Central Washington University
Assessment of Student Learning: Recreation and Tourism program
Department and Program Annual Report (December 2012)
Academic Year of Report: 2011 - 2012
Department: Family and Consumer Sciences
College: CEPS
Program: Recreation and Tourism
Introduction
Students who graduate with a major or minor from the Recreation and Tourism Program (RT) are meant to be
prepared to enter a profession which builds community, develops economies, and promotes sustainability.
In 2011-12, RT submitted curriculum changes and new programs that were successfully passed and the
programs now offered by RT follow, along with the number of registered majors and minors.
Major in Recreation and Tourism with 3 specializations: Recreation, Tourism, Event Planning (new effective
Fall 2012)
Five Minors in Recreation and Tourism: Tourism Management Minor, Recreation Management Minor, Event
Planning Minor (new 2011-12), Sustainable Tourism Minor (new 2011-12), and Wine Trade and Tourism
Minor.
As of Fall 2012, the numbers of Majors and Minors is as follows:
Nov. Major
Major Major Total
Minor Total
TOTAL
Minor
Minor Minor Minor
28,
M&
Tourism Rec
Events
Sustain
Wine
Majors
Tourism
Rec
Events
Minors
2012
M
Tourism
74
57
11
142
10
17
14
6
4
51
193
1
The current number of majors is similar to the previous two years. The number of minors, though, has
increased from about 35 to 51. RT’s objective, at current faculty levels, is to maintain ~200 majors and
minors combined.
This is the 4th program assessment stemming from five objectives set by RT faculty in 2008-09. Those five
objectives are set out again in this 2011-2012 report, and therefore we are able to offer some comparative data
in terms of grades and employer responses. While it is understood that not all objectives need to be reviewed
every year, most are. It appears that a reassessment of the five objectives, criteria, and reporting format is
due. Faculty feel that programmatic goals and assessment based on employer feedback merits the most
attention.
Some required courses within RT are “FCSG” (Family and Consumer Sciences General) which are
undertaken by any majors requiring similar competencies within the department. While five 5 FCSG courses
were implemented in Fall 2009, as of 2011-12, Recreation and Tourism is the only program utilizing all five
of the courses (FCSG 220, 230, 320, 379, 419).
Faculty in Recreation and Tourism 2011-2012 were: Full-time tenured/tt in RT: Dorothy Chase, professor;
Ken Cohen, associate professor; Barb Masberg, associate professor. Rob Perkins teaches partly RT and partly
FCSG core courses. Lecturer (more than half time) for the year was Jeff Zeigler, Ed. D. Adjuncts were Jeff
Hagler (Selah Parks and Recreation) and Jodi Hocter (Ellensburg Parks and Recreation).
Table 1 shows ongoing assessment methods. Table 2 contains the five (5) objectives used in assessment
beginning 2008-09, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and now 2011-2012. The assessment methods, participants,
results and impact are documented (Table 3)
Tables 4 and 5 contain feedback from site supervisors’ evaluations of students on RT 292 Practicum (Table 4)
and RT 490 Cooperative Education (Table 5).
With a strong practical/internship program (6 credits of practicum and 12 credits of internship of 97 total) RT
is able to take employers’ assessments as a strong external validation of whether skills taught in the
curriculum are being demonstrated to a satisfactory workplace level according to the perceptions of
supervisors in the field.
2
Table 1 How is Recreation and Tourism doing ongoing assessment?
Use of feedback by faculty in RT
RT’s Five Learner Outcomes
A. Demonstrate familiarity with In 2011 – 2012, faculty continued to analyze the placement of skills
the major concepts and
within courses and assessment thereof, resulting in not only changes to
historical antecedents in
all existing programs, but also the proposal and implementation of a new
recreation and tourism
specialization. Assessment has been made more rigorous and continues
to be refined. As appropriate, more than one method and sample are
B. Demonstrate ability to
measured against a criterion for most outcomes. .
design encounters
C. Apply practices of
management, marketing, and An Exit Survey (form) for graduating students has provided some data
from entering professionals, but has proved challenging to collect.
budgeting.
Multiple layers of evaluation are collected on our RT practicum and
D. Demonstrate professional
intern students at various workplace sites. In 2010-2011, the tourism and
practice to meet workplace
recreation sectors of our advisory committees were formalized and they
standards
continued in 2011-12 to provide valuable feedback on current and
proposed programs.
