Appendix 1
American Studies Learning Goals and Assessment Plan
Updated May 2013
Learning Goals / Outcomes for majors – An American
Studies graduate should:
Where we teach it
1. Understand and
a. Recognize significant
interdisciplinary questions
396, 399, comps
b. Isolate questions, assumptions &
methods of scholars working on
American materials in multiple
disciplines
115; 345; mid-level
AmSt courses; 396;
399
345
Comps
c. use appropriate methods from
multiple disciplines as tools to answer
questions
345, 396, comps
Comps
d. analyze & use as evidence a variety of
texts (primary & secondary; literary,
historical, sociological, etc.) and other
objects of study (art, films, maps, social
phenomena, data, etc.)
115; 345; mid-level
AmSt courses; 396;
399
Comps
e. synthesize materials across
disciplines in understanding and solving
problems
115; 345; mid-level
AmSt courses; 396;
399; comps
Comps
practice the
interdisciplinarity
of American Studies,
by being able to:
Assessment
means
2. Conduct research & demonstrate information literacy: find 115, 345, 396
primary & secondary sources and make proper citations in style
399
of American Quarterly (Chicago Style) (and other styles in
appropriate disciplines)
Comps essays
396, comps
3. Understand the historical dimension of the American
experience and/or the history of American Studies
Comps Exam
Survey courses; 345,
399
Appendix 1
4. Understand & think critically about diversity of background
and experience of people in the U.S.
115; 345; most midlevel courses
Comps Exam
5. Write persuasively in multiple disciplinary modes;
formulate and sustain thesis-driven argument in clear
written prose
115; mid-level
courses, 345
396, comps
6. Speak effectively in a formal presentation
115, 345, 396, 399
396, comps
396 and/or 399
Comps
presentations
American Studies Assessment Timetable
Data collection to be done annually:




Rubrics for assessing outcomes on Comps essays, projects & exams, refined 12/11
Rubrics for oral and written work, as appropriate, in 396 & 399 (piloted 2011, done
for 396 & 399 in 2012 and 2013).
Exit interviews –questions refined 12/2011 and put into Survey Monkey format spring
2012.
Student “Requirements Forms” submitted when they declare major (sophomore
spring) might be used for assessment – renamed “Plan of Study” for 2013; explore
ways to enhance usefulness of form in advising and reflection; consider comparing w/
final transcript for Assessment purposes. Discuss at winter break workshop 2012.
Assessment analysis & discussion - to occur at annual meeting in May when assessment
data is available for the year. Then in the annual December break workshop we will have
more extended discussion of what to do with what we’ve learned from assessment.







Writing effectively in multiple disciplines – Dec. 2010 and May/June 2011
Oral presentation – May/June 2012
Interdisciplinary methods & materials– 2014
Information literacy (research & citation) – 2015
Ability to think critically about diversity in U.S. society – 2016
Understanding of American culture across a range of disciplines – 2017
Understanding of historical dimension of American experience – 2018
Appendix 2
(handed out at winter break workshop meeting 2013)
Assessing Information Literacy
2014
Suggested Timing:

Three moments of direct assessment: by survey at the beginning of AMST 345, by
survey before comps, and by faculty evaluation of comps.
What we’re assessing:
 Learning Goal #2 “Conduct research and demonstrate information literacy: find
primary and secondary sources and make proper citations in style of American
Quarterly (and other styles in appropriate disciplines)”
How the survey is organized:





Basic question re: major journal in the field and citation style
Recognizing sources
Evaluating sources
Finding sources
Confidence levels
What the survey doesn’t cover right now (should we? Or leave for faculty assessment?):



Ibid/op cit and other citational strategies
Finding primary sources
Literature review – creating the conversation
Appendix 3
(handed out at winter break workshop meeting 2013)
Assessing Interdisciplinarity
From my spring 2013 assessment report:
“We realized we don’t know how to assess interdisciplinarity, and engaged in a preliminary
conversation about how to do so.”
Central Questions





