|
Email • Oncourse •
Calendar 
Library • Technology
• Departments • Contact
IUS|
|
Program Progress Reports
Program Assessment Summaries for the 2008 – 2009 School Year:
|
School of Arts & Letters
BA with Individualized Major (new)
No summary paragraph submitted.
Communications
In order to simplify and clarify the collection and reporting of data and to broaden the scope of assessment so that it is department-wide and not based in only a few courses, the Department of Communication Studies revised its Assessment Plan last year. The previous plan placed too much emphasis on SPCH S205, Introduction to Speech Communication, for taking the pulse of student abilities as they enter the program, but not sufficient emphasis was placed on assessing student progress as students leave the program. The first goal of the previous plan, that students would be able to communicate effectively, was divided into two separate goals: "students will communicate effectively in speaking" and "students will communicate effectively in writing." This distinction allows the faculty to more accurately track where communication-related problems are most evident, in written or spoken work. Further, a new goal was added: "students will think logically and critically." SPCH S228, Argumentation and Debate, was selected as the course to measure this goal. Finally, the learning outcomes for the final goal, "students will possess in-depth knowledge of the field of communication," were revised so that measurements could be made in each core course, giving a broader understanding of student strengths and determining which courses excel in fostering student learning.
English
Literature:
In the Spring of 2008, the Literature Program devised a more comprehensive programmatic assessment plan, which was piloted in the Summer of 2008 and adopted and used by the program faculty in the Fall of 2008 and Spring of 2009. The Literature Program Assessment Plan is attached as Appendix 1. The Literature Program faculty agreed to the following as learning outcomes for our literature students. Learning outcomes for literature concentration majors are that the students produce papers/presentations that:
- Analyze literary works (examining features such as character, theme, language, symbol, etc.) both orally and in writing.
- Articulate their own evaluations of literary texts by expressing and supporting personal responses, assessments, and judgments.
- Understand and critically apply major theories of literary criticism to literature.
- Identify and discuss the ways in which authors and texts influence and are influenced by cultural and historical contexts.
- Develop sustained arguments on literary topics through research writing.
Faculty members formulated the outcomes of individual courses based on the outcomes for the literature major. Within these courses, faculty design performance assessments with the criteria directly related to the explicit outcomes for the courses. Beginning English courses emphasize the outcomes related to the acquisition of analytical and interpretive skills. Outcomes stressed in upper-level courses call for more integration of analysis, historical and cultural contextualization, and sustaining complex arguments. English Literature Full Summary (PDF)
Writing:
The past year saw continued progress in the Writing Program’s use of its established assessment tools for evaluating learning outcomes of students in the writing concentration. In 2006-07, we had drafted a rubric for evaluating capstone papers. In fall of 2006, we used this rubric to assess student writing from the spring 2006 capstone course, W490. As a result of these reading sessions, we revised the W490 curriculum to reflect better what we wanted our students to be able to achieve. This revised curriculum included an applied learning component in addition to the required formal academic research project, which we more explicitly keyed to the outcomes contained in the rubric. This revision of W490 was taught in spring 2007.
During summer and fall of 2007, we continued to refine our rubric while evaluating papers from the spring 2007 section of W490. As a result of this ongoing assessment process, we began restructuring program goals for writing concentration majors by generating a written communication outcome that was incorporated into the revised department-wide English program goals, completed in Spring of 2008. We have temporarily deferred our effort to collect data on student content knowledge in English and reading comprehension by administering a pre-test to lower-level students, pending further development of the instrument.
In addition to the evaluation of majors in the capstone course, W490, which is presented in our Fall 2008 Assessment Data Summary, the Writing Program also conducted a critical thinking assessment in W290, Writing in the Arts and Sciences, a course used as a second General Education Writing Course by several programs. Results from this assessment inform both the English Program and the campus at large about students’ success in meeting one objective of the Critical Thinking component of General Education, intelligent use of statistics. Data available upon request.
Finally, English has conducted a major assessment activity, a comprehensive Self-Study, which included surveys of students and graduates as well as review by two external reviewers.
