ASSESSMENT REPORT 2015, Africana Studies Program
College of Social Sciences, Fresno State
Due September 1, 2015
1. What learning outcomes did we assess this year?
For the academic year 2014 to 2015 we assessed three SOAP outcomes in multiple courses
and assignments:
Outcome A-1 Identify socio-cultural origins of racism, sexism, prejudice and discrimination in
relation to African peoples and identify key concepts related to recognizing discrimination, i.e.
institutional discrimination, overt discrimination, covert discrimination, inter-group and intragroup discrimination;
Outcome B-4 Demonstrate oral communication and interpretive skills;
and Outcome B-5: Demonstrate knowledge of style and mechanics of writing and research
techniques such as evaluation and documentation of evidence.
We slightly adjusted assessment tasks due to changes in schedules and program activities in
Spring 2015. We have updated the SOAP timeline to indicate these changes.
2. What instruments did we use to assess them?
A. The Black Gender Conference – conference survey. The BGC was last hosted in Spring
2014 and not scheduled in Spring 2015. We reviewed the conference in Spring 2013 with
a conference survey related to specific outcomes given to conference participants. A five
question qualitative conference evaluation was also collected in Spring 2014 from
conference attendees. The conference survey related to Outcome A-1.
B. Black Agitprop Exhibit & African American Intellectual Thought Symposium –
essay review. The majority of essays were written by AFRS 144 students. In the spring of
2015, Africana Studies hosted six major public events including: the Black Agitprop
1
Exhibit in Madden Library, the Black Lives Matter Panel Discussion on February 17, the
Donna Brazile lecture on February 27, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright lecture on March 2, the
Kool Moe Dee lecture on March 11, and the African American Intellectual Thought
Symposium for Black Lives Matter on April 17. We collected a sample of short essays
for two events, the Black Agitprop Exhibit and the African American Intellectual
Thought Symposium. Ten essays were reviewed from AFRS 144 and AFRS 27 for the
symposium held in April, “Black Lives Matter: Willie Horton and the American
Dilemma.” Sixteen essays were reviewed from AFRS 144, AFRS 15 and AFRS 27 for
the Black Agitprop Exhibit in February in Madden Library. Essays for the Black
Agitprop Exhibit were also reviewed two years ago across multiple courses. The point of
this exhibit is to raise the visibility and profile of the program on campus. The short
essays for both events related to both Outcome A-1 and Outcome B-4 as students
observed and participated with the two activities and then interpreted the events critically
to analyze the socio-cultural origins of racism, sexism, prejudice and discrimination. We
scored the essays on a scale of 1-3: 1 = not proficient, 2 = proficient, 3 = above average,
and collaboratively agreed on this scale to fit our new benchmark.
1 – not proficient
2 - proficient
3 – above average
Underdeveloped analysis,
lacking examples of
discrimination and/or details
of African American history
from the exhibit/event
Multiple examples of
socio-cultural origins of
racism, sexism, prejudice
and discrimination in
African American history
from the exhibit/event
Well-developed creative
analysis with multiple links
between sources of
evidence in the
exhibit/event related to
socio-cultural origins of
racism, sexism, prejudice
and discrimination
2
C. AFRS 104W & AFRS 144 – annotated bibliography review. We reviewed a common
assignment of annotated bibliographies from AFRS 104w and AFRS 144 to assess
Outcome B-5: Demonstrate knowledge of style and mechanics of writing and research
techniques such as evaluation and documentation of evidence.
1 – not proficient
2 - proficient
3 – above average
Inaccurate or incomplete
information related to
sources listed in
bibliography
All sources have adequate
description and summary of
sources related to the
research topic.
Well-developed creative
analysis of sources going
beyond summary to
interpret and evaluate
sources’ credibility and
evaluation of evidence for
the research topic.
3. What did we discover from the data?
A. Black Gender Conference -- Out of 28 respondents, 27 indicated they would attend the
conference again, with 1 respondent indicating “Maybe.” Out of 28 respondents, only 4
respondents suggested that analysis of stereotypes of Black masculinity needed
improvement. Suggestions for future topics for the conference included: building
community, how to start the conversation to make change, the “N” word, bettering a
broken community, Black women in power, the future of the Black community, family
empowerment, more on Black masculinity, more about stereotypes and how stereotypes
operate outside of the Black community, interracial relationships, anything but interracial
relationships, education statistics of both males and females, Black female and male
working relationships, female progressives, importance of positive role models,
internalizing stereotypes, fraternities and sororities, Black economic disadvantages,
single vs. two parent homes, and bi-racial identity. The Black Gender Conference has
3
been a very effective student-run conference and collaborative project across AFRS
courses. The surveys collected from both conference participants (students enrolled in
AFRS 130T and AFRS 137) and conference attendees (the general Fresno State student
population) indicate significant interest and learning by both participants and attendees.
B. Outreach Activities/Short Essays: We found that 65% or 17 of the sampled 26 essays
scored above average with 3 points, and 35% or 9 of the sampled essays scored as
proficient with 2 points. These essays were short essays for extra credit, not a major
assignment in the course. As such, they relate to outreach activities by the program. For
the Black Agitprop Exhibit students recorded details and a range of information related to
African culture, slavery in the new world, education, integration, Black Power, and the
election of Pres. Obama. Higher rated essays contained more analysis of historical
context and analysis of specific visual details from the exhibit which displays a wide
array of text with paintings, posters and photographs. As one student wrote: “While one
side of the exhibit had more historical story-telling pieces, the other half showed more
African American culture. There were paintings of Black people dancing, another with
some playing music; these pictures show the diversity and versatility of Black people.
This exhibit showed me so much about the history of African Americans and reminded
me how far we have come as a race.” Also emphasizing progress and tradition another
student wrote, “This photo shows three African American Women in three different age
groups braiding hair. The mother is braiding her daughters’ hair, the daughter is braiding
the grandmothers hair, and the grandmother is braiding a quilt of some sort. This painting
is showing generations of traditions being handed down, one to the next. The picture
shows at least three generations learning the same as the one before.” Lastly, another
4
student wrote about the personal impact that the exhibit made, “I found the exhibit to be
life changing. I feel empowered as a young African American woman to be the change
that I want to see in the society. Instead of being so easily influenced by the latest social
media craze and social trend, I want to form my own thoughts on situations through the
power of knowledge, not just what society wants me to believe. I am glad that I got a
chance [to] experience this exhibit.” The value of the Black Agitprop Exhibit has been
well-known to the AFRS Program previously, and we hope to continue to utilize space in
Madden Library for future exhibits.
For the African American Intellectual Thought Symposium, students analyzed the talks
of three guest speakers, Dr. John McClendon, Dr. Jerome Jackson, and Ms. Angela
Barfield who all spoke on aspects of the Black Lives Matter movement and violence
against African Americans. Stronger student responses contained more details from the
speakers who presented extensive details and examples related to violence against
African Americans and the community’s response to this violence. Topics included state
terrorism, legalized racial segregation, broken windows policing, President Obama,
parenting young Black men, and specific cases of police brutality such as Aiyana
Stanley-Jones, Venus Green, and Darren Rainey. Like the Black Agitprop Exhibit, the
Symposium made a large emotional impact on students besides being very educational.
As one student wrote, “The story of Darren Rainey, a 50-year-old mentally challenged
prisoner, really hurt my heart. This man was mentally challenged in the prison system.
He was killed by the guards because he defecated in his cell. The guards put him [in] a
shower with the water at 180 degrees. The inmate was left in the shower for hours as
punishment. ‘…[white] Americans are far more likely to tolerate the incarceration of
5
blacks for prolonged periods of time under inhuman conditions than they would be to
tolerate similar indignities visited on whites.’ –Isaac Balbus (1977) These quotes are very
real in relation to the treatment of African Americans by police. Even though each quote
is almost 40 years old, the concept still relates to the way White people view Black
people and the differences that a Black man would face as opposed to a White man.
Hopefully there will be change.” We plan to continue organizing events that link
academic course work to current issues of great concern to the local, African American
and national communities like Black Lives Matter.
C. Annotated Bibliographies in Upper-Division Classes:
From AFRS 104w, out of 10 samples rated, 60% scored above average, 30% scored as
proficient, and 10% scored as not proficient. From AFRS 144 out of 15 samples rated
60% scored above average, and 40% scored as proficient. The students in AFRS 144
were required to analyze two to three times the number of sources as the sources listed in
AFRS 104w samples, which were draft bibliographies for a final research paper. The
AFRS 144 samples showed a greater range of scholarship and diversity of sources.
However, AFRS 144 students only produce the bibliography and not a final paper. Both
sets of bibliographies explored topics related to racial inequality, race relations, and racial
awareness. Both sets also indicate some room for improvement in relation to exact
formatting and proper bibliographic techniques, such as the alphabetical listing of authors
by last name for clear, overall organization. This assessment activity parallels last year’s
assessment of term papers from AFRS 135 and AFRS 164 to review research paper
techniques in the major’s upper-division classes. We continue to emphasize the
importance of utilizing writing resources on campus for students’ benefit.
6
4. What changes did we make as a result of the findings?
A. Black Gender Conference: We typically have a large turn-out at the BGC and were
not surprised that so many students report positively on their experiences attending
the conference, especially since their peers chose the panel topics. At the moment we
have not scheduled the next collaborative project to host the BGC, but we will pass
on information from past attendees to future student hosts. The Program in
collaboration with the Africana Studies Student Association plans to sponsor a minisymposium to address issues previously covered during the conference.
B. Outreach Activities: Both the Black Agitprop Exhibit and the African American
Intellectual Thought Symposium have been hosted multiple times by the Program,
and are usually well-attended. We conducted assessment on short essays related to
SOAP outcomes for the Black Agitprop Exhibit two years ago, and saw the benefits
for students and the program in raising visibility and awareness. We usually host this
event during African Peoples’ History Month. Dr. Simba is planning to organize
another African American Intellectual Thought Symposium for Spring 2016. This
event is not always hosted annually, but given the current crises and social activism
within the African American community, we wish to encourage more outreach and
scholarly inquiry for Fresno State students and surrounding community by hosting
this event. They enhance student outcomes by providing a multi-media experience
and/or scholarly discussions of topics related to SOAP outcomes and AFRS
coursework.
C. Annotated Bibliographies: When writing research papers and annotated
bibliographies, students often make similar mistakes related to evaluation of
7
evidence, the strengths and weaknesses of different source material and creating
proper formatting. Encouraging peer evaluation and using model samples can help
students see what a formal annotated bibliography should look like. In AFRS 104w
we are revising the research paper assignment to require a longer annotated
bibliography similar to the assignment created by AFRS 144. Iterative activities such
as peer review, instructor feedback, and scheduled revision activities can yield
improvement in writing tasks related to Outcome B-5 and are already practiced in
AFRS 104w.
5. What assessment activities will we be conducting in the 2015-2016 academic year?
We are planning three assessment activities for the 2015-2016 academic year: a survey
on digital writing practices in AFRS 104w, a final portfolio review in AFRS 104w, and a
survey on a new service-learning project in AFRS 129. We will also complete a summary
of assessment activities for the 2 year period of 2014-2016.
6. What progress have we made on items from our last program review action plan?
The program completed our most recent review during the 2013-2014 academic year, and
we finalized a new action plan in Spring 2014. Per the action plan we have updated the
SOAP with a benchmark and greater alignment with the university’s GE diversity goals.
We continue to make adjustments to the SOAP because we are a small program and often
need to adjust activities due to changes in schedules and activities, such as sabbaticals,
new or lost funding for speakers and conferences and changes in course schedules. As
stated earlier in this report, the Program hosted six major public events in Spring 2015,
and two were analyzed with assessment data to gauge their effectiveness as outreach
activities related to SOAP outcomes. The program is still in the process of developing
8
joint certificates with other departments, such as History. We have experienced two failed
joint searches in the past three years and our currently embarking on a new joint search
with the Criminology Department. With one faculty member on sabbatical in the fall
semester of 2015, we are currently staffed at 1½ faculty positions. As stated in the 2014
action plan from the last program review:
The number of our faculty has declined from 4.5 in 1998/1999 to 2.5 in 2005/6, and we
have remained at 2.5 since 2010 when our senior faculty member, Dr. Yaw OhenebaSakyi left the program. Consequently, the increases made to faculty resources as a
result of our last program review have not been maintained due to the loss of senior
faculty and the failure of a joint hire.
We will continue recruitment activities through participation with on-campus events like
Welcome Black and work with our student organization Africana Studies Student
Association founded in 2013-2014. Without more faculty resources, recruitment to the
major and diversity of course offerings will remain a challenge.
9
Anthropology Department Assessment Report 2014 to 2015
1. What learning outcome(s) did you assess this year?
The Anthropology Department has three overall goals (A, B and C, below).
A. Provide students with background in the concepts and bodies of knowledge used and
produced by anthropologists.
B. Provide students with training on the application of anthropological theory and method to
problems in archeology, physical anthropology and cultural anthropology dependent on
their emphasis in the major.
C. Prepare students to apply anthropological concepts to real world problems and effectively
communicate results. These three goals are broken down into 7 learning outcomes (see Anthropology Program SOAP).
This year, we are focusing on the two learning outcomes of Goal C.
6. Students will demonstrate the ability to apply anthropological concepts and knowledge
to solving practical problems. 7. Students demonstrate the ability to effectively communicate their informed judgment
of applied problems in anthropological perspective. 2. What instruments did you use to assess them?
If this does not align with the outcomes and activities detailed in the timeline of the SOAP, please
provide an explanation of this discrepancy. If the standards for student performance are not
included in your SOAP, you should include them here. For example, "On outcome 2.3, 80% of
students will score an average of 3.5 out of 5 on the attached rubric.”
A Note on Discrepancies: We conduct a number of data generating tasks annually regardless of
the particular data we are focusing on in a particular year. This simplifies operations of the
department level. Therefore, regardless of the variety of data points we are generating, only the
following were analyzed this year, based on our assessment table, “V. Student Learning
Outcomes Assessment Methods Matrix”
Conduct a pre-questioner in Anthro 100
Conduct a post-questioner in Anthro 195
Collect student reflections from Anthro 193.
The Alumni Survey will be sent out.
Standards for Student Performance:
On outcome 6, 80% of students will describe at least two examples of using anthropology to
solve practical problems in their reflection papers.
On outcome 7, 80% of students will score at least a 9 out of 12 on the attached rubric.
3. What did you discover from these data?
Provide a discussion of student performance in relation to your standards of performance. Where
possible, indicate the relative strengths and weaknesses in student performance on the
outcome(s).
An important finding was that very few graduates respond to our alumni survey. Although this is
a structural rather that substantive finding, it is essential to our assessment process.
1
Preliminary analysis of this data, demonstrated that the students are gaining a better
understanding of the applied aspects of anthropology and what they would like to do with the
training they have received from the department after they graduate. Additionally, the internship
opportunities we have been developing are proving to produce a number of occasions for students
to illustrate anthropological concepts in practice. Some of these internships have led to
employment after graduation in a number of cases. Employers include the Chaffee Zoo, the US
Forest Service, Table Mountain Cultural Resources Facility, Santa Rosa Rancheria Cultural
Resources Facility, various Private Cultural Resources Firms, Caltrans Cultural Resources
Division, Fresno County Health Department and Saint Agnes Hospital to name a few.
4. What changes did you make as a result of the findings?
Describe what action was taken based on the analysis of the assessment data.
In response to the low response rate of our alumni survey, we are in the process of rebuilding the
paper survey and making it into an on line survey via Qualtics. Once completed, this will be
deployed early in the spring semester. Although this is a structural rather that substantive finding,
it is essential to our assessment process.
To better measure the quality of the students experience we have added a student reflection
assignments, which will be turned in at the end of the class two of our classes. We started this in
the spring of 2013 and will continue it from hereon. Going forward, the data will be collected by
the supervising faculty member as part of the course grade. The attached rubric will be added to
the supervising faculty members’ syllabi to assist his/her instruction as well as aid the program
review process.
These assessment tools are valid to the extent that they are generating the intended data. The
challenge is that the data generation process is cumbersome. Therefore, we are improving the
process through the introduction of e-portfolios is a number of key classes. This should provide
larger sample sizes and more effective ways of compiling written data for assessment.
Finally, we have introduced the attached rubric this year and plan to expand upon it as a means of
establishing reliable measures of student performance.
5. What assessment activities will you be conducting in the 2015-16 academic year?
Briefly list the outcomes to be assessed and how you will measure them. This should align with
the activities provided in your SOAP.
Goal A. Provide students with background in the concepts and bodies of knowledge used and
produced by anthropologists.
Outcome 1. Students will be able to discuss the basic core concepts of
anthropology and cite factual evidence to support their arguments. Outcome Assessment Activities:
Conduct a pre-questioner in Anthro 100
Conduct a post-questioner in Anthro 195
Deploy our alumni survey
2
Outcome 2. Students will demonstrate knowledge of history and contemporary
trends in anthropological theory and ability to apply theoretical approaches to
concrete problems. Outcome Assessment Activities:
Papers will be collected from Anthro 104
Deploy our alumni survey
Outcome 3. Students will demonstrate the ability to think and write critically
about anthropological topics. Students can identify key terms, concepts, and
forms of argumentation used in anthropological discourse and evaluate their
validity. Outcome Assessment Activities:
Papers will be collected from Anthro 104
Deploy our alumni survey
6. What progress have you made on items from your last program review action plan?
Please provide a brief description of progress made on each item listed in the action plan. If no
progress has been made on an action item, simply state "no progress."
No progress
Our program review will be occurring in October 2015. It was postponed from last year.
Therefore, the progress to date question is moot.
Anthropology Program Rubric
Beginning 1
Developing 2
Accomplished 3
Exemplary 4
Score
Demonstrates
knowledge of
anthropological
data collection
ideas.
Demonstrate
ability to
formulate new
conclusions
about real world
problems.
Able to critically
analyze data
collected on real
world problems.
3
1
Chicano and Latin American Studies*
Student Outcomes Assessment Plan Yearly Report
2014-2015
CLAS Department Student Outcomes Assessment Plan (SOAP)
Coordinator Dr. Ramon Sanchez
Table of Contents
A. What learning outcome(s)
did you assess this year? . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. What instruments did you use
to assess them? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
C. What did you discover
from these data? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
D. What changes did you make
as a result of the findings? . . . . . . . . . . . 7
E. What assessment activities
will you be conducting
in the 2015-16 academic year? . . . . . . . . 8
F. What progress have you made
on items from your
last program review action plan? . . . . . . 9
G. Appendix With Rubrics . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2
*Chicano and Latin American Studies 2014
Student Outcomes Assessment Plan Yearly Report
The following measures have been conducted to assess the CLAS Department’s
achievement of the Goals and Student Learning Outcomes and to improve the
curriculum offerings based on the results of the assessment:
2013-2015: Assessment Coordinator Dr. Ramon Sanchez
A. What learning outcome(s) did you assess this year?
Outcome number 1: Students will demonstrate an understanding of the variable
constructions and/or ideologies of race, class, and gender.
Outcome number 3: Students will identify sources of racism, classism, sexism,
and homophobia that have contributed to the historic oppression of Chicanos/as
and Latinos/as.
Outcome number 4: Students will demonstrate critical thinking skills and be able
to express complex ideas verbally and in written assignments.
Outcome number 5: Students will demonstrate ability to conduct research using
standard methodologies to critically evaluate evidence, to document the source of
their information, and to write well-organized arguments supported by evidence.
Outcome number 6: Students will demonstrate an understanding of the
requirements in terms of knowledge and behavior exhibited by professionals in
fields relating to Chicano and Latin American Studies.
Course: student assignments and assessment activities were implemented in CLAS 3
B. What instruments did you use to assess them?
Courses worked on: in Section I CLAS 3 Introduction to Chicano/Latino Studies
(online and face to face) courses Blackboard-based Discussion Board Assignment and in
Section II CLAS 3 (online and face to face) courses Information Literacy assignment.
Section I.
Goal: Applied to lower level CLAS 3 Introduction to Chicano/Latino Studies
(online and face to face) courses: Blackboard Discussion Board Assignment
Blackboard-based Discussion Board Assignment
As a result of three CLAS faculty members attending the 2012 Fresno State
Teaching Innovations Academy, the faculty incorporated the Discussion Board into
3
CLAS courses. This time the assignment was applied in lower level CLAS 3 Introduction
to Chicano/Latino Studies (online and face to face) courses.