A considerable volume of feedback on students (and, by association, on
the RT program) comes in from a wide variety of employers. On
average, faculty receive 3 to 6 evaluations on RT majors and minors by
worksite supervisors during each student’s time in the program.
A mission statement for the RT program is under development. There is
expertise for this exercise within the faculty who teach leadership and
organizational development.
E. Define and identify
principles of sustainability
Concepts of sustainability have been introduced into three required
courses: RT 201 Introduction to Recreation and Tourism; RT 309
Sustainable Areas and Facilities; and RT 330 Sustainable Resources for
Recreation and Tourism. Applied projects elaborating sustainability are
used in the two 300 level courses. Three elective courses, RT 355
Sustainable Tourism: Contemporary Issues; RT 398 Sustainable Tourism:
International Perspectives (faculty-led study abroad); and RT 471 Tourism
Planning and Sustainable Development. All students therefore are tested
on sustainability concepts within the required courses, at least.
3
Table 2: Learner Outcomes Assessed in Recreation and Tourism
The Five Learner Outcomes of the
RT Program
Connection to
Family and Consumer Sciences (Department) Goals
A.
Demonstrate familiarity with
the major concepts and historical
antecedents in recreation and tourism
B. Demonstrate ability to design
encounters
Goal: Continue to improve student centered learning and the
quality of the curriculum within the department’s programs.
C.
Apply practices of
management, marketing, and
budgeting.
D.
Demonstrate professional
practices to meet workplace standards
Goal: Continue to improve student centered learning and the
quality of the curriculum within the department’s programs
E.
Define and identify principles
of sustainability
Goal: Continue to improve student centered learning and the
quality of the curriculum within the department’s programs
…Improve student learning by increasing applied learning and
service education opportunities (syllabi and faculty self
assessment)
Goal: Continue to improve student centered learning and the
quality of the curriculum within the department’s programs
…Improve student learning by increasing applied learning and
service education opportunities (syllabi and faculty self
assessment)
Goal: Continue to improve student centered learning and the
quality of the curriculum within the department’s programs
College and University
CEPS & CWU Goals
Goal 1: Provide for an outstanding academic and
professional growth experience for students at all
CWU locations. (CWU Goals 1,5)
Goal 1: Provide for an outstanding academic and
professional growth experience for students at all
CWU locations. (CWU Goals 1,5)
Goal 4: Build mutually beneficial partnerships with
alumni, industry, professional groups, institutions, and
the communities surrounding our campus locations.
(CWU Goal 4)
Goal 1: Provide for an outstanding academic and
professional growth experience for students at all
CWU locations. (CWU Goals 1,5)
Goal 1: Provide for an outstanding academic and
professional growth experience for students at all
CWU locations. (CWU Goals 1,5)
Goal 4: Build mutually beneficial partnerships with
alumni, industry, professional groups, institutions,
and the communities surrounding our campus
locations. (CWU Goal 4)
Goal 1: Provide for an outstanding academic and
professional growth experience for students at all
CWU locations. (CWU Goals 1,5)
Goal 3: Prepare students to participate in an
increasingly diverse economy and environment.
(CWU Goal 6)
4
Table 3: Assessment Methods, Participants, Results and Impact
RT Learner
Who and When was
Methods agreed upon for use
Outcomes
assessed? Criterion
A.
Criterion: For 200 level
Review of grades in any of these courses:
courses, a minimum
Demonstrate
standard of >70% in
familiarity
RT 201 Introduction to RT: Objective
objective exams was set.
with the
Exams
major
concepts*
and historical
antecedents
in recreation
and tourism
*leadership,
programming,
knowledge
of field
FCSG 220 Leadership in Human
Development (RT 302): Offered third year
11-12. Multiple majors. Scored on a
presentation in which students analyze a
particular “clientele” and accurately
describe that group and applicable theory
FCSG 320 Program Management and
Planning (formerly RT 221 Programming)
is a course offered for the third year 11-12
with multiple majors.
FCSG 220. Professor
Rob Perkins.
FCSG 320 (formerly RT 221)
Criterion: group project
presentations with grades
> 80 for 300 and 400 level
courses. Prof. Jeff Zeiger.
Results and Impact: What will the [program] do as a result of the
[assessment results]?
