Spring 2011 General Education Assessment Report—Philosophy
Prepared by Dr. E. Das Janssen (ext. 2433)/ajanssen@csu.edu
General Education Assessment Coördinator for Philosophy
Scope of Assessment
The scope of this assessment includes
PHIL 1030 Critical Thinking, three sections
PHIL 1020 Introduction to Logic, five sections
PHIL 1040 Introduction to Ethics, two sections
Decision-Making, &c.
p. 1
p. 4
p. 7
p. 9
Critical Thinking Assessment Outcomes
The assessment instrument for the philosophy course in Critical Thinking measures six criteria from
the Chicago State University General Education Outcomes:
1) Use the standard dialect of American English in speaking, reading, and writing;
2) Find information, evaluate it critically in terms of reliability, and use it appropriately in thinking
and writing;
5) Apply the basic methods, questions, and vocabularies of the humanities, mathematics, the natural
sciences, and the social sciences;
7) Recognize the role of creativity in problem-solving, addressing issues and concerns, and
generating new knowledge;
10) Demonstrate how scientific inquiry has affected human understanding of the natural world in
which we live; and
11) Apply analytical skills, including mathematical reasoning, to the natural sciences, social
sciences, and the humanities.
This is accomplished by making certain students in Critical Thinking are able to:
(a) understand the philosophical nature of what an argument is;
(b) discern key indicator words that assist in distinguishing reasons or premises from conclusions;
(c) determine the difference between deductive and inductive arguments;
(d) assess arguments for both logical strength (i.e., validity) and soundness;
(e) discriminate between premises that provide independent support for their conclusion(s) and
premises that provide joint support for their conclusion(s); and
(f) learn numerous fallacies that reveal errors in reasoning.
Question 1 addresses General Education Outcomes Goals 1, 5, & 11
Question 2 addresses General Education Outcomes Goals 1, 5, & 11
Question 3 addresses General Education Outcomes Goals 1, 5, & 11
Question 4 addresses General Education Outcomes Goals 1, 5, 7, & 10
Question 5 addresses General Education Outcomes Goals 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, & 11
The target set by the Philosophy faculty is to achieve a 70% or better overall score for Post-Test
assessment findings.
1 OF 10
Method of Assessment
In an attempt to determine to what extent the above outcomes have been achieved, the Philosophy
faculty has developed a Critical Thinking Assessment Instrument, which is given at the beginning
of the semester and at the end of the semester. The assessment includes five multiple-choice
questions, which are fairly difficult for a first-time student in a critical thinking course, but quite
manageable for a student who has completed the course. These questions are specifically designed
to address the criteria noted above.
Critical Thinking Assessment Findings/Interpretations/Conclusions
Spring 2011 Critical Thinking (Phil 1030) Assessment Findings
PHIL
1030-01
Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
No Choice
%Correct
OVERALL
PreTest
Q1
5
12
3
0
0
60%
41%
Q2
3
15
1
0
1
75%
Q3
7
5
3
5
0
25%
Q4
6
1
7
6
0
30%
Q5
3
7
4
6
0
15%
205%
Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
No Choice
% Correct
OVERALL
Number of Students: Pre-Test 20; Post-Test 18
PHIL
1030-02
Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
No Choice
% Correct
OVERALL
PreTest
Q1
7
14
0
0
0
67%
59%
Q2
1
17
3
0
0
81%
Q3
13
3
4
1
0
14%
Q4
21
0
0
0
0
100%
Q5
7
10
3
1
0
33%
295%
Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
No Choice
% Correct
OVERALL
PreTest
Q1
6
10
2
0
0
56%
46%
Q2
8
9
1
0
0
50%
Q3
3
5
8
1
1
28%
Q4
6
0
6
6
0
33%
Q5
11
3
3
1
0
61%
228%
Number of Students: Pre-Test 18; Post-Test 17
Q2
3
14
1
0
0
78%
Q3
4
14
0
0
0
78%
Q4
16
1
0
1
0
89%
Q5
16
1
0
1
0
89%
411%
IMPROVEMENT: 41%
Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
No Choice
% Correct
OVERALL
Number of Students: Pre-Test 21; Post-Test 14
PHIL
1030-61
PostTest
Q1
4
14
0
0
0
78%
82%
PostTest
Q1
0
14
0
0
0
100%
71%
Q2
4
10
0
0
0
71%
Q3
4
8
1
0
1
57%
Q4
13
1
0
0
0
93%
Q5
5
1
7
0
1
36%
357%
IMPROVEMENT: 12%
Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
No Choice
% Correct
OVERALL
PostTest
Q1
0
17
0
0
0
100%
68%
Q2
2
14
1
0
0
82%
Q3
6
8
2
1
0
47%
Q4
16
0
1
0
0
94%
Q5
3
3
10
1
0
18%
341%
Improvement: 23%
2 OF 10
Spring 2011 Critical Thinking (Phil 1030) Assessment Interpretations
What do the data for this year’s assessment reveal?
