CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
2008-2009 Student Learning Annual Academic Assessment Report
Central Washington University is an
AA/EEO Title IX Institution
TDD (509) 963-3323
Table of Contents
I.
II.
III.
III.A
III.A.1
III.A.2
III.A.3
III.A.4
III.B
III.B.1
III.B.2
III.B.3
III.B.4
III.C
III.D
III.E.
IV.
IV.A
IV.A.1
IV.A.2
IV.A.3
IV.A.4
IV.A.5
IV.B
IV.B.1
IV.B.2
IV.B.3
IV.B.4
IV.B.5
IV.C
V.
VI.
VI.A.
VI.B.
Executive Summary
Overview
Evidence of Student Learning Outcome Achievement
General Education Evidence
General Education - Perception Data
Alumni Surveys
National Survey of Student Engagement
Graduating Senior Survey
General Education Perception Data Summary
General Education - Student Achievement Data
Collegiate Learning Assessment Exam
Washington Educators Skills Test - Basic
Construction Quality Exam - Level 1
General Education Student Achievement Data Summary
Other Institutional Evidence
General Education Improvements Made Since the 2007/2008
Assessment Report
Summary and Areas for Improvement in CWU General Education
Program Related Evidence of Student Learning
Program Student Achievement Data
Washington State Educators Skills Test - Endorsement
ETS Major Field Tests
Construction Quality Level 1 Exam
Collegiate Learning Assessment Senior Exam Results
Summary of Program Achievement Data
Program Perception Data
Graduating Senior Survey
Senior National Survey of Student Engagement Results
Alumni Survey Responses
Summary of Program Perception Data
Program Improvements Made Since the 2007/2008 Assessment
Report
Summary and Areas for Program Improvement
Other Changes / Improvements to Assess Student Learning at CWU
Evaluation and Improvement of Assessment Efforts
Assessment Processes
Suggestions for Continuous Improvement
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 2 of 179
p. 4
5
6
6
9
9
11
15
16
17
17
19
21
21
22
23
23
24
24
24
25
32
33
34
34
35
35
37
38
38
39
40
41
41
47
Table of Appendices
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
2008 NSSE Benchmark Comparisons of First Year and Senior Students
2008 NSSE First Year Detailed Statistics
NSSE Senior Detailed Statistics
Multi-Year Benchmark Reports for First Year and Senior NSSE Results
2008/2009 Collegiate Learning Assessment Summary
Washington Educators Skills Test Basic and Endorsement - WEST-B and
WEST-E
7. 2008/2009 Annual Program Assessment Reports - Executive Summary and
Rubric
8. Institution-wide Summary of Annual Assessment Reports
9. College of Arts and Humanities - Review of Annual Assessment Reports
10. College of Business - Evaluation of Annual Assessment Reports
11. College of Education & Professional Studies - Review of Annual
Assessment Reports
12. College of The Sciences - Review of Annual Assessment Reports
13. Interdisciplinary and Other Programs - Review of Annual Assessment
Reports
14. 2009/2010 CWU General Education Mission and Learning Goals
15. CWU Student Evaluations Of Instruction (SEOI) Summary online and Faceto-Face (F2F) Courses
16. Central Washington University Summary of 2008/2009 ETS Major Field
Tests
17. Summary of the 2008 Institutional Research Senior Survey
18. Summary of Some Common Questions to The Five Year
Department/Program Review Alumni Survey
19. CWU College of Arts & Humanities 2008/2009 Assessment Plans
20. CWU College of Business 2008/2009 Assessment Plans
21. CWU College of Education and Professional Studies 2008/2009 Assessment
Plans
22. CWU College of the Sciences 2008/2009 Assessment Plans
23. Recent National, Regional, and State Recognition of CWU Student and
Alumni work
Submitted October, 2009 by:
Dr. Tracy Pellett - Associate Vice-President of Undergraduate Studies
Dr. Tom Henderson - Director of Testing and Assessment Services
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 3 of 179
p. 49
53
57
61
64
71
76
83
85
88
90
93
96
98
103
117
126
132
140
151
155
161
168
Central Washington University
2008/2009 Annual Assessment Report - Executive Summary
This report provides a summative look at CWU's assessment and improvement of
learning outcomes during the 2008/2009 academic year. It is not meant to be
exhaustive. It is meant to provide benchmarks and a snapshot of the assessment and
improvement of student learning outcomes across the institution.
Findings
1. CWU has several measures indicating that its students' learning compares very well
to U.S. and peer institutions:
 Over 500 CWU students took ETS Major Field Tests during 2008/2009. The
weighted average score of all cohorts put CWU's students at the 71st percentile
nationally.
 CWU Construction Management seniors taking the Construction Quality Exam Level 1 scored higher than national averages on 9 of 10 sub-scores.
 After adjusting for ACT/SAT scores on the Collegiate Learning Exam, CWU first
year students' average scores were at the 84th percentile of all peer institutions;
CWU seniors scored at the 71st percentile.
2. CWU has strong indirect evidence of an outstanding group of students and alumni.
A listing of recent national, regional, and state awards includes: (a) four Fulbright
grants during 2008/2009 and 2009/2010, (b) the 2008 and 2009 Washington State
Teacher of the Year are CWU alums, (c) finalists for the 2008 U.S. Principal of the
Year and the 2009 U.S. Assistant Principal of the Year are CWU alums, (e) the 2009
CWU Construction Management teams took three awards at regional competition and
finished second nationally, et. al.
3. CWU still has room for improvement in several areas:
 continued improvement of general education assessment and learning outcomes
 increasing the number of in-class, oral presentations completed by first year and
senior students,
 track and possibly improve students' altruism or their place in "self and society"
Conclusions and Recommendations
1. CWU has effective assessment processes in place at the program, department,
college, and institutional level. The institution needs to remain committed to these
processes and continue to improve them.
2. CWU has increased the number of methods used to assess and improve learning at
the General Education level. Most of these assessment methods are assessing seniors
and graduates. CWU needs to implement some direct assessment of students' work
completed in General Education courses.
3. CWU students, graduates, faculty, and staff can be very proud of the
accomplishments highlighted in this annual report.
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 4 of 179
I. OVERVIEW
This second 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.” Central Washington University accomplishes these goals and
strategic objectives through effective curricular, instructional, and assessment
processes. Assessment and improvement of student learning outcomes is an ongoing
departmental, college, and university responsibility and the cornerstone of continuous
improvement at CWU.
This annual report is summative in nature. The gathering of various assessment
results allows CWU to spot trends in student learning at different levels, at different
times, and with various assessment methods. This report is not meant to be
exhaustive. CWU has many methods of assessment of student learning efforts taking
place at program, departments, colleges, and the university level that may not be
mentioned in this report.
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?
Evidence of student learning and achievement by CWU students and alumni is
impressive:
 377 CWU students participating in ETS Major Field Tests during 2008/2009
attained a weighted average rating at the 71st percentile nationally.
 38 CWU Construction Management students scored better than the national
average on all sub-scores of the Construction Quality Exam, Level 1.
 67 CWU seniors scored at the 57th percentile amongst peer institutions on the
Collegiate Learning Assessment Exam. Once their CLA scores were adjusted for
ACT/SAT scores they ranked at the 71st percentile among peer institutions.
 CWU first year students had an average score on the Collegiate Learning
Assessment exam at the 81st percentile among peers when adjusted for entering
ACT/SAT scores.
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 5 of 179
 The number of CWU programs participating in annual program assessment
reviews increased during 2008/2009, especially the number of graduate
programs participating in annual reviews. Average scores improved on 4 of 5
criteria evaluated with the rubric.
 CWU students and alums have recently garnered many national, regional, and
statewide awards including:
o Four Fulbright scholarships
o 2008 Washington State Teacher of the Year
o 2008 Washington State Principal of the Year
o 2009 Washington State Teacher of the Year
o A Grammy nomination
o many other awards (see an annotated list in Appendix 23)
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, awards). These data sources form the basis for
decision-making and continuous improvement efforts related to student learning at
the departmental, college, and institutional levels.
III. 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.
The most recent review of the goals and structure of General Education at CWU
resulted in a set of revised goals that were adopted by the Faculty Senate in
spring, 2009.
2009 General Education Goals and Outcomes
Goal 1: To practice and apply the essential skills required to lead enlightened
and productive lives.
Rationale: One of the three major goals in CWU's Mission Statement is to
"... prepare students for enlightened and productive lives."
Outcomes: Students will be able to:
1. Read, reason, and conduct research critically.
2. Apply quantitative literacy skills to solve problems.
3. Write effectively for a variety of purposes and situations.
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 6 of 179
4. Organize and present information and ideas for a variety of
purposes and situations using oral and visual communication skills.
5. Demonstrate effective uses of technology to identify, evaluate, and
present information.
Goal 2: To observe and reason scientifically about the natural world.
Rationale: The ability to think scientifically about the natural world
allows us to recognize appropriate uses of the scientific methods. We
study the natural sciences to develop critical thinking and quantitative
reasoning skills by encouraging accurate observation, open-mindedness,
and a reasoned understanding of the nature and value of empirical
evidence.
Outcomes: Students will be able to:
1. Apply scientific methods.
2. Describe natural phenomena and predict consequences.
3. Use knowledge of scientific disciplines to describe the natural world
Goal 3: To understand and apply principles of social and behavioral dynamics.
Rationale
The social and behavioral sciences focus on how individuals, cultures,
and societies operate and evolve. Studying these fields helps us to
function as informed, responsible participants in communities and
relationships.
Outcomes: Students will be able to:
1. Explain and apply methods and principles used by social and
behavioral scientists to investigate and analyze group and individual
behavior.
2. Analyze dynamics of social groups and institutions.
Goal 4: To appreciate and give expression to beauty and truth through the
arts.
Rationale: Aesthetic experience is fundamental to human existence;
interacting with art allows us to construct meaning through the senses
and the imagination. We study the arts to understand, interrogate
and/or engage in the creative process and to explore the connections
between art, culture and history.
Outcomes: Students will be able to:
1. Create meaning through the analysis of or by participating in
imaginative/artistic production
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 7 of 179
2. Interpret aesthetic experiences and expressions within their
historical, artistic, and cultural tradition
3. Recognize and/or apply techniques or forms used to create
aesthetic meaning in at least one art form.
Goal 5: To analyze and critique historical and contemporary accounts of
human experience.
Rationale: Through the humanities, we develop a sense of continuity,
change, empathy, and personal ethics. We study the humanities to
observe how individuals and societies have articulated and acted on
their most profound ideas. Through historical and contemporary sources,
the humanities reveal the complex interactions between ideas,
individuals and societies.
Outcomes: Students will be able to:
1. Examine ways in which beliefs and values affect interpretations of
experience and events.
2. Analyze expressions of individual and human experience within
historical and social contexts.
3. Apply critical and analytical approaches typical of the humanities to
formulate, justify, and evaluate substantive claims.
Goal 6: To develop knowledge and skills necessary to be reflective, active
participants in a changing, multicultural, intercultural world.
Rationale: Diversity courses invite us to examine how our assumptions
about cultural identifications such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual
orientation, and religion can influence our perceptions of ourselves and
of others; these courses teach us to understand cultures different from
our own; and they prepare us to participate in diverse settings with
mutual respect and appreciation. The courses focus on one or more nondominant cultures or peoples of the United States and on comparative
cultures across national and continental boundaries.
Outcomes: Students will be able to:
1. Examine critically their own perceptions and assumptions about
people who have had a different set of historical experiences.
2. Analyze individual and institutional forms of prejudice, bias, and
discrimination based on factors such as race, ethnicity, gender,
religion, and sexual orientation.
3. Describe how globalization impacts local and national issues of
diversity.
4. Describe how socially and culturally diverse groups manifest a variety
of values, perspectives and contributions related to social and
historical issues and events.
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 8 of 179
5. Analyze the implications and requirements of equity, human dignity,
and social justice as these shared values influence U.S. ethnic and
international/global interactions.
Goal 7: To observe the interconnectedness of knowledge by employing
multiple modes of inquiry across disciplines to address issues and solve
problems.
(Outcomes for Goal 7 are pending a discussion of the proposed Mid-study
Seminar)
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
2008/2009 academic year as well as related results/findings.
III.A. GENERAL EDUCATION 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 on a regular basis. Following
are the most recent results from alumni surveys, graduating senior surveys, and a
nationally standardized survey (National Survey of Student Engagement - NSSE).
III.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
Testing and Assessment Services administers an alumni survey targeted to graduates
of programs engaged in the CWU's five year program review process.
2007 and 2008 Program Review Alumni Surveys of 2001-2007 Alumni
Alumni from the past five years are surveyed during each department's five year
Program Review. The surveys include questions on CWU’s mission and general
education outcomes. Respondents included 226 alumni (10.4% response rate) for the
2007 surveys and 709 responses out of 5,034 alums survey in 2008 for a 14% response
rate. Alums from 2007 departments included Biological Sciences, Business
Administration, Foreign Languages, Family Consumer Sciences, Primate Behavior &
Ecology, and Recreation & Tourism. The programs surveyed in 2008 include
Asia/Pacific Studies, Communications, Economics, Education, Environmental Studies,
Gerontology, Health/Human Performance/Nutrition, History, Latin American Studies,
and Law & Justice. 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.
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 9 of 179
TABLE 1. Alumni Survey Results - Summary of Responses to 2007 and 2008 Surveys
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
How well
prepared?
2007
Median
Importance
to career?
2007
Median
How well
prepared?
2008
Median
Importance
to career?
2008
Median
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
* 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
Note the "communication gap" for alums from both the 2007 and 2008 surveys. They
rate their communication skills as highly as the other skills surveyed (a median of four
on a five point scale) but almost two thirds of alums on both surveys rated
communication skills as "critical" to their careers (a median of 5 on a scale of 5).
Table 2 summarizes results from alums when they were asked how well CWU prepared
them for Mission Statement goals and the "old" (pre 2009) General Education goals.
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 10 of 179
TABLE 2. 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 Alumni Survey Results "How strongly do you agree
that your education from CWU helped you..."
2007
Survey
Median
Response
2008
Survey
Median
Response
a become a responsible citizen
4
4
b become a responsible steward of the earth
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
become a productive and enlightened (informed, good
learner, insightful) individual
value different perspectives
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
Results Summary: Overall, alumni rated their academic experience high with regard
to preparation of important general education skills with almost all medians of 4 on a
5 point scale. The lowest median rating was a 3 on the 2008 survey for "becoming a
responsible steward of the earth." This result is notable because one of the three
main goals of CWU's Mission Statement is to "... prepare students for responsible
stewardship of the earth."
III.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. 774 colleges and
universities participated in the spring 2008 administration.
Following are CWU 2008 results (also see Appendix 2) from 211 first year and 609
senior students (12% and 27% response rates) compared to peer institutions regarding
questions relevant to General Education outcomes (communicating, critical-thinking,
values and ethics).
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 11 of 179
Table 3. A summary of NSSE questions for first year and senior respondents) where
there are significant peer differences for first year students. These differences are
out of 83 questions summarized in Appendices 2-4. Note: questions about "How often
have you done each of the following?" are based on a scale of never=1, sometimes=2,
often=3, very often=4. See: http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/NSSE2008_US_English_Web.pdf
----- First Year Students ----CWU
mean
1.98
Peer
mean
2.33
pvalue
.000
Effect
size
-.43
------------ Seniors ----------CWU
mean
2.97
Peer
mean
2.87
pvalue
.01
Effect
size
.11
Made a class presentation *
Participated in communitybased projects as part of
1.44
1.57
.01
-.16
1.71
1.76
.25
.05
course
Used an electronic medium to
discuss or complete an
2.24
2.55
.000
-.30
2.66
2.82
.000
-.16
assignment
Number of written papers or
reports between 5 and 19
2.12
2.24
.003
-.15
3.23
2.98
.000
.22
pages
Work on research project with
faculty member outside of
1%
5%
.000
-.18
16%
16%
.853
.01
course
Spending significant amounts
2.99
3.10
.042
-.15
3.03
3.10
.036
-.09
of time on academic work
Learning effectively on your
2.75
2.92
.014
-.19
2.85
3.00
.000
-.17
own
* Cohen's "rule of thumb" for effect size is that .2 to .3 is "small", .5 is medium, and .8 to infinity is
large. Cohen warned to use his rule of thumb judiciously. "Made a class presentation" is noted
because it is the only difference with a medium effect size for first year students. Note: NSSE states
that "Effect size is calculated by subtracting the comparison group mean from the school mean, and
dividing the result by the pooled standard deviation." This appears to be the calculation for "Cohen's
d" effect size.
Note that CWU seniors score higher than CWU first year students on all questions and
are significantly lower than peers on only three of the questions.
Appendix 4 charts multi-year NSSE benchmark results for both first year and senior
students. CWU's benchmarks have been steadily improving. The only decrease in
CWU benchmark scores from 2004 to 2008 has been in "Supportive Campus
Environment" which improved quite a bit from 2007 to 2008. National NSSE staff
commented that this benchmark has also been trending "up and down" nationally.
According to NSSE "The benchmarks are based on 42 key questions from the NSSE
survey that capture many vital aspects of the student experience. These student
behaviors and institutional features are some of the more powerful contributors to
learning and personal development." See:
http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/nsse_benchmarks.pdf.
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 12 of 179
Table 4. CWU First Year Student NSSE Benchmark Trends
NSSE 2008 Multi-Year Benchmark Report
Multi-Year Charts a
Central Washington University
FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS
Level of Academic Challenge (LAC)
Active and Collaborative Learning (ACL)
85
85
75
75
65
65
55
50.5 55
48.6
46.1
50.3
49.0
48.3
45
45
35
35
25
25
15
35.4
36.4
37.7
38.5
37.8
38.7
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
15
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
Student-Faculty Interaction (SFC)b
'01
85
75
75
65
65
55
55
35.8
33.0
39.0
'03
Enriching Educational Experiences (EEE)c
85
45
'02
37.9
37.1
40.1 45
35
35
25
25
15
21.6
25.1
24.4
24.7
25.2
'05
'06
'07
'08
15
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'01
'02
'03
'04
Supportive Campus Environment (SCE)
85
75
65
59.8
54.8
58.5
56.9
56.4
58.1
55
Notes:
a. Recalculated benchmark scores are charted for all years
of participation since 2001. See page 5 for detailed
statistics. For more information and recommendations for
analyzing multi-year NSSE data, consult the Multi-Year
Data Analysis Guide:
www.nsse.iub.edu/pdf/2008_Institutional_Report/
Multiyear_Data_Guide.pdf.
b. For institutions with 2001-2003 data, due to a change to
the ‘research with faculty’ item in 2004, ‘SFC’ (the
alternate version of ‘SFI’ that does not include that item)
is charted on this page. Statistics for both versions are
provided on page 5.
45
35
25
15
'01
'02
October 2009
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
c. 2001-2003 ‘EEE’ scores are not provided because these
scores are not comparable with those of later years;
response options for several ‘EEE’ items were altered in
2004.
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 13 of 179
Table 5. CWU Senior Student NSSE Benchmark Trends
NSSE 2008 Multi-Year Benchmark Report
Multi-Year Charts a
Central Washington University
SENIORS
Level of Academic Challenge (LAC)
Active and Collaborative Learning (ACL)
85
85
75
75
65
57.6
57.3
53.7
54.1
56.2
57.3 65
55
55
45
45
35
35
25
25
15
51.4
50.7
52.3
53.3
52.9
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
36.1
36.9
35.1
'06
'07
'08
15
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
Student-Faculty Interaction (SFC)b
'01
85
75
75
65
65
55
45.9
43.1
43.0
'02
'03
Enriching Educational Experiences (EEE)c
85
44.3
45.1
46.8 55
45
45
35
35
25
25
15
33.5
33.9
'04
'05
15
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
Supportive Campus Environment (SCE)
85
75
65
55
52.1
55.4
51.5
55.1
53.9
53.4
56.2
'01
'02
'03
Notes:
a. Recalculated benchmark scores are charted for all years
of participation since 2001. See page 7 for detailed
statistics. For more information and recommendations for
analyzing multi-year NSSE data, consult the Multi-Year
Data Analysis Guide:
www.nsse.iub.edu/pdf/2008_Institutional_Report/
Multiyear_Data_Guide.pdf.
b. For institutions with 2001-2003 data, due to a change to
the ‘research with faculty’ item in 2004, ‘SFC’ (the
alternate version of ‘SFI’ that does not include that item)
is charted on this page. Statistics for both versions are
provided on page 7.
45
35
25
15
'01
'02
October 2009
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
c. 2001-2003 ‘EEE’ scores are not provided because these
scores are not comparable with those of later years;
response options for several ‘EEE’ items were altered in
2004.
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 14 of 179
NSSE Results Summary: Over the past five years CWU first year students and seniors
have been improving on five of the six NSSE major benchmarks. The one exception is
"supportive campus environment." Average responses did jump on this benchmark
from 2007 to 2008. CWU needs to continue that trend. This may be a challenge in
the face of decreasing state funding in Washington for higher education.
III.A.3 GRADUATING SENIOR SURVEY
Graduating seniors at CWU complete a survey 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%.
1,144 seniors responded to the 2008 survey out of a graduating class of 2,399 for a
response rate of 48%.
Table 6. Graduating Senior Survey Results
ACADEMIC SKILLS
Development of using Knowledge from your Major
Development of working in a cooperative group
Development of Independent Learning
Development of Analyzing
Development of Solving Problems
Development of using knowledge from outside your major
Development of Understanding of Society and Environment
Development of Writing
Development of Speaking
Readiness for Career
Development of Responsibility and Service
Development of Quantitative Principles
Development of Understanding Diverse Philosophies
Development of Scientific Principles
Development of Arts
2006 Senior
Survey
% Very or
Mostly
Satisfied
n/a
n/a
83%
82%
77%
n/a
74%
73%
73%
73%
63%
62%
72%
62%
51%
2008 Senior
Survey
% Very or
Mostly
Satisfied
90%
84%
83%
80%
80%
77%
72%
72%
73%
73%
62%
64%
71%
62%
51%
Results Summary: Given a list of academic skills (see Table 6), 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 the development of
skills in their major (90%) working in a collaborative group (84%) and the development
independent learning (83%). Students reported the least satisfaction with their
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,
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 15 of 179
writing, speaking, and understanding society and diverse philosophies. These results
are similar to those reported in 2006.
III.A.4 GENERAL EDUCATION - PERCEPTION DATA SUMMARY
Overall, the 2008/2009 perception data gather on General Education at CWU is
positive. Based on the results (graduating senior, alumni, and NSSE surveys) collected
and analyzed during the 2008/2009 academic year, the following conclusions can be
made:
 935 recent CWU alums surveyed during 2007 and 2008 report that they "learned
well" CWU's General Education goals (the median response on all general
education goals was a 4 on a 1 to 5 scale). Note: there were the "old" General
Education goals in place during their time in school.
 CWU alumni say that they learned critical thinking, quantitative reasoning,
information literacy and communication skills (writing, speaking, listening) well.
The median response on both the 2007 and the 2008 surveys for all questions
was a 4 on a scale of 1 to 5. However, alums on both surveys rank
communication skills as being "critical" to their success. Almost two thirds of
the alums ranked communications skills as 5 on a scale of 1 to 5. These seems to
by a small gap in how well CWU students learned communication skills (4 out of
5) and how important those skills are to their careers (5 out of 5).
 The NSSE survey indicates that CWU first year students are significantly less likely
than students at peer institutions to "make a class presentation." CWU first year
students also write significantly fewer papers that are between 5 and 19 papers.
CWU seniors score higher than peers on both measures. This, combined with the
important that CWU alums place on communication skills, indicates that CWU's
General Education program should focus even more writing and oral presentation
skills.
 Both CWU first year and senior students are lower than peers on "Spending
significant amounts of time on academic work" and "Learning effectively on your
own." Seniors on the senior survey rate their skills on "development of
independent learning" at CWU very highly. It is possibly that CWU students could
achieve even better results if they were challenged more.
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 16 of 179
III.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 broadbased skills (information literacy, writing, quantitative and symbolic reasoning, and
critical thinking) important for college graduates to attain. Assessment of these skills
during the 2008-2009 academic year is reflected through four sources of
"achievement" information. These sources include the:
 Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) exam
 Washington Educator Skills Test - Basic (WEST-B)
 Construction Management Construction Qualification Exam (CQE)
 Individual Programmatic Study
III.B.1 COLLEGIATE LEARNING ASSESSMENT (CLA) EXAM
CWU administered the CLA exam to first year and senior students for the first time
during the 2008/2009 academic year. First year students took the exam during the
fall, 2008 term, seniors took the exam during the spring, 2009 term.
The CLA exam is designed to measure an institution's "value added" In terms of writing
and elements of critical thinking. Over 400 institutions and 165,000 students have
participated to date. 87 CWU first year and 67 seniors took the exam. Of the seniors,
34 were "native" CWU students and 33 were transfer students. CWU does not record
the ACT or SAT for transfer students and with such a small sample, the CLA was not
able to adjust the four main categories of questions for entering ACT/SAT scores. The
exam scores for first year and senior students were excellent when compared to
peers. See Tables 7, 8, and 9.
Table 7. CWU First Year Student Count and Scores on Major Sections of the CLA
First-Year Students
Total CLA Score
Performance Task
Mean
Expected
Observed
Unadjusted
Student
Count
EAA
Score
Mean CLA
Score
Mean CLA
Score
Percentile
Rank
Deviation
Score
Percentile
Rank
Performanc
e Level
87
43
994
995
1048
1029
1094
1116
54
73
1.0
2.1
85
98
44
44
45
993
993
992
1066
1069
1062
1072
1053
1089
41
33
49
0.1
-0.2
0.5
58
43
72
Above
Well
Above
At
At
Above
Analytic Writing Task
Make-an-Argument
Critique-an-Argument
Adjusted
Table 8. CWU Senior Student Scores on the CLA (all major sub-sections are N/A)
Total CLA
score
Performance
Adjusted
percentile
rank
Deviation
score
Unadjusted
percentile
rank
Observed
mean CLA
score
Expected
mean CLA
score
Mean
EAA
score
Student
count
Above
71
0.6
57
1217
1190
1064
40
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 17 of 179
Table 9. Overall Summary of CWU Collegiate Learning Assessment Exam Results
FIRST YEAR CWU STUDENTS
UNADJUSTED
PERCENTILE
RANK
53%
Mean
CLA
score
Unadjusted
Percentile
Rank
1094
53
1116
73
1072
40
1053
33
1089
49
First-Year
Students
Total CLA
score
Performance
Analytic
writing
Make-anargument
Critique-anargume3nt
Adjusted
Percentile
Rank
Performance
Level
84
Above
98
Well above
57
At
43
At
72
Above
ADJUSTED
PERCENTILE
RANK
84%
SENIOR CWU STUDENTS
UNADJUSTED
PERCENTILE
RANK
57%
Mean
CLA
score
Unadjusted
Percentile
Rank
1217
57
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
First-Year
Students
Total CLA
score
Performance
Analytic
writing
Make-anargument
Critique-anargume3nt
Adjusted
Percentile
Rank
Performance
Level
71
Above
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
ADJUSTED
71%
VALUE ADDED
Value
Added
Total CLA
score
Adjusted
Percentile Performance
Rank
Level
37
At
ADJUSTED
PERCENTILE
RANK
37%
These results are very positive. CWU can look forward to a strong 2008/2009 first
year class. CWU can also be proud of raw and adjusted percentiles of its senior class.
One note: the relatively high percentile scores by seniors seem to indicate that
analytic writing skills along with critical thinking and quantitative skills are strong.
These scores may improve even more if a new focus is placed on communication skills
at the General Education level.
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 18 of 179
III.B.2 CWU RESULTS FOR WASHINGTON EDUCATOR SKILLS TEST - BASIC 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 10, 11, and 12 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 year.
The passing score is 240 for each of the three subtests (reading, mathematics and
writing) on a scale of 100 to 300.
TABLE 10. West-B Reading - 2006/2007 and 2998/2009 Academic Year Subtest Scores
- Washington State Public Institutions
STATEWIDE
Central Washington
(Ellensburg)
2006/2007 RESULTS
Pass
Number
Mean
Rate *
3,065
270
96%
2007/2008 RESULTS
Pass
Number Mean Rate *
2,961
271
96%
578
265
91%
564
266
92%
Eastern Washington
(Cheney)
213
266
100%
242
267
99%
The Evergreen State
College (Olympia)
40
276
100%
40
279
93%
University of
Washington (Bothell)
59
276
100%
70
276
99%
University of
Washington (Seattle)
104
279
95%
93
282
100%
University of
Washington (Tacoma)
37
278
100%
41
280
100%
Washington State
University (Pullman)
411
268
99%
294
268
100%
Western Washington
(Bellingham)
450
273
100%
454
272
100%
Note: Data for this table retrieved from the WWW at:
http://www.pesb.wa.gov/Publications/reports/documents/Final07-08AssessmentReportPrintVersion.pdf
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 19 of 179
TABLE 11. WEST-B Mathematics - 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 Subtest Scores
2006/2007 RESULTS
Pass Rate
Number Mean
STATEWIDE AVERAGE
Central Washington
(Ellensburg)
2007/2008 RESULTS
Pass
Number
Mean
Rate
3,049
277
95%
2,945
278
96%
574
273
91%
556
274
91%
Eastern Washington (Cheney)
213
275
100%
242
277
99%
The Evergreen State
College (Olympia)
40
282
100%
40
287
93%
University of
Washington (Bothell)
59
283
100%
70
281
99%
University of
Washington (Seattle)
105
286
95%
93
289
100%
University of
Washington (Tacoma)
37
277
100%
40
282
98%
Washington State
University (Pullman)
411
276
100%
294
277
100%
100%
454
280
100%
Western Washington
449
279
(Bellingham)
Note: Data for this table retrieved from the WWW at:
http://www.pesb.wa.gov/Publications/reports/documents/Final07-08AssessmentReportPrintVersion.pdf
TABLE 12. WEST-B Writing - 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 Subtest Scores
2006/2007 RESULTS
Pass
Number
Mean
Rate
STATEWIDE
Central Washington
(Ellensburg)
2007/2008 RESULTS
Pass
Number
Mean
Rate
2,999
265
94%
2,941
265
96%
527
260
83%
549
259
90%
Eastern Washington
(Cheney)
213
261
100%
242
260
99%
The Evergreen State
College (Olympia)
40
268
100%
40
275
93%
University of
Washington (Bothell)
59
269
98%
70
271
99%
University of
Washington (Seattle)
104
275
95%
92
277
99%
University of
Washington (Tacoma)
37
268
100%
37
272
95%
Washington State
University (Pullman)
411
262
99%
292
263
99%
100%
453
267
100%
Western Washington
450
267
(Bellingham)
Note: Data for this table retrieved from the WWW at:
http://www.pesb.wa.gov/Publications/reports/documents/Final07-08AssessmentReportPrintVersion.pdf
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 20 of 179
WEST-B Results Summary:
Although WEST-B tests are not administered to all CWU 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 weighted average pass rate for all three 2007/2008 WEST-B tests is 91%.
It should be noted that CWU Writing pass rates increased from 83% during 2006/2007
to 90% during 2007/2008. CWU tends to rate lower with regard to passing on all
measures as compared to state-wide peers. Also, CWU enrolls almost 20% of all
education majors in the State of Washington.
III.B.3 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SENIOR CQE EXAM - COMMUNICATIONS
SCORES
The Construction Management department administers a national certification exam
to all seniors. CWU seniors' average 2008 scores exceeded national averages on all
areas measured. 2007 seniors exceed national averages on all areas measured except
for Communications. Table 13 summarizes the 2007 and 2008 Communications scores.
CWU increase their scores while the national average on Communications decreased
from 2007 to 2008.
Table 13. Construction CQE Level 1 Exam Communications Scores - CWU vs. U.S.
Average Area Scores for 2007 and 2008
Area Scores
averages
2007 Communications - CQE 1
2008 Communications - CQE 1
CWU
Average
11.25
12.97
National
Average
11.85
11.65
Max
Possible
18
17
Passing
Score
13
12
III.B.4 GENERAL EDUCATION - STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA SUMMARY
Based on the results of various student achievement data collected and/or analyzed
during the 2008-2009 academic year, the following conclusions can be made:

CWU first year and senior students scored relatively high compared to students
at peer institutions on the Collegiate Learning Assessment Exam. After
adjusting for exam taker's ACT/SAT scores CWU first year students' average
score ranked at the 81st percentile among peer institutions. Seniors' average
score (after adjustment) ranked at the 71st percentile of peer institutions.
The CLA measures "Performance" skills (critical thinking and quantitative
reasoning) and Analytic Writing (which includes "make-an-argument" and
"critique-an-argument"). This is very strong evidence that General Education at
CWU is performing well.
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 21 of 179
General Education - Student Achievement Data Conclusions (continued)



The evidence of good writing skills by CWU students is corroborated by CWU
students' 2008 Construction Quality Exam scores.
During 2007/2008 the weighted average pass rate of CWU students on the
WEST-B Reading, Writing, and Mathematics exams was 91%. CWU improved
Writing scores from 83% on the 2006/2007 exam up to 90%on the 2007/2008
exam. The pass rate is still relatively low when compared to other Washington
State public institutions. This is an indication that CWU has room to improve
General Education learning outcomes.
Additional direct measures are needed to assess elements and skills developed
through General Education. Some ideas include using rubrics to "spot check"
actual General Education course assignments. CWU programs gather
programmatic evidence of student learning outcomes in General Education
courses. Currently CWU has no "clearing house" for gathering and tracking such
data.
III.C. OTHER INSTITUTION LEVEL EVIDENCE
Over the past two years Central Washington University students and alums have
received many national, regional, and state awards (see Appendix 23 for an
annotated list). This is indirect, but strong evidence of the strength of CWU
General Education and degree programs. CWU's recent Fulbrights are:
 2008/2009 - Jennifer M. VanTuyl 2008 CWU Graduate in Teaching English as a
Foreign Language, Her Fulbright is to South Korea.
 2008/2009 - John Pena holds a BFA from Central Washington University and an
MFA 2008 from Carnegie Mellon University. He is a recent Fulbright recipient to
La Universidad del Valle Cali, Colombia 2008-9. http://www.johnpena.net/
 2009/2010 - Allison Rice, a Harrah native and Central Washington University
graduate, has earned a Fulbright scholarship. Rice graduated with a double
major in elementary education and German. The 26-year-old will work in
Germany and teach students about the United States culture and the English
language.
http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2009/08/02/pair-of-cwu-graduates-earns-fulbright-scholarships
 2009/2010 - Rebecca Funke received a Fulbright scholarship. The 23-year-old
native of Friday Harbor, Wash., studied Spanish and Elementary Education at
CWU. Rebecca will be teaching English to elementary students at the Can Andres
Primary School in Colmenar Viejo, a small town located on the outskirts of
Madrid, Spain.
http://sanjuanupdate.com/2009/05/rebecca-lands-a-fulbright-to-teach-in-spain-wahoo/
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 22 of 179
III.D. CWU GENERAL EDUCATION IMPROVEMENTS MADE SINCE THE 2007/2008
REVIEW
During 2008/2009 CWU:
 The CWU General Education Committee and the Faculty Senate finalized a major
revision to the General Education program at CWU
 Administered the Collegiate Learning Assessment exam to first year and senior
students
 CWU has received a small grant from the National Science Foundation to
implement the "CAT" or Critical Thinking Assessment Test institution wide
 Continued its Annual Assessment Report which includes a summative assessment
of General Education at CWU
 Dr. Patsy Callaghan served out her term as Director of General Education
III.E. SUMMARY AND POSSIBLE STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE GENERAL EDUCATION AT
CWU
 CWU alums and students rate, in general, their General Education skills highly
when surveyed about them.
 CWU students scored well when compared to peers on the Collegiate Learning
Assessment Exam. After adjusting for their ACT/SAT scores first year students
scored at the 84th percentile and seniors at the 71st percentile. This is good
news for the institution, indications are that the 2008/2009 entering students
are academically strong.
 CWU's "value added index" was only at the 37th percentile. This was about
average when compared to peers. Improving General Education skills, such as
communication, should improve CWU's value-added.
 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, especially oral presentation skills. This area for
improvement remains from the 2007/2008 Annual Assessment Report.
 Assessment methods, particularly those that measure General Education learning
directly, are needed at the institutional level. Examples might include
developing a rubric and using it to "spot check" actual work done in General
Education classes. The focus would then be on using that data to make
improvements in student learning outcomes at the General Education level.
 NSSE results indicate the need for in-class oral presentations in General
Education classes
 NSSE results also indicate that CWU courses could be more challenging.
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 23 of 179
IV. PROGRAM RELATED EVIDENCE
This report does not summarize the many assessment methods that programs use to
measure and improve learning outcomes. However, there are other measures and
reviews that are used at CWU to assess programmatic learning outcomes.
