Federal Student Loan Program Quantitative Implications for College by jolinmilioncherie

VIEWS: 1 PAGES: 179

									2010 COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
                     REPORT-REVISED

                             Donna Holland, Chair

                                  Yihao Deng

                                Debrah Huffman



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The report contains the results of the Arts and Sciences Assessment that includes
all degree-granting Departments and Programs in the College of Arts and Sciences.
After reviewing all submitted reports, the committee received eleven reports, and
granted five waivers. The Assessment Committee submits this report as a revised
report. On February 21, 2011 the Committee met to review a memo received from
the COAS Executive Committee. Based upon the recommendation of the COAS
Executive Committee, the COAS Assessment Committee concluded it was
necessary to submit revised letters to Department Chairs in order to conform to
faculty governance SD 98-22. Thus, the Assessment Committee’s responses to
Departments contained herein reflect only the revised letters sent to Department
Chairs that comply with SD 98-22.

Among reports submitted, the Committee assigned a score (0=not present; 1=needs
significant improvement; 2=adequate; 3=excellent) for each key element the
Committee requested. The average score is provided below for each key element.
Key Element                                                                                 AVERAGE             NOTES
List the learning goals and outcomes of the department/program and state the criteria for
                                                                                                      Two reports did not address
determining whether the outcome has been achieved (E.g., 70% of our students are               2
                                                                                                           this key element.
expected to meet this outcome)
Describe the program assessment process, including what is examined (e.g. senior                       All reports addressed this
seminar, capstone courses). If different outcomes are assessed each year, the report          2.7
                                                                                                              key element.
should address that system
                                                                                                        Three reports did not
Provide clear results of the goals and outcomes assessment                                    1.9
                                                                                                      address this key element.

Explain any changes to be made to the curriculum and/or assessment process based on                   Two reports did not address
                                                                                              2.3
results                                                                                                    this key element.




The College of Arts and Sciences Departmental Reports are adequately listing
learning goals and outcomes, describing the assessment process, and explaining
changes made to the curriculum or assessment process.

The Committee also notes that several reports did not state the criteria for
determining whether the outcomes had been achieved. However, several reports
appeared to use criteria but simply never stated what the criteria were.

Because there is no uniform approach to assessment across the College of Arts and
Sciences, the Committee can only make a general statement that most of the
learning goals and objectives assessed were achieved.

Several Departments made modifications to either curriculum or the assessment
process. One report concluded that additional faculty members are needed to make
all necessary curricular changes.

Four Departments were granted waivers.

Clarity is needed on what programs are required to submit reports. For example,
the Committee was informed by the Director of Journalism, that Journalism is not
required to submit annual assessment reports. Yet other non-degree granting
programs have a history of submitting Assessment Reports. Also, the Chair of the
History department states that History only turns in an assessment report every five
years.
COAS Assessment Committee Report




The COAS Assessment Committee started the year with many questions about what was desired in the

reports, how the information was used by the College and University, and what charges the Committee was to

fulfill. We took great care in reviewing prior reports, Department waiver histories, and information from the

Dean of Arts and Sciences and Office of Assessment. We reviewed the procedure used by the Committee in

the recent past and decided to alter the process. Our intention was to facilitate uniformity among reports

from Departments, provide uniform structure to the Assessment Reports, and provide enhanced feedback to

Departments and thereby aid in promoting more comprehensive assessment reports.


The Committee held ten meetings, reviewed over 125 pages, and developed over 40 documents. In the past

year, the COAS assessment committee has worked on and completed the following jobs:


   1. Reviewed waiver history and previous years’ reports (when available) of the departments in COAS
   2. Met with Dean and consulted with Director of assessment, and came up with the key elements to be
       requested from each department/program’s assessment report
   3. Sent out call for assessment report after a few rounds of revisions, and assigned each committee
       member department/programs to review
   4. Discussed criteria for granting a waiver
   5. Decided on the criteria in assessing the quality of the reports
   6. Sent e-mail confirmations of receipt of the submission, and e-mail confirmations of grant of waiver
       after meeting with Dean and discussion within the committee
   7. Discussed the structure of the feedback letter to each department/program
   8. Reviewed assessment report from each department according to the criteria decided earlier and
       drafted the feedback letter based on the structure agreed upon
   9. Reviewed all available meeting minutes and minor changes were made for clarification
   10. Reviewed draft feedback letter to each department/program and decided on the format of the letter
   11. Decided on what to be included in the summary report to Dean and the format of the report
The COAS Assessment Committee has worked on the following jobs, and anticipates completion during Spring
2011:

   1. Identify active programs and corresponding directors and draft letter to ask for input about assessment
      reports
   2. Draft request for progress report and send to department/program that was granted a waiver
      (withdrawn)

Based upon Committee work thus far, the Committee recommends that future committees:

   1. Modify the key elements:
        a. Modify the key element #3 as: Describe the program assessment process, including what is
            examined (e.g. senior seminar, capstone courses), how measures are linked to the program
            goals and objectives. If different outcomes are assessed each year, the report should address
            that system.
        b. Add another key element: List recommended changes from the Assessment Committee and
            address whether these changes have been implemented.

WAIVERS.

Waivers were granted to Biology, Communications, English & Linguistics-Undergraduate Program,
Geosciences, and Math. Note that although Communications was granted a waiver, the Department did
submit numerous documents that demonstrate that they are making a great deal of progress in assessment.

ASSESSMENT REPORTS.

The Committee received reports from the following Departments: Anthropology, Chemistry, Communication
Sciences & Disorders, English & Linguistics-Graduate Program, History, Gerontology, Philosophy, Political
Science, Psychology, Sociology, and Women’s Studies.

The Committee has taken a great amount of time to provide individualized feedback to Departments. The
letters to each Department follow. Detailed information is provided within each report to the Department.
Also included in this report are the agendas and minutes for each meeting. All documents submitted to the
Committee are included in the report.
                                    College of Arts and Sciences
                                   Assessment Committee
                        Agenda for September 16, 2010, LA 244, 9:00 am




1.   Discuss committee structure
2. Review use of historical use of waivers
3. Review of historical quality of reports
4. Review of Committee Charges
5.   Review of prior year’s reports provided by D. Holland
6. Elect chair
                                     College of Arts and Sciences
                                   Assessment Committee
                           Agenda for September 28, 2010, LA 244, 9:00 am




Meeting with Dean Drummond:

   1. Utility of reports

   2. Waiver limitations
               Time limitations and repeat requests for waivers
               Exceptions to limitations
               Progress/status reports from departments using waivers

   3. Report format
               Standard form
               Quality considerations

   4. Templates to accompany the call for reports
               Items from Chris Tokpah
               Sample reports from departments

   5. Incentives for submissions

   6. Charge for the Assessment Committee


Meeting of Committee Members:

   7. Draft the e-mail calling for reports

   8. Set deadline for sending reports to the committee

   9. Discuss prior reports

   10. Distribute departments among committee members (if possible)
                                College of Arts and Sciences
                              Assessment Committee
                       Agenda for October 7, 2010, LA 244, 9:00 am




1. Set deadline for sending reports to the committee

2. Draft the e-mail calling for reports

3. Assign/select departments

4. Review submissions: Sociology

5.   Discuss criteria for waiver and inadequate reports

6. Set tentative agenda for next meeting
                                 College of Arts and Sciences
                               Assessment Committee
                       Agenda for October 14, 2010, LA 244, 9:00 am




1.   Discuss criteria for inadequate reports

2. Report Department waiver histories

3. Draft the e-mail response/confirmation of receipt

4. Review submissions/communications with Chairs (copy all committee members on all
     communications)

5.   Set tentative agenda for next meeting
                               College of Arts and Sciences
                             Assessment Committee
                      Agenda for October 26, 2010, LA 244, 9:00 am




1. Draft the e-mail response/confirmation of receipt

2. Review submissions/communications with Chairs (copy all committee members on all
    communications)

3. Set tentative agenda for next meeting
                                  College of Arts and Sciences
                                Assessment Committee
                         Agenda for November 16, 2010, LA 244, 9:00 am




1. Holland-summary of meeting with Dean Drummond on waiver criteria, waivers, and
     received reports.

2. Discuss draft of response to Departments that requested waivers.

3. Review submissions/communications with Chairs (copy all committee members on all
     communications).

4. Identify any departments that did not submit a report and draft e-mail to request report, if
     necessary.

5.   Set tentative agenda for next meeting

         a.   -review all meeting minutes and revise/approve.

         b. –Arts and Sciences should be given copies of agendas also.
                                           College of Arts and Sciences
                                         Assessment Committee
                                Agenda for November 23, 2010, LA 244, 9:00 am




1. Review all minutes.

2. Review submissions/communications with Chairs:

             Geosciences requested waiver-ongoing program review (Donna)

             Liberal Studies- assessment report not required (Donna)

             Journalism-(Debrah)

3. Committee Member review of Department submissions:

             Sociology & Women’s Studies (Debrah)

             Gerontology & Psychology (Yihao)

             Political Science & Anthropology (Donna)

4. Review draft e-mail to certificate/program directors requesting feedback on key elements and suggestions for
     evaluating each program (Yihao)

5.   Review program directors and active programs (Yihao)

6. Set tentative agenda for next meeting

        a.   Review minutes from last meeting.

        b. Review submissions/communications with Chairs

        c.   Committee member review of department submissions
                                               College of Arts and Sciences
                                             Assessment Committee
                                     Agenda for December 7, 2010, LA 244, 9:00 am




   1. Approve agenda

   2. Review all minutes

   3. Review submissions/communications with Chairs

   4. Committee Member review of letters to Departments:

            a. Sociology & Women’s Studies (Debrah)

            b. Gerontology & Psychology (Yihao)

            c.   Political Science & Anthropology (Donna)

   5. Committee Member review of Department submissions:

            a. (Debrah)

            b. (Yihao)

            c.   Communications Sciences and Disorders (Donna)

   6. Set tentative agenda for next meeting

            a.   Review minutes from last meeting.

            b. Review letters to Departments

                     i. Discuss format/method of distribution (in e-mail or as attachment or hard copy)

            c.   Review submissions/communications with Chairs

            d. Committee member review of department submissions




TABLED:

   1.   Review draft e-mail to certificate/program directors requesting feedback on key elements and suggestions for
        evaluating each program (Yihao)

   2. Review program directors and active programs (Yihao)
                                                College of Arts and Sciences
                                             Assessment Committee
                                    Agenda for December 21, 2010, LA 244, 9:00 am




   1. Approve agenda

   2. Review all minutes

   3. Review submissions/communications with Chairs

   4. Committee Member review of Department submissions:

            a. English and Linguistics (Donna)

   5.   Review letters to Departments

            a.   Discuss format/method of distribution (in e-mail or as attachment or hard copy)

   6. Discuss the format and timing of the report to the Dean. (Executive summary, the reporting form that was used
        in the past, etc.)

   7.   Set tentative agenda for next meeting




TABLED:

   1.   Review draft e-mail to certificate/program directors requesting feedback on key elements and suggestions for
        evaluating each program (Yihao)

   2. Review program directors and active programs (Yihao)
                            COAS Assessment Committee
                              Minutes of September 16, 2010

Members Present: Yihao Deng, Donna Holland, Debrah Huffman

   1. The meeting began at 9:00 a.m. in LA 244.

   2. The committee discussed waivers for the annual department/program assessment
      reports. Members wondered what if any problem is created for the College or the
      report it creates when a department submits multiple waivers. A possible time limit
      for the waivers was proposed, with a maximum of two years. Special consideration
      would be given to new programs. If given a waiver, departments or programs would
      still be asked to submit an update report that same year on the status of the
      progress and plan.

   3. Quality of reports was discussed. Past reports have ranged from very broad and
      detailed for some departments to only a sentence or two for others. Members
      discussed how to make standards such as whether the report “adequately reflects”
      department/program assessment, whether it is “comprehensive,” and what
      “sufficient quality” may be defined as. Members wondered what the Dean’s idea of
      quality is. They also discussed the possibility of providing models with the call for
      reports.

   4. The committee decided to invite Dean Drummond to the next meeting to get his
      charge for the committee and his views on the reports, including the following:
      waivers, sufficient quality of reports, the reports’ purpose, incentives, format, and
      providing model reports to the chairs. Y. Deng will ask Chris Tokpah for templates
      to provide chairs.

   5. D. Holland provided the committee with copies from last year’s reports. She has
      provided each member of the committee with a binder containing the Assessment
      Committee 2009 report, e-mail correspondence from the chair at that time, and the
      report from Psychology. She will look for other copies of prior reports. D. Huffman
      will try to get reports for the last three years from the Dean’s office, ask previous
      chairs of assessment committees if they have copies, and see if Dean Drummond is
      available to meet with the committee on Sept. 28, at 9:00 a.m. in LA 244.

   6. D. Holland agreed to Chair the committee.

   7. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
                            COAS Assessment Committee
                             Minutes of September 28, 2010

Members Present: Y. Deng, D. Holland (chair), D. Huffman
Invited Guest: Dean Carl Drummond

Meeting with C. Drummond:

   1. The meeting began at 9:00 a.m. in LA 244.

   2. The Dean explained the utility of the assessment reports as he compiles them for a
      report to Director of Assessment Chris Tokpah (was Steve Sarratore), who is the
      audience for the reports. C. Tokpah could explain how he uses the College’s
      cumulative report (copies provided to the committee members). COAT was also
      briefly discussed, the Dean explaining what its purpose is. His charge for the
      Assessment Committee is to review reports and recommend improvements. The
      goal is to identify deficiencies at the department/program levels and weaknesses at
      the College level. As far as quality considerations, the assessment committee should
      provide feedback to the departments as to how they can improve their reports.

   3. Regarding waivers, the Dean suggested eliminating all current waiver agreements.
      Departments must resubmit a request for a waiver subject to approval by the
      committee and the Dean. The Dean also suggested a one-year limit on waivers,
      although the committee could weigh reasons for an extension. He also agreed that
      departments using waivers should submit a progress/status report in the spring.

   4. Regarding report format, the Dean recommended the following be addressed in
      each report submitted:
             o   Program goals
             o   Tying of goals to the Baccalaureate Framework
             o   The assessment process
             o   Clear outcomes-based assessment
             o   Outcomes assessment for service/general education courses
             o   Changes made or to be made based on the assessment
      The Dean suggested also asking C. Tokpah what he wanted to see from assessment
      reports. The Dean added that a fundamental flaw in assessment measures so far has
      been the focus on major programs and not general education.

   5. Dean Drummond advised against providing models such as C. Tokpah’s templates or
      reports from departments who have turned in very good reports (such as
      Psychology and English). When asked about what incentive could be offered for
      turning in these more directed reports, the Dean suggested telling departments that
      the reports will be made available as PDF files on the College website.
Meeting of the committee:

   6. D. Holland reported that she was unable to locate all reports from last year. D.
      Huffman also reported that past chairs and the Dean’s office also did not have
      department reports saved, although the Dean’s office would look for those files.

   7. Y. Deng shared copies of the documents he received from C. Tokpah and their e-mail
      correspondence. He will send C. Tokpah an e-mail with the bulleted items suggested
      by the Dean and ask for further input.

   8. The committee agreed to set a deadline of Nov. 8 for the reports to be submitted to
      the Assessment Committee. They agreed to send the call out after the next meeting.
      The committee will discuss wording of the call over e-mail. Prior reports and
      waivers will be discussed at the next meeting, Oct. 7, 9:00 a.m. in LA 244.

   9. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
                            COAS Assessment Committee
                                Minutes of October 7, 2010

Members Present: Y. Deng, D. Holland (chair), D. Huffman

   1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. in LA 244.

   2. The committee discussed the draft e-mail calling for reports. The committee added
      wording that makes clear that the new bulleted list to be addressed is based on the
      recommendations of the Dean and Director of Assessment. The committee also
      added to the bulleted list that department learning goals should show how they
      reflect the Baccalaureate Framework.

   3. Nov. 8 was confirmed as the deadline for reports and Oct. 22 as the deadline for
      waiver requests. The committee also agreed that the e-mail should state that
      department/program chairs may contact any of the committee members with
      questions, helping relieve the chair from complete responsibility for handling
      correspondence. However, the committee agreed each member should be copied in
      on any sent correspondence, and received correspondence should be copied to all
      members.

   4. D. Holland assigned departments/programs to each committee member and
      provided copies of past reports where available.

   5. The committee discussed criteria for the waiver. The waiver will be for one year
      maximum. If a department did not turn in a report in the last year, it must this year.
      This can be determined from the Assessment Committee reports located on the
      College website. If granted a waiver, the department must submit a progress report
      in the spring, by the Monday following Spring Break (March 14, 2011). A
      “substantial reason” for the waiver is considered being a new program, less than
      two years old. Committee members agreed that even if the program is overhauling
      its assessment, it should be able to submit a report based on the previous year.
      However, the Dean will ultimately approve any waiver requests.

   6. The Committee discussed the next meeting’s agenda. Further criteria for reports,
      waiver histories, and drafting of the e-mail confirming receipt of the report will be
      drafted at the next meeting, Oct. 14.

   7. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m.
                            COAS Assessment Committee
                               Minutes of October 14, 2010

Members Present: Y. Deng, D. Holland (chair), D. Huffman

   1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. in LA 244.

   2. The committee decided on the following criteria regarding quality of submitted
      reports:
              Unacceptable:
                     No report submitted
                     Any of bullet points 1, 3, or 4 is missing (department goals listed,
                            assessment process provided, clear results reported)
              Superior:
                     Bullet points 2, 5, and 6 are included (how goals reflect Baccalaureate
                            Framework, general education assessment, changes to be
                            made)
      All reports that the committee finds unacceptable will be reviewed with the Dean.
      Before the report is determined to be unacceptable, an e-mail request for more
      information or clarification (and including the bulleted list) will go out to the chair
      of any department/program submitting a report addressing fewer than bullet points
      1, 3, and 4.

   3. The committee drafted the e-mail response to go out to chairs stating that the
      committee has received the report. This and other correspondence will have the
      names of all committee members at the bottom and will be copied to all three
      members.

   4. The committee reviewed one report already received from Sociology and agreed
      that it does not meet requirements. D. Huffman will send an e-mail request for a
      complete report, repeating the bulleted list, to the chair of Sociology after the call
      goes out. For any inadequate report received, committee members will send one e-
      mail request for more information. D. Huffman will draft this and send it to
      committee members for approval prior to sending.

   5. The committee reviewed waiver histories for the past years with notable findings:

             Communication requested a two-year waiver in 2008.
             International Language and Culture Studies did not submit a report in 2007
              and was granted waivers in 2008 and 2009.
             Sociology did not submit a report in 2007 and was granted waivers in 2008
              and 2009.
             One active program, Peace and Conflict Studies, has not submitted an
              assessment report for the last three years and has not requested a waiver.
         Several programs are not active and have not submitted reports for three
          years (American Studies, Ethnic and Cultural Studies, Film Studies, Native
          American Studies).

6. The next meeting will be set over e-mail. At that meeting members will review
   feedback from departments and draft a request for more information from the
   Sociology Department. The meeting adjourned at 10:30.
                            COAS Assessment Committee
                               Minutes of October 26, 2010

Members Present: Y. Deng, D. Holland (chair), D. Huffman

   1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. in LA 244.

   2. The response letter to chairs noting receipt of the report was approved. The
      committee members discussed the best way to respond to the reports, addressing
      strengths as well as areas for improvement.

   3. Committee members agreed that what Sociology submitted (and stated would be all
      it would be turning in this year) was not a report but a brief plan. Only the third
      bullet point was addressed, and the committee agreed to review this department’s
      submission with the Dean.

   4. Three waiver requests were discussed. For Mathematical Sciences and for Biology
      the committee agreed to waive the due date and ask for a progress report to be
      submitted March 14, 2011. The Dean has already approved a waiver request by
      English and Linguistics. D. Huffman noted that a graduate studies report would be
      available, so the committee will request this portion and a status report on March
      14.

   5. D. Holland will meet with the Dean to see if he approves the three waivers and the
      condition of a progress report. She will also ask why he grants waivers and if past
      reports (or lack thereof) and or waiver requests influence his decision. D. Holland
      will provide the Dean with the waiver history along with the current requests and
      ask for his criteria for a waiver. She will also discuss whether Sociology should have
      more strict considerations given its history of no reports submitted and waiver
      requests.

   6. The committee discussed the report submitted by Communications, which they
      determined was really an assessment report without data, covering bullets 1, 2, and
      3. The committee agreed to grant Communications a waiver and ask for an update
      on March 14.

   7. The next meeting date will be announced via e-mail. D. Holland will report on her
      meeting with the Dean and communications with Chairs and their submissions. The
      meeting adjourned at 10:05.
                           COAS Assessment Committee
                             Minutes of November 16, 2010

Members Present: Y. Deng, D. Holland (chair), D. Huffman

   1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. in LA 244, and the agenda was
      approved.

   2. D. Holland reported on her meeting with Dean Drummond regarding waivers and
      received assessment reports. The Dean thought the waiver criteria devised by the
      committee were clear guidelines and that it was a good idea to consider waiver
      history in making decisions for how to handle waiver requests. He did state that he
      did not consider the assessment history of the Department of English and
      Linguistics (no waiver history applies) when deciding to grant that department’s
      request for a waiver. The Dean agreed that external program review, self-study,
      and a new program are all potential reasons for a waiver. He also liked the idea of
      requesting a progress report in Spring of those departments granted waivers.

      The Dean agreed with the committee’s waiver approval for Biology, Mathematics,
      and Communication. He definitely would like to see a progress report from
      Mathematics, and wanted us to highlight what Communications had already given
      us in terms of the requested (bulleted) points and clarify what is still needed. For
      the brief plan submitted by Sociology (and considering that it has not submitted an
      assessment report for three years), we should state that we are glad they are
      making progress but the department needs to identify core learning objectives,
      connect them to the Baccalaureate Framework, and specifically say what will be
      assessed and observed in the capstone. The Committee should accept the plan but
      request an update in March, processing the document like a waiver. Possible
      wording may begin “In keeping with other departments who are making progress,
      we request….” For English, the Committee should request an update on what wasn’t
      reported on.

   3. The Committee discussed how members will exchange and circulate individual
      reports. The meeting agenda lists departments or programs each member is
      responsible for, including ones received and ones missing and/or pending.
      Members also discussed wording for the waiver request response, which will
      contain the six requested elements again.

   4. Dean Drummond’s e-mail response to D. Holland about whether all programs
      should submit reports stated that the Committee should not bother with programs
      other than Women’s Studies, which grants a degree. Other programs determined to
      be certificate programs include Peace and Conflict Studies, Gerontology, and
      International Studies. Four other programs are considered non-active. The
      Committee discussed the need to establish criteria for assessment reports from
      certificate programs, something that will be taken up in the future. This could be
   addressed in the recommendations section of the final report. The Committee noted
   that Gerontology did submit a report, so directors should be contacted to ask for
   their input on what key elements are applicable to them. Y. Deng will get a list of
   certificate programs from COAS.

5. The Committee drafted an e-mail to be sent to those departments not submitting a
   report. Each member will send this e-mail to departments for which he or she is
   primarily responsible.

6. The structure of the feedback reports each Committee member writes will have the
   following: 1) How each requested element is addressed (or not), 2) where
   improvement is necessary regarding the elements, 3) recommendations for future
   reports, and 4) statement as to whether the department report is acceptable or
   needs to be revised. The Committee agreed that if element one (goals), three
   (assessment plan), or four (results) are missing, the report should not be considered
   acceptable.

7. The next meeting was set for November 23 at 9:00 in LA 244. The agenda will
   include reviewing meeting minutes for approval or revision, a report from each of
   the three members on two of the assigned department reports (representing
   different levels of detail), a review of the e-mail draft to be sent to program directors
   asking for their views on applicability of the six key elements to their programs (Y.
   Deng will provide an updated list of certificate programs). The Committee agreed
   that COAS should be given copies of the agendas also. In the interim before the next
   meeting, members should share their reports and send e-mails to
   departments/programs not submitting a report.

8. The meeting adjourned at 10:30.
                            COAS Assessment Committee
                             Minutes of November 23, 2010

Members Present: Y. Deng, D. Holland (chair), D. Huffman

     1. The meeting was called to order at 9:13 a.m. in LA 244, and the agenda was
        approved. The Committee did agree to table agenda items four and five, dealing
        with a review of program directors and a request for their feedback on the
        applicability of the six key elements of the assessment reports for their programs.
        Those items can be discussed in Spring.

     2. All available minutes were reviewed and suggestions for minor changes were
        made for accuracy and clarification. D. Huffman will make changes and submit
        them to the other members for final approval before sending them to COAS.

     3. The Committee reviewed recent communications with department
        chairs/program directors. D. Holland reported that the Dean approved a waiver
        request from Geosciences. Communication also indicated that Liberal Studies and
        Journalism do not need to submit reports. D. Huffman reported that
        correspondence regarding the latter indicated that because Journalism is a
        transfer program for degrees begun at IU, it has not submitted a report. D.
        Holland will clarify with the Dean what the two degrees for these programs are
        and see if he wants reports from them.

     4. Each committee member reviewed two department report submissions. D.
        Huffman reviewed Sociology, which is a very weak plan and not a report, and
        Women’s Studies, which provided a relatively strong report because it addressed
        all six key elements. Y. Deng reviewed Gerontology and Psychology, the latter
        which address all key elements as well, and the former which submitted a report
        when it was not necessary (a reply should note this and very positively suggest
        ways to strengthen the report). D. Holland reviewed Political Science and
        Anthropology, the former of which had clear criteria. Holland offered a long list of
        suggestions for Anthropology based on specifics in the report, such as clearer
        criteria and thresholds.

     5. The Committee concluded that criteria reporting is the weakest area. Each report
        needs to be clearer about what is considered meeting the goal and what is
        considered good.

     6. The next meeting will take place on December 7 at 9:00, same location. The
        Committee will review more meeting minutes, any submissions or
        communications with chairs, and one more review of a department report.
        Members should bring drafts of report feedback to be given to departments to the
        next meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:31.
                           COAS Assessment Committee
                              Minutes of December 7, 2010

Members Present: Y. Deng, D. Holland (chair), D. Huffman

     1. The meeting was called to order at 9:07 a.m. in LA 244, and the agenda was
        approved. Meeting minutes, however, will be reviewed by e-mail and at the last
        meeting of the semester.

     2. Committee members reviewed one another’s drafts of responses to departments,
        based on the reviews shared in the last meeting. The Committee discussed the
        level of detail necessary for feedback and agreed that common language could
        apply. Members also discussed format and agreed on a memo genre with a list of
        all Committee members at the end (although only one member will write each
        report, all members will review and agree on the feedback). Members suggested
        wording changes for one another’s responses and additions based on each
        member’s notes from the previous meeting. They also agreed the response
        should be an attachment to an e-mail.

         The Committee agreed that the response format should first address the
         Committee’s decision and review, along with any waiver history. Next, strengths
         should be addressed, followed by a section of recommendations for each element
         treated in order. Finally, the response should address what information is most
         critical for the next report, with examples offered as suggestions.

     3. Each member reported on another submitted report. History submitted a plan
        only (addressing only bullet points 3 and barely 6). D. Huffman will ask the
        History chair why they only need to submit a report every five years. Philosophy
        also submitted only a plan, with no criteria. One format for unacceptable reports
        can be used as a template. Physics addressed all six bullet points. Chemistry
        needs more clear criteria. Communication Sciences Disorders lacked bullet 5.

     4. The next meeting was set for December 21, at 9:00. The Committee will review
        minutes, responses to departments, and will place their department reports in a
        table listing departments and all six elements, so how each department addressed
        elements can be noted, with notations for ones that are commendable,
        exceptional, or unsatisfactory. Y. Deng will devise a table format and circulate it
        via email to the other members.

     5. The meeting adjourned at 10:50.
                            COAS Assessment Committee
                              Minutes of December 20, 2010

Members Present: Y. Deng, D. Holland (chair), D. Huffman

     1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. in LA 244, and the agenda was
        approved.

     2. Minutes were approved with one addition to the Dec. 7 minutes to include overall
        summation of each department reviewed that day. No submissions or
        communications were sent or received by the committee, other than
        supplementary material sent by Women’s Studies, so no correspondence needed
        review.

     3. D. Holland reviewed the report submitted by English & Linguistics (which had
        asked for and been granted a waiver). The submitted report was found to be very
        thorough. Committee members noted Holland’s suggestions for the department
        to use grand means and make the assessment bimodal, agreeing that such
        suggestions might be used in many responses to departments.

     4. The committee reviewed letters to the departments. D. Huffman shared her draft
        of the Sociology response, with some changes. Members offered suggestions for
        one another, such as adding waiver/no report history and making sure they
        emphasize options and don’t mandate particular assessment measures and
        methods. Members agreed that the committee response to each department
        should be an attachment to an e-mail to the department chair/program director.

     5. Committee members discussed the format and timing of the committee report to
        the Dean. Senate Document 98-22 did not specify more than a list of questions
        suggested to consider for each department’s report and the writing of a summary
        statement. The committee noted that of six questions listed, most are addressed
        by the bullet-point format initiated this semester.
         Committee members decided two of these questions, however, need to be more
         clear in the bulleted points next year: Wording (in italics) should be added to #3
         so that it reads “Describe the program assessment process, indicating how
         measures are linked to program goals.” That is, committee members realized the
         current wording of the call for reports asks for how program goals are linked to
         the Baccalaureate Framework, but the call doesn’t specify that assessment
         measures should relate to goals. Also, #4 should read “Provide clear results of the
         goals and outcomes assessment and conclusions based on that data.” Members
         realized that discussion of what results (might) mean does not always accompany
         that data. Finally, a seventh bullet point should be added that addressed another
         question found in SD 98-22. That final bullet point will read “What recommended
         changes from the previous year were listed, and how were these addressed?” This
   question will make an effective connection to the previous year’s assessment
   report and show how the department is trying to improve.
   The committee agreed that the report to the Dean should include the committee’s
   findings regarding the submitted reports, a summary of recommendations for
   departments, and findings and recommendations for the assessment committee
   itself. The committee agreed not to use the previous years’ format because the
   table and notes are ineffective and only provide very limited general information.
   Letters sent to individual departments will be in one appendix, a waiver history
   will comprise another appendix, and minutes of meetings will comprise a third
   appendix.

6. D. Holland, as chair, will be compiling the final report to the Dean. Y. Deng will
   compile a committee report, with numbers of meetings, e-mails, and pages of
   documents produced. D. Huffman will compile a waiver/no-report history for the
   past three years (which are the ones available in data) and assess that data to
   suggest which departments are making progress and which are ones using the
   waiver to improve. D. Huffman will also provide a revised table of department
   report findings, based on the one created by Y. Deng. This table will use a 0-1-2-3
   system to show whether aspects of the assessment reports were inadequate-
   needing improvement-adequate-excellent. These reports should be submitted to
   the committee via e-mail by Dec. 31. D. Holland will plan on sending a draft of the
   report to committee members by Jan. 3 for their review. The report to the Dean
   should be submitted Jan. 10, and individual responses to department sent on the
   same date.

