2009-2010 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
July 2010
Assessment
The 2009-2010 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 an internationally recognized guest speaker, 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: Romeo et Juliet at the Northwest Pacific Ballet in
Seattle (fall 2009), the Yakima Symphony Orchestra at the Capitol Theater in Yakima (winter
2010), and The Thin Place at the Intiman Theatre in Seattle (spring 2010).
Guest speakers
The Douglas Honors College co-sponsored one university-wide event with the Diversity
Education Center: architect and artist Maya Lin (winter 2009). We arranged for a
discussion/question-and-answer session with her for the students and faculty of the DHC. We
also offered a public guest lecture in advance of Lin’s visit: Dr. Matthew Altman gave a talk
titled “Maya Lin’s Aesthetic.”
The DHC co-sponsored more guest speakers last year because more speakers were
coming to campus. Budget concerns throughout the university reduced the number of guest
speakers overall, including speakers in the Performing Arts Presidential Speaker Series.
Symposium on University Research and Creative Expression (SOURCE)
Ten DHC students presented papers at the Symposium on University Research and
Creative Expression (SOURCE) in May 2010: Kiley Baker, Shiloh Frauen, Krista Greear, Pearl
Griffin, Nathan Lehrman, Mike Moceri, Janna Sanford, Nathan Thomas, Heather Tonnemaker,
and Sheena Wildes. This continues the strong participation that we had in 2008-2009, when we
also had ten students present.
Next year, we will work to get more participation from freshmen, sophomores, and
juniors.
Western Regional Honors Council (WRHC) conference
The DHC is a member of the Western Regional Honors Council (WRHC), 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 Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Twelve
students — Kira Birkett, Shiloh Frauen, Krista Greear, Pearl Griffin, Justine Harlan, Nathan
Lehrman, Jessica Linder, Mike Moceri, John Orndorff, Janna Sanford, Nathan Thomas, and
Sheena Wildes — gave presentations of their work there, and three faculty members —
Page 1 of 15
Matthew Altman, Aaron Montgomery, and JoAnn Peters — presented papers on honors
pedagogy. Dr. Altman gave a talk explaining the DHC’s new upper-division scholarship
experience. This is a very high rate of participation. There were more Central students and
instructors presenting than from any other single school.
This continues the high rate of participation that we had last year, when we sent nine
students and three faculty members to present at the WRHC conference.
Next year’s conference will be held in Park City, Utah. Since the state will not allow us
to spend Ledger I money on out-of-state travel, I am concerned that we may not be able to send
anyone to the WRHC conference next year. I plan to make a proposal to the Student Activity Fee
Committee for funding next year.
Honors publication
The DHC director, Matthew Altman, published an article this year in Honors in Practice,
a publication of the National Collegiate Honors Council. The article is titled “Beyond the Great
Books: Increasing the Flexibility, Scope, and Appeal of an Honors Curriculum,” and it describes
the advantages of the new DHC curriculum.
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 December
(Frauen, Griffin, Linder, and Sanford) and one in March (Birkett, Herman, and Moceri), 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 June. The Senior Thesis Presentation is a semi-formal
event in which students give brief (twenty-minute) presentations on their capstone projects to
family members, faculty mentors, and DHC faculty and students. Four students presented in
March (Shiloh Frauen, Pearl Griffin, Jessica Linder, and Janna Sanford) and three students
presented in June (Kira Birkett, Amanda Herman, and Mike Moceri). Both events were wellattended, with about 50 people at the first event and 30 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 fourth 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 in conjunction with the Douglas Honors LivingLearning Community (LLC) in Kamola Hall. Among other things, events included a “fireside
chat” at which Dr. Altman discussed the upper-division scholarship experience and fielded
questions from students, a toga party, and an end-of-year student-faculty dinner.
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.
Page 2 of 15
The number of first-year students is up this year because of our recruitment efforts. In fall
2007 there were 13 entering freshmen, in fall 2008 there were 29 entering freshmen, and in fall
2009 there were 38 entering freshmen.