2011-12 final grade results:
Fall 2011
(n=52) Class mean of 1.92/4.00 or <70% (5 Withdrawals)
Winter 2012 (n=46) Class mean of 2.44/4.00 = >70% (1 W)
Spring 2012 (n = 48) Class mean of 2.49/4.00= > 70% (8 W)
In Fall of 2011, RT faculty determined that standards for potential majors,
especially in terms of writing level on tests and research assignments,
needed to be strengthened. Hence the class means are lower than in
previous years. Faculty does not consider this a negative result. Instead,
the criterion will be re-examined.
Based on RT 201 exams two years ago, it had been determined that
questions drawn from readings seemed to receive the lowest score. The
solution chosen was to present a more active class, and to draw assignments
from online sources, and greater use of internet research produced good
results. In 2011-12, a single instructor used multiple guest speakers,
including other faculty, to present the breadth of the field. A full class of
orientation with all four faculty speaking offered students a broader look at
the field and its supporting disciplines.
RT 201 Historical Data
Final Grades: RT 201 Spring 2011 (n=55) Class Mean of 76.8%
Winter 2011 (n=66) Class Mean of 79.32 %
Fall 2010
(n=57) Class Mean of 83.63 %
In all three quarters of 2010-11, the criterion was exceeded.
Objective Final Exams 2009-10
Spring 2010 (n=47) Class Mean of 74.7%
Winter 2010 (n=52) 68.1%
Fall 2009 (n=53) 71.55%
2008-09
Fall 2008 (n=60) 75%
Winter 2009 (n=65) 72.5%]
FCSG 220. Historical data: Winter 2011. Class mean on group projects = 93% (n=35).
Criterion Met. Cases are now in development to determine a greater depth of understanding and
to relate leadership concepts to professional life. The result on this criterion was similar to
Winter 2010, when the class mean on group projects = 95% (n=34).
FCSG 320 Historical data: Winter 2011: Class Mean project grade: 86%. The criterion was
exceeded. Project planning software is under development in the course.
[Historical Data: Winter 2010; Class mean project grade: 93.4%. Criterion exceeded
Winter 2009: mean =79.7%; Winter 2010=93.4%; Fall 2008 (RT 221): mean
73.5%]
5
B.
Demonstrate
ability to
design
encounters
FCSG 320 Program Management and
Planning (formerly covered under RT 221).
Students specifically learn the process of
designing activities, a common thread
between the recreation and tourism
specialties; programming is an essential
skill.
Multiple majors work in groups to envision,
create, and optoinally produce a community
encounter or event (e.g. Wheelchair
Basketball Tournament; Bark Park).
Students submit sections of the project, are
assessed, allowed to rewrite and resubmit.
Criterion: group project
presentations with grades
> 80%. Grades are based
on an extensive rubric,
including 360 evaluation.
FCSG 220 Leadership in Human
Development. Students were scored on a
project whereby they were required to
connect leadership theory to practice
through a specific group service-learning
project (e.g. animal shelter; seniors’ event)
Criterion: 200 level
courses > 70%.
RT 374. Festivals and Events
First taught in Spring 2011, this course was
developed to form part of a new
specialization in Event Planning.
Students were required to work in teams to
produce all aspects of a major public event;
the RT Senior Banquet.
C. Apply
practices of
budgeting,
management,
and marketing.
BUDGETING: FCSG 230 Program
and Event Budgeting (formerly included
within RT 483). Budgeting project and
objective exams (2 credits)
RT 490 site supervisor evaluation Q 22.d.
rate knowledge or ability in budgeting >4
on a 5 point scale.
FCSG 320. Grade criterion was met in Fall 2011 and Winter 2012 quarters
when it was offered. Greater technology input was given to this course with
Microsoft Project software required in student projects for the first time.
Project software was installed in Michaelsen.
FCSG 220 Grade criterion were met in all quarters. This hands-on project
has students designing and implementing encounters for various target
groups using the facilities of a challenge course. Leadership skills were
extended with introduction of RT 300 Challenge Course Leadership in
Spring 2010 as joint venture with OPR. It has now been offered 5 times and
refined.
Students were graded on this event in terms of teamwork, process, and
product. Student supervisors disciplined their teams. 360 feedback.
For RT 300/400 level
courses: Criterion is
Mean > 80%.
Criterion: While FCSG
230 is a 200 level course,
the criterion was set at
>80% mean on projects
and exams (as budgeting
was formerly included in
a 400 level class in RT).
