|
Email • Oncourse •
Calendar 
Library • Technology
• Departments • Contact
IUS|
|
Program Progress Reports
Program Assessment Summaries for the 2004 – 2005 School Year:
|
School of Arts & Letters
BA with Individualized Major (new)
No summary paragraph submitted.
Communications
Over the past year, the Communication Department has made progress in meeting the goals and outcomes as outlined within the assessment plan. As was noted in the 2003 - 2004 assessment report, the department revised its Introduction to Communication Studies course (S205), focusing its content on strengthening students' oral and written communication skills. This allowed the department's faculty to assess both oral and written communication skills of S205 students in the Spring 2005. Based upon the assessment of the instructor of record and other Communication Studies faculty members, students were generally successful in meeting the projected goals as outlined in the department's assessment plan. Students achieved the department's success criteria for 37 of the 41 traits assessed in the papers and speeches.
Assessment data were also collected for students' knowledge of the field of communication. Data were collected in both S205 (Introduction to Communication) and S405 (Human Communication Theory). An analysis of exam questions by the course instructor in S205 determined that students were able to distinguish between social scientific and humanistic approaches to research (success rate = 72%). An evaluation by three faculty members of student papers established a 90% success rate for explanation of major communication theories. Currently, the data from S405 are under review by departmental faculty and will not be made a part of this report.
Finally, the department continues to make strides in fulfilling the goals of the other categories and sub-categories as outlined in the assessment plan. Currently, measurement tools are under construction in various categories such as logical and critical thinking. In a similar vein, various sub-categories are also under revision due to questions surrounding potential measurement problems. Once these concerns have been addressed, the department will implement a course of action on assessing the goals and outcomes as outlined within the plan.
English
During the 2004-05 school years the English department undertook two major assessment projects. The first project involved developing a pre-post test that aimed at gauging the knowledge bases, skills, and abilities of majors. We designed the test during the fall and then administered it to several different levels of classes in the spring. We continue to use this tool to collect data that will provide baseline data about the knowledge and abilities of majors in the areas of content knowledge and critical reading proficiency. Preliminary examination of the data indicates that upper-level English majors scored higher than lower-level students in these areas. As we gather further data through this pre-post process, we will use the information gained about strengths and weaknesses to revisit our program outcomes and determine appropriate changes to our curriculum.
In the second project we developed a grading rubric for the English capstone writing assignment. This theoretically grounded instrument stimulated discussion and participation by all members of the department about the department's expectations for writing by majors. During the first phase of the project, completed during the 2004-2005 school year, the English Department assessment subcommittee 1) met regularly to design a preliminary rubric based on a process-oriented approach to writing; 2) tested the rubric against capstone papers; 3) revised the rubric and submitted it for deliberation at the department's annual summer retreat; and 4) established a department-wide reading date for October 21st. During Phase Two of this project, which will take place during the 2005-2006 school year, the department will use the results of this reading to examine and revise program outcomes.
Fine Arts
The Fine Arts department conducts extensive student portfolio reviews as a means of assessing student learning in both degrees offered: the Bachelor of Arts and the Bachelor of Fine Arts. Students submit portfolios of their work after having completed all the Foundations courses (F100, F101, F102, and P273) and two of their 200 level studio courses. A similar review occurs at the end of a student's career through the Senior and BFA Exhibitions. An outside expert also evaluates the works included in these public shows. This additional procedure assures greater reliability in the results and acts as a touchstone for departmental development. All measures are directed by the Fine Arts Assessment Committee, which informs individual students of any upcoming reviews and notifies them of the results. Consequently, assessment acts to guide the individual student as well as provide useful information to the department on the program as a whole. This committee also works on further development of the assessment tools and proposes changes to curriculum and procedures for consideration by the entire Fine Arts faculty. In order to help students achieve success as Fine Arts majors, the portfolio reviews are used to discover and address problematic areas for individuals through probation and additional advising. The guiding of students into appropriate concentrations also occurs at this time. The students' knowledge of the history, origins, and theory of art is assessed in upper-level Art History courses through written assignments. The evaluation of vocabulary and core concepts through pre and post-testing in the Foundations and Senior / BFA Seminars is also in place. As a result of the assessment data, a number of departmental changes have been implemented. These modifications include the designation of all 200, 300, and 400 level studio courses as departmental authorization only; obtain permission to register for these classes, a student must see their advisor. Assignments linked directly to assessment have been developed in a number of courses. Such coursework includes Foundations final projects, Senior Seminar artist's statements and self-evaluation their senior project, as well as Art History research papers and presentations. The communication of assessment goals and desired outcomes with the adjunct faculty has also become an important process within the department. During the 2005 - 2006 academic year, the Fine Arts department will be conducting a Foundations Self-Study in order to improve this vital segment of the curriculum.
