June 10, 2009 Draft Aviation Assessment Report
Academic Year of Report: Spring 2009 to Winter 2010*
College: _____CEPS____
Department ____Aviation______
Program: Bachelor of Science in Flight Technology
Specializations: Flight Officer (FO) & Commercial Pilot (CP)
*Due to the difficulty of obtaining thorough and complete data in time for an annual June 15 deadline
(especially flight lab data), the department has adjusted the report year to a spring-winter time frame.
Check here if your assessment report covers all undergraduate degree programs: [ X ]
Check here if your assessment report covers all graduate degree programs: [ ]
1.
What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why?
The four learner outcomes listed below were assessed this year because data were collected for all areas
(knowledge, skills, and attitudes) pertaining to those criteria and programs. The department will assess other specializations in following years after a more comprehensive data set is collected so as to make the assessment meaningful and useful.
1. Apply the foundational knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to fly commercial transport aircraft in a safe and efficient manner.
This outcome relates to Department Goal 1 - Provide for an outstanding academic, professional growth experience for students at all CWU locations; College Goal 2 - Prepare students to participate in an increasingly diverse economy and environment; University Goals 1 - Maintain and strengthen an outstanding academic and student life on the Ellensburg Campus and 6 - Build inclusive and diverse campus communities that promote intellectual inquiry and encourage civility, mutual respect, and cooperation. Assessments were conducted to meet department and Federal Aviation Administration
Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 141 regulatory and quality of instruction standards.
2. Interpret, calculate, and analyze meteorological, aerodynamic, performance, and loading factors to conduct safe and efficient commercial flights.
This outcome relates to Department Goal 1 (see above);
College Goal 2 (see above) and University Goals 1 and 6 (see above). Assessments were conducted to meet department and Federal Aviation Administration Title 14 CFR Part 141 regulatory and quality of instruction standards.
3. Demonstrate knowledge, skills, and attitudes to effectively operate aircraft airframe, powerplant, navigation, and communication systems in a multi-crew environment, including Crew Resource
Management (CRM), Hazardous Attitudes Assessment, and Aeronautical Decision Making (ADM).
This outcome relates to Department Goal 1 (see above); College Goal 2 (see above) and University Goals 1 and 6 (see above). Assessments were conducted to meet department and Federal Aviation Administration
Title 14 CFR Part 141 regulatory and quality of instruction standards.
4. Describe the physiological and psychological limitations to flight crew performance (including personal limitations, hazardous attitudes and antidotes, and pilot decision making) and effectively cope with these limitations in the flight environment. This outcome relates to Department Goal 1 (see above);
College Goal 2 (see above) and University Goals 1 and 6 (see above). Assessments were conducted to meet department and Federal Aviation Administration Title 14 CFR Part 141 regulatory and quality of instruction standards.
1

June 10, 2009 Draft Aviation Assessment Report
2.
How were they assessed?
A) Methods of Assessment and B) Who was assessed:
Outcomes 1, 2, 3, and 4 were assessed at the Ellensburg campus through FAA written examinations (28 students enrolled in FLT 142, 25 students enrolled in FLT 242, 22 students enrolled in FLT 354, and 18 students enrolled in FLT 358), FAA EOC written examinations (32 students enrolled in FLT 142, 26 students enrolled in FLT 242, 24 students enrolled in FLT 352, 22 students enrolled in FLT 354, and 18 students enrolled in FLT 358), and FAA EOC practical flight examinations (29 students enrolled in lab
FLT 103, 25 students enrolled in FLT 203, 6 students enrolled in FLT 301, 11 students enrolled in FLT 306, and 9 students enrolled in FLT 401 who completed these labs by the end of Winter 2010 quarter).
Note: these courses and examinations are taught at the CWU campus—they are not taught or administered by
CWU at the Moses lake center (MLC); students transfer in to CWU with equivalents completed at Big Bend
Community College.
All examinations were graded based on FAA computer test standards or FAA Practical Test Standards pertinent to the certificate or rating for which the student was enrolled.
Skills assessed include the following (non-comprehensive) list of content knowledge , operational skills , and appropriate attitudes as applied to each lab course, EOC exam, or FAA certificate as listed in documents
FAA-S-8081-14A, FAA-S-8081-4D, FAA-S-8081-12B, or FAA-S-8081-6C with Changes 1 & 2). See www.faa.gov for full text of those criteria – those documents are far too extensive to include in this report.
Aircraft control (all flight maneuvers required for FAA certifications)
Flight planning and decision making
Navigational skills
Aircraft systems knowledge
Airport operations
Air Traffic control procedures (VFR and IFR) and radar services
Meteorological considerations
Interpretation and application of weather reports and forecasts
Theory and application of instrument navigation
Assessment of hazardous attitudes
Application of pilot decision making skills
Situational awareness
Workload management
Aeromedical factors
Aerodynamics
Weight and Balance
Night operations
High altitude operations
Federal Aviation Regulations and Publications
The National Airspace System
Airworthiness Requirements
Fundamentals of instruction
Human Behavior
Commercial pilot operations
Instrument flight rules
Pilot certification and logbook endorsements
Flight Instructor responsibilities
2

