: All three SLOs were not met this year in CS II. This course was taught by an adjunct and we were operating as a department on only one full time CS faculty member for 2015-2016. The 4 year totals are all very near our goal, but we will make a point to address these SLOs better in the next academic year when we are once again fully staffed.

Math Capstone students will indicate confidence in their mastery of core content areas in a survey. Target: 80% will respond good or excellent. (Indirect Measure).

Math Fall 2015 Capstone: 10 of 11 respondents (91%) indicated good or excellent when asked to rate their confidence in mastery of overall core content.

Target exceeded.

2. Goal

To demonstrate concise logical patterns of mathematical and algorithmic thinking. Learning Outcome

2a. Students will demonstrate a facility with problem-solving skills

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept. Improvement

Capstone projects will be rated by supervising faculty as

(Capstone Rubrics included in Appendix A1, A2.)

104

acceptable or better (based on

corresponding rubric). Target: at least 80% of those who successfully complete a capstone experience. (Direct Measure) Math targeted outcome 1: Capstone project will be rated by faculty advisor as acceptable based on quality.

Math targeted outcome 2: Capstone project will be rated acceptable on the basis of mathematical reasoning and quality of problem-solving.

CS targeted outcome 1: Students will be able to apply widely recognized computer science/software engineering concepts to practical problem, including decomposition, analysis and consideration of alternative methodologies. CS targeted outcome 2:

Capstone project will be rated by faculty advisor as acceptable based on quality. CS targeted outcome 3:

Capstone project will be rated by faculty advisor as acceptable based on the level of challenge in the project.

Math targeted outcome 1:

Result: 11 of 11 Fall 2015 capstone students (100%). Math targeted outcome 2: Result: 11 of 11 Fall 2015 capstone students (100%).

CS targeted outcome 1: Result: 13 of 13 capstone students (100%).

CS targeted outcome 2:

Result: 13 of 13 capstone students (100%).

CS targeted outcome 3: Result: 13 of 13 (100%) capstone students.

Target exceeded.

Target exceeded.

Target exceeded.

Target exceeded.

Target exceeded.

Math Capstone students will indicate confidence in their problem-solving skills in a survey by responding good or excellent. Target 90% of those responding (Indirect Measure)

Math Modeling Capstone Fall 2015: 11 of 11 respondents (100%).

Target exceeded.

105

2b. Students will be able to appropriately apply current technology in their fields


Math Capstone students surveyed will indicate confidence in their technical skills in a survey by responding good or excellent. Target: 80% of those responding (Indirect Measure) Math students will be required to successfully use current software tools in their assigned work. Target: 90% (Direct Measure) Computer Science students will be required to successfully use current software tools in their assigned work. Target: 90% (Direct Measure)

Math Modeling Capstone Fall 2015: 8 of 11 respondents (73%). Math Modeling Capstone Fall 2015: 11 of 11 students (100%) successfully implemented their mathematical models using Mathematica and/or Microsoft Excel. CS Capstone Spring 2016: 12 of 12 students (100%) enrolled successfully used many software tools including Ruby on Rails and the Git control system.

Target not met. Remark: In discussing why this target wasn’t met, as a department we realize the wording of this question isn’t clear and we plan on editing the wording of the survey students take before the Fall 2016 Capstone course.

Target exceeded.

Target exceeded.

3. Goal

To communicate the knowledge and skills of the discipline. Learning Outcome

3a. Students will be able to communicate effectively and rigorously their understandings of core knowledge and skills.


Capstone students will achieve a rating of acceptable on the presentation of their capstone project by the supervising faculty. Target 80% of those enrolled in the course. (Direct Measure)

Math targeted outcome 1: Written/oral presentation will be rated acceptable based on a score of 70% or above on their final paper and presentation.

Fall 2015 Math Modeling Capstone: 11 of 11 students in modeling capstone students (100%). Math targeted outcome 1: 11 of 11 (100%) Fall 2015 capstone students

Math Capstone: All targets met.

Target exceeded. Remarks: One SU capstone project received a best presentation award at the Texas MAA Sectional Meeting.

106

Math targeted outcome 2: Mathematical communication will be rated acceptable using row 1 of the rubric in Appendix A1.

Math targeted outcome 3: Mathematical Terminology and symbols, including equations, diagrams, graphs, tables, etc., will be rated acceptable using row 2 of the rubric in Appendix A1.

Math targeted outcome 4: Disciplinary writing quality will be rated acceptable using row 3 of the rubric in Appendix A1.

CS targeted outcome 1: Written/oral presentation will be rated acceptable based on a score of 70% or above on their final paper and presentation.

CS targeted outcome 2: Disciplinary writing quality will be rated acceptable based on a score of 70% or above on their final paper.

Math targeted outcome 2: 11 of 11 (100%) Fall 2015 capstone students Math targeted outcome 3: 11 of 11 (100%) Fall 2015 capstone students

Math targeted outcome 4: 11 of 11 (100%) Fall 2015 capstone students

Computer Science Capstone

Spring 2016


Result: 13 of 13 (100%) capstone students achieved this goal.


Result: 13 of 13 (100%) capstone students.

Target exceeded.

Target exceeded.

Target exceeded.

Target exceeded. Remarks: One group of capstone students received best poster award at the regional computing conference in Spring 2016.

Target exceeded.

107

Appendix A1: Fall 2015 Mathematics Capstone Rubric Senior Seminar in Mathematical Modeling (Shelton reporting)

Mathematics and Computer Science Department

Capstone Rubric


Results of the Final Exam. # students having a score of 70% or better 11 of 11 students -- formulating a mathematical model 11 of 11 students -- applying solution techniques to solve a model

Results of Rubric scoring of the Final Project Paper

# students having a score of 7 or better of 10

mean score Category, percentage for this

category

Description of average level attained

11 of 11 9.1

Mathematical Communication:

Reasoning, Problem-Solving,

Analysis: weight of 50% of rubric

Proficient = 8 or 9 points Problem is clearly stated. Key concepts are well explained and mathematically correct. Good evidence and analysis.

11 of 11 8.8

Mathematical Terminology and

symbols, including equations,

diagrams, graphs, tables, etc.: 15%

Proficient = 8 or 9 points Appropriate use of mathematical terminology and symbols.

11 of 11 8.6

General Writing: 10% Proficient = 8 or 9 points Very good flow between mathematical prose and mathematical representations of evidence. Clearly defined structure with some clear transitions and a logical introduction, body, and conclusion. Very good organization and paragraph structure. Only minor errors in word choice, grammar, spelling, or punctuation. Paper is suitable for reading by other senior mathematics majors; narrative is clear.

11 of 11 9.1

Level of Work: 10% Proficient = 8 or 9 points Level of work is appropriately challenging for a senior mathematics major. Some evidence of independent work. Synthesis or application is indicated. Student incorporated instructor’s guidance.

11 of 11 10.0

Appropriate Focus of

Mathematical Modeling: 10% Proficient = 8 or 9 points Very good focus. Very good discussion of strengths and weaknesses of model.

11 of 11 9.3

General format: Title page,

abstract, page numbers, footnotes,

margins, bibliography, appendices

if appropriate, etc.: 5%

Proficient = 8 or 9 points All elements appear, though some may need improvement.

108

Appendix A2: Three objectives from Software Engineering Capstone in Computer Science Spring 2016: Denman reporting (13 students in class)

Objective 1: Be able to apply widely recognized computer science/software engineering concepts to practical

problem, including decomposition, analysis and consideration of alternative methodologies.

1. Midterm Question: We discussed several models of software engineering including the

spiral model, the incremental development model, the waterfall model, agile methods,

and the prototyping model. Which model do you think our project most closely

followed? Contrast that to two other models and indicate which model you think

would have best suited our project. Justify your answer.

Results graded on Distinguished Proficient Basic Weak Unsatisfactory

Completeness

2 7 4 0 0

Correctness of response

4 7 2 0 0

Depth of analysis

2 7 4 0

0

Objective 2: Students should be able to exhibit characteristics of professional writing.

Based on 6 Professional Writing assignments throughout the semester as well as the final

project and documentation.


Organization/ Grammar/ Style (final)

2 8 3 0 0

Quantity/Quality/ Attribution of sources (midterm)

2 4 7 0 0

Professional Style/Tone (weekly writings)

4 6 3 0 0

109

Objective 3: Student should exhibit a level of work that is appropriately challenging for a

senior computing major

Final Individual Reflection:

Implementation of Capstone Project

a. What skills did you lack on beginning the project that would have made it easier for

you?

b. What skills did you have to learn to be able to contribute to the project?

c. What roles did you play in the implementation of the project?

d. What percentage of the implementation can be attributed to you? Describe your

actual work and contrast it to the contribution of the others on your team. Justify

your answer with concrete examples.


Implementation level of work

4 4 5 0 0

Roles undertaken in capstone project

4 4 5 0 0

110

Modern Languages and Literatures Department Assessment Plan (Chinese, French, German)


Overview Through assessment, we continue to identify strengths and improvements. We are pleased with the ongoing success of our nationally recognized students and faculty. We continue to make valuable updates to the curriculum to address sociocultural change while still making learning collaborative, transformative, and engaged. Our significant contribution to the University mission at multiple levels—General Education, Paideia, FYS/AES, Modern Languages and Literatures, cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary teaching and learning—is benefiting from these refinements and reaching an expanded national audience of colleagues in our respective fields. Improvements 2013-15: 1. Updated textbooks, rubrics, course units, film-and-culture units, lecture notes for students, assignments, worksheets, and daily lesson plans, including through national grants; 2. Increased writing, speaking, and cultural literacy proficiencies through expansion of Symposium and “Paideia Moments” participation; 3. Strategic cross-listings (ENV, FST, RES, PSC, IP, IS, SJ) and High-Impact courses taught in English with a Tutorial for majors/minors (German); 4. Closer tracking of graduating seniors and alumni regarding applying reading, writing, and cultural literacy skills in new contexts; 5. In the Chinese Program, a 2014-15 shift to increased practice in the target language, consistency across courses, incorporation of Blended Learning through audio and video tutorials developed in-house, expansion of inquiry-based learning at the intermediate and advanced levels, increased collaboration with international students as well as SU student-teachers of Chinese in local schools, and heightened focus on graduating students who demonstrate advanced proficiencies; 6. In the French Program, new 1st- to 3rd-year textbooks, course materials, culture units, exams, and daily lesson plans, as well as updates in 3-year cycles to match Assessment to new textbook editions, 2013-15 updates to address globalization and the environment, and expanded intermediate+ course offerings to address sociopolitical change and francophone history and add cross-lists (ENV, SJ); 7. In the German Program, a 2013-15 curriculum redesign involving inquiry-based and blended learning, proficiency building in the new mixed-ability “Speak German!” course, expanded High-Impact course listings such as “Transnational Identity Narratives” that develop literacy in interdisciplinary theoretical frameworks, expanded on-campus collaborations regarding cultural awareness within and beyond the major and minor (ARH, HIS, IS, PHI), assessment of proficiencies for SU football players making site visits in Germany and completing pre- and post-departure coursework, and expanded ACS collaboration for shared German Studies curricula through a $6,000 ACS Blended Learning Grant earned in 2015. Improvements 2015-16: Rather than change proficiency targets, each of our 3 programs will consider ways to articulate and measure other outcomes. Examples include articulating and measuring interdisciplinary or Paideia connections in our courses, as in the new item “4b.” below, and facilitating the understanding of student and the campus community about the central role of languages and cultures in the liberal arts. Actual changes will be incremental over time. The German Program will use ACTFL “Can Do” statements to enrich student self-assessment. MLL, like all SU programs/departments, may also update its outcomes in relation to 2016-17 Curricular Reform. MLL will provide as below multi-year data points, i.e., for the year under review and the previous two years.

• MLL will use its Response to the 7-Year Review as a means to clarify objectives for future assessment. • MLL has already labeled the language sequence on the new academic advising software as “Languages and Cultures I-II-III-IV,” rather than “Language I-II-III-IV.” • MLL anticipates implementing a series of gradual curricular and assessment shifts, based on its existing content- and culture-rich instruction.

111

• MLL has included in the 2015-16 Assessment Plan a new Student Learning Outcome: 4b. Students completing the University’s language requirement will demonstrate the ability to connect cultural literacy to their coursework in other programs/departments. • MLL will survey students, including perhaps by asking students annually to identify personal goals and, as appropriate, to formulate and/or comment on plans of study in their chosen language • MLL will expand efforts to involve students as stakeholders in a cohesive and united departmental identity. • MLL will ensure that curricula within each program are aligned and articulated, particularly in order to develop strong curricular progressions and minimize any gaps between the language sequence and upper level “content” courses. • MLL will continue to integrate as possible higher-level interpretive skills and transcultural competencies within all curricular levels. • The German Program responded in November 2015 to the Dean’s call for proposals for FTE lines, and will submit another future request as possible.

Mission The Chinese, French and German programs facilitate intentional, interdisciplinary study in language, literature and culture. We teach language in cultural contexts, so that students explore diverse perspectives, grow as critical thinkers and acquire the skills, knowledge and attitudes to build communities and promote change. We empower lifelong learners who can articulate and creatively apply a complex understanding of cultural differences.

1. Goal

Students completing the University’s language requirement will demonstrate an aggregate intermediate proficiency in reading, listening, writing and speaking.

Learning Outcome

1a. Students will demonstrate a level of proficiency at or near the Intermediate level, with varying targets for textual and oral performance.


Chinese: The Standards-Based Measurement of Proficiency (STAMP) Test will be issued to all students upon completion of their required language courses to measure reading, listening, writing and speaking proficiency. Oral Proficiency Interviews (OPI) will also take place. At least 90% of students will demonstrate oral and writing proficiency of Intermediate or above on the STAMP and oral proficiency of Intermediate or above on the OPI.

Less than half of students (38%) demonstrated appropriate proficiencies. (62% achieved previous, lower goal.) Chinese IV STAMP: 2016: 38% (5/13 students) achieved Intermediate or above. 2015 data: 92% (11/13 students) achieved Intermediate or above. 2014 data: 100% (5/5 students) achieved Novice Mid or above. (Using 2014 standard of Novice Mid: 2016, 62%; 2015, 100%; 2014, 100%). Chinese IV OPI: 2016: 54% (7/13 students) achieved Intermediate or above. 2015 data: 83% (11/13 students). 2014 data: 100%

Goal not met. Results indicate slump in threshold objective by Language Requirement (Chinese IV) students toward proficiency goals, even when removing heightened goals for 2014-15. Skill-specific data shows improvement in Reading scores. Drop in scores attributable to transition into curricular changes and stricter control of testing conditions (time limit). Overall the decline is minor but dipped below threshold. Data of incoming students predicts higher performance. Improvements over the past two years include re-structuring of Basic course curriculum (Chinese I-IV), using new methods and approaches

112

(5/5 students) achieved Novice Mid or above.

(character explanation videos, recording and dictation items online, lesson plans for drill sessions, etc.) as well as introducing content-based modules. Improvements also followed suggestions related to ACS Blended Learning workshops and national best practices. Plans for change for upcoming year will focus on implementation of improvements including a) quick response to needs and b) prompt and consistent feedback.

French: Oral Proficiency Interviews (OPI) will take place each spring for all students completing the language requirement through French IV. Four writing assignments will be evaluated according to ACTFL writing proficiency standards. At least 90% of students will demonstrate oral proficiency of Novice High or above and writing proficiency of Intermediate Low or above.

100% of students demonstrated appropriate proficiencies. 100% (47/47 students) achieved Novice High or above for oral proficiency. 2015 data: 100% (29/29 students). 2014 data: 100% (36/36 students). 100% (47/47 students) achieved Intermediate Low or above for writing proficiency. 2015 data: 100% (29/29 students). 2014 data: 100% (36/36 students).

Goal met. Results indicate that students completing the language requirement meet and exceed expected proficiency levels. High overall OPI results indicate program stability in this regard.

German: Oral Proficiency Interviews (OPI) will take place each spring for all students completing the language requirement through German IV. Two writing assignments will be evaluated according to ACTFL writing proficiency standards. At least 90% of students will demonstrate oral proficiency of Novice High or above and writing proficiency of Intermediate Low or above.

100% of students demonstrated appropriate proficiencies. 96% (24/25 students) achieved Novice High or above for oral proficiency. 2015 data: 100% (29/29 students). 2014 data: 100% (18/18 students). 96% (24/25 students) achieved Intermediate Low or above for writing proficiency. 2015 data: 93% (27/29 students) achieved Intermediate Low or above for writing proficiency; 7% (2/29 students) achieved Novice High. 2014 data: 100% (18/18 students) Intermediate Low or above for writing proficiency.

Goal met. Results indicate that students completing the language requirement meet and exceed expected proficiency levels. Results indicate positive improvements through intentional course design, assessment, and regular co-curricular opportunities that facilitate practice. Results encourage continued language-proficiency building to higher-than-typical levels in and after the language sequence through the mixed ability “Speak German!”

113

2. Goal Students completing the minor will demonstrate intermediate to advanced proficiency in reading, listening, writing and speaking. Learning Outcome

2a. Students will be able to understand and interpret written and spoken language on a variety of topics and present information, concepts and ideas to an audience of listeners or readers on a variety of topics, commensurate with predominantly intermediate proficiency profiles.


Chinese: At least 90% of students graduating with a Minor in Chinese should demonstrate writing proficiency of Intermediate Low or above (STAMP) and oral proficiency of Intermediate Low or above (OPI) upon completion of the Minor.

2016: 100% of students demonstrated appropriate proficiencies. STAMP: 100% (3/3). OPI:100% (3/3). 2015 data: 71% of students demonstrated appropriate proficiencies. STAMP: 71% (5/7 students) achieved Intermediate Low or above. OPI: 100% (7/7 students) achieved Intermediate Low or above. 2014 data: 83% of students demonstrated appropriate proficiencies. STAMP: 83% (5/6 students) achieved Intermediate Low or above. OPI: 100% (6/6 students) achieved Novice High or above

Goal met. Strong performance by majority of Minors. 2016 represents small sample, but may indicate results of emphasizing planning for language goals. General indication of successful minimal expectation for Minors, which will prompt alteration of assessment standards. OPI expectations raised in 2014-15, from Novice High to Intermediate Low. STAMP results indicate difficulty of maintaining student achievement in a Minor (the 2 below expectation were unable to attend intensive Study Abroad programs). The Chinese Program will foster engagement in upper level courses via individualized focus and content intensity. The Program continues to advocate for official recognition of achieving Advanced Mastery (more than a Minor, less than a Major). A planned department-wide student survey (see annex below) will monitor proficiencies, program quality and retention over time. Planned improvements include adding specific engagement-related assessments.

French: Throughout their Minor coursework at least 90% of students should demonstrate oral and writing proficiencies of Intermediate Mid and above Results will be compiled from

100% of students demonstrated appropriate proficiencies. OPI: 100% (2/2 students) achieved Intermediate High to Advanced Mid. 2015 data:

Goal met. Consistent 100% meet reflects normal progression (benchmark relates to contact hours for the number of semesters). Results indicate stable achievement of goals. A

114

OPI and Writing Samples. 100% (7/7 students). 2014 data: 100% (13/13 students). Writing Proficiency: 100% (2/2 students) achieved Intermediate High to Advanced High. 2015 data: 100% (7/7 students). 2014 data: 100% (13/13 students).

planned department-wide student survey (see annex below) will monitor proficiencies, program quality and retention over time.

German: Throughout their Minor coursework 90 % of students should demonstrate oral and writing proficiencies of Intermediate Mid and above. Results will be compiled from OPI and Writing Samples.

100% of students demonstrated appropriate proficiencies. OPI: 100% (11/11 students) achieved Intermediate High to Advanced High. 2015 data: 100% (12/12 students) achieved Intermediate High to Advanced High. 2014 data: 100% (8/8 students) achieved Intermediate High to Advanced High. Writing Proficiency: 100% (11/11 students) achieved Intermediate High to Advanced High. 2015 data: 83% (10/12 students) achieved Intermediate High to Advanced High. 17% (2/12 students) achieved Intermediate Low. 2014 data: 100% (8/8 students) achieved Intermediate High to Advanced High.

Goal met. Consistent 100% meet as indicated above. Results indicate stable achievement of goals. Results encourage continued emphasis on the new writing-oriented textbook, best practices adapted from writing workshops, the new mixed-level “Speak German!” course, and ACS grant follow-ups. A planned department-wide student survey (see annex below) will monitor proficiencies, program quality and retention over time.

3. Goal

Students completing the major will demonstrate advanced proficiency in reading, listening,

writing, and speaking.

Learning Outcome

3a. Students will demonstrate advanced research and writing in the target language.


French and German: 90% of Capstone projects will be evaluated as good or excellent based on a departmental rubric indicating their quality of research, writing and ability to present their project in the target language.

French: 100% of students demonstrated appropriate proficiencies. 6 students completed the Major in French in 2015-16. 100% (6/6 students) were evaluated as good or excellent on their Capstone Research and Oral Defense. 2015 data: 100% (4/4

Goal met. A planned department-wide student survey will monitor proficiencies, program quality and retention over time. In the French Program, a spring 2017 transition to a stacked-course model for the Capstone, to omit Independent Study as an option for completing the Capstone,

115

students). 2014 data: 100% (2/2 students).

German: 100% of students demonstrated appropriate proficiencies. 4 students completed the Major in German in 2015-16. 2 earned Honors in German. 100% (4/4 students) were evaluated as good or excellent on their Capstone Research and Oral Defense; one is currently working on an Incomplete. 2015 data: 100% (2/2 students). 2014 data: No students completed the Major in German in 2013-14.

may facilitate assessment of incremental outcomes (e.g., citation of sources in research, effective use of visuals in oral presentation).

3b. Students will demonstrate advanced critical and analytical argumentative skills, orally and in writing.


French and German: 80% of students completing the Capstone will demonstrate oral proficiency of Advanced Low or above, and writing proficiency of Advanced Mid or above.

100% of students demonstrated appropriate proficiencies. French: 100% (6/6 students). 2015 data: 100% (4/4 students). 2014 data: 100% (2/2 students). German: 100% (4/4 students, one of them still in progress) 2015 data: 100% (2/2 students). 2014 data: No students completed the Major in German in 2013-14.

Goal met. For French and German: same improvements as listed above.

4. Goal

Students at all levels will demonstrate cultural literacy commensurate with their proficiency

levels.

Learning Outcome

4a. Students completing the University’s language requirement will demonstrate knowledge and understanding of other cultures.


Chinese: 80% of students will meet or exceed Milestone 2 American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU) Intercultural Knowledge and Competence

100% (13/13) students) demonstrated knowledge, skills and attitudes commensurate with IKC Milestone 2 or above. 2015 data: 100% (13/13 students). 2014 data: 100% (5/5

Goal met. Results encourage continued emphasis on cultural learning in syllabi, classroom exercises, and co-curricular learning. Several cultural events facilitated cultural experience,

116

(IKC) Value Rubric through assessment within the course.

students). including scheduled “Chinese Paideia Moments” since Fall 2014. The Chinese Program now requires that each student formulate intentional plans for pursuing individualized objectives. Plans for improvement: will seek to integrate civic engagement component by Fall 2017.

French: 80% of students will meet or exceed Milestone 2 American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU) Intercultural Knowledge and Competence (IKC) Value Rubric through assessment within the course.

100% (47/47 students) demonstrated knowledge, skills and attitudes commensurate with IKC Milestone 2 or above. 2015 data: 100% (29/29 students). 2014 data: 100% (36/36 students).

Goal met. Results encourage continued emphasis on updated and expanded culture components, which may invite further assessment regarding cultural literacy, including knowledge and understanding related to globalization, sociopolitical and environmental issues, and “Paideia Moments.” Survey planned as above.

German: 80% of students will meet or exceed Milestone 2 American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU) Intercultural Knowledge and Competence (IKC) Value Rubric through assessment within the course.


Goal met. Results encourage continued emphasis on updated culture units, co-curricular activities, film series, “Paideia Moments,” projects to reflect on intercultural perspectives. Current ACS Grant Cultures

and Languages Across the

Curriculum continues to intensify interdisciplinary teaching and learning.

4b. Students completing the University’s language requirement will demonstrate the ability to connect cultural literacy to their coursework in other programs/departments.


(1) Chinese: 80% of students will successfully complete an oral presentation regarding academic cultural connections. (2) A majority of students in Chinese III-IV will participate in Campus Garden activities and articulate Novice-level narration of garden activities.

New SLO; data to be collected as of 2016-17.

New SLO; data to be collected as of 2016-17. (2016: In anticipation of objective, all Chinese II students made “connection” presentation in Chinese.)

French: 80% of students will successfully complete a “Paideia Moment Paper.”



German: 80% of students will successfully complete an



117

“Intercultural Reflection” assignment.

4c. Students completing the minor will demonstrate the ability to negotiate cultural differences.


4.c.1 (1) Chinese: 80% of students will meet or exceed Milestone 3 of the AACU IKC Value Rubric (Intercultural Knowledge and Competence) through assessment within the course and out-of-course OPI and required cultural activities assessment. 4.c.2 (2) All potential Minor students (in courses 300-and above) will demonstrate ability to present research on a topic of current international concern showing comparison and ability to show consideration of anticipated objections.


Goal met. Results encourage continued emphasis on consistently implementing the IKC rubric through readings, discussions and guest speakers. Other improvements include regular, intentional cultural comparisons, plus more selective and carefully paced teaching and learning to expand student interest. Paideia is providing space for interdisciplinary discussions on Global Health and Presence of the Past.

French: 80% of students will meet or exceed Milestone 3 of the AACU IKC Value Rubric (Intercultural Knowledge and Competence) via assessment throughout Minor coursework.


Goal met. Results build on enriched cultural literacy outcomes since 2014. Survey planned as above.

German: 80% of students will meet or exceed Milestone 3 of the AACU IKC Value Rubric (Intercultural Knowledge and Competence) via assessment throughout Minor coursework.


Goal met. Results encourage continued emphasis on recently established tracking and reporting mechanisms for the AACU IKC Value Rubric. Fall 2015 “Feminist Studies in German” supported interdisciplinary learning. Increased emphasis on “Paideia Moments” is likewise enhancing cultural literacy outcomes. Survey planned as above.

4d. Students completing the major, which is offered in French and German, will articulate a complex understanding of cultural differences.

118


French: 90% of students will meet or exceed Capstone 4 of AACU IKC Value Rubric through Capstone assessment.

100% (6/6 students) demonstrated appropriate proficiencies. 2015 data: 100% (4/4 students). 2014 data: 100% (2/2 students).

Goal met. Survey planned as above.

German: 90% of students will meet or exceed Capstone 4 of AACU IKC Value Rubric through Capstone assessment.

100% (4/4 students) demonstrated appropriate proficiencies. 2015 data: 100% (2/2 students). 2014 data: No students completed the Capstone in German in 2013-14.

Goal met. Majors enrolled in a paired Intermediate/Advanced course were able to express a complex understanding of cultural differences in assignments. Building on the success of the multi-level and multi-language courses, we offered a new version of “Feminist Studies in German” taught in English with a German tutorial in fall 2015. Survey planned as above.

119

ANNEX: DRAFT Student Survey for Chinese, French, and German

Please respond regarding languages you have studied (Chinese, French, German, other).

Background Information:

What is/are your major(s) at SU? 2. What is/are your minor(s) at SU? 3. How many language courses have you taken at SU, including courses taken abroad and during this semester? 4. How many years of high school language did you have? 5. Which other language(s) do you know? Indicate language and estimated level of ability: near native, advanced, intermediate, low. 6. Did you live and/or study abroad? For how long? Please tell us about your experience in Modern Languages and Literatures at SU:

1. In terms of what was expected of me, have you experienced a smooth transition from one course to the next? 2. Have the topics of your courses been interesting? 3. Have the topics of your courses been presented through a good variety of media? 4. Have your instructors been readily available for consultation?

Please assess your learning outcome:

1. The program’s approach to teaching links language and content: I feel that this approach has enhanced ... my ability to speak, my ability to read, my ability to write, my aural comprehension. 2. The program has a strong focus on writing: I feel that this focus has enhanced ... my ability to speak, my ability to read, my ability to write, my aural comprehension. 3. Courses in the SU language programs have enabled me to make connections to my other studies. 4. My courses in the SU language programs gave me a broad sense of culture in its different forms through different times and regions. 5. My courses in the SU language programs encouraged me to engage in important questions about human life, culture, and experience. 6. My courses in the SU language programs challenged me to grow intellectually, toward more precise thought and expression, more precise and penetrating interpretation of language, texts and other forms of culture, and a more sophisticated understanding of cultural contexts. 7. My experience in studying language(s) at SU helped me grow in self-confidence and maturity, and helped me feel like a citizen of the world.

120

Open questions:

1. How have your studies in the SU language programs differed from other language learning experiences that you have had? 2. Please describe your most memorable experience inside or outside of class that is related to the study of language and/or culture at SU. 3. What led to your minor / major in a language at SU? 4. What are your post-graduation plans?

121

Modern Languages and Literatures Department Assessment Plan (Spanish)


Mission

The purpose of the Spanish Program, in accordance with the Core Values of Southwestern University, is to foster an environment that enables students to develop cultural and linguistic competencies in Spanish and interact effectively and responsibly in a world with increasing recognition of the regional, national and international Spanish-speaking communities.

Articulate any major changes in the curriculum

We added a new course (Spa 15-324: Textual and Visual Analysis). We set new rates for speaking proficiency ranging from “Intermediate low” to “intermediate-high”. We set more realistic rates for majors’ writing skills (lower them from “superior” to “advanced high”).

7 year review comments:

Dr. Kietrys, the external evaluator, highlighted the presence of our department on campus, most notably our commitment to civic engagement and study abroad and our contributions to interdisciplinary programs, such as Paideia, Latin American and Border Studies, Feminist Studies, International Studies and Race and Ethnicity Studies. Dr. Kietrys also highlighted that our program meets national standards for liberal arts institutions, and that the structure of our major and minor work to benefit our students. Dr. Kietrys also noted that the Spanish program has a strong team that is committed to educating individuals capable of critical inquiry in the interrelated disciplines of language and culture, who possess informed views about multiple cultural perspectives, and the critical and language skills to build communities and act as agents of change.

1. Goal

Students will achieve level-based oral communication proficiencies at the end of their language study. Learning Outcome

1a. Students will demonstrate ability in speaking and listening according to proficiency levels set by the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL).

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement Using the STAMP exam (STANDARDS-BASED MEASUREMENT OF PROFICIENCY exam that uses levels of proficiency defined by ACTFL), the following set of students will achieve these speaking proficiencies: After completion of the 4th semester course sequence in language study, 80% of students will attain an intermediate low rating (STAMP level 4 or higher)

2015-2016: 69/82: 84.1% Of 82 students, 69 received a score of 4 or higher in the STAMP.

Goal met. We continue to work with student proficiency to try to improve their scores.

122

Using the STAMP exam, the following set of students will achieve these proficiencies: 80% of Spanish minors will achieve an intermediate mid rating. (STAMP level 5)

Number of minors graduating in May 2016: 12 Results: 9/12: 75% received 5 or above on the STAMP test. Number of minors graduating in May 2015: 9 Results: 83% received 5 or above on the STAMP test. Number of minors graduating in May 2014: 21/21 Results: 100% received 4 or above on the STAMP test.

Goal met. Based on previous year’s results, we raised the minor proficiency level to intermediate mid.

Using the STAMP exam, the following set of students will achieve these proficiencies: 80% of Spanish majors will achieve an intermediate high rating. (STAMP level 6)

Majors for 2015-2016: 7/9: 77% of majors achieved an intermediate high rating. Number of majors for 2014-2015: 9. Results: 77% of students met goal. Average score for majors was a 64%. Number of majors for 2013-2014: 15. Results: 10/15 received a 5 or higher on the speaking section of the STAMP. 67% met the goal.

Goal met. Even majors that are fluent in Spanish sometimes get lower scores than they should in the STAMP. Majors tend to take the exam in a hurry. In 2016-2017, we will try to use a dedicated class period instead of asking students to stop by the lab outside class to see if their scores improve.

2. Goal

Students will develop critical and analytical writing skills Learning Outcome

2a. Spanish majors will write a critical research paper at the ACTFL Advanced High level, demonstrating the ability to explain complex matters, and to present and support opinions by developing cogent arguments and hypotheses, analyzing an issue pertaining to Spanish studies.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement Based on departmental rubric to evaluate final paper, 80% of majors will meet an “Advanced High" level of critical and analytical writing skills.

2015-2016: 8/9: 89% Of 9 students, 8 received a rating of Advanced High.

Goal met. We lower our rating from “superior” to “advanced High”. Mainly native speakers with a lot of training in writing can achieve a superior level. Students that meet an advanced high level are able to coherently make an academic argument with proper use of Spanish grammar.

123

2b. Spanish minors will write a critical research paper at the ACTFL Advanced Low level, demonstrating the ability to explain complex matters, and to present and support opinions by developing cogent arguments and hypotheses, analyzing an issue pertaining to Spanish studies.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement Based on rubric for essays in “Introduction to Literary Studies,” 80 % of students will demonstrate adequate knowledge of literary terms and ability to support and develop cogent arguments at the Advanced Low level.

2015-2016: 13/14: 92.86% demonstrated adequate knowledge of literary terms and ability to support and develop cogent arguments at the Advanced Low level.

Goal met. We will continue improving activities to explore important elements of literary analysis.

2c. Spanish 4 Students will be able to write an essay at the ACTFL Intermediate High level, demonstrating the ability to narrate and describe in major time frames with some control of aspect and agreement.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement Based on departmental rubric to grade compositions, 80 % of students in Spa 4 will demonstrate the ability to narrate and describe in all major time frames with a good control of grammar and agreement.

2015-2016: 58/67: 86.6% of students demonstrated the ability to narrate and describe in all major time frames with a good control of grammar and agreement.

Goal met. The majority of students demonstrated the ability to navigate the different verb conjugations and agreement necessary to complete a task at the Intermediate High level.

3. Goal

Students will attain a high level of cultural awareness Learning Outcome

3a. Majors/minors will demonstrate knowledge of contemporary Spanish and Latin American literature.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement Based on essay rubric for Spa 504 (Contemporary Spanish or Latin American Literature), 80 % of students will achieve “proficient” when comparing and analyzing short stories from two different authors.

2015-2016: 16/18: 88.9% Of 18 students, 16 achieved “proficient” when comparing and analyzing short stories

from two different authors.

Goal met. We will continue incorporating assignments related to narratology.

3b. ALL SPANISH STUDENTS will increase their knowledge of contemporary Spanish and/or Latin American culture as it is expressed in visual media, such as film and TV.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement Using comprehension- based quizzes about the Spanish TV

2015-2016: 33/35: 94.29%

Of 35 students, 33 Goal met. We find that these video programs expose

124

series Cuéntame cómo pasó, 80 % of students in Spanish 3 will demonstrate their knowledge of Spanish culture at an intermediate- mid level (ACFTL rating).

demonstrated knowledge of Spanish culture at an intermediate-mid level. Results based on two sections of Spanish 3

students to dialectical differences and important historical events that shaped the Hispanic world. They also enhance cultural awareness. We will continue incorporating new authentic cultural materials.

Based on course rubric, 80 % of students in Conversation Through Hispanic Cinema will “meet expectations” when demonstrating knowledge of Spanish and Latin American culture as it is depicted in feature films.

2015-2016: 17/17: 100%

Of 17 students, 17 met expectations when demonstrating knowledge of Spanish and Latin American culture as it is depicted in feature films.

Goal met. This course is working very well. We will continue making sure that we incorporate more activities that develop students’ analytical skills

3c. Majors and minors will increase their first-hand knowledge of contemporary Spanish and Latin American culture through study abroad in Spanish-speaking countries.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement Through the question “I finished my program with a broader perspective on my major. I enjoyed viewing my area of interest through the lens of the local culture” in the study abroad survey done after students return, students will respond “Agree” or “Strongly Agree”.

2015-2016: 16/16:100% Out of the 16 surveys received, all 16 responded with Agree or Strongly Agree.

Goal met. We will continue encouraging students to study abroad.

125

Music Department Assessment Plan


Introductory Remarks The music department continues to feel that our jury system is an excellent mechanism for assessment and helps us to be able to clearly see what is happening in studios across our department. The music department made significant revisions to the jury forms and rubrics in 2015-16, and

implemented their use in spring semester. We included a greater number of assessment questions with

specific focal points. It was the goal of the department to meet the Director of Institutional Research

prior to the submission of this document, but unforeseen circumstances prevented that from happening.

The department recognizes that the document in its current form is somewhat unwieldy and needs some

revision and re-organization as we implement new mechanisms (2nd

year of the new jury forms and first

year of the Critical Listening Requirement). We also understand the need to offer more assessment

points for non-majors. Further, it has not escaped our notice that some of results have changed little

from one year to the next, raising questions about their usefulness to departmental growth. We will

collaboratively work on the plan this year, and welcome comments and input from the committee.

Mission

The Music Department strives to serve the field of music and, ultimately, the global community by offering Southwestern students a rigorous and well-rounded music program of the highest quality within the context of a liberal arts education. Goal

To provide Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Music programs in all concentrations with a balanced

music curriculum, including private studio lessons, that lead to success and growth in the area of

performance on their principal instruments. Learning Outcomes 1a. Students in the Bachelor of Arts in Music and Bachelor of Music programs in all concentrations

will demonstrate performance ability and growth on their principal instruments at levels consistent with

the goals and objectives of their degree plans.


A panel of faculty will assess

student performance in accordance

with the Jury Performance Rubric

(attached). * It should be noted that the discrete

points of evaluation do not correlate

to the jury grades but rather are

intended to serve as formative tools

for students, faculty and department

alike.

The department will discuss

these results as part of our

fall 2016 meetings, and make

a plan for setting

appropriate assessment

targets.

a. Steadiness Meter/Pulse 3.57 average from 94 responses

b. Rhythmic Accuracy 3.29 average from 98 responses

c. Note (pitch) Accuracy 3.41 average from 80 responses

d. Intonation 3.75 average from 19 responses

e. Clarity 3.8 average from 45 responses

f. Diction 3.4 average from 28 responses

126

g. Fluency 3.5 average from 99 responses

h. Volume/Projection 3.57 average from 94 responses

i. Tone 3.29 average from 98 responses

j. Phrasing 3.04 average from 100 responses

k. Dynamics 3.23 average from 101 responses

l. Articulation 3.41 average from 101 responses

m. Tempi 3.35 average from 108 responses

n. Style 3.08 average from 102 responses

o. Memorization 3.6 average from 59 responses

p. Ensemble 3.9 average from 9 responses

q. Stage Presence 3.71 average from 51 responses

Goal To provide non-majors and majors on secondary instruments studio lessons that lead to success and

growth in the area of performance.

Learning Outcome 2a. Non-majors and majors on secondary instruments will demonstrate performance ability and growth at

levels consistent with the goals and objectives of their degree plans.


A panel of faculty will assess

student performance in accordance

with the Jury Performance Rubric

(attached). * It should be noted that the discreet

points of evaluation do not correlate

to the jury grades but rather are

intended to serve as formative tools

for students, faculty and department

alike.

The department will discuss

these results as part of our

fall 2016 meetings, and

make a plan for setting

appropriate assessment

targets.

*Data was not collected for

all of the non-major juries

due to unforeseen

circumstances. More

complete information will be

collected in the future.

a. Steadiness Meter/Pulse 3.89 average from 54 responses

b. Rhythmic Accuracy 3.74 average from 64 responses

c. Note (pitch) Accuracy 3.36 average from 65 responses

d. Intonation 3.17 average from 63 responses

e. Clarity 3.32 average from 62 responses

f. Diction 3.25 average from 8 responses

g. Fluency 3.33 average from 58 responses

h. Volume/Projection 3.49 average from 64 responses

i. Tone 3.35 average from 70 responses

j. Phrasing 3.53 average from 61 responses

k. Dynamics 3.4 average from 57 responses

l. Articulation 3.41 average from 101 responses

m. Tempi 3.69 average from 51 responses

n. Style 3.51 average from 62 responses

o. Memorization 3.67 average from 6 responses

p. Ensemble 3.33 average from 24 responses

q. Stage Presence 3.37 average from 41 responses

127

Goal To provide a Bachelor of Arts program with a balanced music curriculum for students with strong interests in music who also wish to pursue a broad liberal arts education.

Learning Outcome 3a. Students in the Bachelor of Arts in Music degree program at Southwestern will demonstrate a performance ability at levels consistent with the goals and objectives of their individual degree plans and projected capstones.


All Bachelor of Arts in Music majors must be rated as ‘showing good progress’ or above, according to the assessment form, on juries held every semester, and pass a Sophomore Barrier Examination in performance.

Among our BA in Music students, in

the 2015-16 academic year,

regarding their performance level

commensurate to their standing in

the Applied Music sequence:

Last year’s results for “showed

little progress” were considered

an anomaly. Will continue to

monitor.

We employ assessment questions on our jury grade form to track progress in this degree plan. (Jury Assessment Form included as an attachment)

0% showed no progress 4.7% (1 of

21) showed little progress 71.4% (15 of 21) showed good

progress 23.8% (5 of 21) showed great

progress

3b. Students in the Bachelor of Arts in Music degree program at Southwestern will demonstrate an understanding of a variety of musical styles, structures and languages, and the cultural contexts in which they developed.


a. Performance capacity in varying styles is promoted throughout a student’s Applied Music study, working through a variety of repertoire semester-to- semester, and assessed during end-of-semester Juries. Ultimately, this leads a student to a comprehensive Sophomore Barrier

a. Students’ progress in performing music in different styles is closely and accurately tracked with our Jury/Recital/Capstone Grading Form. 100% of all B.A. students taking their Sophomore Barrier exam this year satisfactorily met our expectations regarding style representation.

Standards met, and will continue to

monitor, but we are also implementing

a new mechanism in the form of a

Core Listening Requirement described

below. We will set targets (for our majors as

whole) after the we have administered

the first exam.

128

b. Courses in Music Theory and Music Literature consider issues of musical style, formal structure, musical language, aesthetics, and the cultural context from which they all stem. Assessment of the students’ understanding of these musical elements comes in the form of analysis and composition assignments and graduated writing assignments.

b. The large majority of our students in Music Theory and Music Literature courses perform at a satisfactory level or above. Those that do not meet that standard, as established by written work and examinations, are asked to repeat those courses or not continue the major (determined at the very latest at the Sophomore Barrier).

All musicians should consume

many types of music voraciously:

classical, jazz, popular musics,

world musics. At Southwestern

University, western classical

music is the core of the Music

curriculum. In your ensembles,

your studio lessons, and your

Music Literature and Music

Theory classes you will

experience close-up the beauties

and thrills of timeless

compositions by great composers

ranging from Guillaume de

Machaut through J. S. Bach,

Mozart, Beethoven,

Mendelssohn, Chopin,

Schumann, Brahms, and

Tchaikovsky through Aaron

Copland, Arvo Pärt, Philip

Glass, Steve Reich, and others.

In order to help develop your

proficiency in the art of listening

to, identifying, and

These two- hour exams will be

administered after mid- semester

each semester; all Music majors

are required to pass at least six

of them. As explained, the

repertoire for this series of

exams changes every semester.

For each selection given on the

exam, students are expected to

identify: Style period and date Genre Composer

Main title and movement or

movement title, as appropriate The examinations will consist of

short audio clips, 30 to 60 seconds

in length. Because musicianship

relies heavily on score reading

and score study, we recommend

that you study these selections

with score.

129

3c. Students in the Bachelor of Arts in Music degree program at Southwestern will demonstrate knowledge and/or skills in one or more areas of music beyond basic musicianship appropriate to the individual’s needs and interests.


All Bachelor of Arts students will present and achieve a rating of good or above on a Capstone experience. This may be a public performance, performance of compositions, a paper presentation, lecture/recital, or any other format approved in advance by the music faculty. Depending on the project, an appropriate hearing is held by the department to ensure the student is well-prepared to present the Capstone.

Based on our Capstone hearing process, 100% of tested students passed their Capstone Hearings in 2015-16. There were no probationary situations.