Recruitment of students continues to improve. For fall 2010, we have accepted 102
students into the program. As of June 30, there are 72 students who have been accepted to the
DHC and matriculated at Central. That is almost two and a half times the fall 2008 entering class
and almost twice the number from last year, which itself was a very good year for us. This will
be the largest entering class in the thirty-four-year history of the DHC.
We have also greatly improved retention of existing DHC students. In previous academic
years, many students left the program, especially during the first year. Attrition rates were as
high as 28%. For AY 2009-2010, the DHC lost no students. In fact, we began the year with 71
and ended the year with 72.
There are three reasons for these improved 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 potential students at on-campus events, signs
posted around campus, an advertisement in the Observer, etc. In addition, the director has met
personally with a number of students and parents.
Second, the DHC’s new curriculum is very attractive to entering students — more so than
the Great Books program. And many students credit the $1500/year tuition waiver as a great
enticement to apply to the program. Hopefully, we will be able to continue offering tuition
assistance, even in this tough budget climate.
Finally, the new DHC curriculum allows us to recruit existing CWU students during the
academic year. Although a few DHC students left the university during their first year, we were
able to retain our high numbers by encouraging new applicants into the program.
Because these high numbers are occurring at a time that department budgets are being
squeezed, Dr. Altman and Dr. Pellett have discussed (perhaps) capping enrollment in coming
years. Dr. Altman plans to have a hard application deadline, after which admission decisions will
be made. Up to and including this year, we used a rolling admissions schedule. The record high
number of applicants for AY 2010-2011 requires that we change this.
Bloomer Scholarship
This year the Bloomer Scholarship Committee (Altman, Abdalla, and Montgomery)
selected five students to receive the Bloomer Scholarship: Justine Harlan ($750), Veronica
Houser ($500), Reesa Nelson ($500), Amanda Niegowski ($500), and Sheena Wildes ($750).
Diversity Scholarship
This year, for the first time in many years, the DHC awarded a Diversity Scholarship to
Drake Mith ($500).
Outstanding Senior Thesis
The Outstanding Senior Thesis Award this year was awarded to Janna Sanford, for her
thesis, titled “The Other Gold Standard: A Literary Exploration of Human Monetary Value.”
Page 3 of 15
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 a much higher enrollment this year than in previous years, and we
have had to offer many more credit hours’ worth of classes, we have been able to do so while
remaining within the budget that we have had for several years. It is very notable that the DHC
continues to thrive more than it has for years, but in a way that is cost-effective. We can continue
to operate at this level in coming years, even with the much higher enrollment, provided that our
budget remains at its current level.
Curriculum revisions
AY 2009-2010 was the first year that we have offered courses in our new DHC core
curriculum. Retention is excellent, and formal and informal feedback from students is very
positive. The new curriculum is a resounding success.
Next year we will institute the new upper-division scholarship experiences. Classes have
been staffed and students are being recruited.
The major challenge facing the DHC is to schedule the right classes and the right number
of classes for our student population. We also need to encourage course proposals to fill gaps in
our existing course offerings.
Course proposals
The DHC received a number of excellent proposals (approximately twenty) from faculty
members throughout the university who are interested in teaching in the DHC. The courses that
we offering in AY 2010-2011 will be taught by faculty members from a variety of different
disciplines, and they include courses taught already in AY 2009-2010 and new courses that are
being taught for the first time next year.
Areas of improvement
The DHC is becoming a destination for the best and brightest students in the Northwest.
Of course, there is always room for improvement. We will need to develop an assessment plan
for the new DHC curriculum. We must continue to offer excellent cultural opportunities in a
more difficult economic climate. We must find ways to work guest speakers into a new
curriculum that doesn’t easily allow for a common reading experience among the different
classes. We also must offer the number and variety of courses that meet the needs of our growing
student population.
So far, we have been able to excel as an honors program. We must continue this strong
record of service to students and the university as a whole.