Fine Arts
The Fine Arts department conducts extensive student portfolio reviews as a means of assessing student learning in both 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 at least 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. All measures are directed by the Fine Arts Assessment Committee, which informs individual students of upcoming reviews and notifies them of the results. This assessment acts to guide individual students and provide useful information to the department on the program as a whole. 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. For those students for whom a single focus is not academically appropriate, a Studio Arts concentration has been developed, in addition to those in Painting, Printmaking, Drawing, Ceramics, and Graphic Design. In addition, a concentration in Art History has been approved and will be implemented starting Summer 2009. 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 occurs through pre and post-testing in the Foundations and Senior / BFA Seminars. As a result of the assessment process a number of departmental changes have been implemented. To standardize the curriculum an IUS Foundations book is being finalized by Donna Stallard. The integration of the Foundations courses through shared format and collective projects is being formalized as part of the new text. A standardized rotation of classes has been developed in order to assure that students can graduate in four years. Recent policy changes beginning Fall 2009 include the acceptance of BFA students on a probationary status only, until they are reviewed after the completion of the first 6 hours in their studio major. A new component, Professional Disposition, has been added to the 200 Level Sophomore portfolio review. In addition, Stem Scholarships will have to be renewed each yearly following a faculty evaluation of the student’s progress.
Modern Languages
No summary paragraph submitted
Music
Music faculty assess the BA in Music program based upon student achievement of two basic goals: substantive knowledge of fundamental areas of the musical language, including theory, music history/literature and basic music technology, as well as the development of skills in areas of special concentration such as performance, recording technology, acoustic or digital composition or music business. Music programs have a long tradition of evaluating performance in applied music through entrance auditions and placement tests, semester jury exams and senior recitals. Based upon past evaluations of student progress, the faculty added a sophomore gateway exam that tests both skills in the area of the student’s concentration and his/her ability to connect theory and history with these skill sets. The senior recital functions as the capstone project for performance and composition majors, and we created and strengthened capstone project requirements for music technology and music business students. Assessment tools have also been developed to report learning in literature, history, theory and basic music technology. In addition to the statistics presented by the OIRE assessment tools music faculty evaluate individual student progress, curriculum and the status of the physical and technical infrastructure needed for our program through monthly formal and more frequent informal meetings. The result of these various assessment activities have suggested the need for some significant changes to our Music Industry program (music business and music technology/recording engineering). In addition to the incremental improvements we had been offering over the past 5 years, this year we added classes focused more directly on needs of musicians such as Music and the Law, and an Introduction to Music Business. We also are developing strategies to keep our equipment and physical infrastructure current for technology students as this is a fast developing field. Changes have also been made within theory and history courses to address some student weakness in form analysis and vocabulary and applied music faculty continue to work towards improvement in student technique.
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 continue to lead 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 Indiana University Southeast Theatre Department has been in development for its Assessment Plan over the past few academic years. This year the Theatre Program was able to completely retool and redesign our academic curriculum. With this new curriculum we will be able to better assess our students and better meet the goals that we see as important for a well rounded theatre education. With our new curriculum our assessment will assess the learning outcomes as laid out by the Bachelor of Arts in communication studies.
School of Business
The School of Business gathers assessment data for our undergraduate programs from five sources. We have an ongoing program of course imbedded measures gathered for the purpose of Assurance of Learning. In addition, graduating students who take the capstone course in business in the spring and fall semesters will complete the Education Benchmarking Inc. survey of graduating students and the Major Field Test in Business prepared by Educational Testing Services. The School of Business also has two active boards that are used to gather information to improve our programs, an undergraduate student board and a board of advisors consisting of local business people.
The graduate programs in the School of Business have three sources for gathering assessment data. We have an ongoing program of course imbedded measures gathered for the purpose of Assurance of Learning. In addition, the graduate students who take the capstone course in the graduate programs in the spring and fall semesters will take the Major Field Test in Business prepared by Educational Testing Services. Because the numbers are small we turn these tests in once, in the spring semester. The School of Business board of advisors consisting of local business people also provides assessment of the graduate program.
