Assessment Summaries from all Duke Schools and Programs
Dean
Assessment Liaison/s
Richard Hays, PhD
Laceye Warner, PhD
3
Fuqua School of Business
Est. 1969
Blair Sheppard, PhD
Alison Hubbard Ashton, PhD
10
Graduate School
Est. 1926
Jo Rae Wright, PhD
David Bell III, PhD
19
William L. Chameides, PhD
Emily Klein, PhD
22
Tom Katsouleas, PhD
Linda Franzoni, PhD
33
Bruce R. Kuniholm, PhD
Kenneth Rogerson, PhD
41
David F. Levi, JD
Elizabeth Gustafson, JD
Tia Barnes, JD
44
Nancy C. Andrews, MD, PhD
Colleen Grochowski, PhD
49
Catherine L. Gilliss, DNSc, RN, FAAN
Dori Taylor Sullivan, PhD, RN, NE-BC, CNL,
CPHQ
60
Alvin L. Crumbliss, PhD
Lee D. Baker, PhD
68
Hallie Knuffman, MPA
113
Divinity School
Est. 1926
Nicholas School of the Environment
Est. 1991
Pratt School of Engineering
Est. 1939
Sanford School of Public Policy
Est. 2009
School of Law
Est. 1930
School of Medicine
Est. 1930
School of Nursing
Est. 1931
Trinity College of Arts and Sciences
Est. 1838
Vice Provost
University Institutes and Centers
Susan Roth, PhD
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
2
On the following pages you will find summaries for each of Duke University’s schools and for the Institutes and Centers that fall under the Vice Provost
for Interdisciplinary Studies. Within each summary, an overview of the school is provided, then the assessment activities for each academic program is
summarized, first detailing any accredited programs, then unaccredited programs. A snapshot of assessment activities are provided within the tables;
outlining not only desired outcomes, but the method to measure those outcomes, the results of the assessment and any actions that resulted from the
assessment process. In some cases, the table may carry over to multiple pages.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
3
Assessment Summary | Divinity School
Overview
The Divinity School is a professional school within Duke University accredited by the Association of Theological Schools and Southern Area Colleges and
Schools. The Association of Theological Schools facilitates processes for re-accreditation every ten years. The Divinity School most recently received full
accreditation with no notations in 2005.
Duke Divinity School’s mission is to engage in spiritually disciplined and academically rigorous education in service and witness to the Triune God in the
midst of the church, the academy, and the world. We strive to cultivate a vibrant community through theological education on Scripture, engagement
with the living Christian tradition, and attention to and reflection on contemporary contexts in order to form leaders for faithful Christian ministries.
Accredited Degree Programs
Master of Divinity: The assessment of the MDiv degree program focuses upon portfolios with representative assignments, self-reflection and responses
from faculty members as well as field education supervisors and spiritual formation group leaders. Portfolios of MDiv students are reviewed at the midpoint and conclusion of the degree program by faculty, administrators, and committees including the Curriculum Committee. These reviews culminate
in a report each year to the faculty including recommendations for improvement to be pursued.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
Religious Heritage
Read and exegete Scripture and the
great texts of the Christian tradition for
the purpose of preaching and teaching
the gospel with clarity, power, and
reverence:
Eighty percent of students will
demonstrate ability to:
-Read and understand biblical and
other significant texts from Christian
tradition
- Exegete texts
- Interpret texts in a sermon
Faculty Middler Review
Include in portfolio:
-One graded essay from OT 11, 12, or
NT 18 on a biblical text with instructor’s
comments
-One graded essay from CH 13, 14, or
AC 28 on a classical theological text
with instructor’s comments
-Evaluation from field education
supervisor and lay training committee
Religious Heritage
Middler Review
Religious Heritage
Middler Review
54.3% of our students have a strong
ability to exegete Scripture and other
texts
42% of our students have a promising
ability to exegete Scripture and other
texts
Objective met.
Faculty Senior Review
Include in portfolio:
-One graded essay from CT 32 or CHE
96.3% of students have either
promising or strong ability to exegete
Scripture and other texts
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
4
33 demonstrating critical theological
reflection with instructor’s comments
-Video and graded sermon manuscript
delivered in class with instructor’s
comments
-Evaluation from field education
supervisor and lay training committee
Indirect
Include in portfolio:
-Student reflection on their progress
and growth in light of feedback from
instructor, field education supervisor,
and lay training committee
-ATS Graduating Student
Questionnaire, specifically ability to
interpret Scripture
Cultural Context
Think theologically about the doctrines
and practices of the church and about
the world in which the church finds
itself, in a way that is both faithful
historically to the tradition and
responsive to the challenges of our
time:
Eighty percent of students will
demonstrate ability to think
theologically about the church’s
practices in a wide range of social and
cultural contexts
Faculty Senior Review
Include in portfolio:
-One graded essay from either Black
Church Studies or World Christianity
courses (with possible attention to
gender) with instructor’s comments
- Evaluation from field education
supervisor and lay training committee,
specifically Part 5 “Mission of the
Church”
Cultural Context
In process for Senior Review in May
2011
Cultural Context
In process for Senior Review in May
2011
Indirect
Include in portfolio:
-Student reflection on their progress
and growth in light of feedback from
instructor, field education supervisor,
and lay training committee
-ATS GSQ results regarding social
context and issues
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
Personal and Spiritual Formation
Cultivate habits of spiritual disciplines
to sustain a Christian life ordered
toward holiness, justice, peace, and
reconciliation:
Seventy percent of students will
maintain habits of spiritual disciplines
following the first year requirement of
participation in spiritual formation
groups to sustain a Christian life
ordered toward holiness, justice, peace,
and reconciliation
Faculty Middler Review
Include in portfolio:
- Evaluation from first year spiritual
formation group leader
- Evaluation from field education
supervisor and lay training committee,
specifically Part 1 “Spiritual Formation
and Self-Care” and Part 9 “Vocational
Clarity”
Personal and Spiritual Formation
Middler Review
Personal and Spiritual Formation
Middler Review
52.3% of our students have a strong
understanding of their Christian
vocation
43% of our students have a promising
understanding of their Christian
vocation
Objectives met.
Faculty Senior Review
Include in portfolio:
-Description of second and third year
students’ ongoing practices gleaned
from survey(s)
95.3% of students have a promising or
strong understanding of their Christian
vocation
Indirect
Include in portfolio:
- Student reflection on their progress
and growth, personal goals for
remainder of the program, and in light
of feedback from field education
supervisor, and lay training committee
Capacity for Ministerial and Public
Leadership
Act with compassion and effectiveness
in leading the church’s ministries of
worship and preaching, education and
formation, service and transformation
in the world:
Eighty percent of students will
demonstrate ability to act with
compassion and effectiveness in
leading the church’s ministries of
worship and preaching, education and
5
ATS GSQ results regarding spiritual
formation
Faculty Senior Review
Include in portfolio:
-One graded assignment from the
capstone course fulfilling the Practicing
Theology in Ministry Limited Elective
(with possible attention to a range of
ministry practices including pastoral
care) with instructor’s comments
Evaluation from field education
supervisor and lay training committee,
-Audit and review of course syllabi
- Reports from denominational leaders
94.3% of our students have set realistic
goals for ongoing spiritual discipline
Though objectives were met and
exceeded with regard to personal and
spiritual formation, in additional
comments need for further vocational
clarity related both to ordination and
denominational affiliation was noted.
These will be addressed in the first
year “Spiritual Formation” program
and “Mentoring for Ministry” seminars
as well as ongoing work among Houses
of Study.
57.9% of our students have cultivated
strong habits of spiritual disciplines
37.3% of our students have cultivated
promising habits of spiritual disciplines
95.2% of students have cultivated
promising or strong habits of spiritual
disciplines
Capacity for Ministerial and Public
Leadership
In process for Senior Review in May
2011
Capacity for Ministerial and Public
Leadership
In process for Senior Review in May
2011
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
formation, service and transformation
in the world
6
regarding integration of theological
learning and practice of graduates
Indirect
Include in portfolio:
-Student reflection on their progress
and growth in light of feedback from
instructor, field education supervisor,
and lay training committee
-ATS GSQ results and alumni survey
results
-Suggestions from alumni at continuing
education or other events
Master of Theology: Typically a one year degree oriented toward research skills, the ThM degree is assessed by pertinent faculty and administrators
(including the degree director and Academic Dean) in consultation with the Curriculum Committee reviewing student examinations, theses and selfreflections. These reviews culminate in a report each year to the Divinity faculty including recommendations for improvement to be pursued.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
The ThM degree provides graduates of
accredited theological schools the
opportunity to continue their
theological education by focusing on a
particular area of study:
Eighty percent of students will
demonstrate an enhanced ability in
select areas of study to think
theologically about significant texts,
doctrines and /or practices of the
church and about the world in which
the church finds itself through the
successful completion of
comprehensive exams or a research
project.
Faculty Review
Include in portfolio:
-ThM Comprehensive Exams or Thesis
Results of Faculty Reviews of materials
and Director’s reflections:
Requirements for majors and minors
were too complex for students to
navigate
Indirect
Include in portfolio:
-Student reflection on their progress
and growth in light of feedback from
instructor,
-Input from alumni
Students were not able to cope with
the requirements to complete the
thesis
Comprehensive exam guidelines were
not comparable to the thesis
requirements
Resultant Action
Eliminated the minor
Implemented directed study in which
to complete the thesis
Increased the length of comprehensive
exam essays to parallel the thesis
TOEFL scores raised and phone
interviews conducted for applicants
Certification for language ability of
entering students was not reliable
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
7
Need for a uniform deadline for thesis
submission/exam completion to meet
University graduation deadlines
Thesis deadline implemented: first
Monday of Reading Week
Master of Theological Studies: The assessment of the MTS degree program focuses upon portfolios with representative assignments, self-reflection and
responses from faculty members. Portfolios of MTS students are reviewed at the conclusion of the degree program by faculty, administrators, and
committees including the Curriculum Committee. These reviews culminate in a report each year to the faculty including recommendations for
improvement to be pursued.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
Religious Heritage
Read and exegete Scripture and the
great texts of the Christian tradition for
the purpose of preaching and teaching
the gospel with clarity, power, and
reverence:
Eighty percent of students will
demonstrate ability to:
-Read and understand biblical and
other significant texts from Christian
tradition
- Exegete texts
Faculty Senior Review
Include in portfolio:
Religious Heritage
Senior Review
Thesis deadline implemented: first
Monday of Reading Week
Direct
-One graded essay from OT 11, 12 or NT
18 on a biblical text with instructor’s
comments
-One graded essay from CH 13, 14, or
AC 28 on a classical theological text
with instructor’s comments
Results of Faculty Reviews of materials
and Director’s reflections:
Cultural Context
Think theologically about the doctrines
and practices of the church and about
the world in which the church finds
itself, in a way that is both faithful
Indirect
Include in portfolio:
-Student reflection on their progress
and growth in light of feedback from
instructor,
-ATS Graduating Student
Questionnaire, specifically ability to
interpret Scripture
Faculty Senior Review
Direct
Include in portfolio:
-One graded essay from CT 32 or CHE
General issue: Need for a uniform
deadline for thesis submission/exam
completion to meet University
graduation deadlines
Cultural Context
In process for Senior Review in May
2011
Cultural Context
In process for Senior Review in May
2011
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
historically to the tradition and
responsive to the challenges of our
time:
Eighty percent of students will
demonstrate ability to think
theologically about the church’s
practices in a wide range of social and
cultural contexts
8
33 demonstrating critical theological
reflection with instructor’s comments
-MTS Thesis
Indirect
Include in portfolio:
Student reflection on their progress and
growth in light of feedback from
instructors
ATS GSQ results regarding social
context and issues
Doctor of Theology: The ThD degree is assessed by pertinent faculty and administrators (including the degree director and Academic Dean) in
consultation with the ThD Oversight and Curriculum Committees by reviewing student examinations, dissertations, self-reflections and faculty
evaluations. These reviews culminate in a report each year to the Divinity faculty including recommendations for improvement to be pursued.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
The ThD degree provides academically
rigorous training comparable to the
demands of the PhD degree focused
on ministries and practices of Christian
communities:
Students completing the program will
demonstrate competence for scholarly
research and teaching with an
interdisciplinary focus that attends to
the ministries and practices of Christian
communities.
Faculty Review
Include in portfolio:
Results of Faculty Reviews of materials,
Director’s reflections as well as ThD
Oversight Committee:
Direct
-Annual evaluation from primary
advisor
-Final project from the Core Seminar
-Competence in at least two modern
research languages
-Preliminary Exams evaluated by a
faculty committee
-ThD Dissertation proposal defended
before a faculty committee
-ThD Dissertation defended before a
faculty committee
Indirect
Lack of clarity regarding expectations
for Language Exams
Resultant Action
Clarification of Language Exam
expectations
Excessive number of Incompletes,
delaying student progress
Examination question and Dissertation
alignment with purpose of the degree
toward ministries and practices of
Christian communities
Attention to students with excessive
number of incompletes by Director
and Primary Advisors
Reflection by ThD Oversight
Committee on alignment of Exams and
Proposals, consultation with current
Advisors
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
9
Include in portfolio:
-Student reflection on their progress
and growth in light of feedback from
advisor
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
10
Assessment Summary | Fuqua School of Business
Overview
The Fuqua School of Business is a professional school at Duke University, whose MBA programs are accredited by the American Assembly of Collegiate
Schools of Business (AACSB), on a ten year renewal schedule. The last AACSB full Accreditation Review of the Fuqua MBA programs was in 2000; The
School submitted its most recent Maintenance of Accreditation Application to AACSB in July, 2010.
Fuqua has made substantial progress toward establishing a strong new program of student learning outcomes assessments: The second section of this
report describes the School’s primary assessment focus this year, which has been on the new Master of Management Science (MMS): Foundations of
Business Program, which represents substantially different objectives and challenges from those of Fuqua’s MBA programs. This program has not yet
been reviewed for accreditation. The first section presents assessment plans for Fuqua’s five accredited MBA programs. These assessments have not all
been implemented, as of the writing of this report, but all will be completed in 2010.
For several years, Fuqua has been reviewing and revising all the MBA programs to be confident that they attract the appropriate students and provide
what those students need. That review process has caused the programs to require learning assessments at different times, depending on where
programs are in their revision cycles and when program revisions are established, to be evaluated. The Executive MBA (EMBA) programs do not meet on
the same nine-month schedule as the new MMS program and the Daytime program; each EMBA program is offered on a different schedule, and
programs’ starting dates have recently been revised. Thus, all programs do not yet have a cohort that has entered and completed the revised program.
The assessment schedule is also influenced by when new or anticipated program changes suggest the particular need for assessment, for establishing a
baseline for evaluation of the changed, i.e., “new” curriculum, or evaluating the impact of new features of the curriculum on student learning.
Information about the MMS program assessment and a summary of the plans for assessments in MBA programs during 2010 were included in Fuqua’s
July 2010 AACSB Maintenance of Accreditation Application.
Accredited Degree Programs
Daytime MBA: The focus of the upcoming assessment of student learning is global institutions that affect commerce. A new strategy course, “Global
Institutions and Environments,” (GIE) was introduced in 2007-08. It was part of a substantial Daytime MBA curriculum revision that included a new
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
11
“Global Institute,” developed after indirect assessments by a variety of constituencies, including employers of our students, work colleagues of our
alumni, Fuqua Board of Visitor Members, faculty and others) indicated a need for more attention to global issues. GIE is offered in a new summer term,
initiating the first year of the program. Many of the institutions addressed in the initial term are presented in more detail in other core courses in the
Daytime MBA. The assessment will be administered in Fall of 2010, to the Class of 2011.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
The goal of introducing institutions
early in the program is to create an
appetite for learning about
institutions, not to teach students
how to establish the right incentives.
Learning goals for that introduction
involve preparing students to deepen
their understanding of institutions in
later courses and with work
experience. Thus, assessments are
scheduled after the core courses and
summer internships are complete.
Students appreciate the nature of
institutional arrangements that have
evolved to address problems that
must be resolved if there is to be
commerce involving goods, services
and financial flows.
Students have gained an increased
awareness of formal and informal
institutions that affect commerce.
Assessment will be via survey and
interview.
Assessment will be administered in
Fall, 2010 to the Class of 2011.
Students relate what they have
learned about institutions in the GIE
course to what they have learned in
other core courses about institutions.
Resultant Action
Students can name institutions that
facilitate and impede commerce;
Students understand the concept of
path dependence in the context of
how institutions evolve.
Students can describe both formal
and informal institutions that
influence commerce in multiple
countries.
Students can describe institutional
details they have learned about in
core courses, or from other sources,
such as during their summer
internships between the first and
second years of the program, or
outside the program.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
12
Cross Continent MBA1: The Cross Continent MBA curriculum has been substantially revised; graduation for the first cohort of the revised
program will be in December 2010. The focus of this assessment was to determine how well these generally less-experienced students
integrate strategic concepts they learn early in the CCMBA program with other program material; measurement issues are a particular
concern in this regard. Thus, a case in the Managerial Accounting course was redeveloped to focus on those learning outcomes.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
Learning goals refer to the link
between, business measurement and
strategic analysis.
Professors who teach the two courses
(Managerial Accounting and Strategy)
in CCMBA collaborated in developing
materials to assess learning goals. A
business case about a firm in the
pharmaceutical industry has been
adapted, and is a part of the required
material in the Managerial Accounting
course.
Assessments will be completed in
September, 2010.
Feedback will be provided to the
Strategy faculty and the Accounting
faculty for the CCMBA program, and
other appropriate faculty and deans.
Students can apply the strategic tools
of industry analysis to appreciate the
issues that make traditional
accounting measures less relevant for
firms in that industry.
Students can assess the strategic
resources and capabilities of a
particular firm to appreciate the
accounting measures most relevant
for the firm.
Students can apply a Balanced
Scorecard analysis and other
Managerial Accounting concepts and
tools based on their strategic analysis
of industry forces and resources and
capabilities..
1
Cross Continent students are average age 29 and have a minimum of three years experience.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
13
Global Executive MBA (GEMBA)2: The GEMBA program has recently been reviewed within the School by a faculty committee, and the faculty has
approved substantial changes in the curriculum, scheduled for implementation in 2011-12. Proposed assessments in the final term of the current
program can provide a baseline of student learning against which to compare the new program, which will reduce the number of courses students take
by four (e.g., Financial and Managerial Accounting will be taught in one course instead of two, as will three other pairs of courses). Learning objectives
to be assessed are drawn primarily from those in the Strategy, Microeconomics, Managerial Accounting, Marketing, Management and Operations
courses. The GEMBA Learning assessment is based on a course GEMBA students participate in during the final term of the program. The Duke Global
Integrative Business Simulation gives students an opportunity to experience the challenges of formulating and implementing strategy for a global
business operating in a competitive environment via an intensive learning experience, which tests their ability to manage a team capable of high quality
decision making under conditions of stress and uncertainty. The course is built around an integrative, computer-based business simulation. Students are
organized into company teams, which will compete in the global Portable Communication Station (PCS) market. This exercise is ideal for assessments of
student learning, as it requires integration of concepts and materials from earlier courses in the GEMBA Program.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
Student teams will present an oral
report at the conclusion of the Business
Simulation that asks them to answer
the questions described for each
learning outcome. Two professors will
evaluate each team’s answers to those
questions.
Target: 80% of teams will score 80% or
better.
The assessment will be administered in
December, 2010.
Results will be shared with the relevant
GEMBA professors and deans.
2
GEMBA is designed for executives who have, or are about to accept, global business responsibilities. The average age of students is 40 and they average 15 years of
business experience.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
Students can describe and evaluate
their decision-making processes and
the relation between those decisions
and successful business outcomes.
Describe the decision making process
your team used in running the business
quarter-to-quarter. Was your process
relatively consistent or did it change
over time? Overall, do you believe you
were effective or ineffective in your
decision making? Why?
Students recognize, and can describe
and critique, the team dynamics around
their performance in the simulation.
Do you believe your management team
was ultimately effective? What were
the best aspects of your team
performance? How did you get the best
contribution out of each individual on
the team? What might you try to
change if this team were to operate
together again?
14
Weekend Executive MBA (WEMBA)3 The WEMBA program has recently been revised (for the class beginning in June 2010) to provide a shared elective
term with the Cross Continent MBA program, which provides opportunities for students to complete new optional concentrations in Energy and
Environment, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Marketing, Finance, Strategy and Health Sector Management; and other curriculum enhancements.
The WEMBA Program learning assessments will follow the model used for MMS: Foundations of Business Course described above. The assessments will
be based on performance in a “Financial Statement Analysis” course, which is similar to the course that provided an assessment opportunity for the
MMS program. The course is an elective in WEMBA, in the last term of the program, and the assessment will be conducted in the last weekend of the
course and program for the Class of 2010, in July of 2010. The planned assessments are similar to those used for the MMS program, using the same
learning objectives/outcomes as the MMS assessment. A difference is that each team will choose a different company for their financial analysis.
Outcome
3
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
WEMBA students are, on average, 36 years old and have 11 years of business experience.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
The complete WEMBA assessment will
include knowledge and skills from the
Strategy, Marketing, Economics,
Accounting, Finance and Decision
Models courses.
Students have the requisite analytical
skills, taught in their MMS Strategy,
Marketing and Economics courses, to
assess a firm’s strategy and prepare a
competitive analysis; students
appreciate the relationship between
those analyses and the assumptions of
the financial model, which should flow
out of the strategic analysis, linking the
qualitative analysis to the financial
model.
The complete MMS assessment also
included knowledge and skills from the
Accounting, Finance and Decision
Models courses.
15
Learning goals from those courses are
the basis for assessments.
Targets are set in collaboration with
faculty.
Results are determined based on
evaluations by the professor ;. the
assessment is in process as this report
is submitted.
Results of all assessments of learning
outcomes will be provided to relevant
deans and WEMBA faculty in time for
their response before the next offering
of their courses in 2010-2011.
Non-Accredited Program
Master of Management Studies: Foundations of Business (MMS): The MMS program was approved by Duke University in 2009, as a three-year pilot
beginning in 2009-10; permanent status is dependent on learning outcomes and anticipated employment outcomes for students. Because the MMS
program is new and the audience lacks the experience of students in Fuqua MBA programs—and MMS faculty have taught few students who lack prior
business experience—this MMS program has been the primary focus for assessment in 2010. The first MMS cohort was graduated in May, 2010. The
following are program details relevant to assessment:
Mission and Implications for a Curriculum Distinct from the MBA Curriculum: The objective of this one-year program is to provide a pre-businessexperience Masters degree that instills basic entry-level business skills and technical subject matter knowledge of the sort associated with entry level
positions in finance, marketing, consulting, and, possibly, general management. For example, an entry-level financial analyst should understand basic
finance and accounting and possess decision modeling and spreadsheet skills. An entry-level consultant would, in addition, require knowledge in
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
16
strategy, corporate finance, marketing, managerial accounting, market intelligence, decision models and supply chain management. Similarly, an entry
level marketing position requires knowledge of marketing analysis and market research, supply chain management, managerial/cost accounting and
project finance, plus skills in decision modeling and spreadsheet analysis. Further, because the MMS students will accept analyst roles as members of
teams, the Management and Organizations core course taught in MMS focuses on team building, team dynamics and negotiation rather than on
leadership, motivation, and incentives—which are more relevant for experienced MBA students who will work in managerial positions. Course
assignments are frequently team-based, rather than individual, as is also the case in the MBA programs.4
Student Selection Criterion: Fuqua intentionally recruited students for the MMS program who were well educated graduates of outstanding
undergraduate liberal arts programs, with the expectation that these students would have appropriate critical thinking and communication skills as
background for a one-year program designed for that audience.
Data Gathered in Fundamentals of Financial Analysis Course (FFA): This course, taken in the last semester of the program, relies on student learning
from multiple courses in the program. Assessments of program learning were based on student performance on the course exam, and on a final course
project: Teams of four or five students prepared both a written and an oral presentation of their financial analysis of a public company, Barnes and
Noble. Ten teams (chosen at random at the beginning of the final class, and representing half the class) presented their reports of their findings in the
project in the final FFA class.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
4
The MMS curriculum consists of 12 required, three-credit courses, offered over four 6-week terms, plus an exam period each term. These courses are distinct
offerings for the MMS students and do not comingle MMS and MBA students.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
Students have learned to adapt their
basic communications skills, including
(a) written presentation skills (b) oral
presentation skills, to those required
for entry-level analyst positions: There
was no Business Communications
course in this first offering of the MMS
program, on the assumption that
selection criteria would assure
adequate basic skills, and that the
courses in the program would allow
students to adapt those skills to an
analyst role.
Course professor provided qualitative
assessments of written presentation
skills for each of the 20 teams, based on
their written reports.
Target: Written presentation skills are
strong or very strong for 80% of teams.
(b) Course professor provided
assessments of oral presentation skills
for the class, as a whole, compared to
what is expected of entry level analysts.
Target: Oral presentation skills for 80%
of teams are strong or very strong.
17
(a) 16 teams (80%) received very strong
positive evaluations of their reports
with respect to written communication
per se. For four reports, deficiencies
were substantive only relative to FFA,
reflecting flaws in describing the team’s
analysis, rather than poor written
communication skills.5
(b) Students’ demeanor in oral
presentations was not as formal or
professional as the professor would
expect of entry level analysts.
(a) Positive Outcome: No response
needed.
(b) Negative Outcome: Closed Loop:
MMS faculty teaching in the Fall 2009
terms recognized that the students did
not, overall, possess the requisite oral
presentation skills: In December, 2009,
the School’s Curriculum Committee
established a new MMS program
requirement, a course in Management
Communications. 6 The present
assessment of oral presentation skills
affirmed that decision, rather than
providing the catalyst for this change.7
Also, in future classes, the FFA
professor will set expectations for
presentations more definitively.
5
Problems identified by the professor were two: too much focus on technicalities to the detriment of the economics (two teams), and reports that were easy to read,
but too sparse to communicate the economics or analyses effectively (two teams).
