2010-2011
Academic Assessment at Lindenwood
University
Section 1II:
Undergraduate Programs
P a g e | ii
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4
Assessing Programs and Majors ................................................................................................. 4
Changing the System............................................................................................................... 5
Assessing Advisors .................................................................................................................. 5
Praxis University Wide ............................................................................................................ 8
School of American Studies ........................................................................................................ 9
School of American Studies Analysis ...................................................................................... 9
School of Business and Entrepreneurship ................................................................................ 10
SB&E Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 25
School of Communications ....................................................................................................... 26
School of Communications Analysis ..................................................................................... 29
School of Education .................................................................................................................. 29
Early Childhood B-3 ........................................................................................................... 30
Elementary Education 1-6................................................................................................. 33
Health Education K-12 ...................................................................................................... 35
Athletic Training ................................................................................................................ 38
Exercise Science ................................................................................................................ 46
Physical Education ............................................................................................................ 72
School of Education Analysis ................................................................................................ 79
School of Fine and Performing Arts .......................................................................................... 80
Fine Arts ............................................................................................................................ 82
Art History ......................................................................................................................... 86
Dance ................................................................................................................................ 88
Music ................................................................................................................................. 95
Theatre ............................................................................................................................ 111
School of Fine and Performing Arts Analysis ...................................................................... 123
School of Human Services ....................................................................................................... 124
Christian Ministry Studies ............................................................................................... 124
Criminal Justice ............................................................................................................... 128
Nonprofit Administration ............................................................................................... 130
Social Work ..................................................................................................................... 134
School of Human Services Analysis ..................................................................................... 162
School of Humanities .............................................................................................................. 165
English ............................................................................................................................. 166
English Preparedness Program ....................................................................................... 168
Foreign Languages .......................................................................................................... 175
French ............................................................................................................................. 177
P a g e | iii
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Spanish ............................................................................................................................ 188
Geography ....................................................................................................................... 198
History ............................................................................................................................. 198
International Studies....................................................................................................... 206
Philosophy ....................................................................................................................... 208
Political Science............................................................................................................... 212
Religion............................................................................................................................ 213
School of Humanities Analysis ............................................................................................ 217
School of Sciences ................................................................................................................... 219
Anthropology/Sociology ................................................................................................. 221
Biology............................................................................................................................. 225
Chemistry ........................................................................................................................ 233
Results ................................................................................................................................. 234
Computer Science ........................................................................................................... 247
Earth Sciences ................................................................................................................. 250
Mathematics ................................................................................................................... 251
Physics and Pre-Engineering ........................................................................................... 255
Psychology ...................................................................................................................... 263
School of Sciences Analysis ................................................................................................. 278
LCIE .......................................................................................................................................... 280
The LCIE Approach .............................................................................................................. 280
LCIE Programs ..................................................................................................................... 287
Bachelor of Science in Business Administration ............................................................. 287
Health Management Programs....................................................................................... 293
Program Assessment Overview .............................................................................................. 296
Summary of Assessment of Programs ................................................................................ 296
Program Assessment Action Plan ....................................................................................... 297
P a g e |4
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Introduction
Assessing Programs and Majors
Programs and activities at Lindenwood University flow from the Mission Statement,
which affirms that Lindenwood’s educational mission is to add value to the lives of our
students and community. Specifically, “Lindenwood is committed to
 providing an integrative liberal arts curriculum,
 offering professional and pre-professional degree programs,
 focusing on the talents, interests, and future of the student,
 supporting academic freedom and the unrestricted search for truth,
 affording cultural enrichment to the surrounding community,
 promoting ethical lifestyles,
 developing adaptive thinking and problem-solving skills,
 furthering lifelong learning.
Lindenwood accomplishes these goals through more than 71 day degree and preprofessional programs (not including various degree emphases), as well as 12 evening
degree programs and 45 minors, all of which are distributed throughout nine academic
schools and two campuses.
1. American Studies
2. Business and Entrepreneurship
3. Communications
4. Education
5. Fine and Performing Arts
6. Human Services
7. Humanities
8. Sciences
9. Lindenwood College for Individualized Education
10. Lindenwood University-St. Charles
11. Lindenwood University-Belleville
The University requires that all of its programs conduct assessment as a regular part of
their internal review process. In virtually all of the cases, the assessment tools are
internal to the programs and are designed to assess not only the general effectiveness of
the programs, but also specific areas of interest or concern. The University and program
faculty members are constantly assessing their assessment measure in order to ensure
that is giving them the information needed for continuous improvement. University
policy requires that new programs integrate assessment into the initial planning phases,
P a g e |5
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
which has improved the way programs approach assessment; however, we recognize
that it takes time to create a useful set of assessment tools.
A number of programs are going, or have gone, through external evaluations for
additional professional accreditations, such as education, social work, business, and LCIE.
These accreditations will have a positive impact on the development of the assessment
programs in these areas as the programs will need to not only meet the traditional higher
education goals of assessment, but also assess the practical professional level of training.
While all the schools have at least one major program, not all of the programs are
sufficiently advanced or developed to have meaningful program assessments. This is
particularly true of newer programs or those that are too small to have assessment
beyond the individual class or student.
Overall, the University’s program assessment, which has been very good for years, is
growing and improving on a regular basis.
Changing the System
Over the next five years the University will be implementing a new system for assessing
our programs.
Every four years, each degree program will write a report based on ongoing assessment.
The reporting schedule will be determined by the Provost in consultation with the Dean
of Institutional Research. Some departments will submit program assessment reports
starting in 2012-13, some will start in 2013-14, some will start in 2014-15, and some will
start in 2015-16.
Every year, each department will also choose program-level student learning outcomes
(SLO) to assess.
Assessing Advisors
During the 2010-11 academic year, the University Retention Committee piloted a student
survey of the University’s academic advisors. The response rate for the survey was
approximately 10 percent.
All full-time faculty members act as advisors for students from their first semester to the
end of their time at the University. Students who matriculate to the University as
“undecided” as to their majors are often assigned to advisors in areas with lower
numbers of majors, especially to advisors in the humanities. Once students declare a
major, they are assigned to an advisor in their major.
P a g e |6
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Results of Student Survey of Academic Advisors
What is your academic status?
Response Percent
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
16.7%
20.0%
23.9%
39.4%
Over 43 percent of the respondents were from the School of Education and the School of
Business and Entrepreneurship. Their responses to a variety of questions are tabulated
in the table below.
Please rank the following advisor responsibilities in order of importance to you.
1 most
2
3
4
important
Choosing classes for each
semester
Offering advice on how to be
successful in college
Planning for graduation
Career planning
Preparing for graduate school
5 least
important
Rating
Average
37.99%
20.05%
16.09%
15.30%
10.55%
2.40
16.85%
20.11%
17.66%
22.55%
22.83%
3.14
17.13%
21.95%
9.87%
30.94%
20.87%
10.39%
25.14%
28.46%
14.55%
18.23%
21.95%
20.00%
8.56%
6.78%
45.19%
2.70
2.71
3.80
On average, how many times per semester do you see your assigned advisor for academic advice?
Response Percent
0
1-2
3-4
5 or more
3.5%
61.6%
23.2%
11.7%
On average, how many times per semester do you see your assigned advisor for career advice?
0
1-2
3-4
5 or more
Response Percent
55.9%
31.2%
8.2%
4.7%
On average, how many times per semester do you see your assigned advisor for other matters?
0
1-2
3-4
5 or more
Response Percent
41.8%
36.8%
10.7%
10.7%
P a g e |7
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Please rate the following statements in terms of frequency:
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
My advisor is accessible.
1.74%
2.99%
18.16%
My advisor is knowledgeable
1.00%
5.49%
11.72%
about academic requirements.
My advisor is knowledgeable
about administrative
2.01%
6.52%
14.29%
requirements.
My advisor assists me with class
4.52%
11.06%
12.81%
selection.
My advisor helps me keep track
6.75%
10.75%
13.75%
of progress towards graduation.
My advisor is willing to help.
1.25%
3.50%
11.75%
My advisor cares about my
2.75%
6.00%
10.50%
success.
My advisor cares about my future
7.25%
8.50%
11.25%
beyond Lindenwood.
My advisor helps me plan for my
12.25%
11.50%
12.50%
success beyond Lindenwood.
Often
37.31%
Always
39.80%
N/A
0.00%
25.44%
55.86%
0.50%
26.32%
47.62%
3.26%
22.11%
48.24%
1.26%
19.25%
47.00%
2.50%
14.25%
68.25%
1.00%
12.75%
64.75%
3.25%
13.25%
51.50%
8.25%
16.25%
38.00%
9.50%
Based on this limited sample, the overall evaluation of advising at Lindenwood is positive,
but significant room exists for improvement in a number of areas. The need for
improvement is particularly noticeable in the areas that deal with the student’s life
beyond Lindenwood.
Students at Lindenwood report that they feel free to seek advice from faculty and staff
other than their assigned advisors, with a majority of those who responded indicating
they have sought such advice while at the University.
Do you see other professors or staff members for advice?
Yes
No
Response Percent
60.7%
39.3%
On average, how many times per semester do you see this additional advisor for advice?
Response Percent
0
1-2
3-4
5 or more
33.1%
38.0%
15.4%
13.5%
Which of the following types of assistance have you received from this person? (Choose all that apply)
Class selection and scheduling
Advice on how to be successful in college
Graduation planning
Response Percent
56.5%
54.6%
30.2%
P a g e |8
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Career planning
Graduate school preparation
56.5%
26.3%
While a majority of the respondents say they did not seek career planning advice from
their primary advisor, a majority also said they did seek career advice from another
member of the University staff and faculty.
Praxis University Wide
The PRAXIS exam is taken by those students seeking teaching certification at the
elementary or secondary level in Missouri. Those students who wish to teach at the
secondary level take the exam in a specific content area such as math or history. For this
reason, the programs that offer a teacher certification option use the PRAXIS as one area
for external assessment of their programs success.
The PRAXIS scores have been placed at the end of the discussion for each of the
appropriate programs.
The composite PRAXIS scores for each program have shown a great deal of consistency
over the last six years, with no program in the last year having an average under the
required score for passing the exam.
A number of factors limit the effectiveness of the PRAXIS as an assessment tool:
1) Not all the students have taken the majority of their coursework at
Lindenwood at the time they take the exam.
2) Not all students have majored in the areas in which they take the PRAXIS.
3) M.A.T. students (students who attend Lindenwood as graduate education
students) are not differentiated from undergraduate students.
P a g e |9
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
School of American Studies
The School of American Studies was formed during the 2007-08 academic year. In 2010,
it was prepared to do program assessment, but because it is currently undergoing a
series of revisions, it is not currently prepared to do effective assessment of the program.
Departments:
 American Studies
 Recreational Leadership
Degree programs offered by the School of American Studies
Bachelor of Arts in
 American Studies
 Recreational Leadership
Minors in
 American Studies
 Minor in Recreation Leadership
School of American Studies Analysis
Both the programs (American studies and recreational leadership) are working on
assessment tools for implementation during the 2011-12 academic year. While the
programs are small, this is good time to work assessment into the program before
implementation would be considered a problem.
P a g e | 10
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
School of Business and Entrepreneurship
Degree programs offered by the School of Business and Entrepreneurship:
Bachelor of Arts in
 Accounting
 Business Administration
 Arts Management
 Economics
 Entrepreneurial Studies
 Finance
 Human Resource Management
 International Business
 Management Information Systems
 Marketing
 Retail Merchandising
 Sport Management
Minors in
 Business Administration
 Economics
 Retail Merchandising
ACBSP Accreditation
During the last academic year (May 6, 2010), after a three-year application and review
process, the School of Business and Entrepreneurship received accreditation from the
Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs, the premier accrediting
association for business schools and programs with a focus on teaching excellence.
Standard IV of the required self-study focused on assessment of learning outcomes, and
much work was accomplished in this area. As an outcome of the ACBSP self-study, the
SB&E has appointed a task force to implement a formal quality-management system,
which will establish processes, one of which is assessment, and appoint process owners
who are responsible for continuous improvement.
Statement of Mission
The mission statement of the School of Business and Entrepreneurship complements and
expands upon that of the University. The School of Business and Entrepreneurship is
committed to
P a g e | 11
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment








providing a comprehensive core curriculum of business subjects,
instilling a strong and enduring sense of ethical business practices,
providing theoretical tools and analytical skills for lifelong use,
offering major fields of study to equip students for specialized careers,
developing the student’s communication and presentation skills,
providing opportunities to supplement classroom education with real world
experience,
expanding the student’s geographical and cultural horizons for success in an
increasingly global economy,
instilling the entrepreneurial model as an essential component of American free
enterprise.
Method of Assessment
Institutional Proficiency Survey
Each May since 2005, the University’s graduating seniors are asked to complete an
Institutional Proficiency Survey. Section III of the survey uses a five-point scale on which
students rate the quality of the education received at Lindenwood University. The results
of the survey for all students graduating with a business degree are used to assess the
overall performance of the SB&E. Twenty of the 30 questions in section III are
considered directly relevant to school assessment. Average scores for each of these 20
questions for May 2007, May 2008, and May 2009 were used to compute a baseline to
which the results for the 2010-2011 academic year are compared. Effective this academic
year, two important advances were made in relation to the Institutional Proficiency data
– (i) the survey was conducted twice - December 2010 and May 2011, and (ii) advanced
coding allowed the data for the SB&E to be disaggregated into graduates of the
undergraduate program and graduates of the graduate program.
Peer Institutions Comparisons
The SB&E is in the process of compiling a list of peer institutions in order to ensure more
meaningful school assessment baselines and benchmarks. Starting with a list of 30 similar
business schools, the goal is to arrive at a core of business schools that are ACBSP
accredited and also participate in assessment testing by Educational Testing Services,
Management Solutions Incorporated, and Ivy Services while also utilizing Educational
Benchmarking Incorporated services for graduate, alumni, and employer surveys.
Results
Institutional Proficiency Surveys - SB&E Undergraduate Students
P a g e | 12
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
May-10
SB&E
No. of Students
May
'07/'08/'09
SB&E Baseline
261 (Avg.)
Dec10
All LU
289
May-11
SB&E
May-11
All LU
218
Dec10
SB&E
149
51
93
Course Content
3.87
3.95
3.87
3.87
3.85
3.9
3.5
3.61
3.56
3.46
3.62
3.57
3.89
3.94
3.85
3.85
3.71
3.89
Instruction in your major field
3.89
3.94
3.97
4.04
3.88
3.98
Attitude of instructors toward
students
4.07
4.2
3.99
4.07
3.91
3.97
Class Size
4.28
4.47
4.25
4.21
4.21
4.16
Availability of your advisor
3.88
3.94
3.84
3.97
3.95
3.86
Preparation of world for
work/future career
3.68
3.62
3.67
3.7
3.6
3.6
Admissions policies/procedures
3.58
3.67
3.55
3.66
3.79
3.66
3.59
3.65
3.53
3.58
3.55
3.75
3.43
3.61
3.53
3.59
3.63
3.61
3.21
3.29
3.42
3.43
3.63
3.37
Concern for you as an individual
3.67
3.81
3.62
3.65
3.51
3.71
Self-actualization while at LU
3.71
3.79
3.75
3.73
3.72
3.73
Spiritual growth while at LU
3.41
3.3
3.41
3.51
3.37
3.57
3.65
3.73
3.72
3.71
3.75
3.73
3.78
3.89
3.82
3.74
3.72
3.87
3.81
3.96
3.83
3.72
3.7
3.87
3.57
3.6
3.54
3.66
3.64
3.69
Discovery path for my life
3.72
3.76
3.63
3.76
3.62
3.66
Average
3.71
3.79
3.72
3.75
3.72
3.76
Availability of courses when you
need them
Availability of instructors outside
of class
Correctness of info supplied prior
to enrolling
Policies regarding student
conduct
Academic probation/suspension
policies
Development of personal values
while at LU
Development of a desire for
lifelong learning
Development of strong work
ethic
Development of a desire to serve
my community
Lessons Learned and Action Plans for Next Year
The need to share the above information on school assessment with all full-time faculty
members and the improved quality of discussions and suggestions that emanate because
of this sharing of information were the major lessons learned in this academic year.
Deans and division chairs have started placing all important summary data on a shared
P a g e | 13
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
SB&E drive for discussion. For example, a summer 2011 project, which will investigate
alternative school assessment methods, arose from this discussion.
Program Assessment
University Goals and Objectives
Lindenwood University offers values-centered programs leading to the development of the whole
person—an educated, responsible citizen of a global community.
Lindenwood is committed to








providing an integrative liberal arts curriculum,
offering professional and pre-professional degree programs,
focusing on the talents, interests, and future of the student,
supporting academic freedom and the unrestricted search for truth,
affording cultural enrichment to the surrounding community,
promoting ethical lifestyles,
developing adaptive thinking and problem-solving skills, and
furthering lifelong learning.
All of the eleven undergraduate majors offered by the SB&E have a heavy focus on
meeting University goals 2, 3, 6, and 7. However, each of the majors encompass, to some
degree, goals 1, 4, 5, and 8. The University goals reflect the liberal arts training of the GE
part of the curriculum, and the business school concentrates on developing this
knowledge and applying it to the business environment.
Program Goals and Objectives
The following Student Learning Outcomes have been established for the undergraduate
majors offered by the SB&E. The school is currently in the process of reviewing and
revising the learning outcomes for each of its majors. The outcomes listed for the
business administration major are provisional and are being developed in conjunction
with Lindenwood’s LCIE business program.
P a g e | 14
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Major
Accounting
Program Learning Outcomes
Students will
 exhibit a knowledge and understanding of the process of recording
transactions and the process of maintaining accounting records,
 use critical thinking skills to analyze data in order to make decisions.
Business
Administration
Students will be able to demonstrate
 effective written communications,
 effective oral communications,
 effective solutions through logical decision-making (critical thinking),
 effective use of technology and information,
 accurate analysis through quantitative reasoning,
 effective collaboration,
 effective leadership,
 ethical and responsible behavior,
 effective application of principles to functional business areas,
 effective management skills.
Economics
Students will
 exhibit a thorough understanding of the basic theories and models
utilized in the field of economics,
 demonstrate a capacity for performing analytical analyses,
 demonstrate the ability to communicate effectively both orally and in
writing. in particular, students will be able to communicate complex
economic information in a coherent, cogent, and grammatically
correct manner.
Entrepreneurship
Students will
 demonstrate an understanding of financial management of new and
fast growing businesses,
 demonstrate familiarity with early to late-stage equity finance as well
as with alternate forms of external finance,
 demonstrate the ability to construct pro forma financial statements
for new or expanding ventures,
 investigate financing resources and approaches,
 demonstrate an ability to make entrepreneurial decisions based on
case studies,
 develop opportunity awareness and develop venture ideas,
 set objectives, choose resources, and evaluate market research,
 interpret the results of research and understand its limitations,
 demonstrate a better understanding of the venture initiation process
and the mechanics of starting a new business,
 gain insight into the process of identifying business opportunities,
 demonstrate an understanding of the importance of effective
marketing, funding, and management to small businesses,
 experience writing a business plan,
 analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the entrepreneur.
P a g e | 15
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Major
Finance
Human Resources
International
Business
Program Learning Outcomes
Students will
 understand and be able to apply the basic concepts of business
finance, with an appreciation of the legal and ethical issues faced by
financial managers and investors;
 understand and be able to ethically apply the major tools employed in
the financial management of the publicly traded corporation;
 gain a strong understanding of the basics of investing, with an
emphasis on valuing the equity securities of the publicly traded
corporation;
 gain an understanding of the implications of macroeconomic policy
analysis with emphasis on the role of financial markets, financial
institutions, foreign exchange markets, and the monetary authority;
 gain an in-depth understanding of the financial aspects of managing a
new business, including financing methods, working capital
management, external expansion, and exit strategies;
 be able to use case studies and a life-cycle approach, beginning with
business startup and concluding with cashing out.
Students will
 gain an understanding of the HR function and its place in modern
organizations,
 develop knowledge of all facets of the HR function,
 learn to recognize the relevance of current events in HR,
 appreciate the importance of the changing nature of labor law,
 gain a working knowledge of HR research methods,
 practice presentation styles relevant to the subject matter,
 gain an understanding of remuneration,
 develop knowledge of types of pay,
 learn to recognize aspects of pay fairness and competitive benefits,
 demonstrate an appreciation for the importance of the changing
nature of labor law with regard to remuneration,
 demonstrate a working knowledge of types of employee benefits,
 identify the need for training and development in the modern
company in order to compete in a global economy,
 identify methods and roles of training in the modern organization,
 perform a needs assessment, design a training program, deliver
training, and evaluate training results,
 analyze training scenarios for integrated learning theories and styles
addressed,
 explain the changing nature of the employer–employee relationship
and the responsibility of both parties to provide for the personal and
business development of the employee.
Students will
 demonstrate an understanding of how historical perspectives
influence and shape current events;
 display understanding of the nature (and the pros and cons) of
globalization; students will understand trade theories and the role of
governmental influence on trade and cross national trade
agreements;
 understand how businesses interact with the cultural, political, legal,
and economic environments of multiple nations;
 display an understanding of the international financial environment,
P a g e | 16
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Major
Management
Management
Information Systems
Marketing
Program Learning Outcomes
including the study of exchange rates and international capital
markets;
 have an awareness of the unique problems facing the financial
manager operating internationally, including foreign taxation, working
capital management, sources of funds, international and regional
financial institutions, commercial documents, and international trade
organizations;
 exhibit an understanding of what is involved in organizing, staffing,
and managing the international enterprise and how to adapt
managerial decisions to different cultures and local conditions while
benefiting operations on an international scale;
 be able to apply elements of a marketing program on a multinational/global scale and be able to identify and analyze opportunities
in these markets and develop specific plans for applying the elements
of a marketing program to international opportunities;
 gain an appreciation for the complexity of cross-cultural
communication, which includes becoming more aware of their own
culturally-based perceptions and patterns of thinking and behaving, as
well as developing an understanding of other cultures and skills for
communicating in intercultural situations;
 acquire, practice, and display skills regarding critical thinking and
communication (both written and oral).
Students will
 describe and understand management concepts and how to ethically
and legally apply the concepts in real life and case situations,
 demonstrate an understanding of the role of management in society
and organizations (for-profit and nonprofit),
 understand and apply the concepts and methodologies of the various
functions of management and planning using oral and written
communication skills,
 demonstrate the ability to analyze management, entrepreneurism,
and management functions using critical and analytical problemsolving skills,
 demonstrate the ability to utilize systematic approaches to diagnosing
and solving management problems and issues in addition to the
ability to develop and present business plan.
Students will
 exhibit a basic understanding information systems; namely, students
will understand computer hardware, software, networking and their
relationship with people, data, and business processes;
 exhibit an understanding of it project management, systems analysis,
systems design, and systems implementation;
 exhibit an understanding of how to create software (including
application and database software), as a business solution.
Students will
 describe and understand marketing concepts and how to ethically
apply the concepts in real life and case situations domestically and
globally;
 demonstrate an understanding of the role of marketing in society and
organizations (for-profit and nonprofit);
 understand and apply the concepts and methodologies of the various
P a g e | 17
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Major
Retail Merchandising
Sport Management
Program Learning Outcomes
functional areas of marketing including but not limited to market
research, pricing, advertising and promotions, public relations,
product management, entrepreneurism, and marketing management
and planning using oral and written communication skills;
 demonstrate the ability to analyze the impact and results of market
research, pricing, advertising and promotions, public relations,
product management, entrepreneurism, and marketing management
and planning using critical and analytical problem-solving skills;
 demonstrate ability to utilize systematic approaches to diagnosing
and solving marketing problems and issues in addition to the ability to
develop and present an organization-wide strategic marketing plan.
Students will
 display a thorough understanding of the basic concepts of retail
operations and how they function in today’s economic environment,
 be able to demonstrate the criteria used by retailers to determine
locations that will maximize profits,
 demonstrate a thorough understanding of the various marketing and
merchandising techniques used by retailers today to increase market
share and maximize return,
 display a thorough understanding of how large retailing is and the
impact it has on supply chain management.
Students will
 exhibit an understanding of how to apply the core business concepts
(accounting, finance, management, marketing, economics, hr) to the
business of sport,
 understand the practical skills necessary to be a successful manager in
the business of sport,
 demonstrate the ability to communicate, both orally and in writing,
 exhibit an understanding of making ethical decisions and the
ramifications of ethical decision-making in the sport industry.
Assessment of Majors
All majors offered in the SB&E are assessed for their level of attainment of the abovestated learning outcomes.
Methods of Assessment Used
Objective
A summative assessment is conducted using the external, nationally normed ETS Major
Field Test in Business. The test is taken at the end of the management policy course,
which serves as a capstone course for all majors other than HR management and sport
management.
P a g e | 18
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
A supervisor’s form is used to assess all students who have taken an internship course for
the semester and all sport management majors who have completed their sports
practicum.
Subjective
Professional Associations: The SB&E has three of its majors closely aligned to their
respective professional associations – human resource management, accounting, and
sport management. For each of these programs, the department chair stays abreast of
developments in the field that affect curriculum. For example, the chair of the human
resource management program is currently working on AACSB recertification through
SHRM (Society of Human Resource Management), which ensures that the SB&E’s
program measures up to the national standards at the highest level and includes a review
of topics, methods, courses, and teaching credentials.
Results
Assessment of Majors Using ETS' Major Field Test
2008-2010
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
National Mean*
fall
87
spring
155
fall
113
spring
131
fall
92
spring
159
Overall Test Average
151.6
148
147
149
150
149
145
Accounting
49.8
50
47
48
48
42
39
Economics
Management
Statistics
Finance
Marketing
Legal and Social
Environ.
Information systems
International Issues
47.8
54.5
46.1
55
51.9
45.9
46
50
43
50
48
44
43
48
43
53
46
43
48
52
43
51
49
46
48
54
45
54
50
46
42
56
40
42
56
54
42
52
39
39
51
51
57.7
54.1
51
48
53
47
54
51
52
51
43
51
42
49
No. of SB&E Students
*The national mean is based on 618 institutions.
P a g e | 19
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Employer Feedback on Internships
Baseline*
Fall 09
Spring 10
Fall 10
Spring 11
43
12
14
16
15
Communication
4.52
4.55
4.79
4.56
4.58
Critical Thinking
4.58
4.18
4.71
4.63
4.54
Problem Solving
4.64
4.18
4.57
4.5
4.46
Initiative
4.69
4.55
4.79
4.5
4.77
Leadership
4.22
4
4.57
4.36
4.5
Responsibility
4.77
4.91
4.93
4.66
4.92
Works well with others
4.93
4.73
4.93
4.88
5
Self Confidence
4.68
4.55
4.79
4.56
4.77
Average Employer Satisfaction
4.63
4.46
4.76
4.58
4.69
Fall 09
Spring 10
Fall 10
Spring 11
No. on Sports Practicum
4
3
15
Communication
4
5
4.4
Critical Thinking
4.75
4.67
4.47
Problem Solving
4.25
5
4.07
Initiative
4.25
4.67
4.4
Leadership
4.25
4.67
4.13
Responsibility
5
5
4.6
Works well with others
5
5
5
Self Confidence
4.5
5
4.67
Average Employer Satisfaction
4.50
4.88
4.47
No. on Internships
*The baseline reflects 2008 and 2009
Employer Feedback on Sports Practicum
Baseline*
*The baseline reflects 2008 and 2009
Lessons Learned
At the time that the baseline was established for the internship data, there appeared to
be weaknesses in three assessment indicators – communication (-.11), critical thinking
(-.05), and leadership (-.41). The lesson learned was that interns need to meet with their
academic advisor on a more regular basis to discuss work-related issues and keep up job
motivation. For fall 2010 and spring 2011, the data reveal that students’ average scores
on assessment areas five and four (on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the best), were below
the average employer satisfaction score. Data on supervisors’ assessment for sports
P a g e | 20
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
practicums, the capstone course for sports management majors, were tabulated for
three periods and will be used to construct a baseline for future evaluation.
Action Plan for Next Year
Tracking ETS results, feedback from internships and practicums, and standards of
professional organizations revealed several areas of the business curriculum that needed
improvement. Significant research was conducted on each proposed change, and,
following Deans’ Council approval, the following changes will take effect at the beginning
of the next academic year.
1. Changes to the business core:
a. Require Microeconomics as one of the two social science general education
courses, thus allowing for the inclusion of Introduction to Business and Free
Enterprise as part of the required business core.
b. Remove Written Communications for Business (a course for which SB&E did
not have academic oversight) from the business core and replace with Global
Business and Society. This course has English Composition II as a prerequisite.
c. Require all business core courses to include some writing assignments in their
curriculum.
d. Update the curriculum for Information Systems and Management Science –
the two technology courses, and include a greater concentration on students’
mastery of EXCEL.
2. Other changes:
a. Require one human resource course for all business majors.
b. Require MGMT 36043 Principles of Operations Management for all Business
Administration majors.
c. Require all human resource majors to take MGMT 46082 Management Policy
as their capstone course.
d. Change certain course numbers down to a 20000 level, thereby ensuring that
students meet the required number of 30000/40000 level courses at
standards expected at that level.
Course Assessment
Methods of Assessment Used
1. All classes taught in the SB&E are assessed through the instructor’s objective
record of the distribution of grades that track growth in student learning based on
performance on class assignments, written projects, and presentations.
P a g e | 21
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
2. During the 2010-11 academic year, a formative assessment using a pre- and posttest instrument was employed in 15 SB&E courses.
3. End-of-course evaluations: The SB&E, like all schools at the University, conducts
end-of-course student evaluations. The evaluations have long been used for
instructor and course critiques by students, but over the past five years, this
source of data has been used increasingly for purposes of assessment of learning
outcomes. Specifically, learning outcomes are assessed by asking undergraduate
students to rate the course based on
a. the extent to which the course syllabus and policies were clear,
b. the extent to which the course goals and objectives of the course were
clear,
c. the extent to which the tests, quizzes, and assignments reflected the
course material,
d. the extent to which the grading system used in the course was fair, and
e. the extent to which the instructor’s knowledge of the subject was
appropriate and the instructor was able to answer questions.
Effective December 2009, the University moved to a system of completing the end-ofcourse evaluations through its CAMS system. The information is presented to the Dean of
the SB&E for each section of each course for which the school has academic oversight.
This information is currently reviewed to ensure that courses are meeting their course
and program goals. At present this data is not summarized across sections and courses.
Results and Course Action Plans
Pre- and Post-Test Results for Academic Year 2010-2011
ACCT 21010 - Principles of Financial Accounting
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Section
Pre-test
Avg.
Post-test
Avg.
% Improvement
Pre-test
Avg.
Post-test
Avg.
% Improvement
11
37
72
95%
36
60
67%
12
38
73
92%
32
54
69%
13
36
67
86%
44
79
80%
14
34
56
65%
42
75
79%
15
35
54
54%
21
36
59
64%
48
80
67%
22
37
57
54%
23
32
63
97%
Actions Taken: Data for this academic year, which used a new pre- and post-test will form the
baseline for improvement goals.
P a g e | 22
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
ECON 23020 - Microeconomics
Fall 2010
Post-test
% Improvement
Avg.
64
19%
11
Pre-test
Avg.
54
12
50
64
28%
53
75
42%
13
52
65
25%
47
73
55%
14
52
60
15%
54
84
56%
15
52
68
31%
Section
Pre-test
Avg.
45
Spring 2011
Post-test
% Improvement
Avg.
65
44%
21
42
57
36%
Actions Taken: Greater use of Course-Mate with new textbook appears to be enhancing student
learning and retention. The pre - and post-test will be revised for the 2011-2012 academic year.
MIS 24000 – Introduction to Information Systems
Fall 2010
11
Pre-test
Avg.
44
Post-test
Avg.
50
12
47
13
47
Spring 2011
14%
Pre-test
Avg.
46
Post-test
Avg.
59
54
15%
46
50
9%
51
9%
45
55
22%
14
41
52
27%
15
48
55
15%
16
41
51
24%
17
44
53
20%
Section
% Improvement
21
45
57
27%
22
42
57
36%
% Improvement
28%
23
41
58
41%
Actions taken: The department added international business and ethics topics, real life/current
event examples, and assignments that relate to students' major. The means for this academic year
are consistent with those of previous years. This course is being redesigned for fall 2011.
MRKT 35010 - Principles of Marketing
Fall 2010
Section
Spring 2011
Post-test
Avg.
70
% Improvement
11
Pre-test
Avg.
49
Post-test
Avg.
75
% Improvement
43%
Pre-test
Avg.
51
12
52
70
35%
50
64
28%
13
52
70
35%
50
71
42%
14
55
76
38%
50
72
44%
15
55
73
33%
51
76
49%
16
50
71
42%
17
53
69
30%
47%
P a g e | 23
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
21
52
74
42%
22
51
67
31%
Action Plan: Plan to administer post-test week before finals and give it the weight of a quiz. The
scores on each post-test indicate that more than half of the students in each class scored below the
80th percentile. Also, great variability exists between the high and low performers in each class.
MGNT 36032 - Principles of Management
Section
12
Pre-test
Avg.
17
Fall 2010
Post-test
% Improvement
Avg.
23
35%
Pre-test
Avg.
47
Spring 2011
Post-test
% Improvement
Avg.
66
40%
13
47
51
9%
14
41
55
34%
21
15
24
60%
43
70
63%
22
17
23
35%
46
68
48%
23
14
21
50%
24
17
26
53%
Actions Taken: The department will consider using new textbooks and updating pre-post-test.
FIN 32000 - Principles of Finance
Fall 2010
Post-test
% Improvement
Avg.
75
74%
11
Pre-test
Avg.
43
12
39
77
97%
41
75
83%
13
40
77
93%
42
61
45%
14
39
75
92%
15
44
71
61%
21
42
76
81%
33
78
136%
22
39
78
100%
23
41
65
59%
Section
Pre-test
Avg.
43
Spring 2011
Post-test
% Improvement
Avg.
70
63%
MGNT 36033 - Introduction to Management Science
Fall 2010
Post-Test
% Improvement
Avg.
70
79%
11
Pre-Test
Avg.
39
12
40
76
90%
47
74
57%
13
44
78
77%
44
75
70%
14
43
65
51%
21
38
72
Section
Pre-Test
Avg.
Spring 2011
Post-Test
% Improvement
Avg.
P a g e | 24
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
23
41
71
73%
Actions Taken: The department will insure that the pre- and post-test questions are directly related
to the learning outcomes provided on the course syllabus.
RTAIL 15510 - Introduction to Retailing
Section
11
Pre-test
Avg.
39
Fall 2010
Post-test
% Improvement
Avg.
62
59%
12
21
Pre-test
Avg.
29
43
42
81
Spring 2011
Post-test
% Improvement
Avg.
43
48%
57
33%
93%
LS1
43
79
84%
Actions Taken: More class time will be spent on problem-solving exercises. This will be done in
teams with students explaining their solutions to the class.
MRKT 45070 - Consumer Behavior
Section
Pre-test
Avg.
Fall 2010
Post-test
% Improvement
Avg.
11
Pre-test
Avg.
39
Spring 2011
Post-test
% Improvement
Avg.
57
46%
Retail Communication
Fall 2010
Section
11
Pre-test
Avg.
70
Post-test
Avg.
82
Spring 2011
% Improvement
Pre-test
Avg.
Post-test
Avg.
% Improvement
17%
RTAIL 35530 - Retail Buying
Fall 2010
Section
11
Pre-test
Avg.
13
Post-test
Avg.
57
Spring 2011
% Improvement
Pre-test
Avg.
Post-test
Avg.
% Improvement
338%
MRKT 35040 - Advertising and Promotional Strategies
11
Pre-test
Avg.
60
12
63
Section
Pre-test
Avg.
Fall 2010
Post-test
% Improvement
Avg.
Spring 2011
Post-test
% Improvement
Avg.
77
28%
78
24%
P a g e | 25
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
MRKY 35050 - Selling
Fall 2010
Section
11
Pre-test
Avg.
50
Post-test
Avg.
60
Spring 2011
% Improvement
Pre-test
Avg.
Post-test
Avg.
% Improvement
20%
12
47
67
43%
Actions Taken: Communicate with student as though he/she is the only one in the room.
SPMGT 27020 - Orientation to Sport Management
Fall 2010
Section
11
Pre-test
Avg.
58
Post-test
Avg.
79
Spring 2011
% Improvement
36%
Pre-test
Avg.
57
Post-test
Avg.
72
% Improvement
26%
Actions Taken: The department will revise the pre- and post-test.
HRM 36500 - Organizational Behavior
Section
Pre-test
Avg.
Fall 2010
Post-test
% Improvement
Avg.
11
Pre-test
Avg.
34
Spring 2011
Post-test
% Improvement
Avg.
68.1
100%
Actions Taken: The department will revise the pre- and post-test.
Action Plans for next year
Based on the results of the pre- and post-tests, many action plans were created to improve the
achievement of learning outcomes. These actions are listed within the table presented above
alongside the respective course. With regard to the end-of-course evaluations, the SB&E is
working with the Office of CAMS Support to design a summary management report that extracts
information relevant to academic assessment from the students’ responses.
SB&E Analysis
The SB&E has been very active in expanding both its assessment process and its
assessment report. The current version gives a greater level of detail about the process
the school is going through and its results. SB&E’s use of a third-party assessment tool,
the ETS tests, is a good source for outside validation of the school’s performance. Missing
details have led to questions. What about the drop in the MFT scores over time? What
efforts will be taken to discover areas of weakness? Why are internship scores better in
the spring than the fall? What information led to the redesign of the information system
program? While it is good that all the programs have their own student learning
objectives, the assessment needs to be tied to those SLOs.
P a g e | 26
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
School of Communications
Degrees offered by the School of Communications:
Bachelor of Arts in
 Advertising and Media
 Corporate Communication
 Digital Cinema Arts
 Interactive Media and Web Design
 Journalism
 Mass Communications
Bachelor of Fine Arts in
 Digital Cinema Arts
Minors
 Communications
 Interactive Media and Web Design
During the 2010-11 academic year, the School of Communications at Lindenwood
University implemented revised curriculum for three majors that, in effect, created three
new degree programs: Journalism, Interactive Media and Web Design, and Digital
Cinema Arts. In addition, the Deans’ Council approved the merger of three current
majors—Corporate Communication, Advertising, and Mass Communication with a Public
Relations Emphasis resulting in a single new major titled Corporate Communication:
Advertising and Public Relations.
Consequently, in consultation with the University’s chief assessment officer, the Dean of
Institutional Research, and in conformity with the preferred format for assessment
distributed to each of the University’s schools, the School of Communications’
assessment report for the past academic year (2010-11) reflects the efforts of involved
faculty to establish four new assessment plans, one for each of the revised degree
programs.
Program Objectives
An original list of 12 core values and competencies proposed as the basis for the curricula
comprising all five majors in the School of Communication – values and competencies
derived from the curricular standards of the Accrediting Council on Education in
Journalism and Mass Communications – have been consolidated to six.
P a g e | 27
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Students will
 demonstrate understanding and application of the principles relevant to
major/discipline-specific theory, history, laws, and roles of communication
professionals and institutions;
 demonstrate an understanding of the diversity of groups in a global society in
relationship to the specific communication major/discipline;
 demonstrate an understanding of the concepts and theories, including
principles of fairness and accuracy and their ethical application, relevant to
the major/discipline-specific use and presentation of images and information;
 demonstrate independent, creative, and critical thinking in the
major/discipline-specific conduct of research and evaluation, including
evaluation of one’s own and others’ work for accuracy and effectiveness, by
and according to appropriate professional methods and standards;
 demonstrate professional written, interpersonal, and public speaking/
presentational skills relevant to the particular forms, styles, audiences and
according to appropriate professional standards of the particular
major/discipline;
 apply the tools and technologies appropriate to communication professionals
in the particular major/discipline in which they work.
Results
Baseline results for spring 2011:
Overall
Basic Knowledge
Advanced Knowledge
Overall
Basic Knowledge
Advanced Knowledge
Overall
Basic Knowledge
Advanced Knowledge
Overall
Basic Knowledge
Advanced Knowledge
Competency 1
COM 46000 COM 13000
67.49%
44.63%
81.30%
51.63%
56.86%
39.25%
Competency 2
61.30%
44.70%
65.22%
51.70%
59.63%
37.90%
Competency 3
65.1%
44.5%
74.7%
53.0%
54.5%
35.2%
Competency 4
66.27%
44.73%
78.26%
59.62%
49.84%
47.16%
DIF
22.85%
29.67%
17.61%
16.61%
13.52%
21.73%
20.6%
21.8%
19.3%
21.54%
18.64%
2.69%
P a g e | 28
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Overall
Basic Knowledge
Advanced Knowledge
Competency 6
81.74%
44.49%
76.09%
50.00%
85.51%
40.82%
37.25%
26.09%
44.69%
Method of Assessment
The school assessment committee approved a new, more compact objective pre- and
post-test to replace the obsolete 100-item test in use during the 2005-09 academic years.
The new test has been keyed to the revised list of six competencies and has been
administered during spring 2011 to sections of the initial major course for mass
communication and advertising, public relations, and corporation majors COM 13000
Survey of Professional Media and to the current capstone course for those majors, COM
46000 Mass Communication Theory.
Action Plan
A primary goal for fall 2010, identifying communication professionals in the greater St.
Louis region and Lindenwood communications alumni who might provide independent
input into the School of Communications’ assessment process, has only partially been
met and will remain in effect for the 2011-12 academic year. In spring 2011, one of
those counselors, Christopher Duggan, public relations and marketing coordinator,
contributed to the assessment plan for the new corporate communication – advertising
and public relations major. He will continue to have an expanded role in the coming
academic year. The interactive media and web design major has identified and surveyed
an initial sample of alumni regarding the relevance of specific aspects of their
undergraduate experience at the University to their current professional pursuits.
A primary goal for 2011-12 will be to devise an alumni survey instrument for all
graduates, to customize that survey for each major, and to integrate an interactive online
version of that instrument for initial implementation in the School of Communications
group site at LinkedIn.com. The interactive survey link is scheduled to be active by the
end of the 2011-12 academic year.
The individual assessment plans for the majors detail additional courses in which specific
assessment instruments have been applied. Additional courses will be identified for
assessment in each major, and the assessment committee anticipates, in addition to
having the process mapped out in greater detail, compiling and reporting the first
quantitative and qualitative assessment results for the 2011-12 academic year.
The school will provide ongoing assessment results for the 2011-12 academic year for the
general education courses in the curriculum and for additional core courses in each
major. Assessment for any remaining courses will be completed by the spring of 2013.
P a g e | 29
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
School of Communications Analysis
The plans for seeking third-party accreditation have helped the School of
Communications find focus for assessment efforts. The current effort is a significant
improvement over previous years, but there is work needed in some areas. The school
needs to look at each major as a separate program and avoid creating outcomes so
general that they work for all of majors (If they all have the same outcomes, why are they
different degrees?). Not everything in communications can be effectively measured by
objective pre- and post-testing.
School of Education
The School of Education has done a comprehensive assessment for a visit by the Missouri
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and is in the process of preparing
for a visit by the Teacher Education Accreditation Council.
The School of Education offers the following degrees:
Bachelor of Arts in
 Early Childhood Education
 Early Childhood Special Education
 Elementary Education
 Educational Studies
 Middle School Education
 Physical Education
 Health
Bachelor of Science in
 Athletic Training
 Exercise Science
 Physical Education
P a g e | 30
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Minors
 Education
 Sport and Fitness Management
 Health and Wellness
 Strength and Conditioning
 Coaching
Accreditation
Lindenwood University teacher education programs are accredited by the Commission
on Institutions of Higher Education of the North Central Association of Colleges and
Schools and MDESE. The School of Education is also a member of the TEAC.
Reporting Cycle
The reporting cycle for the SOE and its certification programs to the MDESE is August to
August, which is a two-month difference from the University assessment reporting cycle
of June to June. This lag means the SOE data analysis is not completed until January. As a
result, the education assessment report follows other program reports by a year.
Nature of Education Degrees
At Lindenwood University, there is no degree in secondary education; all secondary
teaching students receive a degree in their field and a minor in education. Because of this
arrangement, the SoE does not control the content for the secondary education
students, and their assessment is rolled into the respective programs.
Early Childhood B-3
Results
CBASE
Prior to entry in the teacher education program, all undergraduate students must
successfully pass all areas of the CBASE exam, including the writing component. The
table below illustrates the results of all program completers taking the CBASE exam
during 2002-10.
CBASE Composite: Early Childhood B-3
P a g e | 31
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Year
Program
Completers
Total # of Test
Scores by
Completers
Avg. Score
Required
Score
First-time
pass rate
15
16
12
13
14
70
19
12
22
24
34
111
289.55
234
251
247
252
254.71
235
235
235
235
235
235
89%
0%
25%
23%
21%
39.5%
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Total
Overall
Pass Rate
100.00%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
While earlier years reflect fluctuations in the first-time pass rate, the last few years show
a consistent trend with an average first-time pass rate of 21-25 percent.
Cumulative GPA
The SoE documents cumulative GPA of all early childhood majors seeking certification.
The table below illustrates the cumulative GPA for all early childhood majors. The
University does not offer a degree option for early childhood education without
certification.
Cumulative GPA- Early Childhood B-3
Year
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
TOTAL
All Early
childhood
majors
n/a
n/a
Early childhood majors
seeking K-12 certification
Content vs. Education
3.51
3.55
3.21
3.42
Early childhood
majors seeking B.A.
degree
n/a
n/a
Performance in Clinical Experience (Student Teaching)
The table below illustrates the assessment data from the student-teaching experience
from cooperating teachers for early childhood program completers.
Cooperating Teacher Surveys- Early Childhood B-3
Year
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009010
Average
1.2.1
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.9
4.8
4.4
1.2.2
4.0
4.1
4.6
4.7
4.7
4.4
Exit Exam (PRAXIS)
1.2.3
3.3
4.0
4.3
4.7
4.7
4.4
1.2.4
4.1
4.0
4.4
4.9
4.7
4.4
1.2.5
4.1
4.1
4.6
4.9
4.9
4.5
1.2.6
4.2
4.6
4.5
4.8
4.9
4.6
1.2.7
4.0
4.5
4.6
4.9
4.9
4.6
1.2.8
4.1
4.0
4.2
4.6
4.7
4.3
1.2.9
4.1
3.8
4.6
4.9
4.9
4.5
1.2.10
4.2
4.0
4.7
4.9
4.9
4.5
1.2.11
3.8
4.2
4.3
4.7
4.7
4.3
P a g e | 32
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
The table below illustrates the results of all program completers taking the PRAXIS II
early childhood exam during 2006-10. From left to right, the columns represent the
corresponding year, total number of program completers, the total number of test scores
taken by those program completers, the average score from the first-time test, the state
required score, the first-time pass rate of the program completers, and the overall pass
rate. The University identifies program completers as those candidates who have
successfully completed student teaching and have passed the content area PRAXIS II;
therefore, the overall pass rate will reflect a 100 percent pass rate.
PRAXIS II - Early Childhood Pass Rate
Year
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Total
Program
Completers
Total # of Test
Scores by
Completers
16
12
13
14
55
15
18
15
26
74
Average
Score from
first-time
test takers
167
170
177
168
170.5
State
Required
Score
166
166
166
166
166
Firsttime
pass
rate
63%
83%
92%
86%
81%
Overall
Pass
Rate
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
The data reflects an average first-time pass rate of 81 percent for early childhood
education majors. Several students took the exam prior to completing specific general
education, subject matter, and methods courses that provide the foundation and
knowledge to be successful on the PRAXIS II exam.
The table below illustrates similar results of all program completers taking the PRAXIS II
early childhood exam during 2006-10. From left to right, the columns represent the
corresponding year, total number of program completers, the total number of
completers who pass on the first attempt, completers who passed on the second
attempt, those who passed on the third attempt, total number of tests scores taken by
those program completers, and the overall pass rate.
PRAXIS II Early Childhood Multiple Attempts
Year
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Total
Program
completers
Total # of
completers
who pass
first attempt
16
12
13
14
55
10
10
12
12
44
Completers
who pass
second
attempt
1
0
1
1
3
Completers
who passed
third
attempt
1
0
0
0
1
Total # of
test scores
by
completers
15
18
15
26
74
Overall
pass rate
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
P a g e | 33
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Elementary Education 1-6
Results
CBASE
Prior to entry in the Teacher Education Program, all undergraduate students must
successfully pass all areas of the CBASE exam, including the writing component. The
table below illustrates the results of all program completers taking the CBASE exam
during 2005-10.
CBASE Composite: Elementary 1-6
Year
Program
Total # of test
completers scores by
completers
2005-06
90
99
2006-07
58
28
2007-08
50
53
2008-09
66
118
2009-10
57
86
Total
321
384
Avg.
Score
289.67
263
272
258
260.56
268.65
Required
score
235
235
235
235
235
235
Firsttime pass
rate
80%
7%
32%
42%
37%
40%
Overall
pass rate
100.00%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
While earlier years reflect fluctuations in the first-time pass rate, the last few years have
seen a first-time pass rate of 84 percent or above.
Cumulative GPA
The SoE documents cumulative GPA of all elementary education majors seeking
certification. The table below illustrates the cumulative GPA for all elementary education
majors. The University does not offer a degree option for elementary education without
certification.
Cumulative GPA - ELEMENTARY 1-6
Year
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Total
All Elementary
majors
n/a
n/a
Elementary majors seeking K12 certification
Content vs. Education
3.35
3.39
3.13
3.18
Elementary majors
seeking B.A.
degree
n/a
n/a
P a g e | 34
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Cumulative GPA indicates to the faculty in the SoE the overall achievement of students in
the elementary education (1-6) program. Based on the above data, it is evident that
those students who are seeking an elementary education (1-6) degree with K-12
certification are consistent and slightly above average for all students seeking a degree in
elementary education.
Performance in Clinical Experience (Student Teaching)
The table below illustrates the assessment data from the student-teaching experience
from cooperating teachers for elementary education program completers.
Cooperating Teacher Surveys- Elementary 1-6
Year
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Average:
1.2.1
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.7
4.5
4.3
1.2.2
4.0
4.2
4.1
4.8
4.6
4.3
1.2.3
4.1
4.5
4.3
4.7
4.7
4.5
1.2.4
4.1
4.0
4.2
4.8
4.5
4.3
1.2.5
4.1
4.1
4.3
4.7
4.6
4.4
1.2.6
4.1
4.6
4.1
4.7
4.4
4.4
1.2.7
4.0
4.3
4.2
4.8
4.6
4.4
1.2.8
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.7
4.6
4.3
1.2.9
4.1
3.9
4.3
4.9
4.7
4.4
1.2.10
4.2
4.4
4.5
4.8
4.8
4.5
1.2.11
3.9
4.2
4.4
4.9
4.7
4.4
The data reflects that Lindenwood University pre-service teachers are evaluated as above
average and outstanding in their clinical experience in EDU41000 - Student Teaching.
Exit Exam (PRAXIS)
The table below illustrates the results of all program completers taking the PRAXIS II
elementary education exam during 2006-10.
PRAXIS II Elementary Education Pass Rate- Elementary Ed: Curriculum, Instruction, and
Assessment Composite
Year
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Total
Program
completers
Total # of test
scores by
completers
Average score
from firsttime test
takers
State
required
score
Firsttime
pass rate
58
50
66
57
231
71
79
110
127
387
166
168
164
162
165
164
164
164
164
164
59%
68%
77%
58%
65.5%
Overall
pass rate
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
The data reflect an average first-time pass rate of 65.5 percent or above for
undergraduate elementary education (1-6) majors.
The table below illustrates similar results of all program completers taking the PRAXIS II
elementary education exam during 2006-10.
P a g e | 35
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
PRAXIS Elementary Education - Elementary Ed: Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Composite Multiple Attempts
Year
Program
completers
Total # of
completers
passed first
attempt
58
50
66
57
231
34
34
51
33
152
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Total
Completers
passed on
second
attempt
7
5
6
9
27
Completers
who passed
third attempt
3
7
3
7
20
Total # of
test scores
by
completers
71
79
110
127
387
Overall
pass rate
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Health Education K-12
Results
CBASE
Prior to entry in the Teacher Education Program, all students must successfully pass all
areas of the CBASE exam, including the writing component. The table below illustrates
the results of all program completers taking the CBASE exam during 2005-10.
CBASE Composite -Health K-12
Year
Program
completers
Avg. score
Required
score
1
Total # of test
scores by
completers
1
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Total
Overall
pass rate
235
Firsttime pass
rate
100%
255.00
1
1
255
235
none
100.00%
100.00%
Cumulative GPA
The table below illustrates the cumulative GPA for health education majors seeking
certification for content coursework and professional education coursework. The
University does not offer a degree option for health education without certification.
P a g e | 36
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Cumulative GPA- Health K-12
Year
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Total
All health
majors
2.77
Health majors seeking K12 certification
Content vs. Education
3.1
2.55
Health majors
seeking B.A.
degree
2.77
Performance in Clinical Experience (Student Teaching)
The table blow illustrates the assessment data from the student teaching experience
from cooperating teachers for health education program completers.
Cooperating Teacher Surveys- Health K-12
Year
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Average
1.2.1
2.0
n/a
4.1
4.5
4.7
4.4
1.2.2
2.0
n/a
4.3
4.6
4.4
4.4
1.2.3
2.0
n/a
3.9
3.9
4.6
4.1
1.2.4
2.0
n/a
4.6
4.7
4.5
4.6
1.2.5
2.0
n/a
4.1
3.8
3.9
3.9
1.2.6
2.0
n/a
3.9
4.3
4.1
4.1
1.2.7
2.0
n/a
4.4
4.2
3.9
4.1
1.2.8
2.0
n/a
4.3
4.5
4.2
4.3
1.2.9
2.0
n/a
4.7
4.9
4.6
4.7
Exit Exam (PRAXIS)
The table below illustrates the results of all program completers taking the PRAXIS II
health education exam during 2005-10.
PRAXIS II Health Education Pass Rate
Year
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Total
Program
completers
Total # of test
scores by
completers
Average
score from
first-time test
takers
1
1
660.00
620
100%
100.00%
1
1
660
620
100%
100.00%
PRAXIS Health Multiple Attempts-Undergraduate
State
required
score
Firsttime
pass rate
Overall
pass rate
1.2.10
2.0
n/a
4.4
4.7
4.8
4.6
1.2.11
2.0
n/a
4.5
4.8
4.6
4.6
P a g e | 37
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Year
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
Total
Program
completers
Total # of
completers
passed first
attempt
Completers
who passed
second
attempt
Completers
who passed
third
attempt
Total # of
test scores
by
completers
Overall
pass rate
1
1
0
0
1
100.00%
1
1
0
0
1
100.00%
School Lessons Learned
While nothing has changed in health education certification program requirements, the recent
trend to promote healthy lifestyles in our public schools has prompted the University to add two
new degree offerings under the Health and Fitness Sciences Department. Recently, the
University was granted approval by the Deans’ Council and MDESE to offer a Bachelor of Arts in
Dance w/ K-12 certification. With the demand to keep children active in school, many public
schools are moving towards additional offerings for students, such as dance electives in addition
to coursework or in place of physical education courses. Additionally, there has been approval
for a spring 2008 offering of a Bachelor of Science in Exercise Science. While this degree does not
carry an elementary or secondary certification, there is a demand for fitness professionals in
corporate wellness centers, personal training, cardiac rehabilitation, athletic enhancement, and
fitness management. Both of these new programs will complement the existing offerings under
the SoE at the University.
In spring 2007, the SoE faculty combined the educational psychology class with the
human development class to create a new class titled Psychology of Teaching and
Learning. With this change, the division was then able to insert the class measurement
and evaluation to enhance learning into the elementary education pre-service teacher
program. The course gave the students the opportunity to have a class in assessment
strategies early in their program to help them as they do lesson design.
The Dean of the School of Education and faculty members are looking at the possibility of
combining the orientation to education and history and philosophy of education classes
together at the undergraduate level for those in the elementary education pre-service
teacher program. By creating this merged class, Orientation to Teaching, the SoE will
then create a place in the students’ program for elementary education majors to take a
class in either behavior management or classroom instructional technology. The
University SoE faculty hopes to make this change in fall 2010.
P a g e | 38
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Athletic Training
Accreditation
The program has been accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Athletic
Training Education. In spring 2010, the program had a scheduled accreditation site visit
through CAATE. The program successfully passed all components of the team’s
evaluation process, including meeting all of the nationally-recognized standards for
entry-level athletic training education. Therefore, the program obtained continued
accreditation through CAATE until spring 2013. The program is designed to prepare
athletic training students to succeed on the board of certification examination and
become Certified Athletic Trainers.
Objectives
Students will




successfully complete the general education curriculum outlined by the
University,
successfully complete the major requirements for the degree,
complete 1,210 contact hours with a certified athletic training and/or clinical
instructor,
complete the National Athletic Trainers Association’s Athletic Training Clinical
Competencies and Proficiencies during the clinical experience.
Course Alignment to Competencies
All courses in the athletic training program are aligned to the 12 competency areas set
forth by the NATA.
The competency areas include the following:
 Risk Management
 Pathology
 Diagnosis
 Medical Conditions
 Acute Care
 Therapeutic Modalities
 Exercise
 Pharmacology
 Psychosocial
P a g e | 39
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment



Nutritional Aspects
Administration
Professional Development
Throughout the 2009-10 year, the faculty reviewed each competency and aligned it to
the courses in which the competency is met. The matrixes showing the alignment, and an
explanation of the competencies, are maintained in the athletic training offices as well as
the current course alignment to the competencies. Additionally, the athletic training
program has a strong emphasis on writing skills, communication skills, mathematics, and
science.
Methods of Assessment
The University Athletic Training Education Comprehensive Assessment Plan is separated
into seven goals. The first two are identified as assessing the mastery of the educational
entry-level competencies and proficiencies. These are separated into the first two goals:
didactic and clinical.







