7/24/2016
Central Washington University
Assessment of Student Learning
Department and Program Report
Please enter the appropriate information concerning your student learning assessment
activities for this year.
Academic Year of Report: _2010-2011_______ College: College of the Sciences
Department ____Law and Justice___________ Program: ________________
1. What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why?
Our department assessed five learning outcomes specified by CWU writing rubric. The
outcomes included content, reasoning, organization, rhetoric of the discipline, and
conventions & presentation (grammar, mechanics, syntax, academic conventions, and
expression). The department assessment committee decided to use the university writing
rubric for assessment rather than the law and justice rubric because the five writing areas
are consistent with the departmental learning outcomes for the criminological theory
paper for LAJ 451 (Crime in America). They include: demonstrate communication skills,
discuss relevant theorists and historical context of theory, apply a major criminological
theory to explain criminal behavior, connect particular criminological theory to criminal
justice policy, recognize and explain weaknesses of particular criminological theory, and
use of appropriate references and consistent referencing style. In particular, we used the
five learning outcomes to assess the student papers:
1. Student writings will demonstrate the element of content. We measured this
learning outcome by analyzing the target writing that involves the skill of selecting the
appropriate criminological theories for the assignment, presenting relevant, accurate, and
necessary research evidence testing the theories. In addition, we evaluated the student’s
understanding of the purpose of the paper as a whole. For example, they should be able to
recognize and explain both strengths and limitations of a chosen criminological theory,
as well as to apply the theory to elucidate criminal behavior.
2. Student writings will demonstrate the element of reasoning. This learning
outcome was measured by discerning the arrangement of basic elements of each artifact.
We assessed the components of the writing, such as the student’s proposed hypotheses,
assumptions, claims, ideas, and how each paper employs evidence and sources
supporting their claims and propositions. We also paid close attention to how students
1
7/24/2016
arranged the evidence in relation to their assumptions, logic, complex reasoning,
including their depth of thinking (e.g., show insights about complicated connections
among social, family, psychological, and legal factors in relation to crime involvement or
prevention) and how they used their arguments and research to reach conclusions or
criminal justice policy recommendations.
3. Student writings will demonstrate the element of organization. We measured
this learning outcome by evaluating how the artifacts used appropriate headings,
transitions, and other signposts to guide the reader and connect all parts of the writing to
fit the paper’s central arguments, as well as to integrate some visual elements (e.g.,
figures, tables), if necessary, with the verbal components.
4. Student writings will demonstrate the element of rhetoric of the discipline. This
learning outcome was evaluated by identifying how each paper shows the knowledge of
and familiarity with the most typical criminal justice vocabularies and important
criminological theories, basic postulates, disciplinary ways of thinking (e.g., information
about historical context of theory, apply a major criminological theory to explain criminal
behavior, connects particular criminological theory to criminal justice policy), and
relevant supporting empirical research. They needed to demonstrate how to present the
information to both professionals within the discipline and an audience outside the
discipline.
5. Student writings will demonstrate the element of conventions and presentation.
We measured this learning outcome through assessing the artifacts for accurate and
complete citing of relevant information (e.g., following the APA style), and following the
rules of required grammar, mechanics, syntax, academic conventions, and expression
(those are required for college level writings).
These learning outcomes were measured because sound written communication skills are
required by all criminal justice and legal agencies for employees. In addition, sound
written communications skills prepare students to pursue advanced academic degrees,
engage in research, and present at conferences and publications. These learning
outcomes are related to departmental goal 1 - Assure the presentation of high quality
program; and college goals 1, 2 and 7 - Provide for an outstanding academic experience
in COTS; provide for an outstanding academic and student life in college programs and
courses at the university centers; college programs and courses at university, and create
and sustain productive, civil, and pleasant learning environments. These outcomes are
also supportive of university goals 1, 2 and 3 -- Maintain and strengthen an outstanding
academic and student life on Ellensburg and University Center campuses and build
inclusive and diverse campus communities that promote intellectual inquiry and
encourage civility, mutual respect, and cooperation. Increase the emphasis on and the
2
7/24/2016
opportunities for students, faculty and staff to participate in research, scholarship and
creative expression activities.
2. How were they assessed?
A) What methods were used?
1. During each quarter of the academic year, the LAJ assessment committee informed
the faculty members who taught LAJ 451 that they were required to collect student
writing assignments in that course and turned them to the committee for assessment at the
end of the quarter.
2. Five learning outcome criteria specified by the CWU writing rubric were used to
assess the sample of artifacts (paper assignments for LAJ 451 Crime in America),
including (1) content, (2) reasoning, (3) organization, (4) rhetoric of the discipline, and
(5) conventions & presentation (grammar, mechanics, syntax, academic conventions, and
expression).
3. We randomly selected 15% of the 192 artifacts collected from LAJ 451 (see below for
further explanation) for assessment, resulting in 29 artifacts in the sample.
B) Who was assessed?