Business (Undergraduate)
See School of Business summary paragraph above.
Economics (Undergraduate)
See School of Business summary paragraph above.
Masters of Business Administration (Graduate)
See School of Business summary paragraph above.
Masters, Strategic Finance (Graduate)
See School of Business summary paragraph above.
School of Education
Elementary (Undergraduate)
The Elementary Education Program (EEP) contains five major summative decision points (SDP) and utilizes various formative assessments throughout the program. The Team uses data from all SDPs to review the Program and to make changes to it. Summative Decision Point One is the admission to the Program at the end of Block 1 ( P250/P251/M300). Candidates are evaluated by the instructor of P250/P251 on the following criteria: Overall GPA (must be 2.5), evaluation of P250 instructor regarding dispositions in class and in the field placement; passing scores on Praxis 1. All students having positive evaluations, and having passed all three sections of the Praxis 1 are admitted to the Elementary Education Program. Summative Decision Point Two is during the General Methods Block. A rubric is used to evaluate the GPAs in content areas (which must be 2.5 in each area), and dispositions in General Methods and dispositions in W300: Writing for Teachers. 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. 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). This includes overall GPA of 2.5 and 2.5 in each of the general education content areas. Candidates are also evaluated on the results of their practicum experiences in M310/M311, E339, E340 and E325. Should a candidate be on a Professional Improvement Plan, the results of that plan are considered prior to rating the candidate. Candidates are either continued, or continued with conditions or discontinued. 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 program standards and dispositions once at mid-term and at the conclusion of student teaching. The Program portfolio is also evaluated in SDP Four by two members of the Elementary Faculty. Another rubric using the scores on the assessment strategies mentioned above is used to determine Program completion. The fifth Summative Decision Point occurs when the candidate receives certification to teach. Data from each SDP are shared regularly with Elementary Education Program Faculty and with the Elementary Advisory Board. The results of the Assessment Report for 2007-2008 were shared with the Elementary Faculty on November 14, 2008. The Faculty, while happy to have happy to have passed all areas with %100, noted that the instruments being used to gather data are still all high risk instruments for our students, and might not be the best instruments for gathering data related to program improvement. The team still has the goal to revise the student teacher end of the program survey and the cooperating teacher end of the semester survey as forms of data that might give it better feedback related to program improvement. The data were also shared at the Elementary Advisory Board meeting on March 6, 2008 and November 6, 2008.
Secondary (Undergraduate)
The Secondary Education Program (SEP) has four Summative Decision Points. At Summative Decision Point I (SDP I) candidates must apply to be added to the SEP. Candidates must have a 2.75 grade-point-average or higher with no grade less than a C in communication, professional education, in each licensing area, and overall are one criteria. Candidates must also earn at least a C in the course used to meet the mathematics requirement. A second requirement for SDP I is that candidates provide passing scores (based on the Indiana standards) on Praxis I tests (reading, writing and mathematics). A third requirement is that candidates have a positive recommendation from the instructor of the F200 course and the cooperating teachers in field experiences. At SDP II and III candidates must continue to meet the requirements for the first and third requirements above. At SDP III candidates must provide an official copy of their Praxis II Content Knowledge scores (a national test in the specific content area one is seeking a license to teach). As of the fall of 2007 candidates must pass the Praxis II Content Knowledge test (based on Indiana standards) before they will be allowed to enroll in specific methods and student teaching. At SDP IV candidates must meet all of the requirements for graduation.