Modern Languages
The Department of Foreign Languages devoted the academic year 2004-2005 to questions pertaining to assessment. It focused on the first four semester programs and two upper level courses in Spanish, French and German that would be used as an assessment measure for students majoring or minoring in the respective languages. After extended deliberation it was resolved to keep the Wisconsin Test for a few more years as a gauge of students' performance in the four foundational courses. The decision to keep the test as a measure of assessment is due to the fact that it is a nationwide standardized test. A closer scrutiny of the students' responses was suggested as a way to identify their strengths and weakness. The previous results indicated a need to cover additional reading material to enhance the students' comprehension skills. Our second deliberation centered on upper level courses to serve as an assessment vehicle. The structure of these courses is undergoing a process of formalization to be continued for the next couple of years. In addition, it was resolved to continue work on the Culture Test to be administered either at the end of 150 or 250. The objective of the test will be to synthesize the students' knowledge in areas they studied and ascertain their success in acquiring the skills for orienting themselves in today's global world. In this context it was resolved to request new faculty positions in French and German. The investment of additional time needed to implement an assessment structure in the curriculum requires additional faculty.
Music
The music program has engaged in several, traditional assessment activities for many years, particularly in the area of performance and theory placement testing. Over the past two years the faculty have been working on fine-tuning the reporting documents for performance so that results can be calculated as data which then form the basis for formal program review. Our first attempt at creating instruments to report this material was completed last year and the results were forwarded to OIRA so that we now have one year's data in the all the areas of performance we evaluate: audition, jury exams, sophomore gateway exams, recital hearings and the senior recital performance. Although we have some data now in this area, we still need to fine-tune ways of calculating the results that clearly point to earmarks we need to best evaluate student progress. As of June, 2005 there were three remaining areas of study which we wanted to evaluate: music theory/ear-training, music history and music technology. In June of 2005 we met with various faculty and developed instruments to report and calculate student achievement in these areas. We received the first draft of these forms early this fall. We made minor corrections and will use them beginning the end of fall semester. Although we do not have enough data yet to fully use the process we are developing for assessment of the music program, faculty have used the results we have accumulated to make minor adjustments to requirements; we also continue to assess student progress in a less formal way based on faculty experience with student performances in juries and in music classes and through frequent faculty meetings which occur throughout the semester and, most importantly, at performance jury time. We have been able to do this because we do not have a large number of majors. We know these students well and are able to discuss their work across the spectrum of music requirements. We realize that this does not negate the need for the formal assessment activities we are working on developing. However, it does reflect that music faculty have ongoing review of student work and of the music program in general.
Philosophy
The Department of Philosophy is committed to the essential work of assessment. We understand assessment to begin and end with the advancement of student learning. All our efforts have been designed to encourage and enhance the intellectual and moral development of all our students, both majors and non-majors. In the past decade, our assessment efforts have proceeded from general statements of purpose to more and more concrete endeavors. These efforts have led to various changes in the major, as well as refinements of course expectations, greater faculty cooperation, and new course development. Again, all of these developments have aimed at furthering the depth and effectiveness of student learning in philosophy.