Standard met, the department will

discuss the possibility of

implementing the use of rubrics

for hearings, and give more

thought to the most appropriate

way to assess non- traditional

Capstone projects.

The Hearing process is as follows: 2-3 weeks prior to a student’s capstone presentation, a hearing is convened to hear selections of the recital program (chosen by the faculty) to determine the level of student preparation. The student is either: passed (allowed to perform) probationally passed (given specific areas to improve before the performance) failed (asked to reschedule the capstone performance)

Goal

To provide a Bachelor of Music program that develops performance skills through rigorous preparation of high-quality solo, chamber and large ensemble literature. Learning Outcome

4a. Students enrolled in Bachelor of Music degree programs at Southwestern will demonstrate technical skills requisite for artistic self-expression in at least one major performance area at a level appropriate for the particular music concentration.

130


All B.M. students perform jury exams at the end of each semester. These juries are evaluated by the full music faculty. 90 % of these students will either meet or exceed expectations in response to the assessment question, “This student has made technical and musical progress since their last jury at a pace that is __________,”

0% were ‘below expectations’

62.5% (5 of 8) were ‘meeting

expectations’ 37.5% (3 of 8) were ‘exceeding

expectations’

Target met, will continue to

monitor

4b. Students enrolled in Bachelor of Music degree programs at Southwestern will demonstrate knowledge and skills sufficient to work as a leader and in collaboration on matters of musical interpretation, as well as rehearsal and conducting skills appropriate to the particular music concentration.


In the introductory entry-level conducting course, 100% of Bachelor of Music students will be rated as satisfactory or above. This is determined through weekly assignments and a performance final exam.

100% of Bachelor of Music students have met the standard in both chamber and large ensemble conducting contexts in 2015-16.


4c. Students enrolled in Bachelor of Music degree programs will demonstrate keyboard proficiency.


100% of Bachelor of Music students will perform and pass a basic keyboard proficiency examination, which includes performance of repertoire and basic technical elements (scales and arpeggios), and demonstration of sight-reading and improvisation skills.

100% of all Bachelor of Music students have met, or made progress towards this requirement in 2015-16.


4d. Students enrolled in Bachelor of Music degree programs at Southwestern will demonstrate artistry, technical skills, collaborative competence and knowledge of repertory through regular ensemble experiences, in ensembles varied both in size and nature

131


100% of Bachelor of Music students must be rated as satisfactory or higher in seven- to-eight semesters of a large ensemble course. Instrumental performance majors must be rated as satisfactory or higher in at least two semesters of Chamber Music as a credited course.

100% of all Bachelor of Music have met the standard ensemble requirement in 2015-16.


Goal To provide a Bachelor of Music program that prepares music education students to teach in elementary and secondary schools.

Learning Outcome 5a. Students who graduate from the Bachelor of Music in Music Education degree program at Southwestern will have demonstrated the ability to teach music at various levels to different age groups and in a variety of classroom and ensemble settings in ways that develop knowledge of how music works syntactically as a communication medium and developmentally as an agent of civilization.


Music Education majors desiring state certification must take and pass the TExES exam no. 177— Music Education EC-12. The examination includes many questions on specific music teaching techniques, both vocal and instrumental, at all grade levels.

Since spring 2008, all Southwestern Music Education students (100%) passed this exam on their first attempt.

While this standard has been met, it should be noted that achieving a passing grade on an exam, of course, is not the same as making a perfect score. Southwestern Music Education students taking the exam in recent years have reported having some difficulty with questions dealing with popular and vernacular musical idioms. More experience with non-classical music, particularly American jazz, rock and pop, is therefore indicated. The department plans to implement curriculum to serve this need as soon as financially possible.

5b. Students who graduate from the Bachelor of Music in Music Education degree program at Southwestern will demonstrate competency as conductors, and the ability to create accurate and musically expressive performances with various types of performing groups and in general classroom situations.

132


100% of students in the Music Education majors should be rated as satisfactory or above in advanced conducting. This requirement includes conducting at least one composition for chorus or instrumental ensemble in a public concert. The public performances are attended and evaluated by the conducting instructor and other music faculty.

100% of all Music Education

students have met this standard in

2014-15.

While Southwestern students are proving themselves very competent in the styles of music covered in the Music Department’s curriculum, the department will continue to monitor the genres of music that new music teachers are required to cover in order to make sure they are prepared for those possibilities after graduation from Southwestern. Assessment mechanisms are being considered.

Goal

To develop strong, discipline-centric writing skills in all Music majors. Learning Outcome

6a. Students graduating with B.Mus. degrees (all concentrations) and B.A. in Music degree will have demonstrated the ability to write descriptively, analytically, and critically about musical language and the cultural contexts in which it is expressed.


All Music majors must take 3-4 semesters of Music Literature where they receive a significant and graduated training in writing about music (see Music Writing Rubric). Assignments in these courses are evaluated using the department writing rubric as a guide.

The Department plans to

restructure the Music Literature

course sequence in the next year

and will find ways of

assessing/tracking resulting student

learning outcomes.

Because of a perceived

change (increase) in 2014-15

incoming student awareness

of classic literature, the

department postponed plans

to restructure the Music

Literature course sequence.

The 2015-16 class was

however deemed to have

deficiencies similar to

previous classes

assessing/tracking resulting

student learning outcomes.

Goal

To help improve the musical knowledge and performance abilities of non-Music. Learning Outcome

7a. Non-Music majors in music FAP courses will show evidence of increased ability in the areas of vocal and/or instrumental performance.

133


a. Non-music majors will effectively compete for key positions and parts within ensembles at Southwestern

Non-music majors continued to hold key positions and parts in ensemble and perform well in juries in 2015-

16.

Standard met. Continue to monitor.

b. University and perform well in end-of-semester juries, according to the listed expectations on the Jury Grade Form. All non-music majors enrolled in their third or later semester of Applied Music must perform a jury at the end of each semester. The grade for this

jury counts as 1/3rd of their final grade for the semester.

134

Philosophy Department Assessment Plan


The philosophy department continues to have serious concerns regarding the effectiveness, indeed, the meaningfulness, of outcomes assessment in this form. Our approach, therefore, to this exercise is to attempt to render in grid/quantitative form aspects of the self-assessment in which we are constantly engaged as a department. Our continued practice of a series of discussions concerning pedagogy, essay assignment design, and grading as part of an effort to learn from one another and to ensure a good degree of continuity of expectations across our courses was made difficult still, this last year, due to turmoil in staffing, and a sabbatical leave from one member of our now reduced department. We did continue our conversations in the fall, and even in the spring, with respect to future developments in our program and refinements in our approaches to both classes and the structure of our major, our gen ed offerings and our participation in broader curricular initiatives. Building on the guidelines for writing essays in philosophy developed by Dr. Rivera, we worked on the modeling and grading of writing assignments. Faculty in the department have continued to experiment with models of ‘accumulating’ writing assignments: building from regular discussion questions to response papers to the writing and rewriting of essays and breaking out elements of more complex essay writing into separate tasks, such as exegesis and argument analysis. Our efforts to revise our curriculum—intended to encourage more students to try philosophy courses, to thematize more fully within our curriculum the relevance of the history of philosophy (as well as its critique) to contemporary problems and concerns, and to give students somewhat greater capacity to shape their path through our courses according to their principal interests—continued, and we completed the transition from our old chronological historical sequence to the new thematized critical histories for majors. Both history sequence courses this past year were thematic, and were very successful in terms of enrollment (with a number of students outside the major), feedback on the classes, and productivity in the classes. Grades were solid to very good, and the general sense was that the history of philosophy seemed more vital and relevant to all the students. We continue to develop and refine offerings at the intro level and are seeing our enrollments healthy once again. How to map most of the qualitative and individualized character of our assessment of our program and our students into grid form continues to elude us and the making of the grid has not been a rewarding exercise but simply an effort to render some portion of what we actually do to the form required. Following the prior year’s suggested revisions, we continue to eschew qualitative reflections from the grid itself and added, where possible, specific quantities. But what quantitative “improvement” under such defined conditions would mean in most cases, especially when and where the department is already functioning well (as we find that it is), remains unclear to us. And it is worth noting that the suggestion to remove qualitative reflections is in direct contradiction to advice we received earlier from John McCann to avoid couching our assessment in quantitative terms and use qualitative terms instead. One change we continue to follow in the mechanism below is to highlight and distinguish the expectations for our lower-level courses (without pre-reqs), upper-level courses required for majors, and capstone. This reflects the recent redesign of our curriculum, such that students enter philosophy almost entirely by way of one of a series of courses that focus on a critical engagement with specific aspects of contemporary life (from political institutions to constructions of gender and race to media practices), ensuring that each students critically reflects, through engagement with the assigned texts, on such ideas, commitments and practices. Unfortunately, enrollment patterns have not supported our effort to add a number of “second-tier” courses in political philosophy, feminist philosophy, theories of race, and

145

aesthetics so that students can further their engagements with specific areas related to their interests and practices in such a way as to aid in evaluating increasing sophistication on such issues of students who pass through two courses in a specific area. These second tier courses have been dropped from the catalog. This raises another issue with this kind of assessment for our kind of program. Our program is not, and cannot really afford to be hierarchically structured. There is no one or even set of gateway courses where students “master” a select set of materials, ideas, or methods as applied to a consistent set of data. Indeed, although the one constant in all of our courses is indeed method, that method is almost always applied to new fields of inquiry and data sets in each different class. As such, it takes students many classes before they are even ready or equipped to reflect on something like “method” and glean a disciplinary lens on practice in our discipline. Such a gestalt and process-focused curriculum simply does not lend itself to the kinds of quantitative, or even qualitative assessments asked for at the individual course level. Therefore, our work continues to be on assessing the progress and competency of students at the end of their education relative to the beginning, and those assessments, while both possible and valuable for us, do not lend themselves to this current process. The strength of students’ independent research work in our capstone speaks, we believe, to the strengths of the department. The range and complexity of students’ projects demonstrates the extent to which our program enables students to make philosophical methods and concepts speak to their own concerns and interests. We articulated a more detailed rubric for the capstone a few years back, and modified our practice to more directly teach to the newly articulated standards. Capstone students have continued to perform better than in the prior years and student responses to the process of substantial revisions, based on feedback from the professor and their peers has been extremely positive. We continue to integrate capstones in interdisciplinary programs without regular philosophy students, and the cross-fertilization of research within and across disciplines in the workshop/conference atmosphere of the capstone has benefitted all of our students. We continue to refine that practice in each instance to meet the needs of the individual students, but assessment for capstone is unusually specific to the particular students enrolled each time. This class, more than any other, resists the development of some kind of universal approach or pedagogy. We are happy with the current structure and believe that facilitates the practice given the improvement in the quality of projects over the past few years. Work with students in capstone is simply highly individualized, and unavoidably so. Several capstone students did indeed participate in the Student Works event in the Spring, and we will continue to encourage and incentivize such participation, always a bit tricky in a semester where students are no longer enrolled in the capstone course. We continue to strategize regarding the perpetual problem of a number of students preferring not to—or being afraid to—participate actively in class discussions (including students whose written work is excellent). Experiments undertaken, including discussion questions submitted before class, written responses in class prior to discussion, small-group work, and student discussion leaders, seem to be bearing fruit. The quantitative measure below is not based on the number of students who simply participate but on the participation grades given in our classes, which reflect the character and quality of participation (grounded in the text(s), relevant to the discussion at hand, respectful of other students, etc.).

Mission

The program in the study of philosophy seeks to prepare students to engage thoughtfully and critically with the grounding ideas and assumptions of human practices. Such thinking includes reflection on the relationship between different forms of knowledge (scientific, ethical, political, historical, cultural and

146

aesthetic) and social worlds, on the relationship between forms of knowledge and the unconscious, affective, and socially produced aspects of agency, and on intertwining social, historical and geographical forms of power and human community. The curriculum aims to cultivate philosophy as a self-reflective practice and emphasizes the history of western philosophy. Students explore contemporary thinking from a foundation of critical inquiry into its past and into the genealogies of questions that have shaped the conversation to this point.

Goal

1. Foster student ability to engage thoughtfully and critically—in both verbal and written form—with the grounding ideas, structures and motivations of human practices and forms of knowledge and with theoretical texts at appropriate levels for both majors and minors.

Learning Outcomes

1a. Students will demonstrate an ability to engage in critical reflection on their own assumptions and practices, as well as those of specific disciplinary forms of knowledge and human practices.


75% of students in courses without prerequisites will complete analytic assignments that engage in critical reflection on their own assumptions and practices and that are either good or excellent, for introductory students, through evaluation of final assignments in these courses.

Out of 187 students in such courses, 157 (84%) were rated good or excellent, based on final assignments.

Last year, our result was 78%. Goal met.

At least 80% of capstone students will write theses that relate some problem or question in philosophy to their own assumptions and practices that are good or excellent according to the rubric stipulated in the capstone syllabus.

100% of students in the capstone (6) demonstrated good or excellent ability to relate a problem or question of philosophy to their own assumptions and practices.

This is more or less equivalent with recent results. Students continue to report uniformly that they benefit greatly from the capstone experience. Results in small, individual classes such as capstone are dependent to a high degree on student motivation and ability. Goal met.

1b. Students will demonstrate skill at critical writing about philosophical texts and ideas, articulating and defending specific arguments by way of detailed engagements with texts, as well as placing concepts and arguments from several texts in dialogue with one another.


By the final writing assignment, 75% of students in courses without prerequisites will complete papers that are either very good or excellent

157 out of 187 (84%) students met the target of completing writing assignments that are either good or excellent as judged through evaluation of

Last year=81% Goal met.

147

according to the department’s writing rubric.

final assignments in these courses.

At least 80% of capstone students will write theses that are good or excellent, drawing on several primary texts, as well as secondary literature on them, according to the rubric stipulated in the capstone syllabus.

All but one (5 out of 6) of the capstone students (83%) met this standard this year.

This is equivalent with recent results.

Goal met.

1c. Students will demonstrate skill at critically discussing philosophical texts and ideas.


The majority (greater than 50%) of students in first-level courses will participate in class discussion and demonstrate ability to critically discuss and exhibit understanding of complex philosophical ideas and texts through evaluation of class participation. This is currently judged as receiving a “B” or higher for class participation in each course.

152 students (roughly 81%) of the students in first-level courses have met the target of participating in class discussion and demonstrating ability to critically discuss and exhibit understanding of complex philosophical ideas and texts offering analyses that are either good or excellent as judged by evaluation of class participation over the course of the semester.

This shows significant improvement over last year (66%), though it is very likely that grade inflation in two intro classes in the fall taught by Lysane Fauvel have inflated these results. We have worked last year to establish more explicit, shared standards for what constitutes a certain grade for productive participation.

Goal met.

At least 80% of students in critical history courses seminars will demonstrate good or excellent ability to discuss philosophical texts and ideas through evaluation of one or two (depending on size of the class) prepared presentations on course readings. This is currently judged as receiving a “B” or higher for class participation in each course.

Almost all students (16 of 21) in the critical history courses offered demonstrated good or excellent ability to discuss philosophical texts and ideas as judged through evaluation of their presentations. This is a result of 76%.

This is more or less equivalent with recent results (a drop of 4%). Our critical history courses are changing, and attracting non-majors, and so we are working on strategies for encouraging participation from more novice students in classes with more advanced students. Goal met.

At least 80% of capstone students will participate regularly in workshop practice at a good or excellent level and be evaluated as well on their public presentations of their theses at the end of the semester.

Only 4 out of 6 students (67%) in the capstone demonstrated good or excellent ability to discuss philosophical texts and ideas as judged through workshop participation over the course of the semester and their final presentations.

This year’s capstone was enrolled with a few unusual students (including a student repeating the course). Last year all students met the standard. We believe this year to be an anomaly, but will keep a close eye on this metric.

Goal not met.

148

Goal

2. Foster majors and minors’ grounding in the history of western philosophy and in critical approaches to understanding that history. Learning Outcomes

2a. Majors will demonstrate a strong grounding in the history of western philosophy, as well as alternative and/or critical traditions in relation to that history.


At least 80% of students in our core-sequence historical courses will demonstrate good or excellent knowledge of the respective period in the history of western philosophy through evaluation of final papers in these courses. This is evaluated in line with the rubrics for “analysis” and “disciplinary competence” in the department’s writing rubric.

100% of students (21) in our core-sequence historical courses have demonstrated good or excellent knowledge of the respective period in the history of western philosophy as judged by evaluation of the final papers in these courses.

This is a significant result this year. Last year 13 of 15 students (87%) met the requirement. The changes we are making in these courses are working very well, we believe. We had more students this year, and they did better than ever before, even though some were novices. Goal met.

All capstone students will write theses that are grounded in a clear and substantial sense for the history of western philosophy, demonstrating an awareness for the location of their own topics within that history, and judged to be good or excellent.

All but one student (5 of 6) in capstone (83%) wrote a thesis judged to do a good or excellent job at situating their project in (part of) the broader history of philosophy.

This is exactly equivalent with last year’s results; some years all students do so, some years there are a student or two who struggle a bit. This year, we had a student who repeated the course, for reasons of plagiarism. Goal met.

2b. Students will be able to bring various major trends and questions in the history of western philosophy, as well as external and/or critical perspectives on that history, to bear upon each other.


At least 80% of students in Critical Histories courses will demonstrate good or excellent ability to bring concepts, questions and arguments from different periods of western philosophy, and/or from traditions external and internal to that history, into productive conversation with one another, based on final written assignments in those courses. This is evaluated in line with the rubrics for “analysis” and “disciplinary competence” in the department’s writing rubric.

100% of students in Critical Histories: Ancient (8) and Critical Histories: Modern (13) demonstrated good or excellent ability to bring concepts, questions and arguments from different periods of western philosophy, and/or from traditions external and internal to that history, into productive conversation with one another.

Criteria for evaluation of such projects will likely become more specific as we go through a few iterations of these courses. This was the first year of the new thematic focus and was a transition from the old approach to the new approach as listed in the new catalog. Although there were issues with participation, written work was uniformly good or excellent in both classes.

Goal met.

149

Physics Department Assessment Plan


Mission: The mission of the Physics Department is to ensure that students, at all levels, develop an appropriate understanding of the fundamental principles of physics and how physics relates to the world around them. Of particular focus are: students who intend to pursue physics in their graduate education or careers; students who study physics as part of their preparation for further study of engineering; students who study physics as part of their preparation for advanced study in the life sciences; and students who pursue physics as part of liberal arts general education programs. Introduction: The Physics Department has focused on five goals. The goals are presented in full with their assessment plans in the pages that follow. The goals are summarized here: Goal 1: All students taking calculus based Fundamentals of Physics will understand the elementary principles and applications of mechanics, electricity and magnetism, and waves, optics, & sound. Goal 2: Physics majors and pre-engineering majors, reaching successful completion of their technical course work will retain and understand the fundamental principles and applications of physics, through Modern Physics and select topics in heat and kinetic theory. Goal 3: Students will become proficient scientific writers by the end of their junior year. Goal 4: Students will integrate quality undergraduate scientific research (theoretical and or experimental), writing, and oral presentations into their Capstone project. Goal 5: Students taking a physics course for non-science majors will understand the basic tenets and practice of the scientific method. Note: In the pages that follow the terms numerical literacy and mathematical maturity are used. Herein, numerical literacy refers to the ability to properly carry out elementary numerical calculations (i.e. the use of significant figures, knowing the proper order of arithmetic operations, the ability to numerically evaluate formulas, the ability to create and analyze graphs, and the ability to make order of magnitude estimates). Mathematical maturity refers to the ability to understand and manipulate symbolic mathematical representations of concepts as encountered in geometry, algebra, trigonometry, calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, complex analysis, and the theoretical component of numerical analysis.

Goal 1: Introductory Physics Proficiency:

All students; physics majors, pre-engineering majors, other science majors (biology, chemistry, kinesiology, computer science, and mathematics), and non-science majors, taking calculus based Fundamentals of Physics (Phy53-154 and Phy53-164), will understand the elementary principles and applications of Mechanics, Electricity and Magnetism, and Waves, Optics, & Sound at the level of the Fundamentals of Physics course. Learning Outcomes: Students will: (1) increase mastery of the elementary principles and applications of physics, (2) develop scientific critical analysis skills, (3) develop numerical literacy skills, and (4) gain laboratory expertise at the level of Fundamentals of Physics

150

Table 1


The diagnostic exams for PHY53-154 and PHY53-164, were created by the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT). These conceptual and quantitative questions test mastery, critical analysis and numerical skills. Benchmark 1: Pre-course and post-course diagnostic tests, taken before and after completing Fundamentals of Physics, will have an average normalized gain (G) of 25% or more. Here G=100*(T2-T1)/(100-T1) where T1 and T2 are the percentage scores on pre-course and post-course diagnostic tests respectively. Benchmark 2: 75% of students will score 75% or higher on the final diagnostic.

Analysis of pre-course and post-course diagnostic tests show an average G of: PHY53-154: 43.8% (103 students in 2015), 29.3% (94 students in 2014), +49% PHY53-164: 25.8% (77 students in 2016), 16.1% (78 students in 2015), +60% In PHY53-154 47% (48/103) scored 75% or higher in 2015, 42% (40/94) in 2014, +12%. In PHY53-164 31% (24/77) scored 75% or higher in 2016, 4% (3/78) in 2015, +87%.

Goals partially met in PHY53-154.

Goals partially met in PHY53-164. This year we split both classes into two sections and I think this helped to provide our students with a better quality of instruction. We also incorporated the post-course diagnostics into the final of each class – thus insuring that all students took these diagnostics seriously. This is the second year we have reported Benchmark 2 and both classes showed solid gains compared to last year. We plan to continue refining the content of these classes in order to do even better next year.

The threshold metric for achievement of laboratory

expertise by students is that 75% of pre-labs (physics exercises that review lab related materials) and lab reports are assessed by the lab instructor as being proficient

or exemplary in the categories Lab Report Writing Style and Data Analysis as defined in Row 1 and Row 4 (Columns 2 and 3) of the Physics Department Writing Rubric.

Faculty assessment of student lab work placed 79% of the pre-labs and lab reports in the proficient or exemplary categories. The value in 2014 was 85%, -8%.

Goal met. Because we began including more conceptual topics in the lecture portion of both classes this year, we have decided that next year each pre-lab will test whether our students understand how to perform each experiment before they come to lab. This should allow us to spend less time covering material that the student should already know and more time developing the four learning outcomes for these courses:

increased mastery of the

elementary principles and

applications of physics, develop

scientific critical skills, develop

numerical literacy skills and gain

laboratory expertise.

151

Goal 2: Sophomore Physics Proficiency:

All physics majors and pre-engineering majors, reaching successful completion of their technical coursework at SU, will understand the fundamental principles and applications of physics, through Modern Physics (i.e. relativity, and elementary quantum mechanics) and select topics in Heat and Kinetic Theory, at the sophomore level. Retention of material learned in Fundamentals of Physics and mastery of the new material learned during the sophomore year is required. Learning Outcomes: Students will (1) increase mastery of the intermediate principles and applications of physics, (2) gain additional critical analysis skills (beyond those needed in the introductory Fundamentals of Physics course), (3) retain physics knowledge and skills and (4) grow in mathematical maturity at the level of sophomore physics.

Table 2


The diagnostic exams for Modern Physics were created by the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT). These conceptual and quantitative questions test mastery, critical analysis and numerical skills. Benchmark 1: Pre-course and post-course diagnostic tests covering the topics (1) modern physics and (2) heat & kinetic theory, taken before and after completing Modern Physics, will have an average normalized gain (G) of 25% or more. Benchmark 2: At the end of the semester all students will take the entire AAPT diagnostic and 75% of them will score 75% or higher. This “exit test” will measure their ability to retain physics

knowledge and skills.

Analysis of pre-course and post-course diagnostic tests (16 students in 2015 and 14 students in 2014) show an average G of: (1) Modern Physics: value unknown (2015), 7.5% (2014) (2) Heat & Kinetic Theory: value unknown (2015), 7.8% (2014) On the final diagnostic 25% (4/16) scored 75% or higher (2015), 21% (2014), +19%

Goals not met.

Because of sloppy record keeping, we couldn’t find the prelabs that were administered for this course. As a result, we have no 2015 results for Benchmark 1. When this class is taught again in the Fall, we will make sure that everyone involved with both the lecture and the lab retain the necessary records. This is the second year we have reported Benchmark 2 and although this year’s value is slightly better, it remains much lower than we want it to be. Since our diagnostic measures information that was learned in PHY53-154 and PHY53-164, we expect this value to slowly increase as we continue to make improvements to these classes.

152

Goal 3: Scientific Writing:

Students will become proficient scientific writers by the end of their junior year. Evaluated development of student writing will occur in the physics lab for PHY53-334, Classical Mechanics I. A (planned) by-product is that students will have proper scientific writing skills in place prior to the start of their Capstone experience. Capstone advisers will therefore be able to hold the student accountable to a higher standard than in previous years and Capstone project quality will improve. Learning Outcomes: Students will (1) increase mastery of lab report writing style, (2) successfully integrate numerical, graphical, and mathematical elements into their writing, (3) articulately integrate into their lab write-ups a discussion of theory and experiment, (4) correctly and succinctly describe data collected in an experiment and develop a logical analysis of that data, (5) construct a conclusion that indicates the student has a full understanding of the theory being tested by the experiment, and (6) present a list of appropriate references to demonstrate the student has researched the subject.

Table 3


During the semester several lab reports are analyzed for quality of writing. Students are given feedback and allowed to revise all but the final lab write up. Five elements in the last lab report are then evaluated and given a ranking of below

proficient (score = 1), proficient (score = 2), or exemplary (score = 3) as defined by our 2014 Writing Assessment Rubric. Benchmark: 75% of students will receive an overall score of 2 or better.

The instructor reports the following average ranking of the various elements (14 students in 2015, 11 students in 2014): (1) Lab Report Writing Style: 2.88 (2015), 2.64 (2014), +9%

(2) Graphical Elements: 2.68 (2015), 2.40 (2014), +12%

(3) Integration of Theory with Exp: 2.46 (2015), 2.00 (2014), +23%

(4) Data Analysis and Discussion: 2.69 (2015), 2.22 (2014), +21%

(5) Conclusions and References: 2.74 (2015), 2.11 (2014), +30%

Goals met. 100% of the students (14/14) received an average score of 2 or better (proficient or higher) and all five of the average rankings had healthy gains. We plan to monitor this class to see how we could make further improvements.

153

Goal 4: Capstone:

Students will integrate quality undergraduate scientific research (theoretical and or experimental), writing, and oral presentations into their Capstone project.

Learning Outcomes:

(1) The scientific writing skills of students, acquired during the junior year of their physics courses will be either retained or improved and is in evidence in the written component of their Capstone project. (2) The oral presentation component of the Capstone will have a sufficient level of professionalism that the student could present the results of their work at the undergraduate session of a regional or national meeting of a professional scientific society (i.e. the American Institute of Physics, the American Association of Physics Teachers, the American Astronomical Society or the International Geophysical Union). (3) Due diligence is practiced by the student so that their project is carried out in a timely and proper manner (i.e. not in a rush at the end of a semester).

Table 4


The Physics Department faculty evaluates every capstone presentation. If the capstone is also an honors thesis an external reviewer, from a different department, also evaluates the capstone. The Physics Department faculty will meet and discuss the merits and failings of all

the capstone projects. The overarching topics include: the

quality of the research

(including whether or not the student carried out the project with due diligence), the quality of student writing, and the quality of the student

oral presentation. Benchmark: 75% of our capstone presentations will be proficient or exemplary in each category.

Oral Capstone Presentations: 100% (8/8) were given a rating of proficient. Written Capstone Presentations: 12% (1/8) were given a rating of highly proficient, 88% (7/8) were given a rating of proficient. Due Diligence: 100% (8/8) of projects were

carried out in a timely

manner.

Goals met. These results are slightly better than those from last year so our efforts to encourage our seniors to begin working on their capstone projects in the Fall may be beginning to pay off. We plan to monitor this class to see how we could make further improvements.

154

Goal 5: Non-Science Major Science Literacy:

Students taking a physics course for non-science majors will understand the basic tenets and practice of the scientific method including: observation, measurement, experimentation, hypothesis testing, theory falsification, inference and estimation as applied to the physical sciences encountered in (one of) the courses: Exploring the Universe, Musical Acoustics, Energy and the Environment, and Earth Science. Learning Outcomes: Students will (1) demonstrate a basic knowledge of the field covered in the class they take and (2) demonstrate an elementary understanding of the scientific method used to deduce scientific knowledge in that field.

Table 5


The diagnostic exams for PHY53-054, Exploring the Universe, is a product of the Collaboration for Astronomy Education Research (1999) and is called Introductory Astronomy Survey (V2.0). Benchmark 1: Pre-course and post-course diagnostic tests, taken before and after completing PHY53-054, will have an average normalized gain (G) of 25% or more. Benchmark 2: 75% of students will score 75% or higher on the final diagnostic.

This course was not offered this year.

None.

155

Political Science Department Assessment Plan

Academic Year 2015-2016

Current Status of Departmental Work on Assessment: See below, in the section titled "Preface

and Overall Suggestions for Future Improvement of Assessment." In brief, we have not made any changes

to our curriculum. In Fall 2016, we had other pressing departmental matters to work on and did not have

a broad discussion of relevant areas. We will schedule time in department meetings in Spring 2017 to

complete these discussions prior to the next round of assessment.

Mission The Political Science Department seeks to cultivate skills of political analysis and practice. Students should be able to demonstrate these skills of political analysis across the discipline in their writing and research. We cultivate these skills by educating students in the cultural, institutional and theoretical dimensions of politics through engaging the substantive content of the four primary subfields of the discipline (American Politics, Comparative Politics, International Relations, and Political Theory).

Structure of the Major The discipline of political science is composed of four subfields: American Politics, Comparative Politics, International Relations, and Political Theory. Our major has four required "core courses" that introduce students to each subfield and then they go on to take additional courses in the subfields based on their own preferences. The Political Science Department has two writing attentive courses at the 200 level. Students are required to take at least one writing attentive course (WAC) before progressing to the 500/600 level "craft of research" seminars. They take two of these 500-600 level writing and research intensive classes, and at least one must be completed prior to enrolling in Capstone.

Relevant Information for Assessment: overall numbers on which the following percentages are based.

Fall 2015: General Education classes: Comparative Politics: Selbin, enrollment of 20 (data missing); American Politics: O'Neill, enrollment of 24. Writing Attentive classes: Snyder, with an enrollment of 22. 500-600 level "craft of research" seminars: Mariotti, with an enrollment of 18; Selbin, with an enrollment of 14 (data missing). Capstone seminar: Mariotti, with an enrollment of 10. Spring 2016: General Education classes: Comparative Politics: Selbin, enrollment of 18 (data missing); American Politics: O'Neill, enrollment of 19. Writing Attentive classes: Mariotti taught two sections, with enrollments of 17 and 14; Snyder, with an enrollment of 18. 500-600 level "craft of research" seminars: Mariotti, with an enrollment of 13; Snyder, with an enrollment of 15. Capstone seminar: O'Neill, with an enrollment of 12.

156

Fall 2014: Writing Attentive classes: Snyder, enrollment of 23. Capstone seminar: Snyder, enrollment of 12 (data missing). Spring 2015: Writing Attentive classes: Mariotti taught two sections, with a combined enrollment of 33. Capstone seminar: O'Neill, enrollment of 8. Fall 2013: Writing Attentive classes: Mariotti, enrollment of 18. Capstone seminar: Mariotti, enrollment of 13. Spring 2014: Writing Attentive classes: Mariotti, enrollment of 14. Snyder, enrollment of 20. Capstone seminar: O'Neill, enrollment of 13. Fall 2012: Writing Attentive classes: Mariotti, enrollment of 21. Capstone seminar: Gaunder, enrollment of 14

Spring 2013: Writing Attentive classes: none

Capstone seminar: Snyder, enrollment of 13

Preface and Overall Suggestions for Future Improvement of Assessment

Additional areas for discussion and improvement across all categories outlined below: * Measuring Two New Categories: This year, we created rubrics for, and began to assess, our two general education classes (American Politics and Comparative Politics) that also serve many non-majors as well as our upper-level 500-600 level "craft of research" courses. We now can measure the same student learning outcomes at four different points in our students' progress through the major. This will help us further pinpoint where to focus the cultivation of certain skill sets. * "Counterarguments": Our numbers still indicate that students are still confused about what we mean by "counterarguments." In fact, we as a faculty also understand this category differently, so further discussions at a fall department meeting are necessary and we can then articulate these skills more clearly to our students across the major. * Revision: We have now required a draft, feedback, and revision process as a part of all the WACs we offer. But when there is a draft and revision process incorporated into the class, we have commensurately higher expectations for how students respond to feedback. Counter-intuitively, this may yield lower numbers: when students undergo an intensive draft and revision process, yet do not integrate feedback fully or completely enough, faculty rightly assess them as "not meeting expectations." We need to find better ways to require students to respond to feedback. One idea might be to write marginal comments to them using Word's comment feature and also require them to respond to comments and turn these in along with final draft. Or they might write a memo outlining how they have implemented feedback and responded to suggestions for revision. In effect, we could require students to model how the revision process works with faculty publications after the "revise and resubmit" process. * Methods of Analysis: We need to strengthen our department's skills in teaching various methods of analysis. We need to continue to have discussions as a department about how to talk about "methods" and

157

strengthen our students' skills in this area. We should continue to discuss whether we can offer a specific research methods course. But we can also begin to strengthen this area by discussing and further refining our "Methods of Analysis" handout at a fall department meeting. Our new 3 year Visitor, Emily Sydnor, is especially strong in teaching methods of analysis and she should join these discussions to help us better explain methods to students. * Clarifying New Rubric: We need to clarify the language in the second box on our new rubric for assessing general education classes (American Politics and Comparative Politics). It assesses whether

students: "Provide pertinent and representative theories/explanations/arguments ('why') and evidence (facts and description; 'how' and 'what') from class meetings and course readings that make the best case for and against the thesis statement or answering 'yes' or 'no' to the question." The question on the rubric is framed in language that is confusing and represents the different ways we all speak to students. We need to discuss more consistent language at our Fall department meeting and try to clarify the rubric. * Clarifying an Assessment Category: We need to revise section 1d. We need to clarify the terms and the overall category, through discussions at a Fall department meeting. This category seems to be measuring too many different things in different language (i.e., a student's ability to make arguments, use evidence, present counterarguments, and do a literature review) and the disparate numbers in the category probably reflect that and are cause for further discussions. * Reminders for next year's assessment: In future, based on the Academic Assessment Committee's feedback, we will also include total group sizes in addition to the percentages. These numbers cannot be added in for the current assessment year, but in future we will provide this more complete information.

The Committee recommended: "Under Learning Goal 1a, row 1 (and throughout): In the Assessment Results column, please include the group sizes in addition to the percentages (i.e., 70% (14 out of 20)."

1. Goal

Students will engage in political analysis and practice in the discipline. Learning Outcomes

1a. Students will identify relevant, appropriate and manageable puzzles or problems to explore and articulate the larger significance of the puzzle in course essays or research projects


BENCHMARK: 80% of

our students will meet

or exceed expectations

in the category listed

below.

Political Theory Essay/ International Politics Rubrics (Item 1): Identifies a relevant, appropriate, and manageable puzzle or problem as an area of substantive research and articulates the

2016: 91.5%

[2015: 89%, 2014: 81%, 2013: 95%, 2012: 88%] of our students were rated as meets expectations or above on their puzzle on the essay in the two introductory writing attentive courses in the major.

Goal Met. In all our classes we have worked to emphasize that our discipline asks "how" or "why" questions as opposed to descriptive "what" questions. We will continue to work to help students learn what unites the different subfields in terms of a good research question (i.e. a puzzle or problem that asks a 'how' or 'why' question) as well as what differentiates the research questions asked in the four different subfields of the political science.

158

significance of this question to the study of politics.

BENCHMARK: 85% of




below.

500-600 level "craft of research" classes: Item 1): Identifies a relevant, appropriate, and manageable puzzle or problem as an area of substantive research and articulates the significance of this question to the study of politics.

2016: 92% Goal Met. These numbers are strong and consistent across the three types of classes being measured (the Writing Attentive Classes, the 500-600 level "craft of research" classes, and the senior Capstone seminar), indicating that we are clearly communicating expectations and cultivating these skills regarding framing a research question to our students.

BENCHMARK: 90% of




below.

Capstone Final Project Rubric (Item 1):

Identifies a relevant, appropriate, and manageable puzzle or problem as an area of substantive research and articulates the significance of this question to the study of politics.

2016: 90%

[2015: 95%, 2014: 100%, 2013: 97%, 2012:100%] of our students were rated as meets expectations or above on the puzzle in the final project in their capstone courses.in their capstone courses.

Goal Met. Our classes will continue to work to help students learn to frame "how" or "why" questions that are framed in a manageable way and that point them back toward analyzing the available evidence/data.

BENCHMARK: 90% of




below.

Political Science Program Evaluation (Item 3): “I have acquired skills of political analysis.”

2016: 100%

[2015: 100%, 2014: 100%, 2013: 100%, 2012: 95%] of graduating seniors surveyed in 2013-2014 senior capstone courses strongly agreed or agreed that they have acquired the skills of political analysis.

Goal Met. Our program evaluation form assesses how students have acquired skills of political analysis, both in terms of classroom practice at SU and internships, independent studies, and study abroad experiences. These numbers indicate we are doing an excellent job overall in this key area.

159

1b. Students outline the argument to be asserted and defended or the thesis to be tested.


BENCHMARK: 80% of




below.

Essay Rubric for General Education courses (American Politics and Comparative Politics): (Item 1): "Thesis Statement or Question: States a Clear, complete, and explicit analytical thesis to be tested or a question to be answered."

2016: 95% Goal Met, for American Politics. We are

missing the data for Comparative Politics.

BENCHMARK: 80% of




below.

Political Theory Essay/ International Politics Rubrics (Item 2):

Outlines the thesis to be tested or the argument to be asserted and defended.

2016: 94%

[2015: 82%, 2014: 81%, 2013: 90%, 2012: 79%] of our students were rated as meets expectations or above on the thesis in the essay in the introductory writing attentive courses.

Goal Met. But we will continue to discuss how expectations for developing a thesis or claim differ across the subfields and try to develop more consistent expectations.

BENCHMARK: 85% of




below.

500-600 level "craft of research" classes: (Item

2): Outlines the thesis to be tested or the argument to be asserted and defended.

2016: 92% Goal Met. This is the first year we are assessing this category of class, but these numbers seem strong at the outset.

BENCHMARK: 90% of




below.

Capstone Final Project

2016: 95%

[2015: 80%, 2014: 89%, 2013:83%, 2012: 95%] of our students were rated as meets expectations or above

Goal Met. These numbers represent a significant improvement from previous years. We will continue to emphasize the importance of articulating well-developed theses and claims that can be tested and analyzed through an exploration of relevant evidence, at all course levels of our major.

160

Rubric (Item 2): Outlines the thesis to be tested or the argument to be asserted and defended.

on the thesis in the final project in the capstone courses.

1c. Students will demonstrate an understanding of how to employ a method of analysis in a research project.


BENCHMARK: 90% of




below.

Capstone Final Project Rubric (Item 4):

Demonstrates an understanding of how to match a method of analysis to the research question (exploring either the cultural, institutional or theoretical dimensions of politics) and explains why this method is most suitable given this particular puzzle and problem.

2016: 81%

[2015: 75%, 2014: 81%, 2013:86%, 2012: 95%] of our students employed a method of analysis rated as meets expectations or above on the capstone project.

Goal Not Met. This is still a major area of confusion for our students. We need to continue to have discussions as a department about how to talk about "methods" and strengthen our students' skills in this area. We should continue to discuss whether we can offer a specific research methods course. But we can also begin to strengthen this area by discussing and further refining our "Methods of Analysis" handout at a fall department meeting. Our new 3 year Visitor, Emily Sydnor, is especially strong in teaching methods of analysis and she should join these discussions to help us better explain methods to our students.

1d. Students will carry out substantive research in the discipline exploring either the cultural, institutional or theoretical dimensions of politics.


BENCHMARK: 80% of our

students will meet or exceed

expectations in the category

listed below.

Essay Rubric for General Education courses (American Politics and Comparative Politics): (Item 2): "Provide pertinent and representative theories/explanations/arguments ('why') and evidence (facts and description; 'how' and 'what') from class meetings and course

2016: 74%

Goal Not Met. Spring 2016 is the first semester we began assessing this category of classes. The question on the rubric is framed in language that is very confusing and overly broad and represents the different ways we all speak to students. The rubric itself indicates the differences among the subfields and indicates why our students can experience confusion. We need to discuss more consistent language at our Fall department meeting and clarify the rubric.

161

readings that make the best case for and against the thesis statement or answering 'yes' or 'no' to the question."




listed below.

Political Theory Essay/ International Politics Rubrics (Item 4: Evidence & Argument):

Analyzes a broad and appropriate body of facts and data to test the thesis and to assert and defend the argument, using primary and secondary sources appropriate to the discipline of political science as evidence.

2016: 79% [2015: 79%, 2014: 79%, 2013:90%, 2012: 95%] of our students were rated as meets expectations or above on considering counterarguments in the essay in the introductory writing attentive courses.

Goal Not Met. This is a skill that students become more adept at as they progress through the major.




listed below.

500-600 level "craft of research" classes: (Item 5:

Counterarguments): In addition to using evidence to assert and defend a primary argument, the author also addresses and responds to competing scholarly arguments or perspectives.

2016: 55% Goal Not Met. This is the first year we began assessing this category of classes. But our numbers still indicate that students are still confused about what we mean by "counterarguments." In fact, we as a faculty do understand this category differently, so further discussions at a fall department meeting are necessary and we can then articulate these skills more clearly to our students across their classes. These numbers indicate the general confusion discussed elsewhere about this category.




listed below.

Capstone Final Project Rubric (Item 5: Evidence & Argument): Analyzes a broad and appropriate body of facts and data to test the thesis and to assert and defend the argument, using primary and secondary sources appropriate to the discipline of political science as evidence

2016: 86%

[2015: 90%, 2014: 81%, 2013:86%, 2012: 91%] of our students were rated as meets expectations or above on the evidence and argument in the final project in the capstone courses.

Goal Not Met. See above.

162




listed below.

Political Theory Essay/ International Politics Rubrics

(Item 5: Counterarguments): In addition to using evidence to assert and defend a primary argument, the author also addresses and responds to competing scholarly arguments or perspectives.

2016: 79%

[2015: 79%, 2014: 79%, 2013:90%, 2012: 95%] of our students were rated as meets expectations or above on considering counterarguments in the essay in the introductory writing attentive courses.

Goal Not Met. See above.




listed below.

Capstone Final Project Rubric

(Item 6: Counterarguments): In addition to using evidence to assert and defend a primary argument, the author also addresses and responds to competing scholarly arguments or perspectives

52/56: 93%

[2014: 89%, 2013:97%, 2012: 77%] of our students were rated as meets expectations or above on considering counterarguments in the final project in the capstone courses.

Goal Met. But see above.




listed below.

Capstone Final Project Rubric (Item 3: Literature Review):

Approaches the research question from multiple competing perspectives, reviewing the relevant existing literature to demonstrate a deep understanding of different approaches to how this topic has been explored and to provide a disciplinary context for the project.

2016: 100%

[2015: 89%, 2014: 93%, 2013:83%, 2012: 95%] of our students were rated as meets expectations or above on the literature review in the final project in the capstone courses.

Goal Met. But see my comments above. This category needs clarification because it seems to be measuring different things in different language (i.e., a student's ability to make arguments, use evidence, present counterarguments, and do a literature review) and the disparate numbers are a cause for further discussions.

1e. Students will develop the skills of presenting their research orally.


BENCHMARK: 90% of



2016: 80%

[2015: 75%, 2014:

Goal Not Met. The department implemented a new rubric to assess presentations beginning in fall 2012. The

163


below.

Capstone Presentation Rubric (Item 1. Presentation Style): The presentation is clear and well-organized.

