Central Washington University
Assessment of Student Learning
Annual Report
Academic Year of Report:
College:
2008-2009
William O. Douglas Honors College
Check here if your assessment report covers all undergraduate degree programs: [n/a]
Check here if your assessment report covers all graduate degree programs: [n/a]
1. What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why?
The Douglas Honors College wrote a new assessment plan during the academic year
2007-2008. This assessment plan includes three college goals:
1. In education, the DHC will:
a) educate students in the tradition of the Great Books from a number of time periods,
cultures, disciplines, and viewpoints.
b) train students to become effective communicators in multiple formats by developing
their skills as speakers and writers.
c) train students to apply critical thinking and analytical reasoning to both contemporary
and enduring issues.
d) help students to be able and willing to challenge assumptions and consider multiple
perspectives.
e) expose students and faculty to premier cultural events in the Northwest.
2. In scholarship, the DHC will:
a) support faculty and student research.
3. In service, the DHC will:
a) sponsor relevant public presentations and colloquia.
b) contribute to interdisciplinary programs and university-wide forums.
The assessment plan also includes five student learning outcomes:
1. Students will learn to discern themes and worldviews in global canonical texts. They will gain
multi- and interdisciplinary knowledge about literature, philosophy, religion, political theory,
history, and the philosophy of science.
2. Students will be able to identify themes that develop and persist over time and across cultures.
Students will relate ideas from the past to current cultural and social issues.
3. Students will cultivate their own positions on original source material and develop the skills to
support them with argument and evidence, both in written and oral form.
4. While engaging in civil discussions, students will develop the ability to present opposing
positions and provide constructive criticism.
5. Students will demonstrate an open-minded but critical understanding of great works of human
Page 1 of 19
culture in order to appreciate and assess other views.
2. How were they assessed?
DHC Goal 1: We used written essays and examinations, student presentations, senior theses, exit
surveys, student and faculty participation in conferences, and sponsorship of university-wide
events and interdisciplinary programs. Data was collected in fall, winter, and spring quarters
from all students and faculty.
DHC Goal 2: We collected information about student and faculty presentations at conferences.
This information was collected during spring quarter.
DHC Goal 3: We collected information about how many university wide events and
interdisciplinary programs the DHC had sponsored or co-sponsored.
Student Learning Outcome 1: This outcome focuses on student learning to discern themes and
worldviews in global canonical text as well students gaining multi- and interdisciplinary
knowledge about literature, philosophy, religion, political theory, history and the philosophy of
science. To assess our achievement of this outcome, we used the required coursework (lectures
and colloquia), the capstone project (senior thesis), and an exit survey distributed to seniors
finishing the DHC course sequence.
Student Learning Outcome 2: This outcome focuses on students’ ability to identify themes that
persist over time and across cultures, and to relate ideas from the past to current cultural and
social issues. To assess our achievement of this outcome, we used the required coursework
(lectures and colloquia), the capstone project (senior thesis), and an exit survey distributed to
seniors finishing the DHC course sequence.
Student Learning Outcome 3: This outcome focuses on students’ ability to cultivate their own
positions on original source material and to develop the skills to support them with argument and
evidence, both in written and oral form. To assess our achievement of this outcome, we used the
required coursework (lectures and colloquia), the capstone project (senior thesis), and an exit
survey distributed to seniors finishing the DHC course sequence.
Student Learning Outcome 4: This outcome focuses on engaging students in civil discussions and
developing the ability to present opposing positions and provide constructive criticism. To assess
our achievement of this outcome, we used the required coursework (lectures and colloquia), the
capstone project (senior thesis), and an exit survey distributed to seniors finishing the DHC
course sequence.
Student Learning Outcome 5: This outcome focuses on demonstrating an open-minded but
critical understanding of great works of human culture in order to appreciate and assess other
views. To assess our achievement of this outcome, we used the required coursework (lectures
Page 2 of 19
and colloquia), the capstone project (senior thesis), and an exit survey distributed to seniors
finishing the DHC course sequence.
3. What was learned?
Department Goal 1: Education
a. Student retention
The criterion of achievement is to have 50% of enrolled freshmen complete the program.
This year ten DHC students graduated from the university: Heather Durkee, Fiona
Flaherty, Erika Harder, Annette Hinthorne, Joyce Kennedy, Nate Long, Mimi Oh, Megan
O’Malley, Tristen Owens, and Heather Tonnemaker. In fall 2005, there was an entering class of
twenty-three. That means that 43.5% of the enrolled freshmen for fall 2005 completed the
required coursework and graduation requirements. This falls short of our goal of 50%.
However, it should be recognized that only fifteen students remained after the first year,
during which most of the attrition took place.
Note: For the purposes of this report, the criterion of success is graduation from the
university. There is at least one student (Liz Wallace) who entered in fall 2005, has completed all
DHC requirements, but will not graduate until next year because of student teaching duties.
There are at least two students (Sophie Bamford and Kira Birkett) who entered in fall 2005 and
will complete their DHC theses next year. A few of this year’s graduates entered in fall 2004 or
before. For the sake of simplicity, we will assume a four-year program of study when measuring
this number.
b. Written essays
The criterion of achievement is for 80% of students’ quarterly best colloquium papers
either to meet or to exceed standards on the grading rubric.