IV. A. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA
CWU




student achievement data is collected at the institutional level through the:
Washington Educators Skills Test - Endorsement (WEST-E)
ETS Major Field Tests
The Construction Quality Exam - Level 1
Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Exam
IV.A.1 WASHINGTON EDUCATORS SKILLS TEST - ENDORSEMENT (WEST-E)
The Washington State Professional Educators Standards Board publishes annual scores
for the WEST-E exams. A summary of Central Washington University, Eastern
Washington University, and Western Washington University latest published scores
from 2007/2008 scores follows. A detailed summary follows in Table 14 and is at:
http://www.pesb.wa.gov/Publications/reports/documents/Final07-08AssessmentReportPrintVersion.pdf
TABLE 14. 2007/2008 WEST-E % PASS RATES FOR CWU, EWU AND WWU
WEST-E ENDORSEMENT
EXAM
Art: Content Knowledge
Biology: Content Knowledge
Business Education
Chemistry: CK
Driver Education
Earth Science: CK
Education of Exceptional
Students: Core Content
Knowledge
Education of Young Children
Elementary Education: CK
English Language Literature
Composition: Ck
English to Speakers of Other
Languages
Family and Consumer
Sciences
October 2009
------- CWU ------TOTAL #
PASS %
------- EWU * ------TOTAL #
PASS %
------- WWU * ------TOTAL #
PASS %
22
8
8
91%
100%
100%
11
8
4
91%
100%
100%
5
7
100%
100%
6
83%
1
100%
2
100%
1
3
100%
100%
1
100%
3
100%
39
100%
22
100%
27
100%
113
387
94%
95%
6
113
100%
96%
2
99
100%
99%
20
95%
40
95%
21
100%
74
50%
8
63%
13
100%
10
100%
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 24 of 179
TABLE 14 (continued). 2007/2008 WEST-E % PASS RATES FOR CWU, EWU AND WWU
WEST-E ENDORSEMENT
EXAM
General Science: Content
Knowledge
German: Content Knowledge
Health and Physical
Education: CK
Library Media Specialist
Marketing Education
Mathematics: Content
Knowledge
Middle School English
Language Arts
Middle School Math
Middle School Science
Music: CK
Reading Specialist
Social Studies: CK
Spanish: CK
Special Ed: Preschool / Early
Childhood
Theater
NUMBER OF EXAMINEES and
WEIGHTED AVERAGE PASS
RATES
------- CWU -------
------- EWU * -------
TOTAL #
PASS %
TOTAL #
12
83%
6
2
50%
28
96%
13
------- WWU * ------TOTAL #
PASS %
100%
9
100%
17
94%
11
100%
100%
3
100%
6
83%
3
100%
31
68%
13
100%
10
100%
1
100%
6
80%
9
100%
35
33
11
78
34
14
74%
76%
100%
62%
74%
71%
4
75%
4
52
33
13
100%
71%
82%
77%
1
4
22
7
100%
100%
91%
100%
1
100%
7
86%
2
100%
2
100%
1
100%
3
100%
992
86%
337
90%
257
99%
* EWU & WWU WEST-E scores were not included if they had no students in a CWU
category
Results Summary: The average pass rate of all CWU students completing the WEST-E
exams during the 2007/2008 academic year was 86%. 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. CWU has more
than twice as many students/alumni taking the WEST-E exam as either EWU or WWU.
CWU’s average pass rate (86%) is close to EWU (90%). However it is significantly lower
than WWU's (99%). Thus, it can be concluded that CWU is somewhat comparable to
state peers.
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 25 of 179
IV.A.2 MAJOR FIELD TESTS, CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATION EXAM,
AND COLLEGIATE LEARNING ASSESSMENT RESULTS
The following tables (15 - 19) summarize national percentile rankings of CWU students
taking standardized Major Field Tests for Biological Sciences, Computer Science,
Physics, and Psychology programs as developed by Educational Testing Service (ETS).
Scores are summarized for fall 2008, winter 2009, and spring 2009 cohorts. One note:
the final tables for translating scores into percentiles are not yet published for
2008/2009. ETS representatives have said in the past that prior year tables would
work as close surrogates. A weighted average of the percentile rankings of each
cohort follows and is detailed in Tables 15 through 19.
 CWU students taking 2008/2009 Major Field Tests: 529
 Weighted average percentile ranking against all institutions: 71st percentile
 Majors from: Biological Sciences, Business, Computer Science, Physics, and
Psychology
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 26 of 179
Table 15. 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
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
CWU BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES MAJOR FIELD TEST SCORES
(1)
12 test takers
35 test takers
---- FALL 2008 ---Raw
U.S.
Score
OVERALL SCORE
(2)
Rank
(3)
26 test takers
-- WINTER '09 -Raw
U.S.
Score
(2)
Rank
-- SPRING '09 -Raw
U.S.
(3)
Score
(2)
Rank
(3)
156.1
60%
161.8
85%
156.0
60%
57.7
75%
61.7
85%
56.5
65%
2 Molecular Genetics
3 Organismal
51.3
58.2
30%
75%
58.7
62.7
80%
90%
52.5
57.7
40%
75%
4 Population, Ecology, Evolution
55.2
60%
60.2
85%
56.1
65%
SUB-SCORES
1 Cell Biololgy
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 27 of 179
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
CWU BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES MAJOR FIELD TEST SCORES (1) - continued
ASSESSMENT INDICATOR
1 Biochemistry and Cell Energetics
Cellular Structure, Organization,
2 Function
Molecular Biology and Molecular
3 Genetics
4 Diversity of Organisms
5 Organismal - Animals
6 Organismal - Plants
7 Population Genetics and Evolution
8 Ecology
9 Analytical Skills
12 test takers
---- FALL 2008 ---50
75%
35 test takers
-- WINTER '09 -57
90%
26 test takers
-- SPRING '09 -49
70%
60
65%
62
75%
58
55%
47
57
61
53
55%
80%
55%
75%
56
62
66
58
85%
90%
80%
90%
44
52
60
56
40%
55%
50%
90%
58
59
53
65%
55%
45%
63
65
61
85%
85%
85%
61
59
57
80%
55%
65%
(1) ETS score conversion tables were used with senior scores from August 2005 through June 2008.
See: http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/MFT/pdf/MFT%20PDFs%202007/Biology4BMF.pdf
(2) Raw scores are CWU average mean percent correct
(3) "Rank" or "Percentile" is the percent of U.S. institutions that are at or below CWU raw scores.
For example, 60% means that CWU scored as high or higher than
60% of the institutions nationwide participating in Najor Field Tests.
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 28 of 179
Table 16. CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY - Business Sciences Major Field Tests
Percent of all 564 institutions at below the lower limit of CWU's score interval
COLLEGE of BUSINESS
CWU BUSINESS MAJOR FIELD TEST SCORES (1)
CWU Averages Compared to the Averages of 564 Institutions
103 test takers
-- SUMMER 2008 -Raw
Score
OVERALL SCORE
(2)
U.S.
97 test takers
--- FALL '08 ---
--- WINTER '09 ---
Raw
Raw
Percentile
(3)
131 test takers
Score
(2)
U.S.
Percentile
(3)
Score
156.8
75%
156.3
70%
(2)
U.S.
Percentile
158.6
(3)
80%
ASSESSMENT INDICATOR
1
Accounting
59.8
90%
55.8
80%
60.7
95%
2
Finance
62.5
80%
58.5
65%
64.0
80%
3
Economics
54.0
80%
51.5
70%
56.5
90%
4
45.8
45%
50.3
70%
50.7
75%
5
Quantitative Analysis
Legal/Social
Environment
49.5
70%
50.5
75%
48.4
65%
6
International Issues
60.5
75%
59.8
70%
61.2
75%
7
Marketing
53.8
55%
57.0
70%
58.2
75%
8
Management
59.0
65%
58.0
60%
60.7
75%
9
Information Systems
61.3
65%
59.3
55%
63.4
80%
(1)
ETS score conversion tables were used with senior scores from domestic institutions during August 2006 through June 2008.
These were the most recent conversion tables. See: http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/MFT/pdf/MFT%20PDFs%202007/Business4CMF.pdf
(2)
Raw scores are CWU average mean percent correct
(3)
Percent of U.S. institutions that are at or below CWU raw scores.
For example, a 60% means that CWU scored as high or higher than
60% of the institutions nationwide participating in Major Field Tests.
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 29 of 179
Table 17. CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY - 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
COMPUTER SCIENCE
CWU MAJOR FIELD TEST SCORES
(1)
9 test takers
15 test takers
--- WINTER '09 --Raw
U.S.
Score
OVERALL SCORE
ASSESSMENT INDICATOR
1 Programming
2 Discrete Structures an d Algo rithms
Syste ms: Architecture/Operating
3 Syste ms/Networking/Database
(2)
Rank'
(3 )
--- SP RING '09 --Raw
U.S.
Score
(2)
Rank
(3)
154.0
65%
154.0
65%
62
44
60%
75%
80%
66
39
40
35%
42
40%
65%
(1) ETS score conversion table s were used from August 2005 through June 2008.
The most recent conversion tab les available were used. See:
http://www.ets.o rg/M edia/Tests/MF T/pd f/MFT%20PD Fs% 202007/Co mputerScience4CMF.pdf
(2) Raw scores are CWU average mean percent correct
(3) Percent of U.S. institutions that are at or below CWU raw scores.
For example, a 65% means that CWU scored as high or higher than
65% of the institutions nationwid e p articipating in Najor Field Tests.
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 30 of 179
Table 18. CWU - Physics Major Field Tests Percent of all institutions at below the
lower limit of CWU's core interval. Weighted Averages of 2007/2008 Exam Cohorts
PHYSICS
CWU MAJOR FIELD TEST SCORES (1)
10 test takers
--- 2008/2009 --Raw
Score
OVERALL SCORE
U.S.
(2)
Rank
(3)
147.0
45%
SUB-SCORES
1
Introductory Physics
48.0
50%
2
Advanced Physics
46.0
35%
ASSESSMENT INDICATOR
1
Classical Mechanics and Relativity
49
55%
2
Electromagnetism
45
45%
3
Optics/Waves and Thermodynamics
43
60%
4
Quantum Mechanics and Atomic Physics
46
50%
5
Special Topics
31
20%
(1)
ETS score conversion tables were used from August 2005 through June 2008. See:
(2)
http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/MFT/pdf/MFT%20PDFs%202007/Physics4AMF.pdf
Raw scores are CWU average mean percent correct
(3)
Percent of U.S. institutions that are at or below CWU raw scores.
For example, a 60% means that CWU scored as high or higher than
60% of the institutions nationwide participating in Major Field Tests.
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 31 of 179
Table 19. CWU - Psychology Major Field Tests Percent of all institutions at below the
lower limit of CWU's core interval. Weighted Averages of 2007/2008 Exam Cohorts
PSYCHOLOGY
CWU MAJOR FIELD TEST SCORES (1)
11 test takers
14 test takers
------ FALL 2008 ------ --- WINTER '09 --Raw
U.S.
Raw
U.S.
Score (2)
160
OVERALL SCORE
Rank
(3)
60%
Score (2)
156
Rank
66 test takers
--- SPRING '09 --Raw
U.S.
(3)
45%
Score (2)
159
Rank
(3)
60%
SUB-SCORES
Learning & Cognition: Language, Memory, &
1 Thinking
Perception, Sensory, Physiology, Comparative,
2 & Ethology
3 Clinical, Abnormal, and Personality
4 Developmental and Social
58
55%
62
75%
60
60%
63
80%
57
50%
57
50%
58
57
55%
45%
54
51
30%
20%
56
59
40%
60%
ASSESSMENT INDICATOR - Psychology Assessment Indicators are not available at this time 7-28-2009
1 Memory and Thinking
2 Sensory and Physiology
3 Developmental
4 Clinical and Abnormal
5 Social
6 Measurement and Methodology
(1) ETS score conversion tables from August 2005 through June 2008. See:
http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/MFT/pdf/MFT%20PDFs%202007/Psychology4BMF.pdf
(2) Raw scores are CWU average mean percent correct
(3) Percent of U.S. institutions that are at or below CWU raw scores.
For example, a 60% means that CWU scored as high or higher than
60% of the institutions nationwide participating in Najor Field Tests.
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 32 of 179
IV.A.3 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SENIOR CEQ EXAM RESULTS
Each year CWU seniors majoring in Construction Management take the Construction
Quality Level 1 Exam. 2007 CWU seniors exceeded the national average on all subscores except for Communications. Note that all 2009 exam sub-scores except for
"Construction Safety" exceed national averages including Communications.
Table 20. Construction Credentials 2008 Exam - CWU vs. U.S. Average Area Scores
Area Scores
averages
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
CWU
Average
11.25
25.53
10.22
26.14
34.42
23.25
31.69
17.69
9.03
35.03
National
Average
11.85
23.38
9.79
25.55
32.13
22.58
30.64
18.22
8.14
14.64
Max
Possible
18
34
13
34
45
32
41
25
11
46
Passing
Score
13
24
9
24
32
22
29
17
8
32
Table 21. Construction Credentials (CQE) April, 2009 Exam - CWU vs. U.S. Average
Area Scores (31 of 38 CWU students passed, 666 out of 1,009 passed nationally).
CWU "school average" = 234.34; the national average was 219.59
Area Scores
averages
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
October 2009
CWU
Average
12.97
21.84
9.92
23.92
38.39
25.39
37.00
16.76
5.13
43.00
National
Average
11.65
20.01
9.59
22.33
34.85
23.33
34.71
16.83
4.84
41.54
CWU Annual Assessment Report
Max
Possible
17
27
13
31
51
31
46
23
6
55
Passing
Score
12
19
9
22
36
22
32
16
4
38
p. 33 of 179
IV.A.4 CWU COLLEGIATE LEARNING EXAM RESULTS - SENIORS
CWU administered the CLA exam to first year students during the fall 2008 term and
to seniors during spring 2009. 67 CWU seniors took the senior CLA exam, 34 were
"native" students, 33 were transfer students. The CLA is designed to evaluation
"performance tasks," i.e., thinking critically and analytic reasoning; analytic writing,
make-an-argument, and critique-an-argument. Sub-scores are not available for CWU
seniors because almost half of the seniors taking the exam were transfer students.
CWU does not record ACT or SAT score for transfer students, thus their "adjusted" CLA
scores could not be computer.
Table 22. CWU Collegiate Learning Assessment Senior Percentile Ranks (% of
comparable institutions scoring at or below CWU average student scores)
UNADJUSTED
PERCENTILE
RANK
57%
Mean
CLA
score
Unadjusted
Percentile
Rank
1217
57
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
First-Year
Students
Total CLA
score
Performance
Analytic
writing
Make-anargument
Critique-anargume3nt
Adjusted
Percentile
Rank
Performance
Level
71
Above
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
ADJUSTED
71%
VALUE ADDED
Value
Added
Total CLA
score
Performance
Analytic
writing
Make-anargument
Critique-anargume3nt
October 2009
Adjusted
Percentile Performance
Rank
Level
37
At
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
CWU Annual Assessment Report
ADJUSTED
PERCENTILE
RANK
37%
p. 34 of 179
IV.A.5 PROGRAM ACHIEVEMENT DATA SUMMARY
 Strong CWU Seniors' Major Field Test results
CWU's 2008/2009 results on the Education Testing Services' Major Field Tests
were very strong. 529 CWU seniors took Major Field Tests and CWU's overall
average was at the 71st percentile nationally.
 Strong CWU Senior Results on the Construction Quality Level 1 Exam
CWU's results for the 2009 Construction Quality Level 1 exam were also very
strong. CWU students exceed the national average on 9 of 10 sub-scores.
 Strong CWU Senior Results on the Collegiate Learning Assessment
CWU's Collegiate Learning Results for seniors were also strong. CWU's average
score on the CLA after adjusting for ACT/SAT results was at the 71st percentile
of peer institutions. The CLA compliments the more discipline-specific skills
measured in the Major Field Tests and CQE exam with skills such as critical
thinking, analytic reasoning, analytic writing, make-an-argument, and critiquean-argument.
 Average Results on the Collegiate Learning Assessment "Value Added" Index
CWU's "value-added" index as measured against peer institutions was at the 37th
percentile. The CLA considers this "at" performance level. One reason the
"value-added" may be relatively low is the strong CLA scores achieved by CWU's
first year students.
 Room for Improvement on CWU's Washington Educator Skills Test - Endorsement
The average score of CWU students and alums on the WEST-E exam exceed
NCATE minimums but CWU's average scores are below other state institutions.
IV.B. PROGRAM STUDENT PERCEPTION DATA
Again, this report does not include summaries of all types of perception data
collected by CWU's degree programs. However, results from several institutional
methods of assessing perception data are included:
 Senior Surveys
 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
 Alumni Surveys
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 35 of 179
IV. B.1. GRADUATING SENIOR SURVEY
Graduating seniors complete a survey on a regular basis that assesses student
satisfaction and perceived development of various academic skills. 1,144 of the 2,399
bachelor degree recipients for 2008 returned a completed survey representing a
response rate of 49 percent. 2006 and 2008 results are summarized in Table 6 on
page 15. The three questions with the best response and the three questions with the
lowest response follow in Table 23.
Table 23. 2006 and 2008 Senior Survey Highest and Lowest Responses - Graduating
Senior Academic Skills Results 2006 and 2008 surveys - “How satisfied are you with
Central Washington University’s contribution to your growth in the following areas?”
ACADEMIC SKILLS
Development
Development
Development
Development
Development
Development
of
of
of
of
of
of
using Knowledge from your Major
working in a cooperative group
Independent Learning
Understanding Diverse Philosophies
Scientific Principles
Arts
2006 Senior
Survey
% Very or
Mostly
Satisfied
n/a
n/a
83%
72%
62%
51%
2008 Senior
Survey
% Very or
Mostly
Satisfied
90%
84%
83%
71%
62%
51%
Note that two of the questions on the 2008 survey were not on the 2006 survey, i.e.,
"knowledge from your major" and "working in a cooperative group."
The highest response, "knowledge from your major" corroborates the strong results in
the Major Field Tests and the Construction Quality Exam.
The three lowest responses seem to fit into two categories (1) scientific principles,
and (2) arts & philosophy.
IV.B.2 CWU SENIOR YEAR NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT (NSSE)
RESULTS
Detailed statistics for CWU seniors participating in the NSSE survey are included in
Appendix 3. Summary statistics are provided for 85 questions. CWU was significantly
different than its Carnegie Class peers on 30 or the 85 questions. Some of the
differences are because of CWU's residential and rural setting. These differences are
not the end-all of assessment but they can provide insights. A summary of the
differences follows.
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 36 of 179
Table 24. CWU Significantly Higher (not necessarily better) Results than Carnegie
Peers - NSSE Senior Year Student Survey
Question
CLPRESEN - Made a class presentation
CLUNPREP - Come to class without
completing readings or assignments
OCCGRP - Worked with classmates outside
of class to prepare assignments
INTIDEAS - Ideas/concepts from different
courses for assignmnts/class
READASGN - # of assigned
textbooks/books/book-length packs
WRITESML - Number of written papers or
reports of fewer than 5 pages
PROBSETA - # problem sets that take you
more than an hour to complete
PROBSETB - # problem sets that take you
less than an hour to complete
EXRCSE05 - Exercised or participated in
physical fitness activities
ACADPR01 - Preparing for class
SOCIAL05 - Relaxing and socializing
(watching TV, partying, etc.)
CWU n
609
CWU
mean
2.97
Carnegie
mean
2.87
Significance
.007
Effect
Size
+.11
606
2.18
2.07
.002
+.13
607
2.93
2.73
.000
+.22
594
3.00
2.92
.019
+.09
586
3.39
3.17
.000
+.21
589
3.23
2.98
.000
+.22
585
2.76
2.65
.030
+.09
584
2.57
2.41
.003
+.13
579
2.74
2.58
.000
+.15
566
4.25
4.03
.002
.13
566
3.56
3.39
.014
.11
Most of the results on Table 24 are positive. The one exception is that CWU seniors
self report that they "Come to class without completing readings or assignments" more
often than CWU's Carnegie peer institutions. The effect size of +.13 is small but this
is still an area (challenging students) that CWU needs to track and improve.
Table 25. CWU Significantly Lower (not necessarily worse) Results than Carnegie
Peers - NSSE Senior Year Student Survey
Question
WORSHP05 - Participated in activities to
enhance your spirituality
INTERN04 - Practicum/internship/field
experience/co-op/clinical assignment
VOLNTR04 - Community service or
volunteer work
SNRX04 - Culminating senior experience
(capstone course, et. al.
ENVNACAD - Helping you cope with your
non-academic responsibilities
GNGENLED - Acquiring a broad general
education
GNWRITE - Writing clearly and
effectively
October 2009
CWU n
CWU
mean
Carnegie
mean
Significance
579
1.95
2.05
.023
-.09
579
.41
.48
.000
-.15
578
.47
.55
.000
-.16
579
.22
.30
.000
-.17
561
1.89
1.97
.043
-.09
561
3.14
3.26
.000
-.15
559
2.99
3.11
.001
-.14
CWU Annual Assessment Report
Effect
Size
p. 37 of 179
Table 25 (continued). CWU Significantly Lower (not necessarily worse) Results than
Carnegie Peers - NSSE Senior Year Student Survey
Question
GNSPEAK - Speaking clearly and
effectively
GNCITIZN - Voting in local, state, or
national elections
GNINQ - Learning effectively on your own
GNETHICS - Developing a personal code of
values and ethics
GNCOMMUN - Contributing to the welfare
of your community
GNSPIRIT - Developing a deepened sense
of spirituality
ADVISE - Overall, how would you evaluate
the quality of academic advising
ENTIREXP - How would you evaluate
your entire educational experience
CWU n
CWU
mean
Carnegie
mean
Significance
Effect
Size
560
2.89
3.03
.001
-.15
552
551
1.80
2.85
2.10
3.00
.000
.000
-.29
-.17
552
2.54
2.68
.001
-.14
552
2.30
2.44
.001
-.14
550
1.72
1.93
.000
-.20
555
2.59
2.81
.000
-.23
555
3.03
3.14
.000
-.16
The results on Table 25 all have relatively low effect sizes but the t-tests of average
responses indicate that CWU means are significantly lower than Carnegie peer
institutions.
Table 5 (page 14) showed CWU's NSSE trends on the senior year survey since 2001.
CWU did not administer the NSSE during 2002 and 2003. The "least squares" slope of
the trend line is given for each chart. CWU has made improvements in all of the
major NSSE categories except for "Supportive Campus Environment." CWU senior
responses have a negative slope from 2004 through 2008.
The CWU senior NSSE results are reverse of some of the achievement data and some
of the other student perception data.
IV.B.3 Alumni Survey Results
Tables 1 and 2 summarize results for 2007 and 2008 alumni surveys. Alums of
programs going through the five-year program review process are surveyed.
The alumni responses indicate that:
1. Communication skills are critical to CWU graduates' careers
2. There was a drop in the average rating from 2007 to 2008 on how well alums feel
that they were prepared as "stewards of the earth." This is one of CWU's three key
missions.
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 38 of 179
IV.B.4 SUMMARY OF PROGRAM PERCEPTION DATA
 CWU students and alumni are overwhelmingly satisfied with their development of
major related skills and readiness for a career. This is per the senior and alumni
surveys.
 CWU seniors score lower than peers on the NSSE and self-report low the senior
surveys on questions relating to "self and society." Some examples include:
Lower
o
o
o
o
o
o
than peers on the NSSE and lower responses to the Senior Survey on:
Voting
Developing a personal code of ethics
Contributing to the welfare of the community/community service
Developing a deepened sense of spirituality
Understanding diverse philosophies
Development of the Arts
 Some of the perception data seems to be in conflict with itself and achievement
data
o NSSE seniors average lower than peers on "writing clearly and
effectively" while seniors on the CLA exam scored at the 71st percentile
on subjects including analytic writing, make-an-argument, critique-anargument
o The average CWU responses to the NSSE question on "learning effectively
on your own" was lower than peers. However, 84% of CWU seniors rate
very or mostly satisfied on " Development of Independent Learning"
IV.B.5 PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS MADE SINCE THE 2007.2008 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT
REPORT
1. Program Achievement Data is especially strong for this 2008/2009 report:
 CWU seniors continue to improve and rank near the upper quartile nationally on
Major Field Tests
 The Collegiate Learning Assessment administered during 2008/2009 provided
CWU with key insights into program learning outcomes
 CWU seniors ranked at the 57th percentile of peers on the CLA exam, they
ranked at the 71st percentile after their scores were adjusted for entering
ACT/SAT scores
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 39 of 179
2. More programs are participating in the Annual Program Assessment Reporting
process. There work is evaluated annually using a rubric that measures (see Appendix
7):
a. What outcomes were assessed this year and why?
b. How were they assessed?
i. What methods were used?
ii. Who was assessed?
ii. When was it assessed?
c. What was learned (assessment results)?
d. What will the department do as a result of that information
(feedback/program
improvement)?
e. How did the department or program make use of the feedback from last
year’s assessment?
3. The future looks bright at CWU for student outcomes. The 2008/2009 first year
class scored very well on the CLA and CWU has many programs that are focused on
improving both their assessment of learning and how they use assessment results to
make changes that improve learning outcomes.
IV.C. SUMMARY AND AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR PROGRAM RELATED LEARNING
EVIDENCE
1. It has already been noted that CWU ranks high nationally and among peer groups
in several measures of discipline specific learning outcomes
 CWU cohorts average at the 71st percentile of the Major Field Tests
 CWU Construction Management students again averaged higher than national
averages on nine of ten sub-scores
2. CWU seniors and alums self-report their satisfaction with discipline specific
learning on senior surveys and alumni surveys
3. CWU seniors rank highly among peer institutions on the Collegiate Learning Exam
which measures skills such as critical thinking, analytic reasoning, analytic writing,
make-an-argument, and critique-an-argument
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 40 of 179
V. OTHER EVIDENCE OF CHANGES MADE IMPROVEMENTS TO CWU STUDENT
LEARNING
A summary follows of other changes/improvements made at CWU to improve student
learning. Again, this list is by no means exhaustive.
1. Dr. Patsy Callaghan served out her term as Director of General Education. It was a
very successful term working with the CWU General Education committee with major
changes to the program, new General Education goals, the first implementation of the
Collegiate Learning Assessment exam at CWU, etc.
2. General Education at CWU is completing major reforms. New General Education
goals have been approved by the CWU Faculty Senate.
3. Dr. Jan Bowers continued work as the Director of the Center for the
Teacher/Scholar (see http://www.cwu.edu/~avpugrad/teacher-scholar/)
4. The five-year program/departmental review process continues and is improving.
See a summary of reports at:
http://www.cwu.edu/~avpugrad/programreview/fiveyearreview.html
5. CWU continues to improve services to University Centers. CWU now has Writing
Center staff at Des Moines, Lynnwood, Pierce County, Yakima, and by appointment at
Wenatchee.
6. CWU Colleges continue to implement, review, and improve college-wide
assessment plans. See appendices 19,20,21, and 22 of this report.
7. CWU updated its Educational Assessment Plan. This was a major update of the old
"assessment matrix." Twenty goals are detailed in five major areas: (1)Measures
Related to Admission, Placement, and Mentoring, (2) Review of Program, Department,
College, Division, and Institutional Goals, (3) Assessing Student Learning, (4)
Persistence, Graduation, and Follow Up, and (5) Perceptions of Students, Alumni, and
Employers. Each goal includes a summary of (1) current practice, (2) when processes
were last modified, (3) the cycle for completion, (4) administrator/s response for
oversight, (5) how effectiveness is determine, and (6) how information is shared.
8. The 2008/2009 Academic Affairs Strategic Plan and Assessment Report with
metrics and status/reflection was completed and it is at:
http://www.cwu.edu/~avpugrad/reports/reports.html.
9. Academic Affairs Strategic Plan goals and tactics have been mapped to CWU
Educational Assessment Plan goals. Both documents are tied to CWU's Mission and
Strategic Plan. See “Academic Strategic Plan Tactics that Address the Educational
Assessment Plan Goals").
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 41 of 179
VI. EVALUATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF ASSESSMENT EFFORTS
Over 2008/2009 CWU has implemented/improved/institutionalized several assessment
processes that are now part of the institution's regular practice. Examples include:
 the Annual Program Assessment Reports and their evaluation using specific
evaluation criteria (a rubric),
 the Five Year Departmental/Program Review Process
 College Level Assessment Plans
 Several updated institutional assessment plans with metrics and self-evaluation
CWU should continue is regular assessment of learning outcomes and improved
learning at the program/departmental/college/institutional levels.
One weakness in CWU's current assessment processes is in General Education. CWU is
gathering quite a bit of information about General Education but most of it is "after
the fact" and results are a mixture of "native" and transfer students. Process should
be implemented during 2009/2010 to directly measure, track, and improve General
Education learning outcomes. The processes could be samples over time; they do not
have to be large, expensive measures.
VI.A. 2008/2009 ANNUAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORTS
Annual Program Assessment Reports were instituted during the 2007/2008 academic
year. The goal of the reports was to provide feedback to programs and how they
could improve their assessment of student learning outcomes and use those
assessment results to implement changes and improvements to programmatic student
learning outcomes.
Annual assessment data is collected, analyzed, and reported by all degree-granting
graduate and undergraduate programs. 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.
The 2008/2009 Annual Program Assessment Reports showed higher participation rates
by programs and improved outcomes on 4 out of 5 measures.
In short, CWU's Annual Program Review process has been a big success: (1) a large
percentage of programs are now reporting, (2) CWU has baseline data on almost all
programs, (3) during 2008/2009 CWU programs improved in 4 out of 5 metrics
measured, (4) this process has shifted the focus of assessment at CWU from "doing
assessment" to "using assessment results to improve learning outcomes."
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 42 of 179
Table 26. CWU "Institution-wide" Program Review Rubric Scores for 2007/2008 and
2008/2009
Mean: CWU 2008-2009
Mean: CWU 2007-2008
Target Rubric Scores
Outcomes
Assessed
2.84
2.60
2
Methods
Used
2.43
2.30
2
Results
3.10
3.00
2
Feedback/
Program
Improv.
1.07
1.05
2
Previous
Year Use
1.47
1.49
2
Table 27. CWU University-Wide Participation In Annual Program Reviews
For 2007/2008 and 2008/2009
Undergraduate (UG) Reports
Graduate (GR) Reports
Non-Reporting UG
Non-Reporting GR
% Reporting UG
% Reporting GR
% Reporting Total
2008-2009
88
30
8
8
91%
73%
86%
2007-2008
87
28
12
17
87%
40%
75%
Comment: Almost all undergraduate and more than three quarters of graduate
programs submitted student learning outcome reports for the 2008-2009 academic
year. This is a major improvement from the previous year, especially in relation to
graduate programs when less than half of the reports were submitted. It is clear that
the campus is becoming more engaged in continuous programmatic improvement
efforts and is reporting those efforts. The university met the target rubric levels for
“outcomes”, “measures”, and “results" suggesting that outcomes are being written,
measured, and attainment reported. The university also showed improvement in all
rubric categories except the “use of data from the previous year.” It is clear that an
effective and more developed assessment culture is taking shape institutionally.
Documentation of the use of data for program improvement is still needed for this
coming academic year. Continued emphasis by Deans, chairs, and focused
professional development from the academic assessment committee and the Center
for the Teacher Scholar should continue to help improve programmatic assessment
processes.
Note: Summaries of rubric scores for each participating CWU program are available
by college. See appendices 9 through 13.
Summaries and comparisons of Annual Assessment Reports for each CWU college
follow. Please note that the rubric scale is 0, 1, and 2 for how well programs have
used assessment results to implement improved learning outcomes, i.e.,
"Feedback/Program Improvement," and "Previous Year Use."
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 43 of 179
Table 28. CWU College of Arts and Humanities Average Rubric Scores
Feedback/ Previous
Program
Year
Outcomes Methods Results
Improv.
Use
Mean Rubric CAH 2008-2009
2.58
2.12
2.46
0.92
1.56
2007-2008
2.40
1.72
2.84
0.75
1.29
Target Rubric Scores
2
2
2
2
2
Table 29. CWU College of Arts & Humanities Program Participation Rates
Undergraduate (UG) Reports
Graduate (GR) Reports
Non-Reporting (UG)
Non-Reporting (GR)
% Reporting (UG)
% Reporting (GR)
% Reporting (Total)
2008-2009
25
7
3
3
88%
57%
81%
2007-2008
27
7
4
5
85%
24%
74%
Comments: All undergraduate Arts & Humanities academic programs submitted student
learning outcome reports except for one department for the 2008-2009 academic year.
In addition, a majority (a little more than half) of graduate reports were submitted.
Inter-disciplinary programs also provided reports this year. This is a major improvement
for the college from last year. Other than some continued and increased focus of
assessment progress in the Art and Music departments, the college is well on its way to
being a leader with regards to assessment on campus. The college met the target rubric
for “outcomes”, “measures”, and “results" suggesting that outcomes are being written,
measured, and attainment reported. This is an improvement from last year where only
“outcomes” and “results” met the target rubric level. Enhanced college emphasis and
documentation of the use of data for program improvement is needed this coming year.
The following programs should be noted for best practice in relation to assessment (BA
Language & Literature; BA Philosophy; BA Theatre Arts Teaching; MA English Literature).
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 44 of 179
Table 30. CWU College of Business Average Rubric Scores
Outcomes Methods Results Feedback/ Previous
Program
Year
Improv.
Use
Mean Rubric CB 2008-2009
2.50
2.25
3.00
0.75
1.50
2007-2008
2.67
2.33
2.67
1.00
1.00
Target Rubric Scores
2
2
2
2
2
Table 31. CWU College of Business Program Participation Rates
Undergraduate (UG) Reports
Graduate (GR) Reports
Non-Reporting (UG)
Non-Reporting (GR)
% Reporting (UG)
% Reporting (GR)
% Reporting (Total)
2008-2009
3
1
0
0
100%
100%
100%
2007-2008
3
1
1
0
66%
100%
75%
Comments: The College of Business submitted student learning outcome reports for
all programs during the 2008-2009 academic year. This is a significant improvement
from the previous year. The college met the target rubric for “outcomes”,
“measures”, and “results" suggesting that outcomes are being written, measured, and
attainment reported. These results are similar to last year. Enhanced documentation
of the use of data for program improvement is still needed.
Table 32. CWU College of Education & Professional Studies Average Rubric Scores
Outcomes
Mean Rubric CEPS 2008-2009
3.04
2007-2008
3.17
Target Rubric Scores
2
October 2009
Methods
2.44
1.83
2
Results
3.12
2.35
2
CWU Annual Assessment Report
Feedback/
Program
Improv.
1.21
0.95
2
p. 45 of 179
Previous
Year Use
1.52
1.73
2
*
Table 33. CWU College of Education & Professional Studies Participation Rates
Undergraduate (UG) Reports
Graduate (GR) Reports
Non-Reporting (UG)
Non-Reporting (GR)
% Reporting (UG)
% Reporting (GR)
% Reporting (Total)
2008-2009
27
9
4
3
85%
66%
81%
2007-2008
26
8
6
5
77%
38%
68%
Comment: Almost all undergraduate College of Education and Professional Studies
academic programs submitted student learning outcome reports for the 2008-2009
academic year. In addition, a little more than half of graduate reports were
submitted. This is an improvement from last year when only three-quarters of
undergraduate and a little more than a third of graduate programs were submitted.
The college met the target rubric for “outcomes”, “measures”, and “results"
suggesting that outcomes are being written, measured, and attainment reported.
This is an improvement from last year where only “outcomes” and “results” met the
target rubric level. Although improved from the previous year, continued college
emphasis and documentation of the use of data for program improvement is needed.
The following programs should be noted for best practice in relation to assessment (BS
& BAS –ITAM; BS Construction Management; BS Flight Technology; BS Recreation &
Tourism).
Table 34. CWU College of the Sciences Average Rubric Scores
Outcomes Methods
Assessed
Used
Mean Rubric COTS 2008-2009
2.56
2.29
2007-2008
2.77
2.63
Target Rubric Scores
2
3
Results
2.91
3.17
3
Feedback/ Previous
Program
Year
Improv.
Use
1.47
1.77
1.55
1.94
2
2
Table 35. CWU College of the Sciences Program Participation Rates
Undergraduate (UG) Reports
Graduate (GR) Reports
Non-Reporting (UG)
Non-Reporting (GR)
% Reporting (UG)
% Reporting (GR)
% Reporting (Total)
October 2009
2008-2009
29
10
1
2
97%
80%
92%
CWU Annual Assessment Report
2007-2008
27
9
3
3
89%
67%
84%
p. 46 of 179
Comments: All but one interdisciplinary undergraduate College of the Sciences
program completed a student learning outcome report for the 2008-2009 academic
year. In addition, more than three quarter of graduate reports were submitted. This
is a significant improvement from last year (2007-2008), especially in relation to
graduate programs when only two-thirds of reports were submitted. Although the
college average dropped in all categories, programs still met the rubric target for
“outcomes”, “measures”, and “results." It should also be noted that the use of data
for program improvement was highest for the College of the Sciences as compared to
the other colleges. The following programs should be noted for best practice in
relation to assessment (BS Computer Science; BA Psychology; M.Ed. School
Psychology).
Table 36. CWU Interdisciplinary and Other Programs - Average Rubric Scores
Mean Rubric Interdisc.
Programs 2008-2009
2007-2008
Target Rubric Scores
Outcomes
Assessed
Methods
Used
Results
Feedback/
Program Improv.
Previous
Year Use
3.50
3.00
4.00
1.00
1.75
2.00
2
3.00
2
4.00
2
1.00
2
NA
2
Table 37. CWU Interdisciplinary and Other Programs - Participation Rates
Undergraduate (UG) Reports
Graduate (GR) Reports
Non-Reporting (UG)
Non-Reporting (GR)
% Reporting (UG)
% Reporting (GR)
% Reporting (Total)
2008-2009 2007-2008
4
4
3
3
0
0
0
3
100%
100%
100%
0%
100%
57%
Comment: All undergraduate Individual Studies and Interdisciplinary academic
programs (4) submitted student learning outcome reports for the 2008-2009 academic
year. Graduate individual study reports were not submitted from a lack of students
completing those programs. The undergraduate programs met the target rubric for
"outcomes", "methods", "results," and “use of feedback from previous year” suggesting
that outcomes are being written, measured, and attainment reported.