The first goal is the assessment of students’ didactic success. Assessment is
accomplished using the overtime technique with courses exams, projects, an oral
practical examination, etc.
The second goal is the assessment of clinical education success and is
accomplished by the use of checklists for each clinical experience. Students’
clinical education success is further assessed by administering an exit oral
practical exam. This exam is given upon completion of their clinical education
requirements. This exam must be passed before they are allowed to set for the
BOC exam.
The third goal is quality of instruction, clinical experiences, supervision, and
equipment. This is assessed by course evaluations at the end of each semester,
clinical instructor evaluations, and clinical site evaluations.
The fourth goal is the use of technology in entry-level education. This goal is
assessed through the completion of various tests and projects using an
assortment of tools such as injury tracking software, video presentation,
PowerPoint projects, etc.
The fifth goal is obtaining BOC certification. This is assessed by using the testing
result data that is presented to our department on a yearly basis.
The sixth goal is to provide athletic training students with opportunities to
develop the skills and knowledge to be successful in any athletic training work
settings they desire to pursue. This would include the pursuit of a graduate
degree.
The seventh goal is to promote ethical leadership, a values-centered education,
and the development of the whole person: an educated, responsible citizen of the
global community.
P a g e | 40
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
The sixth and seventh goals are assessed by the use of alumni surveys, employer surveys,
senior exit surveys, and student clinical evaluations and course evaluations. These
assessment tools provide our program with feedback as to the effectiveness of our
instruction and education. The results of these assessment tools are reviewed on a
yearly basis. The results are then put into an action plans, if need be, to enhance the
effectiveness of the the University Athletic Training Educational Program both
didactically and clinically.
Classes to be Assessed
The benchmarks have been established to assess students’ learning through the
curriculum from entry into the major through graduation.
Core Classes
Acceptance into the Program
Hours
AT 39100 Lower Body Assess. Lab
2
AT 39300 Clinical Exp. II
3
AT 39200 Upper Body Assess. Lab
2
AT 39400 Clinical Exp III
3
AT 43500 Therapeutic Modalities Lab
1
AT 43700 Football Experience
1
AT 43600 Non-Orthopedic Injuries Lab
1
AT 39500 Clinical Exp IV
3
AT 39000 Therapeutic Exer. Lab
1
AT 42800 Clinical Exp. V
3
AT 43100 Organization and
Administration of Athletic Training
AT 43900 Athletic Training Integrating
Experience
AT 43800 Senior Seminar
3
3
1
Benchmarks and other program comments
Benchmark #1: All listed classes above must
be completed with at least a C. The student
must possess a cumulate grade point of 2.5
and complete an interview with the
department.
Benchmark #2: Completion of course
competencies and proficiencies with a C
Benchmark #2: Completion of course
competencies and proficiencies with a C
Benchmark #3: Completion of course
competencies and proficiencies with a C
Benchmark #3: Completion of course
competencies and proficiencies with a C
Benchmark #3: Completion of course
competencies and proficiencies with a C
Benchmark #4: Completion of course
competencies and proficiencies with a C
Benchmark #4: Completion of course
competencies and proficiencies with a C
Benchmark #4: Completion of course
competencies and proficiencies with a C
Benchmark #5: Completion of course
competencies and proficiencies with a C
Benchmark #5: Completion of course
competencies and proficiencies with a C
Benchmark #6: Completion of course
competencies and proficiencies with a C
Exit Benchmarks: Final competency skills test
given; Case studies used to assess knowledge
Exit Benchmarks: Final competency skills test
given
P a g e | 41
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Methods of Assessment Used
1. Students must complete the athletic training application and meet all
requirements.
2. Students are required to successfully pass (grade of C or better) the pre-requisites
for all major requirements and maintain a 2.5 cumulative GPA to complete the
degree.
3. The 1,210 clinical hours must be approved and documented by the clinical
instructor.
4. Students must successfully complete the NATA’s Athletic Training Clinical
Competencies and Proficiencies.
5. Students must obtain the American Red Cross Professional Rescuer Certification.
Subjective



Prior to admission into the program, students interview with the respective faculty to
review goals, career plans, and to ensure commitment to the field of athletic training.
Students are provided an academic plan by an academic advisor in the respective area.
At a minimum, each student meets with his/her advisor one time per semester to review
academic progress, course sequencing, and overall success in the program.
During clinical experiences, the clinical instructor serves as a role model for best practices
in athletic training and provides students the opportunity for conversations about
situations and unusual occurrences that may happen.
Student Attitude/Response



Student responses are collected on the University’s course evaluations following
each semester.
Students are asked for feedback following each clinical rotation.
Students are required to complete an exit interview survey during the last
semester of senior year. These responses are collected each semester and
discussed in the athletic training staff meetings at the end of each year.
Results
The current student enrollment is listed below. Currently there are 121 declared majors
in the Athletic Training Program. Each year an estimated 25 to 30 student are accepted
into the program following the application and interview process. Many students who do
not pursue athletic training choose other majors in the health and fitness sciences.
The cumulative GPA is above the required 2.5 for graduation and has increased slightly in
the 2009-2010 academic year.
P a g e | 42
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Student Enrollment and GPA
Student Enrollment
GPA
2008-09
52
2.89
2009-10
142
2.89
2010-11
121
3.07
The program is designed to prepare athletic training students to succeed on the BOC examination
and become certified athletic trainers. While students do not have to pass this exam to graduate
with a degree, the exam must be passed to obtain certification.
The BOC pass rates for the prior two years compared to national norms:
Program
2009-10
2010-11
Lindenwood Athletic Training Students
25.0%
50.0%
National Average for Athletic Training Students
43.3%
60.7%
LU Improvement
100%
40%
The 2009-10 year reported a 50 percent first-time pass rate for students. While this was
slightly below the national average, it was a tremendous improvement from the previous
year by 25 percent. The department will continue to work to improve our pass rate to
above the national average.
Exit Interview Data
At the end of their senior year, students are given an exit interview. The instructions for
this interview are listed below:
“Please rate the following statements about your education at Lindenwood University.
All responses are used in our annual or bi-yearly evaluation of our accreditation process.
Use the five-point rating scale identified below for all responses, except questions # 26
(1-10).”
1 –Strongly Disagree
Agree
2 -Disagree
3 – Unsure
4 –Agree
Exit Interview Questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The University’s general education requirements rounded out my
education.
The academic standards of the athletic training program were high.
I learned effective written communications skills.
I improved my ability to communicate orally.
I am confident in my abilities as an athletic trainer.
I feel confident in using the computer as a tool.
The athletic training facilities at Lindenwood University enhanced
my education.
In increased my ability to think critically about athletic training.
My advisors were helpful to me throughout the athletic training
5-Strongly
2009-10
2010-11
Average
Average
Response Response
4.1
4.2
4.1
4.4
4.5
3.7
4.25
4.6
4.3
P a g e | 43
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Exit Interview Questions:
program.
10. The varieties of athletic training courses were appropriate.
11. The variety of clinical experiences/rotations was appropriate.
12. The overall instruction provided by the athletic training faculty was
of high quality.
13. My ability to recognize injuries/illness is appropriate.
14. My ability to treat injuries is appropriate.
15. My ability to refer athletes/patients is appropriate.
16. My ability to recognize and treat emergency situations is
appropriate.
17. My ability to administer an athletic training/health care facility is
appropriate.
18. My ability to utilize nutritional information and assessment
techniques is appropriate.
19. My knowledge of the physiological responses of human growth
development and the progression of pediatric injury/illness is
appropriate.
20. My understanding of basic pharmacology,
indications/contraindications, applicable laws, and the use of
therapeutic medications are appropriate.
21. My understanding of professional responsibilities, including
national and state regulatory acts, continuing educations
requirements, etc., is appropriate.
22. My ability to recognize, intervene, and refer, when appropriate,
social, mental, and emotional behaviors is appropriate.
23. My ability to identify and alter injury risk factors (i.e., prevent
injury) is appropriate.
24. My ability to plan, develop, and implement a therapeutic exercise
(rehab) program is appropriate.
25. My ability to plan, implement, and appropriately implement an
injury/illness plan using therapeutic modalities is appropriate.
26. My overall ranking of my athletic training preparation at
Lindenwood University. (1-10 with 10 being the best)
2009-10
2010-11
Average
Average
Response Response
4.3
4.0
4.3
4.4
4.3
4.0
4.3
4.2
5.0
4.0
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.4
8.3
Based on the above data, it is evident that students feel the Athletic Training Program
properly prepares them for the profession. However, this feedback is further used to
modify course content and course objectives based on the NATA competencies.
P a g e | 44
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Lessons Learned
Strengths of the Program



One of the most striking improvements has occurred in our clinical education
program. Our clinical coordinator has taken the whole proficiency checklist and
clinical experience class and turned it into a quality education experience for our
athletic training students. Each student meets once a week with an ACI to check
off proficiency skills. Athletic training students are also assigned clinical/field
experience to give them the opportunity to assess injuries they studied in the
previous semester. We also initiated an oral practical exit exam for our graduating
seniors. When the BOC began the computer-based test, we felt that we needed a
way to test proficiencies one more time before our students were allowed to sit
for the exam. Each senior athletic training student is required to pass our oral
practical exam before we endorse the student to take the BOC exam. Our clinical
coordinator has produced a reference that we use in our didactic classes and
clinical classes that standardizes the special tests, palpations, and evaluation
procedures.
The on-campus clinical/field experience opportunities are implausible for our
athletic training students. The University now offers 44 intercollegiate sports.
The department has also added two new ATCs in the last year to our staff. This
brings our staff to five ATC and five graduate assistants.
o The department continues to update our library and computer resources
for all University students. A major goal of President Evans is to improve
academic resources available to our students.
o The University continues to evaluate each class and professor with an exit
survey. This gives the faculty and staff a way to evaluate their subject
matter and teaching techniques and make necessary changes.
Challenges


The affiliated sites and general medical rotations continue to be a challenge. We
have had several physician groups who have worked with us over the last five
years. Each group has faced its own challenges and has discontinued our
rotations. The affiliated sites have not been supervised as well as they could be,
and we continue to have trouble receiving all their paperwork.
The recruitment of certified graduate assistants has become difficult. The
increase in the number of graduate assistants now covering sports at the NCAA
Division I level has left the NAIA and other NCAA divisions at a disadvantage. We
can usually recruit excellent candidates, but none with certification. Division I
universities only accept certified candidates.
P a g e | 45
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment



The use of allied health and medical professionals is underutilized. We have many
allied health and medical professionals available to the University and we should
be recruiting and utilizing them more in our classes and at special presentations.
The department will continue to need some other type of clerical help. We have
one excellent administrative assistant but she has more than one department
assigned to her. The department also uses work and learn students, but they are
often not reliable.
Alumni evaluations and surveys continue to have poor participation with only an
average return rate of about 10 percent.
Strategies





The University has opened a student health facility on campus, staffed with a
nurse practitioner and family practice physician. We are in discussions with the
DePaul and SSM hospital groups about utilizing our athletic training students. The
students would be able to accomplish their general medial rotation by assisting in
the University health facility.
The department has developed some new programs to assist incoming graduate
assistants and to try to recruit certified candidates. We are also looking into using
more of our own graduates who are certified. We continue to supervise the testeligible graduate assistants but it would greatly help our program if they were
certified so we could use them in CI positions in our clinical programs during their
second year on staff.
The department has begun to emphasize the utilization of more allied health and
medical professionals within our classes each semester. The professors have
started looking to professionals they have worked with in previous positions to
present in their specific classes. We have been approached by different
physicians groups wanting to work with the University, and we are looking at
ways to utilize them within our academic and clinical programs.
The department has asked for release time for our CIE to handle some clerical
responsibilities. The CIE also supervises the work and learn students assigned to
assist with clerical responsibilities in our department.
The department is in conversations with our IT department about how to best
place our alumni surveys on our website. We have talked with several other
athletic trainer programs that have put them online, and they seem to be getting
a better return rate.
Impacts and Changes on Classes

New course assessments based directly on the program's matrix will be used and
completed by the students at the end of the semester to provide instructors with
feedback on the topics that are well-covered and those not being retained.
P a g e | 46
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment



New objective assessments will be added to all clinical experience courses to
grade the students’ ability to apply course-specific skills in actual situations. These
evaluations will be completed using real patients in a clinical setting under the
supervision of a clinical instructor.
Pre-tests and post-tests will be added to many of the curriculum courses (i.e.,
pathology, pharmacology, and exercise science).
The program has added a BOC preparatory course over J-Term. Students enrolled
in this course must also attend a workshop in January focusing on testtaking strategies, test topics, available study guides, proper preparation, and take
multiple practice tests. Student performances on the practice tests are reviewed
on-site with students. Each program director also receives a statement providing
information regarding the performance of his/her program's students, as well as a
comparison to the national norms.
In order to ensure students are taking courses in the appropriate sequence, in the spring
of 2011 the faculty re-evaluated the current prerequisites for each course in the
curriculum.
Proposed changes to pre-requisites and the rationale for the change:
Class Number and Name
AT 42900 - Clinical
Experience VI
AT 43900 - Athletic Training
integrated Experience
2011-2012 catalog prerequisite
PE 31500, AT 42800, AT 30100,
AT 39000 with a C or better
Proposed 2012-13 catalog prerequisite
PE 31500, PE 31600, AT 42800, AT
30100, AT 39000 with a C or better
Concurrent AT 42900, AT
43800, pre req senior standing
and AT 42900
Concurrent AT 42900, pre req senior
standing
Exercise Science
Mission
The Health and Fitness Sciences Department supports the University’s mission
statement:
Lindenwood University offers values-centered programs leading to the
development of the whole person – an educated, responsible citizen of a global
community.
The University is committed to
• providing an integrative liberal arts curriculum,
• offering professional and pre-professional degree programs,
P a g e | 47
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
• focusing on the talents, interests, and future of the student,
• supporting academic freedom and the unrestricted search for truth,
• affording cultural enrichment to the surrounding community,
• promoting ethical lifestyles,
• developing adaptive thinking and problem-solving skills,
• furthering lifelong learning.
Program Goals and Objectives
Goals for the Graduates in the Major
The goal of the Bachelor of Science in Exercise Science at Lindenwood University is to
produce well-rounded students in professional areas such as corporate fitness, personal
training, and sport performance specialist. The exercise science program emphasizes
exercise testing, assessing, and knowledgeable instruction of healthy and non-healthy
individuals, seasonal and competitive athletes, and health-conscious individuals. The
students will graduate with knowledge in cardiovascular fitness, strength training and
endurance, body composition, and program development and will be able to sit for
strength and conditioning certifications.
The program does not require accreditation, however, the program is aligned with the
American College of Sports Medicine’s Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities competencies.
The exercise science program will also prepare the students for graduate work in athletic
training, physical therapy, exercise physiology, and as a physician’s assistant. The
program offers four minors: coaching, strength and conditioning, health and fitness
management, and health and wellness.
Objectives for Graduates in the Major
Students will





successfully complete the general education curriculum outlined by the
University,
successfully complete the major requirements for the degree,
complete 150-300 internship hours under the direction of a qualified cooperating
supervisor and University supervisor,
upon completion of the degree and the appropriate internship, be qualified to
take the ACSM personal trainer, health fitness instructor, and/or exercise
specialist certification examination,
be prepared (if minoring in strength and conditioning ) to take the certified
strength and conditioning specialist test through the National Strength and
Conditioning Association.
P a g e | 48
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Course Alignment to Competencies
In the summer of 2009, the faculty began the process of aligning all course objectives to
the ACSM KSAs. The alignment process involved all faculty evaluating each objective
stated on the syllabus and aligning it to all appropriate KSAs.
The 12 competency areas set forth by ACSM include the following:












General field knowledge
Pathophysiology and risk factors
Health appraisal, fitness, and commercial exercise testing
Patient management and medications
Exercise prescription and programming
Nutrition and weight management
Human behavior and counseling
Safety, injury prevention, and emergency procedures
Program administration, quality assurance, and outcome assessment
Cardiovascular: pathophysiology and risk factors
Pulmonary: pathophysiology and risk factors
Metabolic: pathophysiology and risk factors
The matrix below displays the current course alignments to the ACSM competencies.
The faculty members have met on a bi-weekly basis to evaluate the competencies and
identify what is touched upon in a course and what is tested upon in a course. This
process will help the faculty modify course objectives ton ensure alignment with the
competencies.
Competency
Touched
Upon
Knowledge of the basic structures of bone, skeletal
muscle, and connective tissues.
PE 35600
PE 31000
Knowledge of the basic anatomy of the cardiovascular
system and respiratory system.
EXS 39000
Knowledge of the definition of the following terms:
inferior, superior, medial, lateral, supination, pronation,
flexion, extension, adduction, abduction, hyperextension,
rotation, circumduction, agonist, antagonist, and
stabilizer.
PE 35600
Tested
PE 31500, AT
29500
PE 31000, PE
16000,
BIO 22700 PE
22000
PE 31500, PE
16000,
PE 31000, BIO
22800
EXS 31000, PE
16000,
PE 31000, AT
29500,
EXS 10000, BIO
22700,
PE 31000
P a g e | 49
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Touched
Upon
Tested
Knowledge of the plane in which each muscle action
occurs.
PE 16000
PE 35600, EXS
31000,
AT 29500, BIO
22700,
PE 31000
Knowledge of the interrelationships among center of
gravity, base of support, balance, stability, and proper
spinal alignment.
EXS 39000,
PE 35600,
PE 16000,
PE 31000
EXS 31000
Knowledge of the following curvatures of the spine:
lordosis, scoliosis, and kyphosis.
PE 16000,
EXS 43000
Competency
The ability to describe the myotatic stretch reflex.
AT 29500, PE
20400,
PE 30500, BIO
22700
EXS 45000, EXS
31000,
PE 31500
Knowledge of the fundamental biomechanical principles
that underlie performance of the following activities:
walking, jogging, running, swimming, cycling, weight
lifting, and carrying or moving objects.
PE 35600,
BIO 22800
The ability to define aerobic and anaerobic metabolism.
EXS 39000,
EXS 40000
Knowledge of the role of aerobic and anaerobic energy
systems in the performance of various activities.
EXS 39000
Knowledge of the following terms: ischemia, angina
pectoris, tachycardia, bradycardia, arrhythmia, myocardial
infarction, cardiac output, stroke volume, lactic acid,
oxygen consumption, hyperventilation, systolic blood
pressure, and anaerobic threshold.
PE 16000,
EXS 43000
PE 31500, BIO
22800
Knowledge to describe normal cardiorespiratory
responses to static and dynamic exercise in terms of heart
rate, blood pressure, and oxygen consumption.
EXS 39000,
PE 16000
PE 31500
Knowledge of how heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen
consumption responses change with adaptation to
chronic exercise training.
EXS 45000,
EXS 40500
Knowledge of physiological adaptations associated with
strength training.
EXS 39000
Knowledge of the physiological principles related to
warm-up and cool-down.
EXS 39000,
EXS 40500
EXS 31000
PE 31500, EXS
45000,
EXS 10000, BIO
22800
PE 31500, EXS
40000,
EXS 45000, EXS
31600,
EXS 10000, BIO
22800
PE 31500, EXS
45000,
PE 30500
PE 31500,
PE 30500,
EXS 45000
PE 31500,
EXS 45000,
AT 29500,
PE 20400,
BIO 22700
P a g e | 50
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Touched
Upon
Tested
Knowledge of the common theories of muscle fatigue and
delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS).
EXS 39000,
PE 16000
PE 31500,
PE 35600,
EXS 10000,
AT 29500,
PE 20400
Knowledge of the physiological adaptations that occur at
rest during submaxial and maximal exercise following
chronic aerobic and anaerobic exercise training.
EXS 45000
PE 31500,
PE 35600
Knowledge of the differences in cardiorespiratory
response to acute graded exercise between conditioned
and unconditioned individuals.
EXS 43000
PE 31500
Knowledge of the structure of the skeletal muscle fiber
and the basic mechanism of contraction.
EXS 31000
PE 16000
PE 31000
Knowledge of the characteristics of fast and slow twitch
fibers.
EXS 39000
Competency
Knowledge of the sliding filament theory of muscle
contraction.
Knowledge of twitch, summation, and tetanus with
respect to muscle contradiction.
PE 31500,
EXS 45000,
EXS 10000,
BIO 22700
PE 31500,
EXS 45000,
EXS 10000,
BIO 22700,
BIO 22800
PE 31500,
EXS 45000,
EXS 10000,
BIO 22700
PE 31500,
AT 29500,
BIO 22700
EXS 39000,
PE 31500,
EXS 10000,
EXS 43000
Knowledge of the physiological principles involved in
promoting gains in muscular strength and endurance.
EXS 40500,
PE 31000
Knowledge of muscle fatigue as it relates to mode,
intensity, duration, and the accumulative effects of
exercise.
EXS 20000
EXS 39000,
PE 31500
Knowledge of the basic properties of cardiac muscle and
the normal pathways of conduction in the heart.
PE 16000
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
PE 31500,
PE 16000,
BIO 22800
Knowledge of the response of the following variables to
acute static and dynamic exercise: heart rate, stroke
volume, cardiac output, pulmonary ventilation, tidal
volume, respiratory rate, and arteriovenous oxygen
difference.
EXS 39000
EXS 43000
PE 31500
Knowledge of blood pressure responses associated with
acute exercise, including changes in body position.
EXS 39000
EXS 43000
PE 31500, BIO
22800
Knowledge of and ability to describe the implications of
ventilatory threshold (anaerobic threshold) as it relates to
exercise training and cardiorespiratory assessment.
EXS 40500
EXS 39000, PE
31500
P a g e | 51
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Competency
Touched
Upon
Tested
Knowledge of and ability to describe the physiological
adaptations of the respiratory system that occur at rest
and during submaximal and maximal exercise following
chronic aerobic and anaerobic training.
PE 35600
EXS 39000, PE
31500,
EXS 43000
Knowledge of how each of the following differs from the
normal condition: dysnea, hypoxia, and hypoventilation.
BIO 22800
PE 31500, PE
16000,
BIO 22700
Knowledge of how the principle of specificity relates to
the components of fitness.
EXS 20000,
PE 35600,
EXS 31000,
EXS 40500
EXS 39000, EXS
31500,
EXS 43000
Knowledge of the concept of detraining and reversibility
of conditioning and its implications in fitness programs.
EXS 39000,
EXS 20000,
PE 35600
PE 31500, EXS
45000,
EXS 43000
Knowledge of the physical and psychological signs of
overtraining and to provide recommendations for these
problems.
EXS 39000,
EXS 40000,
EXS 43000
PE 31500, EXS
20000,
EXS 10000
Knowledge of and ability to describe the changes that
occur in maturation from childhood to adulthood for the
following: skeletal muscle, bone structure, reaction time,
coordination, heat and cold tolerance, maximal oxygen
consumption, strength, flexibility, body composition,
resting and maximal heart rate, and resting and maximal
blood pressure.
EXS 39000
PE 31500,
PE 35600,
PE 16000,
BIO 22700,
PE 30500,
PE 22000
Knowledge of the effect of the aging process on the
musculoskeletal and cardiovascular structure and function
at rest, during exercise, and during recovery.
PE 16000,
EXS 43000
PE 31500,
PE 35600
Knowledge of the following terms: progressive, resistance,
isotonic/isometric, concentric, eccentric, atrophy,
hypertrophy, sets, repetitions, plyometrics, Valsalva
maneuver.
EXS 39000,
PE 31000
PE 31500,
EXS 20000,
EXS 31000,
AT 29500
PE 20400,
EXS 10000,
PE 30500
Knowledge of and skill to demonstrate exercises designed
to enhance muscular strength and/or endurance of
specific major muscle groups.
EXS 39000,
EXS 40500,
PE 31000
PE 35600,
EXS 38500,
PE 30500
Knowledge of and skill to demonstrate exercises for
enhancing musculoskeletal flexibility.
EXS 39000,
EXS 31000,
EXS 40500,
EXS 43000
EXS 20000,
PE 30500,
EXS 45000
PE 16000
PE 35600,
EXS 38500,
EXS 10000,
BIO 22700,
PE 31000
Ability to identify the major bones and muscle. Major
muscles include, but are not limited to, the following:
trapezius, pectoralis major, latissimus dorsi, biceps,
triceps, rectus abdominis, internal and external obliques,
erector spinae, gluteus maximus, quadriceps, hamstrings,
adductors, abductors, and gastrocnemius.
P a g e | 52
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Competency
Touched
Upon
Ability to identify the major bones. Major bones to
include, but not limited to the clavicle, scapula, sternum,
humerus, carpals, ulna, radius, femur, fibula, tibia, and
tarsals.
Ability to identify the joints of the body.
PE 16000
Knowledge of the primary action and joint range of
motion for each major muscle group.
PE 35600,
EXS 38500,
EXS 31000
Tested
EXS 31000,
PE 16000,
AT 29500,
PE 31000
EXS 31000,
AT 29500,
BIO 22700,
PE 31000
BIO 22700,
PE 31000
PE 16000,
AT 29500
BIO 22800
Ability to locate the anatomic landmarks for palpation of
peripheral pulses.
Pathophysiology and Risk Factors
Competency
Touched Upon
Knowledge of the physiological and metabolic responses to
exercise associated with chronic disease (heart disease,
hypertension, diabetes, mellitus, and pulmonary disease).
PE 31600,
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
EXS 40500,
PE 16000,
EXS 43000,
PE 22000
EXS 39000,
EXS 43000
Knowledge of cardiovascular, respiratory, metabolic, and
musculoskeletal risk factors that may require further
evaluation by medical or allied health professionals before
participation in physical activity.
Knowledge of the risk factors that may be favorably modified
by physical activity habits.
EXS 39000,
EXS 40000,
EXS 40500,
BIO 22800,
EXS 43000
Knowledge to define the following terms: total cholesterol
(TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), TC/HDL-C
ratio, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), triglycerides,
hypertension, and atherosclerosis.
Knowledge of plasma cholesterol levels for adults as
recommended by the National Cholesterol Education Program.
Tested
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
EXS 40000,
BIO 22800
EXS 39000,
EXS 40500,
BIO 22800,
EXS 43000
Knowledge of the risk factor concept of CAD and the influence
of heredity and lifestyle on the development of CAD.
Knowledge of the atherosclerotic process, the factors involved
in its genesis and progression, and the potential role of
exercise in treatment.
EXS 4300
Knowledge of how lifestyle factors, including nutrition,
physical activity, and heredity influence lipid and lipoprotein
profiles.
EXS 39000,
EXS 43000
EXS 40000
P a g e | 53
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Health Appraisal, Fitness, and Commercial Exercise Testing
Competency
Knowledge of and the ability to discuss the physiological basis
of the major components of physical fitness: flexibility,
cardiovascular fitness, muscular strength, muscular
endurance, and body composition.
Touched Upon
EXS 45000,
EXS 43000
Tested
EXS 39000,
EXS 20000,
EXS 10000,
PE 30500
Knowledge of the importance of health/medical history.
PE 35600, EXS
40000, EXS
45000, EXS
43000
Knowledge of the value of a medical clearance prior to
exercise participation.
PE 35600,
EXS 45000,
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
EXS 20000,
PE 16000, AT
29500, PE
20400, PE
30500, EXS
40500
EXS 39000,
EXS 20000,
AT 29500, PE
20400, PE
30500, EXS
40500
EXS 39000,
PE 30500,
EXS 40500,
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
PE 30500,
EXS 40500,
EXS 43000,
EXS 39000,
PE 30500,
EXS 40500,
PE 16000
EXS 39000,
PE 31500
Knowledge of the categories of participants who should
receive medical clearance prior to administration of an
exercise test or participation in an exercise program.
Knowledge of relative and absolute contraindications to
exercise testing or participation.
Knowledge of the limitations of informed consent and medical
clearance prior to exercise testing.
EXS 43000
Knowledge of the advantages/disadvantages and limitations of
the various body composition techniques including air
displacement, plethysmography, hydrostatic weighing,
skinfolds and bioelectrical impedance.
EXS 43000
Skill in accurately measuring heart rate, blood pressure, and
obtaining rating of perceived exertion (RPE) at rest and during
exercise according to established guidelines.
Skill in measuring skinfold sites, skeletal diameters, and girth
measurements used for estimating body composition.
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
PE 31600,
PE 30500,
EXS 40500,
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
PE 31600, PE
30500, EXS
40500
Skill in techniques for calibration of a cycle ergometer and a
motor-driven treadmill.
Ability to locate the brachial artery and correctly place the cuff
and stethoscope in position for blood pressure measurement.
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
PE 31600,
PE 30500,
BIO 22800
P a g e | 54
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Competency
Ability to locate common sites for measurement of skinfold
thickness and circumferences (for determination of body
composition and waist-hip ratio)
Touched Upon
EXS 43000
Ability to obtain a health history and risk appraisal that
includes past and current medical history, family history of
cardiac disease, orthopedic limitations, prescribed
medications, activity patterns, nutritional habits, stress and
anxiety levels, and smoking and alcohol use.
Ability to obtain informed consent.
Ability to explain the purpose and procedures for monitoring
clients prior to, during, and after cardiorespiratory fitness
testing.
EXS 43000
Ability to instruct participants in the use of equipment and test
procedures.
Tested
EXS 39000,
PE 31600,
PE 30500,
EXS 40500
EXS 3900, PE
31600, PE
16000, EXS
40500
EXS 39000,
PE 16000,
EXS 40500
EXS 39000,
EXS 40500
EXS 39000,
EXS 40500,
EXS 38500
EXS 39000,
EXS 40005
Ability to describe the purpose of testing, determine an
appropriate submaximal or maximal protocol, and perform an
assessment of cardiovascular fitness on the cycle eggometer
of the treadmill.
Ability to describe the purpose of testing, determine
appropriate protocols, and perform assessments of muscular
strength, muscular endurance, and flexibility.
Ability to perform various techniques of assessing body
composition, including the use of skinfold calipers.
EXS 39000,
EXS 40500,
EXS 38500,
PE 30500,
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
PE 31600,
PE 30500
EXS 39000,
EXS 38500,
PE 30500,
EXS 40500
Ability to analyze and interpret information obtained from the
cardiorespiratory fitness test and the muscular strength and
endurance, flexibility, and body composition assessments for
apparently healthy individuals and those with stable disease.
EXS 43000
Ability to identify appropriate criteria for terminating a fitness
evaluation and demonstrate proper procedures to be followed
after discontinuing such a test.
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
PE 30500,
EXS 40500
Ability to modify protocols and procedures for
cardiorespiratory fitness tests in children, adolescents, and
older adults.
EXS 38500
EXS 39000,
PE 30500,
EXS 40500,
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
PE 30500,
EXS 40500,
EXS 43000
Ability to identify individuals for whom physician supervision is
recommended during maximal and submaximal exercise
testing.
P a g e | 55
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Electrocardiography and Diagnostic Techniques
Competency
Knowledge of how each of the following differs from the
normal condition: premature atrial contractions and
premature ventricular contractions.
Ability to locate the appropriate sites for the limb and chest
leads for resting, standard, and exercise (Mason Likar)
electrograms (ECGs), as well as commonly used bipolar
systems (e.g., CM-5).
Touched Upon
EXS 39000,
BIO 22800
BIO 22800
Tested
EXS 39000
Patient Management and Medications
Competency
Touched Upon
Knowledge of common drugs from each of the following
classes of medications and describe the principal action and
the effects on exercise testing and prescription: antianginals,
antihypertensives, antiarrhythmics, bronchodilators,
hypoglycemics, psychotropics, and vasodilators.
EXS 43000
Knowledge of the effects of the following substances on
exercise response: antihistamines, tranquilizers, alcohol, diet
pills, cold tablets, caffeine, and nicotine.
PE 16000 EXS
40000 EXS
43000
Tested
Exercise Prescription and Programming
Competency
Knowledge of the relationship between the number of
repetitions, intensity, number of sets, and rest with regard to
strength training.
Touched Upon
EXS 40500
Tested
EXS 39000,
EXS 45000
PE 30500
Knowledge of the benefits and risks associated with exercise
training in prepubescent and post pubescent youth.
Knowledge of the benefits and precautions associated with
resistance and endurance training in older adults.
EXS 20000,
EXS 45000
EXS 20000,
EXS 45000
Knowledge of specific leadership techniques appropriate for
working with participants of all ages.
Knowledge of how to modify cardiovascular and resistance
exercises based on age and physical condition.
PE 16000, EXS
43000
EXS 20000,
EXS 45000,
EXS 38500
EXS 39000,
PE 35600
EXS 39000,
PE 35600,
PE 30500,
EXS 43000
EXS 39000
Knowledge of the differences in the development of an
exercise prescription for children, adolescents, and older
participants.
Knowledge of and ability to describe the unique adaptations
to exercise training in children, adolescents, and older
participants with regard to strength, functional capacity, and
motor skills.
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
PE 35600,
PE 30500,
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
PE 35600
PE 30500
EXS 39000,
PE 35600,
PE 30500,
EXS 43000
P a g e | 56
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Competency
Knowledge of common orthopedic and cardiovascular
considerations for older participants and the ability to
describe modifications in exercise prescription that is
indicated.
Knowledge of selecting appropriate testing and training
modalities according to the age and functional capacity of the
individual.
Touched Upon
EXS 39000
Tested
EXS 43000
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
EXS 20000
Knowledge of the recommended intensity, duration,
frequency, and type of physical activity necessary for
development of cardiorespiratory fitness in an apparently
healthy population.
Knowledge of and the ability to describe exercises designed to
enhance muscular strength and/or endurance of specific
major muscle groups.
EXS 40500
EXS 39000,
PE 30500
EXS 39000,
EXS 40500,
EXS 20000
PE 35600,
EXS 38500
PE 30500
Knowledge of the principles of overload, specificity, and
progression and how they relate to exercise programming.
EXS 20000,
EXS 40500,
EXS 45000
EXS 39000,
PE 31500, PE
22000
Knowledge of the various types of interval, continuous, and
circuit training programs.
EXS 45000
EXS 39000,
EXS 20000
EXS 43000
EXS 39000
EXS 45000,
PE 35600, EXS
38500
EXS 39000,
EXS 20000
AT 29500, PE
20400
Knowledge of appropriate METs for various sport,
recreational, and work tasks.
Knowledge of the components incorporated into an exercise
session and the proper sequence (i.e., pre-exercise evaluation,
warm-up, aerobic stimulus phase, cool-down, muscular
strength and/or endurance and flexibility).
Knowledge of special precautions and modifications of
exercise programming for participation at altitude, different
ambient temperatures, humidity, and environmental
pollution.
Knowledge of the importance of recording exercise sessions
and performing periodic evaluations to assess changes in
fitness status.
EXS 45000
EXS 20000,
PE 35600,
EXS 38500
EXS 39000,
EXS 40500,
EXS 43000
Knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of
implementation of interval, continuous, and circuit training
programs.
Knowledge of the types of exercise programs available in the
community and how these programs are appropriate for
various populations.
Knowledge of the concept of "Activities of Daily Living" (ADLs)
and its importance in the overall health of the individual.
EXS 20000, PE
35600, EXS
38500
EXS 39000
EXS 39000,
PE 31500
Skill to teach and demonstrate the components of an exercise
session (i.e. warm-up, aerobic stimulus phase, cool-down,
muscular strength/endurance, flexibility).
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
AT 29500,
PE 30500,
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
PE 30500,
EXS 40500
P a g e | 57
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Competency
Skill to teach and demonstrate appropriate modifications in
specific exercises for the following groups: older adults,
pregnant and postnatal women, obese persons with low back
pain.
Skill to teach and demonstrate appropriate exercises for
improving range of motion of all major joints.
Touched Upon
PE 35600
Tested
EXS 43000
EXS 43000
EXS 39000
Skill in the use of various methods for establishing and
monitoring levels of exercise intensity, including heart rate,
RPE, and METs.
Ability to identify and apply methods used to monitor exercise
intensity, including heart rate and rating of perceived exertion.
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
EXS 40500
EXS 45000,
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
EXS 40500
AT 29500, PE
20400
EXS 43000
Ability to differentiate between the amount of physical activity
required for health benefits and the amount of exercise
required for fitness development.
Ability to determine training heart rates using two methods:
percent of age-predicted maximum heart rate and heart rate
reserve (Karvonen).
EXS 43000
EXS 39000
EXS 45000,
EXS 43000
PE 31600,
EXS 3900
Ability to identify proper and improper technique in the use of
resistive equipment such as stability balls, weights, bands,
resistance bars, and water exercise equipment.
Ability to identify proper and improper technique in the use of
cardiovascular conditioning equipment (e.g., stair climbers,
stationary cycles, treadmills, elliptical trainers).
EXS 20000,
PE 35600, EXS
38500
EXS 20000 PE
35600
EXS 40500,
EXS 43000
Ability to teach a progression of exercises for all major muscle
groups to improve muscular strength and endurance.
PE 35600
EXS 38500,
EXS 40500
EXS 43000
EXS 40500,
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
EXS 40500
EXS 43000
PE 35600, EXS
38500
EXS 39000,
EXS 40500
PE 30500,
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
EXS 40500
EXS 39000, PE
35600, EXS
38500
PE 31600, PE
30500
Ability to describe modifications in exercise prescriptions for
individuals with functional disabilities and musculoskeletal
injuries.
Ability to communicate effectively with exercise participants.
Ability to design, implement, and evaluate individualized and
group exercise programs based on health history and physical
fitness assessments.
Ability to modify exercises based on age and physical
condition.
Knowledge and ability to determine energy cost, VO2, METs,
and target heart rates and apply the information to an
exercise prescription.
Ability to convert weights from pounds (lb) to kilograms (kg)
and speed from miles per hour (mph) to meters per minute
(m/Min-1).
Ability to convert METs to VO2 expressed as mL/kg-1/min-1,
L/min-1, and/or mL/kg FFW-1/min-1.
EXS 40500
EXS 39000,
PE 31600
P a g e | 58
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Competency
Ability to determine the energy cost in METs and kilocalories
for given exercise intensities in stepping exercise, cycle
ergometer, and during horizontal and graded walking and
running.
Ability to prescribe exercise intensity based on VO2 data for
different modes of exercise, including graded and horizontal
running and walking, cycling, and stepping exercise.
Touched Upon
EXS 43000
Tested
EXS 39000,
PE 31600
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
EXS 40500
Ability to explain and implement exercise prescription
guidelines for apparently healthy clients, increased risk clients,
and clients with controlled disease.
EXS 39000,
EXS 40500,
EXS 43000
Ability to adapt frequency, intensity, duration, mode,
progression, level of supervision, and monitoring techniques in
exercise programs for patients with controlled chronic disease
(e.g., heart disease, diabetes mellitus, obesity, hypertension),
musculoskeletal problems, pregnancy and/or postpartum, and
exercise-induced asthma.
EXS 39000,
EXS 43000
Ability to design resistive exercise programs to increase or
maintain muscular strength and/or endurance.
EXS 39000,
PE 35600,
EXS 40500,
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
EXS 40500,
PE 30500,
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
EXS 20000,
EXS 40500,
EXS 43000
Ability to evaluate flexibility and prescribe appropriate
flexibility exercises for all major muscle groups.
EXS 20000
Ability to design training programs using interval, continuous,
and circuit training programs.
Ability to describe the advantages and disadvantages of
various commercial exercise equipment in developing
cardiorespiratory fitness, muscular strength, and muscular
endurance.
Ability to modify exercise programs based on age, physical
condition, and current health status.
EXS 31000,
EXS 43000
EXS 39000,
EXS 20000,
PE 35600,
EXS 45000
EXS 40500,
EXS 43000
Competency
Knowledge of the role of carbohydrates, fats, and proteins as
fuels for aerobic and anaerobic metabolism.
Touched Upon
EXS 39000
Knowledge to define the following terms: obesity,
overweight, percent fat, lean body mass, anorexia nervosa,
bulimia, and body fat distribution.
EXS 45000,
PE 16000
Tested
PE 31500,
EXS 40000,
EXS 45000,
EXS 10000,
BIO 22800,
PE 30500
EXS 40000,
BIO 22800,
PE 30500
Nutrition and Weight Management
P a g e | 59
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Competency
Knowledge of the relationship between body composition and
health.
Touched Upon
PE 16000,
EXS 43000
Knowledge of the effects of diet plus exercise, diet alone, and
exercise alone as methods for modifying body composition.
EXS 43000
Knowledge of the importance of an adequate daily energy
intake for healthy weight management.
EXS 43000
Knowledge of the difference between fat-soluble and watersoluble vitamins.
Knowledge of the importance of maintaining normal hydration
before, during and after exercise.
EXS 39000, PE
35600, PE
16000, EXS
43000
Knowledge of the USDA Food Pyramid.
PE 35600, EXS
40000
Knowledge of the importance of calcium and iron in women's
health.
Knowledge of the myths and consequences associated with
inappropriate weight loss methods (e.g., saunas, vibrating
belts, body wraps, electrical stimulators, sweat suits, fad
diets).
Knowledge of the number of kilocalories in one germ of
carbohydrate, fat, protein, and alcohol.
PE 31500
EXS 39000,
EXS 40000, PE
31500
EXS 39000
Knowledge of the number of kilocalories equivalent to lose 1
pound of body fat.
Knowledge of the guidelines for caloric intake for an individual
desiring to lose or gain weight.
EXS 45000,
EXS 43000
Knowledge of common nutritional ergogenic aids, the
purported mechanism of action and any risk and/or benefits
(e.g., carbohydrates, protein/amino acids, vitamins, minerals,
sodium bicarbonate, creatine, bee pollen).
EXS 43000
Knowledge of nutritional factors related to the female athletes
triad syndrome (i.e., eating disorders, menstrual cycle
abnormalities, and osteoporosis).
Tested
EXS 39000,
EXS 40000,
PE 31500, PE
30500
EXS 39000,
EXS 40000,
PE 31500, PE
30500
EXS 39000,
EXS 40000,
PE 31005,
EXS 10000
PE 31500,
EXS 40000,
EXS 10000
PE 31500,
EXS 40000,
EXS 38500,
EXS 10000,
BIO 22800
PE 31500,
EXS 10000
BIO 22800
EXS 40000
PE 31500,
EXS 40000,
EXS 45000,
EXS 10000,
BIO22800
EXS 39000,
EXS 40000
PE 31500,
EXS 10000
EXS 39000,
EXS 40000,
PE 31500,
EXS 10000
PE 31500,
EXS 40000
PE 31500,
EXS 40000
P a g e | 60
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Competency
Knowledge of the NIH Consensus statement regarding health
risks of obesity, Nutrition or Physical Fitness Position Paper of
the American Dietetic Association, and the ACSM Position
Stand on proper and improper weight loss programs.
Touched Upon
EXS 39000,
EXS 40000,
EXS 43000
Tested
Ability to describe the health implications of variation in body
fat distribution patterns and the significance of the waist to
hip ratio.
EXS 40000
EXS 39000
PE 31500
Competency
Knowledge of at least five behavioral strategies to enhance
exercise and health behavior changes (e.g., reinforcement,
goal setting, social support).
Knowledge of the five important elements that should be
included in each counseling session.
Touched Upon
EXS 43000
Tested
EXS 40000,
EXS 10000
EXS 43000
EXS 40000,
PE 32000
Knowledge of specific techniques to enhance motivation (e.g.,
posters, recognition, bulletin boards, games, competitions).
Define extrinsic and intrinsic reinforcement and give examples
of each.
Knowledge of extrinsic and intrinsic reinforcement and give
examples of each.
Knowledge of the stages of motivational readiness.
EXS 40000
Knowledge of three counseling approaches that may assist less
motivated clients to increase their physical activity.
EXS 43000
EXS 10000,
PE 32000,
EXS 40500,
EXS 43000
PE 32000,
EXS 40500
EXS 40000,
PE 32000
PE 32000
EXS 43000
EXS 40000,
PE 32000
PE 32000
Competency
Knowledge of and skill in obtaining basic life support and
cardiopulmonary resuscitation certification.
Knowledge of appropriate emergency procedures (i.e.,
telephone procedures, written emergency procedures,
personnel responsibilities) in a health and fitness setting.
Touched Upon
EXS 30000
Tested
PE 16000
Knowledge of the basic first aid procedures for exerciserelated injuries such as bleeding, strains/sprains, fractures,
and exercise intolerance (dizziness, syncope, heat injury).
EXS 30000
Human Behavior and Counseling
Knowledge of symptoms of anxiety and depression that may
necessitate referral to a medial or mental health professional.
Knowledge of the potential symptoms and causal factors of
test anxiety (i.e., performance, appraisal threat during exercise
testing) and how it may affect physiological responses to
testing.
EXS 40000,
EXS 43000
EXS 43000
Safety, Injury Prevention, and Emergency Procedures
PE 16000,
AT 29500,
PE 20400
Knowledge of basic precautions taken in an exercise setting to
ensure participant safety.
Knowledge of the physical and physiological signs and
symptoms of overtraining.
PE 16000,
AT 29500,
PE 20400
EXS 30000
EXS 20000
EXS 45000,
EXS 10000,
PE 32000
P a g e | 61
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Competency
Knowledge of the effects of temperature, humidity, altitude,
and pollution on the physiological response to exercise.
Knowledge of the following terms: shin splints, sprain, strain,
tennis elbow, bursitis, stress fracture, tendonitis, patellar
femoral pain syndrome, low back pain, plantar fasciitis, and
rotator cuff tendonitis.
Knowledge of hypothetical concerns and potential risks that
may be associated with the use of exercise such as straight leg
sit-ups, double leg raises, full squats, hurdle stretch, yoga
plough, forceful back hyperextension, and standing bent-over
toe touch.
Knowledge of safety plans, emergency procedures, and first
aid techniques needed during fitness evaluations, exercise
testing and exercise training.
Touched Upon
Tested
PE 16000
PE 31000
PE 16000,
AT 29500
PE 35600
EXS 31000
EXS 30000
Knowledge of the heath/fitness instructor's responsibilities,
limitations, and the legal implications of carrying out
emergency procedures.
EXS 30000
Knowledge of potential musculoskeletal injuries(e.g.,
tachycardia, bradycardia, hypotension/hypertension,
tachypnea) and metabolic abnomalities (e.g.,
fainting/syncope, hypoglycemia/hyperglycemia,
hypothermia/hyperthermia).
Knowledge of the initial management and first aid techniques
associated with open wounds, musculoskeletal injuries,
cardiovascular/pulmonary complications, and metabolic
disorders.
Knowledge of the components of an equipment
maintenance/repair program and how it may be used to
evaluate the condition of exercise equipment to reduce the
potential risk of injury.
PE 16000
EXS 30000
AT 29500,
PE 20400
EXS 45000
EXS 30000
Knowledge of the legal implications of documented safety
procedures, the use of incident documents, and ongoing
safety training.
EXS 45000
PE 16000,
AT 29500,
PE 20400,
EXS 30000
Skill to demonstrate exercises used for people with low-back
pain.
Skills in demonstrating appropriate emergency procedures
during exercise testing and or training.
EXS 30000
Ability to identify the components that contribute to the
maintenance of a safe environment.
EXS 45000
EXS 30000
P a g e | 62
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Program Administration, Quality Assurance, and Outcome Assessment
Competency
Knowledge of the health/fitness instructor’s role in
administration and program management within a
health/fitness facility.
Knowledge of and the ability to use the documentation
required when a client shows signs or symptoms during an
exercise session and should be referred to a physician.
Touched Upon
Tested
EXS 40500,
EXS 30000
EXS 40500,
EXS 30000
Knowledge of how to manage a fitness department (e.g.,
working within a budget, training exercise leaders, scheduling,
running staff meeting).
Knowledge of the importance of tracking and evaluating
member retention.
EXS 30000
Ability to administer fitness-related programs within
established budgetary guidelines.
EXS 30000
Ability to develop marketing materials for the purpose of
promoting fitness-related programs.
EXS 30000
Ability to create and maintain records pertaining to participant
exercise adherence, retention, and goal setting.
Ability to develop and administer educational programs (e.g.,
lectures, workshops) and educational material.
EXS 30000
EXS 30000
EXS 30000
EXS 40000
Touched Upon
PE 16000
Tested
EXS 39000,
PE 31600
EXS 43000
EXS 39000
PE 16000
EXS 43000
PE 16000
PE 31600,
BIO 22800
Cardiovascular: Pathophysiology and Risk Factors
Competency
Knowledge of cardiovascular risk factors or conditioned that
may require consultation with medical personnel before
testing and training, including inappropriate changes of resting
or exercise heart rate and blood pressure, new onset
discomfort in chest, neck, shoulder or arm, changes in the
pattern of discomfort during rest or exercise, fainting or dizzy
spells, and claudication.
Knowledge of the causes of myocaridal ischemia and
infarction.
Knowledge of the pathophysiology of hypertension, obesity,
hyperlipidemia, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary
diseases, arthritis, osteoporosis, chronic disease, and
immunosuppressive disease.
Knowledge of the effects of the above diseases and conditions
on cardiorespiratory and metabolic function at rest and during
exercise.
PE 31600
BIO 22800
EXS 43000
PE 31600,
EXS 43000
Pulmonary: Pathophysiology and Risk Factors
Competency
Knowledge of respiratory risk factors of conditions that may
require consultation with medical personnel before testing or
training, including asthma, exercise-induced bronchospasm,
extreme breathlessness at rest or during exercise, bronchitis,
and emphysema.
Touched Upon
PE 16000
Tested
EXS 39000,
PE 31600
EXS 43000
P a g e | 63
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Metabolic: Pathophysiology and Risk Factors
Competency
Knowledge of metabolic risk factors or conditions that may
require consultation with medical personnel before testing or
training, including body weight more than 20 percent above
optimal, BMI>30, thyroid disease, diabetes or glucose
intolerance, and hypoglycemia.
Touched Upon
Tested
EXS 39000,
PE 31600,
EXS 43000
Orthopedic/Musculoskeletal: Pathophysiology and Risk Factors
Competency
Knowledge of musculoskeletal risk factors or conditions that
may require consultation with medical personnel before
testing or training, including acute or chronic back pain,
osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, tendonitis,
and low-back pain.
Touched Upon
Tested
EXS 39000,
PE 31600,
EXS 43000
The alignment of competencies was the first step in developing pre-test and post-test
assessments for the program. Beginning in the fall 2010, all students in EXS 10000
Foundations of Exercise Science, EXS 39000 Exercise Testing and Prescription, EXS 40500
Program Implementation, and EXS 44000 Internship will be given the assessment test on
the ACSM KSA competencies.
Below are the instructions given to each faculty member:
1. Copy the competencies only and ask each student the first week of class to list
from 1 to 10 (1 – no knowledge of subject, 10 – mastery of skill/knowledge) how
competent they feel with those skills. Use the following definitions when rating
the KSAs for the class:
1 No knowledge or understanding of the words.
3 Lots of review of topic.
5 Familiar with topic, could explain to a beginner what it is about.
7 Slight review of topic.
10 Mastery of skill/knowledge – would feel comfortable
performing/would feel comfortable presenting on this topic.
2. Before turning the survey into the department chair, review student responses.
Use the responses for course development and to determine what needs to be
reviewed at the beginning of each semester.
Following the collection of data during the spring 2011 semester, the faculty will further
develop the pre-test and post-test process in order to properly prepare students to meet
all competencies upon completion of major coursework.
P a g e | 64
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Classes Assessed
The table below outlines the benchmarks being developed for this degree program. The
benchmarks have been established to assess students’ learning through the curriculum
from entry into the major to graduation.
Core Classes
EXS 10000 Foundations of Sport and
Exercise Science
PE 31500 Exercise Physiology
EXS 40500 Program Implementation
EXS 44000 Internship
Hours
3
3
3
3-6
Benchmarks and other program comments
Benchmark #1: Initial pre-test given in this course
beginning fall 2011.
Benchmark #2: same test from EXS 10000 given.
Benchmark #3: same test from EXS 10000 given.
Evaluation from internship site is given at the
culmination of the internship.
Methods of Assessments





Core coursework grades
Cumulative GPA
Comments/feedback from clients in EXS 40500 Program Implementation class
Completion of 150-300 clinical hours and degree requirements
Evaluation forms from the EXS 44000 Internship
Objective




Students are required to successfully pass (grade of D or better) the major
prerequisites and maintain a 2.5 cumulative GPA to complete the degree.
Beginning in fall 2011, students must get a grade of C or better in CHM 10000,
BIO 10000, BIO 22700, and BIO 22800 to graduate.
The 150-300 internship hours must be approved and documented by the
cooperating supervisor and University supervisor.
Students must successfully pass PE 16000 First Aid and CPR and maintain active
certification through the American Red Cross or other approved organizations.
Subjective


Students are provided an academic plan by their academic advisor. At a
minimum, each student meets with his/her advisor one time per semester to
review academic progress, course sequencing, and overall success in the
program.
During the internship experience, the cooperating supervisor serves as a role
model for best practices in the field of exercise science and provides students the
opportunity to discuss how to handle unique situations and unusual occurrences.
Additionally, the supervisor completes an evaluation form that accompanies the
internship packet completed by each student during the internship experience.
P a g e | 65
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Student Attitude/Response


Student responses are collected on the University’s course evaluations following
each semester.
Students are asked for feedback following each clinical experience and internship
site. The form is currently being modified to reflect quantifiable responses to be
used in data collection and analysis.
Results
The table below represents the exercise science students’ cumulative GPAs for 2007-10.
The cumulative GPA is above the required 2.5 for graduation and has increased slightly in
the 2009-10 academic year.
Cumulative GPA and Enrollment
Enrollment
GPA
2008-09
110
2.87
2009-10
188
2.91
2010-11
192
2.96
EXS 40500 Program Implementation
The senior level course, EXS 40500 Program Implementation, is intended to be the
culminating course for exercise science students.
During fall 2009, there were five students enrolled in this course, and the numbers
increased over three times to 16 students in the spring 2010. The 2010 and 2011 spring
semesters had an average of 25 students. The students in this class work with
faculty/staff to develop a comprehensive fitness program that uses pre- and post-test
fitness assessments. The instructor ensures all programs are safe and effective for each
client. Currently, the instructor of this course is collaborating with other faculty at the HIT
Center to develop quantifiable evaluation forms to be used in the course. However, some
general comments and feedback were gathered during the last semesters. More than 80
percent of clients reported improvements in cardiovascular fitness, body composition,
muscular strength and endurance, flexibility, and overall mental health and well-being.
EXS 44000 Internship Evaluations
Beginning in fall 2010, a new internship agreement and evaluation form for supervisors
for all students enrolled in EXS 44000 will be implemented.
The instructions for this evaluation form are listed below:
P a g e | 66
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Please rate the following statements about your exercise science intern at Lindenwood
University. All responses are used in our annual or bi-yearly evaluation for course
alignment to ACSM KSAs and for overall program improvement. Please use the fourpoint rating scale identified below for all responses.
Area
Client Relations
Work Quality
Communication
Skills
Tour Knowledge
Initiative
Excellent
(1)
95-100 percent
clients finish their
initial contract, and
30 percent
continuing on
independent
contract
Keeps facility and
equipment clean,
shows up on time,
encourages other
clients besides
their own, follows
protocol, sets
effective goals for
clients, performs
research according
to the HIT Center
protocols
Speaks clearly and
concisely,
motivates clients
well, able to
translate the
clinical results in
layman terms
Able to cite
mission statement,
and goals and
objectives of HIT
Center, know what
each equipment
piece does and
how to modify the
protocol for
individual goals of
clients, able to sell
contract to 90
percent of those
toured
Asks for help when
needed, sees
things that need to
be done and does
them, initiates
Good
(2)
85-94 percent clients
finish their initial
contract, and/or 20
percent continuing on
independent contract
Needs Improvement
(3)
75-84 percent clients
finish their initial
contract, and /or 10
percent continuing on
independent contract
Unacceptable
(4)
Below 75
percent
clients finish
their initial
contract
Keeps facility and
equipment clean,
shows up on time,
encourages other
clients besides their
own, follows protocol,
sets effective goals for
clients
Keeps facility and
equipment clean,
shows up on time,
encourages other
clients besides their
own, follows protocol,
Keeps facility
and
equipment
clean, shows
up on time
Speaks clearly and
concisely, listening to
the needs of clients,
motivates clients well
Speaks clearly and
concisely, listening to
the needs of clients
Speaks
clearly and
concisely
Able to cite mission
statement, and goals
and objectives of HIT
Center, know what
each equipment piece
does and able to sell
contract to 75 percent
of those toured
Able to cite mission
statement, and goals
and objectives of HIT
Center, know what
each equipment piece
does, able to sell
contract to 50 percent
of those toured
Able to cite
mission
statement,
and goals and
objectives of
HIT Center
Asks for help when
needed, sees things
that need to be done
and does them,
initiates recruitment
Asks for help when
needed, accomplishes
things that need to be
done when asked
Accomplishes
job
description
P a g e | 67
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Area
Gym Equipment
Knowledge
Speed Up
Knowledge
Lighten Up
Knowledge
HIT FIT
Knowledge
Excellent
(1)
recruitment of
clients, initiates
projects on their
own
Knows names of
equipment, able to
safely challenge
clients on the
equipment, able to
explain why
equipment is used
in client’s routines,
and how to modify
the protocol for
individual goals of
clients,
Able to perform
test, read results of
test, able to
explain what is
occurring during
the test, and why
the test is
important for this
individual, make
goals according to
test, and make
appropriate
protocols for each
given client
Able to perform
test, read results of
test, able to
explain what is
occurring during
the test, and why
the test is
important for this
individual, make
goals according to
test, and make
appropriate
protocols for each
given client
Able to perform
test, read results of
test, able to
explain what is
occurring during
the test, and why
the test is
Good
(2)
of clients
Needs Improvement
(3)
Unacceptable
(4)
Knows names of
equipment, able to
safely challenge
clients on the
equipment, able to
explain why
equipment is used in
client’s routines
Knows names of
equipment, able to
safely challenge
clients on the
equipment
Knows names
of equipment
Able to perform test,
read results of test,
able to explain what is
occurring during the
test, and why the test
is important for this
individual
Able to perform test,
and read results of
test
Able to
perform test
Able to perform test,
read results of test,
able to explain what is
occurring during the
test, and why the test
is important for this
individual
Able to perform test,
and read results of
test
Able to
perform test
Able to perform test,
read results of test,
able to explain what is
occurring during the
test, and why the test
is important for this
individual
Able to perform test,
and read results of
test
Able to
perform test
P a g e | 68
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Area
VO2Max
Knowledge
AAA Knowledge
RMR
Knowledge
Bod Pod
Knowledge
Excellent
(1)
important for this
individual, make
goals according to
test, and make
appropriate
protocols for each
given client
Able to perform
test, read results of
test, able to
explain what is
occurring during
the test, and why
the test is
important for this
individual, make
goals according to
test, and make
appropriate
protocols for each
given client
Able to perform
test, read results of
test, able to
explain what is
occurring during
the test, and why
the test is
important for this
individual, make
goals according to
test, and make
appropriate
protocols for each
given client
Able to perform
test, read results of
test, able to
explain what is
occurring during
the test, and why
the test is
important for this
individual, make
goals according to
test, and make
appropriate
protocols for each
given client
Able to perform
test, read results of
Good
(2)
Needs Improvement
(3)
Unacceptable
(4)
Able to perform test,
read results of test,
able to explain what is
occurring during the
test, and why the test
is important for this
individual
Able to perform test,
and read results of
test
Able to
perform test
Able to perform test,
read results of test,
able to explain what is
occurring during the
test, and why the test
is important for this
individual
Able to perform test,
and read results of
test
Able to
perform test
Able to perform test,
read results of test,
able to explain what is
occurring during the
test, and why the test
is important for this
individual
Able to perform test,
and read results of
test
Able to
perform test
Able to perform test,
read results of test,
Able to perform test,
and read results of
Able to
perform test
P a g e | 69
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Area
Excellent
(1)
test, able to
explain what is
occurring during
the test, and why
the test is
important for this
individual, make
goals according to
test, and make
appropriate
protocols for each
given client
Good
(2)
able to explain what is
occurring during the
test, and why the test
is important for this
individual
Needs Improvement
(3)
test
Unacceptable
(4)
Current internship sites include DASA, Fitness Studio, HIT Center, The Lab Gym, SLU-Care,
Fitness Edge, DASA@HIT and Smith Performance Systems, YMCA, LU Golf team, Ortho
and Rehab Assoc., Dynamic Fitness Management, Boys and Girls Club, Excel Sports and
PT, LU football team, BJC WellAware, and the St. Louis Rams.
Over the past year, there was a significant increase in the number of graduates from the
B.S. in Exercise Science degree program. In spring 2010, there were 10 graduates, and in
spring 2011 the program graduated 40 students. Below is a list of career placements and
continuing education programs students went on to:









Fitness Studio
Master of Education in Athletic Administration
Graduate assistants at Lindenwood University
Club Fitness -- facility management
St. Charles YMCA
Corporate Wellness-Boeing
Fitness Edge
PRN Exercise Physiologist for St. Luke's Cardiac Rehab
Nursing school, physical therapy school, and physician assistant school
Lessons Learned
Based on the competency matrix, the faculty recommended to the Deans’ Council to
remove PE 20000 Health and Nutrition from the curriculum beginning in fall 2011. The
competencies in that course are covered in the newly added EXS 20000 Concepts of
Conditioning, Methods of Weight Training, and the EXS 38500 Advanced Weight Training
classes that are required as of fall 2010.
In order to keep the degree requirements in line with the University’s required hours, the
faculty recommended removing EXS 42000 Current Issues in Exercise Science from the
P a g e | 70
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
core curriculum and adding the course as a recommended elective for juniors and
seniors.
The competencies for electrocardiography and diagnostic techniques are listed below:
1.4.1 Knowledge of how each of the following differs from the normal condition:
premature atrial contractions and premature ventricular contractions.
1.4.2 Ability to locate the appropriate sites for the limb and chest leads for resting,
standard, and exercise (Mason Likar) electrograms (ECGs), as well as
commonly used bipolar systems (e.g., CM-5)
The faculty did not feel there was a course that sufficiently covered these competencies
for those students interested in the field of cardiac rehabilitation. Additionally, those
students seeking internships in this area did not have the necessary skills upon entry into
internships.
Therefore, a late-start course, EXS 39999 EKG Interpretation, was developed to meet the
needs of those students. This course will continue to be offered each semester and is a
recommended elective for all students.
Action Plan for Next Year
The faculty is currently working on the competency matrix to align all KSAs to current
course objectives. Currently, the exercise science courses are taught by three full-time
and four adjunct faculty members. The department recently hired two additional adjunct
professors and one full-time faculty member to cover the fall and spring class schedules
due to student enrollment, additional course sections, and the new Master of Science in
Human Performance approved in June 2010. The new master’s degree will further
enhance the educational offerings and opportunities for students interested in the field
of health and fitness sciences.
The strategic plan below has been developed for the University HIT Center and outlines
the expansion plan to include additional educational opportunities and programs,
athletic enhancement, and community and wellness programs.
Impacts and Changes on Classes for the Following Year
The faculty is discussing the removal of PE 30500 Measurement and Evaluation of Physical
Education as there is a proposal being developed to add an advanced exercise
physiology/metabolism course to the curriculum. This course would build on knowledge gained
in anatomy and physiology and exercise physiology. Additionally, this course would help students
transition from PE 31500 Exercise Physiology into the exercise testing course. Currently, the
department coordinators are gathering information from other accredited exercise science
programs to develop a course syllabus and objectives for this course. This proposal will be
submitted to the Deans’ Council in late fall for addition in the 2012-13 catalog.
P a g e | 71
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
After careful evaluation, the faculty decided to restructure the exercise testing and prescription
course and the program implementation course. The new courses separate exercise testing into
a single course and combine the prescription and implementation courses into one course. The
newly approved course descriptions are below:

EXS 39500 Exercise Testing (4) This course is designed to provide students with the skills
necessary to conduct laboratory and field tests used for assessing physical fitness
components. It will focus on cardiorespiratory fitness, muscular fitness, body
composition, flexibility, and balance. It integrates concepts, principles, and theories
based on research in exercise physiology, measurement and evaluation, psychology, and
nutrition to provide a direct and straightforward approach to physical fitness assessment.
This course is offered in the fall/spring. Prerequisites: PE 30500, PE 31000, PR 31500, PE
31600.