The SEP uses the INTASC Standards, the School of Education Dispositions, and the Indiana Professional Standards Board (IPSB) Developmental Standards (early adolescence, adolescence and young adults) to evaluate each candidate in each professional education course and in student teaching, the culminating activity in the program. Candidates are evaluated by both the course instructor and by the cooperating teacher supervising field experiences. The data that follows are based on the feedback provided on candidates at the end of student teaching. The 10 INTASC Standards identify the key student learning outcomes for the SEP. One hundred percent (100%) of the ratings of candidates who completed student teaching in the fall of 2007 and the spring of 2008 achieved a basic or proficient rating on standards 1, 6, 7, and 8. For Standards 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9, 97 % of the ratings were basic or proficient. For Standards 3 and 9, 3% of the ratings were listed as no chance to assess. For Standards 2, 4, and 5, 3% of the ratings were marked unacceptable. For Standard 10, 60 of 75 (80%) of the ratings were basic or proficient. Fifteen of 75 (20%) of the ratings were marked no chance to assess. Likewise, all student teachers were rated on the Dispositions of School of Education by both the cooperating teachers and university supervisors. No program completer received a rating of unacceptable from the university supervisor or the cooperating teachers. For Disposition 3, 100% of the ratings were acceptable. For dispositions 5, 6, and 7, 97% of the ratings were acceptable. For dispositions 2, 4, and 8, 96% of the ratings were acceptable. For Disposition 1, 99% of the ratings were acceptable. One percent (1%) checked no chance to assess. For Disposition 7, 5% of the ratings were listed as no chance to assess. The Secondary Team thought that the percent of ratings listed as either unacceptable or concerns was small enough that no program changes were needed.
At the end of M480 Student Teaching, candidates, cooperating teachers, and university supervisors all complete forms providing the SEP feedback on the strengths and areas for improvement in the program. This feedback is reviewed by the Secondary Education Team and the Secondary Education Advisory Group. Both the Secondary Team and the Secondary Education Advisory Group make recommendations for program improvements based on the feedback.
Special Education (Undergraduate) and Special Education (Graduate)
In 2007-2088, faculty of the Special Education Program devoted considerable effort to modifying its assessment system to accommodate two changes affecting the entire School of Education. One change was the SOE’s newly approved student outcomes for all programs. The other was the promulgated protocol from the State of Indiana specifying categories of data that needed to be collected for accreditation purposes. The faculty piloted lesson planning and delivery rubrics in the spring of 2008 for the 2008-2009. Additionally, after comparing student teaching portfolio activities used in 2007-2008 with state standards and the state assessment protocol, the faculty noted more attention was needed in language development and transition planning; therefore, two activities targeting that gap were added in spring, 2008. An internal audit and standards alignment completed by the faculty led to four curriculum improvements to be implemented in the 2008 and 2009: (1) Requiring W310 Technology in Education instead of W200 for undergraduates; (2) Requiring all post-bac 2002 license completers to pass Praxis II 0353; (3) Requiring undergraduate students to have experiences with children who are English Language Learners; and (4) Substituting a new assessment course for the current K370/590 Advanced Characteristics course. Overall, the special education team’s 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 OIRA assessment procedures and resulting data will be better aligned in comparison with the alignment of 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 procedures and data. In response to the team’s and advisory committee’s review of data and new requirements, in 2008-2009 the team will monitor the impact of the four curriculum improvements, determine which data need to captured with scantron forms, decide if Oncourse would be an effective tool for collecting portfolio data, experiment with ISTART7 spot training for student teachers, and explore use of smartDESKTOP as a way to prepare students for internships in their first two years of employment.
MS Elementary/Secondary (Graduate)
During 2006-2007, the School of Education adopted a new candidate outcomes, aligned to the unit’s Conceptual Framework. In 2007-2008, the SOE collected data on such outcomes. All programs have had to take into account the new candidate outcomes and information, in their assessment programs. Also, requirements by the Indiana Program Review Protocol have been proposed. In 2007-2008, it was not yet clear what implications these new requirements would have for the master’s level programs. This has been further clarified in 2008-2009 and will be addressed in the current academic year.
