CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 2007-2008 Student Learning Academic Assessment Report

CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 2007-2008 Student Learning Academic Assessment Report

Table of Contents I. II. Overview Evidence of Student Learning Outcome Achievement II.A. General Education - Perception Data II.B. General Education - Student Achievement Data II.C. Other Institutional Evidence II.D. Summary Results III. Program Related Evidence III.A. Program Student Achievement Data III.B. Program Perception Data IV. Using Student Learning Evidence for Programmatic Improvement IV.A. Faculty Level IV.B. Program Level IV.C. Institution Level V. Evaluation and Improvement of Assessment Efforts V.A. Program Assessment Reporting V.B. Suggestions for Continuous Improvement Index of Appendices Submitted September 28, 2008 by: Dr. Tracy Pellett - Associate Vice-President of Undergraduate Studies Dr. Patsy Callaghan - Professor of English, Coordinator of General Education Dr. Tom Henderson - Director of Testing and Assessment p. 3 p. 3 p. 3 p. 37 p. 42 p. 43 p. 44 p. 44 P. 49 P. 51 p. 52 p. 53 p. 53 p. 54 p. 54 p. 59 P. 61 2. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 2 of 148

3.

I. OVERVIEW

The first annual Central Washington University (CWU) Academic Assessment Report provides a transparent look at a variety of ways in which the university measures itself academically in relation to its institutional mission, goals and academic strategic objectives. In the mission and goals of Central Washington University is this statement: “The University will 'maintain and strengthen an outstanding academic and student life on the Ellensburg and University Center campuses.'” Academic Affairs strategic objectives refer to “cultivating a creative and challenging learning environment” and “preparing students for their personal and professional lives and for lifelong learning.” The University accomplishes these goals and strategic objectives through effective curricular, instructional, and assessment processes. Assessment of student learning outcomes is an ongoing departmental, college, and university responsibility and the cornerstone of continuous improvement at CWU. Assessment and student learning at Central Washington University can be framed around three questions: 1. What evidence is there that students achieve stated learning outcomes? 2. In what ways is student learning evidence used? 3. How is assessment of student learning efforts evaluated and/or improved?

II. Evidence of Student Learning Outcome Achievement

Evidence of student learning and academic achievement at CWU is gathered from three basic sources: general education, program-related, and other institution level data (e.g., institution-wide surveys). These data sources form the basis for decision making and continuous improvement efforts related to student learning at the departmental, college, and institutional levels.

II. A. General Education Evidence

CWU offers a liberal arts education in order to cultivate thoughtful and responsible persons and citizens, to prepare them for the world of work, and to teach them to pursue knowledge for its own sake. In order to accomplish those broad goals, the general education program seeks to promote effective reasoning, broad and deep learning, and the inclination to inquire. Specifically, CWU General Education Program Goals are: 1. Students will become thoughtful and responsible members of society and stewards of the Earth. 2. Students will respect diversity of background, experience and belief, and will value the different perspectives that this diversity brings. 3. Students will achieve fluency in reading, writing, oral communication and information technology. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 3 of 148

4. 4. Students will master the basic principles of logical, mathematical and scientific reasoning. 5. Students will develop an appreciation of the breadth and depth of scientific and humanistic knowledge. 6. Students will develop a sense of the interconnectedness of knowledge. 7. Students will integrate knowledge from diverse fields of study in order to solve real-world problems. 8. Students will become aware of the manifold ways that knowledge evolves. 9. Students will develop a disposition to ask incisive and insightful questions. Central Washington University has assessed general education outcomes in the past several years in a variety of ways (surveys, focused projects, studies, and standardized exams). Following is a short description of these efforts for the 2007 2008 academic year as well as related results/findings.

Perception Data

There are a variety of measures and data that are used at CWU to assess student perceptions as to General Education Outcome achievement. These data come primarily from surveys that are routinely administered each year. Following are the most recent results from alumni surveys, graduating senior surveys, and a nationally standardized survey (National Survey of Student Engagement - NSSE).

II.A.1. Alumni Surveys

Alumni surveys are administered in two formats as a part of examining student perceptions of academic quality and development while at CWU. The Office of Institutional Research administers an alumni survey biennially to CWU bachelor degree recipients one year and five years after graduation. In addition, the Office of Testing and Assessment Services administers an alumni survey targeted to graduates of programs engaged in the program review process each year. Institutional Research Alumni Survey (2006 Survey of 2001 & 2005 Alumni) Respondents included 227 alumni from 2005. This represented an 11% response rate from the 2,065 possible degrees conferred. Respondents also included 134 alumni from 2001 which represented an 8% response rate from the 1,782 degrees conferred. Respondents rated a list of academic skills by importance, and then reported how satisfied they were with the contribution CWU made to their development in those same skills. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 4 of 148

5.

Chart 1: Importance of and Satisfaction with Development of Academic Skills while at CWU (2001 Alumni)

100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Wr iti ng Ef Sp fe cti ea ki ve ng ly Eff ec Cri tiv tic al el Le ly y An arn in al yz g I nd Wo in rk g ep in en de g wi th nt ly T ec Lo hn ca ol tin og g I y nfo Ap rm pre Ap pl ati ci yi on ati ng ng Ap pl th Sc ie yi e Art nti ng fic Q s Pri ua nc nti ta ip le tiv s e Pri nc So ip lv le in Rea s g Pro Rea di ne di bl ne ss em fo ss s fo r Ad r C va are nc ed Ap er Ed pre ci uc ati In ati ng te on Wo rk in g Co ra op Di cti era ve on rs o tiv el e Ph f So y ilo so ph ie s ci ety & En vi Ex erc is in g Pu ro bl nm ic en Re t sp on si bi lity Very or Mostly Satisfied Very or Moderately Important CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 5 of 148

6.

Chart 2: Importance of and Satisfaction with Development of Academic Skills while at CWU (2005 Alumni)

100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% W rit ing Ef fec Speak tiv ely ing Ef C fec rit ic tiv ely ally Analy Learning zing Ind ork ependant ing w ith ly Tec Loc hnolo at ing gy Inf orm Apprec Apply at iat ion ing ing Sc Apply the ient ing Art ific s Princ Quant ita ip les tiv e Princ Solv R iples ing Problem eadines s s for R eadines s for Adv C areer anc ed W Educ ork ing C ooperat Apprec iat Int at ing erac ion D iv ers tion of iv ely e Philos Soc Ex ie erc ty is ophies & Env ing ironm Public R ent es po ns ibilit y Very or Mostly Satisfied Very or Moderately Important Results Summary: Over 90 percent of 2005 respondents viewed speaking effectively, solving problems, and learning independently as skills “Very” or “Mostly” important to their current primary activity (see Chart 2). Locating information, critically analyzing and working cooperatively were also viewed as key skills, with over 85 percent of 2005 respondents ranking them as “Very” or “Mostly” important. When reporting satisfaction, a majority of 2005 respondents were “Very” or “Mostly” satisfied with Central’s contributions in each of these skill areas, with the exception of appreciating the arts (48 percent “Very” or “Mostly” satisfied, however only 27 percent thought it was “Moderately” or “Very” important). A smaller gap between satisfaction and importance in most skill areas was reported by 2005 alumni. The two skills with the largest gap between importance and satisfaction were speaking effectively and readiness for career. For the class of 2001, the skills reported as most important included learning independently and locating information, with over 95 percent of respondents classifying these as “Very” or “Mostly” important to respondents’ current primary activity. Over 90 percent of 2001 respondents viewed speaking effectively, writing effectively, critically analyzing, and solving problems as skills “Very” or “Mostly” important to their current primary activity. The two skills with the largest gap between importance and satisfaction were speaking effectively and readiness for career.

CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 6 of 148

7.

Office of Testing and Assessment Services 2007 Program Review Alumni Survey of 2001-2006 Alumni)

Alumni (n = 2,171) from the past five years for several programs (Biology, Business Administration, Family Consumer Science, Recreation/Tourism, Foreign Languages, and Primate Behavior) were surveyed as to CWU’s mission and general education outcomes. Respondents included 226 alumni (10.4% response rate). Respondents rated a list of academic skills by importance to career, and then reported how prepared they were from their CWU educational experience in those same skills.

TABLE 1. 2006/2007 Alumni Survey Results - Average Responses How well prepared?* Importance to career?** Difference

Thinking critically - check your and others' assumptions; consider multiple perspectives from various sources, etc. Communications - use appropriate oral, written, and visual means for each audience; listen effectively Quantitative reasoning - apply quantitative tools and computer skills to solve problems; comprehend symbolic representations Information literacy - critically evaluate data sources as I gather relevant information 3.761 3.861 3.587 3.752 4.264 4.562 3.871 4.114 * The response scaled for "How well prepared" was: 1 = Not at all prepared, 2 = Not prepared, 3 = Somewhat prepared, 4 = Prepared, 5 = Very well prepared ** The response scale for "How important are each of the following competencies to your career?" 1 = Not at all important, 2 = Not important, 3 = Somewhat important, 4 = Very important, 5 = Critical - 0.502 - 0.701 - 0.284 - 0.361 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 7 of 148

8. TABLE 2. 2006/2007 Alumni Survey Results "How strongly do you agree that your education from CWU helped you..." a b become a responsible citizen become a responsible steward of the earth Strongly disagree 1 4 5 Disagree 2 9 23 Neutral 3 75 83 Agree 4 101 83 Strongly agree 5 37 31 n 226 225 Mean 3.69 3.49 c become a productive and enlightened (informed, good learner, insightful) individual d value different perspectives 0 4 40 132 49 225 4.00 1 4 43 135 43 226 3.95 e f g h i appreciate the breadth and depth of scientific and human knowledge increase your sense of the interconnectedness of knowledge integrate knowledge from diverse fields to solve problems increase your awareness of the many ways that knowledge evolves ask incisive and insightful questions 0 1 2 3 2 7 8 4 8 7 44 51 50 55 48 122 127 125 123 125 53 39 45 37 43 226 226 226 226 225 3.98 3.86 3.92 3.81 3.89 Results Summary: Overall, alumni rated their academic experience high with regard to preparation of important general education skills with means approaching 4 on a 5 point scale. The lowest average rating was a 3.49 on "becoming a responsible steward of the earth" while the highest average rating was a 4.00 on "becoming a productive and enlightened individual." The largest gap between importance and preparation was communication.

II.A.2. National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)

The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) is used across the nation and has been administered to CWU students for the last several years. Although not intended to assess students’ perception of achievement, this survey has been viewed as an informative institutional instrument as it assesses first year and senior students’ effort and time dedicated to educationally meaningful activities and the extent to which institutions emphasize effective educational practices. Following are results (also see Appendix 10) from 819 CWU first year and senior students (21% response rate) comparing to peer institutions regarding questions CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 8 of 148

9. relevant to General Education outcomes (communicating, critical-thinking, values and ethics). Most of the charts show longitudinal results since 2004.

NSSE Question 1.d. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you worked on a paper or project that required integrating ideas or information from various sources?

1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often 4) Very often Means Effect Size Significance CWU 2001 Peers 5% 28% 3% 23% 43% 24% 45% 30% 2.86 3.01 -0.19 p<.05 2004 CWU Peers 3% 21% 2% 23% 41% 35% 44% 31% 3.09 0.07 3.04 CWU 2005 Peers 2% 22% 2% 21% 41% 35% 45% 32% 3.09 0.01 3.08 2006 CWU Peers 2% 26% 3% 22% 43% 29% 44% 31% 2.99 3.04 -0.07 CWU 2007 Peers 5% 14% 2% 21% 53% 28% 45% 32% 3.03 3.06 -0.05 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 9 of 148

10.

NSSE Question 1.d. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you worked on a paper or project that required integrating ideas or information from various sources?

1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often 4) Very often Means Effect Size CWU 2001 Peers 0% 10% 1% 12% 36% 55% 40% 47% 3.45 0.17 3.33 2004 CWU Peers 0% 9% 1% 12% 37% 53% 38% 49% 3.44 0.12 3.35 CWU 2005 Peers 0% 14% 1% 12% 36% 50% 38% 49% 3.35 3.36 -0.01 2006 CWU Peers 1% 12% 1% 13% 42% 46% 40% 46% 3.32 0.02 3.31 CWU 2007 Peers 1% 10% 1% 13% 42% 47% 39% 47% 3.35 3.32 0.04 Significance p<.05 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 10 of 148

11.

NSSE Question 1.e. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you included diverse perspectives (different races, religions, genders, political beliefs, etc.) in class discussions or writing assignments? 1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often 4) Very often Means Effect Size 2004 CWU Peers

3% 34% 7% 35% 44% 18% 37% 22% 2.78 2.73 0.05

2005 CWU Peers

5% 40% 6% 34% 39% 16% 38% 22% 2.67 2.76 -0.11

2006 CWU Peers

6% 36% 7% 33% 38% 20% 38% 22% 2.72 2.76 -0.05

2007 CWU

Peers 10% 31% 6% 32% 44% 15% 38% 23% 2.65 2.79 -0.16

Significance

p<.01 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 11 of 148

12.

NSSE Question1.e. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you included diverse perspectives (different races, religions, genders, political beliefs, etc.) in class discussions or writing assignments? 1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often 4) Very often Means Effect Size Significance 2004 CWU Peers

8% 32% 27% 6% 33% 35% 33% 27% 2.85 2.81 0.04

2005 CWU Peers

6% 37% 34% 6% 32% 35% 23% 27% 2.74 2.83 -0.11

2006 CWU Peers

7% 30% 36% 7% 31% 35% 27% 27% 2.82 2.82 0.01

2007 CWU

Peers 7% 29% 37% 6% 30% 35% 27% 29% 2.83 2.86 -0.03 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 12 of 148

13.

NSSE Question 1.i. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have put together ideas or concepts from different courses when completing assignments or class discussion?

1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often 4) Very often Means Effect Size Significance CWU 9% 51% 32% 2004 Peers 10% 47% 34% 8% 10% 2.40 2.44 -0.05 CWU 11% 39% 38% 2005 Peers 7% 44% 37% 12% 12% 2.50 2.54 -0.05 CWU 9% 42% 36% 2006 Peers 8% 43% 37% 13% 12% 2.52 2.54 -0.01 CWU 8% 47% 32% 2007 Peers 7% 43% 37% 13% 13% 2.49 2.56 -0.08 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 13 of 148

NSSE Question

1.i. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have put together ideas or concepts from different courses when completing assignments or class discussion? 14. CWU Mean

Seniors

Peer Mean Effect Size

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

2004 2005 2006 2007

1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often 4) Very often Means Effect Size Significance CWU 2004 Peers 4% 28% 40% 27% 4% 31% 42% 23% 2.91

0.08

2.84

CWU 2005 Peers 1% 33% 41% 25% 3% 28% 45% 25% 2.91

0.00

2.91

CWU 2006 Peers 2% 24% 47% 27% 3% 29% 44% 24% 2.98

0.11

p<.05

2.89

CWU 2007 Peers 2% 24% 45% 30% 4% 29% 43% 25% 3.03

2.88

0.18

p<.001

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0 0.2

0.4


15.

NSSE Question 2.a. During the current school year, how much has your coursework emphasized memorizing facts, ideas or methods from your courses and your readings so that you can repeat them in pretty much the same form?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 3% 22% 5% 23% 5% 22% 5% 26% 4% 30% 6% 27% 3% 27% 5% 27% 4% 24% 5% 28% 41% 35% 42% 30% 3.08 2.98 0.11 48% 26% 41% 28% 2.95 2.93 0.01 35% 30% 40% 28% 2.91 2.90 0.02 39% 30% 42% 26% 2.96 2.88 0.10 46% 26% 41% 26% 2.94 2.88 0.06 Significance CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 15 of 148

16.

NSSE Question 2.a. During the current school year, how much has your coursework emphasized memorizing facts, ideas or methods from your courses and your readings so that you can repeat them in pretty much the same form?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 CWU 5% 20% Peers 8% 28% 40% 35% 37% 26% 3.05 0.26 2.82 p<.01 2004 CWU 5% 22% Peers 8% 30% 44% 29% 37% 25% 2.97 0.20 2.79 p<.01 2005 CWU 5% 32% Peers 9% 31% 38% 25% 36% 24% 2.85 0.11 2.75 2006 CWU 7% 28% Peers 8% 31% 39% 26% 38% 23% 2.85 0.11 2.76 p<.05 2007 CWU 7% 26% Peers 8% 31% 36% 30% 37% 23% 2.90 2.75 0.16 p<.001 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 16 of 148

17.