100%, 2013:86%, 2012: 95%] of students were rated as meets expectations or above in the organization and style of the presentation of the final capstone project.

department simplified its student learning outcomes for the presentation to aid the faculty evaluation of successive presentations. The department will continue to assess presentation style, but we have seen significant improve in the clarity with which students present their research question, thesis, and relevant evidence.

BENCHMARK: 90% of




below.

Capstone Presentation Rubric (Item 2. Argument): Clearly states argument and provides evidence to support it.

2016: 90%

[2015: 100%, 2014: 85%, 2013:83%, 2012: 100%] of students were rated as meets expectations or above in presenting the argument of their capstone project in the capstone presentation.

Goal Met. We have seen significant improvement in this area and in the quality and substance of our students' presentations.

BENCHMARK: 90% of




below.

Capstone Presentation Rubric (Item 3: Counterarguments): Considers and refutes possible arguments.

2016: 76.5%

[2015: 62.5%, 2014: 89%, 2013:83%, 2012: 94%] of students were rated as meets expectations or above in considering counterarguments in the presentation of the capstone project.

Goal Not Met. The space of the presentation doesn't always fully allow for a discussion of counter-arguments, but our students continue to become more adept at addressing counter-arguments as they field questions from the audience. But "counterarguments" is also something we as a department need to discuss, as noted elsewhere. See my comments at the beginning and in category 1d.

BENCHMARK: 90% of




below.

Capstone Presentation Rubric (Item 4: Questions): Proposes interesting questions for discussion.

2016: 84.5%

[2015: 8/8: 100%; 2014: 96%, 2013: 86%, 2012: 84%] of students were rated as meets expectations or above in proposing interesting questions for discussion in the presentation of the capstone project.

Goal Not Met. We made Capstone presentations more uniform across the classes, modeling them on academic conferences. Students present their works-in-progress in panels of 3 or 4 and then field questions afterwards, using this feedback as they revise their final papers. This format has proven very useful in helping students solicit feedback by posing interesting questions to the audience and engaging their suggestions for revision. We will continue to help students become comfortable with the academic conference style so they can learn that soliciting, receiving, and responding to peer criticism and feedback is what advances scholarship and is the foundation of the discipline.

164

2. Goal

Students will demonstrate the ability to write in the discipline. Learning Outcomes

2a. Students will write in language that is clear, coherent, concise, and grammatically sound.


BENCHMARK: 80% of




below.

Political Theory Essay/ International Politics Rubrics (Item 6:

Writing): Persuasively advances argument in language that is clear, coherent, concise, and grammatically sound.

2016: 90%

[2015: 82%, 2014: 83%, 2013:76%, 2012: 90 %] of our students were rated as meets expectations or above for the writing style of their essay for the writing attentive courses.

Goal Met. In Fall 2014, Dr. Mariotti worked with the department and the Mellon Fellows at the DEWC to create a guide to writing in the discipline. We hope this more clearly communicates to our students what unities writing across the discipline as well as what distinguishes writing in different subfields. We will continue to implement this guide in our classes. We also now offer (as a guiding principle) at least three Writing Attentive classes offered each year, which is part of our ongoing effort to strength writing in the discipline.

BENCHMARK: 85% of




below.


6: Writing): Persuasively advances argument in language that is clear, coherent, concise, and grammatically sound.

2016: 92% Goal Met. This is the first year we began assessing this category of classes, but the trajectory of numbers is promising.

BENCHMARK: 90% of




below.

Capstone Final Project Rubric (Item 7: Writing):

Persuasively advances argument in language that is clear, coherent, concise, and grammatically sound.

2016: 95%

[2015: 95%, 2014: 78%, 2013: 100%, 2012: 91%] of our students were rated as meets expectations or above for the writing style of their final capstone project.

Goal Met. We see a clear improvement between our three measures here. See the first box, above.

2b. Students will demonstrate the ability to clearly and logically organize their papers.

165


BENCHMARK: 80% of




below.


Organization): Organizes the paper clearly and logically.

2016: 90%

[2015: 84%, 2014: 89%, 2013:100%, 2012: 88%] of our students were rated as meets expectations or above for the organization of the essay for the writing attentive courses.

Goal Met. See the above boxes on writing.

BENCHMARK: 85% of




below.

500-600 level "craft of research" courses: (Item 8: Organization):

Organizes the paper clearly and logically.

2016: 83%

Goal Not Met. This year is the first we began assessing this category of classes.

BENCHMARK: 90% of




below.

Capstone Final Project Rubric (Item 8:

Organization): Organizes the paper clearly and logically.

20/20: 100%

[2014: 89%, 2013:90%, 2012: 100%] of our students were rated as meets expectations or above for the organization of the final capstone project.

Goal Met. See the above boxes on writing.

2c. Students will demonstrate the ability to integrate and respond to feedback, constructive criticism, and suggestions for revisions in their final papers.


BENCHMARK: 80%

of our students will

meet or exceed

expectations in the

category listed below.

2016: 56%

[2015: 62.5%, 2014: 72%, 2013:62%, 2012: 74%] of our students were rated as meets

Goal Not Met. We have now required a draft, feedback, and revision process as a part of all the WACs we offer. But when there is a draft and revision process incorporated into the class, we have commensurately higher expectations for how students respond to

166


Revision): Integrates and responds to feedback, constructive criticism, and suggestions for revision.

expectations or above for the revision of the essay for the writing attentive courses.

feedback. Counter-intuitively, this may yield lower numbers: when students undergo an intensive draft and revision process, yet do not integrate feedback fully or completely enough, we see low numbers here. We need to find better ways to require students to respond to feedback. One idea might be to write marginal comments to them using Word's comment feature and also require them to respond to comments and turn these in along with final draft. Or they might write a memo outlining how they have implemented feedback and responded to suggestions for revision. This is how the revision process works with faculty publication.

BENCHMARK: 85%


meet or exceed

expectations in the


500-600 "craft of research" classes: (Item

9: Revision): Integrates and responds to feedback, constructive criticism, and suggestions for revision

2016: 67% Goal Not Met. See above.

BENCHMARK: 90%


meet or exceed

expectations in the



Revision): Integrates and responds to feedback, constructive criticism, and suggestions for revision.

18/20: 90%

[2014: 85%, 2013:100%, 2012: 95%] of our students were rated as meets expectations or above for the revision of the final capstone project.


2d. Students will demonstrate the ability to properly cite sources in their essays and research projects.


BENCHMARK: 80% of




below.

Political Theory Essay/ International Politics

2016: 86%

[2015: 89%, 2014: 91%, 2013:90%, 2012: 95%] of our students were rated as meets expectations or above

Goal Met. But we should be seeing higher numbers here, since the Political Science Department adopted Turbian as house style for all of its courses five years ago. We should see 100% nearly across the board here. This is an item to discuss at a department meeting.

167

Rubrics (Item 9:

Citation): Cites evidence according to scholarly and disciplinary norms, using Kate Turabian’s A

Manual for Writers, a guide to the Chicago Manual of Style.

in their use of Turabian's Guide to a Chicago Manual of Style in the essay in the writing attentive courses.

BENCHMARK: 85% of




below.


9: Citation): Cites evidence according to scholarly and disciplinary norms, using Kate Turabian’s A


2016: 92% Goal Met. But see above.

BENCHMARK: 90% of




below.


Citation): Cites evidence according to scholarly and disciplinary norms, using Kate Turabian’s A


2016: 90%

[2015: 95%, 2014: 96%, 2013:83%, 2012: 91%] of our students were rated as meets expectations or above in their use of Turabian's Guide to a Chicago Manual of Style in the final capstone project.


168

Psychology Department Assessment Plan


Mission The Psychology Department is committed to providing rigorous educational experiences through coursework, research and internship opportunities, and life-long mentoring relationships with faculty that lead to a rich knowledge of and enthusiasm for psychology and its relationship to other disciplines. By providing opportunities to develop advanced skills in oral and written communication, critical thinking, creative problem solving, and quantitative reasoning, students will be prepared to succeed in graduate programs in psychology and related fields, in careers that value these skills, and for futures as lifelong learners who affect positive change in an ever-changing global community.

1. Goal

Students can identify, define, and apply central concepts in psychology.

Learning Outcome

1. Students will demonstrate psychological literacy by acquiring a strong foundation of knowledge about psychological concepts.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Dept Improvement

Box 1: Principles of

Psychology Exam Items

80% of students in the Principles of Psychology courses will correctly answer exam questions targeted to assess Learning Outcome 1.

Item 1: Psych as a Science

Item 2: Experimental Design

Item 3: Historical Roots

BN

94% (.94 = 186/198) answered this item correctly.



[14-15: 75% of students in S15 answered all 3 items correctly]

Goal Met. No improvement needed at this time.



169

Box 2: Principles of

Psychology End of Course

Survey

Principles of Psychology students will answer items at the end of the course to assess targets related to Learning Outcome 1. In each case, they will agree (M > 3.0) that they have achieved the target.

Item 1: “My Principles of Psychology course introduced me to the theories, concepts, and methods that underlie the science of psychology and exposed me to the knowledge base that has been generated.”

Item 2: “My principles of psychology course helped me develop an appreciation for the field of psychology as a unique perspective on knowledge and a rich source of information for understanding behavior and enhancing life”

Item 3: “My Principles of Psychology course developed my critical thinking skills and the ability to apply these skills to the evaluation of information”

Item 4: “My Principles of Psychology course helped dispel misconceptions about Psychology”.

Item 5: “My Principles of Psychology course enhanced my appreciation of the breadth and scientific rigor of Psychology.”

BN

Survey completed following F15 and S16 by Principles of Psychology students (N=164).

Survey anchors:

1 = strongly disagree

2 = disagree

3 = agree

4 = strongly agree

M = 3.70

M = 3.57

M = 3.38

M = 3.42

M = 3.52

[14-15 Means: 3.80, 3.68, 3.35, 3.55, 3.64]






170

Box 3: Senior Survey

In an internally generated 4-point scale survey (1=strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree), 100% of graduating majors will agree they gained a strong foundation of knowledge about psychological concepts.

TG

We redesigned our senior survey to reflect our interests and focus; as a consequence, we were not able to ask this question.

Therefore, we have no data this year and we will not include it next year for our assessment (we feel that the assessments in Boxes 1 and 2 are more valid).

2. Goal

Students will have competency in conducting psychological research.

Learning Outcome

2. Students will demonstrate a basic understanding of the psychological research process, including design, data collection, statistical analysis, and presentation of results.


Box 1: Research Methods

II Final Paper Rubric

80% of students will demonstrate competency by submitting a final Research Methods II paper in which every section meets the “acceptable” criterion (a rating of 2 out of 4) on faculty-specific rubrics.

FG

94% of students in RMII (n=30/32) achieved a 2 (acceptable) or higher on all sections of their papers.

Rubric anchors:

1 = unacceptable

2 = acceptable

3 = good

4 = exemplary

[14-15: 100%; 22/22]

We met our goal for having the majority of our students submitting acceptable final research methods II papers. Given that we are changing RM II significantly next year, we are holding off on any adjustments until we see how the new one-semester Inquiry-Based Research methods students perform on our assessments. Therefore, we have no improvement plans at this time.

171

Box 2: Research Methods

Final Exam Items

70% of students will correctly answer 6 exam items designed to measure knowledge of research design in 6 areas.

Item 1: Correlation

Item 2: Social Desirability

Item 3: Statistical Significance

Item 4: Experiment Hallmarks

Item 5: Variance

Item 6: Internal Validity

FG

ITEM 1: 48% (n = 24/50) answered this item correctly.

Survey of RM: 17% (n = 3/17)

RM I 63% (n = 21/33)


Survey of RM: 41% (n = 7/17)

RM I 85% (n = 28/33)


Survey of RM: 59% (n = 10/17)

RM I 67% (n = 22/33)


Survey of RM: 0% (n = 0/17)

RM II 78% (n = 25/32)

ITEM 5: 55% (n = 27/49) received either majority partial credit or full credit on this item.

Survey of RM: 6% (n = 1/17)

RM II 81% (n = 26/32)

ITEM 6: 65% (n = 32/49) received either majority partial credit or full credit on

Our Goal was not met for 5 out of the 6 items this year. This was in contrast to last year, in which 70% got the majority of points on all 6 items. In general, our students in Survey of Research Methods did not do well on these questions. However, the majority of our students in Research Methods I and II answered the items correctly. One issue may have been that Survey was a new course and the instructor was new to our department. Furthermore, the instructor used a different textbook that may have added to the use of slightly different terminology and focus. To reach our goal next year, we are going to require that the same textbook be used for all our sections research methods classes, including Survey of Research Methods and Inquiry-Based Research Methods, which are both one-semester. Therefore the focus and terminology will be consistent across sections.

[14-15: 70% of students, 52/70, got the majority of total points on the 6 items]

172

this item.

Survey of RM: 17% (n = 3/17)

RM II 91% (n = 29/32)

Box 3: Senior Exit Survey

50% of graduating majors will demonstrate competency in conducting research by having at least one presentation (oral or poster format) of their own psychological research accepted for presentation in an undergraduate or professional conference. TG

Survey completed in April by 32/34 graduating majors.

17 out of 32 (53%) graduating majors made at least one presentation of their research. [14-15: 9 of 20 seniors completed the survey; 6 of those 9 (67%) presented at a conference.]


Box 4: Faculty Self-report

to Chair

Each academic year, at least 5 current majors or former majors will demonstrate research competency by co-authoring an article based on research conducted at SU that is accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed psychology journal. TG

In 15-16, 3 current or former majors earned co-authorships on publications this year. [14-15: 10 students were co-authors]

Goal not met. The loss of Dr. Purdy and Muir-Broaddus were felt here. We also recognize that this (high) target cannot be met each year due to the nature of the publication cycle. Given the rarity of undergraduate publications, we are still proud of this number. Moreover, we expect this number to improve in the future with the addition of Dr. Perilloux.


100% of graduating majors will agree they have “gained a basic proficiency in psychological research methodology, including experimental design, data collection, and statistical analysis”. TG

For 15-16, we changed this question to assess the extent to which the methods course prepared students for upper level courses (because there are already assessments for RM knowledge and writing). New Q: “My research methods course prepared me for upper level courses in psychology.” Strongly agree: 53% (17) Agree somewhat: 9% (3) Agree slightly: 13% (4)

Goal not met (75% agreed, 25% disagreed). We think this is due to the Survey of RM course using a different text and having more of a statistical rather than methodological focus (it was not taught by a full-time faculty member). We believe the situation will improve next year because (a) all RM courses (including Survey) will use the same text and (b) the Survey course will be developed and taught by a tenure-track faculty member, at least initially. Going forward, we will give end-of-semester evaluations in all IBRM and SRM sections to track the

173

Neutral: 0% Disagree slightly: 6% (2) Disagree somewhat: 6% (2) Disagree strongly: 13% (4) [14-15: 9 of 20 majors completed survey; 8 Strongly Agreed and 1 Agreed]

effectiveness of both courses in several areas (e.g., APA style, writing skills, critical thinking, understanding research articles, SPSS).

3. Goal

Majors will have the ability to report psychological findings in both written and oral formats to a broad academic audience.

Learning Outcome

3. Majors will gain experience and demonstrate proficiency in written communication.


Box 1: Spring Capstone

Paper Rubric

All majors will score at least 3 (good) out of 4 on each of the 6 components of the departmental writing rubric on their final capstone paper. EC

18 of 18 capstone papers earned 3 (good) or higher on all 6 components. Rubric anchors:

1 = unacceptable

2 = acceptable

3 = good

4 = exemplary

Goal met; no improvement needed at this time.


90% of graduating majors will agree that their proficiency in written communication has improved significantly. TG

In 15-16 we revised the question as part of our enhanced senior exit survey (32/34 majors completed survey). New Question: “I learned to communicate scientific information in writing” Strongly agree: 50% (16) Agree somewhat: 34% (11) Agree slightly: 9% (3) Neutral: 0% Disagree slightly: 0% Disagree somewhat: 3% (1) Disagree strongly: 3% (1) [14-15: 9 of 20 majors completed survey; 8 strongly agreed, 1 agreed)

Goal met; no improvement needed at this time.

174

4. Goal

Majors will have the ability to work effectively with their peers.

Learning Outcome

4. Majors will develop skills for working effectively in groups.



90% of graduating majors will agree that they have improved their skills for working cooperatively and effectively in groups. TG

In 15-16, as part of our revision of the senior exit survey, we changed this item to “I learned how to work effectively in groups.” Strongly agree: 44% (14) Agree somewhat: 38% (12) Agree slightly: 9% (3) Neutral: 6% (2) Disagree slightly: 0% Disagree somewhat: 0% Disagree strongly: 3% (1) [14-15: 9 of 20 majors completed the survey; 89% either agreed, 3/9, or strongly agreed 5/9.]

Goal met (91% agreed strongly, somewhat, or slightly). No improvement needed at this time.

5. Goal

Majors will be able to use their psychological knowledge in a relevant setting beyond Southwestern University.

Learning Outcomes

5a. Majors who desire a career in a specific professional area (e.g., mental health, forensic psychology) will successfully apply psychological knowledge and skills in a relevant field setting and this experience will help clarify their career goals or enhance their professional readiness.


Box 1: Internship

Coordinator Survey of On-

site Internship Supervisors

100% of interns will receive an overall performance score of at least satisfactory and 90% will receive at least good. BN/MK

All students completing psychology internships received above Satisfactory rating, with 100% receiving a rating of Good or better (4 ranked Excellent, 1 ranked Good - based on 45% response rate for 11 interns).

Goal met. No improvement needed at this time.

175


90% of graduating majors who completed an internship will report that the experience improved “my skills and confidence to move to the next level of training or a job in psychology” TG

15/15 graduating majors who completed the survey and did an internship reported the following: Increased dramatically: 53% (8) Increased significantly: 13% (2) Increased somewhat:: 7% (1) Increased slightly: 0% Increased minimally: 0% No change: 0% N/A: 27% (4)

Goal status uncertain: 73% reported an increase in skills, whereas 27% said “N/A”. This was a new question, so we’re not sure what “N/A” means in this context. We will remove the “N/A” option in next year’s survey and reassess at that time.

Box 3: Senior Exit

Survey/Faculty Self-report

80% of graduating majors who apply for jobs during their graduating semester will be hired. TG

For 15-16 and previous years, we did not clearly assess this goal (because we did not ask graduating seniors if they applied for jobs during their senior year); moreover, our old way of assessing this (asking faculty to report on capstone research students’ jobs) omitted all the students who did internships. However, we did in 15-16 ask students (in our newly designed senior exit survey) this item: “The psychology curriculum prepared me well for my post-Southwestern goals.” The results were as follows: Strongly agree: 59% (19) Agree somewhat: 31% (10) Agree slightly: 6% (2) Neutral: 3% (1)

Based on our new item, 97% of graduating seniors agreed that our major prepared them well for their post-Southwestern goals After much discussion, we agree as a department that assessing students’ post-graduate job success is something that takes time (e.g., to figure out what they want to do, and then to apply and secure a job), and something that Career Services collects data on (several years after graduation). Thus, we’d like to omit the measurement of job attainment and instead assess the extent to which students believe that our major prepared them for their post-Southwestern goals. Our new goal going forward is that 90% of students will agree (slightly, somewhat, or strongly) with this statement.

176

Disagree slightly: 0% Disagree somewhat: 0% Disagree strongly: 0%

5b. Majors will possess the knowledge and skills required for advanced study (e.g., graduate school, professional school).



90% of majors will agree that they are prepared for graduate study. “I feel that the psychology curriculum prepared me for graduate study in psychology (if I were to choose that)”.

TG

100% (32/32) of graduating majors who responded to the survey agreed strongly (20, 63%), agreed

somewhat (8; 25%), or agreed slightly (4, 12%).



60% of seniors who apply during their senior year will be accepted into a graduate program. TG

11 majors applied for graduate school (3 in law, 5 in psych, 3 in counseling/social work); the remaining 22 students who answered the survey did not apply to graduate school. 73% got into graduate or professional school: 3/3 law students got in, 3/5 psych students got in, and 2/3 counseling/social work students got in.


Box 3: Career Service

Data on Alumni Graduate

School Enrollment

25% of majors will enroll in graduate or professional school in the year following graduation. TG/AA

According to Career Services data, 26.9% (n = 7/26) of our alumni enrolled in graduate school in the year following graduation. [2014: 38.5%, 10/26] [2013: 21.4%, 6/28]


177

Religion Department Assessment Plan


Mission

The program in the study of Religion introduces students to the variety of global religious traditions, expressions and human experiences. The Religion program promotes an understanding of similarities and difference and provides multiple methodological tools to critically engage religious texts and practices, broadly defined, in both individual and comparative modes. Although the standard was met for all goals, some numbers have gone down, and as a department we continue to think about how to teach courses that are taken by a wide range of students, often cross-listed, and often taken by students as part of a Humanities requirement. Except for Theories & Methods and Capstone, the majority of students in our courses are often not Religion majors or minors, so we need to balance teaching critical thinking and writing skills for all students more broadly with teaching key aspects of writing in Religious Studies to Religion majors, to prepare them for upper level work. Because we no longer have the ability to teach upper level, tradition specific seminars, we continue to think about ways to change the range/depth of material taught in both introductory and thematic courses.

Goal

Introductory Level - To acquire in-depth knowledge of a distinct religious tradition. Our introductory courses focus on one tradition (Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Native American religions, etc.)

Learning Outcome

Students will be able to demonstrate knowledge of the key principles, history and culturally contextualized relevance of the specific religious tradition.


Students will produce a final assignment that demonstrates knowledge of a religious tradition, either in the form of a final exam or research paper. Target: 80% of students will receive a rating of very good or excellent on their final assignment in introductory courses, based on our own writing rubric.

82% of students enrolled received a rating of very good or excellent on final assignments in introductory courses (61/74 total) Prior Year’s Results: 90% of students enrolled received a rating of very good or excellent on final assignments in introductory courses (78/86 total)

As a department, we plan on fine tuning the rubric, which will be included in all of our introductory syllabi.

We will continue to work to determine best practices for evaluating student knowledge of distinct religious traditions, as there’s no universal agreement.

Finally, we will work to develop additional learning outcomes related to ability to present knowledge in oral as well as written form.

178

Goal Topics Courses - To acquire comparative knowledge of concepts and practices related to a specific topic or theme across more than one religious tradition. Learning Outcome Students will be able to demonstrate comparative knowledge of concepts and practices related to a specific topic or theme in more than one religious tradition.


Students will produce a final assignment that demonstrates comparative knowledge of a specific theme in more than one religious tradition. Target: 80% of students will receive a rating of very good or excellent on final assignments in topics courses based on our writing rubric.

80% of students enrolled received a rating of very good or excellent on final assignments in topics courses (176/220). Prior Year’s Results: 87% of students enrolled received a rating of very good or excellent on final assignments in topics courses (97/111).

We continue to work to determine best practices for evaluating student knowledge of topical comparisons across multiple religious traditions. We are also working to develop additional learning outcomes, potentially related to advanced research and the presentation of knowledge in oral form.

Goal Theories and Methods - To understand the historical and theoretical framework of the discipline of Religious Studies itself, and to be able to apply theory to the practical interpretation of religious activity and ideology. Learning Outcome Students will be able to demonstrate knowledge of central schools of theory in the history of the discipline, and apply those theories and methods to the study of religious traditions, past and present.


Students will produce a significant research paper that demonstrates knowledge of multiple critical theoretical schools within the discipline, as well as application of theory to the study of a particular topic.

This is a new learning outcome that was recently added, so we will begin assessment with the next group of students who take Theories & Methods in the Study of Religion.

We will assess the next group and make improvements based on that assessment.

Goal Capstone - To apply diverse theoretical and methodological approaches to the in-depth study of a particular topic within a religious tradition.

179

Learning Outcomes

Students will demonstrate an ability to apply theories and methods, to research and write a sophisticated project in religious studies, and to demonstrate an empathetic and knowledgeable understanding of a particular topic.


Students will complete a capstone project in religion that shows a level of critical thinking and writing expressed in our departmental writing rubric. This includes critical, authentic research, objective analytical writing, and the ability to assess and interpret a variety of sources. Target: 90% of student research projects rated as very good or excellent, according to our Capstone evaluation rubric.

100% of student research was rated very good/excellent (1/1) Previous Year’s Results: 100% of student research projects in the capstone course were rated as very good or excellent (3/3).

At this level we have found that our majors are fully prepared to be successful in this project, in part due to the intense faculty guidance they receive from the entire department during the process.

180

Sociology and Anthropology Department

Assessment Plan (Sociology)


Narrative

This year marks the beginning of major changes in the sociology program. Dr. Ed Kain retired in December 2015. The three remaining tenured sociologists have agreed to begin rotating responsibilities for the three core courses in the major (methods, theory and capstone) beginning next year. This year, we introduced a new, optional pre-capstone course designed to address some of the challenges our majors faced with a compressed timeline in capstone. In addition, the size of our major cohorts is beginning to increase. Where many of the core courses previously had 6-10 students we are now seeing enrollments of 12-15 in our core courses. In addition, we continue to see a number of transfer students and students who are taking their introductory sociology courses at other institutions. Consequently, as professors take on new teaching responsibilities next year with ever larger class sizes and more students whose early training occurred at other institutions, we anticipate an adjustment period and a slight decrease in our students’ performance on assessment measures. Mission

The Sociology and Anthropology Department offers majors in both Sociology and Anthropology. The purposes of the department are to: 1) contribute to an understanding by both major and non-major students of the ways that group membership, cultural context and social hierarchies affect peoples’ lives; 2) prepare students for graduate or professional study in their chosen field; and 3) provide students with an understanding of the key concepts, theoretical frames and methodological practices within their major discipline.

Goal To develop in Sociology majors and non-majors mastery of the central concepts and theoretical paradigms in the discipline.

Learning Outcome

1a. Students will be able to identify, define, and apply a concept from the list of concepts and terms in the department handbook.


SENIOR ORAL Department faculty will determine that 100% of graduating majors provide acceptable answers to questions in the senior oral final exam that pertain to central concepts in the discipline.

14/14 (100%)


1b. Students will be able to identify three major theoretical paradigms in sociology—structural-functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism. Students will be able to define and apply one major theoretical paradigm.

181


INTRO 85% of all students in introductory Sociology classes will correctly answer a multiple-choice question on an in-class exam which asks them to identify the three major theoretical paradigms in sociology.

FALL 2015 114-01: 19/25 (76%) 124-01: 22/22 (100%) 124-02: 19/19 (100%) 124-03: 24/24 (100%) SPRING 2016 114-01: 23/25 (92%) 114-02: 22/25 (88%) 114-03: 17/19 (89%) 124-01: 19/20 (95%) 124-02: 21/22 (95%)

Goal met in all but 1 section. After successfully meeting this goal last year, we upped our goal from 80% of students to 85% of students. We are pleased that all but one section met the new goal. We will continue to teach the three major paradigms as effectively as possible in our introductory sociology classes and will aim to meet the new goal of 85% next year.

INTRO 70% of all students in introductory Sociology classes will score 70% or better on a question on an in-class essay question which asks them to define and apply one of the major theoretical paradigms in sociology.

FALL 2015 114-01: 20/25 (80%) 124-01: 14/22 (64%) 124-02: 14/20 (70%) 124-03: 19/24 (79%) SPRING 2016 114-01: 20/25 (80%) 114-02: 19/25 (76%) 114-03: 16/20 (80%) 124-01: 12/22 (55%) 124-02: 15/22 (68%)

Goal met in 6 of 9 sections. Defining and applying theories is more challenging than simply naming them, so it is not surprising that fewer sections met this goal. Dr. Nenga’s sections showed progress over last year’s (64%, 70% and 55% compared to last year’s 43%); she will continue to use a practice essay and work to better teach application and definition of theories.

THEORY 85% of students in the Sociological Theory class will perform at a satisfactory level or above on an essay question which asks them to describe and compare and contrast the three major paradigms in Sociological Theory.

10/11 (91%) Goal met. No improvements necessary at this time.

SENIOR ORAL Department faculty will determine that 100% of graduating majors provide acceptable answers to a question in the senior oral final exam that asks students to identify and apply a major theoretical paradigm in sociology.

First attempt: 12/14 (86%) Second attempt: 14/14 (100%)

Goal met on the second try. Because many of this year’s seniors struggled with either this question or the one on the sociological imagination, we have met to standardize retest procedures for students failing a question on the senior oral final. In addition, Dr. Byron and Dr. Nenga will continue to stress application skills in the Sociological Theory course in future years.

182

Goal To develop in Sociology majors the ability to clearly articulate a research question, linking it to a body of empirical research embedded within a theoretical tradition.

Learning Outcome

2a. Students will be able to apply the concepts and the major paradigms of sociology to a specific area of a specific field.


CAPSTONE 90% of students in the required capstone seminar will apply major concepts and relevant scholarship to the empirical findings they collect, at a level evaluated as “good” (meaning 80+) or better by department faculty.

12/14 (86%) Goal not met. We failed to meet this goal by one student. Teaching responsibility for this course will rotate to Dr. Nenga in fall 2016; she will work to improve students’ ability to integrate empirical findings with sociological concepts through a series of required analytic coding memos.

2b. Students will be able to write a literature review and connect it to research.


CAPSTONE 90% of the literature reviews in the final papers in the required capstone seminar will be evaluated as “good” (meaning 80+) or better by the Capstone professor.

11/14 (79%) Goal not met. We failed to meet this goal by two students. Teaching responsibility for this course will rotate to Dr. Nenga in fall 2016; she will work to improve the writing of literature reviews in the capstone course.

2c. In the context of the senior capstone seminar, students will be able to develop an original research question.


CAPSTONE 90% of students in the required capstone seminar will articulate an original research question evaluated as “good” (meaning 80+) or better by the Capstone professor.

11/14 (79%) Goal not met. We failed to meet this goal by two students. Articulating a solid research question is a process that takes time; students conducting inductive research projects continually reformulate their questions during the project. The new pre-capstone class allowed most (10/12) sociology majors in the upcoming 2016 capstone a longer timeline in which to do this. After the fall 2016 capstones, we will re-evaluate to see whether the longer timeline allowed students to develop stronger research questions.

183

Goal

To develop in Sociology majors competence in research design, data collection and data analysis using both quantitative and qualitative research methods.

Learning Outcome

3a. Students will be able to formulate a research question or a set of hypotheses.


METHODS 85% of students in the Research Methods class will construct hypotheses in their final papers at a level evaluated as “fair” or better by the Research Methods professor.

8/8 (100%) Goal met. No improvement needed at this time.

CAPSTONE 100% of students in the required capstone seminar will successfully articulate a research question or purpose evaluated as “good” (meaning 80+) or better by faculty attending the capstone presentations.


3b. Students will develop the ability to collect and analyze data on sociological topics. For courses focusing on quantitative research projects, students are expected to be able to use the statistical analysis program SPSS statistical analysis program on the General Social Survey to do simple analyses in different topic areas.


METHODS 100% of students will demonstrate this ability by performing at a good (80%) or above level on the laboratory assignments using SPSS in the Research Methods course.


UPPER-LEVEL QUAL COURSES 90% of students in some upper-level courses (234, 264, 274, 314, or 324) will successfully collect qualitative data and use it to write a paper evaluated as “fair” or better (earns a 70 or higher) by the professor. These courses include majors and non-majors.

34-234: 16/16 (100%) 34-274: 11/12 (92%)


184

CAPSTONE 100% of the students in the Capstone courses will use data they collected and analyzed to write a paper evaluated as “good” (meaning 80+) or better by the Capstone professor.

11/14 (79%) Goal not met. We failed to meet this goal by two students. Writing a good paper takes time; in spring 2016 we implemented a new pre-capstone course which will lengthen the capstone timeline for most students. We will evaluate the impact of the new pre-capstone course next year after the fall 2016 capstone presentations.

3c. In the context of the senior capstone, students will be able to synthesize previous literature with findings from their individual research projects.


CAPSTONE 90% of the students in the Capstone course will synthesize previous literature and research findings in final papers evaluated as “good” (meaning 80+) or better by the Capstone professor.

12/14 (86%) Goal not met. We failed to meet this goal by one student. Again, the process of synthesizing empirical findings with previous literature requires time. In spring 2016 we implemented a new pre-capstone course which will lengthen the writing timeline for most capstone students. We will evaluate the impact of the new pre-capstone course next year after the fall 2016 capstone presentations.

Goal To develop in students the ability to report research findings, in both written and oral formats, and to a broad academic audience. Learning Outcome

4a. Students will demonstrate skills in oral communication in reporting the results of their original research in relation to the existing body of knowledge.


METHODS 100% of students in the required Research Methods course will do an oral presentation on their research, and at least 80% must perform at a level of good (80%) or above on the grading rubric used to evaluate those presentations.

Presented: 7/8 (88%) Level of good or above: 6/7 (86%)

Goal not met. We failed to meet this goal by one student. One student withdrew due to illness before the oral presentation. As our cohort of majors increases in size, we suspect a presentation rate of 100% will be difficult to maintain. For next year (which has a methods class of 15), we will drop the goal to a more manageable 90%.

CAPSTONE 100% of students in the

Presented: 14/14 (100%) Level of good or above:

Goal met.

185

required Capstone seminar will do an oral presentation on their research, and at least 80% must perform at a level of good (80%) or above on the grading rubric for those presentations.

13/14 (93%) No improvement needed at this time.

PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS At least 50% of graduating seniors will have created a paper judged strong enough to be presented at a regional or national professional meeting; and 50% of graduating seniors will have so presented.

9/14 (64%) wrote papers strong enough to present. 8/14 (57%) presented at a conference during their time at SU.


4b. Students will develop skills in peer reviewing the research presentations and papers of their colleagues and providing constructive criticism in a community of scholars.


UPPER-LEVEL QUALITATIVE COURSES 100% of students in selected upper-level sociology courses (34-234, 34- 314, 34-324) will perform at a level of good (80%) or above on their peer-review assignments in those classes. These courses include both majors and non-majors.

34-234: 16/16 (100%) Goal met. No improvement needed at this time.

CAPSTONE 100% of students in the required capstone seminar will perform at a level of good (80%) or above on their peer-review assignments in that class.


Goal To develop in Sociology students the ability to articulate the interconnections of issues of race/class/gender and how they have an impact on social life.

Learning Outcome

5a. Students will be able to illustrate their understanding of the sociological imagination.


INTRO 80% of students in

FALL 2015 114-01: 18/25 (72%)

Goal not met.

186

introductory courses will correctly identify the definition of the sociological imagination on a multiple choice question.

124-01: 21/22 (95%) 124-02: 18/19 (95%) 124-03: 22/24 (92%) SPRING 2016 114-01: 12/25 (48%) 114-02: 18/25 (72%) 114-03: 10/19 (53%) 124-01: 18/20 (90%) 124-02: 14/22 (64%)

Only 4 of 9 sections met this goal. We noticed that the format of the question does not predict student success; students are more likely to correctly answer questions about the sociological imagination the second time they are tested on this material. For the Social Problems classes (124), the multiple choice question is the second testing, and students tend to do better on this question. The sociological imagination as a concept is central to the discipline and more complicated that it first appears, requiring us to teach and test it repeatedly in order to ensure students truly understand the concept.

INTRO 75% of students in introductory courses will score 70% or above on a short answer question asking them to define the sociological imagination.

FALL 2015 114-01: 20/24 (83%) 124-01: 8/23 (35%) 124-02: 6/22 (27%) 124-03: 17/24 (67%) SPRING 2016 114-01: 16/21 (76%) 114-02: 21/22 (95%) 114-03: 18/20 (90%) 124-01: 18/22 (82%) 124-02: 15/25 (60%)

Goal not met. Only 5 of 9 sections met this goal. For the sections which used the short answer question for the second testing, (Social Patterns & Processes 114) the students were more likely to answer correctly (see above item for explanation).

INTRO 75% of students in introductory courses will score 70% or above on an essay question asking them to apply the sociological imagination to a scenario or social problem.

FALL 2015 114-01: 17/24 (71%) 124-01: 18/23 (78%) 124-02: 17/22 (77%) 124-03: 17/24 (67%) SPRING 2016 114-01: 16/21 (76%) 114-02: 21/22 (95%) 114-03: 13/20 (65%) 124-01: 22/22 (100%) 124-02: 15/25 (60%)

Goal not met.

Only 5 of 9 sections met this goal.

We continue to observe that students are better at applying this concept than defining it. Dr. Byron noted that, in his sections, this may result from the poor definition of the concept in the textbook he uses. All sociology professors will look for ways to improve their teaching of the definition and application of the sociological imagination next year. For example, Dr. Byron will add the original text “The Sociological Imagination” to his course readings next year. Drs. Lowe and Nenga will continue to search for new, more effective ways to get our students to engage with this concept.

SENIOR ORAL FINAL First attempt: 8/14 (57%) Goal not (initially) met.

187

100% of students will be able to define the sociological imagination and apply it to a contemporary social problem in the senior oral final exam.

Second attempt: 14/14 (100%)

Although we have worked to better teach this concept throughout the curriculum, students do not usually encounter it again during their senior year. We will assign C. Wright Mills’ “The Sociological Imagination” in capstone next year, so that the seniors will have a more recent encounter with the concept. In addition, we standardized procedures for students’ retesting on oral final questions which they initially failed.

5b. Students will be able to articulate impacts of race, class, and gender, and their intersections upon social life.


INTRO 75% of students in introductory sociology will score 75% or higher on a standardized set of questions which ask how gender, race and class affect an individual’s life chances.

FALL 2015 114-01: 23/24 (96%) 124-01: 20/22 (91%) 124-02: 19/19 (100%) 124-03: 22/24 (92%) SPRING 2016 114-01: 21/21 (100%) 114-02: 22/22 (100%) 114-03: 18/19 (95%) 124-01: 17/20 (85%) 124-02: 22/22 (100%)

Goal met. This is the first year that we used a standardized set of questions in all introductory sociology classes. We were pleased to see that students do learn the impacts of gender, race and class on individual life chances. The most commonly missed question in the standardized set measured intersectionality. We will continue to improve our teaching of intersectionality.

INTRO 75% of students in introductory sociology will correctly identify two main tenets of intersectionality on a multiple choice question. The two main tenets are that:

1) Individuals and groups have different locations within a matrix of domination and 2) they can simultaneously experience privilege and disadvantage.

FALL 2015 114-01: 22/24 (92%) 124-01: 21/22 (95%) 124-02: 17/19 (89%) 124-03: 23/24 (96%) SPRING 2016 114-01: 15/21 (71%) 114-02: 16/22 (73%) 114-03: 14/20 (70%) 124-01: 20/20 (100%) 124-02: 22/22 (100%)

Goal met in 6 of 9 sections. This is the first year we were able to ask this question in all sections of introductory sociology. Overall, we are pleased that so many of our students appear to grasp this concept. Each of the 3 sections which did not meet the goal missed by one student each. Dr. Lowe changed the wording of the test question for the spring which resulted in a lower percentage of students correctly answering the question in two introductory sections. This testing error will be corrected for next year.

188

Sociology and Anthropology Department Assessment Plan (Anthropology)


We have been proactive in talking about pedagogy in our Anthropology curriculum, and this year for the first time in three years, both Anthropology faculty were teaching full loads each semester; these two factors led us to feel very good about our work in Introduction to Cultural Anthropology and in the Capstone this year. We look forward to fine-tuning our mid-level core courses (Theory and Method) this coming year based on the three-tiered feedback of our holistic sense of how the courses have gone, student evaluations and our assessment work from the 14-15 Academic Year. One of our Introduction to Cultural Anthropology sections will be devoted exclusively to first years, and this might raise some interesting challenges pedagogically for which we will be on the look-out. We are excited to take advantage of the Social Justice offerings coming from both the Social Justice Fellows and the Mellon Grant being implemented by Drs. Rivera and Byron. Appendices: We have included five appendices 1. Detailed data for determining average response rate to set of cultural diversity questions in Introduction to Cultural Anthropology……………………………………………page 11 2. Sample Grading Rubric for Introduction to Cultural Anthropology assessment mechanism for Learning outcome 2a (requested by Assessment committee last year)……………page 12 3. Capstone Paper Grading Rubric………………………………………………. .page 13 4. Capstone Oral Presentation Grading Rubric……………………………………page 15 5. Handout we provide to adjuncts teaching Introduction to Anthropology………page 17

Mission

The Sociology and Anthropology Department offers majors in both Sociology and Anthropology. The purposes of the department are to: 1) contribute to an understanding by both major and non-major students of the ways that group membership, cultural context and social hierarchies affect peoples’ lives, 2) prepare students for graduate or professional study in their chosen field, and 3) provide students with an understanding of the key concepts, theoretical frames and methodological practices within their major discipline.

Assessment Data by Goal and Outcome

1. Goal

To develop in students an understanding of cultural relativism and ethnocentrism; knowledge of cultural diversity.

Learning Outcomes

1a. Students will analyze cultural difference through the lens of cultural relativism and demonstrate an understanding of ethnocentrism.

Assessment Mechanisms

Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement

INTRO 115/125 92% GOAL MET

189

All students in the Introduction to Anthropology class will be required to answer an essay question on an exam asking them to define and apply “cultural relativism” and “ethnocentrism” and to articulate how the two concepts mutually inform one another. At least 80% of the students who complete this essay will score good or better, based on a rubric for this essay.

Past Results 14-15 104/124 84% 13-14 139/159 87% 12-13 (no raw #) 87%

All classes were taught by our two full time faculty which shows in the improved results. We implemented some shifts in both teaching and assessing this outcome between May 2014 and May 2016---and are pleased with those results. We see this as one of our most important contributions to general education at SU, squarely focused on intercultural perspective, and supporting social justice.

METHODS All students in the Ethnographic Methods class will complete a final term paper. At least 90% of these students will score good or better on a designated rubric measure: “Careful analysis that avoids ethnocentrism, is written empathetically and does not impute motives.”

GREYED OUT BECAUSE WE DO NOT TEACH IN SP 16


CAPSTONE All graduating seniors will complete a capstone paper. 100 % of these students will score excellent on the following measure in their capstone papers. “Careful analysis that avoids ethnocentrism, is written empathetically and does not impute motives.”

8/8 100% Past Results 14-15 5/5 100% 13-14 12/12 100% 12-13 8/8 100%

GOAL MET Capstone students grasp this concept very well. It is obvious this is something they are trained in consistently throughout the major.

1b. Students will demonstrate knowledge of cultural diversity.


INTRO

All students in the Introduction to Anthropology course take exams with ‘objective’ [multiple choice or true/false] questions on cultural diversity. Each instructor will identify a

set of six questions to assess. The

average correct response rate per question for these questions will be 80% or higher.

Average correct response rate (see appendix with raw data) for 125 students was 89% Past Results 14-15 120 82% 13-14 160 87% 12-13 85%

GOAL MET This is an important contribution to the intercultural learning general education orientation of this course.

2. Goal

190

To develop in students an understanding of how anthropology analyzes the relationships between difference, culture, and power.

Learning Outcomes

2a. Students will demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between difference, culture and power. [also satisfies SJ]


INTRO All students in the Introduction to Anthropology course will be required to write a short essay in which they describe and analyze systems of privilege and oppression (or the relationship between difference and inequality). 80% of students who complete this assignment will score at good or better according to items on the essays grading rubric focused on this analysis. Please find an example of the rubrics used in the Introduction to Anthropology class in 2015-2016 attached as an appendix.

112/125 90%

Past Results

14-15 109/120 91% 13-14 135/160 85% 12-13 ?? 88%

GOAL MET We continue to be satisfied with this outcome. Along with cultural relativism, this is the other primary contribution we make to the general education curriculum, and to the Social Justice tag.

THEORY

All student will write a response paper in the Theory in Anthropology course that focuses on how different theoretical approaches (e.g. Bourdieu, Foucault, Gramsci, James Scott) illuminate the relationship between culture and power. 80% of students will score good or better on a specific rubric assessment criterion that asks them to compare how well two different schools of thought illuminate the relationship between culture and power in the context of particular cultural phenomena.

GREYED OUT BECAUSE WE DO NOT TEACH IN F 15


2b. Students will demonstrate knowledge of perspectives from feminist, native and reflexive anthropology, among others, on the politics of the production of knowledge within anthropology and within Western intellectual and popular traditions more broadly.