7. The next meeting will be set in January after the spring session begins.
Waiver (W) and No-Report (--) History
                         2010   2009    2008   2007
Anthropology                      W
Biology                    W
Chemistry
Communication              W      W
CSD
English & Linguistics      W
Geosciences                W      W
Gerontology
History
ILCS                                      W      --
Liberal Studies            --
Mathematical Studies       W
Philosophy                        W              --
Physics                                          --
Political Science
Psychology
Sociology                         W       W      --
Women’s Studies
Anthropology Assessment 2009-2010                                                        1


    Anthropology Assessment Report for the 2009-2010 Academic Year

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

During 2009-2010, the Department of Anthropology began our conversations on how
best to resurrect and revise our program’s assessment plan. With the retirement of the
former chair we revisited and revised many of our program’s documents. Historically,
our assessments have not been done regularly, and because our junior faculty had never
before participated in assessment, most of the 2009-2010 academic year was spent
educating the junior faculty on the Department of Anthropology’s existing documents.
Namely, we engaged in conversations regarding what our program’s mission is, what the
goals and learning objectives of the program’s curriculum are, and what assessment is.
As part of the conversation, we revisited and revised our program’s assessment plan in
light of the Assessment Committee’s recommendations on the 2007 assessment report
and conversations that the chair has had with the Director of Assessment.

We are currently in the process of re-implementing and revising our program’s
assessment plan and we are submitting our revised plan for consideration by the
Assessment Committee. As part of our ongoing program review process, we will be
conducting an alumni survey and external visitors will evaluate our program’s
achievements. Therefore, given that we have no comparative data, our current assessment
consists of (1) available indirect forms of assessment, (2) the submission of our revised
assessment plan, and (3) a discussion of how we are making curricular changes in
response to our indirect measures of assessment.

With that having been said, it appears from our indirect measures that we are achieving
the learning objectives of the anthropology program. Our interim measures indicate that
our students gain a familiarity with different cultures (Objective 1), learning how to
understand them holistically (Objective 3), and develop writing skills (Objective 4) in our
core curriculum. Last year we implemented direct assessment methods for our capstone
course in order to address some of our learning objectives: our internal exit measure
demonstrates that anthropology seniors are mastering the learning objectives of the
program. Finally, one our external exit measures – graduate and professional school
admissions – did not show a high admission rate to graduate school. Through an informal
survey of our graduates, we found that most cited either personal (currently employed full
time) or economic (fear of student loan debt) reasons for why they chose not to apply to
graduate school.
Anthropology Assessment 2009-2010                                                           2

ANTHROPOLOGY PROGRAM MISSION
The purpose of the department's program for anthropology majors is to assist them in
acquiring a comprehensive and integrated knowledge base within the discipline and the
skills to apply this knowledge in their professional lives or post-graduate education.

GOALS
    1. Acquire knowledge of core areas within the discipline: theory, methods,
    ethnography, archaeology, linguistics, and bioanthropology.

       2. Acquire knowledge of a broad sub-area within the discipline.

       3. Develop the skills to analyze and apply this knowledge.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
The specific skills students should acquire in our program include the following learning
objectives:

   1. Achieve familiarity with different cultures in at least two regions of the world
   2. Know the major anthropological approaches to understanding the human
      condition
   3. Be able to explain societies in a holistic manner
   4. Achieve competency in writing
   5. Demonstrate critical thinking
   6. Acquire quantitative skills for analysis
   7. Demonstrate a willingness to engage learning and scholarship as a life-long
      endeavor

These skills address Strategic Goal 1 of the IPFW Strategic Plan, Provide Innovative,
Relevant and Rigorous Academic Programs.

Our goals also substantially overlap with the IPFW Baccalaureate Framework as follows:
   Baccalaureate Goal (BG1) Acquisition of Knowledge
   Baccalaureate Goal (BG2) Application of Knowledge
   Baccalaureate Goal (BG3) Professional and Personal Values
   Baccalaureate Goal (BG4) Sense of Community
   Baccalaureate Goal (BG5) Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
   Baccalaureate Goal (BG6) Communication
Anthropology Assessment 2009-2010                                                       3



ANTHROPOLOGY ASSESSMENT MEASURES

Internal Interim Assessment

   1. Student Ability to Perform in Group A and B Courses. Description: As an
      interim measure of our success in transmitting anthropology basics in our core
      courses, student performance in upper level Group A and Group B courses will be
      monitored (students typically take these courses after taking the core). These
      grades serve only as an indirect measure, or barometer, of our achievement of
      learning objectives. Systematic patterns of deficiency may indicate areas where
      we are not adequately addressing learning objectives in our introductory courses.
      The faculty will report the numbers of students who receive D’s or below in these
      courses to the chair. At the end of the academic year, the faculty will review
      systematic deficiencies, if any, in the transmission of anthropology basics from
      the core introductory courses, and recommend changes if necessary.

      Approximately 85% of our students in Group A courses received grades of “C” or
      higher, while 90% of our students in Group B courses received grades of “C” or
      higher. After a discussion among the faculty, it was clear that in each case the
      majority (66%) of the students who performed poorly simply stopped coming to
      class mid-way through the semester, and did not reflect on any lack of preparation
      in the anthropology curriculum. Therefore, our ability to meet Learning
      Objectives 2-4 (familiarity with other cultures, holistic understanding, and
      writing) does not seem to be deficient. Further, our discussion of student
      assessment (in class discussions, essay exams questions that emphasize critical
      thinking skills) within each faculty’s Group A and Group B courses indirectly
      indicates that we are also achieving our Learning Objective 5 (Demonstrate
      Critical Thinking).

   2. Course Offerings. Every academic year, the frequency with which our courses
      are taught (and therefore the frequency with which we are addressing our learning
      objectives) will be examined in the curriculum map. This will assist us to identify
      inadequacies or imbalances in our ability to meet curricular needs. If a course was
      taught, the number of sections offered is placed in bold next to each “X” that
      marks a learning objective.
Anthropology Assessment 2009-2010                                                      4



Anthropology Program Curriculum Map

                       Anthropology
                       Assessment
                       Goals
Baccalaureate          BG1          BG1        BG2     BG6     BG5           BG3
Framework Goals
Anthropology           1                2      3       4       5       6     7
Learning Objectives
Anthropology Core
Courses
ANTH E105                               20 X   20 X    20 X                  20 X
ANTH B200                               7X     7X      7X              7X    7X
ANTH P200                               4X     4X      4X                    4X
ANTH L200                               1X     1X      1X
Group A
Ethnographic
Survey Courses
ANTH E330              1X                      1X      1X
ANTH E335              1X                      1X      1X
ANTH E350              1X                      1X      1X
SOC S410               1X                      1X      1X
Group B
Anthropology Topics
ANTH E375              1X               1X             1X                    1X
ANTH E406              1X               1X             1X
ANTH E445              1X               1X             1X      1X            1X
ANTH E455              1X               1X             1X      1X            1X
ANTH P360                               1X             1X      1X
ANTH P370                               1X             1X      1X            1X
ANTH P400                               1X     1X      1X      1X      1X
ANTH P405                               1X     1X      1X      1X            1X
ANTH B426                               1X     1X      1X      1X      1X    1X
Capstone Course
ANTH H445              1X               1X     1X      1X      1X            1X

      With the exception of ANTH L200, our faculty were able to teach a broad array
      of courses that allowed us to meet our learning objectives in the Group A and B
      sections for the academic year 2009-2010. For the first time in many years, it was
      not necessary for our faculty to offer ANTH A495 courses to cover graduating
      majors’ need to take a Group A course due, in large part, to strategic scheduling
      of Group A courses. All told, four Group A ethnographic area courses were
      offered, while nine Group B topical courses were taught.
Anthropology Assessment 2009-2010                                                         5

       However, during 2009-2010 there was only one person who taught a section of
       ANTH L200. This resulted in two of our graduating majors having to take LING
       L103 in lieu of ANTH L200. The Department of English’s recent hiring of a new
       linguist who will also be teaching ANTH L200 should help to alleviate this
       problem in the future.

Internal Exit

   3. Capstone. Anthropology H445: History and Theory of Anthropology has always
      been our capstone course. It is restricted to graduating seniors. The course is a
      survey the major theories of anthropology of the past 150 years. Students read
      primary works and variously take written exams and write essays on these major
      works. Student performance is evaluated based on their written work and verbal
      performance in class. We also spend much time discussing the nature of graduate
      work and professional scholarship in the course. This course effectively ties
      together all of our learning objectives. A student’s grade is an effective gauge of
      the extent to which we have been successful in transmitting the breadth of
      anthropology to our students. If there emerges a pattern of low grades, or poor
      performance on certain assignments, then the faculty will address how our
      curriculum may not be adequately covering specific learning objectives.

       Based upon our desire to restart our program’s assessment, a number of
       modifications were made to our capstone course ANTH H445 during the spring of
       2010. A number of key terms and concepts, figures, and theories were developed
       in consultation with the programs’ faculty. Rather than simply focusing on
       summaries and discussion of key historic readings, two exams were developed to
       assess students’ basic anthropological knowledge, and three writing assignments
       were used to assess students’ familiarity with different cultures (Objective 1), an
       understanding of anthropological theory (Obejctive 2), an ability to explain
       culture holistically (Objective 3), ability to write well (Objective 4).

       All but two of 12 students enrolled in H445 received A’s or B’s, in the course:
       one of the two lower performing students stopped coming to class half way
       through the semester. On an initial written assignment based upon a number of
       theoretical readings, students’ ability to think critically (Objective 5) was deemed
       as inadequate, but by the end of the semester students’ performance had improved
       dramatically. By the end of the semester those students were deemed well
       prepared to engage in life-long learning, especially continued graduate education.

   4. Survey of Graduating Majors. We did not conduct a formal survey of
      graduating seniors within the context of the ANTH H445 capstone course during
      the spring of 2010. For the first time, however, we are in the process of
      developing a formal, discipline-appropriate survey instrument to be administered
      within ANTH H445 during Spring 2011.
Anthropology Assessment 2009-2010                                                            6



External Exit

   5. Graduate School Admissions. Our internal exit will consist of polling our year’s
      graduates and noting how many have gone on to graduate school.

       Our official graduation list had 12 Anthropology graduates in spring and summer
       of 2010, none of who applied to graduate school. This was well below the 50-
       60% graduate school admission that we have historically had in our program. We
       have historically used graduate admissions as an indicator of program success,
       and we plan to continue to value it. However, we recognize that the desirability
       of graduate school for all of our majors is unrealistic, which is why in the future
       – as spelled out in our revised assessment plan – we will be using additional
       external exit measures.

   6. Alumni Survey. During the 2009-2010 academic year, we did not conduct
      follow-up surveys of alumni. However, in accordance with our revised assessment
      plan we will be conducting a follow-up survey of alumni during the 2010-2011
      academic year as part of our current program review.

      However, based upon informal conversations with our 2010 graduates, two were
      pursuing additional undergraduate degrees, eight already had full time
      employment (three who are employed in archaeological survey), one is a stay-at-
      home mother, and two were seeking employment. Among those who are
      employed in archaeological survey, all three intend on applying to graduate
      school and four of the other graduates also intend on eventually applying to
      graduate school. Among those students who expressed an interest in graduate
      school, all expressed both a desire to take a year off from school and a fear of
      increasing their student loan debt. For these reasons, although we are well below
      our historic rate of students who enter graduate school, we are still confident that
      we are meeting our Learning Objective 7.

   7. Evaluation of achievement conducted by external visitors. There was no
      evaluation of achievement conducted by external visitors during the 2009-2010
      academic year. However, in accordance with our revised assessment plan we are
      anticipating an evaluation of achievement conducted by external visitors during
      the Fall 2011 semester as part of our current program review.

Curricular/Assessment Changes

      Although the Department of Anthropology has not conducted a formal assessment
      since 2006, our faculty engaged in serious discussions last academic year
      regarding our assessment plan and we reflected on programmatic strengths and
      deficiencies that were apparent. We have already begun addressing those
      deficiencies that we recognized.
Anthropology Assessment 2009-2010                                                         7



Number and frequencies of Group A course offerings
     Prior to the 2009 – 2010 academic year, it was apparent to faculty of the
     Department of Anthropology that we simply were not offering enough Group A
     ethnographic courses and that curricular planning was deficient as the few Group
     A courses that typically were offered (ANTH E330 Indians of South America and
     ANTH E335 Mesoamerican Archaeology) were never taught during the Spring
     semester. Further, it was apparent that not enough Group A courses were being
     offered, and, instead, our faculty tended to rotate between Group B topical
     courses. This resulted in our faculty having to teach ANTH A495 Individual
     Readings classes in lieu of a Group A course and in addition to their normal
     teaching load. Subsequently, faculty have been encouraged to rotate among three
     upper level courses, and, more specifically, those faculty teaching cultural
     anthropology courses have been encouraged to develop and regularly teach a
     Group A course. In addition to the development of new Group A courses by
     current faculty members (ANTH E356 Cultures of the Pacific, ANTH E398
     Peoples and Cultures of Central Asia), we have also recently hired an LTL who
     will be teaching ANTH E310 Introduction to the Cultures of Africa during the
     Spring 2011 semester, and we approved SOC S410 Modern Japan Society as a
     Group A course.

Assessment of Core Courses
       For the first time this year we are in the process of assessing our core courses
       (ANTH E105, ANTH B200, ANTH P200) and establishing appropriate metrics
       through the use of pre-tests/post-tests and an evaluation of each courses’ writing
       assignments. This form of assessment will inform us of how we are performing in
       achieving each of our stated learning objectives for each course, as well as how
       well we are meeting our stated general education goals for those courses. We will
       be reporting the results from this assessment in our next (2010-2011 academic
       year) assessment report. Results of these assessments will be used to assist us in
       revising our courses and curriculum.

Assessment of Area VI General Education Courses
       This year we are in the process of re-certifying our Area VI General Education
       courses (ANTH E335, ANTH P370) and will be developing appropriate methods
       for assessing those two courses in accordance with the proposed Area VI General
       Education Assessment Rubric. This form of assessment will inform us of how we
       are performing in achieving each of our stated learning objectives those, as well
       as how well we are meeting the stated general education goals for those courses.
       We will be reporting the results from this assessment in future assessment reports.
       Results of these assessments will be used to assist us in revising our courses and
       curriculum.

       As this relates to our revised program assessment plan, in the future we will be
       assessing our upper level (Group A and Group B) courses using the proposed
       Area VI General Education Assessment Rubric as a model. This will allow us to
Anthropology Assessment 2009-2010                                                      8

       evaluate the degree to which we are, indeed, emphasizing and reinforcing learning
       objectives spelled out in our revised assessment plan’s curricular map.

Development of survey instruments for Graduating Majors and Alumni
      As stated previously in this report and reflected in our revised assessment plan,
      we are currently in the process of developing an appropriate survey instrument for
      both graduating majors and our alumni that will consist of questions regarding
      whether our curriculum has delivered on our learning objectives as well as their
      satisfaction with our program. We will be implementing these surveys this year.
Anthropology Assessment Plan                                                                 1


                   ANTHROPOLOGY ASSESSMENT PLAN

ANTHROPOLOGY PROGRAM MISSION
The purpose of the department's program for anthropology majors is to assist them in
acquiring a comprehensive and integrated knowledge base within the discipline and the
skills to apply this knowledge in their professional lives or post-graduate education.

GOALS
    1. Acquire knowledge of core areas within the discipline: theory, methods,
    ethnography, archaeology, linguistics, and bioanthropology.

       2. Acquire knowledge of a broad sub-area within the discipline.

       3. Develop the skills to analyze and apply this knowledge.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
The specific skills students should require in our program include the following learning
objectives:

   1. Achieve familiarity with different cultures in at least two regions of the world
   2. Know the major anthropological approaches to understanding the human
      condition
   3. Be able to explain societies in a holistic manner
   4. Achieve competency in writing
   5. Demonstrate critical thinking
   6. Acquire quantitative skills for analysis
   7. Demonstrate a willingness to engage learning and scholarship as a life-long
      endeavor

These skills address Strategic Goal 1 of the IPFW Strategic Plan, Provide Innovative,
Relevant and Rigorous Academic Programs.

Our goals also substantially overlap with the IPFW Baccalaureate Framework as follows:
   Baccalaureate Goal (BG1) Acquisition of Knowledge
   Baccalaureate Goal (BG2) Application of Knowledge
   Baccalaureate Goal (BG3) Professional and Personal Values
   Baccalaureate Goal (BG4) Sense of Community
   Baccalaureate Goal (BG5) Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
   Baccalaureate Goal (BG6) Communication

The following anthropology program curriculum map contains the commonly taught
anthropology courses and notes the courses that address the specific learning objectives
of the anthropology program and the IPFW baccalaureate framework. An “I” indicates
that a specific goal is introduced in the course, and “E” indicates the objective is
emphasized, and an “R” indicates that a specific goal is reinforced in a course, otherwise
the specific baccalaureate goal is indicated (see COM 114).
 Anthropology Assessment Plan                                                              2



 This curriculum map not only charts how our curriculum addresses our goals, but it will
 also be used as a tool for measuring the extent to which our program is meeting our
 objectives (see below)

 Anthropology Program Curriculum Map
                     Anthropology
                     Assessment
                     Goals
Baccalaureate        BG1          BG1            BG2    BG6     BG5    BG5     BG3    BG4
Framework Goals
Anthropology         1            2              3      4       5      6       7
Learning Objectives
Baccalaureate
COM 114              BG6
ENGW131/140                                             I
ENG W233                                                I
MA153/168/STAT125                                                      I
Anthropology Core
Courses
ANTH E105                         I              I      I                      E
ANTH B200                         I              I      I              I       I
ANTH P200                         I              I      I                      E
ANTH L200                         I              I      I
Group A
Ethnographic
Survey Courses
ANTH E310            E                           E      E
ANTH E320            E                           E      E
ANTH E330            E                           E      E
ANTH E335            E                           E      E
ANTH E350            E                           E      E
ANTH E356            E                           E      E
ANTH E398            E                           E      E
SOC S410             E                           E      E
Group B
Anthropology Topics
ANTH E402            R            E                     E       E
ANTH E406            R            E                     E       E
ANTH E445            R            E                     E       E                     E
ANTH E455            R            E                     E       E
ANTH E462            R            E                     E       E
ANTH E375            R            E                     E       E                     E
ANTH E470            R            E                     E       E                     E
ANTH L400            R            E                     E       E
 Anthropology Assessment Plan                                                           3


ANTH P360                               E          E   E
ANTH P370                               E          E   E         E   E
ANTH P376               R               E          E   E             E
ANTH P400                               E          E   E    E        E
ANTH P405                               E      E       E         E   E
ANTH B405                               R      E   E   E    R    E   E
ANTH B426                               R      E   E   E    R    E   E
Capstone Course
ANTH H445               R               R      R   R   R         R   R
 I = Introduced, E = Emphasized, R = ReinforcedANTHROPOLOGY ASSESSMENT
 MEASURES

 Internal Interim Assessment
    1. Student Ability to Perform in Group A and B Courses. Majors are required to
        take a core of 4 introductory courses (ANTH E105, ANTH B200, ANTH P200,
        ANTH L200). As an interim measure of our success in transmitting anthropology
        basics in this core, student performance in upper level Group A and Group B
        courses will be monitored (majors typically take these course after taking the
        core). These grades serve only as an indirect measure, or barometer, of our
        achievement of learning objectives. Systematic patterns of deficiency may
        indicate areas where we are not adequately addressing learning objectives in our
        introductory courses. The faculty will report the numbers of majors who receive
        D’s or below in these courses to the chair. At the end of the academic year, the
        faculty will review systematic deficiencies, if any, in the transmission of
        anthropology basics from the core introductory courses, and recommend changes
        if necessary.

    2. Course Offerings. Every academic year, the frequency with which our courses
       are taught (and therefore the frequency with which we are addressing our learning
       objectives) will be examined in the curriculum map. This will identify
       inadequacies or imbalances in our ability to meet curricular needs.

 Internal Exit
    3. Capstone. Anthropology H445: History and Theory of Anthropology has always
        been our capstone course. It is restricted to majors who are graduating seniors.
        The course is a survey the major theories of anthropology of the past 150 years.
        Students read primary works and variously take written exams and write essays
        on these major works. Student performance is evaluated based on their written
        work and verbal performance in class. We also spend much time discussing the
        nature of graduate work and professional scholarship in the course. This course
        effectively ties together all of our learning objectives. A student’s grade is an
        effective gauge of the extent to which we have been successful in transmitting the
        breadth of anthropology to our students. If there emerges a pattern of low grades,
        or poor performance on certain assignments, then the faculty will address how our
        curriculum may not be adequately covering specific learning objectives.
Anthropology Assessment Plan                                                          4

   4. Survey of Graduating Majors. A survey of graduating seniors will be conducted
      within the context of the ANTH H445 capstone course on an annual basis. The
      survey will consist of questions relating to whether students feel our curriculum
      has delivered on our learning objectives as well as student satisfaction.


External Exit
   5. Graduate & Professional School Admissions. Part of our internal exit survey
      will consist of polling our year’s graduates and noting how many have gone on to
      graduate school.
   6. Alumni Survey. We would also like to conduct follow-up surveys of alumni.
      However, because departmental resources (personnel and material) are stretched
      to the limits we will, therefore, conduct graduate and alumni surveys regarding
      achievement of our program goals during years that we conduct a program
      review.

   7. Evaluation of achievement conducted by external visitors. One of our external
      measures will also consist of evaluations of achievements of our programs’ goals
      by external reviewers as part of our program review.
To:     Richard Sutter, Chair of Anthropology Department

From: COAS Assessment Committee
      Donna Holland, Chair
      Yihao Deng
      Debrah Huffman

Date:   February 21, 2011

RE:     2010 Assessment Plan and Report



The COAS Assessment Committee received and approved the Anthropology Department’s 2010
Assessment Plan and Report. There are some elements of the report that we want to highlight. Given the
history of waivers in the Anthropology Department, our committee can see a lot of effort recently went in
to creating the assessment plan and report. We commend you for your submission. The Department is
clearly making progress in the areas of assessment planning and reporting. Your report included some
of the key elements requested by the Committee. We review each element that your report
covered and provide recommendations for future reports.

Your report covers some aspects of the key elements requested by the committee. Your report provided
clear learning objectives and goals. You also provide clear explanations of what assessment method is
used to measure department objectives (#1, #3, & #4). Overall the method of assessment is limited to
open discussions among faculty and a review of student grades and course scheduling. It is excellent that
the Anthropology Department is developing a formal, discipline-specific survey instrument for the
capstone course. Your report clearly documented the program assessment process as requested from the
Committee. The curriculum map is used to identify the ability to meet curricular needs. Additionally, the
report highlights your learning objectives for each course. While you are currently tracking students’
grades of D or F and will make adjustments to the course is fine, your plan to include additional items
will strengthen future reports. Your report clearly documented how you have already made changes to
your curriculum using the assessment results. Anthropology used the assessment process to inform course
scheduling.

The following recommendations are not to be construed as requirements, but are provided in
order to give your department additional elements to consider in future assessments. Future
reports could be improved by stating the criteria for determining whether the outcome has been achieved.
No thresholds or cutoffs were identified. Although you seem to use a cut-off of grade C or better to
indicate learning objectives 2-4 were met, you do not explicitly state that a grade of C is acceptable.
Please consider a couple of issues. First, student grades may reflect student ability and not program or
instruction. Additionally, there is debate as to whether grades alone are sufficient to indicate that learning
objectives were met. For example, some scholars argue that using letter grades only to assess learning
outcomes may lead to grade inflation. While the Committee is not suggesting this will happen in
Anthropology, we do recommend that you add measurement techniques and recommend that you not rely
solely on letter grades. One other technique described in your report appeared to be a discussion of
student assessment within each faculty members’ courses and the examinations emphasis on critical
thinking skills. It appears from the report that as a result of this discussion you concluded that students
were achieving your learning objective #5 (critical thinking). We recommend that you incorporate a more
systematic method to better document and assess your learning objective #5. For example, all faculty
members could review exam questions, grading rubrics for the questions/exams, and then determine
average and range scores for each item in the rubrics. By breaking it down in this way, you can more
precisely demonstrate that a certain number of questions on the examinations addressed particular critical
thinking skills and a certain percentage of students met your pre-established cut-off. You could have pre-
established cut-offs such as 67% of the students will achieve 75% or better for each critical thinking item.
Then you can report the range of scores, the number of students who answered the critical thinking skills
questions, and of course, the percentage who met your threshold or cut-off criteria.

We suggest that you incorporate more results. We are cognizant that you are in the early stages of
building an assessment process, and it may take time to build your comprehensive assessment plan. Also,
the report did not specifically address your learning objective #6: acquire quantitative skills for analysis.
Your conclusion that it was met was not paired with results supporting this conclusion.

While the report highlights pre-test and post-test assessment designs in the capstone course, the
report/plan does not specify what criteria are assessed. Future reports could include examples of what is
covered on pre-test and post-test. The report declares that the capstone course effectively ties together all
learning objectives but does not convey how this was assessed. Future reports could use comparative data
when data become available.

Rather than relying strictly on student admission to graduate school to assess learning objective #7,
consider alternatives such as student receives professional journals, maintains professional group
membership, attends professional conferences/trainings/workshops at IPFW, etc.
                                       DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY
                                  260-<:fH 1-6305 • FAX: 260-4H 1-60H7




Donna Holland, Chair 

COAS Assessment Committee 


October 19, 2010

Donna:

The Department of Biology is requesting a waiver for submission of an assessment report for the2009­
2010 academic year. As currently practiced the assessment of our curriculum cannot address the key
elements requested by COAS and the Director of Assessment. Furthermore, the department is currently
finishing the self study of the program review. As part of the review, the department has proposed to
revise its assessment plan. In the next several weeks, the department will review and approve learning
outcomes that are aligned with the Baccalaureate Framework. Once this is complete the Assessment
Committee will begin developing a plan that will assess those learning objectives and outcomes. The
goal is to have a significantly revised assessment plan in place by May 15, 2011. If you have questions
please call me.

Sincerely,


5bC:;45:j>/~_'
Bob Gillespie 

Associate Chair 

16319 

gillespi@ipfw.edu 




cc: Carl Drummond




 ---------------   ----------------~-~---------------------------                       -------------
                                                                     11()9 •   \\\\\\.IPr\\.I1H
To:       Dr. Gillespie, Chair of Biology Department

From: COAS Assessment Committee
      Donna Holland, Chair
      Yihao Deng
      Debrah Huffman

Date: January 8, 2011 (revised February 21, 2011)

RE:       2010 Assessment Plan and Report



The COAS Assessment Committee has received your request for a waiver. We
approve this request. In your report next year, please make every attempt to
address the key elements listed below.

                 Key Elements to Include in each Department’s Report:

         List the learning goals and outcomes of the department/program and state
          the criteria for determining whether the outcome has been achieved (E.g.,
          70% of our students are expected to meet this outcome);
         Describe the program assessment process, including what is examined (e.g.
          senior seminar, capstone courses). If different outcomes are assessed each
          year, the report should address that system;
         Provide clear results of the goals and outcomes assessment;
         Explain any changes to be made to the curriculum and/or assessment process
          based on results.

If you have any questions, please contact any COAS Assessment Committee
member.
Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne
Assessment Report: Indirect Measures

Degree or certificate: B.S. in Chemistry
Program: Chemistry
Academic Year: 2009-2010


Program goals
Provide students the opportunity to develop their knowledge and skills in the various areas of
chemistry and to prepare them for success in future job or academic opportunities.

Provide students the opportunity to obtain a Bachelor’s Degree certified by the American
Chemical Society.

Program outcomes
Students will be successful at being admitted to graduate/ professional schools or finding
chemically-related jobs.



 Assessment measures and criteria                 Assessment results
 We sent an alumni survey in 2006 to about        100% of the respondents believed that they
 240 IPFW graduates with a B.S. degree in         received a quality degree from IPFW and
 chemistry. 48 alumni returned the survey.        93% believed that their study of chemistry at
 This survey will be sent out later this year;    IPFW adequately equipped them for their
 the results from it will be reported after       present position.
 compilation.
                                                  48% of the respondents to the B.S. degree
                                                  survey agreed that undergraduate research
                                                  was beneficial to their careers.
 We submitted in early 2004 a five-year report    We have received the ACS CPT’s
 to the American Chemical Society (ACS)           evaluation of our five-year report. The CPT
 Committee on Professional Training (CPT).        concluded that the Chemistry Department
                                                  continues to meet the guidelines for ACS
                                                  certification. Additionally, the CPT
                                                  commented that the quality of the student
                                                  undergraduate research reports for CHM 499
                                                  needed improvement.

                                                  The five-year report indicated there were 36
                                                  undergraduate chemistry research students in
                                                  the past 5 years who collaborated with 9
                                                  different chemistry faculty members.
 We also submitted an annual ACS report          In the 2009-2010 academic year, there were
 detailing, among other information, chemistry   eight graduates awarded a Bachelor’s Degree
 degrees awarded in the 2009-2010 academic       in Chemistry; four of these were ACS-
 year.                                           certified. Of these eight graduates, we are
                                                 aware of one that has matriculated at a
                                                 graduate school (biomedical engineering),
                                                 one at a dental school, and one at a medical
                                                 school.



Use of results:

The annual report was reviewed by the departmental Curriculum & Assessment committee and
found to be adequate measures of assessment for their kinds. Although the department would
typically submit a 5-year report in 2009, modifications to accreditation requirements by the
American Chemical Society have extended this deadline indefinitely.


Effect(s) on the program
We have decided to send out an alumni survey every two to three years. The Curriculum &
Assessment Committee has decided to add the following questions to the next survey: 1) Would
you like the IPFW Chemistry Department to inform you of potential employment opportunities
in chemistry? 2) Did you perform research as an undergraduate? Was it beneficial?

We continue to encourage more students to participate in undergraduate research with chemistry
faculty.

The Curriculum & Assessment committee assumes the charge of suggesting modifications that
improve the quality of all written communication by chemistry majors, especially CHM 499
research reports.
Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne
Assessment Report: Direct Measures

Degree or certificate: B.S.in Chemistry
Program: Chemistry
Academic Year: 2009-2010


Program goals
Provide students the opportunity to develop their knowledge and skills in the various areas of
chemistry and to prepare them for success in future job or academic opportunities.

Provide students the opportunity to obtain a Bachelor’s degree certified by the American
Chemical Society.


Program outcomes
Students will significantly increase their knowledge and skills in chemistry.



 Assessment measures and criteria                   Assessment results
 Oral presentations are required of all students    There were two CHM 495 and two CHM 499
 enrolled in CHM 495 (Seminar) and CHM              oral presentations in the 2009-2010 academic
 499 (Undergraduate Research). These                year.
 presentations are given to the Chemistry
 faculty or are given at undergraduate research
 conferences. When possible, they are
 informally discussed among the faculty.
 We have administered to all CHM 115                We identified 35 chemistry students who took
 students (every semester including summer I        Test I and Test III. For the 42 questions
 since the fall of 2002) a departmentally-          concerning general chemistry, the average
 developed assessment exam (Test I) with 42         score for the pre-test was 8.7 with a range of
 multiple-choice questions covering topics in       scores from 1 to 23 and a standard deviation
 general chemistry. We have administered to         of 5.4; for the post-test, the average score was
 all CHM 265 students (every fall semester          24.6 with a range of scores from 14 to 42 and
 since fall 2002) an assessment exam (Test II)      a standard deviation of 6.9. Each of the 35
 with 14 multiple-choice questions covering         students increased their score by at least 5
 topics in organic chemistry. We have               and the maximum increase was 30.
 administered to all CHM 321 students a 56
 multiple-choice question exam (Test III) that      We identified 40 chemistry students who took
 is identical to Test I plus Test II. Thus, while   Test II and Test III. For the 14 questions
 Tests I and II serve as pre-tests, Test III        concerning organic chemistry, the average
 serves as a post-test since the chemistry          score for the pre-test was 2.2 with a range of
 majors enrolled in CHM 321 will have taken         scores from 0 to 5 and a standard deviation of
 courses in general and organic chemistry.        1.3; for the post-test, the average score was
 However, it should be noted that CHM 321         5.5 with a range of scores from 1 to 10 and a
 students who did not take general (CHM 115)      standard deviation of 2.1. 27 of the 30
 and/or organic (CHM 265) chemistry at            students increased their score by at least 1
 IPFW will not have pre-test scores.              and the maximum increase was 8. Two
                                                  students had fewer correct responses on the
                                                  post-test than the pre-test; one other student
                                                  had the same score on both tests.