June 10, 2009 Draft Aviation Assessment Report
In addition, Outcomes 1 through 4 were also partially assessed through surveys given to 31 of students at the
Ellensburg campus who have completed FLT 142; 15 students at the Ellensburg campus who have completed
FLT 242; and 18 students at the Ellensburg campus who have completed FLT 354. The Likert-scale survey is designed to measure students’ perceptions of their experience in these courses.
Outcome 2 was also partially assessed through pass rates of 36 students who took FLT 211 Meteorology for
Pilots and 29 students who took FLT 312 Aviation Weather Services Winter 10 quarter. These two courses are not taught by CWU at the MLC, so only Ellensburg students were assessed.
Crew Resource Management (CRM) skills in Student Learner Outcome 3 were also partially assessed through pass rates of 20 students who took FLT 445 Turboprop Simulator FMS Spring 09, Fall 09, and
Winter 10 quarters. This course is not offered at the MLC, so only Ellensburg students were assessed.
Outcome 4 was also partially assessed through a survey given to 30 students at the Ellensburg campus who completed FLT 337 Aviation Physiology & Survival (Fall 09/Winter 10 quarters). The Likert-scale survey is designed to measure self-perception of improvement of knowledge of the physiological and psychological limitations of pilot performance and improvement in their ability to effectively cope with these limitations in the flight environment as a result of taking this course. Unlike last year, a separate survey for FLT 337 was administered and another separate survey for FLT 340 Human Factors in Flight will be administered at the end of the Spring 2010 quarter which will be included in next year’s assessment report.
Note: In addition to the above, a new assessment is included in this year’s assessment report. Outcome 1, along with measures of general satisfaction with the CWU and Midstate Aviation flight training program, was partially assessed through a survey given to 16 graduating senior Ellensburg campus Flight Officer (FO)
& Commercial Pilot (CP) students who participated in the “Flight Technology Senior Exit Survey” at the end of the Spring 09 quarter.
C) When it was assessed:
Students were assessed each quarter depending on which FAA course they were enrolled in:
Spring quarter 2009: FLT 103, FLT 203, FLT 301, FLT 306, FLT 401, FLT 358, FLT 401
Fall quarter 2009: FLT 301, FLT 401, FLT 352, FLT 354, FLT 358
Winter quarter 2010: FLT 301, FLT 401, FLT 142, FLT 242, FLT 352
Students enrolled in FLT 142, FLT 242 and FLT 354 were assessed through a survey administered at the end of Winter quarter 2010.
Students who took FLT 211 Meteorology for Pilots and FLT 312 Aviation Weather Services, were assessed t the end of Winter 2010 quarter.
Students who took FLT 445 Turboprop Simulator FMS were assessed in the quarter they took the course
(Spring 09, Fall 09, and Winter 10).
Students who completed FLT 337 Aviation Physiology & Survival (Fall 09/Winter 10 quarters) were assessed through the survey administered at the end of Winter quarter 2010.
3.
What was learned? The following tables show stated criteria and goals for each criterion.
3

June 10, 2009 Draft Aviation Assessment Report
Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 below are applicable to all four student learning outcomes:
Students will:
1. Apply the foundational knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to fly commercial transport aircraft in a safe and efficient manner.
2. Interpret, calculate, and analyze meteorological, aerodynamic, performance, and loading factors to conduct safe and efficient commercial flights.
3. Demonstrate knowledge, skills, and attitudes to effectively operate aircraft airframe, powerplant, navigation, and communication systems in a multi-crew environment, including Crew Resource
Management (CRM), Hazardous Attitudes Assessment, and Aeronautical Decision Making (ADM).
4. Describe the physiological and psychological limitations to flight crew performance (including personal limitations, hazardous attitudes and antidotes, and pilot decision making) and effectively cope with these limitations in the flight environment.
Criterion 1: Ellensburg campus students enrolled in FAA ground schools Passed FAA written exam on the first attempt with a minimum score of 80%
Quarter Class n Criterion 1
Passed FAA written exam on
Goals for Criterion 1:
80% of students in lower division classes and 90% of students in upper division classes met criterion 1
CWU Average
Test Score,
FAA written
2009 the first attempt with a minimum score of 80%.
FAA
National
Average
Test Scores
13 100% Exceeded Spr 09 FLT
358
Fall 09 FLT
358
Fall 09 FLT
354
Win10 FLT
142
Win10 FLT
242
Win10 FLT
352
5
22
28
25
24
100%
100%
93%
80% n/a
No FAA exam
Exceeded
Exceeded
Exceeded
Met n/a
FOI
93.4
FOI
94.3
86.0
FIA
88.6
FIA
85.8
87.5
84.5 n/a
FOI
92.0
FOI
92.0
86.0
FIA
85.3
FIA
85.3
84.0
82.0 n/a
Criterion 2: Ellensburg campus students enrolled in FAA ground schools Passed FAA EOC written exam on the first attempt with a minimum score of 80%
Quarter Class n Goals for Criterion 2
Passed EOC written exam on the first attempt with a minimum score of 80%.
Goals for Criterion 2:
80% of students in lower division classes and 90% of students in upper division classes met criterion 2
Spr 09 FLT 358 13
Fall 09 FLT 358 5
Fall 09 FLT 354 22
Win10 FLT 142 32
Win10 FLT 242 26
Win10 FLT 352 24
100%
100%
90.4%
91%
85%
83%
Exceeded
Exceeded
Exceeded
Exceeded
Exceeded
Not Met
4

June 10, 2009 Draft Aviation Assessment Report
Criterion 3: Ellensburg campus students enrolled in flight labs Passed FAA EOC practical flight exam on the first attempt.
Quarter Class # of students
Goals for Criterion 3
Passed EOC flight
Goals for Criterion 3:
80% of students in lower division classes and
Spr09
Fall 09
W10
FLT103
FLT203
FLT301
FLT306
FLT401
FLT103
FLT203
FLT301
FLT306
FLT401
FLT103
FLT203
FLT301
FLT306
FLT401 completed/ in process
25
24
2
8
7
2
1
4/3
0/0
2/2
2
0/1
0/2
3/16
0/1 exam on the first attempt
92%
80%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50% n/a
100%
100% n/a n/a
100% n/a
90% of students in upper division classes met criterion 3 exceeded met exceeded exceeded exceeded exceeded exceeded
Not met
-- exceeded exceeded
--
-- exceeded
--
5

June 10, 2009 Draft Aviation Assessment Report
Criterion 4: Survey results for 31 students at the Ellensburg campus who have completed FLT 142.
Question:
Private Pilot Ground School
1. The Flt 141/142 Private Pilot Ground School has met the requirements required by the Federal Aviation
Regulations.
2 The Private Pilot Ground School training met my expectations.
3. I feel that the Private Pilot Ground School has prepared me to pass the FAA Written Test.
Strongly
Disagree
1
3%
1
3%
1
3%
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
5
16%
25
81%
1
3%
1
3%
9
29%
10
33%
20
65%
19
61%
4. I was able to understand aircraft performance information and how to go about calculating it.
5. The Private pilot ground school gave me an overall good understanding of airplane aerodynamics and aircraft systems.
6. After the ground school, I am now able to distinguish between the different classes of airspace and identify the rules for each.
7. The Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR’s) were presented in a way that allowed me the understand them.
8. When going through the basic meteorological process, I was able to understand the information being presented.
9. If I had difficulty on certain subject areas, I was able to obtain help outside the classroom.
10. I am overall satisfied with the Aviation classes that
I have taken so far.
11. I feel that the Private Pilot Courses (Flt 141, 142,
221, 211) has prepared me to be a safe and competent private pilot.
12. I feel that the training received in the FAA 141 ground school classes and the FAA 141 flight training received at Midstate were complementary in terms of timing and instruction.
Total
Quarter Students
Surveyed n
1
3%
4 (1%)
2
6%
1
3%
1
3%
1
3%
1
3%
6 (2%)
Goals for Criterion 4
80% percent agree or strongly agree
Winter 10 FLT 142 31 91%
2
6%
1
3%
2
7%
5
16%
3
10%
3
10%
1
3%
3
10%
12
39%
8
26%
14
45%
15
48%
11
35%
8
26%
8
26%
9
30%
11
37%
15
49%
21
68%
14
45%
11
36%
17
55%
19
61%
22
71%
20
67%
15
50%
22 (6%) 120 (32%) 218 (59%)
Goals for Criterion 4:
80% of students surveyed met criterion 4
Exceeded
6

June 10, 2009 Draft Aviation Assessment Report
Criterion 5: Survey results for 15 students at the Ellensburg campus who have completed FLT 242.
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Question:
Instrument Pilot Ground School
1. The Flt 242/242 Instrument Pilot Ground
School has met the requirements required by the
Federal Aviation Regulations.
2 The Instrument Pilot Ground School training met my expectations.
3. I feel that the Instrument Pilot Ground School has prepared me to pass the FAA Written Test.
Strongly
Disagree
1 (6%
1 (6%
4
(27%)
3 (20% 2
(14%)
1 (6% 6
(40%)
11 (73%)
9 (60%)
7 (48%)
4. I was able to understand the flight instruments and understand how they operate.
5. Holding was presented to me in a way that allowed me to understand and conduct holding.
6. Through the instrument ground school, I am now able to interpret and understand instrument approach charts.
7. If I had difficulty on certain subject areas, I was able to obtain help outside the classroom.
8. I have seen program changes occur as a result of the feedback that I have provided.
10. I am overall satisfied with the Aviation classes that I have taken so far.
11. I feel that the Instrument Pilot Courses (Flt
241, 242, 312) has prepared me to be a safe and competent instrument pilot.
12. I feel that the training received in the FAA
141 ground school classes and the FAA 141 flight training received at Midstate were complementary in terms of timing and instruction.
Total
1 (6%
1 (6%)
1 (6%
2 (13%
2 (13%) 3
(20%)
2 (13%) 2
(13%)
4
(27%)
7
(47%)
4 (27% 4
(27%)
1 (6%) 6
(40%)
2 (13%) 4
(27%)
3 (20%) 1 (6%) 4
(20%)
10 (67%)
10 (68%)
11 (73%)
8 (53%)
4 (27%)
8 (54%)
9 (60%)
6 (52%)
2 (1%)
1 (7%)
8 (5%) 16 (10%) 46 (28%) 93 (56%)
Results from question 9, which is structured differently than the rest of the questions above, are included below:
9. The quality of instruction I have received this N/A Decreased Same Improved year compared to last year has: 3 (20%) 5 (33%) 6 (40%)
Quarter Students
Surveyed
Winter 10 n
FLT 242 15
Goals for Criterion 5
80% percent agree or strongly agree
84%
Goals for Criterion 5:
80% of students surveyed met criterion 4
Exceeded
7

June 10, 2009 Draft Aviation Assessment Report
Criterion 6: Survey results for 18 students at the Ellensburg campus who have completed FLT 354.
Question: Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Disagree
1 6
Agree
12
Commercial Pilot Ground School
1. The Flt 354 Commercial Pilot Ground School has met the requirements required by the Federal
Aviation Regulations.
2 The Commercial Pilot Ground School training met my expectations.
3. I feel that the Commercial Pilot Ground
3 2
4
7
8
7
7
School has prepared me to pass the FAA Written
Test.
4. The advanced systems were presented to me in a way that allowed me to understand them.
5. I was able to understand advanced aircraft performance information and how to go about calculating it.
6. The weight and balance and weight shift formula were covered enough to give an understanding of their operations.
7. If I had difficulty on certain subject areas, I was able to obtain help outside the classroom.
8. I have seen program changes occur as a result of the feedback that I have provided.
10. I am overall satisfied with the Aviation classes that I have taken so far.
11. I feel that the Commercial Pilot Courses (Flt
354, 322, 340) has prepared me to be a safe and competent instrument pilot.
12. I feel that the training received in the FAA
141 ground school classes and the FAA 141 flight training received at Midstate were complementary in terms of timing and instruction.
Total
4
1
1
4
4
4
4
3
2
6
4
2
3
12
9
7
9
2
7
6
5
3
5
9
7
3
8
11
7
4 (2%) 13 (6%) 35 (17%) 78 (37%) 79 (38%)
Results from question 9, which is structured differently than the rest of the questions above, are included below:
9. The quality of instruction I have received this Decreased: Same: Improved: year compared to last year has: 1 (5%) 14 (74%) 4 (21%)
Quarter Students
Surveyed
Fall 09 n
FLT 354 18
Goals for Criterion 6
80% percent agree or strongly agree
75%
Goals for Criterion 6:
80% of students surveyed met criterion 4
Not met
8

June 10, 2009 Draft Aviation Assessment Report
Criterion 7 results below apply to Student Learner Outcome 2: Interpret, calculate, and analyze meteorological, aerodynamic, performance, and loading factors to conduct safe and efficient commercial flights.
Ellensburg campus students enrolled in FLT 211 Meteorology for Pilots and FLT 312 Aviation Weather
Services who passed the course with a minimum of 80% mastery level.
Quarter Class n Goals for Criterion 7
Passed course with a minimum score
Goals for Criterion 7:
80% of students in each of 80%. course met criterion 7
Winter 10 FLT 211 36
FLT 312 29
72%
90%
Not met
Exceeded
Criterion 8 results below apply to Student Learner Outcome 3: Demonstrate knowledge, skills, and attitudes to effectively operate aircraft airframe, powerplant, navigation, and communication systems in a multi-crew environment, including Crew Resource Management (CRM), Hazardous Attitudes Assessment, and Aeronautical Decision Making (ADM).
Ellensburg campus students enrolled in FLT 445 Turboprop Simulator FMS who passed the course with a minimum of 80% mastery level.
Quarter Class n Goals for Criterion 8
Passed course with a minimum score of 80%.
Goals for Criterion 8:
80% of students in course met criterion 8
Spring 09
Fall 09
Winter 10
FLT 445
FLT 445
FLT 445
8
4
8
100%
100%
100%
Exceeded
Exceeded
Exceeded
Criterion 9 results below apply to Student Learner Outcome 4: Describe the physiological and psychological limitations to flight crew performance (including personal limitations, hazardous attitudes and antidotes, and pilot decision making) and effectively cope with these limitations in the flight environment.
Results for 30 students who have completed FLT 337 Aviation Physiology & Survival and participated in the survey below at the Ellensburg campus.
Question:
“As a result of taking FLT 337 …
1. …my understanding of the physiological aspects of flight has grown considerably.”
2. …I’m more confident in my ability to recognize the physiological limitations of flight”
3. … I’m more confident in my ability to successfully avoid the hazards associated with these physiological limitations”
4. …I believe my ability to make safe aeronautical decisions has significantly improved”
Total
Quarter
Fall 09/Wtr 10
Students
Surveyed n
FLT 337 30
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral
1(3%)
2 (7%)
1 (3%)
2 (7%)
Agree Strongly
Agree
10 (33%) 19 (63%)
7 (23%) 21 (70%)
11 (37%) 18 (60%)
10 (33%) 18 (60%)
0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (5%)
Goals for Criterion 9
80% percent agree or strongly agree
95%
38 (32%)
Goals for Criterion 9:
80% of students surveyed met criterion 4
Exceeded
76 (63%)
9

June 10, 2009 Draft Aviation Assessment Report
Criterion 10 (new assessment) results below partially assess Student Learner Outcome 1: Apply the foundational knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to fly commercial transport aircraft in a safe and efficient manner. It is also included to indicate overall general strengths and weaknesses, from the graduate’s perspective, of the CWU and Midstate Aviation flight training program.
Results for 16 graduating senior Flight Officer (FO) & Commercial Pilot (CP) students who participated in the “Flight Technology Senior Exit Survey” at the Ellensburg campus.
1. Central Washington University’s
Flight Technology Program met my expectations.
N/A Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree
7 9
1 8 7
2. This program prepared me for entry into the aviation industry.
3. I felt confident in Flight
Technology faculty knowledge.
1 6 9
3 13
4. Flight Technology faculty were approachable.
5. Flight Technology faculty effectively taught industry related material.
6. Flight Technology faculty varied their delivery methods of course material.
7. Flight Technology faculty conducted themselves professionally.
8. The Flight Technology faculty treated me with respect.
9. The academic advising provided by the faculty every quarter was useful in completing my degree.
10. I felt knowledgeable about the activities taking place in the program.
11. I felt confident in the Flight
Technology part-time lecturer’s knowledge.
12. Flight Technology part time lecturers effectively taught industry related material.
13. Text books required for Flight
Technology courses were relevant to course material.
14. Flight Technology curricula appears relevant to the aviation industry.
1
2
1
10
4
3
2
2
2
1
7
6
2
3
3
7
5
6
3
5
8
6
14
13
13
6
7
7
11
10

June 10, 2009 Draft Aviation Assessment Report were approachable.
33. The Chief Flight Instructor and
Assistant Chief Flight Instructor treated me with respect.
2 2 4 8
34. Midstate Aviation office personnel were approachable.
2 5 9
35. Midstate Aviation office personnel treated me with respect.
2 4 10
36. Midstate Aviation office personnel considerately communicated with me regarding scheduling issues.
2 1 3 2 8
37. Midstate Aviation office personnel considerately communicated with me regarding charges to my account.
2 1 3 4 6
38. Aircraft rental rates arr comparable to other flight schools with equivalent aircraft.
2 4 3 1 4 2
39. The quality of Midstate Aviation aircraft are above average.
2 4 10
40. The maintenance of Midstate
Aviation aircraft is excellent.
2 2 12
41. The flight training I received from Midstate Aviation prepared me well for a career as a professional pilot.
2 2 4 8
Please rate the following questions
Very
Poor
Poor Fair Good Very
Good
7 9
42. How would you rate the overall quality of flight instruction received from your flight instructors at
Midstate Aviation, Inc.?
43. How would you rate the overall quality of instruction you received from Flight Tech Faculty?
5 11
44. How would you rate the overall quality of the CWU Flight
Technology program?
Total
Quarter Students
Surveyed n Goals for Criterion 10
80% percent agree/strongly agree and good/very good
82%
6 10
51(7%) 10(1%) 19(3%) 52(7%) 214(31%) 356(51%)
Spring 09 Graduating Seniors 16
Goals for Criterion 10:
80% of students surveyed met criterion 4
Exceeded
12

June 10, 2009 Draft Aviation Assessment Report
Summary:

Test performance of students enrolled in FLT 242 Winter 2010 improved over 2009: during the previous reporting period only 63% of the students in FLT 242 passed their EOC written exam and
64% passed the FAA written exam on their first attempt. Scores this year met or exceeded criterion goals.

Mean FAA written exam scores were above national means for 4 of the 5 certification exams associated with FLT 142, 242, 354 and 358; they were the same as the national mean for one exam
(FLT 354).

Survey results continue to be very positive with 75% to 95% of responses indicating “Agree” or
“Strongly Agree” for all surveys administered (Criteria 4, 5, 6, 9 & 10). o Survey results for FLT 142: 91% of responses were “agree” or “strongly agree;” last year it was 89%. o Survey results for FLT 242: 84% of responses were “agree” or “strongly agree;” last year it was 86%. o Survey results for FLT 354: 75% of responses were “agree” or “strongly agree;” last year it was 90%. o Survey results for FLT 337: 95% of responses were “agree” or “strongly agree;” last year it was 84%. o Senior Exit survey results: 82% of responses were “agree” or “strongly agree.”

The above data shows that goals were met or exceeded with three exceptions: o Course grades of students enrolled in FLT 211 Winter 2010: Last reporting period 88% of 51 students enrolled in FLT 211 passed the course with a minimum score of 80%; this year only
72% of 36 students did so. Criterion goal is 80% of students. o Number of students enrolled in FLT 352 Winter 2010 who passed FAA EOC written exam on the first attempt with a minimum score of 80%: Last reporting period 100% of 12 students enrolled in FLT 352 passed the course with a minimum score of 80%; this year only
83% of 24 students did so. Criterion goal is 90% of students for this upper division course. o Number of students enrolled in FLT 301 who passed the FAA EOC practical flight exam on the first attempt: Last reporting period 75% of 4 students enrolled in the Fall 08 section, and
50% of 6 students enrolled in the winter section, passed the course with a minimum score of
80%; this year 100% of 2 students enrolled in the Spring 09 section passed the course with a minimum score of 80%, but only 50% of 4 students in the Fall 09 section did so. Criterion goal is 90% of students for this upper division course.
4.
What will the department or program do as a result of that information?
The department feels that only minor changes are needed to improve the program.

The performance of students enrolled in FLT 211 who did not pass the course with a minimum score of 80% (only 72% met this goal this reporting period) cannot easily be explained. The same instructor taught this class using the same techniques and exams as the previous year. SEOI mean instructor “teaching effectiveness” and “course as a whole” scores were virtually unchanged (last year 4.93 & 4.81 respectively, this year 4.88 & 4.85 respectively). It has been suggested that there may be a difference in freshmen performance this year because of lower SAT and Admissions Index scores; this has not been verified.
13

June 10, 2009 Draft Aviation Assessment Report

The performance of students enrolled in FLT 352 who did not pass the course with a minimum score of 80% (only 83% met this goal this year and the goal for this upper division class is 90%) cannot be definitively explained. However, because of budget constraints the department cut one section of this course combining them into one class: this doubled the class size from 12 to 24 possibly making it more difficult for the instructor to devote the same amount of attention to each student as before. It is also possible that a 90% criterion goal is unrealistic for upper division FAA ground courses and labs; if so, the department may want to consider changing it to 80%. This would also be consistent with other FAA ground courses and flight labs.

The department will inform the Chief Instructor of Midstate Aviation of the failure to meet criterion goals for FLT 301—Flight Instructor Lab. Of the four sections we have records for over the past two years, only one met the criterion goal of 90% passing the exam first time; the rest were below that value. However, there doesn’t appear much more the department can do since this flight training lab is taught by Midstate Aviation instructors. Also, it is one of the most challenging EOC Practical
Flight Examinations and is often administered by FAA personnel. Usually these students pass on the second attempt. It is also possible that a 90% criterion goal is unrealistic for this upper division lab and the department may want to consider changing it to 80%. This would also be consistent with other FAA ground courses and flight labs.

The department would like to formalize achievement levels for FAA written exam scores. The expected achievement level would be “higher mean examination scores than national means.” One proposal is to include FAA written exam scores as a component of the appropriate FAA Ground
School course grade.
5.
What did the department or program do in response to the feedback from last year's assessment report?

Using the academic year (AY) reporting period in last year’s assessment report made it difficult to capture performance in the milestone flight labs (final flight labs of the appropriate FAA certificate or rating) of 103 (Private certificate), 203 (Instrument rating), and 306 (Commercial certificate) in time to meet the annual deadline (students usually need to remain at least one to two weeks after the end of spring quarter to finish their ratings/certificates). Using a “Spring 2009 to Winter 2010” time frame for this year’s report allowed us to include this data enabling a more comprehensive evaluation of student performance.

Performance for the FLT 242 course did not meet stated criteria during the previous reporting period.
To address this weakness, CWU’s FAA-designated Chief Ground Instructor gained permission from the FAA to exempt showing all the DVD segments which allowed more class time for discussion and FAA test preparation. Also, previous to this evaluation period, test questions were from publically-available FAA examination test banks. Unfortunately, this had the effect of de-motivating some students to apply themselves at the level necessary to master the material. Test questions were changed this year (more challenging and not all directly from FAA test banks), which appears to have had the effect of re-motivating these students to work harder to achieve the objectives of the course!
 In response to last year’s feedback we set similar achievement levels for indirect measures (surveys).
We defined the minimum level of expectation for survey data at 80% of responses “agreed” or
14

June 10, 2009 Draft Aviation Assessment Report
“strongly agreed”: basically the same criterion level as the other measures. Only one survey fell below this criterion goal (just under at 75%); results will be shared with the faculty member so they may ascertain areas they may wish to consider changing.
6.
Questions or suggestions concerning Assessment of Student Learning at Central Washington
University:
-none
15