NSSE Question 2.b. During the current school year, how much has your coursework emphasized analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or situation in depth and considering its components? 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers

3% 31% 43% 3% 21% 44% 3% 24% 52% 2% 20% 45% 3% 21% 48% 3% 22% 45% 1% 25% 49% 3% 22% 46% 3% 22% 47% 2% 22% 45% 23% 2.85 32% 3.05 -0.25 p<.01 22% 2.93 33% 3.09 -0.21 p<.05 28% 3.01 31% 3.04 -0.03 24% 2.97 -0.05 29% 3.01 28% 3.00 30% 3.04 -0.05 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 17 of 148

18.

NSSE Question 2.b. During the current school year, how much has your coursework emphasized analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or situation in depth and considering its components? 1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU

1% 14% 43% 2% 14% 43% 2% 11% 39% 1% 13% 42% 3% 19% 41% 2% 15% 44% 2% 22% 44% 2% 16% 44% 2% 15% 41% 42% 42% 3.26 3.25 0.01 48% 44% 3.32 3.28 0.05 37% 40% 3.11 3.22 -0.14 p<.05 32% 39% 3.06 3.20 -0.19 p<.001

Peers

2% 15% 43% 42% 40% 3.22 3.21 0.01 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 18 of 148

19.

NSSE Question 2.c. During the current school year, how much has your coursework emphasized making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions? 1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers

10% 38% 7% 31% 8% 29% 6% 29% 8% 27% 6% 29% 6% 33% 6% 29% 9% 30% 5% 28% 35% 18% 40% 22% 2.61 2.76 -0.18 46% 18% 41% 23% 2.73 2.82 -0.11 39% 26% 42% 23% 2.82 2.82 0.00 38% 23% 41% 23% 2.78 2.82 -0.05 41% 20% 41% 25% 2.72 2.86 -0.17 p<.05 p<.01 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 19 of 148

20.

NSSE Question 2.c. During the current school year, how much has your coursework emphasized making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions? 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU

7% 6% 5% 5% 6% 5% 8% 6% 7% 22% 42% 26% 38% 26% 33% 23% 39% 32% 37% 24% 40% 26% 42% 25% 40% 21% 40% 30% 2.93 29% 2.91 0.03 37% 3.02 0.03 33% 2.99 25% 2.81 31% 2.97 -0.18 p<.01 24% 2.83 30% 2.94 -0.13 p<.01 32% 2.98

Peers

5% 23% 40% 32% 2.99 0.00 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 20 of 148

21. 1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance

NSSE Question 11. j. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in learning effectively on your own?

2001 CWU 5% 31% 40% Peers 5% 24% 43% 24% 28% 2.84 2.94 -0.11 2004 CWU 7% 35% 37% Peers 6% 27% 42% 21% p < .05 25% 2.72 2.87 -0.18 2005 CWU 8% 25% 46% Peers 6% 25% 44% 21% 25% 2.81 2.89 -0.10 2006 CWU 8% 29% 44% Peers 7% 27% 42% 19% 23% 2.74 2.82 -0.09 2007 CWU 8% 33% 38% Peers 6% 26% 44% 21% p < .05 24% 2.72 2.87 -0.17 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 21 of 148

22.

NSSE Question 11. j. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in learning effectively on your own?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance CWU 2001 Peers 7% 23% 37% 33% 4% 19% 41% 36% 2.97 3.08 -0.13 2004 CWU Peers 7% 22% 40% 31% 4% 20% 40% 35% 2.94 3.07 -0.15 CWU 2005 Peers 12% 20% 33% 35% 5% 20% 40% 35% 2.91 3.04 -0.15 p<.05 2006 CWU Peers 9% 26% 38% 26% 7% 22% 40% 32% 2.82 2.97 -0.16 p<.01 CWU 2007 Peers 10% 27% 38% 26% 7% 21% 40% 33% 2.80 2.98 -0.20 p<.001 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 22 of 148

23.

NSSE Question 11. n. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in developing a personal code of values and ethics?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU 24% 25% 29% 23% 2.50 15% 29% 32% 24% 2.64 2004 22% 40% 28% 11% 2.28 16% 31% 32% 20% 2.57 2005 24% 32% 33% 11% 2.32 14% 31% 33% 22% 2.62 2006 19% 34% 31% 16% 2.43 17% 31% 31% 21% 2.56 23% 34% 29% 14% 2.35 2007 Peers 15% 30% 34% 21% 2.62 -0.14 -0.29 p < .001 -0.31 p < .001 -0.13 p < .05 -0.28 p < .001 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 23 of 148

24.

NSSE Question 11. n. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in developing a personal code of values and ethics?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 27% 23% 15% 28% 20% 32% 14% 28% 24% 26% 14% 27% 23% 31% 17% 29% 19% 30% 16% 27% 28% 22% 30% 27% 2.46 2.69 -0.23 28% 20% 31% 28% 2.47 2.72 -0.24 31% 19% 31% 28% 2.45 2.73 -0.28 26% 20% 29% 25% 2.43 2.62 -0.18 30% 21% 31% 26% 2.53 2.66 -0.13 p<.01 p<.01 p<.001 p<.001 p<.01 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 24 of 148

25.

NSSE Question 11. c. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in writing clearly and effectively?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 6% 30% 49% 14% 5% 26% 44% 25% 2.71 2.88 -0.20 5% 24% 48% 22% 2.88 -0.11 5% 23% 43% 29% 2.97 6% 28% 41% 24% 2.83 3.00 -0.20 4% 22% 42% 31% 5% 30% 40% 25% 2.85 6% 23% 42% 29% 2.95 -0.12 6% 21% 45% 27% 2.93 -0.07 5% 22% 42% 31% 2.99 p<.01 p<.01 p<.05 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 25 of 148

26.

NSSE Question 11. c. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in writing clearly and effectively?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 6% 24% 4% 22% 8% 23% 4% 19% 5% 27% 4% 19% 6% 25% 4% 20% 7% 24% 4% 20% 43% 27% 43% 32% 2.91 3.02 -0.14 39% 30% 40% 38% 2.90 3.11 -0.25 37% 30% 39% 39% 2.92 3.12 -0.24 37% 31% 40% 36% 2.94 3.08 -0.16 43% 26% 39% 37% 2.88 3.08 -0.23 p<.01 p<.001 p<.01 p<.001 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 26 of 148

27. 1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance

NSSE Question 11. d. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in speaking clearly and effectively?

2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 18% 42% 31% 10% 33% 37% 11% 41% 33% 9% 29% 39% 17% 35% 33% 8% 29% 38% 14% 36% 32% 9% 28% 38% 18% 34% 33% 8% 27% 39% 9% 2.31 -0.39 20% 2.66 15% 2.53 2.75 -0.25 23% 16% 2.47 -0.38 25% 2.81 18% 2.55 25% 2.79 -0.26 15% 2.46 2.83 -0.42 26% p<.001 p<.01 p<.001 p<.001 p<.001 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 27 of 148

28.

NSSE Question 11. d. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in speaking clearly and effectively?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 5% 26% 42% 5% 24% 42% 6% 29% 36% 5% 22% 40% 7% 28% 37% 5% 21% 39% 8% 26% 38% 5% 23% 39% 8% 28% 38% 6% 22% 38% 28% 29% 2.92 2.95 -0.04 29% 33% 2.89 3.02 -0.15 28% 35% 2.87 3.05 -0.21 p<.01 28% 33% 2.87 2.99 -0.14 p<.01 26% 34% 2.81 2.99 -0.20 p<.001 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 28 of 148

29.

NSSE Question 11. e. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in thinking critically and analytically?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance p<.001 p<.05 p<.01 CW U 2001 Peer s 8% 3% CW U 2004 Peer s 4% 3% CW U 2005 Peer s 4% 2% CW U 2006 Peer s 5% 3% CW U 2007 Peer s 5% 3% 30% 40% 21% 45% 22% 30% 26% 36% 26% 37% 32% 36% 30% 37% 2.76 3.03 2.95 3.12 2.97 3.14 3.04 3.12 3.01 3.14 -0.34 22% 47% -0.22 18% 43% 21% 49% 18% 43% -0.23 18% 45% 18% 43% -0.10 18% 46% 17% 43% -0.17 p<.05 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 29 of 148

analytically? NSSE Question 11. e. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in thinking critically and

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 2% 9% 51% 38% 2% 13% 42% 44% 3% 13% 42% 42% 2% 12% 38% 49% 3% 17% 40% 40% 2% 12% 38% 49% 3% 14% 44% 39% 2% 13% 39% 46% 3% 16% 40% 41% 2% 12% 38% 47% 3.24 3.27 3.22 3.33 3.18 3.34 3.20 3.30 3.19 3.31 -0.05 -0.15 -0.21 -0.13 -0.16 Significance p<.001 p<.01 p<.01 30. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 30 of 148

31.

NSSE Question 11. f. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in analyzing quantitative problems?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 14% 46% 29% 11% 11% 37% 36% 16% 2.37 2.58 -0.23 12% 37% 41% 9% 2.48 -0.14 10% 36% 37% 17% 2.60 10% 35% 37% 17% 2.61 2.81 -0.23 7% 29% 40% 24% 9% 32% 38% 21% 2.70 7% 28% 40% 25% 2.82 -0.13 9% 29% 40% 22% 2.75 -0.13 6% 27% 41% 26% 2.87 p<.01 p<.01 p<.05 p<.05 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 31 of 148

32.

NSSE Question 11. f. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in analyzing quantitative problems?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2.84 2.88 -0.05 2.78 2.86 -0.09 2.92 3.01 -0.10 2.93 3.00 -0.08 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 5% 29% 42% 24% 6% 28% 39% 27% 10% 28% 35% 26% 6% 28% 38% 27% 7% 25% 37% 31% 5% 23% 38% 34% 8% 22% 39% 31% 5% 23% 38% 33% 5% 24% 41% 29% 5% 23% 37% 35% 2.94 3.01 -0.08 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 32 of 148

33.

NSSE Question 11. g. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in using computing and information technology?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance CWU 2001 Peers 11% 37% 34% 11% 30% 34% 18% 2.59 -0.15 25% 2.73 2004 CWU Peers 9% 29% 40% 8% 27% 38% 21% 2.73 -0.12 27% 2.84 CWU 2005 Peers 5% 25% 42% 6% 23% 38% 28% 2.93 -0.04 32% 2.96 2006 CWU Peers 7% 24% 36% 7% 22% 37% 33% 2.95 -0.03 34% 2.98 CWU 2007 Peers 5% 21% 44% 6% 23% 38% 30% 2.98 -0.01 34% 2.99 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 33 of 148

34.

technology? NSSE Question 11. g. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in using computing and information

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 8% 29% 33% 6% 24% 35% 5% 25% 32% 4% 20% 36% 6% 19% 40% 4% 17% 35% 5% 21% 35% 4% 17% 35% 5% 21% 35% 4% 17% 35% 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 30% 36% 2.85 3.01 -0.17 p<.05 38% 41% 3.04 3.13 -0.11 35% 44% 3.04 3.20 -0.19 p<.01 39% 45% 3.08 3.20 -0.14 p<.01 39% 44% 3.09 3.19 -0.11 p<.05 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 34 of 148

35. NSSE Results Summary: Although CWU respondents tended to score lower than peers on most variables/questions, they still reported high institutional emphasis and opportunity in engaging in activities and developing important skills for college graduates. Specifically, skills and elements and institutional experiences related to critical thinking were rated favorably by a majority of respondents although institutional experiences contributing to students’ knowledge, skills, and personal development in developing a personal code of values and ethics was not as high as other areas. In addition, speaking clearly and effectively and including diverse perspectives (different races, religions, genders, political beliefs, etc.) in class discussions or writing assignments was rated lower than other skill sets related to general education. II.A.2. Graduating Senior Survey (2006) Graduating seniors complete a survey each year that assesses student satisfaction and perceived development of various academic skills. 1,036 of the 2,113 bachelor degree recipients for 2006 returned a completed survey representing a response rate of 49 percent.

Table 3. Graduating Senior Survey Results ACADEMIC SKILLS

% Very or Mostly

Satisfied Development of Independent Learning 83% Development of Analyzing Development of Solving Problems Development of Understanding of Society and Environment Development of Writing Development of Speaking Readiness for Career 82% 77% 74% 73% 73% 73% Development of Responsibility and Service Development of Quantitative Principles Development of Understanding Diverse Philosophies Development of Scientific Principles 63% 62% 72% 62% Development of Arts 51% Results Summary: Given a list of academic skills (see Table 3), students were asked “How satisfied are you with Central Washington University’s contribution to your growth in the following areas?” Greatest satisfaction was reported with CWU’s contribution to student development of independent learning and analyzing skills while the least satisfaction was in the development of skills related to the Arts. Note that over 70% of respondents reported high satisfaction with CWU’s contribution to their development of solving problems, writing, speaking, and understanding society and diverse philosophies. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 35 of 148

36.

II. A.3 General Education - Perception Data Summary

Based on the results of various perception data (graduating senior, alumni, and NSSE surveys) collected and/or analyzed during the 2007-2008 academic year, the following conclusions can be made:  CWU students and alumni are mostly satisfied with and perceive high institutional emphasis and opportunity for engaging in activities and developing general education skills important to them.  CWU students and alumni tend to be more highly satisfied and perceive higher institutional emphasis and opportunity for engaging in activities and developing skills related to critical thinking as compared to other general education skill sets.  CWU students and alumni tend to be less satisfied and perceive less institutional emphasis and opportunity for engaging in activities and developing skills related to speaking effectively as compared to other general education skill sets.  CWU students and alumni tend to be less satisfied and perceive less institutional emphasis and opportunity for skill development in the Arts as compared to other general education skill sets.  CWU students (approximately half) perceived that the institution contributed to their knowledge, skills, and personal development in developing a personal code of values and ethics. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 36 of 148

37.

II. B. General Education - Student Achievement Data

Measures of student learning as related to General Education help the institution understand how students are performing and what students know in relation to broad based skills (information literacy, writing, quantitative and symbolic reasoning, and critical thinking) important for college graduates to attain. Assessment of these skills during the 2007-2008 academic year is reflected through three sources of information. These sources include Washington Educator Skills Tests - Basic; Senior Exit Exam; and through individual programmatic study.

II.B.1. CWU Results for Washington Educator Skills Test - Basic (WEST-B) exams

The Washington State Professional Educator Standards Board established the "Washington Educator Skills Test – Basic" (WEST-B) as a requirement for admission to approved teacher preparation programs in Washington. The WEST-B is also required of persons from out-of-state seeking a Washington State residency teaching certificate. The WEST-B measures basic skills in reading, mathematics, and writing through three subtests. The reading and mathematics subtests have 60 multiple choice questions each. On the writing subtest, examinees respond to 50 multiple choice questions and 2 writing prompts. Tables 4, 5, and 6 summarize average scores on the WEST-B for peer education programs in the State of Washington. The pass rate was calculated by dividing the number of candidates admitted to the teacher preparation program by the number passing during the academic 2006-2007 academic year. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 37 of 148

TABLE 4. Range of Reading West-B Scores 2006/2007 Academic Year Subtest Scores Statewide and by Preparation Program

Preparation Program STATEWIDE Number 3,065 Passed Reading Mean 270 SD 13.4 Min 240 Max 300 Pass Rate 96% Central Washington (Ellensburg) 578 265 13.8 240 297 91% Eastern Washington (Cheney) The Evergreen State College (Olympia) 213 40 266 276 13.1 11.5 240 249 294 297 100% 100% University of Washington (Bothell) 59 276 12.3 240 294 100% University of Washington (Seattle) 104 279 10.1 249 300 95% University of Washington (Tacoma) 37 278 11.3 253 297 100% Washington State

University (Pullman)

411 268 12.6 240 300 99% Western Washington (Bellingham) 450 273 11.5 240 300 100%

Note: Data for this table retrieved 7/15/2008 from the WWW at: See http://www.pesb.wa.gov/Publications/reports/documents/06-07AssessmentReportFINAL.pdf

38. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 38 of 148

39. TABLE 5. RANGE OF MATHEMATICS WEST-B SCORES 2006/2007 Academic Year Subtest Scores Statewide and by Preparation Program

Passed Mathematics Preparation Program Number Mean SD Min Max Pass Rate 95% STATEWIDE AVERAGE 3,049 277 15.3 240 300 91% Central Washington (Ellensburg) Eastern Washington (Cheney) The Evergreen State College (Olympia) 574 213 40 273 275 282 16.2 14.6 13.2 240 240 246 300 300 300 100% 100% University of Washington (Bothell) 59 283 13.9 240 300 100% University of Washington (Seattle) 105 286 11 249 300 95% University of Washington (Tacoma) 37 277 13.1 252 300 100% Washington State University (Pullman) 411 276 14.3 240 300 100% Western Washington (Bellingham) 449 279 14.3 240 300 100%

Note: Data for this table retrieved 7/15/2008 from the WWW at: See http://www.pesb.wa.gov/Publications/reports/documents/06-07AssessmentReportFINAL.pdf


40. TABLE 6. RANGE OF WEST-B WRITING SCORES 2006/2007 Academic Year Subtest Scores Statewide and by Preparation Program

Passed Writing Preparation Program STATEWIDE Number 2,999 Mean 265 SD 13.4 Min 240 Max 300 Pass Rate 94% Central Washington 83% (Ellensburg) 527 260 12.6 240 295 Eastern Washington (Cheney) 213 261 12.1 240 293 100% The Evergreen State College (Olympia) University of 40 268 15.9 240 296 100% 98% 59 269 12.9 243 300 Washington (Bothell) University of Washington (Seattle) University of Washington (Tacoma) Washington State 104 37 275 268 11.9 13.2 241 241 294 293 95% 100% 99% University (Pullman) Western Washington 411 262 11.7 240 294 100% (Bellingham) 450 267 12.4 240 298

See Note: Data for this table retrieved 7/15/2008 from the WWW at: http://www.pesb.wa.gov/Publications/reports/documents/06-07AssessmentReportFINAL.pdf

WEST-B Results Summary: Although WEST-B tests are not administered to all students, more than 20% of all CWU graduates are education majors and their specialties span all colleges. Overall WEST B results are positive and provide direct evidence of CWU student achievement in basic skills developed through General Education. This conclusion is based on the fact that the average pass rate for all three tests combined is 87% within one year’s time. It should be noted that writing is the area of lowest passing (83%). In addition, CWU tends to rate lower with regard to passing on all measures as compared to state-wide peers. II.B.2 Construction Management Senior Exit Exam The Construction Management department administers a national certification exam to all seniors. CWU seniors' average scores exceeded national averages on all areas measured except in Writing. Table 7 summarizes the writing results of the Construction Management exam. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 40 of 148

41.

