SJSU Annual Program Assessment Form
Academic Year 2013-2014
Department: History
Programs: MA and MA—Concentration in History Education
College: Social Sciences
Website: www.sjsu.edu/history
Contact Person and Email: Patricia Evridge Hill, Patricia.Hill@sjsu.edu
Date of Report: June 1, 2014
Part A
1. List of Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)
Graduate Program Learning Outcomes (MA)
By the time students complete their Master of Arts degree program in history, they should be able to:
1. See themselves and their society from different times and places, displaying a sense of informed
perspective and a mature view of human nature.
2. Read and think critically, write and speak clearly and persuasively, and conduct research effectively.
3. Exhibit sensitivities to human values in their own and other cultural traditions.
4. Appreciate their natural and cultural environments.
5. Respect scientific and technological developments and recognize their impact on humankind.
Graduate Program Learning Outcomes (MA, Concentration in History Education)
By the time students complete their Master of Arts degree in history, with a concentration in history
education, they should be able to demonstrate the learning in the Master of Arts program above and
additionally be able to:
6. Participate knowledgeably in the affairs of the world around them, drawing upon understandings
shaped through reading, writing, and lectures concerning the past.
2. Map of PLOs to University Learning Goals (ULGs)
ULG
Specialized Knowledge
Broad Integrative Knowledge
Intellectual Skills
Applied Knowledge
Social and Global Responsibilities
PLOs (above)
1
3&5
2
4
6
This mapping was completed by the current department Assessment Committee representative and last
year’s department Assessment Committee representative in consultation with members of the College
of Social Science’s Assessment Committee.
3. Alignment – Matrix of PLOs to Courses
There is no class taken by all graduate students in history since they choose specialties in European,
United States, or World History and complete different sets of requirements. All of our graduate
courses require students to demonstrate mastery of the learning outcomes listed above, but they do so
within the different areas of emphasis. As a result, we have assessed student learning via the
comprehensive (Plan B) examinations that serve as most students’ culminating experiences. A select
few of our graduate students complete theses (Plan A). These are examined during the assessment
process to determine whether or not they indicate the same sorts of things as do the comprehensive
examinations.
4. Planning – Assessment Schedule
Since the S10 Annual Assessment Report (based on data gathered during F09), we have assessed one of
the PLOs listed above each academic year. The Graduate Advisor and faculty colleagues who read the
comprehensive (Plan B) examinations used to assess our program discuss the results of each year’s
findings and recommend changes at a department meeting. Those recommendations are discussed by
the faculty as a whole and forwarded to the graduate committee if appropriate.
5. Student Experience
Currently, some faculty members discuss PLOs with their classes as part of an explanation of course
learning objectives, which appear on each syllabus.
Part B
6. Graduation Rates for Total, Non URM and URM Students by Program
Note: URM = African-American, Hispanic, and Americam-Indians; Non-URM = White and Asian/Pacific Islander; Other = Other and Foreign
First-time Freshmen:
6 Year Graduation
Rates
Fall 2007 Cohort
Entering
% Grad
25
44.0%
5
20.0%
15
46.7%
5
60.0%
Academic Programs
History Total
URM
Non-URM
Other
New UG Transfers: 3
Year Graduation Rates
Fall 2010 Cohort
Entering
% Grad
40
45.0%
10
50.0%
20
50.0%
10
30.0%
Grads : 3 Year
Graduation Rates
Fall 2010
Entering
16
3
12
1
Cohort
% Grad
75.0%
33.3%
83.3%
100.0%
7. Headcount of Program Majors and New Students by Programs and Degree
Note: 1st Fr. = First-time Freshmen; Transf = Transfer Students; UGs = Undergraduate Students; Creds = Credential
Students; Grads = Graduate Students
Fall 2013
New Students
History
Degree
1st Fr.
UG Transf
Total
24
BA
24
MA
0
Cont. Students
Total
1st
Grads
18
UGs
Creds
Grads
UGs
Creds
Grads
33
New
Creds
0
146
0
25
203
0
43
33
0
0
146
0
0
203
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
25
0
0
43
8. SFR (Exhibit 3) and Average Headcount per Section (Exhibit 2) by Course Prefix
Course
Prefix
Course Level
HIST History
Total
Lower Division
Upper Division
Graduate Division
Fall 2013
Student to
Average
Faculty
Headcount per
Ratio (SFR)
Section
16.9
33.7
14.5
49.2
26.7
30.6
10.2
8.2
9. Percentage of Full-time Equivalent Faculty (FTEF) for tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty by
Department
% Tenured/Prob
History
39.7%
Fall 2013
Tenured
Temp
Lecturer
7.566
11.5
Probationary
0
Part C
10. Closing the Loop/Recommended Actions
1. We need to include both University Learning Goals and PLOs on the department’s web site with an
explanation of how the activities described in the PLOs demonstrate particular ways that successful
graduate students achieve ULGs.
