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: _2012-2013_ College: Arts & Humanities_______
Department ________________
Program: Asia/Pacific Studies___________
1. What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why?
In answering this question, please identify the specific student learning outcomes you assessed this year,
reasons for assessing these outcomes, with the outcomes written in clear, measurable terms, and note
how the outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and goals.
Student Learning Outcome # 1: Students will demonstrate an understanding of the Asia/Pacific
region’s diversity with 67% of students answering the exit survey question #4 with a 4 or higher and 85%
of majors and minors receiving a C of better in required courses
Student Learning Outcome # 2: Students will demonstrate the ability to engage the study of the
Asia/Pacific region from an interdisciplinary perspective with 67% of students answering the exit survey
question #3 with a 4 or higher and 85% of majors and minors receiving a C of better in required courses
Student Learning Outcome # 3: Students will recognize and engage the interactive nature of the
Asia/Pacific region and its overarching community of nations with 67% of students answering the exit
survey question #5 with a 4 or higher and 85% of majors and minors receiving a C of better in required
courses
Student Learning Outcome # 4: Students will analyze and assess issues from multiple
perspectives other than their own with 67% of students answering the exit survey question #6 with a 4 or
higher and 85% of majors and minors receiving a C of better in required courses
2. How were they assessed?
In answering these questions, please concisely describe the specific methods used in assessing student
learning. Please also specify the population assessed, when the assessment took place, and the
standard of mastery (criterion) against which you will compare your assessment results. If appropriate,
please list survey or questionnaire response rate from total population.
A) What methods were used?
1] Student grades from all their Asia/Pacific Studies coursework were compiled and averaged
together
2] Exit surveys were provided to all graduating seniors (example attached)
3] Senior Capstone Projects evaluated for content
B) Who was assessed?
1] All majors and minors enrolled in the program (23 total)
2] One graduating senior was provided with an exit survey (no response)
3] One senior capstone project completed in 2012-2013
C) When was it assessed?
1] At the conclusion of the 2012 academic year
2] Upon notice of program completion
3] Completion of capstone projects
3. What was learned?
In answering this question, please report results in specific qualitative or quantitative terms, with the
results linked to the outcomes you assessed, and compared to the standard of mastery (criterion) you
noted above. Please also include a concise interpretation or analysis of the results.
In all cases (Student Outcomes 1-4), students have met or exceeded the measurable goals. 93%
(15 of 16) of students met the C or better goal in required classes.
Asia/Pacific Studies students generally do very well in the programmatic required courses. As
noted in an earlier report, the biggest impediment to maintaining an exemplary grade point average and
success in the program appears to lie in the language component (understandably so, given the nature of
the Japanese and Chinese languages). As in the past, those students double majoring in A/PS and one
of the two Asian languages maintain a stronger performance in their coursework overall than do those
who are taking the languages solely for A/PS requirements. This observation corroborates the earlier
speculation that there appears to be a strong correlation between majoring in Japanese or Chinese and
the development of a well-rounded, academically solid program. Continued analysis of this correlation will
take place, especially with growing numbers of majors.
Major and minor GPAs in required courses (listed below) indicates that students are generally
meeting or exceeding programmatic goals.
Student
Course GPA
A
2.3
B
3.83
C
3.33
D
3.116
E
2.35
F
3.45
G
4
H
1.88
I
4
J
3.9
K
3.3
L
4
M
3.85
N
3.6
0
3.56
P
3.35
Q
Study Abroad
R
No relevant courses
S
No relevant courses
T
No relevant courses
U
No relevant courses
One senior capstone project was completed this past year. The research paper received a B+ for
good, integrative work, demonstrating a workable command of the material and an overall understanding
of contemporary issues in the Asia/Pacific region and the United States. For the first time since its
implementation as a program requirement, this capstone project was supervised by some one other than
the Program Director. We anticipate continuing and expanding that welcome development.
4. What will the department or program do as a result of that information?
In answering this question, please note specific changes to your program as they affect student learning,
and as they are related to results from the assessment process. If no changes are planned, please
describe why no changes are needed. In addition, how will the department report the results and
changes to internal and external constituents (e.g., advisory groups, newsletters, forums, etc.).