6
Similarly, in July, 2010, The Curriculum Committee and faculty approved moving the MMS “Spreadsheet Modeling and Decision Analysis” course into Fall Term 2 (and
replacing it in Spring Term 2 with “Introduction to Operations and Supply Chain Management,” previously taught in Fall Term 2) before receiving assessment feedback.
This change in sequencing was initially intended to help students acquire spreadsheet skills needed for courses taught in the second half of the curriculum. However, it
will also provide students opportunities to practice in spreadsheet skills, found to be somewhat deficient in the assessments of some FFA teams (a result not reported
here), so that their spreadsheet work will be more appropriate, efficient, and accurate by the time they finish the program and begin work as analysts.
7
Recordings of these ten team presentations and the discussions in the class in response to those presentations have been provided to the Management
Communications instructor for the 2010-11 class.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
Students have the requisite analytical
skills, taught in their MMS Strategy,
Marketing and Economics courses, to
assess a firm’s strategy and prepare a
competitive analysis; students
appreciate the relationship between
those analyses and the assumptions of
the financial model, which should flow
out of the strategic analysis, linking the
qualitative analysis to the financial
model.
The complete MMS assessment also
included knowledge and skills from the
Accounting, Finance and Decision
Models courses.
18
(a) The professor provided qualitative
feedback, describing strengths and
weaknesses indicated in the team
analysis.
(b) The TA provided numerical
assessments. To provide more
comprehensive/specific feedback to
MMS Strategy, Marketing and
Economics faculty, TA assessed in
detail, for 10 randomly selected teams,
evidence of their ability to identify and
articulate a firm strategy; evaluate that
strategy; identify and evaluate the
competitive landscape in which the firm
operated; identify and assess potential
firm risks; and use that information to
generate forecast assumptions.
Target: 80% of teams score 80% on the
assessments of their strategy analyses.
(1a) 40% of the 20 teams received very
positive assessments; specific
deficiencies were noted for the
remaining teams. 8
(1b) 40% of teams in the sample
achieved the target.
Learning goals from those courses were
the basis for assessments.
Results are determined as above, based
on assessments of the course professor
and TA.
Targets were set in collaboration with
faculty.
Results of all direct and indirect
assessments of learning outcomes have
been provided to relevant deans and
faculty (i.e., MMS Strategy, Marketing,
and Economics), in time for their
response before the next offering of
their courses in 2010-2011.
The range in scores was from 1-10, of
10 possible, based on an allocation of
two points for each of five factors
assessed. The average was 6.1; One
team scored 10; one scored 9; two
scored 8; two scored 6; one scored 5;
two scored 4; and one scored 1.
Inter-rater reliability: The Professor and
TA were consistent in their conclusions
across teams.
Results of all direct and indirect
assessments of learning outcomes were
provided to relevant deans and faculty
in time for their response before the
next offering of their courses in 20102011.
8
Typical positive comments included a version of the following: “Well balanced analysis of likely scenarios. This goes into forecast assumptions, so there is a very good
fit between qualitative analysis and the financial model;” “Nice that you show ratios from competitors to measure the strategy and competitive position relative to
comparable firms.” Negative comments included points such as: “(Your discussion) does not explicitly link to the forecast assumptions, which are more motivated by
recent trends in the financials, etc;” “Try including a discussion about the main competitive strategy, the likelihood of success or failure, etc. Let the discussion guide
your forecast assumptions.”
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
19
Assessment Summary | Graduate School
Overview
The Graduate School advocates for graduate scholarship, training, and mentorship as integral to the academic mission of the University as a whole, and
it ensures that both the graduate student body and graduate education and training are of the highest intellectual quality and appropriate diversity. It
oversees all research, non-professional degree programs at the master’s and PhD level. As research-based degree programs, these programs are not
regulated by national accreditation bodies at the disciplinary or field level. Their goal is to educate outstanding students in a manner that permits them
to contribute to cutting-edge research in an academic institution, a private industry setting, or a governmental/non-governmental organization requiring
scientific research or policy research.
Non-Accredited Degree Programs
Doctoral Programs: The measure of a successful doctoral candidate is a combination of detailed and broad knowledge of the field of research in which
the dissertation will be written and the depth and originality of a final research project presented to experts in the field. The doctoral programs
themselves are reviewed in a 6-7 year cycle when experts in the research field come to campus to analyze the performance of programs and the help
the University set out a development path for a department or degree program.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
Broad and detailed research field
knowledge
Students will demonstrate a broad and
detailed knowledge of the disciplinary
and research fields within which their
dissertation projects will be situated (by
the end of the 6th semester of study)
Qualifying examinations in some
disciplinary fields after the 2nd or 3rd
semester; Preliminary examinations in
all PhD programs by the end of the 6th
semester
Examination content and structure are
modified if student deficiencies are
identified and are also modified
periodically to remain in step with
latest developments in disciplines and
fields
Capacity to conduct independent and
original research
Students will demonstrate the capacity
to conceptualize and carry out
successfully research projects at the
An original dissertation research
project successfully written up and
presented in an oral defense before a
committee of experts in the field of
research of the PhD candidate;
Individual degree programs evaluate
student success on both sets of
examinations, as well as the ongoing
appropriateness of the examination
content within the latest developments
in research fields; findings differ
depending on the department or
program
Attrition, time to degree, and
placement statistics monitored by the
Graduate School
90% of PhD programs have better mean
times to degree than the national mean
Weaknesses identified trigger a review
and also affect the level of budget
support commitment by the Graduate
School to the degree program not
meeting quality standards
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
forefront of research developments in
their fields (on average by the end of
their 12th-14th semester of study)
successful placement in a professional
position typical of a degree holder in
the field of study
Individual degree programs
demonstrate pertinence and
leadership in their fields of research
Continued support of existing degree
programs is contingent upon
development plans that seek to place
degree programs at the forefront of
their respective fields
External reviews of degree programs
On a 6-7 year cycle, all graduate degree
programs are analyzed and evaluated
by an external review team of experts
in the program fields
20
times; >75% also have less attrition
than national averages; placement is
measured in a necessarily more
subjective and anecdotal comparison
with comparable programs in peer
institutions; all of this statistical data is
posted in publicly available format on
the Graduate School web site:
http://gradschool.duke.edu/about/stat
s.php
External review team report
Report is a basis of discussion in
pertinent university committees,
resulting in a memorandum of
understanding signed by the provost,
appropriate deans, and chair or director
of the department or program
Deficiencies identified are remedied by
memorandum of understanding and if
immediate action is necessary, an
interim report to the dean of the
Graduate School is required
Masters Programs: The Graduate School oversees master’s degrees that are not administered by the professional schools. Research-based master’s
degree programs are not regulated by national accreditation agencies in specific disciplines and are designed to give students a grounding in the basic
assumptions of advanced research in various fields and to allow them to understand how to apply that knowledge in a research and work environment.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
Broad knowledge of research field
Students will demonstrate a knowledge
of the research fields in which they will
seek employment (by the end of the 3rd
semester of study)
Success in a curriculum of coursework
Students will successfully complete a
curriculum of courses designed to
expose them to the contents of their
field and the directions taken by
leading researchers in a field
Individual degree programs evaluate
student success in required
coursework; >90% of master’s students
maintain the required cumulative GPA
of 3.0
Effective synthesis of knowledge of
research field
Students are expected to demonstrate
mastery of the research context of a
field and a capacity to present a
Final examination or thesis
examination
Students will undergo an oral
examination administered by experts in
their fields that tests their synthetic
Individual degree programs evaluate
student success and monitor
deficiencies
Identified deficiencies in student results
lead to curriculum modifications to
present the field of study more
cogently; the Graduate School monitors
student success and identifies programs
that are not meeting performance
standards
Identified deficiencies result in
Graduate School review of problems
identified
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
synthesis based on that mastery (by the
end of the 4th or 5th semester)
Individual degree programs
demonstrate pertinence and
leadership in their fields of research
Continued support of existing degree
programs is contingent upon
development plans that seek to place
degree programs at the forefront of
their respective fields
knowledge or during which they
present a discrete research project in
the form of a thesis
External reviews of degree programs
On a 6-7 year cycle, all graduate degree
programs are analyzed and evaluated
by an external review team of experts
in the program fields
21
External review team report
Report is a basis of discussion in
pertinent university committees,
resulting in a memorandum of
understanding signed by the provost,
appropriate deans, and chair or director
of the department or program
Deficiencies identified are remedied by
memorandum of understanding and if
immediate action is necessary, an
Interim report to the dean of the
Graduate School is required
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
22
Assessment Summary | Nicholas School of the Environment
Overview
The Nicholas School of the Environment is a professional school within Duke University. The Nicholas School’s mission is informed by Duke’s theme of
knowledge in the service of society and motivated by the need to restore and preserve the world’s environmental resources while adapting to a
changing climate and a growing population with aspirations for rising standards of living. With a cadre of world-class researchers, educators, and
students spanning all of the relevant physical, life, and social sciences, we seek to understand basic earth and environmental processes, and human
behavior related to the environment, and to inform society about the conservation and enhancement of the environment and its natural resources for
future generations.
Nicholas School faculty oversee educational programs at the undergraduate, professional masters, and doctoral levels. At the undergraduate level, the
Nicholas School administers undergraduate majors in Environment and in Earth and Ocean Sciences for Trinity College of Arts and Sciences; learning
outcomes and assessment for these majors are described in the section for Trinity College of Arts and Sciences. The Nicholas School also oversees or
participates in six doctoral programs administered by the Graduate School; assessment doctoral programs is described in the Graduate School section of
this report.
The Nicholas School’s two professional masters degrees are the Master of Environmental Management (MEM) degree and the Master of Forestry (MF)
degree. These degree programs advance the Nicholas School’s mission by training environmental professionals who analyze and interpret scientific
information to solve environmental problems and manage natural resources. Graduates are expected to understand the scientific bases of
environmental problems as well as the social, political, and economic factors that determine effective policy solutions.
Students enrolled in the on-campus MEM or MF programs earn their degrees while in residence at Duke. The MEM program is also offered through a
distance-learning format designed for practicing professionals, called the Duke Environmental Leadership Master of Environmental Management
program (DEL-MEM). There is no accrediting body for professional degree programs in environmental management. The Forest Resource Management
curriculum that comprises the Master of Forestry (MF) degree is accredited by the Society of American Foresters. In addition, some students complete
both professional degrees in a combined MEM/MF program, completing requirements for one of the MEM concentrations as well as requirements for
the MF degree.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
23
Assessment activities include a number of direct and indirect tools, including rubric-scored evaluation of capstone masters project, exit and specialized
surveys of current and graduating students, alumni surveys, course performance, job placement data, focus groups, and external program reviews. The
following provides some examples.
Accredited Degree Program
Master of Forestry: The Master of Forestry (MF) program is a professional degree accredited by the Society of American Foresters. The MF program
integrates forest ecology and management within an educational program that also emphasizes related environmental fields. The program builds
knowledge in basic forest ecology and ecological management of forests for a variety of uses, including nontraditional forest products and conservation.
This distinctive approach is brought about by coordinating a core set of forestry courses, in sampling, measurement, dendrology, silviculture, and
ecology, with electives in resource-oriented courses such as soils, hydrology, air and water quality, biological conservation, and physiology; statistical
analysis and modeling; and resource economics and policy.
Students pursuing the MF degree follow the curriculum of the forest resource management concentration. This curriculum includes the same core goals
as the MEM concentrations, and progress is assessed through the learning outcomes and measures described in the next section of this report. In
addition, accreditation by the Society of American Foresters requires demonstration of student competency in four key areas in the form of instruction
in basic principles, laboratory and field applications, and current professional practices.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Competency in Ecology and Biology:
Example: Understanding of ecological
concepts and principles including the
structure and function of ecosystems,
plant and animal communities,
competition, diversity, population
dynamics, succession, disturbance, and
nutrient cycling.
Indirect Measure:
Course performance in ENVIRON 213:
Forest Ecosystems. This course teaches
the processes by which forests
circulate, transform, and accumulate
energy and materials through
interactions of biologic organisms and
the forest environment. In addition to
traditional class instruction, the course
includes field and laboratory training
and experiences.
Performance over the past three years
shows ≥80% of students earned a grade
of B+ or better.
Target met.
Resultant Action
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
Competency in Measurement of Forest
Resources
Example: Ability to design and
implement comprehensive inventories
that meet specific objectives using
appropriate sampling methods and
units of measurement.
Competency in Management of Forest
Resources:
Ability to develop management plans
with specific multiple objectives and
constraints.
Competency in Forest Resource Policy,
Target: ≥80% of students will earn a
grade of B+ or better in this course.
Indirect Measure
Course performance in 1. ENVIRON
201: Forest Resources Field Skills.
Introduction to field techniques
commonly used to quantify and sample
forest resources: trees, soils, water, and
animal resources. 2. ENVIRON 206:
Forest Vegetation Sampling. Theory and
application of forest vegetation
sampling.
Target: ≥80% of students will earn a
grade of B+ or better in these two
courses, which demonstrate ability to
perform specific measurements and
methods.
Indirect Measure:
Course performance in ENVIRON 320:
Ecosystem Management. Principles of
environmental management in the
context of arbitrary temporal and
spatial boundaries, complexity,
dynamic processes, uncertainty and
varied and changing human values and
ENVIRON 262: Forest Management
Travelling Seminar. Field visits to
managers and management areas near
Duke and across the region.
Target: ≥80% of students will earn a
grade of B+ or better in this course.
Indirect Measure:
24
Performance over the past three years
shows ≥80% of students earned a grade
of B+ or better.
Target met.
Updating of the Master of Forestry
curriculum has prompted us to merge
the content of these two field skills
courses into one 4-credit class. The
new course will be piloted in 2010.
Performance over the past three years
shows ≥80% of students earned a grade
of B+ or better.
Target met.
Performance over the past three years
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
Economics, and Administration.
Example: Ability to understand the
integration of technical, financial,
human resources, and legal aspects of
public and private enterprises.
Course performance in ENVIRON
298.04: Economics of Forest Resources.
25
shows ≥80% of students earned a grade
of B+ or better.
Target met.
Target: ≥80% of students will earn a
grade of B+ or better in this course.
Non-Accredited Degree Program
Master of Environmental Management The Master of Environmental Management (MEM) program is a two-year professional degree program designed
to teach students how to analyze and manage natural environments for human benefit and ecosystem health. MEM students choose one of the
following concentrations for study: coastal environmental management, ecosystem science and conservation, ecotoxicology and environmental health,
energy and environment, environmental economics and policy, global environmental change, and water and air resources.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
Environmental Concepts. Students will
develop a knowledge base of
environmental natural science and
social science concepts and practices.
Direct measure:
Rubric-scored faculty evaluation of
Masters Project: average score ≥4 (1-5
scale), and >80% of students score ≥4,
on Masters Project evaluation summary
in terms of “knowledge base of
environmental natural science and
social science concepts and practices”
displayed.
For each of the past three academic
years, >80% of students scored ≥4 on
this measure.
Target met.
Over the past three years, we worked
to improve the rubric evaluation tool
employed to better map to learning
objectives. We also dramatically
increased use and return rate of the
rubric by faculty evaluators. Target goal
for 2011 evaluation: 90% return-rate.
Indirect measure:
Course Performance: Students must
enroll in core concentration courses
designed to provide a knowledge base
of natural and social science concepts
and practices and maintain a grade
point average of B- or better. Target: ≤
4% of students on academic probation.
For each of the past three academic
years, the number of students on
academic probation has been ≤ 2%.
Target met.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
Management Skills. Students will
develop management skills to work
effectively with other professionals in
cross-disciplinary settings in the
government, non-profit and business
sectors.
Direct measure:
Rubric-scored faculty evaluation of
Masters Project: average score ≥4 (1-5
scale), and >80% of students score ≥4,
on Masters Project evaluation summary
in terms of “management skills”
displayed.
Indirect measure:
Alumni Survey: In 2008 we surveyed
alumni (> 5 years post graduation) on a
range of topics related to improving our
program.
Analytic Skills: Students will develop
quantitative and qualitative analytical
skills for bringing natural and social
science data to bear on environmental
problems.
Communication Skills: Students will
develop written and oral
communications skills for bringing
Direct measure:
Rubric-scored faculty evaluation of
Masters Project: average score ≥4 (1-5
scale), and >80% of students score ≥4,
on Masters Project evaluation summary
in terms of approach: “quantitative
and/or qualitative analytic skills
consistent with good practice in the
field of study.”
Indirect Measure:
Course Performance: Students must
enroll in a set of tools/approaches
courses to learn quantitative and or
qualitative analytic techniques, and
maintain a grade point average of B- or
better. Target: ≤ 4% of students on
academic probation.
Direct measure:
Rubric-scored faculty evaluation of
Masters Project: average score ≥4 (1-5
26
For each of the past three academic
years, >80% of students scored ≥4 on
this measure.
Target met.
Alumni survey revealed a strong
recommendation to enhance skills of
program management.
For each of the past three academic
years, >80% of students scored ≥4 on
this measure.
Target met.
As noted above, over the past three
years, we worked to improve the rubric
evaluation tool employed to better map
to learning objectives. We also
dramatically increased use and return
rate of the rubric by faculty evaluators.
Target goal for 2011 evaluation: 90%
return-rate.
Piloted new team-taught, case studybased, core course on “Environmental
Program Management” in Fall 2009. In
Fall 2010, core course will become
mandatory for all incoming MEM
students.
As noted above, over the past three
years, we worked to improve the rubric
evaluation tool employed to better map
to learning objectives. We also
dramatically increased use and return
rate of the rubric by faculty evaluators.
Target goal for 2011 evaluation: 90%
return-rate.
For each of the past three academic
years, the number of students on
academic probation has been ≤ 2%.
Target met.
>80% of students scored ≥4 on this
measure for the past three years
(target met); nevertheless, on average
Decided to implement additional
mandatory training in communication
skills. Beginning in Fall 2010, all
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
environmental solutions to decision
makers and the public.
scale), and >80% of students score ≥4,
on Masters Project evaluation summary
in terms of writing and graphical
presentation.
Indirect measure:
Exit survey: Survey of graduating MEM
students, including questions related to
their perception of the preparation
they received in writing and
communication skills. Target: average
>3.5 (1-5 scale).
27
faculty rated students in this category
lower than for other categories.
While target has been met for past
three years, student comments on the
survey indicate a need for enhanced
communications training (written, oral,
graphical).
incoming MEM students will enroll in a
0.5-credit communications course
coordinated with the new core
Environmental Program Management
course.
As noted above, beginning in Fall 2010,
all incoming MEM students will enroll in
a 0.5-credit communications course. In
addition, the new mandatory core
course, Environmental Program
Management, places a strong focus on
developing effective writing skills.
Students identified as needing
additional help in writing are
encouraged to enroll in a subsequent
writing skills course, and are made
aware of resources available through
Duke’s Writing Studio.
Duke Environmental Leadership Master of Environmental Management (DEL-MEM): The Duke Environmental Leadership program provides innovative
educational and outreach opportunities designed specifically for environmental, business and community leaders. The overall goal of the DEL program is
to improve the knowledge and understanding of environmental issues and leadership capacity among practicing environmental professionals. The
program uses a variety of instructional formats in both online and on-campus settings. Driven by a broad perspective of interdisciplinary and global
themes, strategic approaches to environmental management, communication and effective leadership, the DEL program increases the capacity of the
Nicholas School to reach outside audiences and expands access to Nicholas School faculty, research and resources.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Interdisciplinary perspective of
environment. Gain a unique
interdisciplinary perspective of
environmental issues, through the
broad study of biological, physical and
Direct measure:
Rubric-scored faculty evaluation of
Masters Project: average score ≥4 (1-5
scale), and >80% of students score ≥4,
on Masters Project evaluation summary
Finding
Resultant Action
Continued effort will be made to
increase use and return rate of the MP
rubric by faculty evaluators. Target goal
for 2011 evaluation: 90% return-rate.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
social sciences. Students are required
to take core curriculum courses, along
with a combination of elective courses,
that provide a broad range of study of
biological, physical, and social sciences.
Enhance leadership skills. Assess and
enhance leadership skills, building
confidence in critical and creative
thinking, communication, collaboration
and conflict resolution. Through the use
of a leadership coach and incorporation
of leadership development/theory in
coursework and an intense immersion
in leadership during the required D.C.
Leadership Module, students are
exposed to various leaders, leadership
qualities, and leadership tools.
in terms of “knowledge base of
environmental natural science and
social science concepts and practices”
displayed.
Indirect measure:
Course Performance: Students must
enroll in core concentration courses
designed to provide a knowledge base
of natural and social science concepts
and practices. Acceptable performance
in courses with an interdisciplinary
science and social science focus
(monitored by advisor and the Director
of DEL on a mid-semester, semester,
and yearly basis). Through the use of
the student exit survey, ensure overall
average rating of student perspective
to the extent the DEL Program has
helped students achieve this
objective is >=3.0 (on scale of 1-5).
Direct measure:
Rubric-scored faculty evaluation of
Masters Project: average score ≥4 (1-5
scale), and >80% of students score ≥4,
on Masters Project evaluation summary
in terms of Management.
Acceptable performance in courses
with content designed to enhance
leadership skills. Requires 100%
participation in D.C. Leadership Module
and active participation in monthly
leadership calls (average of 75%
attendance per academic year).
28
Acceptable performance in coursework
with no more than 4% of students on
academic probation. Achievement
target met. As of Spring 2010, 0 DEL
students were on academic probation.
Satisfaction from student perspective
(via Exit Survey) on meeting this
objective is >=3.0 (on scale of 1-5) target met (4.50)
While leadership call participation goals
were met, a form will be maintained to
more formally log student participation.
Target met with 100% attendance by
students in leadership modules.
Attendance for monthly leadership calls
was met.
Indirect measure:
Through the use of the student exit
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
29
survey, multiple questions are asked to
determine the extent in which
leadership skills are enhanced:
The program continuously responds to
student and faculty feedback in regards
to leadership activities and
development. Results from evolutions
are consistently considered and
implemented when appropriate.
1. Leadership skills or understanding
of leadership has improved. Target
= average response rate of 85% for
Yes.
2. Satisfied with leadership
components. Target = overall
average rating of >=3.0 (on scale of
1-5).
3. Students perceive that the
objective of enhancing leadership
skills was achieved. Target =
overall average rating of >=3.0 (on
scale of 1-5).
Through the use of the alumni survey,
graduates report significant career
advancement within two years of
completing the program. Target =
>=50%
Develop quantitative and qualitative
skills. Our students are required to take
core curriculum courses, along with a
combination of elective courses that
provide a basis to develop quantitative
and qualitative skills.
Direct measure:
Rubric-scored faculty evaluation of
Masters Project: average score ≥4 (1-5
scale), and >80% of students score ≥4,
on Masters Project evaluation summary
in terms of Approach.
100% of respondents indicated their
leadership skills or understanding of
leadership has increased as a result of
the leadership activities in the DELMEM program.
Goal of student satisfaction of
leadership components was met (4.60).
Goal of achieving the objective of
leadership development was met
(4.50).
Results not determined as 2010 alumni
survey has not yet been implemented.
Prior to implementation of 2010 alumni
survey, the survey will be re-evaluated
to determine if additional targets can
be established to determine leadership
development post graduation.
Additionally, implementation rate of
alumni survey will be evaluated and
adjusted, as necessary.
As of Fall 2010, all incoming DEL
students will participate in an analytical
refresher during Orientation to better
prepare students for the analytical
requirements of the program; thus,
allowing more time to provide a deeper
understanding and application of the
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
Indirect measure:
Course Performance: Students must
enroll in a set of tools/approaches
courses to learn quantitative and or
qualitative analytic techniques, and
maintain a grade point average of B- or
better. Target: ≤ 4% of students on
academic probation.
Understand bases of environmental
policymaking. Understand the political,
institutional, economic and scientific
bases of environmental policymaking
and implementation. Through both
core and elective courses, students are
exposed to environmental law and
policy issues. In addition, aspects
policymaking and implementation are
showcased through fieldtrips and the
D.C. Leadership Module.
Gain in-depth knowledge of an
environmental issue. Explore, in depth,
an area of the environment that is
directly related to their current
employment or future direction.
Through the use of course group
projects and assignments, students
have the opportunity to explore
Through the use of the student exit
survey, achieve overall average rating
of student perspective to the extent the
DEL Program has helped students
develop quantitative and qualitative
skills. Target = >=3.0 (on scale of 1-5).
Indirect measure:
Course Performance: Students must
enroll in a set of policy courses, and
maintain a grade point average of B- or
better. Target: ≤ 4% of students on
academic probation.
Through the use of the student exit
survey, achieve overall average rating
of student perspective to the extent the
DEL Program has helped students
understand the bases of environmental
policymaking. Target = >=3.0 (on scale
of 1-5).
Direct measure:
Rubric-scored faculty evaluation of
Masters Project: average score ≥4 (1-5
scale), and >80% of students score ≥4,
on Masters Project evaluation summary
in terms of Effort and Overall Quality.
30
topic during courses.
Achievement target met. As of Spring
2010, 0 DEL students were on academic
probation.
Target met. Satisfaction from student
perspective on meeting this objective is
>=3.0 (4.50).
Achievement target met. As of Spring
2010, 0 DEL students were on academic
probation.
Considering elimination of this as
separate objective (and monitoring and
measuring) in future assessments as
“understanding basis of environmental
policymaking” is encapsulated in the
goal of “gaining interdisciplinary
perspectives of the environment.”
Target met. Satisfaction from student
perspective on meeting this objective is
4.83. Achieved an average rating of
4.65 in exit survey for questions in the
personal value and objectives section of
survey, pertaining to environmental
policymaking understanding.
Considering elimination of this as
separate objective (and monitoring and
measuring) in future assessments as
“gaining an in-depth knowledge of an
environmental issue” is encapsulated in
the goal of “gaining interdisciplinary
perspectives of the environment.”
Achieve target of 100% successful
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
environmental issues in their field of
interest. More directly, students
explore a more in depth study of an
environmental area directly related to
their employment or career interests
through the requirement of the
Master's Project. DEL-MEM students
are directed to develop a MP directly
related to their employment.
Successful Learning Experience.
Continuously improve the student
experience throughout the duration of
the program. Our students are
requested to complete mid-semester,
end of course, and post place-based
session evaluations to monitor
satisfaction, needs, recommendations
and areas of improvement and success.