The event produced by RT 374 in June 2012 (as in June 2011) included
CWU officials, alumni and recognition given to “young professionals,” thus
students received feedback from multiple, discerning audiences. It was very
successful. Student Project Managers & committees created and used an
HR rubric of compliance. Project participation was 50% of overall grade.
FCSG 230 Criterion met in all quarters.
Program and Event Budgeting was introduced for multiple majors Fall 09.
Also as of Fall 09, Budgeting is now required of all RT majors in both the
recreation and tourism specializations.
[Historical Data: Fall 09 Objective Exams class means were 90.96% and 93.5%.
Instructor made adjustments after the initial quarter and Winter 10 Objective Exams
class means were 81.75 and 80.37. Class means in two projects for Fall 09 were
100% and 100% (n=36); and for Winter 91.65% and 93.9% (n=36).
On RT 490 evaluation of student performance for 2011-12, many site
6
supervisors rated budgeting and accounting knowledge as non-applicable, or
else, low. This specific information is now not available with the more
generic Career Services evaluation form. RT has requested the inclusion of
additional questions related to course content. RT will discuss possibility of
higher skill level in financial courses, as original ACCT 301 requirement has
been replaced with option of BSED 106.
Criterion: >80% mean
for 400 level course.
Senior projects are
expected to be error-free
and at or above B+ .
RT 480 Tourism Administration This
capstone course requires students to do a
senior project (“mini-thesis”) involving
original research, data collection and
conclusions that answer a management
question. Writing and rewriting in stages
is utilized and these projects are valuable
for assessing exit level writing skills.
Course offered Winter and Spring.
[Historical: In 2010-11. Site supervisors rated Budgeting as 4 of 5, along with Accounting as
3.94. A third of the evaluators (11 of 33) in 2010-11 rated budgeting and accounting as nonapplicable to their internships, while RT 490 students’ (n=13) evaluation of the importance of
skills done prior to interning placed Budgeting (2.84/5.00) lowest in importance, followed by
Accounting (2.53/5.00) lowest. Students (n=11) self-assessing their own skills rated their skill
level in Budgeting at (2.36/5.00) and Accounting at (2.18/5.00). Faculty need to continue to
highlight the relevance of financial skills, especially for beyond-entry-level positions. The
numerical ineptitude was addressed 09-10 with the introduction of a basic accounting BSED
146 within FCS, and FCSG 230 Budgeting. RT – Tourism specialty accepts either BSED 146
Accounting or ACCT 301, but faculty encourage able students to take COB accounting and
even to minor in Business. It may be that in taking the budgeting and accounting skills down to
lower division levels, students’ knowledge is insufficient for their workplaces. This needs to be
re-assessed by RT faculty. It may also be that there is not time for students to learn site specific
financial systems during an internship; further questioning of employers may yield insight here.
RT 480 Tourism: Class mean 3.47/4.0 = >80% in Winter 2012 (n=14)
Class mean 3.24/4.0 (n=20) = >80% in Spring 2012.
[Historical: Winter 2011 class (n=12) mean 85.83 %.
Spring 2011 (n=16) mean 84.13 %.
Spring quarter, only 12 of 16 written projects were at or above B+.]
Senior projects: Original work includes primary research, evaluating a
program in the tourism field. As a result of individualized tutoring and
rewriting, writing levels were rated as very good, especially in winter.
Perhaps better students register earlier, in winter instead of spring!
Presentation of the projects, including slide presentations of data and
conclusions, received high scores. As in the past, students were again given
opportunities for small group meetings to discuss theses and review written
work. However, it has been concluded that scheduled one on one tutoring
sessions with instructor are really required for many students to produce a ~
A level written project. This is feasible with small classes and several
additional hours per week of the instructor’s time.
Feedback from interns in the summer following the course indicate that the
inclusion of more supervision topics, such as interviewing for hiring, are
appreciated. Two students presented their projects at SOURCE. In coming
year more SOURCE work will be promoted and working on the instructor’s
major research project is an option.
RT 488 Recreation Management
This capstone for Recreation specialists is
offered in Spring quarter only. After
Spring 09, SEOI’s had indicated that
students sought more “hands-on”
experiences that would cap the course and
give students the opportunity to apply
theory. Several projects were included.
Students in RT 488
Criterion: >80% mean
RT 488 Recreation: Class mean Spring 2012 (n=22) 2.90/4.00 = ~ 80%
[Historical: Spring 2011: Class mean grades 82.77% (n=13).