The Discussion Board Assignment is Blackboard-based and involved the
following. The student would read the required Discussion Board readings and respond
to them by addressing topic statements or questions the Professor supplied. Based on
this, the student wrote two editorials, which were first peer reviewed. The student then
submitted the editorials to the Professor, who evaluated them and returned them to the
student. The Blackboard-based Discussion Board Assignment used the CLAS 3 (online)
and CLAS 3 (face to face) courses measured outcomes numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
(a) Student Discussion Board entries based on the assigned reading and topic
statement or question.
In terms of outcomes, the students read the assigned material in order to (1) do the
student Discussion Board entries and answer the topic statement or question(s) based on
the assigned reading.
(b) Rubric.
The rubric assisted in making the students aware of the assessment process by
supplying the assignment criteria. The instructor was able to monitor their work and the
students as well, by making teachers’ expectations clear and by showing students how to
meet these expectations. The instructor could address specific components of the
students’ work and instructor feedback was useful for their following Discussion Board
task.
The Review Rubric assisted the students in becoming more thoughtful judges of
the quality of their own and others’ work, becoming increasingly able to spot and solve
problems in their own and gave them opportunities to re-evaluate their work, which
increased the students’ sense of responsibility for their own work. The result was often
marked by improvements in the quality of student work and in learning that was based on
their ability to define quality work. It offered a way for them to improve their
performance.
This activity not only results in a greater learning experience. It also enables
students to feel a greater sense of ownership and inclusion in the decision making
process. The assessment rubric for written work indicated the following standards in two
categories for the assignment: (1) student meets the standard and (2) student does not
meet standard.
(c) The students submit their editorials.
Students become aware of different audiences, standards, and deadlines. The
process helped the students regulate, monitor, and guide their work.
4
C. What did you discover from these data?
Benchmark and Rubric:
The Department used a basic rubric with two columns to evaluate the work. Students
either met the requirements for meeting the standard, for which they were deemed
proficient, or they did not meet all of the criteria and were deemed to have not met the
standard. (See Appendix 1 for the rubric.) The benchmark or expectation was that a
majority of the total number of students in the courses, who completed the assignments,
would demonstrate proficiency.
The expectations were that the students would become more thoughtful judges of the
quality of their own and others’ work, become increasingly able to spot and solve
problems in their own and have opportunities to re-evaluate their work. This process
would increase the students’ sense of responsibility for their own work. It offered a way
for them to improve their performance.
Chicano and Latin American Studies Student Outcomes Assessment:
The assignment consisted of two parts. One was the Discussion Board
Blackboard student dialogue (two of them) and the second was the editorial (two of
them). The Assignment reinforced knowledge on issues, such as race/ethnicity, social
class, and gender. The following are the percentages of students who met the standard
outcome for the Blackboard-based Discussion Board Assignment used in one CLAS 3
(online) and one CLAS 3 (face to face) courses from fall 2014 (which was in two parts:
Discussion Board and Editorial). The CLAS 3 Blackboard-based Discussion Board
Assignment measured outcomes number 1, 3, 4, and 5.
Semester Course
fall 2014
fall 2014
CLAS 3
online
CLAS 3
Part 1 (5% of
course grade):
first
Blackboard
Discussion
Percentage of
Students Who
Met Standard
Outcome
75%
Number
of
students
in the
class
Part1 (10% of
course grade):
first Editorial
Percentage of
Students Who
Met Standard
Outcome
Number
of
students
in the
class
48
75%
48
84%
42
71%
42
5
Semester Course
fall 2014
CLAS 3
online
fall 2014
CLAS 3
Part 2 (5% of
course grade):
second
Blackboard
Discussion
Percentage of
Students Who
Met Standard
Outcome
75%
Number
of
students
in the
class
Part2 (10% of
course grade:
second Editorial
Percentage of
Students Who
Met Standard
Outcome
Number
of
students
in the
class
48
48
93%
40
52%
(most of the ones
who did not meet
the standard did
not submit the
editorial)
70%
40
Section II.
Goal: CLAS 3 Introduction to Chicano/Latino Studies: Information Literacy
Assignment
(1) Measured outcomes:
The Information Literacy assignment was used in a lower division course this time. The
goal was for students to learn how to incorporate information literacy skills through a two
part assignment that imparts information literacy skills through library and classroom
activities in which students learn to access, evaluate, use and integrate information and
ideas found in print, media, and digital resources enabling them to function in a
knowledge-based economy and technologically-oriented society.
Students fulfilled a two part assignment process that was assessed by two
examinations. Through the assignment, the students’ knowledge on issues, such as
race/ethnicity, social class, and gender, are reinforced; sources of historic oppression of
Chicanos/as and Latinos/as are analyzed; critical thinking skills are demonstrated; and
using standard methodologies, the students’ ability to conduct research, critically evaluate
evidence, document the source of their information, and to write well-organized
arguments supported by evidence are demonstrated.
An assessment for the CLAS 3 Introduction to Chicano/Latino Studies (online and face to
face) courses Information Literacy assignment was based on a two part
assignment/examinations. The following standards in three categories were applied.
6
The benchmark standards are in three categories of information use and evidence on the
review rubric. The bench mark or expectation was that a majority of students in the
classes would be deemed proficient in each of these categories on the rubric.
The Information Literacy assignment used in the CLAS 3 course measured outcomes
numbers 1, 3, 4, and 5.
(1) Description:
Part one of the Information Literacy assignment required that the student to first
discuss information literacy issues, then to attend a library. Afterwards, they would take
an examination. Then the students would discuss the information literacy issues the first
part of the process brought up, especially the one dealing with validity. The second part
of the Information Literacy assignment consisted of an examination based on the
previous workshop, examination, and discussion about information literacy issues. Once
this examination was returned, the class discussed the two parts of the assignment.
(2) Results
The following are the percentages of students who met the standard outcome for
the Information Literacy assignment in a lower division course: one face to face CLAS 3
course and one online, fall 2014. The assessment measured outcomes numbers 1, 3, 4,
and 5.
Semester Part 1
Percentage of
Students Who Met
Standard Outcome
Number of Part2
students in Percentage of
the class
Students Who Met
Standard Outcome
fall 2014
fall 2014
online
course
42
48
70%
70%
73%
76%
Number
of
students
in the
class
42
48
The Department continued to examine and evaluate the evolving Blackboardbased Discussion Board Assignment. This time the Blackboard-based Discussion Board
Assignment was applied to lower level CLAS 3 Introduction to Chicano/Latino Studies
(online and face to face) courses, which measured outcomes numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
The results indicated that the majority of students met the standard outcome for the
Blackboard-based Discussion Board Assignment in both CLAS 3 (online and face to
face) courses. In the CLAS 3 online course, the low result of students who met the
standard outcome in Part 2, editorial part of the Blackboard-based Discussion Board
7
Assignment, was because most of the ones who did not meet the standard did not submit
the editorial. The issue here appears to be a student lack of consistency in following the
course schedule (dates, times, Module sequence), for which they as students are
responsible for. For the online course, reminders about deadlines and assignments will
be increased.
Despite this, the faculty observed from the available results that as a whole the
implementation of the Assignment reinforced knowledge about issues, such as
race/ethnicity, social class, and gender. It created more opportunities for the students to
prepare to for the writing assignments through low stakes exercises (e.g., Discussion
Board Blackboard student dialogue). Also, repetition of the exercises (two times over the
course of the semester) gave the students the chance to learn from previous mistakes,
from instructor feedback, and improve their writing and critical thinking skills. The
Assignment showed the students the importance of the re-writing and re-evaluating
process, as well as the responsibility of the students to meet deadlines. They gained
editing and writing experience thanks to the Assignment. Based on results of the
Blackboard-based Discussion Board Assignment, the indications are that most of the
students improved in their writing and critical thinking skills and understood
race/ethnicity, social class, and gender better.
In addition, the Department applied then Information Literacy Assignment to
CLAS 3 Introduction to Chicano/Latino Studies (online and face to face) courses,
measuring outcomes numbers 1, 3, 4, and 5. The Information Literacy Assignment is
aimed to impart information literacy skills through activities in which students learn to
access, evaluate, use, and integrate information and ideas found in print, media, and
digital resources enabling them to function in a knowledge-based economy and
technologically-oriented society. Most of the students met the standard outcome for the
Information Literacy Assignment in the online and face to face CLAS 3 course,
indicating a steady success.
The Department administered the questionnaire for the Chicano and Latin American
Studies 2014 Majors Survey, whose feedback data will assist the faculty members in
carrying on evaluation and application of assessment measures.
D. What changes did you make as a result of the findings?
CLAS faculty members continue to assess the Department’s achievement of the goals
and student learning outcomes and to improve the curriculum offerings based on the
results of assessment measures and outcomes. This is part of the engagement process
brought about by informed decisions for continuous improvement.
For the long term, the Department’s focus is on the areas of student communication
and critical thinking skills. Consequently, the Blackboard-based Discussion Board
Assignment writing aspect of the assignment has proven promising as well as the
8
Information Literacy Assignment. In addressing the focuses, the Department has
implemented and is enhancing—as part of the Department’s Action Plan—the curriculum
by continuing to redesign, modify, and/or create new/updated courses, e.g., a CLAS
102W Chicana/Latina Writing and Culture course (all undergraduate students must
demonstrate competency in writing skills at the upper-division [junior-senior] level as a
requirement for graduation. Students must complete Fresno State's writing requirement,
either by taking a course with a “W” designation or passing the writing exam). The
assessment results suggest that students are engaging issues, applying critical thinking,
and developing communication skills. With the assistance of the SOAP, the Department
will carry on with the commitment to enhance the curriculum by continuing to redesign,
modify, and/or create new/updated courses. In the years to come, the Department will
continue to address student weaknesses in the areas of communication and critical
thinking.
During the academic year, CLAS faculty worked to adjust the assessment measures to
address areas where students struggle, e.g., students initially having trouble developing a
focus for their assignment and writing coherently. Because of the favorable outcome of
the Blackboard-based Discussion Board Assignment and the Information Literacy
Assignment, the Department will carry on developing a version of the two tasks in CLAS
3 and the Blackboard-based Discussion Board Assignment in CLAS 120 in order to
advance communication and critical thinking skills.
The Department will administer a yearly questionnaire for the Chicano and Latin
American Studies Majors. This will give feedback, but because of the small numbers of
majors at the moment, it will take time to amass enough data to develop trends and assist
the faculty members in directing the process in carrying on evaluation and application of
assessment measures.
The faulty members continue to discuss the assessment issues to examine and
evaluate the evolving assessment measures (such as the Information Literacy
Assignment, Blackboard-based Discussion Board Assignment) and to monitor the
process and assure that the Department assessment plan is in place. For the long term, the
Department will examine and address the issues of student communication and critical
thinking skills along with consideration of available resources to assist in improving
student learning and development.
E. What assessment activities will you be conducting in the 2015-16
academic year?
a. Continuation of Blackboard-based Discussion Board Assignment and the
Information Literacy Assignment in CLAS 3 and Blackboard-based Discussion Board
Assignment in CLAS 120.
b. Department will continue to assess data from the Student Survey.
9
F. What progress have you made on items from your last program
review action plan?
*Department Action Plan, Five Year Vision (2015):
(1) Proposed action and expected outcome: Develop a plan of recruitment for the
majors, which might include more contact with community colleges and explore the
possibilities of an on-line degree.
Action taken:
(2) Proposed action and expected outcome: Enhance the curriculum by continuing
to redesign, modify, and/or create new/updated courses.
Action taken: CLAS 102W Chicana/Latina Writing and Culture course (all
undergraduate students must demonstrate competency in writing skills at the upperdivision [junior-senior] level as a requirement for graduation.
(3) Proposed action and expected outcome: Develop a better relationship with
majors and alumni, which might include the establishment of a CLAS students’ club,
institute a “Career Day” for CLAS Majors, and promote career/internship
networking with alumni.
Action taken:
(4) Proposed action and expected outcome Promote the B.A. in Chicano Studies,
which might include a promotional brochure and expand collaboration with
community colleges.
Action taken:
(5) Proposed action and expected outcome Establish a certificate in Mexican
Folkloric dance.
Action taken:
G. Appendix With Rubric
CLAS 3 Blackboard Discussion Board Assignment Review Rubric
In the Review Rubric, students who fulfilled the criteria within “meets standards”
were deemed proficient and students who had work with elements from the criteria for
“does not meet the standard” were deemed to not be proficient.
Editorial rubric Bb
10
CATEGORY
Position
Statement
Evidence and
Examples
Meets Standards
The position statement
provides clearly, or with
only a few problems, a
statement of the author's
position on the topic with
strong premises.
All or most of the evidence
and examples are specific,
relevant and explanations
are given that show how
each piece of evidence
supports the author's
position.
Does Not
Meets Standards
A position statement
is present, but does
not make the author's
position clear or there
is no position
statement.
Little or no evidence
and examples are
relevant AND/OR are
not explained.
Information
use
Information used in a
relevant, reliable manner
that is cited appropriately.
Little or no relevance
nor reliable
information used and
no appropriate
citation format.
Critical
Reasoning
Avoids or mostly flaws in
critical reasoning.
Flaws in critical
thinking or no critical
reasoning.
Organization
Arguments and support are
provided in a logical order
that makes it easy and
interesting to follow the
author's train of thought.
Grammar and
Spelling
All or most sentences are
well-constructed and avoid
errors in grammar and
spelling.
Closing
paragraph
The conclusion is strong
and leaves the reader
solidly understanding the
writer's position. Effective
restatement of the writer’s
position statement.
Comment(s)
Total Score
Many of the support
details or arguments
are not in an expected
or logical order,
distracting the reader
and making the essay
seem very confusing.
Sentences are not
well constructed and
contain an excessive
amount of grammar
and spelling errors.
The author's position
is not clear or there is
no conclusion— the
paper just ends.
Points
Department of Criminology
Criminology Master of Science
College of Social Sciences
Student Outcomes Assessment Plan (Soap)
I. Mission Statement
It is the mission of the Criminology Master of Science Program to create
a learning environment that prepares qualified students for
professional and research careers in Criminology, Victimology, Criminal
Justice, law and academia. Faculty through education, research, and
application of theory, policy, methodology, administration, and law
foster the graduate learning community. The Department of
Criminology Master of Science mission includes participation in faculty
research, community outreach, professional associations, and
mentoring for graduate students. The Department of Criminology’s
graduate mission complements the undergraduate mission and the
missions of the College of Social Sciences and the California State
University, Fresno.
II. Goals and Student Learning Outcomes
Goal 1: Graduate Criminology students will demonstrate the ability to
apply advanced discipline-related knowledge by successfully
completing a written research proposal and a final research paper
that meet the criteria as described in the Graduate Writing Skills
8-Oct-15
1
Rubric.
Outcome measurements:
1. The pre-test assessment will require students to submit a graded
research paper proposal in CRIM 200, Research Methodology, by the
end of the first month of instruction. Students will be provided with
a rubric for the writing skills test, referrals to the graduate writing
studio, and explanations of the APA format for writing formal
research papers. Additionally, the CRIM 200 instructor will give
students corrective feedback on their proposals by the end of the
first month of instruction. As needed, referrals for additional study,
library assistance, and tutoring will be recommended. .
The post-test assessment will occur during the last month of CRIM
200 instruction when the completed research paper is due and
graded. The paper will be evaluated to determine if students
addressed the deficiencies noted in the graded proposal. Students
will be given 10 days to revise their papers and resubmit them for
a grade. Students who successfully complete the research paper
will fill out a questionnaire at the end of CRIM 200 that is
designed to assess which intervention provided the greatest
assistance to them in learning to apply advanced disciplinerelated knowledge to their formal research-related writing; APA
style format, professors feedback, graduate writing studio, and/or
library assistance. Interventions that improve students’ abilities to
apply advanced knowledge to their discipline-related writing and
interventions that did not improve the learning outcome will be
noted by the Graduate Faculty Group to improve course design
and student learning outcomes.
8-Oct-15
2
Goal 2: Graduate Criminology students will apply discipline-related
knowledge to the criminal justice system. This will be demonstrated by
students’ responses to a series of questions derived from each of the
four core courses in the graduate program. These questions will form
the basis of midterm written examinations of student knowledge. The
pre-test will be administered in the mandatory midterm examinations
and the post-test will be completion of the comprehensives, the
project, or the thesis. Outcome measurements:
1. The first assessment activity (pre-test) will take place during the
mandatory midterm examination to be completed in class and
within the time allotted. The examinations will assess knowledge
about Law, Corrections, Victimology, Law Enforcement, and
Research Methodology.
2. The final assessment (post-test) will take place when graduate
students complete all requirements for graduation. Students must
demonstrate competency in Law, Corrections, Victimology, Law
Enforcement, and Research Methodology while completing the
comprehensive examination, the project, or the thesis. The
faculty graduate working group will assess the cumulative task in
order to improve graduate curriculum and student learning.
Goal 3: Graduate Criminology students will demonstrate oral
communication skills through class presentations and/or conference
presentations of discipline related knowledge and research as
described in the Graduate Oral Communication Rubric.
Outcome Measurements:
1. Students will present research related topics that address and
expand class assignments using oral communication. The oral
8-Oct-15
3
presentation will be graded for completion in the allotted time;
the vocal quality of the delivery must include attention to
volume, speed, fluency, clarity and pronunciation. Rapport
with the audience demonstrated through eye contact,
sensitivity to audience response and effectiveness of visual aids
will be graded under the rubric.
2. Students will be encouraged to participate in the Graduate
Research Consortium, American Society of Criminology,
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and/or Western Society
of Criminology.
III. Curriculum Map (Matrix of Courses X Learning Outcomes)
Graduate Outcome 1
Core
Discipline-related
Courses
Research & Writing
Outcome 2
CRIM 200 I
I
I
CRIM 201 I
R
R
CRIM 202 R
R
E
CRIM 203 A
A
E
CRIM 204 A
A
R
8-Oct-15
Outcome 3
Discipline-related Oral
Knowledge
Communication
4
CRIM 200-Research Methods
CRIM 201-Advanced Criminological Theory
CRIM 202-Law & the Criminal Justice System
CRIM 203-Criminal Justice Systems
CRIM 204-Quanitative Methods and Analysis
I-introduced, R-reinforced, E-emphasized, A-Advanced
IV.Assessment Methods
A. Direct Measures (at least three)
Goal 1:
Assessment 1: The pre-test will require students to submit a
graded research paper proposal in CRIM 200, Research
Methodology, by the end of the first month of instruction.
Corrections will be made and suggestions for additional
tutoring and assistance will be initiated (i.e. Graduate Writing
Studio, additional classes, independent work).
Assessment 2: The post-test assessment will occur during the
last month of CRIM 200 instruction when the completed
proposal, abstract, and research paper is due and graded.
Goal 2:
Assessment 1: The pre-test will take place during the
mandatory midterm in class examinations. Examinations will
assess knowledge about Law, Corrections, Victimology, Law
Enforcement, and Research Methodology in depth.
Assessment 2: The post-test will take place upon completion of
8-Oct-15
5
Goal 3:
Introduction to Oral Communication Assessment: Students
will be explained the importance of oral communication skills
during the mandatory orientation. Court testimony, client
interaction, leadership, and professional community
interactions require effective oral communication. A rubric will
be handed out to each student and included in the Graduate
Handbook. Questions will be encouraged for clarification of the
importance of the learning objective.
Assessment 1: Students will be evaluated in CRIM 202 and CRIM
203. A presentation will be assigned and graded using the oral
communication rubric. Students will be provided feedback and
faculty will make suggestions for improvement. A comparison of
CRIM 202 and CRIM 203 evaluations will be kept to determine if
feedback helped to improve student ability. Students may also
fulfill this requirement by presenting their research and work at
professional conferences.
Assessment 2: The presentation will be evaluated in terms of
discipline-related knowledge and research.