THEORY 100% of the students in Theory in Anthropology will write a short essay in which they describe how feminist, native, and/or reflexive anthropology



191

have called into question is considered legitimate anthropological knowledge; and how that has influenced the discipline of Anthropology more broadly. 80% of students will score good or better according to a rubric that measures the effectiveness of their discussion of the contributions of feminist, native and/or reflexive anthropology to the growth and development of the discipline.

METHODS All students in the Ethnographic Research Methods Class write short essays that ask them to discuss feminist, reflexive, native, and decolonizing critiques. 80% of these students in the Ethnographic Research methods class will score good or better on describing and/or comparing these approaches, according to a rubric designed to measure this.


GREYED OUT BECAUSE WE DO NOT TEACH IN S 16

3. Goal

To develop in students a mastery of the major theoretical frameworks in sociocultural Anthropology.

Learning Outcomes

3a. Students will demonstrate an understanding of major theoretical frameworks in sociocultural Anthropology


THEORY All students in Theory in Anthropology take a midterm exam. 85% of students who complete this assignment will score satisfactory or better (as determined by a rubric) on comparing three of the following theoretical schools (Evolutionism, Structural-Functionalism, Boasianism, Symbolic and Interpretive Anthropology, the Political Economy school and Feminist Anthropology.



THEORY All students in Theory in Anthropology write a final paper. 80%

GREYED OUT BECAUSE WE DO NOT TEACH IN F


192

of students who complete this assignment will score satisfactory or better on the rubric items that evaluate how well they explain theoretical frameworks that they might use for their particular capstone project.

15

3b. Students will employ anthropological theory in the analysis of original ethnographic data.


CAPSTONE All graduating seniors complete a capstone paper. 80% of these students will situate their analysis within an appropriate theoretical framework in Anthropology at a level of good or better in their capstone papers as evaluated by a rubric.

7/8 88% Past Results 14-15 4/5 80% 13-14 11/12 92% 12-13 8/8 100%

GOAL MET We shifted this goal to below 100% to allow for one student to perform at a less than “good” level on this measure. Mastery of theory is difficult; and many students move directly from the Theory core course to capstone in the same year, and not all will be able to perform this well on that measure. We know from our students who go to graduate school that we excel in teaching theory, and are confident that this is a smarter benchmark for us.

4. Goal

To develop students’ mastery of ethnographic research methods and an understanding of the politics and ethics of anthropological research and practice.

Learning Outcomes

4a. Students will demonstrate competence in ethnographic methods.


METHODS All students in the Ethnographic Methods class are required to complete a series of projects designed to familiarize them with a range of ethnographic methods. 80% of students who complete these projects



193

will perform at a level of good or better on each of these.

• Participant observation

exercise

• PhotoVoice Exercise

• Transcription/Narrative

Write-Up exercise

• In-Class Field Notes

Exercise

• Cultural artifact exercise,

• Participant observation

exercise

• Collecting and turning in

field notes at two different

times during semester

(which illustrated student

development of

interviewing, participant

observation, note taking and

jotting skills).

METHODS

All students in the Ethnographic Methods class will complete a final paper for the class. 80% of those students will score good or better in their use of ethnographic methods in the final paper as measured by a grading rubric item.



CAPSTONE All graduating seniors write a capstone paper. 100 % of these students will demonstrate through their writing that they have employed ethnographic research methods at a level of good or better as measured by a grading rubric item.

7/8 88% Past Results 14-15 4/5 80% 13-14 12/12 100% 12-13 8/8 100%

GOAL NOT MET One student did poor ethnographic research for her project during a study abroad program. The student was not one of our strongest, but one way to improve this outcome would be to institute some more formal kind of interaction between whoever will be teaching the student during capstone and the student while they are on a study

194

abroad program. We had hoped to have already instituted this, but we were challenged with unexpected full-time faculty leaves. We will discuss how feasible instituting this kind of advisory role would be, or whether we should change our benchmark and recognize that we might not always be able to ensure that every student functions at the “good” or above level.

4b. Students will demonstrate an understanding of the ethics and politics entailed in ethnographic research (in both the research process and the politics of representation).


METHODS All students in the Ethnographic Research Methods class are required to write and submit an IRB proposal that includes a discussion of the ethics and politics of ethnographic research and representation. 80% of the students will score good or better on describing the of ethics and politics of ethnographic research (according to a grading rubric measure for the assignment)



CAPSTONE

All graduating seniors complete a capstone paper. 100% of these students will score good or better, according to a grading rubric, on addressing the politics and ethics entailed in the research process and data analysis for their capstone project.

8/8 100% Past Results 14-15 5/5 100% 13-14 12/12 100% 12-13 8/8 100%

GOAL MET We are pleased with these results. Students did a very good job addressing politics and ethics in research and data analysis. Again, this reflects how these issues are integrated throughout our Anthropology curriculum

5. Goal

195

To develop in students the ability to analyze ethnographic data and contextualize their analysis in related scholarship, and DEMONSTRATE sophisticated ethnographic writing skills.

Learning Outcomes

5a. Students will demonstrate competence in analyzing ethnographic data.


METHODS

All students in the Ethnographic Methods class complete a final paper for the class. 80% of students who complete this assignment will score good or better in the analysis of their ethnographic data as measured by a grading rubric



CAPSTONE All graduating seniors complete a capstone paper. 100% of students who complete this paper will score good or better in the analysis of their own original ethnographic data in their capstone paper as measured by a grading rubric.

7/8 88% Past Results 14-15 4/5 80% 13-14 11/12 92% 12-13 8/8 100%

GOAL NOT MET See Learning Outcome 4a Capstone measurement. These are interlinked problems, and we will address them as such.

5b. Students will contextualize their ethnographic analysis in related scholarship.


CAPSTONE All graduating seniors complete a capstone paper. 100% of students who complete this paper will score good or better in contextualizing their analysis in appropriate scholarship as measured by a grading rubric.

7/8 88% Past Results 14-15 5/5 100% 13-14 11/12 92% 12-13 7/8 88%

GOAL NOT MET We spent a good deal of time on scholarly literature in class and especially in individual meetings with Dr. Sendejo and students. A visit and follow-ups from SU librarian Joan Parks also helped students with seeking out and locating relevant scholarship. Given that, as with some of our other capstone measures, we need to recognize that we will occasionally have students who only do “fair” jobs on these kinds of metrics. We

196

will meet and discuss this Fall (2016)

5c. Students will demonstrate excellent and sophisticated ethnographic writing skills


METHODS

All students in the Ethnographic Methods class complete a final paper for the class. At least 75% of students who complete this assignment will score good or better in writing compelling ethnography (rich, relevant and nuanced ethnographic description) as measured by a grading rubric.



CAPSTONE All graduating seniors complete a capstone paper. 90% of students who complete this paper will score good or better in writing compelling ethnography (rich, relevant and nuanced ethnographic description) as measured by a grading rubric.

8/8 100% Past Results 14-15 5/5 100% 13-14 12/12 100% 12-13 ?? 100%

GOAL MET We are pleased with these results as we consider this to be a particular strength that sets our Anthropology curriculum apart.

6. Goal

To develop in students the ability to present their own original ethnographic research in both written and oral formats to a broad academic audience.

Learning Outcomes

6a. Students will demonstrate skills in written communication.


CAPSTONE All students in the required capstone seminar complete a written capstone research paper. At least 90% will score good or better on the grading rubric used to evaluate writing effectiveness in the paper.

7/8 88%

Past Results 14-15 5/5 100% 13-14 12/12 100% 12-13 8/8 100%

GOAL NOT MET Students did a very good job overall in writing their papers. The peer review and multiple drafts assisted in this effort. This year’s “goal not met” reflects the occasional weak student who moves through our program.

CAPSTONE At least 40% of graduating seniors will have created a paper judged strong enough to be presented at a regional or national professional meeting; and

6/8 were judged strong enough 75%

4/8 presented 50%

GOAL MET Four students presented original research at the Southwestern Anthropological

197

30% of graduating seniors will have so presented.

Past Results (presented) 14-15 3/5 60% 13-14 5/12 42% 12-13 5/8 68%

Association Annual Meetings in San Diego, CA. Six presented at SU student works. One is pursuing publication of their paper.

6b. Students will demonstrate skills in oral communication.


METHODS All students in the required Ethnographic Methods course do an oral presentation on their research. At least 80% will score good or better on the grading rubric used to evaluate those presentations.



CAPSTONE All students in the required capstone seminar do an oral presentation on their research. At least 80% will score good or better on the items focused on oral communication skills on this assignment’s grading rubric for those presentations. See attached rubric

7/8 88% Past Results 14-15 4/5 80% 13-14 12/12 100% 12-13 8/8 100%

GOAL MET We are pleased with this result.

198

Appendix 1. Introduction to Cultural Anthropology Assessment Data in Detail, 15-16

I. For Learning Outcome 1a. Students will analyze cultural difference through the lens of cultural relativism and demonstrate an understanding of ethnocentrism.

Fall 1 & 2 Fall 3 Spring 1 & 2 Total

Total # Students in class (who completed

assignment/exercise)

48 27 50 125

Total # Students who scored “good” or

better

45 22 45 112

Percentage 94% 81% 90% 90%

II For Learning Outcome 1b. Students will demonstrate knowledge of cultural diversity.

Total # Students in

class/who complete

exam

48 (Fall 1 & 2) 27 (Fall 3) 50 (Spring 1 & 2)

Per Question info Q1 Q2 Q2 Q4 Q5 Q6

Number of students

who get question correct

45 23 47 39 26 42 46 21 45 40 25 44 38 20 45 42 24 48

%/age of students who

get question right: F 1 &

2

94% 87% 96% 89% 84% 93% Avg by

Inst

91%

F 3 85 96 78 93 74 89 85%

Spr 1 & 2 94 84 90 88 86 96 90%

Average of all percentages by section: (91 + 91+85 + 90 + 90) = 89

III. For Learning Outcome 2a. Students will demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between

difference, culture and power

Total # Students in class (who completed assignment/exercise) 48 27 50

Total # Students who scored “good” or better 43 25 44

Percentage 90 93 88

199

Appendix 2.

Assessment Grading Rubric for Learning Outcome 2a (students will demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between difference, culture and power) in Introduction to Cultural Anthropology. This serves as both ScS and SJ general education measure

Longer Answer Question. 20 points.

A theme of this course is how we understand the relationship between difference and inequality

(or hierarchy or privilege and oppression). In that vein, discuss how race (blackness/whiteness/latin-ness/asian-ness, etc.), racism/racial oppression and white

supremacy/white privilege can be understood as ‘culture’ that is entangled with hierarchy. Illustrate your discussion with at least 3 different and relevant examples/instances from course materials. Limit your answer to the space below!

Grading Rubric out of 20 possible points:

Demonstrated Understanding of Race/Racism/White Supremacy as relationship between difference and inequality 11 points. (assessment data point) Examples at 3 points each. 9 points.

200

Appendix 3: Anthropology Capstone Grading Rubric: Paper (2016 version)

Element W F G VG X

Description of Methods & Ethnographic Context

• Detailed description of where, when, how research was conducted

• Broader political, economic, social and cultural context, as relevant to

project, described clearly.

• Specification of where, when, how student engaged in participant-

observation

• Specification of number of interviews, with whom, how individuals

were chosen

• Description of other materials that informed research (newspapers,

pamphlets, archives, websites)

5 5.5 6 7 8

Ethics and Politics of Research/Representation

• Discussion of issues (ontological, epistemological and ethical) that arose

during research process, and how student handled them

5 5.5 6 7 8

Contextualization within Related Scholarship

• Synthesizes a substantial body of scholarly literature (minimum of 15

citations).

• Makes strong connections between the literature discussed and the

project topic.

• Finds gaps in literature, or brings together literature and topic in novel

and interesting ways.

6 7 8 9 10

Explicit Theoretical Frame

• Situates study within broad theoretical framework

• Demonstrates rich command of theory in cultural anthropology

5 5.5 6 7 8

Effectiveness of Ethnographic Methods

• Rich ethnographic examples

• Detailed ethnographic description

• Plentiful interviews

• Effective use of a suitable number of quotes

• Ethnographic evidence well suited to topics to be discussed

• Overall, sufficient ethnographic data for project

6 7 8 9 10

Cultural Relativism and Ethnocentrism

• Careful analysis that does not make unsupportable claims, that does not

impute motives, and that fully avoids ethnocentrism.

• Analysis is written empathetically

5 5.5 6 7 8

201

Effective Data Analysis and Interweaving of Theoretical/Analytical Points and Ethnographic Evidence

• Ethnographic evidence directly supports claims student is making in

paper

• Effective weaving between more abstract theory, other scholarship on

topic and ethnographic data

• Demonstrates sufficient depth and richness of analysis

6 7 8 9 10

Rich and Compelling Ethnographic Description and Writing

• Evocative

• Nuanced

• Compelling

5 5.5 6 7 8

Capstone Thesis/Argument & Significance

• Exceptional and clear articulation of argument that will be made in

paper that grabs interest of reader

• Pithy and well developed thesis statement

Significance of topic is clear, engaging, exciting

3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Organization/ Development of Ideas

• Introduction clearly lays out the thesis, how the paper will develop, the

significance of the topic addressed.

• Written beautifully, exceptionally clear; compelling, makes reader want

to keep reading

• Consistent connections made between arguments, evidence, subtopics,

& thesis

• Insightful, clear, and fresh analysis

• Logical development of subtopics that support thesis with excellent

transition between paragraphs

• Logical development of thought and ideas within paragraphs

• Conclusion = excellent summary of argument (with no new

information),

• Concluding ideas leave an impact on reader, and/or suggest further

avenues for research/inquiry

• Reaches or exceeds expected paper length (28 page minimum)

6 7 8 9 10

Language Conventions

• Paper is very concise, clear, with consistently proper grammar, spelling

and paragraphing

• Effective word choice

• Graceful phrasing

• Compelling style.

5 5.5 6 7 8

202

Bibliography

• Accurate, conforms to established convention (Chicago, typically)

• All sources cited.

• Minimum of 15 peer-reviewed, scholarly sources.

4 5 5.5 6 7

203

Appendix 4: Anthropology Capstone Presentation Grading Rubric (2016)

Criteria Weight

Encapsulates Larger Paper into Shorter/Oral Format—70 points

Articulation of Main Point & Why Matters

• Exceptional and clear articulation of argument that will be made in paper that grabs interest of reader

• Pithy and well developed thesis statement

• Significance of topic is clear, engaging, exciting

10

Description of Methods and Context

• Detailed description of where, when, how research was conducted, and how student engaged in research

• Broader political, economic, social and cultural context, as relevant to project, described clearly.

• Specification of number of interviews, with whom, how individuals were chosen, and any other materials used in research

• Discussion of issues (ontological, epistemological and ethical) that arose during research process, and how student handled them

10

Articulation of Scholarly Context

• Describes related scholarly literatures effectively, identifying how project contributes by shedding new light, or filling a gap

10

Effective use of Data to Illustrate Points

• Rich ethnographic examples and detailed ethnographic description

• Ethnographic evidence well suited to topics to be discussed

• Ethnographic evidence directly supports claims student is making in paper

• Effective weaving between more abstract theory, other scholarship on topic and ethnographic data

10

Organization

• Logical development of thought and ideas

• Ideas build upon each other.

• Fits within the assigned time limits (12-15 minutes)

10

Conclusion

• Excellent summary of argument (with no new information),

• Concluding ideas leave an impact on reader, and/or suggest further avenues for research/inquiry

10

Effective Oral Communication 30 Points

Conventions of Speech

• Speaks slowly, loudly and clearly

• Effectively modulates voice to retain audience interest

• Has practiced presenting paper sufficiently enough to look up at the audience frequently

10

Effective Use of Media

• If using PowerPoint, has limited text on page, good use of photographs/images, changes slides at effective frequency

• If not, handout provides effective amount of information and is effectively formatted

10

Handling Audience Questions

• Demonstrates command of ethnographic and scholarly literature in which topic is embedded

• Shows confidence and poise in accepting audience questions

• Deftly navigates between being overly arrogant and overly self-doubting.

10

204

Appendix 5: On Teaching Introduction to Cultural Anthropology at Southwestern,

(please note that last page of this document contains the table you should fill out and

submit to Dept Chair or Drs. Johnson and/or Sendejo after you have finished grading final

exams)

As part of the joint Sociology and Anthropology department, Anthropology contributes to this overall department mission:

At the heart of sociology and anthropology lies an interest in understanding the ways in which group membership, cultural context and social hierarchies affect people’s lived experiences and world views. The Department’s offerings combine sociology’s focus on contemporary and historical patterns of social interaction with anthropology’s interests in systems of cultural meanings, and encourage awareness and understanding of human diversity and cultural variation. The Department is especially interested in examining the ways in which race, class, gender and other social attributes operate within systems of domination and resistance. Course work within the Department will challenge students to examine some of their most basic assumptions about the world and will contribute to a critical understanding of how the social world operates—an essential characteristic of a liberally educated global citizen. As a progressive department, a commitment to social justice based on an appreciation of social and cultural diversity and an awareness of social inequality is encouraged. Faculty members’ teaching and research embrace this commitment in a variety of ways, and we encourage students to use the knowledge, skills and perspectives they have gained through courses and other work with us to promote positive social change.

Specifically, the goals for the Anthropology program are:

1. Develop in students an understanding of cultural relativism, ethnocentrism, and knowledge of cultural diversity.

2. Develop in students an understanding of how anthropology analyzes the relationships between difference, culture, and power.

3. Develop in students a mastery of the major theoretical frameworks in sociocultural Anthropology.

4. Develop students’ mastery of ethnographic research methods and an understanding of the politics and ethics of anthropological research and practice.

5. Develop in students the ability to analyze ethnographic data, contextualize their analysis in related scholarship, and demonstrate sophisticated ethnographic writing skills.

6. Develop in students the ability to present their own original ethnographic research in both written and oral formats, to a broad academic audience.

And the major is designed to: The Anthropology major is designed to develop a critical awareness and understanding of the diversity of peoples and cultures, and of the relevance and application of anthropological perspectives and methods to contemporary issues. The major provides a well-balanced intellectual and practical background for a broad range of careers and fields of graduate study, particularly those that require culturally sensitive approaches or multicultural perspectives. Geographically, the department specializes in the Caribbean and U.S-Mexico Borderlands. Topically, courses cover issues central to our contemporary global society: questions of race, class and gender;; environmental

205

(in)justice; global inequality; the making of religious and spiritual forms and identities; the intersections of gender, race, feminism and religion; and advocacy and activism. Anthropology majors acquire solid grounding in both the social and cultural theory employed and generated by anthropologists and the ethnographic methods that define our discipline.

The course description in the Southwestern University catalog for Introduction to Cultural Anthropology is as follows:

This course provides a critical understanding of the similarities and differences in cultures and peoples through time and space, and of the application of anthropological knowledge to contemporary global issues. Topics covered may include the history of anthropology; human evolution; the idea of race; gender across cultures; kinship; political organization; economies; consumption; religion; language; ethics; and fieldwork.

Contributions to General Education Curriculum at Southwestern

The Introduction to Cultural Anthropology Course satisfies two General Education Requirements:

Intercultural Perspectives

The goal of this requirement is to help students understand and interrogate their relation to the world. Students develop awareness of their own and others’ worldviews by encountering and analyzing how the interaction between material conditions and cultural beliefs and practices shapes everyday life differently for different people in different social, global and historical contexts. Courses fulfilling this requirement consider similarities and differences in physical and cultural environments, institutions, practices, values, beliefs, worldviews and/or identities.

Social Justice

In accordance with SU’s core values which state that SU “fosters diverse perspectives,” “respects the worth and dignity of persons” and “promotes activism in the pursuit of justice,” Southwestern requires all students to take one course that provides a critical analysis of the ways in which difference is used in the maintenance of structures of power (e.g. institutions, discourses, etc.) and inequality. These courses also may consider collective and/or individual resistance to systems of inequality and histories of oppression.

What Introduction to Cultural Anthropology at Southwestern must do: We allow great latitude in how visiting and adjunct instructors may teach this course (the specific topics covered, readings, films, ‘texts’ used, assignments and other work required of students). However, we do need the course to speak to the two general education requirements described above, and more specifically to address the three learning outcomes listed below. For each learning outcome listed below, we suggest a possible way to ‘assess’ it and provide some of the details of how that assessment might work. As we suggest below, you are free to design a different assessment mechanism for any of them, if you wish. I. For Learning Outcome 1a. Students will analyze cultural difference through the lens of

cultural relativism and demonstrate an understanding of ethnocentrism.

Assessment Mechanism 1 100% of the students in the Introduction to Anthropology class will be required to answer a set essay question on an exam asking them to define and apply “cultural relativism” and “ethnocentrism” and articulate how the two concepts mutually inform one another. At least 80% of the students who complete this question will score good or better, based on a rubric on this essay.

206

Please feel free to construct an essay prompt/question, either stand alone, or on an exam, that addresses this point. See an example below that you are free to use as is, or edit however might suit you POSSIBLE ESSAY/EXAM Question Essay Question, 25 points

1 .Define the concepts cultural relativism and ethnocentrism. (5 points each) 2 Apply these concepts to what you have learned about three of the following: (5 points each)

a) differing economic systems/ideas about natural resources, labor, consumption b) different languages/dialects c) differing kinship systems /ideas about kinship d) differing marriage systems /ideas about marriage e) differing gender systems/ ideas about gender and sexuality

In your answer, consider the contrast between an ethnocentric and a culturally relative approach to making sense of the differences you discuss Of course, adjust scores to reflect how you construct the essay in terms of how many points it is worth.

(here, I use the whole answer to the question as my point of evaluation)

Fail 13.7/25

Weak 15/25

Fair 17/25

Good 20/25

VG 23/25

Ex 25/25

Results Total # who answered # who scored ‘good’ or above percentage at good or above


Assessment Mechanism All students in the Introduction to Anthropology course take exams with ‘objective’ [multiple choice or true/false] questions on cultural diversity. Each instructor will identify a set of six questions to assess. The average correct response rate per question for these questions be 80% or higher.

Use whatever multiple choice or true false questions you like; feel free to borrow our exams. The questions should be about cultural differences—we do not have one particular set we use, but any that capture the variety of cultural practices around the world.

Q1 Q2 Q2 Q4 Q5 Q6

Number of students

207

who get question correct/total number of students who answered

%/age of students who get question right

III. For Learning Outcome 2a. Students will demonstrate an understanding of the

relationship between difference, culture and power

Assessment Mechanism: All students in the Introduction to Anthropology course are required to write a short essay in which they describe and analyze systems of privilege and oppression (or the relationship between difference and inequality). 80% of students who complete this assignment will score at good or better according to a rubric measure.

Please feel free to construct an essay prompt/question, either stand alone, or on an exam, that addresses this point. See an example below that you are free to use as is, or edit however

might suit you. Please note how we use the grading rubric in this example – for assessment we only need to know that they can explain relationship between difference and inequality. (don’t need to prove they have read, gone to class—I measure/include that on test for other reasons!)

POSSIBLE ESSAY/EXAM Question, and how to think about using rubrics

Difference and Inequality Question. 15 points

A theme of this course is how we understand the relationship between difference and inequality. (this is of course related to the question Dr. Johnson has repeatedly posed—can there be difference without hierarchy?). In that vein, Discuss how racism/white supremacy can be understood as a system of privilege and oppression—or a systematic tying of difference to inequality. Illustrate your discussion with at least 3 different examples/instances that make up the system. Refer to at least one lecture/discussion and at least one reading. Grading Rubric:

Clear articulation of how racism/white supremacy is a systematic tying of

difference to inequality

10

Use of 3 examples

3 (one each)

One lecture/discussion and one reading

2 (one each)

Please adjust score numbers to match your essay grading rubric!

Score (only use “Clear

Fail 5.5/10

Weak 6/10

Fair 7/10 Good/8 VG/9 Ex/10 Results Total #

208

articulation” Other measures serve different purpose)

who answered question # who scored good or better Percentage at good or above

PLEASE SUBMIT DATA AS ONE PAGE ON FORM at end of this document Please use

one form for each section, if you are teaching two sections of Intro. Feel free to cut and

paste to create a new document so that you can submit your results electronically. In

addition, please note that the following information should be included on all syllabi:

• Course Learning Outcomes (these should also correspond to the learning outcomes listed

below)

• Course Requirements and Grading Policy

• At the minimum, this statement about accommodations for learning disabilities:

It is Southwestern University policy to make reasonable accommodations for students with documented disabilities. To arrange accommodations students should contact the Assistant Director of Academic Success within the Center for Academic Success and Records (CASAR in the Prothro Center room 120; phone 863-1286). Students seeking accommodations should notify the Assistant Director of Academic Success at least two weeks before services are needed. It is the student's responsibility to discuss any necessary accommodations with the appropriate faculty member

• This paragraph regarding attendance (you can specify your attendance policy before inserting

this paragraph in your syllabus)

Southwestern University recognizes that it has students from a variety of religious and cultural traditions that have special days of observance or celebration that may take students out of their regular activities on certain days during the school year. Since the academic calendar does not always coincide with these days, the following policy is to be followed in order to facilitate student absences due to cultural and religious observances: As far in advance as possible, the student is expected to notify the professor(s) or instructor(s) of the class(es) to be missed. The student is expected to learn what assignments or exams are due or will be assigned on those dates and negotiate with the professor(s) or instructor(s) alternate times for fulfilling those requirements. Students should be prepared to fulfill the requirements prior to the class(es) to be missed.

209

• A paragraph on how you use the Honor Code in your class (something akin to the first

sentence is required, the latter sentences are examples of what one instructor expects from

students regarding the code:

All work in this course is covered by the Honor Code, which is described in detail in the Student

Handbook. [In general, I encourage working together and discussing class material together. Please discuss the ethnographies you read, your mini-ethnographic research project and any and all other material with your classmates, please study together. However, I expect you to write your book review and your mini-ethnographic analysis individually. I also expect you to work individually on quizzes and exams.] Also, if you require any activities, attendance at any events at specific times out of class (e.g. field trips, attending a specific campus-lecture, etc.) as much as possible put those on the syllabus

210

Introduction to Cultural Anthropology Assessment Data SEMESTER: INSTRUCTOR: SECTION

#

I. For Learning Outcome 1a. Students will analyze cultural difference through the lens of

cultural relativism and demonstrate an understanding of ethnocentrism.

Total # Students in class (who completed assignment/exercise)

Total # Students who scored “good” or better

Percentage


Total # Students in class/who

complete exam

Per Question info Q1 Q2 Q2 Q4 Q5 Q6

Number of students who get

question correct

%/age of students who get

question right

Average of all percentages

III. For Learning Outcome 2a. Students will demonstrate an understanding of the

relationship between difference, culture and power

Total # Students in class (who completed assignment/exercise)

Total # Students who scored “good” or better

Percentage

211

Theatre Department Assessment Plan


Mission

The Department of Theatre is dedicated to the education of theatre advocates, educators, and practitioners through training and study in history, literature, performance, and production. As a multi-disciplinary art, training in theatre represents an academic and artistic exploration within a liberal arts context. As such, our curriculum requires students to develop skills in collaborative, creative and critical thinking. Additionally, students must cultivate their abilities to express themselves through written, oral, and visual communication. Because theory and practice are inseparable, the Department requires students to be involved in coursework and in producing performances and productions designed and selected to educate, enhance, and elevate the lives of the greater community. Preface and Overall Suggestions for Future Improvement of Assessment

The Theatre Department has modified the 2014-15 Assessment Plan as requested but has included data pertaining only to our graduating majors. No other data have been collected by the theatre faculty, since the curriculum has undergone major changes in the past three years and we are in the process of creating rubrics for all of our areas.

Goal

To provide academic and laboratory experiences designed to help students explore their artistic potential through the arts and crafts of theatre.

Learning Outcome

1a. Students will acquire technical skills requisite for artistic self-expression in at least one major performance area (acting, directing, design, technical theatre)


A sample of selected performances (acting, directing, design, and/or technical theatre selected by the student and included in her/his portfolio) drawn from our stage productions and class projects will be assessed to determine how well students address the basic elements of the craft of theatre in their own respective area. Target: 80% rated good or excellent per departmental rubric

No data has been collected.

The department is in the process of creating rubrics for each one of the areas of emphasis. Rubrics will be ready by the end of August 2016 and data will be collected and assessed starting Fall 2016

1b. Students will be involved in any capacity and at least once in each one of the categories characterizing the range of our theatre productions (classical theatre/poetic language; theatre for young audiences; realistic play; contemporary play (last 30 years)

212


Graduating Majors will have held at least one major performance or artistic role (acting, directing, design, technical theatre, dramaturgy, stage management) in a production during their four years within the department. Target: 90%

12/12 graduating students held significant performance or artistic roles on major productions

Standard met.

Goal

To empower theatre students to demonstrate competence in critical and analytical skills in connection with creativity, research, and writing. Learning Outcome

2a. Students will demonstrate competence in analyzing and interpreting plays or performances from a variety of styles and will gain an understanding of the cultural contexts in which they developed


Papers, exams, and class projects drawn from a rotating array of relevant courses will be rated good or excellent in analyzing and interpreting plays or performances in connection with executing practical skills or research. Target: 80% per departmental rubric.

No data has been collected. See 1a

In reviewing final papers written for the Portfolio, the department faculty will determine that papers reach or exceed the level of acceptable as set forth in the department evaluation rubric. Target: 80% per departmental rubric.

4/12 of our graduating majors were rated Excellent, 1/12 was rated Proficient, 4/12 were rated Acceptable and 3/12 were rated Unacceptable. 9/12 of our graduating majors reached or exceeded the level of Acceptable (75%)

Standard not met. The Department has significantly changed the curriculum (it will be fully implemented starting Fall 2016) and the Capstone experience. We will continue to monitor and make sure, through a new class (Company) and the Sophomore barrier and Juries to meet the standard for the next academic year

2b. Students will demonstrate the ability to access scholarly and artistic resources and conduct research in connection with executing practical skills or to conduct theatre historical research.


A sample of papers, exams, and class projects drawn from relevant courses will be rated good or excellent in identifying and integrating appropriate scholarly and artistic resources.

No data has been collected. See 1a

213

Target: 80% per departmental rubric

In reviewing final papers for the Portfolio, department faculty will determine that all papers reach or exceed the level of acceptable in deploying scholarly and artistic resources. Annual target: 100% per departmental rubric

4/12 of our graduating majors were rated Excellent, 1/12 was rated Proficient, 4/12 were rated Acceptable and 3/12 were rated Unacceptable. 9/12 of our graduating majors reached or exceeded the level of Acceptable (75%)

Standard not met (see 2a)

2c. Students will be able to write effectively about theatre


A sample of papers and exams drawn from relevant courses will be assessed according to a departmental rubric to determine how well students write about all aspects of theatre at an appropriate and effective level. Annual target: 80% good or excellent

No data has been collected.

See 1a

Faculty will assess Portfolio papers to determine that all papers reach or exceed the level acceptable in writing effectively about theatre. Annual target: 80% per departmental rubric

9/12 of our graduating majors reached or exceeded the level of Acceptable

Standard not met. See 2a

Goal

To prepare students to apply and compete for acceptance into graduate studies, professional training programs, internships or professional employment. Learning Outcome

3.a Theatre students will demonstrate the ability to create CV/resumes and cover letters and statement of purpose for graduate programs. In addition, depending on their area of expertise, they will demonstrate competence in the creation of portfolios and in audition and interview techniques


In reviewing the material for the Portfolio, department faculty will determine that all the material submitted reach or exceed the level of acceptable. Annual target: 80%

2/12 of our graduating majors were rated Excellent, 4/12 were rated Proficient, 1/12 was rated Acceptable and 5/12 were rated Unacceptable. 7/12 of our graduating majors reached or exceeded the level of Acceptable (58%)

Standard not met. See 2a

214

3b. Theatre students will successfully demonstrate professional competence in audition and portfolio presentation skills.


75% of all theatre majors will be selected to participate, via a competitive interview or audition, in an internship relevant in the field before they graduate.

7/12 successfully completed internship programs connected with their study abroad programs or in summer programs (58%)

Standard not met – continue to monitor. However, there’s been a significant improvement compared to the previous year (27%). The Department will collaborate with the new SSFA Managing Director and further explore internships possibilities in the summer months and at the local level

215

Animal Behavior Interdisciplinary Program Assessment Plan


General reflections:

This past year was a particular difficult one for the Animal Behavior Program. We have started the necessary steps required for the termination of the program that was a result of the retirement of one of its founding members, Dr. Jesse Purdy. In terms of assessment, the added inquiry-based exercises throughout the curriculum helped strengthen our students’ understanding of the field. Results from Research Methods and the Capstone experience continue to suggest that students gain the skills we expect. Our assessments relay that our methods effectively teach students the mechanics of research and that students successfully gain the desirable skills by the time they complete their Capstone Research Experience (CRE). This year, the following steps were taken to both ensure successful preparation of our students who declared Animal Behavior as their major as well as the gradual elimination of the program. 1) We had to hire a visiting faculty to teach core: Learning and Animal Behavior course. The Animal

Behavior course will no longer be offered as part of the psychology curriculum. Therefore, this was the last time the course will likely be offered unless an unexpected need arises.

2) We will be allowing and encouraging students to participate in research experiences at locations off campus as an option for capstone ---- given that we have lost a key member of the AB faculty to supervise undergraduate research.

3) We incorporated elements of the Intro to Animal Behavior course into the core Animal Behavior course as a lab component of the course to save on resources. However, because we are no longer allowing students to declare Animal Behavior as a major after the 2015-16 academic year, we are no longer offering the Intro to AB course. Therefore, some of our assessment measurements must be changed starting this year and ending with the cancelation of the program.

Guiding Principle: The assessment of the Animal Behavior program includes assessment at all levels of the curriculum, which included elements from the Introduction to the major (Intro to AB), and core courses such as Research Methods I/II (now a one semester course) and Animal Behavior (core course) as well as the culminating capstone experience. However, now that the program has been canceled, as current students no longer need specific requirements, courses will no longer be offered and therefore most assessments will no longer be necessary. Guiding Principle: We use items on the rubrics or overall rubric scores but do not use grades on any assignment in our assessment so we are following guiding principles. Assessment challenges: We will no longer offer the program for students past the 2015-2016 catalog. In the future, our goal will be to reduce efforts on assessment until the program dissolves. We would ask that the committee advise as to the minimal requirements for program assessment. Previous comments have been addressed as a consequence of the elimination of the program and resources necessary to offer the degree to any new students after the 2015-16 academic year.

Mission

The Animal Behavior Program provides an academically challenging interdisciplinary program that: 1) exposes students to the foundation of the field of animal behavior; 2) explains the link between biology and psychology; 3) illustrates the ethical and social issues surrounding the scientific study of animal behavior; 4) engages students in scientific inquiry and 5) prepares students to become scientists by

216

encouraging one-on-one collaborative research with faculty members. Our current mission includes offering all degree requirements to the remaining students who have declared Animal Behavior as their major during and prior to the 2015-16 academic year.

1. Goal

To expose students to the foundation of the field of Animal Behavior

Learning Outcome

1a. Acquire the central core knowledge/content unique to the field of animal behavior.


Introduction to Animal Behavior 1-HR COURSE ESSAY: We want to improve student understanding of the foundation of animal behavior as an interdisciplinary field that has a long tradition studying animal behavior from many different perspectives and methodologies using a short answer response to an essay question (What is animal behavior?).

We are no longer offering this course because of limited resources. Therefore we have no data for this mechanism.

This assessment mechanism will no longer be assessed given the course is not being offered.

Animal Behavior Core 4-HR COURSE: We want 100% of students to illustrate a clear understanding of the disciplinary content of the study of Animal Behavior as evident by a score of at least 8 out of 10 on an exam question that requires an understand of animal communication.

87% of students (21 out of 24 students) earned a score of at least 8 out of 10 on exam question about animal communication

Having an expectation that 100% of students would earn 8 out of 10 points (the equivalent to an 80%) may have been too ambitious. Therefore we have changed our criteria to be more realistic: 80% of students will earn an 8 out of 10. Given the elimination of the program, this course will likely only be offered 1-2 more times. In the future, we will have to work with an adjunct instructor to assess these student learning outcomes.

Animal Behavior Core 4-HR COURSE: We want 100% of students will illustrate a clear understanding of the disciplinary content of the study of Animal Behavior as evident by a score of at least 8 out of 10 on a final exam question that requires an understand of animal learning and reproductive success.

79% of students (19 out of 24 students) earned a score of at least 8 out of 10 on final exam question about animal learning and reproductive success.

Along the same reasoning as above, we have changed our criteria to be more realistic: 80% of students will earn an 8 out of 10. We will have to determine how to assess this learning outcome with a future adjunct.

217

Animal Behavior Core 4-HR COURSE: We want 100% of students to illustrate a clear understanding of the disciplinary content of the study of Animal Behavior as evident by a score of at least 8 out of 10 on a final exam question that requires an understand of one of the foundation areas of study of animal behavior (developmental, learning and memory, migration and navigation or behavioral genetics depending on focus of the class that year).

92% of students (22 out of 24 students) earned a score of at least 8 out of 10 on final exam question about an area of foundation – in this year’s class; learning and memory.

Along the same reasoning as above, we have changed our criteria to be more realistic: 80% of students will earn an 8 out of 10. We will have to determine how to assess this learning outcome with a future adjunct.

1b. Students will gain knowledge/content applicable to the specific area of research in the field of Animal Behavior in which their capstone project was based.


Capstone Self-Assessment: SURE survey of Research Experience: We want 80% of the students to rank their awareness as a 4.0 or higher on the question that asks how students rate their current knowledge of the literature of topic area (QUESTION 3; 1 = no gain; 5 = very large gain; based on Lopatto et al.).

67% of our students (4 out of 6) ranked their current knowledge gain of the literature as “large.” Mean ± SD: 4.2 ± 0.9

Again we did not reach our goal. However, with such a small number of students it is possible that we must adjust again by allowing for some students who do not work to high level during their capstone experience and only make nominal gains at understanding the literature, based on their abilities and motivation.

2. Goal

Students will gain a thorough understanding of both the biological and psychological approaches to the study of animal behavior.

Learning Outcome

2a. Students will develop a foundation in psychological principles and biological processes as they relate to animal behavior by integrating this understanding into their capstone projects.


CAPSTONE Paper RUBRIC: All students will incorporate theory and research for the biological basis of behavior,

100% of our students (4 out of 4) scored at least a 3 out of 4 rating on the rubric that assesses the biological basis of behavior.

We reached this assessment goal in our Capstone students.

218

which relies on an understanding of both psychology and biology (as evidenced by successfully including such primary literature in capstone papers) into their final capstone papers. All students will score at least a 3 out of 4 rating on the biological basis of behavior portion of the capstone paper rubric.

Introduction to Animal Behavior 1-HR COURSE ESSAY: Students will improve their description of the interdisciplinary nature of AB as a unique scientific field that depends on more than one discipline (e.g., biology and psychology) based on the short essay given on the first day (Pre-Test) and again on the last day of class (Post-Test).


Given that we are no longer offering the degree or this class. Future assessments will not include this item.

3. Goal

Students will gain an understanding of the social and ethical aspects of Animal Behavior Learning Outcome

3a. Students will be able to apply knowledge of ethical issues about specific cases of animal use in research.


Research Methods II COURSE IACUC TUTORIAL: We want 75% of students will score good/excellent on 3 quizzes related to the ethical responsibilities in animal research.

100% of students (10 out of 10) scored good/excellent on IACUC quizzes.

We continue to provide training for students as required by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee protocols.

3b. Students will be able to articulate the ethical and social aspects of research in Animal Behavior.


Introduction to Animal Behavior 1 HR COURSE SURVEY: Approximately 75% of students

Although we are no longer offering this course anymore, we incorporated a questions on the final exam in Animal

We exceeded expectations. However, this assessment mechanism will no longer be assessed given the course is not being offered.

219

in the Introduction to Animal Behavior course will agree that they possess an awareness of the ethical and social aspects of animal research.

Behavior Core course on ethics and we found that 95% of students (23 out of 24) earned 8 out of 10 on a question about the ethical and social aspects of animal research.

Introduction to Animal Behavior 1-HR COURSE BOOK REVIEW ASSIGNMENT: We want 80% of students will show that they are developing understanding or have reached exemplary integration of content on a review of a popular press book that integrates animal behavior in the greater context of society.



Introduction to Animal Behavior 1-HR COURSE REACTION PAPERS: We expect that 80% of the students in the Introduction to Animal Behavior Class will bring up social or ethical concerns in one of their reaction paper to a level that shows they are developing understanding or have reached exemplary integration of these perspectives in the book review.



Capstone Self-Assessment: SURE survey of Research Experience We want 100% of the students to rank their awareness as a 4.0 or higher on the question that asks how students rate the gains that they made regarding awareness of ethical conduct in science (QUESTION 23: 1 = no gain; 5 = very large gain; Lopatto et al.,).

84% of our students (5 out 6) ranked their gain of increasing their awareness of ethical conduct in science as “large.” Mean ± SD: 4.0 ± 1.0

We did not met our goal of 100% of students will rate their current understanding of ethical conduct in science. However, we were very close with one student not making such gains. It is possible that ethical concerns were already made aware in the student with other courses such as Research Methods. Therefore, we are adjusting our criteria to reflect more flexibility in the system for understanding ethics by reducing number of students making gains at this point in their career to 75%.

Research Methods I and II 100% of the students in the We will continue to include

220

COURSE We expect that 100% of the students in the Research Methods I and II Class will write a reaction paper based on readings specifically about the social or ethical concerns of research as well as participate in a lab activity designed to role model members of an IACUC.

Research Methods I (11 out of 11) and II (10 out of 10) class wrote about research ethics in two reaction papers based on readings specifically about social and ethical concerns in research. 100% of the students participated in IACUC lab.

discussions and assignments that engage students in a dialog about the ethical treatment of subjects in research.

4. Goal

To engage students' minds in the scientific inquiry and the scientific methods as it relates to Animal Behavior.

Learning Outcome

4a. Students will demonstrate the ability to design research projects by engaging in hypothesis testing, data collection and statistical analysis.


RESEARCH METHODS II COURSE FINAL PAPER RUBRIC: Students will undertake a research project in Research Methods II that demonstrates their ability to design research projects by engaging in hypothesis testing, data collection, and statistical analysis. We expect that 35% of our students should write a paper summarizing this experience, be rated as EXEMPLARY, and that 90% of our students should submit papers of ACCEPTABLE quality.

We found that 100% of our students (10 out of 10) wrote a paper that was rated as ACCEPTABLE (scored > 2.0 on rubric) or better. Furthermore 0% of our students wrote an EXEMPLARY paper (scored ~ 4.0 on rubric.

This year we achieved our goal for students writing acceptable papers. However, we did not reach our goal for exemplary papers. We may have over-estimated the expectations for this paper. Therefore we will use a different expected goal that is more in line with a normal distribution. For example, given exemplary rating might be reserved for 5-10% of the distribution – we will expect that between 5-10% of our class will earn an exemplary paper

Capstone Self-Assessment: SURE survey of Research Experience: We want 75% of the students to rank their awareness as a 4.0 or higher on the question that asks how student rate their gain in understanding the research process (QUESTION 9; 1 = no

83% of our students (5 out of 6) ranked their gain of understanding of the research process as “very large gain.” Mean ± SD: 4.2 ± 0.75

We exceeded our expectation.

221

gain; 5 = very large gain; Lopatto et al.,)

Capstone/Senior Self-Assessment: SURE survey of Research Experience: We want 75% of the students to rank their awareness as a 4.0 or higher on the question that asks how student rate their gain in their ability to analyze data from research study (QUESTION 16; 1 = no gain; 5 = very large gain; Lopatto et al.,)

67% of our students (4 out of 6) ranked their gain in their ability to analyze data as “large.” Mean ± SD: 4.0 ± 0.9

We did not meet our expectation. It is likely that this issue is a function of one group of students (Guarraci lab) who were unable to analyze their data early enough during the spring semester to perform significant analysis. Their project is a longitudinal project that was only beginning to collect data at the end of the semester. Hopefully, this will not happen again.