The Mean on the objective quizzes was equal to 80.5%]
7
Changes made to process were considered successful in terms of focusing on
discrepancies between application and knowledge indicated the necessity of
more practice of theory. Additional focus has been put on emphasizing
knowledge and providing opportunities for students to demonstrate their
knowledge. A self-directed inventory of core competencies is used and
areas in need of improvement are identified and individualized projects that
strengthen the identified core competency are developed in conjunction with
the instructor. Each student presents results.
RT 292 Practicum: Students majoring in
the RT Program complete 6 credits of
field experience (RT 292) A requirement
for completion of RT 292 is a Site
Supervisor Evaluation at the completion
of the experience (see Table 4 for
complete results from Site Supervisor
Evaluation of the Student)
RT 292 Criterion: >4.0
mean on a Likert Scale
[while it is a 200 level
course, see note
regarding supervisors’
perceptions]
The following item is included on the RT 292 Final evaluation by site
supervisors: Demonstrate competencies in planning, marketing,
administration, risk/legal, budgets/accounting, leadership, information
technology through core curriculum and approved electives. The mean
score from the Likert scale was 4.39 (see Table 4). A new form will go into
effect for Summer 2013 that breaks down content skills and also a format
Monkey or similar to obtain more complete data.]
[Historical data: 4.5 in 2010-11, 4.54 in 2009-10 and 4.44 in 2008-09] This criterion was met.
Additional work is being done in the reporting process for RT 292 to identify the courses
students have completed prior to registering for RT 292 in order capture their level of
competency on the items identified above.
RT 490 Cooperative Education (12
credits) is also required. Two Site
Supervisor evaluations are required of
students registered in RT 490; one at the
midpoint and one at the completion .
Table 5 contains data addressing
Outcome C.
Students registered in
RT 490 (n=21)
Criterion: >4.5 mean
on the Likert Scale
In RT 490, there are higher expectations, and the evaluation breaks down the
management components. Table 5 contains data gathered from site
supervisors about students’ abilities to demonstrate both hard and soft skills.
Criterion >4.5 on a 5
point Likert scale.
Table 4 contains data gathered from a sample of students registered in RT
292 all three quarters of 2011-12. It is compared with data from last year.
While the overall mean is 4.5 and all students except one received an A or
A- grade, several areas are below the 4.5 criterion: organization and
efficiency; communication skills; project management; critical thinking;
and subject content area. While RT has addressed written communication
within RT courses and verbal communication is strongly emphasized, RT
For both the evaluations above, a Likert
scale asking supervisors to score the
student based upon their agreement or
disagreement with the item listed is used.
D. Demonstrate
professional
practice to meet
workplace
standards
A requirement for completion of RT 292
is a Site Supervisor Evaluation at the
completion of the experience (Table 4)
Two Site Supervisor evaluations are
required of students registered in RT 490;
one at the midpoint and one at the
8
completion. Final evals tend to be higher
and are reported in Table 6. In 11-12,
faculty continued to stress stringent
learning objectives. A competitive
internship process with Suncadia that
included 4 departments of the resort hotel
continued. Employers are encouraged to
be accurate and realistic, and not only
encouraging, in their evaluations.
Students registered in
RT 490 Criterion: >4.5
mean on a Likert scale
will need to reconsider a (technical or business) writing course, or stronger
requirements from the Writing Center. It was expected such a course would
be available within the FCS department by this year but that has been
delayed. All RT faculty advertise the Writing Center on their syllabi.
Table 5 contains data on RT 490 gathered through Career Services from site
supervisors about students registered in RT 490. The criteria are much more
generic and so we do not have the same specificity regarding course content.
How that the feasibility of it has been determined, action has been taken to
include additional questions specific to RT course content on the 2013
Career Services Supervisor Evaluation form.
.
However, all areas are >4.5 except #7 creativity and problem solving skills.
Communication skills is one of the lower ratings at 4.67. Per comments
about RT 292, RT faculty will discuss.
FCSG 379 Professional Development and
Internship Preparation
Students continue to score highest on attitude / willingness at 4.87 (4.77 and
4.81 in prior two years), a factor which makes the students welcome at
workplaces. All employers responded that they are willing to host future
interns.
RT continues to use FCSG 379 (3 credits) for internship preparation and has
determined that a specific section on public speaking is needed. While
students are asked to make presentations in many classes, they are not
trained to do so.
