completed academic program assessment plans 20082009
TRANSCRIPT
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Art
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
Art Outcome Set
Outcomes
Resist Grade Inflation
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
100- and 200-level course gradesProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: The department will strive to meeta target A’s and B’s, in 100 and 200 level foundationstudio courses based on 14-day enrollment.
Target: No more than 30% A'sNo more than 40% B's
Implementation Plan (timeline): Annual: September
Key/Responsible Personnel: Foundation facultyDepartment Head Reports
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 100- and 200-level course grades
Summary of Findings: Fall 08 foundation studiosawarded 14.6 A’s and 46.5% B’s (Total A’s and B’s61.1%).
Spring 09 foundation studios awarded 18.9% A’s and58% B’s (Total A’s and B’s 76.9%).
Percentages are based on 14-day enrollment figures.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : The department will continue toreview all foundation coursework to insure bothconsistency and rigor throughout the foundationscurriculum.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Formal Competency
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Senior BFA Thesis OutcomesProgram level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: In the capstone BFA Senior ThesisExhibition requirement, student outcomes for formalcompetency are assessed by departmental faculty.
Target: Minimum mean average of 80% of "Satisfactory"or better in formal competency.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Annual: April
Findings for Senior BFA Thesis Outcomes
Summary of Findings: 92% (mean) of rankings were“Satisfactory” (or higher) in formal competency.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : None
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
1 of 5 8/6/2010 11:59 AM
Key/Responsible Personnel: Departmental FacultyDepartment Head Reports
Supporting Attachments:
Sophomore Review BFAProgram level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: Students admitted into the BFAstudio programs will have demonstrated an appropriatelevel of formal competency as assessed in the Soph.Port Review.
Target: 80% score B or above in "Formal Competency"in formal assessment by faculty jury.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Annual: April
Key/Responsible Personnel: UTC Department FacultyDepartment Head Reports
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Sophomore Review BFA
Summary of Findings: 23 students (of 25 total admittedinto the BFA program) received a “C or above” evaluationin formal competency, for a total of 92%.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : None
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Sophomore Review BSProgram level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: Students admitted into the BSprogram in Art Education will have demonstrated anappropriate level of formal competency as assessed inthe Soph. Port Review.
Target: 80% score B or above in "Formal Competency"in formal assessment by faculty jury.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Annual: April
Key/Responsible Personnel: UTC Department FacultyDepartment Head Reports
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Sophomore Review BS
Summary of Findings: 2 students (of 3 total admittedinto the BS program) received a “C or above” evaluationin formal competency, for a total of 66%.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : The total number of studentsseeking entry into the BS may not provide a largeenough pool for this assessment measure to bemeaningful.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Oral and Written Competency
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Senior BFA Thesis OutcomesProgram level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: In the capstone BFA Senior ThesisExhibition requirement, student outcomes for writtencompetency are assessed by departmental faculty.
Target: Minimum mean average of 80% of "Satisfactory"or better.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Annual: April
Key/Responsible Personnel: Departmental FacultyDepartment Head Reports
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Senior BFA Thesis Outcomes
Summary of Findings: 92% (mean) of rankings were“Satisfactory” or higher in written competency.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : None
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Sophomore Review BFAProgram level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: Students admitted into the BFAstudio programs will have demonstrated an appropriate
Findings for Sophomore Review BFA
Summary of Findings: 22 students (of 27 total admitted
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
2 of 5 8/6/2010 11:59 AM
level of oral competency as assessed in the Soph. PortReview.
Target: 80% score B or above in "Oral Competency" informal assessment by faculty jury.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Annual: April
Key/Responsible Personnel: UTC Department FacultyDepartment Head Reports
Supporting Attachments:
into the BFA programs) received a “C or above”evaluation in oral competency, for a total of 81%.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : None
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Sophomore Review BSProgram level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: Students admitted into the BSprogram in Art Education will have demonstrated anappropriate level of oral competency as assessed in theSoph. Port Review.
Target: 80% score B or above in "Oral Competency" informal assessment by faculty jury.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Annual: April
Key/Responsible Personnel: UTC Department FacultyDepartment Head Reports
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Sophomore Review BS
Summary of Findings: 2 students (of 4 total admittedinto the BFA programs) received a “C or above”evaluation in oral competency, for a total of 50%.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : The total number of studentsseeking entry into the BS may not provide a largeenough pool for this assessment measure to bemeaningful.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Student Preparedness
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Professional Objectives: ActualProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Measure of percentage of students(with intention) indicate actual application and/oracceptance into one or more graduate programs and/orindicate employment in an arts related profession.
Target: Within one year, 80% of students withintention indicate application and/or acceptance into oneor more graduate programs and/or indicate employmentin an arts related profession.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Annual: Report inSeptember on May graduates
Key/Responsible Personnel: Department FacultyDepartment Head reports
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Professional Objectives: Actual
Summary of Findings: Of 17 graduating majorsindicating intention to do so, 15 maintain a professionalstudio and or are employed full-time in an art/designrelated field, 0 have applied for and been accepted to agraduate program, 1 is teaching full-time in area primaryor secondary art programs, accounting for 94% of ourgraduating majors.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Revise assessment to reportstudent outcomes after three years to better reflectentry into graduate-level programs and residencies.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Professional Objectives: StatedProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: The department will look at dataprovided by its senior exit survey to gauge studentobjectives to engage professionally in the art/designfield and/or to make application for entry into agraduate program upon graduation.
Target: 70% of students responding indicate an
Findings for Professional Objectives: Stated
Summary of Findings: Of 18 graduating majorsresponding to the departmental exit survey, 17 (94%)indicate an intention to a) enter into an arts relatedprofession and/or b) make application for entry intoMFA/MBA programs upon graduation.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
3 of 5 8/6/2010 11:59 AM
intention to enter into an arts related profession and/ormake application for entry into a graduate program upongraduation.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Annual: April
Key/Responsible Personnel: Department FacultyDepartment Head reports
Supporting Attachments:
Recommendations : None
Notes : Of 22 students completing the survey, 4 remainenrolled in coursework unrelated to their area ofconcentration. Those responses are not counted here.
Substantiating Evidence:
Positive Educational Experience
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Departmental QualityProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: The department will look at dataprovided by its senior exit survey to assess studentperceptions regarding the quality of education receivedin the UTC Art Department.
Target: 75% of students responding rank “4” or aboveon a “1” to “5” ranking
Implementation Plan (timeline): Annually: April
Key/Responsible Personnel: Department FacultyDepartment Head Reports
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Departmental Quality
Summary of Findings: 100% of students responding tothe department's exit survey ranked departmentalquality as 4 or above.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : None
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Program Quality BAProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: The department will look at dataprovided by its senior exit survey to assess studentperceptions regarding the quality of education receivedin the specific degree program in the UTC ArtDepartment.
Target: 75% of students responding rank “4” or aboveon a “1” to “5” ranking
Implementation Plan (timeline): Annually: April
Key/Responsible Personnel: Department FacultyDepartment Head Reports
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Program Quality BA
Summary of Findings: None
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Develop mechanisms to insure thatBA majors complete and return the department's exitsurvey.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Program Quality BFAProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: The department will look at dataprovided by its senior exit survey to assess studentperceptions regarding the quality of education receivedin the specific degree program in the UTC ArtDepartment.
Target: 75% of students responding rank “4” or aboveon a “1” to “5” ranking
Implementation Plan (timeline): Annually: April
Key/Responsible Personnel: Department Faculty
Findings for Program Quality BFA
Summary of Findings: 100% of students responding tothe department's exit survey ranked programmaticquality as 4 or above.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : None
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
4 of 5 8/6/2010 11:59 AM
Department Head Reports
Supporting Attachments:
Program Quality BSProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: The department will look at dataprovided by its senior exit survey to assess studentperceptions regarding the quality of education receivedin the specific degree program in the UTC ArtDepartment.
Target: 75% of students responding rank “4” or aboveon a “1” to “5” ranking
Implementation Plan (timeline): Annually: April
Key/Responsible Personnel: Department FacultyDepartment Head Reports
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Program Quality BS
Summary of Findings: 100% of students responding tothe department's exit survey ranked programmaticquality as 4 or above.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : None
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
B.S. Praxis and Practicum
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Praxis and PracticumProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Student preparedness to meetprofessional standards for K-12 teaching
Target: At least 80% of students will pass the Praxis IIExam on the first attempt and 100% will pass thepracticum.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Annual: May
Key/Responsible Personnel: Professor Anne LindseyDepartment Head Reports
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Praxis and Practicum
Summary of Findings: 100% of students passed thePraxis II Exam; 100% the practicum.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : None
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
5 of 5 8/6/2010 11:59 AM
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Chemistry
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
Chemistry Outcome Set
Outcomes
Fundamentals of chemistry
Mapped to:USA- ACS- Guidelines for Bachelor's Programs:5.2 Introductory or General Chemistry., 5.3Foundation Course Work., 5.4 In-Depth CourseWork., 5.5 Laboratory Experience., 5.7 CognateCourses.
Measures & Findings
Meeting ACS standardsCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: 1a. The average scores ofchemistry students on ACS standardized exams inupper-level courses will be at or above the 50thpercentile.
Target: at or above the 50th percentile
Implementation Plan (timeline): Every semester thatthe course is taught
Key/Responsible Personnel: faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Meeting ACS standards
Summary of Findings: Students attained the 91stpercentile on the ACS Inorganic exam and the 43rdpercentile on the Physical Chemistry I exam. Studentsalso took the ACS exam in P Chem II, but norming dataare not yet available for this new exam.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Inorganic results are excellent.Analysis of the P Chem I exam indicates no pattern ofmissed questions. A and B students did very well onexam, C students did extremely poorly. We will placeadditional emphasis on pchem homework assignments.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Meeting ACS standardsProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: 1b. The average response from ourmajors to survey questions about receiving a soundeducation in chemistry and the attainment of ACSstandards will be 4.5 or higher on a scale of 1 to 5.
Target: 4.5 or higher on a scale of 1 to 5
Implementation Plan (timeline): annual
Key/Responsible Personnel: 486 instructor
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Meeting ACS standards
Summary of Findings: Survey response was 4.9, upfrom 4.7 last year.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : 11 out of 12 responses were verypositive. The single negative response dealt with ourmove to temporary quarters.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
1 of 4 8/6/2010 12:02 PM
Cognate areas
Mapped to:USA- ACS- Guidelines for Bachelor's Programs:5.7 Cognate Courses.
Measures & Findings
Cognate measuresInstitution level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: 2a. The average score of chemistrystudents on the English, Math, and Science areas on theACT-CAAP Exam will be at or above the 50th percentile.
Target: at or above the 50th percentile.
Implementation Plan (timeline): annually
Key/Responsible Personnel: faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Cognate measures
Summary of Findings: The ACT-CAAP national percentilesubscores were: Critical Thinking Skills 81%, Reading96%, Math 89%, and Science Reasoning 60%.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Cognate measuresInstitution level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: 2b. The average response from ourmajors to survey questions about their proficiency incognate areas will be 4.5 or higher on a scale of 1 to 5.
Target: 4.5 or higher on a scale of 1 to 5
Implementation Plan (timeline): annually
Key/Responsible Personnel: faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Cognate measures
Summary of Findings: Survey response on writingproficiency was 4.6, up from 4.5 last year. Surveyresponse on oral communication was 4.5, up from 4.4last year.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : All written responses were veryfavorable. We will look for topics we can abbreviate oreliminate in order to include advanced material in ourthree communication courses.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Cognate measuresProgram level; Indirect - Other
Details/Description: 2c. The instructors in Chem 286and Chem 486 will evaluate students' speaking skillsusing an available objective measure
Target: students will recognize their own improvementin public speaking skills
Implementation Plan (timeline): each semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: 286 & 486 faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Cognate measures
Summary of Findings: 19 out of 21 students inChemistry 286 indicated more confidence in preparingand giving a scientific presentation.
In open-ended surveys, students in both classesindicated the classes were very useful and improvedtheir oral communication skills.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : We will compare 286 and 486measures to look for unnecessary redundancy intargeted speaking skills or for areas needing moreimprovement.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
2 of 4 8/6/2010 12:02 PM
Research
Mapped to:USA- ACS- Guidelines for Bachelor's Programs:5.5 Laboratory Experience.
Measures & Findings
ResearchProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: 3a. We will assess the quality ofstudent research by monitoring the success rate ofpeer-reviewed student research submissions: conferencepresentations, honors theses, and journal articles.
Target: At least 50% acceptance and conferenceparticipation by students doing research
Implementation Plan (timeline): annually
Key/Responsible Personnel: faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Research
Summary of Findings: 20 out of 20 peer reviewedstudent abstract submissions to conferences wereaccepted. An additional 5 out of 5 peer reviewedfaculty/student co-authored abstract submissions toconferences were accepted.
7 out of 8 article submissions were accepted, and 1submission is in rewrite.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : We will examine ways toaccommodate additional students in faculty-directedresearch.
We will examine closely plans to return to our renovatedscience building so that faculty-student researchactivities are not negatively impacted.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
ResearchProgram level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: 3b. Students participating inundergraduate research for ACS certificationrequirements must prepare a well-written,comprehensive, and well-documented research reportincluding safety considerations.
Target: Papers will be collected from all of thesestudents.
Implementation Plan (timeline): annually
Key/Responsible Personnel: faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Research
Summary of Findings: Each student prepared a paperapproved by his/her research advisor.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Continue monitoring student workin research.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Research methods
Mapped to:USA- ACS- Guidelines for Bachelor's Programs:4.2 Instrumentation., 4.3 Computational Capabilitiesand Software., 4.4 Chemical Information Resources.,4.5 Chemical Safety Resources., 7.4 CommunicationSkills., 7.5 Team Skills.
Measures & Findings
Research methodsProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: 4a. The average response from ourstudents to survey questions about acquiring theseessential skills will be 4.5 or higher on a scale of 1 to 5.
Target: 4.5 or higher on a scale of 1 to 5
Implementation Plan (timeline): annually
Key/Responsible Personnel: faculty
Findings for Research methods
Summary of Findings: Student response on acquiringthese essential skills was 4.9, up from 4.4 last year.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : We will examine requirements forthese skills in our various lab courses in order to reduceredundancy and possibly introduce advancedrequirements.
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
3 of 4 8/6/2010 12:02 PM
Supporting Attachments: Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Career outcome
Mapped to:USA- ACS- Guidelines for Bachelor's Programs:7.1 Problem-Solving Skills., 7.2 Chemical LiteratureSkills., 7.3 Laboratory Safety Skills., 7.4Communication Skills., 7.5 Team Skills., 7.6 Ethics.,7.8 Student Mentoring and Advising.
Measures & Findings
CareersProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: 5a. 75% or more of our graduatingchemistry students applying to graduate or health-profession programs will be admitted.
Target: 75% acceptance
Implementation Plan (timeline): annually
Key/Responsible Personnel: faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Careers
Summary of Findings: 6 out of 6 applicants to graduateschool were accepted. 7 out of 9 applicants to medicalschool were accepted. 2 out of 3 applicants to dentalschool were accepted. 9 applicants to pharmacy schoolwere accepted.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : We will review our current advisingpractices in order to guarantee that all chemistry majorsreceive effective advising from the very onset of theirstudies.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
CareersProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: 5b. Feedback will be solicited fromour former students in graduate and health-professionprograms on how well they were prepared.
Target: 75% will indicate they were well prepared
Implementation Plan (timeline): every 5 years
Key/Responsible Personnel: faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Careers
Summary of Findings: 11 out of 11 2008-09 graduatesgave very positive comments on their UTC chemistryexperience.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Investigate ways to obtainfeedback from more graduates within the last ten years.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
4 of 4 8/6/2010 12:02 PM
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Criminal Justice: BS
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
1. Master Core Material
Outcomes
1.1 Mastery of Core Material
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 3.10General Ed & Major Field Tests
Measures & Findings
ETS TestingProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: This is a survey administered bythe faculty member teaching Senior Seminar. Tests arepurchased from ETS by the Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional Research.
Target: At least 75% of graduating seniors will score ator above the 75th percentile on the ETS Criminal JusticeExam which will be administered in the Senior Seminar.
Implementation Plan (timeline): FAll 2008-Spring 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional ResearchEigenbergThompsonAll faculty teaching core courses
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for ETS Testing
Summary of Findings: 75% of students taking the ETSexit exam scored at or above the 75th percentile (79%for All 2008 and 72% for Spring 2009)
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
1.2 Comprehensive Exposure to CoreMaterial
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Exposure to Doctoral Level Faculty in CoreCoursesProgram level; Indirect - Other
Details/Description: This will be measured by usingteaching roster assignments.
Target: 75% of core courses above the 100 level will betaught by tenured or tenure track faculty.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008-Spring 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Eigenberg
Findings for Exposure to Doctoral Level Faculty inCore Courses
Summary of Findings: 64% (Fall 2008) and 56% (Spring2009) of core courses were taught by tenure trackfaculty.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Fill tenure track position.
Notes : We had a tenure track position filled by a one
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
1 of 15 8/6/2010 12:05 PM
Supporting Attachments: year instructor. 91% (Fall 2008) and 81% (Spring 2009)of core courses were taught by full time facultymembers.
Substantiating Evidence:
2. Student Assessment of ProgramQuality
Outcomes
2.1 Student Satisfaction with OverallQuality of Program
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Student Satisfaction Overall Quality ofProgramProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered inBlackboard by the faculty member teaching CRMJ 485(Senior Seminar).
Target: Graduates will have a mean score of 2.0 orlower on the Senior Exit Survey on these items.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008-Spring 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: EigenbergThompsonAll program faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student Satisfaction Overall Quality ofProgram
Summary of Findings: No findings are available. Therewas a misunderstanding about how the survey was to beadministered.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Ensure survey is administered inSenior Seminar (CRMJ 485) next year.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
2.2 Overall Satisfaction
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Overall Student SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: Criminal Justice majors will achieve a meanscore of 2.5 or higher on the Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional Research’s Enrolled StudentSurvey that assesses the entire educational experience.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional ResearchAll program facultyEigenberg
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Overall Student Satisfaction
Summary of Findings: Criminal Justice majors had amean of 3.14 on this item.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
2 of 15 8/6/2010 12:05 PM
3. Mastery of Practical Skills
Outcomes
3.1 Practical Skills required for Career
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 1.1Service Learning, Measurable Outcome 1.3 ExperientialLearning Opportunities, Measurable Outcome 2.1Distinctive Experience Outside Class, MeasurableOutcome 2.2 Student Satisfaction, MeasurableOutcome 3.9 Student Satisfaction
Measures & Findings
Practical Skills Gained in Internship ProgramCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: This item is measured by studentrecords kept by the Internship Coordinator.
Target: At least 75% of the internships will result in aPassing grade .
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008, Spring2009, Summer 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: GarlandAll program faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Practical Skills Gained in InternshipProgram
Summary of Findings: 100% of students enrolled ininternships resulted in a passing grade.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Practical Skills Gained in University and MajorCoursesProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: Criminal Justice majors will achieve a meanscore of 2.5 or higher on the Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional Research’s National Surveyof Student Engagement which assesses whether astudent’s experience at UTC led them to acquire job orwork related knowledge and skills.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008, Spring 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: All program facultyEigenberg
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Practical Skills Gained in Universityand Major Courses
Summary of Findings: Criminal Justice majors had amean of 2.71 on this item.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
3.2 Student Internships
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 1.1Service Learning, Measurable Outcome 1.3 ExperientialLearning Opportunities, Measurable Outcome 2.1Distinctive Experience Outside Class, MeasurableOutcome 2.2 Student Satisfaction
Measures & Findings
Demonstrate Mastry Practical SkillsCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: This item is measured by studentrecords kept by the Internship Coordinator.
Target: At least 75% of majors completing aninternship will be certified by the internship coordinatoras having satisfactory work performance.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008, Spring
Findings for Demonstrate Mastry Practical Skills
Summary of Findings: 100% of majors completing aninternship were certified by the internship coordinator ashaving satisfactory work performance.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
3 of 15 8/6/2010 12:05 PM
2009, Summer 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Garland
Supporting Attachments:
Substantiating Evidence:
3.4 Service Learning
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 1.1Service Learning, Measurable Outcome 1.3 ExperientialLearning Opportunities, Measurable Outcome 2.1Distinctive Experience Outside Class
Measures & Findings
Participation in Service LearningProgram level; Indirect - Other
Details/Description: This item is measured byenrollment data and course syllabi for CRMJ 485 and theinternship course(s).
Target: 100% of students in the program willparticipate in some form of service learning as evidencedby curriculum requirements related to the Senior Seminarcourse (485) and the internship program.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008 and Spring2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: EigenbergThompsonGarland
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Participation in Service Learning
Summary of Findings: 100% of students in the programparticipated in some form of service learning.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
4. Mastery of Writing Skills
Outcomes
4.1 Student Assessment of WritingSkills
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 2.2Student Satisfaction
Measures & Findings
Mastry of Writing SkillsProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: The Criminal Justice program will achieve amean score of 2.5 or higher on the Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional Research’s Enrolled StudentSurvey that assesses whether a student’s experience atUTC added to their ability to write clearly andeffectively.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008 and Spring2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional ResearchEigenbergAll program faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Mastry of Writing Skills
Summary of Findings: Criminal Justice majors had amean of 3.00 on this item.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:Faculty Report Exposure to Vavrious
Assignments (Microsoft Word)
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
4 of 15 8/6/2010 12:05 PM
Student Satisfaction Writing SkillsProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered inBlackboard by the faculty member teaching CRMJ 485(Senior Seminar).
Target: 75% of students completing the Senior Surveywill agree that they have good writing skills.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008 and Spring2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: EigenbergThompson
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student Satisfaction Writing Skills
Summary of Findings: No findings are available. Therewas a misunderstanding about how the survey was to beadministered.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Ensure survey is administered inSenior Seminar (CRMJ 485) next year.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
4.2 Exposure to Writing Assignments
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Exposure to Writing AssignmentsDirect - Other
Details/Description: This data is obtained from coursesyllabi and survey of faculty about their courserequirements.
Target: 100% of course at the 300/400 level will have asignificant writing assignment.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008 and Spring2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: EigenbergAll program faculty teaching at the 300/400 level
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Exposure to Writing Assignments
Summary of Findings: 100% of course at the 300/400level had a significant writing assignment.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
5. Mastery of Computer Skills
Outcomes
5.1 Student Assessment of ComputerSkills
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 2.2Student Satisfaction
Measures & Findings
Student Reports about Computer SkillsProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: The Criminal Justice program will achieve amean score of 2.5 or higher on the Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional Research’s Enrolled StudentSurvey that assesses whether students used anelectronic medium to discuss or complete anassignment; worked on an assignment where they useda computer; and contributed to their ability to use
Findings for Student Reports about ComputerSkills
Summary of Findings: Criminal Justice majors had amean of 2.43, 3.43, 2.57 on these items.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
5 of 15 8/6/2010 12:05 PM
computing and informational technology.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008 and Spring2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional ResearchEigenbergAll program Faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Student Reports about Computer SkillsProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered inBlackboard by the faculty member teaching CRMJ 485(Senior Seminar).
Target: 75% of students completing the Senior Surveywill agree that they have good computer skills.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008 and Spring2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: EigenbergThompsonAll program faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student Reports about ComputerSkills
Summary of Findings: No findings are available. Therewas a misunderstanding about how the survey was to beadministered.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Ensure survey is administered inSenior Seminar (CRMJ 485) next year.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
5.2 Exposure to Computer Assignments
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Exposure to Computer AssignmentsProgram level; Indirect - Other
Details/Description: This data is obtained from coursesyllabi and survey of faculty about their courserequirements.
Target: At least 50% of the criminal justice coursestaught will require students to conduct at leastassignment involving computer. technology.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008 and Spring2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: EigenbergAll program faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Exposure to Computer Assignments
Summary of Findings: 87% of the criminal justicecourses taught required at least one computerassignment.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Exposure to Computer AssignmentsProgram level; Indirect - Other
Details/Description: This data is obtained from coursesyllabi and survey of faculty about their courserequirements.
Target: 50% of full time faculty will require students touse at least some component of Blackboard in theircourses.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008 and Spring
Findings for Exposure to Computer Assignments
Summary of Findings: 100% of full time faculty used atleast some component of Blackboard in their courses.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
6 of 15 8/6/2010 12:05 PM
2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: EigenbergAll full time program faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Exposure to Computer AssignmentsIndirect - Other
Details/Description: This data is obtained from coursesyllabi and survey of adjunct faculty about their courserequirements.
Target: 50% of adjunct faculty will require students touse at least some component of Blackboard in theircourses.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008 and Spring2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: EigenbergAll adjunct faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Exposure to Computer Assignments
Summary of Findings: 100% of adjunct faculty used atleast some component of Blackboard in their courses.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
5.3 Expand use of technology inteaching and learning.
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Enabling Partnerships:Measurable Outcome 4.2 Expand Library ElectronicResources
Measures & Findings
Facuty Development Computer TechnologyProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: This data is obtained from annualEDO reports completed by faculty and the DepartmentHead.
Target: 100% of full time faculty will attend at leastone faculty development workshop (internal or external)relating to technology so that they may better integrateit into their teaching and student assignments.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008 and Spring2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: EigenbergAll full time program faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Facuty Development ComputerTechnology
Summary of Findings: 86% of faculty (6 of 7) attendedat least one faculty development program associted withtechnology.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Continue to monitor EDOs andstress this goal.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
6. Mastery of Oral CommunicationSkills
Outcomes
6.1 Student Assessment of OralCommunication Skills
Mapped to:
Measures & Findings
Student Reports of Oral Communication SkillsProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Findings for Student Reports of OralCommunication Skills
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
7 of 15 8/6/2010 12:05 PM
Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 3.11General Education Evaluation
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: The Criminal Justice program will achieve amean score of 2.5 or higher on the Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional Research’s Enrolled StudentSurvey that assesses whether a student asked questionsin class or contributed to class discussions, and whetherthey made a class presentation.
Implementation Plan (timeline):
Key/Responsible Personnel: Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional ResearchAll program facultyEigenberg
Supporting Attachments:
Summary of Findings: Criminal Justice majors had amean of 3.43 and 2.29 on these items.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Try to identify some courses wherepresentations could be added.
Notes : The first item exceeded the goal but the secondfailed to meet it. Thus it appears that students haveopportunities for class discussions and questions, butnot for class presentations. This finding is a reflection oflarge class sizes.
Substantiating Evidence:
Student Reports of Oral Communication SkillsProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered inBlackboard by the faculty member teaching CRMJ 485(Senior Seminar).
Target: 75% of students completing the Senior Surveywill agree that they have good oral communicationskills.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008 and Spring2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: EigenbergThompsonAll program faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student Reports of OralCommunication Skills
Summary of Findings: No findings are available. Therewas a misunderstanding about how the survey was to beadministered.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Ensure survey is administered inSenior Seminar (CRMJ 485) next year.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
6.2 Exposure to Oral CommunicationAssignments
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Exposure to Oral PresentationsProgram level; Indirect - Other
Details/Description: This data is obtained from coursesyllabi and survey of faculty about their courserequirements.
Target: At least 25% of the courses taught will requireone oral presentation.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008 and Spring2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: EigenbergAll program faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Exposure to Oral Presentations
Summary of Findings: 13% of courses required at leastone oral presentation.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Continue to strive for 25%.
Notes : Figure may not be realistic given our high facultyto student ratios and large classes.
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
8 of 15 8/6/2010 12:05 PM
6.3 Speak Effectively and Clearly
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Speak EffectivelyProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: Criminal Justice majors will achieve a meanscore of 2.5 or higher on the Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional Research’s National Surveyof Student Engagement which assesses whether astudent’s experience at UTC led them to report they canspeak clearly and effectively.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional ResearchAll program facultyEigenberg
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Speak Effectively
Summary of Findings: Criminal Justice majors had amean of 2.43 on this item.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes : Given the small sample size, it is unlikely that adifference of .07 is signficant; therefore, it wasdetermined that this goal was met.
Substantiating Evidence:
7. Exposure to Diversity Issues inthe Curriculum
Outcomes
7.1 Integration of Diversity Issues inthe Curriculum
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Diversity:Measurable Outcome 1.5 Increased Tolerance
Measures & Findings
Exposure to Diversity IssuesProgram level; Indirect - Other
Details/Description: This data is taken from enrollmentdata and course catalog requirements.
Target: 100% of all students will take at least onecourse that expressly deals with diversity issues incriminal justice.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008 and Spring2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: EigenbergAll program faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Exposure to Diversity Issues
Summary of Findings: 100% of all students took atleast one course that expressly deals with diversityissues in criminal justice.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes : Majors are required to take a course on eitherminorities and crime, gender and crime, or comparativecriminal justice.
Substantiating Evidence:
7.2 Integration of International Issuesin the Curriculum
Mapped to:
Measures & Findings
Exposure to Global IssuesProgram level; Indirect - Other
Findings for Exposure to Global Issues
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
9 of 15 8/6/2010 12:05 PM
Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Diversity:Measurable Outcome 1.5 Increased Tolerance Details/Description: This data is obtained from course
syllabi and survey of faculty about their courserequirements.
Target: At least 25% of the courses taught will requireat least one significant module on global/internationalissues in criminal justice.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008 and Spring2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: EigenbergAll program faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Summary of Findings: No findings are available. Therewas a misunderstanding about how the survey was to beadministered.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Ensure survey is administered inSenior Seminar (CRMJ 485) next year.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
7.3 Integration of Ethical Issues in theCurriculum
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Diversity:Measurable Outcome 1.5 Increased Tolerance
Measures & Findings
Ethics and the CurriculumProgram level; Indirect - Other
Details/Description: This data is taken from enrollmentdata and course catalog requirements.
Target: 100% of all students will take at least onecourse that expressly deals with ethics in criminaljustice.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008 and Spring2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: EigenbergKnox
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Ethics and the Curriculum
Summary of Findings: 37% (n=104) of our majors(n=283) took our ethics class (430) last academic year.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations :
Notes : The catalog was changed effective 2008. All newentering students will have taken at least one class thatexpressly deals with ethics in criminal justice as agraduation requirement.
Substantiating Evidence:
7.4 Exposure to Diverse People andPerspectives
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Diversity Experiences in Person or in ClassProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: Criminal Justice majors will achieve a meanscore of 2.5 or higher on the Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional Research’s Enrolled StudentSurvey that assesses whether they included diverseperspectives in class discussions or writing assignmentsand had serious conversations with students of adifferent race/ethnicity.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: EigenbergAll Program Faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Diversity Experiences in Person or inClass
Summary of Findings: Criminal Justice majors had amean of 2.86 and 2.71 on these items.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
10 of 15 8/6/2010 12:05 PM
7.5 Increased Understanding of DiverseGroups
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Exposure to Diverse PeopleProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: Criminal Justice majors will achieve a meanscore of 2.75 or higher on the Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional Research’s National Surveyof Student Engagement which assesses whether astudent’s experience at UTC increased theirunderstanding of other racial and ethnic backgrounds.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: All program facultyEigenberg
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Exposure to Diverse People
Summary of Findings: Criminal Justice majors had amean of 3.00 on this item.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
8. Student Retention
Outcomes
8.1 Monitor High Risk Students
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 2.7Retention & Persistence
Measures & Findings
Intervention with High Risk StudentsProgram level; Indirect - Other
Details/Description: This data is being kept by ourChief Departmental Advisor.
Target: At least 50% of all majors with a GPA of lessthan 2.0 will meet with an advisor to discuss programprogress.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009 and Spring2010
Key/Responsible Personnel: Thompson
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Intervention with High Risk Students
Summary of Findings: No findings are available. Therewas a misunderstanding about how the survey was to beadministered.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Ensure survey is administered inSenior Seminar (CRMJ 485) next year.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
8.2 Quality Advising
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 2.4Strong Commitment to Program, Measurable Outcome2.5 Student Engagement
Measures & Findings
Student Satisfaction with AdvisingProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: The Criminal Justice program will achieve amean score of 2.5 or higher on the Office of Planning,
Findings for Student Satisfaction with Advising
Summary of Findings: Criminal Justice majors had amean of 3.14 on this item.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
11 of 15 8/6/2010 12:05 PM
Evaluation, and Institutional Research’s Enrolled StudentSurvey that assesses the quality of advising theyreceived at UTC.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008 and Spring2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional ResearchEigenbergThompsonGarlandKnoxHenselyBumphus
Supporting Attachments:
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
8.3 Scheduling
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 2.7Retention & Persistence, Measurable Outcome 4.4Retention/Graduation
Measures & Findings
Course Rotation PlanProgram level; Indirect - Other
Details/Description: This data is coming from courseoffering rosters.
Target: 100% of all required courses will be offered atleast once a year.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008 and Spring2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Eigenberg
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Course Rotation Plan
Summary of Findings: 100% of all required courseswere offered at least once a year.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
8.4 Use Distance Learning to FacilitateAccess
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 4.1Distance/Alternative Delivery
Measures & Findings
Course Delivery Distance LearningProgram level; Indirect - Other
Details/Description: This data is coming from courseoffering rosters.
Target: Offer at least 6 distance learning coursesannually.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008, Spring2009, Summer 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Eigenberg
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Course Delivery Distance Learning
Summary of Findings: 7 distance learning courses wereoffered last year (fall, spring and summer).
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
8.5 Quality of Relationship betweenStudents and Faculty
Mapped to:
Measures & Findings
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
12 of 15 8/6/2010 12:05 PM
No Mapping Student Faculty RelationshipsProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: Criminal Justice majors will achieve a meanscore of 2.5 or higher on the Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional Research’s Enrolled StudentSurvey that assesses the quality of advising theyreceived at UTC.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: All program facultyEigenberg
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student Faculty Relationships
Summary of Findings: Criminal Justice majors had amean of 4.29 on this item.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
9. Critical Thinking Skills
Outcomes
9.1 Integration of Ideas
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Integrating Material from Various SourcesProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: Criminal Justice majors will achieve a meanscore of 2.5 or higher on the Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional Research’s Enrolled StudentSurvey that assesses whether a student integratedideas or information from various sources, variouscourses, or during class discussions.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: All Program facultyEigenberg
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Integrating Material from VariousSources
Summary of Findings: Criminal Justice majors had amean of 3.14 and 2.71 on these items.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
9.2 Analyzing and SynthesizingInformation
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Analyzing and SynthesizingProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: Criminal Justice majors will achieve a mean
Findings for Analyzing and Synthesizing
Summary of Findings: Criminal Justice majors had amean of 3.14 and 2.86 on these items.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
13 of 15 8/6/2010 12:05 PM
score of 2.5 or higher on the Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional Research’s Enrolled StudentSurvey that assesses whether a student analyzed thebasic elements of an idea, experience or theory andwhether they synthesized information intom morecomplex ideas.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: All program facultyEigenberg
Supporting Attachments:
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
9.3 Making Judgements
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
JudgementProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: Criminal Justice majors will achieve a meanscore of 2.5 or higher on the Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional Research’s Enrolled StudentSurvey that assesses whether a student madejudgements about information and data.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: All program facultyEigenberg
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Judgement
Summary of Findings: Criminal Justice majors had amean of 2.71 on this item.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
9.4 Reported Ability to Think Criticallyand Analytical
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Ability to Think CriticallyProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: Criminal Justice majors will achieve a meanscore of 2.5 or higher on the Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional Research’s Enrolled StudentSurvey that assesses whether a student’s experience atUTC added to their ability to think clearly andanalytically.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Findings for Ability to Think Critically
Summary of Findings: Criminal Justice majors had amean of 3.14 on this item.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
14 of 15 8/6/2010 12:05 PM
Key/Responsible Personnel: All program facultyEigenberg
Supporting Attachments:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
15 of 15 8/6/2010 12:05 PM
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Criminal Justice: MSCJ
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
1. Master Core Material
Outcomes
1.1 Master and Integrate Core Material
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
ThesesProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Data is calculated by the GraduateProgram Coordinator using comprehensive exam results.