The department’s target of achieving a 70% or higher overall score on the Post-Test was achieved
in two of the three sections taught. The third was close, but did not quite reach the target.
What does a review of the trend data show?
That this year is consistent with previous years’ performances.
In what areas do students do well?
Students do very well on Questions 1 and 4.
In what areas have they not succeeded?
Students seem to have the most trouble with Question 5.
Spring 2011 Critical Thinking (Phil 1030) Assessment Conclusions
Have the student learning outcomes that this instrument measures been met?
By and large, the outcome target has been met, with the exception of one section, taught by a
temporary instructor, which came close to the target.
If not, what can be done to help the students reach the learning objective?
All instructors of this course will be informed of the assessment findings and asked to take these
into consideration as they plan their courses for upcoming semesters.
Which strengths and weaknesses were identified in the course /program?
The instructors for this course do an excellent job teaching the foundations of Critical Thinking.
The one question that has weak responses also happens to be of one of the most difficult types of
question to learn, as the informal fallacies can be difficult to spot and all have names that are
descriptive in a more literary than logical sense.
What can be done to improve the weaknesses?
Faculty will continue to meet, as it has been doing, and discuss pedagogical theory and technique.
The Assessment Coördinator will make sure that the outcomes of the Assessment Reports continue
to be discussed in meetings of the Philosophy faculty. The Critical Thinking assessment tool has
done a very good job of detecting successes and areas in need of improvement by the Assessment
Coördinator and the temporary faculty. The foreseeable challenge includes reinforcing to faculty
the importance of carefully explaining inference indicator words, deductive versus inductive
reasoning, patterns of reasoning, and fallacies.
3 OF 10
Introduction to Logic Assessment Outcomes
The assessment instrument for the philosophy course in Logic measures six criteria from the
Chicago State University General Education Outcomes:
1) Use the standard dialect of American English in speaking, reading, and writing;
5) Apply the basic methods, questions, and vocabularies of the humanities, mathematics, the
natural sciences, and the social sciences;
7) Recognize the role of creativity in problem-solving, addressing issues and concerns,
and generating new knowledge;
10) Demonstrate how scientific inquiry has affected human understanding of the natural world in
which we live; and
11) Apply analytical skills, including mathematical reasoning, to the natural sciences, social
sciences, and the humanities.
This is accomplished by making certain students in Introduction to Logic are able to:
(a) determine whether or not an argument is valid;
(b) locate the premises and conclusion(s) of an argument;
(c) distinguish the subject class, the predicate class, and the middle class of categorical
arguments;
(d) use a Venn diagram in order to determine whether or not a categorical argument is valid or
invalid; and
(e) use symbolic notation to convert an argument in English prose into symbolic argument
structure.
Method of Assessment
In an attempt to determine to what extent the above assessment outcome criteria have been
achieved, the Philosophy faculty has developed a Logic Assessment Instrument, which is given at
the beginning of the semester and at the end of the semester. The assessment includes five
multiple-choice questions, which are fairly difficult for a first-time student in a logic course, but
quite manageable for a student who has completed the course. These questions are specifically
designed to address the criteria noted above.