Last year’s report suggested reintroducing a 200 level (1 cr) practicum
preparation course with the rationale that majors approached internships
without having completed their practicum credits first. This is still under
faculty consideration.
A self-assessment instrument prior to RT
490 of Professionalism, Performance on
the Job, Attitude and communication bas
been used some years.
E. Define and
identify
principles of
sustainability
RT 309 Facility Planning and
Sustainable Design. Instructor
evaluation of final project per rubric and
peer evaluation utilizing 360 degree
review criteria.
Criterion: Final student
project in RT 309 >
80%. Final grade class
mean >80%.
RT 309
Fall 2011 class mean (n=32)
3.22/4.0 = >80%
Winter 2012 class mean (n=25) 2.90/4.0 = ~80%
[Historically: Winter 2011 final grades – class average 84.92% (n=25)
Winter 2011 (n=) Final Project class mean
%.
[Winter 2010 (n=27) Final Project class mean 86%. Fall 2008 mean =83.3% (n=21); Winter
9
Criterion met over time. A tour of the new LEEDS
facility on campus was integrated into the course. SEOI’s indicated that this
new dimension assisted the students in successfully meeting the
requirements for the final project. More students are expressing a desire for
careers in RT that revolve around sustainable dimensions.
2009: mean=81% (n-17)].
RT 330 Sustainable Resources for
Recreation and Tourism: Limits of
Acceptable Change Project Score Means
of assessment: instructor evaluation of
final project per rubric and peer
evaluation utilizing 360 degree review
criteria.
RT 355 Sustainable Tourism:
Contemporary Issues
RT 498 Sustainable Tourism:
International Perspectives
Students registered in
RT 330 Spring quarter
will achieve a criterion:
>80% on Limits of
Acceptable Change
project. Students will
achieve >80% class
final mean in this upper
division requirement.
This course allows
students to see
applications of
sustainability in a
variety of agencies in
the RT field.
A cross-section of RT
students will participate
in the international
experience with a
resulting emphasis on
disseminating findings.
RT 330
Fall 2011 class mean (n=32)
3.04/4.0 = >80%
Spring 2012 class mean (n=30) 2.49/4.0 = <80%
As a result of the 2.49 mean, below the criterion, a challenging assignment
that required synthesis was changed to focus on analysis instead for Fall
2012 quarter.
[Historically: Spring 2011 (n=46) class mean final grades was 81.59%, meeting criterion
>80%.
Spring 09 (n=15) class mean on LAC project 86.6%, meeting the criterion. [Historically: Fall
2008: mean =83.0%]. What was learned: The original Limits of Acceptable Change assignment
assumed the students had greater understanding of the environmental dimensions of resource
based recreation than they actually possessed. Therefore the LAC component was deemphasized
as a stand- alone project and alternatively it was introduced as part of an adaptive management
system. In place of the stand-alone LAC assignment, a field experience at Manastash Ridge was
introduced for Winter 2009 and students acknowledged that additional time in the field applying
key concepts enriched their understanding of interrelated social interactions and environmental
impacts. The course was re-evaluated on learning objectives, SEOI’s, and advisory board
feedback, and a sustainable framework was formally adopted. Presently students are
completing their LAC final project utilizing a rubric. Scores from Spring 2010 and final
artifacts will be assessed and refined. Based on the elevation of the project in terms of
knowledge, skills, and application, it could be a service-based project culminating in a LAC
report for Manastash’s land management agencies.
This course is a requirement in the Sustainable Tourism minor and an
elective for the others. Students explore ethical and operational dimensions
of sustainable tourism. Students analyze media and make presentations
clarifying what is being promoted and what is being done.
Faculty-led trip did not take place in 2011-12. While efforts were made,
insufficient students registered.