                                                  The average percentage correct on the general
                                                  chemistry test increased from 21% to 59%
                                                  and on the organic chemistry test increased
                                                  from 16% to 39%.



Use of results
The Curriculum & Assessment committee will present a formal proposal to modify CHM 495
and CHM 499 as needed for use as an objective and rigorous ‘capstone’ experience for our
students.

A question-by-question analysis of the pre- and post-assessment test results to date has identified
the following results:
        1) for the 42 questions on general chemistry-
                34 questions showed major improvement (> 15% absolute increase);
                5 questions showed improvement (> 5% absolute increase);
                2 questions were unchanged (+ 5% to - 5% absolute change); and
                1 question showed a decline (> 5% absolute decrease)

       2) for the 14 questions on organic chemistry-
               9 questions showed major improvement (> 15% absolute increase);
               3 questions showed improvement (> 5% absolute increase);
               1 question was unchanged (+ 5% to - 5% absolute change); and
               1 question showed a decline (> 5% absolute decrease)


Effect(s) on the program
The Curriculum & Assessment committee continues to work on revising curriculum goals and
objectives to better align them with the Baccalaureate Framework, and developing a curriculum
map to identify what role each course plays in presenting them; upon completion of these tasks,
the committee will begin discussion regarding different schemes to improve connectivity of key
concepts throughout the curriculum and improve the effectiveness of our assessment.

We will continue to administer these pre- and post-tests and evaluate data annually.
The topics of those questions in the evaluation test that had a greater-than-5% absolute decrease
have been passed on to the instructors of general chemistry and organic chemistry for
remediation in those courses.
TO:      Ronald S. Friedman, Professor and Chair of Department of Chemistry
FROM: COAS Assessment Committee
      Donna Holland, Chair
      Yihao Deng
      Debrah Huffman
DATE:    January 10, 2011 (revised February 21, 2011)
RE:      Department of Chemistry 2010 Assessment Plan and Report



The COAS Assessment Committee received the Chemistry Department’s 2010 Assessment Plan
and Report. We reviewed each element your report covered and provide recommendations for
future report(s).

Your report covered the learning goals and objectives, program assessment process,
assessment results, and changes to be made to the curriculum. The direct and indirect measures
provide the assessment from different perspectives. However, the criteria for achieving the
learning goals and objectives are not very clearly defined.

We recommend that in future reports you provide clear criteria in assessing your program
success (for example, a certain percentage of students are expected to meet certain goals).
Thank you very much for your efforts.
  Communication: Interpersonal/Organizational Major Portfolio Assessment
                                 Form
Student Name: _______________________________ Student Advisor:____________________

Expected Date of Graduation: _______________

The student has been evaluated on the manner in which his or her portfolio effectively and
professionally addresses each of the following communication area learning outcomes.

Rating Legend: 10 – Excellent, 9 – Highly Competent, 8 – Competent, 7 – Satisfactory,
6 – Substandard, 5 – Unacceptable

LEARNING OUTCOMES                                                                      RATING

Be able to articulate the historical traditions of the discipline;
The student has demonstrated that s/he is able to articulate the history and         10 9 8 7 6 5
development of communication as a field of study; understanding of the
development of theories and methods; fundamental background in the literature
and chronology of communication studies, as well as key historical figures

Be aware of and skillful in the use of new technologies relevant to
your major;
The student has demonstrated that s/he is aware of and skillful in the use of new    10 9 8 7 6 5
technologies relevant to her/his major. The student has demonstrated general
computer literacy including the ability to use software programs, online
databases, and Internet resources; ability to present ideas professionally through
media including word processing and presentation software (i.e., PowerPoint),
creation of website or web-based software, photography, and audio-video-film
production.

Be able to explain communication concepts and theories relevant to
your major;                                                                          10 9 8 7 6 5
The student has demonstrated a conceptual understanding of the communication
concepts including knowledge of various genres and major theories. Areas of
theoretical study may include mass communication, nonverbal, group, cultural
and gender, rhetoric, interpersonal, and persuasion.

Be able to explain, evaluate and apply the processes involved in
productive conflict in the contexts (interpersonal, small group,                     10 9 8 7 6 5
organizational, mediated, public) relevant to the major;
The student has demonstrated the ability to analyze diverse perspectives
involved in a conflict and respond in a competent manner.

Demonstrate awareness of diverse perspectives;
The student has demonstrated awareness of diverse perspectives (i.e., in             10 9 8 7 6 5
terms of cultural, ethnic, sex, gender, religious, or sexual orientation
differences.)
LEARNING OUTCOMES                                                            ____   RATING

Be a competent reader, speaker, writer, and listener (a course artifact may mean one or more of
these).
The student has demonstrated his/her ability to comprehend written
                                                                           10 9 8 7 6 5
and/or mediated text, deliver an effective oral presentation (with
appropriate organization, support, and delivery), write an effective
paper (well organized, coherent argument, appropriate supported), and
listen effectively (exhibits active listening skills with appropriate
responses).

Evaluate interpersonal and/or group interactions (a course artifact
                                                                                10 9 8 7 6 5
may meet either context);
Student has demonstrated the ability to evaluate key components of an
interpersonal interaction (i.e., perspective taking, self-monitoring, ways
to deal with conflict, assertiveness) or group interaction (member roles,
leadership behavior, productive conflict management,
task/relational/procedural roles).

Communicate competently (effectively, appropriately, ethically)
interpersonally and/or in groups (a course artifact may meet either             10 9 8 7 6 5
                                                                                10 9 8 7 6 5
context).
The student has demonstrated the ability to consider him/herself and
“other” in the interpersonal or group interaction and to be effective (in
reaching instrumental and relational goals), appropriate (for the
situation and the goals) and ethical.


This portfolio is assessed as:                                                  10 9 8 7 6 5
10 = Excellent, 9 = Highly Competent, 8 = Competent, 7 = Satisfactory, 6 = Substandard, 5 = Unacceptable
_______________________________                                              _______________________
Faculty Signature                                                            Date
_______________________________                                              _______________________
Faculty Signature                                                            Date
_______________________________                                              _______________________
                                                                                 10 9 8 7 6 5
Faculty Signature                                                            Date




                                                                                10 9 8 7 6 5
      Communication: Media and Public Major Portfolio Assessment Form
Student Name: _______________________________ Student Advisor:____________________

Expected Date of Graduation: _______________

The student has been evaluated on the manner in which his or her portfolio effectively and
professionally addresses each of the following communication area learning outcomes.

Rating Legend: 10 – Excellent, 9 – Highly Competent, 8 – Competent, 7 – Satisfactory,
6 – Substandard, 5 – Unacceptable

LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR ALL MAJORS                                                       RATING

Be able to articulate the historical traditions of the discipline;                   10 9 8 7 6 5
The student has demonstrated that s/he is able to articulate the history and
development of communication as a field of study; understanding of the
development of theories and methods; fundamental background in the literature
and chronology of communication studies, as well as key historical figures

Be aware of and skillful in the use of new technologies relevant to
your major;                                                                          10 9 8 7 6 5
The student has demonstrated that s/he is aware of and skillful in the use of new
technologies relevant to her/his major. The student has demonstrated general
computer literacy including the ability to use software programs, online
databases, and Internet resources; ability to present ideas professionally through
media including word processing and presentation software (i.e., PowerPoint),
creation of website or web-based software, photography, and audio-video-film
production.

Be able to explain communication concepts and theories relevant to                   10 9 8 7 6 5
your major;
The student has demonstrated a conceptual understanding of the communication
concepts including knowledge of various genres and major theories. Areas of
theoretical study may include mass communication, nonverbal, group, cultural
and gender, rhetoric, interpersonal, and persuasion.

Be able to explain, evaluate and apply the processes involved in                     10 9 8 7 6 5
productive conflict in the contexts (interpersonal, small group,
organizational, mediated, public) relevant to the major;
The student has demonstrated the ability to analyze diverse perspectives
involved in a conflict and respond in a competent manner.

Demonstrate awareness of diverse perspectives;                                       10 9 8 7 6 5
The student has demonstrated awareness of diverse perspectives (i.e., in
terms of cultural, ethnic, sex, gender, religious, or sexual orientation
differences.)
LEARNING OUTCOMES                                                             ____   RATING

Be a competent reader, speaker, writer, and listener (a course artifact may mean one or more of
these).
The student has demonstrated his/her ability to comprehend written
                                                                           10 9 8 7 6 5
and/or mediated text, deliver an effective oral presentation (with
appropriate organization, support, and delivery), write an effective
paper (well organized, coherent argument, appropriate supported), and
listen effectively (exhibits active listening skills with appropriate
responses).

Identify and analyse the interrelation among media economics and                   10 9 8 7 6 5
                                                                                 10 9 8 7 6 5
relevant institutions and agencies;
The student has demonstrated understanding of how two or more of the
media industries and some agencies (i.e. companies) within those
industries influence each other, compete with one another, and support
one another and perhaps other agencies (i.e. governmental).

Critically analyze media and public communication;                                   10 9 8 7 6 5
The student has demonstrated the ability to critically analyze messages in
media (possibly including but not limited to commercials, advertisements,
                                                                                 10 9 8 7 6 5
narratives, technical components, etc.) and/or messages in public
communication (possibly including but not limited to public address,
campaigns, news media, political punditry, public opinions, etc.).

Identify and analyze instances of the interdependent relations                       10 9 8 7 6 5
between media and society;
The student has demonstrated the ability to critically analyze how media
influence society, and individuals in that society, and has demonstrated         10 9 8 7 6 5
the ability to critically analyze how society, and individuals in that society
influence the media industries.

Demonstrate a basic understanding of the terminology of mediated                     10 9 8 7 6 5
and public communication;
The student has demonstrated an understanding of terminology used
within mediated communication and/or public communication and the                10 9 8 7 6 5
student has demonstrated an understanding of terminology used to
analyze mediated communication and/or public communication

Identify and analyze the form, structure, and techniques of mediated                 10 9 8 7 6 5
or public texts in their entirety, and consider how they function in a
larger context.
The student has demonstrated the ability to critically analyze the form,
structure, and techniques in media [possibly including but not limited to
narrative structure, production techniques (i.e. shot composition, lighting
technique, mise-en-scene, etc.), genre, etc.] and messages in public
communication (possibly including but not limited to presentational
structure and/or style, persuasive/rhetorical techniques, etc.).
This portfolio is assessed as:
10 = Excellent, 9 = Highly Competent, 8 = Competent, 7 = Satisfactory, 6 = Substandard, 5 = Unacceptable
_______________________________                                           _______________________
Faculty Signature                                                         Date
_______________________________                                           _______________________
Faculty Signature                                                         Date
_______________________________                                           _______________________
Faculty Signature                                                         Date
                        !
"#$%&'&($)(*%!+*)$%#*!,-%.*&/#0.!1/&*2/-0/!3(#)(-!
         4%5(&*6%#*!/2!7/66)#0.(*0/#!
                  89:!;%22!<(--!
                8=:=!,>!7/-0?%)6!
              @/&*!A(B#%C!D;!EFG:H
                                          Portfolio Overview


Welcome to the Department of Communication at IPFW! You are receiving this electronic portfolio
manual because you have chosen to major in Communication at IPFW. This manual will help you
prepare for two very important days, graduation day and your first day on a new job or in school as a
graduate student! To graduate with a degree from the Department of Communication (if you
declared your major in 2009 or after), you must submit a complete electronic portfolio and
receive a passing grade.


In the pages that you follow, you will find (a) an explanation of the purposes and benefits of an
electronic portfolio, (b) a brief description of an electronic portfolio and the sections to be included
in your portfolio, (c) a list of departmental objectives for all students identifying as a communication
major as well as those specified for students in Media and Public Communication and Interpersonal
and Organizational Communication, and (d) an overview of other portfolio related requirements.
Please note: it is not the purpose of this manual to inform you of how to use technology and/or
software to help you design your portfolio. Such information will be provided during your studies, as
explained in the portfolio related requirements section of this manual.
The primary purposes of the portfolio are:
   •   To assist you in articulating to potential employers and/or graduate schools the knowledge
       and skills that you have obtained during your tenure at IPFW.
   •   To demonstrate your learning in the classroom, in addition to other aspects of your life,
       including work and/or volunteer or community experiences.
   •   To assist the Department of Communication at IPFW with assessing the curriculum and
       achievement of departmental objectives and goals for graduates.
The benefits of the portfolio are:
   •   To generate a set of products that you can use when developing your resume, searching for a
       job, and applying to graduate school.
   •   To track student learning outcomes and those needing improvement.
   •   To assess student competencies without standardized testing during undergraduate studies.
                                  What is an Electronic Portfolio?
An electronic portfolio is a modern way for you to document what you’ve learned during your tenure
at IPFW and how your education aligns with your professional goals. You will construct a webpage
and a DVD that will serve as your electronic portfolio. In the words of John Dewey, “Education is
not preparation for life; education is life itself.” Encapsulated in Dewey’s words, learning is not
limited to the classroom, but occurs at work and through our involvement in other life experiences.
You will need to include three sections in your electronic portfolio: Section I: Your Homepage;
Section II: Classroom Experiences; and Section III: Work and/or Other Life Experiences. A brief
description of each section is offered below.


Section I: Your Homepage
In this section, you will introduce yourself by providing your name and contact information, a
personal statement of professionalism (i.e., what it means to be a professional in your desired field?),
an overview of your professional goals (i.e., what you hope to accomplish as a graduate of the
Department of Communication at IPFW?), and an electronic copy of your resume or curriculum vita.


Section II: Classroom Experiences
In the classroom experiences section of your portfolio, you will articulate and provide evidence of
how you have satisfied each of the objectives set forth by the department (see the complete list of
objectives on pages 5-7). Although course outlines and syllabi often state the instructor’s goals for a
class, you may learn more that what the instructor specified. Thus, be certain to isolate what you
personally achieved from your classroom experiences rather than what a course bulletin or syllabus
indicates you should have learned. To do so, you will:
   •   Write a reflection paper (approximately a paragraph or ! a page) for each departmental
       objective and
   •   Provide an artifact from a communication course that demonstrates your competency of that
       objective(s). In your reflection, you will want to specifically reference how the artifact that
       you are submitting demonstrates your competency of that learning objective. One artifact
       may demonstrate several objectives, but you will need to articulate this in your
       reflection paper.
Artifacts from a classroom experience could include, but are not limited to, written assignments,
recorded presentations, examinations, and/or quizzes.


                                                                                                         3
Section II: Work and/or Other Life Experiences
Learning from a work (e.g., paid employment, internship) and/or other life (e.g., campus
involvement, community service) experience differs in nature and kind from learning acquired in the
classroom. There seldom is an "instructor figure" to distill and organize the experience to make
learning structured, clear, and relevant. Despite such difficulty, learning from work and other life
experiences is equally important. In this section, you will:
   •   Write a reflection paper (approximately a paragraph or ! a page) for at least three
       departmental objectives that you’ve achieved from a work and/or other life experience during
       your tenure at IPFW and
   •   Provide an artifact from that experience that demonstrates your competency of that
       objective(s). In your reflection, you will want to specifically reference how the artifact that
       you are submitting demonstrates competency of that learning objective.
Artifacts from work and/or other life experiences could include, but are not limited to, a job
description in addition to an evaluation from a superior and/or a work project (e.g., multi-media
presentation, video clip, brochure of project, presentation PowerPoints), copies of publications,
writings, or drawings, newspaper articles written about a project, letters confirming your
participation with service organizations, and/or photos of items you built or created along with
certification that the item pictured was your work.




                                                                                                         4
                                    Student Learning Objectives


Outlined below is a description of the objectives set forth by the Department of Communication at
IPFW for all graduates of Communication as well as students focusing in areas of Media and Public
Communication (COMM) or Interpersonal and Organizational Communication (COMI). The
department’s objectives are closely aligned with IPFW’s goals, outlined in the Baccalaureate
Framework. When developing portfolio entries for classroom and work and/or other life experiences,
you must describe how you have satisfied each of the objectives outlined below, in addition to
providing an artifact (e.g., paper, project, or some other assignment) that demonstrates your
competency of that objective. Below, you will also find a list of courses associated with the objective
where you may have accomplished each objective. Courses in bold are required of all majors.
All graduates of the Department of Communication will:
                                              Baccalaureate        Classes where this objective
              Objective
                                           Framework Goal(s)              should be met
1. Be able to articulate the historical   Acquisition             300*
   traditions of the discipline;
2. Be aware of and skillful in the use    Acquisition             120, 308, 331, 332, 334,
   of new technologies relevant to                                337,480
   your major;
3. Be able to articulately explain        Acquisition             212, 248, 253, 300, 303, 310,
   communication concepts and                                     318, 324, 325, 330, 410, 422
   theories relevant to your major;
4. Be able to explain, evaluate and       Application, Critical   212, 303, 316, 318, 410, 471
   apply the process involved in          Thinking,
   productive conflict in the contexts    Communication
   (interpersonal, small group,
   organizational, mediated, public)
   relevant to the major;
5. Demonstrate awareness of diverse       Critical Thinking,      212, 300, 303, 310, 312, 314,
   perspectives; and                      Communication,          316, 318, 330, 338, 410, 422
                                          Personal/
                                          Professional Values,
                                          Community
6. Be a competent reader, speaker,        Application             212, 300, 303, 308, 310, 314,
   writer and listener in both face-to-                           316, 318, 325, 333, 334, 410,
   face as well as mediated settings.                             471




                                                                                                     5
B.A. in Media & Public Communication (COMM)
The major in media and public communication offers theoretical, critical, and practical
perspectives to help you navigate the changing communication environment of the 21st century.
The courses in this major help you understand communication and media practices and adapt to
new technologies. These courses provide concepts and skills that enable you to think and write
critically about media and public communication in relation to society, culture, and everyday
life. In addition, course areas are available that give you practical experience in message design,
media production, and communication performance. Graduates of the program have careers in:
    •   Public information
    •   Media production
    •   Writing for media
    •   Management
    •   Sales
    •   Advertising
    •   Public relations
In addition to the objectives for all graduates, COMM graduates will be able to:
                                       Baccalaureate Framework       Classes where this
            Objective
                                                Goal(s)            objective should be met
7. Identify and analyze the           Acquisition,                250
   interrelation among media          Personal/Professional
   economics and relevant             Values
   institutions and agencies;
8. Critically analyze media           Application, Critical       248, 250, 253, 318, 330,
   and public communication;          Thinking, Communication     338, 401, 421, 422

9. Identify and analyze               Acquisition,                250, 330, 421, 422
    instances of the                  Personal/Professional
    interdependent relations          Values, Community
    between media and society;
10. Demonstrate a basic               Acquisition                 248, 253, 318, 332, 421
    understanding of the
    terminology of mediated
    and public communication;
11. Identify and analyze the          Acquisition/Application     248, 253, 318, 333,
    form, structure, and                                          334m 401, 421
    techniques of mediated or
    public texts in their entirety,
    and consider how they
    function in a larger context.


                                                                                                  6
B.A. in Interpersonal & Organizational Communication (COMI)
This program helps you understand human communication and develop skill and sensitivity in
speaking, listening, and participating in varied communication situations. Courses focus on
theory and practice in communication tasks ranging from interviewing to addressing large
audiences. The degree program helps you prepare for a career in:
   •   Government
   •   Sales
   •   Public relations
   •   Law
   •   Public and social service
   •   Personnel
   •   Business communication
   •   Industrial communication
In addition to the objectives for all graduates, COMI graduates will be able to:
          Objective                 Baccalaureate Framework          Classes where this
                                            Goal(s)                objective should be met
7. Evaluate interpersonal          Application,                 212, 310, 320
and/or group interactions; and     Personal/Professional
                                   Values, Community,
                                   Critical Thinking,
                                   Communication
8. Communicate competently         Application, Community,      212, 310, 320, 410
(effectively, appropriately,       Communication
ethically) interpersonally
and/or in groups.




                                                                                              7
             Other Portfolio Related Requirements—Getting You to Graduation


As a Communication major, you’re required to take three one credit hour courses that are
designed to help you successfully translate the knowledge you’ve obtained as a Communication
major to your desired professional field. In each of these courses, time will be dedicated to your
portfolio. A brief description of each of these courses (as stated in the course bulletin) is
provided below in addition to a notation about the emphasis on the portfolio you can expect in
each of the courses.


COM 120 Introduction to Communication Technology and Communication Fields
This is the first of a series of three, one-credit courses that all Communication majors at IPFW
entering Fall 06 and after are required to take. The applied portion of this course will introduce
students to technology and software that is desirable for communication professionals. This
course will also provide students with an overview of the general fields to which their degree
will most likely lead them. Students can also expect an introduction to the portfolio and its role
in their successful graduation from the Department of Communication.


COM 308 Applied Communication
This course explores the varied fields of communication. Students will be exposed to varied
fields where they may utilize their degree. Students will also learn and practice job-seeking skills
including job search, resume and cover letter preparation, and interviewing protocol and skill. In
this course, students will also submit their electronic portfolios for a mid-career assessment. By
the end of the class, students will have updated their portfolios to include work from other mid-
level classes, as well as resumes created in the class.


COM 480 Senior Seminar in Communication
This course is designed as a capstone for the communication major. It will require students to
demonstrate proficiency in oral, written, and mediated communication. Students will synthesize
their knowledge of communication theory and content. By the end of this course, students will
submit their final electronic portfolio to the section instructor, who will grade the portfolio. The
final portfolio will be submitted in two formats: as a DVD and as a webpage. Students will have
to achieve a passing grade to satisfy the requirements for the course and graduation. Students


                                                                                                       8
who do not complete the portfolio and achieve a 70% will be required to re-take the course and
re-submit their portfolio, prolonging their graduation.


What will the department do with your submitted and graded portfolio?
Undergraduate programmatic assessment will take place every other year with the evaluation of
undergraduate portfolios required in COM 480. These portfolios will be gathered each semester,
by randomly drawing 25% of portfolios from the COM 480 class. Every other year, the
portfolios will be assessed by the faculty. Portfolios will be assessed according to the objectives
for all majors as well as the objectives specific to Media and Public (COMM) or Interpersonal
and Organizational (COMI). The faculty will use a rubric designed to evaluate how well the
portfolios show mastery of the objectives.




Updated 10/2010



                                                                                                      9
To:       Dr. Dixon, Chair
          Department of Communications

CC:       Dr. Kennedy-Lightsey, Assistant Professor

From: COAS Assessment Committee
      Donna Holland, Chair
      Yihao Deng
      Debrah Huffman

Date: February 21, 2011 (revised)

RE:       2010 Assessment Plan and Report Waiver



The COAS Assessment Committee has received your request for a waiver. We
approve this request. In your report next year, please make every attempt to
address the key elements listed below.

Key Elements to Include in each Department’s Report:

         List the learning goals and outcomes of the department/program and state
          the criteria for determining whether the outcome has been achieved (E.g.,
          70% of our students are expected to meet this outcome);
         Describe the program assessment process, including what is examined (e.g.
          senior seminar, capstone courses). If different outcomes are assessed each
          year, the report should address that system;
         Provide clear results of the goals and outcomes assessment;
         Explain any changes to be made to the curriculum and/or assessment process
          based on results.

If you have any questions, please contact any COAS Assessment Committee
member.
                                             1

                               Assessment Report - 2010

                Communication Sciences and Disorders Department
                B.S. Degree – Communication Sciences and Disorders

I.   Assessment Measures

     A.    Academic Scholarship Measures
           Goal: Students demonstrate appropriate research skills and oral, written,
           and group interaction effectiveness in their progress toward professional
           preparedness with 80% on all three of the measures.

           CSD 42000, Introduction to Developmental Speech and Language Disorders in
           Children was selected as the target course for this section of the departmental
           evaluation. There were twenty-eight junior/senior-level students enrolled in the
           class for the Spring 2010 semester. CSD 42000 also serves as the department=s
           course to meet the IPFW computer literacy requirement. There are three different
           measures used to determine progress toward graduation. The first measure is a
           research paper that requires web-based information as well as references to
           journals and books and the proper use of American Psychological Association=s
           publication format. An oral report is part of the requirement. After the semester
           is over, two CSD instructors evaluate about 50% of the papers using the new
           rubric for communication that was developed by the Communication Assessment
           Task Force in Summer 2010. The papers are randomly selected with names
           removed.

           The second measure is a group project to plan an intervention session for an
           assigned language-disordered client. The student group must research the
           disorder, find appropriate intervention plans, and design goals for ten sessions of
           intervention. Students rate themselves and the others in their group on a
           pre-assigned form focused on each member=s role and contribution to the
           completed project. These items are submitted as a written report. Additionally,
           the group presents the intervention plan and rationale orally to the class.

           The third measure is a report about a specific language test that has been scored
           for a specific client. Students review the test and what specific information should
           be evaluated; the client=s performance on the test; what might be potential findings
           and what the specific performance of the client means. All of the measures are
           evaluated by the course instructor. The following is CSD 420 data from the Spring
           2010 semester that was evaluated only by the course instructor.
                                                 2

Measures Evaluated by the Course Instructor

 Measures                                  SATISFACTORY                  FAIR            POOR

 Research paper & oral report                        23                    4                  1

 Group Therapy Plan
   Research skills                                   28                    0                  0
   Oral report                                       28                    0                  0
   Evaluation                                        26                    2

 Test Analysis                                       28                    0                  0

       Twenty-three/twenty-eight or 80% of the students performed adequately for their paper
and oral reports on their research topics, all twenty-eight 100% performed adequately for the
group therapy plan; all twenty-eight 100% performed adequately on the test analysis task. Two
students were viewed by their peers as not meeting the class standard/evaluation for group
participation.

       In addition, CSD had two instructors independently evaluate the writing and research of
sixteen of twenty-eight papers produced by the students in the course. Each paper was randomly
assigned to two instructors. Of the papers reviewed, one third are evaluated by instructors A and
B, one third by instructors B and C and one third by instructors A and C. Using a new rubric
developed by the Arts and Sciences Task force on Communication, each faculty member critiques
the thesis, development of ideas, organization, use of sources, style, and the mechanics of the
papers. The goal is to have 80% or more meet the criteria. The following are the overall data
for the research and writing skills that were scored independently by two department faculty along
with the instructor of the course.

Measure of Research and Writing Independently Evaluated by Two Faculty

 Measures                           EXCELLENT             SATISFACTORY                  POOR

 Research paper N=16                        6                 8                           2

        Findings and Conclusions
        All the scores for writing and research by two instructors for each paper were similar and
agreed upon. The scores are presented on the chart. Fourteen of sixteen or 88% achieved
excellent or satisfactory scores. These scores are consistent with the course instructor=s
evaluation of the research papers.
        The major problems in research skills and writing were citation of secondary sources in
APA style, APA errors on citations within the body of the paper, narrative skills including
transitions and use of conjunctions, and proofreading. Although most of the research papers met
                                                3

excellent or satisfactory expectations, the faculty continues to be concerned about the writing
ability of the majors. Eight students used the Writing Center as they developed their papers. All
students had completed English W233.

B.    Measures of Capstone Experience
      Goal: 80% or more of graduating seniors will successfully engage in at least one
      culminating pre-professional experience as noted below in 1, 2, & 3.
      There were 25 seniors. Six seniors completed one experience, thirteen completed two
      culminating experiences and one completed three for a total of 21 of the 25 (84%). Four
      did not complete a senior experience and chose not to enroll in clinic, the camp or do an
      independent study. Three of the four students graduated in December and one in the
      spring. None were planning on continuing in the field of speech-language pathology or
      audiology.

      1.       CSD 59000 - Directed Study of Special Problems
               Goal: Development of research skills while independently pursuing depth
               of knowledge in topic areas of interest.
                                      Two projects were completed.
               Both projects were successful and each student presented her findings of her work
               to faculty and students in the CSD Spring Research Forum.

      2.       CSD 54900 - Clinical Practicum I
               Goal 1: 90% of students met or made sufficient progress on their self-selected
               clinical goals.
                                    Seventeen participated in clinical practicum.

        Students chose the goals in conjunction with their clinical supervisors. Each student was
matched with a single client while the ninth was matched with two, for a total of 18 clients.
Baseline data was taken and data was updated throughout the semester. Typically, the student
clinician needed to display the targeted behaviors over a specific number of consecutive therapy
sessions (usually 3) in order to meet their goals. Final data collection was taken during the
semester at the point when they reached their goals; however, data was continued in order to
determine if the clinician continued to maintain or progress in the specific skill.

Of the 44 goals chosen, 42 were met (95%). Significant progress was made by the students on
two other goals.

               Goal 2: 90% of the clients or their families agreed that they were satisfied with
               the progress made; that they would recommend the clinic to others; and if
               previous therapy was experienced at a different locality, the experience at IPFW
               was good or superior by comparison.
                                                  4

Surveys returned 16/18    Strongly Agree, Agree       Superior   Good             Yes       No
Satisfied with progress      14            2
 Recommend to others                                                                16
Previous therapy N=13                                    8       5

Sixteen respondents strongly agreed or agreed (100%) that they were satisfied with the results of
therapy. 100% agreed that they would recommend the clinic to others. Thirteen or 100% of the
participants who had had therapy elsewhere rated the experience at IPFW as “superior” to or as
“good” as previous speech therapy treatment.

               Goal 3: CSD 39900 in conjunction with CSD 40500: Students will participant in
               the preparation and delivery of a weekend theatre camp for children who use
               augmentative or alternative communication devices. This experience is similar to
               but different from the clinical practicum experience.
                                       Thirteen students participated in this experience.

C.     Measures At Exit and After
       1.     Exit Survey of Graduating Seniors -2009
              Goal: To determine the felt merits of the department preparation as judged by the
              most recent graduates once they had formally departed IPFW. At the end of the
              semester in May, 2010 a letter and survey form were given or sent to each
              graduate by the CSD chair or another faculty member to be returned to the
              department secretary in the stamped addressed return envelope provided.
              GOAL: Overall satisfaction 90% MET.
       Findings:
              21 of 27 forms were completed (75%).
                     a.      Strengths: overall 21/21 (100%) satisfaction based on comments
                             provided by the students who returned the forms.
                             Not all students commented on the areas listed below so raw data
                             for each area is reported.
                             1. Academic classes: 21/21 (100%) satisfied with courses
                             2. Clinic: 20/20 (100%) satisfied with clinical experiences
                             3. Student life: 14/14 (100%) satisfied
                             4. Academic advising: 21/21 (100%) satisfied
                             5. Dept. facilities: 17/17 (100%) liked having the labs and library
                                 resources within the department areas
                             6. Special dept. meetings: 17/17 (100%) enjoyed the information
                                 presented about graduate school and career options
                             7. NSSLHA (Speech and Hearing Club/ASL-PAH):
                                 4/4 (100%) Many did not comment here or did not join the
                                 national student organization. However, many were part of the
                                 department clubs. Most students join the national group when
                                 they are in graduate school.
                                                 5

                       b.     Improvements: Although students are satisfied some did offer
                              some suggestions for improvement. Typical comments made by
                              those who chose to comment are shown here. If comments were
                              repeated they were only shown once.
                              1.      Academic classes: more sections of courses; more
                                     professors, consider tutors for courses, update
                                     videotapes/DVDs; consider textbook costs; more hands-on
                                     in class; incorporate phonetics in all classes to keep the skill
                                     up; Incorporate more problem solving; more focus on adult
                                     clients; make sure seniors and students get into courses they
                                     need for timely graduation; partner with biology to do
                                     dissection of larynx
                              2.     Clinic: two supervisors can be difficult; more space needed;
                                     more direction for clinical activities; more time to talk with
                                     supervisor directly after the therapy session
                              3.     Independent study: provide more frequent information
                                     about this opportunity; more books in CSD library-up to
                                     date particularly on adult disorders
                              4.     Student life: more frequent club meetings; announce
                                     activities more in classes; assign mentor to incoming majors;
                                     find ways to involve underclassmen; increase incentive to
                                     join; practice ASL more in ASL PAH club
                              5.     Atmosphere in department: Positive, welcoming, warm,
                                     friendly; professional, energetic; caring
                              6.     Other comments: the majority of the students commented
                                     on needing more professors and more space. Many
                                     commented on being disappointed that the MA in SLP was
                                     not going to be implemented soon.

