STUDENT LEARNING ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
SUMMARY FORM AY 2007-2008
Degree and Program Name: Philosophy B.A.
Submitted By:
Gary Aylesworth
Jonelle DePetro
PART ONE
What are the learning objectives?
Philosophy Department Student Learning Objectives:
1. Students will demonstrate basic knowledge of the historical periods
and major areas of philosophy
2. Students will demonstrate ability for critical and independent thinking, including
analysis and evaluation of arguments.
3. Students will be able to write argumentative essays and express ideas in a coherent
form.
4. Students will demonstrate knowledge of contemporary developments in philosophy.
5. Students will recognize and understand cultural and philosophical pluralism.
How, where, and when are they assessed?
Student Portfolios (all objectives)
Student Final Exams in PHI 2000 Ancient and PHI 3260 Modern Philosophy are graded on a
more detailed rubric for historical appreciation. (objective one)
Student Satisfaction Surveys (all objectives)
Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Examination (objective 2)
What are the expectations?
Portfolio: We expect “satisfactory achievement.”
Satisfactory achievement is defined as each assessed piece of writing (finals/papers) would merit
a score of 3 (on the 4 pt scale) for all traits measured. In addition, we expect that 50% of our
majors will exceed satisfactory achievement. Exceeding satisfactory achievement is defined as
meeting satisfactory achievement and in addition, reaching a score of 4 in half, or more, of the
traits.
PHI 2000 and PHI 3260 finals should also meet satisfactory expectation, level three in all questions.
Student Satisfaction Surveys: Exit Surveys: Level of three (out of five) or above in all questions.
Also standards for increased satisfaction. Standards for increase will be revised at a later time.
Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Examination: Looking for improvement or high scores over the major.
Improvement is defined as moving into the 90th percentile upon the exit exam. An initial score in
the 90th percentile counts as satisfactory.
What are the results?
Here are our results for direct measures as in the portfolio: Again: We were looking for
“satisfactory achievement.” Satisfactory achievement was defined as each assessed piece of
writing (finals/papers) would merit a score of 3 (on the 4 pt scale) for all traits measured. In
addition, it is expected that 50% of our majors will exceed satisfactory achievement. Exceeding
satisfactory achievement was defined as meeting satisfactory achievement and in addition,
reaching a score of 4 in half, or more, of the traits.
Objective One:
Expectation Not Met. Not all students at level three. Overall students met expectation but did
very well in the area of objective 1, historical appreciation. 86% of assessed portfolio work met or
exceeded level three expectation.
We look more closely at students’ understanding of history in their work in PHI 3260, Modern
Philosophy. We created sub-objectives. In that closer look, only one final exam did not meet level
three for satisfactory achievement.
Students will correlate all modern philosophers with their doctrines:
86% met expectation
Students will accurately define all significant concepts covered:
86% met level three - satisfactory achievement.
Students understand the complexity of the rationalist/empiricist distinction
86% met level three satisfactory achievement (75% were at level 4)
Students can identify and define the skeptical position
86% met level three satisfactory achievement (75% were at level 4)
Objective Two:
Expectation not met.
Portfolio work: Critical and Independent Thinking: Not all students received a level of 3 as
expected. However, where 11 papers were assessed, 86% met level three in critical thinking,
objective 2.
Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Exam: We are looking for improvement through the major on
WG scores.
Expectation for satisfactory achievement is not met.
Exiting WG scores from senior seminars show Philosophy majors scoring only slightly above the
overall mean. They score higher for “evaluation of arguments” and ”deduction”. Typically,
incoming majors score higher than the overall mean. Scores from senior seminar were not
available for all graduating majors at the time of our spring assessment meeting. For example,
senior seminars taken through Continuing Ed, online, were not available.
Objective Three:
Expectation met.
Portfolio only: While there was concern over student writing, 100% of majors who turned in a
portfolio received a satisfactory in that area.
We analyzed work using a more detailed writing rubric. On that rubric, 100% received a
satisfactory (level three or above on all traits.)
Objective Four:
Expectation was not met, however only one student’s essay failed to meet the expectation.
86% met expectation of level three.
Objective Five:
Expectation was not met, however only one students’ essay failed to meet the expectation.
86% met expectation of level three.
Here are some written comments from faculty members who assessed portfolio work:
Papers have few mechanical errors.
Papers are critical, but need more attempt at original thought.
Students need to more carefully define their terms.
Student Satisfaction Survey: Satisfactory achievement was defined as level three in all areas
for exit surveys. Expectations were met this year for all objectives.
For the surveys, satisfactory achievement was a level 3 or higher on the exit surveys. 100%
perceived satisfactory achievement for all objectives.
There was some differentiation in student responses. Interestingly, students gave themselves a
lower numeric score for the ability to identify arguments, common fallacies and opposing points
of view than they did for being able to construct arguments, objections and opposing points of
view.
Who is responsible for collecting data?
Dept. Assessment Committee responsible for assessing and collecting data for all objective
measures. (portfolio grading rubric)
Chair responsible for collecting data for all subjective measures (student satisfaction surveys).
How are results shared?
Assessment Coordinator writes report results that are shared among faculty of the
Philosophy Department Meeting Spring/Fall.
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 continued to assess student performance in regard to objectives one, two and three, using exams and
papers written for courses. We also reviewed the performance of philosophy majors on the Watson Glaser
Critical Thinking Examination, and conducted an exit survey of majors who graduated in AY 2007-2008.
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 noted that since we are a relatively small program, our data base may be too small to
support statistically reliable conclusions. We are also concerned about the lack of a standard
comparison group for assessing the performance of our majors. In the future, we will develop a
content-oriented assessment instrument that we will develop as a department, to be administered
as an exit survey for graduating majors. This will allows us to usefully quantify the knowledge
base and analytical skills of our students in relation to the curricular goals of our program.