The chart below shows that, among the assessed papers, 94.5% of them (120 papers out
of 127 collected) met or exceeded all five standards on the grading rubric. This is an
improvement over last year’s numbers. The grading rubrics were completed by the appropriate
colloquium instructors.
Student and year (F/S/J/Sr)
Travis Apling (F)
Jennifer Arledge (F)
Taylor Baker (F)
Katie Berberick (F)
Amanda Berndt (F)
Josselyn Green (F)
Charles Hagen (F)
Davis Hill (F)
Kelly Jensen (F)
Nathan Lehrman (F)
A
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
Fall 2008
Outcomes
B C D
1 1 2
2 2 3
3 3 3
2 3 3
3 3 3
2 2 2
3 3 3
3 3 3
1 2 2
3 2 2
E
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
Winter 2009
Outcomes
A B C D E
2 1 1 2 2
Spring 2009
Outcomes
A B C D E
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
Page 3 of 19
Met all expectations? (F/W/S)
N — N — N/A
Y/?/Y
Y — N/A — N/A
Y/Y/Y
Y/Y/Y
Y/?/Y
Y — N/A — N/A
Y/Y/Y
N/Y/Y
Y — Y — N/A
Benjamin Livingston (F)
Reesa Nelson (F)
Stephen Nelson (F)
Amanda Niegowski (F)
Marissa Pownall (F)
Benjamin Rice (F)
Kaya Saldajeno (F)
Michelle Schlonga (F)
Mercedes Snyder (F)
Joanna Turner (F)
Sheena Wildes (F)
Kaxia Wilkens (F)
Whitney Wing (F)
Natasha Wood (F)
Kiley Baker (S)
Krista Greear (S)
Kyle Grove (S)
Justine Harlan (S)
Emily Kutzler (S)
Nathan Lehrman (S)
John Orndorff (S)
Owen Prout (S)
Nathan Thomas (S)
Sheena Wildes (S)
Shiloh Frauen (J)
Pearl Griffin (J)
Amanda Herman (J)
Elizabeth Lauderback (J)
Jessica Linder (J)
Mike Moceri (J)
Tristen Owens (J)
Janna Sanford (J)
Sophie Bamford (Sr)
Kira Birkett (Sr)
Fiona Flaherty (Sr)
Erika Harder (Sr)
Annette Hinthorne (Sr)
Megan O’Malley (Sr)
Mimi Oh (Sr)
Tristen Owens (Sr)
Liz Wallace (Sr)
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
1
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
3
3
2
1
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
1
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
1
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
1
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
1
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
Key to the chart
Outcomes:
A: Understanding of the major ideas in the text(s)
B: Accuracy and relevance of historical or contextual references
C: Clarity of thesis
D: Argument for that thesis
E: Critical evaluation of supporting material
Page 4 of 19
Y — Y — N/A
Y/Y/Y
Y — Y — N/A
N/N/Y
Y — N/A — N/A
Y/?/Y
Y/?/Y
Y/Y/Y
Y/?/N
Y/Y/Y
Y/Y/Y
Y/?/Y
Y/?/Y
Y/?/Y
Y/Y/Y
Y/Y/N
N/A — Y — N/A
Y/Y/Y
N — N — N/A
N/N/N
Y/Y/Y
N — N — N/A
Y/N/N
Y/Y/Y
Y/Y/Y
Y/Y/Y
Y/Y/Y
Y/Y/Y
Y/Y/Y
Y/Y/N
Y — N/A — N/A
Y/Y/Y
Y — N/A — Y
Y/Y/Y
Y/Y/Y
Y/Y/Y
Y — Y — N/A
Y/Y/Y
Y/Y/Y
Y/Y/Y
Y/Y/Y
Standards:
3: Exceeds expectations
2: Meets expectations
1: Does not meet expectations
N/A: Student did not take the class that quarter
?: No data available, even though the student did attend that quarter
Last year, we requested papers from students so that the director could assess them.
Because of this, there was a low return rate and several students could not be evaluated. This
year, rubrics were distributed to DHC faculty members to fill out at the end of each quarter. This
method of gathering data was much more reliable and allowed us to get more accurate and
complete assessment numbers.
c. Attendance and participation
The criterion of achievement is to have all students attend and participate in at least 90%
of the colloquia and lectures.
To determine the number of absences, the total possible days of attendance were
determined in the following method: total number of students times days of class meeting equals
the total possible days of attendance. So, for example, if a class has ten students and ten class
meetings, there are a hundred attendance days. The number given in the table is the total classes
attended out of the total possible days of attendance.