Documentation of the use of data for program improvement was also provided.
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 47 of 179
VI.B. SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
The 2008/2009 Annual Assessment Report has highlighted many achievements that
CWU students, graduates, faculty, staff, and family can be very proud of.
As a result of this year's 2008/2009 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 yearly assessment reporting and
feedback process currently in place. This process takes place at the
program, departmental, college, and institutional level. For example,
raising expectations as to reporting outcomes, methods, and results seem
plausible since institutional performance already exceeds current
expectations.

Provide professional development and continue to fund assessment grants
(if possible0 that assist faculty and programs 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.
 Implement procedures to (a) regularly assess actual student work at the
General Education level, track outcomes, and implement improvements.

This report over these past two years has highlighted the need to raise
students' awareness of the importance of stewardship of the earth. This is
one of CWU's three main missions and is becoming more important to
society.

There are indications that CWU students score lower on the NSSE and rate
their learning lowest in "self and society" areas. Examples include selfreported lower voting rates, development in the arts, spirituality, etc. CWU
needs to continue to track these outcomes and focus institutional
assessment toward their improvement.

October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 48 of 179
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT - 2008/2009
APPENDICES
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 49 of 179
APPENDIX 1
CWU NATIONAL SURVEY of STUDENT ENGAGEMENT (NSSE)
BENCHMARK COMPARISONS OF FIRST YEAR and SENIOR STUDENTS
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 50 of 179
NSSE 2008 Benchm ark Com parisons
Detailed Statistics and Effect Sizes
Central Washington University
a
First-Year Students
Mean Statistics
Mea n SD
b
LEVEL OF ACADEMIC CHALLENGE (LAC)
CWU (N = 188)
50.5 10.7
SEM
Distribution Statistics
Percenti l es d
c
5th 25th 50th 75th 95th
.8
31
44
51
56
68
.2
.1
.0
.1
.2
30
30
31
35
38
43
43
44
48
52
51
52
53
56
61
60
61
62
66
70
73
74
75
77
80
1.0
14
29
38
48
67
16.5
16.8
16.9
17.0
17.9
.2
.1
.1
.1
.2
19
19
19
24
24
33
29
29
33
38
43
42
42
48
50
52
52
52
57
62
71
71
71
76
83
STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTION (SFI)
CWU (N = 189)
34.0 16.5
1.2
11
22
33
44
67
18.3
18.7
18.7
19.4
21.2
.2
.1
.1
.1
.3
7
11
11
11
13
17
22
22
28
28
28
33
33
39
39
40
44
44
50
56
67
72
72
78
83
ENRICHING EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES (EEE)
CWU (N = 179)
25.2 12.3
.9
6
18
25
32
45
13.3
13.5
13.6
13.7
14.3
.2
.1
.0
.1
.2
8
8
8
11
11
17
17
18
21
23
25
25
26
29
32
33
34
36
38
42
50
50
51
54
58
SUPPORTIVE CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT (SCE)
CWU (N = 174)
58.1 18.3
1.4
28
44
58
72
89
.3
.1
.1
.1
.2
28
28
30
33
36
44
47
47
53
56
58
61
61
67
69
72
73
75
78
81
92
92
92
94
97
Fa r W es t Publ i c
Carnegie Class
NSSE 2008
Top 50%
Top 10%
51.5
51.8
52.9
56.4
60.7
13.0
13.4
13.5
13.1
12.8
ACTIVE AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING (ACL)
CWU (N = 210)
38.7 15.0
Fa r W es t Publ i c
Carnegie Class
NSSE 2008
Top 50%
Top 10%
Fa r W es t Publ i c
Carnegie Class
NSSE 2008
Top 50%
Top 10%
Fa r W es t Publ i c
Carnegie Class
NSSE 2008
Top 50%
Top 10%
Fa r W es t Publ i c
Carnegie Class
NSSE 2008
Top 50%
Top 10%
October 2009
42.8
42.3
42.5
47.5
51.6
31.8
34.1
34.6
39.7
43.6
26.1
26.4
27.5
30.3
33.0
58.6
60.3
61.1
65.8
68.5
18.9
19.0
18.9
18.4
18.4
CWU Annual Assessment Report
Reference Group
Deg. Com
of parison Statistics
Freedo Mea n
Effect
me
Di ff.
Si g. f
s i ze g
205 -1.0
191 -1.3
188 -2.3
190 -5.9
205 -10.1
.233
.103
.003
.000
.000
-.07
-.10
-.17
-.45
-.80
6,831 -4.1
213 -3.5
210 -3.8
213 -8.8
229 -12.8
.000
.001
.000
.000
.000
-.25
-.21
-.23
-.52
-.72
2.2
-.1
-.7
-5.7
-9.6
.103
.934
.584
.000
.000
.12
-.01
-.04
-.30
-.46
191 -.9
181 -1.2
179 -2.3
180 -5.1
189 -7.8
.337
.207
.013
.000
.000
-.07
-.09
-.17
-.37
-.54
5,776 -.5
24,220 -2.2
82,083 -3.0
24,779 -7.7
5,839 -10.4
.722
.121
.039
.000
.000
-.03
-.12
-.16
-.42
-.56
6,214
25,995
189
192
213
p. 51 of 179
NSSE 2008 Benchmark Comparisons
Detailed Statistics and Effect Sizes a
Central Washington University
Seniors
M ean Statistics
M ean
SD b
SEM
57.3
13.8
.6
Reference Group
Comparison Statistics
Distribution Statistics
c
5th
Percentiles d
25th 50th 75th
95th
34
48
80
Deg. of
Freedom e
M ean
Diff.
Sig. f
Effect
size g
LEVEL OF ACADEM IC CHALLENGE (LAC)
CWU
(N = 590)
57
67
Fa r West Public
56.6
14.2
.1
33
47
57
66
80
17,896
.7
.272
.05
Carnegie Class
56.1
14.3
.1
32
46
56
66
79
60,744
1.2
.047
.08
NSSE 2008
56.5
14.3
.0
33
47
57
67
79
179,408
.7
.218
.05
Top 50%
59.9
13.8
.1
37
51
60
70
82
55,984
-2.6
.000
-.19
Top 10%
63.3
13.5
.1
40
54
64
73
84
11,508
-6.1
.000
-.45
17.3
.7
24
43
52
62
83
ACTIVE AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING (ACL)
CWU
(N = 609)
52.9
Fa r West Public
50.6
17.2
.1
24
38
48
62
81
18,917
2.2
.002
.13
Carnegie Class
51.3
17.5
.1
24
38
52
62
81
64,037
1.6
.028
.09
NSSE 2008
50.8
17.6
.0
24
38
48
62
81
189,499
2.1
.003
.12
Top 50%
55.4
17.2
.1
29
43
56
67
86
58,307
-2.6
.000
-.15
Top 10%
59.7
17.3
.2
33
48
57
71
90
12,287
-6.8
.000
-.39
41.7
19.9
.8
17
28
39
56
78
STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTION (SFI)
CWU
(N = 591)
Fa r West Public
38.2
20.4
.2
11
22
33
50
78
17,990
3.6
.000
.17
Carnegie Class
41.1
20.9
.1
11
28
39
56
83
61,097
.6
.467
.03
NSSE 2008
42.3
21.2
.0
11
28
39
56
83
594
-.6
.493
-.03
Top 50%
49.3
21.5
.1
17
33
47
67
89
609
-7.6
.000
-.35
Top 10%
55.3
21.7
.3
22
39
56
72
94
738
-13.6
.000
-.63
35.1
17.2
.7
11
21
33
46
67
ENRICHING EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES (EEE)
CWU
(N = 579)
Fa r West Public
37.1
17.3
.1
11
25
36
48
68
17,387
-2.0
.005
-.12
Carnegie Class
37.8
17.8
.1
11
25
36
50
69
59,364
-2.7
.000
-.15
NSSE 2008
40.5
18.2
.0
12
27
40
53
72
582
-5.4
.000
-.30
Top 50%
47.3
17.7
.1
18
35
47
60
76
60,745
-12.2
.000
-.69
Top 10%
54.3
17.3
.2
22
43
55
67
81
9,856
-19.2
.000
-1.11
56.2
17.8
.7
25
44
56
69
83
SUPPORTIVE CAM PUS ENVIRONM ENT (SCE)
CWU
(N = 564)
Fa r West Public
55.0
19.1
.1
22
42
56
67
89
608
1.2
.118
.06
Carnegie Class
57.3
19.5
.1
25
44
58
69
89
576
-1.2
.118
-.06
NSSE 2008
58.0
19.4
.0
25
44
58
72
90
567
-1.8
.017
-.09
Top 50%
63.5
18.9
.1
31
50
64
78
94
50,790
-7.3
.000
-.39
Top 10%
66.7
18.5
.2
33
56
67
81
97
12,258
-10.6
.000
-.57
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 52 of 179
a. All statistics are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size.
b. Standard Deviation is a measure of the average amount the individual scores
deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution.
c. The 95% confidence interval for the population mean it is equal to the sample mean
plus/minus the product of 1.96 times the standard error of the mean.
d. A percentile is the point in the distribution of student-level benchmark scores at or
below which a given percentage of benchmark scores fall.
e. Degrees of freedom used to compute the t-tests. Values vary for the total Ns due to
weighting and the equal variance assumption.
f. Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the
mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance.
g. Effect size is calculated by subtracting the comparison group mean from the school
mean, and dividing the result by the pooled standard deviation.
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 53 of 179
APPENDIX 2
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
FIRST YEAR DETAILED STATISTICS
2008
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 54 of 179
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
6,829
222
6,813
6,816
6,818
6,778
224
6,824
6,384
6,381
208
6,384
6,371
6,371
6,381
6,381
6,235
6,234
6,223
6,223
6,225
6,228
6,178
200
199
6,162
6,154
6,152
197
6,150
212
6,162
28,569
211
28,516
28,532
28,516
28,387
211
28,557
26,673
26,658
196
26,659
26,613
26,626
26,663
26,651
26,076
26,058
26,019
26,015
26,011
26,026
25,795
25,748
190
25,713
25,715
25,708
25,729
192
193
25,737
p. 55 of 179
Effect Size f
CWU
compared
CWU
compared
.995
.000
.646
.197
.175
.727
.017
.549
.655
.027
.038
.000
.006
.450
.000
.858
.946
.523
.085
.181
.106
.242
.560
.281
.234
.809
.489
.408
.671
.393
.047
.338
.050
.000
.980
.410
.518
.258
.323
.181
.677
.072
.010
.000
.278
.364
.013
.621
.649
.058
.576
.215
.697
.150
.251
.530
.075
.987
.355
.669
.734
.175
.003
.761
Far
West
Public
Carnegi
e Class
.82
.83
.84
.76
.79
.81
.95
.96
.97
.70
.78
.78
.84
.86
.87
.72
.77
.77
.74
.85
.83
.79
.85
.88
.78
.81
.82
.73
.84
.83
.70
.80
.82
1.06 1.02 1.03
.75
.84
.82
.89
.87
.88
.78
.91
.91
.83
.89
.90
.84
.83
.84
.81
.83
.83
.87
.81
.85
.86
.88
.88
1.03 1.00 1.01
.99
.98
.98
.84
.86
.86
.74
.78
.78
.81
.83
.84
.82
.85
.85
.90
.85
.85
.87
.91
.92
.98
.89
.92
.57
.66
.69
.57
.80
.82
.93 1.00 1.03
Significance e
Far
West
Public
Carnegi
e Class
Carnegie
Class
2.77
2.33
2.69
3.08
2.80
2.01
2.44
2.36
2.62
1.65
1.57
2.55
3.09
2.60
2.16
1.89
2.64
2.65
1.63
2.66
2.59
2.67
2.91
3.06
2.85
2.90
2.99
3.20
2.04
1.27
2.24
3.00
Far West
Public
2.66
2.42
2.66
3.05
2.84
2.09
2.52
2.40
2.62
1.68
1.55
2.53
2.98
2.50
2.02
1.85
2.61
2.58
1.56
2.67
2.68
2.69
2.88
3.09
2.89
2.91
2.97
3.17
2.03
1.26
2.21
2.95
Degrees/Free d
Carnegie
Class
Carnegie
Class
2.66
1.98
2.69
3.12
2.76
2.07
2.39
2.44
2.59
1.55
1.44
2.24
3.15
2.54
2.32
1.86
2.61
2.54
1.66
2.58
2.56
2.77
2.84
3.03
2.96
2.90
2.93
3.23
2.06
1.22
2.12
3.02
CWU
Far West
Public
211
209
210
210
210
209
208
209
193
192
193
193
193
193
193
193
190
188
188
190
189
190
187
188
188
187
188
188
188
188
188
187
Far West
Public
StDev c
Mean
CWU
Abbreviated NSSE questions
CLQUEST - Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions
CLPRESEN - Made a class presentation
REWROPAP - Prepared ?2 drafts of a paper or assignment before turning it in
INTEGRAT - Paper/project required integrating ideas/info from various sources
DIVCLASS - Included diverse perspectives in class discussions or writing
CLUNPREP - Come to class without completing readings or assignments
CLASSGRP - Worked with other students on projects during class
OCCGRP - Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare assignments
INTIDEAS - Ideas/concepts from different courses for assignmnts/class
TUTOR - Tutored/taught other students (paid or voluntary)
COMMPROJ - Participated in a community-based project as part of course
ITACADEM - Used an electronic medium to discuss or complete an assignment
EMAIL - Used e-mail to communicate with an instructor
FACGRADE - Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor
FACPLANS - Talked about career plans with a faculty member or advisor
FACIDEAS - Discussed readings/classes ideas with faculty outside of class
FACFEED - Prompt feedback from faculty on academic performance
WORKHARD - Worked harder than you thought you could to meet standards
FACOTHER - Worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework
OOCIDEAS - Discussed ideas from readings/classes with others outside class
DIVRSTUD - Serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity
DIFFSTU2 - Serious conversations with students very different from you
MEMORIZE - Memorize facts/ideas/methods from course
ANALYZE - Analyze basic elements of idea/experience/theory in depth
SYNTHESZ - Synthesizing and organizing ideas/information/experiences
EVALUATE - Making judgments about the value of information
APPLYING - Applying theories/concepts to practical problems/new situations
READASGN - # of assigned textbooks/books/book-length packs
READOWN - # of books read on your own (not assigned)
WRITEMOR - Number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or more
WRITEMID - Number of written papers or reports between 5 and 19 pages
WRITESML - Number of written papers or reports of fewer than 5 pages
N
CWU
NSSE 2008 DETAILED STATISTICS - FIRST YEAR STUDENTS
CWU vs. FAR WEST & MASTERS INSTITUTIONS
.00
-.55
.03
.09
-.10
-.02
-.15
.04
-.03
-.16
-.13
-.29
.20
.06
.33
.01
.00
-.05
.13
-.10
-.12
.09
-.04
-.08
.09
-.02
-.05
.06
.03
-.06
-.11
.07
-.14
-.43
.00
.06
-.04
.08
-.06
.09
-.03
-.13
-.16
-.30
.08
-.07
.18
-.04
-.03
-.14
.04
-.09
-.03
.10
-.08
-.05
.13
.00
-.07
.03
.02
-.08
-.15
.02
October 2009
Carnegie
Class
CWU
Far West
Public
Carnegie
Class
Far West
Public
Carnegie
Class
184
182
186
181
183
183
183
182
183
179
179
178
179
178
176
178
179
178
178
178
175
175
175
175
175
173
175
173
173
173
174
172
174
172
172
172
172
172
2.53
2.80
5.32
2.38
2.98
1.89
2.56
2.74
2.76
.05
.30
.14
.01
.21
.03
.02
.03
5.22
5.12
4.58
3.68
1.43
1.75
1.99
3.79
1.35
2.14
2.99
2.96
2.65
2.18
2.36
2.91
3.18
3.14
2.65
3.01
2.80
2.74
2.72
5.29
2.11
2.67
1.81
2.54
2.76
2.83
.08
.31
.15
.04
.19
.03
.03
.02
5.34
5.04
4.42
3.91
1.47
2.58
1.97
3.79
1.80
2.41
3.08
2.98
2.69
2.23
2.43
2.66
3.22
3.13
2.65
2.96
2.90
2.65
2.79
5.34
2.18
2.73
1.96
2.55
2.74
2.82
.08
.36
.15
.05
.18
.03
.04
.02
5.43
5.16
4.59
3.84
1.50
2.74
2.15
3.75
1.88
2.33
3.10
3.04
2.66
2.26
2.47
2.77
3.27
3.17
2.75
3.02
2.89
1.00
1.03
1.04
.92
.95
1.03
.81
.82
.78
.22
.46
.35
.11
.41
.16
.15
.18
1.53
1.29
1.48
1.34
1.11
1.80
1.31
1.54
1.13
.92
.73
.81
.94
.94
.93
.91
.86
.71
.95
.83
.90
1.10
1.18
1.19
.91
1.07
1.03
.90
.88
.84
.27
.46
.36
.21
.39
.17
.17
.13
1.43
1.34
1.55
1.56
1.23
2.23
1.42
1.70
1.45
1.11
.78
.81
.96
.95
.93
.95
.82
.78
.95
.85
.87
1.10
1.18
1.19
.93
1.07
1.07
.89
.87
.83
.27
.48
.36
.22
.38
.17
.19
.14
1.43
1.35
1.56
1.54
1.23
2.42
1.55
1.66
1.71
1.12
.76
.80
.96
.97
.94
.94
.80
.78
.95
.85
.89
6,128
195
6,132
6,067
197
6,059
196
6,063
6,065
195
5,920
5,922
217
5,916
5,913
5,907
184
5,922
5,919
5,907
188
5,865
190
5,870
5,851
190
190
184
5,759
5,764
5,759
5,740
185
5,764
185
5,629
5,642
5,631
25,615
184
25,691
25,394
185
25,358
185
25,375
25,365
182
181
24,794
188
180
24,752
182
180
24,779
24,798
24,760
177
24,547
178
177
24,522
178
177
175
24,164
24,154
24,135
24,055
24,129
24,169
174
23,717
23,733
23,720
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 56 of 179
Significance e
Effect Size f
CWU
compared
CWU
compared
.008
.294
.775
.000
.000
.335
.703
.764
.235
.088
.670
.546
.000
.397
.791
.610
.298
.293
.460
.161
.025
.702
.000
.815
.985
.000
.000
.090
.659
.628
.517
.351
.000
.530
.853
.984
.399
.175
.120
.815
.759
.002
.001
.358
.794
.961
.355
.073
.104
.526
.000
.211
.790
.179
.383
.051
.698
.947
.109
.445
.000
.108
.769
.000
.009
.042
.194
.834
.299
.156
.051
.176
.598
.179
.897
.200
Far
West
Public
Carnegi
e Class
Far West
Public
Degrees/Free d
Far
West
Public
Carnegi
e Class
StDev c
Mean
CWU
Abbreviated NSSE questions
PROBSETA - # problem sets that take you more than an hour to complete
PROBSETB - # problem sets that take you less than an hour to complete
EXAMS - which exams challenged you to do your best work.
ATDART07 - Attended an art exhibit/play/dance/music/theatre et. Al.
EXRCSE05 - Exercised or participated in physical fitness activities
WORSHP05 - Participated in activities to enhance your spirituality
OWNVIEW - Examined strengths/weaknesses of your own views
OTHRVIEW - Tried to better understand someone else's views
CHNGVIEW - Learned something that changed your view of issue/concept
INTERN04 - Practicum/internship/field experience/co-op/clinical assignment
VOLNTR04 - Community service or volunteer work
LRNCOM04 - Participate in a learning community
RESRCH04 - Work on research project with aculty member outside of course
FORLNG04 - Foreign language coursework
STDABR04 - Study abroad
INDSTD04 - Independent study or self-designed major
SNRX04 - Culminating senior experience (capstone course, et. Al.
ENVSTU - Relationships with other students
ENVFAC - Relationships with faculty members
ENVADM - Relationships with administrative personnel and offices
ACADPR01 - Preparing for class
WORKON01 - Working for pay on campus
WORKOF01 - Working for pay off campus
COCURR01 - Participating in co-curricular activities
SOCIAL05 - Relaxing and socializing (watching TV, partying, etc.)
CAREDE01 - Providing care for dependents living with you
COMMUTE - Commuting to class (driving, walking, etc.)
ENVSCHOL - Spending significant amounts of time on academic work
ENVSUPRT - Providing the support you need to help you succeed academically
ENVDIVRS - Encouraging contact among students from different backgrounds
ENVNACAD - Helping you cope with your non-academic responsibilities
ENVSOCAL - Providing the support you need to thrive socially
ENVEVENT - Attending campus events and activities
ENVCOMPT - Using computers in academic work
GNGENLED - Acquiring a broad general education
GNWORK - Acquiring job or work-related knowledge and skills
GNWRITE - Writing clearly and effectively
GNSPEAK - Speaking clearly and effectively
N
CWU
NSSE 2008 DETAILED STATISTICS - FIRST YEAR STUDENTS
CWU vs. FAR WEST & MASTERS INSTITUTIONS
-.20
.07
.02
.30
.28
.07
.03
-.02
-.09
-.11
-.03
-.05
-.16
.06
-.02
-.04
.10
-.08
.06
.11
-.15
-.03
-.37
.02
.00
-.31
-.24
-.12
-.03
-.04
-.05
-.07
.26
-.05
.01
.00
.07
-.10
-.12
.02
-.02
.23
.23
-.07
.02
.00
-.07
-.11
-.12
-.05
-.18
.10
-.02
-.08
.08
-.15
-.03
.00
-.11
-.06
-.41
-.10
.02
-.31
-.16
-.15
-.10
-.02
-.08
-.11
.15
-.10
-.04
-.10
-.01
-.10
3.17
2.92
2.94
2.98
2.29
2.89
2.78
2.72
2.66
2.64
2.37
2.00
3.18
2.92
3.01
2.98
2.24
2.92
2.79
2.68
2.66
2.67
2.42
2.12
.76
.77
.78
.85
.86
.87
.85
.91
.89
.83
.87
.88
1.06 1.04 1.05
.83
.86
.87
.94
.95
.97
.92
.95
.96
.88
.92
.93
.94
.97
.98
.85
.98
.99
.95 1.04 1.07
5,634
5,628
5,632
5,637
5,533
5,530
5,528
5,533
5,527
5,527
183
5,512
23,709
23,668
23,736
23,712
23,279
23,251
23,250
23,250
23,263
23,253
172
172
.220
.052
.126
.566
.473
.049
.267
.113
.089
.156
.282
.046
.194
.054
.621
.510
.871
.014
.240
.311
.082
.063
.077
.000
-.09
-.15
.12
-.04
-.06
-.15
-.09
-.12
-.13
-.11
-.07
-.16
-.10
-.15
.04
-.05
-.01
-.19
-.09
-.08
-.13
-.14
-.12
-.26
ADVISE - Overall, how would you evaluate the quality of academic advising
ENTIREXP - How would you evaluate your entire educational experience
SAMECOLL - If you could start over again, would you attend CWU?
171
171
171
2.92
3.05
3.14
2.88
3.10
3.15
2.96
3.14
3.17
.84
.70
.87
5,591
5,587
5,596
23,542
172
23,556
.480
.329
.807
.546
.077
.590
.05
-.08
-.02
-.05
-.14
-.04
.84
.72
.82
.84
.70
.82
All statistics are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size.
The 95% confidence interval for the population mean is equal to the sample mean plus/minus the product of 1.96 times the standard error of the mean.
c
A measure of the average amount individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution.
d
Degrees of freedom used to compute the t-tests. Values differ from the total Ns due to weighting and the equal variances assumption.
e
Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance.
f
Effect size is calculated by subtracting the comparison group mean from the school mean, and dividing the result by the pooled standard deviation.
b
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 57 of 179
Far
West
Public
Carnegi
e Class
3.10
2.79
3.05
2.94
2.23
2.75
2.70
2.61
2.54
2.53
2.30
1.84
Far
West
Public
Carnegi
e Class
172
172
171
171
168
170
170
170
170
169
170
170
CWU
Carnegie
Class
CWU
compared
Far West
Public
CWU
compared
Carnegie
Class
Effect Size f
Carnegie
Class
Significance e
Far West
Public
Degrees/Free d
Abbreviated NSSE questions
GNANALY - Thinking critically and analytically
GNQUANT - Analyzing quantitative problems
GNCMPTS - Using computing and information technology
GNOTHERS - Working effectively with others
GNCITIZN - Voting in local, state, or national elections
GNINQ - Learning effectively on your own
GNSELF - Understanding yourself
GNDIVERS - Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds
GNPROBSV - Solving complex real-world problems
GNETHICS - Developing a personal code of values and ethics
GNCOMMUN - Contributing to the welfare of your community
GNSPIRIT - Developing a deepened sense of spirituality
a
Far West
Public
StDev c
Mean
CWU
N
CWU
NSSE 2008 DETAILED STATISTICS - FIRST YEAR STUDENTS
CWU vs. FAR WEST & MASTERS INSTITUTIONS
APPENDIX 3
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
SENIOR DETAILED STATISTICS
2008
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 58 of 179
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 59 of 179
CWU
compared
gie
Class
Far
West
Carne
gie
CWU
compared
Far
West
Public
Carne
.84 .88
.86 .86
1.03 .96
.74 .73
.90 .92
.82 .77
.85 .87
.83 .89
.78 .81
.93 .93
.88 .91
1.04 1.02
.74 .78
.88 .88
.95 .94
.90 .91
.77 .81
.87 .84
.93 .90
.85 .86
.96 .98
.95 .97
.88 .91
.72 .75
.78 .84
.83 .88
.76 .83
.97 1.00
Effect Size f
Carnegie
Class
3.08
2.87
2.52
3.32
2.85
2.07
2.60
2.73
2.92
1.84
1.76
2.82
3.33
2.81
2.39
2.11
2.79
2.76
1.80
2.82
2.66
2.69
2.77
3.22
3.03
3.00
3.18
3.17
Significance e
Far West
Public
2.93
2.84
2.50
3.33
2.88
2.16
2.65
2.76
2.93
1.83
1.72
2.83
3.27
2.72
2.26
2.04
2.67
2.69
1.71
2.84
2.79
2.72
2.78
3.26
3.04
2.99
3.16
3.21
Degrees/Freedm d
Carnegie
Class
Carnegie
Class
3.06
2.97
2.59
3.35
2.85
2.18
2.65
2.93
3.00
1.90
1.71
2.66
3.38
2.82
2.43
2.16
2.79
2.76
1.80
2.83
2.59
2.72
2.83
3.21
3.01
2.97
3.23
3.39
Far West
Public
Far West
Public
608
609
608
607
609
606
605
607
594
594
594
595
596
596
596
594
592
591
585
588
589
590
590
590
584
588
591
586
CWU
CWU
CLQUEST - Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions
CLPRESEN - Made a class presentation
REWROPAP - Prepared ?2 drafts of a paper or assignment before turning it in
INTEGRAT - Paper/project required integrating ideas/info from various sources
DIVCLASS - Included diverse perspectives in class discussions or writing
CLUNPREP - Come to class without completing readings or assignments
CLASSGRP - Worked with other students on projects during class
OCCGRP - Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare assignments
INTIDEAS - Ideas/concepts from different courses for assignmnts/class
TUTOR - Tutored/taught other students (paid or voluntary)
COMMPROJ - Participated in a community-based project as part of course
ITACADEM - Used an electronic medium to discuss or complete an assignment
ed e-mail to communicate with an instructor
FACGRADE - Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor
FACPLANS - Talked about career plans with a faculty member or advisor
FACIDEAS - Discussed readings/classes ideas with faculty outside of class
FACFEED - Prompt feedback from faculty on academic performance
WORKHARD - Worked harder than you thought you could to meet standards
FACOTHER - Worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework
OOCIDEAS - Discussed ideas from readings/classes with others outside class
DIVRSTUD - Serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity
DIFFSTU2 - Serious conversations with students very different from you
MEMORIZE - Memorize facts/ideas/methods from course
ANALYZE - Analyze basic elements of idea/experience/theory in depth
SYNTHESZ - Synthesizing and organizing ideas/information/experiences
EVALUATE - Making judgments about the value of information
APPLYING - Applying theories/concepts to practical problems/new situations
READASGN - # of assigned textbooks/books/book-length packs
St Dev c
Mean
N
CWU
NSSE 2008 DETAILED STATISTICS - SENIOR YEAR STUDENTS
CWU vs. FAR WEST & MASTERS INSTITUTIONS
.85
.86
.97
.73
.91
.78
.87
.90
.81
.94
.93
1.02
.76
.88
.96
.93
.82
.84
.95
.86
.99
.97
.91
.75
.83
.86
.82
1.02
653
18,891
642
18,901
18,877
641
18,866
653
637
18,258
18,242
18,260
641
18,260
635
18,254
636
18,024
18,007
18,017
18,011
18,006
632
633
629
632
638
17,851
63,993
63,925
617
63,928
63,861
615
63,855
620
605
61,818
61,795
61,854
61,764
61,822
61,802
61,840
61,264
61,224
61,147
61,159
61,187
61,195
60,827
601
596
60,717
603
60,585
.000
.000
.028
.476
.547
.646
.963
.000
.044
.087
.826
.000
.001
.009
.000
.001
.000
.055
.010
.856
.000
.917
.107
.087
.351
.531
.018
.000
.15
.15
.10
.03
-.02
.02
.00
.19
.08
.07
-.01
-.16
.14
.11
.19
.13
.15
.08
.11
-.01
-.20
.00
.07
-.07
-.04
-.03
.09
.19
.509
.007
.091
.252
.998
.002
.155
.000
.019
.116
.250
.000
.148
.864
.284
.175
.969
.989
.947
.831
.080
.427
.097
.584
.460
.328
.078
.000
-.03
.11
.07
.05
.00
.13
.06
.22
.09
.06
-.05
-.16
.06
.01
.04
.06
.00
.00
.00
.01
-.07
.03
.07
-.02
-.03
-.04
.07
.21
October 2009
Carnegie
Class
Far West
Public
Carnegie
Class
Far
West
Public
Carne
gie
Class
Far
West
Carne
gie
CWU
compared
Far West
Public
CWU
compared
CWU
Effect Size f
Carnegie
Class
Significance e
Far West
Public
Degrees/Freedm d
CWU
READOWN - # of books read on your own (not assigned)
WRITEMOR - Number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or more
WRITEMID - Number of written papers or reports between 5 and 19 pages
WRITESML - Number of written papers or reports of fewer than 5 pages
PROBSETA - # problem sets that take you more than an hour to complete
PROBSETB - # problem sets that take you less than an hour to complete
EXAMS - which exams challenged you to do your best work.
ATDART07 - Attended an art exhibit/play/dance/music/theatre et. Al.
EXRCSE05 - Exercised or participated in physical fitness activities
WORSHP05 - Participated in activities to enhance your spirituality
OWNVIEW - Examined strengths/weaknesses of your own views
OTHRVIEW - Tried to better understand someone else's views
CHNGVIEW - Learned something that changed your view of issue/concept
INTERN04 - Practicum/internship/field experience/co-op/clinical assignment
VOLNTR04 - Community service or volunteer work
LRNCOM04 - Participate in a learning community
RESRCH04 - Work on research project with aculty member outside of course
FORLNG04 - Foreign language coursework
STDABR04 - Study abroad
INDSTD04 - Independent study or self-designed major
SNRX04 - Culminating senior experience (capstone course, et. Al.
ENVSTU - Relationships with other students
ENVFAC - Relationships with faculty members
ENVADM - Relationships with administrative personnel and offices
ACADPR01 - Preparing for class
WORKON01 - Working for pay on campus
WORKOF01 - Working for pay off campus
COCURR01 - Participating in co-curricular activities
SOCIAL05 - Relaxing and socializing (watching TV, partying, etc.)
CAREDE01 - Providing care for dependents living with you
COMMUTE - Commuting to class (driving, walking, etc.)
ENVSCHOL - Spending significant amounts of time on academic work
ENVSUPRT - Providing the support you need to help you succeed academically
ENVDIVRS - Encouraging contact among students from different backgrounds
St Dev c
Mean
N
CWU
NSSE 2008 DETAILED STATISTICS - SENIOR YEAR STUDENTS
CWU vs. FAR WEST & MASTERS INSTITUTIONS
588
588
588
589
585
584
590
579
579
579
579
579
578
579
578
576
575
577
574
579
579
572
570
569
566
566
568
566
566
568
568
561
564
561
2.23
1.68
2.60
3.23
2.76
2.57
5.37
1.95
2.74
1.95
2.66
2.84
2.91
.41
.47
.27
.16
.34
.10
.13
.22
5.65
5.30
4.54
4.25
1.87
3.29
1.84
3.56
2.31
2.32
3.03
2.81
2.49
2.15
1.65
2.61
3.00
2.77
2.34
5.36
2.00
2.59
1.92
2.64
2.84
2.87
.44
.52
.24
.15
.35
.09
.13
.29
5.50
5.27
4.34
4.28
1.60
4.20
1.81
3.40
2.45
2.54
3.15
2.81
2.50
2.17
1.63
2.57
2.98
2.65
2.41
5.37
2.01
2.58
2.05
2.65
2.82
2.87
.48
.55
.25
.16
.34
.10
.16
.30
5.58
5.41
4.50
4.03
1.63
4.29
1.93
3.39
2.65
2.46
3.10
2.90
2.49
1.04
.83
.93
1.14
1.18
1.27
1.26
.88
1.05
1.05
.88
.85
.81
.49
.50
.44
.37
.47
.30
.33
.42
1.24
1.35
1.69
1.68
1.56
2.70
1.35
1.64
2.28
.86
.77
.83
.96
.98
.82
.96
1.14
1.23
1.21
1.34
.89
1.04
1.07
.91
.86
.83
.50
.50
.43
.35
.48
.29
.34
.46
1.39
1.40
1.69
1.78
1.42
2.72
1.36
1.51
2.22
1.05
.78
.85
.99
.99
.79
.97
1.16
1.20
1.21
1.31
.91
1.05
1.10
.90
.85
.82
.50
.50
.43
.36
.47
.30
.36
.46
1.37
1.38
1.69
1.70
1.44
2.82
1.46
1.52
2.44
1.10
.78
.85
.99
624
17,858
17,862
17,865
17,687
619
17,835
17,665
17,629
17,648
17,652
17,654
619
619
17,339
611
17,320
17,343
17,319
17,301
627
621
17,341
17,317
609
597
17,191
17,206
598
17,132
626
599
17,006
17,011
60,642
60,625
60,640
60,651
60,182
593
60,544
60,061
59,955
590
60,027
60,046
60,043
590
59,210
59,168
59,120
59,169
59,131
591
592
585
59,256
59,162
58,806
574
579
58,809
575
579
585
58,290
58,182
58,172
.044
.280
.887
.000
.779
.000
.910
.224
.001
.455
.562
.967
.213
.139
.022
.074
.444
.562
.472
.862
.000
.005
.593
.006
.723
.000
.000
.520
.021
.162
.000
.001
.942
.867
.09
.05
-.01
.20
-.01
.19
.00
-.05
.14
.03
.02
.00
.05
-.06
-.10
.08
.03
-.02
.03
-.01
-.16
.11
.02
.12
-.01
.19
-.33
.03
.11
-.06
-.21
-.14
.00
-.01
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 60 of 179
.152
.095
.434
.000
.030
.003
.890
.129
.000
.023
.681
.487
.208
.000
.000
.324
.853
.984
.938
.051
.000
.187
.061
.622
.002
.000
.000
.147
.014
.001
.000
.036
.017
.987
.06
.07
.03
.22
.09
.13
-.01
-.06
.15
-.09
.02
.03
.05
-.15
-.16
.04
.01
.00
.00
-.08
-.17
.05
-.08
.02
.13
.16
-.36
-.06
.11
-.14
-.13
-.09
-.10
.00
NSSE 2008 DETAILED STATISTICS - SENIOR YEAR STUDENTS
CWU vs. FAR WEST & MASTERS INSTITUTIONS
Far West
Public
Carnegie
Class
Far West
Public
Carnegie
Class
Far
West
Public
Carne
gie
Class
Far
West
Carne
gie
CWU
compared
CWU
CWU
compared
Carnegie
Class
Effect Size f
Far West
Public
Significance e
CWU
Degrees/Freedm d
CWU
ENVNACAD - Helping you cope with your non-academic responsibilities
ENVSOCAL - Providing the support you need to thrive socially
ENVEVENT - Attending campus events and activities
ENVCOMPT - Using computers in academic work
GNGENLED - Acquiring a broad general education
GNWORK - Acquiring job or work-related knowledge and skills
GNWRITE - Writing clearly and effectively
GNSPEAK - Speaking clearly and effectively
GNANALY - Thinking critically and analytically
GNQUANT - Analyzing quantitative problems
GNCMPTS - Using computing and information technology
GNOTHERS - Working effectively with others
GNCITIZN - Voting in local, state, or national elections
GNINQ - Learning effectively on your own
GNSELF - Understanding yourself
GNDIVERS - Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds
GNPROBSV - Solving complex real-world problems
GNETHICS - Developing a personal code of values and ethics
GNCOMMUN - Contributing to the welfare of your community
GNSPIRIT - Developing a deepened sense of spirituality
ADVISE - Overall, how would you evaluate the quality of academic advising
ENTIREXP - How would you evaluate your entire educational experience
SAMECOLL - If you could start over again, would you attend CWU?