According to the COTS’ guideline for writing assessment and related law and justice
department’s assessment schedule, we implemented the assessment of the artifacts
(writing assignments) from students attending LAJ 451 (Crime in America) at the
Ellensburg campus, Pierce County Center, and the online class (which includes mainly
Westside students and only a few students in Ellensburg) during the 2010-2011 academic
year. In particular, there were a total of 224 students who were enrolled in LAJ 451
during this period and 192 papers were turned in (response rate 85.7%) and were used as
the valid population from which to select the assessment sample (a small number of the
missing artifacts resulted from students’ failure to complete the assignments). To divide
the artifacts by quarters, in Fall 2010, 41 (representing response rate 100%) and 15
(response rate 79%) artifacts were collected from Ellensburg and Pierce County Center,
respectively. In Winter 2011, 31 (response rate 94%) and 62 (response rate 82%) artifacts
were collected from Ellensburg and the online class (two sessions), respectively. In
Spring 2011, 18 (response rate 78%) and 25 (response rate 76%) artifacts were collected
from Ellensburg and the online class, respectively.
The LAJ assessment plan and the university guideline specified that the sample size
should be about 15% of the population. We randomly selected 15% of the 192 artifacts
for assessment, resulting in 29 artifacts in the sample for analysis. This sample includes
12 native and 17 transfer students.
3
7/24/2016
C) When was it assessed?
The course assessment took place during the month of November, 2011.
3. What was learned?
Table 1A shows the percentage of the students who passed the five criteria for
written communication and those who did not pass the requirements, and then further
breaks down this percentage into native and transfer students.
Table 1A.
Analysis of Pass/NonPass for LAJ Students, with Native and Transfer Students
Breakouts in LAJ 451 Course (Sample Size: N=29)
Rubric Element
Total Pass
Pass
Pass
(%)
Native
Transfer
Native
Transfer
Content
89%
10/34%
16/55%
2/7%
1/3%
Reasoning
69%
9/31%
11/38%
3/10%
6/21%
Organization
82%
9/31%
15/52%
3/10%
2/7%
Rhetoric of the Discipline
86%
11/38% 14/48%
1/3%
3/10%
Conventions & Presentation
73%
8/28%
13/45%
Non-Pass Non-Pass
4/14%
4/14%
* N/% refers to the number of students/ percent of the total sample.
Interpretation of Table One:
1) The overall pass rate this year is slightly lower than last year when we take into
consideration the different theme requirements for LAJ 451 and averaging the 5-area
rates, resulting in 80% pass rate. Written communication was evaluated last year in LAJ
300 (Criminal Justice Administration) and in LAJ 420 (Community and Social Justice)
by the LAJ assessment committee, though only the departmental rubrics were used. LAJ
300 had the pass rate of 74% and LAJ 420 had the pass rate of 93%, resulting in an
average pass rate of 83.5%.
2) Table 1 shows that of those that passed content, 34% were native students and 55%
were transfer students. For reasoning, 31% of the passing students were native students
and 38% were transfer students. For organization, rhetoric of the discipline, and
conventions and presentation 31%, 38% and 28% of the passing students were native
4
7/24/2016
respectively and 52%, 48% and 45% were transfer students. As shown in Table 1,
transfer students make up a higher percentage of the passing students in all the five
outcomes. The differences can be attributed to the higher number (17) of transfer
students in contrast to 12 native students in the sample.
One way to control for the different numbers of students in the transfer and native
category is to compare the relative rate of passing each area between groups. This
information is presented in Table 1B.
Table 1B Analysis of Pass/Non-Pass for Native vs. Transfer Students in LAJ 451 Course
(Sample Size: N = 29)
Rubric Element
Native
Transfer
(N=12)
(N=17)
Pass
NP
Pass
NP
Content
10/83%
2/17%
16/94%
1/17%
Reasoning
9/75%
3/25%
11/65% 6/35%
Organization
9/75%
3/25%
15/88% 2/12%
Rhetoric of the Discipline
11/92%
1/8%
14/82% 3/18%
Conventions & Presentation
8/67%
4/33%
13/76% 4/23%
Interpretation of Table 1B
1) Table 1B shows that the pass rate for transfer students is higher than native
students in the areas of content, organization, and conventions and presentation,
while the pass rate for native students is higher than transfer students in the area
of reasoning and rhetoric of the discipline. Unfortunately, the N sizes are too
small, and therefore unstable, to meaningfully test for statistically significant
differences between these two groups.
5
7/24/2016
Table 2 demonstrates the pass/non-pass percent for students at three locations.
Table 2.
Analysis of Pass/Non-Pass for Students in Three locations in Course LAJ 451
(Sample Size: N=29)
Rubric Element
Ellensburg
Online
Pierce
(N=14)
(N=10)
(N=5)
Pass
NP
Pass
NP
Pass
NP
Content
13/93% 1/7/% 8/80% 2/20% 5/100% 0/00%
Reasoning
11/79% 3/21% 5/50% 5/50%
4/80%
1/20%
Organization
13/93%
3/60%
2/40%
Rhetoric of the Discipline
12/86% 2/14% 7/70% 3/30% 5/100% 0/00%
1/7%
8/80% 2/20%
Conventions & Presentation 12/86% 2/14% 5/50% 5/50%
4/80%
1/20%
Interpretation of Table Two:
1) Because the small sizes of the students at each of the three locations, the division and
meaningful comparison between native and transfer students within each location become
unnecessary and ineffective. Therefore, it was not performed.