FACULTY EVALUATION of CAPSTONE: Faculty will rate how well each student understands the research process by being able to work independently (QUESTION #2)., as well as be able to design conduct and collect data from their project (QUESTION #3). Students were ranked as EXCELLENT, FAIR or POOR for each question. We hope that faculty will rate 100% of students as EXCELLENT or FAIR.

For ability to work independently: 100% of the students (4 out of 4) were rated as EXCELLENT or FAIR For ability to observe behavior and collect data: 100% of the students (4 out of 4) were rated as EXCELLENT.

We met our assessment goals. Our faculty measures largely coincided with students’ self-assessments in terms of their understanding of the research process and their ability to work independently. We will continue to encourage these skills through our year long Capstone research experience. We will continue to emphasize the importance of understanding the research process through Research Methods and Capstone.

FACULTY EVALUATION of CAPSTONE: Faculty will rate each student's ability to analyze and interpret data (QUESTION #4). Students were ranked as EXCELLENT, FAIR or POOR. We hope that faculty will rate 100% of students as EXCELLENT or FAIR.

100% of students (4 out of 4) were rated as FAIR.

We met our assessment goals. Our faculty measures coincide with the students’ self-assessment in terms of the student’s ability to analyze and interpret data. To address weaknesses before the end of the Capstone process, the AB Faculty Mentor will meet with each Capstone student at the beginning of the second semester and outline which skills need improvement. Students will acknowledge receipt of this information.

4b. Students will demonstrate professional writing and oral presentations skills at a level that allows presentations of their research at regional, national, or international conferences.

222


Using the Capstone Oral Presentation Rubric for Animal Behavior: We want 80% of students to be rated as COMPETENT (MEAN > 2.0 on rubric) for their capstone presentation. At least one student per year will score at least 3 out of 3 during a presentation of their work at external conferences. Further success will be evident by the number of students who have won awards for presentations (TAS, SCPA, etc.). Students will be rated as Sophisticated, Competent or NOT YET Competent (ranked as 3, 2 or 1, respectively).

100% of our students (2 out of 2 students presenting this year) were rated as COMPETENT based on their presentation of their capstone. One student was rated as sophisticated on all measures. One student presented at the Texas Academy of Sciences. One student presented at Eastern Psychological Association.

We exceeded our assessment goal overall. Two students are just starting their capstone and were not in a position to present at this time, but will hopefully have data to present in the fall.

4c. Students will design and develop a research study at a level suitable for submission to an academic journal.


Using the Capstone Paper Rubric for Animal Behavior: We hope that at least one student per year will have a research project deemed at a level suitable for submission to an academic journal.

One student is writing their capstone paper up for publication – it will be submitted by August 2016.

We will also make sure that our students submit their capstone papers to the Natural Science Division Committee for future Shearn Writing Awards instead of the Social Science, when the papers involve a significant level of sophistication in the life/natural science (e.g., neuroscience, biology biochemistry).

Using publication Record: We will determine if any manuscripts that are suitable for publication are submitted and accepted for publication by any current or former Animal Behavior major.

No manuscripts have been submitted as of yet.

We will continue to encourage faculty and students to strive towards publication goals by encouraging students and faculty to participate in summer research programs such as SCOPE.

5. Goal

Create experiences for students that demonstrate the practice of science.

223

Learning Outcome

5a. Students will increase their self-confidence as a scientist.


Capstone Self-Assessment: SURE survey of Research Experience: We want 75% of the students to rank their awareness as a 4.0 or higher on the question that asks how student rates gains in self-confidence as a scientist (QUESTION 20; 1 = no gain; 5 = very large gain; Lopatto et al.,).

83% of our students (5 out of 6)ranked their gain in self-confidence as either “large” or “very large.” Mean ± SD: 4.2 ± 0.75

We exceeded our assessment goal overall.

5b. Students will write a research paper in a style appropriate for submission to an academic journal.


All students will finalize capstone papers in appropriate scientific style.

100% of the students (4 out of 4) completed their capstone paper using the appropriate scientific style (e.g., this year all papers were submitted in APA style).

We will continue to emphasize the importance of scientific writing through Research Methods and Capstone.

Using the Capstone Paper Rubric for Animal Behavior: We want 100% of the students to be rated as COMPETENT (MEAN > 2.0 on rubric) for their capstone paper “Use of most recent version of the APA Publication Manual.

100% of our students (4 out of 4) were rated as COMPETENT based on their presentation of their capstone paper.

We achieved our assessment goal overall and we will continue to emphasize the importance of writing style in our Research methods sequence and capstone requirements.

Capstone Self-Assessment: SURE survey of Research Experience: We want 100% of the students to rank their awareness as a 4.0 or higher on the question that asks students to rate gains in searching the literature (QUESTION #18 1 = no gain; 5 = very large gain; Lopatto et al.,).

83% of our students (5 out of 6)ranked their current knowledge gain of the literature as “very large.” Mean ± SD: 4.3 ± 0.81

We did not met our assessment goal in this metric and believe that our year-long Capstone experience requires that our students develop literature searching skills. However, it is possible that like other assessments, 100% might be expecting too much from our students given the variability of student academic abilities and motivation. Therefore, next year our goal will be a more reasonable 75% of our students would rank gains as large on this question.

224

Nevertheless, we will continue to emphasize the importance of literature integration through Research Methods and Capstone.

FACULTY EVALUATION of CAPSTONE: Faculty will rate each student’s knowledge of the literature and skill at searching the literature (QUESTION #1). Students were ranked as EXCELLENT, FAIR or POOR. We hope that faculty will rate 100% of students as EXCELLENT or FAIR.

100% of students (4 out of 4) were rated as EXCELLENT or FAIR.

We met our assessment goals. Our faculty measures coincide with the students’ self-assessment in terms of their ability to search and interpret the primary literature. We will continue to emphasize the importance of literature integration through Research Methods and Capstone.

225

Environmental Studies Interdisciplinary Program Assessment Plan


General Changes and Notes

During this academic year we have committed to focusing the Environmental Studies capstone on sustainability issues and questions on Southwestern’s campus, and having these ENV seniors work together in groups. This has proven very effective, and has made a significant impact on SU as an institution, as well as helping us achieve the academic goals we have for our students. This also helps us adapt to larger numbers of majors. We plan to continue this strategy for the next several years. We decided not to offer our mid-level core course Policy this year, to experiment with freeing Dr. Long to offer more upper level ENV electives. We will continue to teach Policy, and to assess our effectiveness at achieving learning outcomes in that course, so in this year’s grid, the Policy course assessment rows are greyed out. We are adding an Environmental Humanities requirement starting with the Fall 2017 catalog, we do not anticipate this requiring any shifts in learning outcomes. This addition is best understood as naming something we already do well; and helping build faculty capacity across campus in this internationally burgeoning area of scholarly inquiry. We may change the mission statement by adding “Environmental Humanities” as one of the program’s focuses. We continue to have issues in either effectively teaching or effectively assessing sufficient scientific literacy at all levels in our curriculum, and environmental justice in our Introductory course. Given our new commitment to group work on sustainability issues on the SU campus, we also need to more carefully think about how to ensure students consider environmental justice questions in the capstone. We are considering adding a learning outcome to measure working effectively in a group. That may get added in for the Spring 2017 capstone. We will have a series of meetings this Fall to address these issues (and some lingering issues from last year regarding policy); and look forward to continuing to hone our teaching and assessment to make our already very strong program even stronger.

Note—in results box, we only listed numbers, those are the numbers that achieved the benchmark set in ‘mechanism’ column.

Mission

The Environmental Studies program provides an exploration of the interactions and connections between humans and nature from a wide variety of perspectives. Environmental Studies considers the physical and biological properties of the environment, concepts of the environment from a range of social, religious, artistic and philosophical perspectives, and public policy

226

approaches to understanding environmental problems. The program includes a focus on environmental justice, and develops skills in Geographic Information Systems.

1. Goal

To develop in students a level of scientific literacy that allows them to be intelligent readers, users

and communicators of scientific principles related to environmental issues.

Learning Outcomes

1a. Students will accurately apply scientific concepts appropriate to environmental topics under consideration.


INTRO

Through evaluation of an essay assignment, 80% of the students in the Introduction to Environmental Studies class course will accurately apply relevant scientific concepts to the description/analysis of a particular environmental issue, at a level of “Good” (or better).

Intro I: 20/22 91% Intro II: 22/24 92% Past Results: 14-15: 27/42 64% 13-14: 16/18 89% 12-13: 11/22 50%

GOAL MET We are pleased with changes we implemented to improve the Introduction to Environmental Studies course; they have resulted in improved outcomes this year. We see this as contributing to general education efforts

CAPSTONE All capstone students will be required to complete a final group research project on an environmental issue. 90% of students will accurately apply relevant scientific concepts to demonstrate a “good” or better scientific understanding of the particular environmental issue that their group paper addresses.

12/17 71% (one group did not complete this portion of their project) Past Results: 14-15: 6/8 75% 13-14: n/a we did not measure 12-13: n/a. this grid was very much a mess.

GOAL NOT MET This continues to be an area that challenges us, and we continue to brainstorm on how to do this better. This year’s failure is partially explained by particularly problematic social dynamics for one group. We have two strategies planned to improve this—more frequent peer-assessment for grades within groups, and more structure in the course schedule (including reminders). But we also will brainstorm how to better ensure our teaching of science during Fall 16-Spring 2017, and implement changes for the following year.

CAPSTONE – SENIOR SURVEY

From self-assessment via survey, 90% of graduating seniors will “Agree” or strongly agree that they possess a good scientific understanding of an environmental issue.

13/17 76% Past Results: 14-15: 7/8 88% 13-14: 10/12 83% (but 3/15 did not return survey) 12-13: 7/8 88%

GOAL NOT MET This is an interesting result, self-reporting by students. This result by itself suggests we still have problems with ensuring the understanding of science; but when put in context with the other results also suggests that senior survey results can never be the only measure used.

227

2. Goal To develop in students an understanding of the human (e.g. social, cultural, historical, religious,

political, economic, artistic, etc.) dimensions of environmental issues.

Learning Outcomes

2a. Students will demonstrate knowledge of a range of social, cultural, historical, religious, political, economic, artistic and literary dimensions of environmental issues.


Intro I: 21/22 95% Intro II: 22/24 92% Past Results: 14-15 41/42 98% 13-14 15/18 84% 12-13 21/22 95%

GOAL MET This has long been a strength of our program. And contributes to the Introductory courses’ general education goal of satisfying the ScS general education requirement.

2b. Students will identify and analyze in depth the significant and multi-faceted human dimensions of one particular environmental issue


CAPSTONE All capstone students will be required to complete a final group research project on an environmental issue. 80% of students will complete a “very good” quality review of scholarly literature with the expressed purpose of considering the multi-faceted dimensions of a particular environmental issue. The remaining 20% will at least complete a review of “good” quality.

17/17 100% at “very good” Past Results 14-15 7/8 v. good 88%; 1 good 13-14 12/12 v. good 100% 12-13 8/8 v. good 100%

GOAL MET We continue to be pleased with the strengths we exhibit here.


From self-assessment via survey, 90% of graduating seniors will “Agree” (or strongly agree) that they possess the skills needed to conduct a quality literature review.

12/17 71%

Past Results 14-15 8/8 100% 13-14 12/12 100% (but 3/15 did not return survey) 12-13 8/8 100%

GOAL NOT MET All students crafted effective literature reviews in their capstone projects. This is an interesting finding. Perhaps they are still unsure of themselves, even though they are good at this. Or perhaps this is a glitch of senior surveys


From self-assessment via survey, 90% of graduating seniors will “Agree” (or strongly agree) that they think of environmental issues from a multi-faceted perspective.

17/17 100%


GOAL MET A clear strength of our program.

228

3. Goal To develop in students an understanding of public policy related to environmental concerns.

Learning Outcomes

3a. Students will demonstrate a basic knowledge of major U.S. environmental policies and statutes.


POLICY

On a comprehensive exam, 80% of the students in the Environmental Policy course will demonstrate a basic knowledge of the major U.S. environmental laws as assessed by a “good” (or better) performance

Past Results: 14-15 5/15 33% 13-14 14/19 74% 12-13 4/8 50% and 7/8 88% (we had a different mode of assessing in12-13, that we collapsed into one in future years)

We will be talking in August 2016 about this learning outcome, and this mechanism for measuring it, to ensure the Fall 2016 iteration of the course is successful.

3b. Students will demonstrate an interdisciplinary understanding of the formulation and implementation of major U.S. environmental policies and statutes


POLICY All students will be required to answer a short essay question on a take-home exam in which they describe the formulation and implementation of a particular set of environmental policies and statutes, using an interdisciplinary framework to do so. 80% of the students will perform at a “good” (or better) level in this interdisciplinary analysis.

Past Results 14-15 10/15 67% 13-14 17/19 89% 12-13 7/8 88%

We will be talking in August 2016 about this learning outcome, and this mechanism for measuring it, to ensure the Fall 2016 iteration of the course is successful.

4. Goal

To develop in students an understanding of environmental justice, or the intersection of environmental issues, social difference and inequality. Learning Outcomes

4a. Students will demonstrate knowledge of the relationship between social difference and inequality as they relate to environmental issues.


INTRO All students will be required to write a short essay in which they identify and describe the dimensions of social difference and inequality related to a particular environmental issue. 80% of

Intro I: 17/22 77% Intro II: 19/24 79% Past Results 14-15 21/42 50%

GOAL NOT MET We are going to revise how we assess this, this coming year. Dr. Long is a rigorous grader and feels that he was successful this year in teaching this to his

229

5. Goal

To develop in students an introductory working understanding of Geographic Information Systems and its applications to environmental analysis. Learning Outcomes

5a. Students will demonstrate the knowledge of how GIS is used to perform environmental analysis.


GIS

As part of the final portfolio, 80% of students in the GIS class will identify and describe three examples and/or ways in which GIS can be used for environmental analysis at a level of “good” (or above).

33/41 80% Past Results 14-15 21/24 88% 13-14 17/21 81% 12-13 8/9 89%

GOAL MET We are very satisfied with these results. The larger than usual class sizes posed a challenge, leading to a drop from last year. Students had less individual support during the Spring semester. In the future class sizes will be limited to the 15 cap.


From self-assessment via survey, 90% 15/17 88%

GOAL NOT MET Interesting; given that students

the students will perform at a “good” (or better) level in identifying and describing social difference and inequality related to the issue they discuss.

13-14 11/18 61% 12-13 19/22 86%

first year students, but his plan for assessing did not capture this success. We are very committed to improving this area of weakness for us. Environmental and Social Justice are central commitments of our program and of SU’s overall mission.

CAPSTONE All capstone students will be required to complete a final group research project on an environmental issue. 90% of students will analyze at a level of “good” (or better) the relationship between social difference and inequality as they relate to the environmental issue they write about.

11/17 65% Past Results 14-15 8/8 100% 13-14 not evaluated 12-13 8/8 100%

GOAL NOT MET One of the group’s projects (lighting in the gym) did not appear to be sufficiently EJ oriented to warrant an analysis of EJ in their research project. We will discuss this issue as a program this Fall to brainstorm solutions to a problem likely to arise again.


From self-assessment via survey, 90% of graduating seniors will “Agree” (or strongly agree) that training received as an Env. Studies student allows them to recognize and address issues of environmental justice.

16/17 94% Past Results 14-15 8/8 100% 13-14 12/12 100% (but 3/15 did not return survey) 12-13 8/8 100%

GOAL MET We are pleased with this outcome.

230

of graduating seniors will “Agree” (or strongly agree) that they understand the utility of GIS in addressing environmental problems.


perform well in that class. Again, we take the results of our Senior Survey as a sometimes flawed measure.

5b. Students will manipulate, query, analyze, communicate and visualize data spatially.


GIS As part of the final project, 80% of students in the GIS class will demonstrate an ability of “good” or above to manipulate, query, visualize, analyze and communicate data spatially through creation of an effective analysis workflow and mapping product.

34/41 83% Past Results 14-15 22/24 92% 13-14 18/21 86% 12-13 9/9 100%

GOAL MET We are very satisfied with these results. The larger than usual class sizes posed a challenge, leading to a drop from last year. Students had less individual support during the Spring semester. In the future class sizes will be limited to the 15 cap.

6. Goal To develop in students the capacity to integrate multiple disciplinary perspectives and effectively communicate arguments and concepts related to environmental issues

Learning Outcomes

6a. Students will critically evaluate the credibility of sources.


POLICY

All students will complete a final group project on environmental policy that has as one component an evaluation of the credibility of sources that inform environmental policy issues. Each student will complete an exercise in which they demonstrate their capacity to distinguish credible resources. At least 80% of students will perform at a level of good or above on this exercise.

Past Results 14-15 15/15 100% 13-14 15/18 83% 12-13 8/8 100%

We should consider assigning an activity like this in Intro Env Studies to help prep students in this.

GIS

All students complete a mapping project for this course. 80% of students will perform at a level of “good” (or better) in discerning the credibility of sources by their choice of which data to incorporate into mapping projects.

33/ 41 80% Past Results 14-15 20/24 83% 13-14 20/21 95% 12-13 8/9 89%

GOAL MET We are very satisfied with these results. Students in the Fall suffered due to the delay in the hiring of student lab assistants. After the funds were granted for the lab assistants, students

231

received more instructional support and projects improved.

CAPSTONE

All students will be required to complete an exercise in which they evaluate the credibility of the sources they plan to use for this project, paying particular attention to the ways in which information is produced, reviewed, and applied to a given environmental issue. 90% of students will perform at a level of good or better on this exercise.

17/17 100%

Past Results 14-15 7/8 88% 13-14 13/15 87% 12-13 8/8 100%

GOAL MET We are pleased with our improvement in these results.


From self-assessment via survey, 90% of graduating seniors will “Agree” (or strongly agree) that they can effectively evaluate the credibility of sources as related to environmental issues.

16/17 94%

Past Results 14-15 7/8 88% 13-14 11/12 92% 12-13 8/8 100%

GOAL MET We are pleased with our improvement in these results.

6b. Students will integrate multiple disciplinary perspectives in investigation, analysis, and interpretation of environmental issues.


POLICY All students will complete a final group project (in 2015 students were divided into three group projects) on an environmental policy issue in Texas, that culminates in a written report. The report requires the investigation and analysis of the issue and its history from a range of disciplinary perspectives. All final reports will demonstrate a “good” or better level of investigation and analysis from a range of disciplinary perspectives. To ensure that all students were involved in this investigative and analytical thinking, a peer-assessment of contribution to group work was conducted at the end of the course. At least 80% of students will be assessed at having contributed at a strong level or better.

Past Results

14-15 15/15 100% 13-14 18/18 100% 12-13 7/8 88%

232

CAPSTONE All capstone students will be required to complete a final group research project on an environmental issue. All students will be required to use multi-disciplinary perspectives in analyzing the environmental issue that is the topic of their final group paper. 90% of students will perform at a level of good or better in employing multidisciplinary perspectives in this paper.

17/17 100% Past Results 14-15 7/8 88% 13-14 15/15 100% 12-13 8/8 100%

GOAL MET.

We are pleased.

6c. Students will demonstrate oral and written communication skills about concepts and arguments related to environmental issues.


CAPSTONE All capstone students will be required to complete a final group research project and paper on an environmental issue. 90% of students will perform at a level of “good” (or better) in presenting concepts and arguments in writing relevant to the environmental issue that is the focus of their final research project.

17/17 100% Past Results 14-15 7/8 88% 13-14 15/15 100% 12-13 8/8 100%

GOAL MET We are pleased with these results.

CAPSTONE All capstone students will be required to complete a group project on an environmental issue. Each group will be required to give an oral presentation on a portion of this project. 90% of students in the capstone seminar will perform at a level of “good” (or better) in these group oral presentations of the concepts and arguments relevant to the environmental issue their group project addresses.

17/17 100% Past Results 14-15 6/8 75% 13-14 12/15 80% (but not everyone spoke—complicated, we changed how we assess) 12-13 8/8 100%

GOAL MET We are pleased with these results and the modifications we have made in the Capstone that ensures all students participate in oral presentation of their project.

233

Feminist Studies Interdisciplinary Program Assessment Plan


Initial Notes:

We continue to base our assessment on the three required courses in the major: Introduction to Feminist Studies, Intellectual Histories of Feminism, and Capstone; the first two courses are also requirements for the minor. All three courses are part of my regular course rotation. Feminist Studies will begin a program review this year. That fact, combined with the loss of several faculty who played key roles in the curriculum, means that we will revisit our mission, goals, learning outcomes, and curriculum over the course of the next few years. I am particularly interested in revisiting the role the Intellectual Histories course plays in our curriculum now that we have fewer faculty teaching courses in feminist theory. (We can only offer the IH course every other year, which means that a few students end up needing to substitute a different course.) I look forward to brainstorming with the feminist studies committee ways to build more of the IH/feminist theory material—and particularly the assignments that are explicitly intended to prepare students for capstone—into more of my upper-level electives. How might I build capstone preparation into all of my classes, even if those classes are populated mostly by non-majors?

Mission:

To provide an interdisciplinary, critical exploration of how salient categories of difference – such as gender, race, class, sexuality, disability, age, religion and nationality—are constituted, challenged, and altered across time and place and to reflect on activist practices using feminist methodologies.

1. Goal

Majors will develop feminist research and writing skills.

Learning Outcome

1a. Students will demonstrate proficiency in research and writing that engages with feminist scholarship.



80% of capstone projects will be evaluated as good or excellent (B or better) according to our rubric in their quality of research, writing, and intellectual engagement with

100% (5/5) of capstone projects were evaluated as good or excellent (B or better) in their quality of research, writing, and intellectual engagement with

Target met. This year was the first in which all of the students in Capstone had taken the required Intellectual Histories course. In Intellectual Histories, there is a major research assignment—an annotated bibliography and accompanying review essay—that is intended to prepare students

234

feminist scholarship.

feminist scholarship. Previous years: 2014-2015: 100% (4/4) 2013-2014: 80% (4/5) 2012-2013: 71% (5/7) 2011-2012: 75% (3/4)

for the capstone. We discuss appropriate sources, strategize search strategies for interdisciplinary topics, practice writing thesis statements, and go through a peer-review and rewriting process. Going through that course—and going through it together—likely had an effect on students’ success in capstone. (See more on the IH course below.) I do continue to make adjustments to the course as needed. This year I required each student to meet with me, one-on-one, to go over my feedback and their peers’ feedback on their drafts. Each meeting lasted 35-45 minutes and I think they were beneficial; subsequent drafts were stronger and students seemed more confident in their arguments. I also kept the third round of peer reviews, which I instituted last year, and I think that helped improve the papers as well.

1b. Students will demonstrate proficiency in reviewing feminist literature.


80% of capstone projects will be evaluated as good or excellent (B or better) according to our rubric in their review of feminist literature.

100% (5/5) of capstone projects were evaluated as good or excellent (B or better) in their review of feminist literature. Previous years: 2014-2015: 100% (4/4) 2013-2014: 80% (4/5) 2012-2013: 71% (5/7) 2011-2012: 75% (3/4)

Target met. In both 2013 and 2015, I worked to bring the assignments in Intellectual Histories closer in line with the assignments in Capstone, particularly in terms of feminist research and literature reviews. We spent time in class discussing what “counts” as feminist research, focusing in particular on the need to adjust one’s research practices according to one’s topic. (A paper on contemporary activism may need to include more non-traditional sources—blogs, organizational websites—than a paper on the suffrage movement, for example.) Students are then better prepared in capstone to tailor their research to their topics. In the future, I would like to experiment with developing some kind

235

of peer review process at the research stage, rather than just the writing stage. I think students would benefit from the process of articulating and describing their research decisions—why they chose this search term rather than that one, how they came to focus on one discipline over another—with each other. I have that conversation with them now through their library worksheets, but I can see how it might be useful for them to have it with their peers, too.

2. Goal

Majors will learn to use feminist theories and methodologies within traditional disciplines and in interdisciplinary settings.

Learning Outcome

2a. Students will demonstrate proficiency in research and writing that utilizes feminist theories and methodologies within traditional disciplines and in interdisciplinary settings.


80% of review essays in the mid-level, required Intellectual Histories of Feminism course will be evaluated as good or excellent (B or better) according to our rubric in their review of feminist theories and methodologies.

75% (12/16) of review essays were evaluated as good or excellent (B or better) according to our rubric in their review of feminist theories and methodologies. Previous years: 2014-2015: course not offered 2013-2014: 90% (9/10) 2012-2013: course not offered 2011-2012: 55% (5/9)

Target not met. Although there is always room for reflection and improvement, part of the reason for the low percentage this year is that two students withdrew from school near the end of the semester and never completed the work, earning zeroes on this assignment. Without them, the numbers move to 87% (12/14), meeting our target. That said, I think it might be useful to bring some of my insights from capstone to bear on this intermediate course. Next time around, I will add a 2nd round of peer reviews for these essays. Not only will it give students another set of feedback before the final essays are due, but it might also extend students’ relationships with and accountability to each other.

236

The course will not be offered again until 2017-2018.

3. Goal

Students will critically reflect on activist practices.

Learning Outcome

3a. Students will demonstrate the ability to critique and evaluate activist practices and strategies.



80% of essays in Introduction to Feminist Studies will be evaluated as good or excellent (B or better) in their critical evaluation of activist practices and strategies. Essays will be assessed on their comparison between and analysis of different activist strategies. Students will be expected to make connections between these strategies and theories discussed in class.

84% (37/44) of essays were evaluated as good or excellent (B or better) in their critical evaluation of activist practices and strategies. Previous years: 2014-2015: 75% (15/20) 2013-2014: 79% (19/24) 2012-2013: 52% (22/42) 2011-2012: 77% (30/39)

Target met.

I completely revamped the activism assignment this year, making it a more substantial portion of the class, with more supporting readings and more class time devoted to brainstorming the assignment itself. Rather than having the assignment focus on larger movements for social justice, I required each student to choose a single activist to research. The assignment asked them to position their activists within a larger movement or movements, but having a single figure allowed them to write more focused essays with more specific examples. (I am now going to add a more advanced version of this assignment to my Feminist and Queer Activism course, an elective in the major.)

I continue to hold a class volunteer night at Inside Books Project in Austin, to coincide with readings on the prison-industrial complex. Students were expected to write a one-page reflection connecting the work of Inside Books to the readings and our class discussions. As might be expected, both their reflections and our class conversations addressed activist practices, and students made reference to the field trip and their responses to it in their end-of-semester reflections. Next year I will experiment with adding a second component to this assignment so that students will be exposed to another form of activism around prison justice.

237

International Studies Interdisciplinary Program Assessment Plan


We begin by quoting from last year's introduction: "In an interdisciplinary program, it can be difficult to track the progress of our students as they move through multiple disciplines. While the structure of the program is very stable and in no need of revision, International Studies (IS) students’ coursework can be quite varied from one degree plan to the next, making this a challenge to monitor. From a pedagogical and curricular point of view, this variability is an asset, providing students with the flexibility they need to pursue their area of concentration. From an assessment point of view, it poses continual challenges." We are happy to see that for the fourth year in a row, 100% of IS capstone projects focused on the student’s area of concentration, a goal that previously had remained elusive. Because capstones typically rotate between faculty in disciplines, these years have represented an opportunity to build strong communication with all the full-time faculty in each major department, including those who do not teach in one of the geographic area concentrations. The result is that department faculty and International Studies students understand the program's goal for students to produce upper-level, disciplinary work on the geographic area in the student's concentration. We continued use of the exit survey for graduating students, a mechanism introduced last year to broaden the scope of a survey previously focusing only on study abroad. As a reminder, the overall structure of our assessment plan and the exit survey mirrors our Plan of Study, required for all students declaring entry into the IS program. The grounding in a disciplinary major is followed by goals focusing on the geographic area of concentration, including language acquisition and study abroad. Questions on the exit survey were revised this year to yield more specific and measurable results. Compliance was near 100%. Of the two students graduating, both filled out the survey, however one student did not finish. As mentioned last year, email reminders to complete the survey are not the most effective technique. However, the course management software introduced this year has proven to be difficult to organize for IS students. We are still working with Academic Records to include all variations of the IS degree in the student planning software. After that work is complete, hopefully we will be able to add notes on the exit survey and STAMP testing as graduation requirements. This year's plan produced items of potential concern that we would like to note: 1. Only 50% of students completing the program met two of the learning outcomes tagged to the capstone seminar. As always, student ability to succeed in the capstone seminar is directly tied to their experience in the participating discipline. If this trend continues, we would certainly want to reach out to the participating disciplines to see if we can offer any additional support for students struggling to meet these outcomes. However, because the 50% was the product of only one (of two) graduating students results, it seems hasty to regard a single student's results as representative of the program's ability to meet its goals. 2. Neither of our graduating students met the speaking/listening learning outcomes in their target languages, as evidenced by scores on the STAMP language test. As noted below, this may be an anomaly, but we will certainly monitor these scores in future years. Language acquisition is a central goal of the program, and we will want to help facilitate this goal in any way available to us. Over the next year, the IS committee will pay particular attention to identifying study abroad programs that may best enable our students to meet this important learning outcome.

238

Mission

Southwestern University’s International Studies Program (IS) integrates a disciplinary major (Art History, History or Political Science—and Anthropology in the area of concentration of Latin America) with an area of concentration (East Asia, Europe, or Latin America). The program is designed for students interested in understanding other cultures and global systems—economic, social, religious, intellectual, political, aesthetic, historical, and environmental. Students explore international issues from a broad perspective by studying a particular area of the world in depth, by inquiring how that area fits into a global context, by using a particular major as a base from which to explore several disciplinary approaches to another culture, by learning a language used in the geographic area of emphasis, and by the experience of living in another culture while studying it.

3. Goal

Students will understand other cultures and global systems through the lens of a particular discipline. Learning Outcome

1a. Students will demonstrate appropriate mastery of the knowledge and critical and analytic skills required of their disciplinary major.


80% of students in the disciplinary capstone will be rated as satisfactory or above on question 2a of the International Studies Capstone Project Rubric: “Clearly states argument and provides evidence to support it.”

50% (1/2) of IS students in capstone seminars were rated as satisfactory or above in the formulation of an argument and the provision of evidence to support it in their senior capstone projects. Comparison results: 2014-15 - 100% (3/3) 2013-14 - 100% (7/7) 2012-13 - 82% (9/11)

Standard not met. However, the percentage is somewhat misleading as it the result of a single student's performance in the capstone seminar. Capstone Project Evaluations are filled out and submitted by the capstone professor in the student’s disciplinary major.

80% of students in the disciplinary capstone will be rated as satisfactory or above on question 2d of the International Studies Capstone Project Rubric: “Critically analyzes facts presented.”

50% (1/2) of IS students in capstone seminars were rated as satisfactory or above in the critical analysis of facts presented in the course. Comparison results: 2014-15 - 100% (3/3) 2013-14 - 100% (7/7) 2012-13 - 100% (11/11)

Standard not met. However, the percentage is somewhat misleading as it the result of a single student's performance in the capstone seminar. Capstone Project Evaluations are filled out and submitted by the capstone professor in the student’s disciplinary major.

1b. Students will demonstrate understanding of their geographical area of concentration from the perspective of their disciplinary major.


80% of students in the disciplinary capstone will be rated as satisfactory or above on question 2c of the International Studies Capstone Project Rubric: “Applies disciplinary approach to an international

100% (2/2) of IS students in capstone seminars were rated as satisfactory or above in the application of their home discipline’s approach to an international topic. Comparison results:

Standard achieved. Will continue to monitor. Capstone Project Evaluations are filled out and submitted by the capstone professor in the student’s disciplinary major.

239

topic.” 2014-15 - 100% (3/3) 2013-14 - 100% (7/7) 2012-13 - 100% (11/11)

80% of students in the disciplinary capstone will be rated as satisfactory or above on question 2d of the International Studies Capstone Rubric: “Considers at least two of the following aspects of culture or global system under investigation: economic, religious, intellectual, political, aesthetic, historic and environmental.”

100% (2/2) IS students in capstone seminars were rated as satisfactory or above in considering at least two of the following aspects of the culture or global system under investigation: economic, social, religious, intellectual, political, aesthetic, historic and environmental. Comparison results: 2014-15 - 100% (3/3) 2013-14 - 100% (7/7) 2012-13 - 100% (11/11)

Standard achieved. Will continue to monitor. Capstone Project Evaluations are filled out and submitted by the capstone professor in the student’s disciplinary major.

By survey, 80% of students will give at least two examples that demonstrate how their disciplinary major informed the study of their geographical area of interest (Exit Survey Question 1).

100% (2/2) of reporting IS students gave at least two examples of how their disciplinary major informed their understanding of their geographical area. Comparison results: 2014/15 - 100% (2/2) Exit survey introduced in 2014-15. No previous data to report.

Standard achieved. Will continue to monitor. This question was moved to position #1 on the survey, and re-worded to produce measurable results.

4. Goal

Students will understand their geographical area of concentration (East Asia, Europe, and Latin America) from a broad perspective, incorporating methods and knowledge from multiple disciplines. Learning Outcome 2a. Students will demonstrate appropriate mastery of knowledge and critical and analytic skills in at least two courses dealing with their geographical area of concentration outside their discipline.


100% of International Studies students will successfully complete at least two courses in his/her geographical area of concentration outside of the disciplinary major, thus demonstrating a satisfactory mastery of the material in those courses.

100% (2/2) of graduating IS students were rated as satisfactory or above in at least two courses dealing with their geographical area of concentration, outside of the home discipline. Comparison results: 2014-15 - 100% (3/3) 2013-14 - 100% (7/7) 2012-13 - 100% (11/11)

Standard achieved. Will continue to monitor. As in years past, International Studies makes use of final grades earned in area concentration courses to determine whether this outcome has been achieved. Like last year, in order to enhance our sense of this learning outcome, we have again included a question in the program’s exit survey (see next line).

By survey, 80% of students will give specific examples that demonstrate how the approach

50% (1/2) of reporting IS students gave examples from at least two disciplines outside their major of

Standard not met. This question was re-worded this year to produce more measurable results.

240

from at least two disciplines outside their major changed, enriched, or challenged their understanding of their geographical area (Exit Survey Question 2).

how multiple disciplinary approaches affected their understanding of their geographical area. Comparison results: 2014-15 - 50% (1/2) Exit survey introduced in 2014-15. No previous data to report.

One student provided an example of only 1 disciplinary approach outside her major. It is worth noting, as above, that with only two graduates, a single student’s failure to meet the goal can take us below the mechanism's objective.

2b. Students will demonstrate appropriate mastery of the knowledge and critical/analytic skills required to understand their geographical area of concentration in the global context.


By survey, 90% of graduating students will give specific examples that demonstrate an understanding of their geographical area's placement in the global context (Exit Survey Question 3).

50% (1/2) of reporting IS students gave specific examples of how they understand their geographical area’s place in a global context. Comparison results: 2014-15 - 100% (2/2) 2013-14 - 100% (5/5) [study abroad survey] 2012-13 - 100% (6/6) [study abroad survey]

Standard partially achieved. Responses to this question were underwhelming. One student gave a very general statement about study abroad, the other gave three very brief examples. We will consider re-wording the question with the goal of producing more specific language and content in its answers.

2c. Students will demonstrate appropriate mastery of the knowledge and critical/analytic skills, acquired by their study abroad in their geographical area of concentration.


By survey, 90% of graduating students will give specific examples that demonstrate how they understand their particular area of concentration better than before the study abroad experience (Exit Survey Question 4).

100% (1/1) of reporting IS students gave specific examples of how they understand their geographical area better after studying abroad. Comparison results: 2014-15 - 100% (2/2) 2013-14 - 100% (5/5) [study abroad survey] 2012-13 - 100% (6/6) [study abroad survey]

Standard achieved -- but we are missing information. Last year, we stated our goal of achieving a 100% response rate to the exit survey. Even with only two graduating seniors, this was difficult to accomplish. Both students submitted surveys, but one was only partially completed. This question was not answered in one of the submitted surveys.

5. Goal

Students will demonstrate language proficiency in a language spoken in their geographical area of concentration. Learning Outcome 3a. Students will demonstrate appropriate mastery of oral skills in the language (Chinese, French, German or Spanish) spoken in their geographical area of concentration.


80% of graduating International Studies students will score at the 5 (Intermediate-Mid) level

0% (0/2) graduating IS students scored 5 (Intermediate-Mid) or above on the speaking and

Compliance rate 100% but standard not achieved. Both students scored at the 3 (Novice -

241

or above on exams administered in the language learning center lab (speaking/listening).

listening STAMP tests. Comparison results: 2014-15 - 100% (3/3) 2013-14 - 100% (7/7) 2012-13 - 100% (7/7 -- only 7 out of 12 students took the tests.)

High) level on the STAMP speaking/listening tests. One student studied Chinese, the other French. In 2015-16, IS reconfirmed its commitment to a learning outcome of 5 (Intermediate - Mid) on these exams. Results on this outcome depend on courses taken in the language at Southwestern and experience studying abroad. STAMP testing rubrics went through a process of revision in recent years. The change from previous years may be the effect of our own revised outcomes, which before 2014-15 were defined as "Pre-Advanced to Intermediate." We will revisit the STAMP rubrics appropriate to our goals and continue to monitor student performance on this mechanism.

3b. Students will demonstrate appropriate mastery of written skills in the language (Chinese, French, German or Spanish) used in their geographical area of concentration.


100% of International Studies students will successfully complete two upper-level (300 level or above) foreign language courses.

100% (2/2) of graduating IS students were rated as satisfactory or above in at least two upper-level foreign language courses. Comparison results: 2014-15 - 100% (3/3) 2013-14 - 100% (7/7) 2012-13 - 100% (12/12)

Standard achieved. Will continue to monitor. As an interdisciplinary program, International Studies uses final grades earned in these foreign language courses to determine whether this outcome has been achieved. Note that the language lab discourages having students take both oral and written STAMP exams (as this is too long a process), which prevents our using the test for this metric.

242

Latin American and Border Studies Interdisciplinary Program Assessment Plan


Introduction

As an interdisciplinary program, Latin American and Border Studies (LAS or LABS) works with individual departments to carry out assessment standards and goals. Realizing the limitation this bears on qualitative enhancement, and because Capstone projects are hosted by one of its disciplines, the LABS Program devised a Capstone Project Rubric (attached) to be used by the principal advisor to assess the capstone paper and by the LABS Committee to assess the oral presentation. The reported scores are tallied and averaged along with the report of the Capstone advisor, noting significant divergences between the reports when apparent.

For the 2015-2016 year, the Chair revised the rubric and assessment plan based on comments provided by the Assessment Committee on the 2014-2015 report. Namely, the goals were reorganized to reflect the mission of the program and its rigor. Note: This assessment evaluates the only student who graduated from the program in 2015-16. However, there will be more students to evaluate in the upcoming years.

Mission

Latin American and Border Studies is an interdisciplinary program designed to increase student awareness and understanding of Latin America and the Caribbean. It prepares its students to make connections within and across disciplines (History, Political Science, Anthropology, Sociology, Art History, Philosophy, and Hispanic Literature and Film) and to critically evaluate the ideological borders that constitute nations, states, and peoples, as produced from outside and from within Latin America. The program requires students to develop fluency in written and spoken Spanish.

1. Goal Students will comprehend cultural, historical, and socio-political realities of Latin America, including but not restricted to the Caribbean and Latin American borderlands.

Learning Outcomes

1a. Students will recognize diverse Latin American community values, beliefs, and cultural practices.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program Improvement

70% of students will be rated as accomplished or exemplary (a 3.5 or better on a 4.0 scale) from question 3 of the Capstone Rubric: Exhibits sophisticated engagement.

There was only one capstone project. The student was rated exemplary for the written capstone and oral presentation, scoring 4.0 on the 4.0 scale.

Standard achieved. Will continue to monitor. The committee is developing a core course that will introduce students to the program and will be used to assess learning outcomes of both majors and minors.

1b. Students will demonstrate a working knowledge of the relevant literature concerning the culture, history, society and/or politics of Latin America.

245


70% of students will be rated as accomplished or exemplary (a 3.0 or better on a 4.0 scale) from question 1 of the Capstone Rubric: Articulates insight and fluency with relevant literature and scholarship.


Standard achieved. Will continue to monitor. LABS faculty will continue to develop a bibliography of core texts as a reference for all LABS majors and minors.

2. Goal Students will be able to apply more than one disciplinary perspective while analyzing the complex relationships between Latin American/Caribbean/Borderland regions and other parts of the world.

Learning Outcomes

2a. Students will be able to argue and defend a critical point of view from multiple disciplinary perspectives.


70% of students will be rated as accomplished or exemplary (a 3.5 or better on a 4.0 scale) from question 2 of the Capstone Rubric: Engages with and defends a critical point of view.

There was only one capstone project. The student was rated accomplished for the written capstone, and accomplished for the oral presentation, scoring 4.0 on the 4.0 scale.

Standard achieved. Will continue to monitor. The committee will create a survey for students that reflects on the goals of the program.

2b. Students will be able to analyze the complex relationships between Latin America regions and with other parts of the world through a deep contextual understanding of the culture, history, and socio-political realities of Latin America.


70% of students will be rated as accomplished or exemplary (a 3.0 or better on a 4.0 scale) from question 1 of the Capstone Rubric: Articulates insight and fluency with relevant literature and scholarship.


Standard achieved. Will continue to monitor. The committee will create a survey for students that reflects on the goals of the program.

3. Goal: Majors and minors within the Latin American and Border Studies program will communicate well in Spanish.

Learning Outcomes

3a. Students will attain proficiency in written and spoken Spanish.


100% of LABS majors will achieve an intermediate to intermediate- mid rating (level

There was only one major. She achieved a rate of 5 in her reading proficiency and of 6 in

Standard achieved. LABS chair will continue tracking STAMP results for minors. The program

246

4 to 5) in the STAMP (Standard-Based Measurement of Proficiency Exam), which measures reading, writing, speaking, and listening. 100% of LABS minors will achieve a novice high to low intermediate rating (level 3) in the STAMP.

her speaking proficiency exceeding expectations.

requires an OPI (Oral Proficiency Interview) for minors with no STAMP record due to their placement in levels higher than Spanish 4.

3b. Paired LABS-Spanish majors will able to communicate ideas effectively in Spanish in the Capstone project.


100% of Paired Majors in LABS and Spanish will show fluency in Spanish through a written and oral communication of the Capstone project.

The Capstone paper was rated as exemplary by the advisor. The oral presentation was rated as accomplished by the LABS committee through the communication of the above goals. This goal is assessed by the Spanish department standards.

Standard achieved. Added this assessment mechanism to the Capstone Rubric for Paired Majors only.

247

Race and Ethnicity Studies Interdisciplinary Program

Assessment Plan


Mission

The Race and Ethnicity Studies Minor offers a minor designed to examine race and ethnicity as categories of difference and as forms of lived experience, and attends to how these categories intersect and overlap with other forms of difference (such as gender, nation, indigeneity, class, religion, ability, sexuality, etc.). The Minor approaches race and ethnicity as constructs in particular historical contexts from interdisciplinary, comparative, intercultural and transnational perspectives. It develops a critical awareness of colonial and Eurocentric influences on both the construction of these categories and the scholarly discourse about them. The minor thus provides a critical lens on a variety of historical and contemporary issues and debates generated by specific racial and ethnic formations. At the same time the minor takes note of mobilizations and liberatory cultural expressions that have emerged both in response and as alternatives to dominant racial and ethnic structures.

Assessing RES

Assessing the RES Minor posits unique difficulties because there is no class that all of our students take that would give us an ideal opportunity to implement assessment mechanisms. The reason for this lack is that RES depends on other departments and their rotations. The RES Minor, then, weaves together a number of classes offered in various departments but does not, like Majors do, have an introductory course or a capstone course. The current assessment mechanism consists of an exit survey filled by all RES graduates where they address the ways in which the RES program succeeds or fails at achieving its stated goals. We have information collected from 17 (5 since our last assessment) students that have graduated with an RES Minor. Another difficulty arises in view of the implementation of changes for program improvement. Again, since the RES minor depends entirely on other departments and their rotations, what the RES committee can do is limited in terms of changing and improving our curriculum. We can only suggest some changes to courses, but ultimately have no actual say on how our courses are taught. From the surveys it is apparent that students are satisfied with the program and its goals, but the committee would like to have and explore the possibility of implementing changes.