Page 4 of 15
Central Washington University
Assessment of Student Learning
Annual Report
Academic Year of Report:
College:
2009-2010
William O. Douglas Honors College
Note: This assessment plan covers only the DHC “Great Books” curriculum, which is in the
process of being phased out. Therefore, this assessment plan only covers students in the junior
and senior years. The DHC Curriculum Committee and the DHC director are in the process of
developing a new assessment plan for the core curriculum in the new DHC program. The new
program will be assessed beginning next year.
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.
Page 5 of 15
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
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 that 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 6 of 15
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 eight DHC students graduated from the university: Kira Birkett, Shiloh Frauen,
Pearl Griffin, Amanda Herman, Jessica Linder, Mike Moceri, Tristen Owens, Janna Sanford, and
Liz Wallace. In fall 2006, there was an entering class of twenty-two. That means that 36.4% of
the enrolled freshmen for fall 2006 completed the required coursework and graduation
requirements. This falls short of our goal of 50%.
However, it should be noted that only nine students remained after the first year, during
which most of the attrition took place. 88.9% of the students who remained at the end of the first
year ended up completing the program.
Also, retention rates under the new DHC curriculum are much better, as will be reflected
in next year’s assessment report. These numbers are also included as an Appendix to the yearend report. We lost no students this year to attrition, which is unheard of in the history of
the Douglas Honors College.
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, 88.6% of them (39 papers out of
44 collected) met or exceeded all five standards on the grading rubric. This easily meets the
criterion of achievement. The grading rubrics were completed by the appropriate colloquium
instructors.
Student and year (F/S/J/Sr)
Kiley Baker (J)
Krista Greear (J)
Justine Harlan (J)
Nathan Lehrman (J)
John Orndorff (J)
Brad Pitcher (J)
Nathan Thomas (J)
Sheena Wildes (J)
Shiloh Frauen (Sr)
Pearl Griffin (Sr)
Amanda Herman (Sr)
Elizabeth Lauderback (Sr)
Jessica Linder (Sr)
Mike Moceri (Sr)
Brad Pitcher (Sr)
A
2
2
2
3
2
Fall 2009
Outcomes
B C D
3 2 2
2 2 1
2 2 2
3 2 2
3 3 2
E
3
1
2
2
2
A
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
Winter 2010
Outcomes
B C D
3 2 2
3 2 3
2 3 2
2 2 2
2 3 2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
Page 7 of 15
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
E
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
A
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
Spring 2010
Outcomes
B C D
1 1 1
2 2 2
2 2 3
2 1 2
1 2 2
2 2 2
3 3 3
3 3 3
3 3 3
3 3 3
3 2 2
3 3 3
3 3 3
3 3 2
E
2
1
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
Met all expectations? (F/W/S)
Y/N/Y
N/Y/N
Y/Y/Y
Y/Y/N
Y/Y/N
Y
Y/Y/Y
Y/Y/Y
Y/Y/Y
Y/Y/Y
Y/Y/Y
Y/Y/Y
Y/Y/Y
Y/Y/Y
Y
Janna Sanford (Sr)
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
Y/Y/Y
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
Blank=Student did not take the class that quarter
c. Attendance and participation
Because of the difficulty of collecting attendance numbers from instructors — not
everyone took attendance, some absences were excused, etc. — we have dropped this measure of
achievement in this year’s assessment report. This is one of the changes we made in response to
last year’s report.
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.
Fall 2009
Class
DHC 331 (Altman)
DHC 431 (Erdman)
Average class score for lecture responses and/or quizzes
91% average for lecture responses
94.2% average for lecture responses
Winter 2010
Class
DHC 332 (Altman)
DHC 432 (Erdman)
Average class score for lecture responses and/or quizzes
91.5% average for lecture responses
90.3% average for lecture responses
Spring 2010
Class
DHC 333 (Altman)
DHC 433 (Erdman)
Average class score for lecture responses and/or quizzes
89.8% average for lecture responses
87.8% average for lecture responses
Page 8 of 15
Students in all of the classes met the goal of 80% for written examinations on the reading.
e. Student presentations
Ten DHC students presented papers at the Symposium on University Research and
Creative Expression (SOURCE) in May 2010: Kiley Baker, Shiloh Frauen, Krista Greear, Pearl
Griffin, Nathan Lehrman, Mike Moceri, Janna Sanford, Nathan Thomas, Heather Tonnemaker,
and Sheena Wildes.