Theatre
The Theatre Program has been developing its Assessment Plan over the past couple of academic years. Assessment for the Theatre program falls into six categories:
- Measuring knowledge gained by the students about the craft and profession
- Developing critical thinking and analysis tools in the students as apply to the theatre craft
- Developing and applying performance skills and knowledge in the student
- Developing and applying design skills and knowledge in the student
- Developing effective writing skills in the student
- Developing student as effective and contributive team member
This past academic year the Theatre faculty has been in transition with two full-time faculty replacement searches. Regardless, some work on the Assessment Plan has continued: revising plan for more clarity, development of measurement tools, beginning to gather data. The department now turns to finalizing its measurement tools and starting to gather data.
School of Business
The School of Business continued to implement the assurance of learning program (assessment) based on accreditation standards of AACSB. A key accomplishment was the development of rubrics for learning outcomes in the BS and the MBA programs. The faculty continued work on development of outcomes and rubrics for the MSSF program. Data collection for all rubrics will commence during the Fall 05 semester. We expect to have a complete data set for all rubrics at the end of the 05-06 academic year.
In addition to a thorough course-embedded assessment program, the school also relies on a national standardized exam. The School of Business continued use of the ETS Major Field Exam in Business at the undergraduate and graduate levels. At the undergraduate level, students scored in the 90% and 95 percentiles respectively. Graduate students scored in the 95 percentile. Both exams are administered in two separate capstone courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels.
The faculty conducted an ethics gap analysis at both undergraduate and graduate levels. One of the changes recommended is the addition of a required ethics course in the MSSF program.
Indirect evidence is also used. The school administers the EBI Senior Exit survey. We also have several advisory boards in place: Business Advisory Council, Alumni Board, Undergraduate Advisory Board, and Graduate Advisory Board.
Business (Undergraduate)
No summary paragraph submitted.
Economics (Undergraduate)
No summary paragraph submitted.
Masters of Business Administration (Graduate)
No summary paragraph submitted.
Masters, Strategic Finance (Graduate)
No summary paragraph submitted.
School of Education
Elementary (Undergraduate)
The Elementary Education Program (EEP) contains five major summative decision points and various formative assessments throughout the program. A candidate must pass all summative decision points in order to progress through the program. Summative Decision Point One is the admission to the program. Candidates submit transcripts, PPST scores, and Instructor Evaluation Forms from H340 are used to calculate points. For 2004- 2005, 71 candidates were admitted. Summative Decision Point Two is during the General Methods Block. A rubric is used to evaluate the candidate's H340 evaluation form, P250 evaluation form, GPAs in content areas, and dispositions. The results of the scoring of the rubric determine whether the candidate continues in the EEP, continues under probation, continues under probation (with a Professional Improvement Plan), or is Discontinued. During 2004-2005 five students were continued on probation, 25 were continued on conditions (mostly for GPA issues), and 59 students were continued without conditions. Summative Decision Point Three is prior to student teaching. At this time, a candidate submits an application to student teach and is evaluated on his/her transcript (GPA) and completeness of Program Portfolio. For 2004-2005, 57 were admitted to student teaching and 3 were denied. These two sets of data suggest that the Elementary Education Program needs to work with candidates immediately upon entrance in the program to maintain their grade point averages in content areas. Summative Decision Point Four is at the end of student teaching and relies heavily on input from the supervising teacher and university supervisor. The supervising teacher and university supervisor complete rubrics using the EEP standards. One hundred percent of candidates received a rating of basic or proficient on all performance indicators for all five standards. In 2004-2005, 85 out of 85 candidates successfully completed SDP Four. The fifth Summative Decision Point occurs when the candidate receives certification to teach. For 2004-2005 84 candidates received certification out of the 84 who applied.