Goal: To develop in students the ability to critically analyze race and ethnicity as socially constructed categories of difference.

Learning Outcome

1a. Students will acquire a theoretical basis to understand the construction of race and ethnicity.


All students who graduate with the RES minor will answer Exit All students graduating with an RES minor will answer the exit survey question “How did the program develop your ability to critically analyze race and

17/17 or 100% of students responded with a positive response. Students report to have attained a high level of theoretical understanding of the

Goal Met. However, we will likely operationalize a range of possible responses to this question for our next round of assessment to more finely gauge our success in meeting this learning outcome.

248

ethnicity as socially constructed categories of difference?” 100% of the students will provide a “positive” response that indicates that they learned to understand and analyze race as a socially constructed category of difference.

construction of race and ethnicity as categories of difference. They specifically point to the courses Theories of Race and Race and Ethnicity as courses that are helpful in this respect. They also report that this emphasis helped them understand lived dimensions of race, as well as enabled them to become more articulate when discussing race.

Goal: To develop in students an understanding of the relationship of race and ethnicity to other categories of difference and to social, political, cultural, and economic processes.

Learning Outcome 2a. Students will be able to think critically about race and ethnicity on the basis of intersectionality.


All students graduating with an RES minor will answer the exit survey question “How did this program develop your understanding of the relationship of race and ethnicity to other categories of difference and to social, political, cultural and economic processes?” 100% will provide a “positive” response describing how they developed this understanding.

15/17 students or 88% provided a “positive” response. The remaining two provided too short an answer to determine if they had reached such an understanding. Students were exposed to the concept of intersectionality in multiple classes across the RES curriculum. They report to have a greater understanding of the multiple ways oppression manifests itself in the intersection between race, gender, and other categories of difference. Students seem to embrace intersectionality as a critical lens.

Goal Not Met. Our exit survey question does not conform as precisely to the learning outcome we have specified. We will revise these for the 2016-2017 academic year, and will also construct a rubric to capture the range of responses (from excellent to poor) that we might receive.

Goal: To develop in students an understanding of how race and ethnicity are tied to systems of inequality and how historically marginalized peoples have mobilized for social change.

Learning Outcome 3a.Students will develop awareness of the relationship between historically determined systems of power and the construction of categories of difference, and of the ways these categories have been mobilized for liberatory aims.

249


All students graduating with an RES minor will answer the exit survey question “How did this program develop your understanding of how race and ethnicity are tied to systems of inequality and how historically marginalized peoples have mobilized for social change?” 100% will provide a “positive” response describing how they developed this understanding.

16/17 or 94% provided a positive response. Students report through knowledge of colonialism and capitalism as structures of power linked to constructions of race and ethnicity. They show awareness of the importance of learning the history of racial constructions in particular. This historical perspective allows them to understand liberatory movements in terms of their generation and specific aims that are geo-historically determined.

Goal Not Met. We will consider the specificities of wording of both the learning outcome and the exit survey question for this response. The one student who did not respond sufficiently clearly did not spend much time on the survey. We will also try to develop a way to ensure that all students respond sufficiently to each question.

Further remarks: Students gave specific feedback on two aspects of our program that are not currently reflected in our goals. They emphasized that RES helps them bridge theory and practice, and become better activists. They also pointed out the value of diversity in the classroom, identifying courses where there is a diverse representation of student perspectives and backgrounds. Students appreciate the richness of discussing race and ethnicity in these contexts, and the demanding work that our faculty do within them. These two aspects are dimensions of our program that we would like to build on. In addition, students found that the way our curriculum is designed gave both breadth and depth to their studies of race and ethnicity. We need to work toward understanding ways in which our curriculum could lend itself to being assessed more thoroughly (including quantifiable factors), and we will continue to have discussions about whether certain of our courses would appropriate for this kind of assessment.

250

Center for Academic Success and Records Assessment Plan


Mission - CASAR The Center for Academic Success and Records strives to provide personalized service to all students from matriculation to graduation. Goal 1. To help students navigate academic policies and procedures throughout their Southwestern experience. Learning Outcome 1a. Students who meet with CASAR staff will be able to resolve academic issues and navigate academic policies.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement The percentage of student/parent issues that will be resolved by CASAR staff in a timely fashion will be 90%*. *Timely fashion will be defined by the individual student/situation.

A total of 1,764* student visits were made with one or more member(s) of the CASAR staff in the 2015-16 academic year. This includes students on Academic Warning/Probation, students with advising/degree questions, and degree audit appointments. In Fall 2015, Landry had 72 advisees and 61 for Spring 2016. She had 375 meetings with transfer and other students regarding registration and degree planning. Smull had 261 meetings with students seeking accommodations (152 in the Fall and 109 in the Spring). This number does not include walk-ins or the number of students who came in to take exams with accommodations. Mahannah met with 66 advisees and VA students, in addition to walk-ins/emergencies. Seiler conducted roughly 950 meetings during the fall and spring semester, with students

On-going training of professional and student staff will help us ensure appropriate handling of student concerns.

253

and parents, including students on probation/warning, advising, walk-ins and emergencies. It should be noted that a large percentage of these meetings were repeat/weekly meetings with students in the PASS program. *This number does not include visitors who turned in or picked up add/drop cards, general forms, transcript requests, or who dropped in for a quick question.

1b. Effectively serve the needs of students requesting academic accommodations. Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement One hundred percent of students seeking academic accommodations will understand the process for requesting accommodations, as well as their appropriate use.

Of the students registered with Disability Services (164), 94 met individually with Jen Smull to establish accommodations and receive explanations/expectations of how academic accommodations work in a college environment. The population of students seeking accommodations increased by 10% in 2015-16 compared to 2014-15. Students were not asked to acknowledge their understanding of the process, since Jen was unaware of this assessment mechanism.

Formalize survey process. Survey will be administered beginning Fall 2016. Substantial updates have been made to the web site to increase transparency and access for both students and faculty. Students are now able to submit exam requests electronically.

Goal 2. Train/supervise Peer Academic Mentors (upper-level students) to facilitate workshops and one-on-one academic coaching sessions. Learning Outcome 2a. Continue active involvement in the Academic Warning System and First-Year/Advanced-Entry Seminar programs

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement Of the students who visit with a Peer Academic Mentor in response to an EWS notice, 90% will recover in or drop the

Data unavailable Peer Academic Mentors reached out to all first-year students who received an Academic Warning notice.

254

course in question. Dave Seiler reached out to any upper-level students on the list, as well as first-year students with entries from more than one professor.

All incoming students (100%) will know who their Peer Academic Mentor is, how to contact her/him, and what the PAMs’ role is at SU.

All students receive two emails from a PAM over the summer and again if they are put on Academic Warning. The mentors held only 28 individual sessions with students over the course of the entire 2015-16 academic year. They also held 8 workshops over the course of the 2015-16 academic year. Unfortunately, attendance at workshops was not consistently tracked; aside from the drop-in sessions held before final exams, the workshops were typically attended by no more than a handful of students.

The Peer Academic Mentors contacted the first-year students via email twice over the summer to introduce themselves, greeted students during Orientation Check-in, held a Pre-Advising session and presented to 6 FYS/AES classes during Orientation Week. Students are not utilizing the PAMs as a resource, so the program needs some restructuring or refocus efforts. We will be exploring the possibility of having the PAMs more directly/actively involved with FYS/AES.

Half of all FYS/AES instructors will host a PAM to conduct an academic skills-building workshop during the semester.

Requests to have the PAMs give presentations in FYS/AES courses decreased from 45% in previous years to about 25% of the sections offered in 2015-16

Investigate possibility of having PAMs more closely tied to aspects of FYS/AES and working more in tandem with the faculty.

Goal 3. Maintain student and institutional records appropriately, accurately, and securely. Learning Outcome 3a. Keep staff informed and follow industry standard good practice.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement USE AACRAO SELF-AUDITS for (1) Record Retention Policies, (2) Academic Records and Transcripts, and (3) FERPA (in this case, if a formal audit checklist does not exist, we would use the (most recent) AACRAO FERPA Guide chapters: (a) Requirements for Compliance and (b) Procedures and Strategies for Compliance.

Due to staffing changes in the 2015-16 academic year, the self-audit was not conducted. However, results of the 2014-2015 end of year fiscal audit, made available in 11/2015, indicated no findings for the Records area.

The first self-audit will be rescheduled in accordance with the new hire of a Director of Records. In the meantime, we will continue to adhere to reporting enrollment changes to NSLDS directly to maintain compliance with federal reporting requirements.

255

Goal 4. Establish and operate effective and efficient procedures for use with faculty and students.

Learning Outcome 4a. Processes for Catalog and Course Schedule should be simple and effective. Registration, drop/add, transfer evaluation, advising, degree checks, and grading should run smoothly.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement 4a.1. Document procedural improvements.

a. Academic Computing has streamlined a number of Colleague processes, allowing staff to more directly interact with data (vs. having to request reports/downloads). b. Three new software implementations were completed: *Electronic transcript processing (see below) *Student Planning: All students registered using Student Planning in Fall 2015 and Spring 2016 (except those who entered SU in 2012-2013). All incoming students continue to use Student Planning as well. Student Planning does not have the capability to accurately audit the curriculum required for graduation, paper degree plans and paideia audits are still being used. *Series 25 Scheduling: classroom assignments for Spring 2017 are pending given course schedule changes

Documentation has been developed for all three new systems, and training is ongoing.

4a.2. Track numbers *2,245 online transcript orders were placed and completed in the 2015-16 academic year, resulting in over $5500 going back to the SU operating budget. * 46 VA files have been audited and processed for students. 17 VA students graduated in AY 15-16. . SUVA

We will continue to grow our volume of transactions and foot traffic as more students come to SU and more processes are handled electronically; we will monitor output and efficiency accordingly.

256

chartered with Student Veterans of America. SUVA hosted 1st annual job/internship fair. Received Designation of Military Friendly. 25 Spring 2016 Transfer Applicants evaluated in Fall’16.. 60 Fall 16 Transfer Applicants evaluated in Spring/Summer ‘16. *Evans completed approximately 658 in-person degree audits in 2015-2016. It should be noted that these include second degree audits, particularly for Spring 2016 anticipated graduates in the beginning of Fall 2015.

257

Office of Community-Engaged Learning Assessment Plan


Mission

The Office of Community-Engaged Learning collaborates with students, faculty, & community organizations to develop community-engaged projects that bring together learning goals, passions, & local needs. We promote sustained, mutually beneficial collaborations that emphasize student learning & community benefits. Note: This assessment plan attempts to address the learning outcomes related to the Office of Community-Engaged Learning, Operation Achievement, Spring Breakaway, and the Paideia Global Engagement Hall. Operation Achievement (OA): Operation Achievement is a mentoring and enrichment program which assists selected 6th through 8th grade students in the Georgetown Independent School District to develop the discipline and motivation necessary for academic success. Spring Breakaway: Spring Break service trips program offered in collaboration with the Office of Multicultural Education and Spiritual and Religious Life. Paideia Global Engagement Hall (GEH): The Paideia Global Engagement Resident Hall is dedicated to helping students explore their own values in the context of individual responsibility to local, regional and global communities. In addition, the percentage goals were based on responses from previous years. If targets were met the year before then the target was raised. In cases that have not yet been assessed (OA, the target is set to 60%.

Goal

To foster and develop civic learning that promotes active and thoughtful citizenship.

Learning Outcome

1a. Students will demonstrate a reinforced and clarified sense of civic identity and continued commitment to public action.


At least 75% of students participating in Spring Breakaway will “agree” or “strongly agree” that the experience reinforced and clarified their sense of civic engagement and commitment to public action (See survey instrument in Appendix C) .

92% (24/26) of students responded “strongly agree” or “agree” that Spring Breakaway helped them to reconsider some of my former attitudes about social, political, environmental, and economic problems. 92% (24/26) of students responded “strongly agree” or “agree” that Spring Breakaway helped them to be more aware of their possible impact on others.

Met. Additional training of student directors, staff learning partners, and participants will emphasize active citizenship. Surveys will continue to track this learning outcome.

262

At least 75% of students enrolled in a community-engaged learning class will “agree or “strongly agree” that the course reinforced and clarified their sense of civic engagement and commitment to public action (See survey instrument in Appendix D).

59% (133/224) of students responded “strongly agree” or “agree” that the community project in their course helped them to clarify personal values. Past years: 2014-15: 61% 2013-2014: 55% 2012-2013: 45% 87% (203/234) of students responded “strongly agree” or “agree” that the community project in their course made them more aware of their possible impact on others. 69% (160/233) of students responded “strongly agree” or “agree” that after the course is over they will probably volunteer or participate in some way with the community or individuals served by the course. 75% (174/232) of students responded “strongly agree” or “agree” that they would be interested in participating in other courses with a community-engaged learning component.

Not met. Two of the targeted survey questions did not meet the 75% goal. Students continue to struggle with reflecting on their own personal values through the community engagement. However, the percentage of students responding “strongly agree” or “agree” to this continues to increase. Community-engaged learning faculty development will continue to emphasize critical reflection and provide faculty with tools to help facilitate this type of learning in their courses. Surveys will continue to track this learning outcome.

1b. Students will demonstrate evidence of adjustment in own attitudes and beliefs due to working within and learning from diversity of communities and cultures.


At least 75% of students participating in Spring Breakaway will “agree” or “strongly agree” that the experience impacted their own attitudes and beliefs due to working within and learning from diversity of communities and cultures (See survey instrument in Appendix C.)

100% (27/27) of students responded “strongly agree” or “agree” that Spring Breakaway helped them consider perspectives other than their own.

Met. Additional training of student directors, staff learning partners, and participants will emphasize diversity and social justice learning. Surveys will continue to track this learning outcome.

At least 70% of students enrolled in a community-engaged learning class will “agree or “strongly agree” that

88% (205/234) of students responded “strongly agree” or “agree” that the community project in their course helped

Met. All (3/4) but one of the targeted survey questions met the 70% goal. However, this was a 7% increase from 2014-

263

the course impacted their own attitudes and beliefs due to working within and learning from diversity of communities and cultures (See survey instrument in Appendix D).

them better understand people of different ages, abilities, cultures, or economic backgrounds. 61% (137/223 of students responded “strongly agree” or “agree” that the community project in the course made them aware of some of their own biases and prejudices. 2014-2015: 54% 2013-14: 49% 71% (163/230) of students responded “strongly agree” or “agree” that the community project in this course encouraged them to seek additional opportunities to learn about people of different ages, abilities, cultures, or economic backgrounds. 81% (188/231) of students responded “strongly agree” or “agree” that the community project in their course encouraged them to consider perspectives other than their own.

2015. Community-engaged learning faculty development will continue to emphasize critical reflection and provide faculty with tools to help facilitate this type of learning in their courses.

At least 60% of Operation Achievement mentors will demonstrate competency of adjustment in own attitudes and beliefs due to working within and learning from diversity of communities and cultures, (See survey in Appendix E).

88% (53/60) of students responded “strongly agree” or “agree” that the community project helped them better understand people of different ages, abilities, cultures, or economic backgrounds. 75% (45/60) of students responded “strongly agree” or “agree” that the community project made them aware of some of their own biases and prejudices. 82% (49/60) of students responded “strongly agree” or “agree” that the community project encouraged them to seek additional opportunities to

Met. OA will implement additional mentor training that focuses on understanding diversity, social justice, and active citizenship.

264

learn about people of different ages, abilities, cultures, or economic backgrounds. 90% (54/60) of students responded “strongly agree” or “agree” that the community project encouraged them to consider perspectives other than their own.

1c. Students will demonstrate ability and commitment to collaboratively work across and within community contexts and structures to achieve a civic aim.


At least 75% of students enrolled in a community-engaged learning class will “agree or “strongly agree” that the course influenced their ability and commitment to collaboratively work across and within community contexts and structures to achieve a civic aim. (See survey in Appendix D).

76% (176/230) of students responded “strongly agree” or “agree” that the community project in their course provided opportunities to communicate things they learned in class to people in the community

Met. OA will implement additional mentor training that focuses on understanding diversity, social justice, and active citizenship.

At least 75% of students participating in Spring Breakaway will “agree” or “strongly agree” that the experience influenced their ability and commitment to collaboratively work across and within community contexts and structures to achieve a civic aim. (See survey in Appendix C.).

92% (23/25) of students responded “strongly agree” or “agree” that Spring Breakaway helped them understand the role of the community partner within the local region as well as its role/connection to larger national conversations.

Met. Spring Breakaway will implement additional mentor training that focuses on collective impact.

Goal

To strengthen the relationship between the community and the university by forming mutually beneficial partnerships targeting community-identified needs.

Program Outcome

2a. Community organizations will indicate a positive community partnership with Southwestern University.


At least 85% of community organizations completing an end of semester survey will positively evaluate their partnership with Southwestern

91% (10/11) of community partners “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that the students’ work increased their organization’s ability to

Not met. Two of the targeted survey questions did not meet the 85% goal. In follow-up meetings with community partners over the summer,

265

University (See survey instrument in Appendix F).

provide valuable services to clients. 73% (8/11) of community partners “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that the students addressed a true need that their organization would not have been able to fulfill through other avenues. 91% (10/11) of community partners “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that the students’ impact will be felt after their service term is completed. Capacity was built. 91% (10/11) of community “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that the amount of time required for training, supervision, and guidance was appropriate and did not constitute a burden for staff. 69% (9/13) of community partners “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that there has been enough communication between their organization and the Office of Civic Engagement (OCEL) and/or the faculty member.

organizations requested better communication with the instructor. The OCEL Director will work with faculty and community partners to share learning goals, expectations of students, and project needs.

Goal

To increase the number of faculty members teaching community-engaged learning courses.

Program Outcome

3a. At least 3 new faculty members will teach a community-engaged learning course for the 2015-2016 academic year.


Collect semester inventory of faculty teaching community-engaged learning courses. Target: 3 new faculty

5 new faculty (2 adjunct faculty, 2 co-taught with returning CEL faculty, and 1 newly tenured faculty member)

Met. This goal will be maintained during the 2016-17 academic year.

3b. Faculty members will indicate a positive relationship with the Office of Civic Engagement.

266


At least 90% of faculty completing an end of course survey will positively evaluate the support provided by the Office of Civic Engagement (See survey instrument in Appendix G).

100% 7/7 of faculty responded that the assistance of the OCEL was either excellent or good.

Met. This goal will be maintained during the 2016-17 academic year.

4. Goal To encourage residents to explore their own values in the context of individual responsibility to local, regional, and global communities. Learning Outcome

4a. Residents will recognize personal and social responsibility to address both local and global issues.


During monthly Hall discussions, at least 60% of the discussion facilitators will demonstrate proficient personal and social responsibility based on the AACU Global Learning Value Rubric.

80% (8/10) of facilitators met Milestone 3 according to the AACU GLV Rubric. Through leadership during events and written responses on the GEH evaluation, 80% students showed they could “analyze ethical, social and environmental consequences of global systems and were able to identify a range of actions” to address these issues.

Met. After an event where students are facilitating, a short quiz or conversation will be facilitated so that student knowledge can be better assessed.

Residents will be trained on how to host and facilitate discussions.

4b. Residents will demonstrate global self-awareness.


At least 60% of the Global Engagement Hall participants will demonstrate proficient Global Self-Awareness based on the AACU Global Learning Value Rubric as assessed by an end of the year reflection.

73% (8/11) of respondents on the evaluation demonstrated at least Milestone 3 level of Global Self-Awareness according to the AACU Rubric. Students demonstrated that they were able to “evaluate the global impact of one’s own and others’ specific local actions on the natural and human world.

Met. Identify specific goals at the beginning of each month, developing and sharing these goals with the students and facilitators, and planning events and questions with these goals in mind will help to improve the GEH and student learning.

Program Outcome

4c. Residents will indicate a positive living and learning experience in the Global Engagement Hall.

267


At least 75% of residents completing an end of the year survey will positively evaluate their experience in the Global Engagement Hall. (See survey instrument in Appendix H).

100% (11/11) of respondents evaluated every GEH positively. Every GEH event was rated as either “Good” or “Excellent.”

Met. An additional question to the survey should be, “Would you recommend living in the GEH to other students? Why or why not?” or “On a 1-10 how would rate recommending the GEH to a First-Year?”

268

Appendix B: Annual Report Office of Civic Engagement Annual Report 2015-16 About the Office OCEL Mission: The Office of Civic Engagement collaborates with students, faculty, & community

organizations to develop community‐ engaged projects that bring together learning goals, passions, &

local needs. We promote sustained, mutually beneficial collaborations that focus on student learning & community benefits. Civic Learning Outcomes: · Diversity of communities and cultures · Analysis of knowledge · Civic identity and commitment · Civic action and reflection · Awareness of civic contexts/structures OCEL Programs CEL Fellows The Community-Engaged Learning (CEL) Fellows Program is a year-long faculty development program that provides an opportunity for selected faculty members to integrate community-engaged learning into their pedagogy while becoming recognized campus leaders in community-engaged pedagogy. The Fellowship includes a $1400 faculty development award in the form of a professional development account to be used for professional development, course development, and research.

2015-2016 2016-2017

Laura Senio Blair Erika Berroth

Erika Berroth Abby Dings

M. Anwar Sounny-Slitine Don Gregory

Michael Kamen Michael Kamen

Katy Ross Debika Sihi

Desi Roybal Desi Roybal

Therese Shelton

CELTAs This year, 5 Community-Engaged Learning Teaching Assistants (CELTAs) supported 5 Paideia Clusters incorporating community-engaged learning into their courses. CELTA’s assist faculty members with the implementation of community-engaged learning and liaison with the community. CELTAs participate in ongoing training and reflection sessions, and develop skills in project management, communication, facilitation, and community building. Responsibilities include, but are not limited to: ● Locating appropriate community partnerships for the course ● Monitoring student service hours and activities ● Nurturing the community partnership(s) ● Regularly communicating with faculty and community organizations ● Coordinating evaluation and assessment of community organizations, students, and faculty

270

Student Paideia Cluster

Christopher Adams Global Health

Abigail Frels Situating Place

Michelle Hershberger Investigating Identity

Katherine Protil Representing Gender

Daniel Ross Anthropocene

When asked about the most valuable lesson from being a CELTA, students responded: Managing a large group of diverse and very busy people to work toward a common goal. Learning to connect with people where they are and use existing networks of community learning and growth to introduce new ideas, instead of trying to force people to engage with an entirely new project. Event planning and working with busy people to try to get a project off of the ground. Also, the importance of getting people excited about community engagement. I also learned the challenges of independently starting a project and the importance of giving myself a structure. Learning how to coordinate and plan large events - Learning how to work and plan between a large variety of different student leaders and administrators. Communication skills

Operation Achievement Under the supervision of the Office of Civic Engagement, OA works with selected GISD middle school students to provide a mentoring program of tutoring and enrichment activities. This year, 74 students served as tutors and mentors providing 3,135 hours of mentorship and enrichment hours. In addition, OA implemented improvements such as providing additional mentor training, incorporating more STEAM (Science, Technology, Arts, and Math) activities and interactive enrichments for students, and hosting a total of five parent/family nights (3 parent training nights, Movie Premiere Night and Fall Festival night). In a mid-year and year end survey, students responded strongly agree or agree to the following statements: provided opportunities to communicate things I learned in my academic courses to people in the community. 48/60 (80%) Ideas or concepts from my academic courses were useful as an OA mentor. 48/60 (80%) The experience as an OA mentor has made me more marketable in my chosen profession. 45/60

(75%) Outstanding Student Contribution to Civic Engagement For the second time, the OCEL offered a civic engagement award that was given out at the Student Leadership Award Banquet. The award recognizes a student who has demonstrated extraordinary civic engagement or community-engaged learning efforts while attending Southwestern University. · This year’s award went to Senior Kathryn Reagan CIP We continued our Community Interaction Partnership (CIP) with the Georgetown Project. This eleven-year partnership places Southwestern students with internships supporting The Georgetown Project’s

Program. Southwestern University students Courtney Crawford and Kelli McLauglin supported the

Georgetown Project’s programming initiatives.

271

Campus Collaborations Admissions Events The OCEL participated in several different University admissions events. These events gave us the opportunity to frame civic engagement to potential students and families discovering opportunities at SU, as well as to future students exploring classes and student involvement opportunities. These events include: Parent’s Orientation SPROG Pirate Preview Days HECA Independent Counselors Visit

Global Engagement Hall The Global Engagement Hall (GEH) is dedicated to helping students explore their own values in the context of individual responsibility to local, regional, and global communities. Consistent with the mission of Southwestern, the resident hall seeks to foster a liberal arts community whose values and actions encourage contributions toward the well-being of humanity. The OCEL partners with the Office of Intercultural Learning and Residence Life. Highlights for the GEH: Students had a variety of opportunities sponsored by the GEH. Events included volunteering in the community with local non-profits, screening documentaries about various global issues, and attending dinner and reflections with various faculty on campus. We were able to increase the GEH by almost twice the number of student members for next year. We began group bonding with the new members and have met with the RA to facilitate communication between the GEH members over the summer. We hosted a GEH New Member Mixer in April for FY students who will be living in the GEH in 2016-2017 as sophomores and they now communicate and share information on a Facebook group.

Paideia Community-Engaged Learning is central to the philosophy of Paideia. Sarah Brackmann actively works with the Director of Paideia and the committee to conceptualize community-engaged learning within Paideia marketing, programming, student engagement, and faculty development. SMArT Science and Math Achiever Teams (SMArT) is an outreach partnership between the Biology Department, the OCEL, and Georgetown Independent School District’s (GISD) Extended School Enrichment Program (ESE). The OCEL builds and fosters connections with GISD and ESE, publicizes the program, and serves as an advocate. · 19 SU students and 3 faculty/staff members engaged in 528 hours related to SMArT. Spring Breakaway SU’s alternative spring break program (formerly known as Destination: Service) offers students time for direct service activities, opportunities to learn about relevant issues, and structured group reflection to prOCELss and analyze the experience. In Fall 2015, the alternative break experience was restructured and renamed Spring Breakaway. The service-learning experience was transformed to empower students as organizers and leaders and the program is now supported by a collaboration between the Offices of Civic Engagement, Diversity Education, and Spiritual & Religious Life. Students were able to choose between 2 locations this year: El Paso, TX and Atlanta, GA. 33 students attended with 4 staff members. 16 students and 2 staff in Atlanta completed 16 hours of service and had 8 hours of education. This included volunteering at Piedmont Park and The Pride School and learning about civil rights issues at the MLK Center.

272

17 El Paso participants and 2 staff completed 6 hours of service and had 12 hours of education. Service-learning included volunteering with The Rescue Mission and La Semilla Food Education while education took place at Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and the Tigua Cultural Center. Total staff and student volunteer hours: 370. 3 student Site Leaders were on the trips to Atlanta and El Paso. This past year, Student Site Leaders organized, planned, and led the trip. For Spring Breakaway 2017, there will be 3 student Trip Planners who will plan and organize and 3 student Site Leaders who will facilitate and lead the trips throughout the week of spring break. 3 student Trip Planners have been hired for the 2017 Spring Breakaway trips.

SMArT Science and Math Achiever Teams (SMArT) is an outreach partnership between the Biology Department, the OCEL, and YMCA’s Extended School Enrichment Program (ESE). In the fall and spring, students were matched with elementary school students and together they study a scientific or math question over the course of 9-10 weeks. The OCEL builds and fosters connections with ESE, publicizes the program, and serves as an advocate.

Civic Engagement Advisory Board Staff and faculty members representing various university departments were selected to serve on the Civic Engagement Advisory Board. This board offers advice and guidance to Sarah regarding community-engaged learning, development of community partnerships, and coordination of civic engagement activities. Seven staff and faculty members served on the Civic Engagement Advisory Board to provide guidance to the Director regarding community-engaged learning, development of community partnerships, and coordination of civic engagement activities. Met three times in 2015-16

Office Achievements

The OCEL had three operating goals that directed our strategic activities. Office achievements are organized according to these 5 goals. Increase the number of quality community-engaged learning classes. Indicator 1: 7 new faculty trained on CEL pedagogy through the Fellows program.

2. Partner with other campus offices to increase effective co-curricular programming. Indicator 1: Restructured Destination: Service to become Spring Breakaway Restructured Destination: Service to become Spring Breakaway, which was transformed to be student-led and co-sponsored by the OCEL, Office of Diversity Education, and Office of Spiritual & Religious Life. Indicator 2: Increase student participation in the Global Engagement Hall There were 12 sophomores in 2015-2016. Average attendance at events: 54%. Recruitment for the 2016-2017 hall: 22 members including the RA who will participate in the Hall. Indicator 3: Operation Achievement Whitney Milam-Video/movie consultation Emily Niemeyer and Katie McCance - Inquiry based-learning SU’s chapter of American Chemical Society - Chemistry Experiments and discovery lessons CDSJ club of SU - lessons on Cultural Diversity and Social Justice AKA Sorority - SU campus sorority - General Knowledge Laurie Avery - Nutrition/healthy foods

3. Strengthen community-learning partnerships. Indicator 1: Memorandums of Understanding Drafted and signed MOU with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

273

Completed SMArT School Visitor Agreement Completed Community Interaction Partnership (CIP) agreement. Indicator 2: Community partner evaluation data

91% (10/11) of community partners “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that the students’ work increased their organization’s ability to provide valuable services to clients.

Indicator 3: Community partner training Co-presented on collective impact with Leslie Janca, Georgetown Project and Amy Brown, Partners in Education Designed and implemented online community partner and community-engaged learning training

Professional Accomplishments & Service Office 2015 Gulf South Summit on Community Service and Service-Learning: Outstanding Community Partner Contributions to Service-Learning Laurie Avery Member, Southwestern University McMichael Fund Committee Member, Break Away. Attended multiple Active Citizen webinars. Sarah Brackmann Brackmann, S. (2016). Community Engagement in the Neoliberal Paradigm. Journal of Higher Education

Outreach and Engagement. Brackmann, S. Debriefing: Reflecting on Your Service Space, 2016 APO Sectionals at Southwestern University Guest Lecturer, Higher Education and Counseling, University of North Texas “Community Engagement and Neoliberalism,” Policy Studies in Higher Education (April 2015) Guest Lecturer, Global Health Seminar “Critical Reflective Writing” Civic Engagement Training, Coalition for Diversity and Social Justice Academic Advisor, Southwestern University (4 Students) Member, Southwestern University Sustainability Committee Member, Southwestern Staff Steering Committee Member, Southwestern University Paideia Committee Member, Southwestern University Residence Life Director Search Committee Committee Member, Chamber of Commerce Education Committee Board Member, Georgetown Partners in Education Secretary, United Way Board of Directors Jeanette Montalvo Member, Georgetown Project Member, Afterschool Alliance Participant, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Training - "Pick with Austin" Jeff Curley Attendee, HHMI Inquiry Initiative - Transforming STEM Pedagogy through Active Learning Collaboration with Dr. E. Niemeyer - Science Dept. - SU Attendee, Georgetown Health Foundation Southeast Needs Assessment: Findings and Recommendations

274

Appendix C: Spring Breakaway Survey Spring Breakaway 2016 Evaluation Thank you for taking a few moments to fill out this evaluation to help us plan for future trips. Please circle the answer with which you agree on the scale provided. 1= Strongly Disagree; 2=Disagree; 3=Neutral; 4=Agree; 5=Strongly Agree Work & Work Site

Pre-Trip meetings helped prepare me for the work we completed. 1 2 3 4 5

I thought the type of work we did was worthwhile. 1 2 3 4 5

Site training helped prepare me for the work I completed. 1 2 3 4 5

Staff supervision during the trip was adequate. 1 2 3 4 5

Site supervision from our community partners was adequate. 1 2 3 4 5

I thought the amount of time spent working at community sites was appropriate. 1 2 3 4 5

I enjoyed the work I completed. 1 2 3 4 5

I would recommend this location for future Spring Breakaway trips. 1 2 3 4 5

Comments:

Group Dynamics

The size of the group was appropriate. 1 2 3 4 5

Group distribution was effective. 1 2 3 4 5

My needs for group interaction were met. 1 2 3 4 5

Evening reflections were facilitated well. 1 2 3 4 5

Evening reflections helped me prOCELss my experience. 1 2 3 4 5

Student responsibilities were distributed fairly. 1 2 3 4 5

Comments:

SU Staff Leadership

275

Leaders were well informed about our site. 1 2 3 4 5

Leaders interacted positively with the group. 1 2 3 4 5

Pre-trip communications were effective for trip preparation. 1 2 3 4 5

Leaders facilitated a safe experience. 1 2 3 4 5

Student leaders interacted positively with the group. 1 2 3 4 5

Comments:

How did the student leaders assist with the group during the trip? In what ways were they helpful and not helpful?

Reflection The work I did during Spring Breakaway

Benefited some segment of the community. 1 2 3 4 5

Helped me define my personal strengths and weaknesses. 1 2 3 4 5

Helped me reconsider some of my former attitudes about social, political, environmental, and economic problems.

1 2 3 4 5

Made me more aware of my possible impact on others. 1 2 3 4 5

Helped me consider perspectives other than my own. 1 2 3 4 5

Helped me understand the role of the community partner within the local region as well as its role/connection to larger national conversations.

1 2 3 4 5

Additional Questions Describe one or more things about Spring Breakaway that you found particularly valuable. What, if any, suggestions do you have to improve Spring Breakaway?

276

In what ways did Spring Breakaway connect with your courses this semester? Previous semesters? Other comments: Planning for Future Spring Breakaway Trips (Section for non-senior students)

I am interested in trips with an emphasis on: (check all that apply) __homelessness __health and medical care __poverty __environmental issues __social services __education __disaster relief (clean up, rebuilding, preparation for distribution centers) __housing (i.e. Habitat for Humanity) __other (please specify)____________________________________________ I would like to be on the Spring Breakaway 2017 planning team. My name is: Planning for Future Spring Breakaway Trips (Section for non-senior students)

I am interested in trips with an emphasis on: (check all that apply) __homelessness

277

__health and medical care __poverty __environmental issues __social services __education __disaster relief (clean up, rebuilding, preparation for distribution centers) __housing (i.e. Habitat for Humanity) __other (please specify)____________________________________________ I would like to be on the Spring Breakaway 2017 planning team. My name is:

278

Appendix D: CEL End of Course

279

Appendix E: OA Survey

286

Appendix F: Community Partner

291

Appendix G: Faculty Survey

296

Appendix H: Global Engagement Hall

299

Debby Ellis Writing Center

Assessment Plan


Dr. Jessica Goudeau served as Interim Director of the DEWC. This year, the Debby Ellis Writing Center (DEWC) continued its professionalization in the following areas: refinement of policy and practices, staff training, data collection, public relations, event programming, campus outreach, and the creation of online and in-center resources for student writers. The DEWC expanded its service through the implementation of three key writing programs: the First Year Writing Project, which provided mini-workshops for FYS courses; the Paideia Writing Project, which provided presentations on interdisciplinary writing for faculty and Paideia cluster students; and the Capstone Writing Project, which provided focused presentations and support for capstone students in a variety of disciplines. We had 749 students visit the DEWC this year. Mission Statement The Debby Ellis Writing Center is a true center for writing, a space where specially-trained consultants work with students and faculty to support writing practice at Southwestern. In service of the Southwestern community, we host events and workshops that offer guidance to student writers. Our consultants are available to work with small groups or on a one-on-one basis with writers at all levels, in all disciplines, and at all stages in the writing process. The tutors focus on skill-building, and they offer writers the support and training needed to plan and execute revisions of their work. These skills will serve students throughout their future writing efforts. Finally, the DEWC staff and administrators provide faculty support in planning, developing, and drafting effective writing assignments. Goal 1: The DEWC will provide support to student writers in all disciplines and at all levels, who

will leave the center satisfied with their experience and equipped with skills for writing that they

can apply to future assignments. Outcomes 1a. Students will feel welcome in the DEWC and will leave the center more confident in their ability to complete their assignments.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program Improvement Exit Survey: 95% of students will say that they felt welcome & respected in the DEWC.

***

95% of students will indicate that they left the DEWC better prepared to continue their assignments.

*** 95% of students will indicate

Students who responded “yes” to the question, Did you feel welcome and

respected in the DEWC? 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 99.2% (387)

99.4% (809)

99.3% (744)

*** Students who responded “yes” to the question, Do

you feel better prepared to

continue your assignment? 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-16 99% (386)

98.8% (804)

98.7% (739)

Students who responded

Goals met for all three categories. Exit survey numbers are essentially identical to the last two years’. Given the increased volume and diversity in subjects of DEWC consultations, the director is satisfied with this result. I continue to train consultants on best practices in both orientation and staff development meetings to ensure that the DEWC remains a student-centered space with satisfied clients. Goal met. This year, the director switched from scripted observations to rubric-based observations in their

303

that they would return to the DEWC or recommend it to a friend.

“yes” to the question, Would

you return to the DEWC or

recommend it to a friend? 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 99.2% (387)

99.1% (807)

98.7% (739)

once-a-semester evaluation process. The director reviewed rubrics with each consultant after observations and discussed plans for areas of improvement. These forms allowed consultants to better connect their choices during consultations with the goals of the center.

*** Next year, the director will continue using this rubric for evaluation in the fall and to adjust the rubric as needed in the spring based on any issues that arise.

Observation Rubric: In 90% of consultations, directors will observe consultants using best practices to make students feel welcome & respected in the DEWC. (See attached rubric, boxes 1-2, lines 1-7: “Students feel welcome/ respected in the DEWC.”)

Directors observed best practices at work in 100% of consultations.

1b. Students will leave the DEWC with new skills that they can use in their writing.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program Improvement Observation Rubric: During 90% of once-a-semester observations, directors will find evidence of consultants teaching skills that can be used in other papers. (See attached rubric, box 5, lies 21-25: “Consultants teach skills that can be used in other papers.”)

Directors found evidence of consultants teaching transferable skills in 100% of observations.

Goal met. This year, the director devoted portions of staff development sessions to teaching transferable skills: including an overview of “meta-language,” reverse outlining, overview of the function of paper sections, and other “toolkits” for addressing common errors. Goal met. Again, given the increase in number and diversity of visits, the director is satisfied that these numbers have held steady.

***

Next year, the director will continue to focus on writing in the disciplines to ensure these numbers remain high.

Exit Survey: 90% of students will indicate that they will use what they’ve learned in future writing assignments.

Students who responded “yes” to the question, Do you think you’ll use

what you’ve learned today

in other papers? 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 96.9% (378)

96.8% (788)

97.5% (730)

1c. The DEWC will provide additional support for student writers, including workshops and online and in-center resources.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program Improvement Director Records: At least 100 students will attend DEWC open house events, including roundtable discussions, where they will learn and practice techniques

More than 100 students attended workshops at the DEWC that included: “Capstone Chat” (1 per semester), “Writing Abstracts,” “First Year

Goal met. This year the DEWC hosted several well-attended workshops and events, including repeated events like the capstone chat and the first year writing workshop. We also collaborated

304

for writing in varied disciplines, for varied purposes and audiences.

Writing: What I Wish I Knew,” and other workshops.

with staff on a workshop on abstract writing in preparation for the Critical and Creative Works Symposium. Goals met. The director and consultants created document resources as needed, including a “Reverse Outlining,” “Conclusions,” and “Writing Graphs,” as well as adding a “Podcasts” page to the DEWC website with 8 new podcasts by the director and consultants.

***

All qualified resources are available online and in-center. (This number does not include the 18 disciplinary writing guides produced by faculty and Mellon Fellows, also available in the center and online.)

*** Next year, the director and consultants will develop resources as needed.

Materials Review Rubric: DEWC director & consultants will expand online & in-center resources (handouts) by 50% this year.

*** Both in-center and online tutor & student resources will meet the criteria for “good.” (See attached rubric, boxes 2 and 3, lines 5-17: “In-Center/Online Student Resources.”)

DEWC resources for Southwestern students (online & in-center) 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 4 23 16

*** In-center and online resources both exceeded the qualifications for “good.”

1d. The DEWC will conduct outreach to ensure that students from across Southwestern’s campus make use of this resource. Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program Improvement Exit Survey Data: Student use will remain steady or improve from previous years.

Total Visits 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 708 809 749

Goal not met. This year, the DEWC has consistently been 60 students below last year’s numbers since the first few weeks of school. This can be accounted for by the policy change from the 2014-15 to the 2015-16 school year that affects FYS/AES classes: because the DEWC directors last year and this year requested that FYS/AES professors not require their students to come, three classes of students were not required to come. However, the director feels that the change was an important one to ensure that all participants in consultations are willing to revise their papers.

305

*** At least 200 students will visit the center for the first time.

*** No more than 50% of visits will come from first-year students.

*** No more than 40% of visits will come from students majoring in Humanities.

*** Unique Visitors 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 216 254 258

***

Percentage of first-years 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 37.4% (146)

45.2% (368)

46.7% (350)

***

Percentage of students in Humanities 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 42% (128)

26% (209)

19% (143)

Percentage of students in Social Sciences 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 47% (142)

26% (208)

44% (329)

Percentage of students in Natural Sciences 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2% (7)

12% (95)

29% (219)

Percentage of students in Fine Arts 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 7% (22)

6% (48)

2% (18)

*** Goal met. 1 in 6 Southwestern students visited our center.

***

Goal met. First year students remain an important part of the DEWC consultations, but we want to ensure students view the center as a valuable resource for all SU students.

*** Goal met. This year, we saw students from more areas of study than in past years. In particular, the jump in students from the Natural Sciences is particularly important as many of the director’s and consultants’ outreach efforts this year focused on increasing the number of Natural Sciences students visiting the DEWC.

*** Next year, the director will continue outreach across disciplines and years to ensure that the DEWC is in fact serving students from across Southwestern’s campus.

Goal 2: The DEWC will provide support for faculty, who will refer students to the center and

indicate their satisfaction with the work performed in the DEWC. Outcomes 2a. The DEWC will visit FYS classrooms to provide mini-workshops on writing skills.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program Improvement Director Records: Directors & consultants will

The director provided 16 workshops for FYS/AES classes,

Goal met. This program minimizes the topics from last year into three

306

provide 50% of FYS/AES mini-workshops on writing skills.

offering modules on “College Writing Basics,” “Reverse Outlining” and “Basic Research.”

modules.

Goal met. This year we sometimes visited classrooms and sometimes asked classes to join us in the DEWC. We found that presentations were more effective when held in the DEWC, and we were pleased with the opportunity to introduce students to the space.

*** Next year, the director will host one module rather than three in order to streamline the module process for classes and the incoming director.

FYS Faculty Survey Data: 80% of faculty surveyed will indicate that they are satisfied with the visit/would request another visit next year. (See attached “FYS/AES Faculty Comments on Modules.”)

100% (10) of responding faculty answered the following question with a 5 (“almost certainly”). If you teach FYS again, how

likely are you to request an FYS

presentation from the DEWC?

(scale of 1-5, 1 being “very

unlikely,” and 5 being “almost

certainly”)

2b. Faculty will refer students to DEWC workshops, consultations, and resources.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program Improvement Full Faculty Survey Data: Faculty survey data will reveal that a majority of faculty have a favorable opinion of the DEWC. It will also show that at least 70% of faculty refer students to DEWC sessions or events.

46 faculty respondents rated the DEWC on a scale of 0-4 (4 being the most favorable response) on the following topics that demonstrate opinions about the DEWC (overall ratings given after each question): Sent students: 3.64 Found class visits worthwhile: 3.62 Found DEWC staff friendly and well-trained: 3.57 Students find it helpful: 3.47 Convenient hours: 3.46 Tried strategies the DEWC recommended: 3.37 Found the DEWC facilities sufficient: 3.32 Overall positive opinion: 87%

Goals met. Last year’s survey revealed that 88% of faculty held a positive opinion of the DEWC, but only 14 faculty members responded. This year’s result, with an 87% rating from 46 faculty respondents, demonstrate widely-held and consistent positive opinions about the DEWC among faculty.

2c. The DEWC will keep faculty informed about the work being done in our center.