EXS 41000 Exercise Prescription and Implementation (4) This course is designed for the
student to explore techniques and strategies used for designing, implementing, and
managing specific exercise, health and wellness, and athletic development programs. The
students will apply the knowledge and skills learned in previous courses to administer
appropriate evaluations and use the test results to develop an exercise prescription and
properly implement the program. This course is offered in the fall/spring. Prerequisites:
EXS 39000.
In order to ensure students are taking courses in the appropriate sequence, in spring 2011 the
faculty re-evaluated the current prerequisites for each course in the curriculum. The table below
shows the proposed changes to prerequisites and the rationale for the changes.
Class Number and
Name
EXS 32500
Biomechanics
EXS 33000 Current
Issues in Exercise
Science
EXS 34000 Nutrition
for Performance
EXS 39000 Exercise
Testing
EXS 41000 Exercise
Prescription
2011-12 Catalog Prerequisite
PE 31000, PE 31500,
PE 31600, EXS 31600
PE 31500 or permission
of Instructor
Proposed 2012-13
Catalog Pre-requisite
PE 31000
Bio 12100 and Junior
Standing
PE 30500,PE31000, PE
31500, PE 31600
EXS 39000
No Change
EXS 43000 Physical
Activity for Specific
Populations
EXS 39500 and Senior
Standing
PE 31500 and
PE 31600
Rationale for update
Course builds on PE 31000
concepts
Junior Standing
PE 31500, PE 31600
EXS 39500
Course builds on PE 31500
and PE 31600
EXS 395000is the updated
course number for the old
EXS 39000
Course builds on PE 31500
and PE 31600
P a g e | 72
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Physical Education
Mission
The Health and Fitness Sciences Department supports the University’s mission
statement:
Lindenwood University offers values-centered programs leading to the development of
the whole person – an educated, responsible citizen of a global community.
Lindenwood is committed to
• providing an integrative liberal arts curriculum,
• offering professional and pre-professional degree programs,
• focusing on the talents, interests, and future of the student,
• supporting academic freedom and the unrestricted search for truth,
• affording cultural enrichment to the surrounding community,
• promoting ethical lifestyles,
• developing adaptive thinking and problem-solving skills,
• furthering lifelong learning.
Program Goals and Objectives
Goals for the Graduates in the Major
The goal of the Bachelor of Science in Physical Education degree is to prepare students to
work in a non-traditional teaching setting in community health, community fitness
centers, coaching, and health and wellness areas.
Objectives for Graduates in the Major
Students




will successfully complete the general education curriculum outlined by the University,
will successfully complete the major requirements for the degree,
will complete a minimum of 150 practicum hours under the direction of a qualified
coach/instructor and University supervisor,
with a minor in strength and conditioning will be prepared to take the Certified Strength
and Conditioning Specialist test through the National Strength and Conditioning
Association.
P a g e | 73
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Course Alignment to Competencies
While this is a non-teaching degree, the department has aligned the coursework to the Missouri
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education content standards. These standards are
aligned with the Missouri Association of Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance and
the National Association for Sport and Physical Education, the leaders in health and physical
education.
MDESE’s standards for physical education are listed below and are divided into three areas, each
with stated objectives:
 Content knowledge
 Development and diversity
 Collaboration and community involvement
Content Knowledge
1. Fundamental movement skills (locomotor, non-locomotor, manipulative) and movement concepts;
personal fitness and wellness concepts.
2. The bioscience (anatomical, physiological, and biomechanical) and psychological concepts of
movement, physical activity, and fitness.
3. Developmental, individual, dual, and team activities and developmental games, including outdoor
activities and non-competitive physical activities, as well as various types of rhythmic and dance
activities.
4. The relationship of physical activity and exercise, nutrition, and other healthy living behaviors to a
healthy lifestyle.
5. Analysis and refinement of basic movement patterns, skills, and concepts.
6. Conditioning practices and principles; frequency, intensity, time/duration; the short- and long-term
effects of physical training.
7. Safety, injury prevention, and how to perform and/or access emergency procedures/ services.
8. Effects of substance abuse and psycho-social factors on performance and behavior.
9. Current technologies and their application in physical education, communication, networking, locating
resources, and enhancing continuing professional development.
10. Consumer health issues related to the marketing, selection, and use of products and services
(including the effects of mass media and technologies) that may affect health and physical activity
involvement.
11. Approved state and national content standards.
12. History and philosophical issues in physical education.
Development and Diversity
1. Biological, psychological, sociological, experiential, and environmental factors (e.g., physical growth
and development; neurological development, physique, gender, socio-economic status) that impact
readiness to learn and perform.
2. Individual differences as related to optimal participation in physical activity, including concepts such
as diversity, disability, multiculturalism, development, gender differences, and learning styles.
3. Accessing and selecting appropriate services and resources to meet diverse learning needs.
P a g e | 74
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Collaboration and Community Involvement
1. Selecting and accessing community resources to enhance physical activity opportunities and
involvement.
2. Strategies for advocating in the school and community to promote a variety of physical activity
opportunities.
3. Statutes, regulations, policies, and curriculum guidelines related to physical education, including
knowledge of how to access and to advocate for policy development.
4. Career opportunities in related fields, e.g., wellness, athletic training, exercise science, and sportrelated careers.
Below is the alignment of the above objectives to the content courses offered in physical
education for this degree. These competencies are reviewed each year, and objectives
are added to individual courses as approved by the faculty of that course.
Competency
PE
PE
PE
PE
PE
PE
PE
PE
PE
PE
PE
PE
PE
PE
PE
PE
15000 16000 20700 20000 20300 22000 30000 30500 31000 34900 32000 40000 31800 31500 35600 1xx00
1. Physical Education Content
1
x
2 x
x
3
4
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
5
x
6
7
x
x
8
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
9
x
10
x
x
x
x
11 x
x
12 x
x
2. Development and Diversity
1 x
x
x
2 x
x
x
x
x
x
3 x
x
3. Collaboration and Community Involvement
1
x
x
x
x
2
x
x
x
x
x
3 x
x
4 x
x
x
x
Classes to be Assessed
The table below outlines the core course requirements for the B.S. in Physical Education degree.
The benchmarks being developed for this degree are noted below. The purpose of the
benchmarks is to assess students’ learning through the curriculum from entry into the major
through to graduation.
Core Classes
PE 15000 Found of PE
PE 31500 Exercise
Physiology
Hours
3
3
Benchmarks
Initial pre-test being developed to assess knowledge at entry
into the program.
This course is one of the last courses taken during the senior
semester. The same post-test given in PE 15000 will be given to
assess student learning.
P a g e | 75
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
PE 31800 Coaching with
Character
3
PE Methods of Coaching
3
This degree has an emphasis on coaching principles; therefore, a
final written exam on the student’s coaching philosophy is given
to assess the student’s understanding of theory and methods of
coaching.
The faculty is working with the instructors to develop a written
exam, specific to each sport to assess the students’
understanding of theory and methods of coaching for a
particular sport.
Methods of Assessments
1.
2.
3.
4.
Core coursework grades
Cumulative GPA
Completion of a minimum of 150 practicum hours and degree requirements
Course alignment to national standards
Objective


Students are required to successfully pass (grade of D or better) the prerequisites
for all major requirements and maintain a 2.5 cumulative GPA to complete the
degree.
A minimum of 150 practicum hours must be approved and documented by the
cooperating coach/instructor and University supervisor.
Subjective


Students are provided an academic plan by their academic advisor. At a
minimum, each student meets with his/her advisor one time per semester to
review academic progress, course sequencing, and overall success in the
program.
During the practicum experience, the cooperating coach/instructor serves as a
role model for best practices in the field of physical education and provides
students the opportunity to discuss how to handle unique situations and unusual
occurrences.
Student Attitude/Response


Student responses are collected on the University’s course evaluations following
each semester.
Students are asked for feedback following each practicum experience.
P a g e | 76
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Results
The Bachelor of Science degree in Physical Education was approved in fall 2007. The
current student enrollment is listed below. Many students interested in physical
education choose to pursue certification in K-12; therefore, enrollment in this particular
degree remains consistently lower than other areas in the health and fitness sciences.
The table below represents the Physical Education student’s cumulative GPAs for 200811. The cumulative GPA is above the required 2.5 for graduation.
Student Enrollment and Cumulative GPA
Enrollment
GPA
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
9
12
10
3.02
2.67
2.85
Lessons Learned
This degree has an emphasis in coaching through the core classes and requirements in
theory and methods of coaching courses. In fall 2010, the faculty planned to add pre- and
post-test information based on the standards to PE 15000 Foundations of Physical
Education, PE 30000 Community Health, PE 34900 Organization and Administration of
Physical Education, PE 40000 Adaptive Physical Education, and PE 35600 Methods of
Weight Training.
However, after further conversations with faculty, the department has decided to pre/post-test in PE 15000 and PE 31500 because these courses are offered in the Bachelor of
Arts in Physical Education as well. Both the B.A. and B.S. degrees are aligned to MDESE’s
standards; therefore, using the same pre- and post-test in all sections of these courses to
remain consistent with our assessment procedures makes sense.
Action Plan for Next Year
The Bachelor of Science degree in Physical Education is a relatively new degree, approved
in fall 2007. The future strategic plan will be based on a needs assessment, current
resources, and future resources. Based on student feedback, the department is currently
assessing the electives required for the degree. Currently, 18 credits are electives in the
major, with one course being a science (partially meeting the University’s requirement of
three sciences for a bachelor’s degree), and nine credits being above the 30000-40000
level (partially meeting the University’s requirement of 42 hours of upper-level
coursework).
P a g e | 77
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
The majority of students pursuing this degree will work in a setting that requires
coaching/instructing a variety of sports. This fact has prompted the department to assess
whether additional coaching methods courses or lifetime activity courses should be
required, lowering the number of electives for this major. Additionally, the department
offers a minor in coaching, of which many courses are already included in the Bachelor of
Science in Physical Education. Therefore, students are now strongly recommended to
declare a minor with this degree.
In spring 2009, the Health and Fitness Science Department assessed prerequisites for
coaching methods courses. All coaching methods courses are at a 30000 level, which
means students should be a junior and have introductory courses completed prior to
enrollment in a methods course. Therefore, appropriate prerequisites were added to
ensure students are properly prepared for and successfully complete these courses. This
change will be evaluated in upcoming semesters by student feedback, instructor
comments, and overall grades and GPA changes within the major. Additionally, the
course PE 42000 Practicum in Coaching is being considered as a core requirement in this
degree. As stated previously, many of these students are interested in pursuing coaching,
and this additional practicum experience would benefit these students.
In fall 2010, the faculty plan to add pre- and post-test information based on these
standards to PE 15000 Foundations of Physical Education, PE 30000 Community Health,
PE 34900 Organization and Administration of Physical Education, PE 40000 Adaptive
Physical Education, and PE 35600 Methods of Weight Training. These assessments will be
used to further modify the program based on the student responses and course
evaluations. However, after further conversations with faculty, the department has
decided to pre- and post-test in PE 15000 and PE 31500 because these courses are
offered in the Bachelor of Arts degree in Physical Education as well. Both the B.A. and
B.S. degrees are aligned to MDESE’s standards; therefore, using the same pre- and posttest in all sections of these courses makes sense to remain consistent with our
assessment procedures. Monthly meetings in the summer months were held with fulltime faculty to develop these pre-tests for pilot use in fall 2011.
Impacts and Changes on Classes for the Following Year
Based on the results of the pilot pre- and post- tests, the faculty will make a plan of
action to implement pre- and post-tests each academic semester in PE 15000
Foundations of Physical Education and PE 31500 Physiology of Exercise.
This degree has an emphasis on coaching principles; therefore, a final written exam on
the student’s coaching philosophy will be given to assess the student’s understanding of
theory and methods of coaching in PE 31800 Coaching with Character. Additionally, the
department is working with the individual instructors in each specific theory and
methods of sports course to develop a written exam, specific to each sport, to assess the
student’s understanding of theory and methods of coaching for a particular sport.
P a g e | 78
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
In order to ensure students are taking courses in the appropriate sequence, in spring
2011 the faculty re-evaluated the current prerequisites for each course in the curriculum.
The table below shows the proposed changes to pre-requisites and the rationale for the
change.
Class Number
and Name
PE 30000
Community
Health
PE 30500
Measurement
and Evaluation in
PE
PE 31000
Kinesiology of PE
PE 31800
Coaching with
Character
PE 32000
Psychological
and Sociological
Aspects of PE
PE 33100
Analysis and
Teaching of
Lifetime Sports
PE 33500
Methods of
Elementary
Physical
Education
PE 33600
Methods of
intermediate PE
PE 34900
Organization and
Administration
of Health and PE
PE 35000 Theory
and Methods of
Coaching
Football
PE 35100 Theory
and Methods of
Coaching
Basketball
2011-2012
catalog prerequisite
Proposed 20122013 catalog prerequisite
Rationale for update
PE 15000 or
AT 29500 or
EXS 25000
Junior Standing
Course is required in the Health and
Wellness minor which includes non-majors.
Also required in the Social Service
Emphasis.
MTH 14100
Junior Standing
MTH 14100 is a recommended (not
required) math course for PE majors.
PE 20700 or BIO
22700
MTH 14100 is a recommended (not
required) math course for PE majors.
Junior Standing
Course is required in the Coaching minor,
also for non-majors.
Junior Standing
Course is required in the Coaching minor,
also for non-majors.
EDU 10000,
EDU 20200,
EDU 30400
Junior Standing
Course is required in the B.S in PE (nonteaching degree).
EDU 10000,
EDU 20200,
EDU 30400
PE 22000
PE 22000 covers the basic movement skills
needed to develop effective lesson plans.
EDU 10000,
EDU 20200,
EDU 30400
PE 22000
PE 22000 covers the basic movement skills
needed to develop effective lesson plans.
PE 15000,
junior standing
Junior Standing
Course is required in the Coaching minor,
also for non-majors.
PE 20400 or
AT 29500
Junior Standing
Course is required in the Coaching minor,
also for non-majors.
PE 20400 or
AT 29500
Junior Standing
Course is required in the Coaching minor,
also for non-majors.
MTH 14100,
PE 20700 or
BIO 22700
AT 29500 or
EXS 25000 or
PE 15000 or
PE 20400
PE 15000 or
AT 29500 or
EXS 25000 or
PSY 10000
P a g e | 79
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Class Number
and Name
PE 35200 Theory
and Methods of
Coaching Softball
and Baseball
PE 35300 Theory
and Methods of
Coaching Track
and Field
PE 35400 Theory
and Methods of
Coaching
Volleyball
PE 35500 Theory
and Methods of
Coaching Soccer
PE 35600 Theory
and Methods of
Coaching Weight
Training
PE 35700 Theory
and Methods of
Coaching
Wrestling
PE 35800 Theory
and Methods of
Coaching Aquatic
Sports
PE 40000
Adapted PE
EDU 32500
Perceptual
Motor
Development
2011-2012
catalog prerequisite
Proposed 20122013 catalog prerequisite
Rationale for update
PE 20400 or
AT 2950
Junior Standing
Course is required in the Coaching minor,
also for non-majors.
PE 20400 or
AT 29500
Junior Standing
Course is required in the Coaching minor,
also for non-majors.
PE 20400 or
AT 29500
Junior Standing
Course is required in the Coaching minor,
also for non-majors.
PE 20400 or
AT 29500
Junior Standing
Course is required in the Coaching minor,
also for non-majors.
PE 20400 or
AT 29500
Junior Standing
Course is required in the Coaching minor,
also for non-majors.
PE 20400 or
AT 29500
Junior Standing
Course is required in the Coaching minor,
also for non-majors.
PE 20400 or
AT 29500
Junior Standing
Course is required in the Coaching minor,
also for non-majors.
PE 33500 or
PE 33600
Senior Standing
Course is required in the B.S. in PE (nonteaching degree).
EDU 10000,
EDU 31700
EDU 10000
Course is required for PE and Health
teaching majors (EDU 31700 is early
childhood course).
School of Education Analysis
Health Science Programs
The programs have in place a number of items that will greatly strengthen their
assessment efforts — getting student responses to classes, collecting the clinical
exam results, collecting the results of evaluations, as well as class and alumni
survey results. The clinical experience class has a lot of assessment going on, but
there is a need to integrate the data into the reporting process. Goals and
objectives need to reflect what we want students to learn. The programs need to
P a g e | 80
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
develop techniques of measuring what students have learned while at
Lindenwood. The list of competencies is long and professionally necessary, but
how is the department measuring them? GPA and course grades are not
considered an effective assessment measure as there are many factors other than
student learning that can impact the grades a student receives. In exercise
science, competency 1.3.10, there is no class that teaches that proficiency, which
is something the department will wish to examine and possibly explain.
Teacher Education
The teacher education program has a very comprehensive reporting system that
is required by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
The school is still working through the process of determining what data is
interesting and what is useful. The use of an example program is good at this
point, but all the programs should eventually be included, especially those that
are primarily housed in the school of education, such as elementary education. It
is necessary to look at the impacts that assessment is having on the program and
changes made based on the data. The program has been dealing with a great deal
of data for the last few years and is only now getting caught back up, but future
reports need to reflect current data. The school’s DESE cycle does slow up its
reporting somewhat and, thus, it will be data from as much as a year behind most
of the programs at the University.
School of Fine and Performing Arts
The School of Fine and Performing Arts offers 21 undergraduate majors in the areas of
dance, studio arts, theatre, and music. The performing arts center has expanded the
ability of the University to offer both quality professional and student productions for the
campus and the community.
The school offers the following degrees:
Bachelor of Fine Arts in
 Studio Art
 Fashion Design
 Acting
 Directing
 Technical Theatre/Design
 Musical Theatre
P a g e | 81
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Bachelor of Arts in
 Studio Art
 Art History
 Arts Management–Art History
 Arts Management–Studio Art
 Dance
 Arts Management—Dance
 Fashion Design
 Music (Instrumental)
Minors in
 Art History
 Studio Art
 Graphic and Computer Art
 Dance
 Fashion Design
 Music
 Performing Arts
 Theatre







Music (Vocal/Choral)
Music Performance
Music Business
Arts Management-Music
Performing Arts
Theatre
Arts Management – Theatre
P a g e | 82
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Fine Arts
Program Goals and Objectives
Knowledge: The student who successfully completes the studio art major at Lindenwood
University will understand and experience the practice of art and will understand the role of
art as a force in human knowledge. The student will know




the visual language of art and design,
fundamental studio practice; techniques, procedures, and theory shared across
studio disciplines,
major achievements in the history of art, Western, and non-Western,
varied approaches to the role of art in human experience.
Skills and Reasoning Processes: The student who successfully completes the studio art
major at the University will understand the integration of technical proficiency and critical
thinking. The student will be able to competently





manipulate art, craft, and design media utilizing traditional and contemporary
technologies,
organize, analyze, and interpret visual phenomena using problem-solving skills,
communicate clearly about art in oral and written form,
evaluate their own art making and that of their peers through critical reasoning
about the use of materials, formal elements, and content,
create a body of work, which joins ideas and process-oriented learning.
Application: The studio art major who graduates from the University will have acquired
knowledge, skills, and reasoning abilities that will enable him/her to apply this experience in
a variety of ways. The student will be able to




synthesize knowledge from many fields into studio practice,
engage in substantive self-directed artistic activity,
direct these learned abilities to thoughtful practice in any arena,
contribute to the cultural, intellectual, and educational life of the community.
Classes Assessed
ART 10000 - Fundamentals of Drawing and Design, ART 18100 - Intro to Photography, ART
18101 - Intro to Digital Photography and ART 24000 - Intro to Ceramics
P a g e | 83
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Methods of Assessment Used
Assessment in these courses involves objective (quantifiable) answers on exams and essays
and critiques of art work, as well as class discussion, subjective (qualitative) improvement
on essays, and, finally, student response — the feedback on evaluations and those taken in
class on the effectiveness of different modes of delivery in the classroom.
Results (include a comparison with previous years when
possible)
ART 24000 – Introduction to Ceramics
The faculty rates each student’s demonstrated abilities in specified areas on a 1-5 scale
based on his/her final critique. The following percentages represent students who received
high ratings of (4-5): a rank of 4 is considered a success.
Historical context
Recognition of kitsch
Use of construction techniques
Light, shadow, proportion
Surface preparation
Glaze and slip application
2006
50%
33%
46%
25%
50%
65%
2007
50%
33%
46%
33%
50%
70%
2008
54%
45%
64%
64%
64%
72%
2009
48%
38%
65%
65%
53%
65%
2010
54%
38%
68%
48%
48%
54%
2011
64%
n/a
74%
52%
58%
64%
ART 18100 - Intro to Photography Assessment
The faculty rates each student’s demonstrated abilities in specified areas on a 1-5 scale
from the work presented as the final outside-of-class assignment. The following represents
the abilities assessed and the percentage of students who received high marks (4-5) for
their demonstrated abilities.
Printing technique
Print quality
Composition
Focus
Depth of field
Originality
Technical knowledge
2006
45%
40%
54%
61%
41%
31%
33%
2007
48%
45%
41%
63%
51%
35%
30%
2008
50%
50%
45%
70%
50%
35%
40%
2009
54%
59%
54%
66%
49%
42%
54%
2010
48%
45%
45%
70%
48%
35%
45%
2011
54%
60%
54%
60%
54%
54%
60%
ART 18100 - Intro to Photography-Digital Assessment begun in 2007
The faculty rates each student’s demonstrated abilities in specified areas on a 1-5 scale
from the work presented as their final outside-of-class assignment. The following
P a g e | 84
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
represents the abilities assessed and the percentage of students who received high marks
(4-5) for their demonstrated abilities.
2007
30%
30%
32%
75%
NA
27%
31%
68%
Printing technique
Print quality
Composition
Focus
Depth of field
Originality
Technical knowledge - Photography
Technical knowledge – Adobe Photoshop
2008
40%
35%
50%
80%
NA
40%
30%
75%
2009
56%
43%
43%
76%
NA
43%
56%
65%
2010
53%
43%
65%
NA*
NA
48%
43%
68%
2011
54%
58%
60%
NA
NA
54%
54%
60%
*With the technological advancements in image stability on digital cameras, mastery of
focus techniques has become irrelevant.
In 2007-08, we initiated ART 10000 - Fundamentals of Drawing and Design as a new GE
studio course. It took us a year to fully eliminate ART 13000 - Intro to Drawing and ART
10600 2-D Design as GE offerings.
ART 10000 - Fundamentals of Drawing and Design
The faculty rates each student’s demonstrated abilities in specified areas on a 1-5 scale
from the work presented as the final outside-of-class assignment. The following represents
the abilities assessed and the percentage of students who received high marks (4-5) for
their demonstrated abilities.
Understanding of concepts
Organization of space
Quality of execution
Linear Perspective
Presentation
Creativity/risk-taking
Modeling
Composition
Shading/Value
2009
56%
74%
63%
56%
53%
48%
63%
56%
56%
2010
74%
74%
63%
65%
56%
53%
74%
77%
63%
2011
68%
64%
72%
68%
60%
60%
64%
76%
76%
LU Art Major Assessment -– B.F.A. Exhibition Thesis Assessment
The faculty rates each student’s demonstrated abilities in specified areas on a 1 – 5 scale
from the work presented in the thesis exhibition. The following represents the abilities
assessed and the percentage of students who received high marks (4-5) for their
demonstrated abilities.
P a g e | 85
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Year
Number of Students Assessed
Drawing
Quantity
Technical Knowledge
Presentation/Craftsmanship
Color
Composition
Content
2005
(19)
47%
63%
52%
37%
47%
63%
37%
2006
(18)
50%
44%
39%
22%
28%
39%
39%
2007
(13)
46%
69%
69%
31%
47%
54%
31%
2008
(21)
52%
52%
57%
38%
38%
33%
38%
2009
(24)
52%
58%
58%
72%
42%
64%
38%
2010
(29)
44%
68%
72%
72%
52%
47%
47%
2011
(23)
38%
64%
64%
68%
52%
44%
38%
Lessons Learned
1. Students need increased studio time.
2. Students need more exposure to art theories and practices through additional studio
courses in their majors.
Action Plan




Beginning in fall 2011, all studio classes will have increased contact hours to double
the credit hours in order to come in line with the national average. The department
is expecting this to be a major improvement.
For fall 2011, the Bachelor of Fine Arts in Graphic Design has increased the number
of credit hours required from 60 credits to 75 credits in order to complete the
degree.
o The same is being planned for the Bachelor of Fine Arts in Studio Art for fall
2012.
The department will develop a mid-program evaluation of each art major to assess
the efficacy of the foundation courses as well as to determine the viability of the
students’ continuation in the major. This has been a desire for a couple of years, but
the logistics of scheduling such mid-program evaluations for 180 majors and four
faculty members has precluded its inception.
The art department is working with the administration to secure new full-time
faculty member in 3-D and graphic design.
Impacts and Changes on Classes for the Following Year
The restructured and created courses will be available for majors and non-majors beginning
fall 2011. With consistency in our GE surveys, we can ensure that all students are receiving
the same information, skill sets, and experiences. University-wide availability of studyabroad opportunities will improve exposure to other cultures and broaden their collegiate
and life experience. Higher expectations for upper-level courses ensure strict academic rigor
is enforced and our students are challenged in the classroom.
P a g e | 86
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Art History
Mission
The course of study in art history at the University is devoted to the study of visual
materials, from painting and sculpture to photography and digital art. The department
endeavors to give students a broad foundation in and critical understanding of visual
culture in art historical context in a diverse selection of courses in the art of Europe and
America, as well as the non-Western arts of Africa and Asia. Students are taught to analyze
works of art as products of the cultures in which they were created, exploring such
questions as why the object was created, how it was made, who might have seen and
appreciated it, and what it might have meant to its owners and its audience. The faculty at
the University believes that training in the study of art history consists of a balance between
a sound disciplinary foundation and innovative methodological approaches. The courses
place the methods and objectives of art history in their many contexts. In the course of
study, relationships among cultures over time, including our own, become apparent.
Students develop an appreciation for the innate desire to create that is basic to the human
experience; they also learn to communicate these concepts effectively in written, oral, and
visual presentations.
Program Objectives
Students will






develop as more complete human beings, who think and act freely as individuals and as
members of the community,
acquire the intellectual tools and the range of perspectives needed to understand
human cultures, as they are, as they have been, and as they might be,
refine and apply the basic skills needed for productive study and communication of
ideas (These skills include listening, speaking, reading, writing, researching, observing,
and reflecting),
develop and use the higher levels of thinking, including analysis, synthesis, evaluation,
and integration (Whenever feasible, students’ efforts in the areas of divergent and
creative thinking are also encouraged and supported),
reason analytically about both qualitative and quantitative evidence,
develop personal guidelines for making informed, independent, socially-responsible
decisions that are respectful of other people and of the environment.
The art history major is for those students who want to work in the curatorial, educational,
public relations or registration areas of a museum or gallery or who wish to go on to
P a g e | 87
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
graduate school in the art history field. The major is also for students who plan to pursue
careers in art conservation, museum exhibition preparation, and exhibition design. Each of
these generally require an M.A. or Ph.D. To this end, the program is designed to expose
students to as wide a range of methodologies as possible, culminating with a course on the
methods of art history, their introduction to graduate study. Each research paper required
of them helps them more clearly develop their writing skills and understand how to better
utilize the research tools available to them. Presentations also develop their oral skills and
their ability to communicate an argument clearly and effectively.
Classes Assessed
ART 21000 - Concepts in the Visual Arts
ART 22000 - History of Art (Course replaced by ART 22200 and ART 22400)
ART 38600 - Special Topics: Beauty, Gender, and Art in Early Modern Italy
ART 35700 - Ancient Art
ART 35400 - 19th-Century Art
Methods of Assessment Used
Assessment in these courses involves objective (quantifiable) answers on exams, essays,
and research papers, as well as class discussion subjective (qualitative) improvement on
essays and research papers, and, finally, student response, the feedback on evaluations and
those taken in class on the effectiveness of different modes of delivery in the classroom and
online.
Testing in these courses (especially the surveys ART 22200 and ART 22400) should have
students demonstrating their mastery of the relevant vocabulary, identification of artists
and movements (i.e., artist, title, and date of works), and ability to communicate their ideas
clearly in the form of essays. Assignments in these courses should foster the development
of these skills in the form of verbal presentations and/or, especially, written work
demonstrating knowledge of the material covered as well as the students’ ability to reason
critically about the artworks covered.





Exams should test for knowledge of vocabulary, works of art, and ability to reason in
essays.
Exams should test a knowledge of works through identification, including artist, title,
and date.
In surveys, students must be tested on 150 works of art divided into groups of 50 for
three exams or 75 for two exams.
Essays on exams should test for contextual information and critical thinking skills.
Paper assignments/ presentations should foster the development of writing and
reasoning skills.
P a g e | 88
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Results
As it was the professor’s first year with the University, the data to work with was as limited
as his predecessor’s assessment efforts were limited.
Lessons Learned
The department did not have enough data this year regarding student learning, but by
reviewing the program and doing comparisons with programs at other universities a
number of changes have been made for the following years.
Action Plan for Next Year
The course offerings for art history were unstructured and not unified when the new
professor began in fall 2010. The actions taken over the last year have been to regularize
the curriculum, expand course offerings for the degree, ensure consistency in course
delivery through guidelines distributed to all art history faculty (full- and part-time), expand
online offerings (ART 22200 and ART 22400), develop study-abroad program to be offered
annually (Lindenwood in Italy), and make hiring protocol stricter for adjuncts with a
requirement that they be, at least, ABD.
Impacts and changes on classes for the following year
Eight newly restructured and created courses will be available for majors and non-majors
beginning fall 2011. With consistency in our GE surveys, we can ensure that all students are
receiving the same information, skill sets, and experiences. University-wide availability of
study abroad will improve exposure to other cultures and broaden their collegiate and life
experience. Higher expectations for upper-level courses ensure strict academic rigor is
enforced and our students are challenged in the classroom.
Dance
Mission Statement
Dance, a key component of the university arts program, encompasses a range of course and
performance opportunities that enable students to contribute to our society as dance
performers, choreographers, educators, and knowledgeable audiences who appreciate the
unique ability of the arts to promote understanding. The dance program takes into account
P a g e | 89
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
student activities, educational trends such as multi-cultural and interdisciplinary studies,
and the objectives of the School of Fine and Performing Arts.
The dance major focuses on three major areas: creative, technical, and
historical/theoretical. The B.A. program in dance serves students by recognizing that there
are many potential careers available to them with a dance major. Examples include
professional performer or choreographer, educator, arts manager, and educator/consultant
in the health and fitness industry. The dance program also serves as preparation for dance
study at the graduate level for those interested in careers in higher education.
Program Goals and Objectives
Students will develop in the areas of





technical skills,
o In performances and in technique classes, students will develop the technical
skills necessary to the variety of dance careers delineated in the mission
statement. Each style of dance has specific criteria.
creativity,
o Choreographic assignments increase creativity, enhancing student abilities to
meet the many career and personal challenges of today’s society.
communication and cooperative skills,
o These skills are cultivated through participation in choreography and
performance (projects).
intellectual stimulation,
o Developing the background necessary for the development of critics and
scholars is enhanced through the study of dance history, theory, written exams,
research, and performance analysis papers.
critical thinking.
o Critical thinking is employed in all aspects of dance study. Students constantly
evaluate their progress in relation to technical ideals and make stylistic and
historical evaluations of technique and choreography.
Classes Assessed







Advanced Ballet (spring 2011)
Intermediate Modern (fall 2010)
Intermediate Jazz (fall 2010)
Advance Tap (fall 2010)
Dance Teaching Methods (spring 2011)
Dance Theory and Composition II (spring 2011)
Advanced Ballet (spring 2011)
P a g e | 90
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment

Advanced Jazz (spring 2011)
Methods of Assessment Used
The Dance Department is in the process of creating a dance major exit exam that will
include everything the B.A. dance majors should know and have accomplished in order to
graduate. This exam will allow the department to work backward to establish better
methods of assessment.
Objective Assessment
The pre- and post-tests address basic knowledge related specifically to each course. Below
are samples of tables used to compare the pre- and post-tests.
Subjective Assessment
Students are asked to establish goals at the beginning of the semester and then address the
goals (self-evaluate) again at midterm and at the end of the semester. Included are scoring
elements such as those that are used for dance programs and professional auditions.
Instructor scores are added after the student scores. Evaluations are handed back to the
students so they can see the instructor’s ratings and comments and hopefully help with
further evaluation.
Results
Objective Assessment


Dance technique courses are repeated several times. Assessing individual student
progress is difficult unless more information is given, such as how many times a
student has taken a particular style at the University. Comparing current to previous
years is difficult because the assessment methods were not the same.
Classes that included assessment testing as part of the curriculum (and the student’s
grade) had better results.
Advanced Ballet – spring 2011 - terminology tests
Ex.: “Name the seven movements of ballet in French and English.”
Pre-test %
Post-test %
Improvement %
Overall Averages
68.20
79.00
10.80
Freshman
67.67
74.67
7.00
Sophomores
49.00
58.00
9.00
Juniors
53.00
88.00
35.00
P a g e | 91
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Seniors
82.00
90.50
8.50
Non-dance majors
76.00
87.33
11.33
Dance majors
64.86
75.43
10.57
Intermediate Modern Dance – fall 2010 - basic knowledge of modern techniques and
choreographers
Ex.: “When using imagery of a tassel, what part of the body starts the movement?”
Pre-test %
Post-test %
Improvement %
Overall Average
35.38
81.25
45.88
Non-dance majors
23.17
82.17
59.00
Dance majors
42.70
80.70
38.00
Intermediate Jazz Dance – fall 2010 – basic questions about jazz technique*
Ex.: “Name two ways a chainé turn can be executed in jazz class.”
*This assessment test was written by an adjunct and will not be used in the future.
Averages
Pre-test %
86.18
Post-test %
96.12
Improvement %
9.94
Non-Dance majors
83.20
93.40
10.20
Dance majors
95.00
100.00
5.00
Unknown major
84.33
100.00
15.67
Advanced Tap Dance – fall 2010 – pre-test and post-test on general knowledge of tap
technique, styles, and dancers.
Ex.: “Describe poly-rhythms.” “Who is Fred Astaire?”
Pre-test %
Post-test %
Improvement %
Averages
60.00
74.83
14.83
Non-Dance majors
58.75
77.00
18.25
Dance majors
64.33
79.50
15.17
Unknown major
49.50
56.50
7.00
Dance Teaching Methods – spring 2011 – pre-test and post-test
Ex.: “Name 2 of the 9 intelligences in Howard Gardner’s theory.”
Pre-test %
Post-test %
Improvement %
Averages
41.10
91.70
50.60
Sophomores
35.00
85.00
50.00
Juniors
51.25
96.25
45.00
Seniors
31.67
90.00
58.33
Non-Dance Majors
35.00
80.00
45.00
P a g e | 92
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Dance Majors
41.88
93.13
51.25
There was only one non-dance major.
Dance Theory and Composition II – spring 2011
Ex.: “Describe the difference between theme and variation.”
Pre-test %
Post-test %
Improvement %
Overall Average
73.93
94.00
20.07
Non-dance major
50.00
95.00
45.00
Dance Major
75.64
93.93
18.29
There was only one non-dance major.
Subjective Assessment

The new self-assessment forms are extremely helpful in tracking student progress in
technique classes. Making students write about their personal progress throughout
the semester helps keep them goal/objective oriented.
Flexibility
Balance
Adagio
Petit Allegro
Pirouettes
Grand Allegro
Sequencing
Terminology
Total
Average Student
1 Evaluation
Average Student
2 Evaluation
Average Student
3 Evaluation
Turnout
Average Faculty
1 Evaluation
Average Faculty
2 Evaluation
Average Faculty
3 Evaluation
Alignment/ Placement
Advanced Ballet Technique - Self Evaluation
There were seven students in the class.
6.92
6.50
7.42
7.00
6.92
6.25
6.42
6.50
6.58
6.25
66.75
5.86
5.57
6.71
5.86
5.86
5.64
5.79
5.93
5.71
6.43
59.36
6.79
6.50
7.50
7.14
7.00
6.14
6.79
7.00
6.71
6.86
68.43
5.75
5.75
6.42
6.00
5.25
5.08
5.83
5.83
5.92
6.08
57.92
5.14
5.43
6.64
5.07
5.00
4.93
5.57
5.64
5.71
6.29
55.43
5.71
5.43
6.57
5.79
5.71
5.00
5.64
6.00
6.07
6.64
58.57
P a g e | 93
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Flexibility
Flat back lateral work
Lyrical contemporary
Musical Theatre
Pirouettes
Large leaps and jumps
Sequencing
Terminology
Totals
Average
Student 1
Evaluation
Average
Student 2
Evaluation
Average
Student 3
Evaluation
Contraction and release
Average Faculty
1 Evaluation
Average Faculty
2 Evaluation
Average Faculty
3 Evaluation
Isolations
Advanced Jazz Technique Evaluation
There were 12 students in this class.
6.75
6.45
6.15
5.75
6.45
6.30
5.35
5.90
6.45
6.75
62.30
7.28
7.06
6.44
6.39
N/A
N/A
6.33
6.67
7.11
7.50
54.78
7.71
7.54
6.79
6.75
7.13
6.83
6.33
7.00
7.17
7.96
71.21
6.40
6.30
5.80
6.05
6.25
5.15
5.60
5.55
6.35
5.65
59.10
6.89
6.89
5.94
6.11
N/A
N/A
6.00
6.17
6.67
6.83
51.50
7.38
7.21
6.63
6.63
6.25
6.33
6.42
6.46
7.00
7.63
67.92
Lessons Learned


The most important part of the assessment tests and evaluations is that the
information leads to quality feedback, advising, and conferences between
instructors and students. Students need to receive feedback quickly.
Adjunct instructors need to be aware of the importance of assessments for all
classes and should be held accountable when assessment reports are incomplete or
not properly formatted.
Objective Assessment


Ballet terminology is used for other styles of dance, including jazz and modern, and
should be incorporated into the jazz and modern technique lessons and assessment.
Assessment should be built into the curriculum. If students know they are not
receiving a grade, they will not apply themselves. When post-tests are part of the
final exam, most scores are higher.
P a g e | 94
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Subjective Assessment


Having the students assess themselves at the beginning of the semester not only
allows the student to set individual goals for the semester, but also gives the
instructor insight into where the student sees himself/herself in relation to what the
student believes to be the level of the course.
The midterm evaluations revealed that many students do not know how to selfassess, and perhaps some of the courses need to include a section on selfassessment.
Action Plan
Starting in fall 2011, the Dance Department will have a new, full-time faculty member.

All current assessment tools/methods will be reviewed, updated, and restructured
where necessary as determined by both full-time dance faculty members. In
addition, adjunct faculty will be asked for input in their individual areas of expertise.
The dance program has already begun work on a dance major exit exam, which should help
with developing assessment methods that include finite course-specific goals and
objectives.

This will allow each dance major to work with his/her advisor to schedule classes
that best fit the student’s individual educational needs.
Assessing dance is primarily subjective.

With additional faculty involvement in both assessment preparation and evaluation,
students are more likely to feel that they are being properly assessed and not just
receiving one instructor’s personal opinion about their progress.
Impacts and Changes on Classes for the Following Year
Assessment tests and evaluations must be carefully scheduled to allow time for instructor
feedback and student conferences where needed.

Dance classes will have scheduled days for assessment tests, self-evaluations, and
student-instructor conferences.

Assessment guidelines will be given to departmental faculty — full time and adjunct
— prior to the beginning of each semester.
P a g e | 95
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Music
Mission
The mission of the Lindenwood University Music Department is to support the missions of the
University through the discipline of music.
Departmental Goals and Objectives
The music department is committed to the following goals:
Education
 Developing adaptive music education, performance, and business professionals —
graduates who are well equipped to
o develop as more complete human beings who think and act freely both as
individuals and as community members,
o gain the intellectual tools and apply the range of perspective needed to
understand human cultures as they have been, as they are, and as they
might become,
o apply the basic skills — listening, speaking, reading, writing, researching,
observing, reflecting, and other forms of intellectual interaction needed for
productive study and communication of ideas,
o acquire the propensity for and ability to engage in divergent and creative
thinking directed toward synthesis, evaluation, and integration of ideas,
o apply analytical reasoning to both qualitative and quantitative evidence,
o acquire guidelines for making informed, independent, socially-responsible
decisions, respectful of others and the environment, and develop a
willingness to act accordingly.
Enrichment
 Enriching the University and surrounding community through music — see the music
section of the student life report.
Retention
 Sustaining enrollment and participation throughout the department.
Recruitment
 Recruiting students who excel in scholarship and musicianship.
P a g e | 96
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Excellence
 Exceeding the highest standards of quality and efficiency in all facets of the
department.
Program Goals and Objectives
In addition to these department-level goals, program-level goals for students majoring in
music (instrumental or vocal/choral) w/secondary education minor, music performance,
and music business are as follows:
Music Performance
The music performance graduate will demonstrate knowledge of and/or competency in the
following areas of study:




Music performance — performing music artistically and reading music proficiently in
contexts of diverse structure and sophistication.
Listening Comprehension: Music Theory
o Aural identification of musical intervals, triads, chord quality, scales, cadence
types, rhythmic patterns, meter mode, and harmonic progressions.
o Error detection
o Phrase structure
o Tonality and key relationships
o Contrapuntal devices
o Instrumentation
Listening Comprehension: Music History
o Historical style analysis
o Composer identification
o Genre > style
o Stylistic elements of music from the following style periods: Medieval;
Renaissance; Baroque; Classical; Romantic; Late 19th Century/Early 20th
Century; After 1920; Jazz/Popular; World Music
Non-aural music theory
o Rudiments (including key signatures, clefs, terminology, symbols, intervals,
chords, scales, modes, time signatures, note values, rest values, harmonic
series, dynamics)
o Instrumentation and orchestration (including range of instruments and
transposition)
o Harmonic practices — common practice period (e.g., analysis, cadences,
modulation, non-harmonic tones, voice leading, figured bass, altered chords,
reductive analysis)
o Contrapuntal practices (procedures such as fugue, canon, passacaglia;
motivic structure and development; terms such as episode, stretto, etc.)
P a g e | 97
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment

o Forms — homophonic textures (e.g., phrase relationships, small forms,
sonata form, rondo, variation forms)
o Twentieth-century techniques (e.g., scales, modes, polytonality, polyrhythm,
mixed meters, aleatory, minimalism, serial procedures, pitch class sets,
electro-acoustic music, jazz/pop music notation and symbols)
Non-aural music history, including the contributions of women and of American
minority musicians
o Music history and literature (including biography, chronology, composers,
forms, genres, instruments, repertoire, aesthetic and cultural concepts,
notation, and performance practices)
o Stylistic characteristics of music produced in each style period: Medieval;
Renaissance; Baroque; Classical; Romantic; Late 19th Century/Early 20th
Century; After 1920; Jazz/Popular; World Music
o Terminology and definitions
Music Business
The Music Business graduate will demonstrate knowledge of and/or competency in the
following areas of study:
Music



Listening Comprehension: Music Theory
o Aural identification of musical intervals, triads, chord quality, scales, cadence
types, rhythmic patterns, meter mode, and harmonic progressions.
o Error detection
o Phrase structure
o Tonality and key relationships
o Contrapuntal devices
o Instrumentation
Listening Comprehension: Music History
o Historical style analysis
o Composer identification
o Genre > Style
o Stylistic elements of music from the following style periods: Medieval;
Renaissance; Baroque; Classical; Romantic; Late 19th Century/Early 20th
Century; After 1920; Jazz/Popular; World Music
Non-aural Music Theory
o Rudiments (including key signatures, clefs, terminology, symbols, intervals,
chords, scales, modes, time signatures, note values, rest values, harmonic
series, dynamics)
o Instrumentation and orchestration (including range of instruments and
transposition)
P a g e | 98
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment

o Harmonic practices — common practice period (e.g., analysis, cadences,
modulation, non-harmonic tones, voice leading, figured bass, altered chords,
reductive analysis)
o Contrapuntal practices (procedures such as fugue, canon, passacaglia;
motivic structure and development; terms such as episode, stretto, etc.)
o Forms — homophonic textures (e.g., phrase relationships, small forms,
sonata form, rondo, variation forms)
o Twentieth-century techniques (e.g., scales, modes, polytonality, polyrhythm,
mixed meters, aleatory, minimalism, serial procedures, pitch class sets,
electro-acoustic music, jazz/pop music notation and symbols)
Non-aural Music History, including the contributions of women and of American
minority musicians
o Music history and literature (including biography, chronology, composers,
forms, genres, instruments, repertoire, aesthetic and cultural concepts,
notation, and performance practices)
o Stylistic characteristics of music produced in each style period: Medieval;
Renaissance; Baroque; Classical; Romantic; Late 19th Century/Early 20th
Century; After 1920; Jazz/Popular; World Music
o Terminology and definitions
Business
Accounting



Financial Accounting
o Conceptual foundations
o Income statement and Statement of Retained Earnings
o Balance sheet
o Statement of cash flows
Managerial Accounting
o Cost concepts
o Product costing systems
o Activities-based costing
o Cost, volume, and profit analysis
o Budgeting (not including capital budgeting)
o Standard costing
o Non-routine decision making
International accounting
Economics

Basic Economic Concepts
o Scarcity and opportunity cost
P a g e | 99
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment



o Production possibilities frontier
o Comparative advantage and specialization
o Economic systems
Microeconomics
o Supply and demand
o Models of consumer choice
o Production and costs
o Product market structures
o Resource markets
o Market failure and the role of government
Macroeconomics
o Measurement of economic performance
o Aggregate demand and aggregate supply
o Money and the banking system
o Monetary policy and fiscal policy
o Economic growth
International economics
o International trade and policy
o Exchange rates
o Balance of payments
Management





Management process
o History and theory
o Functions (organizing, leading, planning, and controlling)
o Group/team dynamics
o Total quality management
Organizational behavior
o Leadership and motivation
o Communication
o Managing diversity
o Human resource management
Strategy and policy
o Strategic analysis
o Policy determination
International/cross-cultural management
Entrepreneurship
Quantitative Business Analysis

Probability and statistics
o Measure of set operations
P a g e | 100
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment

o Conditional/joint probabilities
o Counting rules
o Measures of central tendency and dispersion
o Distributions (including normal and binomial)
o Sampling and estimation
o Hypothesis testing
o Correlation and regression
o Time-series forecasting
o Statistical concepts in quality control
Management science
o Linear programming
o Project scheduling (including PERT and CPM)
o Inventory and production planning
o Managing continuous improvement
o Special topics (including queuing theory, simulation, and decision analysis)
Information Systems




Information Systems in Business and Society
o Information management in a global society
o Security, Privacy, and Ethical Issues
Information Technology Concepts
o Hardware Technology
o Software Technology
o Database Management Systems
o Network and Internet Technology
Business Information Systems
o Automation and Support Systems
o Transaction Procession Systems
o Management Information Systems
o Decision Support and Expert Systems
o Strategic Information Systems
Systems Development
o Systems Investigation and Analysis
o Systems Planning Development and Implementation
Finance

Corporate Finance
o Time value of money
o Capital budgeting
o Wording capital management
o Financial statement analysis
P a g e | 101
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment

o Cost of capital and capital structure
Investments
o Risks and Returns
o Valuation of securities
o Financial markets and environments
Marketing



Identifying attractive markets
o Strategic marketing planning
o Scanning marketing environment
o Marketing research and information technology tools
o Consumer and organizational buyer behavior
Marketing institutions
o The marketing mix (product, price, place, and promotion)
o Segmenting consumer and organizational markets
o Marketing services
o Marketing for nonprofit organizations
o Marketing of social causes
International marketing
Legal and Social Environment



Legal environment
o Courts and legal systems
o Constitution and business
o Administrative law
o Tort law
o Crimes
Regulatory environment
o Employment law
o Labor law
o Antitrust law
o Consumer protection
o Environmental and international law
o Security regulation
Ethics and Social Responsibility
o Ethics
o Social responsibility
P a g e | 102
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Methods of Assessment Used
To measure achievement of department and program goals, the music faculty embarked on
a complete revision of assessment practices during the 2009-10 academic year. This
initiative was driven by the following beliefs:




The purpose of assessment is continuous improvement.
Improvement initiatives should be data-driven.
The data collected, reported, and used for improvement must be easily measurable
and clearly aligned with (reflective of) department-level and program-level goals.
The data collected, reported, and used for improvement must be within the music
faculty’s reach — we can only measure what we can manage; we can only change
what we can control.
Recent changes to the PRAXIS exam and a unanimous decision to pursue accreditation by
the National Association of Schools of Music were also factors that influenced revisions to
our assessment practices.
Overview of Music Department Assessment Plan
Edu=Education, Enr=Enrichment, Ret=Retention, Rec=Recruitment, Exc= Excellence
Indicator
(How will we measure success?)
1. Data from MUS-GE courses: (a)
pre- and post-surveys and (b)
student performance on
assessment-tasks aligned with GE
objectives
2. Data from 3/4 hour MUS courses:
(a) pre- and post-surveys
(b) student performance on
assessment-tasks aligned with
essential content, standards, and
educational priorities (as per
Curriculum Matrix)
3. Student performance on PRAXIS
exam (Music Education Majors)
4. Student performance on ETS
Major Field Test (Music
Performance and Business
Majors)
Data Reporting
Begin May
2011, then
every May
thereafter.
(a) Begin May
2012, then
every May
thereafter.
(b) Begin May
2011, then
every May
thereafter.
Begin May
2010, then
every May
thereafter.
Begin May
2012, then
every May
thereafter.
5-Year Target
(May 2014)
1
Edu
(a) 90% > 50%
(b) 90% > 80%
X
90% > 80%
X
(a) 95% first
time pass rate
(b) > 75% per
category
X
100% > 70%
X
2
Enr
Evidence
3
4
Ret
Rec
5
Exc
P a g e | 103
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Indicator
(How
5.
Sophomore
will we measure
review data
success?)
6. Performance data; musical
enrichment of campus and
community
7. Student participation in major
ensembles
8. Major/minor retention and
recruiting data
9. Graduate survey data
10. Advising survey data
11. Faculty self-assessment of
professional performance
indicators (IDP)
12. Evaluation of ensemble
performance artistry by external
experts
13. NASM accreditation
Data Reporting
Begin May
2010, then
every May
thereafter.
Begin May
2010, then
every May
thereafter.
Begin May
2010, then
every May
thereafter.
Begin May
2010, then
every May
thereafter.
Begin May
2012, then
every May
thereafter.
Begin May
2011, then
every May
thereafter.
Begin May
2011, then
every May
thereafter.
Begin May
2012, then
every other
May thereafter.
n/a
5-Year Target
(May 2014)
> 80% meet
each criterion
Evidence
X
Variable
X
+ 50% from fall
2009 baseline
X
X
(a) Retention: >
90%
(b) Recruiting:
+75% from fall
2009 baseline
X
X
100% > 80%
(each indicator)
X
X
100% > 75%
(each indicator)
X
X
100%
X
X
MMEA
Acceptance
X
X
Full
accreditation
Results, Lessons Learned, and Action Plan
Results (data), lessons learned (discussion), and action plans (strategic action) for each
indicator are presented collectively in relation to each indicator.
Indicator 1
Data, discussion, and strategic action for Indicator 1 are included in the music department
GE assessment report.
X
P a g e | 104
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Indicator 2
Unit-Level Assessments (2010-11) – MUS 13100 EDU 32300, MUS 25700, MUS 36500, and
MUS 38600
Term
n
80-89%
90-100%
Total 80-100%
2014 Target
Total 2010-11
492
23
401
86.18%
90% > 80%
F 2010
105
7
80
82.86%
90% > 80%
S 2011
387
16
321
87.08%
90% > 80%
Indicator 3
PRAXIS
Between fall 2009 and spring 2011, 10 students (instrumental performance) took the
PRAXIS. Of those 10, eight passed on the first effort (80 percent), one (10 percent) on the
fifth try, and one has not passed (10 percent).
Between fall 2009 and spring 2011, nine choral performance students took the PRAXIS. All
nine passed on their first effort (100 percent).
Average PRAXIS Results by Categories
PRAXIS Category
Number
of
students
Passed
on 1st
attempt
Average
Score
Hist and
Lit Avg.
Theory
and
Comp
Avg.
8
100%
165.00
70.47
3
67%
165.50
Instrumental
8
75%
Choral
3
Fall 2010
4
Spring 2011
7
Overall
11
Home
Grown
Transfers
2014 targets
Perf Avg.
Ped, Prof
Issues,
and Tech
Avg.
Listening
Avg.
59.27
70.30
73.22
63.04
93.70
57.80
75.00
79.50
74.00
163.71
70.93
54.48
73.45
71.88
64.03
100%
168.33
77.60
65.17
67.67
79.05
66.55
100%
164.25
77.60
65.17
67.67
79.05
66.55
71.50%
165.67
70.93
54.48
73.45
71.88
64.03
165.1
73.79
59.06
70.97
>75%
74.27
64.87
90%
>95%
Note: Passing score is 151.
Average Scores on PRAXIS
Average Scores
P a g e | 105
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Fall 2009 and
Spring 2010
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Instr
Choral
Instr
Choral
Instr
Choral
159.0
163.3
152.0
168.3
165.6
n/a
161.1
161.9
Strategic Action




An online version of the practice PRAXIS was completed during the summer of 2010
and is available to students in EDU 21500/51500 or by request.
An updated paper version of the practice PRAXIS test was created in spring 2011.
Revised theory deployment for fall 2011 (Theory I and II will be taught by full-time
vocal faculty for improved ear training and sight-singing instruction. This should help
to raise the theory and listening scores).
Added practice PRAXIS test to EDU 33800/53500.
Indicator 4
Data collection will begin in spring 2012.
Indicator 5
A formal review of student progress after completing four semesters of study as a music
major (a sophomore review) is conducted for each music major. Students who meet the
following criteria will be granted full acceptance into their respective degree program.
Criteria for Full Acceptance into music education, music performance, and music business
degree programs
After four semesters of study, the student has
 earned a C or better in all MUS, EDU, and/or SB&E courses,
 earned a minimum of 50 credits,
 earned a minimum GPA of 2.5,
 passed performance benchmarks 1, 2, and 3,
 passed the piano proficiency exam,
 passed all sections of C-BASE test (music education only).
Sophomore Review (2009-10)
P a g e | 106
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
The student has
Earned a C or better in all MUS,
EDU, and/or SBE courses
Earned a min. of 50 credits
Earned a GPA of 2.5 or above
Passed performance
benchmarks 1-3
Passed piano proficiency exam
(if applicable)
Passed all sections of the C-BASE
test (if applicable)
2009-10
9/9
(100%)
6/9
(66.6%)
7/9
(77.7%)
7/9
(77.7%)
6/8
(75%)
4/8
(50%)
2014 Target
> 80%
Passed all sections
of the C-BASE test
(if applicable)
93.7%
100%
> 80%
Passed
performance
benchmarks 1-3
100%
Passed piano
proficiency exam
(if applicable)
87.5%
Earned a GPA of
2.5 or above
TOTAL %
2014 Target
Earned a min. of
50 credits
Earned a C or
better in all MUS,
EDU, and/or SBE
courses
Sophomore Review (Fall 2010)
13.3%
33.3%
As of spring 2011, passing the piano proficiency exam is now a prerequisite for MUS 49000
Senior Recital.
Indicator 6
See music section of the Student Life report
Indicator 7
See music section of the Student Life report
Indicator 8
The retention and recruiting rate for majors/minors.
Results
P a g e | 107
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Major/Minor Baseline - Fall 2009
Major
B.A. Music (no certification)
Contract-Instrumental
Minor- Instrumental
Music Bus- Instrumental + Contract- Instrumental
Music Bus- Instrumental
Music Bus-Vocal
Music Ed- Instrumental
Music Ed- Instrumental + Music Performance- Instrumental
Music Ed- Instrumental w/Vocal Endorsement + Music PerformanceInstrumental
Music Ed- Instrumental w/Vocal Endorsement
Music Ed-Vocal w/ Instrumental Endorsement
Music Ed-Vocal
Music Ed-Vocal + Music Performance-Vocal
Music Performance- Instrumental
Music Performance-Vocal + Music Bus-Vocal
Music Performance-Vocal
MA Tw/K-12 cert in Music
MA Type II: Music Education
Total
Fall 2009
5
1
1
1
22
7
32
4
1
.04
.008
.008
.008
.17
.05
.25
.03
.008
1
2
15
1
5
2
8
18
4
130
.008
.02
.12
.008
.04
.02
.06
.14
.03
1.00
Note: Baseline reported in 2009-10 assessment report was flawed due to inaccurate
roster of majors/minors. The table above is correct.
5
6
130
5
1
1
0
1
15
1
0
0
0
0
115
4
1
1
0
1
.88
.80
1.00
1.00
0
1.00
10
0
0
0
0
0
22
7
3
2
19
5
.86
.71
2
2
+ or – from Fall 09 baseline;
Recruiting Data (%)
Grads in 09-10 AY
4
3:1
Distribution (Fall 10)
Major Change in 09-10 AY
3
1-2
Total (Fall 10)
Retention Data (%)
2
New
Sub-Total
1
Total Returning (Fall 10)
Drop LU in 09-10 AY
TOTALS
B.A. Music (no cert)
Contract-Instr
Minor-Instr
Mus Bus
Mus Bus-Instr + ContractInstr
Mus Bus-Instr
Mus Bus-Voc
Fall 09 Baseline
Major/Minor Retention and Recruiting (Fall 09 to Fall 10)
8
9
7+8
10
11
9:1
15
2
1
0
0
0
7
3-5
and 6
90
2
0
1
0
1
58
4
0
2
1
0
148
6
0
3
1
1
1.00
.04
0
.02
.007
.007
.13
.20
(1.00)
2.00
1.00
0
1
1
16
2
7
9
23
11
.16
.07
.04
.57
P a g e | 108
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Mus Ed-Instr
Mus Ed-Instr + Mus PerfInstr
Mus Ed-Instr w/Voc En +
Mus Perf-Instr
Mus Ed-Instr w/Voc Endors
Mus Ed-Voc w/Instr Endors
Mus Ed-Voc
Mus Ed-Voc + Mus Perf-Voc
Mus Perf-Instr
Mus Perf-Voc + Mus BusVoc
Mus Perf-Voc
M.A.T.w/K-12 cert in Music
M.A. Type II: Music Edu
32
4
3
0
29
4
.91
1.00
3
0
3
0
23
4
12
0
35
4
.24
.03
.09
0
1
0
1
1.00
0
0
1
1
2
.01
1.00
1
2
15
1
5
2
0
1
1
0
4
0
1
1
14
1
1
2
1.00
.50
.93
1.00
.20
1.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
3
0
11
0
1
1
4
1
22
1
2
2
.03
.007
.15
.007
.01
.01
3.00
(.50)
.47
0
(.60)
0
8
18
4
0
0
0
8
18
4
1.00
1.00
1.00
3
0
0
1
1
1
4
17
3
3
2
1
7
19
4
.05
.13
.03
(.13)
.05
0
Cumulative Major/Minor Retention
Term
Fall 09 to Fall 10
Fall 10 to Fall 11
Retention Rate
88%
Cumulative
2014 Target
> 90%
Cumulative Major/Minor Recruitment
Term
Fall 09 to Fall 10
Fall 10 to Fall 11
Increase from Fall 2009 Baseline
13%
Cumulative
2014 Target
> 50% from
Fall 2009 Baseline
In spring 2011, the department used advising lists from CAMS to verify accuracy of
majors/minors.
Indicator 9
The analysis of the data from a graduate survey and profile.
Data collection will begin in spring 2012.
Actions Taken
Fall 2010 — the department
 needs to schedule themed concerts for solo musicians in the Emerson Black Box
Theater as venue permits,
 needs a more efficient system of managing piano accompaniment,
 needs to establish clinical experiences for music ed. majors that are supervised by
music faculty,
 needs to incorporate a committee-supervised project in MUS 33000 for music
business majors,
P a g e | 109
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
 needs to capitalize on shadowing opportunities in conjunction with professional
shows,
 needs to add MUS 40100 Performance Practicum to music performance degree plan
with assessment that targets finding and building audiences,
 needs to increase holdings of literature for solo and small ensemble,
 needs to request approval for GA librarian,
 needs to ensure that core academic classes are taught by full-time faculty.
Spring 2011 – the department
 needs to consider establishing a central music library, perhaps moving all of the
current Wenger library systems to the back wall of FPA 2095, which would free up
space for storage and provide space for additional library systems to be added.
Library holdings could be categorized as follows:
o
o
o
o
o
Choral: large ensemble: SATB, SSAA, etc.
Choral chamber
Instrumental: large ensemble: band, orchestra, etc.
Instrumental chamber
Solo: piano, voice, flute, etc.
Strategic Action
In fall 2010, the department revised degree plans for music education, music performance,
and music business in response to PRAXIS test and NASM standards. These revisions were
approved by the Deans’ Council. The department also proposed new minor in music
composition which was also approved by the Deans’ Council.
In spring 2011, the department established criteria for four department awards:
musicianship, service, perseverance, and reliability. The faculty initiated a departmental
honors recital. The department re-submitted a purchase request to complete the inventory
of instruments and equipment that are typically school-provided. The new request was
divided into three phases. The request was approved by the administration, and a pro-type
survey was designed.
Indicator 10
Data from a comprehensive advising survey (distributed at the last department meeting in
spring semesters).
P a g e | 110
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Results 2010-11
Faculty
1
2
3
4
5
Totals
Surveys
9
6
13
5
3
36
SA
79.36
90.47
76.92
80
96.82
81.61
A
16.4
5.55
13.18
19.04
1.59
12.56
U
3.17
2.38
5.49
.95
0
3.3
D
1.05
1.58
2.93
0
1.59
1.71
SD
0
0
1.46
0
0
.52
94.17
100% > 80%
2014 Target
Action
The department needs to provide easy access to comprehensive degree completion plans
by providing access to up-to-date program planning worksheets with comprehensive
information and links.
In fall 2010, the department reconfigured faculty advising assignments — specializations —
for improved consistency and more equitable loads.
Indicator 11
The faculty members do a self-assessment of the IDP quality indicators — personal
accountability and commitment to excellence.
Results (2010-11)
ID
A
n
73
B
73
C
72
D
72
Averages
Total
2014 Target
41
Always
56.16
22
Often
30.13
55
75.34
15
20.54
35
48.61
32
44.44
43
59.72
18
25.0
59.95%
30.02%
89.97%
100%
Sometimes
3
4.10
5
3
4
5
0
1
2
4.10
5.55
6.94
5.17%
Rarely
6.84
0.0
1.38
2.77
2.74%
9.98%
0%
2
0
0
4
Never
2.73
0.0
0.0
5.55
2.07%
Lessons Learned
During fall 2010, the department considered a student-nominated faculty award for
excellence in music teaching with final selection by school deans. The department also saw
the need to host an annual workshop for adjunct faculty to discuss University expectations,
e.g., meeting deadlines as a condition of employment.
Action
P a g e | 111
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
In fall 2010, the department created a new syllabus template aligned with MoSTEP 1.2
standards — a syllabus template that asks faculty to demonstrate the standards that our
education majors are working to achieve. The department also hosted a kick-off meeting
and reception for adjunct faculty to discuss University policies and key expectations.
Attendance was poor.
During the summer of 2011, the department will update the syllabus template, which will
include simplified information from the curriculum matrix.
Indicator 12
External experts evaluate the department’s recordings.
Actions
In spring 2011, the department arranged for professional recordings to submit with MMEA
performance applications (wind ensemble, jazz band, voices only).
Indicator 13
The department will seek accreditation from the National Association of Schools of Music.
Actions
In spring 2011, the department needed to begin preparations to submit an initial
application and to create a precise database of department expenditures.
The department is working on common forms/documents, as well as, common
performance/audition scoring guides.
In fall 2010, the department revised degree plans for music education, music performance,
and music business in response to PRAXIS test and NASM standards (2011-12 catalog). It
was approved by the Deans’ Council.
During the summer of 2011, the department will work on the preparation of initial
application.
Theatre
P a g e | 112
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Mission
The mission of the Lindenwood University Theatre Department is to support the missions of
the University through the discipline of theater.
University Goals and Objectives Met by the Program
The Lindenwood University Theatre Department is committed to the following goals:

Education
o Developing adaptive theatre education, performance, and business
professionals— graduates who are well equipped to
•
•
•
•
•
•




develop as more complete human beings, who think and act freely
both as individuals and as community members,
gain the intellectual tools and apply the range of perspective needed
to understand human cultures as they have been, as they are, and as
they might become,
apply the basic skills — listening, speaking, reading, writing,
researching, observing, reflecting, and other forms of intellectual
interaction — needed for productive study and communication of
ideas,
acquire the propensity for and ability to engage in divergent and
creative thinking directed toward synthesis, evaluation, and
integration of ideas,
apply analytical reasoning to both qualitative and quantitative
evidence,
acquire guidelines for making informed, independent, sociallyresponsible decisions, respectful of others and the environment, and
develop a willingness to act accordingly.
Enrichment
o Enriching the University and surrounding community through theatre.
Retention
o Sustaining enrollment and participation throughout the department.
Recruitment
o Recruiting students who excel in scholarship and performance, direction, or
design.
Excellence
o Exceeding the highest standards of quality and efficiency in all facets of the
department.
P a g e | 113
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Program Goals and Objectives
In addition to these department-level goals, the following program-level goals for students
majoring in theater (acting or performance), technical theater/design, theater education,
and musical theater have been adapted from the Missouri Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education Teacher Preparation and Certification Standards:
Knowledge of Theatre (AATE II, VIII)
Students will understand






the basic vocabulary of the theatre and its application,
through critical analysis, develop an appreciation by exposure to diverse theatrical
productions,
statutory and regulatory issues relating to directing responsibilities (e.g., copyright,
censorship, royalties, ethical standards of behavior),
safety precautions, rules, and procedures for theatre facilities,
awareness of vocational and avocational opportunities in theater, film, television,
and electronic media as well as other careers which utilize theatre skills,
the process of creating dramatic structure in playmaking and playwriting.
Applicable Courses
TA 10000/20000/30000/40000-Theatre Practicum
TA 1010/20100-Acting I and II
TA 20700-Introduction to Theatrical Design
TA 21000-Stage Management
TA 30400-Script Analysis
TA 30500-Scenography
TA 30600/35000 - Directing and Directing II
TA 40600-Advanced Directing
TA 37000-History of Theatre
TA 40400-Applied Design and Technical Theatre Studio
TA 40700-Advanced Set Design
TA 40800-Advanced Lighting Design Studio
TA 43000-Theatre Workshop
TA 46500-Professional Internship
TA 48000-Senior Seminar
Theatre History/Styles (AATE II, VIII)*
P a g e | 114
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Students will

gain awareness of theatre history and how cultural and historical context affects
artistic choices,
 understand the lives, works, and influences of theatre artists in various cultures and
historical periods,
 direct actors in their work with plays of representative periods, genres, and styles in
a variety of mediums,
 analyze, critique, and construct meaning from formal and informal theater (e.g.,
radio, film, television, stage, improvisation, creative dramatics, and oral
interpretation).
Applicable Courses
TA 20400-Stage Voice and Movement
TA 20700-Introduction to Theatrical Design
TA 20900-Intro to Costume Design
TA 31700-History of Costume and Fashion
TA 21200-Beginning Costuming and Fashion Design Studio
TA 40900-Advanced Costume Design Studio
TA 40500-Advanced Costume and Fashion Design Studio
TA 30100-Acting Studio
TA 40100-Advanced Acting Studio
TA 30300-Seminar in Musical Theatre
TA 30500-Scenography
TA 30600/35000-Directing and Directing II
TA 40600-Advanced Directing
TA 33500-Modern Drama
TA 33600-Survey of Dramatic Literature
TA 33700-Seminar in American Drama
TA 37000 History of Theatre
TA 43000 Theatre Workshop
Process and Performance Skills (AATE IX-XI)*
Students will learn


strategies for directing, including analysis, conceptualization, casting, conducting
rehearsals, and coordinating formal and informal dramatic literature production,
strategies for selecting materials appropriate to community standards and student
needs,
strategies for creating a director’s concept through understanding philosophies of
theater, theater forms, and major styles of acting and production.
P a g e | 115
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment



design and production techniques including scenery, properties, lighting, sound,
costumes, makeup, stage management and business management,
theater skills related to physical movement interpretation, staging techniques, and
their interrelationships,
acting skills through improvisation, imagination, focus, listening, voice,
concentration, breath control, diction, use of the body, and characterization.
Applicable Courses
TA 1010/20100-Acting I and II
TA 20400-Stage Voice and Movement
TA 30100/40100-Acting Studio and Advanced Acting
TA 30300-Seminar in Musical Theatre
TA 30600/35000-Directing and Directing II
TA 40600-Advanced Directing
TA 30400-Script Analysis
TA 21000-Stage Management
TA 21600-Stage Make-up
TA 11100/11200-Introduction to Technical Theatre I and II
TA 20700-Introduction to Theatrical Design
TA 40400-Applied Design and Technical Theatre Studio
TA 40700-Advanced Set Design
TA 40800-Advanced Lighting Design Studio
TA 30500-Scenography
TA 20900-Intro to Costume Design
TA 21200-Beginning Costuming and Fashion Design Studio
TA 40500-Advanced Costume and Fashion Design Studio
TA 23000/23500-Patternmaking I and II
TA 31700-History of Costume and Fashion
TA 40900-Advanced Costume Design Studio
TA 43000-Theatre Workshop
TA 46500-Professional Internship
TA 10000/20000/30000/40000-Theatre Practicum
TA 10300-Oral Interpretation
Aesthetics (AATE II)*
Students will understand
P a g e | 116
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
•
•
•
theater as a collaborative art form and its relationship to the other arts (i.e., dance,
music, visual arts, and new art forms),
elements of critiquing aesthetics in theatre performance,
the responsibility of the individual in a free society to establish ethical standards,
promote ethical behavior, and acknowledge freedom of artistic expression.
Applicable Course
TA 10000/20000/30000/40000-Theatre Practicum
TA 37000-History of Theatre
TA 30300-Seminar in Musical Theatre
TA 30500-Scenography
TA 20700-Introduction to Theatrical Design
TA 20900-Intro to Costume Design
TA 31700-History of Costume and Fashion
TA 21200-Beginning Costuming and Fashion Design Studio
TA 40500-Advanced Costume and Fashion Design Studio
TA 33500-Modern Drama
TA 33600-Survey of Dramatic Literature
TA 33700-Seminar in American Drama
TA 30600/35000-Directing and Directing II
TA 40600-Advanced Directing
TA 30400-Script Analysis
TA 40400-Applied Design and Technical Theatre Studio
TA 40700-Advanced Set Design
TA 40800-Advanced Lighting Design Studio
TA 40900-Advanced Costume Design Studio
TA 43000-Theatre Workshop
TA 46500-ProfessionalInternship
TA 48000 Senior Seminar
* Teacher Preparation and Certification Standards: Speech/Communication/Theatre
Teachers, a collaborative project of American Alliance for Theatre and Education (AATE)
and Speech Communication Association (SCA) abbreviated as: AATE X =
Speech/Communication/Theatre Teachers Standard 10.
Methods of Assessment
Areas of Assessment
Data Collection Dates
5-Year Target
(May 2014)
P a g e | 117
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Areas of Assessment
A. Data from TA-GE courses:
(a) pre- and post-surveys and
(b) student performance on
assessment-tasks aligned with GE
objectives
B. Data from 3/4 hour TA courses:
(a) pre- and post-surveys and
(b) student performance on
assessment-tasks aligned with
essential content, standards, and
educational priorities
C. Sophomore review data
D. Performance data; enrichment of
campus and community
E. Major/minor
(a) retention and
(b) recruiting data
F. Graduate survey data
G. Advising survey data
H. Faculty self-assessment of
professional performance indicators
(IDP)
Data Collection Dates
(a) Begin May 2012, then every May
thereafter.
(b)Includes some data from May
2011. All courses to be assessed in
May 2012 and every May thereafter.
(a) Begin May 2012, then every May
thereafter.
(b)Includes some data from May
2011. All courses to be assessed in
May 2012 and every May thereafter.
5-Year Target
(May 2014)
(a) 90 percent
students
scoring at least 50 percent
(b) 90 percent students
scoring at least 80 percent
Begin May 2012, then every May
thereafter.
Fall 2010 and Spring 201. Will
continue May 2012 and every May
thereafter.
Begin May 2012, then every May
thereafter.
At least 80% of students
meet each criterion
Varies, see explanation
below (E)
Begin May 2012, then every May
thereafter.
Begin May 2012, then every May
thereafter.
Begin May 2012, then every May
thereafter.
(a) 90 percent students
scoring at least 50 percent
(b) 90% students scoring
at least 80%
(a) Retention: at least 90%
(b) Recruiting: +75% from
fall 2011 baseline
100% rate at least 80% on
each criterion
100% rate at least 80% on
each criterion
100% of faculty complete
IDP
Results
Course
TA 37000
History of Theatre
TA 53000
Seminar in Theatre
History
TA 20700
Introduction to
Theatrical Design
TA 48000
Senior Seminar
Artifacts
One paper every two weeks choosing different
topic areas of approach to the one of the two
periods previously covered for a total of eight
papers, using two text citations.
As above, but longer and with three-five
external citations.
Students produce a stage model in scale in
which they create dimensional set designs for a
basic single set interior from a play, and a unit
set design for a play requiring several locations.
Students also produce basic scale lighting plot
for the single set interior project.
Students research and present written weekly
reports on the following week’s topic area as a
contribution to in class lecture and discussion.
Topics are focused on post-graduation business
and personal strategies for in the live
entertainment industry.
2010-11 Data*
61% = superior work
29% = good work
9.7% = average work
1 incomplete
50% = superior work
25% = good work
25% = average work
14% = superior work
71% = good work
14% = average work
23% =superior work
35% = good work
13% = average work
P a g e | 118
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Course
TA Scenography
TA51500
Graduate Scenography
TA 10300
Oral Interpretation
TA 20400
Stage Voice and
Movement
TA 21000
Stage Management
TA 30100
Acting Studio: Voice
and Diction
TA 30300
Seminar in Musical
Theatre: Acting the
Song
TA 30300
Artifacts
Students produce a stage model in scale and
are then divided into groups of three in which
each student rotates through the roles of set,
lighting, and costume designer in a modern
realistic, an historically correct, and a fanciful
Shakespearean project. Each group presents
and is critiqued.
Students produce a stage model in scale and are
then divided into groups of three in which each
student rotates through the roles of set,
lighting, and costume designer in a modern
realistic, an historically correct, and a fanciful
Shakespearean project. Each group presents
and is critiqued.
-Written analysis for prose, poetry, solo
dramatic and final project selections
-Performances: Prose, Poetry Children’s Book,
Solo Dramatic
Reader’s Theatre, Final Project
Quizzes (Streetcar, Raisin and Shape)
 Production Critiques (Stoops, Urinetown and
Cuckoo)
 Leading Warm-Ups
 Journals (Entries 1-12, 13-18, 19-24, and 25 –
33)
 IPA Translation Exercises
 IPA Exam
 Observation Project
 Final Performance
 Prompt Book with Contents (Script, action chart,
research, contact sheet, rehearsal schedule,
production meeting report, rehearsal report, prop
list, rehearsal journals, cue sheets, shift change
charts, pre-set checklist)
 Stage manager kit
 Calling a show
 Quizzes (Thyestes, School, Machinal, Steady
Rain)
 Production Critiques (Stoops, Urinetown,
Cuckoo)
 Journals (Entries 1-12, 13-24, and 25-36)
 Performances (Monologue, Scene and Final
Exam)
 Observation Project (Part One and Part Two)
 Text Analysis (Solo and Duet)
 Music Analysis (Solo and Duet)
 Performances (Solo and Duet)
 Production Critique
 Final Exam
 Persona Project
2010-11 Data*
66% = superior work
33% = good work
100% = superior work
Begin May 2012, then every
May thereafter.
Begin May 2012, then every
May thereafter.
Begin May 2012, then every
May thereafter.
Begin May 2012, then every
May thereafter.
Begin May 2012, then every
May thereafter.
Begin May 2012, then every
P a g e | 119
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Course
Seminar in Musical
Theatre: Auditioning for
Musical Theatre
TA 30400
Script Analysis
TA 30600
Directing 1
TA 10100
Acting I
TA 11100
Introduction to
Technical Theatre I
TA 11200
Introduction to
Technical Theatre II
TA 20100
Acting II
TA 20900
Intro to Costume
Design
TA 21600
Stage Make-up
TA 40400
Applied Design and
Artifacts
 Portfolio Checkpoints (1900-1930, 1931-1950,
1951-1980, 1981-present, and monologues)
 Auditions (same as above)
 Production Critique (Urinetown)
 Quizzes (Over scripts read for class)
 Group Projects
 5 Analysis papers
 Mid-Term
 Direct 2 scenes using 2-3 Acting 2 students
 Paperwork for scenes: Script Analysis, Ground
plan, and production book
 To be submitted at a later date
 To be submitted at a later date
2010-11 Data*
May thereafter.
64% = No Pre-Knowledge of
course content
36% = Minor Pre- Knowledge
of course content
End Result:
70% = Superior Work
18% = Passing work
2% = Failing work
38% = Superior Work
62% = Passing/Average work
Begin May 2012, then every
May thereafter.
Begin May 2012, then every
May thereafter.
 To be submitted at a later date
Begin May 2012, then every
May thereafter.
 To be submitted at a later date
Begin May 2012, then every
May thereafter.
Begin May 2012, then every
May thereafter.
- Pre and Post-test
-Construction of small garments
(hat, shirt)
-Completed sampler, to demo
knowledge of equipment and
hand-sewing
-Completed costume chart for full
length play
-3 large projects: 4 renderings
including written descriptions
with documented research
-Thrift store → Historic garment
reconstruction project
-Final miniature costume design
and construction
- Pre and Post-test
 -12 in-class make-up applications
 -Compete morgue including 12 renderings and
at least two reference images per style
 - Final project including 10 rendered designs
from a play, written descriptions with documented
research and two in-class applications
 To be submitted at a later date














Begin May 2012, then every
May thereafter.
Begin May 2012, then every
May thereafter.
P a g e | 120
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Course
Technical Theatre
TA 40700
Advanced Set Design
TA 40800
Advanced Lighting
Design Studio
TA 40900
Advanced Costume
Design Studio
TA 49900
Senior Project
TA 30100
Acting Studio: Period
Styles
Artifacts
 To be submitted at a later date
 To be submitted at a later date
-Pre and Post-test
 Construction of complete period undergarment
set, including chemise, corset, corset-cover and
panniers
 Construction of hats from 4 different periods
 Construction of accessories, including purse and
Elizabethan neck ruff
 -Group project: design and detailed
reconstruction of historic garment from portrait
 Script or Character analysis paper
 Journal of project
 Performance, Directing, or technical project
- Pre and Post-test
 -Performance of Greek messenger or chorus
monologue
 -Performance of Shakespearean monologue
 -Performance of 2 Shakespeare scenes
 -Performance of scene from Pinter play
 -Research paper describing and contrasting
construction of the Greek and Elizabethan theaters
2010-11 Data*
Begin May 2012, then every
May thereafter.
Begin May 2012, then every
May thereafter.
Begin May 2012, then every
May thereafter.
100% superior work
Begin May 2012, then every
May thereafter.
*Five-year goals to be determined by the department during strategic assessment meetings.
Anticipated to be in place by May 2012.
Sophomore Review Data
There is no data available at this time. The department plans to establish sophomore review
criteria and implement assessment of all sophomores in May 2012 and every May
thereafter.
Performance Data: Enrichment of Campus And Community
This data is included in the student life assessment report.
Major/Minor Retention and Recruiting Data


Retention: 2011-12 will be the first year we measure retention. The department
anticipates a retention rate of 90 percent from the fall to spring semester.
Recruiting data: The department plans to determine the fall 2011 baseline and
achieve a 75 percent increase by fall 2014.
Graduate Survey Data
P a g e | 121
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
No data is available at this time. The department plans to create and implement a graduate
exit survey by May 2012. By May 2015, we expect 100 percent of graduates to rate at least
80 percent on each criterion.
Advising Survey Data
No data is available at this time. The department plans to create and implement an advising
survey by May 2012. By May 2015, we expect 100 percent of graduates to rate at least 80
percent on each criterion.
Faculty Self-Assessment of Professional Performance Indicators
We expect 100 percent compliance in May 2012.
Action Plan
The department has identified three critical areas needing improvement: departmental
objectives, measurement methods, and production logistics.
The theater department’s academic standards and expectations need to be more clearly
defined for both faculty and students.
Currently, the department has a lack of consistency in course objectives. Each instructor has
established his or her own set of objectives, which may or may not align with the
overarching departmental goals. We have already begun taking steps to manage this
problem.
From this point forward, the following procedures will be followed:


All instructors, including adjuncts, will be informed of the department objectives and
curriculum and required to provide relevant classroom instruction that meet specific
goals of our program. As evidence of their compliance, instructors must present a)
course syllabuses and b) program benchmarks that support the departmental
objectives.
Students will be given access to the department objectives and their program’s
benchmarks. They will be expected to reach clearly defined goals by the time they
reach sophomore and senior status. They will receive personalized guidance from
advisors to help them achieve these benchmarks, and will experience consequences
if they fail to meet the required objectives by the set deadlines. They will be made
aware of and expected to adhere to strict academic and behavioral standards.
The theater department needs a more concrete method of measuring success.
P a g e | 122
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
While we can point to specific factors that might indicate success, we currently lack a
thorough, accurate system for evaluating the quality of the education we are providing. To
address this issue, we plan to dedicate the 2011-12 academic year to creating and
implementing several tools of assessment and setting five-year goals.

The department will design uniform data collection documents for instructors so
instructors know a) what data we expect them to collect and b) what format to use
when presenting that data. To draft these documents, we will consider the
assessment tools currently in use by other departments, review the assessment
samples provided by University administration, and research other means of
evaluation that have proven to be effective. Once we have formatted assessment
documents finalized, they will be distributed to faculty members so instructors’
consistency across all courses will allow us to efficiently analyze our level of success.
In areas of assessment that have never been formally considered, including
recruiting and retention, graduate surveys, IDP compliance, advising surveys and
sophomore reviews, we will begin from scratch defining what criteria we want to
measure and devising a way to collect the necessary data.

Five-year goals for every course and area of assessment not yet finalized by the dean
and associate dean will be discussed and set by the department faculty under the
supervision of the dean and associate dean. This will be a major, department-wide
project. While faculty members expect the dean and associate dean to set academic
standards and program objectives, we believe all faculty members have a voice in
the discussion regarding data collection and assessment criteria. Weekly meetings
will be planned to review progress and deliberate.
Production logistics need to be standardized and streamlined.
While certain steps are expected in the production process, no functional model method of
operation has ever been established. To amend this situation, a formal production process
was drafted and approved by the dean, associate dean, and executive director. Beginning
with the first production of fall 2011, all production teams will be required to comply with
the process. This means meeting deadlines according to a firm schedule and maintaining
open and methodical communication with necessary parties. The faculty, staff, and
students will be operating according to this procedure, which will enable a predictable
production schedule with fewer complications. Having a standard of production with
defined benchmarks will also allow faculty to accurately assess student success.
The department wants to foster a culture of collaboration, creativity, and respect. Faculty
and students will be expected to engage fully and comply with department standards.
P a g e | 123
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
School of Fine and Performing Arts Analysis
Art
The idea of adding a mid-program checkpoint for students’ progress toward their goals will
be a useful addition to the program. The majority of the assessment was done in the GE
courses. Were the majors specifically taken out and assessed separately? What did this data
tell the department about the success in achieving the programs objectives?
Art History
This is the first time art history has reported as a separate program. This means that there is
very limited history from which the department can work. This year’s analysis of the
program has led to a series of changes for the 2011-12 academic year. The program needs
to develop more defined outcomes and work on methods of measuring the success of the
program in meeting those outcomes.
Dance
The program is doing an individualized evaluation of each student each semester; this is a
good way to get a baseline as well as create data to monitor progress. The concern for a
uniform assessment system and tracking of majors are issues that can be addressed. The
data being collected has the potential for being interesting, but needs to be de-identified
and can be broken down in order to see what impacts the program is having. This leads to
several questions: How is the department using this data? Is the data showing areas of
strength or weakness? Has the assessment led to any changes in the program? What are
the comments from outside assessors?
Music
The program has made major efforts at creating a viable assessment program. Seeking
specialized accreditation is having a positive impact on the program both from assessment
and program-design standpoints. There are some issues to deal with: Can completing
students have their admissions performances compared to their senior recital? It is great
that there is a high rate of passing both the program and the PRAXIS, but are there program
strengths and weaknesses being noted through this recital/ assessment process? Be more
specific about the assessment being done in the music business program; this may require
some coordination with the School of Business and Entrepreneurship. There are a lot of
objectives, especially in music business; is it possible to effectively assess all of them? Be
P a g e | 124
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
sure to focus on student learning in assessment. Beware of tables that have a lot of
information but little explanation of the contents, such as in indicator 11.
Theatre
The department is working on a comprehensive assessment program, much of which is yet
to be implemented. But the department has continued to do assessment in those areas it
had been working on over the last few years. The department ideas are interesting, and it is
worth waiting before making too many comments on their planning. They do need to
beware of not falling into the trap of using grades as assessment.
School of Human Services
The School of Human Services offers hands-on degrees in what we call the helping
professions. Each of these programs is designed to allow students to take their education
and apply it directly to society. These programs include Christian ministry studies, military
science (ROTC), criminal justice, nonprofit management, and social work.
The School of Human Services offers the following degree programs:
Bachelor of Arts in
 Christian Ministry Studies
 Criminal Justice
 Nonprofit Administration
Bachelor of Social Work
Bachelor of Science in
 Fire and Paramedic Science
Minors in





Christian Ministry Studies
Criminal Justice
Military Science
Nonprofit Administration
Social Welfare
Christian Ministry Studies
Goals
P a g e | 125
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
The goals of the Christian ministry studies program overlap with LU’s mission statement in
the following ways:

Providing an integrative liberal arts curriculum
o The program encourages students to not only value their liberal arts
education but also to learn how to synthesize their biblical knowledge with
their liberal arts education to evaluate, expand, and hone their worldviews.

Focusing on the talents, interests, and future of the student
o CMS focuses on the talents, interests, and future of its students in two
concrete ways:
• The department teaches a class titled “Professional Orientation,” which
helps students discover their talents, passions, and interests. In
particular, we assist students to evaluate if their gifts and talents are
commensurate with vocational ministry work.
• The department promotes CMS as a place where a student can explore
his/her calling. That is, we realize that a student may be uncertain about
his/her life’s vocation upon entering the University, so we serve as a
sounding board to help guide students to a discipline or major that is in
line with his/her gifts, passion, and talents.

Promoting ethical lifestyles
o CMS classes are taught from a Judeo-Christian worldview. In our all classes,
the Christian Bible is presented as the highest authority for both doctrine and
ethical living. In this way, we teach CMS students that biblical knowledge is
not an esoteric activity, but rather biblical knowledge must be applied in all
areas of their lives.

Developing adaptive thinking and problem-solving skills
o Many of our CMS classes present real-life case studies to help students
connect the dots or apply their bible knowledge to real-life problems. And
we specifically offer classes to achieve this end. For example, we offered a
course called “Church and Society” in spring 2011. This class showed
students the church’s role in eradicating or solving some of the societal ills in
our American cities and in other countries.

Affording cultural enrichment to the surrounding community
o CMS internships and class projects transport our students from the
classroom to Lindenwood’s surrounding communities, which not only afford
cultural enrichment and education for our students but also enrich our
surrounding communities.
P a g e | 126
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment

Furthering lifelong learning
o The CMS program is designed to whet the appetite of our students as we
cannot exhaust the depths of theological education in four years. So, the
faculty strongly encourages our students to be lifelong learners, and we
model the importance of formal and informal lifelong learning. For example,
the professors often attend conferences and workshops, and they bring back
lessons learned for their students. Some of our students have been
persuaded about the virtues of lifelong learning as many have applied to and
matriculated at seminaries.
Methods of Assessment
Several assessment strategies will be employed throughout this 2011-12 academic year.
Each one is delineated and explained below.
“The Vine”
All freshmen CMS students are required to take this one-credit-hour class. As such, this class
provides an excellent forum to collect baseline assessment metrics on writing skills,
discerning skills, biblical knowledge, and the ability to apply biblical knowledge throughout
their education at Lindenwood. Assessment tools will be developed to assess students’
writing skills, discerning skills, biblical knowledge, and ability to apply biblical knowledge.
Administer CATs – Classroom Assessment Tools
Instructors will be encouraged to administer CATs or classroom assessment instruments as
the semester progresses. These CATS could take many forms such as minute papers. As the
name suggests, this assessment should take a few minutes. Questions previously asked
have included: What did you hear the professor saying? What needs further clarification?
What did you learn that was new? Assessment measures will be administered also to
evaluate group-work related assignments. For instance, the following questions might be
asked: Overall, how effectively did your group work together on this assignment? Suggest
one change the group could make to improve its performance. Email will also be used to
solicit feedback from students.
Host Informal Meetings with CMS Majors for Real-Time Feedback
The department chair plans to host two informal meetings with CMS students — one each
during the fall and spring semesters. In general, these gatherings will be used to solicit realtime feedback from students. Feedback rendered will focus upon knowledge content in
P a g e | 127
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
CMS classes, the ease or difficulty of adjusting to campus life, changes in attitude and biases
as the result of the curriculum, increased critical thinking skills, and other areas to be
determined.
Analyze Semester-End Evaluations
Students are allowed to evaluate professors and classes at the end of each semester. This
data will be used to assess and make changes to our delivery content vehicles,
methodology, and process knowledge management. We regard process knowledge just as
significant as content knowledge. Process knowledge includes such factors as the lighting of
the room, the comfort of the chairs, etc.
Conduct Exit Interviews with CMS Seniors
Graduating CMS seniors will have an informed viewpoint about the CMS program and
Lindenwood, so we plan to develop a list of questions to poll this group. Questions might
include the following: Which class or classes were the most memorable and why? Which
class or classes were the least memorable and why? These interviews may be one-on-one,
or we may opt to hold focus groups.
Post-Graduate Feedback
We plan to either convene focus groups or interview CMS graduates and their supervisors
three years post-graduation. Questions such as the following will be asked of graduates:
What classes were the most helpful and why? Which classes were the least helpful and
why? Based on your three years of experience, which classes need to change and why?
Similarly, questions such as the following will be asked of their supervisors: How well is this
CMS graduate performing? What are his or her strengths? What are his or her weaknesses?
In addition to the classes we offer, which classes would you offer and why?
Action Plan
The department will also pursue two curricular changes to position the CMS to better
educate and equip our students for their future vocations. We will pursue adding a
capstone course to the CMS curriculum. This course will be designed in such a way that
students can synthesize their liberal arts education and bible knowledge to real life
problems that they may face in vocational ministry. Additionally, we want to make the onecredit-hour course, “The Vine,” a two-credit-hour course. This change will allow us to make
this course a bit more substantive and robust for the purposes of using it to again collect
baseline assessment metrics and to use it as a forum to acclimate students to the
University’s culture.
P a g e | 128
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
The data collected from the varied assessment techniques will be analyzed and used
ultimately to tweak classes, add classes, or retire some classes. Some of the data collected
will be used to make immediate corrections or adjustments in the classroom. Additionally,
this data analysis will also be used to give feedback to professors so that they might think
about and tweak their teaching methodology and practice.
Impact
Valid and reliable assessment tools will be developed and piloted during fall 2011 with input
and feedback from the School of Human Services assessment committee. We believe this
plan of action will not only better position CMS graduates to perform at a superior level in
their chosen vocations but also will help the University achieve its mission of forming
responsible citizens who have integrity and who are educated for the betterment of our
global community.
Criminal Justice
Mission
The mission for the Criminal Justice Program at Lindenwood University is to educate
students in the field of criminal justice in an effort to produce prepared employees within
the field. We do so by utilizing a variety of courses that we feel accurately represents the
most up-to-date information relative to the criminal justice field.
Objectives and Goals of the Program
The faculty of the program feels that each student should possess similar knowledge of
criminal justice in an effort to provide a knowledgeable, professional, and educated
employee within the criminal justice system. The following goals and objectives adequately
represent the most up-to-date education within this field:
Students will



demonstrate an understanding of the historic, social, and political forces that
have shaped the current American criminal justice system,
demonstrate an acceptable level of knowledge in the core courses offered,
learn to refine and apply the basic skills needed for productive study and
communication of ideas within and without the criminal justice system, including
the skills of listening, speaking, reading, writing, researching, observing, and
reflecting,
P a g e | 129
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment







demonstrate an understanding of the major theories of scientific study of crime
as an individual and social phenomenon,
develop and use the higher levels of thinking, including analysis, synthesis,
evaluation, and integration,
improve their ability to reason analytically about both qualitative and
quantitative evidence,
understand the development and importance of the Bill of Rights and other
amendments to the Constitution of the United States that have significant and
continuing impact on the functioning of the criminal justice system,
understand the theoretical and practical roles and functions of public and private
correctional facilities in the United States today,
identify the major forms of deviance and crime in the United States,
understand the increasing importance of the role of victims in the criminal
justice process.
Classes Assessed
In an effort to effectively measure learning within the program, we currently administer an
assessment instrument in CJ21000 Criminal Justice Systems and CJ 44000 Senior Seminar.
The assessment is typically given at the beginning of CJ 21000 and at the end of CJ 44000.
Method of Assessment
The instrument that has been used for program assessment is a 50-question, multiplechoice exam administered to students who are majoring in criminal justice. This document
is titled Criminal Justice Program Information Assessment. This instrument is given to
students in CJ 21000 Criminal Justice Systems, as it is typically their first course taken
toward the completion of the major. The exam is also administered to students who enroll
in CJ 44000 Senior Seminar. It is administered in this fashion in an effort to measure student
learning upon entry and then exit of the program. When a student is administered the exam
in CJ 44000, he or she would have been exposed to all core course requirements to attain a
criminal justice degree. The department is currently tracking the results of each student so
that his or her learning within the program can be measured individually. This approach
began at the start of fall 2010.
Results
Over the course of the 2010-11 academic year, the criminal justice program information
assessment was administered to 94 students in four courses of CJ21000. The average mean
P a g e | 130
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
score for all students was 24.85 (based on 50 questions). Since this assessment instrument
is not very old, we do not have individual data on specific students to measure program
learning. We expect the individual learning results to start appearing at the end of spring
2012. For this year, we only have one class of CJ 44000 that was administered the criminal
justice program information assessment. There were 29 students who were administered
the exam in spring 2011, and the average mean score was 26.03 (based on 50 questions).
The fall 2010 class of CJ 44000 was not administered the exam, and thus no records exist to
incorporate into this document.
Lessons learned/Action Plan
During spring 2011, a student/faculty group was convened in an effort to discuss
improvements for the criminal justice program. The faculty felt it is important to get
student feedback from pending graduates. It was determined that this will be an annual
occurrence with graduating seniors and an additional assessment instrument will be crafted
to measure student opinions of the program as a whole. Faculty members also discussed
whether each criminal justice course will have a pre- and post-test in an effort to measure
learning in each course. However, it has still not been decided if this policy will be
implemented for fall 2011.
Nonprofit Administration
Mission
The NPA program, both graduate and undergraduate, provides students with the
knowledge and skills needed for a career in the nonprofit sector. This is a professional
studies program designed to provide students with an understanding of the nonprofit
sector and its many areas of management and leadership, its areas of services to society
and individuals, and the significant role it plays in improving the quality of life of all
members of society.
Goals and Objectives

Provide knowledge of the creation, operation, and role in society of a nonprofit
organization.
Objectives
o To define and explain what constitutes a nonprofit organization both legally
and operationally.
P a g e | 131
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
o To learn all the components that comprise the six core competencies
associated with nonprofit management.
o To understand the many forms and service areas of NPOs.
o To gain knowledge of management and leadership of volunteers and staff,
budgeting, program evaluation, marketing, fundraising, and organizational
structure.

To gain useful skills for employment and volunteering in the nonprofit sector.
Objectives
o To teach decision making and critical-thinking skills.
o To learn how to manage personnel both paid and volunteer.
o To learn the steps needed for fundraising events and activities.
o To prepare a budget and analyze financial statements.
o To learn how to develop into a leader for the nonprofit sector.
o To learn how to organize and operate a division or program.

To offer opportunities that would enhance a student’s ability to gain employment in
the nonprofit sector.
Objectives
o To provide an internship experience in a nonprofit organization.
o To offer a student association experience that would simulate an operating
NPO.
o To allow independent study in an area of particular interest for the student.
Methods of Assessment





We continue to utilize pre- and post-tests for all undergraduate courses.
We have researched national data regarding employer needs and core competencies
for the nonprofit sector.
We have developed an extensive program evaluation process for which a copy is
provided. Topics included instructional delivery, course content, quality of teaching,
etc.
We continue to assess knowledge and skills in the key required and elective courses
such as the management of nonprofit organizations, volunteer management,
fundraising, and leadership courses by the tests and papers required. We also test
skill level by providing hypothetical and field-based situations requiring the student
to respond to the situation.
In the senior seminar, we added a case study approach requiring the students to
demonstrate the knowledge and skills required to resolve management, budgeting,
personnel, program, and volunteer staff issues.
P a g e | 132
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment

We continue to use alumni survey data from the Survey Institute to help shape
programming.
Lessons Learned
The department needs to ensure that current courses qualify for course-level designations
as proposed by EPC/ASPC and needs to develop more career preparation training.
Action plan for next year
Program Goals
Define and uphold
quality teaching
methods
Develop and uphold
quality course
development
techniques
Define and uphold fair
and effective
assessment techniques
Supporting Objectives / Timeline / Method of Assessment
 By June 1, 2011, the entire NPA faculty members will engage in a
strategic planning session that result in the following ‘products:’ 1) an
agreement on what constitutes ‘good teaching;’ 2) a review of student
survey results re: the definition of ‘good teaching;’ 3) a means by
which to consider additional methods of teaching quality; and 4) the
creation of an evaluation method based on current course evaluations;
creation of individual goals.
 By September 1, 2011, NPA faculty members will engage in ongoing
evaluation practices as agreed upon and as monitored by the
department chair to support quality teaching that may include selfmonitoring, audio/video taping, information from students, and/or
outside observation. Outcomes/practices will be shared with Dean of
the School of Human Services for possible use in annual performance
reviews, etc.
 By April 30, 2011, the NPA faculty members will critically evaluate,
through peer review, all existing course syllabi against NPA course
evaluation scoring rubric with a particular focus on the category of
Instructional Rationale and Delivery Plan.
 By August 1, 2011, all NPA faculty members will ensure that all course
syllabi reflect/demonstrate that which represents an “Exemplary”
scoring, as defined by the NPA course evaluation scoring rubric.
 By April 30, 2011, all NPA faculty members will critically evaluate,
through peer review, all existing course syllabi against NPA course
evaluation scoring rubric with a particular focus on the category of
Course Assessment Plan.
 By August 1, 2011, all NPA faculty members will ensure that all course
syllabi reflect/demonstrate that which represents an “Exemplary”
scoring, as defined by the NPA course evaluation scoring rubric.
 By September 1, 2011, all NPA faculty members will adopt three ‘new’
classroom assessment techniques recognized as ‘effective’ by Angelo
and Cross’s Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College
Teachers. Examples may include, but not be limited to, Approximate
Analogies, Focused Autobiographical Sketches, Group-Work
Evaluations, Classroom Opinion Polls, Pro and Con Grid (per Table 6.2,
P a g e | 133
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Develop and maintain
a rigorous and relevant
curriculum


Support critical
linkages to real world
application



Support linkages to
career development
and placement




CAT’s Indexed by Disciplines in the Brief Examples).
By April 30, 2011, all NPA faculty members will critically evaluate,
through peer review, all existing course syllabi against NPA course
evaluation scoring rubric with a particular focus on the category of
Course Assessment Plan and Appropriate for Course Level.
By August 1, 2011, all NPA faculty members will ensure that all course
syllabi reflect/demonstrate that which represents an “Exemplary”
scoring, as defined by the NPA course evaluation scoring rubric.
By April 30, 2011, al NPA faculty members will critically evaluate,
through peer review, all existing course syllabi against NPA course
evaluation scoring rubric) with a particular focus on the category of
Instructional Rationale and Delivery Plan.
By August 1, 2011, all NPA faculty members will ensure that all course
syllabi reflect/demonstrate that which represents an “Exemplary”
scoring, as defined by the NPA course evaluation scoring rubric.
On an ongoing basis, the department chair will continue to evaluate
internship offerings to ensure that they support the six core
competencies for our degree program.
By fall 2011, supported by a student research project and under the
direction of the department chair, we will conduct an analysis of best
practices regarding career development services for students in NPAoriented programs across the country and develop a program model
for execution.
By fall 2011, with support from the department chair, a graduate
assistant will create a workplace survey of area NPA professionals to
assess the relevancy of our current core competencies against market
need. Survey results will help to inform both course development and
career development services immediately, as practical, and for 201213, as needed.
All NPA faculty members will continue to review alumni survey results
to enhance course ancillary services and course development that is in
part responsive to career needs, while also upholding academic rigor
as expected in a degree-granting program.
Beginning in fall of 2011, through the support of a graduate assistant
and under the direction of the department chair and with support of
the Office of Career Services (where possible), the NPA program will
conduct a series of meaningful career development programming
efforts (i.e., networking reception, professional mentors, job fair, postgraduate consulting projects, etc.). In addition, a more effective means
to track graduate placement success will be executed in cooperation
with the Director of Alumni Programs and the Director of Career
Services.
Impact and/or changes to classes and program
P a g e | 134
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
The department has redesigned our core and elective classes to enhance knowledge and
skill development of students taking classes in the nonprofit administration program. The
faculty will work to improve our testing instrument for the undergraduate program.
Social Work
Department of Social Work Mission
Lindenwood University Department of Social Work’s mission is to prepare undergraduate
students for ethical and effective entry-level generalist social work practice with individuals,
families, groups, organizations, and communities and to promote societal responsibility and
social justice.
Classes to be Assessed
SW 11000 -Introduction to Social Work , SW 31000 - Social Work Practice I , SW 31100 –
Social Work Practice II, SW 32000 - Social Welfare Policy and Service, SW 32500 - Social
Work Research Methods, SW38100 - Human Behavior and Social Environment II, SW41200 Social Work Practice III, SW42100 - Social Welfare Policy and Services II, SW45000 - Field
Practicum
Program Goals and Objectives
Goals for the Graduates in the Major


Graduates of the the University Department of Social Work will demonstrate
competencies for entry-level practice with diverse individuals, families, groups,
organizations, communities, and society in changing social contexts.
Upon completion of the program, students will be prepared for graduate study in
social work and/or will be employed in the broad field of human services.
Social Work Program Objectives
Based on overall program evaluations as well as term-to-term course evaluations, a variety
of instruments are utilized to measure students’ knowledge, skills, values, and professional
identity development. The first column contains the objective. The second column is the
assessment tools used to measure outcomes.
Consistent with our goals, graduates will demonstrate the ability to do the following:
P a g e | 135
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Program Objectives
1. Apply critical thinking skills within the context of professional social work practice.
2. Understand the value base of the profession and its ethical standards and
principles and practice accordingly.
3. Practice without discrimination and with respect, knowledge, and skills related
client age, color, culture, disability, ethnicity, family structure, gender, marital status,
national origin, race, sex, and orientation.
4. Understand the forms and mechanisms of oppression and discrimination and
apply strategies of advocacy and social change that advance social and economic
justice with particular concern for populations at risk.
5. Understand and interpret the history of the social work profession and its
contemporary structures.
6. Apply the knowledge and skills of generalist social work practice with systems of
all sizes.
7. Use theoretical frameworks supported by empirical evidence to understand
individual behavior and development across the life span and the interactions
among and between diverse individuals, families, groups, organizations, and
communities.
8. Analyze, formulate, and influence social policies with a particular concern for
populations at risk.
9. Evaluate research studies, apply research findings to practice, and evaluate their
own practice interventions at levels appropriate to baccalaureate level generalist
social work practice.
10. Use communication skills differently across diverse client populations,
colleagues, and communities.
11. Use supervision and consultation appropriate to generalist social work practice
at the baccalaureate level.
12. Function within the structure of organizations and service delivery systems and
seek necessary organizational change.
How Each Program Objective is Measured










Pre-post course content test
Course assignments and grades
Professional values self-assessment
Knowledge/skills self-assessment
Qualitative questions
Surveys (alumni, agencies)
Advisory council consultation
Overall program assessment (interview)
Overall program assessment (content test)
Field evaluation
Methods of Assessment Used
Measures
B, C, D, E, F, G, J
A, B, C, D, E, G, I, J
A, B, C, D, E, F, I, J
A, B, C, D, E, G, I, J
A, B, D, I, J
B, D, F, G, I, F, J
A, B, D, G, I, J
A, B, C, D, E, I, J
A, B, D, I, J
A, B, C, D, E, F, I, J
A, B, D, F, G, J
B, D, F, G, J
P a g e | 136
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Each semester student achievement is measured for each course for the purposes of
program evaluation and improvement. Course objectives are directly related to one or more
program objectives. These relationships allow for analysis of students’ perception of their
professional growth and provide an opportunity to contrast and interpret their actual
knowledge/skills/values upon completing the course(s). These mixed methods provide data
and insight into how effective courses are in meeting program objectives. Benchmarks are
established by faculty as indicators of attaining program objectives.
Pre- and Post-Test Multiple Choice Course Content Assessment
When evaluated:
Who is evaluated:
What is evaluated:
How evaluated:
Beginning and end of each semester
Students enrolled in social work courses (all courses)
Specific course objectives and other aspects of the course
Multiple choice test
Questions are directly related to one or more program objectives. Data is also used to
examine the effectiveness of instructors in the classroom, the adequacy of the textbooks
being utilized, and determine if the assignments and course requirements assist in meeting
program objectives.
Benchmarks: Overall students should demonstrate knowledge/skill changes from pre- to
post-test scores with a 20 to 30 percent aggregate growth, plus a post-test aggregate score
of 60 to 70 percent or more. Course content expectations dealing with knowledge and skills
will vary considerably across the curriculum.
Quizzes/Exams, Reflection/Scholarly Papers, Video Taping, other Methods Determined by
Professor
When evaluated:
Who is evaluated:
What is evaluated:
How evaluated:
Throughout the semester
Students enrolled in social work courses
Students’ knowledge/skill levels
Multiple methods
Each professor designs course tools to measure student growth and achievement of course
objectives, which are tied to program objectives.
Benchmarks: Overall students should demonstrate knowledge/skill/value changes from preto post-test scores determined by each faculty member. Course content expectations
dealing with knowledge/skills/values will vary considerably across the curriculum.
Professional Values Response: Pre- and Post-Likert Scale Self Evaluation
When evaluated:
Beginning and end of each semester
P a g e | 137
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Who is evaluated:
What is evaluated:
How evaluated:
Students enrolled in social work courses (selected courses)
Students’ self- assessment of professional values
Likert scale self-evaluation
Students evaluate their knowledge and implementation of professional values based upon
course objectives tied to a program objective. These relationships allow for analysis of
students’ perception of their professional growth and provide an opportunity to contrast
and interpret their actual knowledge/skills/values growth with their perceptions.
Benchmarks: Overall students should demonstrate value changes from pre- to post-test
scores with .5 to 1.0 growth. Professional values are measured according to the NASW Code
of Ethics promoted by the accrediting board of the Council on Social Work Education.
Student Self-Assessment of Knowledge/Skills: Pre- and Post-Likert Scale
When evaluated:
Who is evaluated:
What is evaluated:
How evaluated:
Beginning and end of each semester
Students enrolled in social work courses (selected courses)
Students’ self-assessment of knowledge/skill levels
Likert scale self-evaluation
Students are surveyed regarding their perceived capabilities on each course objective tied
to program objectives. Each course objective is directly related to one or more program
objectives. These relationships allow for analysis of students’ perception of their
professional growth and provide an opportunity to contrast/interpret their actual
knowledge/skills/values growth with their perceptions.
Benchmarks: Overall students should demonstrate knowledge/skills/values changes from
pre- to post-test scores within a .5 to 1.0 growth range.
Qualitative Questions Post-Course Student Evaluation
When evaluated:
Who is evaluated:
What is evaluated:
How evaluated:
Beginning and end of each semester
Students enrolled in social work courses (selected courses)
Students’ self-assessment of course objectives
Qualitative responses to select questions
In selected courses students are given questions pertaining to course objectives, which
provides in-depth qualitative data for assessing program objectives.
Benchmarks: Qualitative data will be coded and reviewed by faculty for course
improvement. Responses are coded with the 12 program objectives in mind.
Survey of Alumni and Agencies
P a g e | 138
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
When evaluated:
Who is evaluated:
What is evaluated:
How evaluated:
Every three years
Students, alumni, and program (faculty)
Students’ performance in field, employment, and graduate school
Surveys and interviews
An alumni survey is completed every three years involving students who graduated during
that period of time. Social work faculty conducts telephone interviews and/or sends surveys
to alumni and agencies.
Benchmarks: Data will be coded and presented to the faculty and Social Work Advisory
Council for assessment. Qualitative responses are coded with the 12 program objectives in
mind.
Feedback of Course/Program Evaluations from Social Work Advisory Council
When evaluated:
Who is evaluated:
What is evaluated:
How evaluated:
Every year
Students, alumni, and program (faculty)
Program curriculum, policies, and practices
Interviews and questionnaire
The faculty meets with the Social Work Advisory Council at the end of the academic year to
discuss program evaluation, curriculum development, and overall department
policies/practices.
Benchmarks: Qualitative data will be coded and presented to the faculty for assessment.
Responses are coded with the 12 program objectives in mind.
Overall Program Assessment-Objective
When evaluated:
Who is evaluated:
What is evaluated:
How evaluated:
Beginning and end of program
Social work majors
Program objectives and other aspects of the program
Multiple-choice test
Each student majoring in social work enrolled in SW 120000 Social Service Agency
Observation completes a multiple-choice examination composed of questions taken from
the content based pre-tests for each required course. At the close of SW 45000 Practicum
Field Seminar each student completes the same multiple-choice content based program as
a post test. This allows for a cohort analysis of student progress from beginning to end of
program.
Benchmarks: Overall students should demonstrate knowledge/skill/value changes from preto post-test scores with a 25 to 30 percent growth.
P a g e | 139
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Overall Program Assessment- Subjective
When evaluated:
Who is evaluated:
What is evaluated:
How evaluated:
End of program
Social work graduates
Program objectives and other aspects of the program
Interview with department chair
Graduating students complete face-to-face interviews with the department chair and a
questionnaire is given, which solicits their experiences and evaluation of the curriculum and
what they assess as the strengths and challenges of the program. Students are asked openended questions that describe aspects of the program and their overall learning
experiences.
Benchmarks: Qualitative data will be coded with the 12 program objectives in mind and
presented to the faculty and advisory council for assessment.
Field Evaluation
When evaluated:
Who is evaluated:
What is evaluated:
How evaluated:
End of practicum
Students enrolled in practicum
Practice behaviors related to 10 core EPAS competencies
Likert scale questions
The practicum coordinator and field instructors assess students and provide qualitative
feedback based upon students’ applied knowledge and professional behaviors in the field
outlined in the evaluation policies and accreditation standards (www.CSWE.org).
Benchmarks: Students should demonstrate knowledge/skill/values to meet and/or exceed
program expectations. These data are figured into the overall strategies to determine if
program benchmarks are being met.
These assessment methodologies seek to improve program outcomes and to reach program
benchmarks by keeping in focus each program objective:
 How and if it is being achieved.
 What criteria are used to measure achievement?
 What are the benchmarks that indicate achievement?
 What valid and reliable methods are utilized to generate data to measure successful
achievement?
 What structures are in place to maintain program standards?
 What action plans are implemented when benchmarks are not reached?
Results
P a g e | 140
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Each of the nine social work courses being assessed use a variety of measurements, which
link self-assessment and pre/post content test questions to program objectives. These are
highlighted below. Faculty examines both aggregate scores from each course and individual
assessment questions for analysis in order to link course outcomes to program objective(s).
The following charts report the pre- and post-data collected for the nine core curriculum
courses.
SW 11000 - Introduction to Social Work
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Combined
Pre-test
52%
50%
51%
Post-test
74%
78%
76%
Change
+22%
+28%
+25%
Student Self-Assessment of Knowledge/Skills
1 = No ability 2 = Some ability 3 = Average ability 4 = Good ability 5 = Exceptional ability
QUESTION
1. demonstrate a basic knowledge of generalist social work practice and
social policy
2. differentiate the perspective of social work as different from others in the
helping professions
3. recognize the uniqueness of social work history and the emergence of
social work as it related to social welfare and services to those in need
4. identify at-risk populations across the life span in U.S. society
5. can develop critical thinking skills, assess personal values, beliefs and
ethics so as to integrate those into best practices of social work services
6. can gain an appreciation of the diversity of social work in its many settings
and environments
Averages:
Measurement
Score
Benchmark
Pre/Post Content %
Change
+25%
(20 - 30%)
Met
Pre/Post Content % Correct
Answers
78%
(60 – 70%)
Surpassed
Pre
Avg.
Post
Avg.
Change
2.07
3.63
+1.56
2.50
3.78
+1.28
2.37
3.59
+1.22
2.63
3.75
+1.12
3.10
3.59
+.49
3.30
3.91
+.61
2.66
3.71
+1.05
Self-Assessment
Change
+1.05
(.5 – 1.0)
Surpassed
Data Analysis
All benchmarks were met or exceeded. What is noteworthy is that the content and selfassessment change pre and post are congruent and consistent with previous year’s data.
Both measurement tools support the following program objectives two, four, and five. The
majority of students enrolled are non-social work majors. Closely examining each question,
it appears that course objectives are successfully being met, which in turn supports
P a g e | 141
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
University objectives promoting ethical lifestyles and developing adaptive thinking and
problem-solving skills.
SW31000 - Social Work Practice I
Semester
Fall 2010
Fall 2009
Fall2008-Spring 2009
Pre-test
42%
43%
42%
Post-test
63%
58%
58%
Change
+21%
+15%
+16%
Average
42.5%
59%
18%
Student Self-Assessment of Knowledge/Skills
1 = No ability 2 = Some ability 3 = Average ability 4 = Good ability 5 = Exceptional ability
Question
1. social work practice with individuals as defined within the Lindenwood
University definition of generalist social work practice and as anchored in the
purposes and missions of the social work profession
2. analyze ethical dilemmas and the ways in which they affect practices, services,
and clients
3. define, design and implement practice strategies with persons from diverse life
situations
4. knowledge of factors that contribute to and constitute being at risk
5. awareness of the common strengths and resource capacities of individuals
6. knowledge and skills to effectively develop client-worker relationships with
individuals
7. knowledge and skills related to collecting and assessing information with
regard to work with individuals
8. identify issues, problems, needs, resources, and assets common to individuals
9. use communication skills, supervision, and consultation with regard to practice
with individuals
10. identify, analyze, and implement empirically based interventions with
individuals
11. apply empirical knowledge and technological advanced information with
individuals
12. evaluate program outcomes and practice effectiveness with individuals
13. use of qualitative and quantitative research methodologies to build practice
with individuals
14. use research knowledge to provide high quality services; to initiate change; to
improve practice, policy, and service delivery; and to evaluate their own practice
with individuals
15. understand and interpret the history of the social work profession and its
contemporary structural issues
Average
Measurement
Score
Benchmark
Pre Post Content %
Change
+21%
(20 - 30%)
Pre Post Content %
Correct Answers
63%
(60 – 70%)
Pre
Avg.
Post
Avg.
Change
3.00
4.38
+1.38
3.00
4.38
+1.38
2.33
3.75
+1.42
3.44
3.22
4.5
4.25
+1.06
+1.03
2.67
3.88
+1.21
2.56
4.13
+1.57
3.11
4.13
+1.02
2.89
4.38
+1.49
2.33
3.63
+1.30
2.44
3.38
+.94
2.22
3.88
+1.66
2.33
3.88
+1.55
2.44
3.75
+1.31
3.22
4.13
+.91
2.75
4.03
+1.28
Self-Assessment
Change
+1.28
.5 – 1.0
P a g e | 142
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Measurement
Pre Post Content %
Change
Met
Pre Post Content %
Correct Answers
Met
Self-Assessment
Change
Surpassed
Data Analysis
Strong student growth is demonstrated in the data and improved when comparing last
year’s pre/post content aggregate scores (58 percent) with this year’s (58 percent and 63
percent). Students’ knowledge of course content and self-assessment are meeting and
exceeding benchmarks. This course is integral to preparing social work students for
competent and effective professional lives and supports program objectives one, two,
three, four, six, 10, and 11, and supports LU’s mission of educating responsible citizens of a
global community.
SW 31100 – Social Work Practice II
Fall 2010
Fall 2009
Pre-Test
73%
69%
Post-Test
78%
78%
Change
+5%
+9%
Student Self-Assessment of Knowledge/Skills Fall 2010
1 = No ability 2 = Some ability 3 = Average ability 4 = Good ability 5 = Exceptional ability
Question #
1. have learned about social work practice with groups and families as
defined within the Lindenwood University definition of generalist social
work practice and as anchored in the purpose and mission of the social
work profession
2. analyzed ethical dilemmas and the ways in which they affect practice,
services, and clients
3. have learned to define, design, and implement practice strategies with
persons from diverse life situations
4. have increased knowledge of factors that contribute to and constitute
being at risk
5. have increased awareness of the common strengths and resource
capacities of individuals
6. been presented with knowledge and skills to effectively develop clientworker relationships with groups and families
8. learned to identify issues, problems, needs, resources, and assets
common to groups and families
9. learned to use communication skills, supervision, and consultation with
regard to practice with groups and families
10. learned to identify, analyze, and implement empirically based
interventions with groups and families
11. learned to apply empirical knowledge and technological advanced
information with groups and families
Pre Avg.
Post Avg.
Change
2.25
3.89
+1.64
3.25
3.89
+.64
3.38
3.78
+.40
3.75
3.89
+.14
3.63
3.89
+.26
2.25
3.67
+1.42
2.25
3.67
+1.42
2.50
3.67
+1.17
2.00
3.33
+1.33
2.25
3.22
+.97
P a g e | 143
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Question #
Pre Avg.
Post Avg.
Change
2.25
3.78
+1.53
2.25
3.44
+1.19
2.25
3.44
1.19
3.25
3.56
0.31
2.65
3.66
+1.01
12. learned to evaluate program outcomes and practice effectiveness
with groups and families
13. learned the use of qualitive and quantitative research methodologies
to build practice with groups and families
14. learned to use research knowledge to provide quality services; to
initiate change; to improve practice, police, and service delivery; and to
evaluate their own practice with groups and families
15. understand and interpret the history of the social work profession
and its contemporary structural issues.
Averages
Measurement
Score
Benchmark
Pre Post Content %
Change
+5%
(20 - 30%)
Not Met
Pre Post Content %
Correct Answers
78%
(60 – 70%) Surpassed
Self-Assessment
Change
+1.01
.5 – 1.0
Surpassed
Data Analysis
Even though data indicate five percent change between the pre-test and the post-test
scores, students entered this course immediately following SW 31000 with a strong
foundation in social work practice (78 percent). A post score of 78 percent these past two
years surpasses benchmarks, as does students’ self-assessment of their capacity for
professional work with groups. Both SW 31000 and SW 311000 support program objectives
one, two, three, four, six, seven, nine, 10, 11, and 12. With these solid and consistent
scores, along with further data demonstrated in the subsequent section of this report, it
appears that program objectives are being met and surpassed in significant ways in practice
courses.
SW 32000 - Social Welfare Policy and Service I
Fall 2010
Fall 2009
Pre-test
43%
24%
Post-test
69%
55%
Change
+26%
+31%
Student Self-Assessment of Knowledge/Skills Fall 2010
1 = No ability 2 = Some ability 3 = Average ability 4 = Good ability 5 = Exceptional ability
Question #
recognize how group membership includes access to resources
analyze the dynamics of risk factors that contribute to and constitute being
at risk and strategies to redress them
Pre
Avg.
3.09
Post
Avg.
4.16
3.18
3.95
Change
+1.07
+.77
P a g e | 144
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Question #
demonstrate increased knowledge of social and economic justice
understand distributive justice, human, and civil rights and global
interconnections of oppression
identify an awareness of strategies to combat discrimination, oppression,
and economic deprivation
display knowledge of advocacy for nondiscriminatory social and economic
systems
demonstrate an awareness of how social systems promote or defer
maintaining or achieving health and well being
display knowledge of the history of social work and history as well as
current structures of social welfare services
identify an awareness of the role of policy in service delivery and practice
and attainment of individual and social well being
demonstrate knowledge and skills in understanding and analyzing major
policies
demonstrate awareness of how to analyze organizational, local, state,
national, and international issues in social welfare policy and social service
delivery
display an awareness of policy practice skills in regard to economic,
political, and organizational systems
recognize an awareness of financial, organizational, administrative, and
planning processes required to deliver social services
use knowledge of issues, problems, needs, resources, and assets in the
general area of social policy
Average
Measurement
Score
Benchmark
Pre/Post Content %
Change
26%
(20 - 30%)
Met
Pre/Post Content %
Correct Answers
69%
(60 – 70%)
Met
Pre
Avg.
3.00
Post
Avg.
4.16
2.86
3.84
+.98
3.00
4.05
+1.05
2.73
4.16
+1.43
2.91
4.05
+1.14
2.73
4.11
+1.38
2.50
4.16
+1.66
2.45
4.32
+1.87
2.41
3.84
+1.43
2.23
4.00
+1.77
2.36
3.89
+1.53
2.59
4.05
+1.46
2.72
4.05
+1.34
Change
+1.16
Self-Assessment
Change
+1.34
.5 – 1.0
Surpassed
Data Analysis
Policy courses distinguish the social work program from psychology and some of the other
helping professions. Students often are not interested in policy practice and thus are not
eager to take this course. Data indicates that a paradigm shift occurred for the majority of
students. The above data indicates a level of mastery expected for bachelor level
professional social workers and some improvement from last year in pre/post content (55
percent to 69 percent). It is important to note that pre-tests in 2009 were extremely low (24
percent) and a plus-31 percent improvement took place. These scores are quite high and
supports the University’s mission of the development of the whole person–an educated,
responsible citizen of a global community. Students mastering/understanding their
professional roles in advocacy directly support program objectives one, two, three, four,
seven, eight, nine, 10, and 12.
P a g e | 145
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
SW 32500 - SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH METHODS
Spring 2010
Fall 2010
Pre-test
37%
36%
Measurement
Post-test
60%
58%
Pre/Post Content %
Change
22%
(20 - 30%)
Met
Score
Benchmark
Change
+23%
+22%
Pre/Post Content %
Correct Answers
58%
(60 – 70%)
Not Met
Data Analysis
Students’ grasp of course content falls slightly short of benchmarks (58 percent), however
pre/test scores were exceptionally low (36 percent) when comparing pre-test scores with
other courses. This is consistent with last semester’s scores. A 22 to 23 percent change is
significant. Research methods course is a challenge for undergraduate students. Many
students do not see the need to know research methods and how research informs
practice. But this knowledge is critical for meeting program objectives seven and nine. With
current post-course assessment scores slightly below benchmarks, new strategies, lesson
plans, and assignments will be incorporated to connect practice and research. Further
assessment tools will be needed to assist in measuring how this course meets program
objectives; specifically objectives two, seven, and nine.
SW 38100 – HUMAN BEHAVIOR and SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT II
Spring 2011
Spring 2010
Pre-test
59%
45%
Post-test
77%
72%
Change
+18%
+27%
Student Self-Assessment of Knowledge/Skills Spring 2011
1 = No ability 2 = Some ability 3 = Average ability 4 = Good ability 5 = Exceptional ability
Question #
Populations-at-risk and the factors that contribute to and constitute being at
risk
how group membership includes access to resources
recriprocal relationships between human behavior and social environments
empirical theories and knowledge about the interaction between and among
systems
theories and knowledge of a range of social systems
Pre
Avg.
Post
Avg.
Change
3.63
4.22
+.60
3.31
4.22
+.91
3.56
4.61
+1.05
3.13
4.17
+1.04
3.19
4.11
+.92
how social systems promote, maintain, deter, or achieve health and well-being
3.25
4.33
+1.08
theoretical frameworks in relationship to effective generalist social work
practice
3.00
4.06
+1.06
P a g e | 146
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Pre
Avg.
Post
Avg.
Change
the integration of values and principles of ethical decision making
3.25
4.17
+.92
the development, use, and communication of empirically based knowledge
3.00
3.89
+.89
theoretical frameworks related to values of the profession of social work
3.25
3.94
+.69
3.19
4.22
+1.03
Question #
analyzing ethical dilemmas and the ways in which they affect services and
clients
Averages
Measurement
Score
Benchmark
Pre/Post Content
% Change
18%
(20 - 30%)
Almost Met
Pre/Post Content
% Correct Answers
77%
(60 – 70%)
Surpassed
3.25
4.18
+.93
Self-Assessment
Change
+.93
.5 – 1.0
Surpassed
Data Analysis
The 18 percent change falls slightly below benchmark, but post content knowledge is well
above benchmark, which is the score that ultimately matters. As in last year’s post content
score (72 percent), students are well above benchmarks in retaining knowledge of course
content. Also, students report exceptionally high pre-course skills, which may be attributed
to many of the students being seniors. In post-course scores students report good ability in
almost all of the measurements. This course is the theoretical foundation for professional
practice and thus directly supports the University mission of developing ethical and
competent professionals and supports program objectives one, six, and seven.
SW 41200 - Social Work Practice III
Student Self-Assessment of Knowledge/Skills
1 = No ability 2 = Some ability 3 = Average ability 4 = Good ability 5 = Exceptional ability
Question #
1. learned social work practice with organizations and communities as defined
within the Lindenwood University definition of generalist social work practice and
as anchored in the purposes and mission of the work profession
2. advanced knowledge of the dynamics of risk factors and strategies to redress
them
3. advanced knowledge of distributive justice, human and civil rights, and global
interconnections of oppression
4. advocacy knowledge, values, and skills related to nondiscriminatory social and
economic systems
5. advanced knowledge of ways socials systems promote or deter maintaining or
achieving health and well-being
6.advanced knowledge of the role of macro-practice in service delivery and
practice in relation to the attainment of individual and social well-being
Pre
Avg.
Post
Avg.
Change
2.57
3.64
+1.07
2.79
3.86
+1.07
2.93
3.71
+.79
2.64
3.64
+1.00
2.86
3.79
+.93
2.57
3.64
+1.07
P a g e | 147
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
7. advanced knowledge and skills related to analysis of organizational, local,
state, national, and international issues in social welfare policy and social service
delivery.
8. ability to understand and demonstrate macro-practice skills in regard to
economic, political, and organizational systems
9. ability to demonstrate macro-practice skills to influence, formulate, and
advocate for policy consistent with social work values
10. ability to identify financial, organizational, administrative, and planning
processes necessary to deliver social services.
11. ability to apply empirical knowledge and technologically advanced
information with organizations and communities
12. ability to evaluate program outcomes and practice effectiveness with
organizations and communities
13. learned to use communication skills, supervision, and consultation with
regard to macro-practice
14. ability to use qualitative and quantitative research methodologies to build
macro-practice
15. ability to define, design, and implement practice strategies with persons from
diverse backgrounds
16. ability to understand and interpret the history of the social work profession
and its contemporary structural issues.
Average
Measurement
Score
Benchmark
Spring 2011
Spring 2010
Self-Assessment
Change
+1.26
(.5 – 1.0)
Surpassed
Pre-test
Post-test
40%
60%
42%
48%
Pre/Post Change
2.64
3.43
+.79
1.93
3.50
+1.57
1.93
3.57
+1.64
2.29
3.57
+1.29
2.07
3.50
+1.43
2.14
3.79
+1.64
2.14
3.79
+1.64
2.07
3.57
+1.50
2.43
3.57
+1.14
2.29
3.86
+1.57
2.39
3.65
+1.26
20%
Pre/Post Content %
Correct
60%
Met
Met
Change
+20%
+6%
Data Analysis
Students demonstrated excellent retention of course knowledge (60 percent) as well as
growth pre- and post-course (20 percent), meeting and surpassing benchmarks. This is a
considerable difference from previous year’s post-course content knowledge (48 percent)
and may be attributable to the instructor adding bi-weekly quizzes for content review. Also,
benchmarks were surpassed in students’ self-assessment of meeting course objectives, thus
meeting program objectives one, two, three, four, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, and 12.
This course directly integrates policy and practice courses, linking the two together, thus is
integral to preparing students for the social work profession.
SW 42100 - Social Welfare Policy and Services II
Spring 2011
Spring 2010
Pre-test
25%
42%
Post-test
87%
58%
Change
+62%
+16%
P a g e | 148
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Measurement
Score
Benchmark
Pre/Post Content %
Change
+62%
(20 - 30%)
Surpassed
Pre/Post Content %
Correct Answers
+87%
(60 – 65%)
Surpassed
Results
When analyzing individual pre-course questions, students showed an adequate knowledge
of policy history and theory, however, based upon pre-course content scores there were
deficits for putting this knowledge into practice, which is the objective of Policy II. The
instructor piloted a new assessment method with students being administered the post-test
as their final exam grade. This may have motivated students in some way to account for the
62 percent change. Pre/post content data for 2010 was based upon a different
measurement tool based upon the new text and revised syllabus.
Students also have the option of attending NASW advocacy day at the Missouri state
capital, which supports course objectives that promote students’ skills in policy practice,
which are aligned with program objectives four and eight.
The following pilot project was initiated in this course with qualitative data collected and
coded at the end of the semester with 50 percent (eight) of the students volunteering to
contribute.