B. Indirect Measures (Alumni Survey is required)
1. Assessment #5: Alumni Survey
A survey will be developed and sent to Graduate Program
Criminology Alumni for whom valid addresses exist. The
purpose of the survey is to evaluate the graduates’ application
of discipline-related knowledge, efficacy of the graduate
8-Oct-15
6
curriculum, progression in their career, and elicit suggestions
for changes.
2. Assessment #6: Employer Survey
A survey will be developed and sent to employers. The
purpose of the survey is to evaluate the graduates’ abilities to
apply discipline-related knowledge to their positions, exhibit
professional oral communications skills, and the progress
within their career.
3. Assessments 5 and 6 will result in reports from the graduate
alumni and employers of those alumni.
V. Student Learning Outcomes X Assessment Methods Matrix
Outcome 1
Outcome 2
Discipline-related DisciplineResearch &
related
Writing
Knowledge
Outcome 3
Oral
Communication
Direct
Measures
Pre- and PostTests
X
Pre- and Post
Writing
X
8-Oct-15
X
7
Assessments
Oral
X
Communication
X
X
Indirect
Measures
Alumni Survey
X
X
X
Employer
Survey
X
X
X
VI.Timeline for Implementation of Assessment Methods and
Summary Evaluations
Year 2011 to 2012
Method 1. Questions will be solicited for the core courses
considered the foundation of graduate work.
Method 2. A rubric for graduate writing expectations will be refined
for presentation to students during orientation.
Method 3. A rubric for graduate oral communication expectations
will be constructed for presentation to students during presentation.
Year 2012 to 2013
Method 1. Questions will be solicited for the core courses
considered the foundation of graduate work and reviewed by
colleagues from other institutions.
Method 2. Students will be provided the writing rubric along with
an explanation of graduate writing expectations and resources for
8-Oct-15
8
improvement at the fall orientation meeting. Attendance is mandatory.
Method 3. Students will be provided the oral communication
rubric along with an explanation of graduate oral communications skills
expectations at the mandatory fall orientation meeting.
Year 2013 to 2014
Method 1. Questions will be solicited for the core courses
considered the foundation of graduate work and reviewed by
colleagues from other institutions.
Method 2. Students will be provided the writing rubric along with
an explanation of graduate writing expectations and resources for
improvement at the fall orientation meeting. Attendance is mandatory.
Method 3. Students will be provided the oral communication rubric
along with an explanation of graduate oral communications skills
expectations at the mandatory fall orientation meeting.
Method 4. An alumni survey to assess Outcomes #1 and #2 will be
conducted in Fall 2013.
Year 2014 to 2015
Method 1. Questions will be solicited for the core courses
considered the foundation of graduate work and reviewed by
colleagues from other institutions.
Method 2. Students will be provided the writing rubric along with
an explanation of graduate writing expectations and resources for
improvement at the fall orientation meeting. Attendance is mandatory.
Method 3. Students will be provided the oral communication
rubric along with an explanation of graduate oral communications skills
8-Oct-15
9
expectations at the mandatory fall orientation meeting.
Method 4. An employer survey to assess Outcomes #1 and #2 will
be conducted in Fall 2013.
Year 2015 to 2016: Review Year
VII. Closing the Loop - Summary Evaluation, Curriculum Adjustment,
and Reporting
The SOAP Committee will be responsible for gathering and reviewing
assessment data that will be used to make recommendations for
changes in the Master of Science Criminology Degree. The Criminology
Graduate Program has standardized its course offerings and has moved
to have a Graduate Coordinator and Co-Coordinator. This is to secure
transition of oversight and meet professional goals. The Graduate
Coordinator, Co-Coordinator, and the SOAP Committee have approved
the changes, the curriculum adjustment, and the assessment measures.
Short Term Measures: Every year students who have graduated will be
asked to assess the program using open-ended questions such as
“What worked? And What needs changing?” The assessment will be
completed with anonymity guaranteed and not opened until the
following semester. In this manner students will not feel threatened as
to the awarding of their degree or recommendations for employment.
Long Term Measures: The first review of data will take place in 20138-Oct-15
10
2014 as most students take two years to complete their degree.
However, any substantial issues will be addressed upon consultation
with the SOAP Committee forthwith. Issues to be determined are the
relationships between GREs in the lower 50%, GPAs less than 3.2, and
success in the program.
The data will be input into the statistical software, and the findings will
be presented at a department meeting followed by discussion about
possible modification or changes to the curriculum and undergraduate
learning.
8-Oct-15
11
Department of Criminology
Undergraduate Learning Outcome Assessment AY 2014‒15
1) What learning outcomes did you assess this year?
The following are the outcomes assessed this year:
Learning Outcome #1: Students will demonstrate discipline-related knowledge in Criminology
and Criminal Justice.
Learning Outcome #2: Students will demonstrate proficiency in basic writing skills.
Learning Outcome #4: Students will demonstrate their ability to apply critical thinking and
discipline-specific knowledge to evaluate situations and make decisions in their specific field.
G.E. Learning Outcome Assessed, GE Area B4: Reported separately; refer to the GE
Learning Outcome Assessment Report
1) Represent and explain mathematical information beyond the level of intermediate algebra
symbolically, graphically, numerically, and verbally.
2) Apply mathematical models of real-world situations and explain the assumptions and
limitations of those models.
3) Use mathematical models to find optimal results, make predictions, draw conclusions,
and check whether the results are reasonable.
In addition, the final report assessing the effectiveness of the MyWritingLab was completed in
2014 (Assessment Mini-Grant) and a summary of the report is included in 3.3.
A rubric for the communication skills assessment was developed and is included in the Appendix.
2) What instruments did you use to assess the outcomes (if this does not align
with the outcomes and activities detailed in the time line of the SOAP,
please provide an explanation of this discrepancy)?
2.1 Employer Survey (Direct Measure)
The employer survey was used to assess Learning Outcomes 1, 2, and 4. (Scheduled and
implemented AY 2014‒15)
Assessment Measures:
The employer survey questions include respondent ratings of skill and satisfaction with the
criminology major graduates. Likert scales and open-ended questions were used to collect the
information. This assessment is to explore the needs of the students, and no benchmark was set.
1
Sample:
The employer survey was sent in Spring 2015 to a list of criminal justice agencies.
The following are the list of the agencies to which the survey was distributed.
Kings County Probation Department—Victim Witness
Crime Victim Assistance Center—Fresno County Probation Dept.
Centro La Familia
Fresno County Sheriff’s Dept.
City of Clovis Police Dept.
City of Fowler Police Dept.
City of Firebaugh Police Dept.
City of Kerman Police Dept.
City of Sanger Police Dept.
City of Selma Police Dept.
Fresno County Public Defender
West Care
Turning Point (federal program)
CDCR—Valley State Men’s Prison
Kings County Probation Department
Madera County Probation Department—Adult Services
Fresno County Probation—JJC (commitment institution)
2.2 Students’ Critical Thinking Writing Sample (Direct Measure):
Assessment Measures:
The students were required to read an article related to domestic violence and answer some
critical thinking questions. The assessment was administered during class time.
Assignment Guidelines & Questions:
Read “Charles Barkley defends Adrian Peterson: It’s a matter of race, region” and find the main
or most important claim made by the author, and the points and key evidence that supports the
claim. Think about how much evidence is offered and whether or not if it were correct it would
be enough to demonstrate that the claim is true. After carefully considering all of these issues,
write an extended paragraph in response to each of the following questions. Please note that you
will have three extensive paragraphs and should be specific when making references to points or
evidence from the document.
2
1) What major claim or argument is the author making?
2) Has the author provided evidence that is relevant and that if correct would be sufficient to
demonstrate that their claim/argument is true?
3) Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses, if there are any, of the argument.
Sample:
The assessment was administered for the CRIM 140 class (Family Violence) in Fall 2014. The
total number of students enrolled in the class was 37. There were one sophomore, five juniors,
and 31 seniors.
The following rubric was used to score the writing skills. The benchmark is 3.0 in each section.
Level of Achievement
Specific skill
Assesses problem,
question, or issue
Analyzes supporting
points and data or
evidence
Indicates that
argument is sound
OR identifies major
flaws in argument
Exceeds Expectations
Meets Expectations
Developing
Emerging
4
3
2
1
Identifies the main claim
or issue clearly and
accurately. Student also
identifies other aspects of
the issue and information
essential to analyzing the
issue.
Identifies whether
evidence is verifiable and
if correct would prove the
conclusions true.
Identifies a main issue
and has made some
attempt to identify other
issues. Does not state as
a main issue, a minor
point or piece of
evidence.
Examines and discusses
the structure of the
argument whether
conclusion would be true
if premises were true
and evidence was
verifiable.
Summarizes issue but
some implicit aspects
are incorrect or are not
clearly stated. Key
details are missing or
only superficially
addressed.
Discusses points and
evidence and structure
of argument but either
does not clearly state
points or does not
provide enough
information.
Identifies the structure of
the argument; clearly
identifies all fallacies and
major problems or issues
with the structure of the
argument or identifies all
key evidence/data and
how it supports the
conclusion.
Identifies the structure
of the argument; clearly
indicating the majority of
the fallacies or other
major flaws with
argument (stating them
clearly enough to be
understood) or identifies
most key evidence/data
and how it is used to
support conclusions.
Attempts to identify the
structure of the
argument; indicates at
least one of the
fallacies or major
problems with the
argument or indicates
at least some of the key
evidence/data and how
it is used to support the
conclusions.
Does not attempt to or
does not clearly identify
the main argument issue
or problem.
Does not really discuss
points or evidence in
terms of the structure of
the argument. Does not
indicate if conclusions
would be true if points
were true or if evidence is
verifiable.
Does not identify any
fallacies or problems with
arguments or does not
identify any key
evidence/data or make
any attempt to show how
evidence supports
conclusions.
Note: The Criminology Department was a participant in the Critical Thinking Signature
Assignment Committee in Fall 2014, and the standardized rubric was developed from that
initiative.
3) What did you learn from these data?
3.1. Employers’ Survey Findings
3
Although the sample size did not permit us to run any statistical analysis, the responses from the
employers in the criminal justice agencies indicated that our students need to improve
communication, writing, and critical thinking skills.
For example, one comment noted that:
Graduates should possess a stronger command of the English language in displaying
spoken and writing skills. College offers broader insight in thought and education,
opening one’s thought processes to many different avenues of life. This exposure
enhances one’s critical thinking. My expectation is that students have to write research
papers, utilizing a broad range of deductive reasoning and analytical skills to successfully
complete their course of study. Students should, or need to, make presentations
demonstrating public speaking and communicative skills to their colleagues and their
instructors. Finally, students should be challenged in a variety of examination processes
to ensure that they have a firm grasp of their studies. All these aspects of academic study
in some fashion or another are ostensibly employed throughout the law enforcement
process.
Interpersonal skills are other areas that need to be addressed.
Face-to-face communications is extremely critical in the field of criminal justice,
therefore students should display the ability to interact with others with the appropriate
interpersonal skills and boundaries.
Overall, the rating from employers about whether Fresno State graduates performed as well or
better than other employees is between 2 (disagree) and 3 (neutral). Also, the rating regarding
Fresno State graduates being prepared as well or better than other employees is between 2
(disagree) and 3 (neutral).
In addition, the Chief Probation Officer Chavez in Fresno County mentioned at the Advisory
Board meeting that the critical thinking skills and writing proficiency of their employees are the
two main concerns in his Department.
3.2. Students’ Writing Sample
Critical Thinking Rubric:
The rubric was used to assess the students’ critical thinking skills (Outcome 4).
The average score for “Assesses Problem, Question, or Issue” was 2.68, which is below the
benchmark. The average score for “Analyzes Supporting Points and Data or Evidence” was
2.48, which is below the benchmark. The average score for “Identifies that Argument is Sound
OR Identifies Major Flaws in Argument” was 2.22, which is below the benchmark.
4
Level of Achievement
Assesses problem,
question, or issue
Analyzes supporting points
and data or evidence
Indicates that argument is
sound OR identifies major
flaws in argument
Exceeds
Expectations
(4)
4
(10.8%)
3
(8.1%)
2
(5.4%)
Meets
Expectations
(3)
20
(54.1%)
15
(43.2%)
12
(32.4%)
Developing
(2)
Emerging
(1)
10
(27%)
16
(40.5%)
16
(43.2%)
3
(8.1%)
3
(8.1%)
7
(18.9%)
The majority of the students were able to meet expectations to assess the problem and analyze
supporting points and evidence. However, the majority of the students failed to identify major
flaws in the argument. The scores across the three areas are consistent; a few individuals
exceeded all the areas, but there were a few students who scored “Emerging” for all three areas.
Those who received “Emerging” or all categories had serious grammar and mechanical problems
in writing.
3.3. Using the Technology in the Classroom to Improve Students’ Learning
Outcome Assessment of the MyWritingLab Software in Graduate, Online, and
Traditional Undergraduate Classes in Criminology
This study evaluated an alternative method to teach writing skills by examining the effectiveness
of the writing software (MyWritingLab) for criminology classes. The students who were enrolled
in two sections (the online and regular lecture classes) of CRIM 100: Criminology were asked to
complete the practice modules. Then, the study assessed the advancement of their writing skills
by examining the pre- and post- scores generated by the software.
Key Findings
•
•
•
•
•
The students using the MWL improved an average 2.69 points from pre-test to post-test,
and the difference was statistically significant. However, the degree of improvement was
marginal compared to what was previously reported.
The students were progressively improving their writing skills. The average mastery
score of senior students (83.39) was 6.8 points higher than that of sophomore students
and 5.01 points higher than that of junior students.
Cumulative GPA was statistically related to the degree of progress and the overall
mastery score.
The majority of the students (58%) felt that the MWL helped them improve their writing
in the class.
The students felt that the most useful function of the MWL was Pearson Tutor Services,
followed by the Write Click and Learning/Grammar modules.
5
•
•
•
•
•
A higher incompletion rate was observed in the online class. Overall, 46% of the online
students were not able to finish the modules by the due date compared to 12% of the
traditional class students.
Many stated that the MWL practice was too time-consuming and repetitive and that it
should be implemented in an English class or a W class rather than a discipline-related
class.
The sub-analysis indicated that female students in the online class had the lowest
completion rate. Also, female students were less likely to feel that their writing was
improved using the MWL.
The students for whom English is a second language were more likely to agree that the
MWL improved their writing, but the actual level of progress was less than that of native
English speakers.
Although the sample size was limited and further analysis is necessary, there were some
differences observed among ethnic groups. A higher percentage of African-American
students failed to complete the program. Asian students had the highest completion rate
but showed the least progress in learning. White students showed the most progress using
the MWL.
Please refer the complete
report: http://www.fresnostate.edu/academics/oie/documents/assesments/2014/052814-MWL-Report201314.pdf
4) What changes did you make as a result of the findings?
The following items were discussed at the Department meetings.
1. Discipline-Related Knowledge and Professionalism and Changes: Outcome 1
(Discipline-Related Knowledge)
Having a clear career plan at the early stage of degree progress and being exposed to
professionals in the field help students focused on the needed skills. Therefore, the Department
will make various opportunities for students to be exposed to professionals in the field.
a. Having guest speakers from each of the options for CRIM 1 class.
b. Asking Career Services to present at CRIM 1 class.
c. Exploring more placements for internships.
d. Having alumni panels of graduates within the past 3–5 years who are at a stage that the
students will soon be entering.
e. CRIM 1 (Strategies for Success) class will invite alumni guest speakers.
2. Proficiency in Basic Writing Skills and Critical Thinking Skills
The proficiency of writing and critical thinking skills are closely related. In fact, most of the
students who received a lower score in the critical thinking assessment also had issues in writing.
The Department revisited ways to improve the students’ writing.
6
One of the ideas that discussed at the retreat was to offer a “W” section in Criminology.
a. Possibly having a section of 100 as a W course and offering one course each semester.
b. Having an additional set of readings that has to be a book on writing practices.
c. Making a small class with a capacity of 25 students.
After the discussion, the faculty voted and decided that it would not pursue a “W” section at this
point, but will keep the idea in mind and discuss it in the future after we hire more faculty
members.
3. Monitoring the Progress of the Students Using E-Portfolios
The Department of Criminology had a faculty meeting to discuss the use of E-Portfolios
(Pathbrite) for GE assessment purposes. Upon finding out more information about the process of
assessing student work using the E-Portfolio, the faculty raised several concerns as follows:
1. Having a GE Assessment Committee assessing material/content outside of their field (e.g.,
the assignment may be well written but factually inaccurate, and how would faculty outside
the field have the content knowledge for assessment purposes).
2. Requiring students to pay to place materials in E-Portfolios.
3. Having faculty members’ intellectual property (e.g., assignments/test prompts) on
E-Portfolios, which could easily be shared/replicated.
4. Additional workload issues of having to separate certain questions/assignments for placement
on the E-Portfolio.
Therefore, the Department decided not to implement Pathbrite for the GE assessment purposes
until all the concerns are addressed. The Department will revisit the usage when the status
changes.
5) What assessment activities will you be conducting in the 2015‒16 academic
year?
Reflection papers from the Internship will be evaluated for discipline-related knowledge.
(Outcome #1)
Reflection papers from the Internship will be evaluated for critical thinking skills. (Outcome
#4)
The project report from Statistics and Computer Applications in CJ will be evaluated for
methodological and statistical competency. (Outcome #5 and GE Area )
7
6) What progress have you made on items from your last program review
action plan?
The Department of Criminology underwent the last program review in 2010-2011. At that time,
the following were added to the Action Plan to improve the undergraduate program/curricula:
•
To develop an Alumni Survey that evaluates both Criminology courses and
Criminology’s knowledge base.
Completed in 2014. Please see the previous section for a more detailed discussion of the Alumni
Survey in the AY 2013–14 SOAP report.
•
To develop a Field Placement Survey that evaluates the student’s preparation for
their internship.
Ongoing. The internship coordinator has been reaching out to agencies and gathering
information about the students. The internship evaluation forms will be reviewed to understand
the specific areas that need to be addressed.
•
To develop an Employer Survey that evaluates the agency’s satisfaction with
Criminology’s graduates and the adequacy of their education.
Completed in 2015. Please see the previous section for a more detailed discussion of the Alumni
Survey in the AY 2014–15 SOAP report.
•
To further develop the Department’s international programs with Tokiwa
University and others.
Ongoing. A meeting with Provost Lynnette Zelezny and Dr. Paul Hoffman at Fresno State and
President Nobuho Tomita from Tokiwa University, Japan, to explore research and student
exchange programs in victimology between the two institutions occurred on September, 8, 2014.
•
To hire additional tenure-track faculty for the continued development of
undergraduate and graduate programs.
The Department of Criminology hired one faculty for a tenure-track position starting in AY
2015–16, following on from two tenure-track hires that started in AY 2014-2015.
An additional five tenure-track faculty for the Department of Criminology will be hired for AY
2016–2017. The sixth position with Africana Studies is also in process.
•
Revise all four options taking into account the student and field surveys noted
above.
8
Ongoing. The Department of Criminology had a retreat in February 2015 to specifically discuss
curricular issues. The following are some examples of what was discussed at the meeting. More
detailed information is in the CRIM retreat report.
a. The Corrections Option would like to create a Topics (CRIM 160T) course, Punishment
in Society, initially offering it as an elective course.
b. The Law Enforcement Option would like to develop courses with a more distinct focus
on law enforcement.
c. The FBS Option would like to add more psychology courses for an elective cluster.
d. The Victimology Option is exploring a collaborative partnership with the Humanics
program, which is run by Sociology.
•
Evaluate each of the common Core courses for all options.
Ongoing. The Department of Criminology had a retreat in February 2015 to specifically discuss
curricular issues.
a. Discussion on configuring CRIM 170 (Research Methods) to be more option specific to
policing and law enforcement, but that would make it a separate course. Discussion
tabled at this time.
b. The FBS option is looking at possibly substituting PSYCH 144 (Research Methods, a
rigorous five-unit course) for CRIM 170H.
•
Offer additional sections of two of Criminology’s General Education courses, CRIM
120, Juvenile Delinquency and CRIM 153, Psychology of Crime.
The number of course offerings of CRIM 120: Juvenile Delinquency and CRIM 153: Psychology
of Crime has remained consistent since our last program review.