As noted in last year’s report, a more uniform method of organizing and offering the Capstone
course/project needs to be developed and implemented. We have begun that process, with last year’s
sole project being supervised by a faculty member other than the Program Director. The students in the
program no longer appear unprepared or surprised about the requirement; however, we still need to work
on coordinating their projects within an existing course structure, or as part of a course that they are
enrolled in concurrently (as originally designed in the program). For the most part, we have addressed the
inconsistency through uniform advising (although all current students remain under the advisement of the
Program Director), coordination among program faculty, and a greater emphasis being placed on the
importance of students giving more and earlier forethought to the nature of their intended projects.
There continues to be a greater need (as with most programs across campus) to increase the
response rate of senior surveys. Again, as noted in last year’s report, the disparate nature of the program,
with students taking courses across multiple disciplines and often completing their programs in their junior
or early senior years, contributes to the difficulties in ensuring adequate response rates. We continue to
face difficulties insofar as many of our students (as the program encourages) go abroad immediately after
completing their programs, complicating communications and response rates. Faculty (especially the
Program Director) have begun to identify those students earlier and ensure that surveys are distributed
and completed prior to departure. We are also going to begin distributing the surveys as part of the
culmination of the senior capstone project. While not ideal, this solution should go a long way to gathering
better and more consistent assessments.
The faculty is generally pleased with the performance of our majors and minors within the
required and elective courses. While course grades and performances ranged from a low of 1.88 to a
high of 4.0, overall our students are doing well in the program structure. Student’s express a great deal of
satisfaction with the programmatic division into Social Science, Humanities and Aesthetics categories
(more specific, qualitative data is obviously needed to support this assertion), and the overall student
GPA of 3.36 (an improvement over last year’s 3.07 average) is a good indication that students are
generally performing well across the board and across disciplinary lines. While noting an improvement in
overall performance, analysis of individual grades reveals that several students performed much lower
than expected in several core (non-language) courses, with the 4.0 GPA’s skewing the general numbers
slightly. Faculty have begun working more closely with those students in an attempt to identify any
systemic problems. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the tenuous nature of the Asian History position
may have been a contributing factor; with a new tenure-track hire in that area, we are anticipating the
resolution of any such concerns and problems. Also, as noted above, one identifiable strength of our
students is their ability to work outside of traditional disciplinary boundaries and incorporate their overall
education about Asia into a variety of courses and academic approaches. We will therefore continue to
emphasize these diverse approaches.
One issue that arose this year involves the number of program students (both majors and minors)
who spent part or all of the year studying abroad. On the one hand, this is a very positive development
insofar as the program obviously emphasizes the desirability of experiencing Asia first hand. On the other
hand, we have great difficulty assessing the overall quality of the education they receive, even though
those grades and course content are readily accepted in meeting programmatic requirements. The
Director has (pro)actively met with students prior to leaving for such experiences, advising them as to
which courses, etc. would be most appropriate and transferable. However, we can neither guarantee nor
monitor the quality of those courses. Once again, anecdotal evidence points to inconsistencies in
academic rigor, expectations, and grading standards. For this year’s report, study abroad credits and
grades were purposely disregarded and do not appear in the above calculations. This is one area that
needs to be addressed in the upcoming revisions, discussed below.
There remains a clear need to develop more robust and diversified methods of assessing student
learning. This is a priority for the Program Director and associated faculty in 2013-2014. The election of a
single full-time Director beginning Fall 2013, with adequate release time, will facilitate greater attention to
revisiting the assessment rubrics. Generous support from the Provost’s office for programmatic faculty
development will also be used to address this pressing need.
5. What did the department or program do in response to last year’s assessment
information?
In answering this question, please describe any changes that have been made to improve student
learning based on previous assessment results. Please also discuss any changes you have made to your
assessment plan or assessment methods.
Please see the report above for changes in directing capstone projects and administering exit
surveys.
6. Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Student Learning at
Central Washington University:
N/A