St Dev c
Mean
N
561
558
563
561
561
562
559
560
561
560
561
561
552
551
550
548
551
552
552
550
555
555
553
1.89
2.15
2.44
3.46
3.14
3.10
2.99
2.89
3.26
3.07
3.17
3.16
1.80
2.85
2.72
2.63
2.79
2.54
2.30
1.72
2.59
3.03
3.13
1.91
2.12
2.47
3.44
3.21
3.00
3.09
2.97
3.30
3.06
3.20
3.13
2.10
2.93
2.72
2.69
2.74
2.59
2.37
1.78
2.73
3.08
3.14
1.97
2.19
2.51
3.43
3.26
3.08
3.11
3.03
3.32
3.06
3.21
3.17
2.10
3.00
2.78
2.66
2.75
2.68
2.44
1.93
2.81
3.14
3.15
.87
.89
.95
.72
.85
.91
.86
.90
.79
.85
.87
.85
.95
.94
1.00
1.00
.92
1.06
.97
.99
.95
.75
.85
.91
.91
.95
.76
.83
.95
.86
.89
.79
.89
.87
.86
1.05
.93
1.01
.99
.96
1.04
1.03
1.01
.93
.75
.85
.95
.93
.96
.76
.81
.92
.85
.89
.77
.88
.85
.85
1.05
.90
1.01
.99
.96
1.03
1.03
1.07
.94
.74
.87
17,009
16,940
16,966
17,026
16,842
16,829
16,835
16,819
16,815
16,782
16,824
16,821
598
16,564
16,576
16,585
592
16,584
594
16,568
16,714
593
16,730
58,148
57,891
58,036
572
57,599
57,506
57,562
57,534
57,537
57,437
57,550
57,505
564
560
56,867
56,862
562
56,844
563
562
565
564
57,391
.760
.396
.490
.464
.046
.013
.013
.044
.265
.631
.337
.486
.000
.034
.985
.112
.258
.284
.070
.151
.000
.076
.782
-.01
.04
-.03
.03
-.09
.11
-.11
-.09
-.05
.02
-.04
.03
-.29
-.09
.00
-.07
.05
-.05
-.08
-.06
-.15
-.08
-.01
a
All statistics are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size.
The 95% confidence interval for the population mean is equal to the sample mean plus/minus the product of 1.96 times the standard error of the mean.
c
A measure of the average amount individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution.
d
Degrees of freedom used to compute the t-tests. Values differ from the total Ns due to weighting and the equal variances assumption.
e
Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance.
f
Effect size is calculated by subtracting the comparison group mean from the school mean, and dividing the result by the pooled standard deviation.
b
October 2009
CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 61 of 179
.043
.298
.066
.214
.000
.494
.001
.001
.078
.669
.193
.711
.000
.000
.133
.453
.338
.001
.001
.000
.000
.000
.598
-.09
-.04
-.08
.05
-.15
.03
-.14
-.15
-.07
.02
-.06
-.02
-.29
-.17
-.06
-.03
.04
-.14
-.14
-.20
-.23
-.16
-.02
APPENDIX 4
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
MULTI-YEAR BENCHMARK REPORTS FOR FIRST YEAR AND SENIOR NSSE RESULTS
2001 - 2008
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 62 of 179
NSSE 2008 Multi-Year Benchmark Report
Multi-Year Charts a
Central Washington University
FIRST-YEAR STUDENTS
Level of Academic Challenge (LAC)
Active and Collaborative Learning (ACL)
85
85
75
75
65
65
55
48.6
46.1
50.3
49.0
48.3
50.5 55
45
45
35
35
25
25
15
35.4
36.4
37.7
38.5
37.8
38.7
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
15
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
Student-Faculty Interaction (SFC)b
'01
85
75
75
65
65
55
55
35.8
33.0
39.0
'03
Enriching Educational Experiences (EEE)c
85
45
'02
37.9
37.1
40.1 45
35
35
25
25
15
21.6
25.1
24.4
24.7
25.2
'05
'06
'07
'08
15
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'01
'02
'03
'04
Supportive Campus Environment (SCE)
85
75
65
59.8
54.8
58.5
56.9
56.4
58.1
55
Notes:
a. Recalculated benchmark scores are charted for all years
of participation since 2001. See page 5 for detailed
statistics. For more information and recommendations for
analyzing multi-year NSSE data, consult the Multi-Year
Data Analysis Guide:
www.nsse.iub.edu/pdf/2008_Institutional_Report/
Multiyear_Data_Guide.pdf.
b. For institutions with 2001-2003 data, due to a change to
the ‘research with faculty’ item in 2004, ‘SFC’ (the
alternate version of ‘SFI’ that does not include that item)
is charted on this page. Statistics for both versions are
provided on page 5.
45
35
25
15
'01
9/8/2009
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
c. 2001-2003 ‘EEE’ scores are not provided because these
scores are not comparable with those of later years;
response options for several ‘EEE’ items were altered in
2004.
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 63 of 179
NSSE 2008 Multi-Year Benchmark Report
Multi-Year Charts a
Central Washington University
SENIORS
Level of Academic Challenge (LAC)
Active and Collaborative Learning (ACL)
85
85
75
75
65
57.6
57.3
53.7
54.1
56.2
57.3 65
55
55
45
45
35
35
25
25
15
51.4
50.7
52.3
53.3
52.9
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
36.1
36.9
35.1
'06
'07
'08
15
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
Student-Faculty Interaction (SFC)b
'01
85
75
75
65
65
55
45.9
43.1
43.0
'02
'03
Enriching Educational Experiences (EEE)c
85
44.3
45.1
46.8 55
45
45
35
35
25
25
15
33.5
33.9
'04
'05
15
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
Supportive Campus Environment (SCE)
85
75
65
55
52.1
55.4
51.5
55.1
53.9
53.4
56.2
'01
'02
'03
Notes:
a. Recalculated benchmark scores are charted for all years
of participation since 2001. See page 7 for detailed
statistics. For more information and recommendations for
analyzing multi-year NSSE data, consult the Multi-Year
Data Analysis Guide:
www.nsse.iub.edu/pdf/2008_Institutional_Report/
Multiyear_Data_Guide.pdf.
b. For institutions with 2001-2003 data, due to a change to
the ‘research with faculty’ item in 2004, ‘SFC’ (the
alternate version of ‘SFI’ that does not include that item)
is charted on this page. Statistics for both versions are
provided on page 7.
45
35
25
15
'01
9/8/2009
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
c. 2001-2003 ‘EEE’ scores are not provided because these
scores are not comparable with those of later years;
response options for several ‘EEE’ items were altered in
2004.
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 64 of 179
APPENDIX 5
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
2008/2009 COLLEGIATE LEARNING ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 65 of 179
The CLA provides an authentic, stable platform for samples of your students to
demonstrate performance in key higher order skills:
Analytic reasoning
The CLA calculates both unadjusted and adjusted scores to give two important
perspectives on institutional performance and comparisons. Unadjusted scores report
absolute performance and enable absolute comparisons across schools.
Although absolute measures, such as graduation or retention rates, are traditionally
relied upon in post-secondary outcomes and comparisons, there is a strong case to
adjust scores to control for entering academic ability.
Adjusted scores level the playing field for schools with different admissions standards
or imperfectly representative samples.
To adjust scores, CLA computes an expected CLA score for your student sample.
Expected scores are based on two factors: (a) the academic ability of your students
prior to matriculation and (b) the estimated linear relationship between CLA scores
and entering academic ability of student samples at all schools. Differences between
observed and expected scores are reported in standard error units for uniform
comparisons across CLA tasks. CLA labels these "Deviation Scores."
For this report, Mean CLA Scores quantify unadjusted performance and permit
absolute comparisons while Deviation Scores quantify adjusted performance and
enable controlled comparisons.
The next page summarizes both unadjusted and adjusted results for your student
samples. It shows Mean CLA Scores, Percentile Ranks (two sets) and Performance
Levels.
CLA Percentile Scores and CLA "Performance Levels" on the CLA Exam
Percentile
90-99th
70-89th
30-69th
10-29th
0-9th
9/8/2009
Performance Level
Well Above Expected
Above Expected
At Expected
Below Expected
Well Below Expected
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 66 of 179
CWU CLA RESULTS
FIRST YEAR CWU STUDENTS
UNADJUSTED
PERCENTILE
RANK
53%
Mean
CLA
score
Unadjusted
Percentile
Rank
1094
53
1116
73
1072
40
1053
33
1089
49
First-Year
Students
Total CLA
score
Performance
Analytic
writing
Make-anargument
Critique-anargume3nt
Adjusted
Percentile
Rank
Performance
Level
84
Above
98
Well above
57
At
43
At
72
Above
ADJUSTED
PERCENTILE
RANK
84%
SENIOR CWU STUDENTS
UNADJUSTED
PERCENTILE
RANK
57%
Mean
CLA
score
Unadjusted
Percentile
Rank
1217
57
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
First-Year
Students
Total CLA
score
Performance
Analytic
writing
Make-anargument
Critique-anargume3nt
Adjusted
Percentile
Rank
Performance
Level
71
Above
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
ADJUSTED
71%
VALUE ADDED
Value
Added
Total CLA
score
Performance
Analytic
writing
Make-anargument
Critique-anargume3nt
Adjusted
Percentile Performance
Rank
Level
37
At
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
ADJUSTED
PERCENTILE
RANK
37%
Many CWU seniors who took the CLA were evidently transfer students. Their ACT/SAT scores are not
recorded. Thus, the CLA could not compute adjusted percentile ranks for individual measurements.
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 67 of 179
CWU CLA Results - First year Students
Total CLA
score
Performanc
e task
Analytic
writing
Make-anargument
Critique-anargument
Observe
d mean
CLA
score
Expecte
d mean
CLA
score
Mea
n
EAA
scor
e
Studen
t count
Performanc
e level
Adjusted
percentil
e rank
Deviatio
n score
Unadjuste
d
percentile
rank
Above
84
1.3
53
1094
1048
994
87
Well above
98
2.1
73
1116
1029
995
43
At
57
0.1
40
1072
1066
993
44
At
43
-.02
33
1053
1069
993
44
Above
72
0.5
49
1089
1062
992
45
Observe
d mean
CLA
score
Expecte
d mean
CLA
score
Mea
n
EAA
scor
e
Studen
t count
1064
40
CWU CLA Results - Senior Students
Total CLA
score
Performanc
e task
Analytic
writing
Make-anargument
Critique-anargument
Performanc
e
Adjusted
percentil
e rank
Deviatio
n score
Unadjuste
d
percentile
rank
Above
71
0.6
57
1217
1190
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A
*
N/A
*
N/A
*
N/A
*
20
20
20
20
CWU CLA Results - Senior Students
Total CLA score
Performance task
Analytic writing
Make-an-argument
Critique-an-argument
Performance
level
At
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
Adjusted
percentile rank
37
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
Difference
score
-0.4
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
N/A *
The tables above shows how many students completed the CLA and their mean
Entering Academic Ability (EAA) scores,* as well as their expected and observed mean
CLA scores.** Unadjusted percentile ranks show how CWU's mean CLA scores compare
to those at other schools BEFORE adjusting for ability. Adjusted percentile ranks are
based on deviation scores and are used to assign performance levels.*** Deviation
scores control for ability and quantify the difference between observed and expected
mean CLA scores in standard error units. Difference scores represent estimates of
value added. They are calculated by subtracting first-year deviation scores from
senior deviation scores.
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 68 of 179
Mean Total CLA Score
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CLA PERFORMANCE AND ENTERING ACADEMIC ABILITY (EAA)
Mean EAA Score
CWU Seniors
CWU First year
Seniors at other schools
First year students at
other institutions
The figure above shows data for schools where at least 25 students had both a CLA
and EAA score in fall 2008 and/ or spring 2009. The solid blue square (freshmen) and
solid red square (seniors) represent the samples of CWU students tested. Outlined
blue and red and squares represent other schools.
The diagonal lines (blue for freshmen and, above that, red for seniors) show the
estimated linear relationship between an institution’s mean EAA score and its mean
CLA score for its students. Schools above the relevant lines scored higher than
expected, whereas those below the lines did not.
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 69 of 179
CLA DIAGNOSTIC GUIDANCE
CLA results operate as a signaling tool of overall institutional performance on tasks
that measure higher order skills holistically. However, the three types of CLA tasks—
Performance, Make-an-Argument and Critique-an-Argument—differ slightly in the
combination of skills necessary to perform well. Indeed, some schools score
significantly lower on one type than on another. Examining performance across CLA
task types can serve as an initial diagnostic exercise. Specifically, cases of
performance Well Below Expected or Below Expected on a particular task type
indicate that students are not demonstrating the expected level of skill (given their
EAA scores) at analyzing complex, realistic scenarios; writing a persuasive, analytic
essay to support a position on an issue; and/or critiquing written arguments.
PERFORMANCE TASK
MAKE-AN-ARGUMENT
CRITIQUE-AN-ARGUMENT
Analyzing complex, realistic
scenarios
Writing a persuasive, analytic
essay
Critiquing written arguments
2008–2009 CLA Institutional
Report 7 Diagnostic Guidance
Synthesizing information from
multiple sources; recognizing
conflicting evidence,
weighing the credibility of
different sources of evidence;
identifying logical fallacies,
interpreting data, tables, and
figures correctly; drawing
reasonable and logical
inferences from the available
information; developing
sound conclusions based on
all available evidence; and
utilizing the most relevant
and credible evidence
available to justify their
conclusion.
Establishing a thesis or a
position on an issue;
maintaining the thesis
throughout the essay;
supporting the thesis with
relevant and persuasive
examples (e.g., from
personal experience, history,
art, literature, pop culture,
or current events);
anticipating and countering
opposing arguments to the
position, fully developing
ideas, examples, and
arguments; crafting an
overall response that
generates interest, provokes
thought, and persuades the
reader; organizing the
structure of the essay (e.g.,
paragraphing, ordering of
ideas and sentences within
paragraphs); employing
transitions and varied
sentence structure to
maintain the flow of the
argument; and utilizing
sophisticated grammar and
vocabulary.
Identifying a variety of logical
flaws or fallacies in a specific
argument; explaining
how or why the logical flaws
affect the conclusions in that
argument; and presenting
their critique in a written
response that is a
grammatically correct,
organized, well-developed,
logically sound, and neutral
in tone.
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 70 of 179
Senior CLA Results by Department and Test Component
Psychology: Percent of students achieving scores at specified levels across all schools.
PT
ESS
(writing)
MA
CA
Well
Above
53.3%
30%
26.7%
40%
20%
At
13.3%
6.7%
Below
13.3%
26.7%
Well
Below
20%
13.3%
6.7%
6.7%
20%
20%
26.7%
13.3%
20%
20%
Above
Total
at/above/well
above
expectation
66.6%
56.7%
54.4%
66.7%
Total students: 47: 25 transfer, 22 native
Music: Percent of students achieving scores at specified levels across all schools.
PT
ESS
MA
CA
Well
Above
12%
22%
Above
33%
22%
At
10%
12%
11%
Below
11%
11%
33%
11%
Well
Below
33%
44%
22%
44%
%
at/above/well
above
expectation
55%
44%
12%
11%
Total students; 20: 9 transfer,11 native
KEY
(PT) Performance Task
(ESS) Analytical Writing Task
(MA) Make an Argument
(CA) Critique Written Argument
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 71 of 179
APPENDIX 6
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
WASHINGTON EDUCATORS SKILLS TEST BASIC and ENDORSEMENT
WEST-B and WEST-E
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
CWU STUDENT PASS RATE FOR WASHINGTON EDUCATOR SKILLS TESST
BASIC (B) AND ENDORSEMENT (E)
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 72 of 179
Summary of West B Results
2005 – 2007
Passed first try
Passed second try
Passed third try
> than 3 tries
Incomplete
West B
Reading
91%
4%
.5%
.5%
3.6%
West B
Math
89%
5%
1%
1%
4%
West B
Writing
81%
8%
2%
1%
8%
West B
Reading
86%
5%
1%
1%
7%
West B
Math
87%
3%
1%
.02%
9%
West B
Writing
75%
7%
2%
2%
14%
2007 – 2008
Passed first try
Passed second try
Passed third try
> than 3 tries
Incomplete
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 73 of 179
WASHINGTON EDUCATORS SKILLS TEST - BASIC
Range of Subtest Scores Statewide and by Preparation Program 2007/2008
The following table displays the statewide number of admitted candidates who passed reading, mathematics, and
writing subtest along with the range of scores for all public universities.
RANGE OF READING, MATHEMATICS, AND WRITING
SUBTEST SCORES FOR WASHINGTON PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES
Passed Reading
Preparation Program
Number
Mean
STATEWIDE (public and
private colleges/universities)
2,961
203 Central Washington
University (Ellensburg)
213 Eastern Washington
University (Cheney)
234 The Evergreen State
College (Olympia)
236 University of
Washington (Bothell)
237 University of
Washington (Seattle)
238 University of
Washington (Tacoma)
240 Washington State
University (Pullman)
248 Western Washington
Univ. (Bellingham)
SD
Passed Mathematics
Passed Writing
Min
Max
Number
Mean
SD
Min
Max
Number
Mean
271
13.5 240
300
2,945
278
15.4
240
300
2,941
564
266
13.4 240
300
556
274
16.1
240
300
242
267
13.4 240
297
242
277
15.4
240
40
279
10.0 252
300
40
287
9.4
70
276
12.3 240
297
70
281
93
282
10.5 240
300
93
37
274
11.3 240
291
294
268
13.2 240
454
272
12.8 240
Min
Max
265
13.5 240
300
549
259
12.0 240
293
300
242
260
12.0 240
294
255
300
40
275
10.1 254
292
13.8
240
300
70
271
11.3
243
295
289
8.3
266
300
92
277
11.3
245
296
37
280
13.2
246
300
37
272
13.0
247
300
297
294
277
14.9
240
300
292
263
12.1
240
292
300
454
280
14.4
240
300
453
267
12.8
240
298
Downloaded from the WWW on 8-3-2009: http://www.pesb.wa.gov/Publications/reports/documents/Final0708AssessmentReportPrintVersion.pdf
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 74 of 179
SD
SUMMARY OF CWU WEST-E (AND PRAXIS-II?) RESULTS
For Three Academic Years - 2005/2006, 2006/2007, and 2007/2008
Program
Over All
Bilingual Ed/ESL
Passed
2007-2008
(n=868)
Tested
730
868
Passed
2006-2007
(n=1144)
Tested
84%
998
1144
Passed
2005-2006
(n=727)
Tested
87%
650
727
89%
31
67
46%
52
85
61%
17
33
52%
Biology
4
4
100%
6
6
100%
9
9
100%
Business Ed
7
7
100%
5
5
100%
4
4
100%
Chemistry
5
5
100%
3
6
50%
1
3
33%
1
1
100%
5
5
100%
3
3
100%
75
79
95%
129
140
92%
87
90
97%
Drama
Early Childhood Ed
Earth Science
2
2
100%
4
4
100%
0
0
-
Elemenatry Ed
326
348
94%
421
453
93%
265
282
94%
Eng/Lang Arts
17
18
94%
23
24
96%
22
26
85%
4
4
100%
8
8
100%
7
7
100%
Health/Fitness
27
28
96%
56
57
98%
30
31
97%
Library/Media Specialist
Family & Cons. Sci
11
11
100%
17
17
100%
11
11
100%
Marketing Ed
4
4
100%
2
2
100%
4
4
100%
Mathematics
27
34
79%
36
48
75%
31
33
94%
M/L Math
21
34
62%
39
45
87%
9
13
69%
M/L Science
21
30
70%
24
31
77%
8
9
89%
Music
10
10
100%
24
26
92%
21
21
100%
Physics
0
0
-
2
2
100%
0
0
-
Reading
43
71
61%
32
51
63%
41
61
67%
60%
Science
8
11
73%
1
2
50%
3
5
Social Studies
22
29
76%
41
51
80%
25
29
86%
Spanish
10
15
67%
7
13
54%
5
5
100%
Special Ed
35
35
100%
40
40
100%
39
40
98%
1
1
100%
2
2
100%
3
3
100%
2
2
100%
4
4
100%
0
0
-
16
17
94%
15
16
94%
5
5
100%
Technology Ed
Traffic Safety
Visual Arts
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 75 of 179
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
WEST-E TRENDS 2005 - 2008
WEST E Institutional Pass Rate 2005-08 by Endorsement
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2007-2008 (n=952)
9/8/2009
2006-2007 (n=1226)
2005-2006 (n=761)
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 76 of 179
APPENDIX 7
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 2008/2009 ANNUAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
REPORTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY and RUBRIC USED TO EVALUATE REPORTS
Note 1: the rubric was used by members of the CWU Academic Assessment
Committee to evaluate 2007/2008 program reports and it is being used toe valuated
2008/2009 annual program assessment reports.
Note 2: Reports that obtain higher scores are characterized by specific curricular and
pedagogical improvement information.
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 77 of 179
Student Learning Outcome Assessment at Central Washington University
2008-2009 Executive Summary - September 24, 2009
As Prepared by
Tracy L. Pellett, Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies
Ian Quitadamo, Assessment Committee Co-Chair
Assessment of student learning is an essential component of Central Washington
University’s ongoing effort to evaluate overall academic and institutional
effectiveness as indicated by development of student knowledge, skill, and
dispositions. Central Washington University offered 88 undergraduate and 30 graduate
degree programs during the 2008-2009 academic year in four colleges (Education and
Professional Studies, Business, Sciences, and Arts & Humanities). As of spring, 2009,
almost all of the 118 degree programs were expected for the second time to provide ongoing
documentation (i.e., yearly) of achievement of programmatic student learning outcomes. Almost all
academic programs (102 - 86%) submitted a report for 2008-2009. As was the case the previous year,
undergraduate programs submitted proportionately more yearly reports than did graduate programs
(91% of undergraduate programs compared to 73% of graduate programs), suggesting a more developed
emphasis and culture of assessment at the undergraduate level. However, the percentage of graduate
programs submitting reports grew exponentially (40% in 2007-2008 to 73% in 2008-2009) suggesting
greater attention to and improvement of graduate programs in assessment processes. The following
summary is intended to provide a qualitative aggregated analysis of those individual programmatic
reports and provide documentation and evidence of college and university student learning outcome
attainment for 2008-2009.
Programmatic assessment of student learning at Central Washington University is
framed around five component questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Are learning outcomes appropriate?
Are assessment methods effective?
Is there evidence that students achieve stated learning outcomes?
In what ways are student learning results used for programmatic improvement?
In what ways are student learning results disseminated?
Component 1: Student Learning Outcome Appropriateness
All academic departments have developed clear student learning outcomes that encompass all degree
offerings and focus on development of student knowledge, skill, and/or dispositions.
(see http://www.cwu.edu/~avpugrad/programreview/assessment_plans.html ). All
student learning outcomes are aligned to Central Washington’s goals to “maintain and
strengthen an outstanding academic and student life on the Ellensburg and University
Center campuses” as well as specific departmental and college goals as noted. This
alignment demonstrates program coherence and connection with and between
individual programmatic, departmental, college, and university goals, curriculum,
instruction, and assessment processes.
In examining the 102 assessment reports submitted in 2008-2009, all but three (97%)
linked student learning outcomes with broader departmental, college, and university
goals. This is strongly encouraging and verifies institutional, college, departmental,
and programmatic goal coherence at Central Washington University.
Reports also indicated that student knowledge and skills were assessed much more
frequently than dispositions/attitudes. Specifically, 353 student learning outcomes
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 78 of 179
were assessed across all university programs. This included 11 in the College of
Business, 155 in the College of the Sciences, 100 in the College of Education and
Professional Studies, 81 in the College of Arts & Humanities, and 6 outcomes from
individual and interdisciplinary programs not affiliated with a college. Three hundred
and twenty-two of the 353 outcomes (91%) were knowledge or skill-related, whereas
31 (9%) were related to dispositions. These results were similar to last year’s finding
where 93% of the measured outcomes were skill and knowledge while 7% were
dispositions. These findings continue to demonstrate Central Washington’s emphasis
and varied approach to analyzing programmatic goals. It also indicates the need for
more programs to assess dispositions since professional attitudes are likely to be
important within most disciplines.
Component 2: Assessment Method Effectiveness
Effective methods of analysis should be related to learning outcomes and the
activities that support those outcomes. Assessment methods should include direct
(i.e., tests, essays, projects, assignments, etc.) and indirect (i.e., surveys, focus
groups, interviews) approaches to provide as complete a picture as possible as to
whether students are developing targeted knowledge, skills, dispositions. Methods
should also have clear standards of mastery against which results are compared to
provide assurance of student outcome attainment.
Examination of the assessment reports submitted during the 2008-2009 academic year
showed all but three programs (97%) used some form of direct or indirect method for
programmatic outcome measurement. Direct methods were used more frequently and
proportionately more often than indirect methods. Only eight programs reported the
use of both direct and indirect methods for all goals assessed during programmatic
outcome measurement. This is in comparison to only four programs last year (20072008). Two hundred and eighty-one of the 353 program outcomes assessed (80%) had
clear standards of mastery that allowed definitive analysis of outcome attainment.
Component 3: Evidence of Student Learning Outcome Achievement
Student learning and programmatic outcome attainment is an important element of
institutional academic integrity and achievement. Assessment reports submitted
during the 2008-2009 academic year indicated that 102 of 118 (86%) of CWU programs
collected data and reported on student learning outcome achievement.
Undergraduate programs (91%) provided greater documentation of assessment
practice and reporting than graduate programs (73%). Of the 88 undergraduate
assessment reports that were submitted, almost all (n=80, 91%) presented student
learning results in specific quantitative (measurable) terms. Of the 22 graduate level
assessment reports that were submitted, almost all (n=18, 82%) presented student
learning results in specific quantitative (measurable) terms. In addition, 90 of 102
programs (88%) submitted program reports that compared their results to established
standards of mastery. These comparisons, when qualitatively analyzed, reflected
strong and positive academic programmatic outcome attainment. Specifically, 353
programmatic outcomes (66 graduate and 287 undergraduate) were assessed and
compared to established standards of mastery. Two hundred and sixty-seven of the
353 (76%) programmatic outcomes were reported as students meeting and/or
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 79 of 179
exceeding stated outcome mastery/criterion levels. This trend was slightly stronger at
the graduate level (n= 54 of 66 - 82%) than it was for the undergraduate (213 of 287 74%). However, in either case, the results provide an important element of assurance
of institutional student learning and achievement.
Component 4: 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). It can be concluded that assessment
evidence is analyzed and used to improve pedagogy and/or program curricula at
Central Washington University. Of the 102 assessment reports submitted for 20082009, 94 (92%) provided documentation of pedagogical and/or curricular change as a
result of their assessment findings. In addition, more than half of the programs that
submitted assessment reports (n=59 - 57%) provided evidence that assessment results
and findings from previous years were being used for long-term pedagogical and
curricular decision-making. This finding provides strong evidence that academic
programs have been actively engaged in continuous improvement for some time.
Component 5: Student Learning Results Dissemination
Student learning is a campus-wide responsibility. Disseminating programmatic
assessment results is important, particularly for increasing the transparency of how
assessment processes are (and should be) used to continuously improve student
learning, instruction, and ultimately programs. Whereas faculty play a key role in all
aspects of the assessment process, questions of program and institutional
effectiveness cannot be fully addressed without participation and collaboration with
other internal (student-affairs, librarians, administrators, faculty, and students) and
external (alumni, trustees, employers) audiences whose experience and potential
input can enrich discussion and further broaden programmatic understanding and
support. During the 2008-2009 academic year, 26 of 102 (25%) program reports
provided evidence that assessment results and/or changes were reported to internal
and/or external constituents. This is a slight improvement from 22% reported last
year (2007-2008). An increased emphasis of dissemination or at least the reporting of
such dissemination is needed based on these results.
Summary
The development of systematic and routine assessment processes by departments and
programs is encouraging and improving at both the undergraduate and graduate
levels. The following conclusions can be drawn from the Central Washington
University 2008-2009 degree program assessment report cycle.
1. Almost all academic programs submitted a student learning outcome
assessment report for the 2008-2009 academic year. This represented a
significant improvement over last year. Although undergraduate programs
tended to submit proportionately more reports than graduate programs again
this year, a marked increase in the number of graduate program reports
submitted suggests a developing emphasis and assessment culture across all
levels.
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 80 of 179
2. Programmatic student learning outcomes were aligned again this year to
broader departmental, college, and university goals. This continues to
demonstrate program coherence and connection with and between
programmatic, departmental, college, and university goals, curriculum,
instruction, and assessment processes.
3. Almost every academic program used some form of direct or indirect methods
for outcome measurement again this year. Direct methods were used
proportionately more often than indirect methods while very few programs
used both direct and indirect methods for all programmatic goals. The majority
of academic programs have clear standards of mastery that allow for focused
analysis of outcome attainment.
4. The majority of CWU academic programs collected data and reported on
student learning outcome achievement in quantitative terms that compared
results to established standards of mastery.
5. Students met and/or exceeded most mastery/criterion levels again this year
for programmatic outcomes. This trend was somewhat stronger at the graduate
level than at the undergraduate level this year.
6. Almost all CWU academic programs provided documentation of pedagogical
and/or curricular change as a result of assessment findings.
7. Only a quarter of CWU academic programs report assessment results and
curricular/pedagogical changes and improvement to internal and/or external
constituents.
Suggestions for Continuous Improvement
As a result of this year’s programmatic assessment reporting and feedback cycle, the
following suggestions are made to improve the process and departmental performance
for next year:
1. Continue to encourage all departments and programs to complete the yearly
assessment report process.
2. Continue to refine the assessment yearly reporting and feedback system to
meet the natural planning cycles of departments and programs. Some elements
of reporting may be better completed in the fall rather than the spring as is
currently in place. Changing some due dates while still providing opportunities
for report feedback may encourage greater departmental participation and use
of assessment information.
3. Continue to refine the assessment feedback system as far as the rubric scores.
Expectations to reporting outcomes, methods, and results should probably be
increased since institutional performance exceeds current expectations.
4. Continue to provide professional development to 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.
5. Continue to recognize and reward departments and programs that exhibit best
practice assessment processes.
6. Continue to provide examples and means for programmatic assessment
information dissemination through the academic assessment website.
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 81 of 179
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.
How were they assessed?
a. What methods were used?
b. Who was assessed?
c. When was it assessed?
Value
Guidelines for Assessing a Program's Reporting of Assessment Methods (Target = 2)
4
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
3
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.
2
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
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.
0
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.
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.
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 82 of 179
*Target Levels are bolded for each area.
3.
Value
4
3
2
1
0
What was learned (assessment results)?
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.
How did the department or program make use of the feedback from last year’s assessment?
Value
2
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.
1
NA
0
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 83 of 179
APPENDIX 8
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
SUMMARY OF ALL CWU ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS
 AVERAGE RUBRIC SCORES - 2007/2008 and 2008/2009
 PROGRAM PARTICIPATION RATES - 2007/2008 and 2008/2009
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 84 of 179
CWU UNIVERSITY-WIDE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT AVERAGE RUBRIC SCORES
2007/2008 and 2008/2009
Mean: CWU 2008-2009
Mean: CWU 2007-2008
Target Rubric Scores
Outcomes
Assessed
2.84
2.60
2
Methods
Used
2.43
2.30
2
Results
3.10
3.00
2
Feedback/
Program
Improv.
1.07
1.05
2
Previous
Year Use
1.47
1.49
2
CWU UNIVERSITY-WIDE PARTICIPATION IN ANNUAL PROGRAM REVIEWS
FOR 2007/2008 AND 2008/2009
Undergraduate (UG) Reports
Graduate (GR) Reports
Non-Reporting UG
Non-Reporting GR
% Reporting UG
% Reporting GR
% Reporting Total
2008-2009
88
30
8
8
91%
73%
86%
2007-2008
87
28
12
17
87%
40%
75%
Comment: Almost all undergraduate and more than three quarters of graduate
programs submitted student learning outcome reports for the 2008-2009 academic
year. This is a major improvement from the previous year, especially in relation to
graduate programs when less than half of the reports were submitted. It is clear that
the campus is becoming more engaged in continuous programmatic improvement
efforts and is reporting those efforts. The university met the target rubric levels for
“outcomes”, “measures”, and “results" suggesting that outcomes are being written,
measured, and attainment reported. The university also showed improvement in all
rubric categories except the “use of data from the previous year.” It is clear that an
effective and more developed assessment culture is taking shape institutionally.
Documentation of the use of data for program improvement is still needed for this
coming academic year. Continued emphasis by Deans, chairs, and focused
professional development from the academic assessment committee and the Center
for the Teacher Scholar should continue to help improve programmatic assessment
processes.
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 85 of 179
APPENDIX 9
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND HUMANITIES
REVIEW OF ANNUAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORTS
Abbreviation Key:
NA = Not Applicable
NA1 = Revised Plan
NA2 = Program Under Suspension
NA3 = No Students in Program
NA4 = Program Under Review
NA5 = Annual Report - No SLO
NA6 = Assess. Plan being Revised
NA7 = No Report Submitted
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 86 of 179
COLLEGE OF ARTS & HUMANTIES - 2008/2009 Program Assessment Rubric Scores
Dept./Program
Art
Degree Program
BFA-Art
BA-Art
BS-Visual Arts Teach.
MFA-Art
MA-Art
Asia/Pacific Studies
Program
BA-Asia/Pacific Studies
Communications
BA-Communication Studies
BA-Public Relations
BA-Journalism
English
BA-Language and Literature
BA-English Language Arts
Teach
MA-English Literature
MA-TESOL
NA7
NA7
NA7
NA7
NA7
Previous
Year
Use
NA7
NA7
NA7
NA7
NA7
4
1
NA
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
1
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
1
1
X
X
4
2
4
3
4
1
1
NA
2
1
Report
Submitted
Outcomes
NA7
NA7
NA7
NA7
NA7
Methods
NA7
NA7
NA7
NA7
NA7
Results
NA7
NA7
NA7
NA7
NA7
X
2
3
X
X
X
X
3
4
4
2
X
Feedback/
Program
Improv.
Film & Video Studies
Program
BA-Film/Video Studies
X
4
3
4
1
2
Foreign Languages
BA-Foreign Languages Major
BA-Foreign Languages
Teaching
BA- Spanish Major
BA-Spanish Teaching Major
X
3
1
3
1
1
X
3
1
3
1
1
X
X
3
3
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
History
BA-History
BA-History Teaching
MA- History
X
X
X
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Music
BM-Music
Theory/Composition
BM- Music Vocal
Performance
BM-Performance
BM-Music Education Major
BA-Music Major
MM-Music
X
2
2
2
1
2
X
2
2
2
1
2
X
X
X
2
2
2
NA7
2
2
2
NA7
2
2
2
NA7
1
1
1
NA7
2
2
2
NA7
X
4
4
4
2
2
X
X
2
2
3
2
4
2
1
1
0
2
X
4
3
4
1
2
X
0
0
0
0
0
Philosophy & Rel.
Studies
Theatre Arts
9/8/2009
BA-Philosophy Major
BA-Theatre Arts
BFA-Theatre Arts
BA-Theatre Arts: Teaching K12
MA-Theatre Production
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 87 of 179
COLLEGE OF ARTS & HUMANITIES
College-wide Average Rubric Scores - 2007/2008 and 2008/2009
Feedback/ Previous
Program
Year
Outcomes Methods Results
Improv.
Use
Mean Rubric CAH 2008-2009
2.58
2.12
2.46
0.92
1.56
2007-2008
2.40
1.72
2.84
0.75
1.29
Target Rubric Scores
2
2
2
2
2
COLLEGE OF ARTS & HUMANITIES
Program Participation Rates- 2007/2008 and 2008/2009
Undergraduate (UG) Reports
Graduate (GR) Reports
Non-Reporting (UG)
Non-Reporting (GR)
% Reporting (UG)
% Reporting (GR)
% Reporting (Total)
2008-2009
25
7
3
3
88%
57%
81%
2007-2008
27
7
4
5
85%
24%
74%
Comments: All undergraduate Arts & Humanities academic programs submitted student
learning outcome reports except for one department for the 2008-2009 academic year.
In addition, a majority (a little more than half) of graduate reports were submitted.
Inter-disciplinary programs also provided reports this year. This is a major improvement
for the college from last year. Other than some continued and increased focus of
assessment progress in the Art and Music departments, the college is well on its way to
being a leader with regards to assessment on campus. The college met the target rubric
for “outcomes”, “measures”, and “results" suggesting that outcomes are being written,
measured, and attainment reported. This is an improvement from last year where only
“outcomes” and “results” met the target rubric level. Enhanced college emphasis and
documentation of the use of data for program improvement is needed this coming year.
The following programs should be noted for best practice in relation to assessment (BA
Language & Literature; BA Philosophy; BA Theatre Arts Teaching; MA English Literature).