Table 7. Construction Credentials Exam - Area Scores (Averages) Area Scores

averages

CWU Average National Average Max Possible Passing Score

Communications 11.25 II.B.3 Business Management 489 Writing Assessment 11.85 18 13 A 2-page case study assignment from a sample of 30 different students (approximately 50% of two courses) of MGT 489, Strategic Management were evaluated as part of an internally funded grant by the Academic Assessment Committee using a department developed written communication 4 point scale rubric. Table 8 summarizes the results of the writing evaluation. Table 8. Management 489 Writing Assessment Results

Organization Style Areas Rater 1 Average 2.57 2.37 Rater 2 Average 2.73 2.83 Depth/Accuracy Language 2.33 2.37 No Rating 2.53 *Note that 1 = Unacceptable, 2 = Marginal, 3 = Proficient, 4 = Exemplary

Results Summary: Rating scores indicate that on a 1-4 scale with 4 being Exemplary, students are being rated between marginal and proficient. Overall, Business Administration majors demonstrated marginal performance as related to writing skill.

II. B. General Education - Student Achievement Data Summary

Based on the results of various student achievement data (WEST-B; Individual Major Exams/Studies) collected and/or analyzed during the 2007-2008 academic year, the following conclusions can be made:  CWU students (as based on various student samples) achieve skillful performance in relation to general skills like information literacy (i.e., reading), and quantitative reasoning (i.e., Math).  CWU students tend to perform less skillful in relation to Writing than other general skills.  Additional direct measures are needed to assess other elements and skills developed through General Education. It should be noted that the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) will begin being administered in Fall, 2008 to first year and senior students to determine CWU achievement in critical thinking, analytic reasoning, problem solving, and written communication skills. The CLA should provide "value added" feedback on CWU General Education goals. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 41 of 148

42.

II.C. Other Institution Level Evidence

Although not related to student perceptions or achievement as related to General Education outcomes attainment, 319 faculty were surveyed with 84 respondents (29% response rate) as to outcomes emphasis in General Education courses. The results of that survey are summarized below in Table 9. Table 9. 2008 Survey of CWU Faculty Teaching General Education Courses Thinking critically about the subject

N

84

I provide direct guidance in this skill I provide opportunities to practice this skill

37% 43%

I refer to this skill in my syllabus

20% Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods 41 24% 51% 24% Creative thinking Interpreting Creative activity Writing clearly and effectively Speaking clearly and effectively 53 66 32 84 39 49% 24% 34% 37% 15% 30% 48% 44% 26% 59% 21% 27% 22% 37% 26% Analyzing quantitative problems Using information technology Acquiring job knowledge and skills Developing a personal code of values 3 24 30 66 0% 33% 30% 35% 67% 42% 47% 41% 33% 25% 23% 24% Understanding people of diverse backgrounds 73 37% 41% 22% Analyzing e.g. a case study analysis Synthesizing and organizing ideas 68 91 35% 34% 41% 36% 24% 30% Making judgments about validity 55 44% 29% 27% Applying theories to practical problems or new situations 54 37% 46% 17% Integrating information from different disciplines to solve problems Making a class presentation, evaluated for knowledge and skill Reflecting on diverse perspectives, e.g. religious, ethnic, gendered, racial, political Collaborating with other students or with faculty on academic projects Supporting conclusions with reasoning Supporting conclusions with evidence 56 43 88 39 84 70 36% 28% 32% 33% 37% 44% 41% 42% 39% 33% 37% 31% 23% 30% 30% 33% 26% 24% CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 42 of 148

43. II. D. Summary Results: While writing, analyzing quantitative problems, and collaboration were more highly referred in faculty syllabi as compared to other General Education areas, these same areas tended to be rated lower as far as faculty guidance provided. It should also be noted that speaking clearly was the second lowest rated element with regard to faculty guidance. Opportunities provided for skill practice were higher for memorizing facts and ideas, analyzing quantitative problems, and speaking while lower for creative thinking, making judgments about validity and writing.

II. Summary Of CWU General Education Using Perception, Student Achievement, And Other Related Evidence Based on the results of various perception and student achievement data collected and/or analyzed during the 2007-2008 academic year, the following conclusions can be made:

 CWU students and alumni are generally satisfied with their own development of skills and can demonstrate general education skill sets (information literacy, quantitative reasoning)  CWU students and alumni tend to be less satisfied, perceive less institutional emphasis and opportunity for engaging in, and demonstrate less achievement related to communication (writing & speaking).  CWU students and alumni tend to be less satisfied, perceive less institutional emphasis and opportunity for developing dispositional attributes (developing a personal code of values and ethics; becoming a responsible steward of the earth).  Faculty report less emphasis (guidance provided to students) for General Education skills related to communication (i.e., writing, speaking). Writing was also rated lower than other General Education areas in relation to practice opportunities.  Assessment methods, particularly those that measure General Education learning directly, are needed at the institutional level. As stated previously, the planned addition of using the CLA in the fall, 2008 should help the institution more directly measure critical thinking, analytic reasoning, problem solving, and written communication skills. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 43 of 148

44.

III. Evidence Of Student Learning Outcome Achievement - Program Evidence

Institutional evidence of student learning outcome attainment within programs is gathered from three basic sources: standardized external exams/tests, annual student learning assessment reporting, and institution-wide surveys.

III.A. Program Related - Student Achievement Data III.A.1. Standardized Exams/Tests

Central Washington University students in a variety of degree programs across all academic colleges complete standardized tests as part of their program of study. Although not completed by all CWU students, the variety of degree programs represented and large number of student participants provides institutional documentation and evidence of student learning and achievement.

III.A.1.a. Education - WEST-E

Central Washington University students preparing to work in schools as teachers or other school professionals need to know the content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, pedagogical and professional knowledge and skills necessary to help all children learn. CWU students complete the WEST-E™ to demonstrate this knowledge as part of their degree and teacher licensure and certification requirements. Table 10. compares CWU WEST-E average pass rates to two Washington peer institutions: Eastern Washington University (EWU) and Western Washington University (WWU). CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 44 of 148

45. TABLE 10. 2006/2007 WEST-E % PASS RATES FOR CWU, EWU AND WWU

WEST-E CERTIFICATION EXAM

Art: Content Knowledge Biology: Content Knowledge Business Education Chemistry: Content Knowledge Driver Education Earth Science: Content Knowledge Education of Exceptional Students: Core Content Knowledge Education of Young Children Elementary Education: Content Knowledge English Language Literature Composition: Content Knowledge English to Speakers of Other Languages Family and Consumer Sciences General Science: Content Knowledge German: Content Knowledge Health and Physical Education: CK

------- CWU ------- TOTAL # PASS %

12 5 4 86% 100% 100% 6 4 4 36 133 430 24 87 5 1 1 50% 100% 100% 100% 92% 93% 92% 62% 100% 0% 0%

------- EWU ------- TOTAL # PASS %

8 11 3 100% 100% 100% 2 N/A 3 37 7 138 40 6 N/A 8 N/A 100% N/A 100% 100% 100% 97% 93% 67% N/A 100% N/A

------- WWU ------- TOTAL # PASS %

9 11 N/A 100% 100% N/A 5 N/A 4 55 6 258 39 21 N/A 16 1 100% N/A 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% 95% N/A 94% 100% 51 98% 22 95% 14 100% Library Media Specialist 15 100% 6 100% N/A N/A Marketing Education Mathematics: Content Knowledge Middle School English Language Arts 2 40 100% 75% 1 14 100% 71% N/A 21 N/A 100% 9 67% 1 100% 14 100% Results Summary: The average pass rate of all students completing CWU WEST-E exams is 87%. This is significant as the criterion pass rate as determined by NCATE accreditation standards (which CWU is bound) is 80%. Thus, these results provide strong and positive evidence of CWU student learning achievement across several content areas and majors. Although CWU has almost twice as many students/alumni taking the exam as EWU or WWU, CWU’s average pass rate (87%) is equal to EWU (87%) but is significantly lower than WWU's (98%). Thus, it can be concluded that CWU is somewhat comparable to state peers. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 45 of 148

46. III.A.1.b. Major Field Tests The following tables (11 - 16) summarize national percentile ranking of CWU students taking standardized Major Field Tests for Computer Science, Business Administration, Biology, Psychology, and Sociology programs as developed by Educational Testing Service (ETS). Scores are summarized for Fall 2007, Winter 2008, and Spring 2008 cohorts. In addition, scores are reported for the 2007 Construction Management exams. One note: the final tables for translating scores into percentiles are not yet published for 2007/2008. An ETS representative said that the 2007 tables would work as surrogates. Table 11. CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY - Biological Sciences Major Field Tests

Percent of all institutions at below the lower limit of CWU's core interval

Weighted Averages of 2007/2008 Exam Cohorts Note: ETS has not yet published national percentiles for the 2007/2008 exams. Institutional percentile tables were used for the August 2005 to June 2007 period as estimates for the 2007/2008 exam scores

2007 / 2008 Weighted Average N - Number of students in all cohorts Total Score - % of all institutions at or below CWU mean % correct

80 65

Sub-scores - % of all institutions at or below CWIU Mean % Correct

Cell Biology Molecular Biology and Genetics Organismal Biology Population Biology, Evolution, and Ecology

Assessment Indicators - % of all institutions at or below CWU Mean % Correct

55 35 80 80 Biochemistry and Cell Energetics Cellular Structure, Organization, Function Molecular Biology and Molecular Genetics Diversity of Organisms Organismal - Animals Organismal - Plants Population Genetics and Evolution Ecology Analytical Skills 55 55 40 80 65 80 70 85 80 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 46 of 148

47. Table 12. CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY - College of Business Major Field Tests

Percent of all institutions at below the lower limit of CWU's core interval

Weighted Averages of 2007/2008 Exam Cohorts Note: ETS has not yet published national percentiles for the 2007/2008 exams. Institutional percentile tables were used for the August 2005 to June 2007 period as estimates for the 2007/2008 exam scores

N - number of students taking the exam Weighted Average 2007-2008 Cohorts

Ellensburg Des Moines Lynnwood 169 91 138 Total College of Business 398

Total Score - % of all institutions at or below CWU mean % correct

Ellensburg Des Moines Lynnwood 80 65 75 College of Business Weighted Average 75

Assessment indicators - % of all institutions at or below CWU mean % correct

Accounting Economics Management Quantitative Business Analysis Finance Marketing Legal and Social Environment Information Systems * International Issues 60 75 55 55 75 90 70 75 75 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 47 of 148

Table 13. CWU - Computer Science Major Field Tests Percent of all institutions at below the lower limit of CWU's core interval Weighted Averages of 2007/2008 Exam Cohorts

Number of Students Tested - N

17

Total Score - % of all institutions at or below CWU mean % correct

50

Assessment indicators - % of all institutions at or below CWU mean % correct

Programming Discrete Structures and Algorithms 55 20 Systems: Architecture/Operating Systems/Networking/Database 40 Table 14. CWU - Sociology Major Field Tests Percent of all institutions at below the lower limit of CWU's core interval Weighted Averages of 2007/2008 Exam Cohorts

N Weighted Percentile Mean Correct

Sub-score Percentiles 71 35

Core Sociology Critical Thinking

Assessment Indicator Percentiles

General Theory Methodology and Statistics Deviance and Social Problems Demography and Urban/Rural Community Multiculturalism Social Institutions Social Psychology Gender Globalization

30 30 25 15 45 15 50 35 35 25 40 48. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 48 of 148

49.

Table 15. CWU Psychology Major Field Tests

Percent of all institutions at below the lower limit of CWU's score interval Weighted Averages of 2007/2008 Exam Cohorts Note: ETS has not yet published national percentiles for the 2007/2008 exams. Institutional percentile tables were used for the August 2005 to June 2007 period as estimates for the 2007/2008 exam scores

2007 / 2008 Weighted Average

94

N - Number of students in all cohorts Total Score - % of all institutions at or below CWU mean % correct Sub-scores - % of all institutions at or below CWIU Mean % Correct

57.4 Learning, Cognition Percept, Sens, Physio, Compar, Ethol Clinical, Abnormal, Personality Developmental, Social

Assessment Indicators - % of all institutions at or below CWU Mean % Correct

77.7 53.9 43.2 49.8 Memory, Thinking Sensory, Physiology Developmental Clinical, Abnormal Social 54.1 39.2 47.9 68.1 63.0 Measurement, Methodology 58.4

Table 16. Construction Credentials Exam - CWU vs. U.S. Average Area Scores Area Scores

averages

CWU Average National Average Max Possible Passing Score

Communications Engineering concepts Management concepts Materials, Methods, and Plan Reading Bidding and Estimating Budgeting, Costs, and Cost Control Planning, Scheduling, and Control Construction Safety Surveying and Project Layout Project Administration 11.25 25.53 10.22 26.14 34.42 23.25 31.69 17.69 9.03 35.03 11.85 23.38 9.79 25.55 32.13 22.58 30.64 18.22 8.14 14.64 18 34 13 34 45 32 41 25 11 46 13 24 9 24 32 22 29 17 8 32 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 49 of 148

50. Results Summary: Overall, CWU students demonstrated better than average (although somewhat variable) percentile rankings across the various majors as compared to all institutions that participated in Major Field Tests during the 2007 2008 academic year. This is positive and provides strong evidence of institutional academic achievement. III.B. Annual Student Learning Outcomes Reports Annual assessment data is collected, analyzed, and reported by all degree-granting graduate and undergraduate programs (n=115). Student learning outcome evidence and the accompanying reports are based on the student learning outcomes listed in individual program assessment plans. The reports are reviewed by the program faculty, the program’s Dean and the Associate Vice President of Undergraduate Studies and members of the Academic Assessment Committee. In examining the assessment reports that were submitted during the 2007-2008 academic year, three-quarters (75%) of the115 CWU programs collected data and reported on student learning outcome achievement. Undergraduate programs (87%) provided greater documentation of assessment practice and reporting than graduate programs (40%). In examining the seventy-four assessment reports that were submitted, more than three quarters (86%) presented student learning results in specific quantitative terms. In addition, seventy-one (83% of the reports submitted) degree programs compared their results to established standards of mastery. These comparisons, when qualitatively analyzed, reflected strong and positive academic programmatic outcome attainment. Specifically, 308 programmatic outcomes (51 graduate and 257 undergraduate) were assessed and compared to established standards of mastery. Two hundred and ninety-six of the three hundred and eight (96%) programmatic outcomes were reported as students meeting and/or exceeding stated outcome mastery/criterion levels. This trend was just as strong at the graduate level (n= 48 of 51, 94%) as it was for undergraduate (248 of 257, or 96%). These results provide an important element of evidence for institutional assurance of learning and goal achievement.