Question 1 addresses General Education Outcomes Goals 1, 5, & 11
Question 2 addresses General Education Outcomes Goals 1, 5, & 11
Question 3 addresses General Education Outcomes Goals 1, 5, & 11
Question 4 addresses General Education Outcomes Goals 1, 5, 7, 10, & 11
Question 5 addresses General Education Outcomes Goals 1, 5, 7, 10, & 11
The target set by the Philosophy faculty is to achieve a 70% or better overall score for Post-Test
assessment findings.
4 OF 10
Introduction to Logic Assessment Findings/Interpretations/Conclusions
Spring 2011 Introduction to Logic (Phil 1020) Assessment Findings
PHIL
1020-01
Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
No Choice
% Correct
OVERALL
PreTest
Q1
26
1
0
0
0
96%
57%
Q2
13
14
0
0
0
48%
Q3
21
5
0
0
1
78%
Q4
6
13
8
0
0
22%
Q5
11
10
4
0
2
41%
285%
Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
No Choice
% Correct
OVERALL
Number of Students: Pre-Test 27; Post-Test 17
PHIL
1020-02
Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
No Choice
% Correct
OVERALL
PreTest
Q1
16
5
0
0
0
76%
43%
Q2
4
16
0
0
1
19%
Q3
9
10
0
0
2
43%
Q4
5
8
7
0
1
24%
Q5
11
8
2
0
0
52%
214%
Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
No Choice
% Correct
OVERALL
PreTest
Q1
15
1
0
0
0
94%
40%
Q2
6
10
0
0
0
38%
Q3
4
11
0
0
1
25%
Q4
4
8
3
0
1
25%
Q5
3
7
5
0
1
19%
200%
Number of Students: Pre-Test 16; Post-Test 9
Q2
11
6
0
0
0
65%
Q3
11
6
0
0
0
65%
Q4
9
4
4
0
0
53%
Q5
15
1
1
0
0
88%
371%
IMPROVEMENT: 17%
Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
No Choice
% Correct
OVERALL
Number of Students: Pre-Test 21; Post-Test 12
PHIL
1020-61
PostTest
Q1
17
0
0
0
0
100%
74%
PostTest
Q1
10
2
0
0
0
83%
67%
Q2
7
5
0
0
0
58%
Q3
6
3
0
0
3
50%
Q4
7
2
3
0
0
58%
Q5
10
2
0
0
0
83%
333%
IMPROVEMENT: 24%
Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
No Choice
% Correct
OVERALL
PostTest
Q1
9
0
0
0
0
100%
76%
Q2
5
4
0
0
0
56%
Q3
6
3
0
0
0
67%
Q4
7
0
2
0
0
78%
Q5
7
1
1
0
0
78%
378%
IMPROVEMENT: 36%
5 OF 10
PHIL
1020-62
Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
No Choice
% Correct
OVERALL
PreTest
Q1
7
2
0
0
0
78%
38%
Q2
3
6
0
0
0
33%
Q3
2
7
0
0
0
22%
Q4
3
4
2
0
0
33%
Q5
2
4
3
0
0
22%
189%
Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
No Choice
% Correct
OVERALL
PostTest
Q1
6
0
0
0
0
100%
90%
Number of Students: Pre-Test 9; Post-Test 6
PHIL
1020-63
Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
No Choice
% Correct
OVERALL
PreTest
Q1
11
0
0
0
0
100%
51%
Q2
4
7
0
0
0
36%
Q3
7
4
0
0
0
64%
Q4
1
7
3
0
0
9%
Q5
5
3
3
0
0
45%
255%
Q2
5
1
0
0
0
83%
Q3
4
2
0
0
0
67%
Q4
6
0
0
0
0
100%
Q5
6
0
0
0
0
100%
450%
IMPROVEMENT: 52%
Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
Choice D
No Choice
% Correct
OVERALL
PostTest
Q1
7
0
0
0
0
100%
83%
Number of Students: Pre-Test 11; Post-Test 7
Q2
6
1
0
0
0
86%
Q3
6
1
0
0
0
86%
Q4
5
0
2
0
0
71%
Q5
5
2
0
0
0
71%
414%
IMPROVEMENT: 32%
Spring 2011 Introduction to Logic (Phil 1020) Assessment Interpretations
What do the data for this year’s assessment reveal?