Fall 2008
Class
DHC 121.01 (Harper)
DHC 121.02 (Brammer)
DHC 121.03 (Johnson)
DHC 131 (Stacy)
DHC 221 (Abdalla)
DHC 231 (Abdalla)
DHC 321 (Montgomery)
DHC 331 (Altman)
DHC 421 (Erdman)
DHC 431 (Erdman)
Total days attended/Total possible days of attendance = % Attendance
10 students x 10 class meetings = 100; 98 attend/100 possible = 98%
10 x 10 = 100; 95/100 = 95% attendance
9 x 10 = 90; 90/90 = 100% attendance
29 x 20 = 580; no data available
9 x 10 = 90; 90/90 = 100% attendance
9 x 10 = 90; 88/90 = 97.8% attendance
8 x 10 = 80; 77/80 = 96.3% attendance
8 x 10 = 80; 76/80 = 95% attendance
9 x 10 = 90; 85/90 = 94.4% attendance
9 x 10 = 90; 85/90 = 94.4% attendance
Winter 2009
Class
DHC 122.01 (Harper)
DHC 122.02 (Manweller)
DHC 122.03 (Turcotte)
DHC 132 (Stacy)
DHC 222 (Abdalla)
Attendance: Absences/Total possible days of attendance = %
10 x 10 = 100; 98/00 = 98% attendance
8 x 10 = 80; no data available
5 x 10 = 50; 46/50 = 94% attendance
23 x 20 = 460; no data available
10 x 10 = 100; 100/100 = 100% attendance
Page 5 of 19
DHC 232 (Abdalla)
DHC 322 (Montgomery)
DHC 332 (Altman)
DHC 422 (Erdman)
DHC 432 (Erdman)
9 x 10 = 90; 88/90 = 97.8% attendance
7 x 10 = 70; 67/70 = 95.7% attendance
7 x 10 = 70; 68/70 = 97.1% attendance
8 x 10 = 80; 75/80 = 93.8% attendance
8 x 10 = 80; 77/80 = 96.3% attendance
Spring 2009
Class
DHC 123.01 (Johnson)
DHC 123.02 (Turcotte)
DHC 123.03 (Turcotte)
DHC 133 (Stacy)
DHC 223 (Abdalla)
DHC 233 (Abdalla)
DHC 323 (Montgomery)
DHC 333 (Altman)
DHC 423 (Erdman)
DHC 433 (Erdman)
Attendance: Absences/Total possible days of attendance = %
7 x 10 = 70; 70/70 = 100% attendance
6 x 10 = 60; 59/60 = 98.3% attendance
4 x 10 = 40; 60/60 = 100% attendance
17 x 20 = 340; no data available
7 x 10 = 70; 70/70 = 100% attendance
7 x 10 = 70; 68/70 = 97.1% attendance
7 x 10 = 70; 68/70 = 97.1% attendance
7 x 10 = 70; 68/70 = 97.1% attendance
9 x 10 = 90; 82/90 = 91.1% attendance
9 x 10 = 90; 82/90 = 91.1% attendance
As the above charts show, the attendance for all DHC classes is well over the goal of
90%.
d. Written examinations
The criterion of achievement is for all students to achieve at least 80% of the possible
points on written examinations over reading material. Note that DHC instructors vary in how
they measure students’ grasp of the reading. Some instructors use quizzes, other use lecture
responses (take-home papers on the reading), and others use both. Scores for lecture responses
are included only when no quizzes are given.
For the purpose of calculating class averages, scores of zero due to student absences —
that is, when students are not present to take the quizzes — are not included.
Fall 2008
Class
DHC 131 (Stacy)
DHC 231 (Abdalla)
DHC 331 (Altman)
DHC 431 (Erdman)
Average class score for lecture responses and/or quizzes
91.7% average for quizzes
84.5% average for lecture responses
83.5% average for quizzes
95.3% average for lecture responses
Winter 2009
Class
DHC 132 (Stacy)
DHC 232 (Abdalla)
Average class score for lecture responses and/or quizzes
90.2% average for quizzes
87.3% average for lecture responses
Page 6 of 19
DHC 332 (Altman)
DHC 432 (Erdman)
80.4% average for quizzes
89.2% average for lecture responses
Spring 2009
Class
DHC 133 (Stacy)
DHC 233 (Abdalla)
DHC 333 (Altman)
DHC 433 (Erdman)
Average class score for lecture responses and/or quizzes
87.4% average for quizzes
88.3% average for lecture responses
84.6% average for quizzes
85.2% average for quizzes
Students in all of the classes met the goal of 80% for written examinations on the reading.
e. Student presentations
Ten DHC presented papers at the Symposium on University Research and Creative
Expression (SOURCE) in May 2009: Kiley Baker, Pearl Griffin, Justine Harlan, Davis Hill,
Nathan Lehrman, Jessica Linder, Mike Moceri, Janna Sanford, Nathan Thomas, and Sheena
Wildes.
Nine students — Pearl Griffin, Erika Harder, Justine Harlan, Davis Hill, Mike Moceri,
John Orndorff, Janna Sanford, Nathan Thomas, and Sheena Wildes — gave presentations at the
Western Regional Honors Council (WRHC) conference in March 2009.
The criterion of achievement is to have 10% of upper-division DHC students present at
SOURCE and10% of upper-division DHC students present at the WRHC.
Our current count of upper-division (junior and senior) students is sixteen. Four upperdivision students (Pearl Griffin, Erika Harder, Mike Moceri, and Janna Sanford) presented at the
WRHC, which represents 25% participation. Four upper-division students (Griffin, Linder,
Moceri, and Sanford) presented at SOURCE, which represents 25% participation. Therefore, the
DHC easily accomplished its participation goal.