Program Related Evidence - Perception Data

Institution Level Surveys

Use of national surveys of student attitude and expectations (National Survey of Student Engagement) and use of locally developed surveys to gauge student satisfaction and success (Career Development and Placement Alumni Survey; Departmental Alumni Surveys) help provide evidence of student learning outcome attainment. Following are results for the 2007-2008 academic year. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 50 of 148

51. III. B.1. Graduating Senior Survey (2006) Graduating seniors complete a survey each year that assesses student satisfaction and perceived development of various academic skills. 1,036 of the 2,113 bachelor degree recipients for 2006 returned a completed survey representing a response rate of 49 percent.

Table 17. Graduating Senior Survey Results ACADEMIC SKILLS

% Very or Mostly

Satisfied Development of Using Knowledge from your Major 90% Readiness for Career 73% Results Summary: Overall, CWU students overwhelmingly perceive great satisfaction for the development of and use of knowledge from their major. In addition, almost three-quarters of students are satisfied with CWU’s contribution to their readiness for a career.

Summary Of CWU Student Learning Outcome Achievement – Program Evidence

Based on the results of various perception and student achievement data collected and/or analyzed during the 2007-2008 academic year, the following conclusions can be made:  CWU students and alumni are overwhelmingly satisfied with their development of major related skills and readiness for a career.  CWU students demonstrate high achievement and better than average (although somewhat variable) percentile rankings across various majors as compared to other institutions.  CWU programs are actively engaged in student learning outcomes assessment. Aggregated results show institutional obtainment of student learning outcomes and goals.

IV. Using Student Learning Evidence for Programmatic Improvement

“The important question is not how assessment is defined but whether assessment information is used…”(Palomba & Banta, 1999). Assessment evidence is analyzed and used at the individual faculty, program, and institutional levels at CWU. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 51 of 148

52.

IV. A. Faculty Level

During the fall, 2007, CWU faculty responded to a survey on academic assessment in their classroom. All CWU faculty (n=319) were invited to participate and 85 responded for a return rate of 27%. Results are summarized in Table 18 and Appendix 8. Table 18. University Assessment Survey Assessment Skill Confidence Please rate your confidence level in completing the following tasks. I use assessment information to provide feedback to students and help them learn. I use assessment feedback to improve my courses. Please rate your agreement with the statement…. Assessment is important in my current and future Strongly Agree 40

(48%)

47

(56%)

42

(51%)

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree 30

(36%)

27

(33%)

32

(39%)

8

(9%)

6

(7%)

7

(8%)

5

(6%)

2

(2%)

0

(0%)

1

(1%)

2

(2%)

2

(2%)

instructional planning. Summary Feedback: CWU faculty collect, review, and use assessment information. Most CWU faculty agreed to strongly agree that “assessment information was important in affecting their current and future instructional planning.” In addition, faculty report that they feel confident in using assessment feedback for course improvement as well as to provide feedback to students and help them learn.

IV.B. Program Level

Assessment evidence is analyzed and used for improvement of pedagogical and/or curricular areas at the programmatic level at CWU. In examining the assessment reports that were submitted (i.e., eighty-six) during the 2007-2008 academic year, 85% of them (73) provided documentation of pedagogical and/or curricular change as a result of their assessment findings. In addition, thirty-five (41%) programs provided further evidence that assessment results and findings from previous years were being used for long-term curricular and pedagogical decision. This finding provides strong evidence that academic programs have been actively engaging in continuous improvement efforts even though this was the first year of systematic reporting of those efforts. Some examples of programmatic improvement from each college include:  Arts & Humanities - Language and Literature Major: planning to revise the outcomes for the undergraduate courses and/or de-link them from associated graduate courses. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 52 of 148

53.  College of the Sciences – Sociology and Social Services Majors: have added a senior capstone seminar to the core curriculum for both majors to enhance curriculum coherence and assessment.  College of Education and Professional Studies – Construction Management: Faculty and student chapter officers volunteered to conduct an “Advising Workshop” for students applying for the major as many of the students applying for the major had the same questions pertaining to the application process.  College of Business – Economics: have added a senior capstone seminar (EC 406) to the core curriculum for both majors to enhance curriculum coherence and assessment.

IV.C. Institutional Level

Based on previous data, discussion, and program examination, the following institutional changes have occurred (list is not exhaustive) during the 2007-2008 academic year:  A Director of General Education position was created in 2007-2008 to provide greater faculty leadership and administrative coordination in planning, implementing, and assessing the General Education program.  The Faculty Senate passed (in May, 2008) a General Education Framework that includes a new mission and goals. These changes reflect the demographics related to learners and their needs as based on student perception and achievement data, takes faculty expertise into account, is flexible enough to allow for innovation and change, is aligned with college budgetary lines, and establishes responsibility for continuous planning and monitoring.    The Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) will begin being administered in Fall, 2008 to first year and senior students to determine CWU achievement in critical thinking, analytic reasoning, problem solving, and written communication skills. Departments have developed assessment plans for all degree programs and have begun reporting programmatic student learning outcome data via yearly reports as well as through Program Review. These results complement institutional continuous improvement efforts and NWCCU/other accreditation needs.

In an effort to improve student course selection and performance, five additional full-time advisors were hired (two for Ellensburg campus, two for the West-side Centers, and one for the East-side Centers) for employment for CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 53 of 148

54. 2008-2009. In addition, student-advising mission and goals were developed and approved in the spring, 2008.  Based on student interest, community and work-force need and demand, six new degree programs (BFA –Theatre Arts, MS-Nutrition, BS- Environmental Studies, BS-Global Wine Studies, MS-Primate Behavior, BS-General Science Teaching) were approved through institutional and Washington State Higher Education Coordinating Board curriculum processes during the 2007-2008 academic year.  The Douglas Honors College has revised its goals and curriculum (approved May, 2008) to enhance greater student and faculty participation and provide for a more coordinated two-year core sequence of courses to fulfill the general education basic skills and breadth requirements while providing a research focused upper division experience that is more choice-oriented in nature.

V. Evaluation and Improvement of Assessment Efforts

The evaluation and improvement of the assessment of student learning primarily occurs through the yearly program assessment reporting process. Following is a description of the review process and related findings.

V. A. Program Assessment Reporting

Yearly student learning outcome assessment reports are reviewed by program faculty, the program’s Dean and the Associate Vice President of Undergraduate Studies. Feedback and ratings are provided by members of the Academic Assessment Committee as to how well reports match “best practice” principles of assessment specific to the student learning outcomes assessed that year, the assessment methods used, the population assessed, the results of the assessment, and what the department or program plans to do or has done in response to assessment information. See Table A1-2 in Appendix 1 for a complete description of achievement/rubric levels. Follow-up meetings and presentations are scheduled by the Academic Assessment Committee to work with programs that display less than adequate or targeted levels of assessment quality. The following analysis and tables document programmatic and institutional efforts and achievement related to programmatic, college, and institutional assessment practice. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 54 of 148

55. CWU College of Art & Humanities - Annual Assessment Reports Table 19. Evaluation of the CWU College of Arts and Humanities 2008 Annual Assessment Reports

Outcomes Methods Results Feedback/ Program Improv. Previous Year Use Mean Rubric CAH 2008 Target Rubric Scores

2.40

2 1.72

2 2.84

2 0.75

2 1.29

2 Response by College of Arts and Humanities to 2008 Annual Academic Assessment Reports

Undergraduate Reports

27

Grad Reports

7

Non-Reporting (UG)

4

Non-Reporting (GR)

5

% Reporting (UG)

85%

% Reporting (GR)

29%

% Reporting (Total)

74% Report Summary: The Arts & Humanities programs met the target rubric for "outcomes" and "results" suggesting that outcomes are being written and attainment reported in clear, measurable terms, include knowledge, skills, or attitudes and may be linked to department, college and university mission and goals and compared to standards of mastery. Enhanced development of assessment methods is clearly needed within the college as is documentation of the use of data for program improvement. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 55 of 148

56.

CWU College of Education & Professional Studies Annual Assessment Reviews

Table 20. Average Evaluations of the CWU College of Education & Professional Studies 2008 Annual Assessment Reports

Mean Rubric CEPS 2008 Outcomes

3.17

Methods Results Feedback/ Program Improv.

0.95

Previous Year Use

1.73

Target Rubric Scores

2 1.83

2 2.35

2 2 2 Response by College of Education & Professional Studies to 2008 Annual Academic Assessment Reports

Undergraduate Reports Graduate Reports

26 8

Non-Reporting (UG)

6


5


77%


38%


68% Report Summary: The College of Education and Professional Studies programs met the target rubric for "outcomes" and "results" suggesting that outcomes are being written and attainment reported in clear, measurable terms, include knowledge, skills, or attitudes and may be linked to department, college and university mission and goals and compared to standards of mastery. Enhanced development of assessment methods is clearly needed within the college as is documentation of the use of data for program improvement. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 56 of 148

57.

CWU College of the Sciences Annual Assessment Reviews

Table 21. Average Evaluation of the CWU College of the Sciences 2008 Annual Assessment Reports

Mean Rubric COTS 2008 Outcomes

2.77


1.59


1.94


2 2.67

2 3.17

2 2 2 Response by College of the Sciences to 2008 Annual Academic Assessment Reports

UG Reports Grad Reports Non-Reporting (UG)

27 9 3


3


89%


67%


84% Report Summary: The College of the Sciences programs met the target rubric for "outcomes," "methods," and "results" suggesting that outcomes are being written in clear, measurable terms, include knowledge, skills, or attitudes and may be linked to department, college and university mission and goals. Outcomes are most typically assessed using a single method, which may be either direct or indirect and may have a standard of mastery attached. Results are most typically presented in specific quantitative and/or qualitative terms, are explicitly linked to outcomes and compared to established standards of mastery. Results also tend to include interpretation and conclusions. Enhanced documentation of the use of data for program improvement is needed and should be emphasized. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 57 of 148

58.

College of Business Annual Assessment Reviews

Table 22. Average Evaluation of the CWU College of Business 2008 Annual Assessment Reports

Mean Rubric CB 2008 Outcomes

2.67


1.00


1.00


2 2.33

2 2.67

2 2 2 Response by College of Business to 2008 Annual Academic Assessment Reports

UG Reports Grad Reports Non-Reporting (UG)

3 1 1

Non-Reporting (GR) % Reporting (UG)

0 67%


100%


75% Report Summary: The College of Business met the target rubric for "outcomes," "methods," and "results" suggesting that outcomes are being written in clear, measurable terms, include knowledge, skills, or attitudes and may be linked to department, college and university mission and goals. Outcomes are primarily assessed using a single method, which may be either direct or indirect and may have a standard of mastery attached. Results are (most typically) presented in specific quantitative and/or qualitative terms, are explicitly linked to outcomes and compared to established standards of mastery. Results also tend to include interpretation and conclusions. Enhanced documentation of the use of data for program improvement is needed and should be emphasized.


59.

CWU University-wide Annual Assessment Reports

Table 23. Average Evaluation of CWU 2008 Annual Assessment Reports

Outcomes Methods Results Feedback/ Program Improv. Mean Rubric CWU 2008

2.60

2.31

3.00


2 2 2 Response by CWU to 2008 Annual Academic Assessment Reports

Undergraduate Reports 87 Graduate Reports Non-Reporting (UG) 28 12

1.06

2


1.49

2

Non-Reporting (GR) % Reporting (UG) % Reporting (GR) 17 87% 40% % Reporting Total 75%

Report Summary: The University as a whole met the target rubric for "outcomes," "methods," and "results" suggesting that outcomes are being written in clear, measurable terms, include knowledge, skills, or attitudes and may be linked to department, college and university mission and goals. Outcomes are primarily assessed using a single method, which may be either direct or indirect and may have a standard of mastery attached. Results are presented in specific quantitative and/or qualitative terms and are explicitly linked to outcomes and compared to established standards of mastery. Improved methods (direct and indirect) and documentation of the use of data for program improvement is needed for this coming academic year. Continued emphasis by Deans, chairs, and focused professional development from the academic assessment committee should help improve programmatic assessment processes and reporting response.

V.B. Suggestions for Continuous Improvement

As a result of this first year’s programmatic assessment reporting and feedback cycle, the following suggestions are made to improve the process and institutional performance for the next year:  Continue to develop and refine the assessment yearly reporting and feedback system currently in place. For example, raising expectations as to reporting outcomes, methods, and results seem plausible since institutional performance already exceeds current expectations. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 59 of 148

60.  Provide professional development and continue to fund assessment grants that assist faculty in integrating best practice assessment processes. This should continue to bolster and improve direct assessment methods and include greater focus on indirect assessment of knowledge, skill, and student dispositions.  Recognize and reward departments and programs that exhibit best practice assessment processes.  Provide examples and means for programmatic assessment information dissemination through the academic assessment newsletter, web-based streaming video assessment news update, and webinar forums. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 60 of 148

APPENDICES

1. Assessment of Student Learning - Department and Program Report Form 2. College of Arts And Humanities Evaluation of Annual Assessment Reports 3. College of Business - Evaluation of Annual Assessment Reports 4. College of Education & Professional Studies Evaluation of Annual Assessment Reports 5. College of The Sciences - Evaluation of Annual Assessment Reports 6. Interdisciplinary / Other Programs / CWU Averages - Review of Annual Assessment Reports 7. Summary Results of Construction Fundamentals Exam March 2007 - CWU Averages vs. National Averages 8. CWU Academic Assessment Survey 9. General Education At CWU - Where Are We Now? 10. Trends in CWU Students' Responses to the National Survey of Student Engagement p. 93 p. 62 p. 66 p. 69 p. 71 p. 75 p. 79 p. 82 p. 84 p. 91 61. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 61 of 148

62.

APPENDIX 1 Central Washington University Assessment of Student Learning Table A1-1. Department and Program Report Form

Please enter the appropriate information concerning your student learning assessment activities for this year. Academic Year of Report: ______________ College: ____________________ Department _______________________ Program: ______________________ 1. What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why? In answering this question, please identify the specific student learning outcomes you assessed this year, reasons for assessing these outcomes, with the outcomes written in clear, measurable terms, and note how the outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and goals. 2. How were they assessed? In answering these questions, please concisely describe the specific methods used in assessing student learning. Please also specify the population assessed, when the assessment took place, and the standard of mastery (criterion) against which you will compare your assessment results. If appropriate, please list survey or questionnaire response rate from total population.

A) What methods were used? B) Who was assessed? C) When was it assessed?

3. What was learned? In answering this question, please report results in specific qualitative or quantitative terms, with the results linked to the outcomes you assessed, and compared to the standard of mastery (criterion) you noted above. Please also include a concise interpretation or analysis of the results. 4. What will the department or program do as a result of that information? In answering this question, please note specific changes to your program as they affect student learning, and as they are related to results from the assessment process. If no changes are planned, please describe why no changes are needed. In addition, how will the department report the results and changes to internal and external constituents (e.g., advisory groups, newsletters, forums, etc.). 5. What did the department or program do in response to last year’s assessment information? In answering this question, please describe any changes that have been made to improve student learning based on previous assessment results. Please also discuss any changes you have made to your assessment plan or assessment methods. 6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Student Learning at Central

Washington University:


63.

Central Washington University (2007-2008) Assessment of Student Learning Report: Target Levels Feedback for the Department of Degree Award: Program: Table A1-2 - Evaluation Criteria for Annual Assessment Reports 1. What outcomes were assessed this year and why? Value

4 3

2

1 0

Guidelines for Assessing a Program’s Reporting of Student Learning Outcomes (Target = 2)

Outcomes are written in clear, measurable terms and include knowledge, skills, and attitudes. All outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and goals. Outcomes are written in clear, measurable terms and include knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Some outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and goals.

Outcomes are written in clear, measurable terms and include knowledge, skills, or attitudes. Outcomes may be linked to department, college and university mission and goals.

Some outcomes may be written as general, broad, or abstract statements. Outcomes include knowledge, skills, or attitudes. Outcomes may be linked to department, college and university mission and goals. Outcomes are not identified. Comments: Reports that obtain higher scores are characterized by increasingly specific student learning outcomes that relate to multiple domains of student development (knowledge, skill, and attitudes). In addition, higher scored reports will clearly articulate the relationship between program outcomes and department, college and university mission and goals.

2. c. Value

4 3

2 How were they assessed? a. What methods were used? b. Who was assessed? When was it assessed? Guidelines for Assessing a Program's Reporting of Assessment Methods (Target = 2)

A variety of methods, both direct and indirect are used for assessing each outcome. Reporting of assessment method includes population assessed, number assessed, and when applicable, survey response rate. Each method has a clear standard of mastery (criterion) against which results will be assessed Some outcomes may be assessed using a single method, which may be either direct or indirect. All assessment methods are described in terms of population assessed, number assessed, and when applicable, survey response rate. Each method has a clear standard of mastery (criterion) against which results will be assessed.