2010 Annual Tally of Graduate School Acceptance Goal: 80% of those who apply.

Number of Seniors                            Applications              Acceptances
     25                                           15 (60%)               11/15 (73%)


Of the fifteen 2010 graduates who applied, seven were accepted into more than one graduate
program. Of the four who were not admitted into graduate school, all three are employed as
assistants to speech-pathologists or audiologists. Of the ten who did not apply to graduate
school: two were hired as B.S. Degree assistants in area school systems; two were planning to
apply to graduate school for 2011; the rest continued with their jobs to work full or part time or
marry and start a family.
                                                 6

       2. Alumnae Survey
       Goal: To determine the impact of particular departmental activity as now perceived by
       graduates three years post-graduation.

These surveys are sent out every three years to graduates of the program. 2010 was a year to
survey the post-graduates one to three years away from IPFW and CSD. Thirty were sent and 5
were returned (17%). One was returned for no forwarding address. The following charts the
responses.
Alumnus    Attended Grad School     Working as           CSD prepared me        UG
           SLP        Other                              adequately N=6 items   Exceeded (E)
                                    SLP          Other    Yes     No            Satisfactory (S)
                                                                                compared to others
1          X                        X                    X (6)                  E
2                     X MBA                          X   X (6)                                S
3          X                        X                    X (6)                  E
4          X                        X                    X (5)       X(1)       E
5          X                        X                    X (6)                  E

Open ended comments about “How the undergraduate experience exceeded others” included:
ahead on clinical skills and preparation of the courses; and textbooks used were the same.
Suggestions for improvement were: more adult client experience; more on aphasia, dysphasia
and dysarthria.
GOAL: Overall satisfaction was 100% MET

Findings and Conclusions
Measures at exit and up to three years after graduation
All of the graduating seniors who responded stated they were well satisfied with their
academic, clinical, advising and student-life experiences. However, they comment on the lack of
space, the need for more sections of courses and more opportunity to engage in department and
club activities. Alumni reflected that their experience at IPFW was superior or satisfactory, but
they also commented on more course opportunities, more clinical experience particularly with
adult clients and more space.

Comments

       Closing the loop: Responses/Actions for continuous improvement:
       From the survey comments: There were four major themes.

       1.      More clinic space/opportunity:
       Space on campus is tight for everyone. Although we would like to expand the work/lab
       areas for the students, there is no place to expand. This problem may be remedied in a
       few years when the new buildings on campus are completed, when nursing moves to LA
       (but so far that has not released enough space in Neff Hall), and when the master=s degree
       in speech-language pathology is implemented. We have remodeled the lab/library area to
       include six more new computers, and we have upgraded the remaining computers. The
       problem is that we have two to three times as many senior majors than we did several
       years ago when the space was adequate. All clinic records and preparation must be done
                                               7


     in the clinic areas to protect confidentiality in compliance with HIPPA rules. Further, we
     have two faculty members who can supervise and that is not enough currently to meet the
     needs of the seniors. CSD needs another full time, tenure track faculty member.

     2.      Tell students about the 590 opportunities earlier
     Advisors routinely tell students about the independent study option and encourage those
     who might have interest to consider it. The independent study option is not likely to be
     chosen until the student has had several courses in the major because the student must
     select something of interest to him/her. Further, the student is likely to have to complete
     the training in human subjects and submit an IRB plan. All of which typically is done
     during the early part of the semester prior to the project. Many students find this extra
     effort beyond their capability and available time. In the spring if there has been a 590
     project (and there was in spring 2010), the student(s) share the projects in a seminar for all
     majors to attend. This meeting is announced to all classes encouraging all majors to
     attend, it is posted on the web page, and fliers are given out to majors in all CSD classes
     about the event. The purpose and variety of ways the Independent Study option can be
     used are presented at these meetings. One challenge the department has is the lack of
     senior Ph.D faculty who can direct the studies. All are teaching to the maximum and
     typically taught an uncompensated overload for the past two years thus reducing the time
     each has to devote to guiding these projects.

     3.       More sections of courses; more flexibility of course order
     The faculty in the department work at 100% efficiency according to Dean Drummond.
     Without more full time faculty, the department cannot offer multiple sections or have
     flexibility in when the courses are offered. To accommodate the burgeoning number of
     junior and senior majors, we offer two sections of three upper level courses only because a
     qualified limited term lecturer was found to teach sections of the introductory course. This
     allowed the full time faculty member to offer double sections of the upper level courses.
     This solution cannot be applied to two core courses that another faculty member teaches
     because PhD professors need to teach those core classes. An LTL typically does not
     have the credentials to offer these core courses. We enlarged the all upper level courses
     to the maximum thus limiting some of the hands-on experiences our students enjoy. We
     are not happy with that solution. CSD needs another full time faculty member.

4.           More clinical experiences with adult clients and their disorders
     Adult disorders are covered in several classes, but not at the level of preparing students to
     provide therapy. Several majors use some of their electives courses to earn a Certificate
     in Gerontology and want to have more hands-on experiences. Until we have another
     tenure track faculty member these opportunities will be limited. No new courses can be
     added due to the lack of enough faculty who have the areas of expertise needed to discuss
     adult disorders in more depth.
                                              8

Special Opportunities
The American Sign Language Choir continued this past year. This group is open to any student
on campus, although it is helpful if the student has or is taking CSD 181-Introduction to
American Sign Language. The group performed at the IN State Conference for Speech
Language Pathology and Audiology in April and at the IPFW graduation ceremonies. There
were eleven students in the choir last year. The Sign Choir is another way for students to
socialize and to participate in meaningful activities.


Submitted by: Lucille J. Hess
Title: Chair - CSD
November 2010
                     Assessment Measures
              Communication Sciences and Disorders
                    2000; revised 2004; 2009

I.    Academic Scholarship Skills
          Baccalaureate framework: Meets- Acquisition and Application of
                                              Knowledge and Communication
      Goal: Students demonstrate appropriate research skills and oral, written and
      group interaction effectiveness in their progress toward professional
      preparedness. 80% will demonstrate excellent or satisfactory skills.

      CSD 42000-Introduction to Developmental speech and language disorders
      was chosen to measure progress in:
         a. Research paper: writing skills, methodology, and oral report
         b. Group Therapy Plan/Rationale: research skills, oral and written report
         c. Hands-on experience of test administration

II.   Measures of Capstone Experiences
        Baccalaureate framework: Meets- Acquisition and Application of
        Knowledge, Personal and Professional Values, Sense of Community,
        Critical thinking and Problem Solving and Communication

      Goal: 80% of graduating seniors will successfully engage in at least one
      culminating pre-professional experience such as: CSD 59000-Independent
      Study, CSD 54900-Clinical Practicum or CSD 39900 in conjunction with
      CSD 40500-AAC theatre camp.

         A. CSD 59000 - Directed Study of Special Problems
         Goal: Development of research skills while independently pursuing depth
         of knowledge in topic areas of interest. 90% successful completion.

          Tool: Paper and presentation to CSD faculty and students.

         B. CSD 54900 - Clinical Practicum I
         Goal 1: 90% of students met or made sufficient progress on their self-
         selected clinical goals.

         Goal 2: 90% of the clients or their families agreed that they were satisfied
          with the progress made; that they would recommend the clinic to others;
         and if previous therapy was experienced at a different locality, the
         experience at IPFW was good or superior by comparison.

         Tools: The clinic clients fill out a satisfaction survey at the termination of
         therapy. Student self goal checklists of the student’s progress is
         determined by both the students and the clinical supervisors.
          C. CSD 39900 in conjunction with CSD 405-AAC Theatre Camp
          Goal 3: Students will participant in the preparation and delivery of a
          weekend theatre camp for children who use augmentative or alternative
          communication devices. This experience is similar to but different from
           the clinical practicum experience in that it is viewed as service learning.


III.   External Measures at Exit
          Baccalaureate framework: Meets- Acquisition and Application of
          Knowledge, Personal and Professional Values, Sense of Community,
          Critical thinking and Problem Solving and Communication

       Goal: To determine the felt merits of the department preparation as judged by
       the most recent graduates once they had formally departed IPFW.
       a. Exit survey of graduating seniors-GOAL 60% return; 80% overall
       satisfaction

IV.    External Measures after Exit
          Baccalaureate framework: Meets- Acquisition and Application of
          Knowledge, Personal and Professional Values, Sense of Community,
          Critical thinking and Problem Solving and Communication

       Goal: to determine the impact of particular departmental activity as now
       perceived by graduates three years post graduation.
       a. Alumni survey-GOAL: 40-50% return; 80% overall satisfaction
To:    Lucille J. Hess, Associate Professor
       Chair Communication Sciences & Disorders

From: COAS Assessment Committee
      Donna Holland, Chair
      Yihao Deng
      Debrah Huffman

Date: January 8, 2011 (revised February 21, 2011)

RE:    2010 Assessment Plan and Report

The COAS Assessment Committee received the Department’s 2010 Assessment Plan and
Report. There are some elements of the report that we want to highlight. Additionally, we
provide recommendations for future reports.

Your report clearly stated learning goals and identified some criteria of achievement. The
assessment process for each goal was clear and you explicitly stated what material was examined
to determine if each goal was achieved. You clearly documented how the assessment results
were used to make changes to the curriculum or other department items. Overall your assessment
was well designed and provided very clear results. The committee does provide a few additional
items for your consideration for future reports.

The following recommendations are not to be construed as requirements, but are provided in
order to give your department additional elements to consider in future assessments. You might
provide some additional evidence of the rubrics used throughout your assessment process.
Incorporating an executive summary at the front of the report that highlights goals met, areas of
needed improvement, and your overall conclusions would also strengthen your assessment
report.
                                      Memorandum
         To:      Dr. Donna Webb, Department of Sociology

                  Arts and Science Assessment Committee

         From:    Dr. Hardin Aasand, Chair HLA

                  English and Linguistics

         Date:    1/8/2011

         Re:      2009-10 Assessment report




Please find enclosed the 2009-10 assessment report from the Graduate Studies Committee (the
undergraduate committee received a waiver this fall but its report will be submitted in good time). I
provide an overview of our current undergraduate program, graduate program, learning outcomes, and
current assessment strategies.

Undergraduate Program
The stated benefits of a major in English, reflected in the departmental website, are as follows, delineated
by the respective concentrations that comprise the English degree:
        Literary study provides a basis for understanding various forms of cultural expression.
        Linguistics teaches the structure and function of languages from a global perspective.
        Folklore introduces the student to voices otherwise neglected by the dominant culture.
        Writing studies help students develop the ability to create forceful, effective documents in various
        media.

To engender these benefits for our students, the program has established the following overarching
learning outcomes for all of our majors, outcomes that are interwoven throughout all of the concentrations
students choose for their program focus.
        Students display the ability to write critically, precisely, and persuasively, especially about topics
        relevant to their major field and their selected concentration.

        Students demonstrate the ability to communicate knowledge of literary, linguistics, and rhetorical
        conventions and traditions, especially those of America and England.

        Students can apply the appropriate research tools and methods to demonstrate critical
        understanding of their selected concentrations.

These program outcomes are given more detailed form in the program alignment document drafted in
2007 that specifies the particular outcomes for each specific concentration within the department (i.e.
literature, creative and professional writing, linguistics, and teacher certification) as they align with the
Baccalaureate Framework of IPFW. Please see the attached chart for these specific outcomes and their
alignment [file: Pedagogical Framework].

During the 2009-10 academic year, the Undergraduate and Graduate Studies Committees began the
implementation of a new assessment model. The past assessment model was an arbitrary one: the
departmental chair was charged with selecting a 200-level class and a capstone course for essay/portfolio
submissions. This process lacked a logical process and a clear rubric that would assess program
outcomes. Given the curriculum map [see file: curriculum map October 2010] that the department chair
has begun to construct during the past year, the department is intent on establishing a new assessment
practice for future assessment reports: we will select one of our program learning outcomes for a more
detailed assessment. This process will entail the designation of appropriate courses for the chosen
outcomes and the establishment of clear assessment rubrics appropriate for the level of course content.
This process will provide a stronger, more logical assessment protocol for departmental practice. With the
waiver granted this fall for the undergraduate committee, that section of the report will be submitted
separately as the committee finishes its creation of a grading rubric that will be used for the submitted
essays and the selected outcomes.

Graduate Program
While I will allow the attached graduate committee’s report speak for itself—both the evaluation of the
submitted essays and the summation of the graduate surveys, I can note that the assessment process has
led the graduate program to pose the appropriate questions for program improvement: the need to
establish a benchmark for understanding the improvements introduced by the program; establishment of a
preliminary graduate course to introduce graduate-level research and critical writing skills; improvement
in the scheduling of diverse graduate seminars and advising for graduate students; diversification of the
sources from which essays are collected; strengthening of the graduate core curriculum.

Service courses:
All service courses within the department (e.g. W129; W131; W233; FOLK F101; L101/L102) have
learning outcomes that are mapped to the Baccalaureate Framework (please see files: the curriculum map
for these G.E. service courses and Learning Outcomes for English L101). The Composition Committee
has created detailed learning outcomes for all writing courses within the General Education curriculum
(see file: Comp Course Outcomes); the Undergraduate Studies and Assessment Committee has
established learning outcomes for service courses in the remaining areas (literature; linguistics;
folklore)(see file: curriculum map) . These service courses, especially the freshman writing courses, are
able to be assessed as a part of the undergraduate General Education program and as a part of the
departmental offering. These outcomes for service courses are equally outcomes for the program as a
whole.




Future changes:
With the development of a curriculum map for courses within the various concentrations, the department
is poised to create a more systematic and more functional assessment strategy for our assessment
program. We have identified the following steps that we will need to implement in 2011:

   1) Identification of the outcome to be assessed during the academic year
   2) Selection of the initial and the final courses across the concentrations for submission of student
      work
   3) Establishment of a working rubric for evaluation of the medial and final artifacts
   4) Establishment of criteria for departmental achievement of its goals
   5) Completion of the map for all standard courses of the curriculum.
   6) Creation of a capstone course that will provide for a final assessment venue
Graduate Studies Committee (Stapleton, Huffman, Bassett)

Department of English and Linguistics



Assessment 2009–10



Introduction: Outcomes Statement

Students who complete the Master of Arts in English (36 hours) will be able to

        Demonstrate the knowledge of one specific area of study in English (British Literature before
        1700; British Literature after 1700; American Literature; English Language and Linguistics;
        Writing Studies)
        Demonstrate an understanding and appreciation of the diverse scholarly approaches to major
        issues in the study of literature, language, and linguistics, or rhetoric/composition/writing
        Write professional papers that demonstrate critical and analytical thinking and other necessary
        skills for independent research and writing

Students who complete the Master of Arts for Teachers of English (36 hours) will be able to

        Demonstrate knowledge of those areas of study in English that are relevant to their development
        as teachers at the secondary or college level
        Demonstrate an understanding and appreciation of the diverse scholarly approaches to major
        issues in the study of literature, language and linguistics, or rhetoric/composition/writing
        Write professional papers that demonstrate critical and analytical thinking and other necessary
        skills for independent research and writing

Our previous method of assessment for the MA (30 hours) included a Master’s Thesis as well as
mandatory demonstration of proficiency in two areas of concentration and a foreign language. For both
the MA and MAT, further assessment was conducted by means of separate paper exit surveys. We believe
that an additional six hours of coursework, the reduction to one concentration, and the allowance for
electives (with the thesis and demonstration of language proficiency) are adequate for assessment. We
also believe that the practice of surveying should be online, and include students in the program as well as
those exiting.



Assessment of Sample Graduate Essays
Each year, the committee reviews a set of papers from a graduate-level course (rotating between literature
and composition courses) using a three-question rubric based on our graduate program outcomes. For all
responses, 5 indicates strongly agree and 1 indicates strongly disagree.



Q1. The essay demonstrates the knowledge of [one specific area of study].

Q2. The essay demonstates an understanding and appreciation of diverse scholarly approaches to the
major issues in the study of [relevant area of study].

Q3. The essay demonstrates critical and analytical thinking and other necessary skills for independent
research and writing.



Results of the Assessment of Sample Graduate Essays (2010)

The sample was the final essays (n=6) in English C780, a writing studies course, offered in Spring 2010.
The committee evaluated each essay and assigned scores based on the rubric.

Essay                     Q1                        Q2                      Q3

Student 1                 4                         5                       4

Student 2                 4                         4                       4

Student 3                 4                         4                       4

Student 4                 4                         4                       3

Student 5                 2                         3                       2

Student 6                 2                         2                       2



Overall Average           4.00                      3.66                    3.17



MA Exit Survey

Each year, the committee solicits exit surveys from graduating graduate students (see appended exit
survey). In Fall [?] 2009 and Spring 2010, we received 5 surveys from graduating graduate students out
of 15 total graduating graduate students, for a response rate of 33%.

Students identified their first and second areas of study:

Area of Study                          First Area (n=5)      Second Area (n=5)
Language                                 1                         1

Writing                                  3                         0

American Literature                      0                         2

British Literature <1700                 1                         0

British Literature >1700                 0                         2



NB: One student self-identified writing as a third area of study.



Numeric Responses

For all responses, 5 indicates strongly agree and 1 indicates strongly disagree.

Section one refers to students’ first area of study:

Goal 1-a-i: MA program requirements provided you the opportunity to gain a satisfactory knowledge

of the area.

Goal 1-a-ii: You have an adequate basis for further study in the area, either independently or as an

advanced graduate student.

Goal 1-a-iii: The MA program has provided you with subject-area knowledge adequate for teaching

secondary-school or junior-college students.

Goal 1-a-iv: The courses you needed were available when you needed them.



          Writing (n=3)      Language (n=1) Brit Lit <1700 (n=1)

          5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5                        4   3   2       1   Average (n=5)

1-a-i     1 1 1                              1         1                   3.60

1-a-ii    1 2                                    1     1                   3.60

1-a-iii   2 1                                1         1                   4.00

1-a-iv    1       1 1                1                 1                   3.40
Section two refers to students’ second area of study:

Goal 1-b-i: MA program requirements provided you the opportunity to gain a satisfactory knowledge

of the area.

Goal 1-b-ii: You have an adequate basis for further study in the area, either independently or as an

advanced graduate student.

Goal 1-b-iii: The MA program has provided you with subject-area knowledge adequate for teaching

secondary-school or junior-college students.

Goal 1-b-iv: The courses you needed were available when you needed them.




          American Lit (n=2) Language (n=1) Brit Lit >1700 (n=2)

          5    4   3   2     1   5 4 3 2 1 5            4   3   2 1          Average (n=5)

1-b-i     1        1                    1               1           1        3.20

1-b-ii    1        1                    1               1           1        3.20

1-b-iii   1            1         1                      1           1        3.40

1-b-iv    1            1                1               1       1            3.20




Section three refers to the students’ overall experience:

Goal 2-a: The MA degree requirements afforded you the opportunity to develop an understanding of

major issues and approaches in your areas of study.

Goal 2-b: The specific courses you took addressed the major issues and approaches in your areas of

study.

Goal 2-c: Your teachers encouraged you to challenge and critique the various theoretical approaches

you studied.

Goal 2-d: Your seminar(s) demanded that you confront current major issues and approaches relating
to the topic or writer(s) studied.

Goal 3-a: You were taught or encouraged to develop the research skills needed for graduate-

level work in English.

Goal 3-b: You were challenged to use these skills in your courses.

Goal 3-c: You were taught or encouraged to develop the writing skills needed for graduate-level

work in English.

Goal 3-d: You were challenged to use these skills in your courses.

Goal 3-e: Your seminar(s) required original and independent research as well as a mastery of the

previous scholarship on the topic.



                                           5 4 3 2 1 Average (n=5)

                                     2-a   1 3            1 3.60

                                     2-b 2 2              1 3.80

                                     2-c   1 3            1 3.60

                                     2-d 2 2              1 3.80



                                     3-a   1 2 2            3.80

                                     3-b 1 2 1            1 3.40

                                     3-c   1 3        1     3.80

                                     3-d 1 3              1 3.60

                                     3-e   1 1 2          1 3.20




Section four refers to students’ general questions:

4-a: The program allowed you to pursue your intellectual and creative interests in English.
4-b: The graduate advisor kept you informed of your progress toward the degree and assisted

     you in completing requirements in a timely manner.

4-c: The graduate advisor was available and accessible to you when needed.

4-d: Your thesis committee provided the guidance you needed to complete your project successfully.



                                    5 4 3 2 1 Average (n=5)

                              4-a   2 1 1 1             3.80

                              4-b 1         1       3 2.20

                              4-c   2           1 2 2.80

                              4-d 2 1               1 3.75 (n=4)




Written Responses

Goal 1-a-iii: Which aspects of the area [marked 1] did the MA program enable you to master most

              successfully?
      Many of the courses had some focus or instruction in pedagogy which was useful for teaching.

      As an artist (poetry/fiction) the creative writing program helped me tremendously. However, the
      courses in Professional Scholarship in Writing, C505 Teaching Composition, and the seminar of
      Genre Theory helped me to succeed in the profession of post-secondary education.

      Very little. The classes were too easy and the instructors had the attitude of ―if you put in your
      time, you’ll get an A.‖ However, the quality of instruction was way below par.

      Understanding of the basis of language

      Research and writing are the two areas that improved throughout my studies.



              Which least successfully?
      Few courses required any research on live subjects which would have been helpful for preparing
      conference papers or articles.

      N/A I got out of each class the proportional learning to the effort I put in.
      (see previous comments)

      Academic writing—not enough classes that address this area, which is what I primarily teach.

      I feel [?] giving presentations and in developing lecturing skills and I could have done more of
      them.



Goal 1-a-iv: If [courses you needed] were not [available], what problems did you encounter?
      Courses were offered simultaneously so that I could only take 1 of the courses I needed. More day
      time courses would have been helpful.

      [no response]

      The courses were not always available when I needed them.

      Too many lit courses.

      N/A



Goal 1-b-iii: Which aspects of the area [marked 2] did the MA program enable you to master most

              successfully?
      The 20th century courses were most useful, because they often incorporated history and context
      study in addition to the subject matter.

      Due to my scholarship & academic study in American Lit. and Children’s Lit., I am teaching these
      courses at Ivy Tech Community College. Thanks Dr. Roberts & Dr. Kaufmann.

      If possible, this section was more lacking than the first. The instructors were competent enough,
      but wildly uncooperative.

      Basic linguistics

      I was given several opportunities to give presentations and lead classroom discussion




              Which least successfully?
      I was unable to take any courses in early American lit, so I feel very unprepared to teach this
      subject matter.

      N/A I got out of each class the proportional learning to the effort I put in.
      (see previous comments)

      pedagogy

      [no response]



Goal 1-b-iv: If [courses you needed] were not [available], what problems did you encounter?
      Few options were available in any semester and I was never able to take a class only for graduate
      students; all the courses were grad/undergrad.

      [no response]

      See previous comments

      Again, too many lit courses

      N/A



Goal 2-e: Which scholarly approaches to literature, language and linguistics, or

            rhetoric/composition/writing has the MA program enabled you to understand best?
      I don’t have a good answer to this question, so perhaps the focus of classes I was in was more a
      broad overview of approaches rather than any specific approach in detail. Most classes lean
      toward cultural criticism; but I have also gained an understanding of feminist work. I don’t feel
      methodology was really explored as much as the current positions of certain groups.

      The close camaraderie between Lit faculty and Writing Faculty was effective. Also, the
      interdisciplinary collaboration between the different fields of Writing Studies in the course
      Professional Scholarship in Writing was very effective. Nice work, Dr. Huffman.

      The program itself set itself up for my failure and any advancements I made was through my own
      work.

      Feminist & Marxist

      I feel like I have been given equal knowledge in rhetoric/composition/writing.



Goal 2-f: Which scholarly approaches, not covered or covered inadequately, would you have liked to

            study or study in greater depth?
      [no response]
      N/A

      Please provide a course or at least a short seminar for what will be expected as one writes a masters
      thesis—this was quite poor indeed.

      Current approaches to academic writing

      N/A



4-e: In your view, what aspect of the MA program contributed most to your fulfilling your

            educational goals? Explain.
      The thesis allowed me to explore an interest that was not covered in my classes and gave me an
      opportunity for an extended research project.

      The practical basis in theory and praxis of Writing Studies prepared me to excel as a professional
      instructor, while the demands of Drs. Cain and Kalamaras pushed me to be a better poet/author.

      [no response]

      Specific instructors were more helpful than specific coursework. Deb Huffman, Sara Webb-
      Sunderhaus, Dr. Hume, and Dr. Amidon.

      The experience that combined all that I learned from the MA program was my semester teaching
      W131. Not only did I gain hands on experience but used what I learned from the classroom.



Goal 4-f: In your view, what aspect of the MA program contributed the least to your fulfilling your

          educational goals? Explain and suggest remedies.
      One area that is underdeveloped is any class or classwork focused on teaching writing with
      computers or the impact computers have on writing. Because computers are so prevalent both on
      and off campus, more focus on these issues would be helpful both for study and for preparing
      teachers.

      N/A

      Please review how you teach research skills and how you require their use throughout the courses,
      especially in the thesis writing process.

      Emphasis on lit—the lit professors were unapproachable and did not appreciate when students
      offered opinions that contradicted with their beliefs

      I found that I had the same professors for the classes in each concentration. It would have been
      nice to be able to learn from and observe several teaching approaches.



MAT Exit Survey

Each year, the committee solicits exit surveys from graduating graduate students (see appended exit
survey). In Fall [?] 2009 and Spring 2010, we received 3 surveys from graduating graduate students out
of 3 total graduating graduate students, for a response rate of 100%.

Numeric Responses

For all responses, 5 indicates strongly agree and 1 indicates strongly disagree.



Goal 1-a: The MAT program has provided you with subject-area knowledge adequate for

            teaching secondary-school or junior-college students.

Goal 1-e: The courses you needed were available when you needed them

Goal 2-a: The MAT degree requirements afforded you the opportunity to develop an

            understanding of major issues and approaches in your areas of study.

Goal 2-b: The specific courses you took addressed the major issues and approaches in your areas

            of study.

Goal 2-c: Your teachers encouraged you to challenge and critique the various theoretical

            approaches you studied.

Goal 2-d: Your seminar(s) demanded that you confront current major issues and approaches

            relating to the topic or writer(s) studied.

Goal 3-a: You were taught or encouraged to develop the research skills needed for graduate-

            level work in English.

Goal 3-b: You were challenged to use these skills in your courses.

Goal 3-c: You were taught or encouraged to develop the writing skills needed for graduate-level

            work in English.

Goal 3-d: You were challenged to use these skills in your courses.

Goal 3-e: Your seminar(s) required original and independent research as well as a mastery of the
            previous scholarship on the topic.




                                        5 4 3 2 1 Average (n=3)

                                  1-a   1 1 1             4.00

                                  1-e   1        1 1      3.33



                                  2-a   1 1 1             4.00

                                  2-b 1 1 1               4.00

                                  2-c   1 2               4.33

                                  2-d 1 2                 4.33



                                  3-a   2 1               4.67

                                  3-b 3                   5.00

                                  3-c   2 1               4.67

                                  3-d 2 1                 4.67

                                  3-e   2 1               4.67




General Questions

4-a: The program allowed you to pursue your intellectual and creative interests in English.

4-b: The graduate advisor kept you informed of your progress toward the degree and assisted

     you in completing requirements in a timely manner.

4-c: The graduate advisor was available and accessible to you when needed.

4-d: Your thesis committee provided the guidance you needed to complete your project successfully.
                                      5 4 3 2 1 Average (n=3)

                               4-a    2     1           4.33

                               4-b        2 1           3.67

                               4-c    2 1               4.67

                               4-d                      NA



Written Responses

Areas indicated as relevant to career as a teacher (n=3):

        Language/Linguistics = 2                            Creative Writing = 2

        World Literature = 3                                Pedagogical Methods/Materials = 2

        American Literature =     3                         British Literature = 3

        Minority Literature = 2                   Contemporary Literature = 3

        Film Studies = 2                                    Rhetoric/Composition = 3

Goal 1-c: Which of these [above] areas was the MAT program successful in developing? (Please

            comment on relative degrees of success.)
      I can honestly say that the MAT program at IPFW gave me a wealth of information to use in my
      own classroom and path of further study.

      World Literature – 3

      Contemporary Literature – 3

      Composition – 4

      I chose my classes for the most part and didn’t choose all areas. However, all that I took was well
      developed: linguistics, creative writing, minority literature, education classes, and other literature.



Goal 1-d: Which of these [above] areas was the MAT program less than successful in developing?

            (Ignore areas not relevant to your teaching.)
      I found any course work involving current theory to be rather esoteric and useless for a classroom
      teacher. I also find theory as a fichte [sic] course of study that often changes with every new whim
      and era.

      American Lit

      British Lit

      [no response]




Goal 1-e: If [courses you needed] were not [available], what problems did you encounter?
      [drew a slash] Although I would have liked a Shakespeare class during some evening hours.

      Many of the classes where [sic] not given at a time a working teacher could take.

      I needed a class that wasn’t offered in the evenings, but Dr. Stapleton made arrangements with the
      professor for me to take it independent study, which worked out well.



Goal 2-e: Which scholarly approaches to literature, language and linguistics, or

            rhetoric/composition/writing has the MAT program enabled you to understand best?
      I found the NCTE meetings (annually) to be of more use to my teaching than theory approaches.

      How to study literature in-depth in the classroom.

      Theory of literature, creative writing techniques, an understanding of current English practices
      around the world, APA style research



Goal 2-f: Which scholarly approaches, not covered or covered inadequately, would you have liked to

            study or study in greater depth?
      [drew a slash]

      Current works and composition that are used in classrooms in Indiana.

      [no response]



Goal 4-e: In your view, what aspect of the MAT program contributed the most to your fulfilling your

          educational goals? Explain.
      [no response]
      I liked the fact that I could pick most of my courses and taylor [sic] most of my learning to what I
      was doing in the classroom.

      Evening and some summer courses, helpful and knowledgable [sic] professors, and I took an
      education course prior to starting the English program. This course (Research in the Study of
      Counseling and Education?) taught me how to write APA original studies, which I used at least 3
      times in my English classes.

      I would recommend this program to others who are willing to work hard. I’m proud of the difficult
      work I did and to hold my new degree.



Goal 4-f: In your view, what aspect of the MAT program contributed the least to your fulfilling your

           educational goals? Explain and suggest remedies.
      Please see earlier comments on theory [which included ―Remember – I’m not a fan of inscrutable
      articles on current (and often tenuous) theory.‖ [signed name]

      I liked the linguistic and minority courses, but I don’t have a way of working what I learned into
      my teaching. Also, the composition course I took improved my writing, but it did not give me
      enough info to help my students become better writers.