31
completion of ENV 499, Master’s
Project (which focuses on an in-depth
environmental issue).
100% graduating students for Class
of 2010 successfully passed MP course
Indirect measure:
Course Performance: Students must
enroll in a set of policy courses, and
maintain a grade point average of B- or
better. Target: ≤ 4% of students on
academic probation.
Achievement target met. As of Spring
2010, 0 DEL students were on academic
probation.
Through the use of the student exit
survey, achieve overall average rating
of student perspective to the extent
they have gained in-depth knowledge
of an environmental issue. Target =
>=3.0 (on scale of 1-5).
Indirect Measure: Current DEL-MEM
students are asked to complete midsemester, end of course, and post
place-based session evaluations
covering areas including content,
benefit, logistics, pace, etc. These
assessments are used to identify
successes and needs for the program
and courses in coming years.
Target: Through the use of end of
course and post place-based session
evaluations, ensure overall average
rating of student perspective is >=4.0
(on scale of 1-5).
Target met. Satisfaction from student
perspective on meeting this objective is
4.17.
Area for improvement in assessing the
meeting of this objective may include
ensuring a higher rate of return on
evaluations to more completely
determine success.
All but one course evaluation (course
and place-based sessions) met the goal
of an average rating of >= 4.0.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
32
Assessment Summary | Pratt School of Engineering
Overview
The Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University awards an undergraduate Bachelor of Science in Engineering (BSE) degree and a Masters of
Engineering Management (MEM) degree.
At the undergraduate level there are four accredited programs: biomedical engineering, civil engineering, electrical and computer engineering, and
mechanical engineering. These programs are accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of the Accreditation Board for Engineering
and Technology (ABET). The engineering school was recently reviewed by ABET and three programs (Civil, Electrical and Computer, and Mechanical
Engineering) were accredited to September 30, 2015. See the Appendix for the official documentation from ABET with the accreditation notification.
The biomedical engineering program was accredited to September 30, 2011, but it is expected that the accreditation date will be extended to 2015, after
ABET has reviewed a July 1, 2010 report containing documentation of corrective measures that have been undertaken subsequent to the ABET
evaluation in 2008/2009. The Appendix also includes the biomedical engineering focused report. For reference, the ABET Criteria is also included.
Please note that Criterion 3 requires that programs have an assessment and evaluation process that periodically documents and demonstrates the
degree to which the program outcomes are attained, and Criterion 4 requires that each program shows evidence of actions to improve the program
based on information gleaned from the assessment process.
Accredited Degree Programs
The following definitions apply to all undergraduate accredited degree programs, as per ABET.
ABET definition: Program outcomes are narrower statements that describe what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of
graduation. These relate to the skills, knowledge, and behaviors that students acquire in their matriculation through the program.
ABET definition: Assessment under this criterion is one or more processes that identify, collect, and prepare data to evaluate the achievement of
program outcomes.
ABET definition: Evaluation under this criterion is one or more processes for interpreting the data and evidence accumulated through assessment practices. Evaluation
determines the extent to which program outcomes are being achieved, and results in decisions and actions to improve the program.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
33
All four of the engineering programs have a common set of Program Outcomes. In addition, each program has outcomes that are prescribed by the
professional society for the particular engineering discipline. The common Program Outcomes are as follows:
Students graduating from this program will attain:
a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering
b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data
c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social,
political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability
d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams
e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems
f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
g) an ability to communicate effectively
h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context.
i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning
j) a knowledge of contemporary issues
k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice
These outcomes are mapped to learning objectives and measurable outcomes in the required courses for each degree program. The measurable
outcomes are determined to be met at two levels (sufficient/acceptable or full/complete) or to be unmet. The percentage of students in a class that
have met the outcome is a number which is reported to the ABET coordinator in each program on a semester or academic year basis. The ABET
coordinator takes the Measurable Outcome Report (MOR) from each course and enters the data into a spreadsheet which maps these Course-level
Measurable Outcomes to the Program Outcomes and then the ABET coordinator determines which Program Outcomes need to be addressed the
following semester or academic year. The MOR typically contains 5 to 8 items that are measured during the course of the semester-long class. The
measures typically include exam questions, aspects of projects, components of a lab report, etc.
The MOR data is also used by curricular sub-committees in each department, along with course teaching evaluations and other survey data to determine
which aspects of individual courses need improvement. The faculty sub-committees decide on changes to syllabi or improvements to be made at the
course level in the groups of courses that fall within their purview. Program outcomes are reviewed by the entire faculty for each department and
representatives of the curricular sub-committees report their findings and actions to be taken to the departmental faculty for final approval.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
34
Examples of MOR’s, curriculum maps, and other data that demonstrates assessment of learning outcomes in the four engineering undergraduate
accredited programs can be provided upon request. In the tables below one example from the a-k above from each department will be provided and the
unique program outcomes that are not common across the school will also be listed.
In addition to the common outcomes mentioned above each of the four programs have outcomes that are dictated by its engineering professional
society. In some cases, these are learning outcomes and in other cases they are not learning outcomes, but rather criteria imposed upon a department’s
faculty or its resources in support of the educational program. For the purpose of this report to SACS, examples of the assessment of learning outcomes
in each of the four accredited programs are provided in the following tables.
Biomedical Engineering:
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
Calculate changes of state variables
(e.g., H, S, and G) of pure, closed
systems at any temperature (Courselevel learning objective maps to ABET a
and e)
Fall 07 BME 100 Exam 1, Q1 [target
80%)
Spring 08 BME 100 Exam 1, Q1 and Q2
(target 80%)
89% = at or above acceptable
None taken. Target met.
57% = at or above acceptable
Demonstrate ability to design signal
processing systems using principles of
linear system theory (Course-level
learning objective maps to ABET a, c
and e)
Analyze and interpret data from
experiments from biochemical and
living systems (Course-level outcome
maps to ABET b and d)
Fall 07 BME 171 Exam 3, Q1, Part A;
Exam 3 Q2; and Final Exam Q 8a and 9b
(target 80%)
15 out of 19 students (> 80%) learned
this material at an acceptable level or
above
Thermodynamics portion of course
needs to be revised and an additional
lab created to reinforce ideas of
thermodynamics
None taken. Target met.
Fall 07 BME 100 Lab reports 1 through
3
Spring 08 BME 100 Lab reports 1
through 3
92% at or above acceptable
None taken. Target met.
93% at or above acceptable
None taken. Target met.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
Select and define appropriate
Fall 07 EGR 123 Exam questions –
100% of students achieved acceptable
None taken. Target met.
Civil & Environmental Engineering:
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
coordinate systems for particle and
rigid body problems and determine the
unknowns among position, velocity,
and acceleration given a set of
constraints on the kinematics of a
particle or body (Course level outcome
maps to ABET a and e)
Design an experiment to measure
dynamic response in a one dimensional
problem and determine the limits of a
linear model (Course level outcome
maps to ABET b)
Communicate design details through
drawings (Course level outcome maps
to ABET g and k)
target = 80%
35
level of knowledge or above
99% of students achieved acceptable
level of knowledge or above
None taken. Target met.
EGR 123 Lab Component aspect of
report covering the design of the
experiment - Target of 80% achieving
acceptable level or above
100% in Fall 07, 99% in Spring 08
None taken. Target met.
CE 100 – homework / project reports –
Target 80% achieving acceptable or
above
100% - all students met acceptable
level of engineering drawings
None taken.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
Given an aliased image, recognize the
presence of aliasing and describe its
cause (Course level outcome that maps
to ABET a and e)
ECE 189, Test 1, Q4 – target 90%
acceptable level or above
100% achieved acceptable level of
understanding
None taken. Target met.
Given an image point spread function,
describe its effect in the spatial and
Fourier domains (Course level outcome
maps to ABET a and e)
Model and analyze continuous-time
and discrete-time signals using
sophisticated mathematics (Course
level outcome maps to ABET a and e)
Given a focal length of a lens and a
waist width of an input beam, calculate
a waist width of a focused beam
(Course level outcome maps to ABET a
ECE 189, Test 1, Q3 – target 90%
acceptable or above
91.3% achieved acceptable level of
understanding
None taken. Target met.
ECE 54L - target 90% acceptable
77% of students achieved an acceptable
level of understanding
Additional homework has been added
to the class.
ECE 122 - target 90%
67% of students achieved an acceptable
level of understanding
Textbook coverage is weak in this area.
Supplemental material will be placed
on reserve at the library to complement
the text.
Spring 08 EGR 123 Exam questions –
target 80%
Electrical & Computer Engineering:
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
36
and e)
Mechanical Engineering:
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
Determine the heat transfer and work
for processes with solids, liquids, vapors
(when thermodynamic properties are
available) and ideal gases using the first
law of thermodynamics (Course level
outcome maps to ABET a and e)
ME 101 – Test 1 and Final Exam – target
70%
Fall 07 – 100% achieved acceptable
level of understanding
Spring 08 – 92% achieved acceptable
level of understanding
None taken. Target met.
Calculate dynamic loading in
mechanisms (Course outcome maps to
ABET a and e)
ME 141 – Test 2 Q 3 and 4 – target 80%
achieving acceptable level
Prepare professional engineering
drawings and present design results in a
public forum (Course outcome maps to
ABET g and k)
ME 141 – Test 2 Q5 and Final Exam Q 2
– target 98% achieving acceptable level
Design reports and presentations –
target 80% achieving acceptable level
Fall 07 – 100%
Spring 08 – 91%
100% of students were able to draw
professionally in SolidWorks and
present their ideas clearly
None taken. Target met.
Note: a Rankine Cycler lab has been
added to this class as a result of other
indirect measures of student learning
outcomes.
None taken. Target met.
None taken. Target met.
None taken. Target met.
Non-Accredited Degree Programs
Master of Engineering Management: The Master of Engineering Management Program (MEMP) is a professional degree program at the Pratt School of
Engineering. The focus of the program is to prepare engineering and science graduates to become future industry leaders through a core curriculum
consisting of marketing, finance, intellectual property and business law, and management; and technical electives that are customized by the students in
their area of interest. This broad curriculum develops engineering professionals ready to address today’s complex business problems with innovative
solutions.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
37
The following categorical learning outcomes are defined for the Master of Engineering Management Program:
Upon graduation, MEM students should be able to:
BUSINESS FUNDAMENTALS
1. Apply their knowledge of business fundamentals to real-world situations.
Specifically, students should be able to:
a) define business terminology and practices
b) assess scenarios to extract relevant data, identify problems, develop options, analyze consequences and select solutions
c) formulate a strong case for their judgments based on data, presenting points logically and clearly
TEAMWORK
2.
Demonstrate an understanding of team dynamics and work effectively in diverse groups. Specifically, students should be able to:
a) describe the characteristics of high performing teams as well as the difficulties often encountered
b) employ effective strategies for team formation, operation, and communication to analyze complex situations and develop appropriate
actions
c) collaborate with peers to successfully create and complete a team-based assignment or project
d) evaluate peer performance, clearly outlining strengths as well as areas for improvement
COMMUNICATION
3. Demonstrate a command of core written and verbal communication skills appropriate for their targeted fields. Specifically, students should be
able to:
a) create a comprehensive individual project report that is mechanically correct, well-organized, and indicative of logical development and
analysis
b) speak publicly, selecting appropriate content and materials, clearly organizing information, delivering an effective presentation, and
adapting to the audience as needed
c) critique their own oral communication as well as that of their peers
CULTURAL AWARENESS
4. Students should be able to understand and demonstrate an ability to work within a global context. Specifically, students should be able to:
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
38
a) define cultural diversity and explain the implications for business
b) analyze the commonalities and differences between various global cultures, selecting appropriate actions based on cultural context
The Master of Engineering Management Program additionally utilizes a number of measures to drive iterative improvements year-to-year including:
course evaluations, alumni surveys, graduate exit surveys, Industrial Advisory Board feedback, Student Program Committee feedback, Town Hall
meetings, workshop surveys, co-curricular engagements, employer surveys, and Master of Engineering Management Program Consortium best
practices. While several of these measures do not have explicit targets, they often yield valuable findings that influence the actions that the program
defines for future improvement. These findings have been included in the learning outcome data summarized below as appropriate.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Business Fundamentals: Define
business terminology and practices
Direct
- EGRMGMT 210 Final Exam [target
80%]
- EGRMGMT 230 Final Exam [target
80%]
- EGRMGMT 220 3 Examinations [target
80%]
- EGRMGMT 240 Final Exam [target
80%]
Indirect
- EGRMGMT Exit Survey for Graduates
Question 2 [target 80%]
Teamwork: Employ effective strategies
for team formation, operation, and
communication to analyze complex
situations and develop appropriate
actions
Direct
- EGRMGMT 240 Team B Assignments
#1 and #2 [target 80%]
Finding
Resultant Action
In process for Fall 2010 core courses in
December 2010
In process for Spring 2011 core courses
in May 2011
87.5% of our students agreed or
strongly agreed that they had a
knowledge of business fundamentals
(terminology and practices) per our
2009 Exit Survey. See Appendix.
Objective met.
In process for Spring 2011 core courses
in May 2011
Indirect
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
- EGRMGMT Exit Survey for Graduates
Question 2 [target 80%]
39
Objective met.
95.9% of our students agreed or
strongly agreed that they had the
ability to work productively as a team
per our 2009 Exit Survey. See
Appendix.
- Incorporate peer feedback and teambuilding activities into Fall and Spring
Orientation programming.
Town Hall input revealed minor
challenges in the area of team
communication (specifically peer
feedback). See Appendix.
Communication: Create a
comprehensive individual project
report that is mechanically correct,
well-organized, and indicative of logical
development and analysis
Direct
- EGRMGMT 251 Internship Report
Assessed by Rubric [target 80%]
61% of our students demonstrated an
acceptable (score of 3 or higher) ability
to create a comprehensive individual
report as characterized by the
EGRMGMT 251 rubric and editorial
reviews. See Appendix.
Students need enhanced written
communications skills and additional
resources to improve in this area
Cultural Awareness: Analyze the
commonalities and differences
between various global cultures,
selecting appropriate actions based on
cultural context
Indirect
- EGRMGMT Exit Survey for Graduates
Question 2 [target 80%]
In process for May 2010 Exit Survey in
June 2010
Direct
- EGRMGMT 240 Final Exam [target
80%]
In process for Spring 2011 core courses
in May 2011
Indirect
- EGRMGMT Exit Survey for Graduates
Question 2 [target 80%]
In process for May 2010 Exit Survey in
June 2010
EGRMGMT 201 Workshop surveys
revealed successes as well as
opportunities for improvements in the
Objective not met.
- Fall 2010 Launch of Writing Studio
- Fall 2010 Mandatory Writing
Workshops
- Fall 2010 EGRMGMT 251 Rubric
Updates to ensure focus on the specific
types of errors noted during previous
editorial reviews of internship reports
(e.g. tense confusion, organization)
- Fall 2010 EGRMGMT 201 CrossCultural Communication Workshop
Improvements per survey feedback
(e.g. update the core scenario/role play
exercise to provide more clarity for the
students, update cultural examples to
include other countries in addition to
Germany and China)
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
40
Cross-Cultural Communication
workshop. 94% of the students were
satisfied (very satisfied or moderately
satisfied) with the session. 94% of the
students would recommend (strongly
recommend or recommend) the session
to others. See Appendix.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
41
Assessment Summary | Sanford School of Public Policy
Overview
The Sanford School of Public Policy sprang from the vision and leadership of its founder, Terry Sanford. As President of Duke University, Sanford believed
a powerful measure of any great university is its capacity to make its research and teaching relevant to real-world problems. It was founded in 1971 and
became Duke’s 10th school in 2009. The school is home to an undergraduate major in public policy, a master’s of public policy program (MPP), a master’s
in international development policy (MIDP), and a Ph.D. in public policy.
At this time, the Sanford School does not belong to a national accrediting body. In terms of assessment, the undergraduate program follows the lead of
Duke’s Trinity College of Arts and Sciences, the doctoral program works under the auspices of the university’s Graduate School and the master’s
programs are in their first year of creating assessment goals and measurements.
Non-Accredited Degree Programs
Master of Public Policy: During the course of their two years at Sanford, MPP students should develop skills in four areas. First, they should be able to
analyze quantitative and qualitative data on public policy problems and distill key findings. Second, they should be able to interpret these findings and
place them in the context of past and current thought about the issue. Third, they should be able to communicate findings about a policy problem
effectively in written work (concise memos as well as longer documents) and oral presentations. Finally, they should be able to work effectively on
teams composed of members with different skills, expertise, and backgrounds. Students’ abilities in these areas are assessed by their performance in
core courses, by their performance on their second year masters project, and by their GPA overall.
Outcome
Measure & target
Finding
Action
General academic performance
Student maintains an overall GPA of 3.0
or above
After fall semester 2009 one student
had below a 3.0
Ability to work on teams
Team of students successfully develops
product & presentation for client in
spring of first year
No issues in 2009-10 academic year
Student enters, academic probation
and special tutoring is arranged in core
courses (for the one student on
probation, she raised her grades and
probation was revoked)
No action was necessary
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
Ability to analyze and communicate
findings about public policy problems
Course professor attends client
presentations and reviews peer
evaluations
A grade of at least a B on the second
year masters project
42
Students’ advisors (professors) graded
projects (after ~6 months of work with
the student)
No student received a grade below a B
in 2009-10
Master of International Development Policy: The MIDP is a two-year master program was inaugurated in 2009, but previously existed as the Master of
Arts in International Development Policy since 1985. Our primary mission is to provide a top-quality personalized education in international
development policy to mid-career professionals, and to make recognized contributions to global knowledge and practice of international social, political,
and economic development. The assessment of the MIDP fellows is based on academic performance in the core courses (grade of B or higher),
successful completion of the remaining choice of elective courses within DCID and across other departments, the defense of the masters’ project
prospectus evaluated by 3 faculty committee members, and the successful completion and public presentation of a masters project paper. The
assessment of the masters’ project is primarily conducted by each fellow’s major advisor.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
Skills acquisition: Each fellow will be
able to conduct specific types of
economic, statistical, and policy
analysis using tools and techniques
acquired in the four core courses.
Successful completion of core
Foundations of Economic Analysis
course, Economic Analysis of
Development course, Policy Analysis for
Development course, and Empirical
Analysis of Development course.
Fellows must receive a B grade or
higher.
Fellow must find and successfully
complete an acceptable summer
internship, or complete a supervised
research project as a substitute.
More than 90% of fellows over the past
5 years have successfully completed the
core requirements and demonstrated
their acquisition of these skills by
receiving B grades or higher in these
courses.
Outcome met. Ongoing curriculum
review to ensure that materials and
skills are current and relevant to
development practitioners. Annual
summer review of curriculum
conducted by the DGS and faculty in a
curriculum retreat to assess this.


Practical experience: Each two-year
fellow is required to complete a
summer internship between the first
and second year at an institution or
agency that focuses on international
development.

All two year fellows who have
stayed in the degree program over
the last five years have successfully
met this objective.
To capture the learning from this
experience, aim to require a brief
write-up from each fellow during
the fall semester to chronicle the
internship experience and the
lessons learned. These essays will
be disseminated among the DCID

Implement the essay requirement
for the Fall 2010 returning second
year fellows.
Use the information gleaned from
these essays to distinguish
between more and less valuable
internship organizations.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
Policy Research: Each fellow is
required to complete an analysis of a
real international development policy
problem, and to use the analysis to
design policy recommendations and an
implementation strategy addressing the
problem.
Each fellow must write and successfully
defend a prospectus (project proposal)
before a committee of 3 faculty
members. The faculty members vote
on whether the prospectus defense is
passed.
Each fellow must write a Masters’
Project based on the accepted
prospectus.
Each fellow must present his Masters’
Project research to the DCID
community prior to graduation.
43
community (both faculty and
fellows.)
All of the fellows who successfully
stayed in the program have met this
objective.
Outcome met.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
44
Assessment Summary | School of Law
Overview
The Law School is a professional school within Duke University accredited by the Council and the Accreditation Committee of the American Bar
Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar (“Council”), and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. The Council
facilitates processes for re-accreditation every seven years. The Law School most recently received full ABA accreditation in 2009.
Duke Law School’s mission is to prepare students for responsible and productive lives in the legal profession. As a community of scholars, the Law School
also provides leadership at the national and international levels in efforts to improve the law and legal institutions through teaching, research, and other
forms of public service. Our Board of Visitors serves as a reporting and recommending body to the Law School administration and the governing faculty
on matters of student development, alumni relations, fundraising, and faculty and academic affairs. Additionally, the responsibilities of our Law Alumni
Association Board of Directors include representing the interests of the alumni population to the Dean and administration, and building the institution
through leadership.
Accredited Degree Programs
Juris Doctor (JD): Assessment of the JD degree program begins with the baseline Law School Admission Test (LSAT) as a standard measure of acquired
reading and verbal reasoning skills, used as one of several factors in assessing applicants.9 These skills are applied and further developed during study of
the core legal curriculum in the first year of the JD program, and advanced courses in the second and third years. A final evaluation of the success of our
program can be determined by our students’ state bar examination passage rates, post-graduation employment rates, and the annual ranking of Duke
Law School by our peer schools and practitioners in US News and World Report.
Master of Laws (LLM): Duke Law School offers two stand-alone master’s degrees — the LLM for International Law Graduates, and the LLM in
Entrepreneurship and Law. A third LLM in International and Comparative Law is offered only in combination with the JD as part of our dual-degree
program. The LLM for International Law Graduates is designed to introduce foreign law graduates to the legal system of the United States and to
provide the opportunity to take advanced courses in specialized areas of the law. Students are welcome to make selections from the large number of
courses represented in the curriculum. With the exception of two required courses, Distinctive Aspects of American Law and Legal Analysis, Research
and Writing for International Students, all classes are taken with JD students.
9
2009-2010 ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools, Standard 503.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
45
The inaugural class of the Entrepreneurship and Law LLM program will matriculate in the fall of 2010. The Entrepreneurship LLP program is designed to
build on our existing strengths in the fields of business law, intellectual property law, and innovation policy. It also takes advantage of strategic ties to
entrepreneurial companies located in Durham and the surrounding Research Triangle Park region. The program will provide a rigorous academic and
experiential foundation for lawyers who plan to be involved with innovative business, either as advisers, or as is increasingly common, as CEOs or other
executives. Admission is limited to applicants who hold a JD or an LLM from an American law school. The program includes six required courses; one
elective is required, and other electives may be taken if core course requirements were met during the student’s JD program. As this program is in the
infancy stage, we are building an assessment mechanism into the program and include it in our next report to SACS.
The following chart identifies the core learning outcomes for students in our JD and LLM for International Law Graduates degree programs, as
established by our faculty and the American Bar Association.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
First Year Curriculum: Students will
demonstrate an understanding of the
fundamental doctrinal legal concepts of
constitutional law, civil procedure,
contract law, criminal law, property law
and tort law.
Intermediate Assessment
Students are tested on their knowledge
of these subjects by the end of the first
year, upon the completion of
coursework approved by the law
school’s faculty curriculum committee.
99% of the first-year class receives a
passing grade in all of the fundamental
doctrinal courses.
Objective
needed.
met,
no
further
action
Final Assessment
Graduates are tested on their
knowledge of these subjects on the bar
examination administered in the state
where the graduate has applied for
admission to the practice of
law.
82% of the graduating class applies to a
state bar immediately, 93% of whom
receive a passing score on the
examination. Graduates who do not
take a state bar examination
immediately often delay their bar
application while serving in judicial
clerkships or similar short-term
employment that does not require
licensure.
100% of the first-year class receives a
passing grade in LARW, and participate
in the first round of the moot court
competition.
Objective
needed.
met,
no
further
action
Objective
needed.
met,
no
further
action
Legal Analysis, Research & Writing:
Students will demonstrate competence
in basic legal analysis, research, writing
and oral advocacy.
Intermediate Assessment
By the end of the first year, students
must demonstrate competence in
extensive legal research, objective legal
analysis, and persuasive legal writing.
First-year
students
must
also
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
46
participate in the annual Hardt Cup
intramural moot court competition of
written and oral appellate advocacy.
Upper-Level Writing:
Students will
complete at least one advanced legal
writing experience in the second or
third year, which shall produce an
original analytic paper of approximately
30 pages and involve significant and
thorough research on the part of the
student.
Professional Skills:
Students will
complete at least one experiential
learning experience in the second or
third year, which shall demonstrate
proficiency in the skills related to the
various responsibilities which lawyers
are called upon to meet and that are
regarded as necessary for effective and
responsible participation in the legal
profession. This shall include, but is not
limited to, live-client or real-life
experiences gained through clinics or
field placements.
Ethics:
Students shall receive
substantial instruction in the history,
structure,
values,
rules
and
Final Assessment
At the conclusion of their first summer
internship, students are surveyed to
determine how well the Legal Analysis,
Research and Writing course prepared
them for their first professional legal
writing experience.
Student writings are assessed by a
supervising faculty member, which
involves the review of one or more
drafts and subsequent revisions by the
student.
Upon the satisfactory
completion of the writing, the
supervising faculty member certifies
that the student has met the upperlevel
writing
requirement
for
graduation.
Experiential learning and professional
skills courses engage students in skills
performances that are assessed by the
instructor. [Andrew’s rubric]
100% of the graduating class has
fulfilled the upper-level writing
requirement for graduation.
No action needed.
100% of the graduating class has
fulfilled
the
professional
skills
graduation requirement.
No action needed.
100% of second- and third-year
students receive a passing grade in an
ethics course.
The ethics requirement is tethered to
key experiential learning courses such
that any student seeking live-client
Students must show, prior to
graduation, successful completion of
one of the experiential learning or
professional skills courses offered
through the curriculum.
Intermediate Assessment
Students must show, prior to
graduation, successful completion of
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
responsibilities of the legal profession
and its members, including the Model
Rules of Professional Conduct of the
American Bar Association.
Self-Directed Study: Students shall be
at liberty to develop a personalized
curriculum, under the guidance of
faculty and administration advisors,
that will prepare them as practitioners
within their desired area of the law.