Secondary (Undergraduate)
There were 56 candidates admitted to the fall 2004 cohort group (Summative Decision Point I). There was 1 candidate admitted during the previous academic year who withdrew from courses and came back in the fall of 2004 for a total of 57 candidates. At the end of the fall semester, 54 candidates met all of the Summative Decision Point II (SDP II) requirements and were eligible to enroll in specific methods and student teaching in the spring 2005 semester. For the 3 candidates who did not meet all of the SDP II, 2 had not completed all of the necessary coursework, and 1 had withdrawn from M301. In the spring of 2005, I of the 54 candidates withdrew for personal reasons. (All 4 of these candidates who did not complete the program with their 2004-2005 cohort group are scheduled to enroll in specific methods and student teaching in the spring of 2006.) All 53 candidates met all of the requirements for SDP III. Of the 53 candidates, 51 met all of the SDP IV requirements. For the 2 candidates who did not meet all of the requirements, each one had 1 course to enroll in and complete.
Special Education (Undergraduate) and Special Education (Graduate)
BS Candidates: Special Education candidates' exiting performance on the thirteen outcomes of the SOE's six unit goals was assessed during their student teaching. University and K-12 classroom supervisors completed rating scales to indicate their professional judgment of candidates' teaching performance and dispositions. The program's target of 100% of candidates being rated as "basic" or "proficient" in teaching skills and "acceptable" on dispositions was met. The results of a program survey indicated that 78% of candidates judged faculty advising to be "good" or "excellent."
Post-Baccalaureate Initial License Candidates: Of the 18 candidates in the first post-bac group, 10 have finished coursework and 9 have passed the Praxis II; three have dropped out of the program, and the rest are still completing coursework. On average, those 9 candidates exceeded the minimum Praxis II scores by 25 (#03053), 19 (#0542), and 21 (#0381) points.
Recent Alumni Survey: Regarding how well IUS prepared them for their current position, 45% reported "very well prepared" and 55% indicated "somewhat prepared." 100% of responders strongly agreed or agreed that IUS offers high-quality academic programs and would encourage someone to attend IUS. Responses indicated that a minority (<25%) of candidates expressed feeling more like a number than a person; a similar portion thought that there is not a strong sense of community on the campus. 45% reported "very well prepared" and 55% indicated "somewhat well prepared" by IUS for their current job.
All Candidates: Overwhelmingly graduates and undergraduates reported that the program is achieving its goal of producing educators with the following characteristics: caring, high quality, ability to stimulate school renewal, ability to relate in a multicultural society and can use technology. Specifically, 43% of undergraduates and 28% of graduates strongly agreed and 51% of undergraduates and 55% of graduates agreed that the special education program was preparing them to have those characteristics. Even so, a few graduates (8 of 37) were unsure if they were being taught skills need for continuous renewal of schools. How adequately the program contributed to their technology skills was also questioned by a few respondents. Of the applicants in 2004-2005, 35 (3 post-bac, 23 graduate level second license area, and 9 undergraduates) were admitted without conditions; 8 (all post-baccalaureate) candidates were admitted with conditions; 1 (post-baccalaureate) was admitted on probation, and 1 (undergraduate) was denied. Thirty-one candidates (7 post-baccalaureate, 18 graduate level, and 6 undergraduates) attempting the last summative decision point completed it successfully.
MS Elementary/Secondary (Graduate)
The Elementary and Secondary MSED program has worked the past four years to implement a performance-based assessment system aligned to the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), the NCATE national accreditation standards, and the School of Education unit goals. Summative Decision Point II, involving the assessment of candidate disposition growth, was reviewed in 2003-2004 with modifications to data collection implemented in 2004-2005. The 2004-2005 Assessment Review focused primarily on SDPIII (the field-based inquiry research project). While candidates scored at 100% in 8 areas of the teacher as researcher capstone project, 3 unit goals aligned to this project were assessed below the projected 95% (effective methods, use of appropriate data, and mastery of appropriate professional practices). Weaker than expected performance on these SDPIII subcategories has led the program to make the following modifications: provide group assessment sessions at various times during the semester, continue to assign program faculty to work individually with candidates on SDPIII writing requirements, design an inquiry-based teacher research course, and prepare exemplars of SDPIII components for the program assessment website link.