      I would have liked more summer courses.



Conclusions and Recommendations

Our committee concludes that, based on the survey and essay scores of this limited sample, our students
demonstrate average or above-average quality in their work and in their own assessment of our program.
We would like to determine, at a future date for later assessments, how much writing and research
knowledge our students are actually gaining from the faculty, and how much is brought into the
classroom beforehand.

 The survey data demonstrate a slight conflict between numerical and written responses. We recommend,
as a result, that we should stress better preparation for academic writing and research, perhaps even
creating a new entry-level (as opposed to capstone) course that would address these very basic issues:
writing with secondary sources with more skill (avoiding the pastiche effect); more strategies about using
professional rhetoric and anticipating the needs of an academic audience; and, accordingly, the
incorporation of secondary research material into the individual writing and scholarship of students in a
professional manner. Although the department rebuilt the M.A. program by standardizing the four core
courses and extending the requirement to 36 hours, it may not be necessary or desirable to have
―methods‖ courses for the three disciplines that the department offers: literature, writing studies,
linguistics.
Students complained about the availability of the graduate advisor and the attention he pays to them, as
well as course diversity and scheduling, especially for those who work at outside jobs in the community.
Although the course scheduler and the graduate advisor already correspond and collaborate about a) the
rotation of core courses, b) the diversity of B780 seminars in topic and faculty, and c) the times that
various offerings are scheduled—this at least two semesters in advance—perhaps this process could be
improved or further streamlined, or students could be surveyed about their needs. At least twice a
semester, the graduate secretary sends out electronic reminders to all graduate students, which encourage
one and all to contact the graduate advisor with questions about requirements, the curriculum, and
individual progress toward the degree. Also, at the beginnings and endings of semesters, the graduate
secretary emails reminders to graduating students and reminds the advisor to conduct audits on transcripts
and to keep track of their progress and make the proper notations on the departmental drive. We
recommend that more of this should be done.

We recommend that at least once a semester, the graduate advisor and various faculty members could
conduct a workshop on graduate school, requirements for the degree, applying for jobs or to doctoral
programs, and the like. We also recommend that more diversity be shown in assigning faculty to teach
B780 seminars, so that students can benefit from different perspectives.

For the more fulsome version of the assessment report in the spring, we are already soliciting more
information via the online survey, and we would also recommend collecting several graduate-level essays
from a more diverse group of classes, literature and linguistics as well as the writing studies course here.
We may be able to gain a greater understanding of our students’ needs, and to discover where we could
improve our efforts.



We conclude that though the revision of the M.A. has made it possible to offer more courses that are
graduate-only, it would be even better if this occurrence could be more frequent or likely so that our
students could benefit from a more specifically graduate experience in our program. The majority take
courses in which they are the only graduate-level participants in sections consisting of sophomores and
juniors who have very different needs, and to whom the course in question must naturally be aimed. The
expectation that instructors will have extra sections for graduate students on writing or research is not
realistic or reasonable, since no further financial compensation is offered to faculty for doing so. Nor is it
practical or desirable to expect students to make extra time for such instruction that would be convenient
for their peers as well as themselves. We recommend, therefore, that any and all steps be taken to assure
that students benefit from a specifically graduate experience.
Outcomes for ENG W129:

Students who complete W129 should be able to demonstrate their competence in four
areas:

       Rhetorical Knowledge, including the ability to focus on a purpose and audience;
       to respond appropriately to different kinds of rhetorical situations; to adopt
       appropriate voice, tone, and level of formality; and to write in several genres.

       Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing, including the ability to use writing
       and reading for inquiry, learning, thinking, and communicating; to manage a
       writing assignment as a series of tasks, including finding, evaluating, analyzing, and
       synthesizing appropriate primary and secondary sources; and to integrate one’s own
       ideas with those of others.

       Writing Processes, including the use of multiple drafts to create and complete a
       successful text; the development of flexible strategies for generating, revising,
       editing, and proof-reading; and participation in collaborative and social processes
       that require the ability to critique one’s own and others’ works.

       Knowledge of Conventions, including the ability to follow common formats for
       different kinds of genres; to practice appropriate means of documenting one’s work;
       to control such surface features as syntax, grammar, punctuation, and spelling.


Outcomes for ENG W131:

   Rhetorical Knowledge: Upon completion of the course, students should be able to
   focus on a purpose; define a thesis; respond to the needs of different audiences; adopt
   an appropriate stance toward audience and topic; and write in several genres.

   Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing: Upon completion of the course students
   should be able to use writing and reading for inquiry, learning, and thinking; be able to
   paraphrase and summarize the work of others; and integrate their own ideas with those
   of others.

   Processes: Upon completion of the courses, students should use multiple drafts to
   complete an effective text; develop flexible strategies for generating, revising, and
   editing; engage in a recursive process of writing; demonstrate that they understand the
   collaborative and social aspects of writing processes; learn to critique their own and
   others’ work; and use various technologies to address a range of audiences.

   Knowledge of Conventions: Upon completion of the courses, students should
   demonstrate that they can recognize and use common formats for different genres of
   texts; practice appropriate means of documenting their work; and control syntax,
   grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
Outcomes for ENG W233

Students who complete W233 should be able to demonstrate their competence in four
areas:

   Rhetorical Knowledge, including the ability to focus on a purpose and audience; to
   respond appropriately to different kinds of rhetorical situations; to adopt appropriate
   voice, tone, and level of formality; to write in several genres; and understand how
   genres shape reading and writing.
   Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing, including the ability to use writing and
   reading for inquiry, learning, thinking, and communicating; to manage a writing
   assignment as a series of tasks, including finding, evaluating, analyzing, and
   synthesizing appropriate primary and secondary sources; to integrate one’s own ideas
   with those of others; and to understand the relationships among language, knowledge,
   and power.
   Writing Processes, including the use of multiple drafts to create and complete a
   successful text; the development of flexible strategies for generating, revising, editing,
   and proof-reading; learning to balance the advantages of relying on others with the
   responsibility of doing one’s own part; and participation in collaborative and social
   processes that require the ability to critique one’s own and others’ works.
   Knowledge of Conventions, including the ability to follow common formats for
   different kinds of genres; to increase knowledge of genre conventions ranging from
   structure and paragraphing to tone and mechanics; to practice appropriate means of
   documenting one’s work; and to control such surface features as syntax, grammar,
   punctuation, and spelling.
                                                        Pedagogical Framework for the IPFW Baccalaureate Degree
                                                   Correspondence between Program and Framework Learning Objectives
  Department: English and Linguistics
  Degree Program: A.A. students; English Language; English Literature; Writing Concentration: Teacher Certification
  Baccalaureate Framework
                                                              Objectives
  Program's Student Learning Element
                                                                           EnEnglish majors demonstrate literary, historical, linguistic, and rhetorical conventions and traditions of English
                                                                          thr through critically sound oral and written expression reflective of this integration of curriculum material.
                                                                              English Language Concentration: Students demonstrate their familiarity with the fundamental rules of
                                                                              operation and the social connections of natural languages, especially English; the evolution and transformation
                                                                              of the English language; and the analytical and descriptive tools of English linguistics.
Acquisition of Knowledge:
                                                                              English Literature Concentration: Students demonstrate their acquisition of essential literary skills: familiarity
Students will demonstrate breadth of knowledge across disciplines and
                                                                              with a broad range of American and English literary texts through the application of a variety of critical
depthof knowledge in their chosen discipline. In order to do so, students
                                                                              approaches to the analysis of literary texts.
must demonstrate the requisite information seeking skills and
                                                                              Writing Concentration: Students demonstrate their ability to read and write clearly and persuasively in various
technological competencies.
                                                                              rhetorical contexts in the production of original compositions.
                                                                              Teacher Certification Concentration: Students will demonstrate their acquisition of the fundamental skills
                                                                              necessary for the secondary education classroom; knowledge of American and British literary texts;
                                                                              fundamental rules of oral and written communication; acquisition of pedagogical methodologies necessary for
                                                                              the instruction of literature and language in a secondary education environment.
                                                                               Students use analytical and rhetorical skills to produce persuasive, critically precise essays that reveal an
                                                                              integration of research skills with the acquired curriculum.
                                                                              English Language Concentration: Students apply analytical and descriptive linguistic tools in evaluated
                                                                              coursework that measures the acquisition of fundamental language skills: knowledge of the evolution and
Application of Knowledge:                                                     essential nature of language as a means of communication.
Students will demonstrate the ability to integrate and apply that             English Literature Concentration: Students apply their knowledge of critical strategies
 knowledge, and, in so doing, demonstrate the skills necessary                 in the production of analyses of essential literary texts.
for life-long learning                                                        Writing Concentration: Students apply the fundamental principles of writing and
                                                                              rhetoric in the creation of original works of fiction, nonfiction, and/or poetry.
                                                                              Teacher Certification Concentration: Students engage in activities (classroom instruction, portfolios) that
                                                                              reflect their acquisition of the fundamental literary, language, and communication skills necessary for a
                                                                              successful secondary education instructor.
                                                                               Students demonstrate through peer review of written work and sound use of sources in research essays a
Personal and Professional Values:                                             respect for their colleagues and for the intellectual property used in their research. Student respect for class
 Students will demonstrate the highest levels of personal integrity and       attendance and for critical engagement in dealing with secondary sources reflect personal integrity and a
professional ethics.                                                          responsible acquisition of ethical values in literary and rhetorical studies.
                                                                              (All concentrations)
                                                                               Students come to recognize diverse communities and beliefs through literary studies that expose them to a
                                                                              multitude of heterogeneous voices. Students write essays and respond verbally to questions that have abiding
                                                                              historical and culture significance (e.g.
                                                                               consequences of war, racism, nationalism, personal bias).
 A Sense of Community.
                                                                              English Language Concentration: Students engage in projects that demonstrate their familiarity with the
 Students will demonstrate the knowledge and skills necessary to be
                                                                              evolution of the language and the social connections of language that reflect the essential integration of English
 productive and responsible citizens and leaders in local, regional,
                                                                              with the global community that contributes to its linguistic richness.
 national,
                                                                              English Literature Concentration: Students engage diverse communities and beliefs through literary studies
 and international communities. In so doing, students will demonstrate a
                                                                              that expose them to a multitude of diverse voices.
 commitment to free and open inquiry and mutual respect across multiple
                                                                              Writing Concentration: Students engage in a number of interrelated reading and writing activities that ask them
 cultures and perspectives.
                                                                              to evaluate, analyze, and contribute to the discursive community.
                                                                              Teacher Certification Concentration: Students acquire the fundamental rhetorical,
                                                                              literary, and pedagogical skills necessary to contribute to a secondary education
                                                                              environment as reflected in portfolios and classroom supervision.
                                                                               English Literature Concentration: Students integrate literary and cultural analysis of a broad range of literary
                                                                              texts to produce argumentative or analytical writing that responds to questions of genre, character analyses,
                                                                              literary style, and historical significance of various American and British texts.
 Critical Thinking and Problem Solving:                                       English Language Concentration: Students demonstrate critical thinking skills by the direct application of
 Students will demonstrate facility and adaptability in their approach to     linguistic and descriptive tools to the study of the evolution and transformation of English as a global language.
 problem solving. In so doing, students will demonstrate critical thinking Writing Concentration: Students demonstrate the critical thinking necessary for developing rhetorically precise,
 abilities and familiarity with quantitative and qualitative reasoning.       persuasive writing.
                                                                              Teacher Certification Concentration: Students demonstrate critical thinking and
                                                                              problem solving skills in analyses of the characteristics, the history, and the development of our multicultural
                                                                              world.
                                                                              Students integrate written, oral, and multimedia skills to produce rhetorically sound essays, original creative
 Communication: Students will demonstrate the written, oral, and
                                                                              works, and literary analyses that reflect rhetorical precision, clarity of thought and critical understanding of a
 multimedia skills necessary to communicate effectively in diverse
                                                                              wide range of historical, cultural, and ethnic texts and situations.
 settings.
                                                                                                                 English and Linguistic Curriculum Map 2010


                                                   Courses                                                    Baccalaureate    L202                   L101/L102          L250/L251      L301/L302            L305      L306
                                                                                                              Framework        Lit. Interp.           World              Amer. Lit      Eng. Lit             Chaucer   Middle
                                                                                                              Alignment                               Masterpieces       Before/After   I&2                            English
Literature Learning Outcomes
Students demonstrate their acquisition of essential literary skills: familiarity with a broad range of        BF1, BF3, BF5    BF1-I;BF3-I; BF5-E     BF1-BF6 I                         BF1-R; BF3-R;
American and English literary texts through the application of a variety of critical approaches to the                                                                                  BF5-R
analysis of literary texts


Students apply their critical strategies in the production of literary analyses informed by theoretical,      BF1, BF2, BF5,   BF1-I, BF2-R, BF5-E,   BF1-BF6 I                         BF1-R, BF2-R, BF5-
historical, and cultural preparation gained from the program                                                  BF6              BF6-E                                                    R, BF6-R


Students integrate written and oral skills to produce rhetorically sound essays that reflect clarity of       BF3, BF4, BF6    BF3-I, BF4-I, BF6-E    BF1-BF6 I                         BF3-R, BF4-R, BF6-
thought and critical understanding of wide range of literary situations (historical, cultural, and ethnic).                                                                             R




                                         Creative Writing Courses                                                              W103                   W203
                                                                                                                               Intro                  Creative Writing
                                                                                                                               Creative
                                                                                                                               Writing
Creative Writing Learning Outcomes
Students will demonstrate how to critically read and discuss modern and contemporary                                           BF1-BF3; BF5-BF6 I     BF1-BF3; BF5-BF6
                                                                                                              B1, BF2, BF3                            R
writing through form and technique for poetry, fiction, and creative non-fiction                              BF5, BF6

                                                                                                                               BF1-BF3; BF5-BF6 I     BF1-BF3; BF5-BF6
Students will demonstrate the praxis of how to write poetry, fiction, and creative                            BF1, BF2, BF3                           R
nonfiction by developing their abilities from the creative literary text and creative                         BF5, BF6
technical strategies that we undergo in the classroom.

Students ascertain critical anaytical skills to effectively respond to poetry,                                BF2, BF3, BF4    BF2-BF6 I              BF2-BF6 R
fiction, and creative nonfiction of their peers through in-class workshops.                                   BF5, BF6

                                        Professional Writing Courses                                                           W232                   W234               W420           W421
Professional Writing Learning Outcomes
Rhetorical Knowledge, including the ability to focus on purposes                                              BF1              BF1-E                  BF1-E              BF1-R          BF-E
and audiences in academic, workplace, and civic settings; to respond                                          BF2              BF2-R                  BF2-R              BF2-E          BF2-E
 appropriately to different kinds of rhetorical situations; to adopt                                          BF6              BF6-E                  BF6-E              BF6-R          BF-E
 appropriate voice, tone, and level of formality; to write and speak in
 technical genres; and to understand and integrate graphics and visuals as
                                                                                              English and Linguistic Curriculum Map 2010

part of an argument*.

Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing, including the ability to use                       BF2           BF2-R             BF2-R          BF2-E   BF2-E
writing and reading for inquiry, learning, thinking, and communicating;                     BF3           BF3-E             BF3-E          BF3-R   BF3-R
 to manage a writing assignment as a series of tasks, including finding,                    BF5           BF5-E             BF5-E          BF5-E   BF5-E
evaluating, analyzing, and synthesizing appropriate primary and secondary
sources; to integrate one’s own ideas with those of others; to understand the
relationships among language, knowledge, and power within academic,
workplace, and civic settings; and to recognize the importance of professional
organizations.

Writing Processes, including the use of multiple drafts to create and complete              BF 2          BF2-R             BF2-R          BF2-E   BF2-E
 a successful text; the development of flexible strategies for generating, revising,        BF5           BF5-E             BF5-E          BF5-E   BF5-E
editing, and proof-reading; learning to balance the advantages of relying on others         Bf6           BF6-E             BF6-E          BF6-R   BF-E
with the responsibility of doing one’s own part; taking responsibility for setting
and meeting deadlines; participation in collaborative and social processes and genres
 that require the ability to critique one’s own and others’ works; and using a variety of
technologies to address a range of situations.

Knowledge of Conventions, including the ability to follow common formats for                BF1           BF1-E             BF1-E          BF1-R   BF-E
 different kinds of technical genres; to increase knowledge of genre conventions            BF2           BF2-R             BF2-R          BF2-E   BF2-E
 ranging from structure and paragraphing to tone and mechanics; to practice appropriate     BF4, BF6      BF4-R                            BF4-E
means of documenting one’s work according to workplace and professional standards;                        BF6-E             BF6-E          BF6-R   BF-E
and to control such surface features as syntax, grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

                                                   Courses                                                L103              L322           G432    L470
                                                                                                          Intro.
                                                                                                          Linguistics
Linguistic Learning Outcomes
Students demonstrate their familiarity with the gramatical, rhetorial                       BF1           BF1-I             BF1-R          BF1-R   BF-E
conventions and the social connections of natural languages, especially
English; the evolution and transformation of the English language; and the
analytical and descriptive tools of English linguistics

Students apply analytical and descriptive linguistic tools in evaluated                     BF2, BF5      BF1-I             BF1-R          BF1-R   BF-E
coursework that demonstrates the acquisition of fundamental language
skills: a knowledge of language's evolution, rhetorical and linguistic
components, and social role as a means of communication.

Students demonstrate through peer review of written work/projects and sound                 BF3           BF3-I             BF3-E          BF3-E   BF3-E
use of sources in research essays a respect for their colleagues and for the
intellectual property used in their research. Student respect for class attendance
and for critical engagement in dealing with secondary sources reflect personal
integrity and a responsible acquisition of ethical values in literary and rhetorical
studies.
                                                                                            English and Linguistic Curriculum Map 2010

Student engage in projects that demonstrate their familiarity with the evolution          BF4           BF4-I                            BF4-R   BFr-E
of the language and the social connections of language that reflect the essential
integration of English with the global community that contributes to its
linguistic richness.

Students demonstrate critical thinking skills by the direct application of linguistic     BF5           BF5-I             BF5-R                  BF5-E
and descriptive tools to the study of the evolution and transformation of English
as a global language.

Students integrate written, oral, and multimedia skills to produce rhetorically           BF6           BF6-I             BF6-R          BF6-E   BF6-E
sound essays, original creative works, and literary analyses that refect rhetorical
precision, clarity of thought and critical understanding of a wide range of historical,
cultural, and ethnic texts and situations.
                                                                                                       English and Linguistic Curriculum Map 2010


                            Courses                               Baccalaureate          L308                     L318
                                                                  Framework              Elizabethan              Milton
                                                                  Alignment              Drama
Literature Learning Outcomes
Students demonstrate their acquisition of essential literary      BF1, BF3, BF5          BF1-I, BF2-R, BF5-E,     BF1-I, BF2-R, BF5-E,
skills: familiarity with a broad range of American and English                           BF6-E                    BF6-E
literary texts through the application of a variety of critical
approaches to the analysis of literary texts
Students apply their critical strategies in the production of       BF1, BF2, BF5, BF6   BF1-I, BF2-R, BF5-E,     BF1-I, BF2-R, BF5-E,
literary analyses informed by theoretical, historical, and cultural                      BF6-E                    BF6-E
preparation gained from the program

Students integrate written and oral skills to produce rhetorically BF3, BF4, BF6         BF1-I, BF2-R, BF5-E,     BF1-I, BF2-R, BF5-E,
sound essays that reflect clarity of thought and critical                                BF6-E                    BF6-E
understanding of wide range of literary situations (historical,
cultural, and ethnic).
English and Linguistic Curriculum Map 2010
English and Linguistic Curriculum Map 2010
English and Linguistic Curriculum Map 2010
English and Linguistic Curriculum Map 2010
English and Linguistic Curriculum Map 2010
English and Linguistic Curriculum Map 2010
English and Linguistic Curriculum Map 2010
English and Linguistic Curriculum Map 2010
English and Linguistic Curriculum Map 2010
English and Linguistic Curriculum Map 2010
                                                              Learning Outcomes for English L101/L102

English Dept. Goal                        BF Alignment             ENG L101 and ENG L102 Outcome
English majors demonstrate literary,      1. Acquisition of        Students will become familiar with some of the most influential texts in Western literature from the time
historical, linguistic, and rhetorical    Knowledge                of the ancient Greeks through the medieval period, focusing especially on epic and drama.
conventions and traditions of
English through critically sound oral
and written expression reflective of
this integration of curriculum
material.

English Literature Concentration:
Students demonstrate their
acquisition of essential literary
skills: familiarity with a broad range
of American and English literary
texts through the application of a
variety of critical approaches to the
analysis of literary texts.

Students use analytical and               2 Application of         Through in-class discussion and written work, students gain experience in critical, analytical reading of
rhetorical skills to produce              Knowledge                texts, including both formal analysis of literary devices within individual texts and analysis of literary
persuasive, critically precise essays                              influence among the texts we study.
and projects that reveal an
integration of research skills with
the acquired curriculum.

English Literature Concentration:
Students apply their knowledge of
critical strategies in the production
of analyses of essential literary texts
that are informed by the theoretical,
historical, and cultural preparation
offered by the program.

Students demonstrate through peer         3 Personal and           Students learn the conventions associated with the MLA citation system and practice using this
review of written work/projects and       Professional Values      documentation method to acknowledge sources for their own writing.
sound use of sources in research
essays a respect for their colleagues
and for the intellectual property used
in their research. Student respect for
class attendance and for critical
engagement in dealing with
secondary sources reflect personal
integrity and a responsible
acquisition of ethical values in
literary and rhetorical studies.

Students come to recognize diverse       4 Sense of            Students will develop an awareness of the Western literary tradition as a community of writers who make
communities and beliefs through          Community             allusions to and connections with writers and texts that precede them.
literary studies that expose them to a
multitude of heterogeneous voices.
Students write essays and respond
verbally to questions that have
abiding historical and culture
significance (e.g. consequences of
war, racism, nationalism, personal
bias).

English Literature Concentration:
Students engage diverse
communities and beliefs through
literary studies that expose them to a
multitude of diverse voices.

English Literature Concentration:        5 Critical Thinking           Written assignments give students experiential awareness of problems related to literary study,
Students integrate literary and          and Problem Solving           including (1) the importance of considering the impact of the translator on the interpretation of a
cultural analysis of a broad range of                                  work read in translation, and (2) the importance of considering a literary work in relation to
literary texts to produce critical,                                    other works from within the same tradition.
analytical writing that responds to
questions of genre, character
analyses, literary style, and
historical significance of various
American and British texts.
Students integrate written, oral, and    6 Communication               Students learn the conventions associated with literary analytical writing and practice
multimedia skills to produce                                           developing persuasive analytical arguments about literary works.
rhetorically sound essays, original
creative works, and literary analyses
that reflect rhetorical precision,
clarity of thought and critical
understanding of a wide range of
historical, cultural, and ethnic texts
and situations.
                                                        Pedagogical Framework for the IPFW Baccalaureate Degree
                                                   Correspondence between Program and Framework Learning Objectives
  Department: English and Linguistics
  Degree Program: A.A. students; English Language; English Literature; Writing Concentration: Teacher Certification
  Baccalaureate Framework
                                                              Objectives
  Program's Student Learning Element
                                                                           EnEnglish majors demonstrate literary, historical, linguistic, and rhetorical conventions and traditions of English
                                                                          thr through critically sound oral and written expression reflective of this integration of curriculum material.
                                                                              English Language Concentration: Students demonstrate their familiarity with the fundamental rules of
                                                                              operation and the social connections of natural languages, especially English; the evolution and transformation
                                                                              of the English language; and the analytical and descriptive tools of English linguistics.
Acquisition of Knowledge:
                                                                              English Literature Concentration: Students demonstrate their acquisition of essential literary skills: familiarity
Students will demonstrate breadth of knowledge across disciplines and
                                                                              with a broad range of American and English literary texts through the application of a variety of critical
depthof knowledge in their chosen discipline. In order to do so, students
                                                                              approaches to the analysis of literary texts.
must demonstrate the requisite information seeking skills and
                                                                              Writing Concentration: Students demonstrate their ability to read and write clearly and persuasively in various
technological competencies.
                                                                              rhetorical contexts in the production of original compositions.
                                                                              Teacher Certification Concentration: Students will demonstrate their acquisition of the fundamental skills
                                                                              necessary for the secondary education classroom; knowledge of American and British literary texts;
                                                                              fundamental rules of oral and written communication; acquisition of pedagogical methodologies necessary for
                                                                              the instruction of literature and language in a secondary education environment.
                                                                               Students use analytical and rhetorical skills to produce persuasive, critically precise essays that reveal an
                                                                              integration of research skills with the acquired curriculum.
                                                                              English Language Concentration: Students apply analytical and descriptive linguistic tools in evaluated
                                                                              coursework that measures the acquisition of fundamental language skills: knowledge of the evolution and
Application of Knowledge:                                                     essential nature of language as a means of communication.
Students will demonstrate the ability to integrate and apply that             English Literature Concentration: Students apply their knowledge of critical strategies
 knowledge, and, in so doing, demonstrate the skills necessary                 in the production of analyses of essential literary texts.
for life-long learning                                                        Writing Concentration: Students apply the fundamental principles of writing and
                                                                              rhetoric in the creation of original works of fiction, nonfiction, and/or poetry.
                                                                              Teacher Certification Concentration: Students engage in activities (classroom instruction, portfolios) that
                                                                              reflect their acquisition of the fundamental literary, language, and communication skills necessary for a
                                                                              successful secondary education instructor.
                                                                               Students demonstrate through peer review of written work and sound use of sources in research essays a
Personal and Professional Values:                                             respect for their colleagues and for the intellectual property used in their research. Student respect for class
 Students will demonstrate the highest levels of personal integrity and       attendance and for critical engagement in dealing with secondary sources reflect personal integrity and a
professional ethics.                                                          responsible acquisition of ethical values in literary and rhetorical studies.
                                                                              (All concentrations)
                                                                               Students come to recognize diverse communities and beliefs through literary studies that expose them to a
                                                                              multitude of heterogeneous voices. Students write essays and respond verbally to questions that have abiding
                                                                              historical and culture significance (e.g.
                                                                               consequences of war, racism, nationalism, personal bias).
 A Sense of Community.
                                                                              English Language Concentration: Students engage in projects that demonstrate their familiarity with the
 Students will demonstrate the knowledge and skills necessary to be
                                                                              evolution of the language and the social connections of language that reflect the essential integration of English
 productive and responsible citizens and leaders in local, regional,
                                                                              with the global community that contributes to its linguistic richness.
 national,
                                                                              English Literature Concentration: Students engage diverse communities and beliefs through literary studies
 and international communities. In so doing, students will demonstrate a
                                                                              that expose them to a multitude of diverse voices.
 commitment to free and open inquiry and mutual respect across multiple
                                                                              Writing Concentration: Students engage in a number of interrelated reading and writing activities that ask them
 cultures and perspectives.
                                                                              to evaluate, analyze, and contribute to the discursive community.
                                                                              Teacher Certification Concentration: Students acquire the fundamental rhetorical,
                                                                              literary, and pedagogical skills necessary to contribute to a secondary education
                                                                              environment as reflected in portfolios and classroom supervision.
                                                                               English Literature Concentration: Students integrate literary and cultural analysis of a broad range of literary
                                                                              texts to produce argumentative or analytical writing that responds to questions of genre, character analyses,
                                                                              literary style, and historical significance of various American and British texts.
 Critical Thinking and Problem Solving:                                       English Language Concentration: Students demonstrate critical thinking skills by the direct application of
 Students will demonstrate facility and adaptability in their approach to     linguistic and descriptive tools to the study of the evolution and transformation of English as a global language.
 problem solving. In so doing, students will demonstrate critical thinking Writing Concentration: Students demonstrate the critical thinking necessary for developing rhetorically precise,
 abilities and familiarity with quantitative and qualitative reasoning.       persuasive writing.
                                                                              Teacher Certification Concentration: Students demonstrate critical thinking and
                                                                              problem solving skills in analyses of the characteristics, the history, and the development of our multicultural
                                                                              world.
                                                                              Students integrate written, oral, and multimedia skills to produce rhetorically sound essays, original creative
 Communication: Students will demonstrate the written, oral, and
                                                                              works, and literary analyses that reflect rhetorical precision, clarity of thought and critical understanding of a
 multimedia skills necessary to communicate effectively in diverse
                                                                              wide range of historical, cultural, and ethnic texts and situations.
 settings.
To:    Hardin Aasand, Professor
       Chair English and Linguistics

From: COAS Assessment Committee
      Donna Holland, Chair
      Yihao Deng
      Debrah Huffman

Date: January 8, 2011 (revised February 21, 2011)

RE:    2010 Assessment Plan and Report

The COAS Assessment Committee received the Department’s 2010 Assessment Plan and Report for the
Graduate Program. There are some elements of the report that we want to highlight. We highlight some
aspects of your report and provide recommendations for future reports.

Your plans for future changes address most of the areas that would strengthen the current report. Your
course curriculum maps are thorough and well designed. Your report clearly documented the program
assessment process as requested from the Committee. The curriculum map is used to identify the ability
to meet curricular needs. Additionally, the report highlights your learning objectives for each course.
Your report mentions how the graduate committee is using the assessment results. You have a clear
systematic approach to data collection.

We praise you for the degree of criticism you allow your survey participants to express. You collected
data on both strengths and weaknesses of the program. We commend you for your balanced approach in
the data collection process.

The following recommendations are not to be construed as requirements, but are provided in order to
give your department additional elements to consider in future assessments. Future reports could be
improved by stating the criteria for determining whether the outcome has been achieved. No thresholds
or cutoffs were identified in your report. Although you seem to use a cut-off of 3 or better, you do not
explicitly state that 3 is acceptable. No clear benchmarks or pre-stated levels of performance are
identified. For example, in your well developed surveys you do not indicate that an average of 4.0 on
your 5-point scale is your indicator of success. You also do not provide comments about the findings as
you present the data. Your assessment process and report would be improved if you set clear,
predetermined standards, report the findings and then add your interpretation of the findings. Clearly
state whether or not you met your learning objective and then provide the comparative analysis: Our
pre-set benchmark was 4.0 and our average was 4.01, thus we conclude that we are adequately
accomplishing {state specific teaching objective}. As is, your report tends to leave the conclusions to the
reader. Some readers would be more critical than others. Thus, we suggest that you determine your
level of success and clearly state it in your report near the area where you report the survey data. More
closely aligning the survey questions with your department’s goals and objectives would further
strengthen your report.

                                                                                                          1
Your use of arithmetic means when you have some rather small sample sizes may not be the best option
available. Also, if you find a bi-modal pattern in your results with a sample size of only five students,
your program might be more informed if you noted the bi-modal pattern and tried to interpret it rather
than an arithmetic mean. So, if you have 3 respondents reporting 5-strongly agree, and 2 respondents
reporting strongly disagree, your average is still most likely considered acceptable. However, you have
60% of your survey participants who rather strongly agree and fully 40% of participants who do not.
Most likely you are concerned about why 40% or 2 out of 5 were not at all satisfied. But when you focus
on the arithmetic mean, it blurs the overall finding. There are a number of additional methods to assess
your data. One other option you have, given your low sample sizes, is to also report cumulative data.
So, you could add columns to your data tables that reflect values given by students over a specific
meaningful period of time, such as 2, 4, or 5 years. This method would also allow you to see if your
current survey year data follow the overall pattern or if you do notably better or worse than before.
Similarly, you could use Grand Means to enhance your overall conclusions about meeting your
objectives. For example, in the area where you report “Section three refers to the students’ overall
experience:” you could use the Grand Mean to contrast against pre-set criteria. While you have a surplus
of qualitative data, there appears to be no actual analysis of this data. Your report would be strengthened
if you completed analysis of this data. Additionally, you should provide interpretation of the analysis
results.