In addition to this achievement, two DHC students, Justine Harlan and Sheena Wildes,
received awards at SOURCE for Outstanding Undergraduate Student Oral Presentations.
f. Capstone project (senior thesis)
At any given time, eleven seniors were working on senior theses this year. Some of these
theses were being completed after the students took incompletes in their senior thesis courses last
year.
The criterion of achievement is that 90% of senior theses need to obtain at least “met
expectations” for all criteria on the standard rubric.
The chart below shows that, among the assessed theses, 100% of them (11 theses out of
11 submitted) met or exceeded all five standards on the grading rubric. (Grading rubric
completed by Liahna Armstrong, DHC thesis supervisor.)
Student
Example: Jane Doe
A
3
B
2
Outcomes
C
3
Page 7 of 19
D
3
E
2
Heather Durkee
Fiona Flaherty
Erika Harder
Annette Hinthorne
Joyce Kennedy
Nate Long
Megan O’Malley
Mimi Oh
Tristen Owens
Heather Tonnemaker
Liz Wallace
3
2.75
3
2.5
2
3
2.75
2.25
2.75
3
3
2.5
2.75
3
2.25
2.75
2.75
2.75
2.25
2.75
2.75
2.75
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.75
2.25
2.75
2
2.75
3
2.5
2.5
2.75
3
2.25
2.5
2.75
2.75
2
2.75
2.75
2.5
2
2.75
3
2.25
2.25
2.5
2.75
2.5
2.5
2.75
2.5
Key to the chart
Outcomes:
A: Understanding of the major ideas in the text(s)
B: Accuracy and relevance of historical or contextual references
C: Clarity of thesis
D: Argument for that thesis
E: Critical evaluation of supporting material
Standards:
3: Exceeds expectations
2: Meets expectations
1: Does not meet expectations
g. Attendance at cultural events
Our criterion of achievement is for 90% of students to attend at least one cultural event
per quarter.
We had three cultural events this year: the East Village Opera Company at the Capitol
Theater in Yakima (fall 2008), The Seafarer at the Seattle Repertory Theater (winter 2009), and
The Marriage of Figaro at the Seattle Opera (spring 2009).
100% of DHC students attended at least one cultural event per quarter. In the rare cases
when students could not attend the designated cultural event, they attended alternate events with
the permission of their DHC lecture instructor. Alternate events included performances by the
Central Theatre Ensemble, such as Two Gentlemen of Verona and Seven Brides for Seven
Brothers, and events in the Performing Arts Presidential Speaker Series, such as performances by
the Arctic Chamber Orchestra and Chanticleer.
d. Exit survey
Eight students completed the DHC coursework this year. We received exit surveys from
all eight students. The following chart summarizes the results.
Question:
Average score
Page 8 of 19
Q1: Ability to understand and analyze texts (4pt scale)
3.88
Q2: Ability to relate the texts to other concepts and works (4pt scale)
3.88
Q3: Ability to advance and defend a thesis (4pt scale)
3.44
Q4: Ability to analyze and critically evaluate others’ claims (4pt scale)
3.75
Q5: Overall satisfaction with the DHC (4pt scale)
3.81
The criterion of achievement is that 80% of DHC students mark “satisfied” or higher for
question #5, with an 80% return rate of the survey.
We had a 100% return rate, and 100% of the students marked “satisfied” or higher for
question #5: “Please rate your overall satisfaction with your experience in the DHC.” Their
responses are as follows:
Students
Survey #1
Survey #2
Survey #3
Survey #4
Survey #5
Survey #6
Survey #7
Survey #8
Very satisfied
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Satisfied
X
X
Somewhat unsatisfied
Unsatisfied
Note: When X’s appear in two columns, as with Student #2 above, it means that the student
circled both answers on the survey.
Department Goal 2: Scholarship
a. Student conference presentations
Our criterion of achievement is to have 10% of upper-division DHC students present at
SOURCE and10% of upper-division DHC students present at the Western Regional Honors
Council (WRHC) conference.
Our current count of upper-division students is sixteen. Four upper-division students
presented at the WRHC, which represents 25% participation. Four upper-division students
presented at SOURCE, which represents 25% participation.
b. Faculty conference presentations
Three faculty members — Matthew Altman, Melissa Johnson, and Aaron Montgomery
— presented papers on honors pedagogy at the WRHC. Dr. Altman gave a talk explaining the
new DHC curriculum.
Our criterion for achievement is to have at least one faculty member present. Three
Page 9 of 19
faculty members participated, tripling our goal.
Department Goal 3: Service
a. Sponsorship of university-wide events and interdisciplinary programs
This was a very exciting year for the DHC, in that it sponsored a great many guest
speakers.
The Douglas Honors College co-sponsored two university-wide events with the Diversity
Education Center: author Sherman Alexie (winter 2009) and author Jeff Chang (spring 2009).
With Alexie, we arranged for a DHC-exclusive discussion/question-and-answer session with him
for the students and faculty of the DHC. We also sponsored two guest speakers in advance of
Alexie’s visit: Dr. Tom Colonnese from the University of Washington, who gave a talk titled
“Sherman Alexie: In Film and Print”; and Dr. Kandee Cleary from CWU, who gave a talk on
Native American history in the Northwest.