In addition to those two GE courses, the Department made CRIM 50 count toward GE Area D3
effective from Fall 2015.
•
Develop a greater number and variety of law enforcement elective courses.
Ongoing. The Department of Criminology had a retreat in February 2015 to specifically discuss
curricular issues.
The following changes were proposed during the meeting.
a. Law Enforcement needs a course that deals with organized crime, terrorism, and/or
cybercrime.
b. CRIM 110 (Police in America) can move up as a required course to give Law
Enforcement a more distinct focus.
•
Clarify the Department’s undergraduate learning objectives.
Ongoing. The Department of Criminology is closely working with the COSS SOAP coordinator
to ensure our assessments comply with the WASC requirements.
9
•
Refine and simplify the current undergraduate SOAP.
Ongoing. The Department of Criminology is closely working with the COSS SOAP coordinator
to ensure our assessments comply with the WASC requirements. The Department participated in
the Critical Thinking Signature Assignment Committee in Fall 2014 and developed a
standardized rubric to assess critical thinking skills.
•
Develop across the board departmental learning objectives that are easily measured
by looking at course syllabi.
Ongoing. The Department of Criminology is closely working with the COSS SOAP coordinator
to ensure our assessments comply with the WASC requirements.
•
Examine current entry standards to the major with major consideration toward
changing our GPA requirements.
The Department of Criminology had a retreat in February 2015 to specifically discuss curricular
issues. Any changes in entry standards must comply with Impaction, and the Department will
closely communicate with the Dean’s Office in addressing the matter.
•
Expand both the distance learning and Off-Campus programs to increase student
and community access.
Ongoing. Move to offer more courses in a hybrid model and online courses to better meet the
varying schedules of off-campus students in the program and to be more competitive with
schools that offer accelerated/online programs.
There has been a great increase in the number of fully online courses offered within the
Department. From 2004-2009, a total of 25 online courses were offered. In comparison, between
2010 – Fall 2014, 100 sections of fully online courses have been offered. The number of
Distance Learning Courses has remained consistent.
Across Summer and Fall 2015, two courses will be offered for Sheriff’s Office employees on a
fully online basis.
•
Expand internship placements and Service Learning courses.
In-progress. The internship course is required for students in the Law Enforcement, Corrections,
and Victimology options, and serves as an elective for FBS option students. The new internship
coordinator has been working closely with local agencies to expand the placements.
In 2004-2009, a total of 49 sections of internship were offered to 1,099 students. Together these
internships provided a total of 129,280 hours of service. From 2010 until Fall 2014, a total of 47
internship sections were offered to 1,175 students who donated 141,000 hours of service.
10
11
Department of Criminology AY 2014‒15
G.E. Learning Outcome Report
1) What learning outcomes did you assess this year?
GE Learning Outcomes: GE Area B4
Outcome 1: Represent and explain mathematical information beyond the level of intermediate
algebra symbolically, graphically, numerically, and verbally.
Outcome 2: Apply mathematical models of real-world situations and explain the assumptions
and limitations of those models.
Outcome 3: Use mathematical models to find optimal results, make predictions, draw
conclusions, and check whether the results are reasonable.
2) What instruments did you use to assess the outcomes?
Sample:
The Department used the students’ project samples from CRIM 50 enrollees in Spring 2015.
Assessment Measures:
The rubric that was approved by the GE Committee was used for this assessment. The scale
ranged from one to four. The benchmark is 2.5, or C, in each section.
Quantitative Literacy
4
1) Representation
Ability to convert information
from the mathematical form
All relevant
conversions are
present and
correct.
2) Assumptions
Ability to evaluate and explain
the assumptions
All assumptions
are present and
justified.
3) Analysis/Synthesis
Ability to make and draw
conclusions based on
quantitative analysis
Uses correct and
complete
quantitative
analysis to make
relevant and
correct
conclusions.
3
2
Some correct and
relevant conversions are
present, but some
conversions are
incorrect or not present.
At least one correct and
relevant assumption,
yet some important
assumptions are not
present.
Some information
is converted, but it
is irrelevant or
incorrect.
No conversion is
attempted.
Attempts to
describe
assumptions and
implications, but
none of the
assumptions
described are
relevant.
An incorrect
quantitative
analysis is given to
support
conclusions.
No assumptions
present.
Quantitative analysis is
given to support a
relevant conclusion, but
it is either only partially
correct or partially
complete.
12
1
Either no
reasonable
conclusion is made
or, if present, is not
based on
quantitative
analysis.
7) What did you discover from these data?
The average score for Representation was 3.17, which met the benchmark. The average score
for Assumption was 2.8, which met the benchmark, but was the lowest among the three
categories. The average score for Analysis was 3.11, which met the benchmark.
Class average
Representation
Assumption
Analysis
3.17
2.8
3.11
8) What changes did you make as a result of the findings (if your annual
report last year indicated that data were still being analyzed, please report
changes made this year based on the completed analysis of that data)?
It seems that most students were able to choose and apply appropriate statistics to analyze the
data and discuss the relationship between cultural institutions and delinquency. Therefore, the
Department found that no major changes would be necessary. We will continue to incorporate
the GE goals in the classes offered by the Department. As this class was not supported by the SI
program, we will explore the possibility of SI support for more sections of CRIM 50.
9) What assessment activities will you be conducting in the 2015‒16 academic
year?
This is the first semester that CRIM 50 became a GE Area B4. Therefore, we will continue to
assess the student class project for assessing the GE Area B4 learning outcomes using the same
rubric used for this year. The benchmark is 2.5, or C, in each section.
1) Represent and explain mathematical information beyond the level of intermediate algebra
symbolically, graphically, numerically, and verbally.
2) Apply mathematical models of real-world situations and explain the assumptions and
limitations of those models.
3) Use mathematical models to find optimal results, make predictions, draw conclusions,
and check whether the results are reasonable.
13
CoSS
Criminology B.S.
Student Outcomes Assessment Plan (SOAP)
I.
Mission Statement
The general mission of the Department of Criminology at California State University, Fresno, is
to offer high-quality educational opportunities to qualified students at the bachelor’s degree
level. The Department of Criminology’s mission statement for undergraduate education
includes 1) offering quality academic programs, 2) promoting and enhancing the teaching and
learning experience of students and faculty, 3) preparing students for entry into criminal justice
system agencies, and 4) preparing students for graduate education. The mission will be
accomplished in an environment of mutual respect and support among students, faculty, and
staff. The Department of Criminology’s undergraduate mission will complement the
Department’s overall mission and the missions of the College of Social Sciences and California
State University, Fresno.
II. Goals and Student Learning Outcomes
1. Students will attain discipline-related knowledge and writing skills
that prepare them for long-term careers in Criminology and
Criminal Justice.
Outcome 1: Students will demonstrate discipline-related knowledge in Criminology and
Criminal Justice.
Definition of proficiency in discipline-related knowledge: Students can correctly and
accurately define and describe key criminological terms, theories, and specific examples from
criminal law, as well as various aspects of the criminal justice system.
Benchmark (Old): Students will pass CRIM 20 and CRIM 100, in which these definitions and
concepts are taught, with a C or above and will be given pre- and post-tests to verify their
proficiency in this area. (This assessment was administered during 2011‒2013.)
Benchmark (New): The reflection papers assigned in CRIM 1 (freshman) and the Internship
(Senior) will be evaluated using a critical thinking rubric. Senior students will have a higher
score on the critical thinking rubric to meet expectations (the data collection for this assessment
will start from Fall 2015).
14
Outcome 2: Students will demonstrate proficiency in basic writing skills.
Definition of basic writing skills: student’s ability to write a paper with appropriate use of skills
in mechanics, organization, and format.
Benchmark: Students will receive a 3 out of 5 score on the writing rubric used by criminology
in addition to receiving a B or better as their grade for the paper.
2. Students will be able to identify, locate, access, and use information
relevant to their inquiries and be able to cite this information
appropriately.
Outcome 3: Students will access the needed information effectively and efficiently and evaluate
the information and its sources critically.
Benchmark: Proficiency in information literacy will be demonstrated either by completing a
pre- and post -information literacy test and scoring above an 85% or by earning a grade of B or
better in CRIM 170 (H), which is the Research Methods Class.
3. Students will think critically and will apply specific knowledge and
skills in order to evaluate situations according to professional values
and ethics and make appropriate decisions.
Outcome 4: Students will demonstrate their ability to apply critical thinking and disciplinespecific knowledge to evaluate situations and make decisions in their specific field.
Benchmark: Students who complete internships will write a paper explaining their thought and
decision-making process, and these papers will be evaluated using a critical thinking rubric.
Students must score 4 out of 5 on the critical thinking rubric to meet expectations.
4. Methodological and statistical competency: Understand basic
research and quantitative strategies for uses specific to criminal
justice and criminology.
Outcome 5: Students will perform data analysis, interpret the findings, and make statistical
conclusions.
Benchmark: Students will receive either an A or B on a specific statistics assignment and will
receive a 3 out of 5 on a quantitative reasoning rubric.
15
III. Curriculum Map (Matrix of Courses × Learning Outcomes)
Core Courses:
All Options
Lower Division
CRIM 1
CRIM 2
CRIM 20
CRIM 50
Upper-Division
Core
CRIM 100
CRIM 112
CRIM 114
CRIM 170
CRIM 170H
CRIM 120 (GE)
Upper-Division
Requirements
CRIM 180
CRIM 180H
CRIM 181
CRIM 181H
CRIM 182
CRIM 182H
I-Introduced
Outcome 1
Knowledge
Outcome 2
Writing
Outcome 3
Information
Literacy
Outcome 4
Critical
Thinking
I
R
R
I
R
R
I
R
R
I
R
R
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
M
M
M
M
M
M
R-Reinforced
M
M
M
M
M
M
E-Emphasized
M
M
M
M
M
M
M-Mastered
M
M
M
M
M
M
Outcome 5
Quantitative
Reasoning
I
R/E
R/E
M
M
M
IV. Assessment Methods
A. Direct Measures
1. Pre- and post-tests and papers (information literacy): Pre- and post-tests will be
given to assess the extent to which students are information literate. The pre-exam
will be given on the first day of instruction and the post-exam will be given on the
last day of instruction. The information literacy test contains 15 questions related to
library searches, use of specific information/evidence, and the APA format. Papers
written by students will also be evaluated to determine the extent to which they
have identified, utilized, and correctly cited the most appropriate sources.
2. Papers: One-page analysis papers, as well as other assigned papers, will be
evaluated to determine the critical thinking skills (demonstrated by the application
of knowledge and use of examples to support conclusions) and writing skills of
16
students.
Internship reports written by students will be evaluated.
3. Quantitative assignments/exercises: Student in-class assignments will be used to
assess quantitative skills. The percentage of students who are able to complete the
assignments properly and reach accurate conclusions will be used for the
assessment (CRIM 50). A rubric will be used to evaluate assignments.
B. Indirect Measures
1. Reflection papers: A dual approach to the introduction of reflection papers will be
taken.
a) Beginning in Spring 2015, students who have applied for graduation will be asked
to submit a reflection paper commenting on the extent to which the Criminology
program at Fresno State has prepared them for their chosen career.
b) Beginning in Spring 2014, students entering the Criminology program will be
asked to submit a reflection paper commenting on their future career plans and
academic goals. The Criminology Department will in a matter of a few years be
able to match up reflections submitted during students’ first and last years as
majors and be able to determine how and in what ways students changed and
acquired key skills and experiences during their time in the program.
2. Alumni survey: The survey will ask students a number of multiple-choice and shortanswer questions and assess their experience with the Department in terms of
critical thinking, discipline-related knowledge, writing skills, and information literacy.
3. Employer survey: The employer survey will ask supervisors to evaluate the
knowledge, critical thinking, written communication, and information literacy skills
of Criminology majors that they have hired.
V. Student Learning Outcomes × Assessment Methods Matrix
17
Outcome 1
Outcome 2
Outcome 3
Outcome 4
Outcome 5
Knowledge
Writing
Information
Literacy
Critical
Thinking
Quantitative
Reasoning
Direct Measures
Pre- and post-tests
X
X
Pre- and post-tests
X
X
X
Term papers
X
X
X
X
Quantitative
assignments/exercises
X
Indirect Measures
Alumni survey
X
X
X
X
Employer survey
X
X
X
X
Reflection papers
X
VI.
X
Time Line for Implementation of Assessment Methods and Summary Evaluations
Year 2011 to 2012
Revision of SOAP including development of new learning outcomes, assessment measures, and surveys.
A pilot test was also conducted to collect data to use for evaluating assessment measures.
Pre- and post-tests (knowledge) were administered.
Internship evaluations were administered.
Year 2012 to 2013
Pre- and post-information literacy exams were administered.
Pre- and post-exams assessing writing were administered.
Pre- and post-tests (knowledge) were administered.
Internship evaluations were administered, and the findings will be discussed in Year 2013 to 2014.
Year 2013 to 2014
18
The internship evaluation was assessed and discussed.
A minor revision was made to comply with the WASC requirements.
Papers assessing writing and information literacy were administered and the results discussed (GE).
An alumni survey was administered and the results discussed.
Pre- and post-tests (MyWritingLab) for assessing writing proficiency were administered, and the findings
will be discussed in Year 2014 to 2015.
Year 2014 to 2015
The findings of the pre- and post-tests (MyWritingLab) will be discussed.
Quantitative assignments/exercises will be administered.
An employer survey will be administered.
Reflection papers (critical thinking) will be collected.
The rubric for the communication skills assessment will be developed.
Year 2015 to 2016
Reflection papers from the Internship will be evaluated for discipline-related knowledge. (Outcome #1)
Reflection papers from the Internship will be evaluated for critical thinking skills. (Outcome #4)
The project report from Statistics and Computer Applications in CJ will be evaluated for methodological
and statistical competency. (Outcome #5, GE Outcome Area B4)
19
Appendix: Communication Skills Rubric
Presentation Rubric
Chapter Presentation Grading
1) Organization
A. Clear organization. Stays focused throughout.
B. Mostly organized, but loses focus once or twice.
C. Somewhat organized, but loses focus 3 or more times.
D No clear organization to the presentation.
2) Content
A. Incorporates relevant course concepts into presentation where appropriate.
B. Incorporates several course concepts into presentation, but does not incorporate key concepts that
are relevant to presentation.
C. Incorporate one or two course concepts into presentation. Some course concepts discussed are not
relevant to topic.
D. Course concepts are not integrated into presentation or are not appropriately integrated.
3) Quality of Slides
A. Slides support the presentation, are easy to read and understand. Slides contain no spelling or
grammatical errors.
B. 80% of the slides are easy to read and understand. Others contain too much information or have an
illegible font. One or two spelling or grammatical errors are present.
C. 50% of the slides are easy to read and understand. Others contain too much information or have an
illegible font. Three to five spelling grammatical errors are present.
D. 80% of the slides are difficult to read and understand. Others contain too much information or have
an illegible font. More than five spelling grammatical errors are present.
4) Quality of Conclusion
A. Clearly organized conclusion that wraps up the topic well, ties speech together, and has a note of
finality. Smooth transitional flow from body of presentation into summarization.
B. Conclusion is not complete or organized. Transition flow from the body or the presentation to the
conclusion is not smooth.
C. Disconcerting flow from body of presentation into conclusion. Speaker moves from body of
presentation into conclusion without a smooth, consistent flow.
D. Conclusion omitted. Speech just ends, it does not feel complete. Presentation does not end in a
smooth manner.
5) Voice Quality, Pace
A. Voice is clear, easy to hear and understand. Speaker enunciates. Pace is neither too fast nor too
slow.
B. Problems exist with either enunciation or pace, but these problems occur for less than 20% of the
speech.
C. Problems exist with either enunciation or pace, and these problems occur for more than 50% of the
presentation.
D. Voice is not clear, hard to hear and understand. Speaker mumbles. Pace is either too fast or too slow.
A: 90–100 points; B: 89–80 points; C: 79–70 points; D: 69 or below
20
Student Outcomes Assessment Spring 2015
Department of Geography
1.What learning outcome(s) did you assess this year?
Outcome 4: They will explain and critically evaluate how the physical and biotic
environments affect humans.
Outcome 6: They will be able to read, interpret and construct maps.
2. What instruments did you use to assess them?
Our department conducted an alumni survey or indirect measure this year
whereas in previous years we have assessed student work directly. While some
information related to our SOAP outcomes can be inferred from the responses,
unfortunately our alumni survey questions did not perfectly match up with these
outcomes. We used a previous survey that was designed before we revised our
SOAP and SLO’s without considering the extent to which the changes made
would impact the usefulness of the information generated. We did, however,
gain some valuable information from the respondents even though it was not as
closely aligned to the outcomes as desirable. Approximately 300 surveys were
sent to alumni on April 21, 2015 and they were given 10 days to respond.
Sixteen alumni responded to the survey.
3. What did you discover from these data?
The findings were as follows:
(Note: Not all students answered all questions, some gave more than one
response, and all percentages were also rounded. Percentages therefore may
not add up to 100%).
•
On a scale of very satisfied to very dissatisfied, 56% of respondents were
somewhat satisfied with the overall quality of geography major courses,
while 44% were very satisfied.
•
On a scale of very satisfied to very dissatisfied, 50% of respondents were
somewhat satisfied with the overall quality of the geography faculty
members, while 44% were very satisfied, and 1% were somewhat
dissatisfied.
•
75% of respondents were currently employed, while 19% were not
currently employed, and 13% were currently seeking employment.
1
•
On a scale of very helpful to not helpful at all, 50% believed their degree
was very helpful in helping them achieve/move toward their career goal.
25% believed their degree was helpful. 19% believed it was somewhat
helpful and 1% believed it was not helpful at all.
•
On a scale of very useful to not useful at all, 44% responded that the skills
they acquired in the geography program were useful for their current work.
25% of the respondents stated somewhat useful. 13% of the respondents
stated very useful. 13% stated not useful at all.
•
Regarding what the alumni considered to the strengths of the department,
the following indicate the responses and students were able to select
more than one strength so the percentages exceed 100%:
o 69% responded faculty quality
o 19% responded training received
o 56% responded student environment
o 63% responded curriculum/degree content
o 44% responded cultural diversity
o 1% responded financial support
o 25% responded research opportunities
o 50% responded scheduling availability
o 50% responded quality of advising
o 25% responded career development opportunities
•
Regarding what the alumni considered to be weaknesses of the
department, the following indicate the responses and students were able
to select more than one strength so the percentages exceed 100%:
o 13% responded faculty quality
o 38% responded training received
o 1% responded student environment
o 25% responded curriculum/degree content
o 13% responded cultural diversity
o 13% responded financial support
o 50% responded research opportunities
o 13% responded scheduling availability
o 13% responded quality of advising
o 38% responded career development opportunities
o 13% responded other
•
On a scale of very satisfied to very dissatisfied, 63% of respondents were
very satisfied with advising. 19% were somewhat dissatisfied, 13% were
somewhat satisfied, and 1% were very dissatisfied.
•
44% of respondents felt their current job to be within the field of
geography, while 31% felt their current job was not within the field of
geography, and the topic was not applicable to 25%.
2
•
75% of respondents would choose to pursue a degree in geography from
Fresno State if they had to do it over again, while 25% would not.
In summary, the positive aspects of the survey were that the majority of students
felt department advising was very helpful and would pursue a degree in
geography from Fresno State again if they had to do it over again. Students
polled do not seem to have been entirely consistent in their responses. For
example, 66% of students indicated in one question that they felt the Geography
degree was useful for their career but only 44% indicated in the next question
that they thought the skills they learned in the program were useful for their
current work. While these questions are not identical which might explain the
difference in positive responses since students may have thought the questions
were asking something slightly different the two questions are very closely
related and it is surprising that there is such a significant difference in the positive
responses. Furthermore, no students indicated that they were dissatisfied with
faculty on the question that offered a range between very satisfied and very
dissatisfied, however 13% of students indicated that faculty were an area of
weakness which is not entirely consistent. It does suggest that while students
think there could be some improvement by faculty they are nonetheless satisfied
with their performance. Overall, most students responded positively to survey
questions but the survey must be revised to align with current SLO’s and in a
way that allows the department to gain more meaningful insight from the
responses.