MS School Counseling (Graduate)
The MS Program in School Counseling during 2004-5 added an employer survey for graduates from the last three years to its assessment; the survey was tied to program standards. 90% of the employers indicated they were satisfied or highly satisfied with their IUS counselors. One area on survey results, application of assessment results to P-12 student learning, was identified by the School Counseling Advisory Group (SCAG) as being of some concern. Additional instruction in this area was added to one course (G505 Assessment) and assessed in two subsequent courses. Areas identified in 2003-4 were added to the curriculum in 2004-5 (familiarity with ESL laws, counseling ESL students) and assessment indicated a improvement in learning in this area. Evaluation of student skills prior to graduation by site supervisors and candidates indicated a need for more training in ethical and legal decision-making. Instruction and assessment in these areas will be added in 2005-06. All standards based assessments were reviewed by the SCAG in November 2005; SCAG indicated that the assessment results show the selection and training of students is of high quality.
Educational Leadership (Graduate)
The Educational Leadership Program collected and analyzed both internal and external data for the 2004-2005 academic year. The data have been collected through a process designed in January 2005. The process was developed in order to align the six School of Education goals to the summative data collected in Summative Decision Point 3, the Summative Dispositions form, and the School Leaders Licensure Assessment (SLLA) examination results as reported on Summative Decision Point 4. Each program standard was aligned to between one and three of the School of Education goals. The new process also reduced the number of forms used to collect Decision Point 3 data from eleven to one. Summative Decision Point 3 and Summative Dispositions data were collected and submitted for candidates who during 2004-2005completed the practicum, the program's capstone experience. Data on the SLLA results were submitted on all candidates applying for licensure from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005 as reported on Decision Point 4. The data were reviewed by the Program Team during program meetings and by the Educational Leadership Advisory Council during its meeting on October 14, 2005. The success criteria had been identified as 90% for ten outcomes and 95% for three outcomes. The data revealed that twelve of the thirteen success criteria had been met. Program adjustments have been identified and implemented to address the one area that did not meet the success criteria. The same goals, outcomes, and success criteria will be used for the 2005-2006 academic year. An adjustment has been made to address numbers less than 30.
School of Natural Sciences
Biology
The Biology Department at Indiana University Southeast assesses student learning in two ways when students reach the senior level. First, majors complete a biology assessment survey in their last semester at IUS. This instrument quantifies seven outcomes related to the overall learning experience. Second, students must complete a senior seminar course as a capstone experience, in which their performance in public, oral presentations is assessed. During the past several years, the assessment goals have generally been met in both areas, and performance has been consistent from year-to-year. For example, the highest scoring question dealt with students' broad understanding of Biology (4.55/5.0=91%). As the Department strives to maintain a dynamic assessment process, a new assessment of all majors' skills with microscopy (4.03/5.0=80.6%; met success criterion) was added in all courses dealing with developmental biology.
Chemistry
The Chemistry Program is approved by the American Chemical Society (ACS). The Program strives to ensure students achieve the requisite level of vocabulary, concepts, problem-solving skills, laboratory techniques and critical thinking to be successful in their post baccalaureate career. The chemistry courses are continuously revised based on the recommendations of the ACS Committee on Professional Training and the judgment of the chemistry faculty. The learning objectives for students who satisfactorily complete one year of chemistry courses are: (a) understand the basic concepts in chemistry; (b) perform basic laboratory and quantitative skills; (c) understand methods used to investigate and obtain information from chemical systems; (d) engage in critical and logical thinking. Upon completion of the requisite courses for the bachelor degrees that we offer in chemistry, the students will have acquired substantive knowledge in: (a) general chemistry principles; (b) organic chemistry; (c) physical chemistry; (d) analytical chemistry; (e) biochemistry and (f) inorganic chemistry. Upon graduation, chemistry majors will have hands-on laboratory knowledge to become self-confident and competent to: (a) plan and execute experiments; (b) anticipate, recognize, and respond properly to hazards of chemical manipulations; (c) keep legible and complete experimental records; (d) synthesize and characterize inorganic and organic compounds; (e) perform accurate quantitative measurements; (f) use and understand modern instruments, for example, IR, NMR, ,UV-vis, AA spectrometers, GC and LC; (g) analyze data statistically and assess reliability of results; (h) interpret experimental results and draw reasonable conclusions and (i) communicate effectively through oral and written reports. Throughout their course of study, at least 60% of the students majoring in chemistry perform better than the national average on the standard ACS tests and at least 30% perform above 70th percentile of the national norms in these tests. These objectives are assessed by students taking the ACS exams in Analytical, General and Organic Chemistry. These goals were met in Analytical and General Chemistry for the 2004/2005 academic year.