The Douglas Honors College also co-sponsored two university-wide events with
Women’s Studies: Dr. Jennifer Thigpen from Washington State University (spring 2009), who
gave a talk titled “‘Obligations of Gratitude’: Creating Bonds of Reciprocity and Friendship in
the Nineteenth-Century Hawaiian Islands”; and Dr. Shirley Yee from the University of
Washington (spring 2009), who gave a talk titled “Undertaking Women: Gender, Race, Ethnicity
and Occupational change in the U.S., 1800-1900.” Both talks were on American history and were
in celebration of Women’s History Month.
In addition, the Douglas Honors spearheaded two of its own events. The first event was
with University of Washington professor Dr. Denise Dudzinski (winter 2009), who gave an
evening talk titled “Conflict of Interest: Physicians & Pharmaceutical Companies.” She also met
with the ethics committee at Kittitas Valley Community Hospital and guest lectured in a
philosophy class.
The second event was an evening poetry reading by Adrienne Rich (spring 2009). In
preparation for the event, we had two guest speakers talk to DHC students and faculty: Dr.
Cynthia Coe (Philosophy) and Dr. Christine Sutphin (English). While Rich was here, she had
dinner with Women’s Studies faculty, lunch with English faculty, and dinner with DHC faculty
and administrators; a Q&A with DHC students, English students, and Women’s Studies students;
and an evening reception at Gallery One. The evening talk was a great success, attracting
approximately 400 people: CWU students, faculty, and administrators; local book lovers and
high school students; students and faculty from institutions throughout the state, including the
University of Washington, Evergreen College, Eastern Washington University, and YVCC; and
many others. The event was advertised on the CWU website, the CWU intranet; the Yakima
Herald, and the Ellensburg Daily Record. This was a very successful event in advertising the
Douglas Honors College.
The criterion for achievement in this category is to sponsor at least one talk or panel per
year. We achieved that goal several times over.
Student Learning Outcome 1: Students will learn to discern themes and worldviews in global
canonical texts. They will gain multi- and interdisciplinary knowledge about literature,
Page 10 of 19
philosophy, religion, political theory, history, and the philosophy of science.
a. Required coursework
Forty-eight out of fifty-three students (90.6%) received a C or better in their required
DHC coursework. Note that this number does not include Ariel Garcia or Charles Hagen, both of
whom dropped out of the university entirely and did not complete a whole year in the program.
The criterion for achievement is that at least 90% of students receive a C or better in
required courses.
b. Capstone project (senior thesis)
100% of senior theses obtained at least “met expectations” for all criteria on the standard
rubric.
The criterion of achievement is that 90% of senior theses need to obtain at least “met
expectations” for all criteria on the standard rubric.
c. Exit survey
The criterion of achievement is that 80% of DHC students mark “satisfied” or higher for
question #5, with an 80% return rate of the survey.
We had a 100% return rate (six students out of six), and 100% of the students marked
“satisfied” or higher for question #5: “Please rate your overall satisfaction with your experience
in the DHC.” Their responses are as follows:
Students
Survey #1
Survey #2
Survey #3
Survey #4
Survey #5
Survey #6
Survey #7
Survey #8
Very satisfied
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Satisfied
X
X
Somewhat unsatisfied
Unsatisfied
Student Learning Outcome 2: Students will be able to identify themes that develop and persist
over time and across cultures. Students will relate ideas from the past to current cultural and
social issues.
a. Required coursework
Forty-eight out of fifty-three students (90.6%) received a C or better in their required
DHC coursework.
The criterion for achievement is that at least 90% of students receive a C or better in
required courses.
b. Capstone project (senior thesis)
Page 11 of 19
100% of senior theses obtained at least “met expectations” for all criteria on the standard
rubric.
The criterion of achievement is that 90% of senior theses need to obtain at least “met
expectations” for all criteria on the standard rubric.
c. Exit survey
The criterion of achievement is that 80% of DHC students mark “fairly well” or higher
for question #2, with an 80% return rate of the survey.
We had a 100% return rate (eight students out of eight), and 100% of the students
marked “fairly well” or higher for question #2: “When you read one of the Great Books, how
well are you able to situate the text in relation to other concepts and works that you have studied
in the program?” Their responses are as follows:
Students
Survey #1
Survey #2
Survey #3
Survey #4
Survey #5
Survey #6
Survey #7
Survey #8
Very well
Fairly well
X
Somewhat
Not very well
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Student Learning Outcome 3: cultivate own position on original source material and develop
skills to support them with argument and evidence
a. Required coursework
Forty-eight out of fifty-three students (90.6%) received a C or better in their required
DHC coursework.
The criterion for achievement is that at least 90% of students receive a C or better in
required courses.
b. Capstone project (senior thesis)
100% of senior theses obtained at least “met expectations” for all criteria on the standard
rubric.
The criterion of achievement is that 90% of senior theses need to obtain at least “met
expectations” for all criteria on the standard rubric.
c. Exit survey
The criterion of achievement is that 80% of DHC students mark “strong” or higher for
question #3, with an 80% return rate of the survey.