LLM for International Law Graduates:
Legal Analysis, Research and Writing for
International Students is a research and
writing tutorial designed to introduce
international
students
to
the
techniques of case and statutory
analysis as well as the tools and
methods of legal research. Students are
expected
to
complete
written
assignments and memoranda of law.
47
one or more of the ethics courses
offered through the curriculum, to
include a course providing substantial
instruction in the Model Rules.
Final Assessment
Graduates are tested on their
knowledge of legal ethics and the
Model Rules of Professional Conduct on
the
Multistate
Professional
Responsibility Examination portion of
the bar exam administered to
applicants in 46 of the 50 states.
The Career & Professional Development
Center gathers employment data and
seeks the feedback of summer and
post-graduate employers, and alumni
regarding the preparedness of our
students and graduates in the
employment setting.
Intermediate Assessment: Students
must demonstrate their ability to
research issues in US statutory and case
law, analyze and present findings in
legal memoranda.
Our 93% bar passage rate takes into
account a passing score for those who
are required to take the MPRE.
100% of students reporting obtain
summer internships between the
second and third year, and 98% report
post-graduate employment.
The
response from employers and alumni
indicate that generally, our students are
well-prepared in doctrinal subjects but
could use some additional development
in the area of legal research and
writing.
All LLM alumni who responded to the
call for feedback indicate that their
training in legal research and writing
helped them to be better prepared in
the study and practice of US law.
experiences
must
first
receive
instruction in the Model Rules. As a
result, the law school is shifting to a
format requiring students to take ethics
courses in the second year so as to be
eligible for clinical courses as early as
possible.
Recent changes to the LARW program
were designed, in part, to address these
issues. This includes the addition of a
LARW writing instructor to reduce the
student-faculty ratio in that formative
first-year program, as well as a more
strict upper-level writing requirement.
Objective
needed.
met,
no
further
action
Final Assessment: The International
Studies Office solicits feedback from
LLM alumni in the years following their
completion of the program. Comments
consistently demonstrate that the
attorneys benefitted from LARW for
International Students course in their
studies of other subjects within the Law
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
School, their preparations for the bar
examination in a US state, and/or in
conducting research in a topic of US law
for their employer in their home
country.
Distinctive Aspects of US Law
introduces international students US
law in the context of international
business disputes litigated in US courts.
The course focuses on civil litigation
including the dual federal and state
court system, the discovery process
under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the use of expert witnesses
by parties, class actions, the civil jury,
and punitive damages.
Intermediate Assessment: Distinctive
Aspects was originally taught as a series
of guest lectures by various faculty
members. Student feedback revealed
that the presentation of the course
material lacked coherence. Thereafter,
one faculty member was brought in to
reorganize the course and provide
continuity.
Final Assessment: After teaching the
course a few times with new structure,
the faculty member identified certain
difficulties in presenting the material to
a large class of international students
using the traditional Socratic method of
law teaching. Again, working with
feedback from the students, the
professor developed a new approach to
the basic pedagogy of the course. It is
now taught as one large lecture per
week followed by discussion sections
led by teaching assistants from the JD
program, which promotes better
interactivity.
48
Based upon interviews with the
teaching assistants as well as feedback
received from the international
students, the professor decided to
continue
with
the
current
methodology. The course attracts very
talented third-year law students to
serve as TA's. Most of the teaching
assistants have gone on to judicial
clerkships, including one who will be
clerking at the Supreme Court of the
United States next year. The seminar
has become an integral part of the
course in which the international LL.M.
students can speak regularly to explore
the concepts covered as well as
develop their legal English skills.
Objective
needed.
met,
no
further
action
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
49
Assessment Summary | School of Medicine
Overview
Duke University School of Medicine (DUSOM) has several graduate degree programs in the health sciences, detailed in the tables below. All but one is
accredited by an external agency. Each external accreditation agency requires their graduate health sciences program to demonstrate effective
assessment of its learners and educational programs. All programs are current in their accreditation cycles and approved.
Accredited Degree Programs
Doctor of Medicine:
Duke University School of Medicine (DUSOM) is a four-year program culminating in a Doctor of Medicine (MD) degree. The educational program is
unique in that students have just one year of basic science instruction, then complete their core clerkship rotations in the second year. The third year is
devoted to scholarly investigation through one-on-one mentored research. Students complete clinical electives and a required Capstone course in the
fourth year.
The School of Medicine has 233 overarching learning objectives to be achieved over the four-year curriculum. These objectives follow from the School’s
mission statement and general goals. Each learning event (lecture, lab, small group, workshop, clinical course, etc.) is linked to the specific objective(s)
covered by that event. Each assessment item also is linked to objectives. A curriculum management system houses these data. Through its reporting
functions, we can identify where each objective is taught and how it is assessed.
Each course establishes its own outcomes and evaluation through a series of written, oral and performance-based assessments. Grades are a
representation of student achievement of learning outcomes. For the third year scholarly experience, students are required to write a written
summation (thesis, manuscript, or grant proposal) of their research and findings.
Other assessment methods include student performance on national standardized exams, supervisor evaluation of our graduates at three and 12
months post-graduation, student evaluation of the overall educational program upon graduation and at three and 12 months post-graduation, student
evaluation of courses, and residency placements.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
Students will demonstrate clinical
proficiency by the end of Year 2
(clerkship year)
95% of students will pass all of the
required elements of the Clinical Skills
Assessment Week administered at the
end of Year 2.
Students will be able to produce an
academic manuscript related to
scientific research / scholarly
investigation.
50% of third year medical students will
achieve a grade of honors on the
written summation (thesis, manuscript
or grant proposal) submitted at the end
of their 3rd year scholarly project.
Graduating 4th year medical students
will demonstrate advanced
communication skills when interacting
with patients.
100% of 4th year medical students will
achieve a passing score in the
competency-based assessment activity
for giving bad news to a patient (played
by a trained actor) during the Capstone
course in March prior to graduation.
85% of responding residency program
directors (PDs) supervising Duke
graduates in their first residency year
will indicate “often” or “always” in
response to the survey item, “This Duke
Medical School graduate performed as
well as residents who graduated from
other medical schools.” This item is
included on a survey that is sent to
residency program directors at 3 and 12
months post-graduation.
Graduates of Duke University School of
Medicine will perform favorably in their
internship year compared to graduates
from other medical schools.
50
In 2009, 100% of students passed the 8station Clinical Performance Exam
(CPX),
90% passed the ECG exam,
82% passed the Lab Interpretation test,
and
95% passed the Radiology exam.
All students passed failed exams on
retest.
In 2009, 79% of students did a thesis;
45% of them earned honors.
19% of students did a manuscript; 66%
of them earned honors.
2% of students did a grant proposal;
none of them earned honors.
Overall, 48% of students achieved a
grade of honors.
In 2010, 100% of 4th year medical
students demonstrated competency in
the advanced communication skill of
giving bad news to a patient.
Criteria met. At this time, no action
required. However, thorough review of
students’ scores on each CPX case
revealed weakness/confusion in one of
the cases. This case is being modified
before inclusion in the 2010 CPX.
For the class of 2008 (most recent year
with full data):
3 months post gradation: 85.3% of PDs
responded “often” or “always”
12 months post graduation: 87.5%
For the class of 2009:
3 months post graduation: 88.4%
12 months post graduation: data not in
yet.
Criteria met, however the PDs’
response rate has hovered around 50%.
Strategies are being developed to
improve response rate (e.g., follow up
with phone call).
Criteria partially met.
A longitudinal course in research design
that includes emphasis on scholarly
writing will be implemented in Fall
2010.
Criteria met.
Physician Assistant:
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
51
The Duke University Physician Assistant (PA) Program is a two-year Master of Health Sciences program culminating in the PA Program Certificate of
Completion. The basic structure of the educational program is a 12-month preclinical phase, followed by a 12-month clinical phase. Fifty percent of the
students entering this program come from economically or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds; all have bachelor’s degrees. They average 28
years in age and most have 2-3 years of hands-on patient care experience; a minimum of 6 months of patient care experience is an application
prerequisite. Seventy-two students are accepted each year.
The mission of this program is to educate caring, competent primary care PAs who practice evidence-based medicine, are leaders in the profession,
dedicated to their communities, culturally sensitive, and devoted to positive transformation of the health care system.
The program has nine overall educational goals that are linked to the mission statement. Each of the 29 courses (including clinical rotations) has
separate learning objectives and evaluation mechanisms. Frequent assessment is conducted and course grades are determined by a variety of
evaluation mechanisms including web-based tests, written assignments, direct observation of skills, and presentations.
Other assessment methods include student evaluation of units and courses, student performance on the PA National Certifying Examination (PANCE),
physician supervisor evaluation at one year post-graduation, and student evaluation of the overall educational program at graduation and one year postgraduation.
The Physician Assistant Program is accredited by the Accreditation Review Commission on Education for the Physician Assistant.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
Students will demonstrate cognitive
proficiency by the end of the clinical
year.
At least 80% of all clinical year students
will score at or above the national
mean on the PACKRAT exam (PA
Clinical Knowledge Rating and
Assessment tool).
90% of all clinical year students will
score at 70% or above on the 2-part
clinical skill problems (CSP) exam
developed and administered by the PA
Program.
At least 95% of new graduates will pass
the PANCE as first-time takers (national
first-time takers pass rate ranged from
91-94% in the past 5 years).
In 2010, 88% of clinical year students
scored above the national mean on the
PACKRAT exam.
Criteria met. Students scoring below
national mean in PACKRAT are
counseled on test preparation and
subject review by advisors.
In 2010, 95% of the same group scored
above 70% on the CSP exams.
Criteria met. Students scoring below
target are remediated by clinical faculty
in clinical skills areas.
Between 96 – 100% of Duke’s past 5
graduating PA classes have passed the
PANCE as first-time takers.
Criteria met. We continue to evaluate
why 1-2 students/year fail the exam on
the first try despite a comprehensive
PANCE preparation course instituted 5
years ago to determine if other
Students will demonstrate clinical skill
proficiency by the end of the clinical
year.
Graduates of the Duke PA Program will
perform favorably on the PANCE in
comparison to graduates of other PA
programs.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
52
strategies need to be developed.
Doctor of Physical Therapy:
The Duke University Medical Center Doctor of Physical Therapy curriculum is a graduate professional degree program for entry into the profession of
physical therapy. Upon successful completion of both didactic and clinical components of the curriculum, the student is awarded the Doctor of Physical
Therapy (DPT) degree. The three-year full-time program, located in the medical center, provides a comprehensive foundation in the art and science of
physical therapy, preparing graduates to serve as primary clinical care practitioners for patients with neuromusculoskeletal dysfunction, throughout the
continuum of care. The program is accredited by the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE). Several of the evaluative
criteria for accreditation require that the Division demonstrate effective assessment of its learners, curriculum and educational experiences.
The DPT curriculum has nineteen Outcome Objectives for Graduates which learners achieve over the three-year curriculum. These objectives align with
the mission statements of Duke University and the Duke University School of Medicine. Each educational experience (laboratory, lecture, clinical
internship, interprofessional education interaction, small group activity, global experience, etc.) is linked to objectives specifically identified with that
learning experience. Each objective is in turn linked to specific assessment paradigms and content. The Curriculum Committee oversees the integrity of
the curriculum which includes content, delivery and assessment. In addition, the Curriculum Committee is responsible for overseeing and implementing
changes to the curriculum.
Each course in the program establishes its own outcomes and evaluations consistent with the Outcome Objectives for Graduates, Mission of the DPT
Division, educational philosophy of the DPT Division and accreditation criteria for CAPTE. Assessment is accomplished, through written, oral and
performance-based assessments. Grades are a representation of students’ mastery of content and achievement of learning outcomes.
Other assessment methods include student performance on the National Physical Therapy Examination (NPTE) a national standardized examination,
curriculum evaluations/student evaluation of the overall educational program at the end of years 1, 2 and 3 and employer evaluation of post-graduate
learners.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
Perform accurate, reliable and efficient
patient examinations and incorporate
the data using sound clinical judgment
into documented patient evaluations.
100% of students will achieve entry
level mastery of content as indicated by
the Clinical Performance instrument
(CPI), a standardized assessment tool
used to assess clinical competence.
In 2009, 99.97% of eligible students
achieved entry level mastery of content
and 0.03% of students did not meet
entry level mastery of content. The
0.03% of students who did not meet
Criteria met. 99.97% of students
achieved entry level mastery of
content. The 0.03% of students who
did not was offered remediation. After
remediation 0.02% of students
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
53
entry level mastery was offered
remediation and one retest.
Critically read professional literature
and interpret research findings in order
to apply these to professional practice.
100% of third year students will achieve
a grade of “C” or higher on the required
capstone project. This capstone project
focuses on best practice in a specific
area of physical therapy practice.
Students review and interpret the
literature, select evidence for best
physical therapy practice regarding
their topic and then produce an
algorithm or assessment/intervention
sequence for implementing best
physical therapy practice related to
their topic. The paper and poster
presentation of students’ projects are
evaluated by faculty familiar with the
content area using a standardized
grading rubric.
In 2010 100% of all third year students
received a grade of “C” or better on
their capstone project. The grade
breakdown was as follows: A- 99.96%,
B - 0.0% and C-0.04%.
achieved entry mastery of content and
0.01% did not. The 0.01% who did not
was dismissed from the program
secondary to a pattern of nonperformance and a number of failed
remediation attempts. A review of the
remediation process was conducted
and found to be appropriate.
Criteria completely met. No action
required.
Pathologist Assistant:
The Pathologist Assistant Program is a 24 month program coordinated with the start of the Duke School of Medicine academic year beginning in August.
The students take their first year basic science courses within the School of Medicine, along with the first year medical students. The first year provides
a broad, graduate level background in medical sciences in support of intensive training in anatomic pathology. With the background in anatomy,
biochemistry, histology, physiology and microbiology, the students learn pathology at the molecular level in the classroom and are trained and given
experience in the microscopic and gross morphology of disease in close small groups and one-on-one training with Pathology Department faculty and
staff. The second year of the program consists of clinical rotations in autopsy and surgical pathology, as well as supplemental courses in photography,
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
54
histologic technique and forensic pathology, and other disciplines. Students present a Senior Seminar to the entire pathology department to complete
their studies. Students receive a Masters of Health Science degree and institutional certification necessary to site for the Board of Registry examination.
The first year curriculum overlaps much of the first year of the DUSOM to include Molecules and Cells, Normal Body, and Body and Disease. The learning
objectives and evaluation methods mirror those established by the Doctor of Medicine program. The learning objectives for the practical sequence
curriculum specific to the Pathologists’ Assistant Program are based on the statement of “Scope of Practice for Pathologists’ Assistants” as defined by
the American Association of Pathologists’ Assistants (AAPA) and on the standards for pathologists’ assistant training programs as defined by NAACLS.
Evaluation forms for practical rotations address each objective, based on a scale of 1 (unacceptable) to 4 (exceeds expectations).
Each course establishes its own outcomes and evaluation through a series of written, oral and performance-based assessments. Grades are a
representation of student achievement of learning outcomes. The senior seminar is reviewed and approved by a panel of program faculty. Graduates
are assessed based on performance on the American Society of Clinical Pathology Board of Registry Examination and on supervisor evaluation at one
year post graduation. Student evaluation of the individual courses is performed at the end of each semester. Graduate evaluations are performed at 1
month and 1, 2, and 5 years post graduation.
In addition to the accreditation of Duke University and the School of Medicine, the Pathologists’ Assistant Program is individually fully accredited by the
National Accrediting Agency for Clinical Laboratory Science (NAACLS) approved until April 1, 2014.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
Surgical Pathology: Students will
master surgical pathology techniques,
hone their skills in all aspects of gross
analysis of specimens in both adult and
pediatric populations, function with
only minimal supervision on most
routine specimens, and exhibit the
ability to function as an effective
member of the health care team
Autopsy:
Students will exhibit the skills necessary
to perform complete autopsies in all
situations, write complete preliminary
autopsy reports, to include gross and
microscopic descriptions, clinical
histories, and provisional anatomic
100 % of students will achieve a rating
of meets or exceeds expectations on a
standardized evaluation form used
across all surgical pathology rotations in
the required skills and behaviors at the
end of the surgical pathology practicum
100% of 2009 students met or
exceeded expectation and achieved
grades of pass or honors
Criteria met
100 % of students will achieve a rating
of meets or exceeds expectations on a
standardized evaluation form used
across all autopsy rotations in the
required skills and behaviors at the end
of the autopsy pathology practicum
100% of 2009 students met or
exceeded expectation and achieved
grades of pass or honors
Criteria met
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
diagnoses
Graduates will take and pass the ASCP
BOR examination within 3 years of
receiving their degree.
Graduates will perform favorably in
their first year of practice
55
100 % of graduates will achieve a score
of 500 or greater on the BOR.
100 % of 2009 graduates have taken
and passed the BOR, 63 % with scores
above 500 and 37 % with passing
scores, but below the 500 mark.
100% of graduates will be ranked as
good or excellent by their supervisors
at 1 year post graduation.
All 2008 graduates whose supervisors
responded to the survey were ranked
as excellent.
Criteria partially met. Strategies to
improve scores include institution of a
Board Review course and restructuring
a course in laboratory management to
more effectively prepare for the exam.
Criteria met, however, the response
rate was around 20 % for supervisors at
1 year and strategies must be
undertaken to improve the response
rate (e.g. directly contact employers).
Master of Health Sciences in Clinical Research:
The Master of Health Sciences in Clinical Research (M.H.Sc.-CR) degree program is offered by the Clinical Research Training Program of the Department
of Biostatistics & Biostatistics at the Duke University School of Medicine. It provides academic training in the quantitative and methodological principles
of clinical research. Designed primarily for clinical fellows who are training for academic careers, the Program offers formal courses in research design,
research management, genomics, translational methods, ethics, and statistical analysis. The faculty who teach and mentor in the Program engage
actively in clinical research and view clinical research as one of their primary missions in the academic medical center. The Program, which offers both
degree and non-degree options, is an integral part of each NIH and VA funded fellowship and career development award program that seeks to train
future clinical and translational investigators.
The Program does not have external accreditors.
The Program has a rigorous on-going evaluation strategy directed by experts in educational evaluation that incorporates three primary goals: to sustain
and improve program quality, to measure and document program impact, and to align the program with Duke and NIH strategic decisions.
Program assessment includes measuring the quality of trainees, the quality of mentoring, attainment of trainee education goals, the quality of trainee
research, program completion rates, post-graduate research productivity, retention and leadership in research careers, and implementation of
translational methods curricula. These assessments take place several times throughout the course of the academic year and are conducted annually,
per semester and periodically as needed.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
56
These assessments utilize a variety of data sources. The program database of applicants, active students and alumni is used to assess the quality of
trainees, attainment of educational goals, and program completion rates. Incoming student surveys and course evaluations measure the quality of
didactic experiences, and relevance of the program to trainee goals and career objectives. Focus groups and alumni surveys are used to assess research
productivity, retention in research careers, and quality of mentoring. Curriculum mapping is utilized to assess gaps in content related to translational
methodologies and other changes in the research environment.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
Students will demonstrate proficiency
in independently conducting research.
100% of degree candidates will write a
manuscript describing their research
and findings that is graded as
satisfactory using a standardized rubric
(do the faculty use a rubric of any sorts
or have stated standards that the
manuscripts must meet?)
Curriculum map using NIH Consortium
of Clinical & Translational Science
Awards competencies framework as a
guide to identify gaps in our curriculum.
100% of degree candidates received at
least a grade of satisfactory.
80% of graduates will be actively
involved in research. Targeted alumni
surveys (3, 5, and 7 years out) and CV
analysis to assess research
independence and productivity as
indicated by grants, peer-reviewed
publications and leadership positions.
Over 80% of graduates have active
research careers.
Criteria met, however we would like to
know how many manuscripts result in
publication in peer-reviewed journals.
For FY11, we have implemented RP
tracking and a CV analysis project to
monitor outcomes from research
project manuscripts.
Five new courses (immunology,
molecular techniques, longitudinal data
analysis, meta analysis, and data
management) were piloted in AY 2010
to address these deficiencies.
Criteria met; however, we would like
benchmark data.
70% of students will complete and
return the End-of course evaluations.
In Fall 2009, only 1 out of 5 courses had
>70% response rate. Response rates for
Spring 2010 were improved, reaching
>70% for 5 of 6 courses.
Curriculum continually will meet
changing needs in research
environment.
Graduates of the program will remain
in research careers and maintain
research productivity.
CRTP will offer high quality didactic
experiences that result in high levels of
trainee satisfaction.
All courses will achieve a median
student satisfaction rating of 4 or
greater on a 5 point Likert scale for
Deficiencies in bench-to-bedside and
comparative effectiveness were
identified AY 2009.
Median ratings for Overall satisfaction
We are interested to see how our
graduates’ research productivity
compares to that of our non-degree
students and peers outside this degree
program. Currently working to develop
a plan to monitor comparison group.
Criteria partially met (rr>70% for 6 out
of 11 courses). Improve end- of-term
course evaluation response rates
(particularly for Fall courses) by shifting
some questions to mid-term feedback
to reduce overall length of
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
“Overall Satisfaction”
57
were 4 out of 5 for 7 of 11 courses and
5 out of 5 for the remaining 4 courses.
questionnaire.
Criteria were met for median Overall
Satisfaction ratings. Minor course
adjustments were made based on
qualitative feedback.
Non-Accredited Degree Programs
Master of Health Sciences in Clinical Leadership:
The Master of Health Sciences in Clinical Leadership (MHS-CL) Program is designed to provide clinicians with the skills necessary to become leaders
within today’s changing health care environment. The MHS-CL, offered through the School of Medicine’s Department of Community and Family
Medicine in collaboration with Duke’s Fuqua School of Business, Law School, Terry Sanford School of Public Policy, and the School of Nursing provides a
comprehensive core curriculum that includes, from a health delivery perspective, management theory, health care administration, financial
management, economics, law, organizational behavior, informatics, quality management, and strategic planning. Other than accountability to the Duke
University School of Medicine accreditation procedures, the Program does not have requirements from any external accreditation agency.
This 42 credit-hour, two-year professional degree program awarded by the Duke University School of Medicine allows participants to continue practicing
in their profession while attending courses mainly online but also on the Duke University campus for a few days at the beginning of each academic term.
Those accepted into the program complete a longitudinal policy project and a seminar experience that give students the opportunity to explore topics in
more depth outside the classroom setting. The program requires 26 units of graded coursework, 10 units of graded seminar experience, and a Clinical
Leadership team project that awards six units of credit, for a total of 42 units of credit.
The Clinical Leadership Program has 31 broad learning objectives, and each course, seminar and team project component relates to specific objective(s).
Each course and seminar establishes it own objectives and evaluation process through a series of oral and written evaluations. Grades that are awarded
signify a student’s achievement of learning objectives. Another requirement for graduation includes the Clinical Leadership Project, which helps a real
client analyze and make decisions about a problem in health policy, financial planning, or health administration. Its purpose is to recommend and
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
58
defend a specific course of action. Students work as a team to complete the Project. The Project is divided into two semesters, the first devoted to
client and problem identification, culminating in the development and defense of a written prospectus to the Steering Committee. The second semester
is devoted to the completion and final defense of the project in its entirety to the Steering Committee along with the completion of a Master’s Project
Paper.
Additional program evaluation components include student pre-post assessment of their proficiency regarding the educational program’s overall
learning objectives, student evaluation of all courses and seminars, student evaluation of the program upon graduation, faculty evaluation of their
experience with the program, and supervisor/employer evaluations of our graduates one and five years post-graduation.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
Graduates of the Clinical Leadership
Program will understand the legal and
ethical considerations within their
leadership role.
85% of responding employers
supervising CLP graduates will indicate
“Agree” or “Strongly Agree” in response
to the survey item, “This graduate
demonstrates awareness and sensitivity
to social, legal and ethical issues.” This
item is included on a survey that is sent
to employers at 1 year post-graduation.
85% of responding employers
supervising CLP graduates will indicate
“Agree” or “Strongly Agree” in response
to the survey item, “This graduate can
communicate effectively and work
collaboratively with other members of
the team.” This item is included on a
survey that is sent to employers at 1
year post-graduation.
90% of total class cohorts that have
graduated will have produced a teamdriven Master’s Project Paper and
defended their work successfully to the
Program Steering Committee without
having to go through a remediation
process, which involves addressing
additional issues within their topic,
rewriting and re-defending their
For 2007 (most recent year with full
data), 100% of employers responded
“Strongly Agree”
Criteria met.
For 2007 (most recent year with full
data), 100% of employers responded
“Strongly Agree”
Criteria met.
Of the total class cohorts which have
graduated, 83% successfully defended
their Master’s Project Paper with the
Steering Committee and did not have to
go through a remediation process.
Not met. As a result, the timeline has
been made more flexible to allow a
student team to prepare and defend
their project prospectus and revise, if
needed, before launching into their
project activities and final defense.
Project advisors work more closely with
students to solidify a feasible yet still
scholarly rigorous project scope and
Graduates of the Clinical Leadership
Program will be able to communicate
effectively with other clinical leaders
and healthcare colleagues.
Students will be able to synthesize all of
the curricular knowledge they gain
from the Clinical Leadership Program to
produce and defend a Master’s Paper
related to their longitudinal policy team
project
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
findings.
59
implementation strategy that will meet
the standards of the Steering
Committee.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
60
Assessment Summary | School of Nursing
Overview
The mission of the Duke University School of Nursing is to create a center of excellence for the advancement of nursing science, the promotion of clinical
scholarship, and the education of clinical leaders, advanced practitioners and researchers. Through nursing research, education, and practice, students
and faculty seek to enhance the quality of life for people of all cultures, economic levels and geographic locations. The overall goals of the Duke
University School of Nursing are to:
1. Develop academic programs that respond to societal needs for nursing expertise.
2. Provide high quality education, as a foundation for lifelong learning and for professional careers in nursing and the broader health care
enterprise.