2) In general, students in Ellensburg had a higher pass rate than the online students
in all the five criteria: content (93% vs. 80%), reasoning (79% vs. 50%),
organization (93% vs. 80%), rhetoric of the discipline (86% vs. 70%), and
convention/presentation (86% vs. 50%). However, Pierce students had a higher
pass rate than Ellensburg in content (100% vs. 93%), reasoning (80% vs. 79%),
rhetoric of the discipline (100% vs. 86%). Ellensburg had a higher pass rate in
performance than Pierce in organization (93% vs. 60%) and
convention/presentation (86% vs. 80%). Unfortunately, the N sizes are too small,
and therefore unstable, to meaningfully test for statistically significant differences
between these two groups.
6
7/24/2016
4. What will the department or program do as a result of that information?
1) The LAJ assessment committee will meet with all faculty members and share and
discuss the findings.
2) Because the LAJ online major and minor are to be implemented in 2012, the
department will examine and propose strategies to provide service to online students in
their writing projects.
3) Further agreement among LAJ faculty at different locations may be needed regarding
the paper focus for LAJ 451 and other courses in order to reach more consistency across
campus locations.
5. What did the department or program do in response to last year’s assessment
information?
1) Faculty members furthered their efforts to encourage students to take advantage of
services offered by the writing centers and library staff in all the CWU locations to
improve student communication, library and information literacy skills.
2) Faculty members discussed and explored active learning strategies and other teaching
methods and other ways of assessing outcomes at department meetings.
3) Faculty continued to consistently turn in artifacts for assessment.
6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Student Learning at Central
Washington University:
The Law and Justice Department Assessment Committee would be very interested in learning
about best practices in assessment from other departments.
7
7/24/2016
Appendix A:
CWU Writing Rubric
Elements
Content
Pass
No Pass
 The topic is appropriate for the assignment.
 Topic is not appropriate for the assignment.
 The paper as a whole has a clear sense of purpose.
 Individual paragraphs and/or paper as a whole lack a clear
sense of purpose. It may lack a thesis, controlling idea, or
introduction and conclusion.
 Evidence or information presented in the paper is relevant,
accurate, necessary, and complete.
 Substantial parts of the writing may be irrelevant,
inaccurate, or only weakly connected to the purpose. There
may be insufficient evidence or information, or little effort to
limit information.
No Pass: 
Content overall:
Pass: 
 The claims, ideas, and purpose are significant.
 Claims and ideas are supported by appropriate evidence
and sources.
 Assumptions are recognized and made explicit.
Reasoning
 Analysis and interpretation show some combination of the
following: depth of thinking, logical reasoning, complex
reasoning, accurate conclusions, and/or informed
recommendations.
Reasoning overall: Pass
 Overall organization fits the paper’s purpose.
Organization
 The paper uses appropriate headings, transitions, and other
signposts to guide the reader.
 The paper’s parts are connected to each other and to the
overall purpose.
 Visual elements, if used, are integrated with verbal
elements.
Organization overall: Pass 
 Demonstrates knowledge of the subject.
Rhetoric of
the
Discipline
(optional for
Gen Ed)
Conventions
and
Presentation
 Use of specialized concepts demonstrates understanding.
 The paper’s genre, format, language, and tone are
appropriate to the discipline.
 The paper shows evidence of disciplinary ways of thinking
and awareness of audience.
Rhetoric of the Discipline overall: Pass 
 The text shows evidence of crafting, editing, and
proofreading. Errors may be present, but they do not impede
meaning.
 Information is cited accurately and completely.
 The claims and ideas in the paper may be self-evident,
simplistic, or underdeveloped.
 Claims and ideas not are supported by evidence or only by
weak evidence.
 The analysis may rest on unstated or unexamined
assumptions.
 Analysis and interpretation are underdeveloped, vague, or
overly general.
No Pass: 
 The paper may seem haphazard and may be difficult to
follow.
 Paper lacks adequate signposting.
 The progression of thought is unclear.
 Purpose of visual elements is unclear.
No Pass: 
 Knowledge of the subject flawed or limited or it is not
possible to determine.
 Use of specialized concepts inappropriate or inadequate.
 Shows little or no awareness of genre, format, language,
and tone used in the discipline.
 Little evidence of disciplinary ways of thinking and/or
awareness of audience.
No Pass: 
 Frequent errors and/or insufficient variety and complexity
of sentences. Errors may impede meaning.
 Citation is incomplete or there are serious flaws in
documentation.
8
7/24/2016
 Format of paper, including any visuals or diagrams, is
effective.
Conventions and Presentation overall:
 Format is inappropriate and/or visuals and diagrams
Pass 
No Pass:
9