revised 3/19/07
Spring 2007 Semester Program Assessment Report
(Please provide electronic and hard copy to your college facilitator.)
Degree program*: Kinesiology (Grad)
Department: Kinesiology
Chair: Shirley Reekie
Department Phone: 4-3068
Report Prepared by: Ted M. Butryn (Graduate Coordinator) Date: 5/1/2007
*Where multiple program curricula are almost identical, and SLOs and assessment plans are identical,
it is acceptable to list more than one program in this report.
Please list all Student Learning Outcomes/Objectives (SLOs) for this program in Tables 1A & 1B.
Table 1A. Learning Outcomes (all outcomes if one program reported, or common outcomes if
multiple programs reported on this form.)
SLO #
Exact wording of Student Learning Outcome (SLO)
1
Students will be able to demonstrate the ability to synthesize information and
communicate it clearly and concisely in a written manner utilizing appropriate APA
style in the discipline of Kinesiology
2
Students will be able to demonstrate the ability to synthesize information in
Kinesiology and communicate it clearly and concisely in an oral manner
3
Students will be able to demonstrate the acquisition of knowledge, and strength in an
area of study, within Kinesiology through the graduate culminating experience
Table 1B. Unique Learning Outcomes, if multiple programs reported on this form.
Program Name:
SLO #
Exact wording of Student Learning Outcome (SLO)
Program Name:
SLO#
Exact wording of Student Learning Outcome (SLO)
Page 1
revised 3/19/07
Please complete the schedule of learning outcome assessment below by listing all program SLOs by
number down the left column and indicating whether data were/will be collected (C), when they
were/will be discussed by your faculty (D) and when changes resulting from those discussions
were/will be implemented (I).
NOTE: * SJSU must provide data to WASC for all SLOs by the end of Sp07.
Table 2
C = data Collected
SLO #
1
D = results Discussed
F05 or
earlier
Sp06
F 06
C
2
3
I = changes (if any) Implemented
Sp07
F07
Sp08
Collecting as
I grade final
papers
(Butryn)
C
Will collect
C
Will collect
1. Check the SLOs listed at the UGS Website (www.sjsu.edu/ugs/assessment/programs/objectives).
Do they match the SLOs listed in Tables 1A and 1B?
_____X___ YES
______ NO
2. Fall 2006 Performance Data: Describe the direct assessment (performance) data that were
collected in fall 2006 (‘C’ in F06 column of Table 2), how much and by whom. Be specific, for
example: Instructors in two sections (60 students) of PSYC 150, Anagnos and Cooper, gave an embedded
exam question and in their summary report indicated the % of students who earned a ’B’ or better, ‘C’, or
less than ‘C’ using the same grading rubric for that question.
SLO #
3
Page 2
Data collected, how much, by whom**
SLO #3 data was collected by all faculty in the KIN department who, during the course of
the Fall 2007 semester: 1) had a thesis student attempt to defend their KIN 299 thesis,
and/or 2) had a masters student attempt to defend their KIN 298 poster project. Faculty
in this category included: Butryn, Cisar, Kahanov, Lilienthal, & Megginson For each
student attempting one of the aforementioned defenses, the faculty member completed
one SLO #3 assessment summary sheet. Results of the assessment data indicated that of
11 total students (1 thesis and 10 poster project), all (100%) were deemed competent in
terms of SLO #3. Further details, however, revealed that students varied on their success
in terms of the content, organization, grammar, and style of their theses/projects. More
specifically, 9 of the 11 students were deemed excellent in terms of content, while the
other 2 were given above average evaluations. Regarding organization, 8 were deemed
excellent, 2 above average, and 1 average. In terms of grammar, 7 rated excellent, while 2
rated above average and 2 average. Finally, in terms of style, 8 were deemed excellent,
while the remaining three were rated above average. In short, the one area that stood out
as perhaps needing work, in terms of the learning objective, was grammar. One possible
mechanism that the graduate program may put in place for the next SLO#3 assessment
(Spring 08) is in-class writing assignments that will figure into the course grade, and thus
be part of assessment. On a positive note, though, all students who completed theses or
projects in the Kinesiology department did so successfully.
revised 3/19/07
3. Fall 2006 Indirect Measurement (if any): Describe the indirect assessment data that were
collected in fall 2006 (‘C’ in F06 column of Table 2), how much and by whom. Be specific, for
example: 50 employers were surveyed by Margaret Wilkes, Career Planning and Placement about
performance of recent hires who graduated from our program in 2004-5.