3. Develop leaders in research, education and practice.
4. Lead interdisciplinary research that results in innovative approaches to improving health and illness outcomes.
5. Provide health care to patients and, in concern with community partners, develop and test innovative models of care.
The Duke University School of Nursing offers four degree programs: ABSN, MSN, DNP, and PhD (overseen by the Graduate School). The first three of
these degree programs are accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE). Specific information regarding each degree
program’s end of program competencies, accreditation and timeline is included below. Achievement of course objectives is evaluated through a variety
of methods including verbal, written and observation methods, many of which further employ evaluation rubrics to assess performance and assign
scores or grades as representation of the learning outcomes.
Accredited Degree Programs
Accelerated Bachelors of Science in Nursing (ABSN): The ABSN is an intensive 16 month program consisting of 58 credits for well qualified students who
wish to become registered nurses. Prospective students may have BA or BS degrees in any field; however, all must complete a set of prerequisite
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
61
courses before matriculating in the ABSN program. The ABSN curriculum incorporates 15 credits of graduate study to promote graduate study in
nursing. The ABSN program is accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE) through 2018. Upon completion of this program,
graduates are prepared to:
1. Apply critical thinking and nursing processes in the delivery of care within multiple contexts across the lifespan.
2. Demonstrate safe, competent evidence-based clinical interventions in providing direct/indirect care to patients, families, aggregates, and service
to communities.
3. Utilize therapeutic communication skills for assessment, intervention, evaluation, and teaching of diverse groups.
4. Analyze the effect of socio-cultural, ethical, spiritual, economic, and political issues influencing patient outcomes.
5. Utilize leadership and management skills working with interdisciplinary teams to form partnerships with patients and families, and to provide
service to communities.
6. Demonstrate competence in critical decision making with the use and management of advanced technology related to patient care and support
systems.
7. Assume responsibility and accountability for one’s own professional practice and continued professional growth and development.
8. Attain academic qualifications to take the national licensure examination for registered nurses (NCLEX).
Examples of assessment activities from the ABSN program:
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
#1. Nursing Process - apply critical
thinking and nursing processes in the
delivery of care within multiple
contexts across the lifespan
In each semester, 100% of students will
prepare an individualized plan of care
utilizing the nursing process
demonstrating proficiency at 80% or
higher.
Fall 2009, fundamentals: 100%
demonstrated the target outcome
Targets met, continue to monitor
ATI Comprehensive Predictor
Summer 2010, adult health: 96.2%
demonstrated outcome on first
attempt
Dec 2008
100% achieved target score
Remediation processes refined
Target met
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
#2. Clinical Interventions –
demonstrate safe, competent,
evidence-based clinical interventions in
providing direct/indirect care to
patients, families, aggregates and
service to communities.
#8. Academic eligibility for the NCLEX
exam
Quality of instruction – as measured by
student course evaluation scores
examination in final semester will result
in 100% of students approved for
graduation achieving the target score
(that varies as this national test
evolves) on first or subsequent testings
All students approved for graduation
will successfully complete an intensive
senior synthesis experience
(using a detailed assessment rubric)
Within three months > 95% of
graduates will take the NCLEX with a
first time pass rate of > 90%.
95% of ABSN courses will be rated > 3
on a 4 point scale
62
Dec 2009
100% achieved target score
Dec 2008
100% of students received a pass grade
for senior synthesis
Dec 2009
100% of students received a pass grade
for senior synthesis
First time NCLEX pass rate for the Dec
2008 cohort was 98.5%
First time NCLEX pass rate for the Dec
2009 cohort was 98.5%
Fall 2008
99.91% courses > 3
Spring 2009 99.75% courses > 3
Summer 2009 100% courses > 3
Fall 2009
99.92% courses > 3
Spring 2010 99.93% courses > 3
Begin tracking students who do not
achieve target score on first testing
Refine remediation procedures
Target met, continue monitoring
Targets met, continue monitoring
Targets met, continue monitoring
Target consistently met, continue
monitoring
Master of Science in Nursing (MSN): The MSN program consists of multiple tracks that allow students to become advanced practice nurses in numerous
clinical areas including family nurse practitioner, adult nurse practitioner (with a focus in cardiovascular, critical care, oncology, gerontology, and acute
care), pediatric nurse practitioner (primary care, chronic and/or acute care), neonatal nurse practitioner, and nurse anesthetist. Additional health
systems tracks in the MSN focus on nursing and health care leadership, clinical research management, informatics and the nurse educator role. Many of
these tracks must adhere to separate standards established by various certifying organizations in addition to CCNE accreditation standards. The number
of required credits and courses varies by track and ranges from 39 to 60 credits. All MSN students complete the MSN core of 14-17 credits as part of
their plan of study. The MSN program is accredited by CCNE through 2013 and the Nurse Anesthesia Program is further accredited by the American
Association of Nurse Anesthetists Council on Accreditation through 2013. In addition to some specialized track competencies, all MSN graduates are
prepared to:
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
63
1. Synthesize concepts and theories from nursing and related disciplines to form the basis for advanced practice.
2. Demonstrate expertise in a defined area of practice.
3. Utilize the process of scientific inquiry to validate and refine knowledge relevant to nursing.
4. Demonstrate leadership and management strategies for advanced practice.
5. Demonstrate proficiency in the use and management of advanced technology related to patient care and support systems.
6. Evaluate contextual factors, such as socio-cultural, ethical, economic and political that influence systems of healthcare, health of populations,
and patient outcomes.
7. Demonstrate the ability to engage in collegial intra- and inter-disciplinary relationships in the conduct of advanced practice.
8. Attain academic qualifications to take specified licensure or certification examinations (for designated MSN tracks).
Examples of assessment activities from the MSN program:
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
#2 Clinical Expertise - Demonstrate
expertise in a defined area of practice.
Greater than 95% of MSN students in a
specialty-track residency or synthesis
course will receive a pass score from
their preceptor
100% of students who achieve the MSN
will complete the research course that
requires submission of a research paper
that is scored using a rubric for specific
learning outcomes
Results:
08-09
>98%
09-10
>99%
Results:
08-10
100%
09-10
100%
First time certification pass rate is >
90% for the following tracks:
Family NP
Adult NP
Gerontology NP
Oncology NP
Pedi NP
Results:
07-08
#3 Scientific Inquiry - Utilize the process
of scientific inquiry to validate and
refine knowledge relevant to nursing.
# 8 Academic eligibility for selected
certification examinations - pass
national certification exams when
required prior to practicing as an
advanced practice nurse (dependent on
specialty track)
89%
100%
100%
NA
Resultant Action
Target met, continue to monitor
Target met, continue to monitor
08-09
Target met in most areas but not all –
see detail below
100%
100%
100%
100%
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
Acute Care Pedi NP
Acute Care Adult NP
Neonatal NP
Nurse Anesthetist
Quality of instruction – as measured by
student course evaluation scores
95% of MSN courses will be rated > 3
on a 4 point scale
64
80%*
88%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
89%**
95%
82%***
Fall 2008
99.94% courses > 3
Spring 2009
99.91% courses > 3
Summer 2009 99.95% courses > 3
Fall 2009
99.96% courses > 3
Spring 2010
99.98% courses > 3
* The third student cohort did not meet
the target. The curriculum was
reviewed and revised for endocrine and
cardiac content with a subsequent
improvement in results.
** under discussion
***Evaluation policies under revision
along with curricular review
Target consistently met, continue
monitoring
Doctorate of Nursing Practice (DNP): The DNP is a relatively new degree in nursing and has grown in popularity over the last three to five years, due to
a recommendation from the American Association of Colleges of Nursing that advanced practice nurses be prepared at the doctoral level by 2015. The
Duke University School of Nursing DNP program welcomed its inaugural class in fall 2008. The DNP program allows for a post baccalaureate or past
master’s admission with a minimum of 74 and 35 credits required respectively. The DNP program is built on a framework of evidence-based practice
and translational research, leadership, and advanced practice roles. The DNP program is accredited by CCNE through October 21, 2014. Upon
completion of the DNP program, graduates are prepared to:
1. Demonstrate safe, effective, and efficient practice in a defined area of advanced nursing practice.
2. Integrate nursing science, knowledge from ethics, biophysical, psychosocial, analytical and organizational and informational sciences as the basis
for advanced nursing practice and new approaches to care delivery.
3. Use analytic methods to critically appraise the literature and develop best practices.
4. Implement and evaluate best practices to meet current and future needs of patients, communities and populations.
5. Develop effective strategies to ensure safety and quality health care for patients and populations.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
65
6. Design, direct, and evaluate quality improvement methodologies to promote safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable, and patient-centered
care.
7. Analyze the cost-effectiveness of practice initiatives taking into account risks and improvements in health outcomes.
8. Select and evaluate information systems and patient care technology, considering related ethical, regulatory and legal issues, to improve patient
care and health care systems.
9. Use major factors and policy triggers that influence health policy making in order to influence policy; educate others about health disparities,
cultural sensitivity and access to quality care; and advocate for social justice, equity, and ethical policies in all health care arenas.
10. Employ consultation, collaborative and leadership skills on intra-professional and inter-professional teams to foster effective communication,
enhance patient outcomes, and create change in complex health care delivery systems.
Examples of assessment activities from the DNP program:
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
#3 Critically appraise literature
At least 80% of students will achieve a
score of 80 or better on their major
assignment in N650 Evidence-based
Practice I (using a scoring rubric)
79% % of fall 2008 students achieved an
80 or better
Target not met
Writing course recommended for new
incoming students
#4 Best Practices - Implement and
evaluate best practices to meet current
and future needs of patients,
communities and populations.
Capstone Proposal – reviewed and
approved (using a standardized review
procedure) by the DNP Program
Committee for 100% of students
79%% of fall 2009 students achieved an
80 or better
100% of DNP students have approved
capstone proposals before proceeding
with their capstone activities
Continue to monitor
Target met, continue monitoring
A survey of faculty and students in the
first cohort of fall 2008 led to
improvements in advisory information
and clarification of proposal
requirements
Survey fall 2009 cohort conducted that
showed higher levels of clarity and
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
66
satisfaction with the capstone proposal
approval process
#9 Advocate for and Influence Health
Policy
Each DNP student (100%) will
demonstrate effective advocacy skills
through an expert-reviewed
presentation in N652
Fall 2008 cohort – 100% delivered
effective presentations as judged by
external experts
Fall 2009 cohort – 100% met
effectiveness goal
#10 Consultation, Collaboration and
Leadership Skills (including
communication)
Each DNP student (100%) will
demonstrate effective written
communication skills through achieving
a score of 80 or better on the major
writing assignment in N652 Evidencebased Practice II
Fall 2008 cohort – 96 % achieved a
score of 80 or better
Graduation rate for each DNP cohort
Each DNP cohort will achieve a
graduation rate of at least 70% within
two years for post masters’ students
Fall 2009 cohort – 80% achieved a score
of 80 or better
For the fall 2008 cohort of full time post
master’s students 67% graduated by
August 2010
Continue with this assignment > Due to
student and faculty ratings of the
importance of this area, additional
assignments related to advocacy
communication skills (such as letters to
the editor and YouTube videos) have
been added to course assignments
Target met > Individual students
advised
Writing course prior to first DNP course
made available and recommended to
incoming students
As above and feedback from students
regarding the writing course and
advisement has been positive
Target not met due to issues related to
implementation of projects at clinical
sites taking longer than anticipated.
Curriculum changes to allow more time
for the capstone in process…
Doctorate of Philosophy in Nursing (PhD): The PhD in Nursing is administered through the Duke University Graduate School; please refer to that
information for assessment information. The PhD program prepares nurse scientists to assume roles primarily in academic and research settings. PhD
graduates are prepared to:
1. Engage in a lifetime of scholarly inquiry.
2. Develop and maintain a significant, independent program of research.
3. Lead an interdisciplinary research team, bringing together the disciplines needed to address the complex problems of chronic illness and care
systems.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
67
4. Contribute to develop of nursing theory for research and practice.
5. Conduct research to advance the evidence-base for practice in nursing and health care, particularly addressing trajectories of chronic illness and
care systems.
6. Bring the values of intellectual inquiry and scholarship to teaching endeavors.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
68
Assessment Summary | Trinity College of Arts & Sciences
Overview
In spring 2010, the Dean of Academic Affairs, Dr. Lee Baker, in partnership with the Arts & Sciences divisional deans and the Director of the Trinity
College Office of Assessment, Dr. Matt Serra, met individually with the chairs of all departments and programs offering an undergraduate major. The
goal of these meetings was to insure assessment that is systemic, systematic, and sustainable in every unit and to place responsibility for measuring
student learning under the chair’s purview. As indicated in those meetings, the deans institutionalized the Arts & Sciences assessment process by
integrating it with the annual budget process: they charged each department or program with submitting an annual assessment report as a regular part
of the December budget submission, so that the budget, the teaching plan, and the assessment plan are evaluated at the same time through the same
process.
In addition, department assessment reports will be forwarded for evaluation to a Standing Committee (formed in April 2010) of the
Arts & Sciences Council, (see Minutes: Appendix 1). That committee, chaired by Dr. David Malone and comprised of the Director of the Office of
Assessment and faculty with particular assessment expertise, will annually review each department or program’s assessment report of student learning
and provide feedback for improvement. This new Assessment Committee parallels the Arts & Sciences Council’s Curriculum Committee and assures that
faculty have overall responsibility for assessment, just as they do for the undergraduate curriculum.
Trinity College of Arts and Sciences offers undergraduate majors in a wide range of humanities, social science, and natural science disciplines. Realizing
that no “one-size-fits-all” assessment methodology can apply across the board, departments and programs have chosen to assess student learning (or
develop student learning assessment) in way that best meets their priorities and programmatic needs over time. Thus, departments and programs focus
on the most salient student learning goal(s) for them annually, which allows for assessment to be a central component of curricular development and for
and curricular priorities to drive the assessment process.
Below is a sampling of those assessment efforts and activities by individual Arts & Sciences department or program major.
African and African American Studies (AAAS)
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
An AAAS major will demonstrate an
analytical and critical understanding of
Student Course Evaluations: Course
evaluations are reviewed by the Chair
Partially met. For items 15 (analyzing
ideas and points of view), 16
At its first fall 2010 faculty meeting, the
Director of Undergraduate Studies will
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
the lives and conditions of peoples of
African descent in the Americas, Africa
and beyond.
at the end of each semester and used
to assess the effectiveness of classroom
instruction. Special attention is paid not
only to the overall quality of instruction
but also to the items and comments
that bear on the department’s specific
learning objectives.
Achievement Target: The department
expects AAAS ratings to be at or above
Trinity means for items 14 through 18.
An AAAS major will demonstrate the
ability to identify and critically reflect
upon issues of social justice in African
diasporic communities as well as in the
larger society.
Senior Exit Interview: Majors
participate in a structured interview
covering curriculum and the
department’s student learning
outcomes, on a scale ranging from
'Extremely Well' to 'Not Well at all.’ The
interviews were conducted and
reported on by the Director of
Undergraduate Studies
Achievement Target: The department
expects all graduates to have the
critical thinking skills and necessary
level of awareness to be able to engage
in the historical and contemporary
issues that impact people's lives.
69
(synthesizing knowledge), and 18
(evaluating merits of ideas), the
departmental means were 4.15, 4.10,
and 4.02, respectively, while the
College means for the same items were
4.10, 4.16, and 4.0. However, items 14
(applying concepts) and 17 (conducting
inquiry with the methods of the field),
had mean ratings of 4.07 and 3.83 and
were below the Trinity means of 4.20
and 3.97.
Met. Of the two-thirds of majors
completing the interview, all reported
gaining the requisite level of knowledge
at either 'Well' (40%) or the 'Extremely
Well' (60%) level. Thus, 100% report
attaining the critical thinking skills and
level of awareness necessary to
evaluate the historical processes and
social issues that impacted how people
of African descent came to be part of
the world and the processes of which
they are part.
review these findings, and the faculty
will discuss ways to concretize the
findings across the department’s
curriculum. The department will
continue to monitor these data to
develop a solid baseline.
At its first Fall 2010 faculty meeting, the
DUS will review findings for faculty
discussion related to how to concretize
these findings across the department's
curriculum. Although very happy with
the findings of the completed exit
interviews, the department will discuss
ways to insure that all graduates
complete the interview in future as well
as ways to add more direct forms of
assessment in the coming year (e.g.,
pre/post writing assignment to be
scored in a standardized fashion.
Art, Art History, and Visual Studies
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
An AAHVS major will demonstrate an
effective knowledge and application of
visual vocabulary appropriate for
careers in the visual arts, architecture,
visual studies, and the media.
Student Course Evaluations: The
department will compare its majors’
mean ratings with that of the overall
College mean ratings. Achievement
Target: The department expects its
ratings for items 15 and 16 to be equal
to or above the Trinity means.
Partially met. Art History students
exceeded the Trinity mean for item 15,
“analyzing ideas and points of view”
(ArtHist: 4.13, Trinity: 4.02), and item
16, “synthesizing knowledge” (ArtHist:
4.19, Trinity: 4.11), for Fall 2009 and
Spring 2010. Visual Arts students did
The department will review course
evaluation data and determine if the
current categories are appropriate for
Visual Arts majors. The department will
implement the use of Student
Portfolios (papers and projects), in
August 2010 for the 2010-11 academic
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
An AAHVS major will use innovative
theoretical and methodological
approaches to generate new
approaches to the history of
representation placed within broader
socio-cultural perspectives.
Student Course Evaluations: The
department will compare its majors’
mean ratings with that of the overall
College mean ratings. Achievement
Target:
The department expects its ratings for
items 17 and 18 to be equal to or above
the Trinity means.
70
not meet the Trinity mean for item 15,
“analyzing ideas and points of view”
(ArtsVis: 3.47, Trinity: 4.02), and
item16, “synthesizing knowledge”
(ArtsVis: 3.79, Trinity: 4.11) for Fall
2009 and Spring 2010.
Partially Met. Art History students
exceeded the Trinity mean for item 17,
“conducting inquiring with methods of
the field” (ArtHist: 3.92, Trinity: 3.88),
and item 18, “evaluate merits of ideas
and competing claims” (ArtHist: 4.0,
Trinity: 3.93) for Fall 2009 and Spring
2010. Visual Arts students exceeded
the Trinity mean for item 17,
“conducting inquiring with methods of
the field” (ArtsVis: 3.94, Trinity: 3.88)
but did not meet the Trinity mean for
item 18, “evaluate merits of ideas and
competing claims” (ArtsVis: 3.55,
Trinity: 3.93) for Fall 2009 and Spring
2010.
year, as a more direct assessment of
student progress towards their learning
goals.
The department will review course data
to determine if the course categories
are appropriate for the Visual Arts
majors. Beginning in Fall 2010, all
students will accumulate a portfolio of
7 papers/and or art projects. A
departmental committee will complete
the final assessment in the student’s
senior year. Guidelines for the major
are as follows: •Art History and Visual
Studies students will keep a portfolio
comprised of one paper from course
69/70/ or 71; one from each of the five
fields for a total of five papers; and one
200-level course. •Concentration in
Architecture students will keep a
portfolio comprised of six papers from
Art History 104, 110, 111, 130, 145,
182, 189A/D, 189B/D, and one a 200level course. •Art History/Visual Art
combined major students will keep a
portfolio comprised of one paper from
ARTHIST 69, 70, or 71; one project from
VISTARTS 100; two papers from at two
different fields in art history; two
projects from two different media in
the visual arts; and one 200-level art
history seminar or visual art project.
•Visual Art students will keep a
portfolio of seven works of art or visual
projects from the following courses:
one from 54; one each from the 3
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
71
different media; and two from the
student’s choice of two additional 100level courses; one 200-level course.
Asian & Middle Eastern Studies
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
An AMES major will attain an
intermediate to advanced level of
language proficiency, to function as
informed and capable interlocutors
with native speakers in the target
language.
Oral Proficiency Interviews: In Spring
2010, three instructors conducted and
scored Oral Proficiency Interviews,
using the ACTFL guidelines as
reference.
Achievement Target: All majors are
expected to achieve intermediate to
advanced level proficiency.
The department will continue to
administer the Oral Proficiency
Interview to graduating students next
year to establish the validity of this
year’s results. These findings will be
brought to the full faculty for further
consideration.
An AMES major will develop research
skills that demonstrate critical thinking
Student Course Evaluations: The
department will evaluate student
learning gains by appraisal of progress
on items 15, 17 and 18. Achievement
Target: The target is to be at or above
the Trinity College mean.
Met. One student was rated at
Superior level, four at Advanced level,
and two at Intermediate level. There
was no evident correlation between the
observed proficiency and the number
of classes the student took. Two
students at the Intermediate level were
able to generate sentences and carry
on conversations on concrete topics,
while four students at the Advanced
level were able to narrate and describe
in paragraph-length and present their
opinions and arguments with varying
degrees of structure. The student at
the Superior level was able to discuss a
wide range of topics. Inaccuracies in
word choice or grammar or limitations
of lexical knowledge were noted at
respective levels but rarely interfered
with communication.
Met. AMES majors’ self-assessments in
these items were substantially higher
than those of other students taking the
same courses and the averages of the
Trinity College:
Fall 2009
Q15: Learning to analyze ideas,
arguments and points of view (Majors
4.28; other student in AMES courses
The department will discuss these
results in their annual retreat and
continue to track the evaluation data
for the next graduation year. The
department will continue to develop a
more direct measure of critical thinking
and research skills to corroborate these
indirect measures. For example, the
department has developed a scoring
rubric to be applied to term papers
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
72
4.10; Trinity 4.02)
Q17: Learning to conduct inquiry
through methods of the filed
(Majors 4.06; other student in AMES
courses 3.84; Trinity 3.88)
which will measure social and cultural
awareness as well as critical thinking
and research skills. The department
will get faculty feedback and input to
finalize it. Then, faculty teaching
literature and culture courses will be
asked to use the rubric to assess the
extent to which the goals are met.
Q18: Learning to evaluate the merits of
ideas and competing claims
(Majors 4.21; other student in AMES
courses 3.96; Trinity 3.93)
Spring 2010
Q15: Learning to analyze ideas,
arguments and points of view (Majors
4.30; other student in AMES courses
4.14; Trinity 4.10)
Q17: Learning to conduct inquiry
through methods of the filed
(Majors 4.18; other student in AMES
courses 4.03; Trinity 3.97)
Q18: Learning to evaluate the merits of
ideas and competing claims
(Majors 4.31; other student in AMES
courses 4.12; Trinity 4.0)
This suggests that AMES majors were
aware that they had been trained in
this set of cognitive and academic skills
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
73
and were confident to claim progress in
them.
Biology
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A Biology major will develop a
sophisticated appreciation of the
nature of living organisms and
biological processes.
Focus groups and exit surveys: Faculty
and student focus groups, along with
the existing student exit surveys, are
used to assess progress and develop
proposals for change. Achievement
Target: The department expects at least
30% of students to rate their biology
courses as "superior"
Not met. Currently 20% rank biology
courses as "superior."
A Biology major will develop analytical
and critical thinking skills, including
hypothesis generation and testing.
Biology Honors Thesis Assessment
(BioTAP, Biology Thesis Assessment
Protocol): The assessment of honors
theses will provide information about
the following analytical and critical
thinking skills: whether the thesis
makes a compelling argument for the
significance of the student’s research
within the context of the current
literature; whether the thesis skillfully
interprets results; and whether there is
a compelling discussion of the
implications of findings. Achievement
Target: Students engaged in the BioTap
process will perform better than those
who have not.
Met. The department found significant
improvements in the quality of critical
thinking in student theses when
engaged in the BioTAP feedback
process. Students who used BioTAP
performed significantly better than
students who did not use BioTAP
(p<0.05)
The department is systematically
gathering more information and has
changed its introductory and major
curriculum, beginning in 2010 to
provide two new gateway courses, Bio
101L (Molecular Biology) and Bio 102L
(Genetics and Evolution). The
department will discuss ways to assess
the impact of these new foundational
courses in 2010-2011.
The department will more widely
implement BioTAP and focus on two
areas of thesis development that did
not show significant improvement (use
of citations and ability to use tables and
figures in an effective way, which were
the most common errors). It plans to
offer more workshops for students on
citation conventions and figures design
as well as more opportunities for
review and feedback.
Chemistry
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
74
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A Chemistry major will develop a
comprehensive knowledge base in
Chemistry and Molecular science.
General Chemistry Diagnostic Quiz:
A diagnostic quiz was administered for
placement in the introductory
chemistry curriculum and as a pre/post
direct measure.
Assessment Targets: The quiz scores
should correlate with placement in
Chem 20D and Chem 31 and therefore
show score distributions that do not
overlap significantly (i.e., Chem 20D on
the low end and Chem 31 on the high
end). Another target is that quiz scores
of students who completed 20D should
increase to the point where the average
score is equal to the average score for
the students who went into Chem 31.
Met.
1) The distribution of quiz scores for
CHEM 20D and CHEM 31 were quite
distinct, with the average score (out of
the 10 problems taken from the initial
version of the quiz) being 2.6 for the
CHM 20D cohort and 6.8 for the CHEM
31 cohort.
The diagnostic quiz results from CHEM
20D (fall 2009), CHEM 31 (fall 2009),
and CHEM 31 (spring 2010) will be
analyzed in more detail to provide a
more consistent assessment of the
impact of CHEM 20D on student
performance. This analysis will also be
used to refine the diagnostic quiz for
future use by identifying the most
useful/informative questions on the
quiz, likely the first 11 questions of the
14 on the 2009-2010 version of the
quiz.
A Chemistry Major will develop
effective oral and written
communication skills.
Rubric Scored Honors Thesis:
(ChemTAP: Chemistry Thesis
Assessment Protocol). The rubric was
applied for the first time in spring 2010
to Graduation with Distinction theses in
the capstone CHEM 198. This will
provide baseline data for evaluating
course impact, thesis quality, and
"writing in the discipline" through the
2) There was a large pre/post gain in
the diagnostic quiz scores for students
who started in CHEM 20D and went on
to take CHEM 31, with the students
showing an average gain of 5.3 points
on the total 14 quiz questions, giving
them an average score somewhat
higher than the students who started at
CHEM 31. The department analyzed
this gain according to a measure
commonly employed in the physics
education community (see Richard R.
Hake, Am. J. Phys. 66 (1998) pp 64-66)
and found that it falls in the "high gain"
category.