We had a 100% return rate (eight students out of eight), and 87.5% of the students
marked “strong” or higher for question #3: “How would you rate your ability to advance and
Page 12 of 19
defend a thesis?” (Note: The one student who did not mark “strong” or higher actually circled
both “strong” and “fair.”) Their responses are as follows:
Students
Survey #1
Survey #2
Survey #3
Survey #4
Survey #5
Survey #6
Survey #7
Survey #8
Very strong
Strong
X
X
X
Fair
Poor
X
X
X
X
X
X
Student Learning Outcome 4: While engaging in civil discussions, students will develop the
ability to present opposing positions and provide constructive criticism.
a. Required coursework
Forty-eight out of fifty-three students (90.6%) received a C or better in their required
DHC coursework.
The criterion for achievement is that at least 90% of students receive a C or better in
required courses.
Student Learning Outcome 5: Students will demonstrate an open-minded but critical
understanding of great works of human culture in order to appreciate and assess other views.
a. Required coursework
Forty-eight out of fifty-three students (90.6%) received a C or better in their required
DHC coursework.
The criterion for achievement is that at least 90% of students receive a C or better in
required courses.
b. Capstone project (senior thesis)
100% of senior theses obtained at least “met expectations” for all criteria on the standard
rubric.
The criterion of achievement is that 90% of senior theses need to obtain at least “met
expectations” for all criteria on the standard rubric.
c. Exit survey
The criterion of achievement is that 80% of DHC students mark “strong” or higher for
question #4, with an 80% return rate of the survey.
We had a 100% return rate (eight students out of eight), and 100% of the students marked
“strong” or higher for question #4: “How would you rate your ability to analyze and critically
evaluate the claims of others?” Their responses are as follows:
Page 13 of 19
Students
Survey #1
Survey #2
Survey #3
Survey #4
Survey #5
Survey #6
Survey #7
Survey #8
Very strong
X
Strong
Fair
Poor
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4. What will the college do as a result of this information?
This data will be submitted as part of the DHC’s year-end report, as requested by the
Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies.
In fall 2009, the director of the DHC will discuss this data with the DHC faculty and the
DHC Curriculum Committee.
Although we improved our method of assessment from last year (see below), there are
still issues that need to be addressed. For example, getting data on absences from multiple
professors seems unnecessarily difficult. We will revise the assessment plan for the new
curriculum using what we have learned in the two years we have been assessing the old program.
The new DHC curriculum will begin in fall 2009, with the old program being phased out.
The new curriculum will require its own assessment plan, which will be developed by the DHC
Curriculum Committee. Therefore, the current assessment plan will only continue for two more
years, covering fewer and fewer class years.
5. What did the college do in response to last year’s assessment information?
Last year, one of the DHC’s weakest areas was in getting students to complete their
senior theses on time. Because of changes made in how we organized the thesis courses, we were
much more successful in getting students to complete their senior theses this year. We have no
incompletes from this years’ thesis classes.
In addition, by distributing grading rubrics to the colloquium instructors, we were able to
streamline the assessment process, which was our other major concern last year.
6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Student Learning at CWU:
None.
Page 14 of 19
2008-2009 Year-End Report from the William O. Douglas Honors College
Completed by: Matthew Altman, Director, William O. Douglas Honors College
Submitted to: Tracy Pellett, Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies
June 2009
Assessment
The 2008-2009 Assessment Report is included as part of this year-end report.
Activities
This was a very eventful year for the DHC. In addition to three cultural events (one per quarter), we had
several guest speakers, strong participation in SOURCE and the Western Regional Honors Council (WRHC)
conference, and social events that developed a sense of community among the students and faculty.
Cultural events
We had three cultural events this year: the East Village Opera Company at the Capitol Theater in Yakima
(fall 2008), The Seafarer at the Seattle Repertory Theater (winter 2009), and The Marriage of Figaro at the Seattle
Opera (spring 2009).
The Symposium Group
The DHC this year remained part of the Symposium Group, a collection of programs and departments who
work together to bring speakers to campus through the Diversity Education Center, under the title “Symposium
Without Boundaries.” The DHC contributed financially to the visits by author Sherman Alexie (winter 2009) and
author Jeff Chang (spring 2009). DHC director Matt Altman also participated in discussions about current and future
speakers.
It is important that the director remain a member of this group, since this allows the DHC to suggest visiting
speakers and to arrange for DHC-exclusive events with those speakers.
Guest speakers
This was a very exciting year for the DHC, in that it sponsored a great many guest speakers.
The Douglas Honors College co-sponsored two university-wide events with the Diversity Education Center:
author Sherman Alexie (winter 2009) and author Jeff Chang (spring 2009). With Alexie, we arranged for a DHCexclusive discussion/question-and-answer session with him for the students and faculty of the DHC. We also
sponsored two guest speakers in advance of Alexie’s visit: Dr. Tom Colonnese from the University of Washington,
who gave a talk titled “Sherman Alexie: In Film and Print”; and Dr. Kandee Cleary from CWU, who gave a talk on
Native American history in the Northwest.
The Douglas Honors College also co-sponsored two university-wide events with Women’s Studies: Dr.