The School of Education Graduate Program/MEST has been implementing an assessment program to evaluate candidates’ competency on: 1) Knowledge of content and the use of best practices in delivering effective instruction, and 2) knowledge, skills and dispositions needed to participate in school transformation. Each core course (P510, P507, J500 and H520) requires Summative Decision Point (SDP) II papers and a course grade of B or better. Candidates complete their Teacher as Researcher (TAR) capstone project no later than thirty hours to pass SDP III. The Program developed scoring rubrics to establish learning outcomes and evaluate candidates’ proficiency in both SDPs. The data received from the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment (OIRA), are studied every year by the MEST and its Advisory Council to examine the efficiency of the method, process and tools for assessment. The projected outcome of having 95% of 2007-08 candidates reviewed at SDP III to demonstrate proficiency by completing MEST Standard 3a without requiring resubmission was not met. 55.8% of the candidates resubmitted a revised research paper. Most revisions remain on the literature review and data analysis sections. In this regard, the Program planned for the following major actions: 1. Embed the preparation of the inquiry capstone project in the J500 Curriculum in Context core course; 2. Make SDP III exemplars available to candidates through J500 course activities and one-on-one advising to candidates by faculty members; 3. Implement a curriculum mapping to emphasis research across the curriculum; 4. Reinstate a 1-credit elective research workshop (pending); and 5. Assess J500’s impact on SDP III after one calendar year (pending).
MS School Counseling (Graduate)
During 2006-07 program faculty completed changes in the curriculum suggested by the previous year’s assessment. More information on special education procedures and bullying were added to the curriculum. Candidates who did not have acceptable dispositions were given remediation plans after the second semester of the program instead of waiting until later in the program. One candidate was put on probation for disposition concerns in the 2006-07 academic year.
Assessment measures at the end of the first clinical year of the cohort (DP3) indicated that fourteen out of fifteen students achieved a basic or better on all assessments. One student was put on probation due to a low score on the group counseling tape. There is no indication that this is a program problem, since all other students had a satisfactory score. However, there is a concern that half the fifteen students at DP3 achieved a basic instead of a proficient on the solution-focused counseling tape. As a result, during the 2007-8 year, instruction on that skill will be moved to the summer that begins the second clinical year. Two additional assessments of that skill will be added so that the students get more practice.
Assessments at the end of the second clinical year (DP4), indicated that all fourteen students achieved a basic or proficient on all the assessment measures. The program emphasis is on identifying problems during the first clinical year means that there are rarely failures in the second clinical year. Employers and students are surveyed every three years and this was not a survey year.
Educational Leadership (Graduate)
Two significant factors influenced the specific data collected by the School of Education (SOE) programs during 2007-2008. The first was the adoption of new candidate outcomes that are aligned to the unit’s Conceptual Framework. The SOE approved the revised outcomes during 2006-2007 and collected data related to candidate proficiencies during 2007-2008. The second factor was the need for each SOE licensure program to collect specific data aligned to the required Indiana Program Review Protocol assessments. These assessments have been aligned across licensure programs to the revised candidate outcomes. During 2007-2008, the Educational Leadership program collected data using the required Protocol assessments. This process required us to broaden the scope of the summative assessments used for program evaluation. While we continued to use the School Leaders Licensure Assessment (SLLA) and the program’s portfolio results, we identified one summative assignment from a course and designed another for the practicum. Two other factors impacted the program: the national program standards were revised in Spring 2008 and no full-time faculty were able to supervise the practicum beginning in Fall 2008. The Advisory Council recommended changes based on candidate results and external factors. 1) Eliminate the technology and diversity standards created by the program in 2000 since they are clearly articulated in the revised program standards. 2) Require that candidates complete seven of the program courses before entering the practicum. 3) Study the relationship between the J500 research project and the A695 project on impacting student learning as the goal related to the project and Standard 2 were not met. 4) Revise the A695 mentor and candidate self-evaluations to reflect the revised standards. The current instrument was not aligned to the standards making the data collected difficult to use to assess candidate performance. 5) Revise A510 to ensure that it addresses the elements found in Standard 4./p>
Transition to Teaching
Two significant factors influenced the specific data collected by the School of Education (SOE) programs during 2007-2008. The first was the adoption of new candidate outcomes that are aligned to the unit’s Conceptual Framework. The SOE approved the revised outcomes during 2006-2007 and collected data related to candidate proficiencies during 2007-2008. The second factor was the need for each SOE licensure program to collect specific data aligned to the required Indiana Program Review Protocol assessments. These assessments have been aligned across licensure programs to the revised candidate outcomes. During 2007-2008, the Elementary Transition to Teaching program collected data using the three summative decision points in the program and by surveying program graduates and school administrators. The Elementary Transition to Teaching program continues to use three different focus groups, one with the present candidates, one with the cooperating teachers and one with mentors, to collect additional data to assess whether the program is meeting the stated candidate learning goals. Several adjustments were made to the program based on the analysis of the data collected during the 2007-8 year. The schedule of additional candidate observations during the fall were broadened to include more diverse experiences, an elementary social studies methods course was added to the fall schedule for the candidates and more inservice was implemented for the mentor teachers.