Target: At least 75% of the students will pass theCriminal Justice Master’s comprehensive exam on theirfirst attempt and demonstrate mastery of core material,use of critical thinking skills and application of researchskills.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: IlesAll program faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Theses
Summary of Findings: 86% of the graduates passed theCriminal Justice Master’s comprehensive exam on theirfirst attempt.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Thesis CompletionProgram level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Data is calculated by the GraduateProgram Coordinator using completed theses.
Target: 75% of all students who attempt a thesis willcomplete it and will demonstrate mastery of corematerial, use of critical thinking skills and application ofresearch skills.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: IlesEigenbergAll program faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Thesis Completion
Summary of Findings: 75% of students who attempteda thesis (through the thesis class or by starting aprospectus) completed it.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
1 of 5 8/6/2010 12:06 PM
2. High Quality EducationalExperience
Outcomes
2.1 Quality Experience for Students
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Student SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theGraduate Coordinator.
Target: 75% of students completing the graduate exitsurvey will report they are satisfied with the overallquality of their experience.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: All program facultyIles
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student Satisfaction
Summary of Findings: 100% of the graduates reportedthey were satisfied or very satisfied with the overallquality of their experience.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
2.2 Admission To Doctoral Programs
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Admission to PhD programsProgram level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Data is calculated by the GraduateProgram Coordinator using a ratio of number of studentsknown to apply for a PhD to those accepted.
Target: 75% of gradutes who choose to pursue a PhDwill be accepted into a program.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: All program facultyIles
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Admission to PhD programs
Summary of Findings: 100% of gradutes (n=2) whochose to pursue a PhD were accepted into a program.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
3. Critical Thinking Skills
Outcomes
3.1 Student Assessment of CriticalThinking Skills
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Student Assessment of Critical ThinkingIndirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by the
Findings for Student Assessment of CriticalThinking
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
2 of 5 8/6/2010 12:06 PM
Graduate Coordinator.
Target: 75% of the graduates completing the exit examwill indicate they are satisfied with the extent to whichthe program increased their ability to think critically.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: IlesAll program faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Summary of Findings: 100% of the graduatescompleting the exit exam were satisified or verysatisfied on this item.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
4. Mastery of Writing Skills
Outcomes
4.1 Student Satisfaction with WritingSkills
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Student Assessment of Writing SkillsIndirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theGraduate Coordinator.
Target: 75% of the graduates completing the exit examwill indicate they are satisfied with the extent to whichthe program increased their ability to write.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: All program staffIles
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student Assessment of Writing Skills
Summary of Findings: 100% of the graduatescompleting the exit exam were satisified or verysatisfied on this item.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
4.2 Exposure to Writing Assignments
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Writing AssignmentsProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: This data is obtained from coursesyllabi and survey of faculty about their courserequirements.
Target: 100% of all graduate courses will have at leastone significant writing assignment.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: All program staffIles
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Writing Assignments
Summary of Findings: 100% of all graduate courses hadat least one major writing assignment or a multitude ofsmaller assignments that were the equivalent of onelarger assignment.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
5. Mastery of Communication Skills
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
3 of 5 8/6/2010 12:06 PM
Outcomes
5.1 Student Assessment ofCommunication Skills
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Student Assessment of Oral CommunicationProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theGraduate Coordinator.
Target: 75% of the graduates completing the exit examwill indicate they are satisfied with the extent to whichthe program increased their oral communications skills.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: All program facultyIles
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student Assessment of OralCommunication
Summary of Findings: 100% of the graduatescompleting the exit exam were satisified or verysatisfied on this item.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
5.2 Exposure to Oral Presentations
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Oral PresentationsProgram level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: This data is obtained from coursesyllabi and survey of faculty about their courserequirements.
Target: 100% of students will have at least onesignificant oral presentation in their program.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: All program facultyIles
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Oral Presentations
Summary of Findings: 100% of all graduates had atleast one signfiicant oral presentation.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes : Students had oral presentations in CRMJ 502,503, 513, 516 596 and for all theses in 2008-09.
Substantiating Evidence:
6. Mastery of Research Skills
Outcomes
6.1 Student Assessment of ResearchSkills
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Student Assessment of Research SkillsProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theGraduate Coordinator.
Target: 75% of the graduates completing the exit examwill indicate they are satisfied with their mastery ofresearch skills.
Findings for Student Assessment of Research Skills
Summary of Findings: 100% of the graduatescompleting the exit exam were satisified or verysatisfied with their ability to evaluate research andconduct research.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
4 of 5 8/6/2010 12:06 PM
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: All program facultyIles
Supporting Attachments:
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
6.2 Application of Research Skills
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Demonstration of Research SkillsProgram level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Graduate Coordinator monitorscomprehensive exams to ensure that there is anapplication of research methods/skills. She alsomonitors theses completed to ensure this requirement ismet as well.
Target: 100% of students will be required to use/applyresearch method skills and interpret data either incomprehensive exams or theses.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: All program facultyIles
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Demonstration of Research Skills
Summary of Findings: 100% of students demonstratedtheir mastery of research skills by successfullycompleting their thesis or by passing the comprehensiveexam.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
5 of 5 8/6/2010 12:06 PM
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Foreign Languages: BA
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
Foreign Languages: BA French,Spanish
Outcomes
I.1 SPEAKING
Mapped to:National Standards in Foreign LanguageEducation: Standard 1.1: Conversations
Measures & Findings
Auralog pre and post-test - FrenchCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: TellMeMore is a software programwith built-in voice recognition that measures oral andaural comprehension as well as grammar, culture, andreading skills. This is produced by the company Auralog.
Target: Incoming first-year students are expected toscore between 1.0 and 1.6 on the 10-point scale. At theend of the first year they should score between 2.0-2.6.Incoming second-year students are expected to performbetween 2.0-2.6. At the end of the second year theyshould score between 3.0-3.6.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This was administeredat the beginning of the first and second-year coursesand at the end of the first and second-year sequences.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. SturzerActing Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:Auralog scores correlated to EU standards (Microsoft
Word)This chart compares the scores of pre and post tests toCouncil of Europe Standards
Findings for Auralog pre and post-test - French
Summary of Findings: The findings at this introductorylevel are as expected. The lowest scores coming inspent less time working in the software but, due toclassroom instruction, still made the greatest gains.Those with the highest incoming scores yielded thelowest gains because language acquisition slows as thematerial gets more difficult. The two groups in themiddle also performed as expected in that the groupthat consistently worked harder, as measured by time inthe software, made greater strides than the group thatworked less. Overall, increases in gain diminished asscores increased, reflecting the increasing difficulty ofthe material.As an absolute measure of progress, students met ourexpectations.At the second year level, lower performing studentsspent substantially more time in the software and mademore substantial improvement. It must be noted thatthose scoring a 1, simply did not engage with theinstrument, so improvements at the lowest level aresuspect and those with 1s should have been discountedin the measures.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Since, at the introductory levelthere is no remarkable difference in gain between groupsthat worked more, as measured in time, from those whoworked less, we conclude that the software provideslittle added value when measured against time on task.At the intermediate level, supplemental work did seemto yield better results.
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
1 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:Pre and Post test in Auralog for FREN 211-212 (Word
Document (Open XML))Pre and Post test results in Auralog FREN
101-102 (Word Document (Open XML))
Auralog pre and post-test - SpanishCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: TellMeMore is a software programwith built-in voice recognition that measures oral andaural comprehension as well as grammar, culture, andreading skills. This is produced by the company Auralog.
Target: Incoming first-year students are expected toscore between 1.0 and 1.6 on the 10-point scale. At theend of the first year they should score between 2.0-2.6.Incoming second-year students are expected to performbetween 2.0-2.6. At the end of the second year theyshould score between 3.0-3.6.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This was administeredat the beginning of the first and second-year coursesand at the end of the first and second-year sequences.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. SturzerActing Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
No Findings Added to Auralog pre and post-test -Spanish
End of Course Oral Exams/SOPI - SpanishCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: End of course oral exams or theSOPI, (Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview), are used toassess speaking proficiency and/or mastery of coursespeaking objectives. All tests are recorded in instructorGradebook. 311/312 exams are recorded on tapesmaintained in the department.
Target: By the end of elementary Spanish students willbe introduced to this task and can perform at the novielevel. 85% of students in Spanish 101, 102, and 211 willreceive grades of 70% or better on end of course oralexams. By the end of intermediate Spanish (212), 85%of students will perform at the Novice High orIntermediate Low level. After completing both Spanish311 and 312 (the courses may be taken in any order),85% of students perform at the intermediate low levelor higher.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Students areadministered oral exams by their instructors at the endof Spanish 101, 102, 211. At the end of 212, 311, and312, students will receive an SOPI.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.,Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for End of Course Oral Exams/SOPI -Spanish
Summary of Findings: There were no SOPI findings forSpanish 212 and 312, because of new instructors with alack of training. However, end of course oral examsindicate that at least 85% of students are scored 70%or better on end of course exams in Spanish 101, 102,211, 212, 311, and 312 courses.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Training for new instructors of 211,212, 311, and 312, as well as insistence on end ofcourse oral exams.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
2 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
Spanish 101 Oral interview (Microsoft Word)This is the guidelines for the interview along with a rubric.
I Can surveyOther level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Students were asked what theycan do in the target language across the first andsecond year courses.
Target: Students will be 75% proficient at stated goal.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Throughout the2008-2009 year at the first and second year level, asadministered by students of the Psychology dept andsupervised by a professor in the Psychology Dept.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia Sturzer, Ph.D.Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)This is the survey administered to all students in the firstand second year language sequences
Findings for I Can survey
Summary of Findings: Students met this goal with atleast 75% proficiency.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Continue to promote this skill.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Results of student survey 2008-2009.
SOPI Test (Simulated Oral ProficiencyInterview) - FrenchCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: This test is used by governmentagencies and by the American Council on the Teaching ofForeign Languages (ACTFL) to assess speakingproficiency in a target language. The test is recordedand assessed by instructors who have been trained inevaluation by this method.
It assesses speaking ability from Novice throughSuperior. Descriptions of the various levels are attached.
Target: By the end of the intermediate conversationcourse (FREN/SPAN 212) students should attain a NoviceHigh-Intermediate Low rating.
By the end of the composition-conversation course(FREN 312/SPAN 312) students should attainIntermediate Low - High rating.
Implementation Plan (timeline): The test isadministered at the conclusion of FREN or SPAN 212 and312 respectively.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:SOPI Proficiency Ratings from ACTFL (Adobe Acrobat
Document)Presentation of the various skills levels, from novice tosuperior, of the oral proficiency measures against which wemeasure results of the Simulated Oral Proficiency Exam.
Findings for SOPI Test (Simulated Oral ProficiencyInterview) - French
Summary of Findings: At the end of the second year inFrench, 7% of students scored at the Novice Mid level,14% at the Intermediate Low level, 29% IntermediateMid and 50% at Intermediate High.
Therefore, 93% met our goal of NoviceHigh-Intermediate Low at the conclusion of thesecond-year French course (French 212).
At the end of the French 312 course (Composition andConversation), 14% scored at the Intermediate Lowlevel, 57% at the Intermediate Mid level, 14% atIntermediate High, and 14% at the Advanced level.
Therefore 100% met our standard.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : We recommend that the Outcomelevel for second-year French should be raised toperformance at the Intermediate Low level.
We recommend that the Outcome level for third-yearFrench be raised to the Intermediate Mid level.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
3 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
I.2 SPEAKING
Mapped to:National Standards in Foreign LanguageEducation: Standard 1.3: Presentation
Measures & Findings
Auralog pre and post-test - FrenchCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: TellMeMore is a software programwith built-in voice recognition that measures oral andaural comprehension as well as grammar, culture, andreading skills. This is produced by the company Auralog.
Target: Incoming first-year students are expected toscore between 1.0 and 1.6 on the 10-point scale. At theend of the first year they should score between 2.0-2.6.Incoming second-year students are expected to performbetween 2.0-2.6. At the end of the second year theyshould score between 3.0-3.6.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This was administeredat the beginning of the first and second-year coursesand at the end of the first and second-year sequences.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. SturzerActing Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:Auralog scores correlated to EU standards (Microsoft
Word)
Findings for Auralog pre and post-test - French
Summary of Findings: The findings at this introductorylevel are as expected. The lowest scores coming inspent less time working in the software but, due toclassroom instruction, still made the greatest gains.Those with the highest incoming scores yielded thelowest gains because language acquisition slows as thematerial gets more difficult. The two groups in themiddle also performed as expected in that the groupthat consistently worked harder, as measured by time inthe software, made greater strides than the group thatworked less. Overall, increases in gain diminished asscores increased, reflecting the increasing difficulty ofthe material.As an absolute measure of progress, students met ourexpectations.At the second year level, lower performing studentsspent substantially more time in the software and mademore substantial improvement. It must be noted thatthose scoring a 1, simply did not engage with theinstrument, so improvements at the lowest level aresuspect and those with 1s should have been discountedin the measures.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Since there is no remarkabledifference in gain between groups that worked more, asmeasured in time, from those who worked less, weconclude that the software provides little added valuewhen measured against time on task.At the intermediate level, supplemental work did seemto yield better results.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:Pre and Post test in Auralog for FREN 211-212 (Word
Document (Open XML))Pre and Post test results in Auralog FREN
101-102 (Word Document (Open XML))
End of Course Oral Exams and SOPI - SpanishCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: End of course oral exams or theSOPI, (Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview), are used toassess speaking proficiency and/or mastery of coursespeaking objectives. All tests are recorded in instructorGradebook. 311/312 exams are recorded on tapesmaintained in the department.
Target: By the end of elementary Spanish students willbe introduced to this task and can perform at the novielevel. 85% of students in Spanish 101, 102, and 211 willreceive grades of 70% or better on end of course oral
Findings for End of Course Oral Exams and SOPI -Spanish
Summary of Findings: There were no SOPI findings forSpanish 212 and 312, because of new instructors with alack of training. However, end of course oral examsindicate that at least 85% of students are scored 70%or better on end of course exams in Spanish 101, 102,211, 212, 311, and 312 courses.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Training for Spanish 211, 212, 311,
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
4 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
exams. By the end of intermediate Spanish (212), 85%of students will perform at the Novice High orIntermediate Low level. After completing both Spanish311 and 312 (the courses may be taken in any order),85% of students perform at the intermediate low levelor higher.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Students areadministered oral exams by their instructors at the endof Spanish 101, 102, 211. At the end of 212, 311, and312, students will receive an SOPI.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.,Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:oral interview 101 (Microsoft Word)Here are the guidelines for the oral interview along with arubric.
312 instructors.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
I Can surveyOther level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Students were asked what theycan do in the target language across the first andsecond year courses.
Target: Students will be 75% proficient at stated goal.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Throughout the2008-2009 year at the first and second year level, asadministered by students of the Psychology dept andsupervised by a professor in the Psychology Dept.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia Sturzer, Ph.D.Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Survey administered across the first and second yearlanguage courses.
Findings for I Can survey
Summary of Findings: Students met this goal with 75%proficiency.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Continue to teach this skill ascurrently done.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Results of student survey 2008-2009.
Simulated conversations FREN 211Course level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Students participate in simulatedconversations with a specific communicative goal. Thiscomprises 20% of their final grade in this course.
Target: Students will achieve 75% proficiency atcommunication according to task assigned.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Throughout theacademic year, 4 times per semester.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia Sturzer, Ph.D.Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:Sample communicative assignment FREN 211
Intermediate French for Conversation (Microsoft Word)Sample task and grading rubric for communicative task.
Findings for Simulated conversations FREN 211
Summary of Findings: By the end of the secondsemester, students were consistently 75% proficient.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Continue to build students to 75%proficiency.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
5 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
SOPI Test (Simulated Oral ProficiencyInterview) - FrenchCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: This test is used by governmentagencies and by the American Council on the Teaching ofForeign Languages (ACTFL) to assess speakingproficiency in a target language. The test is recordedand assessed by instructors who have been trained inevaluation by this method.
It assesses speaking ability from Novice throughSuperior. Descriptions of the various levels are attached.
Target: By the end of the intermediate conversationcourse (FREN/SPAN 212) students should attain a NoviceHigh-Intermediate Low rating.
By the end of the composition-conversation course(FREN 312/SPAN 312) students should attainIntermediate Low - High rating.
Implementation Plan (timeline): The test isadministered at the conclusion of FREN or SPAN 212 and312 respectively.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:SOPI Proficiency Ratings from ACTFL (Adobe Acrobat
Document)
Findings for SOPI Test (Simulated Oral ProficiencyInterview) - French
Summary of Findings: At the end of the second year inFrench, 7% of students scored at the Novice Mid level,14% at the Intermediate Low level, 29% IntermediateMid and 50% at Intermediate High.
Therefore, 93% met our goal of NoviceHigh-Intermediate Low at the conclusion of thesecond-year French course (French 212).
At the end of the French 312 course (Composition andConversation), 14% scored at the Intermediate Lowlevel, 57% at the Intermediate Mid level, 14% atIntermediate High, and 14% at the Advanced level.
Therefore 100% met our standard.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : We recommend that the Outcomelevel for second-year French should be raised toperformance at the Intermediate Low level.
We recommend that the Outcome level for third-yearFrench be raised to the Intermediate Mid level.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
1.3 SPEAKING
Mapped to:National Standards in Foreign LanguageEducation: Standard 1.2: Written & Spoken
Measures & Findings
Auralog pre and post-test - FrenchCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: TellMeMore is a software programwith built-in voice recognition that measures oral andaural comprehension as well as grammar, culture, andreading skills. This is produced by the company Auralog.
Target: Incoming first-year students are expected toscore between 1.0 and 1.6 on the 10-point scale. At theend of the first year they should score between 2.0-2.6.Incoming second-year students are expected to performbetween 2.0-2.6. At the end of the second year theyshould score between 3.0-3.6.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This was administeredat the beginning of the first and second-year coursesand at the end of the first and second-year sequences.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. SturzerActing Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:Auralog scores correlated to EU standards (Microsoft
Word)
Findings for Auralog pre and post-test - French
Summary of Findings: The findings at this introductorylevel are as expected. The lowest scores coming inspent less time working in the software but, due toclassroom instruction, still made the greatest gains.Those with the highest incoming scores yielded thelowest gains because language acquisition slows as thematerial gets more difficult. The two groups in themiddle also performed as expected in that the groupthat consistently worked harder, as measured by time inthe software, made greater strides than the group thatworked less. Overall, increases in gain diminished asscores increased, reflecting the increasing difficulty ofthe material.As an absolute measure of progress, students met ourexpectations.At the second year level, lower performing studentsspent substantially more time in the software and mademore substantial improvement. It must be noted thatthose scoring a 1, simply did not engage with theinstrument, so improvements at the lowest level are
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
6 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
suspect and those with 1s should have been discountedin the measures.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Since there is no remarkabledifference in gain between groups that worked more, asmeasured in time, from those who worked less, weconclude that the software provides little added valuewhen measured against time on task.At the intermediate level, supplemental work did seemto yield better results.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:Pre and Post test in Auralog for FREN 211-212 (Word
Document (Open XML))Pre and Post test results in Auralog FREN
101-102 (Word Document (Open XML))
End of Course Oral Exams or SOPI - SpanishCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: End of course oral exams or theSOPI, (Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview), are used toassess speaking proficiency and/or mastery of coursespeaking objectives. All tests are recorded in instructorGradebook. 311/312 exams are recorded on tapesmaintained in the department.
Target: By the end of elementary Spanish students willbe introduced to this task and can perform at the novielevel. 85% of students in Spanish 101, 102, and 211 willreceive grades of 70% or better on end of course oralexams. By the end of intermediate Spanish (212), 85%of students will perform at the Novice High orIntermediate Low level. After completing both Spanish311 and 312 (the courses may be taken in any order),85% of students perform at the intermediate low levelor higher.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Students areadministered oral exams by their instructors at the endof Spanish 101, 102, 211. At the end of 212, 311, and312, students will receive an SOPI.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.,Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:Oral Interview Spanish 101 (Microsoft Word)Here are the guidelines for the oral interview along with arubric.
Findings for End of Course Oral Exams or SOPI -Spanish
Summary of Findings: There were no SOPI findings forSpanish 212 and 312, because of new instructors with alack of training. However, end of course oral examsindicate that at least 85% of students are scored 70%or better on end of course exams in Spanish 101, 102,211, 212, 311, and 312 courses.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Training for 211, 212, 311, and 312instructors on the SOPI.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
I Can surveyOther level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Students were asked what theycan do in the target language across the first andsecond year courses.
Findings for I Can survey
Summary of Findings: Students were 45% proficient bythe end of the second year.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
7 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
Target: Students will be 75% proficient at stated goal.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Throughout the2008-2009 year at the first and second year level, asadministered by students of the Psychology dept andsupervised by a professor in the Psychology Dept.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia Sturzer, Ph.D.Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Survey administered across the first and second yearlanguage courses.
Recommendations : Continue to build this skill.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Results of student survey 2008-2009.
SOPI Test (Simulated Oral ProficiencyInterview) - FrenchCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: This test is used by governmentagencies and by the American Council on the Teaching ofForeign Languages (ACTFL) to assess speakingproficiency in a target language. The test is recordedand assessed by instructors who have been trained inevaluation by this method.
It assesses speaking ability from Novice throughSuperior. Descriptions of the various levels are attached.
Target: By the end of the intermediate conversationcourse (FREN/SPAN 212) students should attain a NoviceHigh-Intermediate Low rating.
By the end of the composition-conversation course(FREN 312/SPAN 312) students should attainIntermediate Low - High rating.
Implementation Plan (timeline): The test isadministered at the conclusion of FREN or SPAN 212 and312 respectively.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:SOPI Proficiency Ratings from ACTFL (Adobe Acrobat
Document)
Findings for SOPI Test (Simulated Oral ProficiencyInterview) - French
Summary of Findings: At the end of the second year inFrench, 7% of students scored at the Novice Mid level,14% at the Intermediate Low level, 29% IntermediateMid and 50% at Intermediate High.
Therefore, 93% met our goal of NoviceHigh-Intermediate Low at the conclusion of thesecond-year French course (French 212).
At the end of the French 312 course (Composition andConversation), 14% scored at the Intermediate Lowlevel, 57% at the Intermediate Mid level, 14% atIntermediate High, and 14% at the Advanced level.
Therefore 100% met our standard.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : We recommend that the Outcomelevel for second-year French should be raised toperformance at the Intermediate Low level.
We recommend that the Outcome level for third-yearFrench be raised to the Intermediate Mid level.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
1.4 SPEAKING
Mapped to:National Standards in Foreign LanguageEducation: Standard 1.1: Conversations
Measures & Findings
Auralog pre and post-test - FrenchCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: TellMeMore is a software programwith built-in voice recognition that measures oral andaural comprehension as well as grammar, culture, andreading skills. This is produced by the company Auralog.
Target: Incoming first-year students are expected to
Findings for Auralog pre and post-test - French
Summary of Findings: The findings at this introductorylevel are as expected. The lowest scores coming inspent less time working in the software but, due toclassroom instruction, still made the greatest gains.Those with the highest incoming scores yielded the
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
8 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
score between 1.0 and 1.6 on the 10-point scale. At theend of the first year they should score between 2.0-2.6.Incoming second-year students are expected to performbetween 2.0-2.6. At the end of the second year theyshould score between 3.0-3.6.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This was administeredat the beginning of the first and second-year coursesand at the end of the first and second-year sequences.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. SturzerActing Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:Auralog scores correlated to EU standards (Microsoft
Word)
lowest gains because language acquisition slows as thematerial gets more difficult. The two groups in themiddle also performed as expected in that the groupthat consistently worked harder, as measured by time inthe software, made greater strides than the group thatworked less. Overall, increases in gain diminished asscores increased, reflecting the increasing difficulty ofthe material.As an absolute measure of progress, students met ourexpectations.At the second year level, lower performing studentsspent substantially more time in the software and mademore substantial improvement. It must be noted thatthose scoring a 1, simply did not engage with theinstrument, so improvements at the lowest level aresuspect and those with 1s should have been discountedin the measures.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Since there is no remarkabledifference in gain between groups that worked more, asmeasured in time, from those who worked less, weconclude that the software provides little added valuewhen measured against time on task.At the intermediate level, supplemental work did seemto yield better results.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:Pre and Post test in Auralog for FREN 211-212 (Word
Document (Open XML))Pre and Post test results in Auralog FREN
101-102 (Word Document (Open XML))
End of Course Oral Exams or SOPI - SpanishCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: End of course oral exams or theSOPI, (Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview), are used toassess speaking proficiency and/or mastery of coursespeaking objectives. All tests are recorded in instructorGradebook. 311/312 exams are recorded on tapesmaintained in the department.
Target: By the end of elementary Spanish students willbe introduced to this task and can perform at the novielevel. 85% of students in Spanish 101, 102, and 211 willreceive grades of 70% or better on end of course oralexams. By the end of intermediate Spanish (212), 85%of students will perform at the Novice High orIntermediate Low level. After completing both Spanish311 and 312 (the courses may be taken in any order),85% of students perform at the intermediate low levelor higher.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Students areadministered oral exams by their instructors at the endof Spanish 101, 102, 211. At the end of 212, 311, and
Findings for End of Course Oral Exams or SOPI -Spanish
Summary of Findings: There were no SOPI findings forSpanish 212 and 312, because of new instructors with alack of training. However, end of course oral examsindicate that at least 85% of students are scored 70%or better on end of course exams in Spanish 101, 102,211, 212, 311, and 312 courses.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Training for 211, 212, 311, 312instructors on SOPI.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
9 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
312, students will receive an SOPI.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.,Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:oral interview Spanish 101 (Microsoft Word)Here are the guidelines for the oral interview along with arubric.
I Can surveyOther level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Students were asked what theycan do in the target language across the first andsecond year courses.
Target: Students will be 75% proficient at stated goal.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Throughout the2008-2009 year at the first and second year level, asadministered by students of the Psychology dept andsupervised by a professor in the Psychology Dept.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia Sturzer, Ph.D.Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Survey administered across the first and second yearlanguage courses.
Findings for I Can survey
Summary of Findings: Depending upon which detail oneexamines students were 55-70% confident in this skill.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Continue to develop this skill.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Results of student survey 2008-2009.
SOPI Test (Simulated Oral ProficiencyInterview) - FrenchCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: This test is used by governmentagencies and by the American Council on the Teaching ofForeign Languages (ACTFL) to assess speakingproficiency in a target language. The test is recordedand assessed by instructors who have been trained inevaluation by this method.
It assesses speaking ability from Novice throughSuperior. Descriptions of the various levels are attached.
Target: By the end of the intermediate conversationcourse (FREN/SPAN 212) students should attain a NoviceHigh-Intermediate Low rating.
By the end of the composition-conversation course(FREN 312/SPAN 312) students should attainIntermediate Low - High rating.
Implementation Plan (timeline): The test isadministered at the conclusion of FREN or SPAN 212 and312 respectively.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for SOPI Test (Simulated Oral ProficiencyInterview) - French
Summary of Findings: At the end of the second year inFrench, 7% of students scored at the Novice Mid level,14% at the Intermediate Low level, 29% IntermediateMid and 50% at Intermediate High.
Therefore, 93% met our goal of NoviceHigh-Intermediate Low at the conclusion of thesecond-year French course (French 212).
At the end of the French 312 course (Composition andConversation), 14% scored at the Intermediate Lowlevel, 57% at the Intermediate Mid level, 14% atIntermediate High, and 14% at the Advanced level.
Therefore 100% met our standard.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : We recommend that the Outcomelevel for second-year French should be raised toperformance at the Intermediate Low level.
We recommend that the Outcome level for third-yearFrench be raised to the Intermediate Mid level.
Notes :
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
10 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
SOPI Proficiency Ratings from ACTFL (Adobe AcrobatDocument)
Substantiating Evidence:
Task oriented dialogue-FrenchCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Students are given a specificcommunicative task for a dialogue with a fellow studentand the rubric by which the quality of communication willbe judged.
Target: Students will demonstrate 75% proficiency inthe communicative task.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Throughout the year,4 times per semester.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia Sturzer, Ph.D.Acting Dept Head
Supporting Attachments:Sample grading rubric for communicative task FREN
211-212 (Microsoft Word)Here students must persuade a fellow student toaccompany them to France in the summer.
Findings for Task oriented dialogue-French
Summary of Findings: By the end of the secondsemester, students were 75% proficient.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Continue to build this skill.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
I.5 SPEAKING
Mapped to:National Standards in Foreign LanguageEducation: Standard 1.3: Presentation
Measures & Findings
Auralog pre and post-test - FrenchCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: TellMeMore is a software programwith built-in voice recognition that measures oral andaural comprehension as well as grammar, culture, andreading skills. This is produced by the company Auralog.
Target: Incoming first-year students are expected toscore between 1.0 and 1.6 on the 10-point scale. At theend of the first year they should score between 2.0-2.6.Incoming second-year students are expected to performbetween 2.0-2.6. At the end of the second year theyshould score between 3.0-3.6.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This was administeredat the beginning of the first and second-year coursesand at the end of the first and second-year sequences.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. SturzerActing Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:Auralog scores correlated to EU standards (Microsoft
Word)
Findings for Auralog pre and post-test - French
Summary of Findings: The findings at this introductorylevel are as expected. The lowest scores coming inspent less time working in the software but, due toclassroom instruction, still made the greatest gains.Those with the highest incoming scores yielded thelowest gains because language acquisition slows as thematerial gets more difficult. The two groups in themiddle also performed as expected in that the groupthat consistently worked harder, as measured by time inthe software, made greater strides than the group thatworked less. Overall, increases in gain diminished asscores increased, reflecting the increasing difficulty ofthe material.As an absolute measure of progress, students met ourexpectations.At the second year level, lower performing studentsspent substantially more time in the software and mademore substantial improvement. It must be noted thatthose scoring a 1, simply did not engage with theinstrument, so improvements at the lowest level aresuspect and those with 1s should have been discountedin the measures.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Since there is no remarkabledifference in gain between groups that worked more, asmeasured in time, from those who worked less, we
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
11 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
conclude that the software provides little added valuewhen measured against time on task.At the intermediate level, supplemental work did seemto yield better results.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:Pre and Post test in Auralog for FREN 211-212 (Word
Document (Open XML))Pre and Post test results in Auralog FREN
101-102 (Word Document (Open XML))
End of Course Oral Exams or SOPI - SpanishCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: End of course oral exams or theSOPI, (Simulated Oral Proficiency Interview), are used toassess speaking proficiency and/or mastery of coursespeaking objectives. All tests are recorded in instructorGradebook. 311/312 exams are recorded on tapesmaintained in the department.
Target: By the end of elementary Spanish students willbe introduced to this task and can perform at the novielevel. 85% of students in Spanish 101, 102, and 211 willreceive grades of 70% or better on end of course oralexams. By the end of intermediate Spanish (212), 85%of students will perform at the Novice High orIntermediate Low level. After completing both Spanish311 and 312 (the courses may be taken in any order),85% of students perform at the intermediate low levelor higher.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Students areadministered oral exams by their instructors at the endof Spanish 101, 102, 211. At the end of 212, 311, and312, students will receive an SOPI.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.,Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:Oral interview Spanish 101 (Microsoft Word)Here are the guidelines for the oral interview along with arubric.
Findings for End of Course Oral Exams or SOPI -Spanish
Summary of Findings: There were no SOPI findings forSpanish 212 and 312, because of new instructors with alack of training. However, end of course oral examsindicate that at least 85% of students are scored 70%or better on end of course exams in Spanish 101, 102,211, 212, 311, and 312 courses.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Training for Spanish 211, 212, 311,312 instructors.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
I Can surveyOther level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Students were asked what theycan do in the target language across the first andsecond year courses.
Target: Students will be 75% proficient at stated goal.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Throughout the2008-2009 year at the first and second year level, asadministered by students of the Psychology dept andsupervised by a professor in the Psychology Dept.
Findings for I Can survey
Summary of Findings: Students felt they were about55% proficient at this by the end of the second year.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Continue to build this skill.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
12 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia Sturzer, Ph.D.Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Survey administered across the first and second yearlanguage sequence.
I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Results of student survey 2008-2009.
SOPI Test (Simulated Oral ProficiencyInterview) - FrenchCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: This test is used by governmentagencies and by the American Council on the Teaching ofForeign Languages (ACTFL) to assess speakingproficiency in a target language. The test is recordedand assessed by instructors who have been trained inevaluation by this method.
It assesses speaking ability from Novice throughSuperior. Descriptions of the various levels are attached.
Target: By the end of the intermediate conversationcourse (FREN/SPAN 212) students should attain a NoviceHigh-Intermediate Low rating.
By the end of the composition-conversation course(FREN 312/SPAN 312) students should attainIntermediate Low - High rating.
Implementation Plan (timeline): The test isadministered at the conclusion of FREN or SPAN 212 and312 respectively.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:SOPI Proficiency Ratings from ACTFL (Adobe Acrobat
Document)
Findings for SOPI Test (Simulated Oral ProficiencyInterview) - French
Summary of Findings: At the end of the second year inFrench, 7% of students scored at the Novice Mid level,14% at the Intermediate Low level, 29% IntermediateMid and 50% at Intermediate High.
Therefore, 93% met our goal of NoviceHigh-Intermediate Low at the conclusion of thesecond-year French course (French 212).
At the end of the French 312 course (Composition andConversation), 14% scored at the Intermediate Lowlevel, 57% at the Intermediate Mid level, 14% atIntermediate High, and 14% at the Advanced level.
Therefore 100% met our standard.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : We recommend that the Outcomelevel for second-year French should be raised toperformance at the Intermediate Low level.
We recommend that the Outcome level for third-yearFrench be raised to the Intermediate Mid level.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
II.1 LISTENING
Mapped to:National Standards in Foreign LanguageEducation: Standard 1.1: Conversations
Measures & Findings
Auralog pre and post-test - FrenchCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: TellMeMore is a software programwith built-in voice recognition that measures oral andaural comprehension as well as grammar, culture, andreading skills. This is produced by the company Auralog.