It is clear however, that research opportunities and career development
opportunities are areas our department needs to work on since 50% of students
thought research opportunities were a weakness of the program and 38%
thought that career development opportunities were a weakness.
4. What changes did you make as a result of the findings?
Curriculum changes have already been underway for quite some time as we are
building our degree program in Planning. We are also discussing converting
courses and/or developing service learning courses and boosting our internship
program to address career development opportunities.
On a more obvious note, our alumni survey will change to include questions
more directly related to our outcomes and re-desgined to limit contradictory
answers.
5. What assessment activities will you be conducting in the 2015-16 academic
3
year?
We will be doing a pre and post test in Geog 115 to measure Outcome 3:
They will explain and critically evaluate how human activities modify physical and
biotic environments.
6. What progress have you made on items from your last program review
action plan?
Action #1: SOAP
We have greatly improved our SOAP each year since the last program review.
In fact, at one point our SOAP was the most complete in the college. We have
done an alumni survey every 3 years.
Action #2: Curriculum Review
The Review Team recommended to the department to modify its curriculum by
eliminating the “Major Areas of Concentration” and replacing them with a set of
required Upper Division Core courses. We have created Upper Division Core
courses for our new City & Regional Planning option. While we do not have an
Upper Division Core for our Geography major, we have simplified the curriculum
such that students now take one course from each area of concentration.
Action #3: Increase the number of majors
The Review Team recommended that the department find creative ways for
maintaining the FTES at the same time that it increases the number of majors.
The Team also stated that “a structural shift away from spending high quality and
scarce resources on GE courses to spending them on majors is needed to
improve and grow the undergraduate program, and ultimately reinstate a
master’s program.
Increasing majors has still been a struggle, however we hope our increased
efforts in the area of planning will bring new interest to the department. In the
meantime, we continue to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Participate in university outreach events.
Renew contacts with the local community colleges.
Organize our Geography Forum Lecture Series.
Explore the possibility of making a recruitment video.
Complete the ongoing modernization of the department website.
Organize community events for Geography Awareness Week.
Enforce all university and department mandatory advising schedules to
keep students on track
4
•
Serve as the home base for the National Geographic Geography Bee.
Action #4: Strengthen Research
The faculty is very active in many research areas including air quality,
recreational planning, archaeological explorations, waste management, health
and diseases, mosquito abatement, and international business. Much of the
research addresses concerns in Fresno, as well as other cities in the San
Joaquin Valley. The faculty plans to continue to engage in research that will
benefit the community in many ways.
Action #5: Expand Program by adding more Minors
In addition to our minor in Geography and our minor in Urban Studies, we now
also have a minor in Meteorology, a certificate in Geographic Information
Systems, and an option in City & Regional Planning.
Action #6: Master’s in City and Regional Planning
Although our efforts to develop a master’s degree in City and Regional Planning
did not come to fruition, we now have an option in City & Regional Planning, and
are developing a B.S. in City & Regional Planning. Our department name has
also changed to Department of Geography and City & Regional Planning to
better reflect our curriculum changes.
5
History M.A. Assessment Report for AY 2014-2015
1. What learning outcomes did you assess this year?
SLO 5. Students will give a presentation at either a conference or an HGSA (History Graduate
Students Association) event OR will work with a professor on research OR complete an
internship. [Demonstrate application of and effective communication of knowledge]
2. What instruments did you use to assess them?
Ad indicated in the History Department SOAP, we will measure application of knowledge in part
by evaluating the following:
Oral Presentation – Faculty will use a rubric to assess the oral presentations that students give
as part of the requirements for a specific course or will use the rubric to assess a presentation
given at a conference or HGSA meeting. The ability of students to effectively identify key points
and analyze sources will be evaluated. Student presentations at the Graduate Student Symposium
may also be used to evaluate both effective oral communication and adherence to professional
standards of conduct.
During the Fall 2014 semester, we used an assignment given in History 297 and the syllabus
description of that assignment is as follows:
1. Students will complete the equivalent of a chapter of their thesis.
a. Students will meet with their advisors at the beginning of the semester to organize
a research plan, which will include a timeline for submitting drafts of their work.
b. Students will submit a final version of their paper at the end of the semester. It
will be worth 70% of their grade.
c. Students will present their work in class during the last two weeks of the
semester. Presentations account for 30% of their final grade.
Expectation or Benchmark: For this assessment, the History Department used a holistic rubric
and expected 90% of students to demonstrate proficiency which in this case would be a score of
2 or 3 for the oral presentation rubric.
3. What did you discover from the data?
The faculty who evaluated the outcome immediately noticed that while the Goal stated on
the History M.A. SOAP indicated that students would be able to effectively apply and
communicate their knowledge, the outcome does not clearly indicate what skill students
will demonstrate. Therefore, the outcome will be revised so that like the broad goal it is
specific about what students will be able to do. Therefore, for the purposes of this
assessment activity and report the actual outcome being assesses is the effective
application and communication of content knowledge. There were fourteen students in
History 297 and we assessed all fourteen student presentations using the holistic rubric.
The instructor of the course initially evaluated these presentations and the History
Department assessment coordinator also evaluated the presentations. The holistic rubric
was scored on a three point basis, students either did not meet, met, or exceeded the
expectations/requirement (See Appendix1). Of the fourteen students, seven students
exceeded the minimum requirements to demonstrate proficiency and received a 3 out of 3
for their score while four of the students met the expectation and received a 2 out of 3 as
their score. Two of the students clearly did not meet the requirements and were given a
score of 1. This is a total of thirteen students and the final or fourteenth student was
difficult to evaluate because he met some of the criteria such as having a basic content
knowledge but did not meet other criteria such as effective organization or presentation.
Since the student met some of the criteria and not others and it was a holistic rubric, this
made it difficult to score but ultimately the two professors decided that the presentation
had more weaknesses than strengths and thus deemed to have not met expectation.
Overall, 11 out of 14 students (or 79%) met the benchmark and this was just slightly
below or desired level of performance.
4. What changes did you make as a result of the findings?
The History Department faculty agree that 11 out of 14 students demonstrating
proficiency in oral presentations sufficiently meets our expectations. Especially in light of
the fact that we have just increased the emphasis on having all M.A. students give a
presentation comparable to formal conference presentations in a course , at the HGSA
symposium or at an actual conference. This new emphasis is designed to increase the
ability of students in the M.A. program to be able to apply and more effectively
communicate their knowledge. The History Department is going to continue this
increased emphasis and will evaluate oral presentations again the year after next and is
confident that more than 90% of students will meet the benchmark or standard at that
point since all M.A. students will have taken courses that incorporate the new emphasis
on presentations. As previously noted, the actual SLO with be revised to clearly state the
skill that students must demonstrate. The department will also review the time-line of
planned assessment activities to be sure that all outcomes will be measured more than
once in a five to seven year period.
5. What assessment activities will you be conducting in the 2015-2016 academic year?
Collect History 200B Papers
Compare 200B papers to Culminating Projects
Administer Exit Survey
6. What progress have you made on items from your last program review action plan?
History Department Action Plan
California State University, Fresno
August, 2015
This Action Plan reflects the fact that we have already accomplished some of the items
mentioned in our review.
1. Assessment for both undergraduate and graduate degree programs has been improved.
2. We successfully hired Dr. Frederik Vermote (a specialist in Modern China) for our Asian
history position and we have formalized Dr. Lopes’ position as our historian of Mexico.
During the 2015-2016 academic year the department will conduct searches for a public
historian who can increase interaction with and outreach to the community and an Islamic
historian who would enable the department to increase its non-western offerings.
3. The department chair reviews all syllabi each semester for compliance with university
standards. The department has reviewed the syllabi of all part-time faculty to be sure that
they have appropriate learning outcomes in addition to meeting other requirements.
4. We have changed our curriculum to reflect changes in the field of history. Students will
now be required to take History 20 and 21 instead of History 1 and 2. This will help
credential students who will now have six units less of course work. This is a reduction
of units for a least a quarter of majors. Furthermore, many students complete the
bachelor’s degree and later enter the credential program and these students will also
benefit. The department has proposed curriculum changes that will enable students to
take the History 100W course before their senior year thus demonstrating proficiency
prior to their last year in the program.
Action Plan Items and Steps Taken:
1.
Continue to work on assessment plans and closing the loop in assessment. Continue
to discuss assessment results and make changes as necessary according to assessment
results.
Progress: In conjunction with the on-going efforts of the University to improve
student success and achieve more consistent assessment to provide data for the
upcoming WASC review, the History Department has already taken and will continue
to implement specific actions in regard to student assessment. The department has
revised its undergraduate and graduate SOAP plans by reducing the number of goals
and outcomes and changing our measures to align them more closely with our
outcomes. The department has introduced new measures focused on writing
assignments to measure G.E. outcomes instead of relying on a pre and post test. The
department has revised its senior survey and created an alumni survey to determine
the extent to which graduates are prepared for graduate school and/or the job market.
The department has also taken steps to assess students earlier in the program by
collecting History 4 assignments and analyzing this data. Deficiencies. The
department is currently considering implementing an e-portfolio requirement that
would require students to create a collection of work that would enable us to do more
thorough comparisons of student work over time.
2. Advising. Two reviews ago our reviewers noted a great deal of discontinuity in our
student advising. In response the department assigned a single person advising duties and
arranged for them to have six units of release time. As a result of budget cuts, all
departments in our college lost their release time for advising. Although each faculty
member remains responsible for specialized advising, content advising and career
planning, we would hope to make degree advising much more consistent.
1. Progress: Students with unique issues are referred to the Chair of the Department
who either assists them or refers them to someone (often in advising services) who
can work with them to resolve the issue. During the 2014-2015 academic year,
President Castro approved and funded the creation of a centralized advising center for
every college that did not already have such a center. COSS has hired two full-time
advisors who will be responsible for G.E. and initial major advising which should
improve consistency. History faculty will continue to meet with students to advise
them on graduate schools, career options, and other specialized opportunities.
2. We want to continue to work on the university’s goal of internationalization. Several
of our faculty have already taught abroad but we would like to see many more
students taking advantage of opportunities to study abroad.
Progress: A recent College of Social Sciences initiative that provides some
scholarship money for student travel should help with this endeavor. Dr. DenBeste
took a group of 17 students to Russia in summer 2014. Dr. Lopez took approximately
18 students to Italy as part of a Study Abroad Program in June of 2015. Dr. Jordine
took 18 students, 15 of which were History Majors, to Central Europe as part of a
WWII & Holocaust study abroad trip in July 2015. These trips in addition to
requiring students to read and write papers on topics in European History also greatly
expanded their cultural knowledge and gave our students direct experience in
interacting with individuals with different backgrounds and perspectives than their
own. The department also hopes to be able to recruit additional international
students to our program.
3. We strongly support undergraduate research opportunities and will continue to
encourage our students to apply for university funding for research. We have also
been encouraging students to present at the regional Phi Alpha Theta history
conference. In addition we are exploring ways to begin a History Honors program.
Increasing the numbers of students working on undergraduate research projects
remains a long-term goal.
Progress: Several of our students have worked with faculty mentors to apply for and
have received undergraduate research awards from the Dean of Undergraduate
Studies. No steps have been taken towards creating a History Honors Program. A
College Honors Program has been created but no History students participated in the
first cohort. Two or three will be participating in the second cohort.
4. The graduate program generally received excellent reviews at all levels. We have
already improved recruitment and retention. We have had many students this year
and last attend conferences and give research presentations. We have reviewed and
will continue to review our graduate level outcomes. The most pressing issue related
to all of these concerns however, is graduate advisement (as noted by the review
committee). We have always had a graduate advisor. However, in connection with
recent budget cuts the advisor has been reduced from 6WTU release a year to 3WTU.
Keeping a larger graduate program afloat, planning research opportunities for
students, keeping students abreast of opportunities in their field and keeping our
graduate program current is a big task for one person. We will continue to seek
creative ways to fund an additional 3WTU release for our graduate coordinator.
Progress: Even with an improved budget situation, and the continued growth and
success of our graduate program, we have not been able to secure the additional 3
WTUs of release time for the graduate coordinator. The HGSA (History Graduate
Student Association) Organization sponsors a symposium every year and again this
year there were a diverse array of graduate students, both our own and several from
other institutions, presenting. This year, for the first time, we recorded several
presentations by our own students and used them to assess the oral communication
skills of students in our program.
5. Future Hiring. We believe that hiring a Public historian would allow us to connect
with new programs across campus and with the community in a much stronger way.
A Public Historian would raise the profile of our department and college throughout
the Central Valley by engaging with community organizations, libraries, historic
sites, and county archives. Should our numbers justify it, we would eventually like to
hire a French and/or Intellectual historian.
Progress: The department has been granted a search for a public historian for the
2015-2016 academic year.
6. The Jewish Studies Certificate Program (JSCP) was launched in Spring 2013 under
the auspices of the department and is now in its first full academic year. The JSCP
incorporates and encourages interdisciplinary collaboration across campus, in
addition to providing opportunities for community-campus interchange, student
involvement, and curriculum development. The department plans to continue to
support the evolution of the JSCP.
Progress: The Department continue to offer courses that are part of this certificate
(History 129T: Anti-semitism) and History 140 (The Holocaust) and to support the
JSCP.
Appendix 1:
History M.A. Oral Presentation Holistic Grading Rubric Spring
2015
Organization, Delivery,
and Content Knowledge
Developing – 1
Does not meet criteria
Proficient – 2
Meets criteria
Advanced –3
Exceeds criteria
Ideas are not entirely
focused or presented in
a logical order. The
delivery detracts from
the message
(mumbling, excessive
motion or fidgeting,
articulation is sloppy).
Student does not have
an adequate or in-depth
knowledge of the
material and inaccurate,
generalized, or
inappropriate
supporting material
may be used. Sources
are not clearly
indicated.
Main ideas are clearly
presented and there is a
logical flow or order to
the material. The
delivery is effective
overall but there are a
few incidents of
mumbling or fidgeting.
The student has a
sufficient understanding
of the material and the
supporting material is
appropriate and
sufficient. At least most
of the sources are
indicated.
All of the main and
supporting points are
clearly presented and
the order is coherent
and highly effective.
The delivery is very
effective, with virtually
no incidents of
mumbling or fidgeting,
and also very engaging.
The student has an
advanced knowledge of
the content and the
supporting points are
extremely relevant and
more than sufficient to
prove the claims. All
sources of information
are clearly identified.
History Undergraduate Assessment Report for 2014-2015
1. What learning outcomes did you assess this year?
The History department assessed the following outcomes:
Student Learning Outcome 4: Students will demonstrate critical thinking skills by analyzing
sources, evaluating information and sources for accuracy.
Student Learning Outcome 5: Students will identify and analyze appropriate and inappropriate
interpretations and conclusions based on specific sources or information.
The G.E. outcomes assessed this year are discussed in the G.E. assessment report.
2. What instruments did you use to assess them?
Museum Exhibit Project – In History 140 (Holocaust), students created a Pathbrite eportfolio, focused on their assigned topic, that represented/constituted a museum exhibit.
Students first did research and submitted a historiography paper and then created their digital
exhibit. The e-Portfolios were required to include information from secondary sources and
either excerpts or entire primary sources as well as images, videos, and newspapers articles.
Students were also required to write a reflection indicating their analysis and any conclusions
they based upon the information in the sources they used. Two History faculty members
scored the ePortolios using a rubric (See Appendix 1) The History Department expected a
minimum of 90% of students to receive a score of 3 or 4 in the rubric area of making
connections and also in the area of the quality of their reflection since this is an upperdivision course in which a high number of seniors who are history majors enroll.
Critical Thinking Signature Assignment – Dr. Jordine coordinated the faculty committee that
created the signature assignment and also gave the assignment in her History 4 course. This
project recruited faculty and actively engage them in the process of designing a signature
assignment. Working collectively, faculty created a common working definition for the term
critical thinking, develop and agreed upon the specific criteria that were used to determine if
students had achieved proficiency, created a signature assignment that was utilized by
multiple departments in each college, created a rubric for evaluating the assignment, and
evaluated this assignment. The committee decided to have students read a recent article from
a non-peer reviewed journal and write out extended paragraph answers to three questions that
required them to analyze the main argument of the article (See Appendix 2). The committee
chose to exclude peer reviewed articles because they tend to be highly structured and free of
fallacies and other common weaknesses in arguments. The committee collectively evaluated
the assignments by creating and using a critical thinking rubric. (See Appendix 2). The
History Department expected a minimum of 75% of students to receive a 3 or 4 in all three
areas scored by the rubric.
3. What did you discover from the data
History 140 – Holocaust Exhibit ePortfolios: A total of 35 students submitted ePortfolio
exhibit and all of the exhibits that were submitted were evaluated using the rubric. A total of
27 or 77% of the 35 students met the criteria of a 3 or 4 in the area of making connections.
This is slightly lower than our expectation but there were five non-majors in the class and it
is more difficult for these students to make meaningful connections based on multiple
historical sources. The comments on the rubric forms make it clear that most students were
able to identify and discuss artifacts and analyze the different kinds of content, such as
excerpts from primary sources and video documentaries, that they included in their exhibit
ePortfolio. Thus, despite the fact that the scores were slightly lower than our benchmark, it is
clear that a majority of students demonstrated proficiency in making connections between
different course content and other sources they used. In terms of the quality of their
reflections 31 of 35 students or 89% met the expectation and this is just shy of the 90% we
required. The reflection focused on learning and growth more than specific connections
between different sources and this explains why more students were able to meet this criteria
than the previous one. Overall, the quality of these assignments was very high and the
department has concluded that in regard to critical thinking in terms of specific analysis of
sources and reaching conclusions that students were able to demonstrate their ability to a
sufficient degree.
100
80
60
Series 1
40
Series 2
20
0
met expectation in making met reflection expectations
connections
History 4 – Critical Thinking Signature Assignment
There were a total of forty students in my History 4 course and most of these students were
sophomores who had recently completed a course in the A3 or Critical Thinking G.E. area.
However, the students did not perform well on this critical thinking measure. Only 52% of
students could accurately identify or assess the claim, only 33% could analyze the evidence,
and only 25% could evaluate the overall strengths and weakness of the article accurately
identifying any fallacies in the argument. These results are surprising given that students
have performed at a higher level on other critical thinking assignments that have been
evaluated, including the History 140 assignment described in the previous section, during
previous semesters. However, the other critical thinking assignments were more closely
related to disciplinary assignments and knowledge and none of the other assignments
required students to be familiar with deductive reasoning or to be able to identify fallacies in
very specific terms.
The students in my section performed less well than the average of students who completed
the assignment in the five different courses and who were included in the official results. It is
important to note that only those students who were close to graduation (juniors or seniors
with three or fewer semesters to graduation) were included in the official study and thus my
students are not being compared to the scores of freshman or sophomores in other courses. A
total of one hundred and ten students who were seniors or juniors with only two additional
semesters until graduation completed the assignment. Essentially, the first criterion
determined if students could assess (identify) the main claim of an argument, the second
criterion determined if students could accurately analyze evidence and indicate if the
evidence was relevant to the claim and sufficient to prove the claim was true, and the third
criterion determined if students could evaluate the key strengths and weaknesses of the
argument including identifying any fallacies present. Of the one hundred and ten students at a
point near graduation that completed the assignment: 68% of the students were able to assess
claims; 64% of students were able to analyze evidence; and 53% of students were able to
evaluate strengths and weaknesses accurately including recognizing fallacies. The difference
between the average for all students and the average in my course is significant and therefore
of concern. It should be noted that upper-class students did perform on average higher than
lower-class students and that two of the courses in which the assignment were given were
science classes in which deductive reasoning and fallacies are stressed. Nevertheless, further
evaluation of the critical thinking skills of history majors and their ability to analyze
arguments is warranted given the results of this assessment.
Critical Thinking Signature Assignment Results Compared
80
70
60
50
identify
40
analyze
30
evaluate
20
10
0
History 4
Average of all students
near graduation
4. What changes did you make as a result of the findings?
The History Department discussed the results for both assessments and agreed that no
immediate changes will be made aside from the curriculum changes already submitted.
