Assessment Report
July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2010
DEPARTMENT/PROGRAM(S) ASSESSED__International Studies____
ASSESSMENT COORDINATOR______December Green_____________
YEAR TWO of a FIVE YEAR CYCLE
1. Assessment Measures Employed
Briefly describe the assessment measures employed during the year
-What was done? The International Studies (IS) Committee evaluated a random
sampling of papers from a variety of IS courses; the IS director tabulated grades in writing
intensive sections of courses taken for the major; tabulated pass rates for the three 300-level
courses in Modern Languages taken by each IS graduating senior; and conducted exit interviews
with all IS graduating seniors..
-Who participated in the process? The International Studies Committee for 2009-10:
David Petreman (Modern Languages), Susan Carrafiello (History), Donna Schlagheck (Political
Science), Lisa Morrisette (Art and Art History) and December Green (IS director).
-What challenges (if any) were encountered? Not every graduating senior complied
with the director’s repeated requests to submit a writing sample (9 out of 17 graduating seniors
this year did not submit samples).
2. Assessment Findings
List the objectives and outcomes assessed during the year, and briefly describe the
findings for each.
The objectives of the program are as follows:
-graduates will be prepared to obtain acceptance to graduate or professional
schools; IS was not required to survey alumni in year two of the assessment cycle. For the most
recent alumni survey, please see the 2006-2007 report.
-they will be prepared to obtain employment in occupations related to their
concentrations and their other coursework in the major; IS was not required to survey
alumni in year two of the assessment cycle. For the most recent alumni survey, please see the
2006-2007 report.
-and will have enhanced their own self-understanding, the ability to deal with the
relationship between themselves and others as well as understanding their own personal
values. IS was not required to survey alumni in year two of the assessment cycle. For the most
recent alumni survey, please see the 2006-2007 report.
In regard to these issues, the director conducted exit interviews with 100% of our
graduating seniors and 100% expressed satisfaction with the program overall. Of those 17
students, the most common responses were that they liked the multidisciplinary nature of the
program, the mix of courses and the three year language requirement. The only weakness
identified in the program was the need for certain core courses (History 200) to be taught on a
more regular basis. Two students asked for more courses in Latin America and one suggested the
development of courses on Korea. The only other complaint was about having to take third year
Italian at the University of Dayton.
The learning outcomes are as follows:
-graduates will attain proficiency in a second language; Based on pass rates, 100% of
our graduating seniors for the year surveyed did attain proficiency in a second language.
- will demonstrate themselves to be capable of conducting independent research and
have effective research skills, including proper reference citation in bibliographies and
footnotes; The evidence from the writing samples suggests a high success rate in terms meeting
our goals concerning writing, research, critical thinking and problem-solving skills. For
example, of the eight papers submitted, seven of them passed on all four measures. None of the
papers failed on all four measures. However, one of the papers failed on two measures.
- have strong critical thinking and problem-solving skills; and will be effective
writers. Please see above.
3. Program Improvements
List planned or actual changes (if any) to curriculum, teaching methods, facilities,
or services that are in response to assessment findings. This year’s evidence suggests that the
International Studies program is meeting its goals.
4. Assessment Plan Compliance
Explain deviations from the plan (if any). Not applicable.
5. New Assessment Developments
Describe developments (if any) regarding assessment measures, communication,
faculty or staff involvement, benchmarking, or other assessment measures. There were no
new assessment developments this year.