The department’s target of achieving a 70% or higher overall score on the Post-Test was achieved
in four of the five sections taught. The third was close, but did not quite reach the target.
What does a review of the trend data show?
That this year is consistent with previous years’ performances.
In what areas do students do well?
Students do very well on Questions 1 and 5.
In what areas have they not succeeded?
Students seem to have the most trouble with Questions 3 and 4.
Spring 2011 Introduction to Logic (Phil 1020) Assessment Conclusions
Have the student learning outcomes that this instrument measures been met?
By and large, the outcome target has been met, with the exception of one section, taught by a
temporary instructor, which came close to the target.
6 OF 10
If not, what can be done to help the students reach the learning objective?
All instructors of this course will be informed of the assessment findings and asked to take these
into consideration as they plan their courses for upcoming semesters.
Which strengths and weaknesses were identified in the course /program?
The instructors for this course do an excellent job teaching the foundations of Logic. One of the
two questions that have weak responses also happens to be of one of the most difficult types of
question to learn. The other had a large number simply left unanswered both on the Pre-Test and on
the Post-Test, which is unusual.
What can be done to improve the weaknesses?
Faculty will continue to meet, as it has been doing, and discuss pedagogical theory and technique.
The Assessment Coördinator will make sure that the outcomes of the Assessment Reports continue
to be discussed in meetings of the Philosophy faculty. The Introduction to Logic assessment tool
has done a very good job of detecting successes and areas in need of improvement by the
Assessment Coördinator and the temporary faculty.
Ethics Assessment Outcomes
The assessment instrument for the philosophy course in Ethics measures four criteria from the
Chicago State University General Education Outcomes:
1) Use the standard dialect of American English in speaking, reading, and writing;
5) Apply the basic methods, questions, and vocabularies of the humanities, mathematics, the
natural sciences, and the social sciences;
7) Recognize the role of creativity in problem-solving, addressing issues and concerns,
and generating new knowledge;
11) Apply analytical skills, including mathematical reasoning, to the natural sciences, social
sciences, and the humanities.
This is accomplished by making certain students in Ethics are able to:
(1) construct a proper essay (e.g., introduction, body, conclusion);
(2) determine the most important factors associated with the Heinz stealing example;
(3) make clear whether or not the morality of the Heinz scenario is one’s personal opinion, an
objective judgment, a universal judgment; and
(4) utilize the concepts of duty, utility, and/or character to justify one’s moral assessment of the
Heinz scenario.
Method of Assessment
In an attempt to measure to what extent the above criteria have been achieved, the Philosophy
faculty has developed an Ethics Assessment Instrument, which is given at the beginning of the
semester and at the end of the semester. The assessment is a scenario in which the students have to
make a moral determination about the actions of one of the individuals. Basically, a man steals
medicine from a doctor because his dying wife is in desperate need of it. The man offered the
doctor $1,000 with the proviso that he would pay the rest later, but the doctor insisted on $2,000,
knowing full well the man’s wife was dying.
7 OF 10
Keeping in mind the four criteria, the students are asked to determine the moral status of the man
who stole the medicine (see attached assessment instrument).
The target set by the Philosophy faculty is to achieve a 70% or better overall score for Post-Test
assessment findings.