Your conclusion section is framed using a general or overall pattern. Your conclusions could be
strengthened by incorporating a few of the suggestions above. Then, when you write your conclusion,
you could use quantitative data. You could easily highlight that of {your number of learning objectives}
we met or exceeded {the percentage that you met or exceeded}. Then, you also can highlight specific
changes in your curriculum map/courses that may be made to enhance the areas where you did not meet
your goals. Your conclusions should specifically state overall how your program is doing and should be
connected directly to the learning goals/objectives. The items you highlighted on your curriculum map
are not specifically addressed in the conclusion section. All identified learning objectives in the Master
program on the curriculum map appear not to be assessed. Future reports would incorporate assessment
of more learning objectives. Incorporating an executive summary at the front of the report that highlights
goals met, areas of needed improvement, and your overall conclusions would also strengthen your
assessment report.




                                                                                                          2
From:         Solomon Isiorho
To:           Donna Holland
CC:           Benjamin Dattilo; Yihao Deng; Debrah Huffman
Date:         11/16/2010 2:47 PM
Subject:      Re: Assessment Report & Plan

Dear Dr Holland & COAS assessment committee members,
We are in the middle of our program review and we are requesting a waiver for this
year. Thanks for your cooperation.
Sincerely
Solomon




Isiorho, PhD, CPG, LPG, MBA
Professor & Chair
Department of Geosciences
Indiana University - Purdue University Ft. Wayne (IPFW)
Fort Wayne, IN 46805-1499
To:       Dr. Isiorho, Professor & Chair Department of Geosciences

From: COAS Assessment Committee
      Donna Holland, Chair
      Yihao Deng
      Debrah Huffman

Date: February 21, 2011 (revised)

RE:       2010 Assessment Plan and Report Waiver



The COAS Assessment Committee has received your request for a waiver. We
approve this request. In your report next year, please make every attempt to
address the key elements listed below.

                 Key Elements to Include in each Department’s Report:

         List the learning goals and outcomes of the department/program and state
          the criteria for determining whether the outcome has been achieved (E.g.,
          70% of our students are expected to meet this outcome);
         Describe the program assessment process, including what is examined (e.g.
          senior seminar, capstone courses). If different outcomes are assessed each
          year, the report should address that system;
         Provide clear results of the goals and outcomes assessment;
         Explain any changes to be made to the curriculum and/or assessment process
          based on results.

If you have any questions, please contact any COAS Assessment Committee
member.
                       GERONTOLOGY CERTIFICATE
                                Assessment Plan 2009-10


                                    Gerontology Certificate
                                     Learning Outcomes

The Gerontology Certificate is an 18-credit, multidisciplinary certificate that can be earned in
combination with a degree or as a stand-alone program of study. The learning outcomes are:

1.     Students will demonstrate knowledge of gerontology including but not limited to
       biological, social, and psychological issues that impact on older adults and those who
       work with and care for them.

2.     Students will demonstrate knowledge of the basic study of aging in several disciplines,
       complementary areas such as nutrition and medical ethics, and applications dealing with
       health and social issues involving older adults.

3.     Students will demonstrate the ability to apply gerontological knowledge, through a
       practicum experience in which the student works with, or on behalf of, older adults in a
       campus, community, or agency setting that serves this population.


                                    Gerontology Certificate
                                         Assessment

1.     Internal Exit: When students are certified for graduation in the College of Arts and
       Sciences, they will be sent an exit questionnaire which measures the students’
       satisfaction with the program, whether the program meets the learning outcomes
       described above, whether the Certificate assisted the student in obtaining employment,
       and if the student has suggestions for improvement in the program.

2.     External Exit: At four year intervals, all graduates will be sent a similar questionnaire.

3.     The Gerontology Director is responsible for conducting the assessment of the Certificate.
                        GERONTOLOGY CERTIFICATE
                               Assessment Report 2009-10

Internal Measure at Exit

The Gerontology Certificate Program continues to grow, with the number of students in the
Program increasing from 11 in 2004-05, to 24 in 2005-06, 31 in 2006-07, 39 in 2007-08, 43 in
2008-09, and 53 in 2009-10.

Six students, all female, completed the Gerontology Certificate during the 2009-10 academic
year: five students graduated in the spring semester, and one student graduated in the summer II
semester. Packets with anonymous exit questionnaires and self-addressed, stamped return
envelopes were sent to all six students near the time of their graduation. Two questionnaires
were returned on the first mailings. A few weeks after the first mailings, students were sent
duplicate questionnaire packets, with a revised cover letter requesting again that they participate.
I again provided self-addressed, stamped return envelopes. Two questionnaires were returned on
the second mailing.

The responses of the four students who completed the questionnaire are as follows:

1. Why did you choose to complete a Gerontology Certificate?

   Three students indicated that they were interested in working with the senior population or
   with geriatric clients. The fourth student thought the courses and the population were
   interesting, and that a Gerontology Certificate enhanced her resume.

2. Are you currently employed, and if so, what is your job title?

   Only one student was currently employed, as a cook and waitress.

3. Did the Gerontology Certificate play any role in obtaining your job?

   The one employed student responded that the Certificate did not assist her in obtaining her
   job.

4. Did the education you received in your Gerontology courses assist you in the performance of
   your current job? Any previous job?

   Responses were “no” or “N/A,” or left blank.

5. Are you currently pursuing further education? If so, what?

   All students replied that they intended to pursue Master’s Degrees, either imminently or in
   the future. The fields mentioned were speech-language pathology, music therapy, and
   counseling.
                                                             Gerontology Assessment Report       2

6. Did the Gerontology Certificate play any role in your decision to pursue further education, or
   in your acceptance into an educational program?

   Both students with immediate plans to graduate school stated that the Gerontology
   Certificate assisted their choice of graduate program; one student specifically looked for
   programs that would increase her geriatric knowledge.

7. Were you satisfied with your educational experiences in Gerontology at IPFW? If so, why?
   If not, why not?

   All students answered in the affirmative. Comments about the program included “many well
   knowledge[able] faculty;” “great” classes that are “informed and organized” and
   beneficial to anyone dealing with seniors; classes that give “insight into geriatric clients;”
   and enjoyable, informative classes that were “applicable in working with the geriatric
   population of my internship.”

8. Using the scale below, and considering all the courses you took in the Certificate, please rate
   your education in Gerontology at IPFW in the following areas:
   1 = poor
   2 = fair
   3 = good
   4 = excellent
   N/A = I didn=t take coursework in that area



                               Area                        Rating
                               Basic biological            4.0 &
                               processes of aging          N/A
                               Basic psychological         4.0 &
                               processes of aging          N/A
                               Social issues affecting     4.0
                               older adults
                               Cross cultural issues and   3.5
                               aging
                               Working with older          4.0
                               adults
                               Practicum with older        3.75
                               adults
                                                              Gerontology Assessment Report        3

9. For any areas above which you rated 1 or 2, please indicate why you rated that area the way
   you did.

   Responses were “N/A” or left blank.

10. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for the IPFW Gerontology Program?

   Two students had no suggestions, with one student commenting “great program.” Two other
   students concurred in the assessment of the program as “great.” One of these students also
   was pleased that the courses counted for general education requirements; the other of these
   students also stated that classes were “very thorough” and conducive to learning “a great
   amount,” and that the program did not present any “unnecessary requirements.”

   The only suggestion offered for the program was that a document be generated listing the
   organizations that have hosted a practicum student. Such a list would aid in identifying sites
   that work specifically with seniors.

Findings and Conclusions

Conclusions are based on four students, with a 67 percent response rate. Positive findings from
these students are the overall satisfaction with their gerontological education and the “excellent”
or “good” ratings given to gerontological education in the six areas identified. Such results
suggest useful comprehensiveness and quality of education in gerontology.

For these respondents, the Certificate has not yet played a role in obtaining employment or in job
performance. The Certificate has shown influence in pursuit of further education.

Responses and Actions for Continuous Improvement

Possible responses and actions for continuous improvement based on these findings are:

-- In line with the only suggestion concerning improvement, I have developed a listing of
practicum sites that Gerontology Certificate students have experienced over the past five years. I
will update this list every year, and have the list available in hard copy and to send electronically
to interested students and faculty.

External Measure at Exit

Recipients of the Gerontology Certificate are surveyed at least every four years. The last such
assessment was completed in 2007; the next will be done in May 2011.

Report prepared by:

Penelope A. McLorg, Ph.D.
Director, Gerontology Program
November, 2010
TO:      Penelop A. McLorg, Director of Gerontology Program
FROM: COAS Assessment Committee
      Donna Holland, Chair
      Yihao Deng
      Debrah Huffman
DATE:    January 10, 2011 (revised February 21, 2011)
RE:      Gerontology Certificate Program 2010 Assessment Plan and Report



The COAS Assessment Committee received the Gerontology Certificate Program’s 2010
Assessment Plan and Report. We appreciate your effort in putting the report together even
though non-degree granting programs are not required to submit assessment report this time.
We reviewed each element your report covered and provide recommendations for future
report(s) as we did to all other departments/programs.

Your report covered the learning goals and objectives, program assessment process, assessment
results, and changes to be made to the curriculum. However, the criteria for achieving the
learning goals and objectives are not very clearly defined although the results indicate that you
have done an excellent job (e.g. rating is above 3.5).

We recommend that in future reports you provide clear criteria in assessing your program
success (for example, a certain percentage of students are expected to meet certain goals).
                                     DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
                                   260-481-6686 • FAX: 260-481-6985

MEMORANDUM


TO:      Donna Holland, Chair
         College of Arts and Sciences Assessment Committee
FROM:    Bernd Fischer, Chair
         History
DATE:    November 8, 2010
SUBJ:    Assessment Report


Assessment of the B.A. degree program in the Department of History is based on an extensive
collection of materials. First, there is a portfolio of student writings. This document contains
written assignments from HIST H217 The Nature of History (interim assessment), HIST J495
Proseminar for History Majors (internal exit assessment), and two papers from other history
classes above the 100 level that are chosen by the student. Second, there is an annual survey of
graduating history majors (external exit assessment) which is distributed to the faculty and
discussed. Third, there is a review of sample course syllabi, assignments, and examinations.

Assessment of the A.A. degree program is based on an exit questionnaire (internal exit assessment)
as well as a measure of the percentage of A.A. degree recipients who successfully complete the B.A.
degree four to eight years after completing the A.A. degree (external exit assessment).

The assessment plan of the History Department requires a formal assessment of these materials
every 5 years. We completed the last assessment in spring 2009, and are scheduled to carry out the
next one in spring 2014. This past year, as in previous years, the History Department has collected
materials to be utilized in the 2014 assessment. At this time the department’s assessment plan does
not require an assessment of materials gathered over the past year.

The department has been implementing recommendations from the spring 2004 and spring 2009
assessments. The 2004 assessment suggested that the department require HIST H217 for history
majors, instead of just recommending that majors take it. The department has implemented that
suggestion by requiring H217 for all majors who have not already completed the College of Arts and
Sciences second-semester composition requirement with another course before declaring history
as a major at IPFW. All new majors starting in the fall of 2009 must take H217. The 2009
assessment recommended that the department consider increasing the oral participation
component of course requirements, consider adopting a uniform statement to be used on all syllabi
as well as providing contact information for the department's library liaison, and consider
developing methods that might lead to greater participation on the part of graduating seniors in
exit surveys. The first two suggestions are in the process of implementation. The last suggestion
remains under discussion.




               2101 E. COLISEUM BLVD. • FORT WAYNE, INDIANA 46805-1499 • WWW.IPFW.EDU
To:    Dr. Bernd Fischer
From: COAS Assessment Committee
      Dr. Donna Holland, Chair
      Dr. Yihao Deng
      Dr. Debrah Huffman
Date: January 10, 2011 (revised February 21, 2011)
Re:    Department of History 2010 Assessment Plan and Report

The COAS Assessment Committee received and reviewed your submission for the 2010 assessment
report. The Department of History has submitted its assessment plan summary, therefore we cannot
respond to it as an assessment report.

The committee appreciates that History submitted a very thorough report in Spring of 2009, and we
acknowledge that you have established a five-year assessment plan. However, the committee is
very concerned that five years is too long to wait for program assessment and misses opportunities
to make effective changes based on feedback that could benefit majors. In keeping with other
departments who are turning in annual assessment reports and making yearly progress, we
encourage you to do some measure(s) of program assessment annually.

We commend the variety of assessment methods you use. The committee is also impressed that you
have made a change in course requirements based on assessment. We note that other conclusions
based on the previous year’s assessment results are being considered and hope that you plan on
deciding what changes (if any) to make before 2014. The committee also finds the rubric you use
for J495 papers a significant step toward clarifying desired assessment criteria.

The following recommendations are not to be construed as requirements, but are provided in order
to give your department additional elements to consider in future assessments. For your next
assessment report, the COAS Assessment Committee suggests the following. Clarify your desired
criteria, how you determine whether a goal or outcome has been achieved. Providing thresholds
and cutoffs would strengthen your assessment. We also recommend a clear and thorough
discussion of results of your assessment measures, drawing conclusion from the data. This would
make better use, for example, of the list of student survey responses.
TO: Assessment Committee, College of Arts and Sciences
    Carl Drummond, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

FROM: David Legg, Chair, Department of Mathematical Sciences

DATE: October 14, 2010

SUBJECT: Waiver for assessment report


The Department of Mathematical Sciences has faithfully submitted assessment reports
since the 1996-97 academic year. However, this year the department is in the process of
completely revising its assessment goals and plans due to implementation of the
Baccalaureate Framework and the assessment of general education. An assessment
report based on our old structure would not meet the new requirements for assessment
reports and would vary little from last year’s report. I am therefore requesting a waiver
for this year’s assessment report so that we have time to put a new plan in place. We are
intending to have a new plan in place possibly by the end the current semester, but no
later than early enough in the spring semester to begin assessment during that semester.
An assessment report based on the new goals and plans would be available for next
year’s assessment cycle.
To:       Dr. Legg, Chair of Mathematical Sciences

From: COAS Assessment Committee
      Donna Holland, Chair
      Yihao Deng
      Debrah Huffman

Date: February 21, 2011 (revised)

RE:       2010 Assessment Plan and Report Waiver



The COAS Assessment Committee has received your request for a waiver. We
approve this request. In your report next year, please make every attempt to
address the key elements listed below.

Key Elements to Include in each Department’s Report:

         List the learning goals and outcomes of the department/program and state
          the criteria for determining whether the outcome has been achieved (E.g.,
          70% of our students are expected to meet this outcome);
         Describe the program assessment process, including what is examined (e.g.
          senior seminar, capstone courses). If different outcomes are assessed each
          year, the report should address that system;
         Provide clear results of the goals and outcomes assessment;
         Explain any changes to be made to the curriculum and/or assessment process
          based on results.

If you have any questions, please contact any COAS Assessment Committee
member.
             DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
                    – GOVERNANCE DOCUMENTS –

                                 Assessment Plan

                   Version 1.1; last revision: November 8th, 2010



I.   GENERAL REMARKS

     1. The Department of Philosophy is serious about educating its students in an
     accountable way. We understand that what counts when all is said and done are
     results, not intentions.
     2. Not everything, however, that a Liberal Arts education desires to achieve
     results in directly or indirectly measurable learning outcomes, as many learning
     objectives go beyond teaching simple skills or facts. Many goals we have for our
     students—e.g., the goal to become a responsible citizen, to find creative solutions
     for a problem, or to be an open-minded partner in a globalized world—refer to
     dispositions. But dispositions are held beliefs or character traits that do not
     become visible (and hence not measurable) unless certain circumstances obtain.
     (We never find out whether sugar has the disposition of being water-soluble
     unless we put in a glass of water.) We therefore understand that there are
     limitations as to what assessment in a Liberal Arts context can accomplish, for
     many goals may remain elusive to measurement.
     3. We resist the current notion of leaving K-12 and colleges with all the blame if
     education fails. Our current concept of Higher Education presupposes middle-
     class families that prepare their children for school by having instilled in them
     certain values and having taught them certain skills and attitudes that are
     prerequisite for success. If, now, the way the society is set up and the economy
     works is such that good parenting is not an option for all and many of our
     freshmen are therefore ill-prepared for college, not just in terms of their academic
     preparation but much more importantly in terms of their study habits, work ethic,
     and other attitudes crucial for succeeding in school, then we are happy to try and
     influence our students, but there are certainly limits as to what we can achieve in
     this respect. We think this highly unfortunate situation requires serious joint
     efforts by our society as a whole and measures taken by the legislator and
     business leaders in particular; it can’t be remedied by “pedagogical eros” alone.
     4. In light of the limitations we face and the (partial) responsibility we accept, we
     have identified five tools to assess student leaning outcomes as detailed further
     below. Although assessment is an ongoing process that, on the course-level, takes
     place in our class rooms on a daily basis, we shall engage in additional, program-
       level assessment three times a year, for the most part facilitated by the
       Department Assessment Committee.

II.    ACRONYMS, OPERATIONALIZATIONS, AND PROCEDURES

       1. Acronyms. For the sake of brevity, this document uses the following
       acronyms: DAC = Department Assessment Committee – CT(T) = Critical
       Thinking (Test) – PKT = Philosophy Knowledge Test – GELO = General
       Education Learning Outcomes.
       2. Operationalizing Learning Outcomes. Assessment requires that student
       learning outcomes have been operationalized, i.e., made measurable. The basic
       tool for defining and then, partly, operationalizing learning outcomes in the
       various areas that fall under the Department’s teaching mission, like CT skills or
       disciplinary knowledge, is a curriculum map. The curriculum map for the
       programs we offer is documented in Appendix A below.
       3. Procedures and Time Lines
       3.1 Each year in early February the DAC meets, identifies the winner of the Best
       Essay Contest and hence the recipient of Churchill Scholarship (see Section III.4
       below for details), and based on its findings makes recommendations to the
       Department Chairperson for inclusion to the agenda of the annual Department
       Fall Retreat.
       3.2 Each year in early May the DAC meets, reviews student portfolios, results
       from the CTT, PKT and GELO (see sections III.1–3 and III.5 below for details),
       and makes recommendations to the Department Chairperson for inclusion to the
       agenda of the annual Department Fall Retreat.
       3.3 Each year during the on-duty week in August, all Teaching Faculty in the
       Department go on a one-day Department Fall Retreat to celebrate successes in the
       class room (what went well), to share their plans for the next academic year (what
       faculty will try to do differently), and to discuss the outcomes and
       recommendations made by the DAC.
       3.4 In cooperation with the Department Chairperson, the Department Lead
       Advisor shall not only remind faculty of applicable policies, procedures, and
       deadlines but shall also put a hold on those student accounts who were found not
       to be compliant with departmental assessment requirements (e.g., neglecting their
       portfolio or delaying the CTT or PKT).

III.   ASSESSMENT TOOLS

       1. Student Portfolio
       1.1 Function. To assess, longitudinally, our students’
             • writing skills,
             • language comprehension skills, and their
             • contextual/applied CT skills.
1.2 Contents. A complete portfolio will consist of five items; the student’s:
      • best 110/111 writing assignment;
      • best paper from a 300-level history class;
      • best paper from a 3/400-level topics class;
      • best paper from a 500-level class;
      • final essay (capstone work).
1.3 Implementation. It is the responsibility of each student to submit items to his
or her portfolio to the Department secretary, who shall maintain all portfolios on
the Department’s o-drive. During the on-duty week of each term, each faculty
member shall check whether their student advisees are in compliance or not and
remind them to keep their portfolio current if not.
The DAC will meet every spring to assess (any additions to) the portfolio of all
active majors and minors. To do that, the DAC will meet towards the end of the
spring term (usually, sometimes between the last week of classes and
Commencement) and use a rubrics sheet (see Appendix B) for its assessment
work. Within a week from the meeting, the DAC will then forward a summary
of its findings and a bullet list with talking points and recommendations to the
Department Chairperson. The Department Chairperson will then use the DAC’s
bullet list to facilitate a conversation on teaching effectiveness and goals for the
new academic year during the annual Department Fall Retreat.

2. Critical Thinking Test (CTT)
2.1 Function. To assess student progress in
        • non-contextual CT skills;
both at the course and the program level.
2.2 Contents. The Department shall choose
       • an outside, nationally recognized CTT that matches most closely the
textbook we use.
2.3 Implementation. The CTT will be administered two times.
       2.3.1 Course-level assessment. At the beginning and the end of each
       section of the PHIL-12000 the Department offers students will take the
       CTT as part of their normal course work; the first time students take the
       CTT, test results will count towards their attendance/oral participation
       grade, the second time test results will contribute to their final grade.
       2.3.2 Program-level assessment. Students take the CTT for the first time
       when they declare a major or minor in one of our programs. Students
       majoring in one of our programs take the CTT for the second time when
       they declare a faculty mentor to work with for their capstone work. Both
       times the CTT is made part of the admittance process, i.e., getting
       admitted to the program, getting admitted to their capstone work resp.
       Students minoring in one of our programs will be asked by their academic
       advisor to take the CTT once they are about finishing their degree
       requirements.
       2.3.3 Test results will monitored using a feedback form (see Appendix C)
       and discussed by the DAC during its spring meeting. The DAC will report
       its findings and any recommendations it might have to all instructors of
       the PHL-12000 (course-level assessment) and to the Department
       Chairperson (program-level assessment) for inclusion to the agenda of the
       annual Department Fall Retreat.

3. Philosophy Knowledge Test (PKT)
3.1 Function. To assess
       • general disciplinary knowledge
our students have acquired after they are half-way through the program.
3.2 Contents. A mixed multiple choice and short answer exam based on the
Department’s curriculum map (see Appendix A) as well as exams and quizzes
from various core courses in the program.
3.3. Implementation. The Department will publish a study guide along with
sample questions on the Department’s website. Students need to take the PKT
once they have completed 22 or more credit hours in the program (all four
required 100-level courses plus two history classes and two topics classes). It is
the responsibility of the Department Lead Advisor to monitor credit hour
accumulation and to determine when a student should take the PKT, which is
administered by the student’s faculty advisor. Test results will be discussed
during a 30-min meeting between the student and his or her faculty advisor, who
will also make recommendations as to further student progress and success.
Faculty who administered a PKT and discussed results with students fill a
feedback form (see Appendix D) and submit it to the DAC within a week. The
DAC will then evaluate student scores and faculty feedback during its spring
meeting and then forward a summary of its findings and a bullet list with talking
points and recommendations to the Department Chairperson for inclusion to the
agenda of the annual Department Fall Retreat.

4. Churchill Scholarship / Best Essay Contest
4.1 Function. To assess top of the cream
        • writing skills,
        • language comprehension skills, and
        • contextual/applied CT skills;
to provide an incentive for students to show their best efforts when they work on a
writing assignments and to send a strong signal to them as to how much we value
writing, language, and CT skills; to provide our best students with the opportunity
to engage in undergraduate research and to add a not unimportant line to their
resume.
4.2 Implementation. At the beginning of each spring term, faculty who taught a
300-level or higher course during the past calendar year may submit to the DAC
what they think is the best essay they have graded during that period along with, if
they wish to do so, a short statement why the essay stands clearly above the rest.
The DAC meets early in February to review the submissions using a rubrics sheet
(see Appendix E) and to identify a winner. The winner of the Best Essay Contest
will then be awarded the Churchill Scholarship Award at the COAS Honors
Banquet.

5. General Education Assessment
5.1 Function. To asses the quality and the impact of the Department’s
contribution to IPFW’s General Education Program and the Baccalaureate
Framework.
5.2 Contents. tbd.
5.3 Implementation. The basic approach is to cycle through all X tools once in X
years.
               Appendix A:
– Department of Philosophy Curriculum Map –
           Appendix B:
– Student Portfolio Rubrics Sheet –
     Appendix C:
– CTT Feedback Form –
     Appendix D:
– PKT Feedback Form –
           Appendix E:
– Best Essay Contest Rubrics Sheet –
TO:      Bernd Buldt, Professor and Chair of Department of Philosophy
FROM: COAS Assessment Committee
      Donna Holland, Chair
      Yihao Deng
      Debrah Huffman
DATE:    January 10, 2011 (revised February 21, 2011)
RE:      Department of Philosophy 2010 Assessment Plan and Report



The COAS Assessment Committee received the Philosophy Department’s 2010 Assessment Plan
and Report. We reviewed each element your report covered and provide recommendations for
future report(s).

The assessment plan you submitted covers the learning goals and objectives and program
assessment process and assessment tools. The student portfolio, various tests and essay contest
are excellent assessment measures. However, the criteria for achieving the learning goals and
objectives are not very clearly defined, and the outcome using these multiple measures is not
provided.

We recommend that you complete the assessment plan as soon as possible, and provide us
clear results of your assessment according to the plan. In the meantime, incorporate into the
report clear criteria for assessing your success (for example, a certain percentage of students are
expected to meet certain goals).

Thank you very much for your efforts.
Physics Department Assessment Report – 2010

Preface
Assessment is a very difficult task requiring a well designed process. This process consists of at least
three steps: data collection, data analysis, and finally, use of the data to refine both the assessment
process and the program. In order to collect meaningful data it is necessary to have agreement on what
one is trying to accomplish – this is perhaps best termed goals. The term outcomes is generally used in
assessment circles (Student Learning Outcomes - SLO's). However, this is a very poor choice of words
because an outcome is a result at the end and is not predictable. How can one not achieve an outcome?
Rationally, we must start with student learning goals: “what do we want our students to be at
graduation.” The outcomes are able to be determined when looking at the assessment data. Once one
has developed goals, the next question is what data can be collected that will provide meaningful
information about achieving those goals. Then a meaningful analysis of the data must follow,
considering the validity of the acquired data. At this point it is necessary to reflect upon the learning
goals and determine how successful the department was in getting the students to achieve the proposed
goals. Now it is feasible to go back and refine the learning goals and the program itself. If this
assessment is to be meaningful, it requires a significant expenditure of departmental resources and
“buy-in” of all members of the department.

At present, the Department of Physics is at a very preliminary stage of assessment. We have an
assessment plan that is meaningless. We implemented learning goals within the last two years and we
are very focused on making our program more cohesive. As such, we are paying little attention to the
whole assessment process as of yet, but are working on designing a new more meaningful process.

List the learning goals and outcomes of the department/program.

   1. Will reason about physically significant problems conceptually and mathematically
   2. Will solve complex physical problems using sophisticated mathematical techniques
   3. Will interpret mathematical solutions conceptually and physically
   4. Will investigate physical phenomena using multiple approaches
   5. Will use computation and computer modeling to investigate physical phenomena and solve
      physical problems
   6. Will communicate in appropriate scientific media and forms

We really need to have 100% success for us to believe the goals are being met. However, we find the
question of success is arbitrary. These are learning goals and ultimately, it is unlikely that we will ever
achieve 100% success and therefore, we need to keep revising the program in an effort to achieve the
desired outcomes.


Indicate how the goals and outcomes reflect the baccalaureate framework

The current learning goals are clearly a reflection of (BF1) Acquisition and (BF2) Application of
knowledge, (BF5) Critical thinking and Problem solving, and (BF6) Communicate.

The previously listed Student Learning Goals (SLG's) require a understanding of mathematics and
physics. The physics classes build student sophistication in solving problems through learning new
techniques as in intermediate mechanics or they are learning about a form of physics they had not seen
before such as quantum mechanics or statistical mechanics. Physics is very hierarchical and each
subsequent class generally depends upon the work of previous classes.

A map between our SLG's and the BF is on the following page. The present goals are not explicit
about personal and professional values or community. However, this does not mean that we do not
have a concern for those aspects. To address community we provide space for the students to work
together. Writing and reviewing papers is designed to improve their sense of community and their
belonging to a greater community of physics students. We use our Society of Physics Students to
create opportunities for community activities. Finally, we stress that students should work together on
assignments. Group work is stressed in many classes.

(BF3) Values, such as professionalism in what you create and timeliness are stressed in the classes.
Laboratories stress value issues such as scientific integrity, and doing a good job in performing
experiments.




                                                                                                                                          BF5 – Critical Thinking
                                                                                                                                                                    BF6- Communicate
                                                                                                                        BF4 - Community
                                                                                                    BF2 - Application
                                                                                BF1 - Acquisition


                                                                                                                        BF3 - Values
Goals
1. Will reason about physically significant problems conceptually and               x                   x                                          x
mathematically
2. Will solve complex physical problems using sophisticated mathematical            x                   x                                          x
techniques
3. Will interpret mathematical solutions conceptually and physically                x                   x                                          x
4. Will investigate physical phenomena using multiple approaches                    x                   x x                                        x
5. Will use computation and computer modeling to investigate physical               x                   x                                          x
phenomena and solve physical problems
6. Will communicate in appropriate scientific media and forms                       x                                            x                 x                       x

Describe the program assessment process, including what is examined. If different outcomes are
assessed each year, the report should address that.

The Physics Department assesses the program each year through a meeting of faculty to discuss the
students at two different levels: rising juniors and graduating seniors. Our discussions simply reflect
our impressions of each student in achieving the learning goals when we have had them in class,
laboratory or research. These discussions generally expand beyond the two classifications, but this is
then part of the informal assessment.

Informally, we talk with recent graduates and find out what they needed and did not have, and what
they felt they were well prepared. We also talk with our current students to find out how they believe
they are performing in the class, to find out what things they think should change and what things
should remain the same.

Provide clear results of the goals and outcomes of the learning goals assessment

   1. We had no graduating seniors this past year.
   2. We had only 1 rising junior this year.

SLG1: Students will reason about physically significant problems conceptually and mathematically –
The students seem to be suffering from “magic equation syndrome”: they are not reasoning but simply
looking for a shortcut to the answer.

SLG2: Will solve complex physical problems using sophisticated mathematical techniques – The
students do not have a high level of sophistication regarding problem solving.

SLG3: Will interpret mathematical solutions conceptually and physically – Not sufficient evidence to
discuss.

SLG4: Will investigate physical phenomena using multiple approaches – Of five students one could be
classified as outstanding. The remaining students would be classified as mediocre.

SLG5: Will use computation and computer modeling to investigate physical phenomena and solve
physical problems – The students are computer illiterate: they do not know how to write computer
programs and are barely able to use Excel effectively.

SLG6: Will communicate in appropriate scientific media and forms – The writing is, in general,
abismal.

Students commented that advanced laboratory should be two semesters long.

Address how learning outcomes goals are used in the department's general education courses

At present we do not have department wide SLG's for our general education courses or other service
courses. When we do finally develop these I predict they will consist of something along these lines 1)
understanding the nature of science 2) appreciation of physics 3) conceptual understanding of some
aspect of physics, 4) a sense of community, and 5) communicate their understanding.

Explain any changes to be made to the curriculum and/or assessment process based on results of
assessment.

At present, the department of physics is completely revising the program. This is based more on
informal assessment rather than the formal assessment because the previous formal assessment
process was meaningless. We are developing course goals for intermediate courses and recently
completed a curriculum map which indicated that there are holes within our curriculum. What we are
trying to accomplish is to create a more seamless and integrated physics curriculum so that students
are moved away from treating each course as a separate leaf, but rather as a portion of the tree. This
task is turning out to be much more difficult than originally anticipated.