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 88 of 179
APPENDIX 10
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS
EVALUATION OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS
Abbreviation Key:
NA = Not Applicable
NA1 = Revised Plan
NA2 = Program Under Suspension
NA3 = No Students in Program
NA4 = Program Under Review
NA5 = Annual Report - No SLO
NA6 = Assess. Plan being Revised
NA7 = No Report Submitted
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 89 of 179
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS - 2008/2009 Program Assessment Rubric Scores
Dept./Program
Accounting
Economics
Management/Finance
& OSC
Degree Program
BS-Accounting
Major
Master of
Professional
Accountancy
BS-Economics
Major
BS-Business
Administration
Major
Results
Feedback/
Program
Improv.
Previous
Year
Use
3
4
1
2
2
3
4
1
2
X
2
1
2
0
1
X
4
2
2
1
1
Report
Submitted
Outcomes
Methods
X
2
X
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS
College-wide Average Rubric Scores - 2007/2008 and 2008/2009
Outcomes Methods Results Feedback/ Previous
Program
Year
Improv.
Use
Mean Rubric CB 2008-2009
2.50
2.25
3.00
0.75
1.50
2007-2008
2.67
2.33
2.67
1.00
1.00
Target Rubric Scores
2
2
2
2
2
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS
Program Participation Rate - 2007/2008 and 2008/2009
Undergraduate (UG) Reports
Graduate (GR) Reports
Non-Reporting (UG)
Non-Reporting (GR)
% Reporting (UG)
% Reporting (GR)
% Reporting (Total)
2008-2009
3
1
0
0
100%
100%
100%
2007-2008
3
1
1
0
66%
100%
75%
Comments: The College of Business submitted student learning outcome reports for
all programs during the 2008-2009 academic year. This is a significant improvement
from the previous year. The college met the target rubric for “outcomes”,
“measures”, and “results" suggesting that outcomes are being written, measured, and
attainment reported. These results are similar to last year. Enhanced documentation
of the use of data for program improvement is still needed.
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 90 of 179
APPENDIX 11
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & PROFESSIONAL STUDIES
REVIEW OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS
Abbreviation Key:
NA = Not Applicable
NA1 = Revised Plan
NA2 = Program Under Suspension
NA3 = No Students in Program
NA4 = Program Under Review
NA5 = Annual Report - No SLO
NA6 = Assess. Plan being Revised
NA7 = No Report Submitted
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 91 of 179
CWU COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES (CEPS)
SUMMARY OF 2008/2009 and 2007/2008 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS
Feedback/
Program
Improv.
Previous
Year
Use
1
Dept./Program
Advanced Programs
Degree Program
M.Ed. School Administration
Report
Submitted
X
Aviation
BS-Flight Technology Major
X
4
4
4
2
2
EFC
M.Ed.-Master Teacher
FCS
BA-Family Studies
BA-Family & Consumer
Sciences
BS-FCS, Career & Tech. Ed.
Teaching
BS-Fashion Merchandising
BS-Recreation and Tourism
BS-Global Wine Studies
MS-Family & Consumer
Sciences
BS-Construction Management
BS-Electronic Eng Tech
BS-Industrial Technology
BAS-Industrial Technology
BS-Mechanical Engineering
Technology
BS-Industrial Education
BS-Safety and Health
Management
BAS-Occupational Safety &
Health
MS-Engineering Technology
X
NA7
2
NA7
3
NA7
3
NA7
1
NA7
0
X
NA1
NA1
NA1
NA1
NA1
X
4
2
3
1
2
X
X
X
4
4
2
1
4
1
3
4
1
1
1
1
2
2
NA
X
NA1
NA1
NA1
NA1
NA1
X
X
X
4
NA7
NA5
NA5
3
NA7
NA5
NA5
4
NA7
NA5
NA5
2
NA7
NA5
NA5
2
NA7
NA5
NA5
X
2
3
4
2
2
X
4
3
4
1
1
NA7
NA7
NA7
NA7
NA7
X
0
0
4
1
NA
X
X
X
2
4
4
NA7
NA7
NA7
2
2
4
3
4
4
NA7
NA7
NA7
3
1
2
4
4
4
NA7
NA7
NA7
4
3
2
2
1
1
NA7
NA7
NA7
1
2
1
2
2
2
NA7
NA7
NA7
1
0
2
NA7
NA7
NA7
NA7
NA7
X
X
X
4
2
4
1
3
3
4
4
1
NA
1
1
1
1
NA
X
4
3
1
1
NA
X
2
1
1
1
2
X
X
4
2
1
1
4
3
1
1
1
2
X
2
3
1
1
2
IET
ITAM
BS-ITAM
BAS-ITAM
LLSE
BA-Special Education Major
M.Ed.-Reading Specialist
M.Ed.-Special Education
NEHS
BS-Exercise Science
BS-Paramedic Major
BS-Food Science & Nutrition
BAS-Food Service
Management
MS-Exercise Science
MS-Nutrition
TEACH
PESPH
9/8/2009
BA-Early Childhood Ed. Major
BA-Elementary Education
Major
BS-PE:Teach K-12 Health
Fitenss
BS-Public Health
BA-School Health
MS-Health and Physical
Education
X
X
X
Outcomes
4
Methods
4
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
Results
4
1
p. 92 of 179
CWU CEPS ANNUAL PROGRAM REVIEW
AVERAGE RUBRIC SCORES for 2008/2009 & 2007/2008
Mean Rubric CEPS 2008-2009
2007-2008
Target Rubric Scores
Outcomes
3.04
3.17
2
Methods
2.44
1.83
2
Results
3.12
2.35
2
Feedback/
Program
Improv.
1.21
0.95
2
Previous
Year Use
1.52
1.73
2
CEPS PARTICIPATION RATES for 2008/2009 and 2007/2008
Undergraduate (UG) Reports
Graduate (GR) Reports
Non-Reporting (UG)
Non-Reporting (GR)
% Reporting (UG)
% Reporting (GR)
% Reporting (Total)
2008-2009
27
9
4
3
85%
66%
81%
2007-2008
26
8
6
5
77%
38%
68%
Comment: Almost all undergraduate College of Education and Professional Studies
academic programs submitted student learning outcome reports for the 2008-2009
academic year. In addition, a little more than half of graduate reports were
submitted. This is an improvement from last year when only three-quarters of
undergraduate and a little more than a third of graduate programs were submitted.
The college met the target rubric for “outcomes”, “measures”, and “results"
suggesting that outcomes are being written, measured, and attainment reported.
This is an improvement from last year where only “outcomes” and “results” met the
target rubric level. Although improved from the previous year, continued college
emphasis and documentation of the use of data for program improvement is needed.
The following programs should be noted for best practice in relation to assessment (BS
& BAS –ITAM; BS Construction Management; BS Flight Technology; BS Recreation &
Tourism).
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 93 of 179
APPENDIX 12
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF THE SCIENCES
REVIEW OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS
Abbreviation Key:
NA = Not Applicable
NA1 = Revised Plan
NA2 = Program Under Suspension
NA3 = No Students in Program
NA4 = Program Under Review
NA5 = Annual Report - No SLO
NA6 = Assess. Plan being Revised
NA7 = No Report Submitted
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 94 of 179
CWU COLLEGE OF THE SCIENCES - SUMMARY OF 2008/2009 ANNUAL PROGRAM REVIEWS
1
1
Previous
Year
Use
2
2
2
2
4
NA7
1
1
2
NA7
2
2
2
NA7
NA3
3
2
NA7
NA3
4
2
NA7
NA3
2
1
NA7
NA3
2
2
NA7
4
3
4
2
2
X
2
3
3
1
NA
BA-Geography Major
X
2
1
2
1
NA
BS-Geology Major
BA-Geology Major
BS-Environmental Geological
Sciences
BA-Earth Science Teaching
Major
MS-Geological Sciences
X
X
X
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
X
3
3
4
2
2
X
2
2
3
1
NA
NA7
NA7
NA7
NA7
NA7
Dept.
Anthropology
Program
BA-Anthropology
BS-Anthropology
Biological Sciences
BA-Biology Major
BS-Biology Major
BS-Biology Teaching Major
MS-Biology
Chemistry
Report
Submitted
X
X
Outcomes
2
2
Methods
2
2
Results
2
2
X
X
X
2
2
3
NA7
1
1
3
NA7
BA-Chemistry Major
BA-Chemistry Teaching Major
BS-Chemistry Major
MS-Chemistry
X
X
X
NA3
3
2
NA7
Computer Science
BS-Computer Science
X
Environ. Studies
Program
Geography
BS-Environmental Studies
Geological Sciences
Feedback/
Program
Improv.
Gerontology
Program
Law and Justice
BS-Gerontology
BA-Law and Justice
X
2
2
2
2
2
Mathematics
BS-Mathematics
BA-Mathematics, Teaching
Major
MA-Mathematics, Teaching
X
X
2
2
3
2
2
3
1
2
1
0
X
4
1
2
1
1
Physics
BA-Physics Major
BS-Physics Major
X
X
3
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Political Science
BA-Political Science Major
BS-Public Policy Major
X
X
2
1
3
0
4
0
2
0
2
0
Primate Behavior
Program
BS-Primate Behavior
X
2
3
3
1
1
MS-Primate Behavior
X
2
3
3
1
NA
Psychology
BA-Psychology Major
MS-Experimental Psychology
MS-Mental Health Counseling
M.Ed.-School Counseling
M.Ed.-School Psychology
X
X
X
X
X
4
4
4
4
4
3
2
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Resource
Management
Science Education
MS-Resource Management
X
3
3
4
1
2
NA3
NA3
NA3
NA3
NA3
Sociology
BA-Sociology
X
2
2
3
1
2
BS-Sociology
BS-Social Services Major
X
X
2
2
2
2
3
3
1
1
2
2
9/8/2009
BS-General Science Teaching
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 95 of 179
COTS - Annual Assessment Reports Average Rubric Scores 2008/2009 and 2007/2008
Outcomes Methods
Assessed
Used
Mean Rubric COTS 2008-2009
2.56
2.29
2007-2008
2.77
2.63
Target Rubric Scores
2
3
Results
2.91
3.17
3
Feedback/ Previous
Program
Year
Improv.
Use
1.47
1.77
1.55
1.94
2
2
COLLEGE OF THE SCIENCES - Annual Program Review Participation Rates for
2008/2009 and 2007/2008
Undergraduate (UG) Reports
Graduate (GR) Reports
Non-Reporting (UG)
Non-Reporting (GR)
% Reporting (UG)
% Reporting (GR)
% Reporting (Total)
2008-2009
29
10
1
2
97%
80%
92%
2007-2008
27
9
3
3
89%
67%
84%
Comments: All but one interdisciplinary undergraduate College of the Sciences
program completed a student learning outcome report for the 2008-2009 academic
year. In addition, more than three quarter of graduate reports were submitted. This
is a significant improvement from last year (2007-2008), especially in relation to
graduate programs when only two-thirds of reports were submitted. Although the
college average dropped in all categories, programs still met the rubric target for
“outcomes”, “measures”, and “results." It should also be noted that the use of data
for program improvement was highest for the College of the Sciences as compared to
the other colleges. The following programs should be noted for best practice in
relation to assessment (BS Computer Science; BA Psychology; M.Ed. School
Psychology).
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 96 of 179
APPENDIX 13
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
INTERDISCIPLINARY AND OTHER PROGRAMS
REVIEW OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS
Abbreviation Key:
NA = Not Applicable
NA1 = Revised Plan
NA2 = Program Under Suspension
NA3 = No Students in Program
NA4 = Program Under Review
NA5 = Annual Report - No SLO
NA6 = Assess. Plan being Revised
NA7 = No Report Submitted
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 97 of 179
CWU INTERDISCIPLINARY & OTHER ANNUAL PROGRAM REVIEW RUBRIC SCORES
Dept.
Individual Studies
Program
Program
Interdisciplinary Studies
BA-Individual Studies
BS-Individual Studies
BM-Individual Studies
MA-Individual Studies
M.Ed.-Individual Studies
MS-Individual Studies
BA-Interdiscip. Stud-Social
Sciences
Outcome
s
Method
s
Result
s
Feedback
/
Program
Improv.
X
X
X
4
4
4
NA1
NA1
NA1
3
3
3
NA1
NA1
NA1
4
4
4
NA1
NA1
NA1
1
1
1
NA1
NA1
NA1
2
2
2
NA1
NA1
NA1
X
2
3
4
1
1
Report
Evaluate
d
Previou
s Year
Use
INTERDISCIPLINARY & OTHER AVERAGE RUBRIC SCORE for 2008/2008 & 2007/2008
Mean Rubric Interdisc.
Programs 2008-2009
2007-2008
Target Rubric Scores
Outcomes
Assessed
Methods
Used
Results
Feedback/
Program Improv.
Previous
Year Use
3.50
3.00
4.00
1.00
1.75
2.00
2
3.00
2
4.00
2
1.00
2
NA
2
CWU INTERDISCIPLINARY & OTHER 2008/2009 * 2007/2008 PARTICIPATION RATES
Undergraduate (UG) Reports
Graduate (GR) Reports
Non-Reporting (UG)
Non-Reporting (GR)
% Reporting (UG)
% Reporting (GR)
% Reporting (Total)
2008-2009 2007-2008
4
4
3
3
0
0
0
3
100%
100%
100%
0%
100%
57%
Comment: All undergraduate Individual Studies and Interdisciplinary academic
programs (4) submitted student learning outcome reports for the 2008-2009 academic
year. Graduate individual study reports were not submitted from a lack of students
completing those programs. The undergraduate programs met the target rubric for
"outcomes", "methods", "results," and “use of feedback from previous year” suggesting
that outcomes are being written, measured, and attainment reported.
Documentation of the use of data for program improvement was also provided.
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 98 of 179
APPENDIX 14
2009/2010 CWU GENERAL EDUCATION MISSION and LEARNING GOALS
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 99 of 179
The 2005 General Academic Assessment Plan has been updated for 2009 and
beyond to:
 Track student performance in relation to new program outcomes through
course-embedded assessments and sampling techniques using common rubrics
 Track NSSE and faculty perceptual data related to the visibility and consistency
of the new goals and outcomes in required courses
 Use standardized testing, including the CLA (Collegiate Learning Assessment)
and the CAT (NSF Critical Thinking Assessment Test) at the freshman and senior
levels to monitor the development of and competence in the essential skills of
writing, critical thinking, quantitative literacy, and problem-solving
 Continue to use a multiplicity of measures, including disciplinary
accreditations, certification and pre- and post-program assessments, faculty
surveys, syllabus reviews, and alumni surveys for comparison decision-making
related to student success and improvement.
Current Practice: Goals for the general education program have been included
in the university catalog throughout the decade. However, they are periodically
reviewed; the most recent review of the goals and structure of general education
resulted in a revised set of goals that were adopted by the Faculty Senate in
spring, 2009.
General Education Mission Statement
In alignment with Central Washington University’s mission, the General
Education Program helps to prepare graduates to become responsible citizens, to
explore and understand the natural world, and to become independent learners
to lead enlightened and productive lives. The responsibility of the General
Education Program is to offer students multiple and varied opportunities to
engage with, inquire about, and interrogate ideas to liberate and enrich our
students’ greatest potential as human beings. Through the General Education
curriculum, students will be introduced to an intellectual legacy that includes
the best ideas, methodologies, and accomplishments in the broad areas of the
natural sciences, the social and behavioral sciences, the humanities, and the
arts. In addition, students will develop through repeated praxis the habits of
mind and modes of expression essential to leading enlightened and productive
lives in their local and global communities.
General Education Goals and Outcomes
Goal 1: To practice and apply the essential skills required to lead enlightened
and productive lives.
Rationale: One of the three major goals in CWU's Mission Statement is to
"... prepare students for enlightened and productive lives."
Outcomes: Students will be able to:
1. Read, reason, and conduct research critically.
2. Apply quantitative literacy skills to solve problems.
3. Write effectively for a variety of purposes and situations.
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 100 of 179
4. Organize and present information and ideas for a variety of
purposes and situations using oral and visual communication skills.
5. Demonstrate effective uses of technology to identify, evaluate,
and present information.
Goal 2: To observe and reason scientifically about the natural world.
Rationale: The ability to think scientifically about the natural world
allows us to recognize appropriate uses of the scientific methods. We
study the natural sciences to develop critical thinking and quantitative
reasoning skills by encouraging accurate observation, open-mindedness,
and a reasoned understanding of the nature and value of empirical
evidence.
Outcomes: Students will be able to:
1. Apply scientific methods.
2. Describe natural phenomena and predict consequences.
3. Use knowledge of scientific disciplines to describe the natural world
Goal 3: To understand and apply principles of social and behavioral dynamics.
Rationale
The social and behavioral sciences focus on how individuals, cultures,
and societies operate and evolve. Studying these fields helps us to
function as informed, responsible participants in communities and
relationships.
Outcomes: Students will be able to:
1. Explain and apply methods and principles used by social and
behavioral scientists to investigate and analyze group and individual
behavior.
2. Analyze dynamics of social groups and institutions.
Goal 4: To appreciate and give expression to beauty and truth through the
arts.
Rationale: Aesthetic experience is fundamental to human existence;
interacting with art allows us to construct meaning through the senses
and the imagination. We study the arts to understand, interrogate
and/or engage in the creative process and to explore the connections
between art, culture and history.
Outcomes: Students will be able to:
1. Create meaning through the analysis of or by participating in
imaginative/artistic production
2. Interpret aesthetic experiences and expressions within their
historical, artistic, and cultural tradition
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 101 of 179
3. Recognize and/or apply techniques or forms used to create
aesthetic meaning in at least one art form.
Goal 5: To analyze and critique historical and contemporary accounts of
human experience.
Rationale: Through the humanities, we develop a sense of continuity,
change, empathy, and personal ethics. We study the humanities to
observe how individuals and societies have articulated and acted on
their most profound ideas. Through historical and contemporary sources,
the humanities reveal the complex interactions between ideas,
individuals and societies.
Outcomes: Students will be able to:
1. Examine ways in which beliefs and values affect interpretations of
experience and events.
2. Analyze expressions of individual and human experience within
historical and social contexts.
3. Apply critical and analytical approaches typical of the humanities to
formulate, justify, and evaluate substantive claims.
Goal 6: To develop knowledge and skills necessary to be reflective, active
participants in a changing, multicultural, intercultural world.
Rationale: Diversity courses invite us to examine how our assumptions
about cultural identifications such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual
orientation, and religion can influence our perceptions of ourselves and
of others; these courses teach us to understand cultures different from
our own; and they prepare us to participate in diverse settings with
mutual respect and appreciation. The courses focus on one or more nondominant cultures or peoples of the United States and on comparative
cultures across national and continental boundaries.
Outcomes: Students will be able to:
1. Examine critically their own perceptions and assumptions about
people who have had a different set of historical experiences.
2. Analyze individual and institutional forms of prejudice, bias, and
discrimination based on factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, religion,
and sexual orientation.
3. Describe how globalization impacts local and national issues of
diversity.
4. Describe how socially and culturally diverse groups manifest a variety
of values, perspectives and contributions related to social and historical
issues and events.
5. Analyze the implications and requirements of equity, human dignity,
and social justice as these shared values influence U.S. ethnic and
international/global interactions.
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 102 of 179
Goal 7: To observe the interconnectedness of knowledge by employing
multiple modes of inquiry across disciplines to address issues and solve
problems.
(Outcomes for Goal 7 are pending a discussion of the proposed Mid-study
Seminar)
Process Last Modified: Program goals were last updated and adopted by the
Faculty Senate in spring, 2009.
Cycle for Completion: As needed.
Administrator Responsible for Oversight: Associate Vice President for
Undergraduate Studies
How Information is Shared: Information about General Education and the new
goals are shared through the Faculty Senate, the website of the associate vice
president for undergraduate studies, student advising, new student orientation,
the catalog, and http://www.cwu.edu/~gen_ed/.
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 103 of 179
APPENDIX 15
CWU STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF INSTRUCTION (SEOI) SUMMARY
ONLINE AND FACE-TO-FACE (F2F) COURSES
FALL 2008, WINTER 2009, and SPRING 2009
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 104 of 179
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
FALL 2008 STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF INSTRUCTION - COMPARISON OF ONLINE vs. F2F RESPONSES
5
15%
21%
48%
3%
366
4.060
1.140
?
?
21,279
3%
7%
13%
21%
55%
1%
374
4.198
1.093
4.386
0.818
21,268
6%
9%
16%
19%
49%
1%
405
3.963 1.2630
4.325
0.923
2%
6%
9%
18%
64%
1%
402
4.378
1.002
4.659
3%
7%
13%
19%
56%
3%
366
4.205
1.105
4%
5%
10%
20%
60%
2%
398
4.296
6%
13%
12%
23%
46%
1%
351
5%
11%
9%
18%
48%
8%
1%
6%
12%
21%
60%
4%
8%
15%
25%
6%
6%
12%
3%
9%
2%
2%
-v
al
u
e
of
T
Te
va
st
U lue
m o
ed f
ia MW
n
C
te
oh
st
e
Ef n'
fe s d
ct
Si
ze
Eq
ui
Fo val
r m en
qu A t
es
tio
n
4
10%
p-
3
3%
p
lin
(w e A
/o ve
N/ rag
A) e
On
lin
e
St
De
v
F2
FF
o
Eq rm
ui
va A
l
F2 ent
FS
M
De tan ean
vi da
at r d
io
n
e
in
nl
o
#
2
N
es
ns
o
sp
re
On
ay
s/
No
Hi
gh
tA
pp
lic
ab
le
Al
Ne
1
Online Survey Question
w
ve
r
/L
ow
Note 1: Averages for Online vs. F2F (Scantron) are compared. "? " denotes different questions.
Note 2: Comparisons to F2F SEOI's are not exact, e.g., paper SEOI's do not have a "Not applicable" option
Note 3: 409 responses for online sections / 21,371 responses for F2F Form A SEOI's; graduate sections excluded.
Note 4: The p-value (of t-tests) tests the hypothesis that average responses to Online = F2F.
Note 5: The Mann-Whitney U test compares medians for non-parametric data. It is comparable to a T-test.
Note 6: Cohen's d is used to estimate effect size. It is computed using pooled standard deviation.
Data from Testing and Assessment Services. For questions call #2046 or email HendersT@cwu.edu
A. DIAGNOSTIC FEEDBACK FOR THE INSTRUCTOR
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14
The instructor was actively engaged
in the class.
Course activities were well
organized.
The instructor provided useful
feedback on student progress.
I was confident in the instructor's
knowledge.
The instructor exhibited genuine
interest in the subject.
The instructor encouraged students
to express themselves.
Instructor communicated in a timely
manner.
Instructor provided extra help when
requested.
Course objectives were clearly
stated.
The instructor gave clear
explanations.
The instructor presented alternative
explanations when needed.
Answers to student questions were
clear and meaningful.
Instructor raised important questions
or problems.
Appropriate examples and
illustrations were used.
9/8/2009
?
?
0.000
0.000
-0.228
2
21,245
0.000
0.002
-0.390
3
0.664
21,242
0.000
0.000
-0.419
4
?
?
21,243
?
?
1.080
4.490
0.795
21,265
0.098
-0.242
3.900
1.285
?
?
21,226
?
?
373
4.038
1.250
4.571
0.710
21,241
0.000
0.000
-0.740
7
0%
407
4.334
0.966
4.449
0.833
21,246
0.001
0.005
-0.138
8
47%
1%
400
4.048
1.142
4.312
0.921
21,215
0.000
0.000
-0.286
9
21%
44%
11%
363
4.033
1.216
4.436
0.830
21,225
0.000
0.000
-0.481
10
11%
21%
51%
5%
386
4.114
1.163
4.436
0.835
21,198
0.000
0.000
-0.384
11
7%
10%
21%
57%
3%
391
4.271
1.054
4.458
0.802
21,179
0.000
0.005
-0.232
12
6%
13%
23%
53%
3%
396
4.217
1.055
4.489
0.772
21,187
0.000
0.000
-0.351
13
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 105 of 179
?
?
0.006
?
?
?
6
?
al
u
-v
p-
e
of
T
T
es
va
t
m l ue
ed o
ia f M
n
te W
st U
E
ff
ec
t
S
iz
e
F2
F
qu
es
tio
n
s
se
on
sp
re
F2
F
ev
F
St
D
F
E q o rm
ui
va A
le
nt
F2
M
F
St
ea
D an
n
e v da
ia
r
ti o d
n
/o
(w
ge
in
e
54%
0%
378
4.159
1.122
4%
8%
12%
19%
54%
3%
395
4.157
1.151
4.354
0.852
21,254
0.000
0.000
-0.229
16
4%
7%
18%
18%
51%
1%
399
4.058
1.177
4.374
0.892
21,234
0.000
0.000
-0.353
17
3%
1%
4%
5%
10%
11%
19%
17%
62%
66%
1%
0%
402
407
4.343
4.420
1.031
0.930
4.414
4.543
0.892
0.787
21,203
21,153
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.005
-0.079
-0.156
18
19
2%
7%
14%
22%
52%
3%
394
4.198
1.044
4.292
0.951
21,243
0.385
0.778
-0.098
20
1%
8%
13%
22%
55%
0%
407
4.216
1.042
4.457
0.897
21,234
0.000
0.000
-0.268
21
8%
15%
0%
24%
52%
0%
408
3.958
1.378
4.395
0.955
21,219
0.000
0.000
-0.453
22
2%
7%
9%
20%
62%
0%
407
4.346
1.008
4.534
0.779
21,233
0.000
0.001
-0.240
23
1%
2%
3%
7%
80%
6%
381
4.732
0.745
4.813
0.570
21,254
0.004
0.027
-0.141
24
0%
3%
16%
45%
36%
0%
408
4.118
0.818
4.096
0.987
21,255
0.266
0.032
0.022
25
0%
2%
12%
41%
45%
0%
408
4.294
0.743
4.181
0.913
21,247
0.068
0.564
0.125
26
0%
1%
11%
31%
56%
0%
408
4.422
0.757
4.547
0.708
21,210
0.073
0.033
-0.178
27
p
24%
#
11%
F2
N
9%
O
5
3%
N
4
N
O
3
nl
pl
Ap
2
ot
r
s
nl
ab
ic
s/
ay
w
Al
e
se
in
e
/A A v
er
)
a
le
gh
Hi
w
Lo
/
ev
er
N
#
in
on
1
Online Survey Question
l
on
p
es
B. INFORMATION ABOUT THE COURSE
Q15 The technology used for the
course(s) allow for easy navigation.
Instructor was interested in whether
Q16
students learned.
Instructor helped develop an
Q17
appreciation for the field.
Instructor applied course material to
Q18
real world issues.
Q19 Course objectives were met.
Assigned readings and other offline
Q20
work were useful.
Evaluative and grading techniques
Q21 (tests, papers, projects, etc.) were
fair.
Q22 Amount of work was appropriate to
course level and credits.
Q23 Student responsibilities and
requirements were clearly stated.
Instructor treated students with
Q24 respect, regardless of sex, race or
age.
≠
≠
≠
≠
≠
≠
21,288
C. HOW W OULD YOU DESCRIBE?
How would you describe the
Q25 intellectual challenge presented to
you on a scale of 1-5, 5 being the
highest and 1 being the lowest?
How would you describe the
amount of your effort needed to
Q26 succeed in this course on a scale
of 1-5, 5 being the highest and 1
being the lowest??
How would you describe your
involvement (doing assignments,
Q27 participating online, etc.) on a scale
of 1-5, 5 being the highest and 1
being the lowest?
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 106 of 179
-v
p
p-
al
u
e
of
T
va
T
es
m l ue
t
ed o
ia f M
n
te W
st U
E
ff
ec
t
S
iz
e
F2
F
qu
es
tio
n
s
se
on
sp
re
17%
32%
39%
0%
405
3.914
1.165
4.239
0.904
21,196
0.000
0.000
-0.358
28
7%
7%
14%
28%
44%
0%
407
3.966
1.213
4.354
0.894
21,136
0.000
0.000
-0.432
29
≠
≠
0%
46%
37%
11%
4%
2%
375
4.205
0.941
F2
#
F
F2
F
ev
St
D
in
e
F
E q o rm
ui
va A
le
nt
F2
M
F
St
ea
a
D
n
e v nda
ia
ti o r d
n
/o
(w
ge
N
6%
O
5
6%
N
4
N
O
3
nl
pl
Ap
2
ot
r
s
nl
le
ab
ic
s/
ay
w
Al
e
se
in
e
/A Av
er
)
a
h
Hi
g
w
Lo
/
ev
er
N
#
lin
on
1
Online Survey Question
on
p
es
D. GENERAL EVALUATION
On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being
"excellent" and 1 being "very poor,"
describe how you believe the
course as a whole was:
On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being
"excellent" and 1 being "very poor,"
Q29 describe what you believe the
instructor's teaching effectiveness
was:
How strongly do you agree that the
Q36 technologies used were reliable?
High = 5, Low =1
Q28
E. GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOURSELF.
Q30
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
W hy did you ta ke this course ?
(ple a se se le ct a ll tha t a pply)
In my major
In my minor
General Ed. requirement
Elective
Reputation of instructor
Time of day
Curiosity
Advice of advisor
Advice of friend
Offered online
Online
%
F2F
%
54%
5%
3%
9%
3%
2%
4%
1%
0%
17%
43%
6%
7%
6%
23%
3%
5%
2%
4%
≠
9/8/2009
1
3
168
199
27
8
406
4,014
3,168
5,907
6,786
475
700
21,050
0%
19%
1%
15%
41%
28%
49%
32%
7%
2%
2%
3%
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
n
ea
M
To
er
O
th
ra
ta
l(
n)
e
at
du
r
G
S
en
io
or
ni
Ju
S
op
ho
m
m
an
Online Count
F2F Count
Online Percentage
F2F Percentage
es
h
Cla ss: "other" is not included in the
average class standing
Fr
Q31
or
e
100%
3.62
2.83
Junior +
Sophomore +
100%
100%
p. 107 of 179
≠
≠
≠
≠
Q32 On average, how many hours per
week have you spent on this class?
Online Count
F2F Count
Online Percentage
F2F Percentage
Q33
W hat gra de do you expect to get
in this class?
<2
2-6
7-9
10-12 13-15 16-18
How many online courses have you
taken before this course?
Online Count
Online Percentage
152
109
70
37
15
5
3
406
1455
7513
6371
3344
1341
575
202
300
21,101
4%
7%
37%
36%
27%
30%
17%
16%
9%
6%
4%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
B
C
D
A
none
23
6%
1 to 2
52
13%
F
3
3 to 4
-
-
265
42
192
0.7%
1.3%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.9%
>4
124
30%
Other
208
51%
Total (n)
407
20,997
100%
100%
Total (n) Mean
407
100%
3.81
35. W hat online technologies were utilized in this course (please select all that apply):
n
Announcements
Discussion Board
Collaboration (Chat)
Email
Messages
Pronto
Groups
Digital Dropbox/Assignment Manager
9/8/2009
Tota l
(n)
>22
15
Online Count
229
142
33
F2F Count 9,029 8,821 2,648
Online Percentage 56.3% 34.9% 8.1%
F2F Percentage 43.0% 42.0% 12.6%
Q34
19-21
64
193
4
27
3
0
5
%
21%
64%
1%
9%
1%
0%
2%
6
2%
n
Calendar
Glossary
Tests/Surveys
Gradebook
Turnitin
iTunes
Other
TOTAL
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
%
2
0
15
37
1
0
20
1%
0%
5%
12%
0%
0%
7%
302
100%
p. 108 of 179
Expect
Grade
3.47
3.25
100%
100%
M e an
7.92 hrs / wk
7.56 hrs / wk
CENTRAL W ASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
W inter 2009 STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF INSTRUCTION - COMPARISON OF ONLINE vs. F2F RESPONSES
Note 1: Averages for Online vs. F2F (Scantron) are compared. "≠ " denotes different questions.
Note 2: Comparisons to F2F SEOI's are not exact, e.g., paper SEOI's do not have a "Not applicable" option
Note 3: 643 responses from 31 online sections / 19,514 responses from 945 F2F Form A SEOI's; graduate sections excluded.
Note 4: The p-value (of t-tests) tests the hypothesis that average responses to Online = F2F.
Note 5: The Mann-W hitney U test compares medians for non-parametric data. It is comparable to a T-test.
Note 6: Cohen's d is used to estimate effect size. It is computed using pooled standard deviation.
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14
9/8/2009
The instructor was actively engaged
in the class.
Course activities were well
organized.
The instructor provided useful
feedback on student progress.
I was confident in the instructor's
knowledge.
The instructor exhibited genuine
interest in the subject.
The instructor encouraged students
to express themselves.
Instructor communicated in a timely
manner.
Instructor provided extra help when
requested.
Course objectives were clearly
stated.
The instructor gave clear
explanations.
3%
628
4.338
0.889
0%
3%
10%
28%
58%
0%
623
4.415
0.814
4.474
0.806
18,465
0.073
0.051
-0.079
2
3%
7%
13%
24%
53%
0%
624
4.186 1.0650
4.265
0.988
18,339
0.069
0.196
-0.086
3
1%
2%
7%
21%
70%
1%
627
4.581
4.632
0.746
18,372
0.098
0.052
-0.073
The instructor presented alternative
explanations when needed.
Answers to student questions were
clear and meaningful.
Instructor raised important questions
or problems.
Appropriate examples and
illustrations were used.
0.748
≠
≠
≠
≠
≠
≠
≠
≠
≠
≠
≠
≠
≠
4
≠
1%
2%
9%
22%
65%
1%
627
4.495
0.814
1%
4%
11%
20%
63%
2%
626
4.420
0.908
2%
7%
12%
26%
53%
0%
628
4.207
1.032
2%
4%
7%
22%
55%
10%
624
4.359
0.985
4.416
0.896
18,281
0.173
0.462
-0.069
7
1%
3%
8%
21%
67%
0%
626
4.498
0.834
4.502
0.827
18,282
0.924
0.975
-0.004
8
2%
4%
12%
29%
53%
1%
627
4.273
0.958
4.336
0.955
18,233
0.110
0.045
-0.070
9
2%
3%
12%
23%
50%
10%
626
4.283
0.975
4.410
0.894
18,206
0.002
0.005
-0.153
10
2%
3%
11%
25%
55%
4%
627
4.314
0.970
4.409
0.891
18,287
0.018
0.045
-0.114
11
0%
2%
11%
27%
57%
3%
619
4.419
0.792
4.487
0.815
18,204
0.039
0.013
-0.090
12
2%
4%
9%
28%
56%
2%
625
4.350
0.916
4.555
0.781
18,198
0.000
0.000
-0.282
13
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 109 of 179
4.461
≠
0.855
≠
18,377
≠
0.261
≠
n
o
ti
qu
54%
p-
27%
p
11%
O
4%
2
1%
A. DIAGNOSTIC FEEDBACK FOR THE INSTRUCTOR
Q1
es
Te
st
m lu e
ed o
ia f M
n
W
C
o h t es U
t
en
S
iz ' s
e
d
E
F
o
ffe
rm
ct
A
T
va
of
lu
e
re
N
e
5
in
nl
-v
a
nl
in
(w e A
/o ve
N r ag
/A
O
) e
nl
in
e
St
De
v
F2
FF
Eq o r m
ui
v A
F 2 a le
F S nt
M
De tan
e
vi d a a n
a t rd
io
n
F2
FN
le
ab
Ap
es
4
o
ns
3
ot
Al
w
pl
ay
er
ev
N
#
o
sp
N
1
Online Survey Question
ic
s/
/L
H
ow
ig
h
Data from Testing and Assessment Services.
0.577
≠
-0.052
≠
6
≠
T
T
es
va
t
l
m ue
ed o
f
ia
n MW
te
C
oh
st U
en
S
iz 's
e
d
E
Fo
ff
ec
rm
t
A
q
ue
st
io
n
of
e
al
u
N
Fo
r
F
ui
F
-v
ev
St
D
in
e
m
va A
le
nt
F
M
St
D an ean
e v da
ia
ti o r d
n
/o
(w
ge
4.334
0.916
2%
3%
12%
24%
58%
1%
626
4.343
0.947
4.492
0.830
18,301
0.000
0.001
-0.192
16
3%
6%
11%
26%
53%
1%
623
4.222
1.051
4.333
1.002
18,239
0.010
0.008
-0.119
17
1%
0%
2%
2%
9%
7%
21%
25%
67%
65%
0%
0%
626
626
4.514
4.529
0.823
0.747
4.523
4.569
0.825
0.753
18,254
18,174
0.790
0.186
0.724
0.101
-0.012
-0.058
18
19
1%
3%
10%
30%
55%
1%
626
4.371
0.848
4.236
0.992
18,230
0.000
0.015
0.148
20
2%
5%
12%
26%
54%
0%
626
4.248
1.007
4.409
0.934
18,291
0.000
0.000
-0.185
21
1%
14%
0%
30%
55%
0%
627
4.244
1.069
4.442
0.897
18,222
0.000
0.000
-0.236
22
0%
3%
8%
24%
64%
0%
624
4.481
0.821
4.541
0.803
18,202
0.074
0.068
-0.080
23
0%
1%
3%
12%
80%
3%
626
4.774
0.570
4.804
0.587
18,263
0.204
0.147
-0.055
24
How would you describe the
Q25 intellectual challenge presented to
you on a scale of 1-5, 5 being the
highest and 1 being the lowest?
1%
2%
16%
48%
33%
0%
627
4.089
0.832
4.175
0.924
19,095
0.012
0.000
-0.098
25
How would you describe the amount
Q26 of your effort needed to succeed in
this course on a scale of 1-5, 5 being
the highest and 1 being the lowest??