School of Natural Sciences
Biology
The IUS Department of Biology is pleased both with the success shown in its assessment of student learning as well as the way that assessment has been used to refine our practices. This is especially evident in the continued improvement in the performance of our students in L403 Senior Seminar, the capstone experience for our Majors. Two goals were not fully met and both had to do with improving the skills need to be demonstrated in Senior Seminar. The Department suggests several other improvements for its assessment practices, including redesign of the Graduating Student Survey for certificate students and better implementation of the online data collection forms for 100-level courses.
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 the freshman 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 General, Organic and Analytical Chemistry.
Computer Science
The CSCI Department has two baccalaureate degrees, B.S. in Computer Science, Information System Option and the Mathematics/Science option. These two degrees have at a minimum seven courses in common. This will allow both degrees to use a common assessment program. We currently have an Associate Degree with four different options. Due to an agreement with Ivy Tech made at the University level by President McRobbie, this degree is being phased out.
Our student body has a number of peculiarities that make assessment challenging. (1) About half of our students are traditional age students without transfer credits. (2) A substantial portion of our students transfer in computing credits that do not fit well into our curriculum. (3) Most of our students take full-time employment in local industry and this slows down their progress towards graduation. (4) Most of our students take over six years to complete their degree.
These characteristics convince the faculty that an exit exam would be difficult to make fair to all of our students and to provide us with reasonable feedback about our departmental curriculum. Therefore, our assessment program distributes the assessment process throughout the CSCI curriculum at the conclusion of most required major courses.
Geosciences
Faculty of the Department of Geosciences worked diligently over the past several years to establish a viable program assessment plan. In 2008, the department settled on a framework that was implemented fully for the first time. The only significant changes took place in the student learning goals found in the IUS Bulletin so they correspond with those of the academic program assessment. In response to changes to our degree, separate exit exams were developed for students who concentrated on geography versus geology. The results from the first conceptual based exit exam were mixed, prompting faculty to increase student accountability (relating to exit exams) in capstone courses. With the increasing technical focus in our discipline, the department found it necessary to assess the analytical skills associated with Geographic Information Science. Learning criteria from Goal 2 (Analytical Techniques and Skills) were met for two of the three learning objectives, mirroring last year’s results. Weaker than expected performance in Goal 2.1 (Analyzing Spatial Data) is considered a result of evaluating students who completed only one semester of GIS coursework. Students who have additional experience with spatial analysis scored exceptionally well. The geoscience faculty are continuously updating the assessment plan and analyzing the results of each section to identify methods for improvement.