   •   Develop course learning goals – this is necessary so that we can track student outcomes in more
       detail.
•   Increase the number of credits of all laboratories post introductory to 2 credit hours to provide
    an hour of lecture in conjunction with the laboratory to improve laboratory skills.
•   Change advanced lab to 0 or 2 credits so that in the first semester it can be taken with a lecture
    component and the second semester it is 0 credits. Degree requirements will be changed to two
    semesters.
•   Revise the classes we teach and how they are taught using learning goals.
•   Update the entire curriculum to make it more seamless and integrated
•   Revise/revitalize/consolidate how we teach introductory laboratories
•   Develop a coherent assessment plan.
•   Adding writing and computational components to every course.
•   Add a senior project.
To:    Dr. Mark Masters
From: COAS Assessment Committee
      Dr. Donna Holland, Chair
      Dr. Yihao Deng
      Dr. Debrah Huffman
Date: January 10, 2011 (revised February 21, 2011)
Re:    Department of Physics 2010 Assessment Plan and Report

The COAS Assessment Committee has received and reviewed your submission for the 2010
assessment report. We offer the following comments and suggestions.

First, the committee commends you for trying to address all the requested items. This work should
help you as you revise your program as well as assessment. You also have a good bulleted list of
anticipated changes. The committee is impressed with the candor of your report, stating that your
current assessment plan is “meaningless” and that your students seem to be doing poorly, and
impressed by your willingness to undertake the difficult work of program and assessment revision.

The following recommendations are not to be construed as requirements but are provided in order to
give your department additional elements to consider in future assessments. First, make explicit
what your desired criteria are, showing how you determine if a goal has been achieved by using
cutoffs or thresholds. Next, fully document your assessment measures. The scoring rubric you
provided for last year’s report is a good beginning, provided that you include how faculty
distinguish poor from acceptable from excellent. We also suggest using easily documented and
illustratable measures of assessment. Discussions among a meeting of faculty and talking with
current students are too informal to be reliable measures of program assessment. You list
conclusions of student ability for most of your six student learning goals, but you could create
formal assessment instruments that will substantiate these observations. Feedback from students
especially should be anonymous. Qualtrix surveys could be developed for current and graduated
students. Also provide for different types of assessment, incorporating perhaps a thesis or senior
project requirement or work done in a capstone course. We suggest finding two courses that you
could use for tracking student learning, one in the beginning or interim of the major course
requirements and another at or near the conclusion of the major.

For purposes of annual assessment reports, the committee considers the most important step to take
that of establishing clear assessment measures and clear criteria to which you can compare results.
We suggest focusing on these aspects for your next assessment report.
                                         ASSESSMENT REPORT

                           DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 2009-2010


Key components for assessment, 2009-2010: writing course required of all majors, statistics course
required of all majors, senior seminar (capstone course) required of all majors, curriculum map of
courses taught, measures of course offerings with diversity, survey of graduating majors.

Learning Goals (department will develop a template to be used for next year’s report)

1. To know: Identify (basic) and explain (advanced) key terms and concepts in the major fields of the
   discipline. (BF Goal: Depth of knowledge in your field.)
   a. Political Thought and Philosophy
   b. American government and politics
   c. Comparative government
   d. International Relations
   e. Quantitative and Qualitative Methods

How Assessed:

The department already requires majors to pass, with a C- or better, a statistics course and the
departmental second-semester writing course (or its equivalent) in order to meet the requirements for a
major in Political Science. Passage of the required courses demonstrates success in this area

   1) 18 students successfully passed the departmental writing course in Spring of 2010 while four did
      not
   2) 16 of 18 students successfully passed the statistics course in the Spring of 2010 (the two who
      failed are currently retaking the course)

The department recently incorporated a change in requirements for majors that they will be required to
take at least one course in the four areas of American government and politics, comparative
government, political thought and philosophy, and international relations. This change is designed to
ensure that students will meet this objective by receiving a grade of C- or better in these courses.

The department has developed a curriculum map (attached) to measure the extent to which these areas
were covered in courses taught in 2009-2010.

2. To be able to do: Demonstrate the ability to

   a. Write/communicate clearly and effectively. (BF Goal: Effective communication skills in multiple
      media.)
    b. Use quantitative and qualitative research tools appropriately. (BF Goal: Resourceful critical
       thinking and problem solving.)
    c. Research and analyze political issues and engage in problem solving. (BF Goal: Resourceful
       critical thinking and problem solving.)
    d. Behave ethically and professionally in keeping with disciplinary standards for personal integrity,
       academic honesty, respect for diversity, and civil dissent and discourse. (BF Goals: Citizenship
       and leadership in diverse communities and Personal integrity and ethical action.)

How Assessed: Writing skills are assessed with the departmental writing course, by analysis of the
papers in the senior seminar, and by individual reports on majors in other upper-division courses with
research papers.
    1) Students in the senior seminar all passed the course with a grade of B- or better in the Fall of
        2009 and all but one passed the senior seminar in spring of 2010.
    2) The writing course continues to provide important levels of writing skills for majors.
    3) The department is working on a rubric by which it can assess the skills of majors preparing
        papers in other upper-level courses focusing on content, organization, grammar and structure,
        use of sources and citation, and synthesis of information. It is anticipated that instructors will
        evaluate papers on one item per year on a rolling basis.
    4) The department statistics course will continue to be used to guarantee the use of quantitative
        and qualitative research skills (which also can be seen in the senior seminar papers).
    5) The papers from the senior seminar require students to demonstrate the ability to research and
        analyze political issues and engage in problem solving.
    6) Ethical and professional standards are determined by issues of academic dishonesty or
        attempted plagiarism in a given year. In 2009-2010 there were no reported cases of such
        violations by majors taking courses in the department.

3.* To be prepared for: (BF Goal: Lifelong application of knowledge using appropriate technologies.)

    a. Employment in government/public service/political system or related areas.
    b. Graduate study/law school.
    c. Becoming active and involved citizens and leaders in the local community, the nation, and
       beyond. (BF Goal: Citizenship and leadership in diverse communities.)

How Assessed: The accompanying curriculum map indicates the level of preparation for employment
and graduate school that is done within the department. It also provides information on how students
are prepared in terms of citizenship.

In addition, the department regularly offers courses that deal with diversity on a domestic and global
level that helps prepare majors (and other students) to interact appropriately in local, national, and
global communities.
Semester                                Number of Courses/Sections materials on diversity
                        Little Material               Some Material                   Great Deal of
Material
Fall 2009                 1/2                                 7/16                                   5/11
Spring 2010               2/2                                 4/14                                   9/11
Summer 2010               1/2                                 4/8                                    5/7

[Excludes courses cross-listed with other departments taught by faculty members in that department.
Courses cross-listed as Y200/Y401 counted as one course and two sections. Courses taught in multiple
venues (in studio, via TV, over internet, two-way to Warsaw counted as one course and one section).

The department surveys graduating majors every year in early summer and every 5-6 years surveys
former majors as part of an alumni survey. The alumni survey was not done for this academic year. The
survey for graduates for 2009-2010 was returned by six majors (out of approximately 16). Highlights
from the survey (which is attached) include:

    Five of six indicated an intention to pursue additional educational work at the graduate level
    (suggesting that the department is preparing people for graduate school and law school)

    There were no major complaints under item D of the survey.

    Under item E, students indicated that they felt students should be exposed to all of the major fields
    in political science, a comment made by students in the past. The change in major requirements is a
    consequence of ongoing assessment within the department in response to such comments.

    Under item F, students indicated a desire for broader offerings, but such are not possible with a
    relatively small department consisting of 6 core faculty members.

Other activities:

The department is currently working on a template for program goals and measuring outcomes and
attainment of objectives.

The department needs to develop an effective measurement for general education courses, which is
currently being done as General Education Area VI courses are being re-evaluated at the campus level.
All introductory level courses are service courses for other campus student communities, and many of
the upper-division courses have a majority of non-majors enrolled, indicating that they also serve as
service courses. Adequate rubrics for these courses are not yet developed.
                  LEARNING GOALS FOR THE BACHELOR OF ARTS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE
                                      (Adopted Fall, 2009)



Political Science learning goals aligned with the six Learning Goals of the Baccalaureate Framework. (in
bold).

Learning Goals:

1.      To know: Identify (basic) and explain (advanced) key terms and concepts in the major fields of
        the discipline. (BF Goal: Depth of knowledge in your field.)
        a.      Political Thought and Philosophy
        b.       American government and politics
        c.      Comparative government
        d.       International Relations
        e.      Quantitative and Qualitative Methods

2.      To be able to do: Demonstrate the ability to
        a.      Write/communicate clearly and effectively. (BF Goal: Effective communication skills in
                multiple media.)
        b.      Use quantitative and qualitative research tools appropriately. (BF Goal: Resourceful
                critical thinking and problem solving.)
        c.      Research and analyze political issues and engage in problem solving. (BF Goal:
                Resourceful critical thinking and problem solving.)
        d.      Behave ethically and professionally in keeping with disciplinary standards for personal
                integrity, academic honesty, respect for diversity, and civil dissent and discourse. (BF
                Goals: Citizenship and leadership in diverse communities and Personal integrity and
                ethical action.)

3.*     To be prepared for: (BF Goal: Lifelong application of knowledge using appropriate
        technologies.)
        a.      Employment in government/public service/political system or related areas.
        b.      Graduate study/law school.
        c.      Becoming active and involved citizens and leaders in the local community, the nation,
                and beyond. (BF Goal: Citizenship and leadership in diverse communities.)


*This grouping is perhaps less of a short-term learning goal (e.g. how define and assess?) than a long-
term, hoped for outcome that could be evaluated only indirectly by self-reported postgraduate
activities.
                                   Learning goals as listed in Bulletin copy


Knowledge

Students who earn a BA in Political Science will be able to:

Define (basic) and explain (advanced) key terms and concepts in the major subfields of the discipline:

    a.   Political thought and philosophy
    b.   American government and politics
    c.   Comparative government and politics
    d.   International relations
    e.   Qualitative and quantitative methods

Skills

Students who earn a BA in Political Science will be able to:

    1.   Communicate (written, oral, media) clearly and critically about government and politics.
    2.   Evaluate qualitative and quantitative research and determine its validity.
    3.   Demonstrate the analytical skills and research tools appropriate to the discipline
    4.   Practice the ethical standards of the discipline for personal integrity, mutual respect, collegial
         dissent, diversity of thought, and professional conduct.

Preparation

Students who earn a BA in Political Science will be:

    1. Prepared to work in political systems
    2. Prepared for graduate study/law school
    3. Prepared to be active and involved citizens
                                                                      Curriculum Map Template

DEPARTMENT: Political Science                                                              PROGRAM: Bachelor of Arts

Date: Fall 2010               (SAMPLE)                                                               Dept. Chair: Jim Lutz

Courses                                                   Objectives
                  Political   Amer       Com-       Intern’l   Quant/  Write/   Use of   Analysis      Professional Prep for   Prep for   Prep for
                  Thought     Govt &     parative   Relations Qual     Communi- Research &             standards    Employment Grad/      Citizen-
                  and Phil    Politics   Gov’t                 Methods cate     Tools    Prob-                                 Law        ship
                                                                                         solving                               school
Y103                 I           E                              I        R          I           R           R                                R
Y105                 E           R                                       E          R           R           R                R    R          E
Y107                                       E                             R                      I                                            R
Y109                 I                     I          E                  I                      I                                            I
Y150                 I           E                              R        R          R           R                                            R
Y205                 I           I          I         I         E        E          E           E           I                I    I
Y307                             E                              R        R          R            R                                           R
Y317                 E           R         I                    R        E          R            R           I               R    E          E
Y200/401                         E                    E                  R          R            R                                R
Film
Y200/401                         R          E         I         I        R        R–200         R                            R              R
Terrorism                                                                         E-401
Y200/401                         R          E         I         I        R        R-200         E                            R              I
ME ForPol                                                                         E-401
Y200/401             R           E          I                   E      E -200       E           E           E                E    E         E
Corruption                                                             R -401
Y200/401                                    I         E         I        I          E           E                                 E         I
Intervention
Y203/401             E           E                                       E        R-203         R           R                R    R         E
                                                                                  E-401
Y211                             R                              I        E                      R           R                R    E         R
Y305                                                            R        E          R           E                            R    R         R
Y324                             E                                       R          R           E           R                R    R         R
Y371/401
Int’l Human          I                                E         I        I          E           E                                 E         I
Rights
Y383                 E           E                                       E          R           R           R                R    R         E
Y384                 E           E                                       E          R           R           R                R    R         E
Y395                                                           E          R   E   E   I   I   I
Y490 (GWU)                                                     E          E   E   E   E   R   E   R
Y490                          E                                E          E   E   E   E   R   E   E
(Downs)



I- Introduced in course   E- Emphasized in course   R- Reinforced in course
                         DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
                          SURVEY OF GRADUATES, 2009-10
                                  AUGUST 2010


A.   Do you intend to take additional courses beyond the bachelor's degree?

     1.   Yes
     2.   Yes
     3.   Yes
     4.   No
     5.   Yes.
     6.   Yes.

B.   If your answer to the previous question is yes, please tell us either the courses or
     field(s) of study.

     1.   Law School at Valpo in August 2010.
     2.   I am going to United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio.
     3.   I’m applying for a Spanish language graduate program and law school.
     5.   Indiana University—Indianapolis, Law Degree.
     6.   Law School—University of Wisconsin Madison, Indiana University, or Ohio.

C.   If there were any courses, instructors, or experiences connected with your education
     in political science that were particularly important to you, please tell us what or who
     they were.

     1. Dr. Toole—he encouraged me to pursue a political science degree to help my chances
        of admittance into law school. Georgia is an awesome pre-law advisor who helped me
        with my personal statement.

     2. Professor Ulmschneider’s classes really impacted me and the first course I took in
        Political Science was her 400-level crimes and trials course. This was the course that
        caused me to get a political science degree. Professor Toole also helped me improve
        my writing with regards to structure, content, and my full approach to college writing.

     3. Dr. Ulmschneider has been supportive of me since my first intro class of political
        science with her. She helped me apply to grad school, pushed me to do the best I could
        in my studies, and was also there for me/spoke with me during my health issues. Dr.
        Toole and Dr. Downs were also very supportive of me during my studies. They both
        took a great deal of time with helping me on my projects and papers. I learned so much
        from all 3 professors.

     4. Professors Toole and Wolf greatly influenced my political science experience. Without
        taking their classes, gaining knowledge in their classrooms, I do not feel that I would
        have pursued a degree in political science.
     5. My Y103 with Lutz and Y211 with Ulmschneider were definitely two influential
        courses for me—in fact, they convinced me to switch my major!

     6. Dr. Toole presented ideas and theories in international politics that led to my increased
        interest in international affairs. Prof. Ulmschneider challenged me to be precise in my
        arguments. Dr. Downs challenged me to become more interested in local politics.


D.   Were there experiences or courses that disappointed or offended you? Please explain.

     1. No.

     2. No, all the courses I took in Political Science helped enrich my learning experience.

     3. I loved all of them.

     4. In a few instances, I was in a class that held both 200 level and 400 level students. On
        more than one occasion, there was very little difference in requirements for the two
        classes. It can be somewhat annoying when you are taking the 200 level and it is just as
        difficult as the 400 level.

     5. Y401 Family Law. I loved the subject and the professor (Judge Rush), but it was not
        particularly challenging (nor invigorating).

     6. The class on statistics did not inspire me to become a political statistician.

E.   Do you think that there are particular courses that all political science majors should
     take? Why?

     1. Y205 writing class because it’s useful throughout the entire 4 years. Senior seminar
        because it forces students to write an extensive paper in preparation for furthering
        education.

     2. I think all political science majors should be required to take at least one course from
        each political science professor. I feel that because I took a course from each professor
        I had a more rounded experience.

     3. I think all majors should have to take 1 international/1 state/local political science class
        and have the opportunity to declare a concentration.

     4. I believe that political science students should be required to take a class in each field
        of political science. Far too often people can get all the way through without
        participating in an international government class or election class. I believe that
        undergraduate students should be required to be more rounded.

     5. Looking back, I wish I would have taken a little bit of everything (instead of just law-
        related courses) so that I’d be more well rounded.



                                                 2
     6. All political science majors should take classes in all the concentrations (i.e., state,
        national, and international) politics. Student would be more well-rounded.

F.   What additional courses in political science do you think should be part of our
     program? Why?

     2. More courses regarding Social Justice.

     3. I believe there was an extremely wide range of courses offered and a good variety.
        Nothing, in terms of class selection, is lacking in the department.

     4. I believe that there are not enough classes in international studies. I did not feel that I
        had a chance to study Asian governments especially.

     5. Any courses that may combine history more with political science. Knowing more
        history definitely helped me to understand political science subjects better.

     6. Classes on local politics would be helpful for those students who want to stay in town.


G.   Additional comments:

     1. I think all the professors in this department are very knowledgeable and this department
        is great.

     3. The best part of this program/department is the instructors. They are full of
        enthusiasm, knowledge and experience. I am extremely grateful to Dr. Ulmschneider,
        Toole, Downs and Professor Hierman for their help, support, knowledge and
        enthusiasm. They made my time at IPFW amazing.

     4. I am very satisfied with the overall experience at IPFW in the political science field. I
        thank you for this opportunity to voice my opinions.

     5. One of my favorite parts of the Political Science Department is that everyone teaches
        Y103.  P.S. Just moved into a house with Travis Barnes in Indy. It’s going to be
        interesting. 




                                                 3
To:    James Lutz, Chair of Political Science Department

CC:    Barbara Blauvelt

From: COAS Assessment Committee
      Donna Holland, Chair
      Yihao Deng
      Debrah Huffman

Date: January 8, 2011 (revised February 21, 2011)

RE:    2010 Assessment Plan and Report

The COAS Assessment Committee received the Department’s 2010 Assessment Plan and
Report. There are some elements of the report that we want to highlight then provide
recommendations for future reports.

While you have plans to create a learning goals template, the report documented learning goals
and outcomes. The report documented the program assessment process as well as the results of
goals and outcome assessment. Notably, the report documents how Political Science used
graduate survey results to make adjustments in the curriculum.

The following recommendations are not to be construed as requirements, but are provided in
order to give your department additional elements to consider in future assessments. We
recommend that future reports more fully document the assessment measures, desired criterion,
and provide clear comparisons of results to pre-stated criterion. The assessment plan should
expand on the types of methods used for assessment and provide more detailed results, including
more survey results.

We encourage you to continue developing the rubrics to assess skills demonstrated in student
papers. We want to emphasize the need for future reports to more clearly identify what metrics
are used to assess learning objectives. The report highlights that some necessary curricular
changes were not implemented, even though desirable, due to lack of faculty or small size of
department. The data indicate that additional faculty members are needed to make necessary
curricular changes. Additionally, incorporating an executive summary at the front of the report
that highlights goals met, areas of needed improvement, and your overall conclusions would also
strengthen your assessment report.
                            Assessment Report for 2009-10
                   Associate’s and Bachelor’s Degrees in Psychology

A.A. Degree

In 2009-10, eleven students completed the A.A. degree in Psychology. Two students have indicated
intentions to continue toward bachelor’s degrees at IPFW, one in Psychology (also double-majoring
in Anthropology) and the other in Human Services. Of the eight students not continuing on, four
also received another degree (i.e., B.A., B.S., or A.S.) from another program (i.e., Speech and
Hearing, Biology, Chemistry, Political Science). The intentions of our 11th A.A. degree recipient are
not known.

The above students were emailed a request to complete our online A.A. exit questionnaire. A
second request was delivered to them personally by a professor in whose class they were enrolled
during their last semester; a final email was sent, again asking them to complete the questionnaire.
Of the eleven students, three completed the questionnaire (27%).

Our goals for the associate degree are for students to learn basic content in child, social, and
abnormal psychology, and to assist them in deciding their future educational goals. Our exit
questionnaire measures their knowledge of content in these areas and asks them how the A.A.
degree assisted them in deciding their future educational goals. The three students who responded
indicated that they possessed basic knowledge about child, social, and abnormal psychology. One
student stated that the A.A. degree helped the student achieve his or her future educational goals
(which was the A.A. degree). Two said they hoped the A.A. degree would be helpful to them in the
future; one said “Hopefully the A.A. instead of just a minor will help me when applying to grad
schools next fall.” That student did not indicate what kind of graduate programs to which he or she
intended to apply. None of the exit questionnaire respondents indicated intention to complete the
B.A. degree in Psychology.

Findings and Conclusions (Associate’s Degree)

Although very few students pursue the associate’s degree in psychology, for some, obtaining the
A.A. degree is their educational goal. It appears that our associate’s degree program is meeting its
goals.

Responses and Actions for Continuous Improvement (Associate’s Degree)

The associate’s degree program in psychology seems to be meeting a need for a small number of
students. We have no suggestions for improvement.

B.A. Degree

The Psychology Department Assessment Plan spreads the administration and analysis of the
assessment measures over a three-year period, with a subset of measures being examined each year.
This year we will be reporting on one measure, the psychology department exit exam.
                                        Psychology Department Assessment Report 2009-10
                                                                                 Page 2
   Assessment Instruments Scheduled in 2009-10: The Exit Exam

   The Psychology Department has used The Major Field Test in Psychology (MFT) as our exit
   exam since Fall, 2001. The MFT is constructed and scored by the Educational Testing Service
   (ETS). This assessment instrument measures content knowledge in psychology, and as such, is a
   direct measure of students’ content knowledge in psychology (goals 1 and 2 in our mission and
   goals statement: knowledge of the major theoretical approaches, findings, and historical trends
   in psychology, and knowledge of research methods).

   The MFT is a nationally-normed test; the national norms (i.e., percentiles of departments’ mean
   scores) allow us to compare our departmental mean scores with those of all of the psychology
   departments that also administer the MFT (N= 332). Additionally, departments may request a
   customized report that allows for the comparison of our departmental average score (again,
   percentiles) to those of psychology departments of comparable institutions. Our comparative
   sample for this assessment report comprised the 19 institutions listed in Table 1 below:

Table 1
 IPFW’s Strategic Planning Peers     Other Indiana Institutions      Other Regional State Institutions
 University of Central Oklahoma      Ball State University           Black Hills State University
 Southeastern Louisiana University   Indiana University Kokomo       Central Michigan University
                                     Indiana University South Bend   East Tennessee State University
                                     University of South Indiana     Georgia Southwestern State University
                                                                     Kennesaw State University
                                                                     Minot State University
                                                                     Northern Arizona University
                                                                     Northwest Missouri State University
                                                                     Truman State University
                                                                     University of Central Arkansas
                                                                     Missouri W estern State College
                                                                     SUNY College Cortland
                                                                     University of Michigan Flint


   In addition to an overall test score, four subscores reflecting knowledge in specific content areas
   are also available: Learning & Cognition, Perception, Sensory, & Physiology, Clinical,
   Abnormal, & Personality, and Developmental & Social. Additionally, reports for six assessment
   indicators are provided for the purposes of program outcomes assessment as follows: 1. Memory
   & Thinking; 2. Sensory & Physiology; 3. Developmental; 4. Clinical & Abnormal; 5. Social;
   and 6. Measurement & Methodology.
                                          Psychology Department Assessment Report 2009-10
                                                                                   Page 3

Since our last report on the exit exam(i.e., at the end of the 2006-07 academic year), the MFT
has been completed by 114 students, distributed in the academic years as shown below in Table
2:
                Table 2
                Academic Year      Number of Students

                2007-08            43

                2008-09            32

                2009-10            39

                Total              114


We continue to observe that students’ overall MFT score is significantly correlated with their
GPA (r(114) = .62, p < .01). Not surprisingly, students with higher GPAs tend to score higher on
the MFT than do students with lower GPAs.

The average overall score for the most recent sample (i.e., Fall 2007-Spring 2010) as well as the
four subscores (i.e., Learning & Cognition, Perception, Sensory, & Physiology, Clinical,
Abnormal, & Personality, Developmental & Social) are presented in Table 1, along with the
average scores for the two previous three-year periods (i.e., Fall 2004-Spring 2007, Fall 2001-
Spring 2004). Also presented in that table are the percentile ranks of each score, as compared to
department means in the national normative sample, and for the special comparison sample.
(Note: normative data are not included for the 2001-2004 cohort, as the method of norming then
used by ETS differs from the method now in use since February, 2005). Averaged over the last
three years, our students’ mean total score was at the 80th percentile for departments nationally.
With respect to the average subscores, our students have consistently scored better than 75% of
students taking the exam nationwide. These findings essentially duplicate the ones we have
observed and reported previously.

Once again, our students compare favorably to the special comparison group. Our department
mean total score is at the 85th percentile of the department mean scores for the special
comparison group, and at the 80th percentile or better for the subscores. Compared to students at
comparable universities, our students’ performance is very good.
                                         Psychology Department Assessment Report 2009-10
                                                                                  Page 4
   Table 3
                                     2001-2004    2004-2007     2007-2010
                                      (n =128)     (n = 169)    (n = 114)

    M FT Total Score                       160            164           164

    National %tile                                       80th           80th
    Comp Grp %tile                                       90th           85th

    Learning & Cognition Subscore           63             65               64

    National %tile                                       70th           80th
    Comp Grp %tile                                       90th           85th

    Perception, Sensory, &                  60             64               63
    Physiology Subscore

    National %tile                                       75th           75th
    Comp Grp %tile                                       90th           80th

    Clinical, Abnormal, &                   62             63               62
    Personality Subscore

    National %tile                                       80th           75th
    Comp Grp %tile                                       95th           90th

    Developmental & Social                  59             63               62
    Subscore

    National %tile                                       75th           75th
    Comp Grp %tile                                       85th           85th


We also compared the department means to national norms for the six assessment indicators
(see Table 4). It is reasonable to take the 50th percentile as a benchmark, indicating that our
department’s performance would be at least as good as that of 50% of the national sample or the
special comparison group. Our department scores were consistently above this standard for both
comparison groups. In fact, all of our indicators for the two time periods for which normative
data are available show that our department performed better than at least 65% of departments
across the country. Additionally, our departmental performance for the current time frame (i.e.,
2007-2010) has increased since 2004-2007 on three indicators (Memory & Thinking, Sensory &
Physiology, and Social). When compared to departments at comparable institutions, our
departmental performance is even stronger. Overall, these assessment indicators demonstrate
very good performance.
                                                     Psychology Department Assessment Report 2009-10
                                                                                              Page 5
Table 4
 Assessment Indicator                          Scores and percentiles based on national norms* and
                                               as compared to our special comparison group norms**
                                                   2001-2004              2004-2007               2007-2010


 Memory & Thinking                                      56                     57                      59
                                                                               80th                    85th
                                                                               85th                    90th
 Sensory & Physiology                                   37                     45                      47
                                                                               75th                    80th
                                                                               90th                    90th
 Developmental                                          45                     57                      53
                                                                               85th                    75th
                                                                               95th                    80th
 Clinical & Abnormal                                    49                     71                      70
                                                                               75th                    65th
                                                                               85th                    70th
 Social                                                 59                     69                      70
                                                                               70th                    80th
                                                                               85th                    90th
 Measurement & Methodology                              47                     60                      60
                                                                               70th                    70th
                                                                               75th                    75th
Note: Because a different norming method was in use by ETS for the 2001-2004 years, we chose to omit the norm
comparisons for that cohort.
*The national norms (Feb 2005-June 2009) are in the second row of each cell, below the score for each indicator
**The special comparison group norms (Feb 2005-June 2009)are in the third row in each cell of the table


    Thus, these most recent data from our exit exam, the Major Field Test in Psychology, echo the
    findings we reported in 2007: The assessment indicators show that our students’ performance
    has been consistently above national averages, across the various areas assessed.

II. Findings and Conclusions (Bachelor’s Degree)

    Our students are doing well on the Major Field Test, a nationally-normed exit exam in
    psychology. No particular area appears to be consistently weaker than any other area.

    This year we requested a special comparison sample of institutions which we felt were a good
    comparison to our student population. The initial comparison institutions were selected if they
    were on the list of those using the MFT in Psychology, and were among our strategic planning
                                                Psychology Department Assessment Report 2009-10
                                                                                                  Page 6
   peer institutions (see the list in any recent copy of the Strategic Planning Reports), or if they
   were among the regional state institutions in Indiana. This group included six institutions, but
   we were permitted to select 19 institutions for our comparison sample. The other 13 institutions
   were selected from regional state institutions from across the United States, largely, but not
   exclusively, from the Midwest.

   As compared to this special comparison group, our students fared even better than they did as
   compared to national norms, and again no area appeared to be significantly weaker than any
   other area.

   These results lead us to conclude that the department is doing a very effective job in educating
   our majors in content knowledge in the discipline. They perform very well as compared to the
   normative comparison groups on the Major Field Test.

III. Responses and Actions for Continuous Improvement (Bachelor’s Degree)

   Given that this year’s report based on the Major Field Test again highlights our students’ strong
   performance, we have no suggestions for improvement. Next year’s report will be based on the
   alumni survey and an abbreviated version of our survey of majors (both of which are being
   administered as part of our program review process), and we may have suggestions for
   improvement based on those metrics then. We have decided to report on the assessment of
   senior papers the following year (i.e., 11-12).

Report prepared by:
Psychology Department Assessment Committee
(Blakemore, Drouin, Lawton, Vartanian, Yoder)
Lesa Rae Vartanian, Chair
Approved by the Psychology Department, September 29, 2010
Approved October 22, 2008 by Psychology
Approved by A&S November 2008
Approved by Assessment Council April 2009

                                  Department of Psychology
                                      Assessment Plan

A. A. Degree

A. Goals

   1. Students will demonstrate basic knowledge in introductory, child, social, and abnormal
      psychology.
   2. Students will demonstrate the ability to make a decision as to whether they wish to obtain
      a BA degree in psychology.

B. Assessment Instrument

   Students will be sent an exit questionnaire concerning their knowledge of child, social, and
   abnormal psychology, whether the AA degree helped in achieving their educational or career
   goals, and their intent to continue in the BA degree in psychology or a related field.
   (Measures Goals 1 and 2)

C. Evaluation of the A.A. Degree

   The analysis of the assessment measures for the Associate Degree will be undertaken
   annually by the Department Assessment Committee, which will use the information to
   modify the program to better meet the goals, if necessary.

B. A. Degree

A. Goals

   1. Students will demonstrate knowledge of the major theoretical approaches, findings, and
      historical trends in psychology.
   2. Students will demonstrate the ability to understand the major research methods in
      psychology, including ethical standards, design, data analysis, and interpretation.
   3. Students will demonstrate the ability to think critically and to use the scientific approach
      to understanding behavior.
   4. Students will demonstrate the ability to apply concepts, information, and skills learned in
      psychology courses to their lives and work.
   5. Students will demonstrate the ability to effectively locate and evaluate sources of
      information.
   6. Students will demonstrate the ability to express themselves effectively in the discourse of
      the discipline.
   7. Students will demonstrate the ability to understand people from a diverse range of
      backgrounds and varying demographic characteristics such as age, race, disability, sexual
      orientation, class, ethnicity, religion, and cognitive abilities.
                                                                Psychology Assessment Plan        2

   8. Students will demonstrate the ability to make decisions about future employment or
      graduate education.

B. Assessment Instruments

   1. Major Field Test in Psychology (Measures goals 1 & 2)

      The Major Field Test (MFT) is a nationally-normed test measuring content knowledge in
      the discipline of psychology (and is available for many other disciplines), constructed
      and scored by the Educational Testing Service (ETS). It generates one overall score, and
      four subscores: 1. learning & cognition; 2. sensation, perception, physiological,
      comparative & ethology; 3. clinical, abnormal personality, and 4. developmental &
      social. It also provides reports for six assessment indicators, for the purposes of program
      outcomes assessment: 1. memory and thinking; 2. sensory and physiology; 3.
      developmental; 4. clinical and abnormal; 5. social; and 6. measurement and methodology.