The department has submitted a curriculum change proposal that would require students
to take the History 100W courses prior to their last year in the program and that would
slightly change the focus of this course to encompass critical thinking in addition to the
focus on constructing evidence based arguments and demonstrating proficiency in
writing. The department will implement additional evaluations of critical thinking
assignments and depending on the result may suggest changes to the content of our
Historical Skills course. The History Department will be conducting an analysis of
writing in both major and G.E. courses this year since the faculty have informally noted a
trend in increasing patterns of weak or inconsistent writing. The department will also
more thoroughly review assignments and SLO’s to be sure that they are closely aligned
before implementing each of the planned assessment activities.
5. What assessment activities will you be conducting in the 2015-2016 academic year?
a) History 4 Papers and History 100W Research Paper Comparison
b) Writing Assignment in History 11 or 12 (G.E. Assessment)
6. What progress have you made on items from your last program review action plan?
History Department Action Plan
California State University, Fresno
August, 2015
This Action Plan reflects the fact that we have already accomplished some of the items
mentioned in our review.
1. Assessment for both undergraduate and graduate degree programs has been improved.
2. We successfully hired Dr. Frederik Vermote (a specialist in Modern China) for our Asian
history position and we have formalized Dr. Lopes’ position as our historian of Mexico.
During the 2015-2016 academic year the department will conduct searches for a public
historian who can increase interaction with and outreach to the community and an Islamic
historian who would enable the department to increase its non-western offerings.
3. The department chair reviews all syllabi each semester for compliance with university
standards. The department has reviewed the syllabi of all part-time faculty to be sure that
they have appropriate learning outcomes in addition to meeting other requirements.
4. We have changed our curriculum to reflect changes in the field of history. Students will
now be required to take History 20 and 21 instead of History 1 and 2. This will help
credential students who will now have six units less of course work. This is a reduction
of units for a least a quarter of majors. Furthermore, many students complete the
bachelor’s degree and later enter the credential program and these students will also
benefit. The department has proposed curriculum changes that will enable students to
take the History 100W course before their senior year thus demonstrating proficiency
prior to their last year in the program.
Action Plan Items and Steps Taken:
1.
Continue to work on assessment plans and closing the loop in assessment. Continue
to discuss assessment results and make changes as necessary according to assessment
results.
Progress: In conjunction with the on-going efforts of the University to improve
student success and achieve more consistent assessment to provide data for the
upcoming WASC review, the History Department has already taken and will continue
to implement specific actions in regard to student assessment. The department has
revised its undergraduate and graduate SOAP plans by reducing the number of goals
and outcomes and changing our measures to align them more closely with our
outcomes. The department has introduced new measures focused on writing
assignments to measure G.E. outcomes instead of relying on a pre and post test. The
department has revised its senior survey and created an alumni survey to determine
the extent to which graduates are prepared for graduate school and/or the job market.
The department has also taken steps to assess students earlier in the program by
collecting History 4 assignments and analyzing this data. Deficiencies. The
department is currently considering implementing an e-portfolio requirement that
would require students to create a collection of work that would enable us to do more
thorough comparisons of student work over time.
2. Advising. Two reviews ago our reviewers noted a great deal of discontinuity in our
student advising. In response the department assigned a single person advising duties and
arranged for them to have six units of release time. As a result of budget cuts, all
departments in our college lost their release time for advising. Although each faculty
member remains responsible for specialized advising, content advising and career
planning, we would hope to make degree advising much more consistent.
1. Progress: Students with unique issues are referred to the Chair of the Department
who either assists them or refers them to someone (often in advising services) who
can work with them to resolve the issue. During the 2014-2015 academic year,
President Castro approved and funded the creation of a centralized advising center for
every college that did not already have such a center. COSS has hired two full-time
advisors who will be responsible for G.E. and initial major advising which should
improve consistency. History faculty will continue to meet with students to advise
them on graduate schools, career options, and other specialized opportunities.
2. We want to continue to work on the university’s goal of internationalization. Several
of our faculty have already taught abroad but we would like to see many more
students taking advantage of opportunities to study abroad.
Progress: A recent College of Social Sciences initiative that provides some
scholarship money for student travel should help with this endeavor. Dr. DenBeste
took a group of 17 students to Russia in summer 2014. Dr. Lopez took approximately
18 students to Italy as part of a Study Abroad Program in June of 2015. Dr. Jordine
took 18 students, 15 of which were History Majors, to Central Europe as part of a
WWII & Holocaust study abroad trip in July 2015. These trips in addition to
requiring students to read and write papers on topics in European History also greatly
expanded their cultural knowledge and gave our students direct experience in
interacting with individuals with different backgrounds and perspectives than their
own. The department also hopes to be able to recruit additional international
students to our program.
3. We strongly support undergraduate research opportunities and will continue to
encourage our students to apply for university funding for research. We have also
been encouraging students to present at the regional Phi Alpha Theta history
conference. In addition we are exploring ways to begin a History Honors program.
Increasing the numbers of students working on undergraduate research projects
remains a long-term goal.
Progress: Several of our students have worked with faculty mentors to apply for and
have received undergraduate research awards from the Dean of Undergraduate
Studies. No steps have been taken towards creating a History Honors Program. A
College Honors Program has been created but no History students participated in the
first cohort. Two or three will be participating in the second cohort.
4. The graduate program generally received excellent reviews at all levels. We have
already improved recruitment and retention. We have had many students this year
and last attend conferences and give research presentations. We have reviewed and
will continue to review our graduate level outcomes. The most pressing issue related
to all of these concerns however, is graduate advisement (as noted by the review
committee). We have always had a graduate advisor. However, in connection with
recent budget cuts the advisor has been reduced from 6WTU release a year to 3WTU.
Keeping a larger graduate program afloat, planning research opportunities for
students, keeping students abreast of opportunities in their field and keeping our
graduate program current is a big task for one person. We will continue to seek
creative ways to fund an additional 3WTU release for our graduate coordinator.
Progress: Even with an improved budget situation, and the continued growth and
success of our graduate program, we have not been able to secure the additional 3
WTUs of release time for the graduate coordinator. The HGSA (History Graduate
Student Association) Organization sponsors a symposium every year and again this
year there were a diverse array of graduate students, both our own and several from
other institutions, presenting. This year, for the first time, we recorded several
presentations by our own students and used them to assess the oral communication
skills of students in our program.
5. Future Hiring. We believe that hiring a Public historian would allow us to connect
with new programs across campus and with the community in a much stronger way.
A Public Historian would raise the profile of our department and college throughout
the Central Valley by engaging with community organizations, libraries, historic
sites, and county archives. Should our numbers justify it, we would eventually like to
hire a French and/or Intellectual historian.
Progress: The department has been granted a search for a public historian for the
2015-2016 academic year.
6. The Jewish Studies Certificate Program (JSCP) was launched in Spring 2013 under
the auspices of the department and is now in its first full academic year. The JSCP
incorporates and encourages interdisciplinary collaboration across campus, in
addition to providing opportunities for community-campus interchange, student
involvement, and curriculum development. The department plans to continue to
support the evolution of the JSCP.
Progress: The Department continue to offer courses that are part of this certificate
(History 129T: Anti-semitism) and History 140 (The Holocaust) and to support the
JSCP.
Appendix 1:
Rubric for evaluating History 140 E-portfolios Exhibit Projects
E-portfolio Rubric
Academic
Artifacts:
Is there evidence
that the student is
engaged in his/her
learning process?
Have all the
necessary artifacts
been included?
Exemplary - 4
Course related
content contains a
variety of superior
demonstrations of
applied learning.
Accomplished- 3
Course related
content contains
some variety and
demonstrates solid
applied learning
Developing -2
Course related content
shows little variety
and demonstrates
adequate applied
learning
Novice – 1
Course related
content is limited
and/or not a
thorough
demonstration of
applied learning
Connections
Does the student
demonstrate s/he
is making
connections
between different
course
materials/artifacts?
Is the eP expressive
and engaging?
A variety of
connections are
made between
different areas of
coursework;
expressiveness of
personality is
clearly apparent in
the content and
creativity of the eP
Some connections are
made between
different areas of
content/artifacts.
Expressiveness is
clearly evident in the
content and creative
arrangement of the
artifacts.
A few connections are
made but they are not
extremely significant
and little evidence of
expression or
creativity is evident in
the eP.
No connections
are made between
different content
areas/artifacts and
there is no
expression or
creativity evident
in the eP.
Reflection
Is there evidence
that the student
has learned
something?
That growth has
occurred?
Reflection is
complete, deep,
consistent and
demonstrations
thoughtful
consideration of
multiple
levels/perspectives.
Reflection is
thoughtful and covers
several levels and/or
perspectives.
Some reflection is
included but it is not
deep or thoughtful
and remains on a
surface level and/or is
not clearly expressed.
Reflection is not
included at all or is
very limited and
not clearly stated.
Appendix 2: Critical Thinking Signature Assignment
Questions students answered in extended paragraphs:
1) What major claim or argument is the author making?
2) Has the author provided evidence that is relevant and that if correct would be sufficient to
demonstrate that their claim/argument is true?
3) Evaluate the strengths and weakness, if there are any, of the argument.
Rubric
Level of
Achievement
Specific skill
Exceeds Expectations
4
Meets Expectations
3
Developing
2
Emerging
1
Assesses problem,
question, or issue
Identifies the main
claim or issue clearly
and accurately. Student
also identifies other
aspects of the issue and
information essential to
analyzing the issue.
Identifies a main issue
and has made some
attempt to identify
other issues. Does not
state as a main issue, a
minor point or piece of
evidence.
Summarizes issue but
some implicit aspects
are incorrect or are
not clearly stated.
Key details are
missing or only
superficially
addressed.
Does not attempt to or
does not clearly identify
the main argument
issue or problem.
Analyzes
supporting points
and data or
evidence
Identifies whether
evidence is verifiable
and if correct would
prove the conclusions
true.
Discusses points and
evidence and
structure of argument
but either does not
clearly state points or
does not provide
enough information.
Indicates that
argument is sound
OR identifies major
flaws in argument
Identifies the structure
of the argument; clearly
identifies all fallacies
and major problems or
issues with the structure
of the argument or
identifies all key
evidence/data and how
it supports the
conclusion.
Examines and
discusses the structure
of the argument
whether conclusion
would be true if
premises were true and
evidence was
verifiable.
Identifies the structure
of the argument;
clearly indicating the
majority of the
fallacies or other
major flaws with
argument (stating
them clearly enough to
be understood) or
identifies most key
evidence/data and how
it is used to support
conclusions.
Does not really discuss
points or evidence in
terms of the structure of
the argument. Does not
indicate if conclusions
would be true if points
were true or if evidence
is verifiable.
Does not identify any
fallacies or problems
with arguments or does
not identify any key
evidence/data or make
any attempt to show
how evidence supports
conclusions.
Attempts to identify
the structure of the
argument; indicates
at least one of the
fallacies or major
problems with the
argument or indicates
at least some of the
key evidence/data
and how it is used to
support the
conclusions
ASSESSMENT REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE FOR THE
BACHELORS DEGREE IN POLITICAL SCIENCE ASSESSMENT
AY 2014-15
BACHELORS DEGREE PROGRAM
This report is organized around the six questions asked in the Department / Programs Annual
Report Guidelines.
Question #1: What learning outcomes did you assess this year?
We assessed all learning outcomes this year by doing three things. First, we conducted our
annual pre-test / post-test measuring student knowledge relevant to the discipline of political
science, a direct measure assessing learning outcomes 1, 3, and 4 in our SOAP. The second was
the assessment of student writing ability in the discipline of political science, which is a direct
measure of learning outcomes 2 and 3. Third was our assessment of student analytical ability by
having them write public policy memos (this is a new direct measure this year) which assesses
learning outcomes 2 and 5.
Question #2: What instruments did you use to assess them?
The knowledge of political science outcome measure is assessed with our pre-test / post-test.
This is a quiz that asks six fundamental questions regarding knowledge that should be acquired
as part of a political science degree. The quiz was developed by the political science department
faculty in 2007, with a revision done in 2010.
The second outcome measure, writing ability, is assessed with the research paper writing rubric
that the department developed in 2006 and has used consistently ever since.
The third assessment instrument was the rubric designed a couple of years ago by faculty to
assess the writing of policy analysis memos in our public policy-making class (PLSI 150).
Question #3: What did you discover from these data?
Pre-test / post-test knowledge assessment
As laid out in our SOAP, the knowledge measure is assessed with pre-test and post-test quizzes.
The pre-test is always given in our introductory course, PLSI 1. We then administer the exact
same quiz to all graduating seniors. The results presented here are the results of the post-test
administered this year compared with pre-test from four years ago, which is more or less the time
when these same students likely took PLSI 1. In 2009-10 the average pre-test grade was 3.73 on
a scale of 1 to 6 (the highest possible average score is 6). This is the base-line against which we
assess student knowledge when they graduate. The 2014-15 post-test average was 5.44, which is
the highest post-test score we have ever had (and 0.09 higher than last year). Students are clearly
acquiring knowledge relevant to the major. It is also worth noting that few students got the
wrong answer on any of the post-test questions, indicating that there is no particular piece of
knowledge that was systematically lacking.
Paper writing assessment
The writing rubric was used to assess a random sample of student papers kept on file in the
political science department office. The papers are from core courses for the major that all
students must take. Below are the specific items assessed with the rubric, the results for the
sample of students on a scale of 1 to 5, and an indication as to whether this is an improvement
over last year’s average scores:
Measure on the rubric
Average
Change
Displays an understanding of the issues in the pertinent literature:
4.02
−
Quality of theoretical argument:
3.4
+
Clarity, originality, and conciseness of the theoretical argument:
3.6
+
Quality of organization:
3.40
−
Quality of writing:
3.30
−
Sources properly cited:
4.20
−
The scores for this year are almost identical to the scores from last year, so in all cases where
plus are minuses are indicated, the differences from last year are very minor. Overall writing
remains a challenge, though the scores overall are higher than average. Having said that, in the
first and last categories student average scores are in the top 4-5 category, so there is little room
now for significant improvement. The middle four categories have scores in the 3-4 range
showing that there is still room for improvement.
Policy analysis memorandum assessment
Students usually struggle with this writing assignment because they are not used to the format of
a formal policy memo. They typically approach it like a thesis paper. The intent of the writing
assignment is to have them identify a policy problem and its causes, develop criteria for
developing solutions, and evaluate solutions against this objective criteria. This is a standard
approach in the public policy field. After reviewing the Spring 2015 memos, students have the
most difficulty with the proper identification of a problem and separating the causes from the
consequences. Many used data to illustrate the problem, but do not always use the most valid
data to demonstrate a particular problem. Students also struggled with the evaluation of
solutions. This requires a higher level of analytical thinking, which some students are able to do,
but perhaps a majority of the class cannot. Many have a difficult time using research to evaluate
their solutions against a set of criteria. In terms of students’ writing ability, sentence structure
and word usage are problems. This detracts from the clarity of their points and logical flow of
their arguments.
Question #4: What changes did you make as a result of the findings?
Here are some of the modifications the Department is considering in response to the 2014-2015
assessment:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Regarding advising, the criticism regarding advising is dated because we have changed
our advising system (all full time faculty now do it, not just the chair) so most of these
graduates were familiar with the old system, and we hope our new system will provide
students with a better feeling of having been well advised
The knowledge assessment from the pre-test / post-test showed strength in student
learning, so no changes are necessary there
The writing assessment showed tiny changes from last year, so we will continue to
discuss how to improve student writing abilities
The policy analysis memo assessment is new this year, so it will serve as a baseline for
future assessment, though it appears that we need to work more on critically analyses
problems and thinking of solutions, not just describing them
These results, plus results from our alumni survey the previous year, revealed that we are
deficient in teaching computer skills and teamwork / leadership skills. Several faculty
have also mentioned that we need to emphasize use of computer software like Excel in
the classroom, so PLSI 90, a class many graduates felt was not so useful, is being
changed to emphasize use of Excel. Dr. Holyoke also teaches the class by putting
students into teams to work together to solve problems, so hopefully this will help
increase student experiences in teamwork
Based on these findings, the faculty have decided to have a top to bottom review of the
department’s curriculum for the bachelor’s degree in political science, including the core
classes required of all students to make sure they conform to prevailing norms in the
political science discipline and are providing the best knowledge and skills for our
students.
Overall, the faculty in the Political Science department will continue improving the program
student learning outcome assessment activities and initiate assessment of core competencies in
areas of oral and written communication, critical thinking, information literary and quantitative
reasoning. This core competency assessment of core competencies can be infused with the
existing SOAP as it evolves and develops, or as part of a university-wide evaluation process.
Question #5: What assessment activities will you be conducting in the 2015-2016 academic
year?
We will conduct the normal assessment that we do most years. Only the alumni survey done in
2013 will not be done for a few more years. This year we will administer our usual pre-test to
the PLSI 1 classes early in the fall semester to get baseline data on our undergraduates. In the
spring semester we will give the post-test to the graduating seniors. Data and other results will
be presented to the department for discussion in the fall semester of 2015. We will also do our
standard analysis of research papers from the core classes, and will also do our analysis of the
policy argumentation memos from PLSI 150. We will also analyze our latest graduation and
retention data as soon as that data becomes available from the office of institutional
effectiveness.
Question #6: What progress have you made on items from your last program review
action plan?
Our last program review found our department to be very strong. There were only a few weak
areas. One was in advising, we simply did not do enough of it for the undergraduate students.
Since then we have changed the way we handle advising. All tenured / tenure-track professors
do advising. Now, of course, it is changing again because the College of Social Sciences is
establishing an advising center independent of the department.
The review team felt that our primary method of assessment at the time, analyzing research
papers, did not capture all aspects of learning and that we needed more assessment tools. Since
then we have added a more knowledge-oriented component in our pre-test / post-test approach,
and have also added the analysis of policy memoranda, which is a very different type of writing
than research papers.
The lack of gender diversity was also noted in our review. Since that time we have only had a
single hire, but we did hire a woman. We have another hire this academic year and our
recruitment plan is designed to insure a diverse pool of candidates.
Department of Sociology - Student Outcomes Assessment Report: Fall 2014
1. What learning outcome(s) did you assess this year?
Outcome and Measure: As per our SOAP timeline, we assessed Soc 153,
Sociological Theory. This is one of our upper level, core courses, composed of
juniors and seniors in the major. We are assessing our Learning Outcome A3:
Students will be able to demonstrate and apply knowledge of major classical and
contemporary theoretical perspectives and our Learning Outcome B5: Students will
be able to examine social phenomena and make connections between issues and
institutions. This activity allows us to assess two of the core competencies:
information literacy and critical thinking.
2. What instruments did you use to assess them?
For this activity, we used Direct Measure A1: Exam Questions. The students
were given three choices on which to write their in-class final exam essay; each
question prompted students to compare the perspectives of selected classical
and/or contemporary theorists on issues ranging from social change and social
control to the division of labor. The prompt asked students to:
Select and write on one of the following, explaining and contrasting the works of the
classical and contemporary theorists as indicated; note the influence of other theorists
if applicable.
A. Marx and Parsons on the process of social change: how will it occur and what
will be the effects of change. Is it inevitable? Is it welcome or dangerous?
B. Marx and Ritzer on the effects of the increasing division of labor as capitalism
emerges and matures. What has it done for or to society and the individual?
C. Durkheim and Mead on social control: what are its sources, purposes and
effects?
These questions were virtually identical to those we used in our evaluation of
Soc. 153 one year ago for our SOAP activity and were selected based on areas of
weakness identified in the ETS Field Test in Sociology which the department
administered to our graduating seniors in 2012. As per our SOAP plan, and for the
purpose of closing the loop, we assess a course, make recommendations based on
our assessment, and implement those recommendations. One year later, we return
to reassess that course with the same measures to ascertain if student performance
improves. We recognize that this method is not ideal because we are not assessing
the same student population, but it does allow us to see if any alterations to the
content of pedagogy are more effective with another group of similar students.
1
3. What did you discover from these data?
Results and Conclusions: Two faculty members assessed a diverse, representative
group of 18 student essays (from a class of 35). Using the rubric in our SOAP binder,
the essays were ranked on a 1-5 scale (with 5 being the best). The best essays fully
described each theorist’s perspective on the selected issue and the student clearly
and coherently compared these perspectives in detail. The weakest essays
incorrectly associated one or both theorists with terms, concepts and principles or
failed to develop comparisons.