Not met. Since the full scoring of theses
in the comparison years is just now
being completed, the department does
not yet have the data to determine
whether it has met achievement target,
so the target is listed as not met for
now. The results will be forthcoming in
the next cycle.
During the coming assessment cycle,
the department will complete the
scoring of a large number of Chemistry
Graduation with Distinction theses
using the ChemTAP rubric, so it will
have a baseline calibration going
forward. This will allow for a
comparison of thesis scores before and
after the introduction of the CHEM 198
Graduation with Distinction course.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
75
Chemistry curriculum.
Assessment Target: The target set
initially is a statistically significant and
sustained increase in thesis rubric
scores after 198 compared to those
prior to 198.
Classical Studies
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A Classical Studies major will develop
advanced-level proficiency in at least
one ancient language, Latin or Greek
or in at least one domain of classical
civilization, Greek or Roman history, or
archaeology.
Classical Studies Dossier: all majors will
be required to create and maintain a
Classical Studies Portfolio in which they
archive documents from their course of
study. This portfolio will be evaluated
annually by a rotating committee.
Achievement Target: The department
has set the following benchmarks by
Spring 2012:
Met.
Class of 2009:
* Translation assessment: not
required
* General Information assessment:
not required
* Prepared Translations: 4 of 4
submitted, 3 Excellent (75%), 1 Good
(25%).
* Short Essays: 6 of 6 submitted, 1
Excellent (16.6%), 4 Good (66%), 1 at
the Good/Poor border.
The department will discuss at its
annual retreat whether the general
information test and translation
exercises generate comparably useful
data; if the original plan (that envisaged
change in major requirement under
which specialization was required in
both major tracks) is still viable; and
whether participation in general
information test and translation
exercises be made mandatory.
Translation Quizzes:
* 20% Excellent
* 50% Good
* 20% Poor
* 10% Marginal
General Information Quizzes:
* 20% Excellent
* 50% Good
* 20% Poor
* 10% Marginal
Prepared Translations:
* 20% Excellent
* 50% Good
Class of 2010:
* Translation assessment, optional: 3
of 3 students took the test, one placing
in the Excellent category, 2 at the
Good/Excellent border.
* General Information assessment,
optional: no takers
* Prepared Translations: 3 of 3
submitted, three Excellent (100%)
* Short Essays: 4 of 7 submitted, 2
Excellent (50%), 2 at the
Good/Excellent border
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
76
* 20% Poor
* 10% Marginal
Short Essays:
* 20% Excellent
* 50% Good
* 20% Poor
* 10% Marginal
A major in Classical Studies will learn
to conduct research using
methodologies in the field.
Classical Studies Dossier: All majors are
required to place in the dossier a
capstone paper and a paper from a
second research course. The dossier
will be evaluated annually by a rotating
committee.
Achievement Target: The department
has targeted the following benchmarks
by Spring 2012.
Partially met.
Capstone Paper:
* 20% Excellent
* 50% Good
* 20% Poor
* 10% Marginal
Second R: not a formal requirement of
curriculum; separate research
conducted by 2 Majors, culminating in
Theses, results 1 Excellent and 1 Good.
Class of 2009:
Capstone Paper: 10 of 10 submitted, 4
Excellent (40%), 1 on the
Excellent/Good border (10%), 5 good
(50%).
At its annual retreat, the department
will consider whether to revise the
major requirements to include second
Research (R) course. It will also consider
ways to increase the awareness of the
Senior Thesis option:
Paper from Second R course:
* 20% Excellent
* 50% Good
* 20% Poor
* 10% Marginal
Capstone Paper: 8 of 10 submitted, 5
Excellent (63%), 2 Good (25%), 1 at the
Good/Poor border (13%), 1 Poor (13%)
* DUS to continue to promote
participation to students (some effect
already visible: 6 students writing
theses in AY10/11)
* Faculty to indentify and encourage
promising students
* DUS and Senior Thesis directors to
coordinate peer-review mechanism for
senior thesis writers AY 10/11, with a
view to enhancing a sense of
community, creating buzz
* DUS and Senior Thesis directors to
organize Senior Thesis Colloquium S11
Senior Thesis:
* 50% participation
Second R: not a formal requirement of
curriculum; separate research
conducted by 1 Major, culminating in
Thesis, results Excellent.
If 50% participation in Senior Thesis is
attained, the department expects to
request additional staffing resources to
the Deans.
Class of 2010:
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
77
Computer Science
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A Computer Science major will have
foundational knowledge and
understand of basic principles of
software and hardware systems.
Programming Portfolio: Each major
submits a portfolio that includes the
source code of programs and projects
written in required and elective
courses.
Achievement Target:
All senior software artifacts will
demonstrate competency in the
mastery of basic data structures and
design patterns (both object-oriented
and procedural).
Programming Portfolio:
Achievement Target: All senior
programming artifacts will show
improvement over time in adhering to
established guidelines and metrics for
evaluating the programming artifacts.
Not met. Software artifacts have been
judged longitudinally to be minimally to
excellent in demonstrating use and
understanding of basic data structures
and design patterns.
The department will develop a catalog
of basic data structures and design
patterns and criteria to judge their use.
Not met. The department has noted
that its judgment of minimalmastery/competency improves or
continues to meet minimal standards of
excellence from first year to senior
year.
The department will analyze this data
as a baseline and continue to monitor
student progress and refine established
guidelines and metrics for evaluating
the programming artifacts.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A Cultural Anthropology major will
demonstrate enhanced intellectual
development (analytical and critical
skills).
Student Course Evaluations Data.
The department uses mean ratings
from evaluation items related to the
student learning outcomes of interest
for comparison with overall College
means.
Achievement Target: For items related
to analytic and critical thinking (Items
14, 15, 16 and 18), the department men
ratings will meet or exceed the College
mean ratings.
Met. For Items 14 (learning to apply
concepts, principles or theories to a
specific situation or problem), Item 15
(learning to analyze ideas, arguments,
and points of view), Item 16 (learning
to synthesize and integrate knowledge)
and Item 18 (learning to evaluate the
merits of ideas and competing claims)
the departmental means for this past
year were 4.19, 4.30, 4.24 and 4.16
respectively. The comparable College
means were 4.17, 4.06, 4.13, and 3.96
respectively.
The department will continue to
monitor course evaluation data to
establish a baseline. In particular, the
Director of Undergraduate Studies will
track the ratings for the next two years
and report back to the faculty any
trends that develop to insure that
course address all departmental
student learning outcomes.
A Computer Science major will develop
skills and expertise in writing
computer programs.
Cultural Anthropology
The department will also develop an
online exam when students when they
declare the major. This exam will
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
78
contain items that touch on all three of
its designated learning outcomes and
will serve both as a diagnostic for
critical and analytic thinking, crosscultural knowledge and social
engagement but also as a as a context
to help frame initial advising sessions.
A similar exam will be administered to
out-going seniors as a way to gauge
'distance traveled' in relation to student
learning outcomes.
Met. Some 82% of the interviewees
reported that they felt that the major
had helped in their intellectual
development either extremely well or
well. Some 18% felt it was only
adequately helpful.
A Cultural Anthropology major will
demonstrate an understanding how
cultural beliefs and social structures
vary from place to place and over
time.
Departmental Senior Exit Interview:
The department interviewed seniors to
see how they report having have met
the objectives of social awareness,
critical thinking, and cross cultural
inquiry and cultural knowledge
Achievement Target: The department
would like to see at least 75% of the
interviewees report that the major has
helped them in their intellectual
development (Item 1 on exit interview)
Departmental Senior Exit Interview.
The department interviewed seniors to
see how they report having have met
the objectives of social awareness,
critical thinking, and cross cultural
inquiry and cultural knowledge.
Achievement Target: The department
expects at least 75% of students to
Not met. 64% of the interviewees
report at the 'extremely well' or 'well'
level on this interview item, 36% report
at the 'adequate' level.
Although the achievement target was
met, the majority of students reported
that in the area of Mass Culture and
Media, they had not made the type of
intellectual strides as in other areas.
The faculty will address this issue at
their upcoming 2010 faculty retreat.
In their Fall 2010 retreat, faculty will
discuss ways to place more emphasis
on the relationship between historical
and contemporary issues and how to
relate students study abroad and other
global experiences back to the
classroom.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
79
respond that they have developed a
critical understanding of the historical
and contemporary issues that impact
the people's lives in two countries of
their own choosing at 'extremely well'
or 'well' level.
The department will also develop an
online exam when students when they
declare the major. This exam will
contain items that touch on all three of
its designated learning outcomes and
will serve both as a diagnostic for
critical and analytic thinking, crosscultural knowledge and social
engagement but also as a as a context
to help frame initial advising sessions.
A similar exam will be administered to
out-going seniors as a way to gauge
'distance traveled' in relation to student
learning outcomes.
Dance
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A Dance majors will develop a
proficiency in reading the body as
cultural text.
Capstone Course Assignment
Measuring Mastery (Choreography,
Performance, or Paper): Achievement
Target:
All students will demonstrate an
understanding of historical and current
cultural values; illuminate and define
gender, personal and group identity;
political and religious status; aesthetic
values, and the intentions of the dancemakers
Exit Questionnaire and Interview:
All seniors are debriefed at the time of
graduation using a standard exit
interview format.
Achievement Target: The department
expects a minimum scoring of 8 or
Met. 100% of graduating seniors
produced a body of choreographic work
that demonstrated an understanding of
the cultural context of movement and
expression. Based on established
scoring norms, all products a grade of B
or better.
Since this is the first year of systematic
assessments, the department will
continue to monitor student projects to
determine baseline and refine standard
scoring rubrics.
Partially met: On these three items, the
range was from 7.5 to 9.
The program will review these findings
at their fall 2010 and focus on ways to
increase the monitoring of, and
emphasis on the technical Elements of
Dance Expression in the curriculum.
The program will consider its first year’s
A Dance Major will develop an
understanding of the artistic and
technical elements of physical
expression that lead to performance
artistry.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
80
better on all responses to Section III,
Items 1, 2 and 3
data as the beginning of establishing
baseline norms and will continue to
collect this data over the next two to
three graduating classes.
Earth and Ocean Sciences (EOS)
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
An EOS major will develop breadth and
depth of understanding of earth and
ocean science concepts and practices.
Rubric Scored Research Independent
Study: All research papers completed in
RIS courses will be scored using a
standard rubric.
Met. In 2010, More than 80% of
students earned a rating of ≥ 4 in the
knowledge category on independent
study evaluation rubric. Target also
met in 2009.
In 2009, an action item was established
to achieve greater faculty participation
in employing standardized evaluation
rubric. In 2010, faculty response rate
increased to 83%. The goal for 2011
will be 100%.
Achievement Target: Greater than 80%
of students will earn ratings ≥ 4 (1-5
scale) in the knowledge and content
category on evaluation rubric.
Department-administered Senior Exit
Survey: At the end of the senior year
all graduates complete a senior exit
survey.
Met. The 2010 survey results showed
100% of students rated breadth and
depth of knowledge acquired ≥4.
Note: this represents an increase over
2009 when 75% of students rated ≥4 in
this category.
An action item was established for
academic year 2009-2010 for faculty
discussion to achieve greater depth and
breadth of knowledge gained; faculty
worked to improve course offerings.
Achievement Target: More than 80% of
students will give a rating of ≥ 4 (1-5
scale) on question: rate the breadth of
knowledge you feel you acquired
through the major.
An EOS major will develop skills of
data collection, analysis,
interpretation.
Rubric scored evaluation of
independent research: All research
papers completed in RIS courses will be
Not met. In 2010, 71% of students
earned scores > 4 in categories of
approach and presentation on
In Fall 2010, the EOS faculty will discuss
ways to improve skills of data
collection, analysis and interpretation.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
scored using a standard rubric.
Achievement Target: More than 80% of
students will earn ≥ 4 (1-5 scale) ratings
in category of approach (data
collection, analysis, interpretation).
Department-administered Senior Exit
Survey: At the end of the senior year all
graduates complete a senior exit
survey.
81
independent study rubric.
Met. In 2010, 100% of students rated
their acquisition of data collection,
analysis and interpretation skills ≥4.
This represents an increase over 2009
results of 87%.
While the target was met in terms of
the indirect measure, as noted, the
direct measure indicated that the
target was not met. The department
will discuss this discrepancy and ways
to address it in the up-coming cycle.
Achievement Target: More than 80% of
students will rate their acquisition of
data collection, analysis and
interpretation skills ≥4.
Economics
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
An Economics major will demonstrate
that they have an understanding of
basic Microeconomic and
Macroeconomic concepts.
Honors Thesis Assessment: With
funding from the Teagle and Spencer
Foundations, the department has
developed an Economics Thesis
Assessment Protocol. This rubric has
been created to assess the quality of
the writing of Economics honors theses
from 2001 to 2009. The theses were deidentified so that the raters did not
know the name of the student, the
name of the advisor, or the year in
which it was completed. The inter-rater
reliability measure was 82%
Achievement Target: Current honors
theses will show significant
Met. Since the 2005 curriculum change
and beginning of the research initiative,
there has been a 193% increase in the
number of honors theses written by
undergraduate economics majors.
Moreover, the increase in quantity has
not come at the expense of quality.
Since 2005 the department has
measured a 5.1% increase in the
average rubric score. Moreover, the
variance in scores has been decreasing.
This summer the department will
continue to oversee the training of
Economics graduate students to assess
the theses of the 44 students who
completed 2010 honors theses. Also,
evaluators will continue to collect
honor thesis for the coming 2010-2011
year.
The Office of Assessment has been able
to do data analysis on student traits
and thesis outcomes. Controlling for
2010 findings will be presented to the
faculty for consideration, including a
discussion of additional or more
focused Honors workshops.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
improvement over past theses in all
applicable student learning outcome
areas: communication, application/use
of statistics and base knowledge.
An Economics major will demonstrate
the attainment of critical thinking skills
by applying economic theory via the
appropriate tools to real world
applications and issues.
The Collegiate Learning Assessment:
Two cohorts of Economics majors took
a subsection (focused on an economics
issue) of the Collegiate Learning
Assessment test in the second semester
of their sophomore year or the first
semester of their junior year and then
again in the spring of their senior year.
The department then compared the
change in CLA results for Economics
Majors who took a research workshop
relative to the change for those who
did not.
Achievement Target:
It was expected that students taking
the workshops and those not taking the
workshop would show differential
movement pre-test to post-test.
82
student characteristics (gender,
ethnicity, grade in freshman writing
course, total Duke University credits,
SAT Math, SAT Verbal, high school
curriculum and admissions essay), it
finds a positive and statistically
significant (at 5% CI) relationship
between attending a Research
Workshop and the Rubric Score of the
student’s honors thesis (coeff. 2.26).
When it does a stepwise regression, the
Office of Assessment finds a similar
result with a 2.3 coefficient on
attending a Research Workshop,
significant at the 3% Confidence
Interval.
Met. There was no significant
difference between groups in mean
CLA-Pre scores. Both groups
demonstrated an increase in mean CLA
scores over time and the difference
between groups in mean CLA-Post
scores was significant (p.<.01). The gain
in scores by those who participated in a
workshop (122 points) was 8 times as
large as the gain by those who did not
participate in a workshop (15 points)
with the difference approaching
statistical significance even with the
relatively small sample size.
As a second way to assess critical
thinking, the department will focus on
the scoring and evaluation of honors
theses to corroborate findings
regarding critical thinking.
The Honors Theses Workshop project,
launched by the Teagle-Spencer
project, has been institutionalized, and
results will be presented at national
meetings (AAC&U, November 2010).
Education (minor only)
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
83
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
An Education minor will demonstrate
the appreciation of the needs of
diverse learners and model the
behaviors of culturally responsive
teachers.
Rubric Scored Written Reflections: In
EDUC 100 and EDUC 118 students
respond in writing to reflective prompts
that require critical examination the
needs of diverse learners.
Students’ written reflections were
evaluated using a rubric that delineates
four proficiency levels: Emerging,
Developing, Proficient, Accomplished.
Achievement Target: 85% of students
will be at the Proficient level or above.
Partially Met. Students responses to
this prompt were analyzed using the
Cultural Responsiveness indicator in the
four level rubric The average of
students' responses was 3.1 with 81%
of undergraduates being at the
Proficient or above level.
An Education minor will develop the
ability to critically reflect in a manner
that facilitates his or her growth and
development as a teacher.
Rubric Scored Written Reflections.
Students are required to respond in
writing to reflective prompts that
require critical self-examination of
professional growth and development.
Students’ written reflections are
evaluated using a rubric that delineates
four proficiency levels: Emerging,
Developing, Proficient, Accomplished.
Achievement Target: 85% of students
will be at the Proficient level.
Met. All tutoring reflections were read
by multiple readers. Evaluation of the
portfolio reflections were discussed by
faculty members. The average score on
the Critical Reflection indicator of the
tutoring portfolio rubric was 3.3 with
86% of students scoring at the
Proficient level or above.
The department will introduce into the
curriculum content related to the
understanding of diversity and cultural
responsive teaching earlier in the
semester than has been typical.
EDUC 100 and EDUC 118 faculty will
meet before the beginning of the fall
semester to discuss readings and
reflection assignments designed to
increase undergraduate understanding
of diversity and cultural responsive
teaching.
Despite having met the target on this
outcome, Program in Education faculty
members realized that there were still
opportunities to enhance
undergraduate’s ability to critically
reflect. As a part of the tutoring
orientation/training conducted each
year, additional instructional
activities/seminars will be held to foster
the development of critical
thinking/reflecting in undergraduate
students. Students will be given sample
reflections and asked to evaluate them
using the Cultural Responsiveness
indicator within the four level rubric.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
An English major will demonstrate a
reflective and critical awareness of the
variety of methodologies used to study
literature and related cultural artifacts.
College Wide Student Course
Evaluation Data: The department will
use student course evaluation data for
items aligned with its student learning
Partially met. The 2010 mean
departmental ratings for items 15, 17,
and 18 were 4.24, 3.95, and 4.10
respectively. The College mean ratings
The department will continue to
monitor data for the next three years to
establish an appropriate baseline for
future assessment; it will subsequently
English
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
An English major will demonstrate a
comprehensive knowledge of the
variety of literature written in English
in diverse time periods and national
locations, as well as an in-depth
knowledge of one mode of literature,
one period, or one national tradition
at greater length.
84
objectives. It compares the mean
ratings of major courses to the overall
College means.
Achievement Target: The departmental
mean ratings will be greater than the
College mean ratings on the following
items:
15- learning to analyze ideas,
arguments, and points of view
17- learning to conduct inquiry through
the methods of the field
18- learning to evaluate the merits of
ideas and competing claims
for the same items are 4.06, 3.92 and
3.96 respectively.
University Administered Senior Exit
Survey: The University administers an
exit survey to all graduating seniors.
This same survey is administered to a
consortium of peer institutions. The
data are reported in a way that the
department can compare the ratings of
gains made (on a scale form 'weaker
now' to 'much Stronger now') by
program graduates to the ratings of
gains made by graduates of peer
institutions.
Achievement Target:
More Duke English majors will report
being 'stronger' or 'much stronger' now
than will English majors from peer
institutions.
Not Met. Some 82.9% or Duke English
majors report being 'stronger' (46.3%)
or 'much stronger' (36.6%) in terms of
their depth of knowledge of the field.
For peer institutions, 91.6% of the
majors report being 'stronger' (51.9) or
'much stronger' (39.7%).
review this data every third year. It will
also explore direct.
The department will review this data at
the first 2010 fall faculty meeting. At
that time it will also discuss other
possible methodologies that will allow
for a more direct assessment of this
outcome. (student kept portfolio of
exemplary work to be sampled and
rubric scored, or some form of pre-post
program writing sample to be collected
at matriculation and graduation and
rubric scored). The department will
pilot one of these direct assessment
methods with the outgoing class of
2011.
The department will continue to
monitor this data to establish a sound
baseline for future assessment. In
addition, a faculty committee will be
formed to map the current curriculum
to help identify where and how the
breadth and depth of knowledge
should be gained. This committee will
report back to the full faculty in Spring
term 2011.
Environmental Sciences/Policy
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
85
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
An Environment major will develop
breadth and depth of understanding of
environmental science and/or social
science concepts and practices.
Rubric Scored Research Independent
Study: All research papers completed in
RIS courses will be scored using a
standard rubric.
Met. In 2010, more than 80% of
students earned a rating of ≥ 4 in the
knowledge category on independent
study evaluation rubric. The target was
also met in 2008 and 2009.
In 2009, an action item was established
to achieve greater faculty participation
in employing a standardized evaluation
rubric. In 2010, faculty response rate
increased to 83%. The goal for 2011
will be 100%.
Achievement Target: More than 80% of
students will earn ratings ≥ 4 (1-5 scale)
in the knowledge category on the
evaluation rubric.
Department-administered Senior Exit
Survey: At the end of the senior year all
graduates complete a senior exit
survey.
2010 survey results showed that 92% of
students rated knowledge of
environmental concepts acquired ≥4.
Note: this is a significant improvement
over the previous year's results of 59%.
An action item was established for
academic year 2009-2010 for faculty
discussion to achieve greater depth and
breadth of knowledge gained. The ENV
Education Committee and the Dean of
Academics worked to improve course
offerings.
Achievement Target: More than 80% of
students rate ≥ 4 (1-5 scale) on the
question: rate the breadth of
knowledge you feel you acquired
through the major.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
An Environment major will develop
skills of data collection, analysis,
interpretation and presentation.
Rubric scored Research Independent
Study: All research papers completed
in RIS courses will be scored using a
standard rubric.
Achievement Target: Greater than 80%
of students will earn ≥ 4 (1-5 scale)
ratings on categories of (a) Approach
(data collection, analysis,
interpretation) and (b) Presentation
(written and/or oral presentation of
data).
86
Met. In 2010, greater than 80% of
students earned scores > 4 in
categories of approach and
presentation on independent study
rubric.
Met. In 2010, 100% of students rated
their acquisition of data collection,
analysis and interpretation skills ≥4.
This represents an increase over 2009
results of 87%.
In Fall 2010, faculty will review findings
and discuss modifying this objective to
separate data analysis from
communication, possibly developing a
separate goal for written and oral
communication.
The department will discuss separate
evaluation of data analysis and
interpretation from data presentation
to focus on the latter.
Department-administered Senior Exit
Survey: At the end of the senior year all
graduates complete a senior exit
survey.
Achievement Target: Greater than 80%
of students will rate their acquisition of
data collection, analysis and
interpretation skills ≥4.
Evolutionary Anthropology
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
An Evolutionary Anthropology major
will master core knowledge, including
topics within evolutionary theory,
paleontology, morphology, and
Rubric Scored Honors Theses: One
third of graduating seniors conduct
research projects and write a detailed
senior thesis as part of the
Partially met. In 2009-2010, 100% of
students showed a level 2 or 3
(acceptable or excellent) mastery of
topic and mastery of appropriate
In 2010-2011, the department will
review and refine the assessment rubric
to more readily identify strengths and
weaknesses in the program. The
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
primate behavior and ecology.
An Evolutionary Anthropology major
will be able to effectively
communicate to others their
knowledge of humankind’s place in
nature.
department’s Graduation with
Distinction program. This large sample
provides an excellent resource to test
attainment of student learning
outcomes. Each thesis is read by a
faculty member not directly involved in
the research project, using a
assessment rubric on a scale of 1 to 3:
1) unsuccessful; 2) acceptable; 3)
successful/excellent. The rubric is be
based on the following student learning
outcomes: mastery of topic
(paleontology, morphology, primate
behavior/ecology, etc.) appropriate use
of scientific method (hypotheses,
predictions, appropriate methods for
projects, etc.); mastery of evolutionary
theory and processes associated with
evolution; critical thinking; application
of knowledge base; and effective
communication
Achievement target: 90% of students
will achieve a score of 2 or higher on
applicable student learning outcomes.
Rubric Scored Honors Theses: One
third of graduating seniors conduct
research projects and write a detailed
senior thesis as part of the
department’s Graduation with
Distinction program. This large sample
provides an excellent resource to test
attainment of student learning
outcomes. Each thesis is read by a
faculty member not directly involved in
the research project, using a
assessment rubric on a scale of 1 to 3:
1) unsuccessful; 2) acceptable; 3)
successful/ excellent. The rubric is be
87
methods. The department’s major
weak spot was integration of
evolutionary theory into their projects
with only 33% of students scoring a 2 or
3 on this goal.
annual report, based on these findings,
will be presented at a subsequent full
faculty meeting.
In addition, this information will be
used by the Director of Undergraduate
Studies and EvAnth Curriculum
Committees to refine the curriculum as
necessary: the department will work
with students to better inform them of
learning goals, incorporate more
emphasis on the importance of
evolutionary theory for any thesis
paper, and help them pose their
questions in light of the overall
framework of the discipline.
The assessment of student thesis
papers will be repeated every other
year.
Met. Some 88% of students showed a
level 2 or 3 on clear communication and
application of knowledge base.
In 2010-2011, the department will
review and refine the assessment rubric
to more readily identify strengths and
weaknesses in the program. The
annual report, based on these findings,
will be presented at a subsequent full
faculty meeting.
This information will be used by the
DUS and EvAnth Curriculum
Committees to refine the curriculum as
necessary: the department anticipates
the inclusion of more writing elements
in key courses.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
88
based on the following student learning
outcomes: mastery of topic
(paleontology, morphology, primate
behavior/ecology, etc.) appropriate use
of scientific method (hypotheses,
predictions, appropriate methods for
projects, etc.); mastery of evolutionary
theory and processes associated with
evolution; critical thinking; application
of knowledge base; and effective
communication
Achievement Target: 90% of students
will achieve a score of 2 or higher on
applicable student learning outcomes.
The assessment of student thesis
papers will be repeated every other
year.
Germanic Languages and Literature
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A German major will demonstrate the
ability to engage in conversations,
orally and in writing, on topics of
personal and public interest.
University Administered Senior Exit
Survey: The department reviews the
exit survey data to determine progress
on student learning outcomes and
comparison with data from peer
institutions. This data will allow the
department to follow trends and track
the impact of alterations and or
additions to its pedagogy.