1%
2%
11%
42%
44%
0%
625
4.261
0.797
4.242
0.896
19,080
0.571
0.567
0.022
26
How would you describe your
involvement (doing assignments,
Q27 participating online, etc.) on a scale
of 1-5, 5 being the highest and 1
being the lowest?
0%
1%
10%
31%
58%
0%
625
4.445
0.747
4.482
0.759
19,042
0.216
0.138
-0.052
27
p-
627
p
0%
F2
57%
F2
26%
Eq
11%
F2
N
5%
O
5
1%
N
4
N
O
3
nl
pl
Ap
2
ot
re
nl
ab
ic
s/
ay
w
Al
e
es
in
e
/A A v
er
)
a
le
gh
Hi
w
Lo
/
ev
er
N
#
in
ns
1
Online Survey Question
l
on
o
sp
B. INFORMATION ABOUT THE COURSE
Q15 The technology used for the
course(s) allow for easy navigation.
Instructor was interested in whether
Q16
students learned.
Instructor helped develop an
Q17
appreciation for the field.
Instructor applied course material to
Q18
real world issues.
Q19 Course objectives were met.
Assigned readings and other offline
Q20
work were useful.
Evaluative and grading techniques
Q21 (tests, papers, projects, etc.) were
fair.
Q22 Amount of work was appropriate to
course level and credits.
Q23 Student responsibilities and
requirements were clearly stated.
Instructor treated students with
Q24 respect, regardless of sex, race or
age.
≠
≠
≠
≠
≠
≠
≠
C. HOW W OULD YOU DESCRIBE?
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 110 of 179
of
T
T
es
va
t
m l ue
ed o
f
ia
n MW
te
C
oh
st U
e
S n'
iz
s
e
d
E
Fo
ff
ec
rm
t
A
q
ue
st
io
n
e
p-
al
u
F2
2%
13%
38%
43%
0%
625
4.138
0.990
4.218
0.952
19,032
0.046
0.038 -0.089
28
3%
3%
12%
32%
50%
0%
624
4.212
1.002
4.311
0.967
18,985
0.015
0.007 -0.109
29
1%
2%
16%
48%
33%
0%
627
4.089 0.8317
p
O
F
N
-v
ev
St
D
in
e
F
E q o rm
ui
va A
F 2 le n
tM
F
S
e
D t an
e v da a n
ia
r
d
ti o
n
F2
F
N
/o
(w
ge
5
4%
N
4
N
O
3
nl
pl
Ap
2
ot
r
s
nl
le
ab
ic
s/
ay
w
Al
e
se
in
e
/A Av
er
)
a
h
Hi
g
w
Lo
/
ev
er
N
#
in
on
1
Online Survey Question
l
on
p
es
D. GENERAL EVALUATION
On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being
"excellent" and 1 being "very poor,"
describe how you believe the course
as a whole was:
On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being
"excellent" and 1 being "very poor,"
Q29 describe what you believe the
instructor's teaching effectiveness
was:
How strongly do you agree that the
Q36 technologies used were reliable?
High = 5, Low =1
Q28
≠
E. GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOURSELF.
Q30
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
In my major
In my minor
General Ed. requirement
Elective
Reputation of instructor
Time of day
Curiosity
Advice of advisor
Advice of friend
Offered online
Online
%
F2F
%
63%
14%
7%
34%
6%
15%
1%
5%
18%
5%
168%
56%
8%
10%
8%
28%
3%
6%
3%
7%
2%
130%
9/8/2009
Online Count
F2F Count
Online Percentage
11
15
255
299
37
9
3,602
3,043
5,698
6,027
139
397
2%
2%
41%
48%
6%
1%
626
18906
100%
F2F Percentage
19%
16%
30%
32%
1%
2%
100%
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
n
ea
M
To
er
th
O
ta
l(
n)
e
at
du
ra
G
S
en
io
or
ni
Ju
ho
op
S
r
m
an
m
es
h
Cla ss: "other" is not included in the
average class standing
Fr
Q31
or
e
j.
W hy did you ta ke this course ?
(ple a se se le ct a ll tha t a pply)
3.58 junior +
2.85 soph +
p. 111 of 179
≠
≠
≠
≠
≠
≠
On average, how many hours per
Q32 week have you spent on this class?
Online Count
F2F Count
Online Percentage
F2F Percentage
Q33
W hat gra de do you expect to get in
this class?
<2
2-6
234
170
97
55
30
7
9
7,064
5,739
2,931
1,199
470
208
269
4%
6%
37%
37%
27%
30%
15%
15%
9%
6%
5%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
B
C
D
A
298
267
7,853
48%
43%
F2F Percentage
44%
42%
none
131
21%
1 to 2
162
26%
48
F
8
Other Total (n)
1
2
200
27
88
8%
1%
0%
0%
624
18,865
100%
12%
1%
0%
0%
100%
2,339
3 to 4
>4
119
19%
213
34%
Total (n) Mean
624
100%
2.66
35. W hat online technologies were utilized in this course (please select all that apply):
Announcements
Discussion Board
Collaboration (Chat)
Email
Messages
Pronto
Groups
n
485
502
0
421
152
0
234
%
78%
80%
0%
67%
24%
0%
38%
Calendar
Glossary
Tests/Surveys
Gradebook
Turnitin
iTunes
Other
n
71
14
327
409
4
71
62
Digital Dropbox/Assignment Manager
306
49%
TOTAL
624
9/8/2009
Tota l
(n)
>22
24
8,358
Online Count
Online Percentage
10-12 13-15 16-18 19-21
1,123
Online Count
F2F Count
Online Percentage
How many online courses have you
Q34 taken before this course?
7-9
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
%
11%
2%
52%
66%
1%
11%
10%
p. 112 of 179
Expect
Grade
3.37
3.29
626
19,003
100%
100%
M e an
8.22 hrs / wk
7.74 hrs / wk
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Spring 2009 STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF INSTRUCTION - COMPARISON OF ONLINE vs. F2F RESPONSES
2%
0%
622
625
4.466
4.493
1%
7%
11%
19%
61%
0%
622
1%
2%
7%
14%
74%
2%
1%
2%
6%
17%
72%
1%
2%
8%
21%
2%
6%
9%
1%
0%
4%
3%
1%
va
-v
al
ue
of
T
St
De
v
(w
/o
Te
st
m lue
ed of
ia M
Co n t W
he est U
n'
sd
Ef
fe
ct
Fo
Siz
rm
e
A
qu
es
tio
n
63%
66%
p-
22%
22%
p
9%
6%
F2
FN
3%
4%
F2
FF
Eq orm
ui
va A
l
F2 ent
FS
M
De tan ean
d
vi
at ard
io
n
1%
1%
On
lin
e
ge
s
On
lin
N/ e A
A) ve
ra
Al
w
ay
s/
No
Hi
tA
gh
pp
lic
ab
le
e
in
nl
o
#
5
N
e
ns
po
s
re
4
3
1
Online Survey Question
2
Ne
ve
r
/L
ow
Note 1: Averages for Online vs. F2F (Scantron) are compared. "? " denotes different questions.
Note 2: Comparisons to F2F SEOI's are not exact, e.g., paper SEOI's do not have a "Not applicable" option
Note 3: 643 responses from 31 online sections / 19,514 responses from 945 F2F Form A SEOI's; graduate sections excluded.
Note 4: The p-value (of t-tests) tests the hypothesis that average responses to Online = F2F.
Note 5: The Mann-Whitney U test compares medians for non-parametric data. It is comparable to a T-test.
Note 6: Cohen's d is used to estimate effect size. It is computed using pooled standard deviation.
Data from Testing and Assessment Services.
?
?
A. DIAGNOSTIC FEEDBACK FOR THE INSTRUCTOR
The instructor was actively engaged in the
class.
Q2 Course activities were well organized.
The instructor provided useful feedback on
Q3
student progress.
Q1
Q4
I was confident in the instructor's knowledge.
The instructor exhibited genuine interest in
Q5
the subject.
The instructor encouraged students to express
Q6
themselves.
Q7
Instructor communicated in a timely manner.
Instructor provided extra help when
Q8
requested.
Q9 Course objectives were clearly stated.
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14
The instructor gave clear explanations.
The instructor presented alternative
explanations when needed.
Answers to student questions were clear and
meaningful.
Instructor raised important questions or
problems.
Appropriate examples and illustrations were
used.
9/8/2009
0.849
0.852
?
?
?
?
?
4.50 0.79696
17,496
0.865
0.535
-0.007
2
4.326
1.0106 4.295546 0.97669
17,466
0.463
0.102
0.031
3
622
4.613
0.786 4.646318 0.73144
17,462
0.298
0.561
-0.046
4
2%
616
4.598
0.791
68%
1%
624
4.546
0.784 4.506097 0.81818
23%
61%
0%
617
4.354
0.979
5%
7%
20%
21%
60%
69%
10%
0%
620
622
4.471
4.574
0.906 4.43573 0.87274
0.734 4.534746 0.80635
17,442
17,455
5%
11%
22%
60%
1%
616
4.358
0.941 4.386467 0.93037
3%
3%
10%
20%
56%
8%
614
4.350
2%
3%
9%
20%
62%
4%
611
2%
3%
9%
21%
64%
2%
1%
3%
6%
21%
66%
3%
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
?
?
?
0.227
0.049
?
?
0.370
0.191
0.096
0.466
0.040
0.049
7
8
17,453
0.469
0.483
-0.030
9
0.995 4.456238 0.87595
17,401
0.013
,0336
-0.121
10
4.439
0.914 4.449339 0.86725
17,410
0.779
0.751
-0.012
11
617
4.454
0.891 4.522671 0.79189
17,401
0.061
0.184
-0.087
12
616
4.522
0.831 4.588377 0.75921
17,380
0.053
0.053
-0.088
13
?
p. 113 of 179
?
?
?
17,467
?
?
0.213
?
?
6
?
e
of
T
va
Te
st
m lue
ed o
ia f M
n
C
oh te W
s U
e
Si n' t
ze s d
Ef
Fo
fe
ct
rm
A
qu
es
ti o
n
-v
al
u
N
F
Eq orm
ui
va A
l
F2 ent
FS
M
De tan ean
d
vi
at ard
io
n
/o
St
De
v
(w
ge
616
4.401
0.860
2%
4%
9%
20%
64%
2%
614
4.434
0.940 4.51768
0.8144
17,451
0.031
0.173
-0.102
16
2%
5%
11%
22%
59%
1%
619
4.315
1.010 4.38022
0.9689
17,440
0.115
0.101
-0.067
17
1%
3%
5%
22%
69%
1%
616
4.570
0.767 4.56783
0.7871
17,419
0.945
0.710
0.003
18
0%
2%
7%
19%
72%
0%
621
4.608
0.719 4.60374
0.7252
17,375
0.883
0.854
0.006
19
1%
4%
11%
25%
57%
2%
617
4.348
0.928 4.26907
0.9808
17,423
0.041
0.055
0.080
20
Q21 Evaluative and grading techniques (tests,
papers, projects, etc.) were fair.
1%
4%
11%
21%
63%
0%
616
4.407
0.906 4.43968
0.9214
17,433
0.373
0.295
-0.036
21
Q22 Amount of work was appropriate to course
level and credits.
2%
5%
13%
22%
58%
0%
619
4.277
1.018 4.47532
0.8779
17,424
0.000
0.000
-0.225
22
Q23 Student responsibilities and requirements
were clearly stated.
0%
4%
7%
19%
70%
0%
613
4.556
0.796
4.579
0.7767
17,430
0.487
0.534
-0.029
23
Q24 Instructor treated students with respect,
regardless of sex, race or age.
0%
1%
3%
9%
84%
3%
615
4.812
0.548
4.8108
0.5746
17,431
0.955
0.787
0.002
24
0.48%
2.58%
14.84%
40%
42%
0%
620
4.203
0.820 4.17891
0.9216
17,433
0.471
0.715
0.026
25
0.65%
1.30%
7.98%
39%
51%
0%
614
4.386
0.744 4.25243
0.8812
17,415
0.000
0.003
0.152
26
0.32%
0.65%
7.59%
32%
59%
0%
619
4.491
0.693 4.49263
0.7524
17,368
0.498
0.327
-0.002
27
Q19 Course objectives were met.
Assigned readings and other offline work
Q20
were useful.
?
?
?
?
p-
0%
p
59%
F2
F
27%
N
F2
F
No
t
On
lin
e
5
9%
3
4%
Q15 The technology used for the course(s)
allow for easy navigation.
Instructor was interested in whether
Q16
students learned.
Instructor helped develop an appreciation
Q17
for the field.
Instructor applied course material to real
Q18
world issues.
2
1%
Online Survey Question
B. INFORMATION ABOUT THE COURSE
1
4
Al
w
es
s
On
lin
N/ e A
A) ve
ra
ay
s/
Hi
gh
Ap
pl
ica
bl
e
ow
/L
Ne
ve
r
er
lin
n
#o
e
ns
po
?
?
?
C. HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE?
How would you describe the intellectual
Q25 challenge presented to you on a scale of
1-5, 5 being the highest and 1 being the
lowest?
How would you describe the amount of
your effort needed to succeed in this
Q26
course on a scale of 1-5, 5 being the
highest and 1 being the lowest??
Q27
How would you describe your involvement
(doing assignments, participating online,
etc.) on a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest
and 1 being the lowest?
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 114 of 179
on
st
i
q
A
rm
4.2676 0.9385
17,368
0.436
0.762
-0.034
28
3%
3%
12%
25%
57%
0%
618
4.298
0.992
4.3579 0.9479
17,311
0.138
0.144
-0.063
29
≠
≠
1%
2%
8%
34%
55%
0%
617
4.391 0.8147
p-
0.995
p
4.236
F2
611
F2
0%
O
52%
N
30%
O
11%
D. GENERAL EVALUATION
On a s ca l e of 1-5, wi th 5 bei ng
"excel l ent" a nd 1 bei ng "very poor,"
Q28
des cri be how you bel i eve the cours e a s
a whol e wa s :
On a s ca l e of 1-5, wi th 5 bei ng
"excel l ent" a nd 1 bei ng "very poor,"
Q29 des cri be wha t you bel i eve the
i ns tructor's tea chi ng effecti venes s
wa s :
How strongly do you agree that the
Q36 technologies used were reliable?
High = 5, Low =1
≠
E. GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOURSELF.
Q30
W hy did you ta ke this course ?
(ple a se se le ct a ll tha t a pply)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
In my ma j or
In my mi nor
Genera l Ed. requi rement
El ecti ve
Reputa ti on of i ns tructor
Ti me of da y
Curi os i ty
Advi ce of a dvi s or
Advi ce of fri end
j. Offered onl i ne / Onl y a va i l a bl e
9/8/2009
Onlin
e %
F2F
%
57% 56.3%
13%
8.1%
8% 11.2%
23%
7.5%
9% 25.4%
5%
3.0%
16%
7.0%
4%
2.5%
2%
7.9%
41%
2.0%
621 22972
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 115 of 179
≠
≠
≠
≠
ue
e
Si
z
ct
ffe
Fo
of
T
T
va
es
l
u
m
t
e
ed o
ia f M
n
te W
st U
E
e
al
u
-v
N
F
ev
St
D
in
e
F
E q o rm
ui
va A
F 2 le n
tM
F
S
D t an ean
e v da
ia
ti o r d
n
/o
ge
(w
F
nl
pl
Ap
N
4%
5
4
3%
2
3
ot
r
s
nl
ab
ic
s/
ay
w
Al
e
se
in
e
/A Av
er
)
a
le
gh
Hi
w
Lo
/
ev
er
N
#
in
on
N
1
Online Survey Question
l
on
p
es
On average, how many hours per
Q32 week have you spent on this class?
Online Count
F2F Count
Online Percentage
F2F Percentage
9/8/2009
31
239
319
11
2,811
5,288
5,176
381
390 17,217
1%
18%
5%
16%
39%
31%
52%
30%
2%
2%
1%
2%
2-6
7-9
10-12
13-15 16-18 19-21
19
179
188
123
64
1,139
6,659
5,091
2,628
1,038
404
3%
7%
29%
38%
30%
29%
20%
15%
10%
6%
4%
2%
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
616
27
14
Es
t.
M
ea
n
ta
l(
7
3,171
<2
9
To
O
th
er
n)
te
G
ra
du
a
io
r
Se
n
ni
or
Ju
So
p
ho
m
an
or
e
Online Count
F2F Count
Online Percentage
F2F Percentage
es
hm
Class: "other" is not included in the
average class standing
Fr
Q31
3.44 junior +
2.88 sophmore +
Total
(n)
>22
8
622
161
230
17,350
2%
1%
1%
1%
p. 116 of 179
Est.
Mean
8.86
7.58
Q33
W hat gra de do you expect to get in
this class?
Online Count
F2F Count
Online Percentage
F2F Percentage
Q34 How many online courses have you
taken before this course?
Online Count
Online Percentage
A
B
C
D
F
Other Total (n)
305
240
64
6
0
3
7,801
7,167
1,935
194
22
84
49%
45%
39%
42%
10%
11%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
none
251
41%
1 to 2
122
20%
3 to 4
123
20%
>4
120
19%
618
17,203
Est.
Total (n) Mean
616
2.16
35. W hat online technologies were utilized in this course (please select all that apply):
Announcements
Discussion Board
Collaboration (Chat)
Email
Messages
Pronto
Groups
n
567
553
80
505
185
6
258
%
91%
89%
13%
81%
30%
1%
41%
Calendar
Glossary
Tests/Surveys
Gradebook
Turnitin
iTunes
Other
n
74
24
333
449
8
68
72
Digital Dropbox/Assignment Manager
144
23%
TOTAL
622
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 117 of 179
%
12%
4%
53%
72%
1%
11%
12%
Expect
Grade
3.36
3.32
APPENDIX 16
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SUMMARY OF 2008/2009 ETS MAJOR FIELD
TESTS





9/8/2009
Biological Sciences
College of Business
Computer Science
Physics
Psychology
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 118 of 179
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
(1)
CWU BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES MAJOR FIELD TEST SCORES
12 test takers
------ FALL 2008 -----Raw
35 test takers
--- WINTER '09 ---
U.S.
(2)
Raw
(3)
Score
Percentile
156.1
60%
OVERALL SCORE
26 test takers
--- SPRING '09 ---
U.S.
(2)
Raw
(3)
Score
Percentile
161.8
85%
U.S.
(2)
(3)
Score
Percentile
156.0
60%
SUB-SCORES
1 Cell Biology
57.7
75%
61.7
85%
56.5
65%
2 Molecular Genetics
3 Organismal
51.3
58.2
30%
75%
58.7
62.7
80%
90%
52.5
57.7
40%
75%
4 Population, Ecology, Evolution
55.2
60%
60.2
85%
56.1
65%
50
75%
57
90%
49
70%
2 Function
Molecular Biology and Molecular
60
65%
62
75%
58
55%
3 Genetics
4 Diversity of Organisms
47
57
55%
80%
56
62
85%
90%
44
40%
55%
5 Organismal - Animals
6 Organismal - Plants
61
53
55%
75%
66
58
80%
90%
56
50%
90%
7 Population Genetics and Evolution
58
65%
63
85%
61
80%
8 Ecology
9 Analytical Skills
59
53
55%
45%
65
61
85%
85%
59
55%
65%
ASSESSMENT INDICATOR
1 Biochemistry and Cell Energetics
Cellular Structure, Organization,
52
60
57
(1) ETS score conversion tables were used with snior scores from domestic institutions during August 2005 through June 2008.
These were the most recent conversion tables. See:
http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/MFT/pdf/MFT%20PDFs%202007/Biology4BMF.pdf
(2) Raw scores are CWU average mean percent correct
(3) Percent of U.S. institutions that are at or below CWU raw scores.
For example, a 60% means that CWU scored as high or higher than
60% of the institutions nationwide participating in Major Field Tests.
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 119 of 179
CWU College of Business 2008/2009 ETS Major Field Test Results
End-of-Major Evaluation of Student Learning.
Summary results for the overall test appear in the table following. The data reveal that CWU has scored consistently higher than the nationally-normed data.
They also provide a starting point from which to assess future improvements.
Beginning Summer 2005, in order to confirm consistent quality across the 3 sites, the ETS major field exam results were recorded by location of the Ellensburg
campus and the centers at Des Moines and Lynnwood. NOTE: 2008 and 2009 mean percentile correct was converted to the "% of Institutions At or Below the
CWU Mean" using ETS tables from August, 2006 through June, 2008. ETS has not yet published tables for 2008/2009 as of this writing at 9/10/2009. See:
http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/MFT/pdf/MFT%20PDFs%202007/Business4CMF.pdf
for the tables used to compute % at or below. TWH Testing & Assessment Services
ETS Major Field Exam Results - CWU Averages vs. Average of 564 Institutions
All Schools'
Institutional
Quarter
Location
# Students
CWU Mean
Mean
Sum. 2008
Ellensburg
27
158.20
152.9
Des Moines
33
152.79
152.9
Lynnwood
43
158.98
152.9
Accounting
56
160.66
152.9
Business Adm.
52
152.40
152.9
CB ALL
103
156.81
152.9
Fall 2008
Ellensburg
48
157.27
152.9
Des Moines
29
156.72
152.9
Lynnwood
20
153.25
152.9
Accounting
39
159.97
152.9
Business Adm.
63
154.02
152.9
CB ALL
97
156.28
152.9
Winter 2009
Ellensburg
48
161.13
152.9
Des Moines
36
155.64
152.9
Lynnwood
47
158.17
152.9
Accounting
65
160.89
152.9
Business Adm.
68
155.88
152.9
CB ALL
131
158.56
152.9
% of Institutions
At/Below CWU
Mean
80%
50%
80%
90%
45%
75%
75%
75%
50%
80%
55%
70%
90%
70%
80%
90%
70%
80%
The ETS Field Exam in Business also provides valuable student performance information in eight specific functional areas of business. Before addressing these
specific areas of business, please note that in the 9 quarters from Summer 2005 to Fall 2007, across 21 classes, Ellensburg campus, with 575 test takers, has
had a grand average of 159. Des Moines, with 238 test takers over 10 sections had a grand average of 156. Across 13 exams with 381 test takers, Lynnwood’s
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 120 of 179
grand average is 157. Seeing no real actionable differences between the three locations of test administration in terms of overall scores, the scores for
Ellensburg, Des Moines, and Lynnwood are collapsed across campus in the following discussion of the functional areas of business and effective Winter 2008 the
scores are reported by major as well as location. It is observable that in general BS-Accounting students outperform BS-Business Administration students in
overall scores.
As revealed in following tables, for both time periods, ’02-’05 and ’06-08, %At/Below CWU Mean, CWU students consistently perform better
in the more quantitative areas of business—accounting (85%/81%), finance (73%/65%), economics (74%/69%), quantitative business analysis (77%/61%),
information systems (74%) than they do in the less quantitative areas—legal and social (53%/62%), international (60%/62%), marketing (58%/59%), management
(57%/64%). There is slippage in the percentiles which is no doubt a function of better schools beginning to take the ETS exam. Specifically, examining the list
of institutions which take the exam shows that the ’06-07 list had 30% AACSB accredited schools taking the exam and the ’06-08 list shows 29% of the list is
AACSB accredited. However visual inspection indicates that there seem to be many Research I institutions using the exam. Though there is slippage is
percentile rating, it is observed that with few exceptions for CWU students, the number of questions answered correctly is increasing.
Accounting Area Assessment
9/8/2009
CB
Mean %
Correct
59.8
55.8
60.7
Nat'l
Mean %
Correct
2006-2008
49.8
49.8
49.8
Quarter
Summer 2008
Fall 2008
Winter 2009
# CWU
Students
103
97
127
Quarter
Summer 2008
Fall 2008
Winter 2009
Finance Area Assessment
CB
Nat'l
# CWU
Mean %
Mean %
Students
Correct
Correct
103
62.5
54.9
97
58.5
54.9
127
64.0
54.9
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 121 of 179
% At/Below
CWU
Mean
90%
80%
95%
% At/Below
CWU
Mean
80%
65%
80%
Quarter
Summer 2008
Fall 2008
Winter 2009
9/8/2009
Economics Area Assessment
CB
Nat'l
# CWU
Mean %
Mean %
Students
Correct
Correct
103
54.0
47.4
97
51.5
47.4
127
56.5
47.4
% At/Below
CWU
Mean
80%
70%
90%
Quarter
Summer 2008
Fall 2008
Winter 2009
Quantitative Business Analysis Area Assessment
CB
Nat'l
# CWU
Mean %
Mean %
Students
Correct
Correct
103
45.8
46.2
97
50.3
46.2
127
50.7
46.2
% At/Below
CWU
Mean
45%
70%
75%
Quarter
Summer 2008
Fall 2008
Winter 2009
Legal & Social Environment Area Assessment
CB
Nat'l
# CWU
Mean %
Mean %
Students
Correct
Correct
103
49.5
46.1
97
50.5
46.1
127
48.5
46.1
% At/Below
CWU
Mean
70%
75%
65%
Quarter
Summer 2008
Fall 2008
Winter 2009
International Issues Area Assessment
CB
Nat'l
# CWU
Mean %
Mean %
Students
Correct
Correct
103
60.5
54.0
97
59.8
54.0
127
61.2
54.0
% At/Below
CWU
Mean
75%
70%
75%
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 122 of 179
Quarter
Summer 2008
Fall 2008
Winter 2009
Marketing Area Assessment
CB
Nat'l
# CWU
Mean %
Mean %
Students
Correct
Correct
103
53.8
52.0
97
57.0
52.0
127
58.2
52.0
% At/Below
CWU
Mean
55%
70%
75%
Quarter
Summer 2008
Fall 2008
Winter 2009
Management Area Assessment
CB
Nat'l
# CWU
Mean %
Mean %
Students
Correct
Correct
103
59.0
54.7
97
58.0
54.7
127
60.7
54.7
% At/Below
CWU
Mean
65%
60%
75%
Beginning in the latter part of the Summer 2006, ETS added to the exam the new functional area of Information Systems. The results to date follow.
Quarter
Summer 2008
Fall 2008
Winter 2009
Information Systems Assessment
CB
Nat'l
# CWU
Mean %
Mean %
Students
Correct
Correct
103
61.3
58.0
97
59.3
58.0
127
63.4
58.0
% At/Below
CWU
Mean
65%
55%
80%
To improve on the assessment of the Economics program, a new course has been developed, EC 406, Assessment, effective 2007-2008, which is a required
course that is taken by all students majoring in Economics and are about to graduate. In addition, the internally developed assessment exam in economics has
been replaced by the Economics exam provided by Educational Testing Service (ETS).
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 123 of 179
COMPUTER SCIENCE
CW U MAJOR FIELD TEST SCORES
(1)
9 tes t takers
15 tes t takers
--- W INTER '09 --Raw
S core
OVERALL S CORE
--- S PRING '09 ---
U.S .
(2)
Raw
Percentile
(3)
S core
U.S .
(2)
Percentile
154.0
(3)
154.0
65%
65%
1 Programming
62
60%
66
75%
2 Dis crete S tructures and Algorithms
44
80%
39
65%
40
35%
42
40%
AS S ES S M ENT INDICATOR
S ys tems : Architecture/Operating
3 S ys tems /Networking/Databas e
(1) ETS s core conv ers ion tables were us ed with s nior s cores from domes tic ins titutions during Augus t 2005 through June 2008.
The mos t recent conv ers ion tables av ailable were us ed.
S ee: http://www.ets .org/M edia/Tes ts /M FT/pdf/M FT%20PDFs %202007/ComputerS cience4CM F.pdf
(2) Raw s cores are CW U av erage mean percent correct
(3) Percent of U.S . ins titutions that are at or below CW U raw s cores .
For example, a 60% means that CW U s cored as high or higher than
60% of the ins titutions nationwide participating in Najor Field Tes ts .
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 124 of 179
PHY SICS
CW U MAJOR FIELD TEST SCORES
(1)
10 test takers
--- 2008/2009 --Raw
S core
OVERALL S CORE
U.S .
(2)
Percentile
(3)
147.0
45%
1 Introductory Physics
48.0
50%
2 Advanced Physics
46.0
35%
S UB-S CORES
AS S ES S M ENT INDICATOR
1 Classical M echanics and Relativity
49
55%
2 Electromagnetism
45
45%
3 Optics/W aves and Thermodynamics
43
60%
4 Quantum M echanics and Atomic Physics
46
50%
5 S pecial Topics
31
20%
(1) ETS score conversion tables were used with snior scores from domestic institutions during August 2005 through June 2008.
S ee: http://www.ets.org/M edia/Tests/M FT/pdf/M FT%20PDFs%202007/Physics4AM F.pdf
(2) Raw scores are CW U average mean percent correct
(3) Percent of U.S . institutions that are at or below CW U raw scores.
For example, a 60% means that CW U scored as high or higher than
60% of the institutions nationwide participating in Najor Field Tests.
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 125 of 179
PSYCHOLOGY
CWU MAJOR FIELD TEST SCORES (1)
11 test takers
------ FALL 2008 -----Raw
U.S.
OVERALL SCORE
Score (2)
160
Percentile (3)
14 test takers
--- WINTER '09 --Raw
U.S.
60%
Score (2)
156
58
55%
63
58
57
66 test takers
--- SPRING '09 --Raw
U.S.
Percentile (3)
45%
Score (2)
159
Percentile (3)
62
75%
60
60%
80%
57
50%
57
50%
55%
45%
54
51
30%
20%
56
59
40%
60%
60%
SUB-SCORES
Learning & Cognition: Language, Memory, &
1 Thinking
Perception, Sensory, Physiology, Comparative,
2 & Ethology
3 Clinical, Abnormal, and Personality
4 Developmental and Social
ASSESSMENT INDICATOR
1 Memory and Thinking
2 Sensory and Physiology
3 Developmental
4 Clinical and Abnormal
5 Social
6 Measurement and Methodology
Psychology Assessment Indicators are not available at this time 7-28-2009
(1) ETS score conversion tables were used with senior scores from domestic institutions during August 2005 through June 2008.
See: http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/MFT/pdf/MFT%20PDFs%202007/Psychology4BMF.pdf
(2) Raw scores are CWU average mean percent correct
(3) Percent of U.S. institutions that are at or below CWU raw scores.
For example, a 60% means that CWU scored as high or higher than
60% of the institutions nationwide participating in Najor Field Tests.
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 126 of 179
APPENDIX 17
SUMMARY OF THE 2008 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH SENIOR SURVEY
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 127 of 179
Volume 12, Issue 1
Office of Institutional Research
Spring 2009
2008 GRADUATING SENIOR SURVEY:
A SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS
This In Focus report highlights the findings from the Central Washington University
(CWU) Graduating Student Questionnaire, distributed to seniors applying for
graduation. The survey is to assess the seniors’ satisfaction of their undergraduate
experience at Central. Of the 2,399 bachelor degree recipients for 2008, 1,144
returned a completed survey representing a response rate of 48 percent.
Academic and Personal Growth
Given a list of academic skills, students were asked “How satisfied are you with
Central Washington University’s contribution to your growth in the following areas?”
At least 80 percent of respondents reported being “very” or “mostly” satisfied with
Central’s contribution to their development in these areas: using knowledge from
their major, working in a cooperative group, independent learning, solving problems,
and analyzing. In addition, over 75 percent of graduating seniors were “very” or
“mostly” satisfied with the university’s contribution to their development of: use of
knowledge from outside their major, and readiness for advanced education (see Table
1).
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 128 of 179
TABLE 1: ACADEMIC SKILLS
Development of Using Knowledge from Your Major
Development of Working in a Cooperative Group
Development of Independent Learning
Development of Solving Problems
Development of Analyzing
Development of Using Knowledge from Outside Your Major
Readiness for Advanced Education
Readiness for Career
Development of Speaking
Development of Understanding of Society and Environment
Development of Writing
Development of Understanding Diverse Philosophies
Development of Quantitative Principles
Development of Responsibility and Service
Development of Scientific Principles
Development of Arts
% Very or
Mostly Satisfied
90%
84%
83%
80%
80%
77%
77%
73%
73%
72%
72%
71%
64%
62%
62%
51%
Graduating seniors were also asked to rank the importance of several student goals and their
perception of CWU’s contribution toward achieving those goals. The goals that were seen as
most important include being productive and reliable as well as developing self-confidence,
leadership skills and management skills (see Chart A). The majority of respondents (62
percent or more) also reported that CWU made a “Major Contribution” or “Strong
Contribution” to achieving those goals.
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 129 of 179
Chart A: Student Goals and CWU's Contribution (2008 Seniors)
Campus Life
Cultural Events
Volunteer Service
Gender Issues
Ethnic Issues
Technology Skills
Getting Along
Management Skills
Leadership Skills
Developing SelfConfidence
Be Reliable
Be Productive
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percentage
Strong or Major Contribution
Very Important or Essential
Respondents were also asked to evaluate the quality of instruction and advising in their
major. Eighty-five percent of respondents were “very” or “mostly” satisfied with the quality
of instruction in their major, and 67 percent were “very” or “mostly” satisfied with the
quality of advising they received in their major program. Fewer respondents reported being
“very” or “mostly” satisfied with advising in general education (45 percent “very” or
“mostly” satisfied). However, quality of instruction in general education courses was
evaluated highly, with 67 percent of respondents “very” or “mostly” satisfied with instruction
in those courses.
Instructors in Major
Seniors who expressed an opinion reported positive perceptions of the instructors in their
major in a number of categories. Four of these categories were rated very highly, with 80
percent or more of seniors responding that “almost all” or “most” of the instructors in their
major courses fit the description provided (see Table 2). Overall, 85 percent of seniors
reported that the instructors in their major were “excellent” or “very good.”
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 130 of 179
TABLE 2: INSTRUCTORS IN MAJOR
Fair and Respectful
Encourage Students to Devote Sufficient Time
Encourage to Think and Learn Independently
Encourage Active Learning
Respectful of Diversity of Students
High Expectations
Provide Good Academic Preparation
Overall
Develop Small Group Opportunities
Caring about Student Academic Success
Encourage Faculty/Student Interactions
Give Frequent and Prompt Feedback
% Almost All or
Most
85%
81%
80%
80%
79%
77%
76%
75%
75%
71%
64%
64%
Campus Offices and Services
Students were asked to assess their satisfaction with over twenty campus offices and services
available to them. Five of these offices and services were rated highly, with 70 percent or
more of respondents “very” or “mostly” satisfied (see Table 3). A majority of seniors
reported being “very” or “mostly” satisfied with almost every office and service, the only
exceptions being University Dining Services, and Parking.
TABLE 3: CAMPUS OFFICES AND SERVICES
Science Labs and Equipment
Computer Labs and Equipment
University Bookstore
Admissions
Disability Support Services
International Programs
Student Health and Counseling Services
Registration/Registrar's Office
Library
Financial Aid Office
Center for Student Empowerment
Campus Security
Academic Skills Program
Computer Lab Assistance
Academic Achievement Programs
Day Care
Career Development Services
Testing Services
Campus Life
Student Employment Office
Academic Advising Center
Residence Living
Douglas Honors College
University Dining Services
Parking
9/8/2009
% Very or
Mostly Satisfied
81%
80%
77%
73%
70%
69%
67%
66%
66%
64%
64%
63%
60%
60%
59%
58%
58%
57%
56%
54%
52%
51%
50%
48%
20%
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 131 of 179
Time to Degree
When asked about expected time to complete a degree, 28 percent of 2008 graduates
reported that it took them longer than expected to finish their degree or certification at
CWU. The most commonly cited reasons include:
 Courses not offered in desired quarter
 Essential courses offered at the same time
 Poor advising
 Desired courses were full
 Unexpected course requirements
Overall Education at Central Washington University
Survey respondents from the class of 2008 evaluated their overall education at CWU highly.
Eighty-two percent of respondents categorized their overall education at CWU as “excellent”
or “good.” In addition, if respondents could “begin again,” 75 percent reported that they
would attend CWU.
AZukowsk
H:\SurveyResearch\Senior Survey\2008\InFocus_08Grads.doc
Central Washington University is an
AA/EEO Title IX Institution
TDD (509) 963-3323
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 132 of 179
APPENDIX 18
SUMMARY OF SOME COMMON QUESTIONS TO THE FIVE YEAR DEPARTMENT/PROGRAM REVIEW
ALUMNI SURVEY
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 133 of 179
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
2007 ALUMNI SURVEYS
SUMMARY RESPONSES TO COMMON QUESTIONS
2,171 alumni were surveyed,
226 responses for a 10.4% response rate
3. How important are each of the following competencies to your career?
Not at all
Not
Somewhat
Very
important important important important
1
2
3
4
Critical
5
n
Mean
Median St. Dev
0
4
24
88
85
201
4.264
4
0.745
a
Thinking critically - check your and others' assumptions;
consider multiple perspectives from various sources,
etc.
b
Communications - use appropriate oral, written, and
visual means for each audience; listen effectively
0
1
11
63
126
201
4.562
5
0.622
2
10
54
82
54
202
3.871
4
0.900
c
Quantitative reasoning - apply quantitative tools and
computer skills to solve problems; comprehend
symbolic representations
d
Information literacy - critically evaluate data sources as
I gather relevant information
1
8
31
89
73
202
4.114
4
0.842
n
Mean
4. How well were you prepare you for each of these competencies?
Not at all
Not
Somewhat
Veru
preapred prepared prepared Prepared prepared
1
2
3
4
5
Median St. Dev
a
Thinking critically - check your and others'
assumptions; consider multiple perspectives
from various sources, etc.