Students will reference the NASW code of ethics for ethical decision making and
clarity for ethical professional behavior as demonstrated by classroom discussion
and case-scenario role plays, video presentations and recordings, term papers, and
research projects. Students consistently report that the code was thoroughly
integrated into the class. Here are some comments that demonstrate this:
o “The six core values outlined by the NASW were discussed thoroughly and
regularly.”
o “This class fulfilled the criteria of referencing the NASW code of ethics for
decision making and professional behavior to its full extent. There was not a
single class in which one of the values was not brought up or discussed.”
o “This course did a great job of expressing how the code applies to ethical
decision making in the policy arena. A step-by-step process was offered of
how to make ethical decisions.”
o “The code was appropriately applied to Missouri bills, current issues, and to
case studies.”
o “This class provided me with time to learn the code and then to apply them
to situations like newspaper reports, case studies, or campus issues.“
P a g e | 149
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment

Students will analyze social policy and evaluate current trends affecting social
welfare policy and social programs through in-class small group discussions, debates,
and research papers. Students consistently report that they gained skills and
knowledge regarding analyzing policies that impact at-risk and marginalized
populations they will be serving.
o “Through lecturing and small group discussions, we discussed how policies
are formed, how stakeholders and lobbyists influence policies, how policies
go through the legislative process, how to go about advocating and changing
policies, as well as several other components to analyzing social policies.”
o “A final paper was required that asked us to analyze a current Missouri house
or senate bill including the sections of; an overview, history of the bill, laws
setting precedent to the bill, financing, values and beliefs held within a bill,
eligibility criteria, and proposals for advocacy. I feel the course curriculum
covered this requirement well. “
o “We discussed how policy affects current events; how policy created the
problem, how policy could solve the problem, and how the policy process
would go if it were to be implemented. “
o “As a result of this class, I learned how various policies that may appear not
to impact the people we serve actually do impact them.”
o “Every class period students were provided with current events. These
events helped me used my analysis skills being learned in this class.”

Students will evaluate the impact of social policies on client systems, workers, and
agencies as demonstrated through critical thinking via in-class discussions, small
group exercises and research papers, and practicum experience. Students
consistently report that they learned critical thinking skills, coalition building, and
policy practice strategies.
o “During the semester we discussed at length the impact of social policies on
client systems, social workers, and agencies. Every class meeting we had inclass discussions to evaluate how social policies affect a wide array of
individuals. “
o “The class was given the tools to analyze situations in the world and often.
This discussion almost always included the effects the bill might have on
people on both sides of the conflict. I feel this criterion was met to its full
extent. “
o “This class was excellent for evaluating the impact of social policy on client
systems and agencies. This was achieved mainly through in class discussions
and critical thinking application quizzes.”
o This class helped me understand the ways to evaluate and what to look for in
my evaluations, because the materials being discussed helped me be able to
know how to apply the information.
Data Analysis
P a g e | 150
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
These qualitative questions were piloted to demonstrate if program objectives are being
met, rather than the traditional Likert-scale questions. The above pre/post course content
outcomes, along with the qualitative data, indicate that students in general are highly
knowledgeable and will have the foundation to develop the necessary policy practice skills
to meet benchmarks. This course supports program objectives one, two, three, four, six,
seven, eight, nine, and 10.
SW 45000 - Field Practicum
Student Assessment of Course Objectives
Spring 2011
Fall 2010
Pre Avg.
3.58
3.50
Post Avg.
4.18
3.79
Change
+.60
+.29
Student Self-Assessment of Knowledge/Skills - Fall and Spring Combined
1 = No ability 2 = Some ability 3 = Average ability 4 = Good ability 5 = Exceptional ability
Question #
1. apply critical thinking skills within the context of social work practice
2. understand and act upon the value base within the context of social work
practice
3. practice and act upon the value base of the profession, its ethical
standards and principals and act accordingly
4. understand and act upon the forms and mechanisms of oppression and
discrimination and apply strategies of advocacy and social change that
advance social and economic justice with particular concern for populationsat-risk
5. understand and interpret the history of the social work profession and its
contemporary structural issues
6. apply the knowledge and skills of generalist social work practice with
systems of all sizes
7. use theoretical frameworks supported by empirical evidence to
understand the individual behavior and development across the life span
and the interactions among and between diverse individuals, families,
groups, organizations, and communities
8. analyze, formulate and influence social policies with particular concern for
populations-at-risk
9. evaluate research studies, apply research findings to practice, and
evaluate my own practice interventions at levels appropriate to
baccalaureate level generalist social work practice.
10. use communications skills differently across diverse client populations,
colleagues and communities
11. use supervision and consultation appropriate to generalist social work
practice at the baccaureate level
Pre
Avg.
Post
Avg.
Change
3.79
3.96
+.17
3.88
4.17
+.29
3.92
4.17
+.25
3.54
4.13
+.59
3.08
3.88
+.80
3.50
4.04
+.54
3.46
3.58
+.12
3.29
3.71
+.42
3.13
3.83
+.70
4.00
4.25
+.25
3.38
4.04
+.66
P a g e | 151
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
12. function within the structure of organizations and service delivery
systems and seek necessary organizational change.
Averages
3.54
4.08
+.54
3.54
3.99
+.44
Data Analysis
Students’ self-assessment of mastering practice behaviors falls just slightly below
benchmarks (plus .5) when measuring the amount of change, but students report good
ability (plus .44) post practica. However, pre-test scores are above average (3.54). What is
important to note is the post score. The significance of field education in the social work
curriculum is clearly stated in the accreditation standards. Practice primacy emphasizes
competencies in measurable behaviors. Pre- and post-content assessments have been
revised and will be piloted this upcoming academic year to validly and reliably capture
measurable outcomes that will reflect if program objectives are being met.
Final Field Education Evaluations
Final field education evaluations are conducted with field instructor, field education
coordinator (faculty member), and student present during the last week of the practicum
experience. The final field evaluation contains 62 scaled objectives in eight broad
competency-based categories (example: Basic Work Skills and Attitudes, or Social Work as
a Profession). The scale is a five-point Likert scale, ranging from one (poor) to five
(excellent) as a rating for the students’ attainment of each objective. There is also the
request for the field instructor to describe behaviors in each section that illustrate
behavioral competency in meeting the major program objectives.
Spring 2011 (six students)
Program Objective
Basic Work Skills and Attitudes
Average
Score
2010
4.62
Average
Score
2011
4.47
Change
-.15
# Of
Scaled
Items
9
Comments from field instructors:
 “Student was positive and engaging, she gained valuable insight into a troubled
population.”
 “Student is independent and actually handled a portion of field instructor’s caseload
while on leave.”
 “Student was independent and related very well to work team.”
 “Student is professional and acts in accordance with agency policy.”
 “Student has great initiative, is a quick study, and performs her responsibilities in a
timely fashion.”
 “Student managed 5 programs very well, doing a great job of moving from one to
another all within a day.”
P a g e | 152
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Field Objective
Social Work as a Profession
Average
Score
2010
4.40
Average
Score
2011
4.50
# Of
Scaled
Items
5
Change
+.10
Comments from field instructors:
 “Student integrated strengths-based perspective with clients.”
 “Student applied her learning in our context and worked consistently to learn about
our setting.”
 “Student is able to identify how one person’s behavior can change dependent upon
the environment.”
 “Student is good at assessing clients’ needs and finding appropriate resources.”
 “Student was able to establish and implement a behavior modification plan.”
 “Student did a wonderful job with the use of her social work skills and knowledge.”
Organizational Context of Social Work Practice
Average
Score
2011
4.54
Average
Score
2011
3.94
Change
-.60
# Of
Scaled
Items
6
Comments from field instructors:
 “Student understands the need for programming to provide direct accountability.”
 “Student was appropriately engaged with our organization as a member of our
team.”
 “Student has been engaged in learning agency policy and practices.”
 “Student was effective in removing obstacles for clients’ goals.”
 “Student set up and implemented the school parent portal.”
 “Student learned how to make referrals for outside services.”
Field Objective
Community Context of Social Work Practice
Average
Score
2010
4.38
Average
Score
2011
4.05
Change
-.33
# Of
Scaled
Items
6
Comments from field instructors:
 “Lots of good understanding of court processes in delinquency.”
 “Student’s ability to strategically engage to initiate positive change was obvious.”
 “Student expressed a lot of interest and eagerness to learn about the community we
serve.”
 “Student helped clients find housing through several avenues.”
P a g e | 153
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment


“Student was able to approach employers, advocate for clients and advise them on
interview skills.”
“Student successfully learned about our program for adolescents.”
Field Objective
Assessment, Planning, Intervention and Evaluation
Average
Score
2010
4.1
Average
Score
2011
4.33
Change
+.22
# Of
Scaled
Items
15
Comments from field instructors:
 “Student is skilled in assessing the strengths and concerns for our youth and how to
intervene.”
 “Student soaked up information through reading, discussion, and supervision to gain
understanding.”
 “Student uses agency assessment tools to identify client/family strengths and
appropriate services.”
 “Student has shown interest in learning backgrounds of clients to better understand
their behaviors.”
 “Student was able to provide crisis intervention with a suicidal client.”
 “Student learned how relationships affected the system and prepared training for
eating behaviors.”
Field Objective
Social Policy
Average
Score
2010
4.27
Average
Score
2011
4.05
Change
-.22
# Of
Scaled
Items
6
Comments from field instructors:
 “Student is able to identify specific policies, such as safe school act, which negatively
affects youths.”
 “Student was fully engaged about approaches to systems changes in our setting.
 “Student learned about fundraising and policies.”
 “Student was able to see the effects of poverty, lack of education, and guidance and
the impact.”
 “Student is adept in identifying how macro policies affect the work she does with
clients.”
 “Student learned how to access public assistance if employed.”
Field Objective
Diversity
Comments from field instructors:
Average
Score
2010
4.64
Average
Score
2011
4.53
Change
-.11
# Of
Scaled
Items
5
P a g e | 154
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment





“Student has shown great ability to modify his assessments based on the sensitivity
of our clients.”
“Student engaged quite well with all clients.”
“Student is able to articulate the diverse influences on human behavior.”
“Student was respectful of everyone, even our difficult clients.”
“Student’s professional attitude exemplified sensitivity.”
Field Objective
Communication Skills
Average
Score
2010
4.54
Average
Score
2011
4.50
Change
-.04
# Of
Scaled
Items
5
Comments from field instructors:
 “Student engages delinquent youth to think about their behavior and whether it is
calm, relaxed, and appropriate.”
 “Student integrated communication training into her interventions in the mediation
program and was quite successful in difficult conversations.”
 “Student’s acceptance of diversity allows her to effectively communicate with those
different from her.”
 “Student related well to clients of varying ages and ethnic groups.”
 “The families who worked with her came to respect her.”
Field Objective
Knowledge And Use Of Self
Average
Score
2010
4.48
Average
Score
2011
4.37
Change
-.11
# Of
Scaled
Items
5
Comments from field instructors:
 “Student uses supervision to get guidance and grow and to self-evaluate.”
 “Student has a teachable spirit and combines this with a thirst for learning that will
serve her goals.”
 “Student was open to supervision, and actively engaged in the process.”
 “Student is open to learning and eager to gain as much knowledge as she can.”
 “Student was able to take feedback to be more assertive and was open to
suggestions.”
 “Student used supervision to bounce ideas off of me.”
Data Analysis
Data from students and field supervisors surpass benchmarks and indicate that students are
succeeding in field and meeting all program objectives, especially 11 and 12.
SW 39900 - SERVICE LEARNING
P a g e | 155
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Through assessment data during the past few years, faculty, students, and field supervisors
noted that some students were not as prepared for field work as program benchmarks
required. As a result, SW 39900 Service Learning became a required course in fall 2009 for
all social work majors. Students spend 100 hours in the field under the supervision of a
human service professional. On-campus seminars assist students with integrating program
and field objectives. Since 2009 several course enhancements have occurred:
 Requirement of meeting bi-weekly for eight class sessions (previously none were
expected).
 Course content added on critical areas for skill development:
o Professional writing
o Professionalism (dress, comportment)
o Time management and organizational skills
o Ethics – how to handle ethical dilemmas
o Expectations of social work students in field settings
o Self-care
o Continuing self-development
o Resume development
 Skills applications (homework) added as graded assignments along with
attendance and participation, as additional methods of preparing students for
practicum experience.
 Evaluative measures implemented for both student and service learning
supervisor.
 Integration of University recognition of students completing 500 hours of field
service.
As a new requirement, the course has been closely monitored and qualitative assessment
data indicates that this experience is an overwhelming success. Students report going into
practica with 3.44 level of ability to serve in the field. With each semester, the course is
more defined and enhanced. The result is that students are increasingly better equipped
for field education practica. Some students use this 100-hour experience to gain valuable
correlated experience with their targeted career or population of choice. Others gain
exposure to populations and roles that they are aware they do not want to ultimately work
with, yet will help them in understanding their chosen population/arena. The faculty has
been able to use this experience to better gauge student needs in preparation for
practicum. Supervisor feedback enables faculty to review areas of concern as well as
strengths and areas for continued growth, allowing for the best possible curricular
enhancements for their final year of study (example: adding a writing lab or a public
speaking workshop or suggesting conference participation). Since the initiation of this
course as a requirement, no student field education placement has been compromised.
Our expectation is that the final field evaluations of students from field supervisors
completing the practicum will show a steady improvement forward, partially due to this
course requirement.
Exit Survey
P a g e | 156
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
The following data was collected from graduates in an interview with the department chair.
There were six interviewees, and the interviews were conducted on 04/29/2011.
They were asked to answer question on a five-point scale and to give additional comments
on their experiences in the program.
The scale used was as follows:
1= Disappointed, 2= Somewhat Disappointed, 3= No Opinion/No Experience, 4= Somewhat
Satisfied, 5= Satisfied
Question
What is your experience of social work faculty mentoring?
Score
5.0
Student comments:
 “Liked having everyone in the faculty as instructors.”
 “Very satisfied: advisor great, helpful, and supportive.”
 “I love that the faculty are approachable people you can talk to.”
 “Not just my advisor, but all faculty open and approachable.”
 “All of the faculty approachable and gave response in timely manner.”
Question
What is your experience of class offerings
Score
4.5
Student comments:
 “Education 1st – switched in sophomore year – I liked the courses, very interesting.”
 “Flowed well, overlap some, enough to help you remember.”
 “Small school can only offer one section at a time.”
 “Span in the middle when scheduling was off – delayed him by a semester.”
 “Want more electives, may not have had time.”
 “Child welfare, addictions (couldn’t take conflict) more electives would have been
great.”
Question
What is your experience of class schedules?
Score
4.83
Student comments:
 “Worked well for me.”
 “Never had an issue with scheduling.”
 “Haven’t had a problem.”
 “Worked out.”
 “Policy and Research in the same semester.”
Question
What is your experience of block courses (Practice I and II)?
Score
4.50
P a g e | 157
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Student comments:
 “Good, able to retain information better.”
 “Went well, liked classes, harder to do this way, but learned more.”
 “Did not have.”
 “Don’t have a point of reference but thought it was an effective teaching method.
Sometimes overwhelming.”
 “I really liked the way it was set up: we talked about it and then practiced. It worked
for my learning style. Liked not losing info between two classes.”
 “Practice I and II loved block, more time at once, learn, and practice.”
Question
What is your experience of block courses (Policy I and II)?
Score
3.33
Student comments:
 “Not enough processing time, so much work, reading overwhelming, too hard too
much info, needed more of a background.”
 “Needed to be tweaked, 1st class to do, unorganized, I learned but it didn’t flow
well.”
 “Felt jumped in the deep end in policy i didn’t like Policy i as much, too intense, too
much reading.”
 “Policy I and II hated as a block, paper okay, didn’t mind doing, *too much at once –
too overwhelming from a good student.”
Questions
Average
Score
4.43
Data Analysis
Data indicates students are very satisfied with the program, with most scores ranging in the
satisfaction category, which indirectly supports all program objectives. Comments and scores are
consistent with course and program evaluations.
Lessons Learned and Action Plan
Lessons Learned
A. SW 39900 has been integrated into
the curriculum. Assessment
measurements are now needed to
determine how and if this course is
meeting program objectives.
B. Offering Practice I and II during fall
semester and Social Welfare Policy I and
II during spring semester as block
courses has received both positive and
negative responses from students.
Action Plan
A. Benchmarks and
assessments that measure
program objectives will be
designed.
B. New texts were used this
year for Social Welfare Policy I
and II with course objectives
directly linked to core
competencies. Ongoing
Date and Responsibilities
A. Field coordinator, along with
faculty, advisory council, and
selected field supervisors will
complete draft assessments and
benchmarks by January 2012.
B. Faculty who teach Social
Welfare Policy I and II will meet
prior to Spring 2012 semester to
re-evaluate course objectives
and assignments, looking for
P a g e | 158
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Lessons Learned
Practice I and II receive high student
satisfaction and these two courses have
been offered as a block for a longer
period of time than Policy I and II. The
latter did receive much better
evaluation this year as the second time
offered as a block. With the block
format, faculty find that students retain
foundation material and supports
program objectives.
Faculty who teach HBSE II are requesting
that we examine if the appropriate level
(30000) is assigned to this course
C. It is significant that the vast majority
of post course data indicate that
benchmarks were met and/or
surpassed. The department has a solid
curriculum with students gaining the
knowledge, skills, and values needed for
effective social work practice.
D. Combining department chair and
director of B.S.W. Program roles may
not have been the most efficient and
effective way to organize the
department. The latter role is required
for accreditation standards. The faculty
met with the Dean to discuss
reorganization.
E. Combining field supervisors’ annual
training with professional workshops
presented by faculty has been favorably
received. Participants report that
trainings are very helpful for their roles
as field supervisors and workshops are
quite beneficial. For the two workshops
offered this past academic year
participants reported scores of 4.60 and
4.72 out of a possible 5.0.
Action Plan
coordination between the two
courses will continue to take
place to improve course
outcomes, thus supporting
program objectives 6 and 8.
Faculty are considering offering
SW 28000 (HBSE I) and SW
38100 (HBSE II) in a similar
format.
C. A comprehensive
methodology will continue to
be developed to demonstrate
how pre-post course content
tests, along with student selfassessments, and qualitative
data collection can be used to
measure whether program
benchmarks are being met.
D. The roles of department
chair and program director
were divided between two
faculty members. The former is
responsible for curriculum
development, overseeing of
program objectives, and
administrative duties assigned
by the dean. The program
director is responsible for
maintaining accreditation
standards and the gathering,
analysis, and reporting of all
assessment data.
E. The faculty will continue to
offer annual trainings and
professional workshops to field
supervisors and other social
workers in the area.
Date and Responsibilities
overlap and gaps in the policy
curriculum.
Faculty attended workshop at
CSWE on teaching policy.
Faculty will continue to attend
APM and BPDD during the
upcoming year.
Department chair will lead
discussion of the development
of the HBSE sequences.
C. The ongoing development of
a valid and reliable matrix that
will meet both University and
CSWE standards for program
assessment is targeted for the
upcoming academic year, which
will continue to demonstrate
how course assessment
questions and other
measurements are linked to a
specific program objective.
Program Director will obtain
input from faculty.
D. Chair and director will meet
this summer with the Dean to
assess how this structure is
working and how this structure
can support program objectives
E. Schedule for next academic
year will be determined by the
department chair and field
coordinator
P a g e | 159
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Lessons Learned
F. After examining course objectives and
recorded benchmarks, the data indicate
that the curriculum is meeting program
objectives. One area that needs ongoing
attention is meeting benchmarks for
research. Often undergraduate students
with limited experiences in the field do
not immediately understand the need to
know researcher methods and the
importance of employing empirical
methods when practicing their
professions.
G. There is a need to capture pre and
post program knowledge and skill levels.
The previous tool was not linked to
program objectives thus a new tool is
needed. The question arose, at what
point in the program should data be
collected and how do we create valid
and reliable instruments that will
measure whether benchmarks are being
met?
H. The University is encouraging
departments and schools to experiment
with diverse assessment methods in
order to validly measure program
outcomes. One method that is being
promoted by the University is student
portfolios currently being used in the
School of Education. Whether portfolios
would enhance social work students’
abilities to meet program benchmarks
and obtain employment is under
discussion.
I. Alumni and agency surveys were
beneficial three years ago in clarifying
program objectives and improving the
curriculum. It is our primary program
objective to prepare students with the
behaviors, knowledge and values
needed for successful and effective
careers.
J. The Social Work Program Advisory
Council, consisting of graduates of the
LU BSW program, local master level
social work practitioners, and field
directors are eager to play an advisory
Action Plan
F. New assessment
measurements will be created,
linking course and program
objectives. The faculty assigned
to research will attend CSWE
workshop(s) on teaching
research and access other
resources as needed.
Date and Responsibilities
F. New assessment
measurements will be in place
before the beginning of the fall
2011 semester spearheaded by
program director
G. A new assessment tool has
been created with each faculty
member contributing items for
measurement in the entire
core curriculum. Data will be
analyzed by cohorts rather
than individual student scores
as it will be difficult to track
student scores since our
students do not remain in the
same cohort as they
matriculate through the
curriculum.
H. Student portfolios will be
piloted among a few students
in the social work program. The
intent is to link this process
with program objectives.
G. Pre and post program
assessment tool will be
administered at the beginning of
Social Work Observation course
and again upon completing field
practicum.
I. Surveys will be developed by
the Program Director with
input from faculty linking
survey questions with program
objectives in mind. The exit
interview for students will be
similarly revised to more
clearly align with program
objectives.
J. Roles and responsibilities of
the board were identified and
placed in writing during the
past academic year.
I. Alumni and agencies will be
surveyed this summer (2011) by
faculty. The exit interview will
be redesigned by department
chair before the end of the fall
semester and be used for
graduates.
H. Students entering the social
work program this fall semester
will be given the opportunity to
create an electronic portfolio.
This will be on a volunteer basis.
J. The department chair will
present this assessment report
to the Advisory Council in 2011
for their input and feedback
regarding evaluating program
P a g e | 160
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Lessons Learned
role in the ongoing development of the
social work program. Their input has
assisted faculty with improving program
admissions policies and practices,
aligning field objectives with program
objectives, and curriculum development.
K. The admissions process continues to
be refined with the assistance of the
Advisory Council. The objectives for this
interview experience for our students
are to enhance program objectives 2, 5,
7, 8, 10. Students prepare an admission
packet consisting of professional goal
statement, reference letters, and
resume. Each applicant is interviewed by
faculty and advisory board members.
This experience prepares students for
their practicum and post-graduation
career interviews.
L. St. Charles County has the fastest
growing aging population in the
metropolitan area according to the 2010
census (ages 65-74, increased +58
percent). These facts will impact job
opportunities for our students and
require knowledge and skills for
effective practice.
M. Changes in course design,
assignments, lesson plans, activities, and
guest speakers are an ongoing process.
Most courses have new textbooks since
academic year 2009 – 2010, which are
written and designed to support EPAS
core competencies. As faculty become
more familiar with these competencies,
course outcome measurements will be
more aligned with program objectives.
N. Students are required to meet with
faculty advisors prior to registration.
However, once the faculty signs off on
students’ registration they can access
the system and change their
registration. This creates problems for
students taking courses in sequence and
meeting pre-requisites.
Action Plan
Date and Responsibilities
objectives and meeting program
benchmarks. Date to be
determined by chair.
K. Feedback from the interview
is provided in writing to the
students. For those students
where concerns surfaced they
receive a letter and a personal
feedback session, either with
their advisor and/or the
department chair. A success
plan is developed with the
student to address those
concerns. In the case of
someone not accepted to the
program there is a face to face
meeting with the chair to
evaluate the situation and
determine if they should
reapply or to help direct them
to a more suitable major.
L. Infusion of gerontology
content throughout the
curriculum will better prepare
our students for the regional
employment market. Faculty
will meet to discuss how this
can be emphasized in human
behavior, practice, research,
and policy courses.
M. Faculty will revisit
assignments and readings in
each course and practicum to
assess how program objectives
are being met. The NASW Code
of Ethics and ethical case
studies will continue to be
integrated, with the goal of
achieving program benchmarks
2, 3, 4, 8, 10.
N. Being aware of this has
reinforced the need for clear
communication with students
that any changes in registration
need to be approved by their
faculty advisor.
K. Department chair will review
application process with
Advisory Council at a date to be
determined by the chair.
Secondly, faculty advising will
L. Future offering of an
interdisciplinary elective in
gerontology will be discussed at
a date to be determined by the
department chair.
M. Per Department Chair
directives, faculty will revisit
each syllabus and text book to
evaluate for measureable
outcomes aligned with program
objectives and core
competencies. The curriculum
will be identified and assesses as
Implicit and Explicit categories
per EPAS.
N. Per department chair
guidelines, faculty will review
class rosters prior to the
beginning of the semester to
ensure that students have met
pre-requisites and are taking
courses in sequence; a rubric for
advising procedures will be
P a g e | 161
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Lessons Learned
Action Plan
require a rubric for linking
advising to program objectives.
Date and Responsibilities
developed by program director
with faculty input and approved
by the chair by October 1, 2011.
Current and Emerging Issues:
SW45000 Field Practicum
Since field education is the signature pedagogy for program assessment, the 10 core competencies
are operationalized into foundational behaviors demonstrated in the field during both the service
learning and the practicum.
The following practices are being put into place for academic year 2011-12.
Revised Rubric
During the summer of 2011 we will update the final field evaluation form to become more user
friendly by moving the scored items into a rubric format more clearly aligned with the CSWE core
competencies. This will hopefully aid the field instructors and students to more easily evaluate the
students’ strengths and weaknesses related to areas of competency.
Educational Learning Agreement Guideline
The ELA is a formal document with two basic elements: Part I has a description of agency and
expectations of student and field instructor in terms of hours and supervision. Part II is to include
for each learning goal, (1) specific tasks and activities designed to demonstrate learning, and (2)
behavioral monitoring/evaluation criteria designed to demonstrate how the field instructor will
know the student has mastered this learning.
Specific tasks and activities
An identification of these activities evolves in consultation with the field instructor. The activities
should provide an opportunity for the student to assume the role of a social worker under the field
instructor’s guidance and supervision. A minimum of two activities are required for each learning
goal.
Example of activities


Related to attaining knowledge:
o Reading and/or formal research
o Systematic observation and/or consultation
o Discussions with producers or consumers of service
o Attending meetings
o Interviews
Related to attaining skills:
o Observing or co-conducting interventions
o Practice in simulated situations
P a g e | 162
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment

o Engaging in planned interactions with clients
Related to clarifying/attaining values:
o Observing how other professionals resolve value conflicts
o Writing about one’s values
o Discussions with others regarding values/ethical issues or controversies
Behavioral monitoring/evaluation criteria
Criteria are the expectations that will be used by the field instructor to determine if the activities
have been adequately performed and/or performed with excellence. Criteria should relate to both
the quality of the performance and to the student’s ability to integrate the learning of the activity
specified with its learning objective. Sometimes a product may be specified (e.g., a paper, a
presentation, a report). Evaluation methods are the means for measuring performance factors.
They should be observable and include such things as student/instructor conferences, direct
observation of the student’s work, audiovisual tapes, case files, presentations, and other written
material submitted by the student. Evaluation criteria and methods must be explicit and as detailed
as possible in the ELA. Criteria should be stated in such a way that an outside observer could assess
the student’s level of performance.
Examples of behavioral monitoring/evaluation criteria are as follows:
 Field instructor will review case files for thoroughness and accuracy.
 Field instructor will observe student at staff meetings, to assess professional
conduct and presentation.
 Field instructor will assess student’s value clarification in weekly supervision
meetings.
 Field instructor will observe student in client interactions.
The field instructor will randomly monitor students’ computer data entries for accuracy and
timeliness.
Surveys
Alumni and agency survey questions are directly linked with the 12 program objectives. Since the
last surveys were conducted in 2008 and surveys are conducted every three years, the summer of
2011 surveys will be conducted. Revised survey questions will be directly linked to each program
objective based upon the CSWE accreditation standards.
School of Human Services Analysis
Christian Ministry Studies
P a g e | 163
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
A change in the leadership of the CMS program has led to a complete restructuring
of the program’s assessment efforts, but there are areas for further consideration.
Assessment in the core courses on a regular basis would be valuable. Program
objectives need to be created that are more specific and measurable. The program
needs to ask if there is a level of improvement the department looks for in classes or
a level of overall achievement. Is there a level of knowledge that the program wishes
to reach in each of its classes, such as 70 percent of students scoring 60 percent or
more on the post-test? The program also needs to ask how assessment impacts the
courses. Is the department seeing any strengths or weaknesses? And how will the
weaknesses be address once they have been identified? When doing a graduation
survey, asking if a course was “memorable” may not get the department the
information it is looking for.
Criminal Justice
The CJ program is makings strides toward creating a comprehensive system for
looking at the program. The use of comprehensive pre- and post-tests, given in the
first required course and given again in the capstone, will provide some useful
information as cohorts are compared at the beginning and the end of the program.
But this likely only measures knowledge and other skills required for CJ students.
There are some areas for improvement. Assessment needs to be tied to the
program’s desired outcomes. There is little discussion of specifics in assessment.
How has assessment led the program to change its classes? Or has it? The faculty
should look at more qualitative issues such as improvements in writing; this is of
particular concern for CJ majors. What does the department expect as levels of
achievement in classes and in the program? How will the faculty measure the
success of the program? Make sure that assessment tools reflect the program and
class goals, so it is professor-proof; assessment tools should work for any professor
who teaches the class.
Nonprofit Administration
The faculty has made adjustments to classes and the program but the comments
tend to be very general and give limited insight into the process or the results. What
specifically were the results for assessment? What did the faculty members learn
about their classes from this year’s assessment? What are the program’s strengths
and weaknesses? How will assessment lead to changes in the classes or the
program? The student outcomes can be better defined to make measurement
clearer.
Social Work
P a g e | 164
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
The department has a comprehensive student assessment program, which it has had
in place for a number of years and is providing good data on students. What was
learned about the program from the number of students being employed or going to
grad school? On the students’ self-assessments, are there any particular areas in
each class in which students feel stronger or weaker? What are the program’s
strengths and weaknesses based on assessment, and what is the program going to
do about the results?
P a g e | 165
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
School of Humanities
The School of Humanities is made up of seven departments: English, English Preparedness,
Foreign Languages, History, Philosophy, Political Science, and Religion. The school prepares
students for graduate education and for employment in these fields. Three departments in
particular - English, Foreign Languages, and History - prepare a large number of students for
work in secondary education. The School of Humanities offers the largest number of GE
classes and also supports the largest number of student enrollments in the traditional day
programs.
Degrees offered by the School of Humanities:
Bachelor of Arts in
 English
 French
 General Studies
 History
 International Studies
 Philosophy
 Political Science
 Public Administration
 Religion
 Spanish
Teacher Certification in
 English 9-12
 Social Sciences 9-12
 French K-12
 Spanish K-12
Minors
 Creative Writing
 English Literature
 French
 Spanish
 History
 Social Studies
 Philosophy
 Political Science
 Public Management
 Religion



Philosophy of Religion
Social and Political Philosophy
History of Ideas
P a g e | 166
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
English
Program Objectives
Graduates of the degree program in English (with emphases in literature or creative writing)
should demonstrate





a clear, mature prose style that contains sentence variety, appropriate diction, and
concrete detail,
critical acumen through sophisticated research, insightful interpretation of materials
and creative approaches to problem solving,
mastery of grammar, usage, punctuation, spelling, and mechanics,
competence in a variety of written forms (depending on the emphasis), including the
critical essay, short fiction, poetry, drama, technical reports, magazine writing, and so
forth,
factual knowledge of literary history and tradition, including major authors and works,
literary movements and periods, schools of literary criticism, and the chronology of this
history.
Method of Assessment Used
Senior Assessment
In English courses numbered 200 and above, two copies of assigned papers are collected from English
majors: one is graded and returned to the student; the other is placed in the student’s portfolio.
We have instituted a scoring rubric whereby individual portfolios can be assessed directly using
elements from our program objectives to make the results quantifiable and to reflect clearly those
objectives. Faculty members (privately and anonymously) read the portfolios and rate them on a scale
of 1 to 5 (1=unacceptable, 2=below average, 3=average, 4=good, and 5=excellent) in the following six
areas: variety of style, critical acumen, sophistication of research, command of language, growth as a
writer, and capacity for graduate study.
P a g e | 167
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Results
The following results are drawn from the 10 literature majors who graduated in May of 2011:
Area
Variety of Style
Critical Acumen
Sophistication of Research
Command of Language
Growth as a Writer
Capacity for Graduate Work
Average Score
Average Score by Area
3.7
3.5
3.4
3.5
3.4
3.5
3.5
Lesson Learned
Evaluations of this year’s portfolios evidenced some dramatic divergence in scoring.
Among this year’s graduates, four of 10 showed the ability to do graduate-level work. Overall, students
exhibit a lack of commitment to learning as shown in the analysis below.
The following statement from 2009-10 still applies to this year’s graduates: “Again, these results
correspond with individual faculty comments throughout the year regarding the lower quality of our
majors. Among the weaknesses was a lack of critical and creative comment. Thesis statements were
seldom strongly asserted. There was frequently a dependence on secondary sources and inadequate
analysis of the primary text.” Readers noted “the continued presence of idiosyncratic weaknesses on
the part of individual students (unfocused paragraphs, incorrect pronoun reference).”
Additional observations include a lack of synthesis and development of both primary and secondary
source materials, a tendency toward formulaic expression in phrasing and vocabulary (“In this paper, I . .
.”; “relatable”; “in order to . . . , one must . . .”; “in conclusion, I . . .”), a lack of sophistication in research,
and inattention to grammar (e.g., pronoun agreement and case, and misuse of prepositions), and the
mechanics of MLA documentation.
Action Plan
English faculty should continue to encourage English major advisees to enroll in English 30200,
Advanced Writing and Research, as soon as possible after completing English Comp. II. This step might
help students improve their mechanics, formatting, and writing ability. Additionally, the plan in progress
to include more literary analysis in the freshman composition sequence should address some
weaknesses.
As soon as this report is complete, we will forward it to the English faculty with the request that it be on
the agenda for the next department faculty meeting. In the meeting, we plan to discuss the meaning of
P a g e | 168
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
terms on the assessment rubric, for example, “growth as a writer” and “command of language.” We will
also discuss whether we should be more strident in our responses to and evaluations of student essays
in every class. We will address the problem of essay collection by consulting with IT about establishing
an electronic folder for each English major, into which faculty will deposit student essays from
Turnitin.com each semester. And we will continue to solicit input from M.A. faculty for additional
perspective in the assessment process.
The department will also consult with faculty from other departments of humanities concerning their
assessment methods and results for comparison.
The department also recommends that faculty redouble our efforts to recruit strong English majors by
encouraging prospective students from composition and survey classes to join the department as well as
improving outside recruitment.
English Preparedness Program
Our recommendations for the placement of non-native speakers depend on their placement
test scores, their writing sample, and their previous experience in institutions of higher
education in the United States. Students may move up to other levels depending on exit exam
scores, portfolio review, and professor recommendations. All EPP Writing courses require a C
or better to move to the next level.
Courses Assessed
EPP 10000 Basic English Grammar, EPP 10100 Advanced English Grammar for Non-Native
Speakers, EPP 10500 Reading and Writing for Non-Native Speakers, EPP 10600 Reading and
Writing for Non-Native Speakers II, EPP 11000 Academic Writing for Non-Native Speakers EPP
12000 Spoken Communication and Pronunciation for Non-Native Speakers EPP 15000 English
Composition I for Non-Native Speakers
Important Changes to the English Preparedness Program
In fall 2010, all courses in the English Preparedness Program became 10000 level, credit-bearing
courses. At its inception, the EPP offered non-credit bearing classes in Level I (the level
designed to meet the needs of the most basic English speakers and writers). This important
change was made for three major reasons:

To correct discrepancies in transfer credits
o EPP courses now mirror ESL courses offered by similar colleges and universities
in credit-bearing capacity. Before, discrepancies arose from students who
P a g e | 169
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
transferred in equivalent ESL courses that counted as credit-bearing classes,
while many of our courses did not.

To encourage academic seriousness
o Making all courses 10000 level, credit-bearing classes may also have a
psychological effect. Students tend to take courses more seriously, and view
them as academically necessary, if they count towards their degree.

To improve student attitude
o We want students to see the English Preparedness Program as an opportunity to
improve their English skills, not as a punishment for performing poorly on
placement tests. Anecdotal evidence suggests offering all courses at the 10000
level has greatly improved students’ attitudes and enthusiasm.
Method of Assessment
Similar to the two previous years, all first-year incoming international non-native English
speakers were tested with the English Placement Test (an objective 100-question test) and
asked to give a writing sample via the computer program criterion. From these two results,
each student was placed in the appropriate level of EPP. At the end of the semester, each
student who tested into Level I: Beginning took another version (the same format and difficulty
level) of the English Placement Test and were asked to write another short essay in response to
a similar writing prompt, again using the criterion computer program.
Results
Level I: Beginning Students
This program was designed and developed to meet the academic needs of those non-native
speakers who struggle the most with their English language abilities. The four courses designed
for Level I, EPP 10500 - Reading and Writing for Non-Native Speakers, EPP 10600 - Reading and
Writing for Non-Native Speakers II, EPP 10000 - Basic Grammar for Non-Native Speakers, and
EPP 12000 - Spoken Communication for Non-Native Speakers will be evaluated as a whole.
EPP 10500 - Reading and Writing for Non-Native Speakers
Course Goals
To develop a mature writing style, aiming at clarity, cohesion, and correctness; to learn how to
P a g e | 170
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
apply the rules of grammar and punctuation; to increase reading comprehension and learn
various reading strategies.
Course Objectives
This course will focus on






developing and applying knowledge of standard English grammar and
mechanics,
practicing and using brainstorming techniques to generate paper topics,
fostering the importance of revision and peer-critiques,
becoming an independent writer who can write with confidence every time you
are impelled or challenged to write,
developing and employing reading strategies,
increasing reading comprehension and vocabulary.
EPP 106: Reading and Writing for Non-Native Speakers II
Course Goals
To develop a mature writing style, aiming at clarity, cohesion, and correctness; to read and
respond critically to a variety of topics; to develop reading and writing strategies effective for
future study.
Course Objectives
This course will focus on




continuing to develop a knowledge of standard English grammar and mechanics,
fostering the importance of revision and peer-critiques,
becoming an independent writer who can write with confidence,
utilizing strategies to increase the speed and comprehension of reading.
EPP 10000 - English Grammar
Course Goal
English 10000 will improve students’ understanding of English grammar and mechanics to make
coherent and cohesive academic work.
P a g e | 171
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Course Objectives



Establish the use of English within the content-based instruction.
Identify and correct specific grammar errors.
Apply English grammar to writing and subsequent courses.
EPP 12000 - Spoken Communication for Non-Native Speakers
Class Objective:
The purpose of this class is to improve listening and speaking skills of non-native speakers.
Speaking skills include pronunciation, inflection, stress, and projection. This class will also
address cultural differences and expectations of a Western audience based on certain
standards of body language such as eye contact and comprehensible physical gestures. This
class will incorporate individual work, small group work, and class work to improve skills which
are vital socially and academically in American society.
Results
In 2008-09, the average score for incoming non-native speakers who tested into Level I:
Beginning was 62 percent. Last year (2009-10), that average fell to 55 percent. This academic
year (2010-11), the average fell once more to 53.6 percent. Once again, the numbers suggest
that the group of students this past year was, on average, lower in language abilities than the
previous groups. However, by the end of the year, most students made impressive gains, and
the post-test scores show an 11.8 percent improvement, higher than the years before.
The results below show the promise and success of the English Preparedness Program.
As stated earlier, all incoming non-native speakers were tested using two methods: the EPT
(100-point objective test) and a writing sample using criterion. The results of the pre- and postEPT tests are given below.
The English Placement Test:
The English Placement Test contains four different sections:
 Listening (20 questions)
 Grammar (30 questions)
 Vocabulary (30 questions)
 Reading Comprehension (20 questions)
P a g e | 172
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
English Placement Test Averages
Pre-Test %
Post-Test %
Change %
53.627
65.294
11.862
All Students
English Placement Test Averages by Section
Post-Test
Correct
13.529
Pre-Test %
Post-Test %
Change %
Listening
Pre-Test
Correct
12.039
60.19
67.65
7.46
Grammar
15.137
19.078
50.45
63.59
13.14
Vocabulary
17.843
20.941
59.47
69.80
10.33
Reading Comp.
9.38
12.66
46.90
63.30
16.40
First Semester Students
Pre-Test %
Post-Test %
Change %
53.09
65.91
12.82
EPP 10600 Second Semester Students (those who have completed two semesters of EPP)
Pre-Test %
Post-Test %
Change %
57.00
61.428
4.43
Comparative English Placement scores, 2008-2011
Pre-Test %
Post-Test %
Change
2008-09
61.68
71.68
10.00
2009-10
54.97
66.32
11.35
2010-11
53.627
65.294
11.862
Program Improvement
Change %
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Change %
10.00 %
11.35%
11.862
1.862
Criterion Writing Sample
Using criterion has allowed for more transparency and accuracy when placing students in the
appropriate level of EPP. In addition, criterion can be used to examine different aspects of
student writing, from the number of specific errors to word count and cohesion.
Criterion Essay Results - Word Count
The results below are both quantitative and qualitative. Most students were able to produce
P a g e | 173
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
more writing in the same time limit, proving that they had grown more comfortable and prolific
as writers in English.
Average
Pre-Test
Post-Test
Change
324.48
443.09
118.70
Criterion Essay Results - Scores
The students’ writing developed more description and detail, their sentence structures became
more varied and comprehensible, their grammar mistakes decreased, and their organization
became clearer and more direct over the period studied. Student improvement was
widespread with 12.5 percent (seven out of 56) of students increased their scores by 33
percent; 29 percent of students increased their scores by 50 percent; 25 percent of students
increased their scores by 100 percent; and approximately nine percent (five students) increased
their scores by 200 percent. Even the writing of the students who, according to the computer
program, did not increase their scores numerically improved in terms of comprehensibility and
word count.
Average
Pre-Test
Post-Test
% Increase
2.09
3.11
1.02
Lessons Learned Beginning Level I
As the numbers show, this was a challenging year for the program. Of the 51 students who
tested into Level I, 65 percent scored 60 or lower on the English placement test, and 36 percent
scored 50 or below (a good indicator of student need). The students admitted required a good
deal of assistance, intervention, skill development, and academic adaptation.
Most students showed marked improvement in all areas.
The grammar score continues to climb with students improving their scores by 13 percent on
average. EPP 10000: English Grammar became one of the required courses for all students who
tested into Level I in fall 2009. The grammar course has been refined to include more practical
assignments in writing and reading in order to recognize and use correct grammar in academic
settings.
Both the vocabulary and reading comprehension scores rose by 10 percent and 16 percent
respectively. The two reading and writing courses now include reading a novel as an
assignment, giving students a more sustained reading experience. Longer novels force students
to practice many of the reading strategies introduced in the course, especially those dealing
P a g e | 174
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
with unfamiliar vocabulary and comprehending main ideas.
Some of the most profound improvements can be seen in those whose initial scores were well
below the 65-70 percent cut-off score. Some of these students saw a 10-38 percent change in
their scores. Many students who had scored in the intermediate to high-intermediate initially
also showed improvement, albeit less dramatic.
The scores reinforce and reaffirm the need for many students, who tested into EPP 10500, to
take EPP 10600 as well, before they move onto to EPP 11000 and additional GE mainstream
courses.
The department is even more gratified with the improvement in student writing as seen by the
criterion test scores. Most students showed remarkable improvement, both in the quantity
and quality of their writing with 30 percent scoring four out of six, the score needed to test into
ENG 15000 or EPP 15000.
Level II: Intermediate
EPP 11000: Academic Writing for Non-Native Speakers
Course Goals
The primary goal of Academic Writing for Non-Native Speakers is to prepare students in the
fundamentals of written English. The philosophy behind EPP 11000 is to refresh and instill
competencies to assure success in the next level of education and life.
Course Objectives
This course will help students to





generate writing using specific methods for inventing and elaborating ideas, for
arranging these ideas to achieve a specific rhetorical purpose, for producing clear
style, for revising, and for editing,
develop prose that is well-organized and appropriate to a given situation,
improve the style of sentences and paragraphs in order to meet the needs and
purposes of audience,
demonstrate understanding of the ways that language and communication
shape experience, construct meaning, and foster community,
increase self-awareness and confidence about writing.
P a g e | 175
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
This course prepares the majority of students well enough to pass ENG 15000 with a C or
better, but the number could be higher. The department is currently developing a more
specific assessment tool to better evaluate the needs of non-native speaking students, and how
well EPP 11000 - Academic Writing and the newly added EPP 10100 - Advanced Grammar
course address those needs. This assessment tool will be piloted in fall 2011.
Office of Institutional Research Report
A report researched and written by the Office of Institutional Research in 2010 showed that
students who tested into Level II: Intermediate did not have the same level of success as those
who tested in and passed Level I.
The research discovered that students who successfully pass Level I and Level II of the program
pass ENG 15000 at the same rates as students who test into ENG 15000. Of the students who
successfully passed through Level I and then Level II of the program, 84 percent passed ENG
15000 with a C or better, a number that is comparable (85 percent) to those who tested into
ENG 15000. This discovery was profoundly gratifying, reaffirming that even those who enter
with very low scores and English language abilities, with enough determination and help, can
succeed at higher level English courses.
The report also reveals a possible area of improvement. Those students who tested directly into
Level II do not succeed in ENG 15000 at the same rate as those who pass through both Levels I
and II. According to the report, 73.3 percent of students who took EPP 11000 passed ENG
15000 with a C or better, 11 percent fewer than those who took both levels. The department
has long believed that students at the Intermediate Level II could benefit from additional hours
of English assistance (especially in the areas of writing and grammar).
In fall 2011, EPP 10100: Advanced English Grammar for Non-Native Speakers will be added to
the required course load for students testing into the Intermediate Level of EPP. We hope that
this course, which will stress practical grammar awareness and usage in academic reading and
writing assignments, will further develop student skills and writing abilities.
Level III: Advanced
Level III currently offers only one course: EPP 15000: English Composition for Non-Native
Speakers. We do not have assessment material for this course. We would like to use the same
or similar assessment tool as ENG 15000, and will do so once that assessment tool has been
finalized.
Foreign Languages
P a g e | 176
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Mission
One of the distinguishing features of a liberal arts education is the study of a culture through its
language. Such a study offers insights into unfamiliar worlds that cannot be realized in any
other way. Current economic and political changes in the world have made the teaching and
learning of foreign languages even more necessary than before. According to the philosophy
statement of the Standards for Foreign Language Learning: Preparing for the 21st Century,
“language and communication are at the heart of the human experience,” and we “must
educate students who are linguistically and culturally equipped to communicate successfully in
a pluralistic American society and abroad.”
The department’s broader mission is to provide our students with the intercultural competence
necessary for this global society. In so doing, we can instill in our students informed and critical
perspectives regarding other cultures as well as our own.
Program Goals and Objectives
In keeping with the general principles outlined in our mission statement, our primary goal is to
prepare our students for citizenship in a multi-cultural, multi-lingual global community, with a
curriculum designed to meet the varying needs for linguistic competence in today’s world.
“Current trends in foreign language pedagogy emphasize the need to develop not only the
students’ oral proficiency, but their cultural literacy, as well” (C. Kramsch, “Foreign Languages
for a Global Age,” ADFL Bulletin 25:1 [Fall 1993]: 11). To this end, the Foreign Language
Department offers a comprehensive program of studies in French and Spanish, as well as a twoyear foundation course in German and two semesters of elementary Mandarin Chinese.
The aims of our program are




in the first two years of study, the acquisition of functional language skills and the
development of students’ understanding of the foreign culture and civilization through
training in listening comprehension, speaking, reading, and writing in the target
language,
beyond the intermediate level, the refinement of language skills to achieve an advanced
language proficiency and cultural awareness through significant exposure to the
literature and culture of the country or countries studied,
the opportunity to experience literary masterpieces in their original languages,
enhanced knowledge of the traditions, achievements, and lifestyles of the international
community and an appreciation of the differences and similarities among peoples,
P a g e | 177
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment




encouragement of travel and study in foreign countries,
enhancement of students’ professional qualifications by fostering double majors, such
as language/education or language/business,
a foundation for graduate study in foreign languages and literatures,
preparation of those who wish to become foreign-language teachers to meet the
professional standards represented by the PRAXIS examinations.
With regard to the University’s mission statement, there are four major points that the Foreign
Language Department does particularly well:




LU offers programs leading to the development of the whole person–an educated,
responsible citizen of a global community.
o Most well-educated people directly involved in the global community are able to
communicate in more than just one language and to participate knowledgeably
and responsibly in the community’s affairs. With our language, literature, and
culture courses, we offer our students the opportunity to become such a person.
Lindenwood is committed to providing an integrative liberal arts curriculum.
o Most well-rounded liberal arts programs require students to complete one to
two years of a single foreign language for graduation. Our department offers
that possibility to all students.
Lindenwood is committed to developing adaptive thinking.
o Learning to speak a foreign language and to understand its culture is generally
recognized as one of the most effective ways of freeing the individual from
habitual, unreflected modes of thinking and speaking, opening him/her up to an
appreciation of new ideas and situations and lending him/her flexibility in
dealing with others.
Lindenwood is committed to furthering lifelong learning.
o The abilities mentioned in the preceding point are, of course, essential to lifelong
learning.
French
FLF 31100 - French Conversation and Composition I
Methods of Assessment


Pre-test given at the beginning of each semester containing items imbedded in the unit
exams
Analysis of scores on unit exams
P a g e | 178
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment


Student perception survey
End-of-semester evaluations of the course
Results
Assessment was based on seven students who took both the pre- and post-tests.
 On the pre-test, no students scored 50 percent or higher,
 On the two post-tests the scores were as follows:
o Unit one - the average score was 82 percent, with two students earning an A,
two earning a B, two earning a C, and one earning a D.
o Unit two - the average score was 93 percent, with five students earning an A and
two students earning a high B.
This was a particularly strong group! One reason students did so exceedingly well on the second
exam might be that the test was given on Wednesday of the last week of school, with the final
exam period designated for oral presentations. Possibly students had more time to devote to
studying the material at this earlier date, rather than during exam week.
Based on students’ own perception survey of their knowledge of this material, given at the
beginning and at the end of the semester, the students feel that their overall understanding of
French grammar and culture, oral proficiency, reading, listening, and writing skills have
improved.
Student evaluations of the course are not yet available, but will later serve to gauge students’
overall satisfaction with the course.
FLF 31200 - French Conversation and Composition II
Methods of Assessment




Pre-test given at the beginning of each semester containing items imbedded in the unit
exams
Analysis of scores on unit exams
Student perception survey
End-of-semester evaluations of the course
Results
Assessment was based on eight students who took both the pre- and post-tests.
 On the pre-test, only three students scored 60 percent or higher
P a g e | 179
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment

On the two post-tests
o Unit one - six of the eight students scored above 70 percent, an average of 73
percent
o Unit two - seven of the eight students scored above 70 percent an average of 84
percent
Based on students’ own perception survey of their knowledge of this material, given at the
beginning and at the end of the semester, the students feel that their overall understanding of
French grammar and culture, oral proficiency, reading, listening, and writing skills have
improved.
Lesson Learned - FLF 31100-31200 Sequence
The department continues to be pleased with the reintroduction of FLF 31200 to the French
curriculum. Students greatly benefit from the additional course and the slower pace resulting
from covering the material in Bonne continuation over two semesters, rather than one.
Reading comprehension is monitored through chapter and cultural readings, chapter exams,
and homework assignments. Other reading work is still being considered: having each student
follow a daily newspaper of a different Francophone country to be reported upon in a journal
and orally to the class at regular intervals.
Writing skills are tested with each test and through compositions and presentations. Also,
dictées were introduced for the first time to this course. How to better use and evaluate dictées
will be further developed by the department chair this summer.
Listening comprehension is measured at regular intervals with each chapter test and is
monitored in a less structured way through class participation. Students are also required to do
listening exercises at regular intervals using the text’s CD-ROM. The students in this course
continue to express that they prefer these listening exercises to those used in the 20000-level
course. The instructor and students found them more interesting and useful than those usually
accompanying the texts.
Oral proficiency is monitored through class participation and through the evaluation of oral
presentations made during the semester. Students are evaluated on fluency, use of appropriate
grammatical structures, proper vocabulary, and pronunciation. Suggestions are given to
students who have trouble progressing orally. Oral proficiency is also measured through the
Conversation Partner Program. The program worked very well this semester, due to the
reliability and attitude of the native French speakers employed. Students’ feedback about this
element of the course is extremely positive. All felt they made great progress in being able to
express themselves with ease in French in this natural setting.
P a g e | 180
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
This year, the second oral presentation topic had to do with collective heritage. Students were
asked to present their family’s cultural heritage. Allowing students to talk about themselves,
their families, and the region or country from which they come proved to be very rewarding.
Students spoke much more naturally than when presenting an artist or country or other topic
researched. This assignment will definitely be used again in the future.
Students’ overall satisfaction with the course was mixed, based on the end-of-semester
evaluations. The main complaint this year was again that the instructor did not base the
semester grade on the criteria set out in the syllabus. The instructor was asked to rectify this
situation based on the same issue having been noted the previous year, but did not. A new
instructor will be teaching the course in future.
Beginning in spring 2012, each Monday students will be expected to report on their activities of
the weekend. This will begin each class and serve to break the ice and get students talking
about themselves and their lives.
Also, beginning in spring 2012, students will be required to watch French television
programming online and possibly to subscribe to a French podcast. During the summer
months, the professor will develop a way to incorporate these into the FLF 31100-31200
curriculum.
FLF 33700: History of French Civilization
Methods of Assessment



Perception survey given at the beginning and end of the semester
Course grades
End-of-semester evaluations of the course
Results
Results are based on 11 students taking a perception survey at the start and finish of the
semester. While the level of interest in the general history of French civilization was high to
start, the level increased from 4.6 to 4.8 on a scale of five. Levels of familiarity increased
strikingly in all areas as seen below.
Category
interest in history of French civilization
familiarity with the French Middle Ages
familiarity with the French Renaissance
Pre-test score
3.9
2.1
1.9
Post-test score
4.3
3.9
3.7
P a g e | 181
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Category
familiarity with the French Enlightenment
familiarity with the French Revolution
familiarity with the Napoleonic period
familiarity with France’s role in WWI
familiarity with France’s role in WWII
familiarity with the politics of the 5th Republic
familiarity with the French educational system
familiarity with contemporary French society
familiarity with the mindset of the average French citizen
Pre-test score
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.4
2.4
1.2
2.1
2.1
2.5
Post-test score
4.2
4.2
3.9
3.1
3.3
3.9
4.1
4.0
4.4
0=no familiarity and 5=very familiar
The department considers the results very satisfactory.
Pre-test scores are higher than in past years due to the presence of three French students in
the class. They had more knowledge, especially of contemporary French culture, than the
others. There were also several students in the class who had spent the semester abroad in
Caen. These students also had more familiarity with French culture than those who had not
studied abroad yet.
The students’ grades were based on participation (10 percent), writing assignments (25
percent), quizzes (10 percent), an oral report (five percent), and three exams (totaling 50
percent). Six students earned an A, three earned a B, one a C, and one an F. Overall, it was a
strong group.
This year, for the second time, French students came to explain the French educational system
to the class. The first time we did this, the French students were invited in from the outside. In
2010, they were enrolled in the class. Both times it was a very successful experience and will be
continued.
Based on end-of-semester evaluations, students’ overall satisfaction with the course was very
high. This is an improvement over the experiment of the previous year, with a new instructor
and new textbook, both oriented toward the high-school level.
FLF 35000 - Masterpieces of French Literature up to 1800
Methods of Assessment



Perception survey given at the beginning and end of the semester
Analysis of scores on midterm and final exams
End-of-semester evaluations of the course
P a g e | 182
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Results
Results are based on 14 students taking a perception survey at the start and finish of the
semester. At the beginning of the semester students were asked to indicate their familiarity
with various movements in French literature from the middle ages to the end of the 18th
century. When asked to list authors/works from the various periods, one student named two
medieval texts, and two listed an 18th-century text, but nothing else in any other category,
which was surprising, as there were two native speakers in the class. By the end of the
semester, all students were familiar with many works and authors from each period.
Period
Medieval French literature and literary history
Renaissance French literature and literary history
17th-century French literature and literary history
18th-century French literature and literary history
Perceived interest in French literature and literary history
Pre-test score
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.1
3.8
post-test score
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.3
4.3
1=no knowledge and 5=very familiar
The class spent more time on medieval and 17th-century literature than on the other periods
and the least time on the 18th century. End-of-semester perceptions might be based more on
how recently the period in question was studied than on time spent studying it.
Midterm and final essay exams demonstrated a varying mastery of material, though most did
better than average. There were two native speakers in the class, and among the non-native
speakers, one was very weak. Midterm exam grades broke down as follows:




two scoring above 90 percent
eight scoring above 80 percent
three scoring above 70 percent
one scoring above 60 percent
On the final exam, results were even better:
 six scored above 90 percent
 six scored above 80 percent
 one scored above 70 percent
 one very weak student failed
Reading comprehension and writing skills are assessed through the reading journals and exams.
Oral proficiency and listening comprehension are assessed through class participation and
through the presentation of oral explications de texte. All but one student scored above 80
P a g e | 183
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
percent on this assignment, which is quite demanding (and the one who got a D was a native
speaker). Learning to do an explication de texte is considered to be an important tool for
literary analysis, and this course will continue to dedicate a couple weeks to this component.
Students’ overall satisfaction with the course was very high, based on the end-of-semester
evaluations.
FLF 35100 - Masterpieces of French Literature since 1800
Methods of Assessment