Some outcomes may be assessed using a single method, which may be either direct or indirect. All assessment methods are described in terms of population assessed, number assessed, and when applicable, survey response rate. Some methods may have a clear standard of mastery (criterion) against which results will be assessed.

1 0 Each outcome is assessed using a single method, which may be either direct or indirect. Some assessment methods may be described in terms of population assessed, number assessed, and when applicable, survey response rate. Some methods may have a clear standard of mastery (criterion) against which results will be assessed.

Assessment methods are non existent, not reported, or include grades, student/faculty ratios, program evaluations, or other “non-measures” of actual student performance or satisfaction.


64.

Comments:

Reports that obtain higher scores are characterized by increasingly clearer information in determining how the assessment took place and the use of a standard of mastery. In addition, higher scored reports will include a greater number of methods in assessing each outcome.

*Target Levels are bolded for each area.

3. What was learned (assessment results)?

Value

4 3

2

1 0

Guidelines for Assessing a Program’s Reporting of Assessment Results (Target = 3)

Results are presented in specific quantitative and/or qualitative terms. Results are explicitly linked to outcomes and compared to the established standard of mastery. Reporting of results includes interpretation and conclusions about the results.

Results are presented in specific quantitative and/or qualitative terms and are explicitly linked to outcomes and compared to the established standard of mastery.

Results are presented in specific quantitative and/or qualitative terms, although they may not all be explicitly linked to outcomes and compared to the established standard of mastery.

Results are presented in general statements.

Results are not reported.

Comments: Reports that obtain higher scores are characterized by increasingly clearer information about what was learned from the assessment, particularly in relation to a standard of mastery.

4 . What will the department do as a result of that information (feedback/program improvement)?

Value

2

1 NA 0 Guidelines for Assessing a Program’s Reporting of Planned Program Improvements (Target = 2)

Program improvement is related to pedagogical or curricular decisions described in specific terms congruent with assessment results. The department reports the results and changes to internal and external constituents.

Program improvement is related to pedagogical or curricular decisions described only in global or ambiguous terms, or plans for improvement do not match assessment results. The department may report the results and changes to internal or external constituents.

Program improvement is not indicated by assessment results.

Program improvement is not addressed.

Comments:

Reports that obtain higher scores are characterized by specific curricular and pedagogical improvement information. In addition, the department reports the results and changes to internal and external constituents .

5.

Value

2

1 NA 0

How did the department or program make use of the feedback from last year’s assessment?

Guidelines for Assessing a Program’s Reporting of Previous Feedback (Target = 2)

Discussion of feedback indicates that assessment results and feedback from previous assessment reports are being used for long-term curricular and pedagogical decisions.

Discussion of feedback indicates that assessment results and feedback from previous assessment reports are acknowledged. This is a first year report. There is no discussion of assessment results or feedback from previous assessment reports. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 64 of 148

Comments:

Reports that obtain higher scores are characterized by specific curricular and pedagogical improvement information from previous years.

*Target Levels are bolded for each area.


APPENDIX 2 CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND HUMANITIES EVALUATION OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS

Abbreviation Key:  NA = Not Applicable  NA1 = No Report Submitted  NA2 = Program Under Suspension  NA3 = Program on Reserve 66. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 66 of 148

CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY - COLLEGE OF ARTS & HUMNITIES REVIEW OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENT PLANS

Art Dept. Communica tions English Foreign Languages History Music Philosophy Theatre Arts Program

BFA-Art BA-Arts BS-Visual Arts Teach. MFA-Art MA-Art BA-Communication Studies BA-Public Relations BA-Journalism BA-Lang. and Lit. BA-Eng./Lang. Arts Teach MA-English Lit. MA-TESOL BA-Foreign Lang. Major BA-Foreign Lang. Teach BA- Spanish Major BA-Spanish Teach. Major BA-History BA-History Teaching MA- History BM- Music Theory/Composition BM- Music Vocal Performance BM- Keyboard or Guitar Performance BM- Percussion/Wind/Stri ng Perform. BM- Music Education Major BA- Music Major MM-Music BA-Philosophy Major

Report Evaluat ed

July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08

Outco mes

0 0 0 NA 1 NA 1 4 4 4 2 2 2 NA 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 NA 1 2 1

Method s

1 1 1 NA 1 NA 1 3 3 3 4 3 3 NA 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 NA 1 4 0

Res ults

2 2 2 NA 1 NA 1 3 4 3 4 1 4 NA 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 NA 1 3 1

Feedback/ Program Improv.

1 1 1 NA 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 0 0


NA NA NA NA 1 NA 1 1 1 1 2 NA NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 2 1

Interdiscipl inary

BA- Theatre Arts BA- Theatre Arts: Teaching K-12 MA-Theatre Production BA-Asia/Pacific Studies BA-Film/Video Studies July-08 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 0 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 0 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 67. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 67 of 148

AVERAGE RATING - CWU College of Arts &

Humanities

Mean Rubric CAH 2008 Target Rubric Scores

2.40 2 1.72 2 2.84 2


0.75 2


1.29 2

CAH RESPONSE RATES

Undergraduate reports Graduate reports Non-response - UG Non-response - Graduate % Reporting - Undergraduate % Reporting - Graduate % Reporting - Overall 27 7 4 5 85% 29% 74%  Comments: Most undergraduate Arts & Humanities academic programs submitted student learning outcome reports for the 2007-2008 academic year. However, a majority (more than two-thirds) of graduate reports were not submitted. Interdisciplinary programs also did not provide reports. Enhanced programmatic assessment engagement and the reporting of that engagement is needed at both levels but particularly at the graduate level and for interdisciplinary programs to improve academic continuous improvement effort for these programs. The Arts & Humanities programs met the target rubric for "outcomes" and "results" suggesting that outcomes are being written and attainment reported in clear, measurable terms, include knowledge, skills, or attitudes and may be linked to department, college and university mission and goals and compared to standards of mastery. Enhanced development of assessment methods is clearly needed within the college as is documentation of the use of data for program improvement. The following programs should be noted for best practice in relation to assessment (BA Communication Studies; BA Language & Literature; BA Philosophy; MA English Literature). 68. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 68 of 148

APPENDIX 3 CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF BUSINESS EVALUATION OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS

Abbreviation Key: NA = Not Applicable NA1 = No Report Submitted NA2 = Program Under Suspension NA3 = Program on Reserve 69. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 69 of 148

70.

CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF BUSINESS REVIEW OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENT PLANS

College: College of Business

Dept. Accounting Economics Manageme nt Program

BS-Accounting Major Master of Professional Accountancy

Report Evaluated Outcomes

BS-Economics Major BS-Business Administration Major

Mean Rubric CB 2008

3 2 NA 3 1 2.67

Methods

2 3 NA 1 2 2.33

Results

2 4 NA 1 2 2.67


1 1 NA 1 1 1.00


NA 1 NA 1 NA 1.00


2 2 2 2 2

CWU COLLEGE OF BUSINESS - ANNUAL ASSESSMENT PLAN RESPONSE RATES

UG Reports Grad Reports Non-Reporting (UG) 3 1 1 Non-Reporting (GR) % Reporting (UG) % Reporting (GR) 0 67% 100% Comments: The College of Business met the target rubric for "outcomes," "methods," and "results" suggesting that outcomes are being written in clear, measurable terms, include knowledge, skills, or attitudes and may be linked to department, college and university mission and goals. Outcomes are primarily assessed using a single method, which may be either direct or indirect and may have a standard of mastery attached. Results are (most typically) presented in specific quantitative and/or qualitative terms, are explicitly linked to outcomes and compared to established standards of mastery. Results also tend to include interpretation and conclusions. Enhanced documentation of the use of data for program improvement is needed and should be emphasized. Effort should be made to assure yearly reporting for all programs. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 70 of 148 50%

APPENDIX 4 CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & PROFESSIONAL STUDIES REVIEW OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS


72.

CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY REVIEW OF 2007/2008 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & PROFESSIONAL STUDIES

Dept. Aviation Educati on FCS HHPN Program

BS-Flight Technology Major BAEd-Early Childhood Ed. Major BAEd-Elementary Education Major BAEd-Special Education Major MEd-Master Teacher MEd-Reading Specialist MEd-Special Education BA-Family & Consumer Studies BA-Family & Consumer Sciences BS-FCS, Career and Tech. Ed. Teach. BS-Fashion Merchandising BS-Recreation and Tourism MS-Family & Consumer Sciences BS-PE:Teach K-12 Health Fitenss BS-Exercise Science BS-Paramedic Major BS-Food Science Nutrition BAS-Food Science Nutrition BS-Public Health BA-School Health MS-Nutrition MS-Exercise Science MS-Health and Physical Education

Report Evaluated

July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08

Outcomes

4 4 4 4 NA 1 NA 1 1 2 NA 1 4 4 2 NA 1 2 4 2 2 2 4 4 NA 1 4 2

Methods

3 3 3 3 NA 1 NA 1 3 1 NA 1 1 1 1 NA 1 3 0 3 0 0 1 1 NA 1 3 1

Results

2 1 1 1 NA 1 NA 1 1 3 NA 1 3 3 0 NA 1 4 4 1 0 0 4 3 NA 1 4 4

Feedback/ Program Improv. Previous Year Use

1 1 1 1 NA 1 NA 1 1 1 NA 1 NA 1 1 NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 1 2 NA NA NA NA 1 NA 1 1 NA NA 1 NA NA 2 NA 1 2 NA NA NA NA 2 NA NA 1 NA 2 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 72 of 148

73.

Dept. IET ITAM COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES

Review of Annual Assessment Reports - continued

Program

BS-Construction Management BS-Electronic Engineering Tech. BS-Industrial Technology Major BAS-Industrial Technology BS-Mechanical Engineering Tech. BS-Industrial Education BS-Safety and Health Management BAS-Safety and Health Management MS-Engineering Technology BS-ITAM BAS-Info. Tech and Admin. Manag.

Report Evaluated Outcome s

July-08 July-08 July-08 August-08 August-08 4 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 2 4 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 4 4

Methods

3 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 3 3 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 1 1

CEPS 2008 Average Rubric Score

3.17 1.83

Results

4 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 4 4 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 3 0

Feedback/ Program Improv. Previous Year Use

2 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 2 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 1 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 0 0 2 2 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 2 0 2.35 0.95 1.73


2

CWU CEPS ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS AVERAGE RESPONSE RATES SUMMARY

UG Reports Grad Reports Non-Reporting (UG) Non-Reporting (GR) % Reporting (UG) % Reporting (GR) % Reporting (Total) 26 8 6 5 77% 38% 68% 2 2 2 2 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 73 of 148

74.

CWU COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES Review of Annual Assessment Reports - continued

Comments: Almost three-quarter of undergraduate College of Education and Professional Studies academic programs submitted student learning outcome reports for the 2007-2008 academic year. However, almost two-thirds of graduate reports were not submitted. Enhanced assessment engagement and the reporting of that engagement is needed at both levels but particularly at the graduate level to improve academic continuous improvement effort for these programs. The College of Education and Professional Studies programs met the target rubric for "outcomes" and "results" suggesting that outcomes are being written and attainment reported in clear, measurable terms, include knowledge, skills, or attitudes and may be linked to department, college and university mission and goals and compared to standards of mastery. Enhanced development of assessment methods is clearly needed within the college as is documentation of the use of data for program improvement. The following programs should be noted for best practice in relation to assessment (BS-Flight Technology; BS-PE Teaching in K-12 Health-Fitness; BS Industrial Education; MS Exercise Science). CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 74 of 148

APPENDIX 5 CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF THE SCIENCES REVIEW OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS

Abbreviation Key:

NA = Not Applicable NA1 = No Report Submitted NA2 = Program Under Suspension NA3 = Program on Reserve


76.

CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY - COLLEGE OF THE SCIENCES REVIEW OF 2007/2008 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS Dept. Anthropology Biological Sciences Chemistry Program

BS-Anthropology BA-Anthropology BA-Biology Major BS-Biology Major BS-Biology Teaching Major MS-Biology BA-Chemistry Major BA-Chemistry Teaching Major BS-Chemistry Major

Computer Science Geography Geological Sciences

MS-Chemistry BS-Computer Science BA-Geography Major BS-Geology Major BA-Geology Major BS-Environmental Geological Sciences BA-Earth Science Teaching Major

Law and Justice Mathematics Physics

MS-Geological Sciences BA-Law and Justice BA-Mathematics, Teaching Major BS-Mathematics MA-Mathematics, Teaching BA-Physics Major BS-Physics Major Political Science BA-Political Science Major

Primate Behavior Psychology

BS-Public Policy Major BS-Primate Behavior and Ecology BA-Psychology Major MS-Experimental Psychology MS-Mental Health Counseling MEd-School Counseling MEd-School Psychology

Report Evaluated Outcomes Methods Results

July-08 July-08 2 2 3 3 4 4


1 1


2 2 Sept-08 Sept-08 Sept-08 Sept-08 July-08 July-08 August-08 August-08 August-08 Sept-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 July-08 2 2 4 NA 1 2 NA 1 2 NA 3 NA 2 2 2 4 NA 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 2 2 3 NA 1 2 NA 1 2 NA 2 NA 3 3 3 3 NA 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 0 2 4 4 1 1 2 2 4 NA 1 3 NA 1 2 NA 3 NA 3 3 3 4 NA 1 2 3 3 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 3 3 4 4 1 1 1 1 2 NA 1 0 NA 1 1 NA 2 NA 2 2 2 2 NA 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 NA 2 2 2 NA 1 NA NA 1 NA NA 2 NA NA NA NA 2 NA 1 2 1 1 NA NA NA NA NA 2 2 2 NA 1 NA NA 2 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 76 of 148


78.

III. COLLEGE OF THE SCIENCES - continued Dept. Sociology Program

BA-Sociology BS-Sociology BS-Social Services Major BS Gerontology MS-Resource Management


July-08 July-08 July-08

Outcomes

3 3 3 NA 1

Methods

3 3 3 NA 1

Results

3 3 3 NA 1

Feedback/ Program Improvmnt

2 2 2 NA 1


2 2 2 NA 1 July-08 2 3

COTS - COLLEGE AVERAGES

3 1 NA

Mean Rubric COTS 2008

2.77 2.67 3.17 1.59 1.94

Target Rubric Scores OVERALL RESPONSE RATES 2 2 2 2 2

UG Reports Grad Reports Non-Reporting (UG) Non-Reporting (GR) % Reporting (UG) 27 9 3 3 89% % Reporting (GR) % Reporting (Total) 67% 84%

COMMENTS

Comments: The College of the Sciences programs met the target rubric for "outcomes," "methods," and "results" suggesting that outcomes are being written in clear, measurable terms, include knowledge, skills, or attitudes and may be linked to department, college and university mission and goals. Outcomes are most typically assessed using a single method, which may be either direct or indirect and may have a standard of mastery attached. Results are most typically presented in specific quantitative and/or qualitative terms, are explicitly linked to outcomes and compared to established standards of mastery. Results also tend to include interpretation and conclusions. Enhanced documentation of the use of data for program improvement is needed and should be emphasized. The following programs should be noted for best practice in relation to assessment (BA/BS Sociology; BA Political Science/BS Public Policy; BA Psychology; M.Ed. School Counseling; BA/BS Anthropology). CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 78 of 148

APPENDIX 6 CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY INTERDISCIPLINARY AND OTHER PROGRAMS REVIEW OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS


80. College: Interdisciplinary Programs/Other

Dept. Individual Studies Program

BA-Individual Studies BS-Individual Studies BM-Individual Studies MA-Individual Studies M.Ed.-Individual Studies MS-Individual Studies


July-08 July-08 July-08

Outcomes

2 2 2 NA NA 1 1

Methods

3 3 3 NA NA 1 1

Results

4 4 4 NA NA 1 1

Interdiscip linary Stud.