Achievement Target: More Duke
German majors will report being
'stronger' or much stronger' in terms of
language development than will majors
at peer institutions.
Not Met. Some 75% of 2010 Duke
majors report being either 'stronger'
(25%) or 'much stronger' (50%) now in
terms of their language ability by virtue
of completing the major. Some 97% of
peer institute majors report being
'stronger' (14.7%) or 'much stronger'
(82.4%) now.
Although the department appears to
have fallen short of the achievement
target, it may be for a reason unrelated
to actual student growth; rather, it may
be that majors come in with some base
knowledge of the language and so may
not have as far to 'grow' as do their
peers from other institutions. The
department will reassess expectations
and institute a more direct form of
measurement (such as an oral
proficiency interview requirement for
all majors. Steps will be discussed at the
departmental retreat in early fall 2010.
The department would also like to
encourage all majors to complete
coursework in the immersive Duke-in-
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
A German major will demonstrate
knowledge and understanding of some
of the major intellectual, cultural,
historical, social, and political
traditions.
University Administered Senior Exit
Survey: The department reviews exit
survey data in relation to progress on
student learning outcomes and
comparison data from peer institutions.
Achievement Target:
More Duke German majors will report
being 'stronger' or 'much stronger' than
majors from peer institutions on the
following survey items:
Ability to Synthesize knowledge
Ability to apply quantitative methods
knowledge of historical perspective
understanding of social issues
89
Partially Met. 100% of Duke German
majors report being 'stronger' (50%) or
'much stronger' (50%) now in terms of
their ability to synthesize knowledge.
100% of peer institutions’ German
majors report being 'stronger' now.
75% of Duke German majors report
being 'stronger' now in terms of their
ability to apply quantitative methods.
40% of peer institutions’ German
majors report being 'stronger' now.
Berlin program which should serve to
strengthen student language skills
As noted above, the department will
review data, reassess expectations, and
implement a more direct form of
measurement. Strategies will be
discussed at the departmental retreat
in early fall 2010. The department will
also seek to offer a greater diversity of
upper level courses taught in German.
For next year, DUS will introduce a
course on German politics and political
theory for students with a background
in history, political science, and
philosophy.
50% of Duke German majors report
being 'stronger' (25%) or 'much
stronger' (25%) now in terms of their
knowledge of historical perspective.
80% of peer institutions’ German
majors report being 'stronger'(48%) or
'much stronger' (32%) now.
100% of Duke German majors report
being 'stronger' (33.3%) or 'much
stronger' (67.7%) now in terms of their
understanding of social issues. 80% of
peer institutions’ German majors report
being 'stronger' (44%) or ''much
stronger' (36%) now.
History
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A History major will be able to identify
multiple causes of events and
historical processes, and will be able to
Rubric Scored Honors Theses
The department expects 20-25% of
majors to complete Honors thesis that
Partially met. The department found
that the average score was 7.5 (two
theses pulled down the average but
The department will work to reword
the assessment tool for outcome 3
(research development/analytic
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
90
describe and analyze historical
contexts of events, ideas and/or social
and cultural practices.
will be scored using a standard rubric.
Achievement Target: All thesis will
receive a score of 10 (2 points in each
of 5 areas).
there was need for a more
discriminating wording for rubric 3).
reasoning) to reflect a more
appropriate standard that the
department wished to apply.
A History major will be able to frame
research questions in the context of
existing scholarly literature.
Rubric Comparing Sophomore
Gateway Courses and Senior
Capstones: 20% of each were
randomly sampled and scored using a
standard rubric.
Not Met. Students’ products
demonstrated weakness in two areas:
methodological position and framing
their research in the context of existing
scholarship.
The department has changed the major
to require a gateway research seminar
as soon as or shortly before students
declare the major, as well as a capstone
research seminar in the senior year (to
be fully implemented in five years). The
department will alternately assess
sophomore gateway and senior theses
to show individual progress over time.
Achievement Target: The department
expected to see improvement over
time in all scored areas of the papers
International Comparative Studies
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
An ICS major will demonstrate a
familiarity with key terms in the study
of identity and globalization.
Rubric Scored Senior Thesis:
All senior honors theses will be scored
according to a rubric, evaluating the
thesis in terms of student learning
outcomes.
Met. Findings for questions two, three,
and six for the thesis class for 20092010 are:
The topic will be taken up and included
in the assessment report at the faculty
retreat in 8/2010 and faculty will
discuss strategies to enhance the
rubric. The department will continue to
Question Two (Writing Skills, Syntax,
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
91
Achievement Target: For items specific
to this outcome, 60% of students will
score 4.5/5 or better on items two,
three, and six of the thesis grading
rubric.
Rubric Scored Senior Thesis
All senior honors theses will be scored
according to a rubric, evaluating the
thesis in terms of student learning
outcomes.
Achievement Target:
For rubric items specific to this
outcome (4,6,7), 60% of students will
score 4.5/5.
Vocabulary, etc): 9/14 (64%) students
received a 4.5/5 or better
Question Three (Includes Theoretical
Language/Reference): 9/14 (64%)
received a 4.5/5 or better.
Met. Scores for rubric items specific to
this outcome were:
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A Linguistics major will develop a
comprehensive intellectual foundation
in the discipline of linguistics through
the study of theory courses presented
from a variety of perspectives,
including historical, comparative,
structural, generative, semiotic,
sociolinguistics and cognitive
neurolinguistics.
Committee Evaluation of Honors
Projects: Honors theses are assessed by
a team of 3 faculty members, including
the thesis director and two other
invited members. The department has
developed a SLO-based standardized
rubric:
Met. In the2010 Graduation class 60%
of majors wrote and successfully
defended a Linguistics honors thesis.
Within this 60%, the rating of the
honors projects resulted in 66%
achieving highest distinction and 33%
achieving high distinction. An ancillary
finding of interest was that the number
of honors students decreased by 15%
from the previous year, dropping the
program below the number it had
consistently targeted (70%).
The program will discuss the decrease
in honors students and an action plan
at its Fall 2010 retreat, targeting an
increase of 10% over the next three
years.
An ICS major will demonstrate an
ability to think comparatively about
issues of globalization and identity and
how they apply to his or her area of
study.
1) 86 % scored a 4.5/5 or better on
rubric category 4
2) 79% scored a 4.5/5 or better on
rubric category 6
3 71% scored a 4.5.5 as an average of
scores on all rubric categories
compile data for two years to establish
a baseline.
The department will continue to
monitor this data as a baseline and
discuss the possibility of elevating
achievement target.
Linguistics
1. All projects must use primary
sources in more than one language.
2. Each honors thesis project must
demonstrate original contribution to
ongoing research, including a unique
synthesis of theoretical perspectives,
and appropriate application of
empirical methods.
Achievement Target: The department
seeks a minimum of 70% or students
who submit Honors to attain a score
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
A Linguistics major will develop
competence in the evaluation and
continuance of research in theoretical
linguistics.
equivalent of High or Highest
distinction.
Student Course Evaluations on
Learning Gains Made: The program
utilizes college-wide self-report
instruments Student course evaluation
system (SCE) The SCE data allow for
comparison of learning gains made in
the program to like programs at the
college level.
Achievement: The mean ratings should
exceed those of the College.
92
Met. Review of the goal-specific items
from the departmental SCE report in
comparison to the overall Trinity
College reports reveals that Linguisticsdesignated courses are evaluated by
students to be very useful in furthering
their attainment of the ability to
conduct inquiry (4.14 for LIN versus
3.97 for the college), analyzing ideas
and competing points of view (4.26 for
LIN versus 4.10 for the college), and
synthesizing knowledge (4.28 for LIN
versus 4.16 for the college).
The program will continue to
systematically consider the data
collected to date through the SCE
during the new assessment to examine
individual categories of particular
relevance to the program and to
develop a course of action to further
improve the impact of the academic
major in Linguistics.
This information will be presented to
the full faculty at the first 2010 faculty
meeting. A discussion of the
implications of the findings and any
response that needs to be taken will
take place. The program will decide
whether or not to move on to the
assessment of a different outcome in
the coming year or if faculty and staff
should continue to track this outcome
for one more year.
Literature
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A Literature major will be able to
interrogate the foundations of
arguments and question assumptions.
Course Evaluation Data
The department uses the mean values
of evaluation items related to specific
departmental student learning
outcomes and compare those means to
College level means.
Achievement Target: The program has
determined that ratings on items 15
and 18 will be equal to or better than
averages for Trinity college.
Met. For item 15 “analyzing ideas and
points of view,” the departmental
mean rating was 4.30, while the Trinity
mean rating was 4.10. For item 18
“evaluating the merits of ideas,” the
departmental mean was 4.07, while the
Trinity College mean was 4.0.
The department will discuss
implementing a more robust
assessment of this outcome to possibly
include an essay in the introductory
Theory Today course to be compared to
a senior essay that would be a
reworking of that essay. The senior
essay would be part of a senior
capstone course. In concert with the
essay development, the department
will develop a scoring rubric for these
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
A Literature major will develop the
skills necessary to analyze cultural
processes, using one or more methods
of analysis.
93
essays. .
The department will assess whether the
questions associated with the three
sets of goals and outcomes are
accurate indicators of student learning.
In the coming year, it will consider the
possibility of supplementary questions
to assess these goals and outcomes and
alternately the department will explore
the possibility that they cannot be
adequately assessed by a survey
method.
Course Evaluation Data
The department uses the mean values
of evaluation items related to specific
departmental student learning
outcomes and compare those means to
College level means.
Achievement Target: The program has
determined that ratings on items 14
and 16 will be equal to or better than
averages for Trinity college.
Not Met. For item 14 “applying
concepts,” the departmental mean
rating was 3.98, while the Trinity mean
rating was 4.20. For item 16
“synthesizing knowledge” the program
mean was 4.13m, while the Trinity
College mean was 4.16.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A Math major will be able to
communicate mathematical concepts
and reasoning effectively and be able
to write rigorous proofs.
Pre and Post Proof writing: Students
are given a short quiz near the
beginning of the term in which they are
asked to provide rigorous proofs of
relatively simple statements. A copy of
the students’ solutions are kept and the
same question is asked again on the
final exam. A comparison of their
proofs provides a measure of how
much progress in this area the students
have made.
Achievement Target: Every student in
Math 121 should be able to write a
correct proof of the prescribed problem
by the end of the course.
Term long Iterative feedback proof: In
Math 139 (required course for the
major), each student completes one or
more long (proof-) writing assignments,
consisting of a difficult theorem, broken
down into small steps, and meets with
Partially met. In Spring 2010, the
average score on the pre-teat was 42%,
while on the final exam, the average
score was 78% and all but three
students had produced acceptable
solutions. The great improvement in
the students' performance
demonstrates that most of them had
learned to formulate and write careful
proofs. This measure also demonstrates
the development of logical skills.
The department, and in particular the
instructors of Math 121 and 200, will
monitor the progress of students
toward the capability of writing
completely precise proofs of relatively
short and simple mathematical
statements. The results will be
reviewed by the Undergraduate Affairs
Committee.
Partially met: In 2010, the median score
on the first submission was 44 out of
60, while the median score on the final
submission rose to 54 out of 60.
Building on their previous skills, with
the individualized instruction they
The department will regularly review
students' achievement in constructing
clear, well written mathematical proofs
with complex logical structure as in
epsilon-delta proofs.
Mathematics
A Math major will have the ability see
connections between mathematical
notions and applications, to formulate
precise and relevant mathematical
statements and questions, and to find
valid means of resolving those
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
questions.
94
the instruction on an ongoing basis to
review progress and receive feedback.
Achievement Target: All students in
Math 139 will be able to write an
extensive, clearly expressed proof in
analysis.
received, students were generally
successful with this project,
exemplifying heir progress in logical
thinking and mathematical writing.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A Med Ren major will develop a crossdisciplinary breadth of knowledge.
Student Course Evaluations: The
program will use College-wide
administered student course evaluation
data on items 11(attaining factual
knowledge), 12 (application of
fundamental concepts), and 18
(evaluating the merits of ideas and
competing claims) to measure progress
toward achieving student learning
outcomes
Achievement Target. Program mean
ratings on items 11, 12, and 18 will be
at or above the College mean ratings.
Met. The Med Ren program mean for
items 11, 12, and 18 are 4.33, 4.25, and
4.14, respectively, while the College
means are 4.21, 4.21, and 3.96.
A Med Ren major will be able to
identify, interpret, and analyze
primary and secondary sources
relevant to research topics.
Student Course Evaluations:
The program will use College-wide
administered student course evaluation
data on items 14 (applying concepts),
15 (analyzing ideas and alternate points
of view), 16 (synthesizing knowledge)
and 18 (evaluating the merits of ideas
and competing claims) to measure
progress toward achieving student
learning outcomes
Achievement Target. Program mean
ratings on items 14, 15, 16, and 18 will
be at or above the College mean
Partially Met. The Med Ren program
mean for items 14, 15, 16 and 18 are
4.12, 4.26, 4.25, and 4.14, respectively,
while the College means are 4.17, 4.05,
4.14, and 3.96.
The program will develop a more direct
assessment of knowledge attainment.
It will administer to incoming majors a
short entrance interview to assess
expectations and. Included in the
interview will be a two -minute writing
prompt, designed to assess each
student’s current level of knowledge.
The same writing prompt, which is
rubric-scored, will be administered to
all graduating seniors at the end of
their academic career to allow for a
pre/post comparison of knowledge
attainment.
The faculty will institute a major exit
interview in weeks ten, eleven or
twelve of students’ final semester. The
interview will cover students’
experience in the major in relation to
student learning outcomes, program
objectives, quality of coursework, and
advising. The program will continue to
monitor course evaluation data to
establish an appropriate baseline for
future comparison.
Medieval and Renaissance Studies
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
95
ratings.
Music
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A Music major will demonstrate the
ability to write critical essays on music
of various periods and styles, including
criticism of performances.
University-administered Senior Exit
Survey: The department uses pertinent
items from the senior survey in which
students relate how much stronger
they are now by virtue of completing
the major. The survey also supplies
comparative data from a consortium of
peer schools.
Achievement Target:
More Duke Music majors will report
being 'stronger' or 'much stronger' now
than will majors from peer institutions
on items related to the ability to write
effectively and demonstrate original
ideas.
Met. For the item related to the ability
to write effectively, 100% of Duke
majors report being either 'stronger'
(33.3) or 'much stronger' (66.7%) at
graduation. For peer majors, 83.4%
report being 'stronger' (43.1%) or
'much stronger' (40.3%) at graduation.
The department will continue to
monitor this data and discuss it at a fall
2010 faculty meeting. The department
will continue to work with the Office of
Assessment to refine its student
learning outcomes and align them with
direct assessment activities currently
being used.
Student Course Evaluations: College
Wide Student Course Evaluation Data:
The department will use student course
evaluation data for items aligned with
its student learning objectives. It
compares the mean ratings of major
courses to the overall College means.
Achievement Target: The departmental
mean ratings will be greater than the
College mean ratings on the following
items:
14 – applying concepts
15- learning to analyze ideas,
arguments, and points of view
16- synthesizing knowledge
Not met. The 2010 mean departmental
ratings for items 14, 15, and 16 were
4.02, 3.79, and 4.0 respectively. The
College mean ratings for the same
items are 4.17, 4.05 and 4.13.
A Music major will demonstrate the
ability to analyze musical scores in
detail.
For the item related to the ability to
demonstrate or formulate original
ideas, 100% of Duke majors report
being 'much stronger' at graduation.
Peer majors report that 86.1% report
being 'stronger' (50%) or 'much
stronger' (36.1%) at graduation.
As noted above, the department will
continue to monitor this data and
discuss it at a fall 2010 faculty meeting.
The department will continue to work
with the Office of Assessment to refine
its student learning outcomes and align
them with direct assessment activities
currently being used.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
96
Neuroscience
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A Neuroscience major will
demonstrate an understanding of
critical natural science and
psychological principles that underlie
brain function.
To be determined.
To be determined.
The Neuroscience major is in the
process of being fully implemented.
The co-Directors of
Undergraduate Study have met with
the Director of the Office of Assessment
to clarify student learning outcomes
and associated measures, both direct
and indirect. Implementation of
assessment activities will begin in
earnest in Fall 2010. The Steering
Committee for this interdepartmental
major will discuss proposed learning
outcomes and measures such as
Student Course Evaluation Data, senior
exit interviews, and student electronic
research portfolios.
A Neuroscience major will
demonstrate an understanding of
experimental methodology, design and
data analysis.
To be determined.
To be Determined...
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A Philosophy major will demonstrate a
basic competence in deductive logic
and a basic knowledge of inductive
and scientific reasoning.
Pre/post Multiple choice test of
knowledge mastery. In spring 2010,
the department administered a
multiple choice test to measure
pre/post competences in requisite
student learning areas. This test was
given on voluntary basis to all students
in introductory courses and to all senior
philosophy majors.
Partially Met. Initial analysis has shown
substantial differences in some areas,
but introductory students also scored
well on some questions related to this
specific outcome.
The department will continue to finetune the instrument in future
iterations. For example, it anticipates
increasing the number of questions and
adding some sections that more
directly test for the outcomes of logical
thinking, effective writing and critical
analysis. The instrument will be
subjected to continual modification in
Philosophy
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
A Philosophy major will demonstrate
the ability to write careful sustained
critical papers.
Achievement Target:
Significant improvement in average
scores on each component (history of
philosophy, logic, contemporary
philosophical issues) between students
in introductory courses and graduating
majors.
Student Course Evaluation Data:
The department will use comparative
data gathered from the Office of
Assessment in regard to evaluation of
progress made by students on the
learning outcomes of interest,
specifically item 20 (Writing Skills).
Achievement Target: The mean rating
for item 20 (writing skills) will be equal
to or greater for students in highest
level major courses than in introductory
courses.
97
future iterations to enhance the
effectiveness. The department will
explore forming a faculty committee to
address the implementation of a multistage process, beginning in the fall of
2010.
Unknown. Currently, the department
only has overall program means (3.85)
and College mean (3.89). In Fall 2010,
the department will request from the
Office of Assessment to supply the
requisite analysis.
The department will develop a rubric to
score honors theses in concert with the
current DUS assessment of writing
quality of honors theses. This
assessment of writing quality will be
reported to full faculty in Fall 2010, and
the faculty will discuss means and best
practices techniques for improvement
of writing. The department will also
offer a thesis seminar each fall and
spring for distinction, initially to be
taught by a graduate instructor.
Physics
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A Physics major will develop a deep
physics foundation, including
knowledge of the core concepts of
classical mechanics, electromagnetism,
quantum mechanics, and thermal
physics.
Student Course Evaluations. The
department regularly gathers
information from students using Duke's
standard Teacher/Course Evaluations in
order to monitor the extent to which
the student learning objectives are
being met.
Achievement Target: the departmental
mean rating should meet the minimum
target:
Q12: Gaining factual knowledge – 4/5
Q13: Understanding fundamental
concepts and principles – 4/5
Q14: Learning to apply knowledge,
Met. The mean departmental rating for
items 12 was 4.30, item 13 was 4.39,
and item 14 was 4.35.
The departmental curriculum
committee will continue to monitor
data and report to the chair and the
faculty annually about whether student
learning outcomes are being met. In
addition, the department plans to
institute senior exit surveys as well as
alumni surveys. The curriculum
committee will also obtain information
from faculty in Engineering and Life
sciences about MCAT scores on
sections relevant to physics knowledge.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
A Physics major will demonstrate the
ability to conduct scientific
investigations that demonstrate
independent critical thinking and
communication skills.
concepts, principles, or theories to a
specific situation or problem – 4/5.
Department Administered Senior Exit
Survey: The curriculum committee
regularly gathers information using exit
surveys taken by graduating physics
majors.
98
Not met. Students reported a lack of
necessary preparation to perform
independent research.
The department introduced Physics
115, a research skills course that
teaches basic skills and enhances
students’ research skills and abilities to
write quality senior theses. In concert
with this, the department plans to
introduce the use of student portfolios
to collect samples of student research
to develop a more direct measure of
skill attainment.
Achievement Target: All physics majors
will report having adequate research
skills to perform independent research
in their junior and senior years.
Political Science
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A Political Science major will
demonstrate an understanding of
social science methodologies.
Required Methods Course (PS 102)
Pre-post Student Attitude Survey: In
2007 the department established a
two-course methods sequence for
majors: PS 102 (required of all majors)
and PS 138 (recommended for
Honors/Independent Research). This
year 50 students responded to the
pre/post-survey.
Achievement Target: The department
expected to see student perception of
PS 102 as well integrated in to the
curriculum and as supplying them with
useful tools as they moved forward in
the major.
Not Met. The main findings from the
survey are that students were
unprepared for the material, did not
fully understand the relationship of
research methods to their other
courses in political science and were
uncertain of the benefit of the course
after completing it.
The Undergraduate Affairs Committee
will work on this issue this summer with
three specific goals:
1) Examine the relationship
between research design and
other political science courses.
2) Re-visit discussions with the
Statistics department about
the development of a course
for political science majors.
3) Examine the curricula of the
course as it is currently being
taught to see if it is meeting
the department’s current
student learning goals.
In addition, as a direct assessment of
the application of methods, the
department will institute Student
Research Portfolios which would
include honors thesis and develop
related scoring rubrics. At the end of
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
A Political Science major will
demonstrate mastery in effective
political writing.
99
Spring 2011 the department will
compare honors thesis done prior to
current program requirements with
those completed in 2011.
Although useful to a point, these data
are only an indirect measure of writing
skills. In 2010-2011 the department
will develop a direct assessment of the
effectiveness of Duke’s Political
Sciences majors’ political writing by
instituting required Student Writing
Portfolios and develop related scoring
rubrics. All portfolios will be read by
multiple faculty readers.
University Administered Senior Exit
Survey. Starting in Spring 2010 the
department reviewed
Data provided by the Office of
Institutional Research detailing how
much stronger seniors felt their writing
skills were as compared to when they
began. These perceived ratings are
given in comparison to the ratings given
by students majoring in political science
at a consortium of peer institutions.
Achievement Target: The department
expects the ratings given by Duke’s
majors to exceed those of the
department’s peer institutions.
Partially Met: 93% of Duke majors
report being either ‘stronger now’
(45.6%) or ‘much stronger now’ (47.4%)
in terms of their writing skills. Some
92.3% of the department’s peer
institutions’ majors report being either
‘stronger now’ (50.4%) or ‘much
stronger now’ (41.9%) in terms of their
writing skills. Although there is a slight
numerical advantage for Duke majors,
it is not a statistically significant
difference.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A Psychology major will demonstrate
the application of skills and core
knowledge in advance seminars and
independent study experiences.
Rubric Scored Honors Theses:
All thesis submitted for honors will be
scored using a standard rubric
emphasizing the programs student
learning outcomes.
Achievement Target: All theses
submitted for graduation with
distinction will have a mean score of
4.25 on rubric items 1, 2, 4, and 6.
Partially met. The mean scores for 1, 2,
4, and 6 for 2010 graduation with
distinction papers were 4.58, 4.76,
4.76, and 4.23, respectively.
1) Increase feedback on Discussion
section: Although Psychology was right
at the goal mean, it thinks that it is
worth paying more attention to this
section of the thesis.
2) Increased supervision
Mentors will increase supervision
through more meetings with students
during thesis preparation and help with
more extensive preparation in the
graduation with the distinction
seminar.
3) More iterative feedback
Psychology
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
100
Students will receive an increase in the
quantity and type of feedback on early
drafts.
The department will review the thesis
rubric in an upcoming faculty meeting
and continue to gather baseline data.
Self Reported Appraisal (End of Course
Evaluations: Items 12-18) The
department uses the mean values of
evaluation items related to specific
departmental student learning
outcomes and compare those means to
College level means.
Partially Met. On three of the seven
items of interest (Applying concepts,
Analyzing Ideas and Points of View, and
Synthesizing knowledge) the
department means were slightly lower
than the college means. On the other
four items of interest the department
means exceeded the college means.
The department will do a curriculum
map and see where students should be
getting these skills and look for ways to
improve. The department also and
continue to collect baseline
information.
Achievement Target: The department
should meet or exceed the College
mean.
A Psychology major will demonstrate
professional communication skills, in
the form of scientific writing, APA
style, and use of electronic data bases
The Rubric Scored Honors Thesis
See Learning Outcome measure above.
Achievement target: Papers submitted
for honors will receive a mean score of
4.25 or better on rubric items 5, 8, 9,
and 10.
Partially met. The mean scores on
rubric items 5, 8, 9, and 10 were 4.58,
4.65, 4.65, and 4.70, respectively.
However, according to results of the
holistic rubric item, only 30% of the
theses would be publishable with minor
revisions.
1) Increase feedback on Discussion
section: Although Psychology was right
at the goal mean, it thinks that it is
worth paying more attention to this
section of the thesis.
2) Increased supervision
Mentors will increase supervision
through more meetings with students
during thesis preparation and help with
more extensive preparation in the
graduation with the distinction
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
101
seminar.
3) More iterative feedback
Students will receive an increase in the
quantity and type of feedback on early
drafts.
The department will review the thesis
rubric in an upcoming faculty meeting
and continue to gather baseline data.
Student Course Evaluations on
Learning Gains Made:
Achievement Target: Mean program
ratings on items 19 and 20 will meet or
exceed College ratings.
Not Met.
Program means on items 19 and 20
(oral expression and writing skills) were
lower than the College means.
Students will receive and increase and
quantity and type of feedback on early
drafts. The department will do a
curriculum map to investigate where
students should attain these skills.
Public Policy Studies
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A PPS major will demonstrate the
ability to analyze and evaluate
contemporary public policy problems.
College Wide Student Course
Evaluation Data: The department will
use student course evaluation data for
items aligned with its student learning
objectives. It compares the mean
ratings of major courses to the overall
College means.
Achievement Target: The departmental
mean ratings will be greater than the
College mean ratings on the following
items:
14 – applying concepts
Met. The 2010 mean departmental
ratings for items 14, 15, and 16 were
4.4, 4.39, and 4.30 respectively. The
College mean ratings for the same
items are 4.17, 4.05, and 4.13.