      All graduating psychology majors will be required to take the Major Field Test in their
      senior year, and to score above a certain minimum score in order to be certified to
      graduate.

   2. Evaluation of Seniors’ Papers (Measures goals 3, 5, and 6)

      All graduating seniors will be required to submit one research paper at the time they
      come to the department to sign up for the exit exam. Preferably, this will be a paper
      written during the senior year. The students will be asked to submit the paper that they
      believe best represents their abilities to locate and use information on a topic in
      psychology, to think critically, to understand the scientific approach, to write effectively,
      and to use APA style.

      Although we will request a paper submission at the time of signing up for the exit exam
      (typically in the middle of the last semester), students will be given the opportunity to
      replace that paper with another that they complete by the end of their final semester.

      The papers submitted may be written for any psychology class, but must be either a term
      paper using scholarly sources, a research proposal using scholarly sources, a paper
      written in the research methods course (PSY 203), or an honors thesis.

      Every three years, a sample of 30 of these papers will be selected randomly from the
      preceeding three years’ papers, and will be evaluated by members of the Assessment
      Committee, using rubrics and a scale developed for this purpose. Each paper will be
      independently rated by two members of the assessment committee. The department
      secretary will assign each paper a number and remove student names before the papers
      are given to the members of the committee.

   3. Survey of Majors (May measure any of the goals of the B.A. degree. It will always
      include items to measure goals 4, 7, & 8)
                                                                   Psychology Assessment Plan       3

         The department will conduct a survey of a random sample of at least 35% of currently
         enrolled majors every three years and at the time of departmental program review.
         Program review is typically done every seven years. Should the normal three-year cycle
         for the survey of current students lead to the survey being done two years in a row, it will
         be postponed one year to match the program review cycle.

         This extensive survey will assess students’ evaluation of many aspects of their education,
         and their satisfaction with the program and services (especially advising) provided by the
         department.

         This survey will be adjusted and modified each time it is administered, in order to gain
         information needed by the department at that time, but will always include items to
         measure goals 4, 7, & 8.

   4. Survey of Alumni (May measure any of the goals)

         At the time of departmental program review (typically on a 7-year cycle) the department
         will undertake a survey of alumni. This survey will be constructed to meet departmental
         needs at the time of program review, and may measure any of the goals above. Data from
         this survey may be included in the department’s assessment report at the time it is
         conducted.

C. Table Linking Goals and Assessment Instruments

                                                     Assessment Instruments
 Goals                               MFT          Senior Papers        Major            Alumni
                                                                       Survey           Survey
 1. Knowledge                          §                                  *                *
 2. Understand Research                §                                  *                *
 Methods
 3. Critical Thinking                                   §                 *                *
 4. Apply to Life and Work                                                §                *
 5. Locate Information                                  §                 *                *
 6. Communicate                                         §                 *                *
 7. Diversity                                                             §                *
 8. Plan Future                                                           §                *
§: Definitely measures goal
*: May measure goal

D. Evaluation of the Bachelor’s Degree
                                                               Psychology Assessment Plan       4

The Department Assessment Committee will report on progress annually. Each of the measures
above will be reported and analyzed in a three-year cycle, focusing particularly on the
information gained from the measure about how the program is meeting the goals outlined
above.

   Year One1: Major Field Test as Exit Exam
   Year Two: Paper Assessments
   Year Three: Survey of Current Majors.
   At the time of Departmental Program Review: Surveys of current majors and alumni.

The Department Assessment Committee will use the information to modify the program to better
meet the goals, if necessary.

Evaluation of the Usefulness of the Assessment Plan

At the time of departmental Program Review the Department Assessment Committee will
undertake a review of the usefulness of the Assessment Plan, and will modify the plan at that
time, if necessary.




       1
        Spring 07; Spring 10; Spring 13
                          Assessment Report for 2009-10
                 Associate’s and Bachelor’s Degrees in Psychology
                                               ADDENDUM

Our annual assessment report was drafted and approved by the department on
9/29/10. Thus, we are attaching the following addendum in response to the email
from the COAS Assessment Committee dated 10/7/10, which requested the
inclusion of 6 “key elements” in that report.

The “key elements” requested are largely present in the report already, but for
clarity’s sake we will address each one, point by point:

•      List the learning goals and outcomes of the department/program and state the criteria
       for determining whether the outcome has been achieved (e.g., 70% of our students are
       expected to meet this outcome);

The learning goals for the B.A. program in Psychology are stated in our Assessment Plan. They
are as follows: Upon successful completion of the B.A. program, students will demonstrate...

       G1.    ...knowledge of the major theoretical approaches, findings, and historical trends in psychology.
       G2.    ...the ability to understand the major research methods in psychology, including ethical standards,
              design, data analysis, and interpretation.
       G3.    ...the ability to think critically and to use the scientific approach to understanding behavior.
       G4.    ...the ability to apply concepts, information, and skills learned in psychology courses to their lives
              and work.
       G5.    ...the ability to effectively locate and evaluate sources of information.
       G6.    ...the ability to express themselves effectively in the discourse of the discipline.
       G7.    ...the ability to understand people from a diverse range of backgrounds and varying demographic
              characteristics such as age, race, disability, sexual orientation, class, ethnicity, religion, and
              cognitive abilities.
       G8.    ...the ability to make decisions about future employment or graduate education.


The above learning goals are assessed via multiple measures (e.g., The Major Field Test [MFT]
in Psychology, Paper Assessments, Survey of Current Majors, Survey of Alumni), and thus the
criteria we use to determine whether the outcome has been achieved vary. On the MFT, we look
for average scores in the different content areas that are above the 50th percentile in national
norms and in a special, “peer institution” comparison sample. For the Paper Assessments we look
for ratings of “satisfactory”or better on our paper rubric. For items on our surveys, we look for
look for high average ratings that indicate our students believe the program goals have been
achieved.

•      Indicate how the goals and outcomes reflect the baccalaureate framework;

The table below shows how the PSY B.A. Learning Goals align with the elements of the IPFW
baccalaureate framework:
    Baccalaureate Framework Element                                  PSY B.A. Learning Goals

    Acquisition of Knowledge: Students will demonstrate              •   (G1) Students will demonstrate knowledge of
    breadth of knowledge across disciplines and depth of                 the major theoretical approaches, findings, and
    knowledge in their chosen discipline. In order to do so,             historical trends in psychology.
    students must demonstrate the requisite information              •   (G2) Students will demonstrate the ability to
    seeking skills and technological competencies.                       understand and use the major research methods
                                                                         in psychology, including ethical standards,
                                                                         design, data analysis, and interpretation.

    Application of Knowledge: Students will demonstrate the          •   (G4) Students will demonstrate the ability to
    ability to integrate and apply that knowledge, and, in so            apply concepts, information, and skills learned
    doing, demonstrate the skills necessary for life-long                in psychology courses to their lives and work.
    learning.                                                        •   (G5) Students will demonstrate the ability to
                                                                         effectively locate and evaluate sources of
                                                                         information.

    Personal and Professional Values: Students will                  •   (G7) Students will demonstrate the ability to
    demonstrate the highest levels of personal integrity and             understand people from a diverse range of
    professional ethics.                                                 backgrounds and varying demographic
                                                                         characteristics such as age, race, disability,
                                                                         sexual orientation, class, ethnicity, religion,
                                                                         and cognitive abilities.
                                                                     •   (G2) Students will demonstrate the ability to
                                                                         understand and use the major research methods
                                                                         in psychology, including ethical standards . . .

    A Sense of Community: Students will demonstrate the              •   (G7) Students will demonstrate the ability to
    knowledge and skills necessary to be productive and                  understand people from a diverse range of
    responsible citizens and leaders in local, regional, national,       backgrounds and varying demographic
    and international communities. In so doing, students will            characteristics such as age, race, disability,
    demonstrate a commitment to free and open inquiry and                sexual orientation, class, ethnicity, religion,
    mutual respect across multiple cultures and perspectives.            and cognitive abilities.

    Critical Thinking and Problem Solving: Students will             •   (G3) Students will demonstrate the ability to
    demonstrate facility and adaptability in their approach to           think critically and to use the scientific
    problem solving. In so doing, students will demonstrate              approach to understanding behavior.
    critical thinking abilities and familiarity with quantitative    •   (G2) Students will demonstrate the ability to
    and qualitative reasoning.                                           understand and use the major research methods
                                                                         in psychology, including ethical standards,
                                                                         design, data analysis, and interpretation.

    Communication: Students will demonstrate the written,            •   (G6) Students will demonstrate the ability to
    oral, and multimedia skills necessary to communicate                 express themselves effectively in the discourse
    effectively in diverse settings.                                     of the discipline.


•     Describe the program assessment process, including what is examined (e.g., senior
      seminar, capstone courses). If different outcomes are assessed each year, the report should
      address that system;

      The Department Assessment Committee reports on progress annually. Each of the
      assessment measures are reported and analyzed in a three-year cycle, focusing particularly on
      the information gained from the measure about how the program is meeting the goals outlined
      above. This year’s assessment report was based on the Major Field Test.
      Year One1 : Major Field Test as Exit Exam
      Year Two: Paper Assessments
      Year Three: Survey of Current Majors.
      At the time of Departmental Program Review: Surveys of current majors and alumni.


The table below shows how our assessment instruments address our program learning goals.
                                                               Assessment Instruments

    Goals                                  MFT           Senior Papers       Major Survey   Alumni Survey

    1. Knowledge                             §                                     *              *

    2. Understand Research Methods           §                                     *              *

    3. Critical Thinking                                       §                   *             *

    4. Apply to Life and W ork                                                     §             *

    5. Locate Information                                      §                   *              *

    6. Communicate                                             §                   *             *

    7. Diversity                                                                   §              *

    8. Plan Future                                                                 §              *
§: Definitely measures goal
*: May measure goal

•     Provide clear results of the goals and outcomes assessment;

      We interpret this request as pertaining to the current year’s report, and thus refer the
      committee to that report.

•     Address how learning outcomes are used in the department’s general education (service)
      courses;

      At present, our department’s Assessment Plan does not include a method for assessing the
      department’s general education (service) courses. As we are presently engaged in Program
      Review and examining our assessment plan and methods as part of that review, this is
      something we may be able to include in future reports. It is certainly not something we can
      include in this year’s report on such short notice.

•     Explain any changes to be made to the curriculum and/or assessment process based on
      results.

      We interpret this request as pertaining to the current year’s report, and thus refer the
      committee to that report.



            1
                Spring 07; Spring 10; Spring 13
TO:      Carol Lawton, Professor and Chair of Department of Psychology
FROM: COAS Assessment Committee
      Donna Holland, Chair
      Yihao Deng
      Debrah Huffman
DATE:    January 10, 2011 (revised February 21, 2011)
RE:      Department of Psychology 2010 Assessment Plan and Report



The COAS Assessment Committee received the Psychology Department’s 2010 Assessment Plan
and Report. We reviewed each element your report covered and provide recommendations for
future report(s).

Your report covered most key elements in detail and used multiply measures in your assessment.
The horizontal comparison with other institutions presented a clear idea about the position your
program lies. Given that you have a history of excellent assessment plan/report, we believe that
you will keep it in the future.

Thank you very much for your efforts.
                          Undergraduate Sociology Program
                                  Assessment Plan



Program assessment will consist of exit and follow-up assessments. Given students
typically enter the undergraduate sociology program at widely varying times between
their freshman and junior year, no interim assessment technique captures students at the
same point in the program. Therefore, no interim assessment will be conducted.

Exit Assessment:

1. Oral presentations in the capstone course. The Undergraduate Program Committee
members will be invited to hear oral presentations given by students at the end of the
capstone course as part of their course requirements.

2. Papers written in the capstone course. The Undergraduate Program Committee
members will review papers written by students as part of their course requirements in
the capstone course.

3. Exit interviews of all graduating seniors. The Departmental Chair will conduct exit
interviews with graduating seniors sometime during their final semester. The interview
schedule will be developed by the Undergraduate Program Committee and approved by
the department.

Follow-up Assessment:

1. Survey of alumni. The Undergraduate Program Committee will construct an alumni
survey to be approved by the department. The approved survey will be conducted with
all new alumni every two years.
To:      Dr. Peter Iadicola
From: COAS Assessment Committee
      Dr. Donna Holland, Chair
      Dr. Yihao Deng
      Dr. Debrah Huffman
Date: January 10, 2011 (revised February 21, 2011)
Re:      Department of Sociology 2010 Assessment Plan and Report

The COAS Assessment Committee received and reviewed your submission for the 2010 assessment
report. The Department of Sociology has submitted an assessment plan, therefore we cannot
respond to it as an assessment report.
The committee appreciates that Sociology has the beginnings of a plan for assessment. However,
given that Sociology has not submitted an assessment report in at least three years and has asked for
waivers for the previous two years, we would anticipate more progress would have been made and
are concerned that only one of the elements listed in the call for reports is addressed. In keeping
with other departments who are making progress, we suggest the following for the next report:

      1. List learning goals for majors. If you do not have learning goals, your Mission Statement
         could be used for establishing a clear set of goals.

      2. For those assessment measures briefly listed in your plan, please clarify the following:
             Identify the capstone course.
             Make explicit by what criteria the capstone’s oral presentations will be assessed in
                the rubrics.
             Make explicit by what criteria the capstone’s papers will be assessed in the rubrics.
             Clarify what kinds of questions (if not specific ones) will be on the exit interviews
                and alumni surveys and how those will provide assessment measures for the
                department.
After the Spring 2011 semester, Sociology should have exit interviews as well as papers written and
presentations made in the capstone course, so data can be submitted in the 2011 assessment report
next Fall. We recommend that future reports fully document assessment measures and the desired
criteria (e.g. learning thresholds or cutoffs), provide clear identification of what metrics are used to
assess objectives, and use comparative data when it becomes available.
1


                         Academic Program Assessment Plan
                                 Women’s Studies


1. Identification
   Women’s Studies at IPFW offers a Bachelor of Arts degree, Minor field, Certificate
   in Women’s Studies, and an Associates Degree for both Indiana University and
   Purdue University. The plan was developed in 2007 by the WOST Committee; Dr.
   Linda Fox, director emerita; and Dr. Jill Nussel, then interim director. Dr. Janet
   Badia, current Director of Women’s Studies, is the primary contact for this
   assessment. Minor revisions have been made to the plan since 2007 to reflect the new
   committee structure in Women’s Studies and new policies regarding instructor
   evaluation.

2. Mission, goals, and student learning outcomes
   Women’s Studies adopted a revised statement and goals on 26 September 2007. All
   degree and certificate programs follow the same mission with only slight
   modification in the goals. The assessment of students’ academic achievement will
   remain a component of Women’s Studies mission to students and majors as it has
   been since its inception in 1975. To this end instructors will be encouraged to
   continue defining academic goals for all courses. All instructors will be reminded
   that the department's mission-and-goal statement was written to reflect the unique
   mix of WOST-specific and WOST-cross-listed courses. Those academic goals are
   normally included on the syllabi of all departmental courses. Thus, course grades
   should to reflect the department's mission and goals.

    A. Women’s Studies Mission Statement:
       The Women’s Studies Program coordinates the offering of Women’s Studies
       courses in a range of disciplines and provides a structured course of study leading
       to the Bachelor of Arts, Associates Degree, and Certificate in Women’s Studies,
       AA, or Certificate in Women’s Studies as well as an undergraduate minor in
       Women’s Studies.

    B. Goals for the Bachelor of Arts:
       Upon completion of the Women’s Studies major, students should:
       1. demonstrate understanding of feminist approaches to research and learning in
          at least two disciplines;
       2. demonstrate understanding of major categories of feminist critical analysis,
          such as gender, race, and class;
       3. demonstrate understanding of how traditional fields of study or artistic canons
          are expanded and reshaped when the contributions of women are taken into
          consideration;
       4. demonstrate the ability to think critically about issues in feminism past and
          present.




                                                            1|u p d a t e d   f o r   A Y   2 0 0 9 - 1 0
2


    C. Goals for the Certificate in Women’s Studies:
       Upon completion of the Certificate in Women’s Studies, students should:
       1. demonstrate understanding of major categories of feminist critical analysis,
          such as gender, race, and class;
       2. demonstrate the ability to think critically about major issues in feminism.

3. Curriculum
   The Women's Studies Program offers systematic attention to gender and women's
   experience in all aspects of life. Our curriculum is committed to the scholarly
   understanding of difference and diversity through interdisciplinary courses that meet
   the baccalaureate framework and lead to the bachelor of arts degree or certificate.
   Women’s Studies reexamines the traditional disciplines and explores complex bodies
   of knowledge. Courses address the intersection of gender with factors such as race,
   ethnicity, class, sexuality, and nationality in U.S. and global contexts. The Women’s
   Studies Program has both fixed and fluid boundaries. Our program is comprised of
   two kinds of courses: the women’s studies-generated courses that provide the core
   curriculum and the department-generated courses that provide feminist perspectives
   within specific disciplines.

    The core curriculum provides the required courses for the major and certificate:
    Introduction to Women’s Studies, the introductory course; International Perspectives
    on Women, the class that addresses feminism from outside the United States and also
    meets the IPFW requirement for non-western tradition, and Topics in Feminism:
    Diversity of Women in the United States, the capstone course taken by majors in their
    final semester. We are currently in the process of instituting an additional required
    course, Feminist Theories, which will be offered for the first time in spring 2008 and
    will become part of the core curriculum in the 2008 bulletin. To provide coherence in
    the interdisciplinary major, each student must select a thematic focus which she or he
    will pursue in at least 3 courses taken toward the major.

    WOST 301: International Perspectives on Women meets Area VI Inquiry and
    Analysis in the General Education distribution requirements. Several cross-listed
    courses meet other area distributions including BIO 250: Women in Biology that
    meets Area II: Natural and Physical Sciences. AFRO A210: Black Women in America
    meets one of the Area III: the Individual, Culture, and Society requirements. FINA
    A170: Women Artists meets one of the requirements in Area IV: Humanistic Thought.
    PSY 345: Psychology of Women meets the requirement of Area VI: Inquiry and
    Analysis.

    Most of these core courses generated by the Women’s Studies Program are
    interdisciplinary and informed by current feminist thinking and scholarship.
    Nationally and internationally, the vibrant field of Women’s Studies continues to
    develop, as evidenced by the growing numbers of master and doctoral degree
    programs at Indiana University and the graduate minor at Purdue University. One of
    the key characteristics of feminist scholarship is its interdisciplinary focus; our
    WOST-prefixed courses are vital in that they provide this multifaceted and cross-


                                                            2|u p d a t e d   f o r   A Y   2 0 0 9 - 1 0
3


    disciplinary inquiry into women’s experiences. The Women’s Studies core courses
    are thematically organized and bring a number of scholarly approaches to particular
    issues. The WOST-prefixed courses contribute a discipline-specific approach to
    women’s experiences while our cross-listed courses include gender as a category of
    analysis within a particular discipline. These courses considerably broaden the
    women’s studies-offered classes and are also vital to the program. However, since
    they are generated within specific departments and are supported by the Women’s
    Studies Program, they cannot respond to the program’s emergent needs nor serve the
    specific needs that the core curriculum does.

    The assessment of student academic achievement will parallel and complement the
    program review procedures currently in place. All new courses are evaluated by the
    Women’s Studies Committee to ensure their adherence to the assessment plan and the
    baccalaureate framework. Since many WOST-prefixed courses are taught by limited
    term lecturers, these courses are further evaluated by the director and members of the
    WOST Program Committee. New instructors, including those teaching cross-listed
    and online courses, undergo peer review based on the instructor’s self evaluation,
    syllabus, student evaluations, and peer evaluations.

4. Assessment Methods
   Women’s Studies is not assessed by accreditation beyond the North Central
   Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Institutions of Higher
   Education. However, we remain constantly vigilant through our curriculum,
   instructor, and student assessment striving to meet the highest standards of academic
   success. Students take an active role in the assessment process in three ways. In
   addition to meeting the requirements of the course that has been developed to meet
   the departmental and IPFW goals, students also submit a detailed course evaluation at
   the end of each semester. The WOST Committee continues to look at a more
   comprehensive strategy for gathering student assessments in online courses. Thirdly,
   majors present an interim and exit assessment, and every four years participate in an
   alumni survey.

    A. Interim assessment. This is an internal (interim) portfolio review. WOST asks for
       an interim portfolio from all WOST majors upon the completion of 60 credits (at
       least 9 credits in WOST-prefixed or cross-listed courses). The student will
       present evidence of an appropriate level of achievement in the WOST and cross-
       listed courses completed so far. This may include but not be limited to copies of
       papers, reports on projects, descriptions of creative works or action projects. At
       this point, the portfolio should contain at least a provisional statement of the
       thematic focus to be pursued in three or more WOST or cross-listed courses. A
       self-evaluation is also required from the student.

    B. Exit Assessment. This is also an internal portfolio review. During the student’s
       final semester, she/he will present evidence related to achievement of the WOST
       Program and Mission goals. At this point, the portfolio should include, in
       addition to the items presented at the interim stage, papers and reports from W301


                                                            3|u p d a t e d   f o r   A Y   2 0 0 9 - 1 0
4


        and at least two other upper-level WOST or cross-listed courses, and must include
        the project completed for the capstone course, W400. A self-evaluation is
        required from the student that addresses overall growth and addresses her/his
        thematic approach.

    C. Exit assessment survey of program alumni. The survey questions will
       address the WOST goals and invite input on the extent to which program
       graduates are satisfied with their WOST major relative to their employment,
       professional advancement, and/or postgraduate study. The survey was last
       conducted in 2004 and is repeated every four years thereafter.

    D. Other assessments: Students completing a Certificate or Associate’s Degree
       present the Exit Assessment Portfolio and participate in the Alumni Survey.
       Students earning a minor in Women’s Studies are encouraged to present the Exit
       Portfolio and also participate in the Alumni Survey.

5. Assessment Results
   Women’s Studies curricular issues are overseen by the WOST Program Committee,
   which draws on the strengths of an interdisciplinary core of faculty. Currently,
   members are appointed by the Executive Committee, and the committee is comprised
   of five tenured or tenure-track faculty members from the WOST Affiliated Faculty,
   two current limited term lecturers, and a WOST major. The Director of WOST chairs
   the committee. Portfolio Assessments are completed by the WOST Program
   Committee as part of its committee charge.

    The Women’s Studies Program, as part of the recommendations proposed in the
    recent program review, continues its efforts to revamp and strengthen assessment
    measures. The course matrix/curriculum map allows instructors and reviewers to see
    which courses specifically address each goal of the program. We recently developed
    rubrics that allow quantifiable data to be collected and plan to follow a feedback loop
    from the WOST Program Committee and the Director to the instructors who teach
    required and elective courses regarding issues arising in interim and exit assessment.

    Results of peer evaluations and student evaluations are given to the instructor as they
    are completed.

    .




                                                             4|u p d a t e d   f o r   A Y   2 0 0 9 - 1 0
                                 Assessment Report for AY 2009-2010
                                      Women’s Studies Program



Assessment practices in WOST are outlined in our Academic Program Assessment Plan, which is
attached to this report. As this document explains, our assessment plan integrates instructor and course
review with an evaluation of student learning. To measure student learning, we conduct an interim and
exit assessment. We also conduct a graduate/alumni survey.



I. Assessment Process
ASSESSMENT OF THE WOST BACHELOR OF ARTS PROGRAM

Interim Assessment:

Historically, we have collected portfolios from students who have completed 60 credits of coursework
(at least 9 in WOST or WOST cross-listed courses), but no interim portfolios were collected last year
because we are in the process of revising the structure of the portfolios and we currently lack a
mechanism for requiring students to complete an interim portfolio.

Exit Assessment:

Portfolio: Last spring, we began the process of integrating the exit portfolio into our required capstone
course. As part of WOST W400 (the capstone requirement for our majors and certificate students during
their junior/senior years) students were given assignments that led up to the completion of the portfolio
at the end, including revision and reflection assignments. By doing this, we were able to strengthen the
reflective elements of the portfolio, thereby providing a well-rounded set of documents by which to
measure students’ success in meeting the program outcomes. As part of this reflective work, students
are asked to reflect on program goals and learning outcomes and position the work included in their
portfolios in relation to those goals. (Previously, students simply compiled previous work with little
examination of how the work was tied to learning goals or what they could gain from looking at their
body of work).

Prior to this year, portfolios were assessed without a specific rubric. The Director of Women’s Studies
has designed rubrics for scoring portfolios that will be used to measure how well students are meeting
the goals of the B.A. and certificate in Women’s Studies. On November 19, 2010, the WOST Program
Committee will meet to read and score portfolios collected last year and during the previous year (no
portfolio assessment took place in 2008-2009 as a search for a full-time program director was
conducted; instead of assessing the two portfolios from 2008-2009 last year, the Program Committee
decided to wait to assess them until we had better assessment rubrics in place).

Survey: Last spring two members from the WOST Affiliated Faculty, along with the WOST Director, met
with the one graduating WOST major to conduct an exit interview. The student was asked a wide-range
of questions about her experiences in the program, including questions about which program objectives
were most important to her and which assignments and courses were most influential in her education.
We have a written transcript of her interview.
Other Assessment:

Post-Graduation Survey: We also conduct an alumni survey consisting of questions that address WOST
goals and invite feedback regarding how satisfied graduates are with their WOST degrees in light of their
current employment, professional advancement, and/or postgraduate studies. This survey is conducted
every four years, which would have made 2008 the most recent year for this assessment; however, no
survey was completed in 2008 or 2009. Later this year, we will visit how past surveys have been
conducted and review the survey instrument.

Assessment of the WOST Minor and Associate of Arts: No students completed the WOST A.A. last year,
so no assessment was completed. We did award six minors last year but no exit assessment of the minor
took place last year.



II. Learning Goals, Baccalaureate Framework, and Criteria for Assessing Student
    Achievement
    Goals for the Bachelor of Arts:

        Upon completion of the Women’s Studies major, students should:

        1. demonstrate understanding of feminist approaches to research and learning in at least two
           disciplines;
        2. demonstrate understanding of major categories of feminist critical analysis, such as gender,
           race, and class;
        3. demonstrate understanding of how traditional fields of study or artistic canons are
           expanded and reshaped when the contributions of women are taken into consideration;
        4. demonstrate the ability to think critically about issues in feminism past and present.


    Goals 1, 2, and 3 reflect the Acquisition of Knowledge foundation of baccalaureate education.
    Goals 1 and 4 reflect the Application of Knowledge foundation of baccalaureate education.
    Goals 1 and 2 reflect the Sense of Community foundation of baccalaureate education.
    Goal 4 reflects the Critical Thinking and Problem Solving foundation of baccalaureate education.


    Goals for the Certificate in Women’s Studies:

        Upon completion of the Certificate in Women’s Studies, students should:

        1. demonstrate understanding of major categories of feminist critical analysis, such as gender,
           race, and class;
        2. demonstrate the ability to think critically about major issues in feminism.
Following the design of our new quantitative rubrics, the criteria for determining whether an outcome
has been achieved will be based on whether all of our students receive satisfactory or higher scores on
their portfolios.



III. Results
As mentioned above, we have not completed portfolio reviews for last year and alumni surveys were
not conducted last year. The only results we have at this time are from the exit interview of one
graduating senior. According to our one graduating student, among the program’s strengths is its
emphasis on diversity, in terms of course content, the anti-racist and feminist perspective that is the
foundation of the teaching we do and the approach to learning and research we try to instill in our
students, and the diversity of learning styles that our courses accommodate. Another strength she
noted also pointed to a weakness: for this student, her experiences with one service-learning class and a
practicum that involved an internship with Victims Assistance were so positive in helping her to see how
academic study can impact community change that she wished community engagement had been a part
of more of her classes.


IV. Changes to Curriculum/Assessment Process

Last year marked progress in how we complete assessment, but we still have work to do in terms of our
assessment process. The last few years have been transitional years for WOST as we made progress
towards securing a full-time, tenure-track WOST faculty/director position. With the director in place
now for a little over a year, we’ve already seen significant changes in how the exit portfolio are
completed and assessed.

Beginning in spring 2009, WOST W400, our capstone course for WOST students in our major and
certificate programs, featured assignments geared towards helping students construct their exit
portfolios, including assignments that ask students to revisit and revise previously written papers. Our
goal is to make the portfolio experience something integral to student learning, rather than a
perfunctory graduation requirement that serves only assessment purposes. We will continue to seek
ways to strengthen the portfolio as our primary tool of assessment, and we will carefully review how
well our new rubrics for assessing portfolios generate the kind of data we need. And as mentioned
earlier, on November 19, 2010, the WOST Program Committee will meet to read and score portfolios
collected last year and during the previous year, using the new rubrics and system for scoring portfolios
developed this fall.

In terms of curriculum revision, we’ve begun to address the student concern for more community
engagement (which echoed information we gathered from 2008 exit interviews) by offering at least one
WOST pre-fixed course this year that included a service-learning project. However, our efforts in this
area are hampered by gaps in infrastructure at IPFW. For example, it would help us considerably to be
able to designate a course as service-learning in the schedule.

In addition, the repeated focus on community engagement in student exit surveys suggests not only that
we need to make changes to the courses in our curriculum but also that service-learning/community-
engagement as a goal needs to be a more integral and explicit aspect of our learning goals. While not
related to assessment results, the WOST learning goals could better reflect the baccalaureate
framework and the work we actually do in our courses.



V. Learning Outcomes and General Education Courses
We currently have one course in our curriculum that meets a general education requirement: WOST
W301, which is included in Area VI of the general education curriculum. I could not find anything in our
records outlining the learning outcomes for the course or what has been used in the past to measure
them. We will resubmit the course this Dec. for Area VI designation and will determine a plan for
assessing it at that time.




Submitted by Janet Badia, WOST Program Director
8 Nov. 2010
To:    Dr. Janet Badia
From: COAS Assessment Committee
      Dr. Donna Holland, Chair
      Dr. Yihao Deng
      Dr. Debrah Huffman
Date: January 10, 2011 (revised February 21, 2011)
Re:    Women’s Studies Program 2010 Assessment Plan and Report


The COAS Assessment Committee has received and reviewed and your submission for the 2010
assessment report. We commend and appreciate Women’s Studies for a well-written report that
addresses all of the items requested for the report, and we thank you for the submission of the
addendum to your report regarding portfolio assessment.

We find especially noteworthy that WOST has both interim and exit assessment. That you are so
carefully considering your rubric creation is also excellent. Making the portfolio a learning
experience is also highly commendable, as is the service-learning goal. WOST clearly shows
thoughtful planning and conducting of its program assessment.

The following recommendations are not to be construed as requirements, but are provided in
order to give your department additional elements to consider in future assessments. First, make
clearer your outcome criteria, including rubric thresholds for the portfolio scoring. You do this
briefly in the addendum you provided when you state that you determined a student would need
70% of the possible points to be considered satisfactory. You might also consider making your
assessment measures even more explicit, perhaps by including test and survey questions as an
appendix. You may also be able over time to analyze responses gathered from the transcribed
interviews to determine patterns that may lead to curricular adjustments. Also, you could
provide rationale for why the post-graduation survey is done every four years and not more
often. Finally, to make the portfolio more of a learning experience and to address your goal of
service-learning, you might consider having students identify community connections and
engagement opportunities as part of their work.

The most important area for improvement is that your criteria and assessment measures delineate
between competence and excellence and show how you determine if each goal and outcome has
been achieved. The committee looks forward to seeing clearer outcomes criteria for program
goals in the WOST report in 2011 and anticipates another excellent report.

								
To top