Final version 10/1/06
Fall 2006 Semester Program Assessment Report
(Please provide electronic and hard copy to your college facilitator.)
Degree program: BA History
Chair: Jonathan Roth
Report Prepared by: Patricia Evridge Hill
Department: History
Department Phone: (408) 924-5755
Date: December 2006
Table 1A. Learning Outcomes
SLO #
1.
2.
3.
4.
Exact wording of Student Learning Outcome (SLO)
Students analyze critically the thesis and argument/interpretation of the following
types of historical literature in western and non-western fields in pre-modern and
modern history: Narrative history, Historiography/Intellectual history,
Social/Cultural history, Political/Diplomatic history.
Using modern bibliographic data storage sites and systems and traditional (print)
sources, students systematically collect and appraise the historical significance and
use of evidence of various kinds of primary sources in western and non-western
fields in pre-modern and modern history: Government documents,
Histories/Historical Accounts, Literature and Poetry, Images, Autobiographies,
Diaries, Letters, Newspapers, Maps, Quantitative Data, Oral Interviews.
Using historical literature and primary sources of the types listed above, students
write history essays in western and non-western fields in pre-modern and modern
history according to the standards of technique, citation, essay composition (writing
process), argument/interpretation, and use of evidence which are consistent with
college-level writing in the discipline.
Students identify and analyze the fundamental problems of historical interpretation
and recognize some of the “schools” of historical analysis in western and nonwestern fields across historical time.
Table 1B. Unique Learning Outcomes
Not Applicable
Page 1
Final version 10/1/06
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.
2.
3.
4.
F05 or
earlier
D = results Discussed
Sp06
C, D, I
C, D, I
C, D, I
F 06
C
C
C
I = changes (if any) Implemented
Sp07
C, D, I
C, D, I
C, D, I
C, D, I
F07
C, D, I
C, D, I
C, D, I
C, D, I
Sp08
C, D, I
C, D, I
C, D, I
C, D, I
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?
________ YES
_____X____ NO
2. Spring 2006 Performance Data: Describe the direct assessment (performance) data that were
collected in spring 2006 (‘C’ in Sp06 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 #
1.
2.
3.
4.
Data collected, how much, by whom**
All writing samples of a single paper were collected in both sections of HIST 100W
according to the new recertified course SLOs, which are now the same as the SLOs of the
Department Assessment Plan. The SLO was imbedded in the grading rubric for these
papers in the evaluation for "argument" in two papers, the first dealing with a historical
monograph and the second dealing with a series of primary and secondary pieces of
literature. Of 33 students in both sections who completed the course in Spring 2006, 70%
received a B or better. The remaining 30% either received no credit or a C.
As in SLO 1, SLO 2 was evaluated for "evidence" in the grading rubric primarily for the
final paper which was an original research paper based on primary sources from Special
Collections in King Library. Percentage evaluation levels were the same as for SLO 1.
As in SLO 1 and 2, SLO 3 was evaluated for all five categories -- "thesis," "evidence,"
"argument," "composition," and "technique" in all three major papers. Students were also
tested on technique and grammar and students in both sections passed with 80%
proficiency. Percentage evaluation levels were the same as for SLO 1.
We have not yet begun to collect data in Historiography (HIST 102). Our plan is to start
collection in Spring 2007.
3. Spring 2006 Indirect Measurement
Not Applicable
Page 2
Final version 10/1/06
4. Spring 2006 Findings/Analysis: Describe the findings that emerged from analysis of data collected
in Sp06. 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 (SLOs 1-3)
For the first three SLOs, the finding of the core team (all instructors teaching
HIST 100W and HIST 102) was that student entry level skills were an insufficient
foundation for addressing SLOs in HIST 100W or for achieving the Assessment
Plan of the department. Therefore, the core team recommended that we add a
third course to the core sequence, History Fundamentals (HIST 99), which would
complete instruction in essay fundamentals, introduce students to beginning
research, introduce students to historiography, and help students complete a piece
of original writing before they passed on to HIST 100W. We suggested this to a
department meeting in May 2006.
5. Spring 2006 Actions: What actions are planned and/or implemented to address the findings from
spring 2006 data? These are indicated by ‘I’ in Table 2 for the SLO data collected in spring ’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
The History Department approved of the concept of HIST 99. Pat Don wrote the
course. It received the approval of both the Department and College Curriculum
Committees and will be implemented in Fall 2007. HIST 99 will likely increase
the percentage of students mastering each SLO.
6. Spring 2006 Process Changes: Did your analysis of spring 2006 data result in revisiting/revising
the Student Learning Outcomes or assessment process? Yes _X_ No ___.
If the answer is yes, please explain.
In order to provide students with ample opportunities to master the SLOs, a new course—HIST 99—
needed to be added to the core sequence. The core team decided to apply for an LPP to support further
work on assessment. If we receive the grant, it will measurably improve our ability to assess the SLOs
and perhaps revisit and revise them in the next two years. While we will collect data as we have done
this last academic year, the grant would allow us to do a much more detailed analysis of student
reading/writing performance so that we might improve the curriculum and also refine evaluation
criteria. The grant would allow us to do two very important things. First, we would be able to
interview a random selection of students to understand better their writing processes in order to revise
curriculum and scaffold student learning more appropriately in the core sequence. Second, the grant
would provide time to consider how to implement pedagogical strategies and approaches that recent
research in history education has indicated could be fruitful for history students' learning. Should we
not receive the grant, there will be less opportunity to consider process changes, and we will collect
and evaluate according to our original strategy.
Page 3
Final version 10/1/06
7. Fall 2006 Performance Data: Describe the direct assessment (performance) data that were
collected fall 2006 (‘C’ in F06 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 #
1-3.
Data collected, how much, by whom**
Libra Hilde will collect the final papers in both sections of HIST 100W at the end of the
fall semester.
8. Fall 2006 Indirect Measurement
Not Applicable
9. Spring 2007 Direct Measurement: For the SLOs scheduled to be assessed in spring 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 #
1-4.
Data to be collected, how much, by whom**
Instructors in HIST 100W and HIST 102 will collect final papers and their evaluation
criteria sheets. Should we receive the LPP grant, the core team will meet at the end of the
semester to review the papers and note patterns of student achievement and shortcomings
of historical analysis and history writing process. As is noted in our Assessment Plan, all
core courses use the same rubric for grading specific evaluative criteria of the department
SLOs.
10. Spring 2007 Indirect Measurement
Not Applicable
** Aggregate data must be accessible by Department Chairs and Assessment
Facilitators during the WASC visit, March 7-9, 2007.
Please be sure WASC can be provided data on short notice!
Page 4