Tier 1 and Tier 2 Programs – Assessment Report
Department or program name:
Degree/program assessed:
Submitted by:
Date submitted:
Anthropology
BA of Anthropology – ANTH 3310
Mary Lou Larson
May 30, 2012
What is your research question about student learning?
Student participates in a research experience and understands its process.
What program or department-level student learning outcomes were assessed by this project?
Assessment of our undergraduate program involves learning outcomes:
Learning Outcomes
1. Student demonstrates knowledge about the four fields of anthropology and their
interrelationship.
2. Student participates in a research experience and understands its process.
3. Student demonstrates ability to analyze and synthesize in relation to anthropological
issues or theories.
These three outcomes are assessed in three different courses (at three different levels). This
report details the result of our most recent assessment of learning outcome # 2.
Student research demonstrated in class research project in Anth 3310 (one of two required
courses on research with individual research papers required). This course asks students to
perform a research project that is quantitative in nature and involves laboratory and statistical
analysis of a given data set.
Describe your assessment project and provide pertinent background information.
Students demonstrated their research ability through an afternoon symposium of power point
presentations by each student during finals week. Each presentation was supposed to outline
the research problem, discuss analytical methods, and results of the analysis, with a synthetic
conclusion summarizing how their results fit within a broader anthropological question.
Past assessments of ANTH 3310 (there have been two other cycles) have used written 20page papers anonymized and read by at least two members of the assessment team. The
anonymization of papers and necessity of completing the assessment after finals was a very
time consuming, onerous task. The results were equivocal and the rubric difficult to apply to
1
the paper. This year, we used the oral presentations rather than the written word and found
that this method to be much more satisfactory. Although the rubric used in the assessment did
not change, many students were much clearer in their 15 minute presentations than most had
ever been in 20 pages of written work. Since the assessment measures student participation in
a research project and not their writing abilities, the new method is a much more effective
and expedient way to evaluate the assessment goal.
As we have done in all of our assessments, student permission was obtained before
proceeding with use of their presentation through a signed document that also collects
information of interest to the department (e.g., is the student a senior and/or a transfer
student). For the first time in multiple years of assessment, all students agreed to have their
presentation assessed.
The rubric used to evaluate student presentations consisted of simple yes/no answers to
five questions, with each yes answer receiving 1 point and each no receiving 0 points. The
questions on the rubric asked whether the paper presentation:
1. Identifies a problem or hypothesis?
2. Discusses methods used in the analysis?
3. Synthesizes and displays results of data? (with statistics where possible).
4. Uses data (ethnographic, archaeological, osteological, historic) appropriate to addressing
the problem.
5. Presents results that solved (or addressed) the problem.
Provide relevant data to answer your research question. What are the key findings?
A total of 12 students participated in the assessment project this year. Three quarters if the
students (n=9) successfully received a yes on all five questions on the rubric. This means that
they succeeded in understanding and completing their assigned research project and were
able to tell an audience about that performance. More importantly they could conceptualize a
problem/hypothesis and understand how the methods they used could be used to solve that
problem. While the majority of students worked on a project that was assigned by the
instructors, they were expected to develop a research question, perform the analysis
themselves, and present their results. In fact, their presentations were quite impressive;
power points were well done, and student ideas came through clearly. Of those students who
received “nos” on their rubric (n=3), this result came primarily from their lack of full
understanding of “how to put it together.” In those two of the three cases, students could
present results that solved (or addressed) the problem and did not synthesize and display the
results of their data analysis. They struggled with integrating their question with a larger
anthropological issue (part of their assignment for the class). In the other case, the
presentation was poorly done so poorly that it was difficult to understand what the student
did. This is likely a problem unrelated to the assessment goals. The assessment of 3310 this
year clearly demonstrates that students are participating in a research project and
understanding its process.
2
Describe the meaning of your results as they relate to program strengths and challenges.
What changes to the program or curriculum have been made, are planned, or contemplated
in the future as a result from this assessment project?
As noted in several sections of the department’s annual report, our core methods courses (ANTH
3300 and 3310) have been on the radar screen of the faculty, and most recently the curriculum
committee. Giving students the opportunity to experience both quantitative and qualitative
research while undergraduates gives them an advantage over many of their peers in other
schools. Over the past several years, a number of changes have occurred with ANTH 3310,
bringing it more in line with program needs. These changes have included reducing class size
from the mid-30s to between 10 and 20 students and emphasizing the research paper throughout
the entire class, rather than in the final month of classes. These have results in successfully
meeting our assessment goal.
While assessment is not the only source of information about our program, it certainly fills a role
in the decision making of the department, as faculty include it as one part of their decision
making process. Assessment is one piece of the puzzle that we use to maintain an up-to-date
program and assessment of student ability to perform research in ANTH 3310 is demonstrating
that progress. Additionally, the alteration in assessment method has made a significant
difference in the “pleasure” of doing assessment. Spending three hours to successfully assess a
course is much more satisfactory than two days reading somewhat 20-page research papers. The
department should re-evaluate its assessment methods to make them more efficient for the
assessors as well as what it is we are assessing.
3