Director Records: The DEWC will send emails

Number of emails sent

Goal met. Directors have continued to stress the importance of sending

307

informing faculty of visits whenever students consent.

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 335 430 451

emails to professors.

Goal 3: DEWC consultants will be trained to provide all students at Southwestern with non-

directive, non-evaluative, skill-based consultations. 3a. The DEWC will train consultants in ELL writing.


Director Records: All interns will be trained in serving ELL students by ELL resource specialist Audrey Hamoy.

*** 20% of DEWC staff will train as ELL interns.

All interns did receive a one-hour training from Ms. Hamoy.

***

Additionally, three DEWC consultants (30% of staff) interned with Ms. Hamoy, meeting for an hour biweekly to discuss strategies and best practices for ELL tutoring.

Goal met. This year, Ms. Hamoy led one staff training each semester on working with ELL students. The DEWC has also appointed Ashley Aytes, one of the ELL Interns, as the ELL Liaison for 2015-16 to lead 2-3 new ELL interns.

***

Goal met. Ms. Hamoy developed resources that can be passed on to future interns.

*** Next year, the new director will continue to meet train consultants to work with ELL students as needs arise.

3b. The DEWC will maintain up-to-date policies and procedures.


Materials Review Rubric: The DEWC handbook will meet the criteria for “good” established in the Materials Review Rubric (See attached rubric, column A, “Good,” lines 1-10, which applies to all resources.)

The 2015-16 handbook meets the criteria for “good” materials as established in the Materials Review Rubric.

This year, the director revised 30% of the DEWC handbook to streamline the orientation process and ensure that information that is available to consultants in their handbook different from resources available in other locations.

*** Next year, the director will build on the work done in previous years to fine-tune the policies and

Observation Rubric: 100% of consultants will display evidence of best practices (student ownership, higher order focus, transferable skills, non-evaluative consultations) during director consultations. (See attached rubric, boxes 3,

Directors observed evidence of best practices in 100% of consultation observations.

308

4, and 6, “Students maintain ownership/focus on Higher-Order Skills” and “Consultations are non-evaluative.”)

procedures as needs arise.

3c. The DEWC will provide training and mentorship for consultants.

Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program Improvement Director Records: DEWC staff will meet at least 10 times to discuss best practices.

*** All incoming consultants will train for their new role through orientation and mentoring with experienced consultants.

***

All interns will accumulate 12-15 hours of shadowing experience in the center.

Staff met bimonthly (10 times) to focus on skill development and training.

*** All incoming consultants did attend orientation, and did work with experienced consultants to hone their skills.

***

All interns shadowed for 12-15 hours.

Goal met. Staff meetings this year focused on transferable skills that the consultants felt would benefit their ability to guide students through their writing in non-evaluative, non-directive ways.

*** Our new initiative paired incoming consultants with new and incoming Assistant Directors so that the mentoring opportunities for incoming consultants were focused.

***

Goal met. The intern shadowing period took place over 4 weeks following an intense orientation. Next year, the director will begin the semester with a “boot camp” refresher to ensure that the new staff are confident and prepared to work with FYS/AES students.

309

First Year Seminar Assessment Plan


(331 student respondents and 13 faculty respondents)

Mission

The mission of the First-Year Seminar is to help the new student begin to practice an education that arcs over the whole course of the student’s experience and across the curriculum, connecting the questions and perspectives one encounters and the skills one develops to each other and to the world. It is a concurrent rather than preliminary experience, focused on exploratory topics or themes that help students think about what they are learning in their other classes and their larger education. Seminars introduce and reflect upon intellectual skills common to the liberal arts: formulating cogent questions, forging connections between methods of inquiry, recognizing and challenging assumptions, seeking out and listening to multiple perspectives, and rethinking/redefining the role of reading, writing, and discussion in inquiry and student centered learning. Note: the 2016-17 FYS/AES Committee will explore additional NSSE results that may match up with the learning outcomes noted below.

Goal (1)

Students will gain an introduction to the type of critical reading skills required at Southwestern.

Learning Outcome

1a. First-year students will demonstrate an understanding of college-level expectations of critical reading (see Reading Rubric). Assessment Mechanisms Assessment Results Program/Dept Improvement

According to survey, the overall average FYS student response to the following question will be at least a 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5): “As a result of your seminar, how well do you think your seminar helped you understand the college-level expectations of critical reading?”

The overall average score was 4.22.

The goal was exceeded and will continue to be monitored.

According to survey, at least 80% of FYS faculty respondents will report at least a 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5) to the following question: “Using the FYS critical reading rubric, how well do you think you helped students as a result of your seminar understand the college-level expectations of

85% of FYS faculty respondents reported a score of 4 or higher.


315

critical reading?”

At least 75% of the first-year students completing the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) will respond that they “very often” or “often” “Identified key information from reading assignments.”

88% of first-year student NSSE respondents answered “very much” or “quite a bit”


Goal (2)

Students will gain an introduction to the type of cogent writing required at Southwestern. Learning Outcome

2a. First-year students will demonstrate an understanding of college-level expectations of writing cogently (see Writing Rubric).


According to survey, the overall average FYS student response to the following question will be at least a 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5): “As a result of your seminar, how well do you think your seminar helped you understand the college-level expectations of writing cogently?”

The overall average score was 4.33


According to survey, at least 80% of FYS faculty respondents will report at least a 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5) to the following question: “Using the FYS writing rubric, how well do you think you helped students as a result of your seminar understand the college-level expectations of writing cogently?”



Goal (3)

Students will gain an introduction to the type of critical and creative thinking skills required at Southwestern. Learning Outcome

3a. First-year students will demonstrate an understanding of college-level expectations of critical and creative thinking (see Critical and Creative Thinking Rubric).

316


According to survey, the overall average FYS student response to the following question will be at least a 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5): “As a result of your seminar, how well do you think your seminar helped you understand the college-level expectations of critical and creative thinking?”



According to survey, at least 80% of FYS faculty respondents will report at least a 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5) to the following question: “Using the FYS critical and creative thinking rubric, how well do you think you helped students as a result of your seminar understand the college-level expectations of critical and creative thinking?”



At least 75% of the first-year students completing the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) will respond “very much” or “quite a bit” about how much coursework emphasized “Applying facts, theories, or methods to practical problems or new situations.”


The goal was close enough to being met and will continue to be monitored.

At least 75% of the first-year students completing the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) will respond “very much” or “quite a bit” about how much coursework emphasized “Analyzing an idea, experience, or line of reasoning in depth by examining its parts.”



Goal (4)

Students will gain an introduction to the type of informed discussion required at Southwestern.

Learning Outcome

4a. First-year students will demonstrate an understanding of college-level expectations of informed discussion (see Informed Discussion Rubric).

317


According to survey, the overall average FYS student response to the following question will be at least a 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5): “As a result of your seminar, how well do you think your seminar helped you understand the college-level expectations of informed discussion?”



According to survey, at least 80% of FYS faculty respondents will report at least a 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5) to the following question: “Using the FYS informed discussion rubric, how well do you think you helped students as a result of your seminar understand the college-level expectations of informed discussion?”



Goal (5)

Students will gain an introduction to the type of research skills required at Southwestern. Learning Outcome

5a. First year students will demonstrate an understanding of college-level expectations of research (see Research Rubric).


According to survey, the overall average FYS student response to the following question will be at least a 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5): “As a result of your seminar, how well do you think your seminar helped you understand the college-level expectations of research?”



According to survey, at least 80% of FYS faculty respondents will report at least a 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5) to the following question: “Using the FYS research rubric, how well do you think you helped students as a result of your seminar understand the college-level expectations of research?”


The FYS program has been extended by five class sessions allowing additional time for faculty to focus on research and writing.

318

At least 75% of the first-year students completing the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) will respond “very much” or “quite a bit” about how much coursework emphasized “Forming a new idea or understanding from various pieces of information.”


The FYS program has been extended by five class sessions allowing additional time for students to focus on research and writing.

319

Advanced Entry Seminar Assessment Plan


(39 student respondents and 4 faculty respondents)

Mission

The mission of the Advanced-Entry Seminar is to help the new student begin to practice an education that arcs over the whole course of the student’s experience and across the curriculum, connecting the questions and perspectives one encounters and the skills one develops to each other and to the world. It is a concurrent rather than preliminary experience, focused on exploratory topics or themes that help students think about what they are learning in their other classes and their larger education. Seminars introduce and reflect upon intellectual skills common to the liberal arts: formulating cogent questions, forging connections between methods of inquiry, recognizing and challenging assumptions, seeking out and listening to multiple perspectives, and rethinking/redefining the role of reading, writing, and discussion in inquiry and student centered learning.

Goal (1)

Students will gain an introduction to the type of critical reading skills required at Southwestern.

Learning Outcome

1a. Transfer students will demonstrate an understanding of college-level expectations of critical reading.


According to survey, the overall average AES student response to the following question will be at least a 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5): “As a result of your seminar, how well do you think your seminar helped you understand the college-level expectations of critical reading?”



According to survey, at least 80% of AES faculty respondents will report at least a 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5) to the following question: “Using the AES critical reading rubric, how well do you think you helped students as a result of your seminar understand the college-level expectations of critical reading?”

100% of AES faculty respondents reported a score of 4 or higher.


320

Goal (2)

Students will gain an introduction to the type of cogent writing required at Southwestern. Learning Outcome

2a. Transfer students will demonstrate an understanding of college-level expectations of writing cogently.


According to survey, the overall average AES student response to the following question will be at least a 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5): “As a result of your seminar, how well do you think your seminar helped you understand the college-level expectations of writing cogently?”



According to survey, at least 80% of AES faculty respondents will report at least a 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5) to the following question: “Using the AES writing rubric, how well do you think you helped students as a result of your seminar understand the college-level expectations of writing cogently?”



Goal (3)

Students will gain an introduction to the type of critical and creative thinking skills required at Southwestern. Learning Outcome

3a. Transfer students will demonstrate an understanding of college-level expectations of critical and creative thinking.


According to survey, the overall average AES student response to the following question will be at least a 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5): “As a result of your seminar, how well do you think your seminar helped you understand the college-level expectations of critical and creative thinking?”



According to survey, at least 100% of AES faculty The goal was exceeded and will

321

80% of AES faculty respondents will report at least a 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5) to the following question: “Using the AES critical and creative thinking rubric, how well do you think you helped students as a result of your seminar understand the college-level expectations of critical and creative thinking?”

respondents reported a score of 4 or higher.

continue to be monitored.

Goal (4)

Students will gain an introduction to the type of informed discussion required at Southwestern. Learning Outcome

4a. Transfer students will demonstrate an understanding of college-level expectations of informed discussion.


According to survey, the overall average AES student response to the following question will be at least a 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5): “As a result of your seminar, how well do you think your seminar helped you understand the college-level expectations of informed discussion?”



According to survey, at least 80% of AES faculty respondents will report at least a 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5) to the following question: “Using the AES informed discussion rubric, how well do you think you helped students as a result of your seminar understand the college-level expectations of informed discussion?”



Goal (5)

Students will gain an introduction to the type of research skills required at Southwestern.

Learning Outcome

5a. Transfer students will demonstrate an understanding of college-level expectations of research.


According to survey, the The overall average score was The goal was exceeded and will

322

overall average AES student response to the following question will be at least a 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5): “As a result of your seminar, how well do you think your seminar helped you understand the college-level expectations of research?”

4.31. continue to be monitored.

According to survey, at least 80% of AES faculty respondents will report at least a 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5) to the following question: “Using the AES research rubric, how well do you think you helped students as a result of your seminar understand the college-level expectations of research?”



323

Office of Intercultural Learning Assessment Plan


Mission

The Office of Intercultural Learning (IL) works with students to help them integrate intercultural experience into their liberal arts education, and to reflect on their position and responsibilities in the world. We take a holistic liberal arts-based approach to off-campus study by preparing and supporting students to live and learn in a new cultural setting and then helping students continue the learning process as they return to the home campus. IL provides institutional leadership in infusing the educational program on campus with intercultural learning opportunities. IL also provides advising and other support services to international students studying at Southwestern.

Overall Office Work during 2015-2016

In 2015-16, the Office of Intercultural Learning scheduled 326 study abroad advising meetings with students, and helped a total of 93 students study away from Southwestern for a summer (41), semester (51), or full year (1). Students studied in 43 cities in 24 different countries spread over six continents. Please see the (attached) most recent Open Doors Report for additional information about where, when, and which of our students study abroad. Please note that the Open Doors Report is submitted about the study abroad numbers from the prior academic year (as it thus deals in factual information rather than projections of study abroad numbers). The international student population increased again in the 2015-16 academic year (18% increase from 2014-15) as we welcomed 15 new (degree-seeking) first-year students. The IL staff again offered a two-day International Student Orientation (including various sessions on necessary logistical information, a presentation by the SU Writing Center to highlight the writing support available for students, and even a trip to Uncle Buck’s Fish Bowl) and offered eighteen cultural events (50% increase from the 2014-15 year) throughout the year to assist with the international students’ adjustment to the culture of the United States, Texas, Georgetown, and Southwestern. Finally, the collaboration with the Office of Community-Engaged Learning on the Global Engagement Hall (GEH) continues to go well. The number of student participants continues to fluctuate, but the quality of their discussions and the overall opportunities for out-of-the-classroom learning continue to grow.

1. Goal

To engender a thoughtful and critical approach to the study abroad experience. Program Outcome

1a. Students will be engaged in thinking critically about their study abroad experience.


Pose a central question and make note of students’ responses at the initial advising meeting. Follow up at subsequent meetings and revisit the student’s response.

This continues to be partially successful, though not all students schedule follow-up appointments. Study abroad program selection and application takes varying

Continue to provide information about different resources at initial advising meeting; continue to provide more in-depth suggestions and guide students through a

324

paths, not easily allowing for regularized assessment.

worksheet on intercultural communication at the pre-departure meeting. This assessment has been expanded to include the required essays that students submit with their study abroad application and will also include the results of the pre- and post- study abroad assessment to measure overall growth in areas such as intercultural competence. Unfortunately, due to the delay in receiving this information from students (as it is evaluated upon their return), these results will not be available until the end of the 2016-17 year.

1b. Students will understand how they might thoughtfully engage from an informed position while abroad. Accomplish this by dedicating a portion of the pre-departure orientation program to issues regarding the United States’ position in the world.


Use current news (Pew Research Global Surveys, New York Times, etc.) so that the discussion is not abstract, but rather points to situations and conversations the students may have while in the host country. Engage students in role playing conversations.

Generally successful. Upon their return, 86% of students agreed or strongly agreed (only 2% disagreed) that their experience away from Southwestern gave them a different perspective on the importance of and position of the U.S.A. in global affairs. However, the students that disagreed with this statement studied within the U.S., so they likely did not have as much of an opportunity to consider this idea.

Continue to look for more information to keep the conversation up-to-date and fresh.

1c. Evaluate study abroad programs and students’ experiences through the required study abroad evaluation (submitted as part of the university response to SACSCOC). Use the information to find areas for improvement in the pre-departure meeting so that students are able to critically examine their study abroad program, educational experience, and personal growth.


Select key questions from the Goal not met for all statements

325

Study Abroad Evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the IL office, the selected study abroad program, the program courses, and the off-campus experience. 80 percent of students will strongly agree or agree with the following statements:

● Students are made aware that studying abroad is an option, no matter their major

● I finished my program with a broader perspective on my major. I enjoyed viewing my area of interest through the lens of the local culture

● I learned that

people have many different ways of doing things, and they can all be right

● The IL Office

was available to answer any questions I had throughout the process

● The IL Office prepared me well for my study abroad experience

● Did the experience meet your expectations (as stated in a previous

71% agreed or strongly agreed that students are aware that study abroad is an option; an additional 17% neutral; 11% disagreed; 1% strongly disagreed 85% agreed or strongly agreed that they finished their program with a broader perspective on their major; 13% neutral; 2% disagreed. 96% agreed or strongly agreed that there is not always just one absolute right way to do things; (65% strongly agreed; 31% agreed; 4% neutral) 71% agreed or strongly agreed that the IL office was available to answer any questions they had during the process; 19% neutral; 6% disagreed; 4% strongly disagreed 55% agreed or strongly agreed that the IL office prepared them well for their study abroad experience; 29% neutral; 12% disagreed; 4% strongly disagreed 94% of students reported that the experience met or exceeded their expectations. 82% of students would recommend their program without reservations (12% would recommend with some

(57%; 4 of 7 met the goal) We will continue to encourage more in-person meetings upon return to get further information from students. Many students give brief feedback on their evaluations, so meeting in person would help encourage them to elaborate (or clarify). Owed to the fact that we evaluate study abroad programs (and the services that our office provides to students) close to a year after the services were provided, the negative feedback of our office reflects the many problems that occurred in our office during the 2014-15 academic year (study abroad terms: Spring 2015, Summer 2015, Fall 2015) during which a new coordinator was hired, trained, and left after seven months leaving the office severely understaffed for the period during which the office provides the majority of pre-departure information and support to students. This feedback does not reflect the many changes we implemented in our office over this last year (such as hiring study abroad mentors to help answer questions about the application process and forms, and provide pre-departure support to their fellow students). Thus, this feedback is not at all surprising given the chaos in the office during those months. The feedback we have received from students who worked with our office after our current coordinator and study abroad mentors were hired (spring

326

question)?

● Would you recommend participation in this program to other Southwestern students?

reservations). 2016 and summer 2016) show that our efforts have helped students to feel supported. Continued work is needed to make sure students understand that all majors are able to study abroad. We are working with our study abroad mentors to create programming towards that end. We are also instituting a required pre- and post- study abroad assessment to measure students’ overall growth in various areas while abroad. We will look at their pre-study abroad assessment to see in which areas students need additional support/information and provide that prior to their departure.

2. Goal

To increase students’ knowledge of how study abroad forms a part of their SU education. Program Outcome 2a. Students will indicate understanding of how credit from study abroad will fit in the degree program.


Ask students to bring degree plans to advising sessions and create a tentative plan for the slots study abroad courses might fill.

Students are all required to print out a transcript and review their degree requirements during their first advising session so that they understand how appropriate program choice is critical to effective transfer of credit. Both the Director and Coordinator continue to achieve 100% success in this area.

Continue to work with the Intercultural Learning Coordinator to look into additional ways we can emphasize this information with students.

3. Goal

To help students and faculty make meaningful connections between the learning during off-campus study with everyday life back at SU, in Georgetown, and in the United States in general. Program Outcome

3a. Partner with the Office of Civic Engagement to promote community-based learning activities in

327

the Georgetown area for students returning from abroad. Students will recognize the value of civic engagement as a logical follow-on to their study abroad experience.


During individual re-entry meetings with students, highlight these opportunities and make clear to the students the connection between civic engagement in Georgetown and the experience abroad.

Information is being presented to the students, but not all students schedule individual meetings and thus do not get targeted information.

Continue to work with Civic Engagement to find out the best opportunities for our students to reconnect with their local environment upon return to SU. Continue to include this information in existing re-entry information that is being distributed to all students to encourage this re-engagement with their local community. Continue to look for ways to connect returned study abroad students with the Global Engagement Hall students beyond the current options.

3b. Students will feel comfortable communicating about their study abroad experience in various venues.


Make formal (e.g., Intercultural Symposium) and informal (e.g., region, language, or discipline specific information panels) presentation opportunities available for students to share their experience with the campus community.

Students are encouraged to participate in events. Returned study abroad students helped with recruitment efforts for the London Semester, SU Buenos Aires, and SU Granada programs (Study abroad fair, information tables, pre-departure meetings). We also created a new Study Abroad Mentor position in our office that allows returned study abroad students to discuss their experiences in an informal setting on a weekly basis.

Goal partially met (students presented about study abroad in informal events, but we did not track formal events very well this year). Continue to provide opportunities and review schedule of events to be sure a broad range of students are served.

4. Goal

To help International Students fully integrate into the S.U. community, feel empowered in regards to maintaining their immigration status, feel comfortable comparing their home culture and U.S. culture, and understand the on-campus resources that are available to them.

328

Program Outcome

4a. International student retention will equal or exceed overall student retention at S.U.


Request retention information from the Institutional Research office, and compare to known international student retention information (and registration information for following year)

At the end of the 2015/16 academic year, the retention rate for our international students exceeded the overall SU retention rate. Fall 2012: 75% (SU - 70%) Fall 2013: 79% (SU - 72%) Fall 2014: 85% (SU - 82%) Fall 2015: 100% (SU - 94%)

Goal met. Continue to utilize the evaluation for departing students (to see if there is anything we could have done to keep the student at SU), as well as the IL Office evaluation to customize programming to international student needs

4b. International student will have a separate orientation before the semester starts to address their specific challenges


Ask all international students to complete an evaluation of the International Student Orientation (ISO) as well as group events during the year.

The international student evaluation from 2015/16 was sent out to all students at the end of the semester, but only 7 students responded.

All group events offered during the academic year (post ISO) received excellent ratings from students.

The only events to receive a “fair or poor” rating from the ISO was breakfast on Friday. Students did not care for the Round Rock donuts and wanted more variety (we changed the breakfast options for the fall 2016 ISO accordingly).

Students’ favorite events were: End of semester study breaks and the baseball game in Round Rock (tied for 1st place).

Students were asked which events we should discontinue, and only one student mentioned that the opera performances were difficult to understand.

For various reasons, we were unable to get a 100% response rate (mostly because we realized that it would be culturally inappropriate to ask for students to give us honest feedback and then also ask them to identify themselves, as some cultures would not be fully honest in their feedback if they knew their name would be attached to the response). Continue to make improvements to the ISO and group events based on student feedback. We included three new events in the 2015/16 that would take students to Austin, and will continue to look for other free or inexpensive events that can be added in 2016/17. We are also introducing one-on-one check-ins with our international students (as suggested in the evaluation), so that they have an opportunity to talk with us outside of the group setting.

329

4c. International student will be able to knowledgeably speak about the requirements of their F-1 student visa


Schedule a meeting with all F-1 students at the beginning of the year to review the benefits and restrictions of their visa status. Scan and email the signed FACTS sheet to each student to make sure they maintain that knowledge

100% of International students on an F-1 visa reported that they fully understood the benefits and restrictions of the F-1 visa

Continue check-in reminders for students about various aspects of their visa status.

5. Goal To encourage residents to explore their own values in the context of individual responsibility to local, regional, and global communities.

Learning Outcome

5a. Residents will recognize personal and social responsibility to address both local and global issues.


During monthly Hall discussions, at least 60% of the discussion facilitators will demonstrate proficient personal and social responsibility based on the AACU Global Learning Value Rubric.

80% (8/10) of facilitators met Milestone 3 according to the AACU GLV Rubric. Through leadership during events and written responses on the GEH evaluation, 80% students showed they could “analyze ethical, social and environmental consequences of global systems and were able to identify a range of actions” to address these issues.

Goal met. After an event where students are facilitating, a short quiz or conversation will be facilitated so that student knowledge can be better assessed.

Residents will be trained on how to host and facilitate discussions.

5b. Residents will demonstrate global self-awareness.


At least 60% of the Global Engagement Hall participants will demonstrate proficient Global Self-Awareness based on the AACU Global Learning Value Rubric as assessed by an end of the year reflection.

73% (8/11) of respondents on the evaluation demonstrated at least Milestone 3 level of Global Self-Awareness according to the AACU Rubric. Students demonstrated that they were able to “evaluate the global impact of one’s own and others’ specific local actions on the natural and human world.

Goal met. Identify specific goals at the beginning of each month, developing and sharing these goals with the students and facilitators, and planning events and questions with these goals in mind will help to improve the GEH and student learning.

330

Program Outcome

5c. Residents will indicate a positive living and learning experience in the Global Engagement Hall.


At least 75% of residents completing an end of the year survey will positively evaluate their experience in the Global Engagement Hall. (See attached survey instrument).

100% (11/11) of respondents evaluated every GEH positively. Every GEH event was rated as either “Good” or “Excellent.”

Goal met. An additional question to the survey should be, “Would you recommend living in the GEH to other students? Why or why not?” or “On a 1-10 how would rate recommending the GEH to a First-Year?”

331

Language Learning Center Assessment Plan


Mission

To support and promote language study through the pedagogically sound integration of technology into the language curriculum.

Introduction: Language Learning Center Accomplishments, AY 2014-15

A. Support for Sprog Days Since the system for orienting and registering the incoming class with sprog days has settled into a routine, this will probably be the last year I report on our activities related to it. One of the benefits of the system we worked to develop with academic computing, which involves uploading the placement results directly into the Colleague database, has had two benefits for all students . First, as I previously reported, it makes unnecessary the maintenance of placement lists that are outdated almost as soon as they are distributed. Second, it now populates language sequence completion info in the “Progress” tab of the academic planning software the students and advisers use, as well as the “Test Scores” tab that shows the students’ placement. B. Delivery of digital media to language, culture and literature courses. Demand for web video for language, literature and culture has remained strong and expanded at a slightly faster pace in French and Spanish, compared to 2014-15. Our promotion of on demand video and our buildup of a supporting infrastructure that makes it easy for languages faculty to incorporate full-length movies into their classes has resulted in extensive use of streamed video across the languages curriculum. Video provides the best means of exposing students to authentic language and culture content in a non-immersive environment. The biggest difficulty we have faced is the problems we have had to work through embedding video in the new version of Moodle. Most of the problems at this point are cosmetic, but we are continuing work through them. In December 2015 we also suffered a complete hardware system failure and we had to replace the hardware, reinstall the OS and the streaming media server software. Our service was interrupted for three days. The fall semester had already ended however, (mercifully), and we had all our data backed up, so the user impact was minimal. We have been working with IS to prevent another failure of this magnitude . C. Support for Language Program Assessment

1. We are now entering the seventh year since the Spanish and Chinese programs used the

STAMP test as an instrument for measuring student language proficiency using national

rating standards (the third year for International Studies). This year we tested 216

students, providing the language (and other academic) programs with quantitative data

to determine the degree to which they are meeting proficiency goals for their programs.

We are now assessing listening comprehension and speaking proficiency in French,

German and Spanish, and listening, reading, speaking and writing in Chinese. The

Spanish, French and German exams on average take around 45 minutes and the Chinese

1 hour and 30 minutes. The time it would to administer these assessments by the

349

professors would be prohibitive, so these assessments are a valuable tool for measuring

student performance that would be otherwise unavailable.

2. This is the ninth year we have assisted Georgetown HS with the administration of their

Spanish AP exams

D. Teaching Ted taught five courses during AY 2015-16: Cultures of Spain and four sections of Spanish IV. I taught three courses: a section of Spanish II, a section of Spanish III, and a course in the English Dept on Cervantes’ novel Don Quixote, which is part of the Paideia Mind/Brain cluster. E. Scholarship I gave a paper at the a conference hosted by the UT-Austin Spanish and Portuguese October 18-19 2015, “Don Quijote and the Mediterranean World”. F. Service Ted continued his service on the ICP committee. I served the second of three years on the Awards Committee.

1. Goal

Increase language students’ exposure to other cultural traditions through support for faculty online video projects. Objectives

1a. The LLC will produce a minimum of 10 online video projects per year for the languages faculty.


Track number of online video projects produced for faculty

2015-16

Spanish 16

French 22

German 0

Chinese 2

Total: 40

2014-15

Spanish 20

French 15

German 0

Chinese 2

Total: 37

2013-14

Spanish 20

French 10

German 0

Goal met.

350

Chinese 0

Total: 30

2012-13

Spanish 24

French 12

German 1

Chinese 0

Total: 37

2011-12

Spanish 10

French 5

German 2

Chinese 1

Total: 18

2010-11

Spanish 43

French 31

German 0

Chinese 0

Total: 74

1b. The LLC will attempt every year to include at least 3 of the 4 modern lanaguages taught at Southwestern in these projects.


Track the number of languages for which we produce projects

We produced video for three of four of the modern languages

Goal met.

2. Goal

Maintain or increase the LLC’s utility as an instructional and assessment tool for language and culture.

Objectives

2a. Support the languages use of nationally recognized assessment tests to measure students’ language proficiency at the program level.


Track the number of students using the lab to take the STAMP test each academic year. (STAMP stands for Standards Based Measurement of Proficiency, a test hosted by Avant Assessment. Its proficiency scale is based on ACTFL guidelines (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages)).

2015-16

Spanish 124 152

Spanish Major/Minors 23

Chinese 024/124 38

International Studies 3*

Total 213

* not included in total

Goal met.

351

2014-15

Spanish 124 123


Chinese 024/124 36


Total 189


2013-14

Spanish 124 121


Chinese 024/124 24


Total 177


2012-13

Spanish 124 126


Chinese 024/124 25

International Studies 8

Total 193

2011-12

Spanish 124 131


Chinese 024/124 29

Total 190

2010-11

Spanish 124 273*


Chinese 024/124 48

Total 371* *erroneous

2b. Support the languages’ use of the lab for assessment at the level of individual courses.


Track the courses that use the lab for written online assessments and the number of students represented.

Students served

2015-16

Course F S AY

Spa 014 35 * 35

Spa 024 61 78 139

Spa 114 90 87 177

Fre 014 33 * 33

Goal met.

352

Fre 024 * 31 31

Total 415

*not offered

2014-15

Course F S AY

Spa 014 53 * 53

Spa 024 76 96 172

Spa 114 67 82 149

Fre 014 40 * 40

Fre 024 * 31 31

Total 445 *not offered

2013-14

Course F S AY

Spa 014 60 * 60

Spa 024 97 92 189

Spa 114 70 89 159

Fre 014 40 * 40

Fre 024 * 44 44


2012-13

Course F S AY

Spa 014 42 * 42

Spa 024 49 74 123

Spa 114 61 40 101

Fre 014 37 * 37

Fre 024 * 37 37


2011-12

Course F S AY

Spa 014 40 * 40

Spa 024 79 52 131

Spa 124 55 64 119

Fre 014 40 * 40

Fre 024 * 42 42


353

3. Goal

Maintain or increase student and faculty satisfaction with lab facility as a language-learning and assessment tool.

Objectives

3a. Compare current degree of student and faculty satisfaction to previous measurements of it.


In addition to informal interactions with students, post an online suggestion box to gather student responses in alternate years. Question 1: Was the lab and the computer equipment in the lab sufficient to your needs? Did everything operate to your satisfaction? Questions 2: Were the materials in Moodle helpful? Did the quizzes and tests, and online video all function properly? How could they be improved?

N/A (We surveyed the students in 2014-15, so we didn’t do it during 2015-16.)

In addition to informal interactions with faculty, make available an online suggestion box to faculty in alternate years. The survey simply solicits suggestions for improvement.

354

Academic Assessment Committee Comments Comments on 2015-2016 Draft Assessment Reports

These pages include comments from the Academic Assessment Committee on first drafts of

department, program, and academic office assessment reports. The assessment reports are

completed annually and the Committee closely reviews them each year. The Committee met

every two weeks during the fall 2016 and spring 2017 semesters to study and discuss the

reports.

The following paragraph was included at the beginning of each set of comments that went to

each department/program:

This year, the Academic Assessment Committee is providing departments with feedback

on a rolling schedule. Please review the comments provided below and if necessary

provide a revised assessment plan incorporating the requested edits by MMDDYY.

Updated plans should be submitted to Susan Lamb at [email protected]. The

committee has also included comments that may be incorporated into next year’s

assessment plan.

The comments below are department/program specific.

Departments

Art (Studio Art)

The Academic Assessment Committee has reviewed the 2015-2016 Assessment Plan

submitted by the Studio Art Department. The department includes a great introduction that

brings the committee up to date on changes within the department and how they are using

assessment. The inclusion of information about the last seven year review is very helpful. The

department also includes a nice explanation of the assessment results and the adjustments that

have been made after reflecting on the results.

Please address the following minor revisions in the update due January 20, 2017.

• The committee really likes the inclusion of The Goal Met/Goal Not Met for each

Assessment Mechanism, but would like to see that information appear in the

Program/Dept Improvement column instead of the Assessment Results column.

• The four percentages for Learning Outcome 1a, column 2, don’t add up to 100%, the

committee thinks that 29.75% should be 9.75%.

• For Learning Outcome 2a, row 1, Assessment Results, the BFA average should be

9.3875 and the overall average should be 9.154.

355

mailto:[email protected]

The committee also makes the following suggestions as your department prepares the

Academic Assessment Plan for next year:

• It would be nice if information about the total number of students meeting each target

and the total number of students attempting each target be included in addition to the

overall percent of students. This was done for the 2014-2015 results in Learning

Outcome 1b, row 1 (34 of 36 students or 94%), and was very helpful for the committee.

• For Learning Outcome 1b the learning outcome doesn’t seem to align well with level of

risk-taking. The department may want to consider revising the Learning Outcome to

better align with the assessment mechanism of interest.

• For Learning Outcome 3b, row 1, the committee was surprised that the department

would not be handing out the departmental documents again especially since they

seemed to work well. If this comes up again next year, could the department provide

clarification on the decision not to hand out the documents?

Art (Art History)

The art history assessment program is strong, and the introductory paragraphs clarify the

department’s robust response to the 10-year review. Assessment mechanisms are clear and

capture both majors and non-majors. I believe that all feedback from last year is addressed, and

moreover addressed in a way that suggests the department is thoughtful, reflective, and

engaged in improving student learning.

Please address the following minor revisions in the update due December 1, 2016.

• There are no revisions due at this time.



• It took a while to figure out how the plan identified “relevant courses”—the key is

included at the end of the report, but even then the codes for courses are not in the

mechanisms but in the results. The committee would like to suggest that the appendix

either go before the plan or, to avoid an unwieldy document but cater to the number-

averse, put the * in the assessment mechanism immediately following the phrase

“relevant courses” to cue readers that this is specified in the appendix.

Biology


submitted by the Biology Department and finds this to be an improved plan from last year. The

committee values the fact that the plan now incorporates an assessment mechanism specifically

for non-majors under Learning Outcome 1a as well as an assessment mechanism for first-year

students under Learning Outcome 3f. However, the committee remains concerned about the

ambiguous nature of the Capstone experience.


356

• Under Learning Outcome 2a, column 1: The Assessment Mechanism for Second year

majors only indicates that students will answer a set of questions but does not state a

quantified performance target. This also applies to Learning Outcome 2b.

• Under Learning Outcome 3a, column 2:

• Please clarify the Assessment Mechanism and identify the portion of the rubric that you

are referencing.

o In an effort to incorporate a level of uniform formatting, we are asking

departments to report assessment results of this type as XX% (m of n). (i.e., 86%

(25 of 29)...). This also applies to Learning Outcomes 3b-3f.

• Other Minor suggestions:

o Typo under Learning Outcome 2a, Assessment Mechanism column: the phrase

“added to” is repeated twice in the senior majors section.

o Under Learning Outcome 3b, column 1: “e.g.proposal” should be “e.g., proposal”

o Under Learning Outcome 3d, column 3: “nuisances” should probably be

“nuances”.

o Throughout: Please start a new cell and (corresponding row) for each

Assessment Mechanism.



• Under Learning Outcome 1a: We simply note that the target for non-majors only

addresses the post-test although the Assessment Mechanism mentions both a pretest

and a post-test.

• Under Learning Outcome 2a: Based on the discussion in column 3, it is unclear whether

this Assessment Mechanism for senior majors is working and what the department plans

to do about this.

• The committee strongly recommends that the Biology department develops a clearly

identifiable and focused Capstone/culminating experience (in keeping with the practice

of other departments and programs at Southwestern).

Chemistry and Biochemistry


submitted by the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. We find this to be a good and

thorough plan. We again appreciate the extent to which the plan incorporates feedback

submitted by the Academic Assessment Committee last year which was based on the

Department’s 2014-2015 Assessment Plan. We also note the improvement in average scores

on the ACS standardized exam as compared with the previous year and the attention to the

assessment of non-majors as demonstrated in Learning Goal 3.


• Under Learning Goal 1a, row 1: the phrase “three General Chemistry sections” is

followed by only two mean scores.

357

• Under Learning Goal 1a, row 1, the last part of the Results column: is addressing

student success in General Chemistry 2 who were enrolled in the Tutorial section. This

is related to but different from the stated goal regarding ACS scores. For the current

report, this information should be moved to the third column. If this information will be

analyzed in future reports, perhaps a corresponding target could be formulated.

• In the same section as above, the stated percentage (52%) of students from the Tutorial

section does is not consistent with the numbers given (13 of 23).

• Under Learning Goal 2a, row 2: “Likert” is misspelled.

• Throughout the document, when reporting percentages please include the population

sizes (e.g., “m of n students (X%)...”).

• Under Learning Goal 1a, row 4, it appears that a learning mechanism is placed in the

results column instead of the first column. (“For each question, at least 70% of students

in the course should answer correctly.”) This row should be reorganized.



• The introduction should include a summary of how previous comments have been

addressed, any newly implemented mechanisms or other major changes (if applicable).

• Under Learning Goal 1a, row 1, some of the latter information in the Results column

regarding the use of ALEKS seems to fit better in the Improvement column (since it

appears that this may have contributed to the improved ACS final scores).

• Please use the same language across all three columns when describing a given goal or

standard (e.g., Under Learning Goal 2a, row 2, the Assessment Mechanism describes

the goal as “ very confident (1) or somewhat confident (2)”. The corresponding Results

column often uses the less descriptive phrase “feel confident.”

• Under Learning Goal 2a, row 3, this could be split into two mechanisms: one for the

paper and one for the presentation. Also, it may be appropriate to assess these with

fewer indicators.

• Under Learning Goal 2a, row 4, the Assessment Result measurement is based solely on

those students who actually presented at a regional/national meeting. The goal, as

stated, is not quite this specific.

• The Assessment Committee is asking that “Goal met” or “Goal not met” be indicated in

the results/improvements column (e.g., Learning Outcome 3a, row 1).

• Since student performance measures often reflect cumulative educational experiences,

the department might want to revisit (and revise or reaffirm) the decision to include

individual faculty members’ names in the Results column. (Although it is may be useful

to consider this information at the department level, the Assessment Committee does

not request that it be included in this document.)

Classics

The Assessment Committee reviewed the assessment material submitted for the Classics

Program. The Mission, Goals, and Learning Outcomes seem well considered and appropriate to

the program. The continued use of external review through the Sunoikisis experience seems

358

positive. The committee appreciates the addition of raw numbers and percentages to the

Assessment Plan, as well as other revisions based on past recommendations.


• Learning Outcome 1a: column 2 – please remove “approximately”.

• Learning Outcome 2a: row 2; column 2 – is 2014/5 the correct date or are you referring

to a more recent graduate?

• Learning Outcome 2b: column 3 – remove the extraneous [FOR] five lines from the

bottom. The Program will develop assessment criteria for to capture…

• Learning Outcome 3a: column 3, rows 1 and 2 – It isn’t clear how it is Goal met if there

were no students to evaluate. It’s alright to simply say there were no students as was

done in column 2.

• Learning Outcome 4a: column 1 – the essay MUCH –probably should be MUST.

• Column 3 – “connections’ between (AT) least two areas…

• Last line in 4a - Does not include an assessment mechanism. It could be omitted unless

you want to make a rubric for assessing “stolen elements…”



• Please attach specific outcomes to a specific area on the rubrics. The committee would

like to have rubrics attached to the Assessment Plan.

• The committee would like to see more information on the assessment of non-majors in

the program.

• Please show benchmarks or targets in the Assessment Mechanisms where possible. For

example, what percent of students will obtain what level on a specific portion of the

rubric.

o Learning Outcome 2a; row 1; could be adjusted in the following way: You could

split this into two Assessment Mechanisms (1) Use a set of common questions

but specify the total number of questions, the number you’d like to see students

answer correctly and the percent of students who should meet that goal. This

becomes your target against which you decide whether or not the goal was met.

(2) Use the essay and identify a component of the rubric that matches the

Learning Outcome, and then decide what score on the rubric should be obtained

and what percent of students should meet that goal. This again becomes your

target.

• Goal 1a. & 2a. Please connect Goal met to a rubric or other assessment tool rather than

linking to a letter grade.

• The committee would like an explanation of or a rubric for assessing “paideia flashes”.

• It is alright if the department does not include every detail of every assessment. You

could include a sampling of results.

359

Communication Studies


submitted by the Communication Studies Department. The department nicely responded to

feedback provided last year. In particular, the plan now distinguishes between courses for

students (courses with non-majors and majors) and courses specific to the major. The

assessment mechanism target was also increased from 70% to 80% since the department was

far exceeding the 70% benchmark. Both of these are nice additions to an already solid

assessment plan.


• Goal 1 starts with “To lead majors” this should be “To lead students”.

• In Column 3, Program/Dept Improvement, please indicate if the Assessment Mechanism

target was Met or Not Met.

• For Learning Outcome 1a, row 1, the Assessment Results column includes a total of 45

and 47 students equaling 93, this should be 92. This same typo occurs in Learning

Outcome 2a, row 1 which will impact the reported percentage.



• For each item, please include the number of students meeting each target and the total

number of students attempting each target, along with the percentage of students

meeting each target. Currently only a general percentage is given at the end of each of

the Assessment Results.

• A new rubric is mentioned in the Program Improvement Column for the first row of

Learning Outcome 1a. Please include the rubrics with the next Assessment Plan Report.

• Please clarify what scale is being used and the difference is between strong and

excellent.

• For Learning Outcome 1b, the Assessment Results column asserts that all capstone

projects in the Seminar are now explicitly critically engaged. Please clarify what this

means. This sounds like 100% meet some bar; perhaps not strong and excellent, but

good, strong, and excellent; is good sufficient?

• When describing the Assessment Mechanism, please reference the row in the Capstone

Rubric that is being used to evaluate whether or not the target has been met. For

example, for Learning Outcome 2a, row 3, it is unclear if the whole project is being

assessed or if an element of the project is being assessed. Since the Capstone Project

has several outcomes the committee assumed the Assessment Mechanism was focused

on methodology and research proficiency, but this could be clarified by directly

referencing the rubric when describing the Assessment Mechanism. The same issue

occurs for Learning Outcome 3a.

360

Economics & Business (Business)


submitted by the Business Department. The Mission, Goals, and Learning Outcomes seem well

considered and appropriate to the program. The continued use of external review through the

ETS Major Field Test in Business seems positive. The committee appreciates the revisions

based on past recommendations.

Please address the following minor revisions in the update due February 3, 2017.

• Learning Outcome 1a, Program/Dept Improvement. It is not clear whether the 85%

target is for the whole test or for each section of the test. It looks like some of the targets

were met and others were not, please clarify this.

• Learning Outcome 2a and 2b. Both should have targets. How do we know that you are

meeting each objective?

• Table at the end of 2b. Is this Southwestern University’s percentile rank? Please include

a title to clarify this.

• Learning Outcome 3a. Please clarify the target “roughly correlated to be a B- or better”

so that it’s clear that the 95% of students reported in the Program/Dept Improvement

column scored 80% or above on the application exercise.



• The committee would like to have rubrics attached to the assessment plan report.

Specific outcomes should be connected to elements on the rubrics.

• The committee would like to see more assessment of non-majors in the program.

• Please include benchmarks or targets for each assessment mechanism and include

whether the target was Met or Not Met.

• In addition to percentages, please include how many students (out of the total number of

students) met the target.

• Please incorporate separate tables of results within the Assessment Result column of

the template.

Economics & Business (Economics)


submitted by the Economics Department. The department has done a nice job of responding to

feedback from last year. In particular, the move from assessing the capstone project as a whole

to referencing specific items on the capstone rubric was very good. The revision in row 2 of 2a

is particularly nice and a strong improvement. The committee also liked the way the department

connected exam questions to the self-assessment of student learning outcomes on the student

survey. The inclusion of an introduction and the addition of tracking data over time have made

an already strong plan even stronger. Excellent job!


361




• It would be good to clarify what year t1 refers to. It is also unclear why the new

percentage is not in the series t1, t2, t3.

• Please consistently write percentages the same way. 80%, 80 percent, and eighty

percent appear throughout – choose one to use.

Education


submitted by the Education Department. This is a really well though through assessment plan.

The Introduction presents a clear picture of what’s going on in the department. The department

includes great reflections on the types of changes needed to improve an already excellent

assessment plan.