Jennifer Thigpen from Washington State University (spring 2009), who gave a talk titled “‘Obligations of Gratitude’:
Creating Bonds of Reciprocity and Friendship in the Nineteenth-Century Hawaiian Islands”; and Dr. Shirley Yee
from the University of Washington (spring 2009), who gave a talk titled “Undertaking Women: Gender, Race,
Ethnicity and Occupational change in the U.S., 1800-1900.” Both talks were on American history and were in
celebration of Women’s History Month.
In addition, the Douglas Honors spearheaded two of its own events. The first event was with University of
Washington professor Dr. Denise Dudzinski (winter 2009), who gave an evening talk titled “Conflict of Interest:
Physicians & Pharmaceutical Companies.” She also met with the ethics committee at Kittitas Valley Community
Hospital and guest lectured in a philosophy class.
The second event was an evening poetry reading by Adrienne Rich (spring 2009). In preparation for the
event, we had two guest speakers talk to DHC students and faculty: Dr. Cynthia Coe (Philosophy) and Dr. Christine
Sutphin (English). While Rich was here, she had dinner with Women’s Studies faculty, lunch with English faculty,
and dinner with DHC faculty and administrators; a Q&A with DHC students, English students, and Women’s Studies
students; and an evening reception at Gallery One. The evening talk was a great success, attracting approximately
400 people: CWU students, faculty, and administrators; local book lovers and high school students; students and
faculty from institutions throughout the state, including the University of Washington, Evergreen College, Eastern
Page 15 of 19
Washington University, and YVCC; and many others. The event was advertised on the CWU website, the CWU
intranet; the Yakima Herald, and the Ellensburg Daily Record. This was a very successful event in advertising the
Douglas Honors College.
Symposium on University Research and Creative Expression (SOURCE)
This year, ten DHC students were accepted to present at SOURCE in May 2009: Kiley Baker, Pearl Griffin,
Justine Harlan, Davis Hill, Nathan Lehrman, Jessica Linder, Mike Moceri, Janna Sanford, Nathan Thomas, and
Sheena Wildes. This continues the strong participation that we had in 2007-2008 (12) and is a tremendous increase
over the two years prior to that (2005-2006 and 2006-2007), when we only had two students present each year.
Western Regional Honors Council (WRHC) conference
The DHC is a member of the Western Regional Honors Council, and it is important for the honors students,
the DHC, and CWU as a whole that we remain active in the organization. One of the ways that we accomplish this is
to attend the annual conference and present research there. This year the conference was held in Spokane,
Washington. Nine students — Pearl Griffin, Erika Harder, Justine Harlan, Davis Hill, Mike Moceri, John Orndorff,
Janna Sanford, Nathan Thomas, and Sheena Wildes — gave presentations of their work there, and three faculty
members — Matthew Altman, Aaron Montgomery, and Melissa Johnson — presented papers on honors pedagogy.
Dr. Altman gave a talk explaining the new DHC curriculum.
This is a very high rate of participation. There were more Central students presenting than from any other
single school.
Senior thesis presentations
As is customary in the DHC, our seniors gave “works-in-progress” presentations, where students working
on their capstone projects discussed their work and thought about how to revise their theses by getting feedback from
DHC faculty and students. We had one in February (Flaherty, Harder, Hinthorne, Oh, and Wallace) and one in April
(O’Malley and Owens), both in Kamola Hall.
Because of the number of theses we had this year, we held two Senior Thesis Presentations, one in March
and one in May. The Senior Thesis Presentation is a semi-formal event in which students give brief (ten-minute)
presentations on their capstone projects to family members, faculty mentors, and DHC faculty and students. Two
students presented in March (Hinthore and Oh) and seven students presented in May (Durkee, Flaherty, Harder,
Long, O’Malley, Owens, and Wallace). Both events were well-attended, with about 25 people at the first event and
50 people at the second.
Social events
The DHC had a number of informal social events this year. A welcome reception for DHC students and
faculty was held in Kamola in September, and we had our year-end event in June, the third annual ice cream social
held at the director’s house. These events are in addition to the works-in-progress and senior thesis presentations.
Many other events were planned and carried out by Justine Harlan, the student community programmer for
the DHC living-learning community in Kamola Hall. Among other things, events included a “last lecture” series in
which faculty members talked about what they would say if it were their “last lecture,” a toga party to celebrate the
first-year students’ completion of Homer’s Illiad and Odyssey, and a movie night hosted by Melissa Johnson.
Accomplishments
Recruitment and retention
The DHC has been very successful this year with recruitment and retention. More specific numbers are
included in Appendix I, which details the DHC enrollment numbers since fall 2002.
One explanation of the numbers is needed: Enrollment of first-year students during the three quarters does
not necessarily students’ withdrawal from the program. Because these students will be transitioning to the new DHC
curriculum next year, some of them opted to take only two quarters this year even though they remain in the DHC.
This is because of how the equivalents work out between the existing curriculum and the new curriculum; students
need not take all three quarters of the Great Books curriculum. The rate of students leaving the program (the attrition
Page 16 of 19
rate) is still very low, even though the numbers seem to indicate that many students (27.2%) left the program. This is
not a true reflection of the number of students who actually dropped out of the DHC.
It will also be harder to track enrollment in coming years since students need not take DHC courses every
quarter, due to the flexibility of the new curriculum.