Perception survey given at the beginning and end of the semester
Analysis of scores on midterm and final exams
End-of-semester evaluations of the course
Results
At the beginning of the semester eight students were asked to indicate their familiarity with
various movements in French literature from the 19th and 20th centuries. When asked to list
authors/works from the various periods, one student named one 19th-century and one 20thcentury author. By the end of the semester all students were familiar with many works and
authors from each period. The following table indicates the increase in overall familiarity with
each period of French literature from these two centuries that were to be studied over the
course of the semester:
Period
Romanticism
Realism
Naturalism
20th-century poetry
Existentialism
New Novel
Pre-test Score
2.0
1.8
1.9
2.0
1.7
1.2
Post-test Score
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.0
4.3
4.2
Scale 1=no knowledge and 5=very familiar
When students were asked to indicate their level of interest in the literature of the 19 th and 20th
centuries, the average was 3.4 at the beginning of the course and 4.3 at the end. Six of the
eight students demonstrated satisfactory mastery of all of the material on the midterm; two
cheated on the midterm and received zeros. All of the students demonstrated a satisfactory
mastery of material on the final essay exam. The exams yielded the following results:
P a g e | 184
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
90 or above
80 or above
70 or above
60 or above
Below 60
Overall average
Midterm (19th century)
2
3
1
0
2 (both cheated)
83% (without the 2 zeros)
Final Exam (20th century)
2
4
1
1
0
79%
The use of reading journals was introduced for the first time this year, and the process was
found produce very favorable results. For almost every class, almost every student prepared all
readings and was ready for informed class discussion. This practice will be continued in all
literature courses in the future.
Reading comprehension and writing skills are assessed through the reading journals and exams.
Oral proficiency and listening comprehension are assessed through class participation.
Student evaluations of the course are not yet available.
FLF 40000 - Francophone Literature
Methods of Assessment



Perception survey given at the beginning and end of the semester
Analysis of scores on midterm and final exams
End-of-semester evaluations of the course
Results
Results are based on four students taking a perception survey at the start and finish of the
semester. They were asked to rate their level of familiarity with various areas of the material to
be studied in the course. Levels of familiarity increased strikingly in all areas as seen below:
Category
interest in reading Francophone literature and learning about
Francophone cultures
familiarity with Francophone literature in general
familiarity with French colonial history
familiarity with the history and culture of Martinique
familiarity with the history and culture of Senegal
familiarity with the history and culture of Algeria
proficiency in using the MLA style for writing research papers
proficiency at using the library to obtain the resources needed to
Pre-test Score
4.5
Post-test Score
4.7
1.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
2.1
2.0
2.0
4.1
4.1
3.9
4.1
4.5
4.4
4.6
P a g e | 185
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
write a research paper in French
0=no familiarity and 5=very familiar
Research papers were submitted by the students at the end of the semester and showed
satisfactory literary research and a mostly acceptable mastery of MLA style.
This was the second time this course was offered, and it was very successful. Students’ overall
satisfaction with the course was very high, based on the end-of-semester evaluations.
FLF 36000 - Speaking of Art: The Pulitzer Project
As a January Term 2011 course, three students participated in a project wherein they learned to
give a guided tour in French of an exhibit at the Pulitzer Foundation for the Arts, Dreamscapes.
The students made many trips to the Pulitzer throughout the January Term, familiarizing
themselves with the exhibit, practicing. However, the course continued through the semester,
as the students gave the tour to a group from Lindenwood, then to several groups of high
school students. It was a very enriching experience for our students. The class also served the
purpose of helping to form relationships with area students and teachers of French.
The assessment tool developed for this project asked students to rate their perceived levels of
interest or proficiency in the following areas. The following results show a satisfactory increase
in perceived competencies:
Category
Interest in art history
Familiarity with the Surrealist movement
Familiarity with 19th-century European art
Familiarity with 20th-century European art
Proficiency at speaking about art in French
Proficiency at performing research in art history
Proficiency at using the library to obtain resources
Pre-test Score
3.5
1.8
1.5
1.7
2.3
1.4
3.0
Post-test Score
4.5
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.5
4.5
4.7
0= poor and 5=excellent
Student evaluations of the course demonstrate that this was again a very enriching experience
for our students, who expanded their knowledge base into new areas and increased their
vocabulary substantially. For some who plan to teach at the secondary level in the future, it
was particularly rewarding to work with high school students and their teachers.
Study Abroad at the Université de Caen
Students are generally very pleased with the program, with the coursework, and with their host
family experience.
P a g e | 186
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment


The students who participate in the program return with a very notable improvement in
oral proficiency. They showed great improvement in the other skills (reading, writing,
listening) as well. Needless-to-say, their cultural literacy is also improved and students
tend to be more self-confident and mature upon returning.
There have been no further complaints about host families. More attention is being paid
to evaluations of the families and their locations so that LU students are now
consistently placed with welcoming families living close to the university or to easy
access to public transportation.
The assessment tool developed for this project asked students who participated in the fall
semester to rate their perceived levels of interest or proficiency in the following areas (spring
students have not yet finished their semester in Caen). The following results show a satisfactory
increase in perceived competencies:
Fall 2010
Category
Level of oral proficiency
Level of listening comprehension
Level of reading proficiency
Level of writing proficiency
familiarity with contemporary French society
familiarity with the politics of contemporary France
familiarity with the mindset of the average French citizen
familiarity with French cuisine
familiarity with the history of French civilization
familiarity with the geography of France
overall level of French cultural literacy
Pre-test Score
3.1
2.0
3.5
2.9
1.2
1.2
1.3
2.0
1.7
2.8
1.5
Post-test Score
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.6
4.6
4.0
4.1
4.6
3.2
4.2
4.7
0= poor and 5=excellent
Of the four students in the group, one had had no previous instruction in French, one was
intermediate, and two were more advanced. The beginner’s end results were still rather low,
pulling the exit perceptions down.
One student took the DELF A2 exam and had the following results (Note: the DELF and DALF
exams are similar to the TOEFL exam in English):
Skill tested
Oral comprehension
Reading comprehension
Writing proficiency
Oral proficiency
Student average
72%
86%
36%
54%
P a g e | 187
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Two students took the DELF B1 and had the following average results:
Skill tested
Oral comprehension
Reading comprehension
Writing proficiency
Oral proficiency
Student average
62%
76%
66%
60%
One student took the DELF B2 exam with the following results:
Skill tested
Oral comprehension
Reading comprehension
Writing proficiency
Oral proficiency
Student average
78%
94%
70%
84%
It is to be noted that while these DELF and DALF scores appear low by American standards, the
scores they are based on (i.e., 19/25=71 percent) are seen as much better by French standards.
They need only a minimum of 5/25 on each part and an overall average of 50/100 to get
certified at each level. The department has asked that we be given some kind of midterm
progress report for all levels and more feedback about student work throughout the semester
but has never been granted this request.
As spring 2011 students have not yet finished their semester in France, their assessment results
could not be included in this report.
Assessment of Majors
All essay exams and research papers created by French majors have been stored in portfolios
since fall 2001. These document skills in writing and in literary criticism and are referred to in
particular when professors are asked to write letters of recommendation for students applying
to graduate school.
General Comments Pertaining to Assessment in French
Assessment tools have been developed for every course in the French curriculum. These
measuring tools will continue to evolve and improve as they are used and their effectiveness is
evaluated by the instructors.
P a g e | 188
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Spanish
FLS 31100 and 31200 - Advanced Spanish Conversation and Composition
Methods of Assessment
Each course has its own pre-test and final test covering items having to do with advanced
vocabulary, grammar and culture studied during each semester. Both FLS 31100 and FLS 31200
were offered twice this year, one section each in the fall and one each in the spring. Of all total
34 FLS 31100 students, 36 have taken both the pre- and post-test, and of all 30 FLS 31200
students, 17 have taken both the pre- and post-test.
Results
FLS 31100 - Advanced Spanish Composition and Conversation I
N=36
Pre test
Post test
> 60%
0
27
Average Score
26
77.5
Scores on the final for all students broke down in the following fashion according to percentiles:
 90 or above: five
 80 or above: 14
 70 or above: 21
 60 or above: 25
 below 60: 27
FLS 31200 - Advanced Spanish Composition and Conversation II
N=17
Pre test
Post test
> 60%
0
15
Average Score
31
76
Scores on the final for all students broke down in the following fashion according to percentiles:
 90 or above: two
 80 or above: eight
 70 or above: 13
 60 or above: 15
 below 60: two
P a g e | 189
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Lessons Learned 30000 Level
Student’s overall satisfaction with this 30000-level course was high. Based on the students’ own
perception survey of their knowledge of this material (given at the beginning and at the end of
the semester), the students feel that their overall understanding of Spanish grammar,
vocabulary, culture, and oral proficiency have greatly improved thanks particularly to the
Spanish-only environment, small in-class group discussions, and the weekly meetings with their
Spanish conversation partners, who are all Spanish native speakers participating in our
Conversation Partner Program. Most students enjoyed researching and writing about different
cultural topics, for both their oral presentations as well as movie reports, which go along the
themes explored in the different movies we actively watch during the semester. In addition, the
end-of-semester course evaluations for both FLS 31100 and FLS 31200 offered positive
comments on the course overall, the performance of the instructor, the textbook, and the
constructive instructor’s oral and written feedback on the different assignments, despite the
challenging course workload. Media use is on the rise in these classes, both by the professor
and the students during their oral presentations. Finally, the instructor will keep the portfolio of
newspaper articles project for honors students in the FLS 31200 course, which was very popular
with the students who participated in and learned from it in class.
Listening comprehension continues to be measured at regular intervals with each chapter test
and is monitored in a less structured way through class participation (interaction with
instructor), with pairs during oral presentations, as well as during movie sessions.
Oral proficiency is measured through oral examinations, oral presentations, and the
Conversation Partner Program (required for both FLS 31100 and FLS 31200). Oral proficiency is
also monitored through class participation. Students are evaluated on fluency, use of
appropriate grammatical structures, proper vocabulary, and pronunciation. Suggestions are
given to students who have trouble progressing orally.
Reading comprehension is monitored through chapter and cultural readings, chapter exams,
and homework assignments.
Writing skills are tested with each test and through compositions and presentations.
As a consequence of the findings above, the instructor will continue focusing the FLS 31100 and
31200 courses series on conversation, cultural awareness, and advanced grammar. Specifically,
the instructor will continue developing more activities with vocabulary, more materials to
accompany the textbook to emphasis even more on advanced conversation, grammar
(adjective position, preterit/imperfect, subjunctive tenses, relative pronouns), and vocabulary
subtleties — all of which are now being posted on PC Common for students’ easy access. In
addition, to reinforce the listening and oral skills of the students, the conversation partner for
P a g e | 190
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
FLS 31100 and FLS 31200 students will continue to be mandatory, and grammar review
handouts will be provided to the partners to give them material to work with, if the students
request it. The instructor will adjust the assessment tools to help measure the response of
students to these changes.
Culture and Civilization Courses: FLS 33500 - Peninsular Spanish Culture and Civilization, FLS
33600 - Latin American Culture and Civilization
Methods of Assessment
At the beginning of the semester in both courses, students were given a questionnaire on their
goals/expectations for the course and on various aspects of the culture (readings on the topic,
knowledge of geography and people, of historical or contemporary events or individuals, of
major cultural, social, or political movements in Spain/Latin America), as well as their level of
interest in the subject matter and their perceived levels of proficiency in the three aspects of
linguistic competence in Spanish needed for the course (reading, speaking, writing). It is
important to note that the presence of native speakers in all courses, while advantageous in
many respects, can skew the results of the language-proficiency part of the questionnaire and
makes it less useful as a statistical statement.
In general, the questionnaires showed a very limited knowledge of the material at the
beginning, even among the native speakers, including the usual confusion as to the origins of
many of the famous Spanish-language writers and historical figures they had already heard of,
failing to differentiate between peninsular Spanish writers and those from the various SpanishAmerican countries. In answer to similar questions at the end of each course, students all
responded with greater detail and accuracy, but added comments such as “and much more” or
“too many to list.” The final questionnaires also included an opportunity to restate the initial
goals/expectations, asking whether the course had helped them in that endeavor. All most all
of the students felt that it had.
Results
FLS 33500 - Peninsular Spanish Culture and Civilization
Of the 15 students originally in the class, nine completed the course. Several of those who
dropped out felt that their command of Spanish was not yet adequate to the content level of
the course. At the end of the course, the participants expressed their satisfaction at having
delved so deeply into the prehistory and history of the Peninsula and their surprise at the many
ethnic currents that have contributed to Spanish culture and civilization. Their grades in the
course of the semester also indicate that they achieved a fair to excellent grasp of the material.
P a g e | 191
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
FLS 33600 - Latin American Culture and Civilization
There were 10 students in the course. Two of them were native speakers of Spanish (U.S.
Hispanics); Portuguese (Brazilian) was the native language of another. All of the participants
expressed beginning and continued high interest in the subject matter and great satisfaction
with the course. Their responses to the content questions confirm an increase in specific
knowledge of the subject, compared to the vagueness and inaccuracy of the answers on the
initial questionnaire. With regard to their perceived levels of proficiency in reading, writing,
and speaking Spanish, some were quite proficient to begin with and remained so; some who
judged their initial level at three or four felt that they had improved by at least one level,
although writing remained the weakest category, as might be expected. Notable was the
improvement in reading proficiency in particular, indicated by several. This is significant, since
the FLS 33500/33600 culture courses are usually the first courses in which the language is used
as a learning tool, rather than the object of study. Most commented on having gained a greater
appreciation of the wide variety of historical and cultural aspects of the 19 Spanish-speaking
countries of Latin America and of the differences in attitudes and customs among the countries,
which they had initially assumed to be all the same.
Literary Masterpieces Courses: FLS 35000 - Masterpieces of Spanish Literature, FLS 35100:
Masterpieces of Latin American Literature
FLS 35000 - Masterpieces of Spanish Literature
At the beginning of the semester, students were asked to indicate their familiarity with various
periods in Spanish literary history. Nineteen students took the class; of those three were native
speakers of Spanish. Three students were able to identify the Poem of Mio Cid, and another
three identified Cervantes or Don Quixote, although one of them did not include it in the right
period. Another student recognized Becquer, and two of them named Garcia Lorca. At the
end, two students missed class the day the assessment was done. However, most of the
students who took the survey listed between two or three authors and/or works per period,
with an average of eight to 10 writers and/or works mentioned for the whole class. The
following shows the changes in overall perceived familiarity with each period.
Familiarity Levels
Medieval / Renaissance
Enlightenment / Generation of 98
Civil War / Franco era
1975 (Franco’s death) to Present
1
Pre
68%
74%
1
Post
6%
0%
2
Pre
16%
21%
2
Post
12%
12%
3
Pre
11%
5%
3
Post
59%
53%
4
Pre
0%
0%
4
Post
18%
29%
5
Pre
5%
0%
5
Post
6%
6%
63%
6%
21%
6%
11%
29%
5%
53%
0%
6%
68%
6%
26%
6%
5%
35%
0%
41%
0%
12%
P a g e | 192
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
1 (no knowledge) to 5 (very familiar)
Most students expressed that they were interested in learning about Spanish culture and
literature but mostly expected to improve their Spanish language skills. Improving their
speaking skills was one of their top priorities. At the end of the semester, students were able to
write essays and give information about the different periods and writers in Spanish literature.
They mentioned being more confident in their oral skills. Their goal of learning about Spanish
literature and improving their speaking seemed to have been reached by the end of the
semester.
FLS 35100 - Masterpieces of Latin American Literature
There were six students in the class. All students were asked at the beginning of the semester
to indicate their familiarity with various periods in Spanish-American literary history, and only
one student could name one author. At the end, most students listed between four or six
authors and/or works per category, with an average of 10 to 12 per student. The following
shows the changes in overall perceived familiarity with each period as represented by the scale
already given above:
Pre-colonial to Independence
1
Pre
100%
1
Post
33%
2
Pre
0%
2
Post
33%
3
Pre
0%
3
Post
0%
4
Pre
0%
4
Post
17%
5
Pre
0%
5
Post
16%
0%
33%
0%
17%
0%
0%
Independence to
“Posmodernismo”
“Boom”
83%
17%
17%
33%
100%
17%
0%
0%
0%
33%
0%
33%
0%
16%
Present
83%
17%
0%
0%
17%
0%
0%
33%
0%
50%
All the students expressed the goal of increasing their knowledge of Spanish-American history
and cultures as well as the general outlines of its different literary movements. Some also
expressed their desire to improve their Spanish language abilities in comprehension, reading,
and speaking. Several expressed that they felt the workload to be very hard at the beginning of
the semester, but as they improved in their writing and reading skills it become more
manageable. Many expressed that they enjoyed the readings although the homework was hard
and challenging. As in the previous semester, they liked the study guides that were provided
before the test.
Literary Seminars: FLS 40000 - Spanish Romanticism, FLS 42100 - The Spanish-American
Regional Novel
P a g e | 193
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
FLS 40000 - Spanish Romanticism
There were originally six students in the course; one disappeared without explanation during
the second week, and another withdrew because she had enrolled in too many courses, not
having realized the amount of time required for literary study. The initial assessment
questionnaires for the remaining four stated their goals for the course as including learning
more about Spanish literature and the Spanish society of the era through the eyes of the
authors, learning to interpret Spanish literary works more deeply, and improving their reading
and speaking skills in Spanish, all of which were accomplished to varying degrees by the end of
the course.
The responses to the prior knowledge questions in the initial questionnaire indicated a very
vague idea of the romantic movement and showed the usual confusion between peninsular
Spanish and Spanish-American authors. By the end of the course, all of them exhibited a much
stronger grasp of the essentials of the movement, how it differed from other 19 th-century
literary movements, the concerns of the individual authors, and the characteristics of the
genres involved.
The level of interest in the subject matter generally grew from average to very high, correlating
fairly clearly with the amount and intensity of individual engagement with the material (the
greater the personal involvement, the higher the interest level indicated). Films of the dramas
contributed to students’ interest in and understanding of the dramatic works, and their
analytical abilities grew as they improved their journal-keeping techniques.
There were three questions concerning the students’ background and proficiency in researching
and writing papers. The perceived proficiency levels varied, but showed a general tendency
toward improvement by the end of the semester. More certainly needs to be done in this area.
FLS 42100: The Spanish-American Regional Novel
There were four students in the class, one of which was a native speaker of Spanish and
another who was a native speaker of Portuguese (Brazilian). In the initial assessment, the
students expressed the desire to learn more about Spanish-American literature, to improve
vocabulary, and to gain greater skill in reading and fluency in speaking. At the end of the
course, all of the students felt that they had accomplished their initial goals and additional,
unexpected ones.
In response to the three prior-knowledge questions at the beginning of the semester, all
showed very limited knowledge, frequently naming peninsular Spanish authors and works
rather than Spanish-American and confusing centuries. By the end of the course, they were
P a g e | 194
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
able to go into much greater detail, both naming at least the authors and works studied, with
additional information in some cases. The study of the history and politics of the early
twentieth century, as it concerned the search for national identity and the question of
civilization versus barbarism, was heavily involved here. That their knowledge had increased
notably in depth was confirmed by the term papers and the level of each student’s
contributions during the final colloquium.
Interest in the material was high to begin with, but generally rose in the course of the semester.
Research competence generally improved, as well, but still leaves ample room for
improvement.
Study Abroad: Costa Rica
Spring 2011 was the third time that the Spanish department organized the spring semester
study abroad in Costa Rica. All 12 students who started the 15-week program (all 12 at the
advanced level) completed it and filled out a thorough program evaluation.
According to these evaluations, it can be stated that all participants believe that our semester
abroad program continues to be a great success.




Most students mentioned that they felt prepared both culturally and linguistically for
the program and coursework thanks to the language requirements we have as a prerequisite to their participation (FLS 31100/FLS 31200 and one upper-level culture or
literature course), as well as the J-Term course (taught in the fall). The two students who
wrote that they were not fully prepared linguistically for the program had completed
the language requirements, but with weaker grades than other participants.
Regarding the local school, the instructors and staff at Intercultural, every student
highlighted how professional and organized they all were, how welcomed they felt, and
how approachable everyone was. Whenever there were doubts or someone needed a
review on grammar, students mentioned that the local instructors always complied. It
appears that everyone enjoyed the intensive 4-hours-day of class format, as it was
conducive to the full-immersion goal of this program.
In the sections of the program evaluation in which students were asked to provide some
constructive criticism, some suggested adding at least one more week of
grammar/composition to the advanced writing workshop (currently a two-week course).
Others suggested modifying the plays selection and the types/frequency of assignments
in the theater course, especially being the last course and having to present in a play as
part of the final project for this course.
Finally, most students expressed that this experience of living and studying abroad was
a life-changing one. As in the past years, most mentioned it was the best four months of
P a g e | 195
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
their lives. Thanks to their experience in Costa Rica, many students feel that they have a
better appreciation of the many differences between their home country and Costa
Rica. They also felt that their stay there helped them develop a deeper sense of curiosity
for Latin America, Spain, and the world. Several students added that they would love to
return to Costa Rica soon and perhaps live and study again in a foreign country in the
near future.
Program Assessment
As can be seen from the above discussions of the French and Spanish 30000- and 40000-level
courses, we have a growing number of students doing upper-division work. As an example, a
survey of students in the Spanish program in fall 2010 resulted in 26 majors and 38 minors. The
last six academic years have seen an expansion of the French program to include a semester of
intensive work in France, which is attracting additional majors. The Spanish program has also
been expanded to require a semester of study in Costa Rica for majors; this is an option for
minors, as well, although the possibility of completing the minor on the Lindenwood campus
remains. Our upper-division students are frequently double-majors or minors, combining such
subjects as education, international business, or social work with their studies in the foreign
language, culture, and literature. Some students shy away from upper-division studies in this
field as soon as they recognize the time-consuming nature of such studies, as can already be
surmised from the remarks concerning workloads in the language-oriented courses. In view of
this continued apparent disinclination to invest the large quantities of time and effort required
by the field, the imposition of additional requirements over and above those of the individual
upper-division courses themselves still seems inadvisable. The assessment tools for individual
tasks within the courses can serve as evidence of overall achievement, as, for example, part of a
portfolio. As described above, beginning- and end-of-semester questionnaires are being used
in the 30000- and 40000-level culture and literature courses to gain some insight into the precourse and final levels of knowledge of the material. In many of the culture and literature
courses, an additional opportunity for specific insights into student evaluation of their
achievements is provided by the inclusion of an opinion question on the final: They are asked to
describe at least three ways in which they feel the course has benefitted them personally and
to explain why they consider these important. These benefits often involve not only increased
knowledge, but a change in attitudes toward personalities or events.
Reading Assessment
As one of the four basic skills of foreign-language learning, reading comprehension is something
that must be assessed throughout every course, frequently on a daily basis, in the course of
every exercise, whether the focus is on some point of grammar or on the skill of reading itself.
As can be seen from the above descriptions of the Spanish and French finals at all levels,
P a g e | 196
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
reading assessment is already part of our procedures. It becomes especially pertinent at the
end of the first advanced conversation and composition courses (FLF 31100 / FLS 31100). These
courses are, respectively, the prerequisite for all upper-division literature courses, which
require reading comprehension as a starting point from which to advance toward other goals,
including text-analysis and interpretation.
The PRAXIS Exam
This year three of our majors in French and two in Spanish took and passed the PRAXIS exam.
Other “Outside” Feedback
In order to enhance our means of evaluating the effectiveness of our teacher preparation, we
have been participating in a program for the School of Humanities, the Survey of Cooperating
Teachers, began in fall 2007, to receive input from the supervising teachers at the schools
where our majors are doing their practice teaching. In addition to general questions about the
class/grade levels at which the student teacher is teaching and how well the student seems to
know the relevant material, etc., for foreign languages, we ask about student performance
regarding pronunciation of the target language, command of the grammar, ability to explain
the grammar clearly, cultural knowledge, ability to communicate that knowledge, and ability to
get the students to speak the foreign language in class. Additionally, there are questions
concerning breadth of knowledge and asking about areas of skill or knowledge that seem
particularly strong or particularly lacking. So far the responses have been extremely positive
throughout, with no mention of areas of skill/knowledge lacking, except occasionally in the field
of classroom management, which falls under the School of Education’s purview. We will
continue to follow up on our student teachers in this way as frequently as possible. It has,
however, become more difficult to do so, since a number of our students have found their own
positions as contract teachers and thus have no supervisor to whom we can direct our
questions.
Lessons Learned
Most of the specific efforts for the coming year have already been indicated above, including
the intensification of the experiential aspect of the French and Spanish programs through the
semester in France or Costa Rica, as well as the semester program being offered for study at
the university in Bochum, Germany. The department has also received approval for a semester
in Spain beginning with the 2012-13 academic year. The J-Term travel programs will continue
again this year, with trips to France, Germany, and Mexico. We also continue to encourage
individual students to take advantage of study opportunities in Spanish-speaking or other
countries, as some have done in the past. To that end, we maintain the large bulletin board in
P a g e | 197
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
the department hallway with announcements of opportunities for study abroad, as well as for
graduate work in the fields of language and literature.
Roemer 304 continues to be designated for primary usage by foreign-language classes so that
the wall maps can be permanently exhibited and available for reference in class. The room is
also equipped for VCR, DVD, and PowerPoint presentations. The large, many-shelved closet
attached to R304 provides storage space for the wall maps not currently in use, the
French/Spanish library, and any instruction-related art books, DVDs, CDs, and other
supplemental material.
For students who would like to add depth to various aspects of their language, literature, and
cultural studies, many of our courses are being offered for honors credit. With the reactivation
of Lindenwood’s chapter of the national collegiate Spanish honor society in spring 2006, the
department now has active national honor society chapters in both French and Spanish, giving
added incentive and encouragement to our majors and minors to excel in their studies.
At the other end of the spectrum and impossible to measure, but very much in evidence
(especially at the elementary level), is the unwillingness of too many students to practice
intensively on a daily basis, something absolutely essential to establishing the reliable
foundation that is the goal of the course requirements at both the elementary and
intermediate levels, without which there can be very little linguistic self-assurance and
therefore no fun. Encouraging students to take this work seriously and to strive for linguistic
accuracy is an ongoing pedagogical challenge with no pat answers. Nevertheless, one tool that
can be used to attract many students is the opportunity to work with technology and to
practice with native speakers in a lab setting.
Recognizing this, we continue to strengthen this part of our program, requiring regular
laboratory practice as an essential component of the semester grade in the elementary and
intermediate courses, as well as the conversation partners program for specific courses beyond
the elementary level. Efforts to encourage and help arrange individual tutoring will continue, as
well, in connection with the language lab as a center and by other means (i.e., peer volunteers).
Internet access and installation of foreign-language software for use at the more advanced
levels have improved the computer section of the lab, which is now being well used.
Appropriate review software for the earlier stages is still elusive; however, there are a number
of useful websites that can be accessed for practice at this level. The collection of foreignlanguage magazines has grown, as well, making it possible for students to use this resource for
a variety of assignments at different levels of language learning.
P a g e | 198
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
History and Geography
Geography
As the University does not currently offer a major or minor in geography those classes assessed
are listed in the GE assessment report.
History
Objectives
Upon completing the history program, a graduate will be able to demonstrate







factual knowledge appropriate to United States, European, and world history, including
chronology and important persons, processes, and ideas,
knowledge of the basic geography of major world civilizations and the ability to identify
significant features,
recognition that there are varying interpretations of the events of history,
understanding the concept of multiple causation in history,
knowledge of the various types of historical works, e.g., political, diplomatic,
intellectual, economic, and social history,
the ability to write well-organized essays on set historical topics,
the ability to write well-crafted papers on assigned topics using proper documentation
and prose appropriate for history.
History Program Assessment
Assessment of student academic achievement in the History program is accomplished in
four ways:
1. Syllabus Examination and Analysis
o The syllabi of the various courses offered in each academic year will be collected
and matched to specific sections of the class and to the final examinations given
in these courses. The syllabi are matched to the program goals and objectives to
ensure that all courses relate to them and that all goals and objectives are
covered. The examinations will then be tallied to measure the extent to which
the program goals and objectives, translated into course goals and objectives,
P a g e | 199
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
were achieved and measured in the examination process.
2. Course-Related Assessment Examinations
o All 10000-level courses (HIS 10000, HIS 10500, HIS 10600, and HIS 15500) have
pre- and post-test assessment tools. The purpose of these tests is to determine
the level of improvement in knowledge of the students at the end of the
semester. This information is reviewed by the history faculty to determine if
areas of focus should be adjusted. These tests are currently under review in
order to revise the tool to match the department’s current goals. The process of
creating an assessment tool for HIS 20000 Contemporary World, is complete and
has been revised multiple times in the last three years. Determining and
creating the appropriate assessment tools/methods for 30000-level courses is
ongoing.
3. Comprehensive Examination
o All graduating history majors sit for a three-part comprehensive examination
that focuses on the major concepts listed in the program goals and objectives,
such as multiple causation, varying interpretations of historical events, and
historical literacy. The comprehensive examination enables the History faculty
to assess the success the program has had in conveying these priorities to
students.
4. Final Research Project
o All graduating history majors are required to complete a final major research
project which includes a public presentation. The goal is to assess the student’s
research, writing, and communication skills, and it enables the history faculty to
assess the success the program has had in conveying these priorities to students.
HIS 20000 - History of the Contemporary World
Course Objectives
Upon successful completion of History 20000 the student will


know the basic geography of major world civilizations and be able to identify
significant features on a blank map,
demonstrate the impact of events, people, and civilizations from WWI to WWII on
P a g e | 200
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment





the world since 1945,
be able to place significant persons and developments since 1945 in time. (This is
not so much a matter of memorizing exact dates as of being able to place events in
chronological order and context with an appropriate degree of accuracy),
be able to identify, from lists provided, important persons, places, processes, and
events from the human past: To be, in other words, literate in history,
demonstrate an understanding of the chief characteristics of the major world
civilizations, cultures, and religions, and of their interaction with one another since
1945,
demonstrate an understanding of the of some of the factors influencing the
development of the world since 1945,
demonstrate an understanding of the economic, political, and cultural interactions
between western culture and other cultures since the end of World War II.
Methods of Assessment Used
This class uses a pre- and post-test system of assessment. The test is made up of 35 multiplechoice questions. The spring 2011 assessment added a world map with 20 countries to be
identified.
Results
During spring 2011, of the 27 students who took both tests, the average number of correct
answers for the pre-test was 18/35 (51 percent); the average for the post-test was 24/35 (69
percent). The table below compares results with the spring semester 2010.
The questions were divided into eight topics; some questions covered more than one topic.
Topic (questions)
Cold War (4)
U.S International policies (8)
International economy (3)
Communist World (9)
Decolonization (3)
Developing World (8)
Islam and the world (7)
Persons and movements (4)
Average improvement
Pre-test
S 10
67%
56%
Post-test
S 10
85%
65%
Difference
57%
37%
43%
51%
44%
43%
73%
60%
57%
67%
60%
69%
+16%
+23%
+6%
+18%
+16%
+16%
+15%
+19%
+9%
Pre-test
S 11
63%
60%
Post-test
S 11
76%
72%
Difference
51%
39%
41%
50%
60%
52%
73%
58%
58%
69%
72%
65%
+22%
+19%
+17%
+19%
+12%
+13%
+16%
+13%
+12%
P a g e | 201
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Map
Africa (6 countries)
Americas (5 countries)
Asia (5 countries)
Europe (1 country)
Middle East (3 countries)
Average improvement
Pre-test, S 11
17%
42%
29%
15%
59%
Post-test, S 11
57%
70%
48%
34%
93%
Difference
+40%
+28%
+19%
+19%
+34%
+28%
Lessons Learned
All areas showed some improvement. The average grade on examinations (75 percent) was
markedly higher than the average on the post-test; this was also the case in spring 2010.
Action Plan
The test questions will be rewritten for greater precision and lectures will be revised,
particularly those concerning Islam and the World. The relatively strong results for the map
may be due to map testing during the term. This will be continued in 2011-12, and results
compared to spring 2011.
History 20300 - Historical Methods
This class examines tools and techniques of historical writing and interpretation of
history and acts as an introduction to historical methods, source problems,
bibliographical aids, source criticism, and use of related techniques.
Course Objectives
Students successfully completing this course will be much better prepared for 30000level courses and for the capstone, HIS 40000. Hopefully, less time will be spent in the
higher-level courses on these skills after students have had this introductory course.
For research skills, students will be able to




acquire a basic understanding of historical methodology,
conduct historical research and be able to evaluate sources,
show knowledge of how to find and use library, archival, oral, and other
source materials,
better identify and interpret primary sources.
P a g e | 202
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
For scholarly skills, students will be able to







understand the range of computer usage for the historian,
manage material information and writing appropriate for the standards of
historical scholarship,
show knowledge of historical journals and databases,
correctly footnote and annotate historical writing,
improve skills in reading, writing, discussing, and assimilating material,
organize thoughts and communicate them clearly and concisely in a written
form,
become familiar with professional opportunities for graduates in history.
For interpretation skills, students will be able to







frame questions in order to more clearly clarify a problem, topic, or issue,
differentiate between facts, opinions, and inferences,
expand knowledge to build abilities to comprehend, synthesize, and analyze
information,
manage information which involves sorting data, ranking data for
significance, and synthesizing facts, concepts, and principals,
identify a thesis and understand how historical data is used to support a
historical argument,
understand and use organizing principles of key concepts to evaluate data,
expand knowledge of historiography.
Method of Assessment
Students were asked to respond to the class in a paper at the end of the class. Their
comments indicated that they understood the purpose of the course and that they
benefited from it in specific ways:





By using the workbook to develop writing and organizational skills.
By working in the Lindenwood University Archives.
Through the use of primary source documents.
Through interaction with other history majors.
By working on rewriting assignments.
Action

Continue to use Gordon-Reed and the workbook.
P a g e | 203
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment




Add in-class exercises on the use of footnotes.
Add group work on Gordon-Reed’s book.
Add more work on electronic data bases.
Survey students in HIS 40000 (the history capstone class) regarding the usefulness of
HIS 20300. (2010-11 was the first year that all students in HIS 40000 will have been
required to take HIS 20300).
History 40000 - Comprehensive Exam
Goals and Objectives for Class
This course serves as a capstone for history majors wherein students are expected to
demonstrate competence in areas of study as well as research and writing. This course
provides assessment of both student and program performance.
Methods of Assessment
The course has evolved into a two-part class with the first part being a series of essay exams
each student must take over the areas of



United States history
World history
Modern European history
These exams are designed to evaluate student





command of the sweep of world, European, and United States history,
ability to communicate understanding and interpretations in a well-written and
organized fashion,
ability to accumulate, recall, and interpret historical information in a fashion
consistent with current historical thinking and scholarship,
capacity to use historical facts to support larger arguments and interpretations,
ability to conduct historical research and to analyze, interpret, and write your
ideas and findings effectively.
Competence is demonstrated with a passing score on each of the three exams. Exams are given
every two weeks beginning with week two or three of the semester. There are two readers
from the history faculty for each exam and the readers do not know the identity of the tested
students. Results below are averages.
P a g e | 204
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
The second part of the course involves the research and writing process in which students are
required to produce a substantial research paper and then make a 10 minute PowerPoint
presentation on their results. These projects are designed and graded by the instructor.
Starting in fall 2010, student presentations were evaluated by a faculty committee.
The research paper is designed to evaluate student





ability to use varied scholarly research sources,
capacity to understand the interpretive changes and nuances of the writing of history
over time,
understanding of the role of historian as interpreter, not merely dispenser of
information,
ability to communicate ideas in clear and correct English,
use of proper scholarly apparatus such as footnotes, bibliographic citations, etc.
The oral presentation is designed to evaluate student


ability to summarize, organize, and clearly explain information,
ability to use images to advance the argument.
Methods of Assessment Used
Subjective (instructor evaluation of essay and oral work) and analysis of results constitutes
assessment of program.
Results
2008-09 Fall Avg.
2008-09 Spring Avg.
2009-10 Fall Avg.
2009-10 Spring Avg.
2010-11 Fall Avg.
2010-11 Spring Avg.
US Avg.
77%
72%
78%
77%
82%
77%
World Avg.
85%
75%
77%
78%
76%
74%
Europe Avg.
82%
73%
85%
77%
82%
80%
Overall Avg.
81%
73%
80%
77%
80%
78%
Papers Avg.
78%
76%
80%
88%
78%
85%
Oral Avg.
N/A
N/A
71%
88%
82%
87%
Examination scores (%) compared to grades (GPA) in classes taken in areas tested and overall
GPA. Fall, 2010
P a g e | 205
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Student
World
GPA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
3.5
4.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
2.5
4.0
3.0
3.5
4.0
World
Exam
%
90
93
66
68
76
74
82
71
69
71
72
83
77
US
GPA
3.7
4.0
2.3
2.0
3.0
2.5
1.7
4.0
2.3
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.5
US
Exam
%
88
83
84
72
82
68
76
90
75
69
76
95
80
Europe
GPA
3.8
4.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.8
3.8
2.3
3.5
2.5
4.0
3.5
Europe
Exam
%
93
93
85
80
71
62
93
82
77
89
70
83
92
Exam
Average
%
90
90
78
73
76
68
84
81
74
76
73
87
83
Oral
Pres.
%
86
96
86
84
66
76
92
94
72
56
80
96
86
Paper
%
Course
Grade
Overall
GPA
88
98
88
75
78
80
60
80
63
50
73
93
88
A
A
B
C
C
C
B
B
C
D
C
A
B
3.4
3.96
2.9
2.4
2.7
2.9
2.4
3.9
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.8
3.7
Examination scores (%) compared to grades (GPA) in classes taken in areas tested and overall
GPA. Spring, 2011
Student
World
GPA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
3.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
World
Exam
%
88
80
82
60
83
61
72
79
66
71
US
GPA
3.0
3.7
3.7
2.0
3.5
2.5
3.3
3.7
3.3
3.3
US
Exam
%
62
78
73
72
92
69
81
97
77
72
3.7
3.0
3.0
Europe
Exam
%
71
94
77
2.25
1.6
2.7
3.3
3.0
3.0
76
70
86
87
80
81
Europe
GPA
Exam
Average
%
74
84
77
66
84
67
80
88
74
75
Oral
Pres.
%
88
85
83
83
82
87
85
97
88
Paper
%
Course
Grade
Overall
GPA
88
88
83
B
B
B
F
B
C
B
B
B
B
3.5
3.4
3.3
2.7
3.3
2.8
3.5
3.7
3.4
3.5
89
75
86
84
83
88
Of the 13 students in fall 2010, all completed the exams and paper and, except for one D,
passed with a C or better; the overall average was 79 percent. Of the 10 students in the spring,
one completed only two examinations and did not complete the paper and thus failed the
course; the others passed with a C or better. Of the passing students, the overall average was
81 percent.
The difference in grades on papers reflected the approaches of the two instructors and did not
materially affect the average outcomes. Oral presentations were graded by all the faculty
attending.
P a g e | 206
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Lessons Learned
When compared to their performance in topical classes, students’ scores on examinations
varied in some cases. But the overall results indicate that these classes did prepare students.
Most students benefitted from the new-to-this-year policy of both instructors to have students
submit their papers in sections for instructor evaluation and suggestion before submission of
the final paper.
Prior experience giving oral presentations in class benefitted students in HIS 40000.
Impacts and Changes on Classes
We will add a survey asking students to evaluate various aspects of their experience as a history
major at the University.
Action Plan
The department is satisfied that HIS 400 indicates that our program is doing what we want it to
do.
International Studies
Program Goals and Objectives
Goals for the Graduates in the Major
The Bachelor of Arts in International Studies was specifically designed for those who wish to
increase their understanding of global issues in order to pursue future graduate study, to
prepare for international/government employment, or to work in the fields of consulting,
business, banking, teaching, or international journalism. Therefore, the curriculum is
multidisciplinary and utilizes material from the fields of political science, international relations,
anthropology, religion, history, geography, economics, sociology, law, and management. To
facilitate this, the Bachelor of Arts in International Studies has three separate emphasis areas.



International Studies, International Relations
International Studies, Cross Cultural Asian Studies
International Studies, Cross Cultural European Studies
P a g e | 207
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
These are specifically offered in order to provide students an avenue into the most developed
and emerging knowledge spheres, markets, and systems throughout the world.
Objectives for Graduates in the Major
The objectives for the majors are to develop the necessary critical thinking, writing, and
research skills so they can successfully move on to graduate school and/or their professional
field.
Classes to be Assessed
The only course that is exclusively an international studies course is IS 40000 Senior Tutorial.
Methods of Assessment Used
The method of assessment is based on the individual meetings with students (to identify a
baseline for their talents/knowledge), their class presentations (can they articulate their work),
the written thesis itself (is it clearly written and effectively communicated), and the formal
defense with their faculty panel (how completely have they synthesized the material and then
professionally presented it).
Results
An empirical comparison is not possible this year. For the future, a new grading rubric for this
course will be created, based on the four methods of assessment above, to quantify the relative
impact of the course more so than the final grades. Given this course is available every term,
comparative data will be available after the next academic year.
Lessons Learned
As a department, we have learned that students have become increasingly global in their
thinking. However, students consistently show strong connections to their local background
and experiences. It is imperative that instead of thinking about society from their own context,
they develop an understanding of the volume of contextual realities and interpretations
throughout the world. This perspective will enable them to identify themselves outside their
personal environments and instead place themselves squarely in the middle of an increasingly
shrinking world.
P a g e | 208
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Secondly, we noticed our students have sound critical thinking and analytical skills. However,
there is ample room for improvement (hence the one-on-one and small-group nature of the
thesis course). Critical thinking involves classifying, assessing, interpreting, and evaluating
information in the form of hypotheses and theories into higher order thought processes.
Abstracting and evaluating competing theories and hypotheses by relying on critical abilities in
assessing data is extremely important.
Action Plan for Next
As a department, we are very satisfied with our IS Senior Tutorial course. We feel it clearly
reflects students’ talents, knowledge, and academic ability. However, as stated above, we plan
to develop a more nuanced and measurable means to relatively assess students’ learning in the
classroom. At this time, we foresee a Likert scale that measures clarity of writing, effective use
of citations, interdisciplinary use of material, understanding of key concepts and paradigms,
ability to publicly present the material, and overall synthesis of knowledge.
Impacts and Changes on Classes for the Following Year
The format and course content (methodological and thesis writing approaches) will not change.
However, the means of assessment will. Subjectively, we already know the course content
reflects the needs of the students that this particular stage of their academic career. However,
what we will be searching for are ways to help them better assimilate the knowledge, interpret
it, retain it, and then present it.
Philosophy
Mission Statement
The philosophy program at Lindenwood University is designed to introduce students to the field
of philosophy by introducing the major works and authors in the philosophical tradition and by
exploring the central philosophical questions in their historical context as well as their
relevance in matters of perennial interest. This is to be done with the interests and needs of
the general student body in mind but especially to prepare and train philosophy majors for
success in graduate work and careers in philosophy. The department also seeks to fulfill the
greater goals of the University by providing courses of instruction that lead to the development
of the whole person — an educated, responsible citizen of a global community by promoting
ethical lifestyles, the development of adaptive thinking and problem-solving skills, which
P a g e | 209
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
further life-long learning. We use as a guide and goal the words of Bertrand Russell, who said:
“Philosophy should be studied … above all because, through the greatness of the universe
which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that
union with the universe that constitutes its highest good.”
Departmental Goals and Objectives
The goals of the Philosophy Department are





to provide adequate courses and training for students seeking to pursue philosophy
at the graduate and post-graduate level, with special emphasis on the history of
philosophy,
to develop students’ abilities to carefully read and critically analyze material from
different perspectives and to form and express cogent judgments concerning
philosophical questions and issues,
to develop an understanding of the philosophical questions and issues that underlies
much discussion of contemporary problems facing the world today,
for students to develop their own world-views and understanding of philosophical
questions, to cogently argue for their views, and to understand perspectives and
views different from their own,
to further the University’s commitment to values-centered programs leading to the
development of the whole person–an educated, responsible citizen of a global
community.
Classes Assessed
In keeping with the departmental goals, and in changing the senior seminar, we will assess
performance in the core classes. These classes, as core classes, represent the core of the field
of philosophy and are thereby a good indicator of the success of the program.
PHL 21400 – Ethics, PHL 21500/21600 - Traditional/Symbolic Logic, PHL 31100 - Ancient
Philosophy, PHL 31200 - Medieval Philosophy, PHL 31300 - Modern Philosophy, PHL
34500 – Metaphysics, PHL 35500 – Epistemology
Methods of Assessment Used
Students this year were assessed under the old action plan.
P a g e | 210
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Results
This year we only had two students taking the senior seminar (one for December and one for
May). The student taking the seminar for May graduation turned in his work late and
assessment was not done in time for this report (assessment based on using both classes). The
action plan from last year remains in force.
Lessons Learned
The original goal of the senior seminar course was to have students synthesize their previous
learning in addressing a single question: What is Philosophy? This goal was not being met by
even our brightest students. The seminar became just another research project. Also, the
faculty did not have sufficient free time to meet individually with each student to assist them
with their work (since each student would be expected to work with all of the department’s
full-time faculty).
Action Plan
Given that students have plenty of opportunity to do research papers, or independent studies
on topics of their choosing, the addition of a senior seminar was too much extra work for
faculty and students. (Revising the readings in light of last year’s assessment did nothing to
change the situation.) A proposal will be made to drop the requirement but maintain the 36hour requirement.
Based on this year and previous years, a substitution in the required texts for the course was
made. We are discussing making other changes in the readings, possibly allowing students
some choice. But this will be taken up in our fall 2010 departmental meetings.
PHL 49300 Senior Seminar was informally assessed for the first time in spring 2008. The senior
seminar was restructured to provide a program assessment. The topic (“What is Philosophy?”)
and the books were selected to make standardization of data possible. The students were
assessed on the following criteria (selected based on the departmental goals and objectives
above): (1) Understanding of ancient, medieval, modern, contemporary philosophy; (2)
Understanding of arguments; (3) Construction of arguments. Roughly, (1) focuses on content,
(2) on analysis and critical reading, and (3) on synthesis and argumentative writing. Last year
(2007-08) the results were encouraging, while this year’s results were disappointing. Changes
to the readings and requirements (especially making the latter more explicit) are being made
for 2009-10 and are being discussed over the summer. Plans are to repeat this assessment, or a
slightly modified one, in 2009-10. Assessment will be discussed at regular department
P a g e | 211
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
meetings.
This year students had an informal exit exam and we recorded the scores from their graduate
exams and places that accepted them. Placement was better for the 2008 graduates than in
previous years, and the exit exams largely confirmed our expectations.
Based on the concerns mentioned in the American Philosophical Association’s Outcomes
Assessment, the Philosophy Department will adopt the following for the 2010-2011 school year
and beyond:
 DGO 1 will be met by continuing to require philosophy majors to take core courses
in the history of philosophy, ethics, logic, and metaphysics/epistemology. Student
work in those classes will be assessed to ensure adequate learning.
 DGO 2 will be met with the logic requirement for majors and by having students take
(1) other courses in logic, such as traditional logic, game theory, and
intermediate/advanced Logic and by (2) having all courses address critical reading
and writing in various ways (short section on logic, essays, classroom discussion,
etc.). The department is working on a writing like Aquinas guideline for developing
critical skills in most lower-level classes.
 DGO 3 will be met in required and elective courses in topics like contemporary moral
theory, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of law, political philosophy, game
theory, God and suffering, continental philosophy, etc.
 DGO 4 will be met by students doing research papers in upper-level courses and,
lower-level courses, by having students form and defend judgments about various
topics.
 DGO 5 will be met by all of the above and especially by courses in ethics, such as
moral life, ethics, bioethics, contemporary moral theory, metaethics, etc., and by
courses in political philosophy, philosophy of law, etc.
 These goals will be met by (1) monitoring class enrollments, (2) maintaining a strong
core with an emphasis on the history of philosophy and use of primary texts, (3)
regular department meetings, (4) monitoring majors and assessing their strengths
and weaknesses, (5) constant monitoring of classes and instructors, and (6)
maintaining records on graduate placements and scores on graduate exams.
Attention will continue to be given to the concerns addressed by the American Philosophical
Association in its statement on outcomes assessment.
P a g e | 212
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Political Science
Mission
The department sees itself as preparing students for graduate school and law school. Thus,
good writing focused on critical reasoning, analytical thinking, and clear writing are essential.
Program Goals and Objectives

Goals for the graduates in the major:
o The goals for political science majors are that they are prepared to
handle graduate school and law school. The department spends a great
deal of time pushing students in this direction.

Objectives for graduates in the major:
o The objectives for political science majors are to achieve the critical
thinking and writing skills and research skills (spelled out in the syllabus)
so they can handle graduate school and law school.
Classes Assessed
The department plans to add one PS 30000-level course on top of the PS 15600 American
Government: The States course. The instructor is interested in whether students in the 30000level course start off with more scores of three (out of three) on their first-round book notes
than is the case with the PS 15600 courses. Many of the students in the 30000-level courses
have taken a course from this professor before, so the department can get a sense of if
students are carrying forward their learning from one level to another.
Through PS 31500 Policy Analysis Statistics and PS 475000 Governmental and Economic
Research, students learn how to do online research. Basically, in political science and public
administration, all research is online research.
Methods of Assessment Used
The method of assessment will be the use of book notes and the grading method. The
professor plans to use the same system in the case of a 30000-level course that is used in the
IPS 15600 course.
P a g e | 213
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Results
The department is not sure how much comparison will be possible next year, since the idea will
be to change how the students will approach the writing each of their book-note rounds by
giving them specific issues to address for each of those round of book notes.
Lessons learned
The department is surprised at what students across levels of academic skill levels know and
don’t know regarding spelling and grammar. The department is also surprised by what it is
assumed they know as a basic starting point regarding political knowledge. Book notes helped
the professor to realize that he needs to stop making assumptions regarding basic educational
skills and basic political knowledge.
Students learn best when a complex issue is broken into smaller more digestible chunks. The
professor may take time in several lectures to address Piaget. Essentially, Piaget spent his life
looking at his children and how they learned. The basic idea take from his writing is that you
learn by breaking things down into parts, and the parts into parts. So, the professor wants to
develop a sense of consciousness in students about how they learn, but that they may not
realize what they are doing already. Take learning a word-processing program: In reality, none
of us learns the entire manual before we start using a word processing program; we pick and
choose what we need, and we add new features along the way. So we learned word processing
by not learning the whole but parts of the whole.
Action Plan
The professor has pointed out in several places above what will be done differently for the
2011-12 academic year is to give precise issues that students need to address in their book
notes for each round. A 300-page book will be broken down in thirds with students to reading
100 pages per round.
Religion
Objectives of the Religion Major and Courses

Develop the student’s ability to do rational, critical thinking and analysis in studying
P a g e | 214
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment






diverse religions.
Encourage students to respect, preserve, and perpetuate all that is good in each
tradition.
Develop an appreciation of diverse world views, moral systems, and religious beliefs.
Develop a sense of openness to and acceptance of other cultures and traditions
different from one’s own.
Bring students to an understanding of the difference between an academic study of
religion and religious beliefs and a theological study of a person’s own individual
faith.
Expose students to original literature and historic faith texts from cultures and
civilizations.
Encourage students to develop their own beliefs in light of the various traditions and
theories, be able to make practical and theoretical judgments based on those
beliefs, and understand the strengths and weaknesses of those beliefs.
Methods of Assessment Used
Three forms of assessment will be used to evaluate whether or not this approach leads to
higher forms of critical thinking and learning; short evaluative essays, critical thinking short
answer and essay questions on exams, and faculty evaluation of classroom discussions.
Lesson Learned
REL 20100 – History of Christianity
After being taught as a special topics course for the past three years, this course was added to
the catalog as a regular offering this winter. Since a majority of the students who attend
Lindenwood University come out of a culture that claims to be predominantly Christian, it was
felt that it was important to give those students some understanding of the history, influence,
and effect of this tradition on their society and their lives.
The last two times this course was offered, rather than lecturing on the controversies that had
occurred in the two-thousand-year history of Christianity, students were asked to study the text
and produce charts of the major issues, opposing ideas, and individuals involved in the debates
over orthodoxy and faith that occurred in the fourth century, during the Reformation, and in
the past two hundred years. Putting this task on the students resulted in a better understanding
of the many controversies that have been a part of the growth and development of Christianity
throughout its history. It was also possible, with these charts, to bring students to a better
understanding of the effect and importance of these debates. Essay questions on exams
P a g e | 215
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
showed that students were able to understand and articulate the implications of these
theological debates on society and their own lives. In the fall, deeper and more probing
questions will be developed on exams and in classroom discussions to see if this way of
teaching can lead to better understanding and critical thinking.
REL 30000 – Religion, Science and Faith and REL 30500 – Psychology of Religion
These are two courses that seem to work very well as they are. Based on classroom discussion
and critical essays, students in these courses are able to begin to think critically, to approach
ideas and concepts that are unfamiliar without being intimidated or threatened, and to discuss
them with fellow students in an open and unthreatening way. Both of these courses will be
taught in the same way in the coming academic year.
REL 31000 – Religious Foundations of Western Civilization
This class has been changed in the catalogue to Islam and the West due to three main
weaknesses: the class was based on a textbook rather than on original source materials, the
textbook on which it was based was poor, and the class was too broad in its scope.
The Religious Foundations of Western Civilization class was based on a textbook of the same
name. The Religion Department has begun to move away from textbooks as the main written
resources for classes in favor of original source materials. The move is not necessarily
comprehensive, for some classes may continue to use textbooks, perhaps in conjunction with
original sources. The move is, nevertheless, important to the department’s increasing selfawareness as a vital link in the great western tradition of liberal learning. In part for that
reason, the textbook will no longer be used for REL 31000.
The textbook itself is problematic for a number of reasons, the main one being that although its
contents range from basic to advanced, the writing is fairly consistently advanced, making it
very difficult to use effectively. I found that I was unable to rely on the text as a source of
information for the students, with the result that class time consisted mainly of lectures. That is
not a preferred teaching method, and this is the other reason that this textbook will no longer
be used for REL 31000.
Finally, the class content is unduly broad. The textbook seeks to explore the religions of
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, their historic interactions, their political histories and
approaches, and how they might be shaped in the future. That is simply too broad for adequate
treatment of the subjects. Islam and the West, therefore, will focus on Islam, with only brief
looks at Judaism (especially Zionism) and the Western segregation of religion from governance,
each for the sake of developing the context for the examination of Islam. The class will examine
P a g e | 216
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Islam through the Qur’an, the Hadith literature, and the writings of a number of Muslim
intellectuals from various religio-political perspectives.
REL 32000 – Christian Doctrine
This class used a textbook (A. McGrath’s Christian Theology: An Introduction) and a reader
(McGrath’s companion, Christian Theology Reader), a collection of excerpts on various topics
from various theologians across the centuries. Although, as noted above, the department is
moving away from textbooks, it is doubtful that this class, which is part of the department’s
core, is susceptible to a primary-source-only approach. The number of different perspectives on
any given topic would make such an approach prohibitive. Furthermore, in this case the
textbook worked out quite well because it is well-written and generally addresses the conflicts
over doctrine very effectively. The result was a class that emphasized outside reading and inclass discussions, with some lectures as needed. The department was very pleased with the
outcome pedagogically, as students engaged with challenging ideas and discussed them with
some sophistication. Nevertheless, the chair thinks in-class discussions could have been
improved by requiring students to take notes on the readings and turn in the notes for credit.
The reader was rather a disappointment, as most excerpts are too brief to be of much use. It
would be preferable to develop a supplemental set of fewer source materials of greater length
and depth on important topics by key authors such as Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and Wesley.
REL 32000 more than met the department’s goal that students in 30000-level classes produce
at least 10 pages of written work. The syllabus included a formal paper of more than eight
pages, plus three exams consisting entirely of essay questions. The professor’s approach to the
paper was not ideal, however, as different due dates were assigned for different paper topics,
and students were allowed to choose their topic and associated due date. Most students simply
chose the last due date, and the professor ended up with one paper on one topic, one paper on
another, two papers on a third topic, and the rest on the fourth topic. The lack of comparability
made grading more difficult. In the future the professor will give one due date and one or two
paper titles. The professor will also spend more time walking the students through expectations
for the paper, discussing how to use source materials and secondary literature, clarifying what
constitutes good academic writing, and setting due dates for bibliographies and outlines in
advance of the due date for the final paper.
P a g e | 217
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
School of Humanities Analysis
English
The department’s senior assessment is a positive effort to look at the final product of
students before they graduate. The department is considering methods to compare that
work to writings from earlier efforts by the majors. The program should expand the
number of 30000-level classes that are being assessed, including all those classes in the
program core. Is there any effort at assessing the creative writing classes? Would
making ENG 30200 a prerequisite for 30000 English classes force them to take it earlier
in their education and thus improve writing in later classes? Who was the anonymous
part of the review process for papers (the reviews or the students)?
EPP
The program is working on assessment for all of the classes offered to better define the
program goals and objectives to be better able to define success. It would be useful to
know how they are doing in ENG 17000, especially compared to those non-native
speakers who went straight to ENG 17000. EPP 11000 and EPP 15000 will require
greater analysis. Be careful of phrases such as “good indicator of student need,” as it is
unclear what is meant. It is also worth noting if there is any significant change in the
placement numbers for each level.
Foreign Languages
The foreign language programs have one of the most extensive and thought-through
assessment systems at Lindenwood and works hard to assess the vast majority of the
classes in the program. But including more specific information in the report would be
useful. For example, what were the results of pre- and post-tests? What were the
results on the survey of skill for the 30000-level classes? When discussing percentages
on unit exams, are we discussing percentages from areas assessed on the pre-test or
total on the exam? When using students’ perceptions of a skill, how does that compare
to their actual ability? The department needs to avoid being too general in statements;
words such as “many” can have a wide variety of meanings. Keeping the portfolio can be
useful, but does it assess student progress?
P a g e | 218
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
History
The History Department has made a major effort to assess its GE classes and its
capstone and to do analysis appropriate to both. The program does have areas to work
on; it needs to extend assessment into some of the core 30000-level classes. The faculty
members need to consider how they might make assessment at the 20000- and 30000level classes professor proof (appropriate for anyone who might teach the class by
covering the goals and objectives every section should meet). They should create a
system for comparing a paper from HIS 20300 and HIS 40000.
International Studies
International studies is a new program and is just in the process of putting assessment
into place. A clearer, more definite mission statement will help the department to
determine its goals. The department also needs to create more measurable programbased student learning objectives that will allow for the creation of a system of
assessment that is less vague than the one currently discussed. The department also
needs to make sure that their lessons learned are driven by some type of assessment.
Philosophy
The department began to assess the senior seminar, which is the capstone course
during the 2010-11 academic year. They are working on expanding their ideas of, and
tools for, assessing the success of the program. An area in need of expansion is in the
creation of student learning objectives for the program. The program needs to create
objectives that are more measurable, in virtually any form, than those that are currently
listed. Addressing objectives might entail more than offering a class and might be a
concern that needs to be measured over multiple classes. It is worth asking if the
change in the senior seminar affects the objectives of the program. It would also be
good to see the data from the graduate exams that confirm the program success.
Political Science
The Political Science Department, for much of its history, worked within the business
school’s assessment system, and it is still creating a system that is completely its own.
For this, a number of areas will need to be addressed. Assessment systems need to be
more formally created for PS 15500, and the assessment for PS 15600 needs to be
finalized and implemented. The programs need to develop student learning outcomes,
P a g e | 219
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
which will make the development of an assessment system more manageable.
Assessment also needs to be developed for other core classes in the program. The
central questions that need to be the focus are what are they learning in the program
and is the learning meeting the department goals and objectives? The assessment needs
to include more data as to the specific results and ensure results are playing a role in the
both developing and changing the program.
Religion
The Religion Department is making an effort to do some form of assessment in each of
the classes it offers on a regular basis. But there are some areas for strengthening
assessment. The program needs to define student learning objectives that can be
measured by the assessment program. There is a dearth of data; most of this
assessment is made up of department changes, but what lead to them being made? Are
you assessing core knowledge gained by students in your classes and programs? What
has assessment told you about the program’s strengths or weaknesses, and what are
you doing to deal with them?
School of Sciences
The School of Sciences has six departments — biology, chemistry, computer science,
mathematics, psychology, and sociology/anthropology — that offer 13 bachelor of science and
bachelor of arts degrees as well as eight minors. The school also has a number of non-degree
and pre-professional programs. For students interested in teaching at the secondary level, the
school also offers certification programs in biology, chemistry, unified sciences, and math.
The Schools of Sciences offers the following degrees
Bachelor of Arts in
 Biology
 Environmental Biology
 Chemistry
 Computer Science
 Mathematics
 Psychology
 Sociology
 Sociology with Anthropology
P a g e | 220
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Bachelor of Sciences in
 Biology
 Chemistry
 Computer Science
 Computer Information Systems
 Mathematics
Minors in




Anthropology
Biology
Chemistry
Computer Science
Pre-professional Programs
 Pre-Chiropractic
 Pre-Dentistry
 Pre-Engineering
 Health Sciences
 Pre-Medicine
 Pre-Optometry
 Pre-Medicine
 Pre-Veterinary




