Office of Academic Assessment

1. Goals & Objectives
2. Assessment Methods
3. Results
4. Use of Assessment

Departments using more than one assessment method should report Element 2, 3, and 4 for each method. For instance, a department using two distinct assessment methods should report Element 2, 3, and 4 grouped together for the first assessment method, and an additional report of Element 2, 3, 4 for the second method (for clarification check the above links). By reporting distinct methods, results, and use sections for each assessment employed the contribution of each tool can be more easily discerned.

Student Outcome Learning Goals and Objectives

Insert objectives into a list like the one provided below or use a similar format. Each numbered objective can later be referenced using its number. Use second level objectives to clarify broad goals and objectives. An example of two-level goal/objectives and more detailed suggestions can be found here.

1. First objective
2. Second Objective
   1. First clarification of Objective 2
   2. Second clarification of Objective 2
3. Third Objective
4. Continue as needed

For each assessment method employed by your department, fill out a new set of the following three sections:

Department of Your Department

Assessment Method

This section will be complete if your department addresses each of the questions in italics. Examples are provided after each question. No greater level of specificity is required than the examples provided here.

What is your method?

Writing Assessment

What is the general form of the assessment?

The writing samples used in this assessment are the product of students' semester-long capstone projects. Students produce a research proposal containing a well-defined research question, a detailed literature review, and a proposed methods section.

Who conducts the assessment?

The capstone instructors conduct the assessments. Each of the instructors reviews all of the writing samples, students from her/his own section and all other instructors' sections. There were two instructors in 2003.

How are evaluations performed?

A common rubric was developed to address this product. The rubric addresses three distinct areas:

1. discipline appropriate writing
2. hypothesis formulation and support
3. methods

The rubric is based on a three-point scale (not competent, competent, exceeds competency). The entire departmental faculty defined each point on the scale, with a separate scale for each of the three distinct areas listed above.

What objectives or aspects of the curriculum are addressed by this assessment?

The assessment addresses Objective 2, 4, and 5.

[For the sake of the example Objective 2 refers to writing in APA style, Objective 4 refers to drawing appropriate inferences from past research, and Objective 5 refers to the ability to design a research study.]

When is the assessment conducted?

Elements of the portfolio are collected during the Spring semester. Portfolios are assembled throughout the semester as part of a required capstone course.

What students comprise the sample?

100% of our graduating students (28 in 2003) are required to take our capstone course.

Assessment Results

This section will be complete if your department addresses each of the questions in italics. Examples are provided after each question. No greater level of specificity is required than the examples provided here.

What is your method?

Writing Assessment

How did students perform on the assessment?

Student performance varied by section:

1. discipline appropriate writing
   • 5% not competent
   • 80% competent
   • 15% exceeds competency
   • Student writing was very good. Even competent students demonstrated some citation problems but nothing serious.
2. hypothesis formulation and support
   • 15% not competent
   • 75% competent
   • 10% exceeds competency
   • Many students' literature reviews did not support their research hypotheses.
3. methods
   • 15% not competent
   • 83% competent
   • 2% exceeds competency
   • Students' proposed methods were often poorly defined with insufficient specificity.

What do the results say about the program of study/specific program objectives?

Students performed well on the aspects of the assessment addressing Objective 2, but less well on the parts addressing Objectives 4 and 5. Objectives 4 and 5 are primarily addressed in a required research methods course (ZZZ 123). While the results indicate the majority of our students are obtaining the expected foundation from this course, several are not.

Does a more-detailed record of these assessment results exist anywhere?

A one-page summary of results is presented to the departmental faculty. A copy of this summary is kept on file by the department chair.

Use of Assessment

This section will be complete if your department addresses each of the questions in italics. Examples are provided after each question. No greater level of specificity is required than the examples provided here.

What is your method?

Writing Assessment

What departmental decisions have been influenced by this assessment?

The department does not need to address our approach to undergraduate writing (Objective 2). Ninety-five percent of students met or exceeded our expectations.

The department will continue to monitor undergraduate student development of research skills (Objectives 4 & 5). A subcommittee comprised of instructors of the relevant courses was created. They will discuss their approach to teaching this subject and the possibility of curricular reform. If this level of student failure (15% this year) persists through the next administration of this assessment a remedy will be proposed.