Computer Science
During the past academic year, the computing science faculty has been engaged in developing and implementing an assessment program. We developed two sets of outcome oriented overall goals, with several accompanying learning objectives. In broad terms these goals relate to the measurement of 1) Student Learning Objectives (SLO) from a sample of senior CS courses and 2) results from a student survey administered during Spring of 2005. The SLO criteria were selected from Academy of Computing Machinery Core Learning Requirement publication -2003 (attached). The student survey was developed by the faculty to understand student perception on Faculty, Overall program and their Overall views towards the CS program standards.
The SLO forms were created and recorded on each student by the CS faculty attending various senior courses during Fall and Spring of the academic year. These courses are:
- B438
- B461
- C201
- C311
- C446
- C463
The survey was administered in 7 senior courses with a return of responses from 64 on-going and graduating students.
Geosciences
The Geosciences Department currently offers a major in Geography with concentrations in Physical Geography, Environmental Studies, and Cartography/Geographic Information Systems. Our assessment efforts to date have targeted goals for knowledge (Goals Group 1) and analytical techniques (Goals Group 3). We have measured knowledge of worldwide country locations, using an objective map location test in our World Regional Geography sections (GEOG 201). Our first results indicate that our criteria for success were unreasonably high for a group that consists mostly of non-majors. However, we also recognize from these results the need to improve retention of country location knowledge by integrating the testing into course requirements (heretofore students have been tested one region at time). Our majors, as sampled in out Senior Seminar class, demonstrated an acceptable grasp of the basic Five Themes of Geography (location, place, region, movement, and interaction with the natural environment). They demonstrated, however, lower abilities in analytical techniques involving research, documentation, data analysis, and presentation. We are working to improve these areas in the teaching of Senior Seminar. As we look to development our assessment, we plan to implement skill measurement in cartographic technology and basic knowledge measurement in the areas of physical geography and environmental studies. Our assessment process has been extremely helpful in identifying strengths and weaknesses in our curriculum and we look forward to expanding or assessment inventory.
Mathematics
The Mathematics Department assessment program is based on three learning goals: Students will acquire mathematical knowledge; students will develop learning and analytical skills; and students will be prepared for further learning and for careers in their field. Outcomes to assess for these learning goals include scoring final examinations in certain courses against assessment rubrics and criteria for student solution of problems, recall of statements of theorems and mathematical definitions, and student writing of correct proofs. This pertains to the Department's BA and BS degree programs. For the BS degree, the assessment program also includes assessment of student writing in the senior theses against an assessment rubric. The Department assessment plan also includes monitoring success of graduates in mathematical careers. In the Spring of 2005, the Department collected its second year of assessment results, from ten different courses. The results were as follows: Our criterion for problem-solving was met by 4 of 10 courses for which data was taken. The Department suspects its criterion is too stringent (students do not appear to have problems succeeding in sequel courses). The Department will continue to monitor these numbers. For recall of statements of theorems, 4 of 10 courses also met or nearly met the criterion (but overall, the numbers were higher than for problems). We will also continue to monitor these numbers. However, for theorem-proving, the criterion was not met by any of the courses for which data was taken. The Department will continue to work on instruction in this area; but theorem-proving is the most difficult aspect of mathematics and the somewhat low numbers in this area are not surprising. One year ago, based on assessment of senior theses, the Department had serious concerns about student writing of mathematics, and began certain initiatives to strengthen writing. This year, the Department had exactly one senior thesis written. This thesis met the criteria for excellence stated in our rubric, but the Department will continue its efforts to strengthen student writing. The last component of the Department's assessment plan is the tracking of the success of graduates of the mathematics program. We are aware of the success of some students (we have had several in the last few years go to graduate school in mathematics or related disciplines; and we have had a number of Mathematics BS/Education BS double-majors begin successful teaching careers). But we were frustrated in our efforts to develop an alumni survey, and our exit survey was given to several majors but only one was returned. It is a high priority of the Department to work with OIRA to develop effective means of tracking the success of graduates.