SLO #
Data collected, how much, by whom**
1
2
etc.
4. Fall 2006 Findings/Analysis: Describe the findings that emerged from analysis of data collected in
F06. Be specific. For Example: less than 50% of students met criteria for teamwork outcome. OR
Employers indicated students have sufficient teamwork skills, no change needed.
Finding 1 (SLO # (s))
Finding 2 (SLO # (s))
Finding 3 (SLO # (s))
See above.
etc.
5. Fall 2006 Actions: What actions are planned and/or implemented to address the findings from fall
2006 data? These are indicated by ‘I’ in Table 2 for the SLO data collected in fall ’06. Examples of
actions taken include curricular revision, pedagogical changes, student support services, resource
management. Be specific. For example: revising ENGR 103 to include more teamwork.)
Planned
For Fall 2007, we (the graduate committee) plan to revisit out SLO#3, and the
entire KIN 298 Project option, to ensure that it is yielding the best quality output
from students. The logistics of assessing all students in a single final culminating
poster session are not ideal, it has been the most efficient means of evaluating
SLO#3.
Planned
Implemented
Implemented
6. Fall 2006 Process Changes: Did your analysis of fall 2006 data result in revisiting/revising the
Student Learning Outcomes or assessment process? Yes __ No __X_.
If the answer is yes, please explain and submit an updated version of the Student Learning
Outcomes and/or assessment plan.
Page 3
revised 3/19/07
7. Spring 2007 Performance Data: Describe the direct assessment (performance) data that were
collected spring 2007 (‘C’ in Spr07 column of Table 2), how much and by whom. Be specific. For
example: Instructor for MATH 188 (30 students), Stone, gave 3 embedded exam questions and in his
summary report indicated the % of students who met or did not meet SLO #2.
SLO #
1
Data to be collected, how much, by whom**
As was the case in the first attempt at SLO #1 assessment in the Fall of 2006 (see
previous assessment report), the instructor (Butryn in Spring 2007) designated to grade
the final proposal papers in KIN 250 (Research Methods) will use the standard rubric to
help grade papers according to content, organization, grammar, and style. Further, using
the standard of a “B or above” the faculty member will determine of total percentage of
students in the KIN 250 course that are deemed competent on SLO #1. Assessment is
currently underway, as students turned in these final major proposals last week, the final
week in April of 2007.
8. Spring 2007 Indirect Measurement (if any): Describe the indirect assessment data that were
collected (‘C’ in Spr07 column of Table 2), how much and by whom. Be specific, for example: 100
alumni were surveyed by the department with questions related to SLOs #1 & #2.
SLO #
1
2
etc.
Data collected, how much, by whom**
N/A
9. Fall 2007 Direct Measurement: For the SLOs scheduled to be assessed in fall 2007, describe the
direct (performance) data that will be collected, how much and by whom.
Be specific, for example: Instructors in two sections of ART144, will assess SLOs #3 & #4 using a common
rubric on the students’ final paper.
SLO #
1
2
etc.
Page 4
Data to be collected, how much, by whom**
Student Learning Objective #2, again, states: Students will be able to demonstrate the
ability to synthesize information in Kinesiology and communicate it clearly and concisely
in an oral manner. As was done the previous data collection period, in Spring of 2006,
the instructor designated to grade the final presentations of the KIN 251 course
(Wughalter for Fall 2007) will use the standard rubric to assess the presentations
according to the criteria outlined. Further, using the standard of a “B or above” the
faculty member will determine of total percentage of students in the KIN 251 course that
are deemed competent on SLO #2.
revised 3/19/07
10. Fall 2007 Indirect Measurement (if any): Describe the indirect assessment data that will be
collected (‘C’ in F07 column of Table 2), how much and by whom. Be specific, for example:
graduating seniors in all capstone course sections will be surveyed on curriculum strengths & weaknesses.
SLO #
1
2
etc.
Page 5
Data to be collected, how much, by whom**
N/A However, in the first graduate faculty meeting in Fall of 2007, we will again be
revisiting out SLOs to make sure that they are function as we want them to function in
terms of assessment, and more importantly, in my view, to determine whether an
additional SLO might more completely assess what we want students to know at the
graduate level in KIN.