Informatics
No summary paragraph submitted
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. For the 2007-2008 academic year, the department collected assessment data representing five courses and nine sections. With revised criteria for success in meeting our learning goals, the results were as follows: For problem-solving, the criterion (60% of students solving 70% of problems correctly) was met in M303 and M403, but not in M215 and M216. However, in M215, the criterion was nearly met for all students (58.8% of 51 students), and for mathematics majors, the criterion was met for M215, M303, M360 and M403. For recall of theorems and definitions, the criterion was met only by M303 and M403 (for majors as well as all students). For theorem proofs, the criterion was met in M303 but no other courses. Concerning the remaining components of its assessment program, the department evaluated nine senior theses, all of which met its criteria for satisfactory, and the department collected several exit surveys from graduating students. The latter provided no information of particular interest (students appeared to be satisfied by the department and its curriculum). A survey of alumni was not conducted this year; we plan on conducting the survey in about two years. In response to assessment results, the department will seek to strengthen student knowledge of theorems and definitions as well as proofs and problem-solving. One technical matter came to light: theorem proofs are important in M215 and M216 but are a small component of the course, and it is appropriate that only one or two problems in that category are included on final exams for those courses. The department will seek to work with OIRA to ensure that assessment can be accurately performed with less than the three problems in each category that the form (NSC-0191) is designed to assess. The department will also follow up on its goal from the prior year to work with the Lower-Level Mathematics Program to determine if students taking M215 are well-prepared for calculus.
School of Social Sciences
Criminal Justice
The Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice is committed to helping students master the key concepts in the field of criminology and criminal justice. Students who finish the degree will have a basic knowledge of theories and research methods in the study of crime. These students will also have a working knowledge of the criminal justice system, the American legal system and the law. These students will be able to apply these principles to solve problems in the criminal justice system and in the broader society.
History
During the past three years, the history faculty totally redesigned and implemented the history assessment plan for the History Major. At present we are still in the early stages of collecting data, and as noted in our previous reports, until we have reached a maturity level—four years in total—that take into account the pre-test and post-test components, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions on assessing learning outcomes for the History Major. However, the results from spring 2008 do point to a few issues. The Primary Trait analysis for the Senior Seminar (J495) in spring 2008 indicated that our students are performing reasonably well (the sample was very small—just five students). The history faculty need to work on improving the students’ use of primary and secondary sources to support a thesis and also utilizing the Chicago style in research papers—this echoes the findings in the spring 2007 data and the history faculty will work diligently on this in H236 and upper-level courses. In addition, the faculty needs to increase their efforts to help students improve the organization of papers. The History Program also administered a Historical Knowledge test to J495 students. The students did well but it is clear from the data that the history faculty needs to work on some areas with the students. Finally, the History Program administered a Historical Terminology test in J495. The results were mixed and the history faculty will, again, emphasize this area more fully in H236 and in upper level courses. In short, we have the core strength of a strong major but there are areas (noted above) that need some work and also fine-tuning. In addition, the history program administered an exit survey to seniors, and although this is not specifically part of the program assessment, the results garnered from the exit interviews supports the contention that the History Major is academically challenging, diverse in its offerings, trains students both in the field and in critical thinking and research and writing skills. The students did note, however, that they would like more guidance on how to footnote and otherwise document evidence in a research paper.
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 practical and hands-on experience that students receive during their internship as reporters, photographers, page designers and editors on The Horizon, the weekly campus newspaper. In keeping with the trend of convergence, or the blending of print with audio/visual, the nature of the internship has expanded to include giving students opportunities to learn and practice skills in podcasting and in Web-based video production, editing and newscasting. Newspapers today expect their reporters to have such audio/video skills. The Horizon has long been the heart of the program for our majors. Their performance on the newspaper 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. The campus newspaper has been instrumental in launching the careers of many of our students, who are now editors, photographers, TV news producers, reporters, copy editors and Web designers. The campus newspaper experience focuses 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, it appears that students are making progress on applying Associated Press style, which is the standard of usage common to all newspapers. Improvement also has been made by students in structuring their stories in the inverted pyramid style of writing, a format basic to news writing. In addition, students have shown improvements in their knowledge of legal rights and ethical issues.
Politcal Sciences
During the past seven 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 several 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 (also required for all majors). 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 in the past led the instructors of that class to revise the course content in order to meet the needs of these students identified through the primary trait analysis. We had been offering our senior seminar every semester in order to accommodate a growing number of enrollments in that class. As enrollments have dropped off, we are once again offering the senior seminar once every year. The primary trait analysis for the senior seminar improved dramatically this past year. The primary trait analysis for Y205, however, was not as strong as it was last year.