School of Social Sciences
Criminal Justice
No summary paragraph submitted.
History
On the basis of our experience, we have totally redesigned the history assessment plan. From the beginning of the semester, we have met weekly. We have identified five goals; comprehension, research, application, theme development and content mastery. We have identified outcomes for each goal, measurements, success criteria and measurement tools. We will begin implementation of the redesigned plan in spring 2006.
International Studies (new)
No summary paragraph submitted.
Journalism
Because our program is heavily skills oriented, the best measure of success of the journalism program, ultimately, is how well prepared our students are to enter the profession of journalism. Therefore, the main focus of assessment in the journalism program has been the three-credit internship course on the weekly campus newspaper, The Horizon. This is the heart of the program and is it where the performance of students will help determine how successful they will be in making the transition from collegiate journalism to the professional world, either in journalism or a related field. We have focused our attention mainly on how well students write and report, but also on their skills in design and photography. For assessment purposes, students who work on The Horizon turn in a portfolio of their work during a semester. These portfolios are then evaluated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 indicating high achievement. Based on the results of the scoring, understanding and applying Associated Press style, essentially rules of usage common to all newspapers, continues to be a problem. It is also apparent that students are below expectations in structuring their stories in the inverted pyramid style of writing, a format basic to news writing. Furthermore, students fell just below expectations on their knowledge of legal rights and ethical issues. We have eliminated that portion of our assessment that deals with current knowledge of journalism, believing that such knowledge is inferred in the other measurements, and have added the goal of having students be competitive upon graduation for jobs in journalism or related fields and be successful when applying for admission to graduate and professional schools.
Politcal Sciences
During the past four years, the political science faculty has been engaged in developing and implementing an assessment program. We developed three learning goals, with eight accompanying learning objectives. Based on the initial data received over the first couple of years, the political science faculty revised its program requirements, including expanding the number of sub-areas students had to take an upper-division course in, and revising the format of our research methods class. We also created Primary Trait Analyses for the research papers that are required for both our research methods and senior seminar courses. A base knowledge exam was devised during this process, and has been given to all of our students in our introductory American Politics course (required for all majors) and then given again as a post-test to our senior seminar students. Students in our senior seminar were not performing up to par, and as a result, the faculty redoubled our efforts to shore up the areas we identified as weaknesses by putting extra stress on these topics in our classes in general. Weaker than expected performances on the primary trait analysis for our research methods class this past year led the instructor of that class to revise the course content in order to meet the needs of these students identified through the primary trait analysis. We have also started offering our senior seminar every semester in order to accommodate our growing number of enrollments in that class. Finally, weaknesses in our Primary Trait Analyses for both our research methods and senior seminar courses were addressed through a revision of those PTAs, which will take effect fall of 2005.