Target: Incoming first-year students are expected toscore between 1.0 and 1.6 on the 10-point scale. At theend of the first year they should score between 2.0-2.6.Incoming second-year students are expected to performbetween 2.0-2.6. At the end of the second year theyshould score between 3.0-3.6.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This was administered
Findings for Auralog pre and post-test - French
Summary of Findings: The findings at this introductorylevel are as expected. The lowest scores coming inspent less time working in the software but, due toclassroom instruction, still made the greatest gains.Those with the highest incoming scores yielded thelowest gains because language acquisition slows as thematerial gets more difficult. The two groups in themiddle also performed as expected in that the groupthat consistently worked harder, as measured by time inthe software, made greater strides than the group thatworked less. Overall, increases in gain diminished asscores increased, reflecting the increasing difficulty of
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
13 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
at the beginning of the first and second-year coursesand at the end of the first and second-year sequences.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. SturzerActing Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:Auralog scores correlated to EU standards (Microsoft
Word)
the material.As an absolute measure of progress, students met ourexpectations.At the second year level, lower performing studentsspent substantially more time in the software and mademore substantial improvement. It must be noted thatthose scoring a 1, simply did not engage with theinstrument, so improvements at the lowest level aresuspect and those with 1s should have been discountedin the measures.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Since there is no remarkabledifference in gain between groups that worked more, asmeasured in time, from those who worked less, weconclude that the software provides little added valuewhen measured against time on task.At the intermediate level, supplemental work did seemto yield better results.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:Pre and Post test in Auralog for FREN 211-212 (Word
Document (Open XML))Pre and Post test results in Auralog FREN
101-102 (Word Document (Open XML))
Exam - Listening Component SpanishCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Each exam of Spanish 101, 102,211, and 212, including the final exam has a listeningcomprehension component.
Target: 85% of students will complete 70% of thesections correctly.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Each exam, includingthe final exam, of Spanish 101, 102, 211, and 212 has alistening comprehension component.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.,Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:Final Exam Fall 2008.doc (Microsoft Word)
Spanish 102 Final Exam 2009a.doc (Microsoft Word)
Findings for Exam - Listening Component Spanish
Summary of Findings: In listening assessment, arandom sample of 3 sections of Spanish 101 and 102exams in 2008-09 indicated that 67% of Spanish 101and 102 met the standard of 70% correct. However, 80%of students on the 101 exams met the standard of 70%correct. Poor scores on the 102 exam were probably theresult of combining listening comprehension with writingskills. In Spanish 212 listening comprehension scores asmeasured by Auralog in 2008 and 2009 indicate that85% and 83% respectively achieved the level ofintermediate or above, very near to department goals of85%. In Spanish 312 in 2008 and 2009, 100% studentsscored intermediate or better, with 80% and 67%respectively scoring intermediate high or advanced.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Test listening comprehension onfirst and second year courses separately withoutcombining with writing.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
I Can surveyOther level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Students were asked what theycan do in the target language across the first and
Findings for I Can survey
Summary of Findings: Whether listening to news orconversing with a native, students felt that they were
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
14 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
second year courses.
Target: Students will be 75% proficient at stated goal.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Throughout the2008-2009 year at the first and second year level, asadministered by students of the Psychology dept andsupervised by a professor in the Psychology Dept.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia Sturzer, Ph.D.Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Survey administered across the first and second yearlanguage sequence.
25% proficient at this goal.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Continue to build this skill.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Results of student survey 2008-2009.
Immersion Instruction in SpanishCourse level; Indirect - Other
Details/Description: Spanish 211 and 212 are taughtprimarily in Spanish, with the occasional use of Englishfor more complex grammar points. 300/400-level Spanishcourses are taught entirely in Spanish.
Target: Spanish 211/212, 311, 312, 321, 322, 323, 325,400-level courses.
Implementation Plan (timeline): In Spanish 211/212most instruction is in Spanish. In 300-400 classes, allinstruction is in Spanish.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.,Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Immersion Instruction in Spanish
Summary of Findings: There is no exam for this;however this practice is in place.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Listening Comprehension ExercisesCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Students complete on-lineworkbook which accompanies textbooks. Students in 101and 102 use the Quia program for Puntos en Breve,while those in 211 and 212 used a hardcoverworkbook/lab manual with Entre Nosotros.
Target: 85% of Students will successfully complete 70%of listening activities.
Implementation Plan (timeline): All Spanish 101, 102,211, and 212 students complete listeningcomprehension exercises as part of their on-lineworkbook and lab manual.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia Sturzer, Ph.D.Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Listening Comprehension Exercises
Summary of Findings: This area is not trackedseparately.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Spanish Film SeriesInstitution level; Indirect - Other
Details/Description: The Department sponsors aSpanish film series, which students and the communitycan attend.
Findings for Spanish Film Series
Summary of Findings: This area is not tracked.
Target Achievement: Met
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
15 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
Target: The community, Spanish students, other UTCstudents.
Implementation Plan (timeline): During the Fall andSpring Semester the Department of Foreign Languagesand Literatures hosts the Film Series which is open tothe public. Typically 3-4 films are shown each semester.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.,Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:Spanish Film series Fall 2008 (Microsoft Word)
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Video Comprehension Measure - FrenchCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Students screen videos in thetarget language and answer comprehension questions invarious formats.
Target: A minimum 75% comprehension rate.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This will beimplemented across our curriculum in 200, 300 and400-level courses.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. Sturzer
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Video Comprehension Measure -French
Summary of Findings: We have no findings to report atthis time because video comprehension was not trackedas a separate assessment tool for purposes of thismeasure for either the 200 or 300 level courses.
Target Achievement:
Recommendations : We will attempt to track videocomprehension scores separately for purposes ofassessment.
Notes : We are unable to judge at this time whether thetarget was achieved.
Substantiating Evidence:
II.2 LISTENING
Mapped to:National Standards in Foreign LanguageEducation: Standard 1.2: Written & Spoken
Measures & Findings
Auralog pre and post-test - FrenchCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: TellMeMore is a software programwith built-in voice recognition that measures oral andaural comprehension as well as grammar, culture, andreading skills. This is produced by the company Auralog.
Target: Incoming first-year students are expected toscore between 1.0 and 1.6 on the 10-point scale. At theend of the first year they should score between 2.0-2.6.Incoming second-year students are expected to performbetween 2.0-2.6. At the end of the second year theyshould score between 3.0-3.6.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This was administeredat the beginning of the first and second-year coursesand at the end of the first and second-year sequences.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. SturzerActing Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:Auralog scores correlated to EU standards (Microsoft
Word)
Findings for Auralog pre and post-test - French
Summary of Findings: The findings at this introductorylevel are as expected. The lowest scores coming inspent less time working in the software but, due toclassroom instruction, still made the greatest gains.Those with the highest incoming scores yielded thelowest gains because language acquisition slows as thematerial gets more difficult. The two groups in themiddle also performed as expected in that the groupthat consistently worked harder, as measured by time inthe software, made greater strides than the group thatworked less. Overall, increases in gain diminished asscores increased, reflecting the increasing difficulty ofthe material.As an absolute measure of progress, students met ourexpectations.At the second year level, lower performing studentsspent substantially more time in the software and mademore substantial improvement. It must be noted thatthose scoring a 1, simply did not engage with theinstrument, so improvements at the lowest level aresuspect and those with 1s should have been discounted
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
16 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
in the measures.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Since there is no remarkabledifference in gain between groups that worked more, asmeasured in time, from those who worked less, weconclude that the software provides little added valuewhen measured against time on task.At the intermediate level, supplemental work did seemto yield better results.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:Pre and Post test in Auralog for FREN 211-212 (Word
Document (Open XML))Pre and Post test results in Auralog FREN
101-102 (Word Document (Open XML))
Exam - Listening Component SpanishCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Each exam of Spanish 101, 102,211, and 212, including the final exam has a listeningcomprehension component.
Target: 80% of students will complete 70% of thesections correctly.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Each exam, includingthe final exam, of Spanish 101, 102, 211, and 212 has alistening comprehension component.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.,Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:Final Exam Fall 2008.doc (Microsoft Word)
Spanish 102 Final Exam 2009a.doc (Microsoft Word)
Findings for Exam - Listening Component Spanish
Summary of Findings: In listening assessment, arandom sample of 3 sections of Spanish 101 and 102exams in 2008-09 indicated that 67% of Spanish 101and 102 met the standard of 70% correct. However,80% of students on the 101 exams met the standard of70% correct. Poor scores on the 102 exam were probablythe result of combining listening comprehension withwriting skills. In Spanish 212 listening comprehensionscores as measured by Auralog in 2008 and 2009indicate that 85% and 83% respectively achieved thelevel of intermediate or above, very near to departmentgoals of 85%. In Spanish 312 in 2008 and 2009, 100%students scored intermediate or better, with 80% and67% respectively scoring intermediate high or advanced.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Test listening comprehensionseparately on first and second year exams.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
I Can surveyOther level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Students were asked what theycan do in the target language across the first andsecond year courses.
Target: Students will be 75% proficient at stated goal.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Throughout the2008-2009 year at the first and second year level, asadministered by students of the Psychology dept andsupervised by a professor in the Psychology Dept.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia Sturzer, Ph.D.Acting Dept. Head
Findings for I Can survey
Summary of Findings: 70% felt that they could answera direct question but only 20% felt that they couldfunction in class without English.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Continue to build these skills.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Results of student survey 2008-2009.
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
17 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
Supporting Attachments:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Survey administered across the first and second yearlanguage sequence.
Listening Comprehension ExercisesCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Students complete on-lineworkbook which accompanies textbooks. Students in 101and 102 use the Quia program for Puntos en Breve,while those in 211 and 212 used a hardcoverworkbook/lab manual with Entre Nosotros.
Target: 85% of students will successfully complete 70%of listening activities.
Implementation Plan (timeline): All Spanish 101, 102,211, and 212 students complete listeningcomprehension exercises as part of their on-line or hardcopy workbook and lab manual.
Key/Responsible Personnel:
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Listening Comprehension Exercises
Summary of Findings: This area is not trackedseparately (it is part of the workbook grade).
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Oral questions; aural comprehension tasks -FrenchCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Students will be asked to performa variety of tasks, including questions to which theyrespond orally or in writing, listening comprehensionexercises, and demonstrate ability to follow directions.
Target: A minimum of 75% of students are able tocomplete tasks successfully.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This will beimplemented across our curriculum in 200, 300 and 400level courses.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. Sturzer
Supporting Attachments:Sample exam-French 311-Composition &
Conversation (Microsoft Word)This covers the first two chapters of the book. LesFrancais, which assesses oral/aural comprehension, readingcomprehension, cultural comparisons, and writing shortessays.
sample test FREN 101 (Microsoft Word)First page of test is exercises where students must listenand follow directions, either noting facts or followingdirections on a map.
Findings for Oral questions; aural comprehensiontasks - French
Summary of Findings: In both the 200 and 300 levelcourses, this task was repeatedly practiced andassessed in the form of homework and classroomexercises as well as incorporated into testing. However,no separate tracking occurred.
Target Achievement:
Recommendations : We will attempt to track thesetasks on a more consistent basis.
Notes : We are unable to assess these tasks at thistime.
Substantiating Evidence:
II.3 LISTENING
Mapped to:
Measures & Findings
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
18 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
National Standards in Foreign LanguageEducation: Standard 1.2: Written & Spoken
Auralog pre and post-test - FrenchCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: TellMeMore is a software programwith built-in voice recognition that measures oral andaural comprehension as well as grammar, culture, andreading skills. This is produced by the company Auralog.
Target: Incoming first-year students are expected toscore between 1.0 and 1.6 on the 10-point scale. At theend of the first year they should score between 2.0-2.6.Incoming second-year students are expected to performbetween 2.0-2.6. At the end of the second year theyshould score between 3.0-3.6.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This was administeredat the beginning of the first and second-year coursesand at the end of the first and second-year sequences.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. SturzerActing Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:Auralog scores correlated to EU standards (Microsoft
Word)
Findings for Auralog pre and post-test - French
Summary of Findings: The findings at this introductorylevel are as expected. The lowest scores coming inspent less time working in the software but, due toclassroom instruction, still made the greatest gains.Those with the highest incoming scores yielded thelowest gains because language acquisition slows as thematerial gets more difficult. The two groups in themiddle also performed as expected in that the groupthat consistently worked harder, as measured by time inthe software, made greater strides than the group thatworked less. Overall, increases in gain diminished asscores increased, reflecting the increasing difficulty ofthe material.As an absolute measure of progress, students met ourexpectations.At the second year level, lower performing studentsspent substantially more time in the software and mademore substantial improvement. It must be noted thatthose scoring a 1, simply did not engage with theinstrument, so improvements at the lowest level aresuspect and those with 1s should have been discountedin the measures.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Since there is no remarkabledifference in gain between groups that worked more, asmeasured in time, from those who worked less, weconclude that the software provides little added valuewhen measured against time on task.At the intermediate level, supplemental work did seemto yield better results.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:Pre and Post test in Auralog for FREN 211-212 (Word
Document (Open XML))Pre and Post test results in Auralog FREN
101-102 (Word Document (Open XML))
Dictations and cloze exercises - FrenchCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Students are given dictations andlistening comprehension exercises that requirecompletion of vocabulary, grammar or phrases.
Target: A minimum of 75% of students will successfullycomplete.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This will beimplemented across our curriculum in our 200, 300 and400 level courses.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. Sturzer
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Dictations and cloze exercises -French
Summary of Findings: At the 300 level, based on smallsample of separate dictations, 71% percent performedat or above the expected level. In addition, every examincludes an oral comprehension and/or dictation whichwere not scored separately for purposes of thisassessment.
At the 200 level, no separate dictations were given.However, every exam included an oral comprehensionand/or dictation which were not scored separately forpurposes of this assessment.
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
19 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
sample exam FREN 401 Francophone Lit (MicrosoftWord)
sample exam FREN211 (Microsoft Word)First exercise, as all first exercises on exams in FREN 211and 212, is a dictation exercise. These tests follow up onpractice cloze exercises performed during the 3rd and 4thlesson of every chapter where students complete cloze ofrecorded dialogues.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : We will begin to track oralcomponents separately for the purpose of outcomesassessment in both the 200 and 300 level courses.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Exam - Listening Component SpanishCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Each exam of Spanish 101, 102,211, and 212, including the final exam, has a listeningcomprehension component.
Target: 80% of students will complete 70% of thesections correctly.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Each exam, includingthe final exam, of Spanish 101, 102, 211, and 212 has alistening comprehension component.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.,Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:Exam Final Fall 08 Spanish 101 (Microsoft Word)
Final exam Spring 102 Spanish 102 (Microsoft Word)
Findings for Exam - Listening Component Spanish
Summary of Findings: In listening assessment, arandom sample of 3 sections of Spanish 101 and 102exams in 2008-09 indicated that 67% of Spanish 101and 102 met the standard of 70% correct. However,80% of students on the 101 exams met the standard of70% correct. Poor scores on the 102 exam were probablythe result of combining listening comprehension withwriting skills. In Spanish 212 listening comprehensionscores as measured by Auralog in 2008 and 2009indicate that 85% and 83% respectively achieved thelevel of intermediate or above, very near to departmentgoals of 85%. In Spanish 312 in 2008 and 2009, 100%students scored intermediate or better, with 80% and67% respectively scoring intermediate high or advanced.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Do not combine listeningcomprehension with writing.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
I Can surveyOther level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Students were asked what theycan do in the target language across the first andsecond year courses.
Target: Students will be 75% proficient at stated goal.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Throughout the2008-2009 year at the first and second year level, asadministered by students of the Psychology dept andsupervised by a professor in the Psychology Dept.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia Sturzer, Ph.D.Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Survey administered across the first and second yearlanguage sequence.
Findings for I Can survey
Summary of Findings: Only 16% of students felt theycould follow a foreign language film without subtitles.
Target Achievement:
Recommendations : Continue to build this skill.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Results of student survey 2008-2009.
Listening Comprehension Exercises - SpanishCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Students complete on-line
Findings for Listening Comprehension Exercises -Spanish
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
20 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
workbook which accompanies textbooks. Students in 101and 102 use the Quia program for Puntos en Breve,while those in 211 and 212 used a hardcoverworkbook/lab manual with Entre Nosotros..
Target: 85% of students will successfully complete 70%of listening activities.
Implementation Plan (timeline): All Spanish 101, 102,211, and 212 students complete listeningcomprehension exercises as part of their workbook andlab manual.
Key/Responsible Personnel:
Supporting Attachments:
Summary of Findings: This area is not trackedseparately from the workbook/lab manual grade.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Video Comprehension Measure - FrenchCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Students screen videos in thetarget language and answer comprehension questions invarious formats.
Target: A minimum 75% comprehension rate.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This will beimplemented across our curriculum in 200, 300 and400-level courses.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. Sturzer
Supporting Attachments:Paris Video Questions-French 311-Composition and
Conversation (Microsoft Word)
No Findings Added to Video ComprehensionMeasure - French
II.4 LISTENING
Mapped to:National Standards in Foreign LanguageEducation: Standard 2.2: Products & Perspectives
Measures & Findings
Exam - Listening Component SpanishCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Each exam of Spanish 101, 102,211, and 212, including the final exam has a listeningcomprehension component.
Target: 80% of students will complete 70% of thesections correctly.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Each exam, includingthe final exam, of Spanish 101, 102, 211, and 212 has alistening comprehension component.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.,Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:Final Exam Fall 2008 Spanish 101 (Microsoft Word)
Final exam Spring 2009 Spanish 102 (Microsoft Word)
Findings for Exam - Listening Component Spanish
Summary of Findings: In listening assessment, arandom sample of 3 sections of Spanish 101 and 102exams in 2008-09 indicated that 67% of Spanish 101and 102 met the standard of 70% correct. However, 80%of students on the 101 exams met the standard of 70%correct. Poor scores on the 102 exam were probably theresult of combining listening comprehension with writingskills. In Spanish 212 listening comprehension scores asmeasured by Auralog in 2008 and 2009 indicate that85% and 83% respectively achieved the level ofintermediate or above, very near to department goals of85%. In Spanish 312 in 2008 and 2009, 100% studentsscored intermediate or better, with 80% and 67%respectively scoring intermediate high or advanced.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Do not combinen listeningcomprehension and writing components.
Notes :
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
21 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
Substantiating Evidence:
I Can surveyOther level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Students were asked what theycan do in the target language across the first andsecond year courses.
Target: Students will be 75% proficient at stated goal.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Throughout the2008-2009 year at the first and second year level, asadministered by students of the Psychology dept andsupervised by a professor in the Psychology Dept.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia Sturzer, Ph.D.Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Survey administered across the first and second yearlanguage sequence.
Findings for I Can survey
Summary of Findings: Only 16% felt they could follow aforeign language film without subtitles.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Strong start for this level as it isnot mastered until a higher level.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Results of student survey 2008-2009.
Listening Comprehension Exercises - SpanishCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Students complete on-lineworkbook which accompanies textbooks. Students in 101and 102 use the Quia program for Puntos en Breve,while those in 211 and 212 used a hard copyworkbook/lab manual with Entre Nosotros.
Target: 85% of students will successfully complete 70%of listening activities.
Implementation Plan (timeline): All Spanish 101, 102,211, and 212 students complete listeningcomprehension exercises as part of their workbook andlab manual.
Key/Responsible Personnel:
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Listening Comprehension Exercises -Spanish
Summary of Findings: This area was not trackedseparately.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Spanish 499 Spanish Film ClassCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Spanish 499 Film Class taughtSpanish film, literature, and culture relating to theSpanish Civil War.
Target: 85% of select Spanish majors and minors willreceive 80% or better on Final Exam.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Students who havecompleted Spanish 311, 312, 321, and 322 may take thiscourse to meet graduation requirements of two 400-levelcourses for the major, or 4 300-400 level courses for theminor.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.,Acting Department Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Spanish 499 Spanish Film Class
Summary of Findings: This measure did not tracklistening comprehension separately; however, more than85% of students received 80% or better or midterm andfinal exams.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes : Records maintained in gradebook.
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
22 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
Examen Final 499 Summer 2009.doc (Microsoft Word)
Spanish 499 SU2099 Midterm Exam.doc (MicrosoftWord)
Televised reports - FrenchCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Students watch televised reportsin the target language and perform an assessment taskbased on the content.
Target: A minimum of 75% of students are able toperform at this level.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This measure will beimplemented only in the 300 and 400 level courses.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. Sturzer
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Televised reports - French
Summary of Findings: This task is not introduced untilthe 300 level courses. However, no separate trackingsystem was used to assess this skill. It wasincorporated into the course work and testing.
Target Achievement:
Recommendations : For the 300 level courses, we willattempt to more systematically track track this skill inthe future.
Notes : We were unable to track this skill.
Substantiating Evidence:
Video Comprehension Measure - FrenchCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Students screen videos in thetarget language and answer comprehension questions invarious formats.
Target: A minimum 75% comprehension rate.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This will beimplemented across our curriculum in 200, 300 and400-level courses.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. Sturzer
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Video Comprehension Measure -French
Summary of Findings: This task is not introduced untilthe 300 level courses. However, no separate trackingsystem was used to assess this skill. It wasincorporated into the course work and testing.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : For the 300 level courses, we willattempt to more systematically track track this skill inthe future.
Notes : We were unable to track this skill.
Substantiating Evidence:
III.1 READING
Mapped to:National Standards in Foreign LanguageEducation: Standard 1.2: Written & Spoken
Measures & Findings
Auralog pre and post-test - FrenchCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: TellMeMore is a software programwith built-in voice recognition that measures oral andaural comprehension as well as grammar, culture, andreading skills. This is produced by the company Auralog.
Target: Incoming first-year students are expected toscore between 1.0 and 1.6 on the 10-point scale. At theend of the first year they should score between 2.0-2.6.Incoming second-year students are expected to performbetween 2.0-2.6. At the end of the second year theyshould score between 3.0-3.6.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This was administeredat the beginning of the first and second-year coursesand at the end of the first and second-year sequences.
Findings for Auralog pre and post-test - French
Summary of Findings: The findings at this introductorylevel are as expected. The lowest scores coming inspent less time working in the software but, due toclassroom instruction, still made the greatest gains.Those with the highest incoming scores yielded thelowest gains because language acquisition slows as thematerial gets more difficult. The two groups in themiddle also performed as expected in that the groupthat consistently worked harder, as measured by time inthe software, made greater strides than the group thatworked less. Overall, increases in gain diminished asscores increased, reflecting the increasing difficulty ofthe material.As an absolute measure of progress, students met our
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
23 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. SturzerActing Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:Auralog scores correlated to EU standards (Microsoft
Word)
expectations.At the second year level, lower performing studentsspent substantially more time in the software and mademore substantial improvement. It must be noted thatthose scoring a 1, simply did not engage with theinstrument, so improvements at the lowest level aresuspect and those with 1s should have been discountedin the measures.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Since there is no remarkabledifference in gain between groups that worked more, asmeasured in time, from those who worked less, weconclude that the software provides little added valuewhen measured against time on task.At the intermediate level, supplemental work did seemto yield better results.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:Pre and Post test in Auralog for FREN 211-212 (Word
Document (Open XML))Pre and Post test results in Auralog FREN
101-102 (Word Document (Open XML))
Exam - Reading Comprehension Component -SpanishCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Each Exam in Spanish 101, 102,211, and 212, includes a reading comprehension section.
Target: Students will successfully complete 70% ofreading comprehension section of exams.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Students in Spanish101, 102, 211, and 212 are administered a readingcomprehension section in each exam, including the finalexam.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. SturzerActing Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:Final exam Spanish 101 (Microsoft Word)
Final exam Spring 2009 Spanish 102 (Microsoft Word)
Findings for Exam - Reading ComprehensionComponent - Spanish
Summary of Findings: Outcomes for reading in Spanish212 and 312 were identical to those for listening levels,achieving departmental goals for each level. Readingscores from a random sample of 101 and 102 finalexams form 2008-2009 resulted in 70% of studentsscored 70% or better, indicative of a need for someimprovement. However, in general, elementaryinstructors felt that students scored well on readingcomprehension sections of exams, although separatereading scores were not maintained.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
I Can surveyOther level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Students were asked what theycan do in the target language across the first andsecond year courses.
Target: Students will be 75% proficient at stated goal.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Throughout the2008-2009 year at the first and second year level, asadministered by students of the Psychology dept andsupervised by a professor in the Psychology Dept.
Findings for I Can survey
Summary of Findings: 76% felt they could understand amagazine or newspaper story.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Continue to build this skill.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
24 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia Sturzer, Ph.D.Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Survey administered across the first and second yearlanguage sequence.
I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Results of student survey 2008-2009.
Reading comprehension - FrenchCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Students are exposed to a varietyof written realia in the target language, consisting ofarticles, web sites, newspapers, brochures, menus, etc.and asked to demonstrate comprehension through avariety of measures.
Target: A minimum of 75% of students are able toperform this task at their level.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This measure isimplemented from the elementary to the advanced levelin the target language.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. Sturzer
Supporting Attachments:Sample article for French 312-Conversation and
Comprehension (Adobe Acrobat Document)The article is taken from a French newspaper. Studentsread articles for comprehension and report to the class inboth oral and written form.
vocabulary exercise FREN 323 French Culture &Civilzation (Microsoft Word)
Students follow links to read websites published by Frenchmuseums on sites and artifacts from prehistoric to moderntimes for class discussion. Short vocabulary quizzes testcomprehension prior to discussion in class.
Findings for Reading comprehension - French
Summary of Findings: At the 200 level, studentsresearched and debated contemporary issues in Frenchand 100% scored at the expected level of 75%comprehension rate.
At the 300 level, students researched articles oncontemporary issues and 100% demonstrated 85%comprehension rate. In addition, students presentedsummaries of readings on French culture and 100%demonstrated 85% comprehension rate.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : We will track targeted skills moresystematically.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
III.2 READING
Mapped to:National Standards in Foreign LanguageEducation: Standard 3.2: Distinctive Viewpoints
Measures & Findings
Textual Analysis - FrenchCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Students demonstrate nuancedcomprehension of literary and non-literary texts in avariety of genres.
Target: A minimum of 85% of students can perform atthis level.
Implementation Plan (timeline): These skills areintroduced at the 200 level and systematically assessedat the 300 and 400 levels.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. Sturzer
Supporting Attachments:Sample exam FREN 332 Introduction to Literature
Findings for Textual Analysis - French
Summary of Findings: In the 300 level in two separateliterature courses, 72% of students demonstrated an85% comprehension rate of the nuances in fictional andnon-fictional works.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : We will work to improve student'sexpression of their comprehension rate since we believetheir comprehension exceeded their ability to expresstheir comprehension in the target language.
Notes : Language learning is inclusive of all skills thatare assessed. Therefore, it is difficult to separate theskills in any one assessment.
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
25 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
1800-present (Microsoft Word)Students must demonstrate their analytical skills inresponding to synthetic, genre based and thematicquestions on literary texts under study.
Substantiating Evidence:
Textual Analysis - SpanishCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Students in literature classes(Spanish 331, 332, 400-level) will read and analyzeliterature.
Target: 85% of students in upperdivision literature andcultural classes will acheive 70% or better on examsrelating to textual analysis.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Upper division classes(with the exception of 322 and 323) will deal withtextual analysis in some regard.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.,Acting Department Head
Supporting Attachments:Spanish 499 Final (Microsoft Word)
Spanish 499 Mid Term (Microsoft Word)
Findings for Textual Analysis - Spanish
Summary of Findings: More than 85% of studentsreceived grades of 80% or better on midterm and finalexams.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes : Grades are maintained in gradebook.
Substantiating Evidence:
III.3 READING
Mapped to:National Standards in Foreign LanguageEducation: Standard 3.1: Knowledge of otherdisciplines
Measures & Findings
300 and 400 level Culture, Civilization, andLiterature ClassesCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Spanish students will be texted onmaterials they have read by midterm and final exams.
Target: 85% of Spanish majors and minors will score70% or better on midterm and final exams.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 300 and 400 levelliterature and civiliazation and culture classes.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.,Acting Department Head
Supporting Attachments:Chapter of Culture and Civilization Course and
Questions (Adobe Acrobat Document)Latin American Culture and Civilization Mid
Term (Microsoft Word)Spanish 499 Final Exam (Microsoft Word)
Findings for 300 and 400 level Culture,Civilization, and Literature Classes
Summary of Findings: More than 85% of studentsachieved grades of 80% or better on midterm and finalexams.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Technical/Professional Textual Analysis -FrenchCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Students must demonstratecomprehension of technical and complex texts in a
Findings for Technical/Professional TextualAnalysis - French
Summary of Findings: This skill was assessed in twoseparate 300 level classes. In the literature class, 72%
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
26 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
variety of genres from a variety of sources.
Target: A minimum of 85% of students are able toperform this task.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This task is introducedand reinforced in 300 level courses and mastered in 400level courses.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. Sturzer
Supporting Attachments:Paris, ville antique (Web Link)Sample link which forms the "textbook" for FREN 323Introduction to French Culture and Civilizaationhttp://www.paris.culture.fr/
understood complex literary analysis at an 85%comprehension rate. In the composition andconversation class, 100% of students understoodcomplex articles at an 85% level. In aggregate, we metour goal of 85% comprehension goal.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Sufficient data exists to assessthis skill.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
IV.1 WRITING
Mapped to:National Standards in Foreign LanguageEducation: Standard 5.1: Within & BeyondClassroom
Measures & Findings
Exams Spanish 101, 102, 211, 212, 311, 312Course level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Every exam of Spanish 101-212contains an open-ended writing assessment. Spanish311 and 312 are composition and conversation courses.
Target: 85% of students at all levels of 101, 102, 211,212, 311, and 312 will receive 70% or better on writingportion of their exams.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Spanish 101, 102,211, 212, 311, 312
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.,Acting Department Head
Supporting Attachments:Exam 1 Spanish 101 (Microsoft Word)
Exam 1 Spanish 211 (Microsoft Word)
Spanish 312 In-Class Essay (Microsoft Word)
Findings for Exams Spanish 101, 102, 211, 212,311, 312
Summary of Findings: This item is not trackedseparately in most cases. However, compositions ofSpanish 311 and 312 students are maintained in thedepartment office, which indicate that more than 85% ofstudents achieve scores of 80% or better on writtencompositions.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:Writing Outcome 312, 499 (Microsoft Word)
Writing Samples for advanced courses -FrenchCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: These samples demonstratewriting outcomes required for advanced level languagecourses (300-400 level). Students are allowed to correctand revise writing samples after input from peers andinstructors.
Target: At the 300 level, students should be able tomeet the writing outcomes as indicated in this documenta level understood by a sympathetic native speaker. Atthe 400 level, they should be able to meet the writingoutcomes at an advanced level as understood by anynative speaker.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Samples are gathered
Findings for Writing Samples for advanced courses- French
Summary of Findings: In the 300 level composition andconversation class, 100% of students met the goal of85% success in conveying personal information.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : The above statistics representessays that students have had an opportunity to correct.From a pedagogical standpoint, this reflects standardediting practices of any writing situation.
While writing skills are introduced in the secondsemester of the elementary sequence, it is not practicedin the 200 level courses. However, the latter stress
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
27 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
throughout the year for all courses that are taughtduring that academic year.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.Professor of FrenchActing Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:French 312-Syllabus for Composition and
Conversation- Essay writing (Microsoft Word)
conversation rather than writing skills.
Notes : Samples are on file in the Foreign Languageoffice in Brock 208.
Substantiating Evidence:
IV.2 WRITING
Mapped to:National Standards in Foreign LanguageEducation: Standard 3.2: Distinctive Viewpoints
Measures & Findings
Research Papers in Literature Classes beyond332Course level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Students in 300 and 400-levelclasses beyond 332 are routinely asked to completeresearch papers in Spanish according to the MLA style.
Target: 85% of students will receive 70% or better.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Students in coursesabove Spanish 332.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.,Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:Sample Syllabus (Microsoft Word)
Findings for Research Papers in Literature Classesbeyond 332
Summary of Findings: More than 85% of studentsachieve grade of 80% or better on final research papers.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:499 Syllabus Summer 2008.doc (Microsoft Word)
Writing Outcomes for 499 and 312.doc (MicrosoftWord)
Writing Samples for advanced courses-FrenchCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: These samples demonstratewriting outcomes required for advanced level languagecourses (300-400 level). Students are allowed to correctand revise writing samples after input from peers andinstructors.
Target: At the 300 level, students should be able tomeet the writing outcomes as indicated in this documenta level understood by a sympathetic native speaker. Atthe 400 level, they should be able to meet the writingoutcomes at an advanced level as understood by anynative speaker.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Samples are gatheredthroughout the year for all courses that are taughtduring that academic year.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.Professor of FrenchActing Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:Syllabus FREN 332 (Microsoft Word)The portion on "les comptes" signals students to research,read, summarize and integrate materials from articles from
Findings for Writing Samples for advancedcourses-French
Summary of Findings: In a 300 level literature class,71% of students achieved a 75% ability to compose aresearch paper integrating primary and secondarysources. In a 400 level literature class, 100%demonstrated this ability.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : It is evident that while studentshave difficulty with this skill initially, ultimately theymaster it.
Notes : Student samples are on file in the ForeignLanguage office in Brock Hall 208.
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
28 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
reputable journals in French on the topic of their choice fortheir paper. Students attend a short seminar with aresearch librarian to learn how to use the MLA databaseand retrieve articles from those citations before beginningtheir research.
syllabus FREN 413 (Microsoft Word)Syllabus outlines that must write 3 shorter (1000 word)research papers in French on the books read and discussedin class. Each paper must make use of at least 2 reputablejournal articles.
IV.3 WRITING
Mapped to:National Standards in Foreign LanguageEducation: Standard 2.1: Practices & Perspectives
Measures & Findings
300- and 400-level Spanish Classes (except321, 322)Course level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Students write papers or answerquestions on exams that relate directly to literary,cultural, personal, and socio-political topics.
Target: 85% of students will score 70% or better onpapers and exams.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Students in mostupper division classes (except for 321, 322)
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.,Acting Department Head
Supporting Attachments:Latin American Culture Exam (Microsoft Word)
Spanish 312 Final Exam (Microsoft Word)
Spanish 499 Exam (Microsoft Word)
Findings for 300- and 400-level Spanish Classes(except 321, 322)
Summary of Findings: Over 85% of students receivedgrades of 80% or better on written papers and exams.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes : Exam grades are maintained in instrucors'gradebooks.
Substantiating Evidence:Writing Outcomes for 499 and 312.doc (Microsoft
Word)
Writing Samples for advanced courses-FrenchCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: These samples demonstratewriting outcomes required for advanced level languagecourses (300-400 level). Students are allowed to correctand revise writing samples after input from peers andinstructors.
Target: At the 300 level, students should be able tomeet the writing outcomes as indicated in this documenta level understood by a sympathetic native speaker. Atthe 400 level, they should be able to meet the writingoutcomes at an advanced level as understood by anynative speaker.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Samples are gatheredthroughout the year for all courses that are taughtduring that academic year.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.Professor of FrenchActing Dept. Head
Findings for Writing Samples for advancedcourses-French
Summary of Findings: At the 300 level, all of our examsincorporate this assessment skill. 85% of students intwo different classes demonstrated a 75% success rateat responding to complex questions.
The literature classes focus on assessing literary/culturalexpression, while composition/conversation classesfocus on assessing personal and socio-political topics.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes : Student samples are on file in the ForeignLanguage office in Brock Hall 208.