The reviewers were in agreement that the mean scores were just above 3
(Reviewer 1: 3.2; Reviewer 2: 3.3). Each reviewer scored five essays at either 4.5 or
5 and two essays at 1.5-2. Most essays (for both reviewers) fell into a range between
2.5 and 4.
While the approximately one-third of the essays in the 4.5-5 range had the
effect of pulling up the overall average, it was apparent that many students had only
minimal to partial mastery of this information (or the ability to formulate it into a
coherent response). Our previous assessment of this class one year ago produced
similarly disappointing results; we concluded that many students who had reached
the level of upper division coursework in sociological theory did not appear to have
been adequately exposed to classical and contemporary theorists’ work in their
previous coursework. We responded by discussing these findings in faculty
meetings and requesting that, to the extent possible, all faculty consider including
exposure to theory in their coursework and that Soc 153 courses include a review of
very basic information on these theorists. While both suggestions were
implemented, we did not see the improvement in scores we had hoped to achieve.
4. What changes did you make as a result of the findings?
Recommendations: The Sociology Faculty have concluded from these results that
we must revise the structure of our major and our course offerings. Soc 153 is a
course that currently combines the study of classical and contemporary theorists
into one three-unit semester course; this is obviously far too accelerated and
demanding for many of our students. Historically, Soc 153 was originally
designated to cover “Contemporary Sociological Theory,” a three-unit designation.
However, the time and effort demands of this core required course bring the
wisdom of that designation into question as it has become obvious it should have
been a four unit class from its inception.
As a result of our findings in these assessments, the Department of Sociology
now intends to offer Soc 152, Classical Sociological Theory, which will cover
theorists up to the twentieth century as well as Soc 153, which will require briefer
historical context and primarily cover the work of contemporary theorists. The
Department Curriculum Committee is also preparing a proposal to be submitted via
Bizflow to re-designate both as four unit courses. With the additional hour of
2
lecture and discussion each week, these core disciplinary courses can be paced to
accommodate student needs and facilitate student success. Faculty will be able to
better provide the basic, foundational information materials in sociological theory
as well as the more advanced, comprehensive body of knowledge that upper
division sociology majors should be expected to master in order for our graduates to
be competitive for professional employment in the field or for graduate study in the
discipline.
5. What assessment activities will you be conducting in the 2015-2016
academic year?
6. What progress have you made on items from your last program review
action plan?
Responses to both of these are included with our attached assessment report for
Spring 2015.
3
Department of Sociology – Student Outcome Assessment Report – Spring 2015
1. What learning outcome(s) did you assess this year?
2. What instruments did you use to assess them?
Outcome and Instrument: As per our SOAP timeline, we assessed Soc 3, Critical
Thinking About Society. This is a lower division, GE course, composed mostly of nonmajors taking the course to meet a GE requirement. We are assessing B5 in our
Program Goals and Outcomes: Students will be able to demonstrate information
literacy and examine social phenomena, making connections between issues and
institutions. The goals related to skills for our critical thinking course include
identifying the elements of an argument, the background assumptions and
supporting evidence. We used Direct Measure A1: Exam Questions for this
assessment. The writing prompt was part of the final exam for the course:
Carefully read the editorial “President Obama’s Community College Proposal
Doesn’t Make the Grade” published in The Washington Post by the Editorial Board on
January 11, 2015. Imagine that the editor of the newspaper has asked you to write a
response toe the Board’s article using the critical thinking skills you have learned all
semester in this class. In approximately 300 words, write a well-written and carefully
edited response that identifies and critically analyzes the following in the editorial:
1. What is the main issue the Board wrote about?
2. What is their main conclusion?
3. What are the primary reasons or evidence they offer for their conclusion?
4. Evaluate the quality of the evidence using the critical thinking questions
you have learned in this class.
Sample: A representative sample of 20 essays was drawn for this assessment. This
sample mirrored the range of scores for the 84 essays submitted. Two reviewers
(Dr. Randles, the instructor for this course and Dr. Helsel) scored the essays on the
1-5 scale (5 being the best).
3. What did you discover from these data?
Results and Conclusions: As is evident in most introductory courses, the students’
efforts as evidenced by their essays cover a wide range of scores. [Reviewers scores
are attached.] Both reviewers assigned as many 5’s as 1’s (3 of each). The mean
scores were very similar (3.2 for Randles, 3.1 for Helsel).
The mean score reflects our conclusion that overall the class was moderately
effective at some parts of the assignment (identifying basic components of the
author’s argument) but struggled with others (accurately describing the author’s
1
value and descriptive assumptions). Most students simply reiterated the author’s
arguments rather than clarifying the implicit beliefs that shaped the reasoning.
There were the usual problems with organization of information, sentence
fragments, and editing. Dr. Randles also commented that although some students
completed the assignment requirements by evaluating the sources and credibility of
the evidence the author used, many did not.
4. What changes did you make as a result of these findings?
Recommendations: As noted, this is a lower division GE class and, for many
students, their first social science and critical thinking class. There is a daunting
amount of material to be covered and skills to be learned. But it may be of value to
introduce these concepts sooner in the semester and reiterate them as the semester
progresses. Dr. Randles also noted she intends to elaborate more on these concepts,
presenting additional examples and showing students how to apply them.
5. What assessment activities will you be conducting in the 2015-2016
academic year?
Per our SOAP timeline, for Fall 2015 we will be assessing Soc 130W/WS
(Contemporary Social Issues) with a direct measure in the form of evaluating a
question on the final paper. For Spring 2016 we will be assessing Soc 131 (Sociology
of Sex and Gender) using a direct measure in the form of a pre-test post test
instrument.
6. What progress have you made on items from your last program review
action plan?
The previous review covered the years from Fall 2001 to Spring 2008 and was
concluded in Spring 2009. The review was very positive but did offer several
recommendations that we acted on diligently and promptly. Those
recommendations are listed below with the Department’s response and subsequent
actions:
A. Add an Intermediate Statistics course
Departmental Response: Faculty consensus was that current number of statistics
course offerings was adequate and that a second statistics course would be underenrolled unless required for the major.
2
Action Taken: Soc 25, however, was converted from a lower-division
“Introductory” statistics course to an upper-division statistics course (Soc 125) and
we advise students to take an introductory statistics course (either at the
Community College or at Fresno State) to fulfill their GE B4 requirement (e.g., Math
11 or Psych 42) prior to enrolling in Soc 125.
B. Add a Qualitative Research Methods Course (e.g., Soc 176) and change the
title of Soc 175 to Quantitative Methods
Departmental Response: Faculty concurred with recommendation
Action Taken: In 2012, our department created Soc 176, Qualitative Research
Methods (although Soc 170T was used in the interim), and we made other changes
to our curriculum by developing Soc 174 Computer Data Analysis and creating the
applied research and data management certificate (requiring Soc 125, 174, 175, and
176). Soc 170T (Qualitative Research Methods) was offered in Fall 2012 and Spring
2013, and this course was converted to Soc 176, approved by the College and
University Curriculum Committees and offered for the first time in Fall 2013.
C. Require students to take both Soc 175 and Soc 176
Departmental Response: Faculty concurred with recommendation
Action Taken: In addition to adding Soc 176 as a course to our department
offerings in Fall 2013, we included this course as a Tier 2 requirement for the major
alongside Soc 175.
D. Revive Soc 152 (Classical Sociological Theory) and require it for all majors,
making it a prerequisite to Soc 153 (Contemporary Sociological Theory)
Departmental Response: While we concur that an examination of classical theorists
is central to any undergraduate program in sociology, our initial intent at present
was to continue to combine the study of classical and contemporary theorists in Soc
153 course since we do not currently have have the faculty staffing to offer two
separate courses. It was also noted that if we made Soc 152 were made a required
course for the major, it would add to the number of required Tier Two courses.
Action Taken: More recently, in large part due to a concern for student success in
the theory course, our department faculty have more thoroughly examined the idea
and feasibility of requiring both classical and contemporary sociological theory. We
learned that of the 20 other CSU campuses offering a B.A .in Sociology (Maritime and
Monterey Bay do not offer this degree), 50% (10) require both classical and
contemporary theory (Bakersfield, Channel Islands, Chico, Humboldt, Long Beach,
Los Angeles, Northridge, Pomona, San Diego, and Stanislaus.
3
The faculty of the Department of Sociology at California State University Fresno has
recently embarked on its first major curriculum re-design in over a decade. This
effort is suggested and supported by our 2009 Program Review, a review of the
baccalaureate degree requirements across the CSU, and the American Sociological
Association’s 2004 Report on “Sociology in the 21st Century.” Our proposed
curricular changes in the structure of the B.A. in Sociology at Fresno State are rooted
in the desire to maintain the academic rigor and prestige of our degree, better fulfill
our learning outcomes, and prepare our undergraduate majors with a more solid
foundation in the discipline to be competitive with other CSU sociology graduates
for employment and graduate school opportunities.
In our current curriculum for the B.A. in Sociology at Fresno State, we require 13
courses for a total of 39 units spread across three “tiers” or “levels”: Tier 1, Tier 2,
and Sociology Electives.
Of the 21 campuses currently offering a B.A. in Sociology, the degree requirements
range from 39 (Dominguez Hills, Fresno State, San Diego and Stanislaus) to 51 units
(Fullerton), with the mean of 43 units and a median of 42.5 (i.e. 50% of the
campuses require between 39 and 42 units and 50% of the campuses require
between 43 and 51 units).
We are proposing to increase the total number of units required (from 39 to 46)
while maintaining the same number of total courses required (13) and establishing
four “tiers” or “levels” based on the ASA recommendations and the 2009 Program
Review Recommendations.
Current
Tier 1: 12 units (4 courses)
Tier 2: 12 units (4 courses)
Soc Electives: 15 units (5 courses)
TOTAL: 39 units (13 courses)
2.0 cumulative GPA required in Major Courses
Proposed
Tier 1: 6 units (2 courses)
Tier 2: 8 units (2 courses)
Tier 3: 20 units (5 courses)
Soc Electives: 12 units (4 courses)
TOTAL: 46 units (13 courses)
2.0 GPA required in Major Courses
Tier 1 Core – 6 units (these may be completed at a California community college):
Soc 1/1S – Principles of Sociology (3 units) – C or better required for the sociology
major/minor
Soc 3/3S – Critical Thinking about Society (3 units) – C or better required for
sociology major/minor
Tier 2 Core – 8 units*
Soc 125 – Statistics for the Social Sciences (4 units) – C or better required for
sociology major/minor
Soc 130W/WS – Contemporary Social Issues (4 units) – C or better required for the
sociology major/minor
4
Tier 3: Theory and Methods Core – 20 units* (must maintain cumulative 2.0 GPA in
Tier 2):
Soc 151 - Social Class and Inequality (4 units)
Soc 152 – Classical Sociological Theory (4 units)
Soc 153 – Contemporary Sociological Theory (4 units)
Soc 175 – Quantitative Research Methods (4 units)
Soc 176 – Qualitative Research Methods (4 units)
Upper Division Soc Electives: 12 units
All other soc courses would remain 3 units and students would select 4 of them
*Changing the credit awarded from 3 untis to 4 units for our Tier 2 Upper Division
Core and Tier 3 Theory and Methods Core required courses derives from the longtime recognition by students, faculty and the external program reviewers that these
courses are more rigorous and demand more preparation and output from both
students and faculty. Sociology degree programs on nearly every other CSU
campus (with a semester schedule) has a similar arrangement for the core
courses required of sociology majors: the sociology courses offered as GE or as
electives are three-unit courses while the courses specific to the major –
particularly statistics, the upper division writing course, theory, and/or
methods – are four units each (e.g., Channel Islands, Dominguez Hills, Humboldt,
Long Beach, Los Angeles, Northridge, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Marcos,
Sonoma, and Stanislaus. The sociology faculty at California State University, Fresno
no longer wish our department to remain as an outlier and unanimously concur that
providing an extra hour of instruction, or lab in the case of statistics and methods, is
essential to ensuring better learning outcomes and student success.
E. Create a capstone course which all majors must take or create capstone
components in a number of upper division courses
Departmental Response: Faculty agreed with the importance of a capstone
experience but initially did not agree on how to implement and structure it. Some
faculty argued that the capstone experience can be accomplished in Soc 175 or the
proposed Soc 176 while others stated a capstone experience can be accomplished in
current upper division elective courses.
Action Taken: More recently, the Sociology Faculty, having become more familiar
with recent University preparation for WASC accreditation, have identified Soc 175
as the Capstone Course in the Sociology major since it fulfills the five core
competency areas identified by WASC: Quantitative Reasoning, Critical Thinking,
Information Literacy, Oral Communication, and Written Communication. We
envision requiring students to upload their written research paper as well as a 1015 minute video of them orally presenting their research paper to Blackboard and
an online portfolio (e.g., Pathbrite) for the purposes of evaluation and assessment.
5
F. Create three new instructional program initiatives: a minor in Nonprofit
Administration and Community Leadership; a certificate program in
Applied Research and Data Management; a Global Awareness Certificate
Departmental Response: Faculty concurred with this recommendation
Action Taken: The curriculum changes for a minor degree in Administration and
Leadership for Community Benefit Organizations is currently being prepared and
submitted for review; the certificate program in Applied Research was approved by
the College and University curriculum committees and the first certificates were
issued in Spring 2013 to students who completed the four required courses (Soc
125, 174, 175 and 176). The University created a Global Awareness Certificate, and
the Department provided input into its establishment, including the core course in
that minor, SSci 18, Introduction to Global Studies
(http://www.fresnostate.edu/cge/international/global.html).
G. Hire two additional tenure-track colleagues with specialties in Global
Cross-Cultural Issues and Public Sociology
Departmental Response: Faculty concurred with this recommendation
Action Taken: The hiring of Dr. Christopher Sullivan (Fall 2014) and Dr. Sarah
Whitley (Fall 2013) has helped us fulfill this recommendation. In fact, Dr. Sullivan is
spending a month during the summer of 2015 in China to conduct his participant
observation research. Dr. Whitley has played a significant role in the establishment
of the Fresno State Food Recovery Network, working with University and
community partners to recover edible food and distribute it for community meals,
etc.
H. Acquire funding from the University or College of Social Science for
graders, especially for large-section courses, and keep cap levels for
critical thinking and upper division writing courses at 30
Departmental Response: Faculty concurred with this recommendation
Action Taken: We have not been able to secure funding from the University or
College for graders for our large-section GE courses. While we have been able to
keep cap levels for the upper division writing course (Soc 130W/WS) at 25, the cap
levels for the GE A3 Critical Thinking course has been exceeding the limit of 25
established by our campus GE policy, and this is encouraged by administration to
ensure the fulfillment of FTES targets.
6
I. Expand access to computer labs with SSPS software by creating an
additional lab or installing SPSS on library computers
Departmental Response: Faculty concluded that the problem with computer labs is
not one of expanding access but rather of lack of student awareness of other labs on
campus with the necessary software.
Action Taken: In addition to the 36-station SS202 Computer Lab with both SPSS
and N-Vivo software installed, we have worked with the campus technology staff to
increase the number of library computers that have SPSS installed and, on occasion,
obtain online access to SPSS for students enrolled in Soc 125 and Soc 175 through
Citrix. Furthermore, the College secured funding and expanded the Geography
Computer Lab in the Science building. The Urban Planning and Environmental
Research Laboratory is a 32-station, state-of-the-art computer laboratory used for
instruction and research.
J. More career advising for majors
Departmental Response: We are aware of the concerns of our majors about
employment options after graduation and acknowledge the important of career
advising. We intend to prepare a pamphlet on career opportunities similar to the
American Sociological Association’s, utilize the Sociology Club to conduct career
information workshops and inform students of other career advising services on
campus such as University Career Services.
Action Taken: This has become an increasing area of focus in our outreach,
orientation and advising. We have created a much more extensive resource to
highlight career options with a degree in sociology
(see http://www.fresnostate.edu/socialsciences/sociology/students/careers.html),
regularly distribute information about workshops offered by the Career Services
Office on campus, and post employment opportunities online
(at www.humanicsfresnostate.org) and via our email listserv for majors and alumni.
In addition, sociology faculty offer at least one workshop about applying to graduate
school, writing personal statements/statements of purpose, and/or preparing
resumes.
K. Keep up the great work on assessment of student learning outcomes. Use
capstone course projects as data for direct assessment of student learning
Departmental Response: We consider our SOAP to be a living document and have
every intention to continue to revise and reassess our goals and activities.
Action Taken: We have drafted a new five-year SOAP and started doing
assessments within that plan. Evaluating patterns in the data we obtained from our
classroom has been very effective, resulting in curricular and course content
adjustments that we believe will help enable student success.
7
L. Faculty should actively seek more state, federal and private grant funding
for research
Departmental Response: Faculty concurred with this recommendation and will
continue to seek funding for research.
Action Taken: Our faculty have been particularly successful in seeking and
obtaining more state, federal, and private grant funding for research, servicelearning, and other creative scholarly activities.
M. Faculty should submit more manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals for
publication
Departmental Response: Faculty concur; there is always room for improvement in
scholarship.
Action Taken: Since 2009, our faculty published in a wide range of peer-reviewed
journals.
8
1
Women’s Studies Program Assessment Report Update:
FALL REPORT 2014-2015 PER PROVOST REQUEST
Prepared by Professor Kensinger, Assessment Coordinator
Fall 2015
Women’s Studies engaged in a number of very time-intensive activities in 2014-2015 related to
assessment. These included:









Preparing the assessment portion of the program’s “Self Study” in advance of program
review.
Discussing, writing, and approving a new SOAP plan for the 2015-2021 period.
Expanding the post-test survey instrument from 10 to 20 questions (based on previous
use of the instrument in WS 110—Representations of Women.)
Assessing two sections of WS 110—Representations of Women using our new post-test
model. This was used to assess WS SLO’s and will be used as well to assess progress on
GE MI SLO’s.
Development and approval of a new Alumni Survey instrument
Training on the Qualtrics program, transferring the survey to Qualtrics and activating the
survey. [The assessment coordinator thanks TILT’s JoLynne Blake for her tremendous
guidance and support.]
Generating a usable alumni email list, starting from a base provided by the university, but
updated and confirmed through the efforts of WS staff over the summer.
Conducting the Alumni Survey
Engaging in closing the loop discussions at our yearly retreat.
Below please find the Women’s Studies Program Assessment results to date.
1) What learning outcomes did you assess?
WS 110
In 2014 Women’s Studies used a posttest to assess learning in WS 110: Representations of
Women. The test was an expanded version of an earlier test. The course was assessed per the
Women’s Studies SOAP, for SLO 1--gender and women. SLO 3--intersectionality and diversity,
and SLO 4--information literacy (Complete descriptions of all SLO’s are provided in the next
paragraph on the alumni survey.) It should be noted that the same test was used in our GE
assessment. We do assess a different GE Multicultural International outcomes than the 2013/14
report. In 2014/15 we assessed the data for GE learning outcome “Explain and interpret aspects
of race, gender, culture, class, ethnicity or the relations among nations in a multicultural world.”
It should be noted faculty see a close equivalency between this GE SLO and WS programmatic
SLO’s 1 and 3.
Alumni Survey
In the spring the Program developed a new alumni survey and approved its use. Over the
summer the survey was transferred to Qualtrics and administered. Our alumni survey contains
both qualitative and quantitative data. Many questions went beyond our SLO’s. For example,
2
Alumni were asked to rank their overall experience in Women’s Studies (Q 16), to rank how
well the skills and knowledge obtained in the program prepared them for employment or further
education (Q 18), and to rank how well the program empowered them to feel they could make a
difference in the world (Q 20). The survey also directly asked former students to assess each of
our 6 SLO’s :






SLO 1: Students will demonstrate their comprehension of both the status of women in
society and gender, as well as the unique impact of gender ideology on women, by a
combination of the following: distinguishing key elements of gender; articulating
elements of the social, economic, political, position of women; exploring how gender and
women’s statuses are socially constructed; articulating the impact of gender on particular
events as well as the impact of events on women; and observing differences in the
construction of gender across cultures and histories.