Engineering Physics
Mathematics
Psychology
Sociology
P a g e | 221
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Anthropology/Sociology
Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology (contract degree) and Bachelor of Arts in Sociology
Goals and Objectives
Goals
Students will





develop as more complete human beings, who think and act freely as individuals
and as members of the community,
acquire the intellectual tools and the range of perspectives needed to
understand human cultures, as they are, as they have been, and as they might
be,
reason analytically about both qualitative and quantitative evidence,
develop personal guidelines for making informed, independent, sociallyresponsible decisions that are respectful of other people and of the
environment,
recognize and identify the fundamental concepts, principles, and professional
vocabulary of several specific social science disciplines, and demonstrate an
awareness of how such concepts and principles influence behavior and values at
the individual, social, and cultural levels.
Objectives
These are the measurable aspects of the assessment of the students in the sociology and
anthropology program. These objectives coincide with the various competencies of the
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning model.
Basic Concepts
Students should



develop a good understanding of the historical development of sociology and how it
emerged in relationship to the industrial and political revolutions in the West,
demonstrate knowledge of how sociologists attempt to explain human behavior and
institutions,
be able to distinguish a sociological generalization from common sense
understandings of society,
P a g e | 222
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment













demonstrate knowledge of the basic concepts of culture and society as used by
social scientists,
understand the distinctions among the concepts of material culture, symbols,
norms, values, subcultures, ethnocentrism, and cultural relativism,
understand the differences among hunting-gathering, tribal horticultural and
pastoralist, agrarian, and industrial societies,
demonstrate a knowledge of the concept of socialization as it relates to the
nurture-nature controversy in the social sciences,
understand the relationship of family, peers, school, and the mass media and
socialization processes,
understand the concepts of status and role as used by social scientists,
understand the difference between primary and secondary groups and the research
conducted by sociologists on these groups,
understand the different types of sociological explanations for deviant behavior,
understand the differences between closed, caste-based societies and open, class
societies, and the implications these societies have for social mobility,
understand the various sociological explanations for social stratification and poverty
in their own society,
demonstrate knowledge of the differences between race and ethnicity, sex and
gender, and other distinctions between biological and sociological categories,
demonstrate knowledge of the major racial, ethnic, economic and cultural groups
that make up the contemporary United States, as well as some of the changes
among and between these groups,
understand basic worldwide demographic trends and the consequences for
urbanization.
Social Theory
Students should




have a good understanding of the differences between structural-functional,
conflict, and symbolic interaction theories in sociology,
have an understanding of the differences between unilineal evolutionary theory and
diffusionism as early explanations of societal change,
have knowledge of the major classical theorists in both sociology and anthropology
such as Comte, Spencer, Durkheim, Marx, Weber, Parsons, Boas, Margaret Mead,
George H. Mead, Benedict, and White,
have an understanding of the contemporary views of societal change:
modernization, dependency, and world systems theory.
P a g e | 223
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Research Methods
Students should




have knowledge of what constitutes independent and dependent variables,
correlations with and without causal linkage, and causation,
understand objectivity and the limitations of objective research in the social
sciences,
understand the different research methods, both qualitative and quantitative, in
sociology, anthropology, and social work including social experiments, survey
research, participant observation, and secondary analysis,
understand the basic steps of formulating a research project from defining the topic
to specifying hypotheses to data collection to interpreting results including statistical
procedures and finally drawing conclusions.
Institutional Understanding
Students should


have a cross-cultural understanding of the different forms of family structure and
marriage, educational institutions, the major religious belief systems and
institutions, and economic and political systems that exist throughout the world,
have an understanding of social conditions and social problems that affect social
work practice. This should be demonstrated by social work majors; a demonstration
of the need to make social institutions more humane and responsive to human
needs, especially for at-risk populations will be evident.
Results
This academic year 2010-11 the department had six students graduating in our sociology
and anthropology programs. Three students were anthropology majors (contract majors),
and they were all outstanding students who graduated with top grades. One student had
an archaeology emphasis and was accepted into the graduate archaeology program at
Illinois State University, Normal. She had also received a good offer for a scholarship at
Missouri State University, Springfield. However, UIS offered her a better award, and they
have better facilities for the type of archaeology she is interested in for her M.A. work.
Another anthropology student was a top student who is interested in applying for graduate
school at the University of Missouri, Columbia, with an emphasis in evolutionary
psychology. He wanted to work for a semester and take the GRE before applying to the
program. He will try to get accepted in spring 2012. If not, he plans to try again next year.
The third anthropology student will graduate later this summer. To complete her degree,
she took our study abroad to China course. She wants to teach English in Japan before
moving on to become a graduate student in anthropology. She was an exchange student in
P a g e | 224
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Japan during her high school years and has retained a love and fascination with Japanese
culture. All of these students took courses that involved doing an extensive research paper
that was evaluated within a portfolio of papers we keep on file.
We had three sociology students that graduated this year. One was a top student who
received our Jessie Bernard Sociology Award for our outstanding student in the academic
year of 2010-11 as well as the top Easton Award for female students at Lindenwood. She
plans to work on her M.A. in International Studies at Lindenwood this next year. Ultimately
she wants to work in some humanitarian capacity in different regions of the world. She
wrote an extensive research paper on Anthony Giddens for the social thought and theory
course. She is an elegant writer who has excellent analytical and research talents. We
expect her to do very well in our international studies program. The other two students who
graduated with a sociology degree may pursue graduate work in the future, one in sociology
and the other in physical education. All six of the students did major research and analytical
papers for our SOC 320 Social Thought and Theory course, which is currently the major
capstone course in our area. We retained and evaluated their research papers that they
completed for the course. We found that all three of them really developed their critical
writing skills with the research papers. In addition, all of them had to do a major oral
presentation for the class based on their research. All of them did very well with their oral
presentations. The department believes that all of these students benefitted from our
sociology and anthropology major.
For our next academic year in 2011-12, the department will have a fully developed
anthropology major. We have hired a full-time archaeologist, and we expect a lot of growth
in this program. Currently, the job market for students trained in archaeology with a B.A.
degree is outstanding. We expect our program to grow gradually within the next five years.
We intend to develop a major overhaul of our assessment program for this new
anthropology major in our program.
Action Plan
The department needs to continue to perfect our collection of papers for incorporation into
the portfolios. We have improved our collection of research papers for the portfolios of our
students. The faculty will still need to remind students of how important these portfolios
are and the students need to be more aware of how these portfolios will be assessed. One
way in which we will do this is to inform them that these portfolios will be used as a means
of writing recommendation letters for them for their future careers.
Challenges in Our Assessment Program for Sociology and Anthropology
The department expects a considerable increase in the number of majors in anthropology
and possible sociology in the next couple of years, especially as we develop a formal
anthropology major for this next academic year. In respect to those developments, the
P a g e | 225
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
faculty is going to try to develop a more effective instrument for assessing the student
portfolios for those majoring in sociology or anthropology. At this time, since we have a
small number of majors graduating, it is difficult to get statistically meaningful assessment
information. We did develop a Likert scale for assessing their essays in their portfolios;
however, we are still evaluating whether this is a significant measure of our students’
intellectual and critical thinking abilities. Therefore, we will re-evaluate our methods this
next year to determine whether we can improve our assessment for our majors.
This year the department did have a final exit interview with the students to discuss their
plans and how they relate to our program. We experimented with this informally in the
past. And next year we will continue to interview our graduating students in a more
formalized manner with their portfolios in hand. Next year, we will have a new capstone
course for our anthropology majors where we guide them in their career paths.
Beyond our introductory courses in sociology and anthropology, we use essay exams, short
papers, and more extensive research papers to assess our students’ progress throughout
our curriculum. We also have students do presentations on their research papers by
utilizing PowerPoint slides. We have noticed an improvement in oral communication
presentation skills since we introduced this into our program. We have not developed any
formal means of assessing these materials to demonstrate student proficiencies in any
statistical meaningful way. However, we do believe that we are engaged in both the
process and culture of assessment throughout our program.
Biology
Mission
The mission of the Department of Biology is to prepare students for a variety of scientific
career options, including graduate study in biology, medical, and other professional schools,
secondary education, laboratory work in industrial and clinical settings, as well as
environmental field work.
Program Goals and Objectives
Goals
Biology majors will demonstrate

thorough understanding of the major areas of biology, especially cell structure
and function, genetics, evolution, and ecology,
P a g e | 226
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment



facility in practicing the scientific method, including observation and perception
of patterns in nature, induction and deduction, investigation, data collection,
analysis, synthesis, and scientific writing and communication,
a level of preparation enabling them to succeed in graduate and professional
schools, or to obtain and succeed in careers in applied areas of biology, such as
environmental science, industrial or academic research and development, and
process / quality analysis,
awareness of the important historical developments that underlay contemporary
discoveries in biology.
Objectives
Students will






be provided with facts and concepts in areas of biology such as ecology,
evolution, cell and molecular biology, anatomy, physiology, and genetics
through a variety of lecture, laboratory, and field study approaches,
initiate and complete laboratory experiments using scientific methodologies,
do historical reviews and complementary searches of biological journals,
learn to present results and conclusions of research, experimentation, and
scientific thinking in a variety of formats, including visual, oral, and written
modes,
pursue some topic(s) in greater depth than is presented in most courses,
be introduced to ethical issues generated by advances in genetics,
biotechnology, environmental science, and other areas of biological research.
Classes Assessed
BIO 25100 - General Biology I, BIO 25200 - General Biology II, BIO 22700 - Human Anatomy
and Physiology I, BIO 22800 - Human Anatomy and Physiology II, BIO 49100 - Senior
Synthesis
Methods of Assessment Used



BIO 25100 and 25200 utilized objective pre- and post-testing.
BIO 22700 and 22800 utilized both objective pre- and post-testing and subjective
assessments such as oral and written in-class questions, end-of-class “most muddy
point,” and review sessions.
BIO 49100 utilized an objective exit exam as well as a subjective student response
assessment that seeks to gather information on student attitudes toward the
Lindenwood biology program and post-graduation career plans.
P a g e | 227
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment

Instructors of each course read and discuss the University-administered subjective
student course evaluations and incorporate student suggestions where possible.
Results
BIO 25100 and BIO 25200
Pre- and post-tests have been developed for both BIO 25100 and BIO 25200. The following
competencies are assessed using these tests:
 Development of factual knowledge base in five areas of biology: cell structure and
function; genetics; evolution; structure and function; acquisition and interpretation
of scientific information.
 Ability to expand basic knowledge toward understanding of key biological concepts.
 Ability to apply conceptual understanding of course material to analysis of specific
biological examples.
 Understanding of the experimental, analytical, and communication processes
utilized by modern biologists.
The BIO 25100 and BIO 25200 pre-tests are administered during the first class meetings of the
semester and the post-tests are administered as part of the final exams. The post-test questions add
extra credit to the students point totals, while the pre-tests have no effect on student grades. Each
test consists of 25 multiple-choice items selected primarily from the test bank for Biology, 5th – 8th
edition, Campbell, Reece and Mitchell, the textbook used for both courses.
BIO 25100 - General Biology I
Year
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
Grand Avg.
Pre-test
7.43
7.47
7.48
7.91
7.96
6.90
7.64
Post-test
10.10
10.13
11.54
10.90
12.52
11.40
11.31
Change
2.67
2.66
4.06
2.95
4.56
4.50
3.66
Improvement
36%
36%
54%
37%
57%
65%
48%
BIO 25200 - General Biology II
2009-10
2010-11
To Date
Pre-test mean
8.32
7.69
8.13
Post-test mean
18.83
16.38
17.83
Change
10.51
8.69
9.7
% Improvement
126%
113%
119%
Other assessments of student progress included exams for lecture and lab, mini-quizzes in
lecture, lab quizzes and reports, assignments in lecture and lab, and class discussion.
P a g e | 228
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
BIO 22700 - Human Anatomy and Physiology I
This is the first course of human anatomy and physiology sequence, and it also fulfills the
general education requirement for a laboratory based natural science course (biology).
GE goals and objectives met by this course
Students will





refine and apply the basic skills needed for productive study and communication of
ideas,
develop and use the higher levels of thinking, including analysis, synthesis,
evaluation, and integration,
reason analytically about qualitative and quantitative evidence,
develop personal guidelines for making informed, independent, socially-responsible
decisions,
demonstrate a grasp of the scientific method and the fundamental concepts and
principles of biological science and identify how these concepts and principles relate
to the interrelationship between human society and the natural world.
Course goals and objectives met by this course
Students will




learn the organization, form, and function of the human body, including an
introduction to anatomy and physiology, cells, tissues, and the following systems:
integumentary, skeletal, muscular, nervous, special senses, and endocrine,
integrate and use this material in advanced courses,
use the knowledge gained to make informed choices about anatomy and physiology
related social and personal issues,
use the knowledge gained to understand, interpret, and critique the popular media.
The test assesses the following competencies:


Development of factual knowledge of human biological systems (25/25).
Ability to expand this knowledge to understand scientific processes and
fundamental biological concepts (9/25).
P a g e | 229
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Results
Year
N
Pre-test
Post-test
Change
%Change
2009-10
77
7.44
16.20
8.76
118%
2010-11
124
9.40
16.02
6.62
70%
BIO 22800 - Human Anatomy and Physiology II
This is the second course of the two-semester human anatomy and physiology sequence, but is not
designated as a general education course. It meets the same course goals and objectives as BIO
22700 Human Anatomy and Physiology I, except that it covers the following human systems:
cardiovascular, immune, respiratory, urinary, digestive, and reproduction, and also covers selected
topics in water and electrolyte balance, acid-base balance, nutrition, and human development.
The test assesses the following competencies:



Development of factual knowledge of human biological systems (25/25).
Ability to expand this knowledge to understand scientific processes and fundamental
biological concepts (7/25).
Ability to apply conceptual understanding of course material to analysis of specific
biological examples (3/25 items).
Results
Year
2009-10
2010-11
N
75
94
Pre-test
6.50
7.36
Post-test
15.00
15.74
Change
8.50
8.38
%Change
131%
114%
BIO 49100 - Senior Synthesis (Program Assessment) - Assessment of Graduating Seniors


Each May, an exit exam is administered to all graduating seniors. The exam contains
many of the questions from the BIO 25100 General Biology I and BIO 25200 General
Biology II pre- and post-tests, along with questions from plant biology and the
ecology/environmental biology area. The exit exam questions cover the key areas
that our students have studied in the biology program at Lindenwood University.
The exit interview of graduating students includes questions in which students are
asked about the features of the biology program that they feel were most beneficial
and which areas could be improved.
P a g e | 230
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Results
Exit Exam
Grad Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Cumulative
N
12
16
16
12
18
23
17
19
10
20
163
Part 1
12.42
12.81
14.13
13.08
15.00
13.00
15.24
11.32
14.55
15.21
13.58
Part 2
12.50
14.88
16.20
13.00
17.11
16.26
16.00
16.63
15.91
17.74
16.65
Total
50%
55%
61%
52%
64%
59%
62%
56%
61%
66%
60%
The subject matter in which our graduating students are weakest includes biochemistry and
metabolism, gene regulation, and the more quantitative aspects of evolution.
Exit Interviews
The features of the biology program that students most often complement are the small
class sizes, easy availability of instructors and advisors, and breadth of coverage of areas of
biology represented by the current faculty.
The feature they reported to be most in need of improvement is the diversity of biology
elective course offerings. Also frequently mentioned is the need to encourage students to
become involved in research early in their careers at Lindenwood.
Lessons Learned
BIO 25100 - General Biology I
General Biology I students still struggle most with the biochemistry, cellular metabolism, and gene
regulation portions of the course content. Gene regulation comes at the end of the course and is
often rushed, so it is not surprising that students do not understand this material well. In previous
years instructors have added online homework as a course requirement hoping to improve student
performance in the cell structure and function units. However, the effect on student performance
has been limited. Despite this, students feel that they learn better from the online exercises, so the
homework requirement will be retained in future semesters.
BIO 25200 - General Biology II
Examination of the post-test questions that were most often missed shows that they represented
different topics and do not indicate a particular problem area in the course content. A comparison
P a g e | 231
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
to last year’s data shows one question that was consistently missed both years and should be
considered for revision. Other questions did not show a pattern.
BIO 22700 - Human Anatomy and Physiology I
The decrease in percent change from the 2009-10 academic year to the 2010-11 academic
year is due to the increase in pre-test scores of the students (post-test scores were nearly
identical). This increase in pre-test scores is likely due to better enforcement of course
prerequisites.
Further we assessed student performance in BIO 22700 course prerequisites (introductory
biology and chemistry courses) to see if there was a significant effect on student
performance in the BIO 227 course during fall 2009. There was a marginally significant
relationship between the average grade received in the two prerequisite courses and BIO
22700 (r2 = 0.341; see figure below).
Of the 24 students who earned either a D or F in BIO 22700 during fall 2009, 17 of these
students (70.8 percent) received a D in at least one of the two prerequisite courses or had
not completed one of the courses.
BIO 22800 - Human Anatomy and Physiology II
Comparison of results from the past two years offers some interesting details. Although the
percent change decreased from 2009-10 to 2010-11, the post-test scores were nearly
identical. The higher pre-test score for entering students in the 2010-11 academic year may
P a g e | 232
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
have been due to better enforcement of the prerequisites. The department is still in the
process of establishing a baseline for this course.
BIO 49100 - Senior Synthesis (Program Assessment)
Exit exam results indicate continuing student weakness in a few key areas, particularly
biochemistry and metabolism and gene regulation. This subject matter is important for
students going on to graduate and professional schools, so this deficiency should be
addressed.
Graduating students value the small classes, hands-on laboratories, and accessibility of the
biology faculty members. These are features of the program that should not be changed.
However, students do want some of the features of a larger program such as a wider variety
of elective courses and research options.
Action Plan for next year
BIO 25100 - General Biology I
The department will continue its efforts to improve student understanding of biochemistry
and cellular metabolism.
BIO 25200 - General Biology II
No activity is planned.
BIO 22700 - Human Anatomy and Physiology I and BIO 22800 - Human Anatomy and
Physiology II
The department will continue its investigation of student performance in introductory
biology and chemistry courses. If it appears to significantly impact performance in the
human anatomy and physiology sequence, we will discuss changing the minimum grade
accepted for the prerequisites. In 2011-12, we will begin collecting data to determine the
effect of the new requirement for a minimum grade of C in BIO 22700 in order to continue
into BIO 22800.
BIO 49100 - Senior Synthesis (Program Assessment)
The department will continue to improve the variety of biology elective course offerings.
P a g e | 233
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Impacts and changes on classes
BIO 25100 - General Biology I
In 2011-12, the department will pilot a new set of lab exercises for the course. We selected
labs that focus more on providing practical applications of the biochemistry and metabolism
topics presented in the course.
BIO 25200-General Biology II
No changes planned.
BIO 22800 - Human Anatomy and Physiology II
Beginning with fall 2011, students will be required to have earned a C or higher in BIO
22700 to continue on into BIO 22800. We plan to compare student performance in BIO
22800 before and after this change.
BIO 49100 - Senior Synthesis (Program Evaluation)
In fall 2011, parasitology, a 30000-level BIO elective that has not been offered in a number
of years, will be offered. Some faculty have received course release for research in spring
2012, so if we are to offer more BIO elective courses that semester, we may have to rely on
qualified adjunct instructors to cover some of the lower-level courses.
Chemistry
Goals
The Chemistry Department’s goals are to prepare and train graduates for
 professional work in chemistry,
 continuation to graduate studies in either chemistry or related professions,
 teaching at the middle school and/or the secondary school level.
Objectives
Students will

acquire core competencies in major divisions of the chemistry field such as
analytical, inorganic, organic, and physical chemistry,
P a g e | 234
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment




acquire practical experience in the subject areas of the courses through both the
design and implementation of laboratory experiments using a team approach as well
as individualized practice,
adequately collect, record, and analyze data in a laboratory setting,
recognize and implement safe and appropriate laboratory techniques,
research, repeat, and present senior‐level experiments in at least one major field of
chemistry that will be evaluated based upon a grade rubric that is generated by the
chemistry faculty.
Course Assessments
CHM 23100 – General Chemistry 2
Methods of Assessment
This course was assessed with pre- and post-test as well as exam assessments.
Students took a post-test assessment after the midterm exams. The questions on the
assessment were geared towards getting the students to think about their study habits and
what they need to do to improve for their next exam as well as the fairness of the exam. On
the assessment, the students were asked how much time they spent studying for an exam
and what they would do differently next time: Did they see the professor or tutors or get
help from fellow students? Over the course of the semester, students reported getting
more assistance from the professor or others and their exam scores showed an
improvement. Another section of the assessment was how long was spent studying for the
exam. As shown in the data above, the more the students studied, the better they did on
the exam. There was also a place on the assessment where students wrote about the topics
that they had the most difficulty with and the professor will incorporate their suggestions
into the course when I teach the topic again.
The department will continue to use pre- and post-tests in the future; however the
professor will look at the particular questions within the exam, rather than just the overall
scores. A similar exam assessment will also be used to motivate the students as well as
addressing issues pertaining to the current course.
Results
Final grade correlated to percent increase on pre-test to post-test and missed lectures.


If the student received an A in the course, there was a 21.6 percent average increase
in his/her pre-test to post-test scores and on average missed 2.2 days of lecture.
If the student received a B in the course, there was a 13.7 percent average increase
in his/her pre-test to post-test scores and on average missed 2.8 days of lecture.
P a g e | 235
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment



If the student received a C in the course, there was a 5.6 percent average increase in
his/her pre-test to post-test scores and on average missed 5.1 lectures.
If the student received a D or F in the course, there was a 2.3 percent average
increase in his/her pre-test to post-test scores and on average missed 12.5 days of
lecture.
Overall there was a 12.7 percent average increase from pre-test to post-test scores,
and 4.6 days were missed on average.
The above data indicates that student performance is directly correlated to class
attendance.
Correlation of Hours Studied Compared to Exam Scores
Students took a post-test assessment after the midterm exams. The questions on the
assessment were geared towards getting the students to think about their study habits and
what they need to do to improve for their next exam as well as the fairness of the exam. On
the assessment, the students were asked how much time they spent studying for an exam
and what they would do differently next time, did they see the professor or tutors or get
help from fellow students. Over the course of the semester, students reported getting more
assistance from the professor or others, and their exam scores showed an improvement.
Another section of the assessment was how long was spent studying for the exam. As
shown in the data below, the more the students studied, the better they did on the exam.
There was also a place on the assessment where students wrote about the topics that they
had the most difficulty with, and the professor will incorporate their suggestions into the
course when I teach the topic again.
P a g e | 236
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment





In preparation for exam one, students reported studied an average of two to three
hours for their exam. The average score on exam one was 68 percent.
In preparation for exam two, students reported studying an average of four to six
hours for their exam. The average score on exam two was 80 percent.
In preparation for exam three, students reported studying an average of three to
four hours for their exam. The average score on exam three was 62 percent.
In preparation for exam four, students reported studying an average of four to six
hours for their exam. The average score on exam four was 67 percent.
The average score on the final exam was 76 percent.
The department will continue to use a similar assessment in the future, updating the
information for the current course and topics being covered.
CHM 23200 ‐ General Chemistry 3
This course was taught for the first time spring 2010 with limited enrollment. For fall 2010,
the students in this course were the first students who were completing the new sequence
of CHM 23000, CHM 23100, and CHM 23200. The fall 2010 courses were in large part onsequence freshmen who began the 23000 sequence in fall of their freshman year,
continued to CHM 23100 and CHM 24100 in spring of their freshman year, and finally
completed the sequence in fall of their sophomore year. The 38 students in the course were
assessed with a pre- and post-test 25 question multiple-choice assessment test that
included questions on solutions, equilibria, kinetics, thermodynamics, acids, and bases.
Results
The average improvement for the students between the pre- and post-test was 34 percent.
In addition, the students were given CATs on multiple topics and lecture was modified
based upon the success of the students. Similar testing was performed for the 33 students
that were enrolled in spring 2011, with an average improvement of 32 percent between the
pre- and post-test. As the final course in the general chemistry sequence, CHM 23200 faces
unique challenges and benefits vs. CHM 23100 and CHM 23000.
Lesson Learned
The students that are enrolled in CHM 23200 have successfully completed two chemistry
courses prior to entering and, in general, have completed more math courses as well. While
the enrollment in the course is less than the final course, CHM 25200, in the previous
sequence with 38 students enrolled in fall 2010 (on sequence course) and 33 enrolled in
spring 2011 (off-sequence course) compared to an average of 60-65 students on sequence
in CHM 25200 and 30-35 off sequence in CHM 25200, the percentage of students that are
successfully completing the course is higher.
P a g e | 237
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
For CHM 25200, on average 28 percent of the students received an A, 26 percent received
a B, and 26 percent a C with the remainder of the students receiving a D or below and not
fulfilling the C or better requirement to continue onto future chemistry courses. For CHM
23200, 31 percent of the students received an A, 44 percent received a B, and 8 percent
received a C with the remaining students receiving a D or below. The largest jump by far
was in the number of Bs that were earned in the course with the same instructor for all
courses, including the CHM 25200 courses. As the instructor, it was clear that the students
were not only more prepared in the background chemistry material, but also in the
mathematical concepts that are necessary for CHM 23200 including advanced algebra,
logarithms, quantitative relationships, and reasoning. While the number of students
entering the course has decreased, those students that are completing the course appear to
retain more information and have a more solid foundation in chemistry.
CHM 36100 and CHM 36200 ‐ Organic Chemistry
In the previous academic year, the department began to look seriously at the changes
necessary for the chemistry program to achieve ACS approval. One of those changes was
the introduction of a chemical literature course. This course would focus heavily on the use
of journals and an increase in the students learning to evaluate resources in writing in the
field of chemistry. Part of the course would benefit chemistry majors as they learn how to
write lab reports.
The general chemistry sequence represents the beginning level of coursework for the
majors and is where they are introduced to the idea of report writing. In these courses, the
students are first exposed to the idea that lab reports are not just a simple tabulation of
what went on in the laboratory but that they are evaluating their efforts and are looking to
gain an understanding of the methodology in science and some level of context by learning
about the back ground or history of the techniques. In the mid-level courses like analytical
chemistry and organic chemistry the students are not just looking to gain a greater
understanding of the techniques being used, but are also looking to develop necessary skills
like using flowcharts for procedures, understanding of the need to describe experimental
apparatus, and in interpretation of their results.
At the highest level of coursework, the department wants the students to display a mastery
of these skills that we find is currently lacking. The faculty has definitely seen improvement
in student reporting skills over the last few years as our program began looking at the
improvements for these skills as a priority for our various courses.
Methods of Assessment
In the last year the department began tracking the lab report grading using a spreadsheet
that showed the individual grades for various sections within the lab report. The professor
broke the report down into six sections that were individually important.
P a g e | 238
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Total
Possible
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
3
2
2
3
1
By tabulating the data for two full sections of students over the course of two semesters
and comparing to the total possible points, the professor discovered a series of trends that
seem to correlate to anecdotal evidence that was provided by other professors in the
department.
Total
References
Discussion of Error
Conclusions
Calculations
Procedure
Data Sheets/
Weights/Yields
Set Up
Materials List
Hazards/Warnings
Theory
History
Purpose
Class/Section
Date
Partner
Name
Title
1. The title page, which includes the basic information identifying the report, the
author, the lab partner(s), the date, and the course/section. While it may seem that
this information just makes sense in the format of the lab report, students often
leave out these components.
2. The introduction to the lab was the next section, which included a paragraph of the
purpose for performing the lab, the background or historical context, and the theory
of the lab. Students often gloss over this information, because they lack the
understanding that we do not perform these labs just to make them go through the
motions of science, but rather that they are learning the techniques and principles of
the scientific method in a very practical form.
3. The next section is the experimental method, which includes the hazards/warnings,
the materials list, the set-up, and the procedure. This is a very important aspect of
the lab report to the development of the students as science majors as it represents
the technical writing aspect of the report. The explanation of these topics is crucial
to their understanding of the needed components, the dangers inherent in the
process, the design of an experiment, and the methods used in their experiments.
4. The data section of the report is a space to present the proof of their experiment, as
well as to demonstrate their knowledge of the calculations and to tabulate the data
that is gathered. The data sheets represent the factual record of the experiment.
The tabulations of measurements and the calculations of theoretical and percent
yields will provide a basis for the information in the final discussion section.
5. The discussion section is where they are expected to draw a conclusion about the
success or failure of their experimental procedure, as well as the evaluation or
analysis of an outcome and is also a portion of the report where they are expected
to come up with a discussion of error. If there were problems with the experiment,
what were they and how might they be corrected or avoided? Again these critical
evaluation skills are of utmost necessity for the functioning science major.
6. The professor also added a reference section, where the students are supposed to
list the references for the various comparisons, or resources used in the writing of
the report. This has traditionally been an area of concern in student work.
25
P a g e | 239
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
In each of the first semester sections the areas that showed the most inconsistency and required the
most improvement were the sections dealing with




the introduction section, most specifically the theory portion,
the experimental method section dealing with set-ups and procedures,
the data section,
the discussion section.
P a g e | 240
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
In the second semester, it was believed that the students would show greater improvement or more
consistency in these areas. The scale for the second semester is different because the labs were
routinely two weeks and therefore were worth more points.
It was disappointing to note that the same areas noted above remained the ones of
greatest inconsistency and a continuing trend to fall short of the total possible points. Our
belief that a continuing attempt to educate the students in the importance of these areas to
their chosen field and greater emphasis in these areas in both the foundational level
courses and in the newly created chemical literature course will lead to more consistency in
the student reports and improvement in the students’ efforts on these reports.
P a g e | 241
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
CHM 40100 - Inorganic Chemistry
This course was assessed by a mid-semester evaluation performed by the professor. At the
time, the students asked for more sample problems during class and more thorough
explanation of topics in lecture. After that point, the professor attempted to incorporate
more examples and provide more detailed explanations of the topics covered in lecture.
Based on the course evaluations at the end of the semester, the students felt that the
professor had incorporated their concerns and had improved the course. In the future, the
professor will be sure to have more examples for the course material and a more thorough
understanding that is conveyed in their explanation of the topic.
BIO/CHM 42200 - Biochemistry Metabolism
This course was assessed with an opinion questionnaire developed by the professor and
filled out by the students at the end of the semester. In the survey, the professor focused
on the topics of the take-home exams and the lab computer activities. All respondents
indicated that they liked the take-home exam format even though they took longer and
questions were more difficult. They liked being able to take their time answering each
question and felt that the take-home exams assessed both their understanding and how to
find information, which is more “what real research is.” The professor feels the take-home
exams worked well, but may do more of a combination of take-home and in-class in the
future. The professor feels in-class encourages students to commit some information to
memory, which can be useful when studying biochemical pathways. However, the professor
mainly want to assess their ability to think through complicated problems that involve
assimilation of large amounts of data for which, it is felt, take-home exams work better.
The computer lab for this course involved three main areas: microarrays, bioinformatics
research projects, and gene annotation. Although all labs worked well, the microarray lab
needs the most revision before this course is taught again. The professor would like to
incorporate more analysis of original microarray data and primary literature. Students
enjoyed the bioinformatics research projects the most so the professor will also plan to
expand that section. Students enjoyed the collaborative nature of the gene annotation
project (combining their work with students at Washington University in St. Louis) and the
chance to contribute to a publication. However, the too much time was left for the gene
annotation lab. The professor can easily cut time from that section and add time to the
other two sections of the lab in the future.
BIO/CHM 49000 - Medicinal Chemistry
This course was assessed with an opinion questionnaire developed by the department and
filled out by the students at the end of the semester as well as a departmental assessment
given to the students at the middle of the semester. The mid-semester evaluation was
performed by the department. At that time, students responded that they did not like the
P a g e | 242
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
text. The text is a graduate-level text, and each chapter is written by a different expert in
the field. The text also has fewer pictures than many textbooks, but the professor
supplements with figures in lectures. The professor chose the text because of its range of
topics and its value to the student as a supplemental resource and felt students might
change their opinion of the text as the course went on. The end-of-semester questionnaire
showed that half of the students changed their minds and appreciated the text. They found
it helpful for the end-of-semester team research project. However, half of the respondents
(11/22) indicated the text was too difficult for the course. Due to the lack of undergraduatelevel texts for this subject, the professor plans to use the same text next year and spend
more time addressing how to best use it in class. Overall, student comments were very
positive about this course, and they enjoyed the content and supplemental activities,
especially the Danforth Center tour.
CHM 47100, CHM 47200 and CHM 47300‐ Physical Chemistry I and II lectures and
laboratory
The physical chemistry sequence, CHM 47100 and CHM47200/47300, has been reorganized
to offer the first semester of the sequence CHM 47100 as a spring semester course with the
second semester and lab as fall/J‐Term courses. The department chose to reorganize the
sequence in order to accommodate the need for Calculus II, which many of the chemistry
majors do not take until the fall semester of their sophomore year.
CHM 47100 Physical Chemistry I
A pre‐test was given to test for overall knowledge from previous courses in areas of gas
laws, thermodynamics, equilibrium, kinetics, and solutions. General competency and
background knowledge of non‐calculus‐based problem solving in these five areas is
expected to be built upon in order for students to have success in this course. With this in
mind, the pre‐test was given on the second day of class with advanced warning to the
students in spring 2011 so that the students could bring calculators, periodic tables, and
other necessary handouts to readily examine the problems on the pre‐test. Based upon the
scores on the pre‐test and subject question analysis, additional review material was
presented during the semester in order to ensure that all students had the necessary
background knowledge to effectively expand upon ideas in this advanced course for
senior‐level majors.
Results
This group of students lacked competencies in equilibria and kinetics, with 64 percent of the
students failing equilibria and 72 percent failing kinetics. Additional background lectures
were added into the syllabi to accommodate the need for review in these areas.
P a g e | 243
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
CHM 47200 – Physical Chemistry II
A pre-test on basic calculus concepts was given to the students prior to the start of the
semester on the first day of the class. The students were tested on basic derivatives and
integrals. Based upon the results, a brief review of derivatives and integrals was given at the
start of the second lecture. No post-test was given in the course. There were seven students
enrolled in the course, with four of the seven students concurrently enrolled in Calculus III
and one of seven having completed Calculus III in a previous semester.
Results
As this course is heavily intensive with advanced Calculus, the students were asked
repeatedly whether concurrent enrollment in Calculus III was helpful to understanding the
concepts that were being taught in the chemistry class, the response was a resounding yes.
The students in this section of the course, relative to previous year’s courses, performed
better with a firmer math foundation on both homework and tests. In addition, the
students were given a mid-semester evaluation that assessed the lecture style, textbook,
study habits, and test material. The students unanimously stated that the lecture style and
textbook were effective, that homework was the key to their success, and that the
concurrent enrollment in Calculus III was critical to their understanding of the quantum
mechanics that was taught in the course. This course arrangement will be continued in
future semesters.
CMH 47300 – Physical Chemistry Lab
CHM 47300 is the laboratory section that accompanies the physical chemistry curriculum
for B.S. in chemistry majors. The labs are extremely long and detailed with the lab reports
and calculations equally as challenging. In order to accommodate the time that is needed
for the labs, the course was offered as a 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. course during J-Term in 2011.
Results
The course was the only one that the students were enrolled in and allowed for the
students’ full commitment to the labs as well as an entire day to complete the labs. This was
a new concept that was tried by the program with a very successful outcome. The students
were all seniors and were advised that they would need to be available during J-Term. All six
enrolled students were timely, successfully completed all labs (some requiring multiple
days), and reports. The students appeared to have gained more insight than previous
regular semesters in which the course was taught. The students verbalized that they
believed they learned more and were able to focus on the concepts with more detail and
overall enjoyed the change in format. As the instructor, it was clear that the format was
much more conducive to the students dedicating their time and energy on the laboratory
solely rather than as just another class stacked on during the semester. The program will
strive to continue this format in the future.
P a g e | 244
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
CHM 49000 - Senior Seminar
Several issues arose during this past semester’s seminar course. This course provides
students with an opportunity to complete a literature research project on a chemistryrelated topic that interests them, then to organize their research into a seminar
presentation and a written report. The main goal of the course is to provide a supportive
environment for students to give a professional scientific talk where they can be critiqued
by the faculty and their peers. The department sets the expectation for the students that
they reach above the undergraduate level and appear more like experts in their chosen
topic. The hope for this course is that students leave better prepared to give professionallevel scientific talks in graduate school or their future jobs.
Lessons Learned
The issues that arose this semester were as follows:



Although students were each assigned a faculty mentor, students did not make
use of their mentor and met with them only the day before their seminar or not
at all. We feel students would benefit from earlier and more frequent meetings.
Students often did not treat the seminar as a professional talk and instead
showed up without practicing and wearing jeans.
Although many students did a great job reading and interpreting primary
literature, others mainly did one Google-Scholar search to pick an article then
used other Web resources like Wikipedia for the main content in their talk. That
approach does not meet the goals for the course, but there was not a clear way
to take off points for poor research or poor use of literature.
The course was larger this year, with 24 students instead of the six to eight students in the
past. In the future, the goals listed above need to be more clearly explained to the students
and more clearly tied to the points for the course. Faculty also discussed informing students
that it is possible to fail the course and not graduate if they do not satisfy the course
requirements. These issues will help guide us in the design and assessment of this course
next spring.
Senior Student Assessment
As a major undertaking for the department, the faculty has started to implement a senior
exit exam for all students in their final year in the department. The challenge to the faculty
is in developing a single test that effectively measures all of the basic competencies of
chemistry major while also taking into consideration the breadth of majors that the
department includes: Bachelor of Arts in Chemistry, Bachelor of Science in Chemistry, and
Bachelor of Science in Chemistry with a biochemistry emphasis. Each of these majors differs
in junior‐ and senior‐level coursework and breadth of topics. This year’s exam was identical
to the previous year’s, made up of nine multistep problems covering areas in stoichiometry,
P a g e | 245
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
gas laws, acid‐base and Ksp equilibria, thermodynamics, kinetics, VSEPR, organic synthesis,
and spectroscopy.
Each of the 21 students in the department’s capstone senior seminar course were given an
exam covering the topics listed above. The students were given two weeks to solve the
problems and turn in the exam. Each question had multiple parts and was worth 10 points
for a total of 90 evenly distributed points on the exam. The exam accounted for 50 percent
of the grade in the capstone course.
Results
Overall results were extremely successful for this format: 16 of 21 of the students scored 60
percent or higher on the exam. The average for all 21 students was a 79.55 percent. This
jump in the overall average from the previous year was significant but may be skewed by
the fact that some students had the same exam. The department is exploring this issue and
modifying the exams in the future. Overall, students had an average on nine out of 10
points in questions based upon stoichiometry, gas laws, VSEPR and organic spectra, eight
out of 10 on questions based upon kinetics and thermodynamics, even out of 10 on Ksp, Ka
and Kb questions, and six out of 10 on organic synthesis. This shows improvement from the
struggles in organic spectra and VSEPR that were seen in last year’s exams, but again the
program is uncertain as to the cause of the improvement as each student did not have a
unique exam this year and thus will be addressing this for the upcoming academic year.
Lessons Learned
Overall, the program is happy with the success of the students and will be looking at the
overall program curriculum to ascertain if changes in any upper-level courses need to be
addressed based upon the results of the senior exams.
Department Action Plan
The 2011‐12 academic year will involve a continued restructuring of the chemistry
assessment program in order to improve pre‐ and post‐exams as well as incorporate
mid‐semester evaluations in most courses. Most significantly, the department will focus on
continued evaluation of the CHM 23000, 23100, 23200 sequence and implement evaluation
of the laboratory sections of this course CHM 24100 and CHM 24200. The department
continues to choose a group approach to assessment to build a program that is consistent
and uniform for all general courses. As part of this complete overhaul, the department has
set the following goals for the 2010‐11 academic year:

A pre‐test and post‐test evaluation will again be restructured for all sections of
CHM 23100 and CHM 23200. This pre‐ and post‐test will be compiled by the
entire chemistry faculty to include multiple competencies as well as a correlation
P a g e | 246
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment





with semester exam questions to evaluate retention of material with post‐test
questions. This data will then be correlated by instructors in order to standardize
the curriculum for all instructors.
Assessment will be modified and evaluated to examine the success of the new
CHM 23000 sequence. Evaluation of exam scores, pass/fail rate, and retention
will be completed from the 23000, 23100, and 23200 sequence. This evaluation
will occur over the next two years so that three complete three‐semester classes
may be examined.
Assessment of the laboratory section of the general chemistry sequence will
begin as rubrics are used for all laboratories in both CHM 24100 and CHM 24200.
The rubric breakdowns will then be assessed based upon areas of lab purpose
procedure, data and calculations, and conclusions in order to target areas of
concern in the laboratory.
Mid‐semester evaluations will be given in most chemistry courses that evaluate
textbooks, lecture style, tutoring availability, and out‐of‐class assignments.
Upper‐level course assessment will continue to evolve to meet the needs of the
students in each individual upper‐level course. Evaluation of these upper‐level
courses poses unique challenges for each course and will be addressed by the
individual instructor to best fit the needs of the course.
Senior exit exams will be given to all graduating seniors to evaluate strengths
and weaknesses in the Chemistry Department. The form of the senior
assessment will remain in take‐home, individual, multi‐question format.
Program Changes
The program focused this year on individual course changes and reorganization of the
syllabi in order to better suit the needs of the students. In addition, the program also
modified the B.S. in chemistry degree to add courses in biochemistry as well as modified the
lab hour requirements in several upper-level courses.
A fifth faculty member was also added this year as well as numerous adjunct faculty. In
order to maintain consistency among all sections of a course, the program has implemented
lead instructors for all courses within the program which are taught by multiple instructors,
both full-time and part-time. The lead instructor is responsible for aligning the syllabi,
lecture and laboratory curriculum in these courses, as well as managing assessment
between all sections. Finally the lead instructor will serve as a primary contact for all
students that are enrolled in a course, this instructor will always be a full-time faculty
member which has regular office hours weekly. The goal for this process has been to
manage the programs growing number of adjunct faculty, maintain consistency in the
curriculum, and maintain all courses along the guidelines of program needs. Assessment of
these changes will be ongoing for the program.
P a g e | 247
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Computer Science
Mission
The Department of Computer Science offers three majors. They are the Bachelor of Arts in
Computer Science, the Bachelor of Science in Computer Science, and the Bachelor of
Science in Computer Information Systems. The mission of all three majors is to produce
knowledgeable, productive, well-informed, and educated citizens who will entertain careers
in the field of computer systems and to prepare students for work in areas ranging from
design and development of commercial software systems to the development of virtual
reality and computer graphic programs. Other areas in which the graduate can have
productive careers are telecommunications, virtual reality training and entertainment, the
internet for commerce and information dissemination, robotics, and exploration.
Program Goals and Objectives
The goals for all of the graduates from the Department of Computer Science are as follows:




Provide students with the knowledge to produce high quality computer
software.
Provide students with a comprehensive understanding of how computers
perform the operation of data processing.
Give students a well-rounded view of ethical issues concerning the
manipulations of computer systems.
Convey the interrelationship between computer science and other fields
of endeavors.
Objectives for graduates in the major
The objectives for all bachelor of arts and bachelor of science majors in computer science
are listed below. Students will





be capable of writing clean, clear, and productive computer programs using
the various programming languages of C++, JAVA, and Visual Basic,
be able to identify the various components of computer systems and their
function/purpose,
recognize the importance of operating systems and the services they provide
to the user,
be able to employ advanced programming techniques and abstract data
structures to write software to solve real life problems involving computer
systems,
understand how various computer networks perform.
P a g e | 248
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
The objectives for the bachelor of science majors in computer information systems are
listed below. Students will





be capable of writing clean, clear, and productive computer programs using
the various programming languages of C++, JAVA, and Visual Basic,
recognize the relationship between the business world and computer
science,
understand how various computer networks perform,
comprehend how database systems operate and how to apply them to real
world problems,
understand the basic business topics of accounting, economics, business
management, and organizational behavior.
Classes Assessed
CSC 10000 - Intro to Computer Science, CSC 14400 - Computer Science I, CSC 18400 Computer Science II, CSC 25500 - Assembly Language Programming, CSC 30500 - Principles
of Database Systems, CSC 32000 - UNIX Workshop, CSC 34000 - COBOL Programming, CSC
40300 - Computer Architecture, CSC 40500 - Computer Graphics, CSC 36000 - Data
Structures, CSC 38000 - Telecommunication and Networking, CSC 40600 - Operating
Systems, CSC 41000 - JAVA Programming, CSC 42500 - Advanced Database Design
Methods of Assessment Used
The method of assessment for these courses consisted of written examinations, which
included both factual recall of information and problem solving, programming assignments,
individual and team projects, written and oral reports, and a final examination. Not all
courses employed all the methods. Each course did employ a minimum of three of the list
methods. Students demonstrated a positive attitude towards these methods as fair and
appropriate.
Results
An assessment of the results of our program shows that we are meeting our goals and
objectives. All majors graduate within the normal four-year time frame. Most majors (72
percent) obtain a position in the field of computer science or a related field before
graduation. Within six months of graduation, the placement rate is over 95 percent. In
addition, retention rates for those students who have succeeded in completing the initial
coursework are well over 90 percent. These results compare very favorably to results from
past years. Placement rates in past years were slightly better due to better economic
P a g e | 249
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
conditions. However, retention rates have improved. Past retention rates were in the 70-80
percent range.
In addition, in spring 2010, the computer science faculty undertook a self-study of the
computer science program. Included in the self-study group were Dr. Dominic Soda, Dr.
Wojciech Golik, Dr. Stephen Blythe, Dr. Sajalendu Dey, and Prof. Renee Van Dyke. The main
focus of the study was to assess how well our curriculum served the needs of our students
and to compare our program with those of colleges and universities similar in size and
mission as Lindenwood University.
As a result of the self-study, the CSC faculty has made the following changes to the CSC
curriculum.








CSC 10000 - Introduction to Computer Science will focus more on program
development using the Python programming language. This change should
better prepare student moving on to CSC 14400 to write programs in a concise,
logical, and efficient manner.
CSC 14400 - Computer Science I will change programming languages from C++ to
an introduction to the JAVA and Visual Basic programming languages. This
change will provide students with an early introduction to these languages while
continuing to stress the logic of the program development process.
CSC 18400 - Computer Science II has been upgraded to a 200-hundred level
course. The new course number is CSC 24400. The course title has not changed.
The purpose of this change is to emphasize program development using the C++
programming language. The change combines the C++ topics that were covered
in CSC 14400 with the topics in CSC 18400.
CSC 32000 - UNIX Workshop was removed as a required course for majors in
computer information systems.
CSC 34000 - COBOL Programming was removed as a required course for majors
in computer information systems.
CSC 34400 - GUI Application Design was added as an upper-level required course
for all majors. This course combines the topics of CSC 40200 - Visual Basic
Programming, and CSC 41000, JAVA Programming. Both CSC 40200 and CSC
41000 have been removed as required courses for all majors and will eventually
be eliminated from the catalog.
CSC 42500 - Advanced Database Design has been removed as a required course
for CIS majors. It will eventually be removed from the catalog. It will be replaced
by a new course, CSC 43000.
A new course has been introduced for all majors. The course is CSC 43000 Senior Project. This course will act as a capstone course for all majors.
The faculty believes that these changes will update the CSC curriculum and provide students
with the required knowledge and understanding of their chosen career field.
P a g e | 250
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Lessons Learned
The involvement of students in projects, programs, and reports produced a hands-on
learning experience that has benefitted student in a positive manner. Oral reports provided
students with the opportunity to gain skills and experience as a speaker before an audience
that will benefit them in their future careers. Programming assignments provide students
with the skills necessary to be successful in their chosen field of computer science. Written
exams provided students with the opportunity to demonstrate the knowledge they had
acquired in their respective course.
Action Plan
The CSC faculty will monitor student improvement in the understanding of programming
concepts and acquisition of knowledge of program development and computer systems.
The curriculum changes listed in CSC 34400 - GUI Application Design are design to enhance
student learning in the area of computers and computer science while additionally support
the goals and objectives of the University.
In addition, the course objectives for all CSC courses will need to be revised to reflect
changes in the curriculum. This action will commence with the start of fall 2011 and will be
scheduled for completion by the end of fall 2011.
Impacts and changes on classes
Depending on the results of the curriculum changes in CSC 34400 - GUI Application Design,
additional changes, improvements, and enhancements may be necessary to provide
students with a viable and practical course of study, which will improve student learning
and provide students with a firm foundation in computer science which will enhance their
chances for a successful and productive career in computer science.
Earth Sciences
Lindenwood University does not offer a degree in earth sciences; all of the courses
by this department are offered as general education classes to fulfill one of the
science requirements.
P a g e | 251
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Mathematics
Goals and Objectives
The main goal of the Lindenwood mathematics program is to prepare and train our
graduates for one of the three areas:
 teaching of mathematics at the secondary school level,
 graduate study in mathematics or related professions,
 professional work in applied mathematics (actuarial studies).
Mathematics Program Objectives
Students will







understand the basic concepts (CONC) of each knowledge area,
understand the basic skills and tools (SKAT) associated with each knowledge area,
understand the logical foundations (LOGF) of mathematics,
know the historical development (HISTD) of mathematics,
understand the applications (APPL) of mathematics to our culture,
recognize the interrelationships between knowledge areas (INTER) of mathematics,
read and communicate mathematics independently (SEM).
Methods of Mathematics Program Assessment 2010/2011
Students reach these goals and objectives by taking courses in the following areas of
mathematics: algebra, analysis, discrete mathematics, geometry, numerical methods, and
probability and statistics.
Mathematical Content Areas
Algebra
Analysis
Discrete Mathematics
Geometry
Numerical Methods
Probability and Statistics
Relevant LU Courses
MTH 29000, MTH 31500, MTH 32000
MTH 27100, MTH 27200, MTH 30300, MTH 31100, MTH 36100, MTH
37000, MTH49000
MTH22100, MTH 28000, MTH 29000, MTH 39000
MTH 30300, MTH 31500, MTH 33000
MTH 27100, MTH 27200, MTH 31100, MTH 35100
MTH24100, MTH 34100, MTH 34200
Each section of every mathematics course is assessed by its instructor who submits
electronically to the department chair the following documents:

A copy of the course syllabus.
P a g e | 252
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment


A copy of the final for each course taught.
An instructor's epilogue, which is a performance record on each course objective
and a narrative enumerating accomplishments and recommending improvements.
Between five and eight objectives were written for each of the mathematics
courses. Starting in fall 2010/spring 2011 assessment cycle for each course objective,
each instructor was supposed to assign subjectively a letter grade based on the
totality of the performance of his/her section on that objective during the semester.
This method over time will allow the identification of those objectives, which are not
adequately met and the necessary adjustments could be made.
The department thinks that the new method will be more reliable than the previous
method of assigning quantitative percentages based on the student performance on one to
two problems/objectives (the problems varied widely among different sections of the same
course).
Results
Fall 2010 (Fall 2009)
There were seven (eight in the fall 2009) courses taught in nine (ten in the fall 2009)
sections by six full-time instructors. All instructors wrote epilogues for each of their classes.
Grade Distribution Fall 2010 (Fall 2009)
Course
# of
students
A
B
C
D
F
MTH 22100 - Discrete Structures
8(9)
1(3)
3(3)
4(3)
0
0
MTH 24100 - Statistics for Science
MTH 27100 - Calculus I
MTH 27200 - Calculus II
MTH 30300 - Calculus III
MTH 31500 - Linear Algebra
MTH 32000 - Algebraic Structures
44(51)
55(48)
16(19)
13(22)
17(21)
7(6)
14
10(12)
2(5)
5(4)
8(6)
1(0)
18
16(13)
3(7)
6(6)
2(5)
3(2)
5
15(10)
4(1)
1(5)
4(6)
3(1)
1
8(7)
2(2)
1(4)
0(2)
0(2)
6
6(6)
5(6)
0(3)
3(2)
0(1)
of ABCs
100%
(100%)
86% (NA)
75% (73%)
56% (62%)
92% (68%)
82% (81%)
100% (50%)
Objectives
Course
MTH 22100 - Discrete Structures
MTH 24100 - Statistics for Science
MTH 27100 - Calculus I
MTH 27200 - Calculus II
MTH 30300 - Calculus III
MTH 31500 - Linear Algebra
MTH 32000 - Algebraic Structures
OBJ 1
C
A
C+
B
D+
AB
OBJ 2
B
A
B
C
C+
AB
OBJ 3
C
C+
B
B
D+
B+
C
OBJ 4
B
C+
B+
B
B
B
C
OBJ 5
A
C+
C
C
X
C+
B
OBJ 6
A
C
B
C
C+
B
OBJ 7
A
B
C+
B
F+
OBJ 8
B
C+
CF+
P a g e | 253
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Spring 2011 (Spring 2010)
There were six (eight) math courses taught in eight (nine) sections by six full-time
instructors. All instructors filled out the epilogues for each of their classes.
Grade Distribution - Spring 2011 (Spring 2010)
Course
MTH 24100 - Statistics for Science
MTH 27100 -Calculus I
MTH 27200 - Calculus II
MTH 29000 - Intro to Adv. Math
MTH 31100 - Differential Equations
MTH 33000 - Geometry
# of
students
54(63)
39(20)
45(25)
23(12)
12(15)
5
A
B
C
D
F
% of ABCs
34
3(2)
9(4)
15(6)
9(5)
3
13
10(5)
10(6)
4(2)
1(8)
1
5
16(4)
12(6)
1(3)
1(1)
0
0
6(6)
5(1)
1(0)
1(1)
1
2
4(3)
9(8)
2(1)
0(0)
0
96% (NA)
74% (55%)
69% (64%)
87% (92%)
92% (93%)
80%
OBJECTIVES Spring 2011
Course
MTH 24100 - Statistics for
Science
MTH 27100 -Calculus I
MTH 27200 - Calculus II
MTH 29000 - Intro to Adv. Math
MTH 31100 - Differential
Equations
MTH 33000 - Geometry
OBJ 1
A
OBJ 2
A
OBJ 3
B
OBJ 4
B
OBJ 5
B
OBJ 6
B
OBJ 7
A
OBJ 8
B
C
C+
B
A
B
C
A
X
B
C+
B
A
A
B
A
X
B
B+
A
B
A
D+
X
X
A
B
A
A
B
X
X
A
C
A
B
B
B
A
X
X
Lessons Learned and Actions Taken in 2010/2011



We have added one new full-time Ph.D. mathematics position for the 2010-11
academic year. The new faculty member helped us better balance the teaching
loads between the full-time and part-time faculty.
The passing ratios (number of ABCs /number of all students who finished the course)
in the calculus sequence (MTH 27100, MTH 27200) have improved somewhat in the
last year although the ratios still remain quite low. MTH 27100 and MTH 27200 are
introductory courses in a difficult major, and some students are not prepared to
handle that level of difficulty in the material. In addition, these courses are required
for chemistry majors who are not as strong in math as the mathematics majors. The
calculus courses seem to act as filters selecting students likely to succeed in the
math-intensive majors.
The passing ratios in the higher-level courses are quite satisfactory. The higher-level
courses are taken by mathematics (and some computer science) majors who have
already passed MTH 27100 and MTH 27200.
P a g e | 254
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment



Adding MTH 24100 - Statistics for Science Majors to the requirements for the B.A.
and the B.S. in mathematics was a success (good passing ratios). However, this
decreased the demand for MTH 34100 - Probability and Statistics, which remained a
required course only in the B.A. in actuarial studies. This latter degree would benefit
from higher enrollment. Adding MTH 3200 - Algebraic Structures to the
requirements for the B.A. and the B.S. in mathematics was also a success – it made
these degrees stronger.
Assessing the course objectives by assigning letter grades to each objective seems to
work quite well. The letter grades are easier to follow and clearly indicate which
objectives will need more instructor attention in the next course cycle.
To increase enrollment and promote our math/CS programs, we have hosted (for
the fifth year in a row) the annual American Mathematics Contest sponsored by the
Mathematical Association of America and Lindenwood University. Fifty high school
students participated in it (last year we had 88). The three top contenders were
awarded substantial Lindenwood scholarships.
Action Plan






We will continue our letter grade assessment of the course objectives. We will
evaluate its effectiveness in the next year assessment report.
As a measure of the quality of our mathematics program, we will design and utilize a
graduating student exit survey, which will help us find out which program areas
could be improved.
Mid‐semester evaluations will be given in many 2xx level mathematics courses to
evaluate textbooks, lecture style, tutoring availability, and out‐of‐class assignments.
For the 2011-12 assessment cycle, we have added a new full-time Ph.D. faculty
member in computer science. Contribution to the computer science program will be
balanced by the corresponding contribution of the remaining computer science
faculty to our math program. Thus, the new faculty will help us better balance the
teaching loads between the full-time and part-time faculty. Currently our
mathematics/computer science/physics/pre-engineering division has 12 full-time
faculty members and offers about 80 sections of mathematics/computer
science/physics/pre-engineering courses per semester.
We have added MTH 37000 - Advanced Calculus to the requirements for the B.S.
degree in the next cycle. The advanced calculus course has been offered as a special
topics in mathematics course MTH 49000 for three consecutive years. Most B.S.
mathematics degrees in the United States have that requirement. Our action will
bring our degree in line with those programs.
We will continue our efforts to promote the mathematics program and increase its
enrollment. The main initiatives in this area are
o the annual high school American Mathematics Contest,
o promoting of the Actuarial Studies Program.
P a g e | 255
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment

We plan to acquire a WWW presence for the MCPE division with individual faculty
Web pages highlighting the strengths of our program. We consider it a valuable
recruitment tool.
Physics and Pre-Engineering
Mission: Physics and Pre-Engineering Program
At Lindenwood University, we have a physics program and also a pre-engineering program.
The physics program does not offer a major at this moment. However, it offers physics
courses that are required by students of other majors. The physics program also offers a
minor in engineering physics. The pre-engineering program offers several introductory
engineering courses that will prepare a student to pursue an engineering major degree at
the undergraduate level once the student transfers to an engineering college. In order to
achieve the above mentioned mission, for the physics and the pre-engineering program, the
following courses are offered:
Physics Course Offerings
Our physics program offers the following calculus-based, algebra-based, and concept-based
courses:
Specific Basis
Calculus-based
Algebra-based
Concept-based
Physics Courses at Lindenwood University
PHY 30100, PHY 30200, PHY 30300
PHY 25100, PHY 25200
PHY 11100, PHY 11200
Pre-Engineering Course Offerings
Specific Basis
CAD-based
Statics- and Dynamics-based
Electrical Circuit-based
Pre-Engineering Courses at Lindenwood University
EGR 25100
EGR 33100 , EGR 33200
EGR 36100, EGR 36200
Program Goals and Objectives
The program goals and objectives of physics and pre-engineering program are described
below, for each course, as catalog descriptions and course objectives.
P a g e | 256
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Course Objectives: Physics
PHY 11100 - Concepts of Physics
The student should be able to










identify the variables involved in Newton’s Laws of Motion and calculate their
values in various situations for linear motion,
identify the variables involved in the definitions of work, kinetic energy, and
potential energy, and calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involving linear momentum and collisions and calculate their
values in various situations,
identify the variables involving rotational kinematics, rotational dynamics, rotational
energy, and static equilibrium and calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involving gravity, projectile, and satellite motion, and calculate
their values in various situations,
identify the variables involving atomic nature of matter, and matter in solid, liquid,
gas, and plasma phases, and calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involving temperature, heat, expansion, heat transfer, change
of phase, and thermodynamics, and calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involving vibrations, waves, and sound and calculate their
values in various situations,
identify the variables involving electrostatics and electric current, and calculate their
values in various situations,
identify the variables involving magnetism and electromagnetic induction, and
calculate their values in various situations.
PHY 25100 - Introductory Physics I
The student should be able to






identify the variables involved in one dimensional and two-dimensional kinematics
and calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involved in Newton’s Laws of Motion and calculate their values
in various situations,
identify the variables involved in the definitions of work, kinetic energy, and
potential energy, and calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involving linear momentum and collisions and calculate their
values in various situations,
identify the variables involving rotational kinematics, rotational dynamics, rotational
energy, and static equilibrium and calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involving gravitational force and calculate their values in
various situations,
P a g e | 257
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment


identify the variables involving oscillations about equilibrium, waves, and sound and
calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involving physics of fluids and calculate their values in various
situations.
PHY 25200 - INTRO PHYSICS II
The student should be able to








identify the variables involved with our study of temperature scales, thermal
expansion, specific heats, conduction, convection, radiation, ideal gas properties,
Kinetic Theory of Gases, latent heats, phase equilibrium, evaporation, and phase
changes, and calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involved with our study of the Zeroth Law of
Thermodynamics, First Law of Thermodynamics, Second Law of Thermodynamics,
and the Third Law of Thermodynamics, and calculate their values in various
situations,
identify the variables involved with our study of the electric forces, electric fields,
electric potential and electric potential energy, and calculate their values in various
situations,
identify the variables involved with our study of electric currents, direct-current
circuits, Ohm’s law, Kirchhoff’s rules, and RC circuits, and calculate their values in
various situations,
identify the variables involved with our study of magnetic field, magnetic force on
moving charges, magnetic force exerted on a current-carrying wire, magnetic
torque, Ampere’s law, magnetism in matter, magnetic flux, Faraday’s law of
induction, Lenz’s law, inductance, RL circuits, and transformers, and calculate their
values in various situations,
identify the variables involved with our study of alternating-current circuits
including RC circuits and RLC circuits, and calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involved with our study of production and propagation of
electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic spectrum, polarization, reflection,
refraction and dispersion of light, and geometrical optics including optical
instruments, and calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involved with our study of physical optics including
interference and diffraction of light, and calculate their values in various situations.
PHY 30100 - General Physics I
The student should be able to

identify the variables involved in one-, two-, and three-dimensional kinematics and
calculate their values in various situations,
P a g e | 258
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment









identify the variables involved in Newton’s Laws of Motion and calculate their values
in various situations,
identify the variables involved in the definitions of work, kinetic energy, and
potential energy, and calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involving linear momentum and collisions and calculate their
values in various situations,
identify the variables involving rotational kinematics, rotational dynamics, rotational
energy, and static equilibrium and calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involving gravitational force and calculate their values in
various situations,
identify the variables involving oscillations about equilibrium, waves, and sound and
calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involving physics of fluids and calculate their values in various
situations,
identify the variables involving our study of temperature scales, thermal expansion,
specific heats, conduction-, convection- and radiation of heat, ideal gas properties,
Kinetic Theory of Gases, latent heats, phase equilibrium, evaporation, and phase
changes, and calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involved with our study of the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics,
First Law of Thermodynamics, Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the Third Law of
Thermodynamics, and calculate their values in various situations.
PHY 30200 - General Physics II
The student should be able to






identify the variables involved with our study of the electric forces, electric fields,
electric potential and electric potential energy, and calculate their values in various
situations,
identify the variables involved with our study of electric currents, direct-current
circuits, and Ohm’s law, and calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involved with our study of Kirchhoff’s laws, and RC circuits, and
calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involved with our study of magnetic field, magnetic force on
moving charges, magnetic force exerted on a current-carrying wire, magnetic
torque, Ampere’s law, and magnetism in matter, and calculate their values in
various situations,
identify the variables involved with our study of magnetic flux, Faraday’s law of
induction, Lenz’s law, inductance, RL circuits, and transformers, and calculate their
values in various situations,
identify the variables involved with our study of alternating-current circuits
including RC circuits and RLC circuits, and calculate their values in various situations,
P a g e | 259
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment



identify the variables involved with our study of production and propagation of
electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic spectrum, polarization, reflection,
refraction and dispersion of light, and calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involved with our study of geometrical optics including optical
instruments, and calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involved with our study of physical optics including
interference and diffraction of light, and calculate their values in various situations.
PHY 30300 - Modern Physics





identify the variables involved with our study of Special Theory of Relativity, and
calculate their values in different situations,
identify the variables involved with our study of Introductory Quantum Mechanics,
and calculate their values in different situations,
identify the variables involved with our study of Atomic Physics, and calculate their
values in different situations,
identify the variables involved with our study of Introductory Nuclear Physics, and
calculate their values in different situations,
identify the variables involved with our study of Cosmology will be covered, and
calculate their values in different situations.
Course Objectives: PRE-ENGINEERING
EGR 25100 - Computer Aided Design
The student should be able to








open an AutoCAD drawing, work with multiple drawings, save an AutoCAD drawing,
print an AutoCAD drawing,
draw lines using absolute, relative and polar coordinates, erase an object, trim and
extend a line, move and copy an object,
draw regular shaped objects including rectangles, polygons, and chamfers,
move around an object by using panning, and zoom in and zoom out of an object by
using the zoom feature of AutoCAD,
draw curved shapes including circles, arcs, ellipses, and fillets,
put text on a drawing by using both dynamic text and multiline text features, use a
template and set a drawing’s parameters,
use various object snap techniques, and use viewports,
use linetypes, layers, and object properties.
P a g e | 260
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
EGR 33100 - Engineering Mechanics I- Statics
The student should be able to










identify the methods involved in numerical calculations using international system of
units, in various situations,
identify the methods involved in combining vectors in various ways, and perform
calculations involving them in various situations,
identify the variables involved in the study of equilibrium of a particle, and calculate
their values in various situations,
identify the variables involving combining torques in various ways, and perform
calculations involving them in various situations,
identify the variables involved in the study of equilibrium of a rigid body, and
calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involving structural analysis of simple trusses and calculate
their values in various situations,
identify the variables involving structural analysis of frames by identifying internal
forces, and calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involving the frictional properties of materials and their
applications in wedges, screws, flat belts, collar bearings, pivot bearings, disks, and
journal bearings, and calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involving center of gravity, centroid, moment of inertia, and
their engineering applications, and calculate their values in various situations,
identify the variables involved with engineering applications of virtual work, and
calculate their values in various situations.
EGR 36100 - Circuit Theory I
The student should be able to








identify the basic elements of a DC electrical circuit and calculate their values,
use simplification techniques for circuit analysis,
use Kirchoff’s laws for circuit analysis,
use Thevenin’s theorem and Norton’s theorem for circuit analysis,
use and calculate various input and output values/parameters of an operational
amplifier,
analyze transient and sinusoidal steady state behavior of an RL circuit,
analyze transient and sinusoidal steady state behavior of an RC circuit,
analyze transient and sinusoidal steady state behavior of an RLC circuit.
P a g e | 261
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Classes Assessed
All classes that were offered have been assessed except PHY 11200, which is a one-credit
lab course.
Methods of Assessment Used
Assessment is based on the course grade. The course grade is based on the performance of
the students on quizzes, tests, hands-on activities in the labs as represented in the lab
reports, and also the final exam.
Results
Fall Semester - 2010
Course
PHY 11100-Concepts of Physics
PHY 11100-Concepts of Physics
PHY 25100-Introductory
Physics I
PHY 30100-General Physics I
PHY 30300-Modern Physics
Section
#
# of A
grades
10
6
# of B
grades
14
7
# of C
grades
9
3
# of D
grades
2
0
# of F
grades
0
2
11
5
5
0
0
8
1
9
0
4
0
0
0
2
0
# of B
grades
10
2
5
9
8
# of C
grades
6
4
2
3
1
# of D
grades
2
1
0
0
0
# of F
grades
11
11
11
21
# of A
grades
11
5
10
12
9
11
5
3
0
0
0
22
21 and
22
11
# of Ws
Spring Semester - 2011
Course
PHY 11100-Concepts of Physics
PHY 11100-Concepts of Physics
PHY 25200-Intro Physics II
PHY 30100-General Physics I
PHY 30200-General Physics II
PHY 25100- Introductory
Physics I
Section
#
# of Ws
0
1
0
Summary Statistics: Course Assessment
Summary Statistics: Physics: 2010-2011
Course
PHY 11100-Concepts of Physics
PHY 25100-Introductory
Physics I
PHY 25200-intro physics II
PHY 30100-General Physics I
PHY 30200-General Physics II
# of A
grades
32
# of B
grades
33
# of C
grades
22
# of D
grades
5
# of F
grades
2
11
5
5
0
10
20
9
5
18
8
2
7
1
0
0
0
# of
Ws
Total
%
94
47.24%
0
21
10.55%
0
3
0
17
48
18
8.54%
24.12%
9.05%
P a g e | 262
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
PHY 30300-Modern Physics
Total
%
1
83
41.71%
69
34.67%
37
18.59%
5
2.51%
1
199
100%
5
2.51%
0.50%
100%
Pre-Engineering: 2010-2011
Course
EGR 25100–Computer Aided Design
Percentage
# of A
grades
5
62.50%
# of B
grades
3
37.50%
# of C
grades
0
# of D
grades
0
# of F
grades
0
# of
W‘s
Total
8
100%
Conclusions from Summary Statistics: 2010-2011