Substantiating Evidence:French 311 Examen (Microsoft Word)
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
29 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
Supporting Attachments:French 312-Final Exam (Composition) (Microsoft
Word)Sample exam FREN 332 Introduction to Literature
1800-present (Microsoft Word)As in all exams in this course, students must link textualexamples to themes and genre practices, contextualizingthem within the movement and period that they represent
This test is for the French 311 Composition andConversation Test, which includes oral and written sections.The topics are on comparative analysis between Frenchand American culture.
French 331 Examen (Microsoft Word)This is a test for French 331, the Intro. to French lit.course-Medieval period -18th century. It includes essaysand identification questions.
IV.4 WRITING
Mapped to:National Standards in Foreign LanguageEducation: Standard 1.2: Written & Spoken
Measures & Findings
Spanish Upper Division ClassesCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Students narrate a story.
Target: 85% of students can relate or summarize a realor fictional story.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Most upper divisionclasses.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.,Acting Head
Supporting Attachments:Spanish 312 Final (Microsoft Word)
No Findings Added to Spanish Upper DivisionClasses
Writing Samples for advanced courses-FrenchCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: These samples demonstratewriting outcomes required for advanced level languagecourses (300-400 level). Students are allowed to correctand revise writing samples after input from peers andinstructors.
Target: At the 300 level, students should be able tomeet the writing outcomes as indicated in thisdocument a level understood by a sympathetic nativespeaker. At the 400 level, they should be able to meetthe writing outcomes at an advanced level asunderstood by any native speaker.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Samples are gatheredthroughout the year for all courses that are taughtduring that academic year.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.Professor of FrenchActing Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:La premiere France (Microsoft Word)On this exam, students must follow the course of Frenchculture and civilization from pre-historic France to theCarolingian age, following a particular theme of theirchoosing.
Findings for Writing Samples for advancedcourses-French
Summary of Findings: This assessment measure isintroduced in the second semester of our 200 levelcourse and reinforced in the 300 levelcomposition/conversation course. By the 400 levelcourse, we take this skill for granted.
In the 300 level composition/conversation course, 100%of the students performed at an 85% success rate.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes : Student samples are available in the ForeignLanguage Office in Brock 208.
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
30 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
Sample exam FREN 211 Intermediate French forConversation (Microsoft Word)
In this exam students must recount a story in dialogueform (asking questions to draw out the story and thenresponding with pieces of the events and theircircumstances).
V.1 CULTURE
Mapped to:National Standards in Foreign LanguageEducation: Standard 4.1: Nature of Language
Measures & Findings
I Can surveyOther level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Students were asked what theycan do in the target language across the first andsecond year courses.
Target: Students will be 75% proficient at stated goal.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Throughout the2008-2009 year at the first and second year level, asadministered by students of the Psychology dept andsupervised by a professor in the Psychology Dept.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia Sturzer, Ph.D.Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Survey administered across the first and second yearlanguage sequence.
Findings for I Can survey
Summary of Findings: Overall results for this type ofknowledge student self-assessed at around 20-30%,depending upon phrasing.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Strong start for this level as it isnot mastered until a higher level.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Results of student survey 2008-2009.
Interplay between Language and Culture-FrenchCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Students provide written and oralanalysis in a variety of forms of the interplay betweenthe target language and culture.
Target: A minimum of 85% of students should be ableto perform this task.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This task is introducedat the elementary level, reinforced at the 200 and 300levels, and mastered at the 400 level.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. Sturzer
Supporting Attachments:Sample chapter quiz FREN 102 (Microsoft Word)Like most quizzes and exams at the introductory level,students must demonstrate their knowledge of grammarand vocabulary and tie it (here food and eating) to itsFrench cultural context, explaining the meaning of "lesplaisirs de la table."
Sample test French 312 Comp. andConversation (Adobe Acrobat Document)
This sample tests assesses student's understanding of the
Findings for Interplay between Language andCulture-French
Summary of Findings: At the 200 level, this outcomewas not disaggregated from class work and exam scores.
At the 300 level, the Composition and Conversationcourse (311-312) focuses on the relationship betweenlanguage and culture. We met our goal since at least85% of students passed the course with a B or better.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : In the future, we will disaggregatethis element from the other skills in the second year.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
31 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
interplay between language and culture.
Spanish 211, 212, 323, 325 CultureComponentCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Spanish and Latin AmericanCulture and Geography are tested on exams.
Target: 85% of students will score 70% or better.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Intermediate Spanishand Spanish 323 and 325.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.,Acting Department Head
Supporting Attachments:Spanish 211 Sample Exam (Microsoft Word)
Spanish 325 Exam (Microsoft Word)
Findings for Spanish 211, 212, 323, 325 CultureComponent
Summary of Findings: In the category of culturalcompetency, students exceeded expectations, with100% and 92% of students passing final exams for theculture courses of Spanish 323 or 325 with a grade of70% or better.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes : Grades are maintained in instructors'gradebooks.
Substantiating Evidence:
V.2 CULTURE
Mapped to:National Standards in Foreign LanguageEducation: Standard 4.2: Concept of Culture
Measures & Findings
Comprehension of Cultural Determinants-FrenchCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Students analyze cultural markersin a variety of forms, recognizing historical and socio-political contingencies.
Target: A minimum of 85% of students are able toperform at this level.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This measure isimplemented at the elementary level and continues inthe 200, 300 and 400 level courses.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. Sturzer
Supporting Attachments:Exam 2 from Introduction to France (Microsoft Word)This is the second exam of the Introduction to Francecourse, FREN 323, covering from the Normand invasions tothe Renaissance.
Findings for Comprehension of CulturalDeterminants-French
Summary of Findings: We did not assess this skill in2008-09 because the culture course was not taught.
Target Achievement:
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
I Can surveyOther level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Students were asked what theycan do in the target language across the first andsecond year courses.
Target: Students will be 75% proficient at stated goal.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Throughout the2008-2009 year at the first and second year level, asadministered by students of the Psychology dept andsupervised by a professor in the Psychology Dept.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia Sturzer, Ph.D.
Findings for I Can survey
Summary of Findings: AT the first and second year,students felt about 35% proficient at this skill.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Strong start for this level as it isnot mastered until a higher level.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
32 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Survey administered across the first and second yearlanguage sequence.
I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Results of student survey 2008-2009.
Intermediate Spanish and Culture andCivilization CoursesCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Students will understand andexpress the markers that distinguish a foreign Culture
Target: 85% of students will achieve scores of 70% orbetter on exams.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Intermediate andadvanced Spanish courses.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.,Acting Department Head
Supporting Attachments:Sample 211 Exam (Microsoft Word)
Sample Latin American Culture and CivilizationExam (Microsoft Word)
Findings for Intermediate Spanish and Culture andCivilization Courses
Summary of Findings: Culture grades for 211 and 212are not tracked separately. In Spanish 323 and 325,students exceeded expectations, with 100% and 92% ofstudents passing final exams with 70% or better.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Raise expectations from 85% with70% to 85% of students scoring 80% or better.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
V.3 CULTURE
Mapped to:National Standards in Foreign LanguageEducation: Standard 2.2: Products & Perspectives
Measures & Findings
Auralog pre and post-testCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: TellMeMore is a software programwith built-in voice recognition that measures oral andaural comprehension as well as grammar, culture, andreading skills. This is produced by the company Auralog.
Target: Incoming first-year students are expected toscore between 1.0 and 1.6 on the 10-point scale. At theend of the first year they should score between 2.0-2.6.Incoming second-year students are expected to performbetween 2.0-2.6. At the end of the second year theyshould score between 3.0-3.6.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This was administeredat the beginning of the first and second-year coursesand at the end of the first and second-year sequences.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. SturzerActing Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:Auralog scores correlated to EU standards (Microsoft
Word)
Findings for Auralog pre and post-test
Summary of Findings: The findings at this introductorylevel are as expected. The lowest scores coming inspent less time working in the software but, due toclassroom instruction, still made the greatest gains.Those with the highest incoming scores yielded thelowest gains because language acquisition slows as thematerial gets more difficult. The two groups in themiddle also performed as expected in that the groupthat consistently worked harder, as measured by time inthe software, made greater strides than the group thatworked less. Overall, increases in gain diminished asscores increased, reflecting the increasing difficulty ofthe material.As an absolute measure of progress, students met ourexpectations.At the second year level, lower performing studentsspent substantially more time in the software and mademore substantial improvement. It must be noted thatthose scoring a 1, simply did not engage with theinstrument, so improvements at the lowest level aresuspect and those with 1s should have been discountedin the measures.
Target Achievement: Met
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
33 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
Recommendations : Since there is no remarkabledifference in gain between groups that worked more, asmeasured in time, from those who worked less, weconclude that the software provides little added valuewhen measured against time on task.At the intermediate level, supplemental work did seemto yield better results.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:Pre and Post test in Auralog for FREN 211-212 (Word
Document (Open XML))Pre and Post test results in Auralog FREN
101-102 (Word Document (Open XML))
I Can surveyOther level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Students were asked what theycan do in the target language across the first andsecond year courses.
Target: Students will be 75% proficient at stated goal.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Throughout the2008-2009 year at the first and second year level, asadministered by students of the Psychology dept andsupervised by a professor in the Psychology Dept.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia Sturzer, Ph.D.Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Survey administered across the first and second yearlanguage sequence.
Findings for I Can survey
Summary of Findings: Results ranged from proficient tonot proficient depending on whether students needed toidentify key figures or identify key moments of life cyclein target culture (34%).
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Strong start for this level as it isnot mastered until a higher level.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Results of student survey 2008-2009.
Identifying and ContextualizingManifestations of Culture - FrenchCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Students must identify, analyze,and compare various manifestations of culture indifferent formats and contexts.
Target: A minimum of 85% of students are able toperform this task.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This is implementedbeginning at the elementary level and continues in the200, 300, and 400 level courses.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. Sturzer
Supporting Attachments:Exam from Introduction to Culture (Microsoft Word)For the early period of French culture, we examine avariety of French website, study their content and evaluatethe value and the values promoted in the way the Frenchunderstand and retell the story of their culture.
Findings for Identifying and ContextualizingManifestations of Culture - French
Summary of Findings: We could not assess this skillbecause we did not teach the culture course in thiscycle.
Target Achievement:
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
34 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
Spanish and Latin American Culture andCivilization CoursesCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: All Spanish majors are required totake either a Spanish or Spanish American Culture Class.Spanish minors may also take the courses towardsgraduation requirements.
Target: 85% of students will score 70% on exams.
Implementation Plan (timeline): The 300 and 400 levelcurriculum.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia B. Sturzer, Ph.D.,Acting Head
Supporting Attachments:Latin American Civilization and Culture (Microsoft
Word)Spanish 499 Alberti, Leon Class (Microsoft Word)
Findings for Spanish and Latin American Cultureand Civilization Courses
Summary of Findings: In the category of culturalcompetency, students exceeded expectations, with100% and 92% of students passing final exams for theculture courses of Spanish 323 or 325 with a grade of70% or better.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
V.4 CULTURE
Mapped to:National Standards in Foreign LanguageEducation: Standard 4.2: Concept of Culture
Measures & Findings
Cultural Relativity - Spanish and SpanishAmerican Culture CoursesCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Students analyze and comparecultural manifestations in the target culture and relatethem to a broader cultural context.
Target: All Spanish Majors are required to take eitherSpanish 323 or 325, Spanish and Spanish AmericanCulture. In addition many minors may take this courseas part of their 18 hour requirement.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Junior or Senior year.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia Sturzer, Dept.Head
Supporting Attachments:Art on Final Exam Spanish 325 (Microsoft PowerPoint)
Final Exam Spanish 325 Spring 2009 (Microsoft Word)
Midterm Exam Spanish 323 (Microsoft Word)
Findings for Cultural Relativity - Spanish andSpanish American Culture Courses
Summary of Findings: In the category of culturalcompetency, students exceeded expectations, with100% and 92% of students passing final exams for theculture courses of Spanish 323 or 325 with a grade of70% or better.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Cultural Relativity -FrenchCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Students analyze and comparecultural manifestations in the target culture and relatethem to a broader cultural context.
Target: A minimum of 85% of students are able toperform this task.
Implementation Plan (timeline): This is implementedbeginning in the elementary level and is reinforced in
Findings for Cultural Relativity -French
Summary of Findings: This skill was not assessedbecause the culture course was not taught during thiscycle.
Target Achievement:
Recommendations :
Notes :
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
35 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
the 200, 300 and mastered 400 level courses.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Felicia B. Sturzer
Supporting Attachments:Final Exam for Introduction to French
Culture (Microsoft Word)The final exam asks students to move back and forth fromcultural artifacts to the culture that produced them and tofollow the development of a single manifestation of cultureacross history, thereby articulating aspects that do and donot change across time, politics, history.
Substantiating Evidence:
I Can surveyOther level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Students were asked what theycan do in the target language across the first andsecond year courses.
Target: Students will be 75% proficient at stated goal.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Throughout the2008-2009 year at the first and second year level, asadministered by students of the Psychology dept andsupervised by a professor in the Psychology Dept.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Felicia Sturzer, Ph.D.Acting Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Survey administered across the first and second yearlanguage sequence.
Findings for I Can survey
Summary of Findings: Depending on how this skill isphrased, student confidence in their proficiency varied.Personal comparison ranked consistently between 70and 80%, as well as using cultural knowledge tocomprehend a story which ended towards 80%.Butidentifying and explaining a cultural site earned on 40%and choosing a culturally appropriate gift earned 36%.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Strong start for this level as it isnot mastered until a higher level.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:I Can survey (Microsoft Word)Survey results for 2008-2009.
Foreign Languages: BA Greek
Outcomes
1. Grammar
Mapped to:Foreign Languages: BA Greek: Culture, Grammar,Grammar, Grammar, Grammar, Grammar, Grammar,Grammar, Translation, Translation, Translation,Translation
Measures & Findings
Exams and quizzesCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Students in Greek 101 areintroduced to the three declensions of nouns andadjectives through oral instruction, written exercises,and translations involving Greek-English and English-Greek.
Target: 75% of students will be able to recognize,decline, and parse nouns and adjectives of the threedeclensions.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Implementation ofexams and quizzes over the course of the semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: John Phillips
Findings for Exams and quizzes
Summary of Findings: 58% percent of students in Greek101 successfully completed this outcome
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Continue to emphasize this area ofgrammar.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
36 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
Supporting Attachments:
Grammar
Mapped to:Foreign Languages: BA Greek: 1. Grammar
Measures & Findings
Exams and quizzesCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Students in Greek 101 and 102 areintroduced to the present, imperfect, and aorist tensesof 0-type verbs and participles through oral instruction,written exercises, and translations involving Greek-English and English-Greek.
Target: 75% of students will be able to recognize,conjugate, decline and parse correctly the present tenseforms of 0-type verbs and of participles.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Implementation ofexams and quizzes throughout the semester.
Key/Responsible Personnel: John Phillips
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Exams and quizzes
Summary of Findings: 80% of students in Greek 102successfully completed this outcome.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Continue to emphasis this area ofgrammar
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Grammar
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Exams and quizzesCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Students in Greek 102 areintroduced to the declension of the relative pronounsand the syntax of relative clauses through oralinstruction, written exercises, and translations involvingGreek-English and English-Greek.
Target: 75% of students will be able to recognize,decline,and parse relative pronouns, and recognize thesyntax of relative clauses.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Implementation ofexams and quizzes over the course of the semester.
Key/Responsible Personnel: John Phillips
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Exams and quizzes
Summary of Findings: 80% of students in Greek 102successfully completed this outcome.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Continue to emphasize this area ofgrammar.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Grammar
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Exams and quizzesCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Students in Greek 101 and 102 areintroduced to the conjugation of imperatives of thepresent and aorist tenses through oral instruction,written exercises, and translations involving Greek-English and English-Greek.
Target: 75% of students will be able to recognize and
Findings for Exams and quizzes
Summary of Findings: 80% of students in Greek 102successfully completed this outcome.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Continue to emphasize this area ofgrammar.
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
37 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
parse imperatives of both tenses.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Implementation ofexams and quizzes over the course of the semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: John Phillips
Supporting Attachments:
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Grammar
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Exams and quizzesCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Students in Greek 350 areintroduced to the subjunctive and optative moodsthrough oral instruction, written exercises, andtranslations involving Greek-English and English-Greek.
Target: 75% of students will be able to recognize,conjugate, and parse verbs of both moods.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Implementation ofexams and quizzes over the course of the semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: John Phillips
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Exams and quizzes
Summary of Findings: 100% of students in Greek 350(intermediate level) successfully completed thisoutcome.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Continue to emphasize this area ofgrammar
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Grammar
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Exams and quizzesCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Students in Greek 350 areintroduced to the uses of the subjunctive and optativemoods in both independent and dependent clausesthrough oral instruction, written exercises, andtranslations involving Greek-English and English-Greek.
Target: 75% of students will be able to recognize andproperly translate the various uses of these moods.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Implementation ofexams and quizzes over the course of the semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: John Phillips
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Exams and quizzes
Summary of Findings: 100% of students in Greek 350(intermediate level) successfully completed thisoutcome.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Continue to emphasize this area ofgrammar.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Grammar
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Exams and quizzesCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Students in Greek 102 areintroduced to the comparative forms of adjectives andadverbs through oral instruction, written exercises, andtranslations involving Greek-English and English-Greek.
Findings for Exams and quizzes
Summary of Findings: 80% of students in Greek 102successfully completed this outcome.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
38 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
Target: 75% of students will be able to recognize,decline, and parse the comparative and superlativeforms of adjectives and adverbs.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Implementation ofexams and quizzes over the course of the semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: John Phillips
Supporting Attachments:
Recommendations : Continue to emphasize this area ofgrammar.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Grammar
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Exams and quizzesCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Students in Greek 350 areintroduced to the perfect, future perfect, and pluperfecttenses of verbs of both types through oral instruction,written exercises, and translations involving Greek-English and English-Greek.
Target: 75% of students will be able to recognize,conjugate, and parse correctly the these three tenses ofverbs.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Implementation ofexams and quizzes throughout the semester.
Key/Responsible Personnel: John Phillips
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Exams and quizzes
Summary of Findings: 100% of students in Greek 350(intermediate level) successfully completed thisoutcome.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Continue to emphasize this area ofgrammar.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Translation
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
ExamsCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Students in Greek 350 and 351 areassigned daily translation exercises from the texts ofprimary authors of prose and poetry.
Target: 75% of students will be able to translate thesepassages with 90% accuracy in their daily assignmentsand translation exams.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Implementation ofdaily translation assignments and translation examsover the course of the semester.
Key/Responsible Personnel: John Phillips
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Exams
Summary of Findings: 100% of students in Greek 350(intermediate level) successfully completed thisoutcome.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Continue to emphasize this area oftranslation skills.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Translation
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Exams and translationsCourse level; Direct - Exam
Findings for Exams and translations
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
39 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
Details/Description: Students in Greek 350 (advancedlevel) are assigned daily translation exercises from thetexts of primary authors of prose and poetry. Translationexercises and discussion of these exercises focus on theprose styles of the different authors.
Target: 75% of students will be able to appreciatedifferent prose styles in discussions of their dailyassignments and translation exams.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Implementation ofdaily translation assignments and translation examsover the course of the semester. Discussion of theseassignments and exams.
Key/Responsible Personnel: John Phillips
Supporting Attachments:
Summary of Findings: 100% of students in Greek 350(advanced level) successfully completed this outcome.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Continue to emphasize this area oftranslation skills.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Translation
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Exams and translationsCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Students in Greek 351 areassigned daily translation exercises from the texts ofprimary authors of poetry. Translation exercises anddiscussion of these exercises focus on the genres ofpoetry.
Target: 75% of students will be able to appreciatedifferent poetic genres in discussions of their dailyassignments and translation exams.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Implementation ofdaily translation assignments and translation examsover the course of the semester. Discussion of theseassignments and exams.
Key/Responsible Personnel: John Phillips
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Exams and translations
Summary of Findings: 100% of students in Greek 351successfully completed this outcome.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Continue to emphasize this area oftranslation skills.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Translation
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Exams and translationsCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Students in Greek 350 (advancedlevel) and 351 are assigned daily translation exercisesfrom the texts of primary authors of prose and poetry.Translation exercises and discussion of these exercisesfocus on accuracy of translation and identification ofsyntactical structures.
Target: 75% of students will be able to translateaccurately and identify important syntactical structures90% of the time in their daily assignments andtranslation exams.
Findings for Exams and translations
Summary of Findings: 100% of students in Greek 351successfully completed this outcome.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Continue to emphasize this area oftranslation skills.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
40 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
Implementation Plan (timeline): Implementation ofdaily translation assignments and translation examsover the course of the semester.
Key/Responsible Personnel: John Phillips
Supporting Attachments:
Culture
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Exams and translationsCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Students in Greek 350 (advancedlevel) and 351 are assigned daily translation exercisesfrom the texts of primary authors of prose and poetry.Translation exercises and discussion of these exercisesfocus on the culture and history embodied in the texts.
Target: 75% of students will be able to appreciate anddiscuss intelligently the culture and history of ancientGreece as reflected in their daily assignments andtranslation exams.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Implementation ofdaily translation assignments and translation examsover the course of the semester. Discussion of theseassignments and exams.
Key/Responsible Personnel: John Phillips
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Exams and translations
Summary of Findings: 100% of students in Greek 351successfully completed this outcome.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Continue to emphasize this area ofcultural appreciation.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Foreign Languages: BA Latin
Outcomes
I.1 Grammar
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Measure: In-house examsDetails/Description: It is expected that 75% ofstudents be able by the end of LAT 101 to identify allparts of the active indicative verbal system with anaccuracy of at least %75. The same proportion ofstudents should be able to produce these forms frommemory with an accuracy rate of at least 65%. At theend of LAT 102 75% of students should be able, with anaccuracy of %75, to identify all forms of the entireindicative verb system (including passives andparticiples). Again, an accuracy rate of 65% will beexpected for active recall of these same forms.
Target: As stated in Details section, %75 of studentsare expected to meet the standard appropriate to theirsemester level.
No Findings Added to Measure: In-house exams
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
41 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
Implementation Plan (timeline): The skills are to beintroduced in LAT 101 and to be fully in place by the endof LAT 102. An assessment will be made in each ofthese two courses near the end of the semester.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Joshua Davies
Notes: Due to doubly unfortunate circumstances(crashed hard drive and boxes lost in move) findings arenot available for 2008-2009. Care has been taken formore secure preservation of data in future years.
Supporting Attachments:
1.2 Grammar
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
In-house examsDetails/Description: At the close of LAT 201 75% ofstudents should be able to identify and translate with75% accuracy all forms of the subjunctive verbal system,the syntactic constructions that are tied to thesubjunctive (e.g. purpose clauses, conditionals, wishes,etc.), and the ablative absolute. The same proportion ofstudents should be able to generate these forms andsimple examples of these structures with at least 65%accuracy. After completing LAT 202, 80% of studentsshould be able to perform all the tasks above at thesame levels of accuracy.
Target: %75 of students are expected to meet thestandard for LAT 201, %80 for LAT 202.
Implementation Plan (timeline): The skills are to beintroduced in LAT 201 and to be fully in place by the endof LAT 202. An assessment will be made in each ofthese two courses near the end of the semester.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Joshua Davies
Notes: Due to doubly unfortunate circumstances(crashed hard drive and boxes lost in move) findings arenot available for 2008-2009. Care has been taken formore secure preservation of data in future years.
Supporting Attachments:
No Findings Added to In-house exams
1.3 Grammar
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
In-house examsDetails/Description: It is expected that 75% ofstudents be able by the end of LAT 101 to identify allforms of the nouns in declensions 1-3 with an accuracyof at least %75; and they should be able to producethese same forms from memory with an accuracy rate ofat least 65%. At the end of LAT 102 75% of students
No Findings Added to In-house exams
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
42 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
should be able, with an accuracy of %75, to identify allforms of all noun/adjective declensions and also themajor pronouns. An accuracy rate of 65% will beexpected for active recall of these same forms.
Target: %75 of students will meet the standard fortheir semester level.
Implementation Plan (timeline): The skills areintroduced in LAT 101 and mastered in LAT 102. Anassessment will be made in each of these two coursesnear the end of the semester.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Joshua Davies
Notes: Due to doubly unfortunate circumstances(crashed hard drive and boxes lost in move) findings arenot available for 2008-2009. Care has been taken formore secure preservation of data in future years.
Supporting Attachments:
1.4 Grammar
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
In-house examsDetails/Description: 75% of LAT 102 students will beexpected to comprehend indirect discourse and toproduce actively simple examples of this construction inwriting. 75% of LAT 201 students will be expected tocomprehend complex indirect discourse and producemoderately complex examples of it. This same outcomewill be achieved by %80 of students in LAT 202.
Target: %75 of LAT 102 and LAT 201 students will meetthe standard for their semester level. %80 percent ofLAT 202 students will meet the standard for their level.
Implementation Plan (timeline): The skills areintroduced in LAT 102, reinforced and developed in LAT201, fully mastered in LAT 202. An assessment will bemade in each of these two courses near the end of thesemester.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Joshua Davies
Notes: Due to doubly unfortunate circumstances(crashed hard drive and boxes lost in move) findings arenot available for 2008-2009. Care has been taken formore secure preservation of data in future years.
Supporting Attachments:
No Findings Added to In-house exams
II.1 Vocabulary
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
In-house examsDetails/Description: When confronted with a page ofLatin at their semester level, 75% students should be
No Findings Added to In-house exams
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
43 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
able to translate 70% of the words without assistancefrom a dictionary.
Target: %75 of students will meet the standard.
Implementation Plan (timeline): The skills areintroduced in LAT 101 and reinforced thereafter.Targeted assessment happens through LAT 202 near theend of each semester.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Joshua Davies
Notes: Due to doubly unfortunate circumstances(crashed hard drive and boxes lost in move) findings arenot available for 2008-2009. Care has been taken formore secure preservation of data in future years.
Supporting Attachments:
II.2 Vocabulary
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
In-house activityDetails/Description: given a page of English prose, 75%of students should be able to identify a certainpercentage of the Latin derivates: 20% after LAT 101,40% after LAT 102, 50% after LAT 201, 60% after LAT202.
Target: %75 of students will meet the standard.
Implementation Plan (timeline): The skills areintroduced in LAT 101 and reinforced thereafter.Targeted assessment happens through LAT 202 near theend of each semester.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Joshua Davies
Notes: Due to doubly unfortunate circumstances(crashed hard drive and boxes lost in move) findings arenot available for 2008-2009. Care has been taken formore secure preservation of data in future years.
Supporting Attachments:
No Findings Added to In-house activity
III.1 Writing
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
In-house examDetails/Description: Students should be able tocompose fairly quickly simple and properly formedsentences that integrate the full grammatical knowledgeand vocabulary of their semester-level. This instructorwill assess them in each semester of basic Latin (LAT101&102) and intermediate Latin (LAT 201&202) bydistributing in class eight English sentences to berendered into Latin in fifteen minutes. 75% of studentswill be expected to perform at a “C” level or higher.
Target: %75 of students will meet the standard of their
No Findings Added to In-house exam
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
44 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
semester-level.
Implementation Plan (timeline): The skills areintroduced in LAT 101, reinforced in LAT 102 and 201,mastered in LAT 202. Assessment will take place nearthe end of each of these courses.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Joshua Davies
Notes: Due to doubly unfortunate circumstances(crashed hard drive and boxes lost in move) findings arenot available for 2008-2009. Care has been taken formore secure preservation of data in future years.
Supporting Attachments:
III.2 Writing
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
In-house activityDetails/Description: Students will be expected tocompose creative compositions, in a Latin appropriate totheir semester level, either in the form of a dramaticdialogue or else in one of the ancient literary genres.They will do this as a group project once each semesterfrom LAT 101 through LAT 201. It is expected that %75percent of them will perform this task in a manner thatthe instructor considers worthy of the letter grade B orhigher. In LAT 202, students will produce individualcompositions in an ancient genre such as poetic epigramor tombstone dedication. 75% will be expected to earnat least a letter grade of C on this work.
Target: %75 of students will meet the standard of theirsemester-level.
Implementation Plan (timeline): The skills areintroduced in LAT 101 and reinforced through LAT 202.Assessment will take place near the end of eachsemester.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Joshua Davies
Notes: Due to doubly unfortunate circumstances(crashed hard drive and boxes lost in move) findings arenot available for 2008-2009. Care has been taken formore secure preservation of data in future years.
Supporting Attachments:
No Findings Added to In-house activity
IV.1 Speaking and AuralComprehension
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
In-house activityDetails/Description: In each semester, Latin studentsshould be able to understand as the instructor speaks inlevel-appropriate Latin and asks questions about thenarratives being studied or about various other topics. Inaddition, students should be able to formulate simple
No Findings Added to In-house activity
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
45 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
answers in Latin to the questions asked; and theirability to do so should show some growth through thesequence of LAT 101, LAT 102, LAT 201, LAT 202. Whilethis kind of activity will be frequent during the semester,assessment will take place just once near the end of theterm. The instructor will discuss a subject in Latin andpose a question to each student, noting how many areable to answer in simple but well formulated Latin. It isexpected that at least 70% will perform this taskacceptably.
Target: %70 of students will meet the standard of theirsemester-level.
Implementation Plan (timeline): The skills areintroduced in LAT 101 and reinforced through LAT 202.Assessment will take place near the end of eachsemester.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Joshua Davies
Notes: Due to doubly unfortunate circumstances(crashed hard drive and boxes lost in move) findings arenot available for 2008-2009. Care has been taken formore secure preservation of data in future years.
Supporting Attachments:
V.1 Reading
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
In-house activityDetails/Description: The ability to read and understandLatin texts is the central linguistic competency of themajor, the one to which all the others lead andcontribute. Each semester the instructor will make anassessment of reading by asking the students totranslate, with the aid of a dictionary, a passage thatthey have never seen before. It is expected that 75% ofthem will perform this task at a level that the instructordeems deserving of a letter grade of C or better. For LAT101, LAT 102, and LAT 201, the passage will besimplified Latin taken from a textbook aimed at theirlevel. For LAT 202, they will receive an unmodified, butclear and straightforward passage from one of Romanauthors. In LAT 350&351 they will receive an unmodifiedbut more difficult and complex passage from one of theRoman authors.
Target: %75 of students will meet the standard of theirsemester-level.
Implementation Plan (timeline): The skills areintroduced in LAT 101 and reinforced thereafter, reachinga relative mastery at the 300-level. Targetedassessment happens in every course near the end ofeach semester.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Joshua Davies
No Findings Added to In-house activity
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
46 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
Notes: Due to doubly unfortunate circumstances(crashed hard drive and boxes lost in move) findings arenot available for 2008-2009. Care has been taken formore secure preservation of data in future years.
Supporting Attachments:
VI.1 Culture
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Essay and class discussionDetails/Description: In 300-level Latin courses, theemphasis will be on detailed knowledge of importantauthors, in terms of their literary style and modes ofexpressions, the genres in which they write, their literaryor intellectual contributions, and their influence on latercivilization. Two means of assessment will be utilized.First, there will be a cumulative group discussion of theauthor near the end of the semester, in which theinstructor notes the number of students who bring forthinformed and meaningful contributions. It is expectedthat 75% will do so. Secondly, the students will eachwrite a term paper on one of these areas (i.e. theauthor’s literary qualities, ideas, influence, etc.), and itwill be expected that at least 75% reveal anunderstanding of their chosen subject that the instructorconsiders to be substantial.
Target: %75 of students will meet the standard.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Although theinstructor will regularly introduce cultural elements intothe beginning and intermediate language classes inorder to pave the way, actual assignments, measures,and assessments in this area will wait until the300-level CLAS courses due to the great amount oflanguage work that needs to be accomplished in the100-200 level Latin courses.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Joshua Davies
Notes: Due to doubly unfortunate circumstances(crashed hard drive and boxes lost in move) findings arenot available for 2008-2009. Care has been taken formore secure preservation of data in future years.
Supporting Attachments:
No Findings Added to Essay and class discussion
VI.2 Culture
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
EssaysDetails/Description: The 300-level Classics courses(e.g. CLAS 396: Classical Mythology; CLAS 310: TheGreco-Roman World; etc.) emphasize the broad linesand features of Classical civilization as a whole, fromthe divinities of ancient religion to social realities andliterary history. The essay exams and term papers of the
No Findings Added to Essays
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
47 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
students will be used to assess their competency in thisarea. It will be expected that 75% of them willdemonstrate a substantial grasp of these broadercurrents.
Target: %75 of students will meet the standard of theirsemester-level.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Although theinstructor will regularly introduce cultural elements intothe beginning and intermediate language classes inorder to pave the way, actual assignments, measures,and assessments in this area will wait until the300-level CLAS courses due to the great amount oflanguage work that needs to be accomplished in the100-200 level Latin courses.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Joshua Davies
Notes: Due to doubly unfortunate circumstances(crashed hard drive and boxes lost in move) findings arenot available for 2008-2009. Care has been taken formore secure preservation of data in future years.
Supporting Attachments:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
48 of 48 8/6/2010 12:09 PM
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Geology
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
Geology
Outcomes
Graduates will have a generalknowledge of geology
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
ACAT: overall scoresProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Prospective graduates will take theArea Concentration Achievement Test (ACAT) for geologyafter completing the geology curriculum. The ACAT willinclude 4 content areas reflective of geology corecourses—mineralogy, petrology, stratigraphy, andstructural geology.
Target: The mean of overall scores on the ACAT forgraduating seniors will be at or above the 50thpercentile compared to national norms.
Implementation Plan (timeline): The ACAT will beadministered by OPEIR staff during April of 2009.Results are expected during mid to late summer, 2009,and will be included in the 2008-2009 outcomesassessment report.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Jonathan Mies
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for ACAT: overall scores
Summary of Findings: Five prospective graduates tookthe ACAT in early April 2009. Overall scores aregenerally good, 474, 446, 542, 522, and 583, the meanof which is 513. [Standard scores are based on mean =500, std. dev. = 100.] The individual scores correspondto the 40th, 29th, 66th, 59th, and 80th %tiles and the4th, 4th, 6th, 5th, and 7th stanines. Three of the fivescores are above the mean for the national comparisongroup, as is the mean of all five scores.
These results indicate that this objective was met.
These results are somewhat worse than those of lastyear (2007-2008 cycle, mean overall score = 574, n=6),despite there having been no change made to thegeology curriculum. While we are pleased that we metour objective, we wish these scores were better. Werecognize that overall scores for such few numbers ofstudents are not statistically significant.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : We continue our efforts to improveupon ACAT test scores by requiring students to takecumulative and comprehensive exams in each course.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Graduates will have knowledge ofmineralogy Measures & Findings
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
1 of 7 8/6/2010 12:16 PM
Mapped to:No Mapping
ACAT: mineralogy scoresProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Prospective graduates will take theArea Concentration Achievement Test (ACAT) for geologyafter completing the geology curriculum. The ACAT willinclude 4 content areas reflective of geology corecourses—mineralogy, petrology, stratigraphy, andstructural geology.
Target: The mean of mineralogy content-area scores onthe ACAT for graduating seniors will be at or above the50th percentile compared to national norms.