How do we define interdisciplinarity?
Assess 1 a,b,c,d,e together or separately? How to unpack 1a? Better define 1b?
Where to assess it? Once or twice? (Longitudinal?)
Track as individuals or as cohort?
How do we envision using this assessment data? Is there a way to gather it that
would help us figure out our 115 -> 345 -> 396 -> comps bumpiness?
Definitional question:
Boix Mansilla and Duraisingh suggest that “the essential question to assess
interdisciplinary work is not “How much integration is enough?” but “What is the
cognitive and practical purpose of this work, and is this integration advancing it in
disciplinary grounded and reflective ways?” (230)
Some scholars in this field suggest that this reflective piece (a metadisciplinary
outlook) is more important for students to achieve than a disciplinary grounding in
two specific fields. (Rhoten et al )
Types of assessment (Stowe and Eder 2002):
Assessment by Discovery (open-ended)
Pros: allows us to assess anticipated as well as unexpected learning outcomes
Cons: More potential bias; less ability to standardize across cohorts/students
Assessment by Objectives (rubrics like we’ve been doing with other goals)
Pros: standardized; comparable data sets
Cons: difficult to create measurable outcomes for complex goals
Appendix 3
Assessment of Interdisciplinarity Plan #1
--By Objective
When Twice. End of 345 with mini-comps proposal assignment; Comps proposal at
beginning of senior year.
Rubric:
Interdisciplinary Learning Goal
Poor
Adequate
Superior
Formulates significant interdisciplinary
question
Can place scholars disciplinarily and
methodologically1
Chooses and uses appropriate methods to
answer question
Analyzes and uses as evidence a variety of texts
Synthesizes materials across disciplines
Our learning goals language: “Analyze & explain questions, assumptions & methods of
scholars working on American materials in multiple disciplines.”
1
Appendix 3
Assessment of Interdisciplinarity Plan #2
--By Objective, with a slightly different parsing of the desired outcomes (based on Rhoten
et al)
When Twice. End of 345 with mini-comps proposal assignment; Comps proposal at
beginning of senior year.
Rubric:
Interdisciplinary Learning Goal
PURPOSE – Is the purpose clear and does it
invite/require an interdisciplinary approach?
[how so?]
GROUNDING – Is it informed by more than one
discipline? Are disciplinary insights, methods,
languages, values used in rich and effective
ways?
INTEGRATION – Are these disciplines
integrated and combined at key points, in a
phrase, metaphor, interpretation, or
explanation? Does the integration advance
understanding and analysis?
THOUGHTFULNESS – Is the scholar/student
reflective about the challenges and possibilities
of this interdisciplinary junction? Do they have
a critical awareness of the choices they made in
order to produce an interdisciplinary account?
Poor
Adequate
Superior
Appendix 3
Assessment of Interdisciplinarity Plan #3
--By Discovery
When Twice. Either after interdisciplinary assignment in 396 or in a 200 level course, and
at end of comps?
Open-ended questions2:
(Note: either students or faculty could answer these questions.)
1. What is the purpose of the work? Does that purpose invite/require an
interdisciplinary approach?
2. Which disciplines inform this work? Are disciplinary insights (concepts, methods,
languages, values) used in accurate, rich, and effective ways?
3. How does synthesis occur in the work and how does it advance the project?
4. How does this work reflect the challenges / process / possibilities of doing
interdisciplinary work?
These questions/categories developed from Boix-Mansilla, “Interdisciplinary
Understanding: What Counts as Quality Work?”
2
Appendix 3
Works Cited
Boix-Mansilla, Veronica. “Interdisciplinary Understanding: What Counts as Quality Work?”
http://www.evergreen.edu/washingtoncenter/docs/natlproject/interdisciplinaryunder
standingwhatcounts.pdf
Boix Mansilla, Veronica and Elizabeth Dawes Duraisingh, “Targeted Assessment of Students’
Interdisciplinary Work: An Empirically Grounded Framework Proposed.” The Journal of
Higher Education 78.2 (2007): 215-37.
Rhoten, Diana, Verónica Boix Mansilla, Marc Chun and Julie Thompson Klein.
Interdisciplinary education at liberal arts institutions. Teagle Foundation (2006).White
Paper. http://info.ncsu.edu/strategic-planning/files/2010/10/2006ssrcwhitepaper.pdf.
Stowe, Donald E. and Douglas J. Eder, “Interdisciplinary Program Assessment.” Issues in
Integrative Studies 20 (2002): 77-101.