BA-Interdiscip. Stud-Social Sciences July-08 NA 2 1 NA 3 1 NA

INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAMS OVERALL AVERAGE

Mean Rubric Interdisc. Programs 2008

2 3 4


2 3 3

4 1

Feedback/ Program Improv. 1 2

1 1 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 1


NA NA NA NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 NA

NA 2 INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAMS RESPONSE RATES UG Reports Grad Reports Non-Reporting (UG) Non-Reporting (GR) % Reporting (UG) % Reporting (GR)

4 3 0 3 100% 0%

% Reporting Total

57% Comments: All undergraduate Individual Studies and Interdisciplinary academic programs (4) submitted student learning outcome reports for the 2007-2008 academic year. However, no graduate individual study reports were submitted. Enhanced assessment engagement and the reporting of that engagement is needed at the graduate level to improve academic continuous improvement effort for these programs. The undergraduate programs met the target rubric for "outcomes, methods, and results." Documentation of the use of data for program improvement is needed for this coming academic year. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 80 of 148

81. CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY REVIEW OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS

REVIEW OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS UNIVERSITY-WIDE AVERAGES Mean Rubric CWU

Outcomes 2.60 Methods 2.31 Results 3.00 Feedback/ Program Improvement 1.06 Previous Year Use 1.49

Target Rubric

2 2 2

CWU-WIDE RESPONSES TO ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

UG

87

Grad

28

2 2 Non-Reporting Non-Reporting % Reporting UG % Reporting GR

12 17 87% 40%

% Reporting Total

75%

University Comments: Three-quartersof all academic programs submitted student learning outcome reports for the 2007-2008 academic year. Thus, a quarter of all academic programs are not engaged in continuous programmatic improvement efforts or are at least not reporting those efforts. Enhanced engagement and the reporting of that engagement is needed to improve academic continuous improvement efforts for high student learning and achievement. Undergraduate programs tended to submit proportionately more reports than graduate programs, suggesting targeted emphasis and professional development. The university met the target rubric for "outcomes," "methods," and "results" suggesting that outcomes are being written in clear, measurable terms, include knowledge, skills, or attitudes and may be linked to department, college and university mission and goals. Outcomes are primarily assessed using a single method, which may be either direct or indirect and may have a standard of mastery attached. Results are presented in specific quantitative and/or qualitative terms and are explicitly linked to outcomes and compared to established standards of mastery. Improved methods (direct and indirect) and documentation of the use of data for program improvement is needed for this coming academic year. Continued emphasis by Deans, chairs, and focused professional development from the academic assessment committee should help improve programmatic assessment processes and reporting response.


APPENDIX 7 RESULTS TO CONSTRUCTION FUNDAMENTALS EXAM MARCH 2007 CWU AVERAGES vs. NATIONAL AVERAGES


83. CQE LEVEL 1 - Construction Credentials - Average Scores

Average Test Score CWU 224.25 Highest Test Score Lowest Test Scores

CQE LEVEL 1 - CWU Pass Rate vs. U.S. Average Pass Rate

CWU

Number of candidates tested 36 Number of candidates passed

262 154

28

National Average 216.94 275 71 National

1040 671 Average pass rate 77.8% 64.5%

Area Scores

averages

Construction Credentials Exam - CWU vs. U.S. Average Area Scores CWU Average National Average Max Possible

Communications ** Engineering concepts Management concepts Materials, Methods, and Plan Reading Bidding and Estimating Budgeting, Costs, and Cost Control Planning, Scheduling, and Control Construction Safety Surveying and Project Layout Project Administration 11.25** 25.53 10.22 26.14 34.42 23.25 31.69 17.69 9.03 35.03 11.85 23.38 9.79 25.55 32.13 22.58 30.64 18.22 8.14 14.64 18 34 13 34 45 32 41 25 11 46 ** Indicates areas of weakness.

Passing Score

13 24 9 24 32 22 29 17 8 32 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 83 of 148

APPENDIX 8

SUMMARY RESPONSES TO THE "CWU ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT SURVEY" (originally administered during November and December of 2007) 84. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 84 of 148

85. available.

CWU Academic Assessment Survey Administered November and December, 2007

Sample Size n=319 Returned n=85 or 27% Assessment means different things to different people, but at the core, assessment is a cornerstone of effective teaching and learning. Accrediting agencies evaluate evidence from assessment and use it to determine unit and institutional performance. More importantly, assessment can help faculty focus their efforts in ways that improve student learning. Because of its role in continuous improvement, faculty should be aware of what assessment is, why it's important, how it can be developed and supported, and what tools are needed and Rather than make assumptions about faculty knowledge, skills, and dispositions regarding assessment, the CWU Academic Assessment Committee would like to determine what faculty thoughts, needs, and desires currently exist. These preliminary data will help us better meet your professional development needs. Sample Size n=319 Returned n=85 or 27% 1. Assessment Definition: We would like to know how you define “assessment.” Rate your agreement with the following statements by circling that description which best matches it. Defining Assessment How do you define “assessment?” Assessment means… a) Determining whether my courses achieve their objectives. b) Determining whether the program and/or major achieves departmental objectives. c) Determining how well individual students meet learning goals. d) Evaluating teaching effectiveness. e) Measuring student satisfaction with my course f) Measuring student satisfaction with me as a teacher. Strongly Agree 51

(62%)

45

(54%)

50

(59%)

39

(48%)

14

(17%)

14

(17%)

Agree Neutral Disagree 27

(33%)

2

(2%)

2

(2%)

30

(36)

24

(29%)

26

(32%)

28

(34%)

27

(33%)

4

(5%)

4

(5%)

11

(14%)

18

(22%)

18

(21%)

3

(4%)

4

(5%)

3

(4%)

9

(10%)

10

(12%)

Strongly Disagree 1 (1%) 1

(1%)

2

(2%)

2

(2%)

14

(17%)

14

(17%)


86.

2. Assessment Skill Confidence:

Directions: Rate your confidence level in completing the following tasks by circling that description which best matches it. Assessment Skill Confidence Please rate your confidence level in completing the following tasks. Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree a) I select goals and outcomes that permit practical methods of assessment. 39

(46%)

34

(41%)

8

(10%)

1

(1%)

2

(2%)

19

(23%)

29

(35%)

19

(23%)

11

(13%)

5

(6%)

b) I am able to develop indirect assessments (i.e., surveys, observations, focus groups, opinion polls, etc.) to positively influence student learning. c) I am able to develop a variety of direct assessment tools (e.g., tests, projects, surveys, portfolios, simulations, essays, case studies) for use in my teaching d) I am able to use a variety of assessment methods (e.g., tests, projects, surveys, portfolios, simulations, essays, case studies) in my teaching. e) I use assessment information to provide feedback to students and help them learn. f) I use assessment feedback to improve my courses. 48

(57%)

44

(53%)

40

(48%)

47

(56%)

26

(31%)

29

(35%)

30

(36%)

27

(33%)

9

(11%)

7

(9%)

8

(9%)

6

(7%)

0

(0%)

2

(2%)

5

(6%)

2

(2%)

1

(1%)

1

(1%)

1

(1%)

2

(2%)


87.

3. Assessment Attitude:

Directions: Rate your agreement with the following statements by circling that description that best matches it. Assessment Attitude: How strongly do you agree with the following statements? Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree a) Assessment is an important part of my role as a teacher. 47

(56%)

27

(32%)

8

(10%)

1

(1%)

b) Assessment is important in my current and future instructional planning. 42

(51%)

32

(39%)

7

(8%)

0

(0%)

c) Participating in programmatic assessment activities is important. 28

(33%)

33

(39%)

12

(14%)

8

(10%)

d) Participating in programmatic assessment helps faculty in tenure and promotion and post-tenure review processes. e) I have adequate time to develop effective classroom assessments. 11 (13%) 2

(2%)

19

(22%)

14

(17%)

26

(31%)

19

(23%)

14

(17%)

29

(34%)

f) I know where to find help on campus for assessment issues. 5

(6%)

24

(29%)

22

(26%)

17

(20%)

g) Assessment plays an important role in shaping academic planning and priorities within my department. h) I play an active role in my department’s program assessment process. 12

(14%)

26

(31%)

26

(31%)

30

(36%)

26

(31%)

16

(19%)

12

(14%)

8

(9%)

i) I am worried that assessment data may be used to hurt me/my program. 14

(17%)

16

(19%)

17

(20%)

27

(32%)

j) I believe it is important to use a variety of assessment methods. 44

(53%)

32

(38%)

5

(6%)

2

(2%)

k) Assessment plays an important role in shaping academic priorities within the university. 13

(16%)

22

(26%)

26

(31%)

13

(15%)

Strongly Disagree 1

(1%)

2

(2%)

3 (4%) 14

(17%)

20

(24%)

16

(19%)

8

(10%)

4

(5%)

10

(12%)

1

(1%)

10

(12%)


88.

4. Please identify the types of assessments you use in the classes you teach. (Please select all that apply.) *Numbers reflect the percentage of survey participates that selected a particular assessment type.

95% Quizzes and exams 86% Research papers 69% Class attendance 46% Practicum/internship 93% Written assignment 39% Case studies 62% Essays 71% Group discussion 60% Reflection papers 38% Simulations 39% Portfolios 84% Class presentations 40% Lecture notes 74% Reading assignments 28% Surveys 21% Service learning 75% Group projects 13% Other  Presentations; performance; recitation  Peer teaching  Course CQI  Performance (musical) keyed to standards  Collaborative projects, listings, peer evaluations, interviews  Oral exams  Laboratory work  Socratic dialog; critical thinking practices  Experiments, oral interactions including oral exams, long-term research projects, self directed learning, peer and jigsaw instruction, classroom assessment a la Angelo and Cross  Practicum exercises  Chapter problems  Individual projects  Debates CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 88 of 148

5. Please describe any barriers that prevent implementation of assessment at course, program, and department levels: *Numbers reflect total number of similar responses. 53 participates submitted responses. Barriers

None Time/no workload units Lack of training (including centers) Lack of resources (money and clerical support) Lack of commonality (too much duplication not enough constituency) Lack of rewards Lack of leadership Lack of understanding of departmental needs Conflict between instruction and assessment Lack of interdependent participation Overload of committee and administrative work Assessment not completed to avoid performance Information collected but not utilized or disseminated Class size too large to assesses student learning SEOI’s need revision/not reliable/poor assessment tool

Number of responses

3 27 6 6 11 4 3 3 2 1 2 1 5 1 5 89. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 89 of 148

6. What do you think CWU can so to better support assessment at the individual, program, and/or department level? *Numbers reflect total number of similar responses. 51 participates submitted responses. Support action

No comment Programs should operate under state and national standards overseen by a program committee. Get rid of scan-tron. Utilize the assessment already being done in depts. Reduce class size Teaching according to pre-determined criteria Unify software systems or have one all purpose Improve standards of course instruction Share successful assessment work across campus/training/standardize assessment Initiate rigorous research that is both quantitative & qualitative. Have VP for UG direct CTL to develop and implement a CQI for Gen Ed. Provide time, resources, workload units and rewards SEOI need to be evaluated, revised & used appropriately. Realize departments have unique challenges & deadlines.

Number of responses

4 1 1 1 19 3 1 1 2 1 2 4 1 9 90. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 90 of 148

APPENDIX 9

GENERAL EDUCATION AT CWU - WHERE ARE WE NOW? July 28, 2008


IV. General Education at CWU: Where Are We Now? - July 28, 2008 The General Education program has been undergoing a process of reform for ten years. Although complex and gradual, the collaborative progression reflects best practice related to positive and systemic institutional change.

Process Stages

Stage 1: Define the student population: Which assumptions about learners are evidence based, and what implications do they have for teaching? Engage stakeholders in an inclusive and open process makes constructive institutional change possible and enables organizational learning to occur. Stage 2: Define the institutional context: Orientation to past, present, or future Value set: excellence, uniqueness, innovation, collaboration, learner-centered. Change does not occur because one is well intentioned. Constructive change and collective learning occur if a change process is carefully framed and implemented with skill and humanity. Conducting a SWOT analysis to find a path between what is desirable and what is possible in terms of the institutional context.

Data Acquired

Data: 2002 Faculty Survey on Student Preparedness: resulted in significant changes Data: 2004 Faculty Survey 2004 SWOT analysis Internal environment a. Strengths b. Weaknesses, gaps and/or constraints External environment a. Opportunities b. Threats 2005 General Education Institute Results 2005 “State of the Program: General Education at CWU” Outcomes of the General Education Institute resulted in additional refinements and a clarification of the General Education mission and vision. Data: General Education reform proposals of 2006/07 Stage 3: Collecting and defining the relationship of General Education to the campus mission and vision, identifying student skills levels and primary needs, and examining models from peer institutions which share a common purpose and similar faculty and student demographics Stage 4: Redefining and aligning mission and vision with goals and areas of study by taking into account

Data:

May 2008: Senate passes General Education Framework (including mission and goals) that a. reflects demographics related to learners and learner needs b. takes faculty expertise into account c. is flexible to allow innovation and change d. is aligned with college budgetary lines e. establishes responsibility for continuous planning and monitoring Data: To be completed Fall 2008 Stage 5: Crafting shared outcomes What is essential? What is our common ground? Vetting proposed outcomes with stakeholders and aligning stakeholder support 92. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 92 of 148

93.

APPENDIX 10 Trends in CWU Students' Responses to the National Survey of Student Engagement

Note: the files in this appendix were copied from CWU Institutional Research files with their permission. Any formatting errors are due to the process of changing file format and pasting them into this report.

1

Academic and Intellectual Experiences a. Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions b. Made a class presentation p. 95 p. 97 p. 99 c. d. e. f. i. n. p. s. Prepared two or more drafts of a paper or assignment before turning it in Worked on a paper that required integrating ideas or information from various sources Included diverse perspectives (different races, religions, genders, political beliefs, etc.) in class discussions or writing assignments Come to class without completing readings or assignments Put together ideas or concepts from different courses when completing assignments or during class discussions Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with faculty members outside of class Worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework (committees, orientation, student life activities, etc.)

2

Mental Activities a. Memorizing facts, ideas, or methods from your courses and readings so you can repeat them in pretty much the same form b. c. Analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or situation in depth and considering its components Synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships e. Applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations Quality of Relationships

8

b. Relationships with faculty members 11 Educational and Personal Growth a. b. c. Acquiring a broad general education Acquiring job or work-related knowledge or skills Writing clearly and effectively d. e. f. g. j. l. n. Speaking clearly and effectively Thinking critically and analytically Analyzing quantitative problems Using computing and information technology Learning effectively on your own Understanding people of other racial and ethnic background Developing a personal code of values and ethics

13 Satisfaction

13. Satisfaction 14. Satisfaction p. 101 p. 103 p. 105 p. 107 p. 109 p. 111 p. 113 p. 115 p. 117 p. 119 p. 121 p. 123 p. 125 p. 127 p. 129 p. 131 p. 133 p. 135 p. 137 p. 139 p. 141 p. 143 p. 145 p. 147 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 93 of 148

94.

First Year Senior Total Survey Method FIRST YEAR

CWU Peer Institutions Overall response rate

SENIOR CWU

Peer Institutions Overall response rate

Survey Method Number of CWU Students Responding to the NSSE Survey 2000-2001

159 167

2003-2004

147 171

2004-2005 2005-2006

219 280 417 628 326

2000-2001

45% 318

2003-2004

35% 499

2004-2005

32% 1045 Paper & Web Paper & Web Paper & Web Web only

CWU Response Rates to the NSSE Survey 2005-2006

25%

2006-2007

298 521 819 Web only

2006-2007

16% N/A N/A 47% N/A N/A Paper & Web 35% 37% 42% 38% 40% Paper & Web 33% 36% 41% 37% 38% Paper & Web 30% 33% 34% 33% 36% Web only 28% 29% 25% 30% 31% Web only CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 94 of 148

95.

1.a. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions? 1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often 4) Very often Means Effect Size Significance

p<.001

2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers

6% 50% 29% 15% 3% 39% 35% 23% 2.53 2.79 -0.31 5% 41% 39% 14% 2.62 -0.25 3% 36% 35% 25% 2.83 4% 42% 36% 18% 2.67 2.84 -0.20 3% 37% 35% 25% 6% 42% 35% 17% 2.63 3% 37% 36% 24% 2.80 -0.20 4% 44% 40% 12% 2.61 -0.21 3% 38% 36% 23% 2.78 p<.01 p<.01 p<.001 p<.001 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 95 of 148

96.

1.a. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions? 1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often 4) Very often Means Effect Size Significance

42% 40% 3.15 3.13 0.03


2% 22% 33% 1% 25% 33% 1% 28% 38% 2% 23% 32% 1% 28% 31% 1% 24% 33% 2% 29% 35% 2% 26% 34% 2% 28% 33% 2% 26% 33% 33% 43% 3.02 3.18 -0.18 p<.05 39% 42% 3.09 3.15 -0.08 34% 39% 3.02 3.10 -0.09 p<.05 37% 39% 3.05 3.09 -0.04 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 96 of 148

97.

1.b. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you made a class presentation? 1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often 4) Very often Means Effect Size Significance

p<.001


37% 48% 16% 53% 22% 61% 15% 53% 35% 47% 12% 53% 30% 53% 14% 52% 29% 57% 14% 52% 11% 4% 24% 7% 1.82 2.22 -0.51 13% 4% 24% 8% 1.99 2.25 -0.32 14% 5% 27% 8% 1.88 2.30 -0.54 12% 5% 26% 8% 1.93 2.28 -0.44 14% 0% 26% 8% 1.86 2.29 -0.54 p<.001 p<.001 p<.001 p<.001 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 97 of 148

98.