SLO 2 Students will demonstrate an understanding of feminism(s) theories, histories and
methods, including the history of women’s organizations and movements, by defining
key concepts in these fields; critically assessing key aspects of these ideas; and utilizing
appropriate theories, methods, and historical examples in support of their own ideas.
SLO 3: Students will demonstrate an awareness of intersectionality as well as
comprehension of anti-oppression and social justice principles from within the Women’s
Studies perspective at the local and global levels BY articulating how women’s positions
are structured through a variety of contexts including racial, ethnic, class, age, sexuality,
and abilities; being able to discuss important interconnections between and among the
world’s women; and/or by exhibiting knowledge about the effects of discrimination and
social inequality and the different challenges and inequalities women have faced over
time.
SLO 4: Students will demonstrate “information literacy” by selecting and reading
appropriate books and periodicals; identify significant primary sources; using Web
resources appropriately by being able to identify the reliability and relevance of such
sources. Students can also demonstrate information literacy through their ability to
accurately respond to reading based questions, showing their ability to distinguish key
facts and comprehend premises, key concepts, and main points of materials they have
read.
SLO 5: Students will demonstrate communication skills by accurately summarizing
texts, approaches, concepts and theories taught in the classroom as well as by formulation
of their own ideas within a variety of assignments. For assessment, students will
demonstrate these skills first and foremost through writing, but verbal and creative skills
are also valued by the program.
SLO 6: Students will demonstrate an ability to act on knowledge by event organizing,
investigative analysis and/or utilizing information skills to conduct original research
projects.
2) What instruments/measures did you use to assess the learning outcomes?
There is no discrepancy in our timeline presented in 2009-2015 SOAP, re-approved in 2013 after
a mandated update. We are on target for this process.
3
WS 110
For WS 110-Represeantions of Women, the program conducted a post test in two sections during
spring of 2015. The test was administered the last day of regular class as an extra credit event.
The test yielded 78 responses. The General Education Committee has not yet called for its report
on the data, for which this data was also applied.
Per the SOAP, Women’s Studies Benchmark states:
On quantitative surveys and post-tests: At least 70% of respondents overall score
should be 75% or above.
This was the benchmark used for assessing WS 110 results this year. We did face some
challenges with our benchmark. In assessing WS 110 in 2013/2014 we used a new assessment
method for the program, a post test that involved ten questions, vetted by faculty in the program.
Faculty believed a 20 question survey would allow for a better fit with our 75 % benchmark and
also 20 questions would allow for greater variety in questions. We changed our post-test by
including more five option answers, thus increasing the test’s difficulty.
Alumni Survey
Over the summer of 2015 Women’s Studies conducted through Qualtrics an on-line survey of
alumni containing both quantitative and qualitative questions. Of 30 confirmed email
addresses that received the survey, by August 18, 2015, women’s studies had received 15
completed responses (though some chose to skip answering some questions).
However, in designing this survey Women’s Studies discovered the quantitative benchmark in
the SOAP had flaws. As the alumni survey questions asked students to rank answers, there is
really no right or wrong method by which to assess a 75% score. Faculty therefore voted in
Spring to approve a separate standard for qualitative data on the alumni survey for the new 20152021 SOAP. This benchmark states:
Indirect Measure/quantitative portion Alumni Survey: At least 75% of respondents
will score the program at the 3 or above level (the survey scale ranges from 1-5) on at
least half of quantitative survey responses.
Faculty decided to then apply this standard to the alumni survey, even though it is conducted to
finish off our 2009-2015 SOAP. Here we concentrated primarily on assessment of quantitative
responses to date, as we have only just begun to assess the qualitative responses.
3) What did you learn from the data?
WS 110
For the WS 110, Representations of Women, assessment related to Women’s Studies SLO’s,
with an N of 78 respondents, accumulated across two sampled course sections, we would need
54.6 (70% of 78) of respondents to score 75% or better to meet our benchmark. In fact 58 of the
4
78 respondents scored 75% or better, and in the 3:30 section of the course close to 80% of the
class scored at the 75% or better level. Women’s Studies exceeded our benchmark in WS 110.
The Women’s Studies Program analysis of results of course went beyond the overall benchmark.
We looked at the per question response rate. Here 14 questions (n=20 questions; 14=70% of 20)
should have 75% or better response rates. This occurred in both classes, with 15 questions
showing 75% correct responses or better in the 5:00 class, and 14 questions showing 75% correct
responses or better in the 3:30 class. And by diving yet deeper into questions, Women’s Studies
found it could most completely assess student achievement of our SLO’s.



The program felt students performed very strongly on questions related to SLO 1 on
gender and women. We did not aggregate results between classes, but a sample of
percentage of correct answers to questions most directly related to gender awareness for
each separate class includes; Q 1, 100% (5:00 section) and 98% (3:30 section) correct; Q
2, 92% and 95% correct; Q 3 89%, 93% correct; Q 5 81%, 90% correct; Q 9, 94% and
100% correct; Q 17, 78% and 93% correct, and Q18, 89%, and 93% correct.
Similarly strong results were found in answers most directly related to SLO 3,
intersectionality and diversity. We did not aggregate results between classes, but a
sample of percentage of correct answers to questions most directly related to gender
awareness for each separate class includes; Q 4, 94%, 98%; Q 7, 86%, 93%; Q 14, 100%
and 90%; Q. 15, 83%, 83%; Q 20, 97%, 95%. (Given that SLO 3 is in part about
intersectionality there is of course overlap between questions addressing SLO 1 and 3.).
Regarding SLO 4, information literacy, which for the program we find to include critical
analysis and reading skills, the program again shows solid achievements. Indeed, we find
that the overall results for the entire post-test (58 of the 78 respondents scored 75% or
better) shows this result, since the test itself applied literacy skills throughout its structure
(requiring students ability to read questions accurately, apply knowledge to new
examples, and sort out better from worse options). However, as we’ll see in our
discussion of what we are doing with results below, this SLO was an area we spent most
time on during our closing the loop discussions.
Alumni Survey
At our August retreat faculty looked at the alumni survey results, reviewing all quantitative
answers, and especially focusing attention on the opening questions assessing overall
experiences in the program. Women’s Studies have exceeded benchmarks in all areas. For
example, Q. 16 asked “On a scale of 1 to 5 with1 being very poor and 5 being excellent—how
would you rate your overall experience within Women’s Studies?” 94% rated us at a 3 “good” or
above level; indeed 67% rated their experience as excellent.” Q 18 asks “On a scale of 1 to 5
with 1 being not very well prepared and 5 being very well prepared, how well did the skills and
knowledge you obtained in the program prepare you for employment or further education?” 80%
of respondents rated us at the 3 (prepared) or above level, with our strongest response (33%)
ranking us at a 4 “well prepared” level. Q 20 asks “On a scale of 1to 5 with 1 being not very
empowered and 5 being very empowered, how well did the program empower you to feel you
can make a difference in the world?” All respondents ranked us at the 3 (somewhat empowered)
5
or above level, with 64% answering 5 (very empowered), 29% answering 4 (empowered), and
7% answering 3.
Moving to questions most directly to SLO, for each SLO students were asked to assess their
experiences on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being not very well prepared and 5 being very well
prepared. Some SLO’s required further questions on a similar though not the same scale. Again,
results were excellent.

Q. 23 asked about SLO 1, “how well do you feel your training enables you to
comprehend the status of women and gender in society and the unique impact of gender
ideology on women”. All respondents ranked us at the 3 (prepared) or above level, with
58% at the 5 Very well prepared level.
 Q. 25 addressed SLO 2, “how well do you feel your training helped you to understand the
theories, histories and methods of feminism(s)?”; 92% of respondents ranked us at the 3
or above level.
 Q 27 addressed SLO 3, “how well did the program prepare you to understand
intersectionality, including raising your ability to articulate how women’s positions are
structured through a variety of contexts including racial, ethnic, class, age, sexuality and
abilities at the local and global levels?”; 92% of respondents (11 of the total 12) ranked
the program at the 4 or above level on this answer, with 83% at the 5 level.
 Q. 28 also related to SLO 3, asking “On a scale of 1-5, one being strongly disagree, 5
being strongly agree, rate your response to the following statement: ‘Women’s Studies
deepened my concern about the effects of oppression and social inequality, fostering a
commitment to social justice in the world around me.’”; 100% of respondents ranked
their response at the 4 or 5 level, with 75% at the 5 (strongly agree) level.
 Q. 30 addressed SLO 4 asking “how well would you say the program did at building your
information literacy skills, particularly improving your ability to find and select
appropriate information on topics you are concerned with?” Here 92% ranked the
program at a 3 or better, with 77% at the 4 or better level.
 Q 31 addressed SLO 4 as well, asking “how well would you say the program did at
enhancing your reading skills, including your ability to distinguish key facts, comprehend
premises, accurately summarize main points and assess the relevance of information.”
100% of respondents ranked the program at the 3 or above level, with again 92% at the 4
or above level.
 Q 33 addressed SLO 5 asking “how well would you say the program built your ability to
communicate your own ideas in written, verbal and/or creative terms.” Again, 100%
ranked us at the three or above level, with 93% at the 4 or above level.
 Q 35 addressed SLO 6 asking “how well would you say the program built your abilities
to act on your own knowledge.” 92% ranked the program at a 3 or above level here, with
84% at the 4 or above level.
The program more than surpassed its benchmark that at least 75% of respondents will score
the program at the 3 or above level (the survey scale ranges from 1-5) on at least half of
quantitative survey responses. Indeed on every quantitative question the program exceeded
this figure.
4) What changes did you make as a result of the findings?
6
On August 20th at our annual retreat Women’s Studies faculty held our closing the loop
discussions. During this time faculty reviewed instruments and results, were reminded of
benchmarks, and focused discussion on strengths and areas to improve as revealed by the data.
WS 110
Faculty started by discussing which of the post test questions most spoke to which SLO being
tested (see above). Regarding SLOs tested in WS 110, faculty first recognized that we have
exceeded our benchmark again in the class and found this particularly impressive given we
doubled the length of the exam and included more 5 option questions, making a tougher exam
format. Faculty conclude from this that we should continue teaching a rigorous yet successful
course and congratulate faculty for their success. Faculty were particularly pleased that results
for items related to SLO 3 were so high, since this was one primary reason for expanding the test
question from our first use of the data set. Faculty also concluded that answers to questions
pertinent to SLO 1 and SLO 3 show we are also having excellent success at meeting the GE
assessment SLO for the course.
Regarding SLO 4, what also impressed faculty in the results were that many of the questions
involved application of concepts to real world examples (for example, Q 17 asks “What issue
most obviously unites these images?, providing three images and the following answer options
A. objectification, B. infantilization, C. girl power, D. feminism, or E. empowerment (78% and
93% correct responses); or Q 1, which asks “Which of the following images does not present an
example of the “male-gaze” according to Mulvey” with 4 images to choose from (100% and
98% correct). Students show a particularly strong ability after taking the course to read and
interpret images in terms of their gender and cultural content as articulated within a Women’s
Studies framework. Again, faculty also believe this to be a relevant finding for our success in
meeting GE SLO goals.
Faculty however spent most of their discussion time on WS 110 results discussing the minority
of lower scoring questions. Our lowest correct response in both classes was on the question Q 6
“Which of the following newspaper headlines reflect “rape myths” the media often over
emphasize according to O’Hara in “Monsters, Playboys, Virgins and Whores…”? Our Second
lowest response in both classes was to Q11 “The video The Purity Myth argues that the
hegemonic representation of ethics in our society is divided by gender. Which is true of the
hegemonic representation of ethics?” In both cases students were being asked to be able to
recall readings or films, and distinguish key theses. Also, in both cases answer options included
responses that allowed multiple answers options to be correct (i.e. in Q6 option D reads “A and
B are headlines that perpetuate rape myths”; in Q 11 option E reads “C and D are both true of
hegemonic notions of ethics.”). Indeed in 3 of our 5 lowest scoring responses, students were
given such options. Faculty thought some of these low answers may simply be a result of the
fact that students have a more difficult time dealing with the possibility of multiple right
responses. But faculty also felt that these two areas might be linked, revealing students need to
have more in-class time articulating theses and main points of materials on their own so it is
better retained, as well as applying then those points and theses to real world examples. All
faculty agreed to provide more opportunities for students to practice with articulating main
points of readings for themselves, before review by the instructor, and to providing more
7
opportunity for students to assess applied examples of points from films and readings, within
regular class time. We believe this will better prepare students to articulate and apply
specifically textually related points.
Alumni Survey
Regarding findings from the alumni survey, faculty were humbled and pleased at the incredible
high regard students held for their learning in the program, both overall and across all SLO’s.
Faculty did discuss the number of confirmed email addresses. Faculty decided to leave the
survey open. At a future meeting we will go over the alumni list and see if we cannot locate and
confirm a few more alumni email addresses, encouraging them to complete the survey. Faculty
also found that we should spend some time at a future meeting assessing the qualitative
responses to the survey more thoroughly. In August, Questions we did assess both the
quantitative and qualitative responses to in detail were Q 18, how well did the program prepare
students for employment or further education, Q19, which asked students to provide any
comments on their response to Q 18, and Q 22, which asked students “Overall, are there one or
two suggestions you would make to help the Women’s Studies Program improve and grow?” As
reported above, on Q 18 we did meet quantitative benchmark. However, the qualitative
responses in Q 19 provided useful insights for ways to improve, especially when coupled with
responses to Q 22. For example in Q 22, 6 of the 11 responses suggest a need for more
mentoring, or a junior or senior level focus, or internship to help prepare students for life after
graduation. Faculty agreed at the August meeting that they will begin discussion of including a 1
unit class on the topic of post-graduation life for our junior and senior WS students. This will
include topics such as careers using a Women’s Studies degree, marketing your degree
experiences in your resume, writing strong cover letters, grant writing basics, graduate school
application process, McNair program, Internships, etc. We hope to have a trial of this course in
the curriculum within the next year as a topics course and in the future to place it in the
curriculum as a required course.
5. What assessment activities will you be conducting in the 2014-15 year?
Per the Women’s Studies our newly approved SOAP, our timeline states:
Year 2015-2016
SOAP Revision, Program review, complete earlier SOAP Alumni Survey
Method 3: Post Exam (GE)
Regarding the post-test in this round, this will be a new test developed and administered by the
program for circulation in a sample of GE courses (either WS 12 or WS 135). Questions will be
added to an existing exam or conducted during the regular class period at the end of the semester
as an extra credit opportunity. Questions will be developed to meet dual assessment purposes of
GE and Program SLOs.
6. What progress have you made on items from your last Program Review Action Plan?
8
Women’s Studies has made steady, solid progress on its action plan, achieving most items set
forth in the plan. The program Action Plan focused on five areas in its last Action Plan, each is
reported on below:
Program Review Action Item 1: Continue our already strong efforts to recruit and retain
students.
Women’s Studies has made excellent progress in this area. Regarding specific means of
achievement in this area listed in the plan, the program has:








Instituted a yearly graduation party for students in the program.
Maintained an advising listserve for WS majors/minors which we use to send out broader
mailing on advising issues who are majors/double majors and minors.
Held a wonderful Centennial Celebration event in 2011, including a Madden Library
display, panel discussion, and reception for alumni and friends.
Completed a poster campaign featuring alumni of the program on two posters sent to all
high school advising offices, community colleges, and a number of other offices around
campus.
We regularly update Web materials; devoted time at meetings to recruitment concerns,
regularly participated in campus recruitment activities, and maintained a strong
commitment to advising and events that connect students to the program.
Because of recently imposed unit limits that make dual majoring difficult, women’s
studies faculty have worked closely with students on developing plans that allow them to
complete requirements in both majors.
Regularly conducted workshops with students from across the college on writing their
personal statements for graduate school and law school applications.
Sponsored a number of receptions that have included students, alumni and friends.
Program Review Action Item 2: Maintain Strengths of Curriculum while enhancing it to reflect
current trends in the field and faculty expertise.
Women’s Studies has made excellent progress in this area. Regarding specific means of
achievement in this area listed in the Action Plan, the program has:





Placed prerequisites on WS 153, Feminist Methods, to better assure sequencing for
majors, double majors, and minors.
Submitted and approved a New GE SOAP (in fact we have revised this a number of times
to bring it up to changing “best practices” in assessment) and implemented this soap.
We have conducted a faculty retreat focused on curriculum. From this event we have
o Assured wider understanding among faculty of our SOAP and its fit to courses, as
well as wider understanding of common expectations for courses taught in the
program.
o Made the decision to go forward, with caution, in exploring on-line education:
three courses, WS 135, WS 10,and WS 150T Gender, Law and Public Policy have
one section now being taught on-line.
Women in Politics is now in the curriculum as WS 107/PLSI 107.
Proposed “Women and Law” course--now “Gender, Law and Public Policy” was piloted
as an online topics in fall semester 2014 and is being offered online fall 2015.
9



We have two S courses in process of being approved: Four women’s studies faculty were
trained on S courses; two proposals (WS 175 and WS 120) are in the curriculum process
for approval.
Establishing internships is a goal of the Women’s Studies Program. In 2014 Professor
Slagter, with the assistance of an undergraduate student funded by a COSS grant,
researched the kinds of internships available to women’s studies students and to make
links with agencies and organizations that share our and our students’ interests. Research
included interviewing officials in community agencies about internship possibilities and
about paid internships.
We have regularly discussed SOAP and curriculum at program meetings as well as given
these longer attention at annual retreats.
Program Review Action Item 3: Cross campus and Community Alliances, including
identification of areas across campus where Women’s Studies can become a resource to other
departments and/or work collaboratively with the more broad-based affiliated faculty.
Women’s Studies has made excellent progress in this area. Regarding specific means of
achievement in this area listed in the Action Plan, the program has:











Regularly worked to update our faculty and friends list.
Successfully invited faculty to WS Centennial Celebration events.
While not instituted yearly, we do regularly have an event focused at affiliated faculty to
allow for greater collaboration, including invitations to receptions, etc.
Designed and taught SS 16, Introduction to Global Studies, to support the Dean of
Undergraduate Studies initiative on Global Studies Certificates.
Global Studies Certificate is WS approved.
Participated in creation of cross-cultural certificate initiated by Department of Africana
Studies.
Continued participation in Certificate in Victim Services certificate with Department of
Criminology.
Our collaboration with various programs for years designated in the plan were achieved,
including the Honors College, Management and Sociology, Political Science, and
Gerontology.
In lieu of the one-day retreat with affiliated faculty, we held a reception.
Regularly achieve our yearly commitments, including: continued communications with
chairs of programs with cross-listed courses, continued publication of course offering list
that includes cross-listed courses, continued communication with faculty in other
programs, continued a solid relationship with the Center for Women in Gender (including
serving on search committees for two directors and on the advisory board), and continued
our strong relationships with community organizations.
Established partnerships with Arte Américas.
Program Review Action Item 4: Maintain faculty and staff strength at current levels and
enhance, when possible, to maintain diversity, curricular strength and currency in the field.
Women’s Studies has made good progress in this area. Regarding specific means of
achievement in this area listed in the Action Plan, the program has:
10





Recruited a fabulous new tenure-track faculty member who has helped to diversify the
program and its curriculum.
Been successful in moving faculty through the promotion process.
Had a full-time/part time lecturer leave the area, so now only have one full time lecturer.
However, we were able to hire a number of part time instructors to fill in the courses
taught by that instructor, so in the end this has not impacted course offerings.
Decided against a retreat on setting priorities for growth and health of faculty because we
have initiated discussions of this topic during regular faculty meetings.
While we have had some shifts in personnel among our administrative assistants, our
staffing has fallen over the 2014-2015 levels. We lost a half-time position Administrative
Staff position in 2014/2015. While approved for replacement in spring, the replacement
process has been delayed. We have had a cut in student staff hours due to directives from
the Dean’s office, so have not been able to maintain consistent levels there as well.
Program Review Action Item 5: Maintain office space and budget levels.
Women’s Studies has thus far achieved this goal, for the most part, given the changing and
shifting nature of the economic climate in higher education, and the new, shifting, budget
formulas on campus.