In Fall 2010, the faculty of the Sanford
School of Public Policy will discuss these
data and determine the best direct
assessment methodology to
corroborate these data.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
A PPS major will demonstrate the
ability to write effectively about
contemporary policy-related issues
and issues in the academic discipline of
public policy studies
15- learning to analyze ideas,
arguments, and points of view
16- synthesizing knowledge
Post-Internship Essay:
Students complete a 5-page required
essay which asks them to evaluate their
internship experience in terms of their
coursework and the internship's policy
relevance.
Achievement Target:
80% of students will receive a rubric
designation of satisfactory or better on
the essay.
102
Met. In 2009-2010, the Internship
Coordinator collected and read the
essays to determine determines if they
met the satisfactory designation. For
the past year, 180 majors completed
the essay and the coordinator
determined the 12 of them needed
further work.
The Director of Undergraduate Studies
and the Internship Coordinator will
continue to collect and evaluate postinternship essays and work with the
Office of Assessment to refine the
rubric to more closely align it with
student learning outcomes.
Religion
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A Religion major will demonstrate
knowledge of the sacred texts, variety
of art, architecture, cultural artifacts,
literature, performance, and other
expressions of religion around the
globe and throughout history.
University Administered Senior Exit
Survey: The department uses pertinent
items from the senior survey in which
students relate how much stronger
they are now by virtue of completing
the major. The survey also supplies
comparative data from a consortium of
peer schools.
Achievement Target:
More Duke Religion majors will report
being 'stronger' or 'much stronger' now
than will majors from peer institutions
on items related to growth in the
development of depth and breadth of
knowledge.
Met. For the item related to growth in
the development of depth of
knowledge, 100% of Duke majors
report being either 'stronger' (44.6) or
'much stronger' (55.6%) at graduation.
Peer majors report that 96.1% report
being 'stronger' (47.1%) or 'much
stronger' (49%) at graduation.
For the item related to growth in the
development of breadth of knowledge,
100% of Duke majors report being
either 'stronger' (66.7) or 'much
stronger' (33.3%) at graduation. Peer
majors report that 86.5% report being
'stronger' (61.5%) or 'much stronger'
(25%) at graduation.
The department will monitor these data
for at least three years to establish a
good baseline for future comparisons.
This will also allow for year-to-year
within-department comparisons to
gauge the impact of any new
pedagogies. This data will be discussed
at a fall 2010 faculty meeting and
action plans will be developed
accordingly. In addition, the
department will discuss direct
measures to be implemented in the
coming year to corroborate these
indirect self-report findings (e.g.,
pre/post-knowledge test or an eportfolio of best work to be sampled
and rubric scored).
University Administered Senior Exit
Survey: The department uses pertinent
Met. For items pertaining to growth in
analytical thinking, 89.9% of the Duke
As noted above, the department will
monitor these data to establish a
A Religion major will demonstrate the
ability to think critically, discuss
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
intelligently, and write clearly about
religion in local and global perspective.
items from the senior survey in which
students relate how much stronger
they are now by virtue of completing
the major. The survey also supplies
comparative data from a consortium of
peer schools.
Achievement Target: More Duke
Religion majors will report being
'stronger' or 'much stronger' now than
will majors from peer institutions.
103
majors report being 'stronger' (55.6%)
or 'much stronger' (33.3%) now while
86.6% of peer institutions’ majors
report being 'stronger' (53.3%) or
'much stronger' (33.3%) now.
baseline for future comparisons. This
data will be discussed at a fall 2010
faculty meeting to develop an
appropriate action plan and a more
direct measure of student learning
outcomes.
For items pertaining to growth in
writing ability, 100% of the Duke majors
report being 'stronger' (50%) or 'much
stronger' (50%) now while 90.5% of
peer institutions’ majors report being
'stronger' (50.5%) or 'much stronger'
(40%) now.
For items pertaining to growth in oral
communication skills, 80% of the Duke
majors report being 'stronger' (60%) or
'much stronger' (20%) now while 76.7%
of peer institutions’ majors report being
'stronger' (60.2%) or 'much stronger'
(16.5%) now.
Romance Studies
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A Romance Studies major will
demonstrate the ability to responsibly
and positively engage cultural
difference, and the moral and ethical
challenges created by cultural
difference.
University Senior Exit Survey:
The department will use data from
pertinent items from the Senior Exit
survey to compare the responses of
Duke majors with the responses of
majors in the same field at a set of peer
institutions.
Achievement Target: More Duke
Romance Studies majors will report
being 'stronger' or 'much stronger' in
terms of ethical and moral
development than majors from peer
Met. Some 100% of Duke's Romance
Studies majors report being 'much
stronger' now in terms of ethical and
moral development, For Romance
Studies majors at the department’s
peer consortium schools 67.7% report
being 'stronger' (51.6%) or 'much
stronger' (16.1%).
The department will continue to
monitor this data to see if this pattern
persists. In addition it will assign a
committee of faculty to map the
curriculum and determine where these
skills are being developed. The
committee will report back to the full
faculty at the beginning of the Spring
2011 term.
In addition, the department will
introduce the use of electronic
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
schools.
104
portfolios that will include an audio or
video clip of a presentation in the
target language and one paper written
in the target language at the time the
major is declared and one paper at the
time of graduation (in the case of
honors students, this second paper will
be the honors thesis). The two papers
together will be used to gauge their
proficiency in writing and reading
development of their research and
writing skills, their critical thinking, their
knowledge of the canon, their
interpretive skills, and their ability to
express their enjoyment and their
understanding of an esthetic specific to
the cultures they are studying. The skill
with which students achieve all of the
above will contribute to the program’s
evaluation of students’ ethical
reasoning skills.
Each outcome will be evaluated with a
score of 0 (unsatisfactory). 1
(satisfactory), or 2 (excellent):
In the beginning of each fall term, the
Chair will designate faculty members in
the appropriate faculties serving majors
(French, Spanish and Italian) to tabulate
the rubric totals for a representative
sample from each major in the previous
graduating class, and report. The
success in attaining the department’s
goals will be determined after base-line
information from the previous
graduating glass has been gathered.
This information will serve as a guide
for faculty in developing and improving
the major.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
A Romance Studies major will
demonstrate the ability to analyze and
resolve unstructured problems.
105
College-Administered Student Course
Evaluation Data:
The department uses course evaluation
data in relation to specific learning
outcomes, allowing it to compare the
responses of majors regarding progress
made with those of the college overall
as well as specific sub-populations.
Achievement Target: The mean ratings
for the department will exceed the
mean rating for the College on the
following items:
17- “learning to conduct inquiry
through the methods of the field”
18- “learning to evaluate the merits of
ideas and competing claims.”
Not Met. The 2010 mean ratings for the
department on items 17 (conducting
inquiry with the methods of the field)
and 18 (evaluating merits of ideas) are
3.60 and 3.74 respectively. The means
for the college on those same items
were, 3.92 and 3.96 respectively.
The department will continue to
monitor this data to see if this pattern
persists. In addition it will assign a
committee of faculty to map the
curriculum and determine where these
skills are being developed. The
committee will report back to the full
faculty at the beginning of the Spring
2011 term.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A SES major will demonstrate the
ability to understand and critically
apply appropriate analytical
multidisciplinary methods for crosscultural comparative research for SES
the languages and cultures.
College Administered Course
Evaluations: data gathered via the SCE
on each of these courses is available via
summary reports from the Office of
Assessment, Trinity College. Items of
specific interest include Learning to
analyze ideas, arguments, and points of
view; Learning to integrate and
synthesize knowledge; Learning to
evaluate the merits of ideas and
competing claims and Developing
writing skills.
Met. The mean departmental ratings
for the SCE items of interest (15, 16, 18
and 20) are; 4.16, 4.14, 4.03 and 4.08
respectively. The college means for the
same items are 3.97, 4.05, 3.88 and
3.70 respectively.
The department is in the process of
completing development of a newly
devised scoring rubric for direct
assessment of goal-related outcomes.
The department will continue to
monitor Student Course Evaluation
Data and plans to use Senior Exit Survey
Data to corroborate these findings.
Slavic and Eurasian Studies
Achievement Target: The mean
departmental ratings should be at or
above the mean ratings for the overall
college.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
A SES major will acquire advancedlevel language proficiency in at least
one of the languages of interest:
Russian, Romanian, Polish and/or
Turkish.
106
Pre-post standardized proficiency test
administration: SES uses a combination
of placement, course-embedded
performance and proficiency testing for
students. Any student matriculating to
Duke with previous experience in the
SES languages are given a placement
pre-test. All language courses require
multiple performance tests throughout
each semester. Students at all levels
are offered the option to take the
official Russian language proficiency
test (TRKI), which is recognized and
certified by the Russian Federation.
TRKI is a double-rated battery of five
exams, requiring a tester and
anonymous rater. Since 2008, the
program has been doing proficiency
testing for the higher levels of Russian
for students who wish to participate.
They were also allowed to pick the level
for testing.
Achievement Target: The department
would like to see all students at least at
Level I TRKI, which is the equivalent of
ILR 2, which is considered to be the
expected outcome after 4 years of
college language instruction.
Met. 1. Undergraduates at RUS 64
Level: 9 of 11 did grammar exam; all
did simulated oral
The department will :
1: Continue to Monitor SCE data to
establish a firm baseline.
Findings: Scores for TRKI Level I were
85% passed 5 sections and 15% failed
(due to time limitation).
B. Oral simulation exam based on
Instructor Foreign Language Evaluation
used by the U.S. Department of
Education. Out of the 35 possible
points, the Russian 64 students easily
qualify for the first 14 points inclusive.
2: For the other less commonly taught
languages taught by SES, the
department has begun to work with
core faculty to develop a series of posttests to complement the existing pretests.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A Sociology major will demonstrate
the ability to think critically and
analytically.
Capstone Course Assignments
Measuring Mastery: All students in the
capstone course are required to
produce a final project. This project is
scored via a standard rubric.
Not Met. Of the projects scored at the
time of this report, 94% scored below
90%.
Not all projects have been scored, and
the department will continue to update
the report as more are scored. These
findings will be discussed at the first
departmental fall 2010 faculty meeting,
3. Implement the use of student
portfolios across the curriculum.
2. Undergraduates at RUS 196 Level: all
did grammar, reading, writing, listening
50% of the students also did speaking,
25% are graduating
Findings: Students selected TRKI I or II.
All students passed all aspects for
which they were tested (50% at Level I
and 50% at Level II).
Sociology
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
107
Achievement target: The department
expects at least 50% of majors to attain
a rubric score of 90%.
A Sociology major will demonstrate
the ability to examine social issues
from more than one theoretical
perspective.
University-Administered Senior Exit
Survey Data: In the Duke senior
survey, students are asked to evaluate
how they have changed since entering
college. For the item “Think analytically
and logically,” students are asked to
identify if they are weaker now, haven't
changed, stronger now, or much
stronger now.
Achievement Target: Duke Sociology
majors are more likely than majors at
peer institutions to indicate they are
‘stronger’ or ‘much stronger’ in their
ability to think analytically and logically.
Met. 100% of the departments’
graduating majors report either being
‘stronger’ (54.5%) or ‘much stronger’
(45.5%) in terms of their analytic
thinking. At peer schools, 95.4% of the
graduating majors report being
‘stronger’ (48.2%) or ‘much stronger’
(47.2%).
Grade in Required Course:
Students are required to successfully
complete a core course titled "Theory
and Society".
Achievement Target: Some 80% of
Sociology majors should earn a B or
higher in the required theory course.
Met. The distribution of course grades
for the graduating class of 2010 are
below:
A+ 12%
A 43%
A- 25%
B+ 8%
B 14%
The results for class of 2010 indicate
that 86% of majors earned a B+ or
above, exceeding the achievement
and suggestions will be gathered
concerning fit and veracity of scoring
rubric as well as the content of current
capstone courses. The department will
also discuss the comparison of the
students self report of critical thinking
skill attainment (See measure below)
and this direct assessment.
The department will continue to
monitor this data in the coming years
and through discussions with faculty,
advisors, and students to attempt to
reconcile the apparent disconnect
between actual performance and
perceived ability. Again, the
department seeks to insure the proper
alignment between assignment and
scoring rubric.
The department will continue to collect
this data and will discuss ways to
deconstruct the grade to associate
what aspect of the total grade is due
directly to attainment of the stated
student learning outcome. The
department will also compare this
measure’s outcome with the majors’
self reported attainment of this
outcome on the relevant Senior Exit
Survey items.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
University-Administered Senior Exit
Survey Data: In the Duke senior survey
students are asked to evaluate how
they have changed since entering
college. For the item of interest below
students are asked to identify if they
are weaker now, haven't changed,
stronger now, or much stronger now:
1. Identifying Social Problems.
2. Synthesizing Ideas
3. Ethically and Morally developed
Achievement Target: Duke’s sociology
majors are more likely than majors at
peer institutions to indicate they are
‘stronger’ or ‘much stronger’ in their
ability to think analytically and logically.
108
target of 80%.
Partially Met. Some 81.9% of the Duke
department’s graduating majors report
either being ‘stronger’ (45.5%) or ‘much
stronger’ (36.4%) in terms of Identifying
Social Problems. At peer schools,
94.0% of the graduating majors report
being ‘stronger’ (42.0%) or ‘much
stronger’ (52.8%).
Some 90.9% of the Duke graduating
Sociology majors report either being
‘stronger’ (63.6%) or ‘much stronger’
(27.3%) in terms of Synthesizing Ideas.
At peer schools, 92.7% of the
graduating majors report being
‘stronger’ (52.4%) or ‘much stronger’
(40.3%).
Some 90.9% of the Duke department’s
graduating majors report either being
‘stronger’ (72.7%) or ‘much stronger’
(18.2%) in terms of Ethical and Moral
Development. At peer schools, 79.4%
of the graduating majors report being
‘stronger’ (50.5%) or ‘much stronger’
(28.9%).
The department will discuss these
findings at its first Fall 2010 faculty
meeting with a focus on where it could
increase emphasis on Social Problem
Identification. The department also will
explore more direct ways to assess this
outcome.
Statistical Science
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A Statistics major will acquire
knowledge of a wide range of
methodologies and computing skills
related to the statistical science.
Department Scored Final
Exams/Projects: For each course the
final exams and/or final project will be
reviewed by a committee to determine
majors’ level of mastery in their five
goal areas (intellectual foundations,
core skills, research proficiency,
collaboration and communication skills,
Partially met. The achievement target
for intellectual foundations has been hit
for STA114 and STA122, but
modification is needed for STA121, and
STA104 has not been evaluated.
STA121 is deemed not sufficient,
because the final exam needs to better
assess students' mastery of the core
The Director of Undergraduate Studies
will meet with the 2010/2011 instructor
of STA121 to ensure better alignment
between test and content. The
department will explore how to collect
information from Stat 104.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
and development of professional
collaboration and communication skills,
and career preparation.
Each course and each of the five areas
(where relevant) will be evaluated on a
five point scale, with 1=“needs much
improvement,” 3=“adequate,” and 5=
“excellent"
109
content of the course.
STA104 is deemed not sufficient, only
because gathering of exams is very
difficult. This is a course typically taken
before students declare the major AND
many students take the course from
professors in the Math department.
1=Needs much improvement means
that the student has not mastered the
course objectives at a level adequate to
move to the next course
3=Adequate mastery means that the
student is ready for the subsequent
course, but there are some weaknesses
in the student’s preparation indicating
lack of mastery depth.
5= Excellent understanding means that
the student is ready to excel in the
subsequent class, and displays an ideal
depth of mastery.
A Statistics major will develop
Achievement Target: The learning
objectives of each course (STA104, 114,
121, and 122) will be deemed to be
adequately met when the following
hold: 1) No major in statistical science
scores below 3 in mastery of
intellectual foundations of a course,
and 2) intellectual mastery of each
course has an average across majors of
4 or higher..
Exit Interview: At the end of the
Partially met. Students were quite
The department is considering the
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
competence in the conducting of
research in statistical science.
110
student’s graduation year, the
department administers an exit
interview of majors addressing
interview will address advising, major
requirements, course quality, career
preparation and graduation plans,
quality of the research experience, and
honors.
Achievement Target: At least 90% of
students will report that their research
experience was valuable.
At least 90% of students will report that
they felt adequately prepared.
At least 25% will pursue an honors
thesis based on their research project.
satisfied with their research
experiences, with 100% reporting that
it was a valuable experience.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A Theater Studies major will have a
critical knowledge of how dramatic
texts work and the methods by which
those texts are realized in production.
Rubric Scored Portfolio Artifacts: A
two-part faculty review with a
culminating numeric rating is
administered prior to course
registration during the spring semester
of junior year and then again at the end
of the senior year. Faculty use a scoring
rubric based on each student learning
outcome: 0-2 (0=marginal/no
competence, 1= acceptable/ minimum
competence, 2=sophisticated/advanced
Met. In 2009-2010, 24 assessments
were submitted by faculty that had had
the rising junior majors in classes over
the past two years. This is for a total of
10 students. To derive a number for
the objective of "knowledge", the
department added the scores of the
assessments of written and
performance class work, for an average
combined score of 1.7; all student fell
between minimum competence and
Faculty will continue to meet with
major incoming students to discuss
initial assessment results, appropriate
courses for improvement, and progress
toward attainment of student learning
outcomes. The department is working
on the sequencing of courses so that it
can provide more advanced and upper
level courses and so there is more of a
progression through the major. The
current plan will be discussed at the
83% of students felt adequately
prepared.
0% pursued an honors thesis.
development of a repository of
research projects. It is also discussing
why no students pursued graduation
with distinction. Some possible reasons
are the GPA requirement, the demands
on Stat 190 professor’s interaction with
students to get projects to the honors
level, and advising.
Students reported that earlier training
in Matlab and Research would be
useful. They would like a follow-up
course to STA121 that taught more
advanced modeling. One student
requested more structure to STA190
(Research Project course). Several
expressed the desire for clearer
communication on what constitutes a
STA190 project and for the department
to keep a larger repository of projects,
so that students could peruse these
before selecting an advisor and project.
Theater Studies
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
111
competence.).
Achievement Target: At the time of the
senior assessment, all students will
score at the acceptable to advanced
level.
advanced competence.
Student Course Evaluation Data:
Item 20 on the SCE asks students to
rate gains made in their ability to
communicate in writing. Achievement
Target: Departmental average rating
should be 4.0 or better on the 1-5 scale.
Met. For Spring 2010, the Theater
Studies departmental average for this
category was 4.02, while the overall
Trinity College average was 3.89.
August 2010 retreat. The department is
creating a template for advisors to
cover key points of the major to
develop better communication about
policies, course sequencing, and areas
of specialization.
Theater Studies has recently changed
the major requirements to improve
students’ success in regard to their
learning outcomes. Assessment
strategies will continue to be
developed, refined, and adapted. The
new major will begin with the entering
class of 2012 and will include at least
one course in dramatic writing, acting,
directing, and design.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
A Women’s Studies Major will gain a
clear understanding of the major
movements of feminist thought and
related areas of the body of
knowledge making up the field of
Women’s Studies.
Student Portfolio: In the required
senior seminar, majors submit a
portfolio containing a meditative
statement demonstrating critical
thinking about the materials in the
portfolio indicating a theoretical intent;
a syllabus for a Women's Studies
course, a new or revised academic
paper that takes intellectual shape
around the issues covered; an oral
history; a performance piece, a media
project, or a critical travelogue.
The professor for the senior seminar
assessed all portfolios for gaps and
there were gaps. Gaps included
information that should have been
covered at an earlier point in course
sequence,
The pedagogy in the senior seminar
was modified to address consistent
gaps found in the student portfolios. s
A Theater Studies major will have
capacities in critical and creative
writing (for stage, screen, radio,
television and new media), acting
directing, and designing.
Women’s Studies
In addition, the faculty have reshaped
the curriculum both to cover the
fundamentals of the field and provide a
more coherent path through the major.
To provide the fundamental knowledge
for majors, Women’s Studies developed
a new gateway course for all majors,
“Foundational Theories of Sex and
Gender.”
Achievement Target: The portfolio was
meant to identify gaps in knowledge
which could be addressed in the senior
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
A Women’s Studies major will learn to
think critically in various disciplinary
traditions.
seminar to insure that students
acquired the requisite knowledge.
Faculty Assessment of Interdisciplinary
Skills: This entails the ratings of student
skills by experts in a variety of fields
and in interdisciplinary terms.
Achievement Target: All students will
receive a rating indicative of having
attained the goal.
112
Not met. Since faculty were from
different disciplinary training, there was
no way to assure comparably ratings of
student abilities and performance in
this area.
Taking into consideration these findings
and discussions held at a fall 2009
retreat, a curriculum mapping exercise
developed guidelines to assisting
faculty in tracking student progress in a
variety of fields and in interdisciplinary
terms. These included such things as:
grading techniques and priorities of all
faculty; the creation of unified
interdisciplinary units that foster
students' understanding of concepts,
ideas, and activities across many
subject areas; techniques to assist
students in finding "common threads"
of understanding between a specific
discipline and interdisciplinary.
In addition, the faculty have reshaped
the curriculum to provide instruction in
the rich interdisciplinary traditions of
Women’s Studies scholarship and its
emphasis on intersectional,
international, and transnational
approaches and perspectives.
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
113
Assessment Summary | UICs
Overview
The University Institutes and Centers (UICs) are the set of seven interdisciplinary institutes and their affiliated centers, which were established from the
University’s 2006 strategic plan Making a Difference. The UICs are university-wide units which report to the Provost and Vice Provost for
Interdisciplinary Studies. They are authorized to develop and administer educational programs, to include undergraduate majors, graduate degrees, and
certificates. Assessment plans are being built into all new UIC programs and activities, but, given how new the UICs and their programs are, they do not
have a history of full assessment loops.
Non-Accredited Degree Programs
Master of Science in Global Health: The MSc-GH degree is a full-time graduate level program that helps students gain a better understanding of the
diverse causes of and solutions to health problems from an interdisciplinary global perspective. Administered by the Duke Global Health Institute,
assessment of the MSc-GH degree is conducted primarily through review of course assignments and final grades, theses, and mentor evaluations, and
their relevance to the set of learning outcomes for the program. The degree program admitted its first class of students in academic year 2009-10, so
there are not yet data on program outcomes.
Learning outcomes and Program outcomes are reviewed twice annually by the MSc-GH curriculum committee and on an ongoing basis by the program
director, faculty teaching the core courses, and those leading each of the thematic block areas. The data below represents selected, rather than
comprehensive, evaluation activities.
Outcome
Measure & Target
Finding
Resultant Action
Understand a range of foundational
qualitative and quantitative approaches
to global health (GH) problems and be
prepared to increase knowledge and
skills of selected approaches after
completion of the degree program.
Course assignments and final grade,
thesis, mentor evaluation
13 of 16 (81%) students received grade
of B or above in GLHLTH 320 (Research
Methods I)
Developing a foundational online
resource for students whose
background in statistics is insufficient.
All fall 2010 incoming students will be
required to demonstrate knowledge of
module during orientation or in first
few weeks of fall semester.
90% of students will receive final grade
of B or above in GLHLTH 320 (Research
Methods I)
90% of students will receive a grade of
B or above in GLHLTH 321 (Research
Methods II)
15 of 16 (94%) students received grade
of B or above in GLHLTH 321 (Research
Methods II)
Students have not yet completed
research and theses. That component
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
Analyze epidemiological features of
disease and recommend appropriate
interventions.
Course assignments and final grade,
thesis, mentor evaluation
114
of assessment will be conducted after
research projects are submitted.
13 of 16 (81%) students received grade
of B or above in GLHLTH 320 (Research
Methods I)
90% of students will receive final grade
of B or above in GLHLTH 320 (Research
Methods I)
We are developing a foundational
online resource for students whose
background in statistics is insufficient.
One student failed GLHLTH 320. After
several conversations with faculty and
the Graduate School, the student
withdrew from the MSc-GH program
after the first semester.
As a result, we implemented a more
conservative approach to reviewing
student applications to the program to
ensure adequate preparation for the
curriculum.
Design and implement a research
project in a cross-cultural setting that
presents and analyzes data focusing on
health disparities, and present the
research findings orally and in writing.
Apply principles of cost‐effectiveness,
benefits and harms, and sustainability
of a new intervention designed to
improve global health.
Research proposal, thesis, mentor
evaluation, publication of research in
peer reviewed journals
15 of 15 (100%) students developed
research proposals that were approved
by faculty mentors
100% of students will submit research
proposals that are approved by faculty
mentor on first or second draft
Course assignments and final grade
90% of students will receive grade of B
or above in GLHLTH 340 (Health
Systems in Developing Countries) which
12 of 15 (80%) students received grade
of B or higher in GLHLTH 340 (Health
Systems in Developing Countries)
Target met.
Evaluation of research projects will not
be finalized until students submit
theses in fall 2010 or spring 2011.
We received anecdotal feedback from
faculty and written and oral feedback
from students that suggested
improvements for matching students
with mentors and clarifying
expectations of each. We are
formalizing policies and procedures for
the matching process and expectations
of students and mentors.
Based on student course evaluations,
focus groups, and conversations with
faculty member, we are considering
dividing this course into two courses –
one that would be the required core
Table may continue on to next page
Duke University SACS Report DRAFT V5 (11 August 2010)
115
covers principles of cost‐effectiveness,
benefits and harms, and sustainability
of a new intervention designed to
improve global health.
Discuss and apply concepts of
responsible conduct of research in
international and cross-cultural
settings, including IRB protocols of the
United States and the country in which
the student conducts fieldwork.
Course assignments and final grade
90% of students will receive grade of B
or above in GLHLTH 330 (Bioethics)
which covers responsible conduct of
research
14 of 15 (93%) students received grade
of B or above in GLHLTH 330 (Bioethics)
course and one that would be an
elective targeting students with
particular interest and background in
cost effectiveness, management, and
economics.
Target met.
The one student who received lower
than a B in the course ultimately
withdrew from the MSc-GH program
after the spring semester. As with the
other student who withdrew after the
fall semester, this experience resulted
in our implementing a more
conservative approach to review of
program applicants to ensure that we
admit only students who are
academically and personally prepared
to succeed.
Table may continue on to next page