Psychology
The psychology program has a long history of engaging in program assessment activities, using the accumulated data to revise and improve the program provided to our students. Over the past few years, the faculty members have worked hard to bring these assessment activities into accordance with the overall assessment plan for the university. The faculty developed a mission statement, eight program goals, and fourteen student learning objectives. Results gathered in the past few years suggest that psychology students are meeting each of these goals successfully. As a result we have focused on improving those aspects of the program that could lead to even greater success for our students. First, based upon the results of the 2001-2002 Psychology Program assessment, Psychology instituted a change in degree requirements. Beginning the fall of 2004, instead of requiring the Methods of Experimental Psychology course (P211) and Statistics (K300) students will take a two-course sequence that combines the teaching of experimental methodology and statistics (P250/P251). By integrating methods and statistics in this course we are providing the students with a better learning environment and meeting the following goals: Understanding psychological methodology, information competence, and critical thinking. Assessment of this program change clearly suggests that this change was effective. Second, grading rubrics for our goals of written communication, oral communication, critical thinking, and information competency have been added to our assessment procedures. All faculty teaching the experimental methodology and statistics (P250/P251) two-course sequence and senior seminar in psychology (B452) will be using the same rubrics to evaluate students in these areas. To obtain the most informative assessment of our students, the psychology faculty chose to replace a national content area test with one tailored to our program. The field test was piloted in the fall of 2004 and will be ready for full implementation by the end of the fall semester, 2005.
Sociology
The sociology department is committed to helping students master key concepts in the field of sociological study. Students who finish the program will have a basic knowledge of sociological theory and research methods. These students will be able to apply theory and methods to social problems facing us in the world today.
Nursing
The Division of Nursing faculty developed and implemented an assessment program in 2000. The assessment plan focuses on nine student learning goals accompanied by nine student outcomes of the BSN curriculum which are consistent across regional campuses of the Indiana University School of Nursing. Based on evaluation of the data measured the department makes changes to facilitate student learning. For example the community health faculty requires senior students to do a health promotion project which consists of a paper and an oral presentation. Over the past two years the project has developed to include submitting a proposal to include their work in the campus research day to facilitate learning more about the research process and utilizing concepts learned in the nursing research and research utilization courses. In the Nursing Management Course students are required to do a management project to promote learning on the job by managing personnel, fiscal and material resources. Based on the data for the last few years, managing groups of patients and evaluating existing leadership on the units are part of the project where students implement what they've learned both in theory and practicum. The Professional Growth and Empowerment Course implement the Health Education Systems, Inc. (HESI) testing to evaluate student learning in preparation for the National Licensure Examination for Nursing (NCLEX). A comprehensive exit exam is given in the last semester of the senior year. Assessment data revealed a weakness in scores the first few years. For the first time this past year, a score of 85 or greater was required using the HESI Predictability Model to progress in the nursing program. A thorough printout is supplied to each student to identify areas of strengths and weaknesses for remediation. Students who are unsuccessful after three attempts are required to complete a remediation course to retest. Graduates from spring 2005 have had a 100% pass rate for NCLEX.
General Studies
The General Studies degree is offered as part of the IU system-wide School of Continuing Studies. The aims of the program are a broad-based liberal arts education with an academic experience across the various disciplines housed in the Schools of Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, and Arts and Letters. Assessment pre-testing is conducted here at IUS in the W290 threshold (Writing in the Arts and Sciences) and a post-test in the W405 capstone (Writing Prose - Nonfiction). Currently under development is an on-line senior seminar that is intended to serve the needs of the major as it exists throughout the system. When completed, this course will be used to assess both the individual campuses and the General Studies program as a whole.
Masters in Liberal Studies
In the past, we reviewed the progress of each student in the MLS program. An ACCESS database was used to record the progress as acceptable or unacceptable in the following areas: seminar GPA, overall GPA, completion of courses in a timely manner, incompletes and proposal and project progress. Student surveys of the program and evaluations of the seminars were also completed each semester. Instructors of seminars were asked to evaluate each MLS student's progress in the program. This data is stored in the MLS office.
After reviewing the original assessment plan, we decided a revision was necessary. Several things came to light through the assessment plan process. 1. The original assessment rubric was too long and cumbersome, thus the rubric will be streamlined. 2. The goals were focused on the program as a whole and we will now focus on the capstone of the program which is the graduate project. 3. A revision of courses will include a change in the graduate project course number and addition of courses for the component schools. We may also add a proposal/graduate project orientation course. 4. Aspects of the program that need attention include timely graduation of students, setting up system to show students who are working on graduate project, (currently not showing up as active), better communication with faculty and students through development of new manuals for each. The manuals will include checklists for the faculty and students to follow in the graduate project process.