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 thirteen student learning objectives. Results gathered in the past few years suggest that psychology students are quite successful in meeting these learning goals; in fact, for the 2007 – 2008 assessment, we implemented stricter criteria for some of these goals. Although we did notice a decline in students achieving the goals, we cannot yet rule out, based on the results from two classes, that these data may have been aberrant (especially given the successful results of our recent assessment). We have made changes in recent years to help our students achieve greater success, including (in fall 2004) integrating research methods and statistics into a single course to provide the students with a better learning environment and meet the goals of understanding psychological methodology, information competence, and critical thinking. Assessment suggests that this change was effective. All faculty teaching the experimental methodology and statistics (P250/P251) two-course sequence and senior seminar in psychology (B452) use the same rubrics to evaluate students in written communication, oral communication, critical thinking, and information competency. 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 was implemented in the fall 2005 semester. Overall, this test appears to allow us to differentiate between students who have taken advanced courses in psychology from students who have not taken such courses. We are planning to implement a more thorough analysis of these data based on “course clusters” (classes in which there is overlap of material). Most recently, we have completed a comprehensive review of our program and, after discussing the feedback, psychology has decided to design a course for our majors to enable students to enhance their planning during their academic careers and lives beyond college. Work on this has started. We have also reorganized our lists of courses from which students may choose and added three units to the 30 previously required for a BA in psychology; these were also suggested by the reviewer. Finally, we have started work on developing a BS degree so that we can better serve psychology majors.
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 concepts, theory, research methods and cultural diversity. These students will be able to apply theory and methods to social problems facing society today.
In order to determine if these critical goals are being accomplished, the sociology department has devoted considerable time and effort toward the creation and implementation of a comprehensive assessment program. From 2003 – 2008 a base knowledge exam was administered to all students enrolled in our introductory course S163 Social Problems. The data collected from this instrument have consistently indicated that entering students possess limited sociological knowledge. Beginning the spring semester 2009, the S163 pre-test will be eliminated and all assessment data will be collected from graduating seniors in our capstone course S470 Senior Seminar.
Upon careful examination of the data collected last year, it became evident that our senior students were not scoring at the desired level of proficiency (70%) on a few concepts. We made revisions in our curriculum in order to put additional emphasis on these concepts. Last year, we determined that some questions were in need of revision and these revisions have been implemented, so spring 2009 assessment data should indicate improvement.
Nursing
In 2000, the nursing faculty implemented an assessment program that focuses on the nine student learning goals and outcomes of the BSN curriculum. Based on evaluation of the data measured, the department makes changes to facilitate student learning. The Professional Growth and Empowerment faculty continue to implement HESI Comprehensive Exit Examination now the property of Elsevier publishing to evaluate student learning in preparation for the National Council Licensure Examination, RN. Successful completion as evidenced by a score of 850 or higher on the HESI Comprehensive Exit Exam is required to graduate from the nursing program. Assessment data for 2008 indicated that 88% of seniors passed the HESI Comprehensive Exit exam with a score of 850 or higher by the third attempt. Graduates from 2008 baccalaureate class had an 88% pass rate on the NCLEX which is above the national rate of 87.5%.
General Studies
No summary paragraph submitted
Masters in Liberal Studies
During 2007-08, the MLS program instituted many program changes suggested by the external program review. The position of Director of the MLS program was restructured so that the director is completely invested in the program, spending most of the time either teaching in the MLS program or administering the program. To replace the director in her home program, a successful budget proposal supports the hiring of a visiting assistant professor. The MLS program has obtained approval to teach a new introductory course designed to prepare students to succeed in the program. The requirements for the MLS degree were adjusted to add the additional 3 credit hours. With input from faculty who have taught MLS courses in the past, the MLS Advisory Council developed a set of 10 core competencies that every MLS course and elective should address. These core competencies are included in the newly developed contract that must be completed when an undergraduate course is taken for graduate credit. In addition, they are included as part of the application that faculty submit to teach an MLS seminar. The MLS Handbook and webpage were completely revised to reflect the changes to the MLS program.