1.b. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you made a class presentation? 1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often 4) Very often Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers

1% 28% 37% 3% 32% 39% 2% 34% 31% 4% 31% 38% 1% 29% 38% 3% 29% 39% 3% 31% 37% 5% 30% 38% 3% 29% 39% 5% 31% 38% 34% p<.05 26% 3.03 2.88 0.19 33% 27% 2.94 2.90 0.05 33% 29% 3.03 2.93 0.12 29% 27% 2.91 2.87 0.04 29% p<.05 26% 2.94 2.84 0.11 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 98 of 148

99.

1.c. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you prepared two or more drafts of a paper or assignment before turning it in?

1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often 4) Very often Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 13% 31% 33% 23% 11% 29% 33% 28% 2.66 2.78 -0.12 12% 25% 36% 28% 2.80 0.07 12% 30% 33% 26% 2.73 15% 17% 36% 32% 2.85 2.69 0.17 12% 31% 33% 24% 14% 29% 31% 25% 2.68 12% 31% 33% 24% 2.69 -0.01 12% 30% 34% 23% 2.69 -0.02 12% 30% 33% 25% 2.71 p<.05 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 99 of 148

100.

1.c. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you prepared two or more drafts of a paper or assignment before turning it in?

1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often 4) Very often Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 10% 42% 13% 36% 12% 36% 15% 36% 11% 35% 14% 37% 14% 36% 15% 36% 16% 37% 15% 36% 28% 20% 29% 22% 2.59 2.59 0.00 26% 26% 28% 21% 2.67 2.55 0.12 30% 24% 27% 21% 2.66 2.55 0.11 30% 21% 28% 21% 2.57 2.55 0.02 26% 21% 28% 20% 2.51 2.54 -0.03 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 100 of 148

101.

1.d. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you worked on a paper or project that required integrating ideas or information from various sources?

1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often 4) Very often Means Effect Size Significance CWU 2001 Peers 5% 28% 43% 24% 3% 23% 45% 30% 2.86 3.01 -0.19 p<.05 2004 CWU Peers 3% 21% 41% 35% 2% 23% 44% 31% 3.09 0.07 3.04 CWU 2005 Peers 2% 22% 41% 35% 2% 21% 45% 32% 3.09 0.01 3.08 2006 CWU Peers 2% 26% 43% 29% 3% 22% 44% 31% 2.99 3.04 -0.07 CWU 2007 Peers 5% 14% 53% 28% 2% 21% 45% 32% 3.03 3.06 -0.05 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 101 of 148

102.

1.d. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you worked on a paper or project that required integrating ideas or information from various sources?

1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often 4) Very often Means Effect Size Significance CWU 2001 Peers 0% 10% 36% 1% 12% 40% 55% 3.45 0.17 p<.05 47% 3.33 2004 CWU Peers 0% 9% 37% 1% 12% 38% 53% 3.44 0.12 49% 3.35 CWU 2005 Peers 0% 14% 36% 1% 12% 38% 50% 3.35 -0.01 49% 3.36 2006 CWU Peers 1% 12% 42% 1% 13% 40% 46% 3.32 0.02 46% 3.31 CWU 2007 Peers 1% 10% 42% 1% 13% 39% 47% 3.35 0.04 47% 3.32 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 102 of 148

103.

1.e. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you included diverse perspectives (different races, religions, genders, political beliefs, etc.) in class discussions or writing assignments? 2004 1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often CWU

3% 34% 44%

Peers

7% 35% 37%

4) Very often Means Effect Size Significance

* Variable first used in 2004 18% 22% 2.78 2.73 0.05

2005 CWU

5% 40% 39%

Peers

6% 34% 38% 16% 22% 2.67 2.76 -0.11

2006 CWU

6% 36% 38%

Peers

7% 33% 38% 20% 22% 2.72 2.76 -0.05

2007 CWU

10% 31% 44% Peers 6% 32% 38% 15% 23% 2.65 2.79 -0.16 p<.01 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 103 of 148

104.

1.e. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you included diverse perspectives (different races, religions, genders, political beliefs, etc.) in class discussions or writing assignments? 1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often 2004 CWU Peers

8% 32% 27% 6% 33% 35%

4) Very often Means Effect Size Significance

* Variable first used in 2004 33% 27% 2.85 2.81 0.04

2005 CWU Peers

6% 37% 34% 6% 32% 35% 23% 27% 2.74 2.83 -0.11

2006 CWU Peers

7% 30% 36% 7% 31% 35% 27% 27% 2.82 2.82 0.01

2007 CWU

Peers 7% 29% 37% 6% 30% 35% 27% 29% 2.83 2.86 -0.03 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 104 of 148

105.

1.f. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you come to class without completing readings or assignments? 1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often 4) Very often Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers

14% 59% 21% 7% 18% 62% 14% 5% 23% 55% 16% 5% 23% 60% 13% 4% 20% 62% 13% 5% 22% 61% 13% 5% 18% 58% 18% 6% 23% 58% 13% 5% 18% 57% 18% 6% 24% 58% 12% 5% 2.21 2.06 0.20 p<.05 2.04 1.99 0.07 2.03 2.01 0.03 2.12 2.00 0.15 p<.01 2.12 1.99 0.18 p<.01 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 105 of 148

106.

1.f. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you come to class without completing readings or assignments?

1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often 4) Very often Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers

16% 59% 16% 17% 62% 15% 20% 61% 15% 21% 60% 13% 17% 58% 17% 20% 61% 14% 18% 58% 18% 21% 59% 14% 20% 54% 18% 21% 59% 14% 9% 2.19 0.11 6% 2.10 5% 2.04 0.01 6% 2.04 8% 2.16 2.05 0.16 p<.05 6% 7% 2.14 2.06 0.11 p<.05 6% 9% 2.16 0.15 p<.01 6% 2.04 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 106 of 148

107.

1.i. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have put together ideas or concepts from different courses when completing assignments or class discussion?

1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often CWU 9% 51% 32% 2004 Peers 10% 47% 34% 4) Very often Means Effect Size Significance * Variable first used in 2004 8% 10% 2.40 2.44 -0.05 CWU 11% 39% 38% 2005 Peers 7% 44% 37% 12% 12% 2.50 2.54 -0.05 CWU 9% 42% 36% 2006 Peers 8% 43% 37% 13% 12% 2.52 2.54 -0.01 CWU 8% 47% 32% 2007 Peers 7% 43% 37% 13% 13% 2.49 2.56 -0.08 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 107 of 148

108.

In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have put together ideas or concepts from different courses when completing assignments or class discussion?

CWU Mean

Seniors

Peer Mean Effect Size

4.00

-0.8

3.50

3.00

2.50

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0 0.2

0.4

2.00

2004 2005 2006 2007

1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often 4) Very often Means Effect Size Significance CWU 2004 Peers 4% 28% 40% 27% 4% 31% 42% 23% 2.91

0.08

2.84

CWU 2005 Peers 1% 33% 41% 25% 3% 28% 45% 25% 2.91

0.00

2.91

CWU 2006 Peers 2% 24% 47% 27% 3% 29% 44% 24% 2.98

0.11

p<.05

2.89

CWU 2007 Peers 2% 24% 45% 30% 4% 29% 43% 25% 3.03

2.88

0.18

p<.001

* Variable first used in 2004 * Variable first used in 2004 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 108 of 148

1.n. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you discussed grades or assignments with an instructor?

109.


10% 51% 29% 11% 8% 45% 33% 14% 2.41 2.53 -0.15 7% 44% 31% 18% 2.59 0.02 8% 44% 32% 16% 2.57 10% 40% 28% 22% 2.61 2.62 0.00 7% 42% 33% 18% 9% 44% 31% 16% 2.54 8% 44% 31% 17% 2.56 -0.03 8% 45% 34% 14% 2.53 -0.06 8% 43% 31% 18% 2.58 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 109 of 148

110.

1.n. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you discussed grades or assignments with an instructor?


5% 35% 41% 4% 36% 37% 7% 35% 35% 4% 35% 35% 6% 39% 30% 3% 34% 35% 6% 36% 34% 4% 36% 34% 4% 38% 33% 5% 36% 33% 19% 23% 2.74 2.79 -0.06 24% 26% 2.75 2.83 -0.09 25% p<.05 27% 2.75 2.86 -0.13 24% 26% 2.77 2.81 -0.05 25% 26% 2.79 2.81 -0.02 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 110 of 148

111.

1.p. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you discussed ideas from your readings or classes with faculty members outside of class?

1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often 4) Very often Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 53% 47% 37% 43% 37% 42% 44% 45% 45% 42% 32% 10% 39% 11% 50% 12% 41% 12% 48% 12% 39% 14% 41% 10% 37% 13% 40% 11% 38% 14% 5% 3% 1% 4% 3% 5% 5% 5% 4% 6% 1.68 1.71 1.77 1.77 1.82 1.82 1.76 1.78 1.74 1.84 -0.04 0.00 0.00 -0.02 -0.12 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 111 of 148

112.

1.p. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you discussed ideas from your readings or classes with faculty members outside of class?

1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often 4) Very often Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 32% 52% 29% 47% 24% 48% 26% 47% 29% 47% 25% 46% 33% 42% 30% 44% 33% 41% 29% 43% 10% 6% 17% 7% 1.90 2.01 -0.13 21% 7% 19% 8% 2.11 2.08 0.04 16% 8% 2.02 2.13 -0.12 p<.05 19% 10% 17% 8% 2.00 2.06 -0.07 17% 9% 2007 16% 10% 2.03 2.08 -0.05 18% 10% CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 112 of 148

113.

1.s. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework (committees, orientation, student life activities, etc.)? 1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often 4) Very often Means Effect Size Significance CWU 2001 Peers

78% 17% 64% 25% 3% 2% 8% 4% 1.29 1.52 -0.29 p<.001

2004 CWU Peers

65% 26% 62% 26% 8% 1% 9% 3% 1.46 1.54 -0.09

CWU 2005 Peers

67% 24% 57% 28% 7% 2% 10% 4% 1.45 1.62 -0.20 p<.01

2006 CWU Peers

60% 24% 63% 24% 11% 4% 9% 4% 1.60 1.53 0.08

CWU 2007 Peers

65% 22% 60% 26% 10% 3% 10% 4% 1.51 1.58 -0.09 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 113 of 148

1.s. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework (committees, orientation, student life activities, etc.)?

2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 1) Never 2) Sometimes 3) Often 4) Very often Means Effect Size CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers

52% 28% 11% 9% 47% 32% 14% 8% 51% 29% 12% 8% 47% 30% 14% 9% 58% 27% 10% 5% 43% 33% 15% 9% 49% 28% 17% 6% 51% 29% 13% 7% 47% 29% 15% 9% 50% 30% 13% 7% 1.77 1.82 -0.05

Significance

1s FACOTHER_FIXSCALE_1 1.77 1.85 -0.08 1.61 1.90 -0.3 p<.001 1.80 1.76 0.04 1.87 1.77 0.10 p<.05 114. CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 114 of 148

115.

2.a. During the current school year, how much has your coursework emphasized memorizing facts, ideas or methods from your courses and your readings so that you can repeat them in pretty much the same form?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance your coursework…" * In 2001-2004, question was worded "During the current school year, to what extent has 2a MEMORIZE 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 3% 22% 5% 23% 5% 22% 5% 26% 4% 30% 6% 27% 3% 27% 5% 27% 4% 24% 5% 28% 41% 35% 42% 30% 3.08 2.98 0.11 48% 26% 41% 28% 2.95 2.93 0.01 35% 30% 40% 28% 2.91 2.90 0.02 39% 30% 42% 26% 2.96 2.88 0.10 46% 26% 41% 26% 2.94 2.88 0.06 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 115 of 148

116.

2.a. During the current school year, how much has your coursework emphasized memorizing facts, ideas or methods from your courses and your readings so that you can repeat them in pretty much the same form?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significan ce CWU 5% 20% 40% 2001 Peers 8% 28% 37% CWU 5% 22% 44% 2004 Peers 8% 30% 37% CWU 5% 32% 38% 2005 Peers 9% 31% 36% CWU 7% 28% 39% 2006 Peers 8% 31% 38% 2007 CWU Pee rs 7% 8% 26% 31% 36% 37% 35% 3.05 0.26 p<.01 26% 2.82 29% 2.97 0.20 p<.01 25% 2.79 25% 2.85 0.11 24% 2.75 26% 2.85 0.11 p<.05 23% 2.76 30% 23% 2.90 2.7

5 0.16 p<.001 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 116 of 148

117. has your coursework…" * In 2001-2004, question was worded "During the current school year, to what extent

2.b. During the current school year, how much has your coursework emphasized analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or situation in depth and considering its components? 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU

3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% 1% 3% 3% 31% 43% 21% 44% 24% 52% 20% 45% 21% 48% 22% 45% 25% 49% 22% 46% 22% 47%

Peers

2% 22% 45%

4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance

23% 2.85 3.05 -0.25 p<.01 32% 22% 2.93 3.09 -0.21 p<.05 33% 28% 3.01 -0.03 31% 3.04 24% 2.97 -0.05 29% 3.01 28% 3.00 -0.05 * In 2001-2004, question was worded "During the current school year, to what extent has your coursework…" 30% 3.04 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 117 of 148

118.

2.b. During the current school year, how much has your coursework emphasized analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or situation in depth and considering its components? 2001 2004 2005 2006 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 2007 1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit

1% 14% 43% 2% 14% 43% 2% 11% 39% 1% 13% 42% 3% 19% 41% 2% 15% 44% 2% 22% 44% 2% 16% 44% 2% 15% 41% 2% 15% 43%


42% 3.26 0.01 42% 3.25 48% 3.32 0.05 44% 3.28 37% 3.11 3.22 -0.14 p<.05 40% 32% 3.06 -0.19 39% 3.20 p<.001 42% 3.22 0.01 coursework…" * In 2001-2004, question was worded "During the current school year, to what extent has your 40% 3.21 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 118 of 148

119.

2.c. During the current school year, how much has your coursework emphasized making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions? 1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers

10% 7% 8% 6% 8% 6% 6% 6% 9% 5% 38% 35% 18% 31% 40% 22% 2.61 2.76 -0.18 29% 46% 18% 2.73 -0.11 29% 41% 23% 2.82 27% 39% 26% 2.82 2.82 0.00 29% 42% 23% 33% 38% 23% 2.78 29% 41% 23% 2.82 -0.05 30% 41% 20% 2.72 -0.17 28% 41% 25% 2.86

Significance

p<.05 p<.01 * In 2001-2004, question was worded "During the current school year, to what extent has your coursework…" CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 119 of 148

120.

2.c. During the current school year, how much has your coursework emphasized making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions? 1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance

p<.01 p<.01 * In 2001-2004, question was worded "During the current school year, to what extent has your coursework…"


7% 22% 6% 26% 5% 26% 5% 23% 6% 32% 5% 24% 8% 26% 6% 25% 7% 21% 5% 23% 42% 30% 38% 29% 2.93 2.91 0.03 33% 37% 39% 33% 3.02 2.99 0.03 37% 25% 40% 31% 2.81 2.97 -0.18 42% 24% 40% 30% 2.83 2.94 -0.13 40% 32% 40% 32% 2.98 2.99 0.00 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 120 of 148

121.

2.e. During the current school year, how much has your coursework emphasized applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations? 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers

6% 6% 8% 4% 6% 5% 6% 5% 7% 4% 32% 42% 27% 39% 27% 44% 23% 41% 25% 40% 25% 41% 27% 41% 25% 41% 24% 43% 25% 41%


19% 2.74 2.91 -0.19 p<.05 29% 21% 2.78 3.00 -0.27 p<.01 32% 28% 2.90 -0.07 30% 2.96 26% 2.87 -0.08 29% 2.94 26% 2.88 -0.11 * In 2001-2004, question was worded "During the current school year, to what extent has your coursework…" 30% 2.97 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 121 of 148

2.e. During the current school year, how much has your coursework emphasized applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations?

122.

2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit CWU

4% 21% 36%

Peers

3% 19% 37%

CWU

2% 16% 34%

Peers

3% 17% 36%

CWU

4% 19% 40%

Peers

3% 17% 38%

CWU

4% 20% 37%

Peers

3% 18% 38%

CWU

3% 16% 36%

Peers

3% 17% 38%

4) Very much Means Effect Size

39% 3.10 3.16 -0.08 41% 47% 3.26 0.04 45% 3.23 37% 3.09 42% 3.19 -0.13 39% 3.10 3.16 -0.07 40% 45% 3.23 0.06

Significance

p<.05 * In 2001-2004, question was worded "During the current school year, to what extent has your coursework…" 41% 3.18 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 122 of 148

8.b. Mark the box that best represents the quality of your relationships with faculty at your institution.