Implementation Plan (timeline): The ACAT will beadministered by OPEIR staff during April of 2009.Results are expected during mid to late summer, 2009,and will be included in the 2008-2009 outcomesassessment report.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Jonathan Mies
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for ACAT: mineralogy scores
Summary of Findings: Five prospective graduates tookthe ACAT in early April 2009. Mineralogy content-areascores are generally good, 523, 583, 488, 523, and 458.[Standard scores are based on mean = 500, std. dev. =100.] The mean of mineralogy content-area scores is515, which corresponds to the 56th %tile.
These results indicate that this objective was met.
These results are somewhat worse than those of lastyear (2007-2008 cycle, mean mineralogy content-areascore = 588, n=6), despite there having been no changemade to the mineralogy curriculum. While we arepleased that we met our objective, we wish these scoreswere better. We recognize that overall scores for suchfew numbers of students are not statistically significant.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : We continue our efforts to improveupon ACAT mineralogy content-area scores by requiringstudents to take cumulative and comprehensive examsin Mineralogy.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Graduates will have knowledge ofpetrology
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
ACAT: petrology scoresProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Prospective graduates will take theArea Concentration Achievement Test (ACAT) for geologyafter completing the geology curriculum. The ACAT willinclude 4 content areas reflective of geology corecourses—mineralogy, petrology, stratigraphy, andstructural geology.
Target: The mean of petrology content-area scores onthe ACAT for graduating seniors will be at or above the50th percentile compared to national norms.
Implementation Plan (timeline): The ACAT will beadministered by OPEIR staff during April of 2009.Results are expected during mid to late summer, 2009,and will be included in the 2008-2009 outcomesassessment report.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Jonathan Mies
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for ACAT: petrology scores
Summary of Findings: Five prospective graduates tookthe ACAT in early April 2009. Petrology content-areascores are 534, 361, 398, 436, and 523. [Standardscores are based on mean = 500, std. dev. = 100.] Twoof these are quite good and exceed the mean for thenational comparison group, while 3 are low. The meanpetrology content-are score is 450, which corresponds tothe 31st %tile.
These results indicate that this objective was not met.
These results are somewhat worse than those of lastyear (2007-2008 cycle, mean petrology content-areascore = 497, n=6), despite there having been no changemade to the petrology curriculum. We recognize thatoverall scores for such few numbers of students are notstatistically significant.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : We continue our efforts to improveupon ACAT petrology content-area scores by requiringstudents to take cumulative and comprehensive examsin Petrology.
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
2 of 7 8/6/2010 12:16 PM
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Graduates will have knowledge ofstratigraphy
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
ACAT: stratigraphy scoresProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Prospective graduates will take theArea Concentration Achievement Test (ACAT) for geologyafter completing the geology curriculum. The ACAT willinclude 4 content areas reflective of geology corecourses—mineralogy, petrology, stratigraphy, andstructural geology.
Target: The mean of stratigraphy content-area scoreson the ACAT for graduating seniors will be at or abovethe 50th percentile compared to national norms.
Implementation Plan (timeline): The ACAT will beadministered by OPEIR staff during April of 2009.Results are expected during mid to late summer, 2009,and will be included in the 2008-2009 outcomesassessment report.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Jonathan Mies
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for ACAT: stratigraphy scores
Summary of Findings: Five prospective graduates tookthe ACAT in early April 2009. Stratigraphy content-areascores are generally good, 404, 367, 578, 493, and 622.[Standard scores are based on mean = 500, std. dev. =100.] The mean of stratigraphy content-area scores is513, which corresponds to the 55th %tile.
These results indicate that this objective was met.
These results are somewhat worse than those of lastyear (2007-2008 cycle, mean stratigraphy content-areascore = 534, n=6), despite there having been no changemade to the stratigraphy curriculum. While we arepleased that we met our objective, we wish these scoreswere better. We recognize that overall scores for suchfew numbers of students are not statistically significant.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : We continue our efforts to improveupon ACAT stratigraphy content-area scores by requiringstudents to take cumulative and comprehensive examsin Historical Geology and Sedimentary Rocks andStratigraphy.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Graduates will have knowledge ofstructural geology
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
ACAT: structural geology scoresProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Prospective graduates will take theArea Concentration Achievement Test (ACAT) for geologyafter completing the geology curriculum. The ACAT willinclude 4 content areas reflective of geology corecourses—mineralogy, petrology, stratigraphy, andstructural geology.
Target: The mean of structural geology content-areascores on the ACAT for graduating seniors will be at orabove the 50th percentile compared to national norms.
Implementation Plan (timeline): The ACAT will beadministered by OPEIR staff during April of 2009.Results are expected during mid to late summer, 2009,and will be included in the 2008-2009 outcomesassessment report.
Findings for ACAT: structural geology scores
Summary of Findings: Five prospective graduates tookthe ACAT in early April 2009. Structural geologycontent-area scores are generally good, 460, 520, 640,507, and 627. [Standard scores are based on mean =500, std. dev. = 100.] The mean of structural geologycontent-area scores is 551, which corresponds to the69th %tile.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : We continue our efforts to improveupon ACAT structural geology content-area scores byrequiring students to take cumulative andcomprehensive exams in Structural Geology.
Notes :
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
3 of 7 8/6/2010 12:16 PM
Key/Responsible Personnel: Jonathan Mies
Supporting Attachments:
Substantiating Evidence:
Graduates will be satisfied witheducation and training
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Exit interviewProgram level; Indirect - Interview
Details/Description: In lieu of or in addition tocompleting an exit questionnaire (see Measure: Exitquestionnaire), prospective graduates will be invited tooffer their opinions and constructive criticisms of thegeology program during an exit interview by thedepartment head.
Target: All interviewed graduates will indicate that theyare satisfied with the education and training that theyreceived as a student in the geology program.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Prospective graduateswill be invited to discuss the geology program with thedepartment head at or near the time of their graduation.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Habte Churnet(Department Head), Jonathan Mies
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Exit interview
Summary of Findings: Although no formal interviewswere conducted, the department head did receivecomments from upper-level students including theprospective graduates. Comments were generallypositive.
Target Achievement:
Recommendations : We will make greater effort in thefuture to encourage students to discuss the programwith the department head.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Exit questionnaireProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Prospective graduates willcomplete an exit questionnaire designed jointly bygeology faculty and OPEIR.
Target: Prospective graduates will agree or stronglyagree with each of the following statements: (1) I amsatisfied with the education and training that I receivedas a student in the geology program at UTC; (2) I amsatisfied with the academic advisement that Ireceivedas a student in the geology program at UTC; (3) geologyfaculty at UTC convey an in-depth knowledge of thesubjects that they teach; (4) geology faculty at UTCrelate to students in an academically productive way;and (5) when called upon, geology faculty at UTC arewilling to help students.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Prospective graduateswill complete the exit questionnaire at or near the timeof their graduation and will do so anonymously.Students will deliver completed questionnaires directlyto the department secretary, who will provide them toresponsible personnel during mid to late summer forinclusion in the 2007-2008 outcomes assessment report.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Jonathan Mies
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Exit questionnaire
Summary of Findings: Four (of 6) prospective graduatescompleted the exit questionnaire.
All respondents indicated satisfaction with theeducation, training, and academic advisement that theyreceived and strongly agreed that faculty areknowledgeable in their respective subject areas, relatewell to students, and are willing to help students.
One respondent was critical of the program's facilities.Two respondents were complimentary of how well facultyrelate to students and the extent to which they makethemselves available to students.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : We will continue to work to ensurethat students are satisfied with the education andtraining that they receive.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
4 of 7 8/6/2010 12:16 PM
Enhanced competencies due to GEOL111 (General Education)
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
GEOL 111: pretest/post-testCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: A subset of questions from thefinal exam for Geology 111 will also constitute a pretestto be administered at the beginning of the semester. Aspart of the final exam, these questions will be graded asa post-test for each student. Pretest and post-testquestions, if not identical, will be very similar, and willbe the same for all sections of Geology 111.
NOTE: THIS OUTCOME AND ASSESSMENT IS PROPOSEDFOR INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION DURING THE FALL OF2009 OR SPRING OF 2010 (2009-2010 OUTCOMESCYCLE).
Target: The average of students’ scores for thepost-test (T2) will be at least 50 relative percent betterthan the average of students’ scores for the pretest(T1), as calculated by [((T2-T1)/T1) ≥ 0.50].
Implementation Plan (timeline): The pretest andpost-test will be administered to all sections of Geology111 during fall semester of 2009 and the springsemester of 2010. The pretest will be administered atthe beginning of each semester, within the first 3 hoursof class. The post-test will be part of the final exam, tobe administered at the end of each semester. Resultswill be included in the 2009-2010 outcomes assessmentreport.
UPDATE: The pretest was administered to all sections ofGeology 111 during the present semester (fall 2009).Average scores are as follows: section 001, 46%;section 002, 40%; section 003, 42%; section 004, 48%.These results are very similar to those of a pilot studyconducted during the spring semester of 2008, in whichthe average score on the pretest was 40%; the averagescore on the post-test was 72%, which is 80 relativepercent better than the that of the pretest.
Key/Responsible Personnel: class instructor (Brodie,Churnet, Holmes, Mies, Williams), Jonathan Mies
Supporting Attachments:
No Findings Added to GEOL 111: pretest/post-test
Enhanced competencies due to GEOL112 (General Education)
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
GEOL 112: pretest/post-testCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: A subset of questions from thefinal exam for Geology 112 will also constitute a pretestto be administered at the beginning of the semester. Aspart of the final exam, these questions will be graded asa post-test for each student. Pretest and post-testquestions, if not identical, will be very similar, and will
No Findings Added to GEOL 112: pretest/post-test
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
5 of 7 8/6/2010 12:16 PM
be the same for all sections of Geology 112.
NOTE: THIS OUTCOME AND ASSESSMENT IS PROPOSEDFOR INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION DURING THE FALL OF2009 OR SPRING OF 2010 (2009-2010 OUTCOMESCYCLE).
Target: The average of students’ scores for thepost-test (T2) will be at least 50 relative percent betterthan the average of students’ scores for the pretest(T1), as calculated by [((T2-T1)/T1) ≥ 0.50].
Implementation Plan (timeline): The pretest andpost-test will be administered to all sections of Geology112 during the spring semester of 2010. The pretest willbe administered at the beginning of each semester,within the first 3 hours of class. The post-test will bepart of the final exam, to be administered at the end ofeach semester. Results will be included in the2009-2010 outcomes assessment report.
Key/Responsible Personnel: class instructor (Brodie,Churnet, Holmes, Mies, Williams), Jonathan Mies
Supporting Attachments:
Enhanced competencies due to GEOL116 (General Education)
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
GEOL 116: pretest/post-testCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: A subset of questions from thefinal exam for Geology 116 will also constitute a pretestto be administered at the beginning of the semester. Aspart of the final exam, these questions will be graded asa post-test for each student. Pretest and post-testquestions, if not identical, will be very similar, and willbe the same for all sections of Geology 116.
NOTE: THIS OUTCOME AND ASSESSMENT IS PROPOSEDFOR INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION DURING THE FALL OF2009 OR SPRING OF 2010 (2009-2010 OUTCOMESCYCLE).
Target: The average of students’ scores for thepost-test (T2) will be at least 50 relative percent betterthan the average of students’ scores for the pretest(T1), as calculated by [((T2-T1)/T1) ≥ 0.50].
Implementation Plan (timeline): The pretest andpost-test will be administered to all sections of Geology116 during the spring semester of 2010. The pretest willbe administered at the beginning of each semester,within the first 3 hours of class. The post-test will bepart of the final exam, to be administered at the end ofeach semester. Results will be included in the2009-2010 outcomes assessment report.
Key/Responsible Personnel: class instructor (Brodie,Churnet, Holmes, Mies, Williams), Jonathan Mies
No Findings Added to GEOL 116: pretest/post-test
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
6 of 7 8/6/2010 12:16 PM
Supporting Attachments:
Enhanced competencies due to GEOL225 (General Education)
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
GEOL 225: pretest/post-testCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: A subset of questions from thefinal exam for Geology 225 will also constitute a pretestto be administered at the beginning of the semester. Aspart of the final exam, these questions will be graded asa post-test for each student. Pretest and post-testquestions, if not identical, will be very similar, and willbe the same for all sections of Geology 225.
NOTE: THIS OUTCOME AND ASSESSMENT IS PROPOSEDFOR INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION DURING THE FALL OF2009 OR SPRING OF 2010 (2009-2010 OUTCOMESCYCLE).
Target: The average of students’ scores for thepost-test will be at least 20 relative percent better[(T2-T1)/((T1+T2)/2) ≥ 0.20] than the average ofstudents’ scores for the pretest.
Implementation Plan (timeline): The pretest andpost-test will be administered to all sections of Geology225 during the spring semester of 2010. The pretest willbe administered at the beginning of each semester,within the first 3 hours of class. The post-test will bepart of the final exam, to be administered at the end ofeach semester. Results will be included in the2009-2010 outcomes assessment report.
Key/Responsible Personnel: class instructor (Brodie,Churnet, Holmes, Mies, Williams), Jonathan Mies
Supporting Attachments:
No Findings Added to GEOL 225: pretest/post-test
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
7 of 7 8/6/2010 12:16 PM
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Legal Assistant Studies: BS
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
1. Mastery of Practical Skills
Outcomes
1.1 Practical Skills required for Career
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 1.1Service Learning, Measurable Outcome 1.3 ExperientialLearning Opportunities, Measurable Outcome 2.1Distinctive Experience Outside Class, MeasurableOutcome 2.2 Student Satisfaction, MeasurableOutcome 3.9 Student Satisfaction
Measures & Findings
Practical Skills Gained in University and MajorCoursesProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: The Legal Assistant Studies majors will achievea mean score of 2.5 or higher on the Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional Research’s National Surveyof Student Engagement which assesses whether astudent’s experience at UTC led them to acquire job orwork related knowledge and skills.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional ResearchAll facultyMcGuffee
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Practical Skills Gained in Universityand Major Courses
Summary of Findings: The Legal Assistant Studiesmajors had a mean of 2.75 on this item.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
1.2 Student Internships
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 1.1Service Learning, Measurable Outcome 1.3 ExperientialLearning Opportunities, Measurable Outcome 2.1Distinctive Experience Outside Class, MeasurableOutcome 2.2 Student Satisfaction
Measures & Findings
Practical Skills Gained in Internship ProgramProgram level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: This item is measured by studentrecords kept by the Internship Coordinator.
Target: At least 75% of the internships will result is agrade of C or better (as determined by the internshipcoordinator with input from the field supervisor).
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Findings for Practical Skills Gained in InternshipProgram
Summary of Findings: 82% of the students completinginternships received a C or better.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
1 of 11 8/6/2010 12:07 PM
Key/Responsible Personnel: McGuffee
Supporting Attachments:
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
1.3 Service Learning
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 1.1Service Learning, Measurable Outcome 1.3 ExperientialLearning Opportunities, Measurable Outcome 2.1Distinctive Experience Outside Class
Measures & Findings
Service and/or Experiential LearningProgram level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: This item is measured by studentrecords kept by the Internship Coordinator.
Target: 100% of Legal Assistant Studies majors willcomplete an internship.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 08-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: McGuffee
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Service and/or Experiential Learning
Summary of Findings: 100% of Legal Assistant Studiesmajors completed an internship.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
1.4 Applying Theory to PracticalProblems
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Applying Practical ProblemsProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: The Legal Assistant Studies majors will achievea mean score of 2.5 or higher on the Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional Research’s National Surveyof Student Engagement which assesses whether astudent’s experience at UTC emphasized applyingtheories or concepts to practical problems.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional ResearchAll program facultyMcGuffee
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Applying Practical Problems
Summary of Findings: The Legal Assistant Studiesmajors had a mean of 3.2 on this item.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
2. Mastery of Writing Skills
Outcomes
2.1 Student Assessment of WritingSkills
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students
Measures & Findings
Writing SkillsProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by the
Findings for Writing Skills
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
2 of 11 8/6/2010 12:07 PM
[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 2.2Student Satisfaction
Office of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: The Legal Assistant Studies program willachieve a mean score of 2.5 or higher on the Office ofPlanning, Evaluation, and Institutional Research’sNational Survey of Student Engagement which assesseswhether a student’s experience at UTC added to theirability to write clearly and effectively.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional ResearchAll program staffMcGuffee
Supporting Attachments:
Summary of Findings: The Legal Assistant Studiesmajors had a mean of 2.75 on this item.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
2.2 Legal Research and Writing Skills
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Mastery of Legal Research and Writing SkillsCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: This data is obtained by studentrecords kept by the faculty member teaching LAS 390.
Target: At least 75% of the LAS students will receive agrade of C or better in the Advanced Legal Research andWriting Course (LAS 390).
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: LAS 390 InstructorMcGuffee
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Mastery of Legal Research and WritingSkills
Summary of Findings: 96% of the LAS studentsreceived a grade of C or better in the Advanced LegalResearch and Writing course.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
3. Mastery of Computer Skills
Outcomes
3.1 Student Assessment of ComputerSkills
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 2.2Student Satisfaction
Measures & Findings
Student Assessment of Computer SkillsProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: The Legal Assistant Studies program willachieve a mean score of 2.5 or higher on the Office ofPlanning, Evaluation, and Institutional Research EnrolledStudent Survey that assesses whether a student usedan electronic medium to discuss or complete anassignment; worked on an assignment where they used
Findings for Student Assessment of ComputerSkills
Summary of Findings: The Legal Assistant Studiesmajors had a means of 3.2, 3.0, and 2.75 on theseitems.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
3 of 11 8/6/2010 12:07 PM
a computer; and contributed to their ability to usecomputing and informational technology.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional ResearchAll program facultyMcGuffee
Supporting Attachments:
Substantiating Evidence:
3.2 Demonstrate Computer Skills
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Demonstrate Computer Skills needed in aLegal OfficeCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: This data is obtained from studentrecords kept by the faculty member teaching LAS 360.
Target: At least 75% of the Legal Assistant Studiesmajors will receive a grade of B or better in the LawOffice Management and Computer Applications Course(LAS 360).
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: LAS 360 InstructorMcGuffee
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Demonstrate Computer Skills neededin a Legal Office
Summary of Findings: 93.5% of the LAS studentsreceived a grade of B or higher in the LAS 360- LawOffice Management and Computer Applications class.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
3.3 Using Computers and Technology
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 2.2Student Satisfaction
Measures & Findings
Computer UseProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: The Legal Assistant Studies majors will achievea mean score of 2.5 or higher on the Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional Research’s National Surveyof Student Engagement which assesses whether astudent’s experience at UTC led them to report that theyhave the ability to use computer and informationtechnology.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional ResearchAll program facultyMcGuffee
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Computer Use
Summary of Findings: The Legal Assistant Studiesmajors had a mean of 2.75 on this item.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
4 of 11 8/6/2010 12:07 PM
4. Mastery of Oral CommunicationSkills
Outcomes
4.1 Reported use of Oral CommunicationSkills
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 2.2Student Satisfaction
Measures & Findings
Reported Oral Communication SkillsProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: The Legal Assistant Studies program willachieve a mean score of 2.5 or higher on the Office ofPlanning, Evaluation, and Institutional Research’sEnrolled Student Survey that assesses whether astudent asked questions in class or contributed to classdiscussions, and whether they made a classpresentation.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional ResearchAll program facultyMcGuffee
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Reported Oral Communication Skills
Summary of Findings: The Legal Assistant Studiesmajors had a mean of 2.6 on both of these items.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
4.2 Demonstrate Oral CommunicationSkills
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Oral PresentationProgram level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: This data is obtained from studentrecords kept by the faculty member teaching LAS 471.
Target: At least 75% of the Legal Assistant Studiesstudents will receive a grade of C or better on thepaper/presentation required in the Legal Ethics Course(471).
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: McGuffee
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Oral Presentation
Summary of Findings: 89.7% of the LAS studentsreceived a grade of C or better on thepaper/presentation required in the Legal Ethics andProfessionalism class.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
4.3 Speak Effectively and Clearly
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Speak EffectivelyProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by the
Findings for Speak Effectively
Summary of Findings: The Legal Assistant Studies
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
5 of 11 8/6/2010 12:07 PM
Office of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: The Legal Assistant Studies majors will achievea mean score of 2.5 or higher on the Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional Research’s National Surveyof Student Engagement which assesses whether astudent’s experience at UTC led them to report they canspeak clearly and effectively.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional ResearchAll Program FacultyMcGuffee
Supporting Attachments:
majors had a mean of 2.5 on this item.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
5. Mastery of Critical ThinkingSkills
Outcomes
5.1 Integration of Ideas
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 2.2Student Satisfaction
Measures & Findings
Integrating Material from Various SourcesProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: The Legal Assistant Studies program willachieve a mean score of 2.5 or higher on the Office ofPlanning, Evaluation, and Institutional Research’sEnrolled Student Survey that assesses whether astudent integrated ideas or information from varioussources and courses, and during class discussions.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional ResearchProgram facultyMcGuffee
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Integrating Material from VariousSources
Summary of Findings: The Legal Assistant Studiesmajors had a mean of 3.20 and 2.80 on these items.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
5.2 Analyzing and SynthesizingInformation
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Analyzing and SynthesizingProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and Institutional
Findings for Analyzing and Synthesizing
Summary of Findings: The Legal Assistant Studiesmajors had a mean of 3.20 and 2.80 on these items.
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
6 of 11 8/6/2010 12:07 PM
Research.
Target: The Legal Assistant Studies program willachieve a mean score of 2.5 or higher on the Office ofPlanning, Evaluation, and Institutional Research’sEnrolled Student Survey that assesses whether astudent analyzed the basic elements of an idea,experience or theory and whether they synthesizedinformation into more complex ideas.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional ResearchAll program facultyMcGuffee
Supporting Attachments:
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
5.3 Making Judgements
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
JudgementProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: The Legal Assistant Studies program willachieve a mean score of 2.5 or higher on the Office ofPlanning, Evaluation, and Institutional Research’sEnrolled Student Survey that assesses whether astudent made judgements about information and data.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional ResearchAll program facultyMcGuffee
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Judgement
Summary of Findings: The Legal Assistant Studiesmajors had a mean of 3.20 on this item.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
5.4 Reported Ability to Think Criticallyand Analytical
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Ability to Think CriticallyProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: The Legal Assistant Studies program willachieve a mean score of 2.5 or higher on the Office ofPlanning, Evaluation, and Institutional Research’sEnrolled Student Survey that assesses whether astudent’s experience at UTC added to their ability tothink clearly and analytically.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Findings for Ability to Think Critically
Summary of Findings: The Legal Assistant Studiesmajors had a mean of 2.50 on this item.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
7 of 11 8/6/2010 12:07 PM
Key/Responsible Personnel: Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional ResearchAll program facultyMcGuffee
Supporting Attachments:
6. Student Retention
Outcomes
6.1 Quality Advising
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 2.4Strong Commitment to Program, Measurable Outcome2.5 Student Engagement
Measures & Findings
Student Assessment of AdvisingProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: The Legal Assistant Studies students willachieve a mean score of 2.5 or higher on the Office ofPlanning, Evaluation, and Institutional Research’sEnrolled Student Survey that assesses the quality ofadvising they received at UTC.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional ResearchMcGuffee
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student Assessment of Advising
Summary of Findings: The Legal Assistant Studiesmajors had a mean of 3.33 on this item.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
6.2 Scheduling
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 2.7Retention & Persistence, Measurable Outcome 4.4Retention/Graduation
Measures & Findings
Course Rotation PlanProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: This data is taken from the classschedules for the year.
Target: 100% of all required courses will be offered atleast once a year.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: McGuffee
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Course Rotation Plan
Summary of Findings: 100% of all required courseswere offered at least once a year.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
6.3 Quality of Relationship betweenStudents and Faculty
Mapped to:
Measures & Findings
Student Faculty RelationshipsProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Findings for Student Faculty Relationships
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
8 of 11 8/6/2010 12:07 PM
Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 2.4Strong Commitment to Program, Measurable Outcome2.5 Student Engagement
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: The Legal Assistant Studies program willachieve a mean score of 4.0 or higher on the Office ofPlanning, Evaluation, and Institutional Research’sEnrolled Student Survey that assesses studentsperceptions about the quality of relationships betweenfaculty and students.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional ResearchAll program facultyMcGuffee
Supporting Attachments:
Summary of Findings: The Legal Assistant Studiesmajors had a mean of 5.0 on this item.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
7. Student Satisfaction
Outcomes
7.1 Student Satisfaction with OverallQuality
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Students[Teaching & Learning]: Measurable Outcome 3.9Student Satisfaction
Measures & Findings
Overall Student SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: The Legal Assistant Studies program willachieve a mean score of 2.5 or higher on the Office ofPlanning, Evaluation, and Institutional Research’sEnrolled Student Survey that assesses the entireeducational experience.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional ResearchAll program facultyMcGuffee
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Overall Student Satisfaction
Summary of Findings: The Legal Assistant Studiesmajors had a mean of 3.0 on this item.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
8. Exposure to Diversity
Outcomes
8.1 Exposure to Diverse People andPerspectives Measures & Findings
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
9 of 11 8/6/2010 12:07 PM
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Diversity:Measurable Outcome 1.5 Increased Tolerance
Diversity Experiences in Person or in ClassProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: The Legal Assistant Studies program willachieve a mean score of 2.5 or higher on the Office ofPlanning, Evaluation, and Institutional Research’sEnrolled Student Survey that assesses whether theyincluded diverse perspectives in class discussions orwriting assignments and had serious conversations withstudents of a different race/ethnicity.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: Office of Planning,Evaluation, and Institutional ResearchAll Program FacultyMcGuffee
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Diversity Experiences in Person or inClass
Summary of Findings: The Legal Assistant Studiesmajors had a mean of 2.60 on both of these items.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
8.2 Increased Understanding of DiverseGroups
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Diversity:Measurable Outcome 1.5 Increased Tolerance
Measures & Findings
Understanding Other Races/EthnicityInstitution level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: This survey is administered by theOffice of Planning, Evaluation, and InstitutionalResearch.
Target: The Legal Assistant Studies program willachieve a mean score of 2.5 or higher on the Office ofPlanning, Evaluation, and Institutional Research’sEnrolled Student Survey that assesses whether they hadan increased understanding of people from otherracial/ethnic backgrounds.
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: All program faculty.McGuffee
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Understanding Other Races/Ethnicity
Summary of Findings: The Legal Assistant Studiesmajors had a mean of 3.00 on this item.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
8.3 Integration of Ethical Issues in theCurriculum
Mapped to:Strategic Initiative: Partnerships for Diversity:Measurable Outcome 1.5 Increased Tolerance
Measures & Findings
Participate in Ethics ClassCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: The data will be taken from thestudent records kept by the Coordinator.
Target: 100% of graduating majors will take an ethicsclass in legal assistant studies (LAS471).
Implementation Plan (timeline): 2008-09
Key/Responsible Personnel: McGuffee
Findings for Participate in Ethics Class
Summary of Findings: 100% of all graduating majorstook the ethics (470) course.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
10 of 11 8/6/2010 12:07 PM
Supporting Attachments: Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
11 of 11 8/6/2010 12:07 PM
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Music
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
BM Music
Outcomes
Recital
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
RecitalProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Students will pass the DivisionJury pre-recital hearing.
Target: 80%
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall and Spring
Key/Responsible Personnel: Division Jury committee
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Recital
Summary of Findings: 100% of students passed theDivision Jury pre-recital hearing.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Continue to communicateexpectations via studio instructors and Music StudentHandbook.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Score Reading
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Score ReadingProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Students enrolled in MUS 303,Basic Conducting, will pass a music readingexamination, a portion of the final examination for thecourse.
Target: 80%
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall
Key/Responsible Personnel: Conducting faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Score Reading
Summary of Findings: All students enrolled in MUS 303,Basic Conducting, passed the final examination.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Continue providing conducting labcomponent in Music Seminar course to provideconducting opportunities for students enrolled in MUS303, 310 and 328.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
1 of 3 8/6/2010 12:21 PM
Listening Analysis
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Listening AnalysisProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Students enrolled in MUS 208,Theory II, will pass the final exam, which includes alistening portion.
Target: 80%
Implementation Plan (timeline): Spring
Key/Responsible Personnel: Theory II faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Listening Analysis
Summary of Findings: 100% of students enrolled inTheory II passed the final exam.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Continue with current procedures
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Continuation Standard - Theory
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Theory ProficiencyProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Students will pass a SophomoreTheory Proficiency Exam as a pre-requisite to upper leveltheory and conducting courses.
Target: 90%
Implementation Plan (timeline): Spring
Key/Responsible Personnel: Theory II faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Theory Proficiency
Summary of Findings: 90% of students enrolled in MUS208 passed the Sophomore Theory Proficiency Exam(Comprehensive) on the first attempt.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Continue to monitor exam results.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Continuation Standard - Performance
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Continuation Standard - PerformanceProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Students will pass a Semester Endjury audition to be admitted to 300-level applied study.
Target: 90%
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall and Spring
Key/Responsible Personnel: Applied Music Faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Continuation Standard - Performance
Summary of Findings: 90% of students auditioning for300-level applied music study passed on their firstattempt.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Continue to monitor jury results.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Master of Music Outcome Set
Outcomes
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
2 of 3 8/6/2010 12:21 PM
Preparation for professional life
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Professional KnowledgeProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The Graduate Advisory Committee,appointed by the Department Head, will evaluate thecandidate's performance on the comprehensiveexamination and vote "pass" or "fail."
Target: 80% of graduate students will pass thecomprehensive oral and written examination on the firstattempt.
Implementation Plan (timeline): fall and spring
Key/Responsible Personnel: Graduate music faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Professional Knowledge
Summary of Findings: 100% of graduate studentspassed the comprehensive examination on the firstattempt.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Communicate with graduatestudents and advisors on specific procedures andexpectations for the Comprehensive Examination viaconsultation and Graduate Music Student Handbook.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Thesis/project/recital
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Publication and PerformanceProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: All theses, projects and recitalswill be evaluated as "passed" or "not passed." GraduateAdvisory Committee and Division Jury will evaluate asappropriate.
Target: 100% of graduate students will pass
Implementation Plan (timeline): fall and spring
Key/Responsible Personnel: Graduate Music faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Publication and Performance
Summary of Findings: 100% of graduate students werepassed on their theses, projects and recitals.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : No changes at this time.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
3 of 3 8/6/2010 12:21 PM
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Philosophy & Religion
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
Assets of technology. Learningenvironment
Outcomes
Construction of bibliography
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Thesis BibliographyProgram level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: 1a. At least 80% of students inPHIL 351 (required of all majors) will prepare anappropriate bibliography for a research paper using book,journal, and internet sources.
1b. At least 90% of student completing the senior thesiswill prepare an appropriate bibliography using book,journal, and internet resources. Bibliographies will bejudged by members of the student's oral examinationcommittee.
Target: 80% success rate for students in PHIL 351 and90% success rate for students completing their seniortheses.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Yearly.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Faculty in Department.
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Thesis Bibliography
Summary of Findings: 81.2% of students (13 of 16) inPHIL 351 prepared an appropriate bibliography
83.3% of students (5 of 6) completing their seniortheses prepared an appropriate bibliography
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Continue to emphasize theimportance of constructing appropriate bibliographies.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Development of writing skills
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Writing SkillsProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: 75% or more of Philosophy andReligion graduates will score above the UTC mean onthe Writing Skills index of the College Base AchievementTest.
Target: 75% or more success rate.
Findings for Writing Skills
Summary of Findings: No data was available (no majorstook this part of the Writing Skills index of the CollegeBase Achievement Test.
Target Achievement:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
1 of 2 8/6/2010 12:23 PM
Implementation Plan (timeline): Yearly
Key/Responsible Personnel: Department Head
Supporting Attachments:
Recommendations : Continue to consult the results ofthis portion of the test.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Development of reading and textualanalysis skills
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Reading and Textual Analysis SkillsProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: 75% or more of Philosophy andReligion graduates will score above the UTC mean onthe Reading Analytically index of the College BaseAchievement Test.
Target: 75% success rate.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Yearly.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Department Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Reading and Textual Analysis Skills
Summary of Findings: 66.6% of students (3 of 3 takingthe test) scored above the UTC mean on the ReadingAnalytically index of the College Base Achievement Test.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Work to improve the analyticalreading ability of our majors.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
2 of 2 8/6/2010 12:23 PM
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Political Science & Public Administration
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
Political Science & PublicAdministration Outcome Set
Outcomes
Outcome 1: American Studies
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
ACAT senior exit exam American StudiesProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Senior exit exam mandatory forPOLS graduation
Target: 100% of the students test in this area. Score aminimum 50% average overall in proficiency in AmericanStudies section
Implementation Plan (timeline): At end of eachsemester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Departmental Secretary
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for ACAT senior exit exam AmericanStudies
Summary of Findings: Exit exam delivered to December2008 graduates:100% of students, total 10 students tested, 73% overallscore
Exit exam delivered to May 2009 graduates:100% of students, total 21 students tested, 67% overallscore
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome 2: International andComparative Government
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
International and Comparative GovernmentDirect - Exam
Details/Description: PACAT Test Administered by AustinPeay State University.
Target: Will be administered to graduating PoliticalScience majors whose concentration is International andComparative Studies.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Will be Administeredin the Spring
Findings for International and ComparativeGovernment
Summary of Findings: Students scored in the 58thpercentile.
Target Achievement:
Recommendations :
Notes :
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
1 of 2 8/6/2010 12:24 PM
Key/Responsible Personnel: Departmental Secretary
Supporting Attachments:
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome 3: Critical Thinking
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Critical ThinkingProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Graduates in Political Science willbe able to critically analyze an article in a professionaljournal.
Target: Political Science majors are required to takePOLS 200: Research Methods.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Students in POLS 200read an atricle in a professional journal and show thatthey are able to 1. Identify the reserach hypothesis 2.Analyze and assess the sampling, analytical, andstatistical techniques used 3. Analyze and assess theapporpriateness of the author's conclusions.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Christopher Horne
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Critical Thinking
Summary of Findings: 62% of the students in Dr.Horne's class scored 80% or above
Target Achievement:
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome 4: Communication Skills
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Communication SkillsProgram level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: Graduates in Political Science shalldemonstrate the ability to write a research paper inwhich they analyze a political topic, using appropriatereferences and citations.
Target: Students in all 400-level political sciencecourses who are required to write a research paper.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Based on evaluationof a random sample of 50% of the papers, at least 50%will demonstrate an ability to satisfy at least four of thefollowing criteria:1. the author thesis2. an appropriate methodology3. level of organization4. proper grammar, syntax, and style5. proper use of citations and references
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Fouad Moughrabi
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Communication Skills
Summary of Findings: 72% of the random sampledeemed "satisfactory"28% deemed "unsatisfactory"
Target Achievement:
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
2 of 2 8/6/2010 12:24 PM
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Psychology: BS
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
Psychology: BS Outcome Set
Outcomes
1. Intended EducationalOutcome/Objective
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
1. Means of Assessment and Criteria forSuccessCourse level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: A supplemental survey of studentsat the middle and end of the semester will provide dataaddressing this outcome. Success will be achieved if atleast 70% of students report being at least somewhatsatisfied with the quality of the 202 course and lab, andindicate at least a moderate agreement that the courseis supportive, yet challenging.