Conclusion #1: In physics classes, on the average, almost 42 percent of the students
got A, almost 35 percent of the students got B, 19 percent of the students got C, 3
percent of the students got D, and 3 percent got F.
Conclusion #2: In pre-engineering classes, on the average, 63 percent of the
students got A, 37 percent of students got B, no student got C, D, or F.
Conclusion #3: In physics, in total, eleven sections of courses were offered during
the academic year 2010-11, whereas in pre-engineering, only one section of courses
were offered during this same period.
Conclusion #4: In physics, on the average, the number of students per section was
18 during the academic year 2010-11, whereas in pre-engineering, on the average,
number of students per section was close to eight.
Comparison of Present-Year Data/Information with those of Last Year
Comparison of Physics Program
Items Compared
2009-10
2010-11
Conclusion
1.Total number of students
150
199
Increased almost 33%
2.Total number of sections
8
11
Increased almost 38%
3.Avg. no. of students per class
19
18
Decreased almost 5%
4.Percentage of students got grade A
41%
42%
Grade A: increased 1 %
5.Percentage of students got grade B
33%
35%
Grade B: increased 2 %
6.Percentage of students got grade C
23%
19%
Grade C: decreased 4 %.
7.Percentage of students got grade D
0%
3%
Grade D: increased 3 %
8.Percentage of students got grade F
3%
3%
Grade F: remained same at 3 %
Comparison of Pre-Engineering Program
Items Compared
2009-10
2010-11
Conclusion
1. Total number of students
29
8
Decreased 72%
2. Total number of sections
3
1
Decreased 67%
3. Avg. no. of students per class
10
8
Decreased 20%
P a g e | 263
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
4. Percentage of students who received a grade of A
31%
63%
Grade A: increased 32%
5. Percentage of students who received a grade of B
34%
37%
Grade B: increased 3%
6. Percentage of students who received a grade of C
28%
0%
7. Percentage of students who received a grade of D
0%
0%
8. Percentage of students who received a grade of F
7%
0%
Grade C: decreased 28%
Grade D: remained same
at 0%
Grade F: decreased 7%
Lessons Learned



The quality of teaching is getting better.
The number of students and number of sections in physics has increased
significantly.
Pre-engineering has seen a decrease in the number of students and course sections.
The reason(s) will be investigated. If it is any kind of time conflict with any other
course(s), appropriate actions will be taken to remedy the situation promptly.
Action Plan for the Next Year
The department will






continue our efforts to include more computational and lab-based activities in both
the physics program and the pre-engineering program,
continue our efforts to expand the physics program,
continue our efforts to expand the pre-engineering program,
continue reviewing the course objectives as needed,
continue finding newer methods for conducting program assessments,
make sure that there is no time conflict between scheduled engineering classes with
higher-level calculus classes.
Psychology
Mission
The Lindenwood University psychology program’s mission is to help our majors attain a
base level of competence in understanding the impact that wide-ranging psychological,
biological, and social influences have on the mind and on behavior.
The psychology program’s mission encompasses a range of knowledge, skills, and values
that are reflective of the University’s broader liberal arts mission, including fostering literacy
P a g e | 264
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
in information technology (e.g., computer proficiency), improving communication skills,
enhancing multicultural awareness, encouraging personal development (e.g., enhanced
self-awareness; insight into the behavior of others), and career planning and development.
Program Goals and Objectives
The Bachelor of Arts in Psychology is a general liberal arts degree that prepares graduates
for lifelong learning. Features of the major include exposure to and practice in problemsolving skills, critical thinking skills, information gathering and synthesis skills, interpersonal
and intrapersonal skills, and skills in research and statistical reasoning consistent with the
undergraduate curriculum guidelines promulgated by the American Psychological
Association (APA Board of Educational Affairs Task Force on Psychology Major
Competencies, 2002) and reflective of the University’s broader liberal arts mission.
Knowledge Base of Psychology
 Demonstrate familiarity with the major concepts, theoretical perspectives, empirical
findings, and historical trends in psychology.
o Explain why psychology is a science.
o Identify and explain the primary objectives of psychology: describing,
understanding, predicting, and controlling behavior and mental processes.
o Compare and contrast the assumptions and methods of psychology with
those of other disciplines.
o Describe the contributions of psychology perspectives to interdisciplinary
collaboration.
 Demonstrate knowledge and understanding representing appropriate breadth and
depth in selected content areas of psychology:
o learning and cognition,
o individual differences, psychometrics, personality, and social processes,
including those related to socio-cultural and international dimensions,
o biological bases of behavior and mental processes, including physiology,
sensation, perception, comparative, motivation, and emotion developmental
changes in behavior and mental processes across the life span,
o the history of psychology, including the evolution of methods of psychology,
its theoretical conflicts, and its socio-cultural contexts,
o relevant levels of analysis: cellular, individual, group/systems, and culture,
o overarching themes, persistent questions, or enduring conflicts in
psychology, such as
• the interaction of heredity and environment,
• variability and continuity of behavior and mental processes within
and across species,
• free will versus determinism,
• subjective versus objective perspective,
• the interaction of mind and body.
P a g e | 265
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
o relevant ethical issues, including a general understanding of the APA Code of
Ethics


Use the concepts, language, and major theories of the discipline to account for
psychological phenomena.
o Describe behavior and mental processes empirically, including operational
definitions.
o Identify antecedents and consequences of behavior and mental processes.
o Interpret behavior and mental processes at an appropriate level of
complexity.
o Use theories to explain and predict behavior and mental processes.
o Integrate theoretical perspectives to produce comprehensive and multifaceted explanations.
Explain major perspectives of psychology (e.g., behavioral, biological, cognitive,
evolutionary, humanistic, psychodynamic, and socio-cultural).
o Compare and contrast major perspectives
o Describe advantages and limitations of major theoretical perspectives
Research Methods in Psychology



Explain different research methods used by psychologists.
o Describe how various research designs address different types of questions
and hypotheses.
o Articulate strengths and limitations of various research designs.
o Distinguish the nature of designs that permit causal inferences from those
that do not.
Evaluate the appropriateness of conclusions derived from psychological research.
o Interpret basic statistical results.
o Distinguish between statistical significance and practical significance.
o Describe effect size and confidence intervals.
o Evaluate the validity of conclusions presented in research reports.
Design and conduct basic studies to address psychological questions using
appropriate research methods.
o Locate and use relevant databases, research, and theory to plan, conduct,
and interpret results of research studies.
o Formulate testable research hypotheses, based on operational definitions of
variables.
o Select and apply appropriate methods to maximize internal and external
validity and reduce the plausibility of alternative explanations.
o Collect, analyze, interpret, and report data using appropriate statistical
strategies to address different types of research questions and hypotheses.
P a g e | 266
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment


o Recognize that theoretical and socio-cultural contexts as well as personal
biases may shape research questions, design, data collection, analysis, and
interpretation.
Follow the APA Code of Ethics in the treatment of human and nonhuman
participants in the design, data collection, interpretation, and reporting of
psychological research.
Generalize research conclusions appropriately based on the parameters of particular
research methods.
o Exercise caution in predicting behavior based on limitations of single studies.
o Recognize the limitations of applying normative conclusions to individuals.
o Acknowledge that research results may have unanticipated societal
consequences.
o Recognize that individual differences and socio-cultural contexts may
influence the applicability of research findings.
Critical Thinking Skills in Psychology




Use critical thinking effectively.
o Evaluate the quality of information, including differentiating empirical
evidence from speculation and the probable from the improbable.
o Identify and evaluate the source, context, and credibility of information.
o Recognize and defend against common fallacies in thinking.
o Avoid being swayed by appeals to emotion or authority.
o Evaluate popular media reports of psychological research.
o Demonstrate an attitude of critical thinking that includes persistence, openmindedness, tolerance for ambiguity and intellectual engagement.
o Make linkages or connections between diverse facts, theories, and
observations.
Engage in creative thinking.
o Intentionally pursue unusual approaches to problems.
o Recognize and encourage creative thinking and behaviors in others.
o Evaluate new ideas with an open but critical mind.
Use reasoning to recognize, develop, defend, and criticize arguments and other
persuasive appeals.
o Identify components of arguments (e.g., conclusions, premises/assumptions,
gaps, counterarguments).
o Distinguish among assumptions, emotional appeals, speculations, and
defensible evidence.
o Weigh support for conclusions to determine how well reasons support
conclusions.
o Identify weak, contradictory, and inappropriate assertions.
o Develop sound arguments based on reasoning and evidence.
Approach problems effectively.
P a g e | 267
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
o
o
o
o
o
Recognize ill-defined and well-defined problems.
Articulate problems clearly.
Generate multiple possible goals and solutions.
Evaluate the quality of solutions and revise as needed.
Select and carry out the best solution.
Application of Psychology





Describe major applied areas of psychology (e.g., clinical, counseling. industrial,
organizational, school, health).
Identify appropriate applications of psychology in solving problems, such as
o the pursuit and effect of healthy lifestyles,
o origin and treatment of abnormal behavior,
o psychological tests and measurements,
o psychology-based interventions in clinical, counseling, educational,
industrial-organizational, community, and other settings and their empirical
evaluation.
Articulate how psychological principles can be used to explain social issues and
inform public policy.
o Recognize that socio-cultural contexts may influence the application of
psychological principles in solving social problems.
o Describe how applying psychological principles can facilitate change.
Apply psychological concepts, theories, and research findings as these relate to
everyday life.
Recognize that ethically complex situations can develop in the application of
psychological principles.
Values in Psychology






Recognize the necessity for ethical behavior in all aspects of the science and practice
of psychology.
Demonstrate reasonable skepticism and intellectual curiosity by asking questions
about causes of behavior.
Seek and evaluate scientific evidence for psychological claims.
Tolerate ambiguity and realize that psychological explanations are often complex
and tentative.
Recognize and respect human diversity and understand that psychological
explanations may vary across populations and contexts. Assess and justify their
engagement with respect to civic, social, and global responsibilities.
Understand the limitations of their psychological knowledge and skills.
P a g e | 268
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Classes Assessed
We continue to improve our methods of assessing teaching and learning within our major.
Once again, we have data from several classes to share. Classes will be presented in
numerical order.
PSY 30400 - Basic Research Methods
Basic Research Methods is a required course for all psychology and sociology majors. The
prerequisite for the course is a letter grade of C or better in MTH 14100-Basic Statistics and
students are required to take concurrently, PSY 30600: Behavioral Science Statistics. PSY
30400 is intended for sophomores and juniors and it is a prerequisite for many of the
courses we offer in our experimental cluster.
Method of Assessment Used
This spring, a new tool was created and used to assess students’ knowledge of four key
topic areas covered in the PSY 30400 course: research methodology, research ethics, APA
style, and statistical knowledge. The tool consisted of 25 questions and was devised by the
course instructor. Students were asked to take the assessment at the beginning of the
semester (pre-test) and again at the end of the semester (post-test).
Results
A total of 35 students completed both the pre-test and post-test. The results of a paired ttest comparing student performance on the assessment tool revealed a significant
difference, t(34) = 10.97, p < .001, where, as expected, post-test scores (M = 16.87, SD =
3.49) were greater than pre-test scores (M = 9.91,SD =2.92).
A Pearson’s product-moment correlational analysis was conducted to determine how
related students’ assessment scores were to their final course grade. The results revealed a
correlation coefficient of r = .56 (n = 36), which would be considered a moderately strong
relationship. Although one might expect the two to be more strongly associated, the PSY
30400 course grade is based not only on exam scores, which account for 45 percent of the
overall course grade, but also on group project performance (27 percent), short lab
assignments (25 percent), and attendance (three percent). Indeed, when examining only
the relationship between the post-test scores and scores obtained by students from exam
performance in the course, we see that that two are strongly related, r = .70 (n = 36). For
purposes of comparison, the relationship between the final course grades and pretest
scores was rather modest at r = .26 (n = 35), and the relationship between pre- and posttest
performance was r = .32 (n = 35).
Correlation Coefficients between Assessment Measures
P a g e | 269
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Post-test Score
Pre-test Score
Final Course Grade
.56
(n = 36)
.26
(n = 35)
Total Exam Grade
.70
(n = 36)
.55
(n = 35)
Pretest Score
.32
(n = 35)
--
Lessons Learned
These data taken together suggest that students in PSY 30400 did gain knowledge of the key
issues in the course, and that a student’s initial knowledge of the course material was only
weakly associated with how much knowledge they retained at the end of the semester.
Furthermore, the relationship between overall course grades and the results of the posttest assessment scores reveals encouraging information when evaluating the utility of the
new assessment tool.
Action Plan for Next Year
The plan for next year is to keep collecting data from PSY 30400 students pre- and post-test,
and once we have gathered data from all students taking PSY 30400 in the academic year of
2011-12, an item analysis will be conducted to determine the strengths and weaknesses of
the students pre- and post-test. Based on these results, appropriate measures will be taken
to improve upon course delivery for the 2012-13 academic year. Meanwhile, students who
elect to take PSY 40400 - Advanced Research Methods will be given the same assessment
tool in order to find out how much information is retained from PSY 30400 to PSY 40400,
keeping in mind that those who elect to take PSY 40400 tend to be students who are more
interested in pursuing post-graduate studies.
Impact on Classes for Next Year
The lack of sufficient data makes it difficult to make any conclusions based on the results of
the assessment that would make a significant impact on the classes for next year. At best,
the data obtained from students who took PSY 30400 in spring 2011 suggest that the
department should continue the same type of instruction and assessment for the upcoming
academic year.
PSY30600 - Behavioral Science Statistics
This is a required course for all psychology and sociology majors. The prerequisite for the
course is a letter grade of C or better in MTH 14100-Basic Statistics, and students are
required to take concurrently, PSY 30400-Basic Research Methods. The course is intended
for sophomores and juniors.
P a g e | 270
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Method of Assessment Used
The assessment test used in PSY 30600 consists of 50 multiple-choice questions. The first 30
questions are mostly basic knowledge items, and the last 20 are questions pertain to two
short research articles (10 questions for each article).
Results
The data for the pre-tests and post-tests for this academic year were obtained from 29
students enrolled in PSY 30600 in fall 2010 and 33 students in spring 2011. Two different
adjunct professors taught the course this year: one in the fall and one in the spring. The
instructor who taught in the fall had taught the same course previously at Lindenwood,
whereas the instructor who taught in the spring had not taught this course in the past.
The results of a two (semester) x two (test) mixed analysis of variance (anova) revealed
statistically significant main effects of semester, F(1,60) = 4.14, p = .046, test, F(1,60) =
181.13, p < .001, and a significant interaction of semester x test F(1,60) = 27.65, p = .001.
Based on the results of a series of univariate follow-up tests, the only significant difference
between semesters was on the post-test, t(62) = -4.11, p < .001, and not the pre-test
scores, t(62) = .72, p > .05.
Summary Statistics for Pre-test and Post-test Scores by Semester
Semester
Fall 2010
Spring 2011
Sample
Size
29
33
Pre-test Score (maximum
score is 40)
M = 22.48, SD =4.73
M = 21.58, SD = 5.12
Post-test Score
(maximum score is 40)
M = 27.45, SD = 4.40
M = 32.91, SD =5.58
As is the case every year, we found that the students enrolled in PSY 30600 did gain
statistical knowledge throughout the semester as assessed by the pre- and post-tests. One
notable finding this year is the fact that there was a significant semester difference in posttest performance.
There are a number of different explanations for the differences between students’ posttest scores between the two semesters. The most obvious difference is that the two courses
were taught by different instructors. The instructor who taught in the fall semester has had
previous experience with this course, he has a master’s degree in psychology. The spring
semester instructor may have had a stronger background in statistics. She is currently
working on her dissertation for her Ph.D. in psychology.
There is also another difference between the two semesters with respect to the extent to
which the instructors for the two co-requisite courses, PSY 30400 and PSY 30600, monitored
each other’s courses throughout the semester. PSY 30600 has been taught by three
different adjunct instructors for the last two academic years. Having so many different and
temporary instructors poses challenges for the consistency of content delivery in any
P a g e | 271
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
course. However, given that this is a required course in two majors and that there is a corequisite course (PSY 30400), the variability in teaching styles and content among the
different instructors needed to be addressed.
The PSY 30400/30600 Combination
Although the instructors who teach PSY 30400 and PSY 30600 have always agreed on a
particular sequence of topics to be covered in each course, such that they go hand in hand,
the actual content of the coverage had not always been monitored.
 In fall 2010, there were apparent differences in the rate of content delivery which
resulted in a mismatch of content between the courses.
 Furthermore, the intricate relationship between the two courses was emphasized by
only one of the course instructors, whereas the other presented the courses as
independent entities. This resulted in students not understanding the connection
between research design and statistics, which defeated the purpose of having the
two courses taken concurrently by our students.
Based on observations made from the fall semester, the two instructors involved in PSY
30400 and PSY 30600 in the spring made a conscious effort to keep monitoring each other’s
progress as well as to stress the relevance of the counterpart course in their current course
throughout the semester. Specific efforts made in spring 2011 were as follows:





Each instructor had access to each other’s Blackboard environment to keep abreast
of course progress. Each had access to the other’s course materials, grade book, and
announcements to students.
After every exam, the two instructors shared all grades and conducted correlational
analyses to determine how related the exam grades from the two courses were at
every point during the semester. Attendance information was also shared.
Communication between the instructors was emphasized. The two instructors
involved exchanged 57 conversation topics through email communication during the
semester, as opposed to only 11 in fall 2010. Each of these conversation topics were
threaded with multiple exchanges, so the amount of contact between the two
instructors ensured that each one was familiar with the issues surrounding each
other’s courses.
The PSY 30400 instructor made a point to inform the PSY 30600 instructor about the
kind of group research projects the students were engaged in as they engaged in
them so that the PSY 30600 instructor could make mention of their projects and
designs in her statistics course. Meanwhile, the PSY 30400 instructor not only
mentioned the relevance of the statistical techniques being covered in PSY30600 in
the topics covered in PSY 30400, but made a conscious effort to include several
questions on the exams pertaining to the students’ statistical knowledge.
The close relationships between the two courses as well as the instructors involved
were further demonstrated to students in many small ways as well. For instance, the
P a g e | 272
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment

PSY 30600 instructor sometimes gave her make-up exams in the PSY 30400
instructor’s office due to space issues. The PSY 30400 instructor would either come
into the PSY 30600 classroom or ask the PSY 30600 instructor to pass out graded
assignments and exams to the students when the PSY 30400 class was not meeting
that week due to the class periods being used as research days. These habitual
references to as well as exchanges between the instructors involved in the two
courses served as reminders to the students that PSY 30400 and PSY 30600 were
indeed intricately related.
The PSY 30400 students present the results of their group research projects at the
end of every semester. In spring 2011, the PSY 30600 instructor came to these
presentations to observe and provide feedback and support to the students. Past
instructors of PSY 30600 had also been invited to attend these presentations. Yet, no
others in the past have attended. The fact that the PSY 30600 instructor in spring
2011 showed so much interest in the students’ performance in the counterpart
course also helped to showcase the connection between research design and
statistics.
The table below shows the degree to which exam scores in PSY 30400 and PSY 30600 were
related to each other throughout the semester based on data gathered from the 34
students who took all exams. The coefficients all indicate a strong positive relationship
between the exam scores from the two courses. Because the content of the courses
matched up, the fact that these coefficients were so high assures that there was a high
degree of consistency in the course content in the two courses.
The Relationship Between Mean Exam Scores in PSY 30400 and PSY 30600
n = 34
Exam 1
Exam 2
Exam 3
Exam 4
TOTAL
PSY30400 Mean
Exam Scores
M = 74.94
(SD = 15.64)
M = 79.14
(SD = 10.08)
M = 69.48
(SD = 17.07)
M = 71.02
(SD = 11.77)
M = 73.65
(SD = 13.81)
PSY30600 Mean
Exam Scores
M = 76.06
(SD = 19.44)
M = 80.00
(SD = 14.59)
M = 82.85
(SD = 13.24)
M = 80.94
(SD = 11.77)
M = 79.96
(SD = 13.67)
Correlation between Exam
Scores
r = 0.66
r = 0.81
r = 0.76
r = 0.78
r = 0.93
Furthermore, correspondence between students’ final course grades in the two courses in
the spring semester was r = 0.91 (n = 34) as opposed to r = 0.66 (n = 29) for fall 2010. These
results suggest that the two courses delivered in spring 2011 were more in sync, due at
least in part to the special efforts made by the two instructors involved in trying to keep
each other in their consciousness as well as the awareness of the students.
P a g e | 273
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Lessons Learned
Based on the results of spring 2011, we are encouraged by the potential benefits of the
instructors for PSY 30400 and PSY 30600 making the effort to keep monitoring each other’s
course progress as well as helping to remind the students of the interrelationship between
the two courses. The overall impression by the PSY 30400 instructor was that the students
in spring 2011 seemed much more comfortable with the statistical concepts covered in the
PSY 30400 course, perhaps because they were aware of the relationship between that
course and what they were learning in PSY 30600.
Action Plan and Impact on Classes
The department hopes to continue with this approach in the two courses in the future in
hopes that such strategies will help, even in the face of frequency with which different
instructors teach PSY30600 for the time being. In fact, precisely because of the increased
potential for divergence when multiple instructors are involved, extra care must be taken to
keep the two courses parallel to each other.
PSY 43200 - Senior Seminar
In previous years, senior seminar was taught by various psychology faculty members on a
rotating basis, which made the process of designing and implementing assessment
procedures difficult. The 2010-11 academic year was the first year that the department has
limited the instructors to two, one for fall and one for spring, and they have collaborated
regarding the content and delivery of the senior seminar class. The course objectives have
been reviewed for consistency, a common set of texts is being assembled, and assessment
procedures continue to be refined. Both instructors utilized a variety of methods to assess
student learning and improve program quality, including the PSY 10000 objective test (for
comparison with those students’ performance), written reflection assignments, quizzes,
discussions, and a formal research paper and presentation.
Course Objectives
Students will be able to





analyze ethical issues in contemporary psychology,
demonstrate knowledge of the field’s history and current challenges; communicate
clearly verbally and in writing,
summarize and present research-based information according to APA standards,
reflect on his or her personal development and educational experience,
develop strategies for meeting career goals.
P a g e | 274
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Methods of Assessment Used
Objective Test
As the Psychology Department became invested in the development of the pre- and posttest for PSY 10000, we wondered how our seniors would perform on the same instrument,
so it was administered to the spring semester senior seminar class.
Verbal Feedback
Both spring and fall sections elicited and valued student feedback throughout the semester.
For example, during class discussions early in the spring semester, it became apparent that
many of the students had not had the opportunity to take the “Careers in Psychology” class
offered during J-term, and as a result they had many questions about graduation, job
hunting, and graduate school. The course syllabus was modified to spend two additional
class periods (the class meets once weekly) to address these questions, create and review
resumes, and to bring in Ms. Brandi Goforth from career services for additional guidance.
Final Personal Review Assignment
As part of their course requirements, students in senior seminar must complete a final
personal review, which requires them to audit their own work in terms of compliance with
the course objectives.
Results
Objective test
The senior seminar class was given the PSY 10000 pre- and post-test once, at the beginning
of the spring semester. The mean score for these students (M=29.84, SD=4.01) was
significantly higher than the post-test scores from PSY10000 students (M=26.49, SD=5.42),
t(257)=3.00, p = .003.
Verbal feedback
Feedback from the students in the fall semester resulted in changes in the distribution of
course content and a reconsideration of texts. In the spring semester, students expressed
appreciation for the modification in the course schedule. Some stated that the careers class
should be offered more frequently than just in the J-Term to enable more students to take
it.
P a g e | 275
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Final Personal Review assignment
Students were able to discuss in detail how their class assignments (research paper,
presentation, quizzes, and written reflections) related to the goals of senior seminar. This
assignment could serve as a springboard for a portfolio project in future years.
Lessons Learned and Action Plan for Next Year
The department’s students scored better on the PSY 10000 pre and post-test than did this
semester’s students in PSY 10000. We will likely continue to refine this instrument and
assess senior seminar students with it to illuminate areas for future program improvement.
Psychology students are also meeting the expectations set for them via the course
objectives, but they feel underprepared for life after graduation. Fortunately, the
psychology club is making an effort to improve the distribution of information related to
career and graduate school paths. A portfolio may become a requirement in the class as an
extension of student and program assessment.
Impact on Classes for Next Year
The instructors of the senior seminar class will continue to add structure and focus while
allowing for flexibility of teaching style and adaptation needed for class size variations.
Broader Program Assessment
The Psychology Department is making a concerted effort to engage in meaningful overall
program evaluation, beyond the required curriculum assessment. This year we have
focused on assessing advising satisfaction, and we will continue to look for trends as more
data are collected.
Method of Assessment Used
A student advising satisfaction survey was first created and distributed in spring 2010. At
that time, a total of 102 students, approximately 50 percent of 206 active majors,
completed the instrument. Overall, student satisfaction with advisor availability, time
allotted for advising, personal interest in advisees demonstrated by advisors, respect
demonstrated by advisors, information provided, and guidance offered was quite high.
However, only 57 percent of respondents indicated that their advisor was willing to help
with internship planning. This year, the same advising survey was distributed via a
SurveyMonkey link in an email to all psychology advisees.
P a g e | 276
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Current Results
A total of 105 students completed the survey this year. Although the majority of
respondents were juniors and seniors, most indicated they had been psychology majors at
Lindenwood for only one to two years. The vast majority of respondents indicated that their
advisors were frequently meeting the expectations we asked about, though it appears we
could still improve our communication with advisees regarding internship possibilities.
Percentage of Respondents in Each Year of Study
Number
Percentage
Freshman
11
11%
Sophomore
17
16%
Junior
34
32%
Senior
41
39%
Unknown
2
2%
Total
103
Length of Study at Lindenwood in Semesters
Number
Percentage
1-2 semesters
37
35%
3-4 semesters
34
33%
5-6 semesters
18
17%
7-8 semesters
14
13%
Missing
2
2%
TOTAL
105
Frequency Ratings of Advisors’ Behavior
My advisor posts office
hours so I can make an
appointment
My advisor keeps
scheduled appointments
My advisor allows time for
effective advising
My advisor shows an
interest in me and my
concerns
My advisor encourages and
motivates me to succeed in
my studies
My advisor respects my
opinion and listens to me
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
N/A
Responses
0%
0%
2.0%
7.8%
90.2%
0%
102
0%
0%
0%
5.9%
93.1%
1.0%
102
0%
0%
3.9%
11.8%
83.3%
1.0%
102
1.0%
2.0%
10.9%
6.9%
79.2%
0%
101
2.0%
2.0%
10.8%
7.8%
75.5%
2.0%
102
1.0%
2.0%
6.9%
11.8%
76.5%
2.0%
102
P a g e | 277
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
when I need to talk
My advisor provides me
with information about
courses required for my
major
My advisor directs me to
other sources for
assistance as needed
My advisor is willing to help
me plan for
internship/volunteer
opportunities
My advisor is willing to
provide information on
graduate school
opportunities
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Always
N/A
Responses
3.0%
3.0%
8.9%
12.9%
72.3%
0%
101
3.9%
6.9%
7.8%
14.7%
61.8%
4.9%
102
4.0%
5.9%
10.9%
5.0%
42.6%
31.7%
101
5.9%
5.9%
7.8%
5.9%
52.0%
22.5%
102
Lessons Learned
This was the department’s first attempt to distribute an assessment instrument via
SurveyMonkey and email. This method of delivery allowed for more efficient revision and
feedback from within the department, and more efficient data analyses. The results were
similar to what we found last year.
Action Plan for Next Year
We will continue to review the advising survey questions to determine the need for revision
and additional data. Efforts have been made to increase opportunities for advisees to
complete service practicum hours by restructuring PSY 45000, which will continue into next
year. An advisor-advisee expectation checklist, consistent with the survey instrument, has
been completed and will be added to the content on our new program website in the fall.
Impact on Classes for Next Year
We plan to continue to refine our assessment activities in this area, but these data on
advising are not likely to have a direct impact on classes.
P a g e | 278
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
School of Sciences Analysis
Anthropology and Sociology
The program has developed a very extensive list of goals and objectives, but there
may be far too many to effective assess. Developing an exit interview is a good idea
for getting student feedback on the program. Generalities and anecdotal stories
have a value, but what was it that he student got from the program that help them
be successful and how are you measuring it? What is being done with the portfolios?
Are they telling the faculty anything about the program’s strengths and weaknesses?
Don’t get too concerned about statistics, there are other ways to learn about and
improve the program. The anthropology major is a good development, but be sure
to create an assessment system during this process as opposed to trying to tack one
on later.
Biology
The Biology Department’s assessment has the pieces in place and is making efforts
to close the loop by making adjustments to the classes and programs based on what
they are finding. Class assessment is getting stronger, but the department needs to
take more time in looking at the overall program. What does all of this tell the
department about strengths and weaknesses of the program? Look to expand
assessment into more of the core classes in order to better identify where the
program’s strengths and weaknesses are.
Chemistry
The chemistry program has made significant efforts to close the loop of assessment
by using information gained to adjust the program, add a class, and spread out
content to allow for more time to be spent on various topics. The creation of a
multi-part exit exam that is adaptable based on a student’s area of study is also a
good idea. The study of study habits is also very interesting. There are a few areas to
note: in the report, the department will want to more clearly tie assessment to the
program and class objectives. The use of CAT is good and will provide worthwhile
information, but how are you showing if you are meeting your course or program
objectives? By giving students time to prepare for the physical chemistry sequence
pre-test, are you really able to assess what they knew coming in the first day of
class?
P a g e | 279
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Computer Sciences
The program is expanding its assessment program, across all of its degree programs.
The development of program assessment is the next step. The use of the packets for
assessment provides a useful way to ensure that desired information is
accumulated. The program is working on creating specific student learning
objectives and finding ways to measure them. There are a few things to note: More
explanation of the data that leads to the choices that the department is making
would be very useful and which schools and programs were used in the
comparisons.
Earth Sciences
The Earth Sciences Department does not offer any majors.
Mathematics
The program has developed an initial placement test to assist in putting students in
the correct level class to help improve the potential for student success, but it would
be worth more study to see if this has had the desired results. The department has
in place a set of objectives for the program and all of its classes and uses those
regularly to review their success. There are a few things to note: Subjective
measures created by the professor are of limited value in that there is any number
of factors that may influence the grade for the class. Might a capstone class,
possibly combined with the initial assessment, also be useful in determining their
progress at Lindenwood? A combination of subjective and objective measures could
be very useful to the Math Department.
Physics and Pre-Engineering
The program has an extensive list of class objectives but needs to list the program
objectives. Grades are very limited as a method for showing student learning, and
another system will need to be developed. The program needs to move beyond
using grades as the central piece of the assessment process.
Psychology
The department has been active in doing assessment and works to include
assessment throughout its program. The department is closing the assessment loop,
using assessment data to adjust and change program requirements. The inclusion of
the advising assessment was a good start down that road. There are some areas to
P a g e | 280
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
note. Is there any program-related assessment in the senior seminar (written work
or objective testing)? Can the senior seminar be tied back to the early classes in the
program to show student growth? The report needs to use more of the data that
lead to the conclusions. The creation and use of table for comparison is good, but
they need to be more readable. When using statistics, be sure to include explanation
for any abbreviations. Based on this year’s assessment, what are the strengths and
weaknesses of the program and classes? Are any additional changes necessary?
LCIE
The LCIE Approach
The Lindenwood College for Individualized Education is dedicated to
 using the Socratic method of teaching,
 providing a sound core in the liberal arts,
 providing a structured, broad-brush approach in majors in business administration,
communications, health management, human resource management, criminal
justice, gerontology, information technology, and fine arts in writing,
 preparing students to be competitive in an increasingly global market place,
 developing the student’s analytical and communication skills, with emphasis placed
on both written and oral communication,
 using a cluster format to serve the adult learner,
 providing mentoring for every student,
 developing an appreciation of the importance of continuing growth and education
with an emphasis on values-centered thinking.
Assessment
LCIE assesses the accomplishment of this mission at many levels. During the 2010-11
academic year, faculty, students, programs, clusters, and off-campus locations were
evaluated.
Methods of Assessment
Faculty



Full time and adjunct – End-of-term student evaluations of courses and instructors.
Full time – annual review with dean of LCIE and IDP process.
Adjunct
P a g e | 281
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
o Classroom visits
o Annual performance review
Students






Faculty assess students (internal).
o Grades
o End of cluster written evaluation of each student
• Quantitative ratings in five areas
• Narrative comments
LCIE post-graduation surveys in which students report professional successes related
to their education (internal).
ETS Proficiency Profile testing using undergraduate pre-test at beginning of program
and post-test before graduation (external).
ETS Major Field Tests where appropriate (external).
Success in courses aligned with professional norms (blend).
Portfolios (internal).
Programs


Achievement of program learning outcomes as measured by program directors.
LCIE post-graduation survey.
Clusters


Student evaluations of clusters and instructors.
Adherence to standardized syllabus as measured by classroom visitations.
Off campus locations



Dean of LCIE visits and files regular reports on off campus locations.
Full-time faculty - assigned to an off campus location, visit regularly, advise and get
feedback from students.
ETS Proficiency Profile establishes baselines for new undergraduates at the various
locations.
This document summarizes some of the results of the above processes and lists the actions
that were taken as a result of that information.
P a g e | 282
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Results
Faculty
LCIE piloted a new reporting system, Digital Measures, whereby it could track the
professional accomplishments of its full-time and adjunct faculty and assess the level of
accomplishments of both groups. These results were used in the annual performance
reviews of adjunct faculty done by the program directors who supervise these adjuncts.
The business programs were working on a specialized accreditation, and so their groups
were examined closely in the 2010-11 year. As a result, the following areas for
improvement were noted:



Need to hire more adjunct faculty with terminal degrees to teach graduate-level
clusters.
Need to encourage some current adjunct faculty to take additional graduate course
work in the disciplines that they teach.
Need to publicize significant creative output by all faculty.
The end-of-quarter evaluations of the faculty and clusters by the students resulted in the
following actions:





Draft proposal to administration to give significant tuition breaks to adjuncts
teaching at Lindenwood.
Creation of a rubric now used for classroom visitations.
Use new LCIE website.
Creation of annual performance review forms now being used by program directors
for the adjunct faculty that they supervise.
Incorporation of more online material into some clusters to provide additional
instruction outside of the classroom.
Students
Faculty members assess their students when they issue grades. That process was refined in
2010 allowing all instructors academic freedom in determining exactly which tools they
wished to use, but in determining that no matter which section of the same cluster a
student chooses to take, that student’s grade will be determined by similar tools. A
standard syllabus was adopted for every cluster and the core, called the standard
abbreviated syllabus, is the same across all clusters.
CLUSTER OBJECTIVES


Demonstrate written communication and documentation skills.
Demonstrate oral communication skills.
P a g e | 283
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment



Prepare for and participate in every cluster meeting.
Demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the concepts and practices within
each course.
Earn a passing grade in the cluster.
The five cluster objectives listed are common to all LCIE clusters. In objective four, the exact
course content is provided by the program director for each cluster. However, the structure
is the same. Each quarter the instructors electronically submit an evaluation form for each
student evaluating that student on these five objectives. These forms are stored on the LCIE
folder of the N: drive and are available for program directors and faculty advisors to use.
Summaries are also stored on the N: drive. Of particular interest are the responses to items
four (IV) and five (V), the instructor’s perception of the mastery of content and the grade
that the student earns according to the grading rules set down in the syllabus. This
information is used as one source of determining the validity of the grades. Since classes
are limited to 14 students and instructors use more Socratic methodology than didactic
methodology, there is a basis for using this type of judgment.
P a g e | 284
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Discipline
BA
Discipline
Health Mgmt.
Discipline
HR
Level
UG
Level
UG
Level
UG
Objective
IV
V
Objective
WinQtr11
Sum
IV
V
Objective
WinQtr11
1080
1078
Students
143
Ave
WinQtr11
Avg.
80
77
Sum
143
Students
18
18
Students
4.44
4.28
Ave
4.44
4.30
4.43
4.24
WinQtr11
Avg.
4.53
4.45
FaQtr10
Sum
558
539
Sum
V
WinQtr11
Sum
FaQtr10
IV
430
434
91
90
Ave
4.67
4.79
WinQtr11
Avg.
4.72
4.81
187
188
FaQtr10
121
116
Sum
Students
123
123
Students
25
25
40
40
Ave
4.57
4.47
Ave
4.69
4.57
Ave
4.67
4.69
FaQtr10
Avg.
4.48
4.30
FaQtr10
Avg.
4.62
4.43
FaQtr10
Avg.
4.73
4.70
320
328
69
69
SuQtr10
SuQtr10
Sum
764
747
Sum
Students
170
170
Students
Ave
4.46
4.33
SuQtr10
Avg.
4.45
4.27
SpQtr10
SuQtr10
42
38
Sum
9
10
Students
Ave
4.66
3.8
Ave
4.60
4.75
SuQtr10
Avg.
4.70
4.37
SuQtr10
Avg.
4.65
4.78
SpQtr10
Sum
1104
1080
Students
250
Ave
SpQtr10
Avg.
Students
SpQtr10
Sum
95
95
Sum
480
483
250
Students
20
20
Students
104
104
4.65
4.56
Ave
4.77
4.77
Ave
4.72
4.74
4.449678
4.147348
4.869931
4.906621
4.656013
4.671853
SpQtr10
Avg.
SpQtr10
Avg.
The information for these four quarters, along with the information collected over the past
six years, indicates that in business administration, students at the undergraduate level
scored lower on tests than their instructors’ perceptions of how well they mastered the
material. In both other business programs, health management and human resource
management, the two measures align very well. Such information prompted several
actions.
Actions
Actions specific to the business administration programs and actions for LCIE in general
follow:

Examination of the testing process in the clusters:
P a g e | 285
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment




o Standardized testing in the form of the ETS Major Field Tests beginning in 2009.
Looking at an external measure allowed the business programs to compare the
scores of their graduates to those of business administration students
nationwide.
More prerequisites for the undergraduate clusters (More clusters now require the
math/stat cluster).
Increasing the prerequisites for the math/stat cluster (Placement tests and/or a
basic math course).
Increasing the prerequisites for the initial communications cluster (Placement tests
and/or a basic writing course).
Determining a baseline for the overall proficiency of new LCIE undergraduate
students as measured by the ETS Proficiency Profile which was implemented in 2010
(Table of results follows).
ETS® Proficiency Profile Summary of Proficiency Classifications for Three Quarters of
Incoming Undergraduate LCIE Student
Proficiency Classification
Skill Dimension
LCIE
National
LCIE
Proficient
National
Marginal
LCIE
National
Not Proficient
Reading, Level 1
55%
50%
24%
24%
21%
27%
Reading, Level 2
14%
24%
32%
16%
54%
60%
Critical Thinking
1%
3%
8%
10%
91%
87%
Writing, Level 1
36%
49%
45%
30%
20%
20%
Writing, Level 2
4%
12%
30%
30%
66%
58%
Writing, Level 3
1%
4%
5%
19%
93%
77%
Mathematics, Level 1
38%
41%
25%
27%
37%
33%
Mathematics, Level 2
14%
19%
32%
22%
54%
60%
Mathematics, Level 3
4%
4%
7%
11%
89%
85%
An additional measure of the extent to which LCIE fulfills its mission is the success of its
students in their careers. Since most LCIE students are already working in their chosen
careers, the faculty members of LCIE feel that student perception of how the programs are
helping them is valid in assessing the programs. LCIE developed a survey that it administers
to students immediately following their graduation. This survey was first administered in
early 2010 and the results are on the N: drive. It has been refined after each administration.
The narrative comments have been the most effective in the process of assessing programs.
The original survey was constructed around the theme of student satisfaction rather than
student achievement.
P a g e | 286
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
During 2010-11, LCIE program directors participated in webinars and seminars on using
portfolios, developing rubrics, and doing assessment in online programs. The criminal
justice programs are beginning to pilot a portfolio process. The program directors in charge
of general education offerings are looking at the ETS Proficiency Profile Tests. A committee
is working on a standardized rubric for evaluating an oral presentation in any cluster.
Programs
Beginning in July, 2010, every program director worked on refining the student learning
outcomes for their programs and clusters. The results are in the LCIE folder on the N: drive.
Each document includes three columns: learning outcomes, measurable competencies,
and, measures used. These documents are always a work in progress, and they are
discussed at the monthly LCIE assessment meetings that precede the monthly LCIE general
meetings.
In addition, every program submitted an individual assessment plan for the 2011-12
academic year. These are also saved on the N: drive.
Clusters
The standardized cluster syllabi as exemplified in section three above is used to assess the
individual instructors’ syllabi. Program directors examine the syllabi submitted by their
adjunct faculty. They work with those faculty members to help assure that all students
receive adequate coverage of the subject matter and to assure that there are adequate
instruments to assess the students’ mastery of the content. In addition, each program
director visits two classes each quarter for a total of eight classes each year. The director
uses evaluation forms which measure the quality of the cluster that he/she visits.
At the end of the quarter, students evaluate their instructors and their clusters. An
electronic evaluation began to be used in LCIE in the 2010-2011 academic year. There are
fewer students responding to the electronic version, and work needs to be done on
determining how to use the results.
Off-campus locations
In order to assure that all students have an equal opportunity to achieve the learning
outcomes for the programs in which they are enrolled, it is critical that the quality of
delivery at the various locations is monitored. The dean of LCIE leads the effort in visiting
each location unannounced and reporting on it. He also uses the standard syllabus to
assure that the required topics are being covered.
The ETS Proficiency Profile is administered during the first meeting of the communications
cluster. That cluster is the orientation for new LCIE undergraduate students. The
administration of the test captures the section number of the cluster and so is a good
P a g e | 287
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
measure of the new students attending the various locations. LCIE expects this information
to assist in properly assessing the effectiveness of its programs at those locations.
This concludes the summary of the LCIE assessment process for 2010-2011. Additional
details are available as indicated. All forms and reports are stored on the shared LCIE folder
on the N: drive. A CD of that information is stored with the Dean Of Institutional Research.
The individual assessment plans and reports for the major programs are attached.
LCIE Programs
Bachelor of Science in Business Administration
The LCIE Bachelor of Science in Business Administration prepares students to become
managers of business and nonprofit organizations or enhances their knowledge of
business topics if already employed in a management capacity. The intent of the
program is to expand the students’ business skills and to provide students with a strong
liberal arts and professional business background. All LCIE undergraduate degree
programs contain core requirements in the liberal arts. This is particularly important to
the manager because it provides the opportunity to develop cultural, human, and
theoretical understandings essential for successful business interactions and effective
community leadership. Throughout their studies, LCIE students gain practice in
management techniques as they learn to write concise papers, make small group
presentations, practice effective time management, and communicate with fellow
student professionals.
Program Goals and Objectives
Graduates




will demonstrate contemporary business competencies and the aptitude
required for life-long learning and personal development,
will acquire the technical, human and conceptual skills that would contribute to
critical analysis, problem solving, operational recommendations, and continuous
improvement of dynamic and changing organizations and the ability to
professionally communicate those recommendations and improvements,
will demonstrate the entrepreneurial spirit of being enterprising, resourceful and
productive in their professional lives,
are able to act and build upon the foundation of their course work for the
furtherance of their professional careers (Adapted from SB&E One Year Action
Plan).
P a g e | 288
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Objectives for graduates in the major – graduates will achieve the following Student
Learning Outcomes:
Outcome
1. Describes the role of each
of the functional areas of
business

2. Understands the major

theories and principles which
apply to business
Competency
Demonstrates understanding
of the purpose of each of the
following business areas within
the core Business
Administration clusters, with
focus on global, legal, and
ethics issues:
 Accounting
 Finance
 Marketing
 Management
 Human Resources
 Information Systems
 Business Operations
Explains theories and principles
in each of the following
courses:
 Principles of Financial
Accounting
 Principles of
Managerial Accounting
 Principles of Finance
 Principles of
Microeconomics
 Principles of
Macroeconomics
 International
Economics
 Introduction to
Information Systems
 Introduction to
Operations
Management
 Microcomputer
Applications in
Business
 Principles of
Management
 Human Resource
Management
 Managerial Ethics
 Principles of Marketing
 Marketing
Performance Measure
Successful completion of
 Course requirements
within each cluster,
including examinations,
projects, research
papers, and exercises.
 Major Field Test Business
Successful completion of
 Course requirements
within each cluster,
including examinations,
projects, research
papers, and exercises.
 Major Field Test Business
P a g e | 289
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Management
International
Marketing
 Investments
 Consumer Finance
 Business Law
 Quantitative Methods
for Business
 Basic Statistics
 Research Design and
Methodology
Integrates knowledge gained in
coursework to evaluate
business problems through
examination of current
business events and case study
analysis

3. Applies knowledge of
business to develop business
strategy

Successful completion of
 Case Study Analysis
Projects
 Business Administration
Capstone Course
IBA 49900 – Business Administration Capstone
Methods of Assessment Used
Internal objective assessments include



Analysis of current business issues,
Complex case study requiring various methods of evaluation and analysis,
Comprehensive exam.
External objective assessments include

ETS Major Field Test - Business
Results
The ETS Major Field Test – Business has been administered quarterly since 2009, enabling
comparison of results obtained by Lindenwood students over time, and comparison of
Lindenwood results with national comparative data.
The charts shown below are for data gathered from ETS Major Field Test results from the
summer 2010, fall 2010 and winter 2011 quarters. The test was administered for the spring
2011 quarter but the results were not available at the time of this report. Legend – “Overall
Mean Scores” are the LCIE overall mean scores.
Chart 1: Summer 10 Quarter Results – Breakdown by Assessment Area
Legend – “Overall Mean Scores” are the LCIE overall mean scores.
P a g e | 290
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Chart 2: Fall 10 Quarter Results – Breakdown by Assessment Area
Legend – “Overall Mean Scores” are the LCIE overall mean scores.
Chart 3: Winter 11 Quarter Results – Breakdown by Assessment Area
Legend – “Overall Mean Scores” are the LCIE overall mean scores.
P a g e | 291
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Chart 4: LCIE Overall Results vs. Comparative Data 2010-2011
LCIE Overall Results vs. Comparative Data 2010-2011
LCIE Mean Score
Comparative Mean
Summer 2010
138.2
153.1
Fall 2010
142.1
151.3
Winter 2011
141.6
151.3
Variance
-14.9
-9.2
-9.7
Lessons Learned
Inspection of the results shown in (above) has yielded some interesting observations:

ETS changed the form for the Major Field Test – Business in time for administration
of the test in fall 2010 quarter. The overall mean score for LCIE students taking the
test during their business administration capstone course (IBA49900) improved by
P a g e | 292
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment



3.9 points in fall 2010 and 3.4 points in winter 2011. The variance between the
comparative mean scores and LCIE mean scores decreased due to the new form
(Table 1) indicating an overall improvement in LCIE scores. This could simply be the
effect of the new form or perhaps the questions are now better aligned with our
Business curriculum. Further analysis of the scores by assessment area provides
better insight.
Scores for legal and social environment are consistently higher than the comparative
scores – this may be due to a change of text book in the consumer finance/business
law cluster approximately 18 months ago. Feedback from adjuncts teaching this
cluster indicated that the Ashcroft text was inadequate and prompted the
evaluation of several business law texts. A much more substantial business law text
by Henry Cheeseman was selected and implemented across the board.
Scores for management and marketing are consistently close to the comparative
scores – LCIE students continue to achieve in these disciplines which rely heavily on
writing skills.
Scores for assessment areas requiring quantitative skills are consistently poor when
compared to the comparative scores – although there may be exemplary students
who are the exception to the rule, LCIE students continue to be challenged in the
areas of accounting, finance and economics. This finding indicates that more focus
needs to be provided in these areas of the business administration curriculum.
Action Plan
Investigate possible changes to the business administration curriculum to provide more
focus on developing quantitative skills.
Evaluate and pilot software which is available from textbook publishers (i.e., Connect – a
web-based assignment and assessment platform) to enhance the student’s learning through
use of tutorials, assessments and other online learning tools.
Implement the chosen solution for quantitative business courses, i.e., accounting/finance,
economics, and business statistics (already implemented as part of the math/statistics
cluster).
Impacts and Changes on Classes
Impacts and changes expected include:



Increased use of technology, i.e., Blackboard.
Increased standardization of assignments and assessments.
Improvements in students’ test scores.
P a g e | 293
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Health Management Programs
University Goals and Objectives Met by the Program
The undergraduate degree in Healthcare Management will develop professional
competencies in its students that will fulfill the mission and goals of the organizations that
they represent. In addition, students will have a solid ethical foundation. They will obtain
these competencies and ethical foundation through understanding the material presented
and discussed in class, generally related to the management of healthcare organizations.
The goal of the HCM program is the development of students who will be successful in their
chosen HCM fields of emphasis. The HCM program will provide superior instruction and
development within the field for its students from enrollment through every aspect of their
academic experience. The students will learn business models and concepts to assist them
in understanding and managing departments and organizations within the healthcare
industry.
Healthcare management program outcome goals have been developed to reflect the
specific application level work skills and abilities that align with the program and student
learning outcomes.
Program Goals and Objectives
Graduates




will demonstrate contemporary business competencies and the aptitude required
for life-long learning and personal development,
will acquire the technical, human and conceptual skills that would contribute to
critical analysis, problem solving, operational recommendations, and continuous
improvement of dynamic and changing organizations and the ability to
professionally communicate those recommendations and improvements,
will demonstrate the entrepreneurial spirit of being enterprising, resourceful and
productive in their professional contributions,
are able to act and build upon the foundation of their course work for the
furtherance of their professional careers:
o What should students be learning and in what ways should they be growing?
o What are students actually learning and in what ways are they actually
growing?
o What should we be doing to facilitate student learning and growth?
P a g e | 294
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Objectives for graduates in the major – graduates will achieve the following Student
Learning Outcomes:







Demonstrate an understanding of management principles and concepts with regard
to health care.
Understand pertinent ethical issues within health care organizations.
Understand fundamental concepts and methods of financing and accounting with
regard to health care organizations.
Understand health care delivery in the United States.
Understand fundamental prevalent legal issues in health care and develop a basic
knowledge of the United States legal system.
Understand basic concepts of business information systems, operations
management, and software applications.
Understand fundamental concepts of supervisory and managerial roles within health
care organizations and how to conduct basic problem analysis.
Classes/Clusters to be assessed
Foundations of Management
IHM 30100 - Ethical Issues in Healthcare Management, IHM 30200 - Healthcare
Management and IHM 35100 - Healthcare Marketing
Healthcare Finance
IHM 47600 - Essentials of Healthcare Finance, IHM 47700 - Healthcare Finance, and IHM
47800 - Economics of Health and Medical Care
Healthcare Law
IHM 33300 - Legal Issues in Healthcare, IHM 33400 - Government Organization and the
Healthcare Industry and IHM 33500 - Cases in Healthcare Administration
Health Policy
IHM 46000 - Healthcare Delivery in the USA, IHM 46100 - Healthcare Policy and Research
and IHM 46200 - Global Healthcare Reform
Accounting
IBA 21010 - Principles of Financial Accounting, IBA 21011 - Principles of Managerial
Accounting and IBA 32000 - Principles of Finance
P a g e | 295
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Management Information Systems
IBA 24000 - Introduction to Information Systems, IBA 33400 - Introduction to Operations
Management and IBA 36500 - Microcomputer Applications in Business
Capstone
IHM 49900 - Health Management Capstone
Methods of Assessment Used
The content of the clusters is kept current through meetings with adjunct faculty members,
who practice in the industry, meetings with the LCIE business advisory board, and alignment
with discipline specific associations (e.g., AUPHA) the outcomes are measured by through
the following:
Faculty assess students’ abilities to
 analyze current business issues,
 evaluate and analyze case studies,
 effectively present information in written and verbal formats,
 understand industry issues and concepts.
Results
The assessment process was recently implemented and is still in its infancy. However, over
the next two years, comparisons and trends will be identified and analyzed and impacted
via a continuous improvement process.
Lessons Learned
At this point, health management is piloting the assessment process.
Action Plan
Next year, we will continue to improve student learning through two means. First, we will
continue to implement our plan, taking into consideration the positive and negative lessons
and issues that colleagues in other programs have encountered. Second, we will pursue a
healthcare specific accreditation for the program which will provide the opportunity for a
third party evaluation of the program as well as additional teaching and assessment
resources.
P a g e | 296
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment
Impacts and Changes on Classes
At this point, it is premature to speculate about the changes on the classes.
LCIE School Analysis
LCIE is continuing to increase both is assessment program and assessment reporting. LCIE is
working to close the loop on assessment by making improvements to the programs based
on assessment data but some of the programs are very early in the process. The student
evaluation system is interesting, and if it is capable of comparing their first cluster to their
last, it could provide very useful data. LCIE has already identified the adjunct response rate
as an issue and is working on it. The University may need to consider a separate report for
LCIE, but that is for the future.
Program Assessment Overview
Lindenwood University’s program assessment is growing and becoming more
comprehensive each year. All of the schools at Lindenwood annually assess some or all of
their degree programs, with the exception of the school of American studies, which only
came into existence in the last couple of years.
Summary of Assessment of Programs
Program assessment - some conclusions:
 A number of our professional departments/schools are going through, or have
finished, the process of getting outside accreditation, and because of that, they are
working on changing their assessment programs to meet the standards of the
professional associations.
o Athletic training has professional accreditation.
o Social work has professional accreditation.
o School of Business and Entrepreneurship received specialized accreditation
this year.
o LCIE is also going through the business accreditation process.
o The School of Communications is reviewing the possibility of specialized
accreditation.
o The Music Department is reviewing the possibility of specialized
accreditation.
 Student improvement has, and continues to be, a constant over the years.
P a g e | 297
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment



o Students have demonstrated value added from the courses and majors.
A number of departments have determined that their current assessment tools
and/or programs no longer provide useful information, and this had led to
o some departments looking at new assessment techniques and tools,
o a number of departments are working on creating whole new assessment
programs in order to better suit the department’s needs.
The School of Business has been using and LCIE is beginning to use third-party
sources for assessment tools, such as the Educational Testing Service professional
exams.
We still have departments that have problems closing the loop on assessment in a
formal process but have begun to do so informally (without documentation).
o This appears in these areas:
 programs with a lot of physical activity, or very subjective material,
 new programs that have yet to work out what they need assessment
to tell them,
 programs that had significant turnover in personnel,
 programs that do not have a history of doing assessment.
Program Assessment Action Plan



The University’s program assessment is constantly in a state of evolution.
o In 2011-12, a new assessment reporting system will be implemented in
which ¼ of the programs report each year.
 Programs will be required to do SLO-based assessment reporting in
each year in which they do not do program-level assessment.
o Assessment oversight has been moved to the school level from the University
level. Each school has its own assessment committee. Oversight of the
University program will continue to be in the hands of the Office of
Institutional Research. This process is still in its early stages of development
as the school committee gets use to their new and developing
responsibilities.
The Dean of Institutional Research will meet with assessment officers for each
program to discuss the strengths and weakness of their assessment programs.
Aid will be given to the schools’ assessment committees by the Office of Institutional
Research as requested or needed in
o assisting programs in the creation of their assessment plans,
o examining and recommending methods of assessment,
o the creation or selection of assessment tools, such as outside, third-party
tools.
P a g e | 298
2010 – 2011 LU Undergraduate Programs Assessment







The assessment officers for each school/department will be encouraged to create in
their assessment plan a section on how they will be looking at GE goals in their
programs.
The student’s ability to communicate effectively and correctly in written and oral
English will see greater emphasis.
o The use of the Writing Proficiency Exam and Writing Proficiency Assessment
will continue to be expanded to the Belleville Campus and LCIE.
o Departments will be encouraged to look for ways to assess communications
in all of their academic majors.
Departments currently having trouble closing the feedback loop in the assessment
documentation will be encouraged to include how they are using assessment to
modify their majors, such as
o outlining success of current methods,
o outlining changes in courses or majors brought about through assessment.
Schools and departments will be encouraged to look to use both objective and
subjective measures in their analysis and written reports. They will be encouraged to
increase the use and reporting of more subjective measures including CATs, student
class assessments, and other non-quantifiable measures.
Schools and departments will be encouraged to examine the success of graduates,
such as how many are employed in their fields and how many go to graduate school.
Faculty members will be encouraged to promote student involvement in assessment
via the use of CATs, surveys of student attitudes and expectations, student
participation in program assessment committees, exit interviews, and student
membership on assessment committees.
The Office of Institutional Research will assist and encourage departments to
develop more focused assessment plans that will allow them to concentrate their
efforts on specific areas of concern. The aim is to lighten the burden of assessment
(where possible) while focusing efforts on using assessment to improve instruction
in specific areas and through specific methods.
###