123.

1) Unavailable, unhelpful, unsympathetic 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Available, helpful, sympathetic Means Effect Size Significance 2001 CWU Peers CWU 2004 Peers 2005 CWU Peers CWU 2006 Peers 2007 CWU Peers

1% 2% 6% 17% 31% 31% 1% 2% 5% 13% 27% 33% 1% 1% 4% 12% 28% 43% 1% 1% 4% 10% 26% 36% 0% 3% 5% 14% 30% 33% 1% 2% 5% 15% 27% 31% 0% 3% 7% 19% 26% 29% 1% 3% 7% 18% 27% 28% 2% 3% 8% 18% 32% 25% 1% 2% 6% 18% 28% 27% 12% 19% 5.15 5.39 -0.20 p<.05 12% 22% 5.42 5.56 -0.12 15% 19% 5.25 5.35 -0.08 15% 17% 5.15 5.20 -0.04 12% 18% 5.00 5.23 -0.17 p<.01 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 123 of 148

8.b. Mark the box that best represents the quality of your relationships with faculty at your institution.

124.

1) Unavailable, unhelpful, unsympathetic 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Available, helpful, sympathetic Means Effect Size Significance 2001 CWU Peers CWU 2004 Peers 2005 CWU Peers CWU 2006 Peers 2007 CWU Peers

1% 7% 2% 13% 30% 35% 1% 2% 4% 10% 23% 34% 1% 1% 1% 15% 25% 35% 1% 1% 3% 8% 20% 36% 1% 2% 5% 15% 21% 34% 1% 2% 4% 10% 22% 34% 1% 4% 6% 15% 24% 32% 1% 3% 5% 12% 24% 31% 1% 3% 7% 16% 24% 28% 1% 2% 5% 13% 23% 30% 11% 25% 5.15 5.56 -0.32 p<.001 22% 30% 5.56 5.74 -0.15 22% 29% 5.44 5.66 -0.18 p<.01 18% 25% 5.24 5.46 -0.16 p<.01 22% 25% 5.28 5.46 -0.13 p<.01 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 124 of 148

125.

11.a. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in acquiring a broad general education?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 3% 19% 55% 23% 3% 19% 48% 30% 2.99 3.06 -0.09 0% 22% 59% 19% 2.96 -0.23 2% 16% 46% 35% 3.14 3% 19% 54% 24% 2.99 3.15 -0.21 3% 16% 45% 36% 4% 22% 46% 28% 2.98 3% 18% 46% 33% 3.09 -0.15 3% 17% 48% 32% 3.08 -0.03 3% 18% 46% 34% 3.11 p<.01 p<.01 p<.01 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 125 of 148

126.

11.a. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in acquiring a broad general education?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2.95 3.24 -0.37 p<.001 2004 3.14 3.30 -0.21 p<.01 2005 3.07 3.31 -0.31 p<.001 2006 3.05 3.22 -0.22 p<.001 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 5% 24% 41% 30% 2% 14% 41% 42% 4% 16% 44% 37% 2% 13% 38% 47% 5% 22% 33% 39% 2% 12% 39% 47% 5% 19% 43% 33% 3% 15% 41% 42% 5% 18% 41% 36% 3% 15% 39% 44% 3.09 3.23 -0.18 p<.001 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 126 of 148

127.

11.b. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in acquiring job or work-related knowledge and skills?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 15% 47% 20% 17% 14% 36% 32% 18% 17% 45% 28% 10% 12% 32% 36% 21% 12% 34% 37% 16% 10% 30% 36% 23% 13% 40% 30% 17% 12% 31% 35% 22% 11% 38% 33% 17% 11% 31% 35% 23% 2.39 2.54 -0.16 2.32 2.65 -0.36 p<.001 2.57 2.73 -0.17 p<.05 2.51 2.67 -0.17 p<.01 2.57 2.70 -0.14 p<.05 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 127 of 148

128.

11. b. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in acquiring job or work-related knowledge and skills?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 5% 21% 5% 20% 6% 17% 6% 20% 6% 17% 6% 19% 7% 22% 7% 21% 5% 20% 7% 20% 36% 38% 37% 38% 3.07 3.07 0.00 40% 37% 35% 39% 3.08 3.06 0.02 37% 40% 35% 40% 3.11 3.10 0.02 35% 37% 35% 38% 3.02 3.04 -0.02 37% 37% 34% 38% 3.06 3.04 0.03 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 128 of 148

129.

11. c. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in writing clearly and effectively?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 6% 30% 49% 5% 26% 44% 5% 24% 48% 5% 23% 43% 6% 28% 41% 4% 22% 42% 5% 30% 40% 6% 23% 42% 6% 21% 45% 5% 22% 42% 14% 2.71 -0.20 25% 2.88 22% 2.88 2.97 -0.11 29% 24% 2.83 -0.20 31% 3.00 25% 2.85 29% 2.95 -0.12 27% 2.93 2.99 -0.07 31% p<.01 p<.01 p<.05 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 129 of 148

130.

11. c. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in writing clearly and effectively?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 6% 24% 43% 4% 22% 43% 8% 23% 39% 4% 19% 40% 5% 27% 37% 4% 19% 39% 6% 25% 37% 4% 20% 40% 7% 24% 43% 4% 20% 39% 27% 32% 2.91 3.02 -0.14 30% 38% 2.90 3.11 -0.25 p<.01 30% 39% 2.92 3.12 -0.24 p<.001 31% 36% 2.94 3.08 -0.16 p<.01 26% 37% 2.88 3.08 -0.23 p<.001 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 130 of 148

131.

11. d. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in speaking clearly and effectively?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 18% 42% 31% 10% 33% 37% 11% 41% 33% 9% 29% 39% 17% 35% 33% 8% 29% 38% 14% 36% 32% 9% 28% 38% 18% 34% 33% 8% 27% 39% 9% 20% 2.31 2.66 -0.39 p<.001 15% 23% 2.53 2.75 -0.25 p<.01 16% 25% 2.47 2.81 -0.38 p<.001 18% 25% 2.55 2.79 -0.26 p<.001 15% 26% 2.46 2.83 -0.42 p<.001 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 131 of 148

132.

11. d. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in speaking clearly and effectively?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 5% 26% 42% 5% 24% 42% 6% 29% 36% 5% 22% 40% 7% 28% 37% 5% 21% 39% 8% 26% 38% 5% 23% 39% 8% 28% 38% 6% 22% 38% 28% 29% 2.92 2.95 -0.04 29% 33% 2.89 3.02 -0.15 28% p<.01 35% 2.87 3.05 -0.21 28% p<.01 33% 2.87 2.99 -0.14 26% 34% 2.81 2.99 -0.20 p<.001 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 132 of 148

133.

11. e. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in thinking critically and analytically?


134.

11. e. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in thinking critically and analytically?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 9% 51% 13% 42% 13% 42% 12% 38% 17% 40% 12% 38% 14% 44% 13% 39% 16% 40% 12% 38% 38% 3.24 44% 3.27 -0.05 42% 3.22 -0.15 49% 3.33 40% 3.18 49% 3.34 -0.21 p<.001 39% 3.20 3.30 -0.13 p<.01 46% 41% 3.19 -0.16 p<.01 47% 3.31 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 134 of 148

135.

11. f. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in analyzing quantitative problems?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 14% 46% 11% 37% 12% 37% 10% 36% 10% 35% 7% 29% 9% 32% 7% 28% 9% 29% 6% 27% 29% 11% 36% 16% 2.37 2.58 -0.23 41% 9% 37% 17% 2.48 2.60 -0.14 37% 17% 40% 24% 2.61 2.81 -0.23 38% 21% 40% 25% 2.70 2.82 -0.13 40% 22% 41% 26% 2.75 2.87 -0.13 p<.01 p<.01 p<.05 p<.05 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 135 of 148

136.

11. f. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in analyzing quantitative problems?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2.84 2.78 2.86 -0.09 2.92 3.01 -0.10 2.93 3.00 -0.08 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 5% 29% 6% 28% 10% 28% 6% 28% 7% 25% 5% 23% 8% 22% 5% 23% 5% 24% 5% 23% 42% 24% 39% 27% 35% 26% 38% 27% 37% 31% 38% 34% 39% 31% 38% 33% 41% 29% 37% 35% 2.88 -0.05 2.94 3.01 -0.08 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 136 of 148

137.

11. g. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in using computing and information technology?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance CWU 2001 Peers 11% 37% 11% 30% 34% 18% 34% 25% 2.59 2.73 -0.15 2004 CWU Peers 9% 29% 8% 27% 40% 21% 38% 27% 2.73 2.84 -0.12 CWU 2005 Peers 5% 25% 6% 23% 42% 28% 38% 32% 2.93 2.96 -0.04 2006 CWU Peers 7% 24% 7% 22% 36% 33% 37% 34% 2.95 2.98 -0.03 CWU 2007 Peers 5% 21% 6% 23% 44% 30% 38% 34% 2.98 2.99 -0.01 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 137 of 148

138.

11. g. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in using computing and information technology?


139.

11. j. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in learning effectively on your own?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 5% 31% 40% 24% 5% 24% 43% 28% 7% 35% 37% 21% 6% 27% 42% 25% 8% 25% 46% 21% 6% 25% 44% 25% 8% 29% 44% 19% 7% 27% 42% 23% 8% 33% 38% 21% 6% 26% 44% 24% 2.84 2.94 -0.11 2.72 2.87 -0.18 p < .05 2.81 2.89 -0.10 2.74 2.82 -0.09 2.72 2.87 -0.17 p < .05 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 139 of 148

140.

11. j. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in learning effectively on your own?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance CWU 7% 23% 37% 33% 2001 Peers 4% 19% 41% 36% 2.97 3.08 -0.13 CWU 7% 22% 40% 31% 2004 Peers 4% 20% 40% 35% 2.94 3.07 -0.15 CWU 12% 20% 33% 35% 2005 Peers 5% 20% 40% 35% 2.91 3.04 -0.15 p<.05 CWU 9% 26% 38% 26% 2006 Peers 7% 22% 40% 32% 2.82 2.97 -0.16 p<.01 CWU 10% 27% 38% 26% 2007 Peers 7% 21% 40% 33% 2.80 2.98 -0.20 p<.001 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 140 of 148

141.

11. i. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 20% 25% 36% 19% 17% 32% 30% 21% 16% 40% 32% 12% 16% 35% 31% 18% 18% 37% 30% 15% 14% 33% 33% 20% 20% 33% 30% 18% 15% 33% 33% 20% 17% 34% 34% 15% 13% 31% 34% 21% 2.54 2.56 -0.03 2.41 2.51 -0.10 2.42 2.58 -0.17 p < .05 2.45 2.57 -0.12 p < .05 2.46 2.64 -0.19 p < .01 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 141 of 148

142.

11. i. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 19% 24% 2.50 2.62 -0.12 2004 13% 21% 2.37 2.57 -0.21 p<.01 2005 18% 22% 2.50 2.61 -0.11 2006 19% 22% 2.46 2.59 -0.13 p<.01 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 18% 34% 29% 15% 32% 30% 20% 37% 30% 15% 33% 31% 20% 28% 34% 15% 32% 31% 21% 31% 29% 15% 32% 31% 20% 34% 29% 14% 31% 31% 17% 24% 2.44 2.65 -0.21 p<.001 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 142 of 148

143.

11. n. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in developing a personal code of values and ethics?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU 24% 25% 29% 23% 2.50 15% 29% 32% 24% 2.64 2004 22% 40% 28% 11% 2.28 16% 31% 32% 20% 2.57 2005 24% 32% 33% 11% 2.32 14% 31% 33% 22% 2.62 2006 19% 34% 31% 16% 2.43 17% 31% 31% 21% 2.56 23% 34% 29% 14% 2.35 2007 Peers 15% 30% 34% 21% 2.62 -0.14 -0.29 p < .001 -0.31 p < .001 -0.13 p < .05 -0.28 p < .001 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 143 of 148

144.

11. n. To what extent has your experience at this institution contributed to your knowledge, skills, and personal development in developing a personal code of values and ethics?

1) Very little 2) Some 3) Quite a bit 4) Very much Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 27% 23% 15% 28% 20% 32% 14% 28% 24% 26% 14% 27% 23% 31% 17% 29% 19% 30% 16% 27% 28% 22% 30% 27% 2.46 2.69 -0.23 28% 20% 31% 28% 2.47 2.72 -0.24 31% 19% 31% 28% 2.45 2.73 -0.28 26% 20% 29% 25% 2.43 2.62 -0.18 30% 21% 31% 26% 2.53 2.66 -0.13 p<.01 p<.01 p<.001 p<.001 p<.01 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 144 of 148

13. How would you evaluate your entire educational experience at this institution?

145.

1) Poor 2) Fair 3) Good 4) Excellent 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers

2% 17% 65% 16% 2% 12% 57% 30% 4% 9% 66% 22% 2% 12% 53% 33% 3% 12% 58% 27% 2% 11% 54% 33% 3% 18% 53% 26% 2% 13% 54% 31% 4% 14% 59% 23% 2% 13% 54% 31%

Means Effect Size

2.95 3.15 -0.29 3.06 3.18 -0.17 3.09 3.18 -0.13 3.03 3.13 -0.14 3.02 3.14 -0.17

Significance

p<.001 p < .05 p < .01 p < .05 * In 2001-2005, this question was worded as "How would you evaluate the quality of academic advising you have received at your institution?


13. How would you evaluate your entire educational experience at this institution?

146.

1) Poor 2) Fair 3) Good 4) Excellent Means Effect Size 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers

1% 21% 2% 11% 1% 13% 2% 11% 4% 12% 2% 11% 4% 15% 2% 13% 3% 17% 3% 13% 63% 15% 52% 36% 2.92 3.22 -0.43 58% 28% 49% 38% 3.13 3.23 -0.13 53% 31% 49% 38% 3.12 3.24 -0.18 55% 25% 52% 33% 3.02 3.16 -0.19 57% 23% 50% 34% 3.00 3.16 -0.21

Significance

p<.001 p<.01 p<.001 p<.001 * In 2001-2005, this question was worded as "How would you evaluate the quality of academic advising you have received at your institution?


147.

14. If you could start over again, would you go to the same institution you are now attending?

1) Definitely No 2) Probably No 3) Probably Yes 4) Definitely Yes Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 6% 13% 49% 32% 5% 13% 45% 38% 6% 12% 47% 36% 5% 12% 42% 41% 5% 14% 42% 39% 5% 13% 41% 41% 5% 16% 45% 34% 5% 13% 43% 40% 7% 14% 44% 35% 5% 13% 43% 39% 3.07 3.15 -0.10 3.12 3.19 -0.08 3.14 3.20 -0.07 3.09 3.18 -0.11 p < .05 3.07 3.17 -0.12 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 147 of 148

148.

14. If you could start over again, would you go to the same institution you are now attending?

1) Definitely No 2) Probably No 3) Probably Yes 4) Definitely Yes Means Effect Size Significance 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007 CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers CWU Peers 7% 13% 55% 25% 5% 15% 43% 37% 2% 11% 43% 43% 5% 14% 41% 40% 7% 14% 41% 39% 5% 13% 40% 42% 7% 13% 43% 37% 6% 14% 41% 39% 7% 17% 44% 32% 6% 14% 41% 39% 2.97 3.11 -0.16 p<.05 3.27 3.16 0.13 3.12 3.19 -0.09 3.11 3.14 -0.04 3.01 3.14 -0.15 p<.01 CWU 2008 Academic Assessment Report - 9-22-2008 D R A F T p. 148 of 148

CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 2007-2008 Student Learning Academic Assessment Report

CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 2007-2008 Student Learning Academic Assessment Report

Seniors

1.f. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you come to class without completing readings or assignments?

Seniors

1.n. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you discussed grades or assignments with an instructor?

1.s. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework (committees, orientation, student life activities, etc.)?

13. How would you evaluate your entire educational experience at this institution?

Related documents

Products

Support

CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 2007-2008 Student Learning Academic Assessment Report

CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 2007-2008 Student Learning Academic Assessment Report

Seniors

1.f. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you come to class without completing readings or assignments?

Seniors

1.n. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you discussed grades or assignments with an instructor?

1.s. In your experience at your institution during the current school year, about how often have you worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework (committees, orientation, student life activities, etc.)?

13. How would you evaluate your entire educational experience at this institution?

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib