STUDENT LEARNING ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
SUMMARY FORM AY 2013-2014
Degree and
Program Name:
B.A. in History
Submitted By:
Anita Shelton and Bonnie Laughlin-Schultz
Please use size 10 font or larger.
Please complete a separate worksheet for each academic program
(major, minor) at each level (undergraduate, graduate) in your
department. Worksheets are due to CASA this year by June
13, 2014. Worksheets should be sent electronically to
kjsanders@eiu.edu and should also be submitted to your college
dean. For information about assessment or help with your
assessment plans, visit the Assessment webpage at
http://www.eiu.edu/~assess/ or contact Karla Sanders in CASA at
581-6056.
PART ONE
What are the learning objectives?
How, where, and when are they
assessed?
What are the expectations?
What are the results?
Committee/ person
responsible? How are
results shared?
1. History majors will be able
to analyze a source document
using the historical method.
This includes close reading,
sourcing (questioning author
credentials, motivation/bias,
and audience), corroborating,
and contextualizing in order
to analyze what the document
tells us about the past. ULG:
Critical Thinking; Writing
and Critical Reading;
Transferable Skills 1, 2
2. History majors will read
critically, identifying and
critiquing assumptions,
methods, and theories
historians use to create
coherent interpretations of the
past and understanding that
history is an evolving
narrative. ULG: Critical
Thinking; Writing and
Every History major submits
one research paper from HIS
2010 (a course that is
required of all majors). The
History Curriculum
Committee evaluates the
papers holistically using a
departmental rubric for
source analysis on an annual
basis. The evaluation rubric
(distributed to all History
faculty) is included in
Appendix A.
Every History major submits
one book review of a
historical monograph from
HIS 3555 (required of all
majors). The History
Curriculum Committee
evaluates the papers
holistically using a
departmental rubric for book
reviews on an annual basis.
20% will be rated highly
competent
50% will be rated
competent
20% will be rated
minimally competent
10% will be rated not
competent
Of the selections analyzed
for 2013-2014 (n=34):
20.5% (n=7) were rated as
highly competent
50% (n=17) were rated
competent
23.5% (n=8) were rated
minimally competent
5.9% (n=2) was rated not
competent
We did meet all
expectations.
The Curriculum and
Assessment committees
work with faculty to
gather items for
assessment and to carry
out scoring. The
Curriculum Committee
and the chair discuss
the data and results and
share information with
the rest of the faculty.
20% will be rated highly
competent
50% will be rated
competent
20% will be rated
minimally competent
10% will be rated not
competent
Of the selections analyzed
for 2013-2014 (n=19):
10.5% (n=2) were rated as
highly competent
73.6% (n=14) were rated
competent
10.5% (n=2) were rated
minimally competent
5.26% (n=1) was rated
not competent
The Curriculum and
Assessment committees
work with faculty to
gather items for
assessment and to carry
out scoring. The
Curriculum Committee
and the chair discuss
the data and results and
share information with
Critical Reading;
Transferable Skills 1, 2
The evaluation rubric
(distributed to all History
faculty) is included in
Appendix A.
3. History majors will be able
to carry independent research
projects through from
inception to completion. In
doing so they will frame
useful and appropriate
questions about the past,
undertake primary research
and compile evidence, and
integrate evidence from
sources into a reasoned and
well-organized argument
based on documented primary
and secondary sources. ULG:
Critical Thinking; Writing
and Critical Reading;
Transferable Skills: 1, 2, 6
Every History major submits
one research paper from HIS
2500 (required of all
majors). The History
Curriculum Committee
evaluates the papers
holistically using a
departmental rubric for
research papers on an annual
basis. The evaluation rubric
(distributed to all History
faculty) is included in
Appendix A. In the future,
we will add a second
assessment of the research
paper produced in the new
capstone course. We will use
the same rubric to assess
growth throughout the
program.
A focus group of recent
graduates.
20% will be rated highly
competent
50% will be rated
competent
20% will be rated
minimally competent
10% will be rated not
competent
No focus group met this
year because of on-going
curricular changes.
N/A
The Chair will convene
the focus group after
consulting with faculty
to develop questions.
The Chair will share
results from the focus
group with the
curriculum committee
and the faculty as a
whole.
In AY13 we began to offer
60% will meet
None yet.
The Curriculum and
4. History majors will
develop a sense of historical
perspective, intellectual
curiosity, and transferable
skills that will be useful to
them after graduation,
whether in graduate school or
directly in the workplace.
ULG: Critical Thinking;
Writing and Critical Reading;
Speaking & Listening;
Transferable Skills 1-7.
5. History majors will be able
We met all expectations
except having 20% as
highly competent (though
nearly 85% of the total
were competent, well
above our goal).
Of the selections analyzed
for 2013-2014 (n=7):
14.3% (n=1) were rated as
highly competent
71.4% (n=5) were rated
competent
14.3% (n=1) were rated
minimally competent
0% (n=0) was rated not
competent
the rest of the faculty.
The Curriculum and
Assessment committees
work with faculty to
gather items for
assessment and to carry
out scoring. The
Curriculum Committee
and the chair discuss
the data and results and
share information with
the rest of the faculty.
In all instances, we met or
exceeded expectations.
to demonstrate knowledge
about global history and its
themes of connection and
interrelatedness. This
understanding is central to
responsible global citizenship
and participation in informed
discussion in civic life.
ULG: Responsible
Citizenship; Transferable
Skills: TBD
our revised global history/
general education courses at
the 1000-level and are
currently working on a
revision of the entire
curriculum for majors that
will integrate global
citizenship into required
courses for majors; we will
incorporate an assessment
instrument for responsible
citizenship into the new
assessment plan we develop
for this revised curriculum.
Suggestions for potential
assessments would be very
helpful as we move forward.
expectations
30% will exceed
expectations
10% will not meet
expectations
Assessment committees
work with faculty to
gather items for
assessment and to carry
out scoring. The
Curriculum Committee
and the chair discuss
the data and results and
share information with
the rest of the faculty.
PART TWO
Describe your program’s assessment accomplishments since your last report was submitted. Discuss ways in which you have responded to the
CASA Director’s comments on last year’s report or simply describe what assessment work was initiated, continued, or completed.
We were pleased with the recent Watson-Glaser spring 2014 data that shows that history majors are above the university average in critical
thinking at 27.35 and have improved over last year’s History result of 26.39. This shows us that our continuing emphasis on Critical Thinking as
well as Writing and Critical Reading are yielding benefits. They continue to be emphasized in the revised curriculum and in our transferable skills,
so we expect gradual improvement to continue.
In 2013-2014 the entire department continued to engage in a curricular review and revision. As a department, we discussed a capstone course
proposal for the non-teacher licensure majors (for whom SOS 3400 and student teaching is a capstone); finalized a list of transferable skills that
would be stressed across the curriculum (the skills are included as Appendix B); met in small and large groups to uncover which courses will
address which of these skills; and discussed the new assessment measures that will emerge from the revised curriculum. Last year the department
agreed on the substance of a major revision of HIS 2500 (Historical Research and Writing) and the format for a new capstone course. A proposal
has been drawn up for the capstone, and both it and HIS 2500 have been integrated into our broad assessment plan in learning objective three. A
long-term assessment plan to compare performance on the HIS 2500 research paper and the capstone paper have been put into place.
We have made significant progress with the larger curriculum revision, making fundamental changes based on previous assessment data and
attempting to incorporate the new University Learning Goals into our learning objectives and transferable skills foundation. We revised and
refined all of our learning goals. In particular, we worked on defining the historical method, the research process, and historical thinking/critical
thinking in learning goals 1-3. We used the following sources to help us define and write new learning goals: Fred Drake and Lynne Nelson,
Engagement in Teaching History, 2nd edition (Pearson, 2008); National Council on History Education’s Historical Habits of Mind,
http://www.nche.net/habitsofmind; Common Core Standards (History/Social Studies ELA Strands and Writing),
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RH/introduction/; and College, Career, & Civic Life C3 Framework for Social Studies State
Standards (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013), http://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/c3/C3-Framework-for-Social-Studies.pdf.
We continue to work on the revised assessments to accompany our new curriculum, and have made strides this year toward the creation of a major
portfolio developed in D2L. Faculty attended training meetings and we have begun work to create the D2L portfolios that will ultimately
strengthen our assessment program. Submissions for learning objectives 1-3 will ultimately come from this D2L online portfolio.
We also rewrote learning goal 5 to better address the University goal of responsible citizenship and are now trying to determine the best way to
assess this goal. In 2012-2013 we revised our World Civilization sequence (HIS 1500G and 1521-1526G). These together with HIS 2010G (U.S.
to 1877), HIS 2020G (U.S. since 1877), and HIS 3600G (U.S. Constitution and Nation) are the foundation of our contribution to responsible
citizenship, which we have defined in learning objective 5 as demonstrating “knowledge about global history and its themes of connection and
interrelatedness, understanding central to responsible global citizenship and participation in informed discussion in civic life.” Many of our
electives also fit into this goal. Now, we are working to address this objective in our assessment plan.
PART THREE
Summarize changes and improvements in curriculum, instruction, and learning that have resulted from the implementation of your assessment
program. How have you used the data? What have you learned? In light of what you have learned through your assessment efforts this year and
in past years, what are your plans for the future?
We have begun to learn from data associated with our revised assessment plan. Of particular use in this assessment cycle is data for lesson
objectives 1-3, which shows that our majors are developing many of the attributes that we desire. One thing that could be done in the future is to
move from a holistic assessment to gathering data from each category in the rubrics to see where particular areas of strength and weakness are. For
objective 1, we noted that students seemed weaker at analyzing point of view and bias but stronger at understanding the historical characteristics of
the document they were analyzing. This information will be shared with the faculty so that we can address it.
In 2014-2015, we will continue to overhaul our curriculum. First, we will address where the remaining transferable skills—speaking/listening,
quantitative reasoning, and visual literacy—fit within our learning goals and assessment measures. Doing this will also us to incorporate the
revised University Learning goals of Speaking/Listening and Quantitative Reasoning into our curriculum. As discussed above and in part 1, we
continue to develop measures to assess learning objectives, particularly 4 and 5. We will devise questions and convene our first focus group of
recent graduates in 2014-2015.
Additionally, we will propose a new one-hour orientations course for the History major that will introduce students to the discipline and to its
transferable skills much earlier. Professors of the orientations course will lay the foundation for work done in HIS 2500, our other courses, and
ultimately, the capstone. Once the orientations and capstone courses are live, we will have three points for collecting data: entry into program
(orientation course); early/midway (HIS 2500); and exit (capstone). Data from this will help us continue to improve our program and curriculum.
Finally, in 2014-2015 we will revise the rubrics currently being used to assess learning objectives 1-3. We will move from a four-point to a fivepoint rubric, and we plan to revise the categories and descriptions to better align with our new curriculum. Appendix C contains a tentative sketch
of a proposed revision for the source analysis rubric done by members of the Curriculum Committee, and full revisions of all rubrics will be
undertaken next year.
Appendix A. History Department Evaluation Rubrics
Source Analysis
Historical
Characteristics
of the
Document
Point of View
and Bias
Organization
Development
Style
Mechanics
4-Highly Competent
Understands the historical
characteristics of the document in
relation to the topic of study
Identifies the point of view of the
author and bias in relation to the
intended audience and the author’s
motive
The paper is well structured and
persuasive in the statement of its
thesis, with an introduction and
conclusion
Demonstrates depth of understanding
of the topic, presents supporting
arguments clearly and analytically,
and provides excellent documentation
Written in an appropriately formal
tone without slang. Language is
precise and sentence structure varied.
Correct use of citations (footnotes or
endnotes), quotes, and bibliography
The mechanics of the paper are
correct. It is well written with no
grammar or punctuation errors, and
little or no use of the passive voice
3-Competent
Shows a basic
understanding of the
characteristics of the
document
Shows a basic
understanding
2-Minimally Competent
Shows some understanding
1-Not Competent
Demonstrates no
understanding
Shows some understanding
Demonstrates no
understanding
Logically organized
Organization lacks
coherence
Poorly organized
Demonstrates
knowledge of the topic
and provides supporting
evidence and adequate
detail
Effective Use of
Language
Citations and
bibliography included
but not proper format
Few errors
Presents undeveloped ideas
Lacks idea
development and
includes irrelevant
information
Simplistic sentence
structure and imprecise use
of language
No citations or
bibliography
Errors are present that
interfere with the
presentation of ideas and
arguments
Incorrect sentence
structure and use of
slang, jargon, or
inappropriate
language
Excessive errors in
grammar and
punctuation.
Book Review
Thesis
Organization
Development
Style
Mechanics
4-Highly Competent
Clearly identifies and critically evaluates
the author’s central argument, purpose,
and approach to the subject
The review is exceptionally well
organized with an introduction, body, and
conclusion and follows the thesis
throughout
A general analysis of the salient features
of the book, as opposed to a general
summary, and identifies the development
of the author’s thesis throughout the book
Sophisticated sentence structure and
paragraph development
The mechanics of the paper are correct. It
is well written with no grammar or
punctuation errors, and little or no use of
the passive voice
Research Paper
Research Paper
4-Highly Competent
or Project
Thesis/Argument The thesis is clearly conceptualized,
defined, and supported by concrete
examples throughout the paper
The paper is well structured and
Organization
persuasive in the statement of its thesis,
with an introduction and conclusion
Demonstrates depth of understanding
Development
3-Competent
Identifies but not does not critically
evaluate the author’s central
argument, purpose, and approach to
the subject
The review is reasonably well
organized
2-Minimally Competent
Identified a few main ideas but not
the thesis
Demonstrates knowledge of the
topic and provides supporting
evidence and adequate detail
Minimal analysis, is repetitious, or
and lacks development of salient
features of the book being reviewed
Effective Use of Language
Simplistic sentence structure and
imprecise use of language
Errors are present that interfere with
the presentation of ideas and
arguments
Few errors
3-Competent
Clear focus and consistent
statement of argument
The view has a semblance of
structure but its coherence is
minimized by poor organization
2-Minimally
Competent
Thesis is evident but
confused
Logically organized
Organization lacks
coherence
Demonstrates knowledge
Presents
1-Not Competent
The paper lacks a
coherent thesis or is
poorly developed
Poorly organized
Lacks idea
Style
Mechanics
of the topic, presents supporting
arguments clearly and analytically, and
provides excellent documentation
Written in an appropriately formal tone
without slang. Language is precise and
sentence structure varied
of the topic and provides
supporting evidence and
adequate detail
Effective Use of Language
The mechanics of the paper are correct.
It is well written with no grammar or
punctuation errors, and little or no use
of the passive voice
Few errors
undeveloped ideas
development and
includes irrelevant
information
Simplistic sentence
Incorrect sentence
structure and
structure and use of
imprecise use of
slang, jargon, or
language
inappropriate language
Errors are present
Excessive errors in
that interfere with the grammar and
presentation of ideas punctuation.
and arguments
Appendix B. Transferable Skills
These are the seven transferable skills that the History department is working into its revised curriculum. They are listed below and are
linked to the new university learning goals. They are also identified at the end of each learning objective in part one.
1. Critical thinking skills and Language analysis (Analyzing and documenting written primary sources; analyzing historical point
of view in book reviews) [ULG Critical Thinking 1-6; Writing and Critical Reading 1-2,6]
2. Writing skills (formulating research into a coherent, clear argument—skills that include mastery of grammar, structure, clarity,
style, organization). [ULG Writing and Critical Reading 1-7]
3. Visual literacy (Analyzing and documenting paintings, architecture, material culture, political cartoons, film) [ULG Critical
Thinking 1-5; Writing and Critical Reading 5-6]
4. Quantitative Reasoning aka Numeracy (Analyzing and documenting statistics, interpreting charts and graphs, review of
quantitative analysis and production of quantitative analysis) [ULG Quantitative Reasoning 1-6]
5. Digital Database Use (search strategies, data mining written/printed primary sources) [ULG Quantitative Reasoning 6]
6. Research and Citation Management (not simply writing a citation, but saving and re-deploying research in one way for one
course or paper, in another for the next; teaching students to build their own reference collection through Zotero or otherwise)
[ULG Critical Thinking 2; Writing and Critical Reading 7]
7. Presentation/public speaking through oral presentation at mini-conference, in-class presentation or video (i) communicates
ideas orally in an effective manner; (ii) Logical organization to research presentation; (iii) demonstrates understanding of
presentation technology (e.g., Mastery of Power Point or Prezi) and uses it effectively [ULG Speaking and Listening 1-7]
Appendix C. Proposed Revision, Source Analysis Rubric
Close Reading
(ability to accurately
summarize;
understanding
document contents)
Sourcing:
Characteristics of
the Document &
Author’s Point of
View
Contextualizing &
Historical
Knowledge
Analysis
Organization/
Development
Style/ Mechanics
Exceeds Expectations
Very-well written summary,
covering all key points of
document(s) and
demonstrating excellent
understanding of large themes
and important details
Excellent understanding of the
source (author, purpose,
audience, type of document)
and limitations of the source
Often Exceeds
Accurate summary of
document; demonstrates
understanding of some but
not all large themes
Meets Expectations
Competent summary of
document(s) contents;
acknowledgment of most
themes and details
Minimally Competent
Constructs some
meaning from text
Does Not Meet
Demonstrates no
understanding of
document’s contents
Understands the historical
characteristics of the
document in relation to the
topic of study
Shows a basic understanding
of the characteristics of the
source
Illustrates an
inconsistent
understanding of the
source
Demonstrates no
understanding of the
source
Analysis and summary is
informed by strong content
knowledge; specific dates and
facts astutely used as vehicles
for analysis and as evidence
Recognizes and accurately
summarizes historical
changes; accurately uses
dates and facts to support
analysis
Some attempt to include
specific historical content;
some facts/dates may be
wrong and does not
substantially affect the
analysis
Demonstrates some
historical knowledge;
text contains factual
errors that undermine
analysis
Sophisticated, informed, and
thorough analysis of what a
historian learns from this
document; evidence from
document serves to support
analysis
The paper is very well
structured and persuasive in
the statement of its thesis, with
a compelling introduction and
conclusion. Demonstrates
depth of understanding of the
topic, presents supporting
arguments clearly and
analytically, and provides
excellent documentation
Paper is well written and flows
nicely; proper and professional
format; free from mechanical
errors; Language is precise
and sentence structure varied.
Accurate but not
sophisticated analysis of
document
Demonstrates basic
understanding of document
without errors that undermine
analysis
Demonstrates a
minimal understanding
of the document
Little or no attempt to
use specifics historical
knowledge to assist in
analysis; major errors
in content knowledge
may be evident; facts
may be listed with no
application
No real claims and/ or
use of evidence.
Demonstrates depth of
understanding of the topic,
presents supporting
arguments clearly and
analytically, and provides
excellent documentation
Demonstrates knowledge of
the topic and provides
supporting evidence and
adequate detail
Presents undeveloped
ideas
Lacks idea
development and
includes irrelevant
information
Well written in a formal and
objective tone, and contains
few mechanical errors
Paper is written in an
appropriate and formal,
objective tone with few
errors
Errors interfere with
the presentation of
ideas and arguments;
simplistic sentence
structure
Excessive errors in
grammar and
punctuation; use of
slang or inappropriate
language