1
8
64
93
35
201
3.761
4
0.802
b
Communications - use appropriate oral,
written, and visual means for each audience;
listen effectively
0
3
61
99
39
202
3.861
4
0.733
c
Quantitative reasoning - apply quantitative
tools and computer skills to solve problems;
comprehend symbolic representations
3
18
72
74
34
201
3.587
4
0.924
d
Information literacy - critically evaluate data
sources as I gather relevant information
3
7
65
89
38
202
3.752
4
0.851
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
2007 ALUMNI SURVEYS
COMPARISON OF "HOW IMPORTANT ARE EACH OF THE FOLLOWING COMPETENCIES TO YOUR CAREER"
vs. "HOW WELL DID YOUR PROGRAM AT CWU PREPARE YOU FOR THESE COMPETENCIES:
2,171 alumni survey, 226 responses
COMPARISON PERCENTAGE HISTOGRAMS: Upper bound of all Charts = 80%, mid-point = 40%
Yellow (light) bars are "How important", Black bars are "How well learned"
How well Difference
How
Important learned
in Median
Median
Responses
Median
a
b
c
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
80%
40%
0%
4
4
0
5
4
1
e.
4
4
0
e.
4
4
0
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
a.
b.
c.
d.
a.
b.
c.
d.
80%
40%
0%
80%
40%
0%
80%
d
Information literacy - critically evaluate data
sources as I gather relevant information
40%
0%
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 134 of 179
14. These next few questions relate to CWU's Mission and General Education goals.
How strongly do you agree that your education from CWU helped you...
Strongly
disagree Disagree
1
2
become a responsible citizen
become a responsible steward of the
b
earth
become a productive and enlightened
c (informed, good learner, insightful)
individual
d value different perspectives
appreciate the breadth and depth of
e
scientific and human knowledge
a
f
increase your sense of the
interconnectedness of knowledge
integrate knowledge from diverse fields
to solve problems
increase your awareness of the many
h
ways that knowledge evolves
i ask incisive and insightful questions
g
Neutral
3
Agree
4
Strongly
agree
5
n
Mean
4
9
75
101
37
226
3.699
Median StDev
4
0.853
5
23
83
83
31
225
3.498
4
0.931
0
4
40
132
49
225
4.004
4
0.685
1
4
43
135
43
226
3.951
4
0.701
0
7
44
122
53
226
3.978
4
0.745
1
8
51
127
39
226
3.863
4
0.751
2
4
50
125
45
226
3.916
4
0.752
3
8
55
123
37
226
3.810
4
0.797
2
7
48
125
43
225
3.889
4
0.774
Question 14. % Histogram - Summary of Question Leaves 15.a. through 15.i.
Note: all responses except "b" have a median of "4" or "Agree" (4 is the checkered column)
70%
35%
0%
a
9/8/2009
b
c
d
e
f
g
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
h
i
p. 135 of 179
CWU 2008 FIVE YEAR PROGRAM REVIEW ALUMNI SURVEY
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
2008 ALUMNI SURVEYS
SUMMARY OF ALL RESPONSES TO COMMON QUESTIONS
CWU degree programs go through a program review process every fifth year. CWU has begun
surveying graduates of the programs being reviewed. A summary of responses to common questions
to the 2008 alumni survey follows. Only questions common to all surveys are included in this summary.
The summary is based on a "convenience sample." All alums were surveyed; this summary is of
graduates who voluntarily responded. Graduates with certificate, bachelors, and graduate degrees
were surveyed. The survey response rate is very low, especially in programs with a large percentage
of graduates with certificates.
2008 Program Review Alumni Survey Response Rates
Online
USPS
Total
Responses
Alumni surveyed
562
3,036
Response rates
147
1,998
19%
7%
709
5,034
14%
What year did you graduate or complete your program from CWU?
9/8/2009
-n-
-%-
2003
105
15%
2004
119
17%
2005
150
22%
2006
2007
165
148
24%
22%
687
100%
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 136 of 179
How important are each of the following competencies to your career?
Not at all
important
Not
important
Somewhat
important
Very
important
Critical
Mean
Median
StDev
-n -
Thinking critically - check your
and others' assumptions;
a. consider multiple perspectives
from various sources, etc.
4
6
74
270
341
4.350
4
0.750 695
Communications - use
appropriate oral, written, and
b. visual means for each audience;
listen effectively
1
1
26
195
424
4.584
5
0.587 695
Quantitative reasoning - apply
quantitative tools and computer
c. skills to solve problems;
comprehend symbolic
representations
9
61
207
252
164
3.723
4
0.964 693
5
11
156
274
247
4.078
4
0.840 693
Information literacy - critically
d. evaluate data sources as I
gather relevant information.
How well did your program prepare you for each of these competencies?
Not at all
prepared
Thinking critically - check your
and others' assumptions;
a. consider multiple perspectives
from various sources, etc.
Communications - use
appropriate oral, written, and
b. visual means for each audience;
listen effectively
Quantitative reasoning - apply
quantitative tools and computer
skills to solve problems;
c.
comprehend symbolic
representations
Information literacy - critically
d. evaluate data sources as I
gather relevant information.
9/8/2009
Not
prepared
Somewhat
prepared
Prepared
Very
prepared
Mean
Median
StDev
-n -
3
22
153
351
160
3.933
4
0.786 689
8
21
136
322
169
3.932
4
0.832 691
16
62
230
285
98
3.560
4
0.922 691
10
33
171
302
172
3.862
4
0.896 688
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 137 of 179
COMPARISON OF QUESTION #3. "IMPORTANCE" vs. QUESTION 4 "HOW WELL LEARNED"
"How
"How well
Important" Prepared"
Median
Median
"How
"How well
Important"
Prepared"
Mean
Mean
Difference
"How
"How well
Important" Prepared"
Difference
StDev
StDev
Thinking critically - check your
and others' assumptions;
a. consider multiple perspectives
from various sources, etc.
4
4
0
4.350
3.933
0.416
0.750
0.786
Communications - use
appropriate oral, written, and
b. visual means for each audience;
listen effectively
5
4
1
4.584
3.932
0.652
0.587
0.832
Quantitative reasoning - apply
quantitative tools and computer
c. skills to solve problems;
comprehend symbolic
representations
4
4
0
3.723
3.560
0.163
0.964
0.922
Information literacy - critically
d. evaluate data sources as I
gather relevant information)
4
4
0
4.078
3.862
0.216
0.840
0.896
Please select the response that best describes your opinion about your program's education at CWU.
Strongly
disagree
I am very satisfied with my
education from the xxxxxxxx
a. program at Central Washington
University.
5
Disagree
15
Neutral
41
Agree
Strongly
agree
193
296
Mean
Median
4.382
StDev
5
-n -
0.812 550
Your approximate annual income is…?
-n -
-%-
118
17% Less than $20,000
252
37% $20,001 to $40,000
189
28% $40,001 to $60,000
81
12% $60,001 to $80,000
30
4% $80,001 to $100,000
7
1% $100,001 to $120,000
6
1
1% $120,001 to $140,000
0% Over $140,000
684
100%
Estimated, approximate, average annual income of survey respondents:
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
$42,193
p. 138 of 179
Are you…?
-n -
-%-
312
389
45%
55%
701
100%
Male
Female
What is your highest level of education?
-n -
-%-
549
81% Bachelor’s degree
102
15% Master’s degree
23
1
675
3% Professional (JD, M.D., etc)
0% Doctorate
100%
What is your race or ethnicity? Please select all that apply.
note: some surveys had "other" but those responses were not included in the summary
-n -
-%5
25
4% Asian
14
2% Black or African American
40
6% Hispanic / Latino
3
612
9/8/2009
1% American Indian or Alaskan Native
0% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
88% White
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 139 of 179
These next few questions relate to CWU's Mission and General Education goals.
How strongly do you agree that your education from CWU helped you...
Strongly
disagree
a. become a responsible citizen
become a responsible steward
b. of the earth
become a productive and
c. enlightened (informed, good
learner, insightful) individual
d.
value different perspectives
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
agree
Mean
Median
StDev
-n -
8
24
215
330
115
3.751
4
0.812 692
18
63
333
205
73
3.364
3
0.884 692
5
4
103
415
163
4.054
4
0.687 690
2
12
79
407
191
4.119
4
0.688 691
appreciate the breadth and
e. depth of scientific and human
knowledge
9
16
142
361
161
3.942
4
0.805 689
increase your sense of the
f. interconnectedness of
knowledge
7
13
166
370
136
3.889
4
0.769 692
integrate knowledge from
g. diverse fields to solve problems
7
22
135
383
144
3.919
4
0.785 691
increase your awareness of the
h. many ways that knowledge
evolves
8
21
146
376
137
3.891
4
0.792 688
ask incisive and insightful
i. questions
8
20
127
366
161
3.956
4
0.803 682
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 140 of 179
APPENDIX 19
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNVIERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS and HUMANITIES
2008/2009 COLLEGE ASSESSMENT PLAN
Updates are available at: http://www.cwu.edu/~avpugrad/reports/reports.html
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 141 of 179
College of Arts and Humanities 2008/2009 Assessment Plan
CAH
Strategic
Goal /
Learning
Goal
STRATEGIC
GOALS
SGoal #1
Create and
maintain
high
quality
academic
programs
Related Univ
Goals
Maintain and
strengthen an
outstanding
academic and
student life on
the Ellensburg
campus
Achieve
regional and
national
prominence
for the
university
Related AA Goals
Tactics
T. 1.3 Encourage
and support faculty
mentored
undergraduate
research and
creative activity.
Tactic #1 Ensure that
all depts. and
programs use
assessment and
program review
findings to improve
programs
Method of
Assessment
Annual
Assessment
Report
Who/What
Assessed
All degree
programs in CAH
When
Assessed
Administered
by Whom
End of
each
academic
year
Departments
and programs
working with
CAH Dean and
AVP for
Undergrad
Studies
T. 1.7 Support
program assessment
that informs
curriculum to
enhance student
learning.
50% of programs
document by June 09
improvement as a
result of changes
T. 8.1 Ensure that
the Spheres of
Distinction inform
academic program
planning.
T. 9.6 Develop
strategies to address
policies and
practices of the
Legislature, Higher
Education
Coordinating Board
and Professional
Educators Standards
Board.
T. 9.8 evaluate and
develop academic
programs for
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
100% of degree
programs have at least
one student learning
outcome linked to
each college student
learning goal (see
learning goals at end
of document)
100% of degree
programs document
implementation of
changes to address
issues raised by
assessment info and
program review
suggestions – by June
09 report
T. 2.7 Enhance
opportunities for
student and faculty
honors programs.
T. 5.7 Improve the
quantity and
reliability of data
about our
graduates.
9/8/2009
Criterion of
achievement /
success
p. 142 of 179
Progress to Date
First reports
submitted summer
08, though some
more complete than
others.
Feedback on
reports shows that
considerable work
needed on using
assessment results
to improve
programs
optimal placement
at University centers
and Ellensburg.
T. 9.10 Use data
generated by
Academic Affairs
Program Review for
decision-making
purposes.
Tactic #2 Create
funding for dept
success/improvement
initiatives and
teaching initiatives
Annual
Assessment
Report
Tactic #3 Develop
and sustain
unique/signature
programs for which
Central is known
Catalog/Website
All Applicants for
Dept funding and
summer teaching
grants
End of
academic
year
CAH Dean’s
Office
CAH degree
programs in
relation to others
in the state of WA
At least
once each
year
Department
Chairs and
Program
Directors
Teaching Grant
Application Form
At least one dept each
year receives
success/improvement
initiative funding; at
least 2 faculty receive
teaching initiative
funding—starting 2008
Each CAH Department
has at least one
signature (unique or
outstanding)
undergraduate
program for which it is
known in the state and
region
CAH has at least three
signature graduate
programs within the
next three years
SGoal #2
Enhance
support for
faculty
research
and
creative
activity
Maintain and
strengthen an
outstanding
academic and
student life on
the E’burg
campus
T. 2.9 Enhance the
internationalization
of the curriculum.
T. 2.10 Enhance
faculty and student
international
exchange programs.
Tactic #1 Increase
support for travel
grants and summer
research/creativity
grants
CAH
Budget/Funding
Records
# of recipients of
CAH travel grants
End of
year
# of recipients of
summer grants,
and amount
awarded
T. 3.6 Improve
support for research
and creative
activities.
T. 4.3 Enhance
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
CAH Dean’s
Office
Fund all worthy
applications for travel
funding in a given year
Provide at least 5
summer creativity
grants of $2500 each,
starting summer 2008
Three dept
assessment awards
scheduled to be
given fall 08; two
summer teaching
grants to faculty
summer 08
Music continually
cited internally and
externally as an
outstanding
program for which
CWU is known; arts
programs/facilities
in general
recognized as a
university strength
in SOD marketing
grant;
Theatre MA
program that is
unique in the
nation; will be
discussing new
certificate in
community college
teaching that will
be unique in the
state;
Done so far
Done, though 2 of
the grants were for
teaching. Might try
for 3 and 3, or 4
and 2 this coming
summer
Bike-a-thon n the
works for summer
2009--$30,000 goal
p. 143 of 179
professional
development
support for faculty
and staff.
T. 4.5 Develop an
appropriate reward
structure to
acknowledge
outstanding faculty
and staff
performance.
T. 7.4 Ensure
sufficient training
opportunities in the
use of new
technologies.
CAH
Strategic
Goal /
Learning
Goal
SGoal #3
Improve
visibility of
the college
Achieve
regional and
national
prominence
for the
university
T. 2.3 Enhance the
visibility of faculty
and graduate
research and
creative activity.
Tactic #2 Enable
more faculty
participation in
exchange programs
with universities
abroad
Number of
faculty
completing
exchange
programs
Records in
International
Programs
End of
each
fiscal year
Tactic #3 Increase
submissions for
internal and external
funding
Tactic #4 Implement
creative, flexible
course scheduling to
allow for more
research time
Data from
graduate studies
All CAH applicants
for internal and
external funding
End of
each
fiscal year
CAH Dean’s
Office
Faculty Workload
Data
All CAH faculty
who are teaching
full time
After
workload
plans are
submitted
to the
dean
CAH Dean’s
Office
working with
Chairs
Tactic #1 Maintain
user-friendly,
engaging, and up to
date dept and college
websites
Website content
and design
analysis
All websites in the
college
Regularly
Designated
webmasters
in depts. and
in the college
T. 4.4 Improve
communication
about professional
development
opportunities.
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
Work more closely
with internatl
programs
At least two true
faculty exchange
activities each year,
starting 09-10
Enhance the number
of submissions by at
least 5 each year,
starting July 09
In most depts, at least
one faculty member
each quarter has a
course reassignment
for research, or has
one or no classes to
teach in a given
quarter because of
meeting FTE
requirements mostly in
two quarters
90 % of CAH websites
are informative, userfriendly, relatively
error free, and up to
date;
medium and
information should be
current; should
include trailers from
tv show on college
website
T. 5.2 Work with
9/8/2009
CAH Dean’s
office and
Internat'l Prog
p. 144 of 179
Had a chairs council
meeting with Mike
Launius and will
meet in fall with
the new study
abroad and
exchange director.
Many depts. are
doing this type of
creative scheduling;
we agreed to try to
find more ways to
free up time for
scholarship
Information is often
more current than
medium;
SAEM to support
department-level
student
recruitment.
T. 5.4 Increase
enrollment in high
demand programs
when funding is
available.
T. 9.2 Improve
public visibility of
Academic Affairs.
T. 9.4 Improve web
design and
presence.
T. 9.7 Strengthen
relationships with
regional economic
development
entities.
Tactic #2 Distribute
engaging marketing
and recruiting
materials
Track where
materials are
distributed
College and
program hard
copy recruiting
materials
End of
Year
CAH Dean’s
Office
together with
Admissions
and CAH
Chairs and
Directors
Recruiting materials
are distributed at each
University Center, at
all major feeder high
schools and
community colleges
visited by Central
recruiters, and at all
recruiting fairs on
campus
90 % of CAH faculty
who visit high schools
and community
colleges leave behind
recruiting materials
9/8/2009
Tactic #3 Create TV
program highlighting
CAH faculty, student,
and alumni work
Arts and
Humanities are
Central shows for
Channel 15
All shows
End of
each
academic
year
CAH Dean’s
Office and TV
film crew
Create a CAH presence
on Facebook and
Myspace
Two shows are filmed
each quarter, starting
Jan 2008
Tactic #4 Hire a
marketing person for
the college who is
Money is
allocated for
hire, and search
SOD grant and
hiring documents
End of AY
08-09
CAH Dean’s
Office and
Becky
Funded SOD grant
with University
Relations that supports
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 145 of 179
College postcards
are distributed and
depts. and
programs have info
at recruiting fairs.
Faculty are
distributing
material when they
visit schools;
Workshop is being
scheduled for
Chairs on Facebook,
etc.
Three shows have
aired so far. One
each quarter is
probably the max
that the crew can
handle, plus one in
summer.
SOD funding for one
year for half-time
person
CAH
Strategic
Goal /
Learning
Goal
SGoal #4
Increase
CAH share
of
resources
and match
resources
to growth
Strengthen
and further
diversify our
funding base
and
strengthen
infrastructure
to support
academic and
student
programs
T. 2.2 Incubate
innovative programs
through selfsupport.
T. 2.4 Assess the
role of graduate
education,
appropriate size of
programs, and
resource trends.
linked as well to
Becky Watson’s office
in University Relations
completed
Tactic #1 Enhance
summer revenue with
strategic course
offerings and
scheduling, as well as
summer enrichment
programs/workshops
Annual Summer
Earnings and
Allocation
Watson’s
office
Earnings and
Allocation
information for
each year
Fall
quarter
each year
T. 2.5 Refine the
focus of individual
graduate programs
and identify
strategic support to
advance them.
T. 2.8 Create a
support structure
for new program
development and
delivery.
T. 12 Encourage
instructional
collaborations with
community colleges
and baccalaureate
institutions.
T. 14 Enhance and
strengthen General
Education.
T. 3.2 Increase
extramural funding
through contracts
and grants.
T. 4.3 Enhance
professional
development
support for faculty
and staff.
T. 7.3 Develop
technology
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 146 of 179
CAH Dean’s
Office
a marketing staff
person for the arts to
begin Fall or Winter
quarter in 08-09
Enhance summer
revenue by at least
10% each year
Summer revenue
increased by 24%;
should increase as
well in 2008
replacement and
upgrade plans for
classrooms, labs,
and faculty and
staff workstations.
Tactic #2 Increase
the number of
tenured and tenure
track faculty
Compare number
of active tenured
and tt faculty
lines in the
college each year
since 2005
Data from the
college and from
IR
Beginning
of each
AY
CAH Dean’s
Office
Replace all lines
vacated by
retirements,
resignations, and so
forth
Obtain funding for at
least two new lines
each year
CAH
Strategic
Goal /
Learning
Goal
SGoal #5
Build a
more
diverse
college
community
Build inclusive
and diverse
campus
communities
that promote
intellectual
inquiry and
encourage
civility,
mutual
respect, and
cooperation
T 13. Support
existing and new
ethnic area studies
programs.
Tactic #3 Stabilize
funding for general
education
CAH annual
budget allocation
Budget memo
from the provost
Fall
quarter
CAH Dean’s
Office
Tactic #1 Create a
CAH Diversity Task
Force
Task Force
accomplishments
Task Force
Report/
Recommendations
End of
Fall
quarter
08
CAH Dean’s
Office
T. 5.2 Work with
SAEM to support
department-level
student
recruitment.
T. 6.1 Develop
curriculum that
attracts culturally
diverse students and
faculty.
T. 6.2 Work with
SAEM to develop an
enrollment
management
strategy for
improving student
diversity.
T. 6.4 Explore
partnership
opportunities with
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 147 of 179
Submit at least one
internal or external
grant each year that
involves a tt hire
At least $400,000
funded to base to
cover the general
education costs to the
college outside of base
funding
Task force is formed
by beginning of fall
quarter 08 and submits
recommendations by
early winter quarter
09
Done.
Obtained funding
for 6 new lines for
08-09
Challenge Grant
submitted 08—to be
resubmitted
Requested in annual
budget request—no
money, but provost
is now talking about
this as a possibility
Announcement of
Task Force in Sept
08 Monday Memo—
call for nominations
community groups
that mirror the
region’s diversity.
T. 6.5 Apply public
outreach services to
a wider audience.
T. 6.6 Foster a civil
and diverse
university
environment.
T. 6.7 Develop a
plan for diversifying
the faculty.
T. 8.1 Ensure that
the Spheres of
Distinction inform
academic program
planning.
Tactic #2 Increase
the numbers of
faculty, students and
staff from underrepresented groups
Monitor numbers
and makeup of
CAH faculty,
student and staff
population
Data from IR
Beginning
of each
AY
CAH Dean’s
Office
Tactic #3 Promote
diversity in college
curricula and
programming
Workshop
evaluation
Information for
evaluation forms
End of
workshop
CAH Dean’s
Office
Catalog analysis
Data from catalog
Spring
2008 or
Fall 2008
Increase by 10%
numbers of CAH
faculty, students and
staff from
underrepresented
groups over the next
three years
Sponsor at least one
workshop on
integrating diversity
into courses and
curriculum
Compile data on
current courses/
curriculum that
integrate diversity
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 148 of 179
Possibly for Prof
Devel Day in March
2009
CAH Strategic Goal /
Learning Goal
SGoal #6 Promote
Interdepartmental
programming and
collaboration
Maintain and
strengthen an
outstanding
academic and
student life on the
E’burg campus
T. 1.5 Evaluate the
changing student
demographicas in order
to address diverse
student population.
Tactic #1 Improve
funding and
bureaucratic
support for
interdisciplinary
programs
Grant
Proposals
submitted
Data from
Grad Studies
End of
each AY
CAH Dean’s
Office
Submit at least two
grants each year on
behalf of
interdisciplinary
programs
Done for 08
Tactic #2 Create
interdisciplinary
courses at every
curricular level
through cross
listing
Analysis of
curriculum
offerings
Catalog
With pub
of each
new
catalog
Tactic #3 Create
learning
communities,
particularly at the
100 level
Tactic #1 Ensure
that each
department has at
least one endowed
scholarship
Analysis of
course
offerings
Catalog
With pub
of each
new
catalog
Monitor
amount of
money in
scholarship
fund
accounts
Foundation
reports
End of
each
academic
year
CAH
Development
Officer
Each dept will have
at least one fully
endowed scholarship
by fall 2010
Five of 8
departments
have at least
one fully
endowed
scholarship.
Tactic #2 Obtain
sponsorships for
CAH cultural
programming
Number of
sponsors
Sponsors lists
in brochures,
programs,
etc.;
contracts
between
Each
quarter
CAH
Development
Officer
At least 8 sponsors
by end of summer
2008
3 sponsors for
fall; first
season sponsor
at $3,000
T. 2.6 Encourage and
support
interdisciplinary
curriculum.
T. 4.1 Encourage
communication among
faculty and staff
university-wide.
T. 5.3 Improve
coordination and
communication with
SEAM.
T. 9.3 Ensure strategic
collaboration with the
other university
divisions.
CAH Strategic Goal /
Learning Goal
SGoal #7 Develop a
climate of fundraising
9/8/2009
Strengten and
further diversify
our funding base
and strengthen
infrastructure to
support academic
and student
programs
T. 5.7 Improve the
quantity and reliability
of data about our
graduates.
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 149 of 179
Each
interdisciplinary
program in the
college has a variety
of courses with
interdisc prefix that
are cross listed with
specific disciplines
Creation of at least 5
learning communities
by spring 2009
So far, LLAS,
Music, and ABS
CAH Strategic Goal /
Learning Goals
Tactic #3 Increase
contact with
alums, and invite
them back to
campus whenever
possible
Number of
interactions
with alums,
on campus or
off
sponsors and
CAH
Contact
reports
LEARNING GOALS
LGoal #1 Ensure
that students develop
disciplinary specific
competencies for
success in their fields
LGoal #2 Improve
students’ knowledge
of human cultures
and diversity for
success in a global
society
T. 1.3 Encourage and
support faculty
mentored
undergraduate research
and creative activity.
T. 2.9 Enhance the
internationalization of
the curriculum.
T 13. Support existing
and new ethnic area
studies programs.
T. 6.6 Foster a civil and
diverse university
environment.
LGoal #3 Facilitate
disciplinary and
interdisciplinary
integrative learning
for creative inquiry
T. 1.4 Evaluate
alternative ways to
engage students in
learning.
T. 2.6 Encourage and
support
interdisciplinary
curriculum.
LGoal #4 Develop
students’ intellectual
and practical skills
for lifelong learning
L Goal #5
Enhance
students'
civic
knowledge
and
engagement locally and
globally for responsible
citizenship
T. 1.1 Support
academic service
learning and civil
engagement, including
internships.
T. 2.9 Enhance the
internationalization of
the curriculum.
T. 2.10 Enhance faculty
and student
international exchange
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 150 of 179
End of
fiscal year
CAH
Development
Officer and
Chairs
10% increase in
number of contacts
by end of summer
2009
Very
successful
alumni day.
programs.
T. 3.7 Support faculty
and staff in efforts to
engage the community
and to enhance
economic development
in the region.
T. 6.4 Explore
partnership
opportunities with
community groups that
mirror the region’s
diversity.
T. 6.5 Apply public
outreach services to a
wider audience.
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 151 of 179
APPENDIX 20
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNVIERSITY COLLEGE OF BUSINESS
2008/2009 COLLEGE ASSESSMENT PLAN
Updates are available at: http://www.cwu.edu/~avpugrad/reports/reports.html
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 152 of 179
College Goals
Related AA
Goals
1.Create value by graduating
students who possess foundation
knowledge
AA1:
Cultivate a
creative and
challenging
learning
environment
2.Create value by graduating
students who possess appropriate
skills in the following areas:
written communication, oral
communication, teamwork,
critical thinking and ethics
AA1:
Cultivate a
creative and
challenging
learning
environment
3. Create value by graduating
students who are satisfied with
their educational experience
AA1:
Cultivate a
creative and
challenging
learning
environment
4. Create opportunity by
providing accessibility to students
in Washington state through
programs and courses delivered at
the Ellensburg campus and at
well-established University
Centers co-located on dynamic
community college campuses
AA1:
Cultivate a
creative and
challenging
learning
environment
9/8/2009
Related
University
Goals
College of Business Assessment Plan
January, 2008
Method(s) of Assessment
Who/What Assessed
(What is the assessment?)
(population, item)
Graduating seniors:
ETS Exit Exam;
When Assessed
(term, dates)
I:
Maintain and
strengthen an
outstanding
academic and
student life on
the Ellensburg
campus…at the
university
centers
I:
Maintain and
strengthen an
outstanding
academic and
student life on
the Ellensburg
campus…at the
university
centers
Direct (ETS; CPA Exam)
Direct (rubrics for written
communication; oral
communication; teamwork;
critical thinking; and ethics)
Graduating seniors:
rubrics applied to Exit
Case Study and Group
Project
Occurs in every
MGT 489
capstone course
Vested in continuously improving
average rubric scores
I:
Maintain and
strengthen an
outstanding
academic and
student life on
the Ellensburg
campus…at the
university
centers
I: Maintain and
strengthen an
outstanding
academic and
student life on
the Ellensburg
campus & at
centers
Indirect (surveys)
Alumni
Indirect: CWU
Testing Services
surveys graduates
every 5 years by
department
Vested in continuously improving
perceptions of knowledge, skills, and
abilities
Enrollment
(annual average
FTES) by
departments, by
location
(Ellensburg,
Westside centers)
Enrollment expectations are based on
capacity as measured by number of
faculty deployed in conjunction with
the CB standards for maximum
enrollments by level of course taught.
Graduating MPAs:
CPA Exam
Direct: Enrollment data
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 153 of 179
Occurs in every
MGT 489/ECON
406 capstone
course
Sections of CPA
exam taken
throughout MPA
program required
courses
Criterion of Achievement
(Expectation of how good things
should be?)
Vested in continuously improving
overall average scores
Vested in continuously improving
pass rates on each portion of the
exam
College Goals
Related AA
Goals
5.Create opportunity for a diverse
student population
AA6:
To recruit,
support, and
retain a diverse
student body,
faculty, and
staff
6.Create opportunity by providing
an affordable business education
7. Provide quality in
undergraduate education through
teaching excellence
8. Provide quality in
undergraduate education by
delivering courses with an
appropriate mix of
academically/professionalqualified (AQ/PQ) faculty and
participating/supporting faculty
9/8/2009
AA1; AA3:
To cultivate a
creative a
challenging
learning
environment
To promote the
highest
standards of
teaching
excellence
informed by
active faculty
scholarship and
creative activity
AA3:
To promote the
highest
standards of
teaching
excellence
informed by
active faculty
scholarship and
creative activity
College of Business Assessment Plan - Jaanuary 2008 (continued)
Related
Method(s) of Assessment
Who/What Assessed
University
(What is the assessment?)
(population, item)
Goals
VI:
Diversity data (by headcount)
Build inclusive
and diverse
campus
communities that
promote
intellectual
inquiry and
encourage
civility, mutual
respect, and
cooperation.
Direct: CWU tuition costs
CWU tuition costs
I
Maintain and
strengthen an
outstanding
academic and
student life on
the Ellensburg
campus…at the
university
centers
Indirect (Surveys: Student
Evaluation of Instruction)
Faculty
V:
Achieve regional
and national
prominence for
the university
Direct: Faculty who meet
AQ/PQ standards
% of faculty deemed
academically
qualified/professionall
y qualified
Ratio of
participating/supportin
g faculty
Direct: Faculty who are
classified as participating
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 154 of 179
When Assessed
(term, dates)
Diversity by
gender and by
ethnicity
Criterion of Achievement
(Expectation of how good things
should be?)
Gender/ethnicity levels approximate
gender/ethnicity representation in the
state
CWU tuition
costs.
Every quarter,
every class
CWU tuition benchmarks
Yearly
At least 50% of the faculty are AQ
and 90% are AQ+PQ
Vested in stable, continuous
improvement of the SEOIs averaged
across the college
Participating faculty deliver 75% of
the school’s teaching and 60% of the
teaching by discipline, academic
program, and location
College Goals
Related AA
Goals
9.Provide quality in
undergraduate education through
our faculty who research
primarily in the area of
contributions to practice, and
learning and pedagogical
research, and secondarily in
discipline-based research
AA3:
To promote the
highest
standards of
teaching
excellence
informed by
active faculty
scholarship and
creative activity
AA7:
To provide
technologies
that enhance the
learning and
working
environments,
and ensure the
optimal
delivery of
academic
programs.
10. Provide quality in
undergraduate education through
excellent facilities, distance
education facilities, and library
data-base resources
11. Provide quality in
undergraduate education through
linkages with CB Advisory
Board, alumni, and employers, as
well as through faculty
professional service (e.g., serving
on professional boards)
9/8/2009
College of Business Assessment Plan - Jaanuary 2008 (continued)
Related
Method(s) of Assessment
Who/What Assessed
University
(What is the assessment?)
(population, item)
Goals
V:
Direct: Category A and
Faculty research output
Achieve regional Category B output for
and national
professional development
prominence for
the university
When Assessed
(term, dates)
Yearly
Criterion of Achievement
(Expectation of how good things
should be?)
At least 50% of the faculty are AQ;
Mix of research output with
contribution to practice and
pedagogical research dominating the
mix
III:
Diversify
funding base and
strengthen
infrastructure to
support academic
and student
programs
Direct: Monetary investments
Physical facilities
DE facilities
Library data-base
resources
Yearly
Adequate CWU budget devoted to
maintain or enhance Physical
facilities, DE, library resources
Stable/increasing # of faculty willing
to participate in DE course delivery
IV:
Build mutually
beneficial
partnerships with
the public sector,
industry,
professional
groups,
institutions, and
communities
surrounding our
campuses
Direct: Advisory Board and
alumni participation
Direct: Fundraising
Direct: Professional Service
by faculty
#of Board Members
regularly participating
in meetings
#Alumni participating
in events
Amount raised from
private resources
# of Faculty
participating and #of
organizations served
Yearly
Maintain or increase
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 155 of 179
APPENDIX 21
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNVIERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION and PROFESSIONAL
STUDIES
2008/2009 COLLEGE ASSESSMENT PLAN
Updates are available at: http://www.cwu.edu/~avpugrad/reports/reports.html
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 156 of 179
College of Education and Professional Studies - Assessment Matrix 2007-2009
GOAL 1: Provide for an outstanding academic and professional growth experience for students at all CWU locations. (CWU Goals 1,2,5)
Goal/Objective
Resources
Assessment
Strategy
Criterion
Administered
When
Administered by
Whom?
Administered
by What Unit?
Contact Person
a. Objective 1a:
Meet and
maintain
required
accreditation,
state, and/or
professional
standards in all
CEPS programs
b. Objective 1b:
Provide
opportunities for
students to
participate in
activities that
enhance their
college
experience
c. Objective 1c:
Determine what
high-demand
programs should
be offered at the
Centers
d. Objective 1d:
Identify, support
and monitor
center program
needs
Funds needed
for fees,
workload, and
visits
Spreadsheet of
accreditation
costs, visits,
outcomes
Spreadsheet
contains
indications of
“met, unmet,
in progress”
Fall Quarter
Department
Chairs
Associate
Dean for
Professional
Studies
Associate
Dean for
Professional
Studies
Funds for CEPS
speaker series
and faculty/
student
partnership
opportunities
Spreadsheet of
activities
offered
Participation
in SOURCE,
program
student
groups, CEPS
speaker
series, and
research
Fall Quarter
Department
Chairs
Departments
Spreadsheet of
programs
currently
offered and
needs for new
programs
Spreadsheet of
programs
currently
offered and
needs for new
programs
Identified
state and
national
needs
Winter
Quarter
Department
Chairs
Winter
Quarter
e. Objective 1e:
Develop, support
and monitor
graduate level
programs within
CEPS
Funds to
support
program
development
and delivery
Offer
programs
identified as
high demand
in CWU
geographic
areas
State and
national
needs, FTEs
generated
Spring
Quarter
9/8/2009
Funds needed
to support
program
development
and delivery
Spreadsheet of
graduate
programs
In last admin
was criterion
achieved?
How & to whom
are results
communicated?
Improve and
support
program
quality
Website and
Newsletter to
faculty, alumni,
and students
Chairs
Improve
student
participation in
program
enhancement
activities
Reports to
Chairs,
Information on
Website and in
CEPS Newsletter
Associate
Dean for
Professional
Education
Associate
Dean for
Professional
Education
Identify high
demand
programs
Report to
Academic Affairs
Department
Chairs
Associate
Dean for
Professional
Education
Associate
Dean for
Professional
Education
Increase
identified high
demand
programs
Report to
Academic Affairs
Department
Chairs
Departments
&
Associate
Dean for
Professional
Education
Chairs &
Associate
Dean for
Professional
Education
Determine
programs that
require support
Report to Chairs
and Academic
Affairs
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 157 of 179
4/08 – PESB
approval
Spr 09 – 3
pgms
Fall 09 – 3
pgms +
NCATE focus
How are results
used?
College of Education and Professional Studies - Assessment Matrix 2007-2009 - continued
GOAL 2: Prepare students to participate in an increasingly diverse economy and environment. (CWU Goal 6; AA Goal 1))
Goal/Objective
a. Objective 2a:
Facilitate Diversity
throughout CEPS
programs
Resources
Time for
Chairs to
review
program
syllabi
b. Objective 2b:
Facilitate Globalism
throughout CEPS
programs
Time for
Chairs to
review
program
syllabi
Funds to
develop and
use
recruitment
materials with
districts
c. Objective 2c: Recruit
and retain diversity
in students
9/8/2009
Assessment
Strategy
Spreadsheet
of diversity in
programs and
courses
Spreadsheet
of globalism in
programs and
courses
Chart diversity
information
provided by IR
Criterion
Speaker
series
Pgm
outcomes
Diversity
stats
Study abroad
program
outcomes
Monitor
student
diversity
statistics
Administered
by What
Unit?
Associate
Dean for
Professional
Education
Contact
Person
Associate
Dean for
Professional
Education
In last admin,
was criterion
achieved?
Administered
When
Fall Quarter
Administered
by Whom?
Department
Chairs
Fall Quarter
Department
Chairs
Associate
Dean for
Professional
Education
Associate
Dean for
Professional
Education
Inform
programs of
outcomes
Report to Chairs
Fall Quarter
Associate
Dean for
Professional
Education
Associate
Dean for
Professional
Education
Associate
Dean for
Professional
Education
Increase
diversity in
CEPS
students
Report to
Chairs, website,
newsletter
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 158 of 179
How are
results used?
Inform
programs of
outcomes
How & to
whom are
results
communicated?