2. We should revise the PLOs to ensure they are more readily measurable.
3. We should continue the practice of the graduate advisor and comprehensive exam readers
presenting assessment results to colleagues at a faculty meeting followed by a discussion of best
practices. If appropriate, the graduate advisor should make recommendations for changes to the
graduate committee.
11. Assessment Data and
12. Analysis
As has been the department’s practice, due in large part to workload considerations in a reading and
writing intensive discipline, we assessed student learning via our graduate students’ comprehensive
(Plan B) examinations. The following represents the consensus of the graduate advisor and teams of
faculty graders in European, United States, and World History. This year, we assessed PLO 5: By the
time students complete their Master of Arts degree program in history, they should be able to respect
scientific and technological developments and recognize their impact on humankind.
Two students completed Plan B exams in F13. Eight students did so in S14. Two of the ten failed the
exam—both in European History. One was due in large part to poor time management. The other was
a student who has struggled throughout the program with a lack of clarity in her written work. There
were no completed theses in AY 2013-2014.
Successful exam takers acknowledged the roles played by scientific theories and the impact of
technological developments in essays on disparate topics. For example a Europeanist making the case
that World War I had more of an impact on the modern world than did World War II noted, “Using
contemporary scientific theories such as Social Darwinism, the Europeans argued that the inferiority of
the African peoples allowed for the colonization and rule over these territories.” He goes on to discuss
how systems of belief supported by the “science” of the day were used to justify the empires that
initially supported and were later undermined by the war. The same student asserted, “With the
introduction of chemical agents, such as mustard gas, and new and improved artillery, such as the tank
and machine gun which could kill from several hundred yards away, death in World War I became very
impersonal and increased the death count to astronomical proportions. Ernst Junger’s Storm of Steel
and Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front perfectly portray the novelty of World War I, as the
initial glorification of war turned into somberness, after the realization that the nature of war changed.”
After some development, our essayist notes, “Stephen Kern, in A Culture of Time and Space argues that
science and technology was the ultimate legacy of World War I, and was highly influenced by the U.S.
and ‘fordism.’”
In response to a question about the development of slavery in the Americas, a student argued that
slavery was “particularly harsh in the British Caribbean Islands” where planters developed an economic
system in which they sought to maximize profits by controlling family life. He notes that historians have
traditionally seen this as paternalism but that “Schwartz argues in Born in Bondage . . . that slave owners
micromanaged slave families, particularly children, simply because they were driven by profit.” He
compares the management of family life with the management of technology and labor by sugar
planters intent on the pursuit of profits. In this essay, as in another on relations between European
colonists and Native Americans, the student relates what are often depicted as social or political
developments to the emergence of economic systems bolstered by the science of the day and
supported by the development of technologies that allowed Europeans to conquer and enslave.
Another Americanist writing on Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society asserts that Johnson’s electoral success
cannot be attributed simply to political shrewdness and an ability to “talk big” but that it was due in
large part to the fact that his message resonated with Americans’ faith in new technology and scientific
discoveries during the middle 1960s. In an essay on the civil rights movement, this student argues that
new media technology, particularly that related to television, “brought pressure on the federal
government, Sitkoff’s argument, to intervene in support of the civil rights activists.” She contrasts the
widespread influence of SNCC’s 1961 Freedom Rides, which were covered extensively, and the relative
lack of impact of the Albany campaign, pointing out that with no media attention there was no
government intervention.
Finally, even a very weak student who failed the exam sought to emphasize the role of science and
impact of technological developments. But an overall lack of coherence and sentences including “The
role of Science and Technology that had taken off, and originated in Britain since 1750 with the advent
of the industrial revolution had its reach throughout Europe much like the disparity that we understand
in the 21st century amid the so-called developed and developing countries, one could say that there
were those were viewed as backward in this area” demonstrated that not every student was able to link
clearly specific theories, technologies, or developments with their impacts.
Our analysis of these essays indicates that even when not prompted to write about science and
technology, most students recognized that these developments are crucial to a thorough understanding
of political, economic, and social events.
13. Proposed Changes and Goals
In AY 2014-2015, we will assess PLO 1 for both the MA History and the MA History—Concentration in
History Education and PLO 6 for the MA History—Concentration in History Education. We need to
ensure that Plan B exam questions are consciously “tuned” to these PLOs so that every student who
takes the exam addresses them directly.