Introduction to Ethics Assessment Findings/Interpretations/Conclusions
Spring 2011 Introduction to Ethics (Phil 1040) Assessment Findings
PHIL
1040-01
Pre-Test
%
Overall C and over
Post-Test
%
OVERALL C and over
IMPROVEMENT
A's
0
0%
17%
A's
3
33%
78%
61%
B's
1
6%
C's
2
11%
D's
3
17%
E's
12
67%
B's
3
33%
C's
1
11%
D's
1
11%
E's
1
11%
Number of Students: Pre-Test 18; Post-Test 9
PHIL
1040-61
Pre-Test
%
Overall C and over
Post-Test
%
OVERALL C and over
IMPROVEMENT
IMPROVEMENT: 61%
A's
0
0%
11%
A's
7
50%
86%
75%
B's
0
0%
C's
1
11%
D's
4
44%
E's
4
44%
B's
3
21%
C's
2
14%
D's
2
14%
E's
0
0%
Number of Students: Pre-Test 9; Post-Test 14
IMPROVEMENT: 61%
Spring 2011 Introduction to Logic (Phil 1020) Assessment Interpretations
What do the data for this year’s assessment reveal?
The department’s target of achieving a 70% or higher overall score on the Post-Test was achieved
in both of the sections taught. Students responded to the question by indicating more-or-less
correctly how different moral theories might assess the practical dilemma Heinz faces, used moral
terminology correctly and gave a coherent account of the alternative courses of action, and a large
percentage scored at C or above.
What does a review of the trend data show?
That this year is consistent with previous years’ performances.
8 OF 10
In what areas do students do well?
Students do very well with giving a personal opinion.
In what areas have they not succeeded?
Students seem to have the most trouble with distinguishing between ethical theories; this is not
surprising, as this is a difficult skill to master.
Spring 2011 Introduction to Logic (Phil 1020) Assessment Conclusions
Have the student learning outcomes that this instrument measures been met?
Yes, the outcome target has been met.
If not, what can be done to help the students reach the learning objective?
All instructors of this course will be informed of the assessment findings and asked to take these
into consideration as they plan their courses for upcoming semesters.
Which strengths and weaknesses were identified in the course /program?
The instructors for this course do an excellent job teaching Introduction to Ethics. There are no
weaknesses in this course, although the Assessment instrument does speak to the need for continued
emphasis on both writing skills and reasoning skills at CSU.
What can be done to improve the weaknesses?
Faculty will continue to meet, as it has been doing, and discuss pedagogical theory and technique.
The Assessment Coördinator will make sure that the outcomes of the Assessment Reports continue
to be discussed in meetings of the Philosophy faculty. The Introduction to Ethics assessment tool
has done a very good job of detecting successes and areas in need of improvement by the
Assessment Coördinator and the temporary faculty.
Decision-Making Using Findings
Based on your interpretation of the findings, your conclusions and discussions with faculty, what
curricular changes will be made in the future?
A temporary instructor is assembling all the needed components of an online version of his Critical
Thinking course. No further curricular changes are anticipated with regard to Critical Thinking,
Introduction to Logic, or Ethics at this time. These courses serve a vital purpose at Chicago State
and their value with regard to preparing students for success in their academic and professional
careers, as well as in their personal lives, cannot be overestimated. Their inclusion in the General
Education curriculum is essential to the provision of an education, one of the central goals of the
university.
Aside from the assessed courses, we re-numbered several courses at the request of other program
directors that we not being served at the 3000 level required by their program needs, and to more
accurately reflect the academic levels of the materials taught in these courses.
9 OF 10
How are findings and changes related to immediate or long term budget requests?
No budget changes are anticipated at this time.
Attach minutes of departmental/program meeting where reports are discussed.
No minutes of the meetings of the Philosophy faculty are available, by unanimous agreement of the
Philosophy faculty, since program minutes in addition to department meeting minutes would be
redundant.
Demonstrating Improved Learning
What evidence do you have that student learning has improved?
Improvement in all sections of the courses taught, consistent with prior years. The trend data show
steady rates of improvement each semester, while also demonstrating that the material is
challenging enough to justify a rigorous paedagogical approach.
Publicizing Student Learning
How do you publicize the assessment results?
Copies of Assessment reports and original instruments are kept on file in the History, Philosophy,
and Political Science Office. An indication of this is to be found on our department website.
Accomplishments and Challenges
The Philosophy faculty is currently working toward creating a major. To this end, the faculty are
using the Assessment Reports to demonstrate continued success at serving the students and the
community of Chicago State University.
10 OF 10