• For Learning Outcome 3a, row 2, please include that 2 and above is the target in the

assessment results table. (This was done for Learning Outcome 2a, row 1.)

• For Learning Outcome 3b, row 1, please include that 2 and above is the target in both

tables within the assessment results column.

• For Learning Outcome 3b, row 1, under Program/Dept Improvement there should be two

measures referenced instead of three.

• Minor typos

o In the Assessment Results table of Learning Outcome 1c, the total n-count for

2016 is reported as 16, but the values in the cells below add to 17.

o In the Assessment Results column of Learning Outcome 2a there is an asterisk

instead of a parenthesis in the table.

o There is a space missing between are ”Sufficiently” under Learning Outcome 2a,

row 2, column 1.

o The columns in the Assessment Results table for Learning Outcome 3b, row 2,

need to be widened.

o In the first sentence of the summary its’ should be removed.



• I might be a good idea to move the summary section into the introduction.

• Instead of including a 2 and above reference in the assessment results table it may be

better to include a description of what number maps to what descriptor so it’s clear what

target the department is aiming for.

362

English


submitted by the English Department. The introduction provides a clear explanation about the

changes the department has made to the assessment plan and the logic behind those changes.

This plan incorporates many of the changes suggested by the committee in previous years. The

inclusion of the newly designed rubrics is very helpful and shows the depth of thought that has

gone into the assessment plan.

The committee would like to see some adjustments made to the current plan that can

then be incorporated into future plans.

• Please use the Academic Assessment template to organize your assessment plan into

Assessment Mechanisms, Assessment Results, and Program/Dept Improvement. This

formatting was present in previous assessment plans but not included in the current

version.

• Please include department goals and learning outcomes. The goals should be

overarching, providing high level information about what the department wants students

to accomplish. Then each goal should be broken down into specific learning outcomes

that will be measured using the rubric.

• In the Assessment Mechanisms column, the department should identify which pieces of

the rubric align with each learning outcome. This column should also include a target

that the department would like to meet. For example, what percent of students will obtain

what level on a specific portion of the rubric.

• Results are currently included in the rubric, these should be moved to the Assessment

Results column and specifically address the Assessment Mechanism provided in the first

column.

• In the Program/Dept Improvement column, the department should state whether the

target outlined in the Assessment Mechanisms column was Met or Not Met. Then if

necessary provide some reflection on the results and discuss any possible adjustments

for future years. The Results section in the current plan provides this type of information

as a summary and can be used as a template to provide the same type of reflection for

each Assessment Mechanism.

• The values included in the rubric need to be checked and revised to correct several

typos.

Exercise and Sports Studies


submitted by Exercise and Sports Studies. Thank you for incorporating some of the suggestions

from last year into the assessment plan.

Please address the following minor revisions in the update due March 1, 2017.

• Targets are not included in the Assessment Mechanisms for Learning Outcome 1b. For

rows 1 and 3, please include the percentage of students you would like to achieve 80%

363

or higher on the oral presentation. For row 2, please include what students have to do to

demonstrate knowledge of the content area in the oral presentation and the percentage

of students you would like to achieve that target.

• Please clarify what is considered a successful oral presentation in Learning Outcome 2b.


o Please correct the font size change on the first page.

o Goal Met should be bolded on Learning Outcome 1b, row 2, column 3.

o Please add a space between 100% and of in Learning Outcome 3a, row 2,

column 2.



• Please include an introduction letting the Assessment Committee know what changes

have occurred in Exercise and Sports Studies.

• Many of the Assessment Mechanism targets are being met at 100%. The department

may want to review targets to allow for program analysis. Note that the assessment

committee understands that not all targets will be met all of the time, and it is fine to

include targets that are not met as it allows the department to reflect on the results.

• Please consider including data from prior years under Assessment Results so that

longitudinal trends can be evaluated.

• It is not necessary to assess every course every year; a sample of offered courses

would also work.

• Learning Outcomes 1a and 1b are very broad so it’s difficult to see the link between the

learning outcome and the assessment mechanisms; perhaps it would be possible to

narrow the learning outcomes down in some way.

• For Learning Outcome 2a, it would be beneficial to include some information about what

the elements of effective teaching and coaching in sport are.

• For Learning Outcome 3a, row 2, please include information about how use of individual

skills in a team/competitive situation is evaluated.

History

The History plan remains strong, and does an excellent job of assessing at multiple points in the

curriculum, capturing assessment of majors and non-majors, and identifying critical moments of

the curriculum to assess. The department does a nice job of reflecting on what changes could

be made in response to the assessment results. Keep in mind that it is alright if a goal is not met

as long as there is reflection about what the outcome means for the department. The committee

appreciates the department’s addition of longitudinal data, and especially the explicit reflection

on this data that regularly occurs in the third column of the grid.



364



• Learning Outcomes: In a couple of places, the learning outcomes are written as process-

oriented “inputs” instead of hypothetically measurable outcomes. For instance, Learning

Outcome 1a could be revised to state, “Students will demonstrate an ability to write

essays,” and 1b could likewise change to “History majors will demonstrate an advanced

understanding…by…”

• Course Specifications: Throughout the document courses are referenced but not

specifically: for instance, in 2015-2016, what courses constitute “world history courses”

(1a)? What courses are included as “upper-level courses” (3b) for the time period

assessed? Although this information is in the rubric, it would be helpful to add the

information to the body of the assessment plan.

• Rubric specificity: The items on the assessment plan seem to be considerably more

specific than the rubric. For example, 3b states that students will “analyze primary and/or

secondary sources,” but the assessment mechanism simply points to a rubric that

includes a broad range of items. Is it possible to coordinate the assessment mechanism

with a specific rubric item to clarify the assessment focus?

• For learning outcome 1a, is there a way to separate out transnational, comparative, and

global frameworks into separate assessment pieces?

• It would be interesting to see some discussion about why the outcomes are lower for 4a

if this outcome continues next year.

Kinesiology


submitted by the Kinesiology Department. The department includes some thoughtful reflections

in the Program/Dept Improvement column and Goal 2 presents a nice progression of the

research process that students participate in as part of the Kinesiology curriculum. However, a

large portion of this report is more about what students do rather than what they learn. The

report needs some revision to reflect how the department determines what students are learning

by completing the activities and requirements of the department.



The committee makes the following suggestions as your department prepares the


• Please include an introduction to the report, under the heading Academic Year: 20XX-

20XX, that will allow committee members to understand if the department is going

through any changes.

• The report and department’s ability to assess its own success requires some revision on

three separate elements of the report: the goals; the student learning outcomes; and the

mechanisms for assessing student learning.

• Each goal should be stated in terms of student learning.

365

o Goal 1 could be restated: Kinesiology students will develop a mastery of the

central concepts within core areas of the discipline, including the physiology of

exercise, biomechanics, motor learning and control, biostatistics, human

anatomy, and concepts of health and wellness. The department could drill down

to concepts within selected courses by focusing on specific exam questions

already present in final exams rather than using the comprehensive exam.

o Goal 2 is clear and stated in terms of student learning. This goal could be

reorganized to focus on elements of the research process, developing a research

question, creating a report, and presenting results. It’s helpful to use rubrics as

an assessment mechanism to pinpoint the level of performance required of the

students at each of these points.

o Goal 3 is for the department, not for the students. The department may want to

think through which components of this goal should be restated to focus more on

student learning (for example, moving the internship to Goal 2) and which

components should be eliminated. An example of how this goal could be restated

is: Kinesiology graduates will demonstrate levels of academic and professional

knowledge and skills required to complete in the post-graduate work place.

• Continue to include both majors and non-majors in the assessment plan. Valuable

information can be collected on lower-level courses even if non-majors don’t continue on

to take the higher-level courses.

• It is not necessary to assess all elements of the department. It is alright to target certain

courses for the assessment plan as long as courses cover a range of time spent at the

university. For example, include courses taken early (intro), in the middle, and late

(capstone).

• It is appropriate for the department to include survey information as long as student self-

report through surveys is not the only assessment mechanism being used.

Mathematics and Computer Science


submitted by the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science. This is a very well

designed assessment plan. Inclusion of the Capstone Rubrics is very helpful and a nice variety

of evidence types have been included. The department has done an excellent job of reflecting

on improvements that could be made based on the results of the assessment plan.


• Throughout Learning Outcome 3a reference is made to ratings of acceptable, however

it’s not clear which rubric this refers to or how acceptable ratings are determined. Please

clarify how a rating of acceptable is obtained.

• Please do a quick review and update of dates included in the plan, it looks as though

some 2014-2015 dates have not been updated to 2015-2016.



366

• Including a brief introduction (under Academic Year: 2015-2016) would help the

Assessment Committee understand if any changes have occurred in the department that

have impacted what was included in the Assessment Plan. For example; when was the

last 7 year review, have there been any course changes or staffing changes, etc.

• For Learning Outcome 1a:

o Under major field test clarify under Assessment Mechanisms that you are looking

for the 50th percentile.

o Last year’s numbers are referenced but only included as part of the 4-year totals,

the prior year numbers could be included.

o In the Program/Dept. Improvement column there is discussion of the 4-year

averages being above target, recommend referring to this as 4-year totals

instead of averages.

Modern Languages (Chinese, French, and German)


submitted by Modern Languages. This assessment plan continues to have rich data and great

external assessment to build a robust program overview. There are many indications that the

feedback from the last assessment report were considered and acted upon. Notably the

department created the Survey proposed for Learning Outcome 4b.





• Please include reference to the findings of the seven-year review that was requested as a

result of the 14-15 committee discussion. This is important in discussing ways to collect

data around retention into the major from the language courses.

• The assessment plan makes reference to significant changes in texts and curriculum, but

these changes do not show up meaningfully in the assessment mechanisms, targets and

results. Please consider incorporating assessment mechanisms that will capture changes

within the department.

• Many of the Assessment Mechanism targets are being met at 100%. The department

may want to review targets to allow for program analysis. Note that the assessment

committee understands that not all targets will be met all of the time, and it is fine to

include targets that are not met as it allows the department to reflect on the results. If

every student is successful overall, it is unclear why the programs need to revise

curriculum and activities.

• Learning Outcome 4b does not appear to have a mechanism in place to capture the

student response. Successfully completing the assignments or activities may not be the

strongest way to assess this, as it is an input mechanism. How does completion of

367

activities indicate the quality of the connection between cultural literacy in languages to

other programs and departments?

Modern Languages (Spanish)


submitted by the Modern Languages and Literatures Spanish Department. The department

seems to have incorporated many of the suggestions from previous years, such as the inclusion

of percentages and moving away from using final grades as part of the assessment plan. The

introduction does a nice job of orienting the committee to department changes. The continued

usage of the STAMP exam is a strong piece of the assessment plan and the department does

an excellent job including information on both majors and minors. The department also provides

some really valuable reflections on why some of the outcomes may have occurred and how the

department plans to make changes (learning outcome 1a, row 3 is a great example of this).


• Please delete the empty rows from the tables.

• Please specify whether each goal was met or not met, this is done in some cases but

not all. Not done for 1a row 2 and 3, 2a, 3b row 1 and 2, or 3c.

• No targets (percent of students to meet expectations in the assessment mechanism

column) are listed for 2b, 2c, 3a, or 3b row 1 and 2. Is that because the expectation is for

all students (100%) to reach the goal listed in the assessment mechanism? Please add

targets, even if the target is 100%.

• The year is included in some results columns but not others. Please add the year for all

results; this will be helpful if the department wants to add longitudinal data.

• Minor typos:

o In 2c assessment results column, the year should be 2015-2016.

o There is an extra space before the period in 2a row 1 under assessment

mechanisms.

o In 2c 58/67 should be 86.6%.



• Continue to include percentages from previous years in the results column to track

changes over time. This was added in some areas this year.

• Please use consistent course labeling throughout the plan.

• For 3b please explain what the intermediate-mid level is; it’s not clear whether this is

referring to the STAMP levels or something different.

• For 3b please explain why a certain number of sections are used, for example, why were

only two sections of Spanish 3 included for this assessment plan?

Music


368

submitted by the Music Department. This assessment plan reflects considerable revision and

modification. The department indicates that it made significant alterations to some of the

assessment tools, specifically the Jury forms and rubrics. The introduction makes clear that the

assessment plan in Music is incomplete, evolving, but based on rich and solid practices (the

Jury and Recital events and rubrics). The members of the committee felt that this plan was well

on the way to becoming a more effective tool and met with members of the Music Department to

discuss how the plan could be further strengthened.





• Please include a brief description of the various mechanisms (Jury, Core Listening

Requirement, etc.) for the various degrees and levels of student, and how they interact.

• As soon as feasible, please establish targets for each assessment mechanism. Then

compare the assessment results to the target to determine if each target was met.

• The long text in the results for 3b that describes the new Core Repertoire Listening exam

should be moved into the introduction. This is an admirable outcome, but the rationale

for this is a contextual.

• Consider whether averaging all student scores across the 4-point rubric provides

meaningful information for the department. It may be more informative to look at how

many students (out of the total number of students) and what percentage of students

reached a certain point on the rubric.

• Try to use assessment mechanisms that have actionable results. For example,

completion of a performance does not provide enough detail about what the student

learned for the department to decide if any changes are necessary.

• Continue to include both majors and non-majors in the assessment plan. If it is decided

not to include non-majors in the Jury process, be sure to assess non-majors in another

way. It is also acceptable to have different targets for majors and non-majors.

• It is not necessary to assess all elements of the department. It is alright to target certain

courses (or musical areas) for the assessment plan as long as a range of time spent at

the university is covered. For example, include courses taken early (intro), in the middle,

and late (capstone).

• It is appropriate for the department to include survey information as long as student self-

report through surveys is not the only assessment mechanism being used.

Philosophy


submitted by the Philosophy Department and finds the plan greatly improved. The committee

applauds the department for using rubric lines to a much greater extent than previously. In

addition there is great improvement in the clarity of how participation is assessed.

369


• Please remove the last sentence from Learning Outcome 1a. In the future, information

on level/type of class can be included in the Assessment Mechanism column.

• Please express your target benchmark as a percentage. For example, under Learning

Outcome 1a, row 1, Assessment Mechanism, ¾ of students would be changed to 75%

of students. Please consistently use percentages in all boxes.

• Please shift percentages reported in the Program/Dept Improvement column to the

assessment results column. For example, for Learning Outcome 1a, row 1, include 84%

with the 157 out of 187 in the Assessment Results column.

• For Learning Outcome 1c, row 1, please clarify what you consider the majority of

students in the Assessment Mechanisms column.

• For Learning Outcome 1c, row 2, please indicate that B or higher meets this goal in the

Assessment Mechanisms column (the sentence used in row 1 could be repeated in row

2).

• Under Learning Outcome 2a, row 2, please add “good or excellent” to the Assessment

Mechanism column to clarify your target.



• Your introduction could be more succinct. The committee recommends focusing on any

major changes in the curriculum, how previous comments have been addressed, or any

new mechanisms that have been implemented. Your second and fifth paragraphs do this

well and would be a model for next year.

• Please clarify what “more or less equivalent” means.

• It’s not necessary to include faculty names.

• When discussing program/department improvements it’s not necessary to include

student characteristics.

Physics


submitted by the Physics Department. As with previous years, we find it to be a good and

thorough plan overall, and appreciate the attention to assessment of students at multiple levels

and of majors, non-majors in the sciences, and non-majors in non-sciences. While not all goals

were met, there was measurable progress in many outcomes, and the department seems to be

thoughtfully considering how to meet the goals they have set.


• In Learning Outcome 1a, first row, the 42% should say 2014, not 2015.

• In Learning Outcome 1a, second row, the statement about why it is believed that the

result is lower may be more appropriate in the Department improvement column, rather

than the Assessment Results.

• In Learning Outcome 2a, second column, the “of higher” should be “or higher”.

• In Learning Outcome 2a, third column, it should be “than WE want”.

370



• Especially as the Physics Department has noted in the past that some changes may be

due to statistical fluctuations, it would be helpful to include more years of data (e.g.

current, current -1, current -2) to allow for more meaningful comparisons.

• The committee found aspects of Learning Outcome 3a confusing, as it can seem like it is

one goal (mastery of lab report writing style) that has five sub-components. Consider

elaborating on if lab report writing style is distinct from the others.

• The committee would find it easier to read if multiple elements are spaced out so that

they can be more easily viewed both within a column and across the columns. For

example, in Learning Outcome 3a, if each of the elements in the assessment

mechanisms box were on their own line with whitespace afterwards, and the results

lined up horizontally in the next column, it may be easier to parse the key details. Similar

splitting in other boxes should also be considered.

• In Learning Outcome 3a, clarify what is meant by an overall score of 2 or better on the

five elements. Is it an average or at least 2.0 for a student (as suggested by the third

column), or a student achieving at least a 2 on each element?

• The Non-Science Major Science Literary Goal lists four potential courses for evaluation.

While the report indicates that Exploring the Universe was not offered, and thus there

was no assessment, there were multiple sections of Earth Science, another of the listed

courses, offered. It seems feasible and appropriate to assess at least one of the listed

courses each year.

• The committee noted that Physics may be the only department to use average

normalized gain, which can be confusing to some. This measure can lead to some

interesting results: the gain reported this year in the first goal with 53-154 of 49%, with

reported percentage scores going from 29.3 to 43.8 could have similarly been realized

with reported percentage scores going from roughly 90 to 95. Thus, having the T1 and

T2 numbers, as provided in the assessment plan submitted by the department, is

essential, and the department may want to periodically re-evaluate the use of average

normalized gain.

Political Science


submitted by the Department of Political Science and finds this to be a good plan overall. The

committee particularly values the extensive thought put into the Preface and Overall

Suggestions for Future Improvement of Assessment. The Committee also supports the decision

to include measurements for two additional categories (American Politics and Comparative

Politics as well as the upper-level 500-600 level "craft of research" courses).


371

• Under Learning Goal 1a, row 1 (and throughout): In the Assessment Mechanism

column, please complete “Benchmark: 80%” with a clear statement of what the students

are expected to demonstrate (e.g., “Benchmark: 80% of our students will be rated as

meeting or exceeding expectations on their puzzle on the essay in the two introductory

writing attentive courses in the major.”);

• Under Learning Goal 1a, row 1 (and throughout): In the Assessment Results column,

please include the group sizes in addition to the percentages (i.e., 70% (14 out of 20));

• Under Learning Goal 1a, row 2: In the Improvements column, it would be helpful to

specify the categories that make up the “three types of classes being measured.”

• Under Learning Goal 1b, row 1: Perhaps the “Goal Met” should be qualified as “Goal Met

in American Politics. Data Missing for Comparative Politics.”

• Minor typos:

○ In the section on the Structure of the Major, the word “composed” is misspelled

and the word “one” should be replaced by “on” in the phrase “and then they

go…”;

○ In the subsection on Measuring Two New Categories, “helps” should be “help”;

○ Under Learning Goal 1a, row 3: “on” is repeated twice in the Assessment Results

column.



• In the introduction section (placed immediately following Academic Year 20XX-20XX),

please summarize any major changes in the curriculum, how previous comments have

been addressed, and any new mechanisms that have been implemented. (A brief

summary of the more detailed Preface could be placed here.)

• The committee suggests that the department find consensus around a strategy to avoid

the occurrences of “data missing.”

• In several places, it is appropriately stated that further discussions at departmental

meetings are necessary. In subsequent reports, please include any planned adjustments

resulting from these departmental discussions.

• No need to include estimates of data not available. (e.g., Fall 2011 data not available on

WebAdvisor.)

Psychology


submitted by the Psychology Department. The department seems to have incorporated many of

the suggestions from previous years, including discussing planned improvements in pedagogy,

and breaking down some results into individual items. The plan has many positive features, and

the committee believes that the plan can be strengthened by focusing on fewer items, as

detailed below.


372

• In Learning Outcome 1a, Box 2, the prior year information has 4 means, while the

current year indicates assessment of 5 items, and no changes about what was assessed

for this learning outcome.

• The Career Services data (5b Box 3) indicates 26 grades in 2015, but prior year

numbers talk about 20 majors from 2014-15. Should there be this discrepancy?



• As described in the Assessment Guiding Principles, include an introduction. Some of the

relevant content there (such as new mechanisms implemented) is provided later in the

plan, but would be helpful in the introduction.

• While many of the survey questions may be useful information for the department, not all

of them need to be included within the assessment plan. The committee suggests

removing Goal 4 from the assessment plan, for example, since it relies only on survey

data, whereas some other goals have multiple measures. Likewise, data about the

percentage of students going to graduate school and the number of publications co-

authored by students may be better reported elsewhere, perhaps in the departmental

annual report. The committee agrees with the stated intention of removing the

measurement of job attainment.

• When items are evaluated based on a rubric, rather than lumping them together as in

Learning Outcome 3a, Box 1, (“the 6 components of the departmental writing rubric”)

consider picking a few of the most relevant items or rows on the rubric to track.

• Consider including data not only for prior year, but for two or three prior years to help

track trends. While percentages for prior year are helpful, the N may also be relevant.

• Sometimes averages are reported, while other times the number successfully

completing an item is reported. It is helpful to explicitly indicate in each item which is

being reported. Sometimes there is confusion, such as in Learning Outcome 2a, Box 2,

as to whether the goal is that 70% of students each answer 6 exam items correctly, or

that the score on each exam item is at least 70%?

Religion


submitted by the Religion Department and finds this plan concisely reports results related to

three well-crafted and meaningful goals. We also note the planned inclusion of an additional

goal (Goal 3) for next year. However, the committee again suggests the Religion Department

monitor and report more detailed student learning outcomes by disaggregating the

corresponding mechanisms into more specific components.


• Please include an introduction describing major changes and new assessment

mechanisms, goals, etc. (e.g., the final three paragraphs could be moved to the

introduction section).

373

• Please include Target Met/Not Met in the Program/Dept Improvement column for each

Assessment Mechanism.

• For the new Assessment Mechanism under Goal 3, please include a specific target

percentage.



• Under Goal 1, the Learning Outcome mentions principles, history, and cultural

contextualization but the corresponding mechanism broadly measures “basic knowledge

of a religious tradition.” Breaking this into several more specific components with

corresponding targets would greatly improve this assessment mechanism. The purpose

of the assessment plan extends beyond the reporting of grades on major papers/exams

and should include assessment mechanisms that focus on specific elements of the

stated student learning outcomes. (A similar remark applies to the mechanism used

under Goal 2.) As an example, we provide the following:

Goal Students will understand other cultures and global systems through the lens of a particular discipline.

Learning Outcome 1a. Students will demonstrate appropriate mastery of the knowledge and critical and analytic skills required of their

disciplinary major.



• Under Goal 4, the method states that “Students will complete a capstone project in

religion;...”. The committee suggests that this mechanism be partitioned into several key

components that each student’s completed capstone should satisfy in order to meet

minimum standards.

• Per the concluding remark that “we need to balance teaching

critical thinking and writing skills for all students more broadly with teaching key

aspects of writing”. The committee reaffirms the suggestion of the 2015-2016

Assessment Committee that “a strengthened assessment plan could focus on a

heightened assessment of critical thinking and writing."

Sociology & Anthropology (Sociology)

The Sociology program continues to do an excellent job of setting goals, laying out learning

374

objectives and making assessments. With all of the recent changes to the department, it will be

interesting to track the progress in the coming years. This plan is exemplary in its clarity and

consistency.





• The committee would like to see results from multiple years.

• Learning Outcome 2a: First mentioned here, and again in later Outcomes. Please clarify

whether 80+ means 80 points, 80%, or something like 5 out of 6 on rubric.

• Learning Outcome 3a: Does “fair” and “good” refer to a line on the rubric. It would be

good to know this.

• Learning Outcome 4a: Looks like the first half of the goal wasn’t met due to student

illness. However, second half of the goal looks like it was met. Maybe separate these?

Sociology & Anthropology (Anthropology)


submitted by the Anthropology Department. As with previous years, we find it to be a good and

thorough plan overall, and appreciate the responsiveness to last year’s feedback, including

providing data for multiple prior years. Likewise, the plan has good reflections on the capstone

in particular, including ways to improve the outcomes.


• In Learning Outcome 1a, first row, past results, the 87% for 14-15 is likely a copy/paste

error, as the raw numbers in fact give 84%.

• In Learning Outcome 6a, second row, there are two goals: the percentage with a paper

judged strong enough to present, and the percentage who present. Yet the results report

only one number. Which is being reported?


○ The listing of appendices on the first page includes two appendices labeled as

number 2.

○ In Learning Outcome 1b, first row, first box, missing “will” in “questions be 80%”.



• Most targets are at 80, 90 or 100%, but one (Learning Outcome 3a, Theory) is at 85%.

This may be intentional, and is certainly fine, but the department may want to review

targets to ensure they are what the department wants. Note that the assessment

committee understands that not all goals will be met all of the time, and it is fine to leave

a goal at 100% if it is generally being met, realizing that it may not always happen but

that whether a goal is met or not, the department can reflect on the results.

375

• We greatly appreciate the inclusion of rubrics. When possible, please link assessment

mechanisms to specific line items on the rubric. This is done well in some places (e.g.

Learning Outcome 1a Capstone), but is less clear in others.

• Consider what makes sense for the department in terms of greyed out items. It may be

useful to keep prior year information in the document, even if greyed out, to allow for

ease of updates in future years. For courses that are used for collecting data that were

not taught, please indicate the next time it is scheduled to be offered.

• In Appendix 1, is the average being done by class or by number of students? To make

the average statement mathematically valid, either include a “/5” after the sum, or

separate the values by commas instead of plus signs.

• How is it decided that a paper is “judged strong enough” to be presented at a regional or

national meeting? Is it by actual acceptance, which could be influenced by multiple

external factors (including funding)? Or by the department or the capstone professor?

Student works may be a useful note for the department, but is of course different from

professional meetings.

• Since SACS will be reading these documents, consider introducing acronyms like SJ

even if they are commonly used internally to Southwestern.

Theatre


submitted by the Theatre Program. The assessment plan reflects the department’s intention to

align the assessment plan with the newly developed rubrics. Once the rubrics are developed,

the committee recommends that the department decide on the courses and assignments to

include in the assessment plan and use specific portions of the rubrics to evaluate whether

students are meeting each learning outcome target. With some adjustments this plan will

become a more effective assessment tool.


• Please remove the email from the “Preface and Overall Suggestions for Future

Improvement of Assessment.”

• Learning Outcome 2a: please change “students will demonstrate competency” to

“students will demonstrate competence”.

• Learning Outcome 3b, Assessment Mechanisms and Assessment Results columns,

please change “rigorous internship” to “internship relevant in the field” or some such

description.



• Please use the Introduction section (labeled Academic Year 20XX-20XX) to briefly

articulate any major changes in the curriculum, how previous comments have been

addressed, or any new mechanisms that have been implemented.

376

• At least one measure should assess general education. That is, theatre needs

assessments for majors and non-majors. (Also include courses that will cover multiple

points in the program, early, middle, and late in the student’s academic experience.)

• Please include copies of the rubrics used to evaluate whether students are meeting the

learning outcomes.

• Would recommend restating Goal 1 to narrow the focus a little.

• For Learning Outcome 1a, the committee recommends focusing on specific courses or

senior portfolios. Relying on a sample of assignments complicates the assessment

process.

• Learning Outcome 1b is not a learning outcome. This needs to be revised or deleted.

Learning outcomes should focus on what students learn rather than on what students

do.

• It is best practice to break down assessment mechanisms into more specific

components that refer to items on relevant rubrics. The committee recommends that the

department start to focus on specific rubric elements and align sections of the rubrics to

the assessment mechanisms.

Interdisciplinary Programs

Animal Behavior


submitted by the Animal Behavior Interdisciplinary Program. This year’s report, as have

previous reports, is strong and provides ample evidence of student learning outcomes. The

Committee noted the request to provide guidance for coming years as the program is phased

out and seniors graduate. Our recommendation at this time is to keep the mechanisms in place

for which you are no longer collecting data, but you need not provide data or explanation for the

lack of data. We have found that one effective way to communicate the diminishing assessment

data is to gray out the row if you are not collecting or reporting data on that mechanism. This

allows reviewers to see the mechanisms are in place, allowing the total plan to be reviewed, but

to understand that data has not been collected because the course is not offered so no data

could be collected. A brief mention of this practice in your overview will suffice to explain the

changes in your plan. This also allows for you to continue to collect and report data in courses

that continue to be offered under the same Student Learning Outcomes. This should make your

reporting less complicated as the program winds down, and still allow for reporting if

circumstances change in the near future.





377

• Under Assessment Mechanisms for Learning Outcome 3a it states that “75% of students

will score good/excellent on 3 quizzes…” Please clarify how good/excellent is

determined. Is there a rubric or a certain quiz score that is considered good/excellent?

Environment Studies


submitted by the Environmental Studies Program and finds it to be a quality report. We

particularly note the thorough summary of changes and reflections in the introduction section as

well as the well-crafted rubrics.


• Throughout the document, there are multiple places where the percentages reported are

not consistent with the reported ratio (e.g., under Learning Outcome 1a, row 1, column

2: 11/22 should be 50%; under Learning Outcome 1a, row 2, column 2: 12/17 should be

70.6% or 71%). Also, please use consistent rounding throughout.

• Minor Typos:

o Under Learning Outcome 2b, row 3, column 1: the ending question mark should

be deleted.

o Under Learning Outcome 3a, row 1, column 2: Why are there two results

reported for 12-13 (and not elsewhere for that particular year)?

o Under Learning Outcome 5a, row 1, column 3 (and again in row 3, column 3):

larger should replace large in “The large than normal…”.

o Under Learning Outcome 6a, row 2, column 3: “assistance” should be

“assistants”

o Under Learning Outcome 6c, row 2, column 1: “thes” should be “these”



• In future years, if you do not offer the course used to assess student learning at the

intermediate level (e.g., Policy) then please identify another mid-level course for this

purpose so that, each year, assessment is conducted across all three levels (intro.,

intermediate, and upper-level).

• Where applicable, please consider indicating the specific place in the rubric from which

data is drawn for each assessment mechanism. As an example, we provide the

following:

Goal

Students will understand other cultures and global systems through the lens of a particular discipline.

Learning Outcome 1a. Students will demonstrate appropriate mastery of the knowledge and critical and analytic skills required of their

disciplinary major.


378


• Under Learning Outcome 5a, row 2, column 3: If you feel that the survey does not

accurately capture student knowledge in this area, you might consider developing an

additional mechanism here.

• Under Learning Outcome 6b, row 1, column 1: The target, as stated, appears to be a

measure of “having contributed” and it is not clear how the quality of the work is used in

determining the results.

Feminist Studies


submitted by the Feminist Studies Interdisciplinary Program. The Academic Assessment

Committee has again found the Feminist Studies Interdisciplinary Program’s assessment plan to

be very strong. The Mission statement is very clear and succinct. The plan is clear and easy to

read and includes nice reflections in the Program/Dept Improvement column. The Committee

also appreciates that if you take into consideration the two students who withdrew, all goals

were met.





• Please consider writing the Assessment Report without using “I” throughout the report.

That way the report is from the Feminist Studies Interdisciplinary Program rather than

from a single person.

• For Goal 2 are there other courses that could be used in the years when Intellectual

Histories of Feminism is not offered?

International Studies


submitted by International Studies finds the plan to be very strong again this year. The

committee appreciates the changes from last year, and acknowledges the difficulty in spotting

trends when there are only two graduating seniors being surveyed. We hope that you will

continue to track changes over time, and appreciate the inclusion of percentages from the last

three years. Excellent job!

379


• Goals 11, 12, and 13 should probably be Goals 1, 2, and 3.

• For Learning Outcome 2a, column 2, row 2, fourth line should be “their” major instead of

thier.

• Learning Outcomes 1b, 2b, 2c all say 2014/15 (2/2), whereas in most other places it

says (3/3). We just wanted to check if the 2/2 are actual results or a cut and paste error.



• It might be worth asking if the language lab would allow your students to take both oral

and written STAMP exams since it is only a few students.

Latin American and Border Studies


submitted by the Latin American and Border Studies Interdisciplinary Program. As noted by both

the plan and previous reviews, assessment of a small program (one graduate in 2015-2016)

remains challenging. Yet, the committee finds that the program has some good mechanisms in

place for assessing students in the capstone. In particular, the committee appreciates that

numerous assessment mechanisms point to specific questions on the Capstone rubric, making

it clear what is being assessed. The indication of the development of a core course which will

allow for earlier assessment of majors and minors is also noted.


• In Learning Outcome 3, indicate “Standard achieved” or “Goal met” for each item, as you

have in previous outcomes.

• What is the mechanism through which Learning Outcome 3b is being assessed? Is there

a specific rubric item that it is tied to?

• The introduction has the parenthetical (LABS or LABS) which is unclear. Its second

paragraph also has a redundant “and as well as”.


○ Learning Outcome 3a, Assessment Results says “There was only

major.”, missing the “one”.

○ Learning Outcome 3b, Program Improvement has “Addendum”

instead of “Added”.



• Especially given the small numbers, report the results of several prior years (where

available) in the assessment results column to aid in tracking over time.

• Consider separating out the ratings for the written capstone and the oral presentation in

Learning Outcome 1a. From the results in Learning Outcome 2a, it appears that this type

of data may be tracked within the program, but the way it is reported combines the two.

380

• Some of the Learning Outcomes (1a, 2a) indicate that accomplished or exemplary is 3.5

or better of 4.0, while others (1b, 2b) have accomplished or exemplary as 3.0 or better of

4.0. Is this difference intentional?

Race and Ethnicity Studies


submitted by the Race and Ethnicity Studies Interdisciplinary Program. The report begins by

making a case for the challenges to the standalone minor in locating any specific places that

can be consistently used for assessment data collection, as it is not a degree with introductory

or capstone courses. The committee acknowledges the assessment challenges for independent

minors especially with a new assessment plan, but we encourage the authors of this report to

start identifying specific outcomes in specific courses that do feed the overall goals of the minor.


• Please provide a copy of the survey. Without the actual survey to look at, it is hard to

determine how the learning outcomes, goals, and questions fit together.

• Please include a target in the Assessment Mechanisms column. For example, select a

survey item and state what percentage of students the Program expected to answer the

survey item in a positive way.

• There was no information included in the Program/Dept Improvements column. Please

include whether the assessment mechanism’s target was “Met” or “Not Met” based on

the assessment results.



• A complete Assessment Mechanism requires a description of the tool, as specific as

possible (which parts of a rubric or questions on a survey are under consideration), a

clear target audience (when and where is the assessment mechanism deployed), and a

target percentage or number (or both) of students expected to meet the outcome (i.e.

50% or survey respondents). Please expand the information provided under the

Assessment Mechanism column to include this information.

• The Results column does not use numbers of students surveyed or responding, resulting

in a statement of results that is not supported by data. Please tie the results directly to

the question and numbers of responses as clearly as possible by including both the

percentage of students meeting a target and the actual group sizes (i.e. 50% or 5 of 10

students met the target).

• The only mechanism mentioned is a survey, an indirect measure. The Committee

understands that, like Paideia, this program exists in the domain of others and direct

measures are difficult to make. The committee recommends looking at what Paideia has

done to collect assignments from courses that feed the minor for assessment of critical

outcomes.

381

Academic Offices

Center for Academic Success and Records


submitted by the Center for Academic Success and Records. The current assessment plan

includes information for both academic success and records. The committee recommends

separating these two pieces and submitting two separate assessment plan reports next year.

Additionally, for offices providing academic and student support services, a new Assessment

Report Template will be made available for next year focusing on Program Outcomes instead of

Learning Outcomes.





• Please include an introduction so the Academic Assessment Committee is aware of any

changes that have occurred recently that may impact your assessment approach.

• This mission statement could include a list of specific services provided and then the

assessment mechanisms could link to those services.

• Learning Outcome 1a is not linked to the Assessment Mechanism. The percentage of

issues resolved by staff does not show that students can resolve academic issues. The

committee recommends either developing a new Learning/Program Outcome or a new

Assessment Mechanism. Additionally, the Assessment Results don’t link to the

Assessment Mechanism. While the number of meetings is an important statistic to track

for the Center of Academic Success, it does not show that issues have been resolved.

• The inclusion of a survey for Learning Outcome 1b would be a great addition. The target

of 100% would be ideal, but a slightly lower target for the first administration of the

survey would be fine. The committee wonders if the web site could be used in some way

to track the exam requests and if that would be a helpful assessment mechanism for the

Center.

• Is there a plan to gather data for Learning Outcome 2a?

• Goal 4 focuses on the Records Office but does not really include an Assessment

Mechanism. Perhaps a number of procedural improvements could be identified and the

office could target 1 out of however many areas per year. When tracking numbers

adding longitudinal information would allow you to see growth over time.

Office of Community-Engaged Learning


submitted by the Office of Community-Engaged Learning. This plan covers a tremendous

variety of activities and efforts. It provides a clear picture of how clients and the Office interact,

but it employs almost exclusively data derived from user surveys, except on SLO 3.3 and the

382

outcomes under goal 4. The Office of Community-Engaged Learning might look for at least one

more direct measure of client services in the coming year.


• Please add whether each Assessment Mechanism target was “Met” or “Not Met”.

• For Goal 1c, the first Assessment Mechanism has a target of 73%. Is this the correct

target or a typo?

• Two outcomes on this plan, 3A and 4C, are called program outcomes. The committee

wondered if this was intention or a holdover from historical reports.

• For Program Outcome 3a the academic year is listed as 2013-2014, this should be

updated to 2015-2016.

• The title should be updated to Office of Community-Engaged Learning to match the

Mission Statement.



• There is a lot of information included in the Assessment Results column. It is alright to

focus on fewer survey questions if the Office can select ones that target the areas they

are interested in.

• It isn’t necessary to raise targets every year unless the Office has a specific need to

raise the target.

• In Goal 4 it is not clear that the target of the Goal is the Global Engagement Hall.

Further, the results indicate that the facilitators reached Milestone 3 of the AACU GLV

Rubric, but it is not clear if that was the target that matched to proficient.

Debby Ellis Writing Center


submitted by the Debby Ellis Writing Center. The current assessment plan report makes use of

a good variety of assessment mechanisms, including both survey information and rubric

information. The reflections included in the Program Improvement column are very well thought

through and provide good suggestions for what’s needed in future years.





• When discussing the assessment results, please make sure that the program

improvements reflect what’s in the assessment results column. For example, Outcome

1b, row 2 includes mention of an increase in number in the Program Improvement

column that is not reflected in the Assessment Results column.

• Please try to include exact numbers whenever possible. Your Assessment Mechanism

should include the target (and what percentage should meet the target) and the

383

Assessment Results should include both the percentage meeting the target and the

group sizes (e.g., “75% [15 of 20 students] met the target.”). Some of the statements in

the Assessment Results column do not include numbers to back up those statements.

• Including data from prior years is very beneficial when using an established assessment

mechanism. It is also appropriate to implement new assessment mechanisms knowing

that prior year data will be available eventually.

First Year Seminar (FYS) and Advanced Entry Seminar (AES)

The Academic Assessment Committee has reviewed the 2015-2016 Assessment Plans

submitted by the FYS/AES Program. The inclusion of NSSE items in the report is a really nice

addition. Conducting surveys with both students and faculty also provides a good variety of

information. The committee would like the FYS/AES program to consider how to include more

direct assessment mechanisms to complement the survey results.


• In the AES report, please replace references to FYS with AES.



• Please include an introduction that will allow committee members to understand the

difficulties associated with assessing FYS/AES or if the program is going through any

changes.

• It is not expected that all assessment mechanisms will be met every year. The

committee encourages the use of new assessment mechanisms, reflections about why

targets may not have been met, and how things may be changed in the future to improve

the FYS/AES program.

• Please provide more information about the student survey used (e.g., when it was

administered – immediately after FYS/AES conclusion or end of semester; how many

respondents out of how many students.

• NSSE results were included for the FYS but not the AES. Is there a reason why this was

not workable for AES?

• Could additional direct measures be used? The survey references various rubrics

(writing, critical thinking, and critical reading) used during FYS/AES, is there a way to

use those rubrics directly as assessment mechanisms. For example, could the rubrics

be used across all sections of FYS/AES in such a way that faculty could report how

many students out of all students met specified minimum standards (or a target).

• Going forward, please include assessment results from previous years to reveal trends.

Office of Intercultural Learning


submitted by the Office of Intercultural Learning. The committee appreciates the consideration

of some of the recommendations from the prior year, and plans to include new mechanisms in

384

the future, realizing the inherent delay in some of them. While the specific benchmark

recommended in last year’s feedback was included, other mechanisms should likewise have

specific, measurable targets where appropriate.


• For all items that already have benchmarks or targets, indicate in the Program/Dept.

Improvement column either “Goal met” or “Goal not met”.

• The numbers in Program Outcome 3b indicate 58 students involved in 97 presentations

(individual or group). Having students average more than one presentation directly tied

to their study abroad experience seems high. If these numbers are accurate, perhaps

some discussion of that could be included in the final column. Or do these presentations

represent all students who have studied abroad and presented something at Creative

Works, not just presentations that are connected to their study abroad experience?

• Align items vertically in Program Outcome 1c so that it is easy to see which results

correspond to which statements.


○ Program Outcome 2a, Assessment Results “so that”, not “to that”.



• In many cases, relevant information is included, but could be allocated differently within

the boxes. For example, in Program Outcome 1b, the information about using current

news could go elsewhere, as that is currently what is done to achieve the desired goal,

but not to assess it. The mechanism itself may be a post-survey, or pre- and post-

surveys, with a target or benchmark of “at least Z% of respondents agree or strongly

agree” with ITEM on the survey. The assessment results column would then report the

numbers and percentage from that survey item. The Program/Dept. Improvement

column would then include the reflection about those numbers, including things such as

the discussion about the one student who studied within the U.S., as well as what the

Office plans to do in the future.

• Similar reconfiguration and inclusion of quantifiable benchmarks would be useful

throughout, even in cases where assessment may be more challenging. For example, in

1a., while it is understood that not all initial advising meetings result in follow-ups, there

are trackable values, such as the number of initial meetings, the number of follow-up

appointments, and perhaps something already tracked that can indicate if students are

in fact “engaged in thinking critically about their study abroad experience”. The Office

can certainly set its own goals, even if the numbers may feel low -- would the Office want

at least 25% of initial visits to result in follow-up visits?

• Report not only percentages, but also raw numbers. For example, in Program Outcome

1c, where it states 71% agreed or strongly agreed, keep the 71%, but also provide the

actual numbers, as in “71% (X of N students) agreed or strongly agreed”. Likewise,

include prior year results when available.

385

Language Learning Center


submitted by the Language Learning Center (LLC). The committee appreciates the use of a

variety of mechanisms in the assessment plan and the inclusion of prior year data. While it is

good that the LLC is meeting its’ goals, the committee would interested in what new goals the

LLC may have and reflections on what allows the LLC to meet or not meet these goals.


• In the Assessment Results for Goal 2, the total of 216 does appear to include the starred

3 International Studies. Also, clarify the starred 371 marked as “erroneous.”

• Under Goal 3, the corresponding Objective is listed as “2a.” Also, the 2014-2015 results

could be included here (since there was no survey given last year).

• Please do not include empty fields. (e.g., fields 1c. through 1f. can be deleted.)


o There is a missing period at the end of the Mission statement.

o Goal 1 is listed as Goal 14.

o Goal 2 is not numbered.



• Beyond usage by students, does the LLC have access to the students’ performance

results related directly to their use of LLC materials (pretest vs. posttest scores)? If so

this would be a good assessment mechanism to add.

• Please include targets (in the Assessment Mechanism column) for each objective (e.g.,

the 2a and 2b objectives under the second-stated goal have no targets). In some cases

there is a target within the objective that could be moved to the Assessment Mechanism.

• Many of the targets track the number of times things are done (inputs) rather than

tracking quality of the experience for the student (student-learning outcomes). This may

be appropriate for the LLC, but continue to look for opportunities to gather information on

student-learning outcomes after visiting the LLC.

• Please develop a clear introduction. Some of the information included at the end of the

report could be moved into an introduction.

• Could the survey be administered every year to provide you with additional data?

• It’s not necessary to include more than 3 years of past data.

386

201 5- 201 6 - southwestern university

Documents