Target:
Implementation Plan (timeline):
Key/Responsible Personnel:
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 1. Means of Assessment and Criteriafor Success
Summary of Findings: At mid-semester, 100% ofresponding students were at least somewhat satisfiedwith the quality of the lecture, and 92% were at leastsomewhat satisfied with the quality of the lab. Ofrespondents, 92% also indicated the course waschallenging, but also that the professors and labinstructors were supportive.
At the end of the semester, 97.4% of students were atleast somewhat satisfied with the quality of the lectureand lab. In addition. 92.1% agreed at least somewhatthat the course was challenging overall, while 100%indicated that the professors and lab instructors weresupportive.
Target Achievement:
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
2. Intended EducationalOutcome/Objective
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
2. Means of Assessment and Criteria forSuccessCourse level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Supplemental survey results willindicate the degree to which students feel PSY 202 has
Findings for 2. Means of Assessment and Criteriafor Success
Summary of Findings: With respect to critical thinkingability, 83.3% of respondents at least somewhat agreed
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
1 of 2 8/6/2010 12:25 PM
provided them with useful skills and knowledge to bemore effective critical thinkers and problem solvers inthe real world. Success will be achieved if at least 70%of reports indicate at least moderate agreement withthese statements.
Target:
Implementation Plan (timeline):
Key/Responsible Personnel:
Supporting Attachments:
that this course had improved their critical thinkingability. As for problem solving, 80.6% at least somewhatagreed that this course improved their ability to be areal-world problem solver.
Target Achievement:
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
3. Intended EducationalOutcome/Objective
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
3. Means of Assessment and Criteria forSuccessCourse level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Supplemental survey results willindicate that at least 70% of students find the overalllab experience in PSY 202 to be especially helpful totheir development of research skills in psychology.
Target:
Implementation Plan (timeline):
Key/Responsible Personnel:
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 3. Means of Assessment and Criteriafor Success
Summary of Findings: Of respondents, 83.3% at leastsomewhat agreed that the PSY 202 lab was“especially helpful to the development of [your]psychology research skills.”
Target Achievement:
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
2 of 2 8/6/2010 12:25 PM
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Psychology: MS
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
Psychology: MS Outcome Set
Outcomes
1. Intended EducationalOutcome/Objective
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
1. Means of Assessment and Criteria forSuccessProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Results from an exit survey willindicate that a majority of graduating students at leastAgree with statements that indicate the curriculum hasprepared them for their next steps in the field of I-O.
Target:
Implementation Plan (timeline):
Key/Responsible Personnel:
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 1. Means of Assessment and Criteriafor Success
Summary of Findings: Responses to the exit surveyfrom recently graduating students (N = 26) supports thisobjective as 91.8% of students Agreed or StronglyAgreed that the UTC program curriculum has preparedthem to take their next steps in the I-O field.
Target Achievement:
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
2. Intended EducationalOutcome/Objective
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
2. Means of Assessment and Criteria forSuccessProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Results from an exit survey willshow that a majority of graduating students at leastAgree with statements suggesting that thecomprehensive exam process was worthwhile and helpedthem to consolidate their knowledge of I-O.
Target:
Implementation Plan (timeline):
Key/Responsible Personnel:
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 2. Means of Assessment and Criteriafor Success
Summary of Findings: Only 5/26 respondents chose torespond to this particular question, but all indicated thatthe comprehensive exam process was worthwhile andhelped them to consolidate their I-O knowledge gainedin the UTC program.
Target Achievement:
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
1 of 2 8/6/2010 12:27 PM
3. Intended EducationalOutcome/Objective
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
3. Means of Assessment and Criteria forSuccessProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Results from a supplemental endof semester teaching evaluation will indicate that atleast 70% of students feel their professors are at leastVery knowledgeable about the topics they teach andengaging in their presentation of materials within theclassroom.
Target:
Implementation Plan (timeline):
Key/Responsible Personnel:
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 3. Means of Assessment and Criteriafor Success
Summary of Findings: 96.2% of all respondents Agreedor Strongly Agreed that professors were “veryknowledgeable about the topics they teach,” and88.5% Agreed or Strongly Agreed that professors were“engaging in their presentation of material inclass”.
Target Achievement:
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
2 of 2 8/6/2010 12:27 PM
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Theatre & Speech
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
Theatre & Speech Outcome Set07-08
Outcomes
Identify and Use Dramatic Action
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Directed sceneCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Through directed scenes presentedin demonstration labs.
Target: 80% of students will score a 8 out of 10 on"interpretation" and "development of dramatic action"portions of the Dem-Lab.
Implementation Plan (timeline): End of year.
Key/Responsible Personnel: John Burgess, GayeJeffers, Steve Ray, Mac Smotherman
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Directed scene
Summary of Findings: 1 Student scored 10/102 Students scored 9/102 Students scored 8/10
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes : The assessment and findings are based solelyupon our Directing class which has in the past been usedas a "capstone" class. The current faculty does notbelieve this assessment plan is an effective means ofassessment for our current objectives and goals. We arecurrently revising all assessment tools, objectives, andoutcomes.
Substantiating Evidence:
Play AnalysisCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Through Play Analysis (Hodge) inpreparation for scenes directed for demonstration labs.
Target: 80% of students will score a 8 out of 10 on theanalysis.
Implementation Plan (timeline):
Key/Responsible Personnel: Gaye Jeffers
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Play Analysis
Summary of Findings: 1 Student scored 10/101 Student scored 9/102 Students scored 8/101 Student scored 7/10
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes : The assessment and findings are based solelyupon our Directing class which has in the past been usedas a "capstone" class. The current faculty does notbelieve this assessment plan is an effective means ofassessment for our current objectives and goals. We are
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
1 of 5 8/6/2010 12:28 PM
currently revising all assessment tools, objectives, andoutcomes.
Substantiating Evidence:
Understand Characterization
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Directing scenesCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Through scenes directed fordemonstration labs.
Target: 80% of students will score 8/10 on thecharacterization portion of the demonstration labevaluation.
Implementation Plan (timeline): At least once eachsemester.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Gaye Jeffers
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Directing scenes
Summary of Findings: 2 Students scored 10/101 Student scored 9/102 Students scored 8/10
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes : The assessment and findings are based solelyupon our Directing class which has in the past been usedas a "capstone" class. The current faculty does notbelieve this assessment plan is an effective means ofassessment for our current objectives and goals. We arecurrently revising all assessment tools, objectives, andoutcomes.
Substantiating Evidence:
Roles Performed in Labs and ProductionsProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Through Roles performed indemonstration labs and UTC Theatre productions
Target: 80% of students with an acting focus will score8 out of 10 on Jury Critique.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Twice each semester.
Key/Responsible Personnel: John Burgess, GayeJeffers, Steve Ray, Mac Smotherman
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Roles Performed in Labs andProductions
Summary of Findings: 1 Student scored 10/101 Student scored 9/103 Students scored 8/10
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes : The assessment and findings are based solelyupon our Directing class which has in the past been usedas a "capstone" class. The current faculty does notbelieve this assessment plan is an effective means ofassessment for our current objectives and goals. We arecurrently revising all assessment tools, objectives, andoutcomes.
Substantiating Evidence:
Scenic Environment
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Floor PlanCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Compose a floor plan and usescenic environment in directed scenes for demonstrationlab.
Target: 80% of students will score a 8 out of 10 on the
Findings for Floor Plan
Summary of Findings: 4 Students scored 9/101 Student scored 7/10
Target Achievement: Met
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
2 of 5 8/6/2010 12:28 PM
"Scenic Environment" portion of Dem-Lab evaluation.
Implementation Plan (timeline):
Key/Responsible Personnel: Gaye Jeffers
Supporting Attachments:
Recommendations :
Notes : The assessment and findings are based solelyupon our Directing class which has in the past been usedas a "capstone" class. The current faculty does notbelieve this assessment plan is an effective means ofassessment for our current objectives and goals. We arecurrently revising all assessment tools, objectives, andoutcomes.
Substantiating Evidence:
Stage Management
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Skills and disciplinesProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Organization and management of ademonstration lab rehearsal process and/or throughservice as a crew head and/or stage manager on a UTCTheatre production.
Target: 80% of students will score a 8 out of 10 on JuryCritique.
Implementation Plan (timeline):
Key/Responsible Personnel: John Burgess, GayeJeffers, Steve Ray, Mac Smotherman
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Skills and disciplines
Summary of Findings: 1 Student scored 10/101 Student scored 9/101 Student scored 8/102 Students scored 7/10
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Scheduling rehearsals iscomplicated by the lack of suitable space for students towork. Poor use of time or organization causes studentsto fall behind and affect others needing the space. Moresuitable rehearsal spaces are needed.
Notes : The assessment and findings are based solelyupon our Directing class which has in the past been usedas a "capstone" class. The current faculty does notbelieve this assessment plan is an effective means ofassessment for our current objectives and goals. We arecurrently revising all assessment tools, objectives, andoutcomes.
Substantiating Evidence:
Advanced Work
Mapped to:USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
Specialized AreaProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Through supervised and evaluatedstudent teaching.
Target: All students will successfully complete studentteaching experience.
Implementation Plan (timeline):
Key/Responsible Personnel: John Burgess, GayeJeffers, Steve Ray, Mac Smotherman
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Specialized Area
Summary of Findings: 1 Student is currently doingadvanced work.1 Student is progressing toward advanced work.3 Students show potential.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations :
Notes : The assessment and findings are based solelyupon our Directing class which has in the past been usedas a "capstone" class. The current faculty does notbelieve this assessment plan is an effective means ofassessment for our current objectives and goals. We are
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
3 of 5 8/6/2010 12:28 PM
currently revising all assessment tools, objectives, andoutcomes.
Substantiating Evidence:
Specialized AreaProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Through supervised professionalinternship or international exchange.
Target: All students will score an average of 4.5 out of5 on questionnaire sent to host program.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Upon the completionof an internship or exchange program, a questionnairealong with a stamped envelope will be sent to the hostagency for the evaluation of the student.
Key/Responsible Personnel: John Burgess, GayeJeffers, Steve Ray, Mac Smotherman
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Specialized Area
Summary of Findings: 2 Students completed aninternship with two different host institutions. Bothstudents scored 5/5
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : We should raise our expectationsfor this outcome. Perhaps raise to 4.8 from 4.5.
Notes : The assessment and findings are based solelyupon our Directing class which has in the past been usedas a "capstone" class. The current faculty does notbelieve this assessment plan is an effective means ofassessment for our current objectives and goals. We arecurrently revising all assessment tools, objectives, andoutcomes.
Substantiating Evidence:
Specialized AreaProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Through direction of design of UTCTheatre or public workshop production.
Target: 100% of students will score a minimum of 9 outof 10 on 300r and 400r Jury Critiques
Implementation Plan (timeline):
Key/Responsible Personnel: John Burgess, GayeJeffers. Steve Ray, Mac Smotherman
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Specialized Area
Summary of Findings: 1 Student is performing anadvanced work in directing during 2009-2010 year.1 Student is progressing toward advanced work intechnical theatre.3 Students show potential for advanced work.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations :
Notes : The assessment and findings are based solelyupon our Directing class which has in the past been usedas a "capstone" class. The current faculty does notbelieve this assessment plan is an effective means ofassessment for our current objectives and goals. We arecurrently revising all assessment tools, objectives, andoutcomes.
Substantiating Evidence:
Specialized AreaProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Through advanced production orperformance work juried by THSP faculty
Target: 100% of students will score a minimum of 9 outof 10 on 300r and 400r Jury Critiques
Implementation Plan (timeline): Twice each semester.
Key/Responsible Personnel: John Burgess, GayeJeffers, Steve Ray, Mac Smotherman
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Specialized Area
Summary of Findings: All students are have scored 9 orhigher.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes : The assessment and findings are based solelyupon our Directing class which has in the past been usedas a "capstone" class. The current faculty does notbelieve this assessment plan is an effective means ofassessment for our current objectives and goals. We are
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
4 of 5 8/6/2010 12:28 PM
currently revising all assessment tools, objectives, andoutcomes.
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
5 of 5 8/6/2010 12:28 PM
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Accountancy: MAcc
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
Accountancy: MAcc Outcome Set
Outcomes
MACC Goal A1: Structured BusinessPresentation
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 5.1, Assurance of learning standards 5.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
MACC A1: Structured Business PresentationCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Following an in class assignmentregarding asset impairment, the students enrolled in547, Financial Accounting Theory and Issues, will go toEdgar Online or another financial statement databaseservice and identify a company that has had animpairment of long lived assets. In a subsequent class,and drawing upon the asset impairment informationgathered from their company’s 10K or 10Q, each studentwill make an eight to ten minute presentation on thedisclosures made in the body of the financial statementsas well as in the footnotes.
Target: Above + Meets Expectation is greater than 85%
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008
Key/Responsible Personnel: Thomas Gavin
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for MACC A1: Structured BusinessPresentation
Summary of Findings:
Overall:
Meets + Above Expectations 97.05%
Above Expectations 44.10%Meets Expectations 52.95%Below Expectations 2.95%
Traits:
1) Visual aids
Meets + Above Expectations: 100%
Above Expectations: 5.9%Meets Expectations: 94.1%Below Expectations: 0%
2) Eye Contact
Meets + Above Expectations: 94.1%
Above Expectations: 52.9%Meets Expectations: 41.2%Below Expectations: 5.9%
3) Elocution
Meets + Above Expectations: 100%
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
1 of 4 8/6/2010 12:30 PM
Above Expectations: 58.8%Meets Expectations: 41.2%Below Expectations: 0%
4) Mannerisms
Meets + Above Expectations: 94.1%
Above Expectations: 58.8%Meets Expectations: 35.3%Below Expectations: 5.9%
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : None needed.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MACC Goal A2: Effective InformationGathering Techniques
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 5.1, Assurance of learning standards 5.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
MACC A2:Effective Information GatheringTechniquesCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Following an in class assignmentregarding asset impairment, the students enrolled in547, Financial Accounting Theory and Issues, will go toEdgar Online or another financial statement databaseservice and identify a company that has had animpairment of long lived assets. In a subsequent class,and drawing upon the asset impairment informationgathered from their company’s 10K or 10Q, each studentwill make an eight to the minute presentation on thedisclosures made in the body of the financial statementsas well as in the footnotes.
Target: Above + Meets Expectation is greater than 85%
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008
Key/Responsible Personnel: Thomas Gavin
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for MACC A2:Effective InformationGathering Techniques
Summary of Findings:Meets + Above Expectations 100%
Above Expectations 70.6%Meets Expectations 29.4%Below Expectations 0%
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : None needed.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MACC Goal C2: Implementing AdvancedLaws, Regulations, and S
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 5.1, Assurance of learning standards 5.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
MACC C2: Implementing Advanced Laws,Regulations, and StandardsCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: All students enrolled in 547,Financial Accounting Theory and Issues, were given acase regarding SFAS 144, Accounting for the Impairmentor Disposal of Long-Lived Assets. Students were askedto develop expected cash flow outcome given cash flowsassociated with the following operational elements: net
Findings for MACC C2: Implementing AdvancedLaws, Regulations, and Standards
Summary of Findings:Meets + Above Expectations 92.65%
Above Expectations 89.7%Meets Expectations 2.95%Below Expectations 7.35%
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
2 of 4 8/6/2010 12:30 PM
cash flows for the asset in-use and for sale, related timehorizons, and related discounts rates (to be used asappropriate).
Target: Above + Meets Expectation is greater than 85%
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008
Key/Responsible Personnel: Thomas Gavin
Supporting Attachments:
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : None needed.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MACC Goal D1: Consequences ofDeviating from Ethically Sound
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 5.1, Assurance of learning standards 5.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
MACC D1: Consequences of Deviating fromEthically Sound Decision-MakingCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: In BACC 589, students prepared acase write-up, which had a general overview and thenanswer posted questions regarding ethics. The fall classanalyzed Accounting Fraud at WorldCom and the springclass analyzed Ethics and Competence at New CenturyFinancial Corporation.
Target: Above + Meets Expectation is greater than 85%
Implementation Plan (timeline): Spring 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Melanie McCoskey
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for MACC D1: Consequences of Deviatingfrom Ethically Sound Decision-Making
Summary of Findings:Meets + Above Expectations 76.47%
Above Expectations 41.18%Meets Expectations 35.29%Below Expectations 23.53%
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Students didn't really understandhow the stakeholders fit into the decision-makingprocess. McCoskey will tell them to analyze this issuemore fully in future semesters.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MACC Goal E2:
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 5.1, Assurance of learning standards 5.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
MACC E2: Knowledge of Advanced TechnicalTopicsCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Students in BACC 536 AccountingInformation Systems, Summer term 2009, completed 12cases using Excel 2007. Twenty five students wereevaluated. The metric used was the following: less than90% correct was below expectations, 90%-95% metexpectations, and 96%-100% exceeded expectations.Since these were graduate students who were skilled inExcel, the performance standard was high.
Target: Above + Meets Expectation is greater than 85%
Implementation Plan (timeline): Summer 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Marsha Scheidt
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for MACC E2: Knowledge of AdvancedTechnical Topics
Summary of Findings: In the 8 cases that requiredbasic skills, over 60% of the students exceededexpectation.
In two of the 4 cases that required advanced skills, over40% of the students scored below expectations.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Whereas students were able tohandle cases using basic Excel skills, they were notexperienced with its advanced features. Marsha Scheidtwill endeavor to improve their skills using twoapproaches. First, she will incorporate Excel 2007 casesinto my undergraduate BACC 408 course to target these4 areas. She will develop these cases to improve these4 identified advanced skills. It is her objective that this
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
3 of 4 8/6/2010 12:30 PM
knowledge should carry forward to their graduate BACC536 course. Second, in BACC 536, she will prepare fourshort demonstrations using these advanced features.Hopefully, these short lectures will be a refresher in howto apply these advanced skills.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MACC Goal E3: Accounting in BusinessOrganizations
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 5.1, Assurance of learning standards 5.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
MACC E3: Understanding Accounting inBusiness OrganizationsCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Students in BACC 536 AccountingInformation Systems, Summer term 2009, completed 10exam questions about the strategic role of accountingand information in business organizations. Thisquestionnaire was based on a reading concerning thestrategic goals of an organization. Twenty five studentswere evaluated. The metric used was the following: lessthan 50% correct was below expectations, 50-75% metexpectations, and over 75% exceeded expectations.
Target: Above + Meets Expectation is greater than 85%
Implementation Plan (timeline): Summer 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Marsha Scheidt
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for MACC E3: Understanding Accountingin Business Organizations
Summary of Findings: Students were successful indifferentiating between structured and unstructureddecisions, decision scope, and value chain components.On these questions, students consistently scored over80%. On questions involving strategic differentiationthey scored below 70%.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Students performed poorly onquestions involving variety-based, needs-based andaccess based strategic positions. She will prepare alecture on these topics and present a more in-depthdiscussion of these topics. She will also endeavor to linkthese concepts to more concrete examples.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
4 of 4 8/6/2010 12:30 PM
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Business Administration: Management & Marketing
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
Business Administration:Undergraduate Outcome Set
Outcomes
BS Goal A1: Written Communication
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of LearningStandards 1.1,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
BS A1: Written CommunicationCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: The BMGT 310, BusinessCommunication, course requires students to composeseveral written documents. The College of Businessused one of the written assignments for theundergraduate degree program assessment. Thestudents completed the program assessmentassignment outside of class. The assignment directedthe student to compose a message to employees of acompany announcing the return to a formal dress code.Using a rubric, the professors evaluated the followingfour traits of writing.
1. logic and organization2. language3. spelling and grammar4. purpose.
Target: Meets + expectations are equal to or greaterthan 80%.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Spring 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Cindy White
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for BS A1: Written Communication
Summary of Findings:
Overall:
Meets + Above Expectations 90.42%
Below Expectations 45.74%Meets Expectations 44.68%Above Expectations 9.58%
Traits:
1) Logic and organization
Meets + Above Expectations: 93.61%
Above Expectations: 42.55%Meets Expectations: 51.06%Below Expectations: 6.39%
2) Language
Meets + Above Expectations: 89.36%
Above Expectations: 41.49%Meets Expectations: 47.87%Below Expectations: 10.64%
3) Spelling and grammar
Meets + Above Expectations: 87.23%
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
1 of 12 8/6/2010 12:58 PM
Above Expectations: 43.62%Meets Expectations: 43.61%Below Expectations: 12.77%
4) Purpose
Meets + Above Expectations: 90.43%
Above Expectations: 42.56%Meets Expectations: 47.87%Below Expectations: 9.57%
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No changes.
Notes : The overall results from Spring 2008 were 77.4%met or exceeded expectations. As a result, the overallSpring 2009 results of 90.42% is a great improvement.
Substantiating Evidence:
BS Goal A2: Business Presentation Skills
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of LearningStandards 1.1,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
BS A2: Business Presentation SkillsCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: BMGT 310 students, working inteams, participated in a role-playing exercise. A problemscenario presented a situation where the students madea decision and presented their decision to a board ofdirectors (the BMGT 310 class). Each student spoke fortwo to three minutes. This role-playing presentationconstituted the business presentation assessment. Theprofessors used a rubric to evaluate the following fivepresentation traits.
1. organization2. visual aids3. eye contact4. elocution5. mannerisms.
Target: Meets + expectations are equal to or greaterthan 80%.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Spring 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Cindy White
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for BS A2: Business Presentation Skills
Summary of Findings:
Overall:
Meets + Above Expectations 95%
Below Expectations 46%Meets Expectations 49%Above Expectations 5%
Traits:
1) Organization
Meets + Above Expectations: 94%
Above Expectations: 58%Meets Expectations: 36%Below Expectations: 6%
2) Visual aids
Meets + Above Expectations: 94%
Above Expectations: 53%Meets Expectations: 41%Below Expectations: 6%
3) Eye Contact
Meets + Above Expectations: 75%
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
2 of 12 8/6/2010 12:58 PM
Above Expectations: 33%Meets Expectations: 42%Below Expectations: 25%
4) Elocution
Meets + Above Expectations: 91%
Above Expectations: 35%Meets Expectations: 56%Below Expectations: 9%
5) Mannerisms
Meets + Above Expectations: 74%
Above Expectations: 28%Meets Expectations: 46%Below Expectations: 26%
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Overall, no changes arerecommended. In the traits, the eye contact andmannerism traits need improvement.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
BS Goal B: Ability to reason ethically.
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of LearningStandards 1.1,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
BS B EthicsCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Students in the BACC 335 class arerequired to read and analyze a case with ethical issues.They are told to complete the following task.“Thoroughly discuss the legal and ethical issues thatarise in this scenario. In your discussion, offer potentialsolutions where appropriate. Explain your answercompletely.” The students are evaluated on each of thefollowing areas and an overall ethics evaluation.
Trait 1: Follows Assignment Instructions
Trait 2: Identifies the issue of whether it was ethical forJean Claude to offer business opportunities to theshipper and insurer in exchange for donations.
Trait 3: Identifies issues regarding whether it wasethical for the museum to alter its exhibition format tomeet the demands of the owner of the pieces or to meetthe demands of a donor.
Trait 4: Identifies the issues regarding whether adonation by a company in exchange for a contract to
Findings for BS B Ethics
Summary of Findings:
Overall Ethics Assessment:
Meets + Above Expectations 91.23%
Above Expectations 47.37%Meets Expectations 43.86%Below Expectations 8.77%
Traits:
1) Follows Assignment Instructions
Meets + Above Expectations: 94.74%
Above Expectations: 66.67%Meets Expectations: 28.07%Below Expectations: 5.26%
2) Identifies the issue of whether it was ethical for JeanClaude to offer business opportunities to the shipper
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
3 of 12 8/6/2010 12:58 PM
ship or insure property is really a charitable contributionand whether a "donor" making such a gift can thecompany claim a tax deduction.
Trait 5: Identifies whether Jane violated her code ofethics and compromised the position of the museum,and if so, how?
Trait 6: Identifies legal and ethical issues that couldlimit enforceability of the pledges to the Museumagainst donors in this case.
Trait 7: Identifies ethical issues related to Jean Claude'ssuggestions or demands that the museum exhibit hispieces in a certain way for is own personal interest.
Trait 8: Offers viable solutions to ethical problems.
Target: Meets + expectations are equal to or greaterthan 80%.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008
Key/Responsible Personnel: Joanie Sompayrac
Supporting Attachments:
and insurer in exchange for donations.
Meets + Above Expectations: 95.61%
Above Expectations: 79.82%Meets Expectations: 15.79%Below Expectations: 4.39%
3) Identifies issues regarding whether it was ethical forthe museum to alter its exhibition format to meet thedemands of the owner of the pieces or to meet thedemands of a donor.
Meets + Above Expectations: 50%
Above Expectations: 21.05%Meets Expectations: 28.95%Below Expectations: 50%
4) Identifies the issues regarding whether a donation bya company in exchange for a contract to ship or insureproperty is really a charitable contribution and whether a"donor" making such a gift can the company claim a taxdeduction.
Meets + Above Expectations: 63.16%
Above Expectations: 35.09%Meets Expectations: 28.07%Below Expectations: 36.84%
5) Identifies whether Jane violated her code of ethicsand compromised the position of the museum, and if so,how?
Meets + Above Expectations: 89.47%
Above Expectations: 64.91%Meets Expectations: 24.56%Below Expectations: 10.53%
6) Identifies legal and ethical issues that could limitenforceability of the pledges to the Museum againstdonors in this case.
Meets + Above Expectations: 92.98%
Above Expectations: 39.47%Meets Expectations: 53.51%Below Expectations: 7.02%
7) : Identifies ethical issues related to Jean Claude'ssuggestions or demands that the museum exhibit hispieces in a certain way for is own personal interest.
Meets + Above Expectations: 55.26%
Above Expectations: 20.18%Meets Expectations: 35.08%
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
4 of 12 8/6/2010 12:58 PM
Below Expectations: 44.74%
8) Offers viable solutions to ethical problems
Meets + Above Expectations: 79.82%
Above Expectations: 28.07%Meets Expectations: 51.75%Below Expectations: 20.18%
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Overall, no changes arerecommended. Traits 3 and 4 need improvement.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
BS Goal C: Analytical, critical-thinkingability.
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of LearningStandards 1.1,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
BS C: Critical ThinkingCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: A major component of BMGT 440 isthe Business Strategy Game simulation. Students areasked to take on the role of CEO of a sneakermanufacturing company. They compete against theircolleagues. The entire simulation revolves around criticalthinking. Students must be able to analyze their owncompany, understand their competition, and makedecisions that will move them forward in aninternational marketplace. Students are scored on howwell they meet their investor’s expectations and on howthey fare based on “best-in-industry.” The scoring is a50%-50% weighting.
Target: Meets + expectations are equal to or greaterthan 80%.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008
Key/Responsible Personnel: Kathleen Wheatley
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for BS C: Critical Thinking
Summary of Findings:
Overall:
Above + Meets Expectations: 81.1%
Above Expectations: 49.3%Meets Expectations: 31.8%Below Expectations: 18.9%
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : No changes are recommended.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
BS Goal D: Use of InformationTechnology
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of LearningStandards 1.1,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
BS D: Use of Information TechnologyCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Students gain an informationtechnology proficiency in BMGT 100, Computers inBusiness. BMGT 100 focuses on four areas of MicrosoftOffice: Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Access. In each ofthese areas, students in BMGT 100 take a testconsisting of a number of tasks.
For the College of Business assessment of UG Objective
Findings for BS D: Use of Information Technology
Summary of Findings: The BMGT 100 Computers inBusiness Course was being redesigned to an onlinecourse during the spring of 2009. Consequently, noassessment was conducted.
Target Achievement:
Recommendations : We are developing a newassessment for the new course.
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
5 of 12 8/6/2010 12:58 PM
D, the coordinator will embed a series of tasks into eachtest in all sections. The tasks are computerized and thecoordinator will have the data from all sections. Thenumber of embedded tasks for each test is below.
Word 6 tasksExcel 8 tasksPowerPoint 6 tasksAccess 6 tasks
The rubric gives the student assessment scores for eachtest, and the following pages describe the assessmentsfor Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Access.
Target: Meets + expectations are equal to or greaterthan 80%.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Spring 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Luis Leon and TonyParsley
Supporting Attachments:
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
BS Goal E1: Diversity
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of LearningStandards 1.1,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
BS E1: DiversityCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: A free-form essay was be includedat the end of the exam. The question for the exam was“When building a department, team, or any other groupof employees, managers have become more dedicated toseeking a diverse set of employees because they realizethere are distinct advantages to doing so. Please definediversity and explain these advantages.”
Target: Meets + expectations are equal to or greaterthan 80%.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008
Key/Responsible Personnel: Jennifer Stanley
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for BS E1: Diversity
Summary of Findings:
Overall:
Meets + Above Expectations: 71.8%
Above Expectations: 42.4%Meets Expectations: 29.4%Below Expectations: 28.2%
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : More emphasis on diversity needsto be included in the curriculum.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
BS Goal E2: Stages of GroupDevelopment
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of LearningStandards 1.1,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section
Measures & Findings
BS E2: Stages of Group DevelopmentCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Six questions on group/teamdevelopment were embedded into the final exam.
Findings for BS E2: Stages of Group Development
Summary of Findings:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
6 of 12 8/6/2010 12:58 PM
3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1 Target: Meets + expectations are equal to or greaterthan 80%.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008
Key/Responsible Personnel: Jennifer Stanley
Supporting Attachments:
Overall:
Meets + Above Expectations: 90.3%
Above Expectations: 45.4%Meets Expectations: 44.9%Below Expectations: 9.7%
Question Results:Q1 - 73.3% correctQ2 - 80.7% correctQ3 - 79.0% correctQ4 - 77.8% correctQ5 - 80.1% correctQ6 - 23.9% correct
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No changes are recommended.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
BS Goal E3: Group Collaboration
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of LearningStandards 1.1,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
BS E3: Group CollaborationCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Students in BMGT 440 participatedin teams and competed in a business simulation game.Working in the teams, the students were required togain an understanding of the game’s industry byconducting an Industry Analysis. They analyzedeconomic factors, industry trends, industry shocks, andstrategic groups. The teams presented the IndustryAnalysis to the class. The teammates evaluated each ofthe other team members on the student’s contributionto the Industry Presentation and Industry Analysis.
The College used the teammate evaluation of each teammember for the assessment of objective E3, groupcollaboration. Every member of the team rated eachstudent on five group collaboration traits. The five traitsare below.
AttendancePreparation for meetingsEnthusiasm and commitmentTeamwork and cooperativenessCarried fair share of work load
Target: Meets + expectations are equal to or greaterthan 80%.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Spring 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Kathleen Wheatley
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for BS E3: Group Collaboration
Summary of Findings:Overall:
Meets + Above Expectations 99.25%
Below Expectations 91.04%Meets Expectations 8.21%Above Expectations 0.75%
Traits:
1) Attendance
Meets + Above Expectations: 99.25%
Above Expectations: 94.78%Meets Expectations: 4.47%Below Expectations: 0.75%
2) Preparation for Meetings
Meets + Above Expectations: 99.25%
Above Expectations: 82.09%Meets Expectations: 17.16%Below Expectations: 0.75%
3) Enthusiasm and commitment
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
7 of 12 8/6/2010 12:58 PM
Meets + Above Expectations: 99.25%
Above Expectations: 85.82%Meets Expectations: 13.43%Below Expectations: 0.75%
4) Teamwork and cooperativeness
Meets + Above Expectations: 100%
Above Expectations: 91.79%Meets Expectations: 8.21%Below Expectations: 0%
5) Carried fair share of work load
Meets + Above Expectations: 99.25%
Above Expectations: 56.71%Meets Expectations: 42.54%Below Expectations: 0.75%
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No changes are recommended.
Notes : Overall students improved over their Spring2008 scores.
Substantiating Evidence:
BS Goal F1: Accounting
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of LearningStandards 1.1,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
BS F1: AccountingCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The Educational Testing Service’s(ETS) Major Field Test (MFT) in Business assessed allnine objectives of UG Goal F. The test consisted of 120multiple-choice questions.
The College utilized the MFT in Business to assess theobjectives of UG Goal F. The test was a permanent partof all BMGT 440 classes with a weight of ten percent ofthe student’s grade. The scores, compared to nationaltest scores, ranked COB students.
Target: Students rank at the 50th percentile or aboveon the ETS exam.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008, Spring2009, and Summer 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Kathleen Wheatley,
Findings for BS F1: Accounting
Summary of Findings:65th percentile for Summer 2009.65th percentile for Summer 2009.40th percentile for Spring 2009.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : We need to improve theconsistency of student results.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
8 of 12 8/6/2010 12:58 PM
Charles Ragland, and Bob Koplowski
Supporting Attachments:
BS Goal F2: Economics
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of LearningStandards 1.1,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
BS F2: EconomicsCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The Educational Testing Service’s(ETS) Major Field Test (MFT) in Business assessed allnine objectives of UG Goal F. The test consisted of 120multiple-choice questions.
The College utilized the MFT in Business to assess theobjectives of UG Goal F. The test was a permanent partof all BMGT 440 classes with a weight of ten percent ofthe student’s grade. The scores, compared to nationaltest scores, ranked COB students.
Target: Students rank at the 50th percentile or aboveon the ETS exam.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008, Spring2009, and Summer 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Kathleen Wheatley,Charles Ragland, and Bob Koplowski
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for BS F2: Economics
Summary of Findings:50th percentile for Fall 2008.55th percentile for Spring 2009.20th percentile for Summer 2009.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : We need to improve theconsistency of student results.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
BS Goal F3: Management
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of LearningStandards 1.1,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
BS F3: ManagementCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The Educational Testing Service’s(ETS) Major Field Test (MFT) in Business assessed allnine objectives of UG Goal F. The test consisted of 120multiple-choice questions.
The College utilized the MFT in Business to assess theobjectives of UG Goal F. The test was a permanent partof all BMGT 440 classes with a weight of ten percent ofthe student’s grade. The scores, compared to nationaltest scores, ranked COB students.
Target: Students rank at the 50th percentile or aboveon the ETS exam.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008, Spring2009, and Summer 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Kathleen Wheatley,Charles Ragland, and Bob Koplowski
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for BS F3: Management
Summary of Findings:60th percentile for Fall 2008.60th percentile for Spring 2009.75th percentile for Summer 2009.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No changes are recommended.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
9 of 12 8/6/2010 12:58 PM
BS Goal F4: Quantitative businessanalysis
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of LearningStandards 1.1,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
BS F4: Quantitative Business AnalysisCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The Educational Testing Service’s(ETS) Major Field Test (MFT) in Business assessed allnine objectives of UG Goal F. The test consisted of 120multiple-choice questions.
The College utilized the MFT in Business to assess theobjectives of UG Goal F. The test was a permanent partof all BMGT 440 classes with a weight of ten percent ofthe student’s grade. The scores, compared to nationaltest scores, ranked COB students.
Target: Students rank at the 50th percentile or aboveon the ETS exam.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008, Spring2009, and Summer 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Kathleen Wheatley,Charles Ragland, and Bob Koplowski
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for BS F4: Quantitative Business Analysis
Summary of Findings:45th percentile for Fall 2008.45th percentile for Spring 2009.60th percentile for Summer 2009.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : We need to improve theconsistency of student results.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
BS Goal F5: Information systems
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of LearningStandards 1.1,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
BS F5: Information SystemsCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The Educational Testing Service’s(ETS) Major Field Test (MFT) in Business assessed allnine objectives of UG Goal F. The test consisted of 120multiple-choice questions.