[Historical: In June 2011, as in June 2010, twelve students traveled to Ecuador. Students
utilized a matrix of key criteria for measuring sustainability, and incorporated these
measurements into a final report. Students also kept reflective journals. Students shared their
analysis and experience via SOURCE presentations and presentations in RT courses]
10
Fall 2012
Results of
2011-2012
(n=22)
Fall 2011
Results from
2010- 2011
Means
(n=39)
June 2010
Results
From 09 -10
Mean (n=31)
4.5
4.64
4.85
4.72
4.7
4.8
4.63
4.52
4.74
4.86
4.7
4.58
4.80
4.64
4.68
4.75
4.74
4.78
4.52
4.41
4.7
4.68
4.55
4.90
4.73
4.50
Communications Skills (oral and/or written)
Demonstrate ability to effectively produce and
manage projects and activities in diverse groups
Demonstrate critical, conceptual and analytical
thinking skills
Demonstrate competencies in planning,
marketing, administration, risk/legal,
budgets/accounting, leadership, information
technology through core curriculum and
approved electives
4.24
4.63
4.42
4.49
4.28
4.76
4.55
4.56
4.14
4.77
4.48
4.63
4.39
4.5
4.54
4.44
Customer Service Skills
4.5
4.86
4.77
4.51
Overall Mean
4.5
4.71
4.62
4.63
Table 4: RT 292 Practicum Site Supervisor’s
Final Evaluation of Student (scores 1 – 5
with 5 high)
Demonstrate professional practice meeting
workplace standards
Dependability (attendance & punctuality)
Relationship with co-workers (cooperative,
flexible)
Motivation (initiative, self-starter)
Attitude (accepts criticism, interest in personal
and professional growth)
Judgment(common sense, maturity in decision
making)
Organization/Efficiency
June 2009
Results
From 08 - 09
Mean (n = 39)
4.85
4.61
11
Career Services form (effective 2012; Survey Monkey format)
Employer Final Evaluation of Interns
Poor (1) to Excellent (5)
Table 5: Spring 2012 and Summer 2012
Rate the student’s…
2. productivity
3. Attitude
4. Preparedness
5. Dependability
6. quality of work
7. creativity/problem solving skills
8. initiative
9. communication skills (verbal, written, etc.)
10. level of professionalism
11. interpersonal skills
12. overall rating
13. *Additional comments about the student
14. *Additional Recommendations to the student and/or University to better
prepare the students for a career in this area
15. Has the student been offered a position within your company
16. Did the student do an exceptional job – Intern of the Quarter Award
17. Would you be willing to provide future internship opportunities for CWU
students?
Mean
n = 15
4.73
4.87
4.6
4.9
4.8
4.46
4.67
4.67
4.8
4.67
4.73
See below
See below
9 Yes; 3 of
those part
time
3 nominated
All YES
Employer responses re questions 13 and 14:
*Continue to offer internships that provide practical work experience. They are invaluable to learn and
transition from the classroom to the workplace.
Veronica is one of the BEST interns the Adult Activity Center has had in the past four years!
Annelise was the best intern we have had to date. She was professional, hard working and a joy to work with.
She is well liked my those in our department and throughout the City.
Brief Remarks: It has been a pleasure working with Angie, She is a thoughtful and considerate person who
works well with others. Angie has enough working skills and knowledge to perform at a high standard. Angie
needs to transition from being a "doer" to becoming a proactive and dependable event or hospitality manager.
We wish Angie the best of luck in her future ventures.
13. Additional Comments (Strengths, weaknesses, work habits, objectives accomplished, commendable acheivements,
etc.)
12
Angie is a thoughtful and considerate person. She has a positive and caring manner when working with team.
Although Angie offers a "can do" attitude, she is not consistent in follow-up and attention to detail. Angie is
willing to assume responsibility. However, I cannot stress enough that Angie needs to focus on details when
completing any and every duty. I encourage Angie to take additional business and communication courses.
14. What additional recommendations would you make to the student and/or the University to better prepare the
students for a career in this area?
More time spent on budget planning. Emphasis on writing skills, preparing reports.
She received a variety of experience in the field this summer and did an excellent job!
My suggestions would be to work on written and verbal communication skills with clients. Assertiveness and
thoroughness with questions while in these scenarios.
14. What additional recommendations would you make to the student and/or the University to better prepare the
students for a career in this area?
Liz was prepared to do office work, and she did a great job. Tell others they will be doing the same.
Cody has become a key member of the team here at Rosario with his dependability, problem solving skills and
excellent customer service.
Jessica showed she had a working knowledge of computer programs, staff supervision, risk management, event
planning and more, so she gave me lots to work with in guiding her, I didn't have to teach her the basics.
Jill is a very hard worker, dependable, and got a lot of things done for us this summer. She was an asset to the
Dept and we enjoyed and appreciated her time spent with us.
14. What additional recommendations would you make to the student and/or the University to better prepare the
students for a career in this area?
Jill needs to network with other professionals in her interest area. She'll do great!
13