The number of first-year students is up this year because of our recruitment efforts. In fall 2007 there were
13 entering freshmen, and in fall 2008 there were 29 entering freshmen.
Recruitment of students continues to improve. For fall 2009, we have accepted 55 students into the program (so far).
As of June 30, there are 47 students who have been accepted to the DHC and matriculated at Central. We will have
at least 47 students entering in fall 2009. That is almost four times the fall 2007 entering class and almost twice the
number from last year. This will be the largest entering class in the thirty-two-year history of the DHC.
There are two reasons for the jump in numbers. First, the DHC has used every opportunity to contact
potential students: e-mails and mailings to high school teachers and advisors; participation in academic fairs and
open houses; personal letters, e-mails, and phone calls to eligible CWU applicants; flyers given to future students at
every on-campus event, etc. In addition, the director has met personally with a number of students and parents both
on and off campus.
Second, the DHC is instituting a new curriculum next year that is very attractive to entering students —
more so than the Great Books program.
Bloomer Scholarship
This year the Bloomer Scholarship Committee (Altman, Stacy, Abdalla, and Montgomery) selected four
students to receive the Bloomer Scholarship, in the amount of $500 each: Sheena Wildes, Jessica Linder, Janna
Sanford, and Kira Birkett.
Outstanding Senior Thesis
The Outstanding Senior Thesis Award has not been given for several years because very few theses were
completed. This year recommendations were solicited from thesis advisors and the award was given to Erika Harder.
Participation in local and regional conferences
As stated above, the DHC was very well represented at both SOURCE and the WRHC. These are major
academic accomplishments for our students and faculty.
Budget
Although we have had many, many events this year, including being the main sponsor for Adrienne Rich,
we have been able to do so while remaining well within our budget.
We have approximately $60,000 potential “carry forward” money for this year: approximately $1,000 (in
51500, director), $44,000 (in 51600, NTT faculty), and $14,000 (in 53000, goods and services). It is very notable
that the DHC continues to thrive more than it has for years, but in a way that is cost-effective.
With expanded enrollment next year and the new curriculum, which requires that we offer more credits and
pay faculty at a higher rate than we have in the past, it is imperative that we be allowed to carry this money forward
into next year’s budget.
Curriculum revisions
One of the most important accomplishments this year is the continuing work on the DHC curriculum
revisions. The director is co-chair of the DHC Curriculum Committee, and he and the committee have finalized what
the new curriculum will look like, including the upper-division scholarship experiences, and selected courses to be
taught next year.
Areas of improvement
The DHC is becoming a destination for the best and brightest students in Washington. Of course, there is
always room for improvement. We will need to develop a more workable and appropriate assessment plan for the
new DHC curriculum. We must continue to develop strategies for retaining students. We must continue to offer
excellent cultural opportunities in a more difficult economic climate. We must find ways to work guest speakers into
Page 17 of 19
a new curriculum that doesn’t easily allow for a common reading experience among the different classes.
These are not things that we have to improve per se; this was a very successful year for us. Rather, these are
successes that we had this year and want to continue next year. It will be a challenge to keep some of these elements,
however, under the revised curriculum.
Freshmen
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Total Students
Fall 2002
Winter 2003
Spring 2003
Diff.
Start/Finish
30
26
21
8
9
8
19
17
14
10
10
10
67
62
53
Average
60.67
Attrition Rate
9
0
5
0
14
20.90%
Fall 2003
Winter 2004
Spring 2004
Diff.
Start/Finish
31
21
20
17
15
14
5
7
7
15
18
15
68
61
56
Average
61.67
Attrition Rate
11
3
-2
0
12
17.65%
Fall 2004
Winter 2005
Spring 2005
Diff.
Start/Finish
16
14
11
20
16
13
14
12
12
7
6
5
57
48
41
Average
48.67
Attrition Rate
5
7
2
2
16
28.07%
Fall 2005
Winter 2006
Spring 2006
Diff.
Start/Finish
23
17
15
7
7
7
10
8
8
9
10
9
49
42
39
Average
43.33
Attrition Rate
8
0
2
0
10
20.41%
Fall 2006
Winter 2007
Spring 2007
Diff.
22
19
16
6
15
14
14
1
8
6
6
2
9
8
9
0
54
47
45
9
Average
48.67
Attrition Rate
16.67%
Page 18 of 19
Start/Finish
Fall 2007
Winter 2008
Spring 2008
Diff.
Start/Finish
13
15
11
9
7
7
10
11
10
6
6
7
38
39
35
Average
37.33
Attrition Rate
2
2
0
-1
3
7.89%
Fall 2008
Winter 2009
Spring 2009
Diff.
Start/Finish
29
23
17
9
9
7
8
7
7
9
8
9
55
47
40
Average
47.33
Attrition Rate*
12*
2
1
0
15
27.27%
*Note: Enrollment of first-year students during the three quarters does not necessarily
indicate which
students remain and which have withdrawn from the program. Because these students will be transitioning
to the new curriculum next year, some of them opted to take only two quarters this year even though they
remain in the DHC. The supposed attrition rate is artificially inflated and does not reflect the actual number
of first-year students who will continue to their sophomore year and
beyond.
Page 19 of 19