The College utilized the MFT in Business to assess theobjectives of UG Goal F. The test was a permanent partof all BMGT 440 classes with a weight of ten percent ofthe student’s grade. The scores, compared to nationaltest scores, ranked COB students.
Target: Students rank at the 50th percentile or aboveon the ETS exam.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008, Spring2009, and Summer 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Kathleen Wheatley,Charles Ragland, and Bob Koplowski
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for BS F5: Information Systems
Summary of Findings:50th percentile for Fall 2008.50th percentile for Spring 2009.15th percentile for Summer 2009.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : We need to improve theconsistency of student results.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
BS Goal F6: Finance
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of LearningStandards 1.1,
Measures & Findings
BS F6: FinanceCourse level; Direct - Exam
Findings for BS F6: Finance
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
10 of 12 8/6/2010 12:58 PM
USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1 Details/Description: The Educational Testing Service’s
(ETS) Major Field Test (MFT) in Business assessed allnine objectives of UG Goal F. The test consisted of 120multiple-choice questions.
The College utilized the MFT in Business to assess theobjectives of UG Goal F. The test was a permanent partof all BMGT 440 classes with a weight of ten percent ofthe student’s grade. The scores, compared to nationaltest scores, ranked COB students.
Target: Students rank at the 50th percentile or aboveon the ETS exam.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008, Spring2009, and Summer 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Kathleen Wheatley,Charles Ragland, and Bob Koplowski
Supporting Attachments:
Summary of Findings:60th percentile for Fall 2008.70th percentile for Spring 2009.70th percentile for Summer 2009.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No changes are recommended.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
BS Goal F7: Marketing
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of LearningStandards 1.1,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
BS F7: MarketingCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The Educational Testing Service’s(ETS) Major Field Test (MFT) in Business assessed allnine objectives of UG Goal F. The test consisted of 120multiple-choice questions.
The College utilized the MFT in Business to assess theobjectives of UG Goal F. The test was a permanent partof all BMGT 440 classes with a weight of ten percent ofthe student’s grade. The scores, compared to nationaltest scores, ranked COB students.
Target: Students rank at the 50th percentile or aboveon the ETS exam.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008, Spring2009, and Summer 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Kathleen Wheatley,Charles Ragland, and Bob Koplowski
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for BS F7: Marketing
Summary of Findings:40th percentile for Fall 2008.60th percentile for Summer 2009.40th percentile for Spring 2009.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : We need to improve theconsistency of student results.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
BS Goal F8: Legal issues
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of LearningStandards 1.1,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
BS F8: Legal IssuesCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The Educational Testing Service’s(ETS) Major Field Test (MFT) in Business assessed allnine objectives of UG Goal F. The test consisted of 120multiple-choice questions.
Findings for BS F8: Legal Issues
Summary of Findings:70th percentile for Fall 2008.80th percentile for Summer 2009.40th percentile for Spring 2009.
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
11 of 12 8/6/2010 12:58 PM
The College utilized the MFT in Business to assess theobjectives of UG Goal F. The test was a permanent partof all BMGT 440 classes with a weight of ten percent ofthe student’s grade. The scores, compared to nationaltest scores, ranked COB students.
Target: Students rank at the 50th percentile or aboveon the ETS exam.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008, Spring2009, and Summer 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Kathleen Wheatley,Charles Ragland, and Bob Koplowski
Supporting Attachments:
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : We need to improve theconsistency of student results.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
BS Goal F9: International issues
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of LearningStandards 1.1,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
BS F9: International IssuesCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The Educational Testing Service’s(ETS) Major Field Test (MFT) in Business assessed allnine objectives of UG Goal F. The test consisted of 120multiple-choice questions.
The College utilized the MFT in Business to assess theobjectives of UG Goal F. The test was a permanent partof all BMGT 440 classes with a weight of ten percent ofthe student’s grade. The scores, compared to nationaltest scores, ranked COB students.
Target: Students rank at the 50th percentile or aboveon the ETS exam.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008, Spring2009, and Summer 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Kathleen Wheatley,Charles Ragland, and Bob Koplowski
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for BS F9: International Issues
Summary of Findings:50th percentile for Fall 2008.55th percentile for Summer 2009.45th percentile for Spring 2009.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : We need to improve theconsistency of student results.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
12 of 12 8/6/2010 12:58 PM
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Business Administration: MBA
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
Business Administration: MBAOutcome Set
Outcomes
MBA Goal A1: Group Collaboration
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 4.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
MBA A1: Group CollaborationCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Students in BMGT 584,Management Skills, work in teams to develop theirmanagement skills. For the final exam, each teamcompletes a semester project in which they developtheir own realistic, management scenario and then videotape themselves applying the management skillslearned in BMGT 584.
The team members also rate each other’s contribution tothe team effort in terms of attendance, participation,effort, work quality, and interpersonal behavior. TheCollege of Business will use this evaluation for programassessment of MBA Objective A1, group collaboration.The evaluation form and rubric for the COB assessmentfollow.
Target: Meets + above expectations are equal to orgreater than 85%.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Spring 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Rich Allen
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for MBA A1: Group Collaboration
Summary of Findings:
Overall:
Meets + Expectations: 100%
Above Expectations: 97.67%Meets Expectations: 2.33%Below Expectations: 0%
Traits:
1) Attendance
Meets + Above Expectations: 100%
Above Expectations: 100%Meets Expectations: 0%Below Expectations: 0%
2) Participation
Meets + Above Expectations: 100%
Above Expectations: 97.67%Meets Expectations: 2.33%Below Expectations: 0%
3) Effort
Meets + Above Expectations: 100%
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
1 of 18 8/6/2010 1:00 PM
Above Expectations: 97.67%Meets Expectations: 2.33%Below Expectations: 0%
4) Work Quality
Meets + Above Expectations: 100%
Above Expectations: 97.67%Meets Expectations: 2.33%Below Expectations: 0%
5) Interpersonal behavior
Meets + Above Expectations: 100%
Above Expectations: 95.35%Meets Expectations: 4.65%Below Expectations: 0%
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No changes are recommended.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MBA Goal A2: Leadership
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 4.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
MBA A2: LeadershipCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Students work in small groups(usually three) on role-playing in order to developexperience in critical management skills. Two of thestudents in the group play the roles, while the thirdstudent evaluates the appropriate behavior. Eachstudent receives feedback on how she or he applied atleast one of the four skills listed below during arole-play skill practice to a realistic managementscenario. The description and rating guidelines for eachof the four skills follow.
Acting assertively - Sometimes individuals attempt toincrease their power over other individuals by exercisinginappropriate influence. This role playing exercise placesthe student in the role of the person needing to resistthe influence. The students plan their resistancestrategy and are assessed on nine areas. Theeffectiveness of the resistance is evaluated by the thirdmember of the group.
Communicating supportively - Effective one-on-onecoaching and counseling are important skills for leaders.This exercise places the student in a situation wherethey must give advice to a subordinate in order toimprove the subordinate’s performance. The student
Findings for MBA A2: Leadership
Summary of Findings:ACTING ASSERTIVELY OVERALL:
Meets + Expectations: 100%
Above Expectations: 68%Meets Expectations: 32%Below Expectations: 0%
Traits:
1) Explain the adverse effects of compliance onperformance.
Meets + Above Expectations: 88%
Above Expectations: 40%Meets Expectations: 48%Below Expectations: 12%
2) Defend your personal rights.
Meets + Above Expectations: 92%
Above Expectations: 72%
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
2 of 18 8/6/2010 1:00 PM
counseling another role-player is assessed by the thirdmember of the group on ten behaviors for effectivesupportive communication.
Managing conflict – An essential leadership behavior isthe ability to manage conflict. In this managing conflictrole-playing exercise, the responder and the initiator areassessed by the observer resulting in two separateassessments. The observer assesses the responder onsix guidelines and assesses the initiator on sevenguidelines
Motivating others – The ability to motivate people is avital leadership skill for managers. This role-playingexercise requires a manager to motivate an employee tochange an inappropriate behavior into an appropriatebehavior. The observer assesses the manager on theeight guidelines.
Target: Meets + above expectations are equal to orgreater than 85%.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008
Key/Responsible Personnel: Rich Allen
Supporting Attachments:
Meets Expectations: 20%Below Expectations: 8%
3) Firmly refuse to comply.
Meets + Above Expectations: 96%
Above Expectations: 76%Meets Expectations: 20%Below Expectations: 4%
4) Examine the intent of any gift or favor.
Meets + Above Expectations: 76%
Above Expectations: 52%Meets Expectations: 24%Below Expectations: 24%
5) Confront the manipulator.
Meets + Above Expectations: 96%
Above Expectations: 68%Meets Expectations: 28%Below Expectations: 4%
6) Refuse to bargain.
Meets + Above Expectations: 96%
Above Expectations: 56%Meets Expectations: 40%Below Expectations: 4%
7) Use countervailing power to shift dependence tointerdependence.
Meets + Above Expectations: 84%
Above Expectations: 44%Meets Expectations: 40%Below Expectations: 16%
8) Confront the exploiting individual directly.
Meets + Above Expectations: 88%Above Expectations: 72%Meets Expectations: 16%Below Expectations: 12%
9) Explain the adverse effects of compliance onperformance.
Meets + Above Expectations: 96%
Above Expectations: 76%Meets Expectations: 20%Below Expectations: 4%
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
3 of 18 8/6/2010 1:00 PM
COMMUNICATING SUPPORTIVELY OVERALL:
Meets + Expectations: 100%
Above Expectations: 52.9%Meets Expectations: 47.1%Below Expectations: 0%
Traits:
1) Differentiate between coaching and counseling.
Meets + Above Expectations: 94.1%Above Expectations: 58.8%Meets Expectations: 35.3%Below Expectations: 5.9%
2) Communicate congruently.
Meets + Above Expectations: 100%
Above Expectations: 76.5%Meets Expectations: 23.5%Below Expectations: 0%
3) Use descriptive, not evaluative statements.
Meets + Above Expectations: 88.2%
Above Expectations: 64.7%Meets Expectations: 23.5%Below Expectations: 11.8%
4) Use problem-oriented, not person-orientedstatements.
Meets + Above Expectations: 94.2%
Above Expectations: 47.1%Meets Expectations: 47.1%Below Expectations: 5.8%
5) Use validating statements.
Meets + Above Expectations: 88.2%
Above Expectations: 64.7%Meets Expectations: 23.5%Below Expectations: 11.8%
6) Use specific, not global statements.
Meets + Above Expectations: 82.3%
Above Expectations: 52.9%Meets Expectations: 29.4%Below Expectations: 17.7%
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
4 of 18 8/6/2010 1:00 PM
7) Use conjunctive, not disjunctive statements.
Meets + Above Expectations: 100%
Above Expectations: 58.8%Meets Expectations: 41.2%Below Expectations: 0%
8) Own your statements.
Meets + Above Expectations: 82.3%
Above Expectations: 58.8%Meets Expectations: 23.5%Below Expectations: 17.7%
9) Use supportive listening and appropriate responses toinsure 2 way conversation.
Meets + Above Expectations: 94.1%
Above Expectations: 64.7%Meets Expectations: 29.4%Below Expectations: 5.9%
10) Implement Personal Management Interviews
Meets + Above Expectations: 82.3%
Above Expectations: 64.7%Meets Expectations: 17.6%Below Expectations: 17.7%
MANAGING CONFLICT (RESPONDER) OVERALL:
Meets + Expectations: 85.7%
Above Expectations: 64.3%Meets Expectations: 21.4%Below Expectations: 14.3%
Traits:
1) Establish a climate for joint problem solving.
Meets + Above Expectations: 100%
Above Expectations: 78.6%Meets Expectations: 21.4%Below Expectations: 0%
2) Seek additional information.
Meets + Above Expectations: 78.6%
Above Expectations: 57.2%Meets Expectations: 21.4%
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
5 of 18 8/6/2010 1:00 PM
Below Expectations: 21.4%
3) Agree with some aspect of the complaint.
Meets + Above Expectations: 92.9%
Above Expectations: 64.3%Meets Expectations: 28.6%Below Expectations: 7.1%
4) Ask for suggestions of acceptable alternatives.
Meets + Above Expectations: 85.7%
Above Expectations: 64.3%Meets Expectations: 21.4%Below Expectations: 14.3%
5) Create an action plan.
Meets + Above Expectations: 100%
Above Expectations: 57.1%Meets Expectations: 42.9%Below Expectations: 0%
6) Schedule follow-up
Meets + Above Expectations: 85.7%Above Expectations: 71.4%Meets Expectations: 14.3%Below Expectations: 14.3%
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No changes are recommended.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MBA Goal B1: Written Communication
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 4.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
MBA B1: Written CommunicationCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: The assessment for the writingobjective was an in-class assessment. The studentsresponded in writing to the following questions. “Whatwas the toughest ethical decision you have faced? Howdid you handle it and why? What did you learn?” Usingthe three-point scale, the professor assessed thestudents and gave an overall writing score and scores onthe following four writing traits.
Writing TraitsIdeas and contentOrganization
Findings for MBA B1: Written Communication
Summary of Findings:
Overall:
Meets + Expectations: 100%
Above Expectations: 93.75%Meets Expectations: 6.25%Below Expectations: 0%
Traits:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
6 of 18 8/6/2010 1:00 PM
Language and voicePresentation
Target: Meets + above expectations are equal to orgreater than 85%.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Spring 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Bev Brockman
Supporting Attachments:
1) Ideas and content
Meets + Above Expectations: 100%
Above Expectations: 81.25%Meets Expectations: 18.75%Below Expectations: 0%
2) Organization
Meets + Above Expectations: 100%
Above Expectations: 81.25%Meets Expectations: 18.75%Below Expectations: 0%
3) Language and voice
Meets + Above Expectations: 93.75%
Above Expectations: 25%Meets Expectations: 68.75%Below Expectations: 6.25%
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No changes are recommended.
Notes : The language (grammar) and voice (tense) traithad 28 percent of the students scoring belowexpectations. To evaluate these traits better, the courseprofessor recommended separating two areas intodifferent traits. The AOL Committee agreed andapproved the action.
Substantiating Evidence:
MBA Goal B2: Business PresentationSkills
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 4.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
MBA B2: Business Presentation SkillsCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: As part of the BMKT 586 courses,student teams completed a marketing audit of acompany. The marketing audit reviewed the currentmarketing practices of a company. The audit was awritten document, but the team also presented theresults of the audit to the class.
MBA program assessment of each student’s businesspresentation skills used the marketing auditpresentation. Each student was required to participate inthe presentation and spoke for a minimum of fourminutes. The students received an overall assessmentof their skills and an assessment on each of thefollowing five traits.
OrganizationVisual aids
Findings for MBA B2: Business Presentation Skills
Summary of Findings:
Overall:
Meets + Expectations: 94.34%
Above Expectations: 20.75%Meets Expectations: 73.59%Below Expectations: 5.66%
Traits:
1) Organization
Meets + Above Expectations: 92.45%
Above Expectations: 20.75%
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
7 of 18 8/6/2010 1:00 PM
Eye contactElocutionMannerisms
Target: Meets + above expectations are equal to orgreater than 85%.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Spring 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Jim Henley
Supporting Attachments:
Meets Expectations: 71.7%Below Expectations: 7.55%
2) Visual aids
Meets + Above Expectations: 77.36%
Above Expectations: 9.44%Meets Expectations: 67.92%Below Expectations: 22.64%
3) Eye contact
Meets + Above Expectations: 71.7%
Above Expectations: 20.75%Meets Expectations: 50.95%Below Expectations: 28.3%
4) Elocution
Meets + Above Expectations: 98.11%
Above Expectations: 30.19%Meets Expectations: 67.92%Below Expectations: 1.89%
5) Mannerisms
Meets + Above Expectations: 75.47%
Above Expectations: 16.98%Meets Expectations: 58.49%Below Expectations: 24.53%
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Overall, no changes arerecommended. In the traits, the visual aids, eye contactand mannerism traits need improvement.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MBA Goal C: Integration
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 4.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
MBA C: IntegrationCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The College assessed MBAObjectives C, F1, F3, F6, and F7, with the EducationalTesting Service’s (ETS) MBA Test. The ETS MBA Testgave a score for each area. The test consisted of 124multiple-choice questions with half of the questionsbased on short cases. The scores, compared to nationalMBA Test scores, ranked COB students.
Findings for MBA C: Integration
Summary of Findings: 90th percentile in Fall 2008.85th percentile in Spring 2009.80th percentile in Summer 2009.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No changes are recommended.
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
8 of 18 8/6/2010 1:00 PM
Target: Students rank at the 50th percentile or aboveon the ETS exam.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008, Spring2009, and Summer 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Kathleen Wheatley
Supporting Attachments:
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MBA Goal D: Critical Thinking
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 4.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
MBA D: Critical ThinkingCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: A large part of BUSA 587 isdedicated to the Marketplace Simulation. The studentswill make quarterly decisions to bring their companyfrom startup to full stage production. Each quarter,teams need to purchase market research, analyze theinformation, and make a set of decisions to move thecompany forward. The Marketplace Simulation has a builtin Assurance of Learning Assessment (AOLA) thatstudents take individually. The AOLA looks at individualfunctional areas as well as analysis skills and criticalthinking. For Objective C students will be assessed ontheir total score of AOLA Sections II through VI.
Target: Meets + above expectations are equal to orgreater than 85%.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Spring 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Kathleen Wheatley
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for MBA D: Critical Thinking
Summary of Findings:
Meets + Expectations: 100%
Above Expectations: 7%Meets Expectations: 93%Below Expectations: 0%
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No changes are recommended.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MBA Goal E: Ethics
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 4.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
MBA E: EthicsCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Students will read and comparethe two court decisions in United States v. Causey etal., 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 39619 and United States v.Martha Stewart, 305 F. Supp. 2d 368 (SDNY 2004). Thestudents were rated on five traits and the overallobjective.
Target: Meets + above expectations are equal to orgreater than 85%.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008
Key/Responsible Personnel: Brian Finley
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for MBA E: Ethics
Summary of Findings:
Overall:
Meets + Expectations: 95%
Above Expectations: 15%Meets Expectations: 80%Below Expectations: 5%
Traits:
1) Identification of ethical issues.
Meets + Above Expectations: 90%
Above Expectations: 35%
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
9 of 18 8/6/2010 1:00 PM
Meets Expectations: 55%Below Expectations: 10%
2) Identification of leagl issues.
Meets + Above Expectations: 100%
Above Expectations: 20%Meets Expectations: 80%Below Expectations: 0%
3) Identification of alternative courses of action.
Meets + Above Expectations: 85%
Above Expectations: 10%Meets Expectations: 75%Below Expectations: 15%
4) Consideration of stakeholders and analysis ofalternative actions.
Meets + Above Expectations: 75%
Above Expectations: 5%Meets Expectations: 70%Below Expectations: 25%
5) Consideration of the impact of unethical behavior onan organization.
Meets + Above Expectations: 85%
Above Expectations: 0%Meets Expectations: 85%Below Expectations: 15%
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Overall, no changes arerecommended. Trait 4 needs improvement.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MBA Goal F1: Accounting
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 4.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
MBA F1: AccountingCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The College assessed MBAObjectives C, F1, F3, F6, and F7, with the EducationalTesting Service’s (ETS) MBA Test. The ETS MBA Testgave a score for each area. The test consisted of 124multiple-choice questions with half of the questionsbased on short cases. The scores, compared to nationalMBA Test scores, ranked COB students.
Findings for MBA F1: Accounting
Summary of Findings:
80th percentile in Fall 2008.85th percentile in Spring 2009.85th percentile in Summer 2009.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
10 of 18 8/6/2010 1:00 PM
Target: Students rank at the 50th percentile or aboveon the ETS exam.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008, Spring2009, and Summer 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Kathleen Wheatley
Supporting Attachments:
Recommendations : No changes are recommended.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MBA Goal F2: Economics
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 4.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
MBA F2: EconomicsCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Economics is a prerequisite for theabove finance and marketing courses. Consequently, theassessment of economics knowledge for MBA studentstakes place in these classes. The assessment consistsof 22 questions covering economics.
Target: Meets + above expectations are equal to orgreater than 85%.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008
Key/Responsible Personnel: Mike Long
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for MBA F2: Economics
Summary of Findings:Meets + Above Expectations: 64%
Above Expectations: 44.3%Meets Expectations: 19.7%Below Expectations: 36%
Questions:Q1 - 88.5% correctQ2 - 93.4% correctQ3 - 85.2% correctQ4 - 75.4% correctQ5 - 78.7% correctQ6 - 88.5% correctQ7 - 96.7% correctQ8 - 95.1% correctQ9 - 73.8% correctQ10- 88.5% correctQ11- 59.0% correctQ12- 75.4% correctQ13- 83.6% correctQ14- 88.5% correctQ15- 67.2% correctQ16- 77.0% correctQ17- 65.6% correctQ18- 88.5% correctQ19- 85.2% correctQ20- 80.3% correctQ21- 95.1% correctQ22- 63.9% correct
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Economics scores need to bemonitored and improved.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MBA Goal F3: Management
Mapped to:
Measures & Findings
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
11 of 18 8/6/2010 1:00 PM
USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 4.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
MBA F3: ManagementCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The College assessed MBAObjectives C, F1, F3, F6, and F7, with the EducationalTesting Service’s (ETS) MBA Test. The ETS MBA Testgave a score for each area. The test consisted of 124multiple-choice questions with half of the questionsbased on short cases. The scores, compared to nationalMBA Test scores, ranked COB students.
Target: Students rank at the 50th percentile or aboveon the ETS exam.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008, Spring2009, and Summer 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Kathleen Wheatley
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for MBA F3: Management
Summary of Findings:
85th percentile for Fall 2008.80th percentile for Spring 2009.90th percentile for Summer 2009.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No changes are recommended.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MBA Goal F4: Business Statistics
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 4.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
MBA F4: Business StatisticsCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Four major areas of statistics arecovered in the course. They are:
1. Descriptive statistics2. Probability3. Statistical inference4. Regression and correlation
Students took course-embedded, specially-designedweekly assignments that thoroughly covered the abovetopics and measured the mastery of the topics.
Target: Meets + above expectations are equal to orgreater than 85%.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008
Key/Responsible Personnel: Mo Ahmadi
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for MBA F4: Business Statistics
Summary of Findings:Overall:
Meets + Expectations: 72.7%
Above Expectations: 45.4%Meets Expectations: 27.3%Below Expectations: 27.3%
Traits:
1) Descriptive statistics.
Meets + Above Expectations: 63.6%
Above Expectations: 45.4%Meets Expectations: 18.2%Below Expectations: 36.4%
2) Probability.
Meets + Above Expectations: 81.8%
Above Expectations: 54.5%Meets Expectations: 27.3%Below Expectations: 18.2%
3) Statistical inference.
Meets + Above Expectations: 72.7%
Above Expectations: 45.4%Meets Expectations: 27.3%
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
12 of 18 8/6/2010 1:00 PM
Below Expectations: 27.3%
4) Regression and correlation.
Meets + Above Expectations: 81.8%Above Expectations: 45.4%Meets Expectations: 36.4%Below Expectations: 18.2%
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Statistics scores need to bemonitored and improved.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MBA Goal F4: Management Science
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 4.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
MBA F4: Management ScienceCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Dr. Parthasarati Dileepan willadminister the management science assessment inBMGT 583, Program and Operations Management, duringthe fall 2008 semester. The assessment covers six areasof management science.
Project managementMonte Carlo simulationStatistical process controlAcceptance samplingForecastingInventory control
Each student in BMGT 583 will answer at least oneassessment question on each of the six areas ofmanagement science. The questions will be embeddedinto the courses’ regular tests. The following scales willbe used to grade the students’ assessments.
Test Performance on the Exam QuestionsLess than 80% Below Expectations 1 pt.80% to 90% Meets Expectations 2 pts.Above 90% Above Expectations 3 pts.
Trait Assessment Score11 or less: Below Expectations 112 - 15: Meets Expectations 216 – 18: Above Expectations 3
Target: Meets + above expectations are equal to orgreater than 85%.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Parthasarati Dileepan
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for MBA F4: Management Science
Summary of Findings:
Overall:
Meets + Expectations: 61.4%
Above Expectations: 25%Meets Expectations: 36.4%Below Expectations: 38.6%
Traits:
1) Project management.
Meets + Above Expectations: 52.3%
Above Expectations: 34.1%Meets Expectations: 18.2%Below Expectations: 47.7%
2) Monte Carlo simulation.
Meets + Above Expectations: 84.1%
Above Expectations: 77.3%Meets Expectations: 6.8%Below Expectations: 15.9%
3) Statistical process control.
Meets + Above Expectations: 65.9%
Above Expectations: 47.7%Meets Expectations: 18.2%Below Expectations: 34.1%
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
13 of 18 8/6/2010 1:00 PM
4) Acceptance sampling.
Meets + Above Expectations: 47.7%
Above Expectations: 40.9%Meets Expectations: 6.8%Below Expectations: 52.3%
5) Forecasting.
Meets + Above Expectations: 59.1%
Above Expectations: 52.3%Meets Expectations: 6.8%Below Expectations: 40.9%
6) Inventory control.
Meets + Above Expectations: 50%
Above Expectations: 45.5%Meets Expectations: 4.5%Below Expectations: 50%
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Management science scores needto be monitored and improved.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MBA Goal F5: Information Systems
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 4.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
MBA F5: Information SystemsCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: For the MBA program assessmentof MIS, Beni Asllani embedded information systemsmeasures into the midterm and final exams of BMGT581, Management of Information Systems. Themeasures covered three learning outcomes and involvedthree questions, one problem, and one essay. Anoverview of the learning outcomes, embedded measures,and scoring scale is included in the following tab.
Target: Meets + above expectations are equal to orgreater than 85%.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008
Key/Responsible Personnel: Beni Asllani
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for MBA F5: Information Systems
Summary of Findings:
Overall:
Meets + Expectations: 95.1%
Above Expectations: 80.5%Meets Expectations: 14.6%Below Expectations: 4.9%
Traits:
1) Describe five major components of informationsystems.
Meets + Above Expectations: 100%
Above Expectations: 75.6%Meets Expectations: 24.4%Below Expectations: 0%
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
14 of 18 8/6/2010 1:00 PM
2) Develop a simple information system applicationwhich accurately represents business requirements.
Meets + Above Expectations: 90.2%
Above Expectations: 90.2%Meets Expectations: 0%Below Expectations: 9.8%
3) Understand how information technology is used forbusiness process redesign and for competitiveadvantage.
Meets + Above Expectations: 92.7%
Above Expectations: 56.1%Meets Expectations: 36.6%Below Expectations: 7.3%
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No changes are recommended.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MBA Goal F6: Finance
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 4.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
MBA F6: FinanceCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The College assessed MBAObjectives C, F1, F3, F6, and F7, with the EducationalTesting Service’s (ETS) MBA Test. The ETS MBA Testgave a score for each area. The test consisted of 124multiple-choice questions with half of the questionsbased on short cases. The scores, compared to nationalMBA Test scores, ranked COB students.
Target: Students rank at the 50th percentile or abobeon the ETS exam.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008
Key/Responsible Personnel: Kathleen Wheatley
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for MBA F6: Finance
Summary of Findings: 90th percentile for Fall 2008.80th percentile for Spring 2009.85th percentile for Summer 2009.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No changes are recommended.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MBA Goal F7: Marketing
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 4.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
MBA F7: MarketingCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The College assessed MBAObjectives C, F1, F3, F6, and F7, with the EducationalTesting Service’s (ETS) MBA Test. The ETS MBA Testgave a score for each area. The test consisted of 124multiple-choice questions with half of the questions
Findings for MBA F7: Marketing
Summary of Findings:
85th percentile for Fall 2008.80th percentile for Spring 2009.85th percentile for Summer 2009.
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
15 of 18 8/6/2010 1:00 PM
based on short cases. The scores, compared to nationalMBA Test scores, ranked COB students.
Target: Students rank at the 50th percentile or aboveon the ETS exam.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2008
Key/Responsible Personnel: Kathleen Wheatley
Supporting Attachments:
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No changes are recommended.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MBA Goal F8: Legal Issues
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 4.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
MBA F8: Legal IssuesCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Students will read the factualscenario below and write 2-3 pages answering thequestions that follow. Students are expected todemonstrate the ability to identify and understand thebasic legal issues that are involved in a hypotheticalsituation. The students are evaluated on the followingtraits.
Identify Legal IssuesIdentify AlternativesConsider Impact on Stakeholder
Target: Meets + above expectations are equal to orgreater than 85%.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Spring 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Brian Finlay
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for MBA F8: Legal Issues
Summary of Findings:
Overall:
Meets + Expectations: 90%
Above Expectations: 10%Meets Expectations: 80%Below Expectations: 10%
Traits:1) Identify legal issuesMeets + Above Expectations: 95%Above Expectations: 10%Meets Expectations: 85%Below Expectations: 5%2) Identify alternativesMeets + Above Expectations: 95%Above Expectations: 25%Meets Expectations: 70%Below Expectations: 5%3) Consider impact on stakeholderMeets + Above Expectations: 95%Above Expectations: 15%Meets Expectations: 80%Below Expectations: 5%
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No changes are recommended.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MBA Goal F9: International Issues
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 4.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section
Measures & Findings
MBA F9: International AssessmentCourse level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: As part of BUSA 587, Strategic
Findings for MBA F9: International Assessment
Summary of Findings:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
16 of 18 8/6/2010 1:00 PM
3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1 Management, students compete in an internationalmicro industry simulation. They are forced to analyze thesimilarities and differences between different geographicregions and consider this information when makingbusiness decisions (such as plant location, localresponsiveness, pricing differences, differences inmarket size, geographic expansion plan). At the end ofthe course the students have a take home exam. Thefollowing questions are incorporated this exam.
International Question: 1) Identify and discuss thevarious global factors you faced in the simulation. 2)Discuss your analysis of the impact of these globalfactors. 3) Discuss how these factors directly influencedyour business decisions.
Target: Meets + above expectations are equal to orgreater than 85%.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Spring 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Kathleen Wheatley
Supporting Attachments:
Overall:
Meets + Expectations: 78.57%
Above Expectations: 21.43%Meets Expectations: 57.14%Below Expectations: 21.43%
Traits:
1) Identification of global factors
Meets + Above Expectations: 71.43%
Above Expectations: 28.57%Meets Expectations: 42.86%Below Expectations: 28.57%
2) Analysis of global factors
Meets + Above Expectations: 78.57%
Above Expectations: 35.71%Meets Expectations: 42.86%Below Expectations: 28.57%
3) Application of analysis to management situation
Meets + Above Expectations: 85.71%
Above Expectations: 35.71%Meets Expectations: 50%Below Expectations: 14.29%
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : International scores need tomonitored and improved.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MBA Goal F10: Entrepreneurship
Mapped to:USA- AACSB- Standards: Assurance of learningstandards 4.2,USA- SACS- Comprehensive Standards (Section3): 3.3.1, 3.3.1.1
Measures & Findings
MBA F10: Entrepreneurship AssessmentCourse level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The MBA assessment ofentrepreneurship will occur in BETR588. Twenty eightmeasures, covering fourteen outcome categories, will beembedded into the midterm and final exams. Themidterm will cover the first seven categories withfourteen questions while the final will cover the lastseven categories with fourteen questions. The measuresare intended to assess the students’ understanding ofgeneral concepts in entrepreneurship that are consideredto be key components of the discipline.
Findings for MBA F10: EntrepreneurshipAssessment
Summary of Findings:
Meets + Expectations: 6.2%
Above Expectations: 0%Meets Expectations: 6.2%Below Expectations: 93.7%
Target Achievement: Not Met
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
17 of 18 8/6/2010 1:00 PM
Target: Meets + above expectations are equal to orgreater than 85%.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Spring 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Bev Brockman
Supporting Attachments:
Recommendations : Entrepreneurship scores need tomonitored and improved.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
18 of 18 8/6/2010 1:00 PM
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Early Childhood Education: BS
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
Early Childhood Education: BSOutcome Set
Outcomes
PRAXIS II Principles of Learning andTeaching
Mapped to:USA- INTASC-Principles (Model Standards forBeginner Teacher Licensing and Development):Key Indicator 1.1, Key Indicator 1.2, Key Indicator1.3, Key Indicator 1.4, Key Indicator 1.5, KeyIndicator 1.6, Key Indicator 3.1, Key Indicator 3.2,Key Indicator 3.3, Key Indicator 3.4, Key Indicator3.5, Key Indicator 3.6, Key Indicator 4.1, KeyIndicator 4.2, Key Indicator 6.1, Key Indicator 6.2,Key Indicator 6.3, Key Indicator 6.4, Key Indicator7.1, Key Indicator 7.2, Key Indicator 7.3, KeyIndicator 7.4,USA- NCATE- Unit Standards: Sub-Standard 1c.,Sub-Standard 1d., Sub-Standard 3c., Sub-Standard4a., Sub-Standard 4d.
Measures & Findings
PRAXIS II - PLTProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: All students completing a programof study which leads to initial licensure will achieve apassing score on the required Principles of Learning andTeaching test(s).
Target: An additional two percent of students in initiallicensure programs will achieve the required score onmandated PLT Praxis II tests the first time they take thetest.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Performance ofstudents will be monitored each testing year for eachrequired PLT test.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Connie Cloud,Certification OfficerSandra Jones, TPA Admnistrative AssistantValerie Rutledge, TPA Department Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for PRAXIS II - PLT
Summary of Findings: 100% of students who completea licensure track program in education achieved apassing score on the required Praxis II Principals ofTeaching and Learning test for Early Childhood.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Although 100% of candidatesachieve a passing score on the required PLT for theirprogram, additional attention and analysis should revealhow many students must take the required test morethan one time. Faculty teaching in this program will takethe test to insure accurate and up to date informationabout the content and format of the test is provided tostudents.
Notes : Development is the most important part of thistest. It would be most helpful to analyze students'performance to see if there are specific areas on whichstudent scores could be improved. This analysis will beused by faculty to revise course content to assure that itis most closely aligned with the content of the PLT forthis level.
Substantiating Evidence:
Praxis II - Content
Mapped to:USA- INTASC-Principles (Model Standards forBeginner Teacher Licensing and Development):
Measures & Findings
Praxis IIProgram level; Direct - Exam
Findings for Praxis II
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
1 of 4 8/6/2010 1:15 PM
Key Indicator 1.1, Key Indicator 1.2, Key Indicator1.3, Key Indicator 1.4, Key Indicator 1.5, KeyIndicator 1.6,USA- NCATE- Unit Standards: Sub-Standard 1a,Sub-Standard 1b., Sub-Standard 1c.
Details/Description: All students completing a programof study which leads to initial licensure for which aPraxis II test is required will achieve a passing score onthe required content area test(s).
Target: Two percent of students in education programswill achieve the required score on mandated Praxis IIcontent tests the first time they take the test(s).