Twelve students — Kira Birkett, Shiloh Frauen, Krista Greear, Pearl Griffin, Justine
Harlan, Nathan Lehrman, Jessica Linder, Mike Moceri, John Orndorff, Janna Sanford, Nathan
Thomas, Sheena Wildes — gave presentations at the Western Regional Honors Council
(WRHC) conference in April 2010.
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 fifteen. Twelve upperdivision students presented at the WRHC, which represents 80% participation. Nine upperdivision students presented at SOURCE, which represents 60% participation. Therefore, the
DHC easily accomplished its participation goal.
f. Capstone project (senior thesis)
At any given time, eleven seniors were working on senior theses this 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 (7 theses out of 7
submitted) met or exceeded all five standards on the grading rubric. (Grading rubric completed
by Laila Abdalla, DHC thesis supervisor.)
Student
Example: Jane Doe
Kira Birkett
Shiloh Frauen
Pearl Griffin
Amanda Herman
Jessica Linder
Mike Moceri
Janna Sanford
A
3
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
B
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Outcomes
C
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
D
3
3
2
3
2
2
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 9 of 15
E
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
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: Romeo et Juliet at the Northwest Pacific Ballet in
Seattle (fall 2009), the Yakima Symphony Orchestra at the Capitol Theater in Yakima (winter
2010), and The Thin Place at the Intiman Theatre in Seattle (spring 2010).
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 and events in the Performing Arts Presidential Speaker Series.
d. Exit survey
Seven students completed their DHC senior theses this year. We received exit surveys
from two students. The following chart summarizes the results.
Question:
Average score
Q1: Ability to understand and analyze texts (4pt scale)
4
Q2: Ability to relate the texts to other concepts and works (4pt scale)
4
Q3: Ability to advance and defend a thesis (4pt scale)
4
Q4: Ability to analyze and critically evaluate others’ claims (4pt scale)
4
Q5: Overall satisfaction with the DHC (4pt scale)
3.5
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 29% return rate (two students out of seven), 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
Very satisfied
X
Satisfied
Somewhat unsatisfied
Unsatisfied
X
The return rate for exit surveys was particularly low this year, probably for two different
reasons: surveys were emailed to students rather than distributed in class, and students felt that
feedback on the program was unnecessary given the change in the curriculum from the old, Great
Books program that they had taken.
Page 10 of 15
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 (junior and senior) students is fifteen. Twelve upperdivision students presented at the WRHC, which represents 80% participation. Nine upperdivision students presented at SOURCE, which represents 60% participation.
b. Faculty conference presentations
Three faculty members — Matthew Altman, Aaron Montgomery, JoAnn Peters —
presented papers on honors pedagogy at the WRHC. Dr. Altman gave a talk explaining the
upper-division scholarship experience in the new DHC curriculum.
Our criterion for achievement is to have at least one faculty member present. Three
faculty members participated, tripling our goal.
Department Goal 3: Service
a. Sponsorship of university-wide events and interdisciplinary programs
The Douglas Honors College co-sponsored one university-wide event with the Diversity
Education Center: architect and artist Maya Lin (winter 2009). We arranged for a
discussion/question-and-answer session with her for the students and faculty of the DHC. We
also offered a public guest lecture in advance of Lin’s visit: Dr. Matthew Altman gave a talk
titled “Maya Lin’s Aesthetic.”
The criterion for achievement in this category is to sponsor at least one talk or panel per
year. We achieved that goal.