Report to Chairs
College of Education and Professional Studies - Assessment Matrix 2007-2009 - continued
GOAL 3: Recruit and retain a diverse and highly qualified faculty to develop and sustain prominent programs. (CWU Goals 1,2,5)
Assessment
Strategy
Criterion
Funds to
support
Faculty
Development
Spreadsheet
of
professional
development
supported
Increase
support for
professional
developmen
t
Spring
Quarter
Dean
Dean’s office
Dean,
Associate
Deans
b. Objective 3b:
Facilitate and
monitor
mentorship
program for new
faculty, including
TT, FTNTT, and
Lecturers
Reassigned
time for
faculty to
mentor new
faculty
Spreadsheet
of faculty
assigned to
new faculty
and identified
mentorship
activities and
timeline
Track
mentorship
activities
Fall Quarter
Chairs
Department
Chairs
c. Objective 3c:
Recognize
exemplary
teaching,
scholarship and
service
Funds for
annual
awards
luncheon and
newsletter
printing and
distribution
Funding for
new
positions
Spreadsheet
of faculty
recognized
for each
category
Annual
spring
recognition
luncheon
Winter
Quarter
Chairs and
Dean
Department
Dean’s Office
Chairs, Dean,
Associate
Deans
Annual CEPS
Spring
luncheon
Increase
professional
development
activities
Information on
Website and in
CEPS
Newsletter
Track faculty
positions and
use of
lecturers
Increase
fulltime
positions to
80% of total
positions in
CEPS
Spring
Quarter review
Fall Quarter –
searches
Dean
Chairs
Dean’s Office
Dean
Chairs
Baseline for
2006-07
- 78 FT/FTTT
(73%)
- 29 FTNTT
(27%)
2008 Hired 25
new faculty
Increase full
time tenure
track faculty
and/or
FTNTT
Meetings with
Chairs
Fall Quarter
Faculty and
Chairs
Increase
diversity of
faculty
Report to Dean
and Academic
Affairs
Goal/Objective
Resources
a. Objective 3a:
Provide support for
faculty professional
development
d.
Objective 3d:
Increase the
number of tenuretrack faculty
positions in
departments
within the college
e. Objective 3e:
Recruit and retain
diversity in faculty
9/8/2009
Spreadsheet
of positions
filled and
request for
new positions
OEO
information
for reaching a
diverse pool
of candidates
Spreadsheet
of applicants
per position
Track
Requests &
positions
allocated
Increase
diversity of
faculty
Administered
When
Administered
by Whom?
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
Administered
by What Unit?
Goal / Objective
Department
Dean’s Office
p. 159 of 179
Chairs
Resources
$300 thru
Dean’s Office
Assessment
Strategy
Increase
professional
development
activities
Acculturate
new faculty
to CEPS
Criterion
Reports to
Chairs,
Information on
Website and in
CEPS
Newsletter
Report to Dean
Reports to
Chairs
College of Education and Professional Studies - Assessment Matrix 2007-2009 - continued
GOAL 4: Build mutually beneficial partnerships with alumni, industry, professional groups, institutions, and the communities
surrounding our campus locations. (CWU Goal 4)
Goal/Objective
Resources
a. Objective 4a: Facilitate
relationships between CEPS and
PK-20 educational institutions
b. Objective 4b: Facilitate
interdisciplinary relationships
with other universities, colleges
and departments
Funds for
Travel and
work load
units or
reassigned
time for
collaboration
Work load
units or
reassigned
time for
collaboration
Assessment
Strategy
Criterion
Administered
When
Administered
by Whom?
Administered
by What Unit?
Goal /
Objective
Annual
Activity
Reports
Increase
relationships
Spring
Quarter
Department
Chairs chart
faculty
involvement
Departments
Chair
Annual
Activity
Reports
Increase
relationships
Fall Quarter
Department
Chairs chart
faculty
involvement
Departments
Chair
Fall Quarter
Department
Chairs chart
faculty
involvement
Departments
Chair
Establish
advisory
committees
Travel funds
c. Objective 4c: Facilitate internal
and external partnerships
Program Lead
time
Funds for
Travel and
work load
units or
reassigned
time for
collaboration
Annual
Activity
Reports
Increase
partnerships
Program Lead
time
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 160 of 179
Resources
Assessment
Strategy
Criterion
Report,
including
program
changes, to
the Dean and
Associate
Deans
Report,
including
program
changes, to
the Dean and
Associate
Deans
Information
on Website
and in CEPS
Newsletter
Report,
including
program
changes, to
the Dean and
Associate
Deans
Information
on Website
and in CEPS
Newsletter
Information
on Website
and in CEPS
Newsletter
College of Education and Professional Studies - Assessment Matrix 2007-2009 - continued
GOAL 5: Provide professional, high-quality staffing, facilities, technologies, and appropriate resources to ensure the highest levels of academic
and professional development. (CWU Goals 1,2,3)
Goal/Objective
Resources
a. Objective 5a: Upgrade and add
onto buildings and facilities
Capitol
building funds
Maintenance
Funds
Assessment
Strategy
Spreadsheet
of requests
and granted
projects
Administered
by Whom?
Administered
by What Unit?
Goal /
Objective
Resources
Assessment
Strategy
Criterion
Fall Quarter
Annually
Dean
Dean’s Office
Dean
Inform Chairs
of project
status
Meeting
with Chairs
Fall Quarter
Annually
Dean
Dean’s Office
Dean
Rotating
technology
upgrades, as
needed
Meetings
with Chairs
Increase G&S
budgets to
appropriate
levels
Spring
Quarter budget
requests
Fall Quarter allocations
Spring
Quarter review
Dean
Chairs
Dean’s Office
Dean
Chairs
Justification
for G&S
increases
Meetings
with Chairs
Dean
Chairs
Dean’s Office
Dean
Chairs
Meetings
with Chairs
Fall Quarter –
priorities
Spring
Quarter resources
Dean
Chairs
Dev. Officer
Dean’s Office
Dean
Justification
to increase
staffing and
lecturer
positions, as
needed
To expand
resources
Funds for a
technology
budget
c. Objective 5c: Increase
departmental office goods and
services budget
Funds in
annual budget
d. Objective 5d: Ensure staffing and
lecturer positions are funded to
meet department needs
Funds for new
staffing
positions, as
needed
Track staffing
positions and
use of
lecturers
Support
meets
department
needs
e. Objective 5e: Expand sources of
revenue to support CEPS
initiatives
Expanded
revenue
Track sources
of revenue
Increase
revenue
9/8/2009
Administered
When
CEPS
upgrades
continually in
the Capitol
Building/
Maintenance
Budget
Updating
technology on
an annual
rotating basis
b. Objective 5b: Provide and
maintain hardware and software
technologies
Development
Officer
Spreadsheet
of
technology
requests and
funded
requests
Track current
allocations
and
department
needs
Criterion
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 161 of 179
No
increases
during the
2008-09
budget
allocation
Meetings
with Chairs
APPENDIX 22
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNVIERSITY COLLEGE OF THE SCIENCES
2008/2009 COLLEGE ASSESSMENT PLAN
Updates are available at: http://www.cwu.edu/~avpugrad/reports/reports.html
9/8/2009
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
p. 162 of 179
College of the Sciences Assessment Plan
January, 2009
COLLEGE OF
THE SCIENCES
College Goals
I.
Provide for an
outstanding
academic and
student experience
in the College of the
Sciences.
Related
AA Goals
1-9
Related
University
Goals
1, 5
Method(s) of
Assessment (What
is the
assessment?)
Percentage of
COTS students
graduating with
university and
dept-level honors
SEOI Survey
Results
Who/What
Assessed
(population,
item)
Graduating
COTS seniors
When
Assessed
(term,
dates)
Annual
Students in
courses with N
of 5 or greater
Quarterly
Faculty
Instructional
Awards received
Program Review
(Student Surveys
and external
reviewer
comments) and
occasional
university-wide
graduate survey
questions
Students and
graduates
Annual
Activity
Reports,
Fall
Program
Review,
every 5th
year
Every 5th
Year,
Varies
Depts &
programs
Accreditations
Major Field Area
Test
Enrollment Growth
Enrollment Growth
in diverse
population groups
including
international
students
Graduating
Seniors
in some depts
& programs
Dept or
program
Varies
Annually:
but
reported
every 5th
year in
program
review
Annually
Dept, program
and college
enrollment
numbers
(Safari and
Institutional
Research
datasets)
Annually
Criterion of
Achievement
(Expectation of how
good things should
be?)
5 percent of the total
receive honors of
either kind
A majority of courses
in each department
approach or exceed
College Mean on items
28, 29 (roughly 4.2)
As a special honor
success would
constitute any COTS
faculty reporting such
an award
A majority of
students/graduates
will report satisfaction
with the education
they received in both
major coursework and
general education
coursework
A majority of external
reviewer evaluations
will assess the
department or
program positively
Program is Accredited
without
recommendations
Dept/program reports
its graduates met
department goals for
exam performance
Increased FTES relative
to prior year or years:
increase in student
enrollment constitutes
an indirect measure of
quality dept/program
Faculty Growth
Produces:
1. Greater
course
scheduling
9/8/2009
FTEF (esp TT
faculty) at
dept and
colleges levels
Annually
Every 5th
year
COTS
scheduling
Annual,
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
Increased FTES in
these populations
relative to prior years;
preferred rate of
growth would be 1-5%
increase over a 5 year
period
p. 163 of 179
COLLEGE OF
THE SCIENCES
College Goals
Related
AA Goals
Related
University
Goals
Method(s) of
Assessment (What
is the
assessment?)
predictabili
ty
2. Increased
availability of
faculty advisors
(only TT faculty
provide advising)
Who/What
Assessed
(population,
item)
reports and
Dept self
studies (dept
self reflection
and external
reviewer’s
evaluation)
Self Study
reports on
Students—
senior and
graduate
surveys
When
Assessed
(term,
dates)
Every 5th
year,
Every 5th
year, and
occasional
universitywide
graduate
survey
Criterion of
Achievement
(Expectation of how
good things should
be?)
Increased FTEF, esp.
TT lines relative to
NTT
Fewer course
cancellations
Depts report fewer
problems with course
scheduling and fewer
students failing to
meet graduation
requirements
Students report
greater degree of
satisfaction with
advisement and
success in getting the
courses they need in a
timely fashion
II.
Provide for an
outstanding
academic and
student life in
college programs
and courses at the
university centers.
1-7,9
2, 5
SEOI Survey
Results
Students in
courses with N
of 5 or greater
Program Review
(Student Surveys
and external
reviewer
comments) and
occasional
university-wide
graduate survey
questions
Students and
graduates
Depts &
programs
Accreditations
Major Field Area
Test
Enrollment Growth
Enrollment Growth
in diverse
population groups
including
international
9/8/2009
Graduating
Seniors
in some depts
& programs
Dept or
program
Dept, program
and college
enrollment
numbers
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
Quarterly
Every 5th
Year,
Varies
Varies
Annually:
but
reported
every 5th
year in
program
review
Annually
Annually
A majority of courses
in each department
approach or exceed
College Mean on items
28, 29 (roughly 4.2)
A majority of
students/graduates
will report satisfaction
with the education
they received in both
major coursework and
general education
coursework
A majority of external
reviewer evaluations
will assess the
department or
program positively
Program is Accredited
without
recommendations
Dept/program reports
its graduates met
department goals for
exam performance
Increased FTES relative
to prior year or years:
increase in student
enrollment constitutes
an indirect measure of
p. 164 of 179
COLLEGE OF
THE SCIENCES
College Goals
Related
AA Goals
Related
University
Goals
Method(s) of
Assessment (What
is the
assessment?)
students
Faculty Growth
Produces:
1. Greater
course
scheduling
predictabili
ty
2.
Increased
availability
of
faculty advisors
(only TT faculty
provide advising)
SEOI Survey
Results
III.
Provide for
outstanding graduate
programs that meet
focused regional
needs and achieve
academic
excellence.
1-7,9
1, 2, 5
Who/What
Assessed
(population,
item)
(Safari and
Institutional
Research
datasets)
FTEF (esp TT
faculty) at
dept and
colleges levels
COTS
scheduling
reports and
Dept self
studies (dept
self reflection
and external
reviewer’s
evaluation)
Self Study
reports on
Students—
senior and
graduate
surveys
Students in
courses with N
of 5 or greater
Program Review
(Student Surveys
and external
reviewer
comments) and
occasional
university-wide
graduate survey
questions
Students and
graduates
Depts &
programs
Accreditations
9/8/2009
Annually
Every 5th
year
Annual,
Every 5th
year,
Criterion of
Achievement
(Expectation of how
good things should
be?)
quality dept/program
Increased FTES in
these populations
relative to prior years;
preferred rate of
growth would be 1-5%
increase over a 5 year
period
Increased FTEF, esp.
TT lines relative to
NTT
Every 5th
year, and
occasional
universitywide
graduate
survey
Fewer course
cancellations
Depts report fewer
problems with course
scheduling and fewer
students failing to
meet graduation
requirements
Students report
greater degree of
satisfaction with
advisement and
success in getting the
courses they need in a
timely fashion
SEOI Survey
Results
Enrollment Growth
When
Assessed
(term,
dates)
Quarterly
Every 5th
Year,
Varies
Varies
A majority of
students/graduates
will report satisfaction
with the education
they received in major
coursework
A majority of external
reviewer evaluations
will assess the
department or
program positively
Annually
Program is Accredited
without
recommendations
Annually
Increased FTES relative
Dept or
program
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
A majority of courses
in each department
approach or exceed
College Mean on items
28, 29 (roughly 4.2)
p. 165 of 179
COLLEGE OF
THE SCIENCES
College Goals
Related
AA Goals
Related
University
Goals
Method(s) of
Assessment (What
is the
assessment?)
Who/What
Assessed
(population,
item)
Enrollment Growth
in diverse
population groups
including
international
students
Dept, program
and college
enrollment
numbers
(Safari and
Institutional
Research
datasets)
Faculty Growth
FTEF (esp TT
faculty) at
dept and
colleges levels
Produces:
1. Greater
course
scheduling
predictabili
ty
2.
Increased
availability
of
faculty advisors
(only TT faculty
provide advising)
SEOI Survey
Results
Applied Research
Studies
commissioned for
public and private
entities
COTS
scheduling
reports and
Dept self
studies (dept
self reflection
and external
reviewer’s
evaluation)
Self Study
reports on
Students—
senior and
graduate
surveys
# of such
studies
completed
and # of
faculty
involved
When
Assessed
(term,
dates)
Annually
Every 5th
year
Annual,
Every 5th
year,
Criterion of
Achievement
(Expectation of how
good things should
be?)
to prior year or years:
increase in student
enrollment constitutes
an indirect measure of
quality dept/program
Increased FTES in
these populations
relative to prior years;
preferred rate of
growth would be 1-5%
increase over a 5 year
period
Increased FTEF, esp.
TT lines relative to
NTT
Every 5th
year, and
occasional
universitywide
graduate
survey
AnnuallyFaculty
Activity
Reports,
every 5th
year in
program
review
Fewer course
cancellations
Depts report fewer
problems with course
scheduling and fewer
students failing to
meet graduation
requirements
Students report
greater degree of
satisfaction with
advisement and
success in getting the
courses they need in a
timely fashion
Increased # of studies
requested and
completed and
increased % of COTS
faculty involved in
such studies (= an
additional component
of teacher/scholar
model alongside of
traditional academic
research)
IV.
Develop a diversified
funding base to
support curriculum
and academic
facilities, student
and faculty research
and scholarships, as
well as faculty
9/8/2009
1-6,8,9
3
Grants/Contracts
Awarded
Graduate
Assistantships
COTS Specific
Scholarship
Funding
COTS Specific
$ and #
# and $ level
# and $
Amount in
total COTS
Scholarship
Accounts
# and $
Amount
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
Annually
Annually
Annually
Increase in $
Increase in # or $ level
Increased # or $ level
Annually
Increased # or $ level
Annually
Increased # and % of
faculty involved
p. 166 of 179
COLLEGE OF
THE SCIENCES
College Goals
development,
service and applied
research in college
disciplines.
Related
AA Goals
Related
University
Goals
Method(s) of
Assessment (What
is the
assessment?)
Scholarships
Awarded
Scholarship Output
COTS Faculty
Development
Expenditures
Number of known
options for
Internship/Field
Placement
opportunities
Applied Research
Studies
commissioned for
public and private
entities
Who/What
Assessed
(population,
item)
distributed to
students
# of
publications
and
presentations
by each
faculty
member
$ of funds
distributed to
faculty
members
Agencies/insti
tutions/busine
sses providing
these
opportunities
as revealed in
senior and
graduate (and
any employer)
surveys and in
Career
Services’
quarterly
reports on
cooperative
field
placements
When
Assessed
(term,
dates)
Annually
Occasionall
y and every
5th year
(program
review self
study)
AnnuallyFaculty
Activity
Reports,
every 5th
year in
program
review
Criterion of
Achievement
(Expectation of how
good things should
be?)
Increase in $
distributed
Increased options for
students/graduates
Increased # of studies
requested and
completed and
increased % of COTS
faculty involved in
such studies (= an
additional component
of teacher/scholar
model alongside of
traditional academic
research)
# of such
studies
completed
and # of
faculty
involved
V.
Build partnerships
that support
academic program
quality and student
experiences in the
college of the
sciences, including
those with private,
professional,
academic,
government, and
community-based
organizations.
1-3,5,6,9
4, 5
COTS Development
Council
Participation
New partnerships
established
Number of known
options for
Internship/Field
Placement and
employment
opportunities
9/8/2009
Recruitment
of and
Retention of
Members
# of Formal
MOUs
(memorandum
of
understanding
) executed
with public
and private
agencies, and
formal
recruitment
plans initiated
(internally
with Student
Affairs and
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
Annually
Occasionall
y as these
arrangemen
ts arise
(ideally an
annual
report
would
collect
these in
one
location)
Occasionall
y and every
Stable to increased
membership
Increase in the number
and distribution of
such agreements
between COTS
departments and
programs with other
units in and
organizations outside
the university
Increased options for
students/graduates
p. 167 of 179
COLLEGE OF
THE SCIENCES
College Goals
VI.
Strengthen the
college’s
contributions to the
field of education.
Related
AA Goals
1-4,9
Related
University
Goals
1, 2
Method(s) of
Assessment (What
is the
assessment?)
Count of
Grants/Contracts
Awarded
Count of
Scholarship Output
Count of Science
Education Courses
Count of Science
Education Faculty
VII.
Create and sustain
productive, civil,
and pleasant
learning
environments.
9/8/2009
1,4,6,9
6
Number of
Complaints Filed
or Received
Count of
Workshops and
trainings available
Who/What
Assessed
(population,
item)
Enrollment
Management;
or externally
with other
universities
[foreign and
domestic] and
community
colleges)
Agencies/insti
tutions/busine
sses providing
these
opportunities
as revealed in
senior and
graduate (and
any employer)
surveys
For
Internships
only quarterly
reports on
cooperative
field
placements
$ and #
# of
publications
and
presentations
by each
faculty
member
# of credit
hours offered
and FTES
enrolled
# of FTEF
SCED faculty
Students,
Faculty, Staff,
Labor Unions,
Parents
# of such
events and #
participating
D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report
When
Assessed
(term,
dates)
5th year
(program
review self
study)
Criterion of
Achievement
(Expectation of how
good things should
be?)
Quarterly
Annually
Increase in $
Increased # and % of
faculty involved
Annually
Increased CR and/or
FTES
Annually
Increased # of SCED
faculty
Annually
Occasionall
y
Occasionall
y
Decrease in complaints
may be an indication
of better campus
climate
In theory increased
offerings and/or
participation rates
should produce a
better campus climate
p. 168 of 179
APPENDIX 23
ANNOTATED LIST OF RECENT NATIONAL, REGIONAL, and STATE
RECOGNITION OF CWU STUDENTS AND ALUMS
169
170.
A. RECENT NATIONAL RECOGNITION FOR CWU STUDENTS and
ALUMS (in no particular order)
Fulbright Grants Awarded to CWU Graduates
 2009/2010 - Allison Rice, a Harrah native and Central Washington University
graduate, has earned a Fulbright scholarship.
Rice graduated with a double major in elementary education and German. The 26year-old will work in Germany and teach students about the United States culture
and the English language.
See: http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2009/08/02/pair-of-cwu-graduatesearns-fulbright-scholarships
 2009/2010 - Rebecca Funke, also received a Fulbright scholarship. The 23-yearold native of Friday Harbor, Wash., studied Spanish and elementary education. She
graduated from CWU during 2009. She will travel to a school close to Madrid, Spain
to teach students about culture and English.
See: http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/sanjuans/jsj/community/46492402.html
and http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2009/08/02/pair-of-cwu-graduatesearns-fulbright-scholarships

2008/2009 - Jennifer M. VanTuyl 2008 CWU Graduate in Teaching English as a
Foreign Language received a grant from the J. William Fulbright Foreign
Scholarship Board (FSB) for teaching in South Korea for the 2008-2009 academic
year.

2008/2009 - John Pena holds a BFA from Central Washington University and an
MFA 2008 from Carnegie Mellon University. He is a recent Fulbright recipient to La
Universidad del Valle Cali, Colombia 2008-9. http://www.johnpena.net/
See also: http://newsletter.fulbrightonline.org/124.html '
October 2009
CWU 2008/2009 Academic Assessment Report - D R A F T
p. 170 of 179
171.
 8/8/2008 - CWU alum Stacey Locke is the 2008 Washington State Principal of
the Year and one of three finalists for the U.S. National Principal of the Year.
YAKIMA — Eisenhower High School principal Stacey Locke is one of three finalists
for the National Principal of the Year.
Next week, she and two other finalists travel to Reston, Va., for
the final round of judging for the national award, which comes
with a $5,000 grant to improve learning at the recipient's school.
Locke attended Central Washington University, where she
received a bachelor of arts in education and a master's degree in
education administration.
See: http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2008/08/06/ike-s-locke-named-finalist-for-us-principal-of-the-year
Michael O’Donnell Named Finalist for 2009 National Assistant Principal of the Year
Award
Michael O’Donnell, (CWU 1999) assistant principal of Cle Elum-Roslyn High
School, Cle Elum-Roslyn School District, has been named one of three
finalists for the 2009 NASSP/Virco National Assistant Principal of the Year
Award.
In October 2008, O’Donnell was named the Washington State Assistant Principal of the
Year by the Washington Association of Secondary School Principals, a component
board of the Association of Washington School Principals (AWSP). As a national
finalist, he will join assistant principals from Nebraska and Maryland in the final round
of competition. The three finalists will be interviewed at the National Association of
Secondary School Principals (NASSP) national convention in San Diego, taking place
later this month.
See: http://www.cwu.edu/bulletin/pastissues/dec08pastissue.html
October 2009
CWU 2008/2009 Academic Assessment Report - D R A F T
p. 171 of 179
172.
 CWU Army Battalion 2009 "Order of the Founders and Patriots of American"
CWU's Army ROTC Wildcat Battalion has received yet another honor for its
already distinguished program. It was named as the number one ROTC program
in the nation by the U.S. Army Cadet Command in Fort Monroe, Virginia. As the
top school in the U.S. the Wildcat Battalion has received the "Order of the
Founders and Patriots of American" (OFPA) award for excellence. The Wildcat
Battalion beat out 276 other colleges and universities for the top spot. In
addition to national honors the Battalion has won the prestigious McArthur
award for the second year running as the best in the Northwest.
April 17, 2009 was proclaimed as CWU ROTC RECOGNITION DAY by Washington
State governor Chris Gregoire.
 CWU Marketing Club Nets National Recognition (4/18/07)
For the second year in a row, the CWU Marketing Club earned recognition from
the American Marketing Association (AMA) as an "Outstanding Collegiate
Chapter," a designation that distinguishes the club as one of the top 16
collegiate chapters in the nation. The club competes with over 200 active AMA
collegiate chapters from all sizes of colleges and universities from across the
U.S., Canada, and Puerto Rico.
October 2009
CWU 2008/2009 Academic Assessment Report - D R A F T
p. 172 of 179
173.
 March 9, 2009 - Construction Management Team places at Nationals
ELLENSBURG, Wash. - The congratulations continue for Central Washington
University's Construction Management Team. The Associated General Contractors
of America (AGC) announced that Central's team is one of just nine nationwide
to place at the National Student Championships at AGC's 90th Annual Convention
and Expo, which was held in San Diego, Calif., this past week. CWU is the only
school from Washington State to place at the national level.
Central's team competed in a two-day simulated construction project against
teams made up of college students from all across the country. Each team was
charged with successfully planning, scheduling and bidding on a simulated
construction project.
 The CWU Society of Physics Students Chapter (advisor: Sharon Rosell) received
the “Outstanding SPS Chapter” Award for the 2007-2008 academic year from the
national society. This is the twelfth time CWU’s Chapter has received this award
in the past fifteen years. Only 56 of the almost 800 chapters in the nation
received the award.
 Music alumnus, saxophonist, and Fullerton College Jazz Studies Director Bruce
Babad got a second consecutive Grammy nomination for his work with the Bill
Holman Band. See Babad's web site at: http://www.brucebabad.com/
 Miss Rodeo U.S.A.
Public Relations major Jamie Virden is the new Miss Rodeo U.S.A. She will spend
next year touring the U.S. She was honored by Governor Gregoire at the Capitol.
October 2009
CWU 2008/2009 Academic Assessment Report - D R A F T
p. 173 of 179
174.
 CWU Softball Players win a 2008 ESPY Award for the "Best Moment in the 2008
Sports Year"
It was during a home game at CWU on April 26, when CWU
software players Mallory Holtman and Liz Wallace performed a
selfless act of sportsmanship. During the game, Western Oregon
senior outfielder Sara Tucholsky hit her first-ever home run.
Distracted and surprised by her accomplishment, Tucholsky
missed first base as she ran past it. She turned around to tag
the base, but her knee gave out, sending her to the ground in
pain. She had torn her ACL.
Oregon had no other option but to put in a pinch runner, which would take away
Tucholsky's first and only home run of her softball career. That's when Holtman
spoke up and asked if she could carry the injured opponent around the bases.
Wallace joined in and together the girls locked their hands under Tucholsky,
gently lifted her up and carried her from base to base, allowing her to tap each
one. The three players exchanged giggles as they made it around the field. And
the rest, as they say, is history.
(photo from SeattlePI @ http://blog.seattlepi.com/spi/archives/143959.asp)
B. REGIONAL AND STATE RECOGNITION OF CWU STUDENTS AND
ALUMS (in no particular order)

2008 Washington State Teacher of the Year and 2008 Principal of the Year
Two Central Washington University graduates, Laura Jones and
Stacey Locke, were given statewide recognition last fall for their
dedication to education. Jones was named the 2008 Washington
Teacher of the Year in October during a ceremony in Seattle,
while Locke was awarded the 2008 Principal of the Year.
(photo from:

http://www.ccsso.org/projects/national_teacher_of_the_year/state_teachers/2008/11147.cfm)
CWU Alum Susan Johnson named the 2009 Washington Teacher of the Year
ELLENSBURG, Wash. -- Central Washington University alumna and Cle
Elum-Roslyn High School language arts teacher Susan Johnson was
named 2009 Washington State Teacher of the Year Oct. 8, 2008, in
Seattle. Johnson is now a candidate for National Teacher of the
Year.
(photo from:
October 2009
http://www.esd105.wednet.edu/index.php/educational-services/teacher-of-the-year)
CWU 2008/2009 Academic Assessment Report - D R A F T
p. 174 of 179
175.
 Three CWU film and video studies students, Ryan Fudacz (Waitress Life) Mike
Winfrey (Sarah Jane Road), and Gabriel Manjares (Unexpected Cheaters), made
it to the National Broadcasting Society finals. Mike’s piece won the NBS regional
award and also won an award at the Boomtown Film and Music Festival in Texas.
Mike Winfrey and Nick Brown won the on campus music video competition for
the summer session video.
 Central HR Team Earns Trip To Nationals (4/21/08) by Teri Olin, CWU
ELLENSBURG, Wash. - Three student teams from Central Washington University
took home top honors at this year's 26th Annual Northwest Human Resource
Management Association (NHRMA) Student Conference and HR Games in
Portland, Ore. Central students competed against 14 teams from five other
universities in a Jeopardy-style competition that tested their knowledge of
human resources. Teams from Central, made up of members of the CWU chapter
of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), placed first, second and
fourth in the competition. Members of the first place team earned an all
expense paid trip to Chicago in June to compete at the national HR Games
finals.
 The collaborative effort between a CWU Public Relations student group (PRSSA)
and the Ellensburg Downtown Association won the Washington Community, Trade
and Economic Development Award for Outstanding Public Partnership.
 Five CWU broadcast journalism and film and video studies students won honors
at the National Broadcasting Society’s Western Regional audio-video
competition. Mike Winfrey won in the movie trailer category for his entry
“Sarah Jane Road,” Winfrey, John Heimark and Tracy Loeffers won the video
instructional/industrial, promotional category with “Talking Rain Promotion,”
and Gabriel Manjares won top honors for “Unexpected Cheaters” in the video
comedy category. Recent graduate Ryan Fudacz tied for first place for
“Waitress Life” in the video news feature category.
 Composition undergrad Matthew Woodard won the Opus 7 composition
competition for his choral composition. It will be performed in Seattle on 9 May.
 Jazz Band I has released a professional CD with Sea Breeze Records in CA. It is
causing a stir in the jazz world. One reviewer couldn’t believe the group was all
students and said, “A large and pleasurable surprise from undersized Ellensburg,
Washington.
 Art graduate student Alex Chaney won best in show at the Central Washington
Artists Exhibition at the Larson Gallery. She submitted 4 amazing necklaces.
October 2009
CWU 2008/2009 Academic Assessment Report - D R A F T
p. 175 of 179
176.
 Four students won honors at the regional conference of the National Association
of Teachers of Singing: Elijah Blaisdell (1st place), Courtney VanWinkle (2nd),
Jared Ice (3rd), and Jordan Cowart (honorable mention)
 Chris Ward and Birkin Owart were accepted to perform at the 2008 Eugene
Rousseau International Saxophone master class at the University of Minnesota.
 John Harbaugh’s trumpet student Christi Wans Henderson, a junior music major,
won the young artists brass division at the Music Fest Competition in Spokane.
She will receive a gold medal, $600, and a chance to solo with the Spokane
Symphony.
 Three of the four Construction Management teams that CWU sent to regionals in
Reno, Nevada brought home top honors at the Associated School of
Construction's (ASC) Region 7 2009 student competition and conference. Along
with taking first honors at the competition CWU's teams received $1,500 and an
invitation to the national competitions.
 Two students from the CWU Mechanical Engineering Technology Program earned
first place in the 2009 American Society of Mechanical Engineers’ Student Design
Competition for District D, which includes Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana,
and other areas in the Northwest. CWU advisor Roger Beardsley and the students
will go on to Orlando, Florida, for the national competition next November.
 Graduate student April Barreca was awarded an honorable mention at the Joint
Meeting for Ichthyologists and Herpetologists this summer in Montreal for
presenting her data titled "Overwintering of Rana cascadae" (Cascades frogs).
 Delphine Tsinajinnie, Graduate student in the Resource Management M.S.
Program, received the First Place award of $500 (sponsored by Boeing and
Proctor & Gamble) in the Graduate Student Poster Competition at the 2008
National Conference of the American Indian Science & Engineering Society for
"Acceptance of Unconventional Word Order and Use of yi-/bi- Affixes in Nihookáá’
Dine’é Creative Writing"
 The following poster was accepted to the 2009 Posters on the Hill event that will
take place in Washington, D.C. on May 5: “Using Computational Intelligence as
Predictive Tool for Biological Activities of Drug Candidates Targeted Towards
Therapeutically Important Enzymes for Rapid Screening” C. Badi’ Abdul-Wahid
(chem major), Catharine J. Collar (chem MS alum), Sarah Abdul-Wahid (C.S.
alum), Grant I. Barker (Chem graduate student), Nicholas Salim (Chem BS alum),
Lukas Magill (C.S. alum), Levente Fabry-Asztalos (Chem faculty), Razvan Andonie
(C.S. faculty). Only a small number of posters are selected from across the nation
to this event. Posters are presented to the members of the Congress.
October 2009
CWU 2008/2009 Academic Assessment Report - D R A F T
p. 176 of 179
177.
 CWU undergraduate student, Joseph Nelson, has been awarded a Morris K. Udall
Foundation Undergraduate Scholarship for the 2009-10 academic year ($5,000).
Joseph was CWU's first applicant for this very prestigious and competitive
scholarship, and was awarded support for his career goal of becoming an MD and
working on American Indian health care issues. He is the first Udall Scholar at
CWU. (Prof. Tracy Andrews is the faculty representative who shepherded his
application.)
 History graduate student Ian Stacy won the prize for Best Graduate Paper at the
recent Phi Alpha Theta Regional Conference. His paper is entitled “Under an
Atomic Sky: Origins of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation’s Infamous Green Run,”
and was supervised by Tom Wellock. He will present the paper at the AHA
conference to be held in Pasadena, CA. This is the second year in a row that a
CWU history student has won this award. Patrice Laurent also won this award.
 The Theatre Department’s production of Noh Telling, recently presented in
Laramie, WY, was selected as one of six shows nationally vying for four spots in
the national Kennedy Center American College Theatre Festival.
 Central’s Jazz Band I was selected to participate in the Monterey Jazz Festival’s
Next Generation Festival. The Monterey Jazz Festival is one of the largest and
most prestigious jazz festivals in the world, so this is quite a coup.
 The CWU Horn Ensemble was been selected to perform at the International Horn
Festival in Denver, CO.
 CWU Theatre alumna Joanna Horowitz’s one-woman country musical Pickups,
Hookups and Hangovers is getting great reviews and playing to full houses at the
Capitol Hill Arts Center in Seattle.
 Cello alum Ashia Grzesik performed at our recent Cello Celebration and wowed
the crowd with her amazing playing and unique voice. She just released her first
CD.
 2008 alumnus Justin Beckman has been awarded the 2008 Outstanding Student
Achievement in Contemporary Sculpture Award for his installation Homestead.
The award was given by the International Sculpture Center.
 1998 alumnus Justin Gibbens was the recipient of a 2008 Artist Trust/Washington
State Arts Commission Fellowship. He will receive $7500.
 CWU's E.C.O. (Exito. Conocimiento. Oportunidad) student club recently received
affiliation with the NHBA (National Hispanic Business Association) making them
the 2nd NHBA chapter in the state of Washington.
October 2009
CWU 2008/2009 Academic Assessment Report - D R A F T
p. 177 of 179
178.
 CWU's Air Force ROTC cadre won the 2008/2009 "Right of Line Award" given for
the most outstanding Detachment in the Air Force ROTC NW Region for 08-09.
 Nathan DiPietro recently exhibited 9 egg tempera-on-panel paintings at Punch
Gallery in Seattle. The exhibition received excellent reviews in Seattle where
CWU artists are known for the style “Ellensburg Funky,” which involves
surrealistic narrative painting and sculpture.
 Jennifer Greene will appear in the lead role of the composer in the premier of
the opera The Two Cents at the Theatre for the New City. She recently
appeared in an opera in Carnegie Hall.
 Art student Alex Chaney won Best in Show at the international juried exhibition
“Sixth Biennial Wearable Expressions 2008" held at the Palo Verdes Art Center in
Ranch Palo Verdes, CA.
 Several art students received Chinook ADDY Awards (Advertising competition) for
their innovative advertising: Best of Show to Chris Mayer, David Lambo and
Cassandra Lea; Gold Awards to Daniel Steel, Jules Walker and Stephanie Collins.
Dan Steel’s “Stop Aids” campaign made it to the ADDY nationals.
 Senior Broadcast Journalism major Ryan Fudacz won the grand prize in the
National Student Electronic Media Competition for the Video News Segment for
his “Jail Life.”
 Senior photography major Laurel Ebenal was chosen as the first award finalist in
“Driven”-a National Juried Exhibition for Young Artists with Disabilities. 15
finalists were selected from a pool of over 200 applicants. She won for her
digital photographs “Faun” and “Painting the White Tiger”-Faun will be featured
in an exhibition at the Smithsonian, and Painting the White Tiger will be at the
Kennedy Center. For this award she will receive $10,000.
 Art Alumnus Dick Elliott was the recipient of the 2007 Governor's Arts Award.
Chosen by Gov. Chris Gregoire and the Washington State Arts Commission, the
award recognizes individuals for their significant contributions to the creative
vitality of Washington. He also received a Best Public Art Project Award from
Americans for the Arts. Dick=s latest commission is for a reflector panel on a
retaining wall to help save lives on a St. Louis interstate.
October 2009
CWU 2008/2009 Academic Assessment Report - D R A F T
p. 178 of 179
179.
WENAS CREEK MAMMOTH PROJECT
http://www.cwu.edu/~masters/mammoth2008/information.html
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009*
Number of
Students* in
the Field
School
5
15
9
16
22
* In 2009 students in the Wenas Creek Mammoth field school came from Western
Washington University, Washington State University, Harvard, Adelphi (NY), CC of VT,
Purdue, U of Pittsburg, U of Arizona, and U of Idaho. Nine of the students were from
Central Washington University.
SOURCE - CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY'S SYMPOSIUM ON
UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH and CREATIVE EXPRESSION
SOURCE is a university-wide forum that showcases all genres of
scholarly work by CWU students, faculty, and staff.
In 2007, SOURCE combined the Symposium on Undergraduate Research
and Creative Expression and the Conference on Graduate Student and Faculty
Scholarship. The goal was to foster an awareness of and appreciation for the highquality scholarship that goes on at CWU, in all disciplines and at all academic levels.
SOURCE 2009 continues that tradition.
CWU students who submit abstracts must have a faculty mentor.
A listing of all 230 SOURCE abstracts for 2009 is at:
http://www.cwu.edu/~source/submission/view_mentor_approved_new.php
October 2009
CWU 2008/2009 Academic Assessment Report - D R A F T
p. 179 of 179