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,
philosophy, religion, political theory, history, and the philosophy of science.
a. Required coursework
Fifteen out of fifteen students (100%) received a C or better in their required DHC
coursework for the junior and senior years.
The criterion for achievement is that at least 90% of students receive a C or better in
required courses. We exceeded this criterion of achievement.
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.
Page 11 of 15
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 29% return rate (two students out of seven), 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
Very satisfied
X
Satisfied
Somewhat unsatisfied
Unsatisfied
X
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
Fifteen out of fifteen students (100%) received a C or better in their required DHC
coursework for the junior and senior years.
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 “fairly well” or higher
for question #2, with an 80% return rate of the survey.
We had a 29% return rate (two students out of seven), 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
Very well
X
X
Fairly well
Somewhat
Not very well
Student Learning Outcome 3: cultivate own position on original source material and develop
skills to support them with argument and evidence
Page 12 of 15
a. Required coursework
Fifteen out of fifteen students (100%) received a C or better in their required DHC
coursework for the junior and senior years.
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 29% return rate (two students out of seven), and 100% of the students marked
“strong” or higher for question #3: “How would you rate your ability to advance and defend a
thesis?” Their responses are as follows:
Students
Survey #1
Survey #2
Very strong
X
X
Strong
Fair
Poor
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
Fifteen out of fifteen students (100%) received a C or better in their required DHC
coursework for the junior and senior years.
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
Fifteen out of fifteen students (100%) received a C or better in their required DHC
coursework for the junior and senior years.
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.
Page 13 of 15
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 29% return rate (two students out of seven), 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:
Students
Survey #1
Survey #2
Very strong
X
X
Strong
Fair
Poor
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 2010, the director of the DHC will discuss this data with DHC faculty and the
DHC Advisory Committee.
The new DHC curriculum will continue in fall 2010, 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 and implemented next year for the DHC core curriculum.
Therefore, the current assessment plan will only continue for one more year. Our experience with
the current assessment plan will be used to develop a better assessment plan for the core
curriculum in the new program.
Next year, exit surveys will be distributed in class, not as an email attachment, to ensure a
higher return rate.
5. What did the college do in response to last year’s assessment information?
We revised the assessment plan to make it more feasible. For example, we no longer
require attendance data as part of our assessment.
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 15
Freshmen
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Total Students
Fall 2002
Winter 2003
Spring 2003
Diff. Start/Finish
30
26
21
9
8
9
8
0
19
17
14
5
10
10
10
0
67
62
53
14
Average
60.67
Attrition Rate
20.90%
Fall 2003
Winter 2004
Spring 2004
Diff. Start/Finish
31
21
20
11
17
15
14
3
5
7
7
-2
15
18
15
0
68
61
56
12
Average
61.67
Attrition Rate
17.65%
Fall 2004
Winter 2005
Spring 2005
Diff. Start/Finish
16
14
11
5
20
16
13
7
14
12
12
2
7
6
5
2
57
48
41
16
Average
48.67
Attrition Rate
28.07%
Fall 2005
Winter 2006
Spring 2006
Diff. Start/Finish
23
17
15
8
7
7
7
0
10
8
8
2
9
10
9
0
49
42
39
10
Average
43.33
Attrition Rate
20.41%
Fall 2006
Winter 2007
Spring 2007
Diff. Start/Finish
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%
Fall 2007
Winter 2008
Spring 2008
Diff. Start/Finish
13
15
11
2
9
7
7
2
10
11
10
0
6
6
7
-1
38
39
35
3
Average
37.33
Attrition Rate
7.89%
Fall 2008
Winter 2009
Spring 2009
Diff. Start/Finish
29
23
17
12
9
9
7
2
8
7
7
1
9
8
9
0
55
47
40
15
Average
47.33
Attrition Rate
27.27%
First Year
39
39
40
Sophomore
18
18
16
Juniors
7
7
9
Seniors
7
9
7
Fall 2009
Winter 2010
Spring 2010
Page 15 of 15
Total Students Average
71
72
73
Attrition Rate
72
0%