Implementation Plan (timeline): Performance ofstudents will be monitored each testing year for eachsubset of required content tests.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Connie Cloud,Certification OfficerSandra Jones, TPA Administrative AssistantValerie Rutledge, TPA Department HeadArts and Sciences Department Heads - Sciences, Math,Social Sciences, English
Supporting Attachments:
Summary of Findings: Students taking the Praxis IItests for Early Childhood have five tests besides thePLT. The results vary for each of these. As a result,particular attention will be paid to the Special EducationPraxis 0690. This test has a pass rate of 100% forcompleters, but more than 30 percent of students musttake the test more than once.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Provide additional test preparationsessions which focus on the content covered in theSpecial Education Praxis 0690. Obtain additional testprep materials which can be made available to studentsto help them prepare. Have faculty members take thistest to insure that the content of courses addresses thespecific areas included on the test.
Notes : Faculty members who teach in this program willtake the Praxis II tests for this level of licensure toinsure that the courses they teach are appropriatelyaligned with the content over which students are tested.
Substantiating Evidence:
Clinical Experiences - Education
Mapped to:USA- INTASC-Principles (Model Standards forBeginner Teacher Licensing and Development):Key Indicator 4.1, Key Indicator 4.2, Key Indicator4.3,USA- NCATE- Unit Standards: Sub-Standard 3a.,Sub-Standard 3b., Sub-Standard 3c., Sub-Standard4a., Sub-Standard 4b., Sub-Standard 4c.,Sub-Standard 4d.
Measures & Findings
Clinical Experiences - EducationCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Students will demonstratecommitment to the profession by successfullycompleting required clinical placements and relatedcomponents. Reflections addressing specific questionswill be submitted for those classes in which clinicalexperiences are required and will be evaluated via acommon departmental rubric.
Target: Eighty percent of students completing clinicalplacements will achieve a score of acceptable or targeton the rubric used to evaluate reflections related torequired clinical placements.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Reflections submittedby students related to clinical placements will becollected and evaluated each semester for those courseswhich require placement hours.
Key/Responsible Personnel: TPA Tenure Track FacultyTPA Adjunct FacultyCarl Raus, Field Placement CoordinatorJan Gould, College Advisor
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Clinical Experiences - Education
Summary of Findings: Students' field placements andrelated components are evaluated using the dispositionsevaluation instrument which has been adopted by thedepartment. This information is collected for eachstudent and becomes a part of that students' fieldplacement file.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Continue to evaluate studentsperformance of required field placements andcomponents with the goal of insuring that these includea significant range of diverse experiences in a variety ofsettings. Review and consider refining the rubric used toevaluate field placements to insure that it addresses allaspects of this objective.
Notes : In order to make field experiences more relevantand valuable, professors in residence will be required topresent seminars on specific topics including reflectionabout what students have learned and how they mightapply this knowledge to their own classrooms.
Substantiating Evidence:
Clinical Experiences - Child and FamilyStudies Measures & Findings
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
2 of 4 8/6/2010 1:15 PM
Mapped to:USA- NCATE- Unit Standards: Sub-Standard 3a.,Sub-Standard 3b., Sub-Standard 3c., Sub-Standard4a., Sub-Standard 4b., Sub-Standard 4c.,Sub-Standard 4d.
Clinical Experiences - Child and FamliyStudiesCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Students will demonstratecommitment to the profession by successfullycompleting required clinical placements and relatedcomponents. Reflections addressing specific questionswill be submitted for those classes in which clinicalexperiences are required and will be evaluated via acommon departmental rubric.
Target: Eighty percent of students completing clinicalplacements will achieve a score of acceptable or targeton the rubric used to evaluate reflections related torequired clinical placements.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Reflections submittedby students related to clinical placements will becollected and evaluated each semester for those courseswhich require placement hours.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Cheryl Robinson, TPAChild and Family Studies ProfessorDr. Valerie Rutledge, TPA Department Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Clinical Experiences - Child and FamliyStudies
Summary of Findings: Students' field placements andrelated components are evaluated using the dispositionsevaluation instrument which has been adopted by thedepartment. This information is collected for eachstudent and becomes a part of that students' fieldplacement file.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Continue to evaluate studentsperformance of required field placements andcomponents with the goal of insuring that these includea significant range of diverse experiences in a variety ofsettings. Review and consider refining the rubric used toevaluate field placements to insure that it addresses allaspects of this objective.
Notes : Child and Family Studies majors will be requiredto reflect on their field placement experiences to see ifwhat they are taking away from these placements isproviding them with the background and knowledgewhich will prove most relevant for their programs ofstudy.
Substantiating Evidence:
Assessment Module
Mapped to:USA- INTASC-Principles (Model Standards forBeginner Teacher Licensing and Development):Key Indicator 8.1, Key Indicator 8.2, Key Indicator8.3, Key Indicator 8.4, Key Indicator 8.5, KeyIndicator 8.6,USA- NCATE- Unit Standards: Sub-Standard 2a.,Sub-Standard 2b., Sub-Standard 2c., Sub-Standard4a., Sub-Standard 5e.
Measures & Findings
Assessment ModuleCourse level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Students will complete therequired assessment module (part 1) and relatedevaluation to demonstration their recognition of theimprotance of this informaiton.
Target: Seventy-five percent of students responding tothe survey and evaluation intsrument related toAssessment Module of the Degree +3 program willrespond that they recognize the importance of theinformation offered during this instrument.
Implementation Plan (timeline): All students in EDUC201 will complete Assessment Module 1 of the Degree +3 program. Following completion, they will respond tothis instrument with at least 75% indicating that theyrecognize the importance/value of the informationpresented.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Pam CarterDr. Kim Wingate
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Assessment Module
Summary of Findings: All students who are eitherenrolled in 201 at UTC or who are attempting to meetCheckpoint 1 completed the required assessmentmodule. Results of evaluations of this experience revealthat over 75% recognize and understand the value ofthis information to them as future educators who will beheld accountable for analyzing their own students'performance on standardized instruments.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Expand the program to includegraduate students seeking initial licensure. In addition,continue to work to develop and begin to presentassessment module 2 to all education students pursuinglicensure. This module is part of the next more intensivefocus on use of assessment information to makedecisions about effective teaching methods.
Notes : Because of the value and importance placed onthe effective use of student data to make instructionaldecisions, this module will continue to be refined anddeveloped to insure that students will have experienceand expertise in analyzing student performance with thegoal of matching student needs with instructional
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
3 of 4 8/6/2010 1:15 PM
techniques.
Substantiating Evidence:
Dispositions
Mapped to:USA- INTASC-Principles (Model Standards forBeginner Teacher Licensing and Development):Key Indicator 9.1, Key Indicator 9.2, Key Indicator9.3,USA- NCATE- Unit Standards: Sub-Standard 1g.,Sub-Standard 3a., Sub-Standard 3c., Sub-Standard5b., Sub-Standard 5c., Sub-Standard 5d.,Sub-Standard 5f.
Measures & Findings
Teacher Licensure Program DispositionsCourse level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Professors will evaluate students'performance in the identified dispositions throughcompletion of a reflection required in specific courses ineach program.
Target: Professor will evaluate student demonstrationof commitment to dispositions adopted by the unit asacceptable or target in 75% of the disposition areas.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Students will submit adisposition reflective paper via LiveText to professors inselected education courses and these papers will beanalyzed to determine the level of performancedemonstrated by students. Furthermore, data will bedisaggrated at the program level for purposes ofprogram review and revision to address disposition-related behaviors.
Key/Responsible Personnel: TPA Tenure-Track FacultyTPA Adjunct FacultyCarl Raus, Field Placement CoordinatorSandra Jones, TPA Administrative AssistantValerie Rutledge, TPA Department Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Teacher Licensure ProgramDispositions
Summary of Findings: Faculty are asked to completethe dispositions assessment instrument for students intheir courses. This information is collected and compiledfor each student. Particular attention has been given toevaluating the commitment of students to professionalgrowth through their attendance at and participation in arange of activities. This documentation reveals thatmore students could engage in professional growthactivities.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Offer more opportunities forparticipation in professional activities, develop seminarswhich address student needs and interests related toeducation, and encourage students to investigate a widerange of possible professional development options.
Notes : Additional ways of measuring studentdispositions will be identified and these will beimplemented to insure that data about students'performance in these areas will be collected andanalyzed.
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
4 of 4 8/6/2010 1:15 PM
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Initial Licensure MEd
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
Initial Licensure MEd Outcome Set
Outcomes
Student Retention
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Completion RateProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: M.Ed. students who are admittedto candidacy will complete their Masters degree withinthree years from the time of their initial enrollment.
Target: 90%
Implementation Plan (timeline): Semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Department Head
Supporting Attachments:
No Findings Added to Completion Rate
Student Program Satisfaction
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Program SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Those students who receiveMasters degree will express satisfaction with programdelivery, course availability, and relevance of coursework as reported by means of a questionnaire.
Target: 75%
Implementation Plan (timeline): Semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Department Head
Supporting Attachments:
No Findings Added to Program Satisfaction
License Obtainment
Mapped to:
Measures & Findings
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
1 of 2 8/6/2010 1:16 PM
No Mapping Professional LicensureProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: M.Ed. students who complete theirprograms at UTC will submit appropriate documentationto their State Department of Education for additionaldegree status and their teaching license.
Target: 100%
Implementation Plan (timeline): Semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Department Head
Supporting Attachments:
No Findings Added to Professional Licensure
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
2 of 2 8/6/2010 1:16 PM
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Middle Grades Education: BS
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
Middle Grades Education: BSOutcome Set
Outcomes
Praxis II Principles of Learning andTeaching
Mapped to:USA- INTASC-Principles (Model Standards forBeginner Teacher Licensing and Development):Key Indicator 1.1, Key Indicator 1.2, Key Indicator1.3, Key Indicator 1.4, Key Indicator 1.5, KeyIndicator 1.6, Key Indicator 3.1, Key Indicator 3.2,Key Indicator 3.3, Key Indicator 3.4, Key Indicator3.5, Key Indicator 3.6, Key Indicator 4.1, KeyIndicator 4.2, Key Indicator 6.1, Key Indicator 6.2,Key Indicator 6.3, Key Indicator 6.4, Key Indicator7.1, Key Indicator 7.2, Key Indicator 7.3, KeyIndicator 7.4,USA- NCATE- Unit Standards: Sub-Standard 1c.,Sub-Standard 1d., Sub-Standard 3c., Sub-Standard4a., Sub-Standard 4d.
Measures & Findings
Praxis II - PLTProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: All students completing a programof study which leads to initial licensure will achieve apassing score on the required Principles of Learning andTeaching test(s).
Target: An additional two percent of students in initiallicensure programs will achieve the required score onmandated PLT Praxis II tests the first time they take thetest.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Performance ofstudents will be monitored each testing year for eachrequired PLT test.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Connie Cloud,Certification OfficerSandra Jones, TPA Admnistrative AssistantValerie Rutledge, TPA Department Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Praxis II - PLT
Summary of Findings: 100% of students who completea licensure track program in education achieved apassing score on the required Praxis II Principals ofTeaching and Learning test.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Although 100% of candidatesachieve a passing score on the required PLT for theirprogram, additional attention and analysis should revealhow many students must take the required test morethan one time. Faculty teaching in this program will takethe test to insure accurate and uptodate informationabout the content and format of the test is provided tostudents.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Praxis II - Content
Mapped to:USA- INTASC-Principles (Model Standards forBeginner Teacher Licensing and Development):Key Indicator 1.1, Key Indicator 1.2, Key Indicator1.3, Key Indicator 1.4, Key Indicator 1.5, KeyIndicator 1.6,USA- NCATE- Unit Standards: Sub-Standard 1a,Sub-Standard 1b., Sub-Standard 1c.
Measures & Findings
Praxis IIProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: All students completing a programof study which leads to initial licensure for which aPraxis II test is required will achieve a passing score onthe required content area test(s).
Target: Two percent of students in education programs
Findings for Praxis II
Summary of Findings: Students taking the Praxis IItests for Middle Grades have two tests besides the PLT.The results vary for each of these. As a result, particularattention will be paid to the Middle Grades Content test.This test has a pass rate of 100% for completers, but
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
1 of 4 8/6/2010 1:14 PM
will achieve the required score on mandated Praxis IIcontent tests the first time they take the test(s).
Implementation Plan (timeline): Performance ofstudents will be monitored each testing year for eachsubset of required content tests.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Connie Cloud,Certification OfficerSandra Jones, TPA Administrative AssistantValerie Rutledge, TPA Department HeadArts and Sciences Department Heads - Sciences, Math,Social Sciences, English
Supporting Attachments:
more than 30 percent of students must take the testmore than once.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Provide test preparation sessionswhich focus on the content covered in the Middle GradesContent test. Obtain additional test prep materialswhich can be made available to students to help themprepare. Have faculty members take this test to insurethat the content of courses addresses the specific areasincluded on the test.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Clinical Experiences - Education
Mapped to:USA- INTASC-Principles (Model Standards forBeginner Teacher Licensing and Development):Key Indicator 4.1, Key Indicator 4.2, Key Indicator4.3,USA- NCATE- Unit Standards: Sub-Standard 3a.,Sub-Standard 3b., Sub-Standard 3c., Sub-Standard4a., Sub-Standard 4b., Sub-Standard 4c.,Sub-Standard 4d.
Measures & Findings
Clinical Experiences - EducationCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Students will demonstratecommitment to the profession by successfullycompleting required clinical placements and relatedcomponents. Reflections addressing specific questionswill be submitted for those classes in which clinicalexperiences are required and will be evaluated via acommon departmental rubric.
Target: Eighty percent of students completing clinicalplacements will achieve a score of acceptable or targeton the rubric used to evaluate reflections related torequired clinical placements.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Reflections submittedby students related to clinical placements will becollected and evaluated each semester for those courseswhich require placement hours.
Key/Responsible Personnel: TPA Tenure Track FacultyTPA Adjunct FacultyCarl Raus, Field Placement CoordinatorJan Gould, College Advisor
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Clinical Experiences - Education
Summary of Findings: Students' field placements andrelated components are evaluated using the dispositionsevaluation instrument which has been adopted by thedepartment. This information is collected for eachstudent and becomes a part of that students' fieldplacement file.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Continue to evaluate studentsperformance of required field placements andcomponents with the goal of insuring that these includea significant range of diverse experiences in a variety ofsettings. Review and consider refining the rubric used toevaluate field placements to insure that it addresses allaspects of this objective.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Clinical Experiences - Child and FamilyStudies
Mapped to:USA- NCATE- Unit Standards: Sub-Standard 3a.,Sub-Standard 3b., Sub-Standard 3c., Sub-Standard4a., Sub-Standard 4b., Sub-Standard 4c.,Sub-Standard 4d.
Measures & Findings
Clinical Experiences - Child and FamliyStudiesCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Students will demonstratecommitment to the profession by successfullycompleting required clinical placements and relatedcomponents. Reflections addressing specific questionswill be submitted for those classes in which clinicalexperiences are required and will be evaluated via a
Findings for Clinical Experiences - Child and FamliyStudies
Summary of Findings: Students' field placements andrelated components are evaluated using the dispositionsevaluation instrument which has been adopted by thedepartment. This information is collected for eachstudent and becomes a part of that students' fieldplacement file.
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
2 of 4 8/6/2010 1:14 PM
common departmental rubric.
Target: Eighty percent of students completing clinicalplacements will achieve a score of acceptable or targeton the rubric used to evaluate reflections related torequired clinical placements.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Reflections submittedby students related to clinical placements will becollected and evaluated each semester for those courseswhich require placement hours.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Cheryl Robinson, TPAChild and Family Studies ProfessorDr. Valerie Rutledge, TPA Department Head
Supporting Attachments:
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Continue to evaluate studentsperformance of required field placements andcomponents with the goal of insuring that these includea significant range of diverse experiences in a variety ofsettings. Review and consider refining the rubric used toevaluate field placements to insure that it addresses allaspects of this objective.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Assessment Module
Mapped to:USA- INTASC-Principles (Model Standards forBeginner Teacher Licensing and Development):Key Indicator 8.1, Key Indicator 8.2, Key Indicator8.3, Key Indicator 8.4, Key Indicator 8.5, KeyIndicator 8.6,USA- NCATE- Unit Standards: Sub-Standard 2a.,Sub-Standard 2b., Sub-Standard 2c., Sub-Standard4a., Sub-Standard 5e.
Measures & Findings
Assessment ModuleCourse level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Students will complete therequired assessment module (part 1) and relatedevaluation to demonstration their recognition of theimprotance of this informaiton.
Target: Seventy-five percent of students responding tothe survey and evaluation intsrument related toAssessment Module of the Degree +3 program willrespond that they recognize the importance of theinformation offered during this instrument.
Implementation Plan (timeline): All students in EDUC201 will complete Assessment Module 1 of the Degree +3 program. Following completion, they will respond tothis instrument with at least 75% indicating that theyrecognize the importance/value of the informationpresented.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dr. Pam CarterDr. Kim Wingate
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Assessment Module
Summary of Findings: All students who are eitherenrolled in 201 at UTC or who are attempting to meetCheckpoint 1 completed the required assessmentmodule. Results of evaluations of this experience revealthat over 75% recognize and understand the value ofthis information to them as future educators who will beheld accountable for analyzing their own students'performance on standardized instruments.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Expand the program to includegraduate students seeking initial licensure. In addition,continue to work to develop and begin to presentassessment module 2 to all education students pursuinglicensure. This module is part of the next more intensivefocus on use of assessment information to makedecisions about effective teaching methods.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Dispositions
Mapped to:USA- INTASC-Principles (Model Standards forBeginner Teacher Licensing and Development):Key Indicator 9.1, Key Indicator 9.2, Key Indicator9.3,USA- NCATE- Unit Standards: Sub-Standard 1g.,Sub-Standard 3a., Sub-Standard 3c., Sub-Standard5b., Sub-Standard 5c., Sub-Standard 5d.,Sub-Standard 5f.
Measures & Findings
Teacher Licensure Program DispositionsCourse level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Professors will evaluate students'performance in the identified dispositions throughcompletion of a reflection required in specific courses ineach program.
Target: Professor will evaluate student demonstrationof commitment to dispositions adopted by the unit asacceptable or target in 75% of the disposition areas.
Findings for Teacher Licensure ProgramDispositions
Summary of Findings: Faculty are asked to completethe dispositions assessment instrument for students intheir courses. This information is collected and compiledfor each student. Particular attention has been given toevaluating the commitment of students to professionalgrowth through their attendance at and participation in arange of activities. This documentation reveals that
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
3 of 4 8/6/2010 1:14 PM
Implementation Plan (timeline): Students will submit adisposition reflective paper via LiveText to professors inselected education courses and these papers will beanalyzed to determine the level of performancedemonstrated by students. Furthermore, data will bedisaggrated at the program level for purposes ofprogram review and revision to address disposition-related behaviors.
Key/Responsible Personnel: TPA Tenure-Track FacultyTPA Adjunct FacultyCarl Raus, Field Placement CoordinatorSandra Jones, TPA Administrative AssistantValerie Rutledge, TPA Department Head
Supporting Attachments:
more students could engage in professional growthactivities.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : Offer more opportunities forparticipation in professional activities, develop seminarswhich address student needs and interests related toeducation, and encourage students to investigate a widerange of possible professional development options.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
4 of 4 8/6/2010 1:14 PM
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Nursing: BSN
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Monday, August 23, 2010
Measures and Findings
Nursing: BSN OutcomeSet
Outcomes
Synthesize theoretical andempirical knowledge
Mapped to:USA- CCNE- The Essentials ofBaccalaureate Education forProfessional Nursing Practice(2008): Essential I, Essential III,Essential IV, Essential IX
Measures & Findings
Student & Alumni SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: AdvisementExit InterviewsAlumni Survey
Target: Current and graduating studentsand alumni
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student & AlumniSatisfaction
Summary of Findings: Advisement:Student satisfaction with advisement andstudent satisfaction as they exit from theprogram are other indicators of programeffectiveness. The SON advises allpre-nursing students, one of our largestcommunity of interest groups.Advisement is considered an importantcomponent of University effectiveness.Block advisement is performed withtraditional students enrolled inUndergraduate Program The Pre-NursingGroup evaluates the advising processeach semester (table 4.10). TheBenchmark for Pre-Nursing studentsatisfaction with advisement is 90%.University-wide advisement of SONstudents median score on a scale of 1 to6 is consistently 6. Student satisfactionwith the Pre-Nursing Advisement processcontinued to improve and SONadvisement of all students is consideredoutstanding by the University.
Exit Interviews:As a component of ongoing continuousquality improvement, exit interviews ofstudents at the end of the fifth semesterbegan in spring 2007. Prior to this time,satisfaction with the Program wasmeasured at one year post graduation bymail surveys. This method was ineffectivedespite many reminders; the rate ofreturn was dismal. Tables 4.11- 4.13present the Undergraduate Exit interviewquestions. Summary data of question (4):“is there anything else you would like toshare with us about your experiences atthe SON?” will be available on site.Because of the difference in studentpopulation and teaching methodology,the Gateway students complete an exitexam that measures their educationalexperience. Data will be available forreview in the Resource Room.
Alumni Survey:Alumni satisfaction with the program ismixed. For the May 08 graduates, thenumber of respondents was only 9 alumni
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
1 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
at six months. Of those nine alumni,33-50% were dissatisfied with somemeasures but 77% were satisfied withskills and competencies acquired from theprogram. This is consistent with the exitinterviews; time did not change theirperception. Of the overall mixed resultssuch as classroom space, studentgathering area, and student in-put intothe program, we have responded andhave processes in place: the renovationof space should be complete fallsemester 2009 and we are actively tryingto involve the students in governance ofthe SON.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Student AchievementProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: ATI RN PredictorNCLEX examCollegiate Assessment of AcademicProficiency (CAAP)Graduation RateCritical Thinking
Target: Graduating BSN students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student Achievement
Summary of Findings: ATI RN Predictor:The ATI RN-Predictor is used to measurethe likelihood of student success on firstattempt writing the NCLEX-RN exam. Thetrends of the subsections of theRN-Predictor are used to evaluate thecurriculum content and process. Themajority of students graduating inDecember 2007 and May 2008 wereenrolled in a required 3-semester creditNCLEX-preparation course, N440 in thefifth semester if they did not achieve theestablished benchmark, a score in the65th percentile or higher on the RNComprehensive Predictor. This benchmarkwas considered by ATI to be predictive ofsuccess on the NCLEX (table 4-3). TheATI recommended changing the scoringfor the Comprehensive Predictor frompercentile to percent probability ofpassing, and its recommended benchmarkwas 94% probability. The Undergraduatestudents take the exam at the end of thefourth semester, having one semesterbefore taking the NCLEX-RN. The SONcurrent benchmark is 98% probability ofpassing NCLEX-RN. Beginning withstudents in Level 5 fall semester 2008,the process changed to better utilize ourresources and student synthesis oflearning in this culminating semester.Students graduating in December 2008and May 2009 were now required to enrollin Virtual ATI (VATI) 2 weeks prior tograduation if their score on theRN-Predictor was less than thebenchmark of 98% probability of passingNCLEX. This is an online individualizedNCLEX preparation course that predicts99% probability of success. The twostudents who were not successful inDecember of 2008 on first time pass,were enrolled in VATI, but did notparticipate before taking NCLEX. This isreflected on the 2009 Education SummaryReport for the National Council of StateBoards of Nursing.
NCLEX-RN:The SON benchmark is at or above thenational percent passing of first time BSNcandidates as specified by the NationalCouncil Licensure Examination forRegistered Nurse. This is also the
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
2 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
benchmark used by the UT System andTHEC for program effectiveness. The 2009pass rate only includes the class thatgraduated in December 2008. As ofAugust 2009, 23 of the 24 student whograduated in May 2009 have taken theNCLEX-RN exam: all have passed on thefirst attempt.
Pass rate for first time writers of theNCLEX-RN2006 Pass Rate=92.32007 Pass Rate=87.27%2008 Pass Rate=100%2009 Pass Rate=91.6%
Graduation Rate:The graduation rate for the BSN Programis calculated by dividing the number ofstudents entering the nursing major intothe number of students graduating sevensemesters later. The benchmark is 85%.The graduation rate for 2008 was 83%(table 4.5). This occurred because 4students withdrew from the program and3 students were dismissed for academicreasons. The four students who withdrewdid so for personal reasons such ascomplicated pregnancy, husbandrelocating, and other family situations.The first cohort of the RN to BSN Trackbegan May 2007. This group of students’graduation rate is 96%.
Traditional Student UndergraduateGraduation Rates (calculation based uponseven semesters)2006=93%2007=88%2008=83%
CAAP:All undergraduate graduating seniors arerequired to take the CollegiateAssessment of Academic Proficiency(CAAP), a standardized multiple-choicetest used to measure content areasrelated to writing skills, mathematics,reading, science, and critical thinking.Aggregated results are reported.University students are randomlyassigned to take only one of the fivetests mentioned during the semesterbefore they graduate. Since the exam isgiven after the student has completed allSON courses in addition to Universitygeneral education courses, faculty believethat comparing our students withUniversity and College students is ameans of gauging student learningeffectiveness.
In 2006, students graduating in thenursing major had higher mean scores inreading than other graduating students inthe College and higher means thanCollege and total University graduatingstudents in science reasoning and criticalthinking, but lower means in writing skillsand mathematics.
Critical Thinking:The SON also measures Critical Thinkingusing the ATI exam. There was nodifference in entry/exit Critical Thinkingscores for the January 2007 graduates.This is likely a regression toward themean phenomenon as this class enteredwith an unusually high mean, closer to
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
3 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
the exit scores of the other classes. Thefirst cohort of Gateway students did notshow a significant increase in scores,however, the time between testing wasabbreviated as the students not giventhe entrance test until they had been inthe program for about 6 months. Thisoversight has been corrected.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Quality of nursing practice
Mapped to:USA- CCNE- The Essentials ofBaccalaureate Education forProfessional Nursing Practice(2008): Essential III, Essential IV
Measures & Findings
Employer SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: BSN EmployerSurvey
Target: Employers of BSN graduates
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Employer Satisfaction
Summary of Findings: Obtaining surveydata from employers has historically beendifficult.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : To distributesurveys at the yearly Nursing CommunityAdvisory Committee meeting, where thereis wide representation from the agenicesemploying graduates of ourundergraduate program.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Student AchievementProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: ATI RN PredictorNCLEX examCollegiate Assessment of AcademicProficiency (CAAP)Graduation RateCritical Thinking
Target: Graduating BSN students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student Achievement
Summary of Findings: ATI RN Predictor:The ATI RN-Predictor is used to measurethe likelihood of student success on firstattempt writing the NCLEX-RN exam. Thetrends of the subsections of theRN-Predictor are used to evaluate thecurriculum content and process. Themajority of students graduating inDecember 2007 and May 2008 wereenrolled in a required 3-semester creditNCLEX-preparation course, N440 in thefifth semester if they did not achieve theestablished benchmark, a score in the65th percentile or higher on the RNComprehensive Predictor. This benchmarkwas considered by ATI to be predictive ofsuccess on the NCLEX (table 4-3). TheATI recommended changing the scoringfor the Comprehensive Predictor frompercentile to percent probability ofpassing, and its recommended benchmarkwas 94% probability. The Undergraduatestudents take the exam at the end of thefourth semester, having one semesterbefore taking the NCLEX-RN. The SONcurrent benchmark is 98% probability ofpassing NCLEX-RN. Beginning withstudents in Level 5 fall semester 2008,the process changed to better utilize ourresources and student synthesis oflearning in this culminating semester.Students graduating in December 2008and May 2009 were now required to enrollin Virtual ATI (VATI) 2 weeks prior tograduation if their score on theRN-Predictor was less than thebenchmark of 98% probability of passingNCLEX. This is an online individualized
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
4 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
NCLEX preparation course that predicts99% probability of success. The twostudents who were not successful inDecember of 2008 on first time pass,were enrolled in VATI, but did notparticipate before taking NCLEX. This isreflected on the 2009 Education SummaryReport for the National Council of StateBoards of Nursing.
NCLEX-RN:The SON benchmark is at or above thenational percent passing of first time BSNcandidates as specified by the NationalCouncil Licensure Examination forRegistered Nurse. This is also thebenchmark used by the UT System andTHEC for program effectiveness. The 2009pass rate only includes the class thatgraduated in December 2008. As ofAugust 2009, 23 of the 24 student whograduated in May 2009 have taken theNCLEX-RN exam: all have passed on thefirst attempt.
Pass rate for first time writers of theNCLEX-RN2006 Pass Rate=92.32007 Pass Rate=87.27%2008 Pass Rate=100%2009 Pass Rate=91.6%
Graduation Rate:The graduation rate for the BSN Programis calculated by dividing the number ofstudents entering the nursing major intothe number of students graduating sevensemesters later. The benchmark is 85%.The graduation rate for 2008 was 83%(table 4.5). This occurred because 4students withdrew from the program and3 students were dismissed for academicreasons. The four students who withdrewdid so for personal reasons such ascomplicated pregnancy, husbandrelocating, and other family situations.The first cohort of the RN to BSN Trackbegan May 2007. This group of students’graduation rate is 96%.
Traditional Student UndergraduateGraduation Rates (calculation based uponseven semesters)2006=93%2007=88%2008=83%
CAAP:All undergraduate graduating seniors arerequired to take the CollegiateAssessment of Academic Proficiency(CAAP), a standardized multiple-choicetest used to measure content areasrelated to writing skills, mathematics,reading, science, and critical thinking.Aggregated results are reported.University students are randomlyassigned to take only one of the fivetests mentioned during the semesterbefore they graduate. Since the exam isgiven after the student has completed allSON courses in addition to Universitygeneral education courses, faculty believethat comparing our students withUniversity and College students is ameans of gauging student learningeffectiveness.
In 2006, students graduating in the
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
5 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
nursing major had higher mean scores inreading than other graduating students inthe College and higher means thanCollege and total University graduatingstudents in science reasoning and criticalthinking, but lower means in writing skillsand mathematics.
Critical Thinking:The SON also measures Critical Thinkingusing the ATI exam. There was nodifference in entry/exit Critical Thinkingscores for the January 2007 graduates.This is likely a regression toward themean phenomenon as this class enteredwith an unusually high mean, closer tothe exit scores of the other classes. Thefirst cohort of Gateway students did notshow a significant increase in scores,however, the time between testing wasabbreviated as the students not giventhe entrance test until they had been inthe program for about 6 months. Thisoversight has been corrected.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Student and Alumni SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: AdvisementExit InterviewsAlumni Survey
Target: Current and graduating studentsand alumni
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student and AlumniSatisfaction
Summary of Findings: Advisement:Student satisfaction with advisement andstudent satisfaction as they exit from theprogram are other indicators of programeffectiveness. The SON advises allpre-nursing students, one of our largestcommunity of interest groups.Advisement is considered an importantcomponent of University effectiveness.Block advisement is performed withtraditional students enrolled inUndergraduate Program The Pre-NursingGroup evaluates the advising processeach semester (table 4.10). TheBenchmark for Pre-Nursing studentsatisfaction with advisement is 90%.University-wide advisement of SONstudents median score on a scale of 1 to6 is consistently 6. Student satisfactionwith the Pre-Nursing Advisement processcontinued to improve and SONadvisement of all students is consideredoutstanding by the University.
Exit Interviews:As a component of ongoing continuousquality improvement, exit interviews ofstudents at the end of the fifth semesterbegan in spring 2007. Prior to this time,satisfaction with the Program wasmeasured at one year post graduation bymail surveys. This method was ineffectivedespite many reminders; the rate ofreturn was dismal. Tables 4.11- 4.13present the Undergraduate Exit interviewquestions. Summary data of question (4):“is there anything else you would like toshare with us about your experiences atthe SON?” will be available on site.Because of the difference in studentpopulation and teaching methodology,the Gateway students complete an exitexam that measures their educationalexperience. Data will be available for
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
6 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
review in the Resource Room.
Alumni Survey:Alumni satisfaction with the program ismixed. For the May 08 graduates, thenumber of respondents was only 9 alumniat six months. Of those nine alumni,33-50% were dissatisfied with somemeasures but 77% were satisfied withskills and competencies acquired from theprogram. This is consistent with the exitinterviews; time did not change theirperception. Of the overall mixed resultssuch as classroom space, studentgathering area, and student in-put intothe program, we have responded andhave processes in place: the renovationof space should be complete fallsemester 2009 and we are actively tryingto involve the students in governance ofthe SON.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Leadership skills
Mapped to:USA- CCNE- The Essentials ofBaccalaureate Education forProfessional Nursing Practice(2008): Essential II, Essential V ,Essential VI, Essential VII
Measures & Findings
Employer SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: BSN EmployerSurvey
Target: Employers of BSN graduates
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Employer Satisfaction
Summary of Findings: Obtaining surveydata from employers has historically beendifficult.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : To distributesurveys at the yearly Nursing CommunityAdvisory Committee meeting, where thereis wide representation from the agenicesemploying graduates of ourundergraduate program.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Student & Alumni SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: AdvisementExit InterviewsAlumni Survey
Target: Current and graduating studentsand alumni
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student & AlumniSatisfaction
Summary of Findings: Advisement:Student satisfaction with advisement andstudent satisfaction as they exit from theprogram are other indicators of programeffectiveness. The SON advises allpre-nursing students, one of our largestcommunity of interest groups.Advisement is considered an importantcomponent of University effectiveness.Block advisement is performed withtraditional students enrolled inUndergraduate Program The Pre-NursingGroup evaluates the advising processeach semester (table 4.10). TheBenchmark for Pre-Nursing studentsatisfaction with advisement is 90%.University-wide advisement of SONstudents median score on a scale of 1 to6 is consistently 6. Student satisfactionwith the Pre-Nursing Advisement processcontinued to improve and SONadvisement of all students is consideredoutstanding by the University.
Exit Interviews:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
7 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
As a component of ongoing continuousquality improvement, exit interviews ofstudents at the end of the fifth semesterbegan in spring 2007. Prior to this time,satisfaction with the Program wasmeasured at one year post graduation bymail surveys. This method was ineffectivedespite many reminders; the rate ofreturn was dismal. Tables 4.11- 4.13present the Undergraduate Exit interviewquestions. Summary data of question (4):“is there anything else you would like toshare with us about your experiences atthe SON?” will be available on site.Because of the difference in studentpopulation and teaching methodology,the Gateway students complete an exitexam that measures their educationalexperience. Data will be available forreview in the Resource Room.
Alumni Survey:Alumni satisfaction with the program ismixed. For the May 08 graduates, thenumber of respondents was only 9 alumniat six months. Of those nine alumni,33-50% were dissatisfied with somemeasures but 77% were satisfied withskills and competencies acquired from theprogram. This is consistent with the exitinterviews; time did not change theirperception. Of the overall mixed resultssuch as classroom space, studentgathering area, and student in-put intothe program, we have responded andhave processes in place: the renovationof space should be complete fallsemester 2009 and we are actively tryingto involve the students in governance ofthe SON.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Student AchievementProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: ATI RN PredictorNCLEX examCollegiate Assessment of AcademicProficiency (CAAP)Graduation RateCritical Thinking
Target: Graduating BSN students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student Achievement
Summary of Findings: ATI RN Predictor:The ATI RN-Predictor is used to measurethe likelihood of student success on firstattempt writing the NCLEX-RN exam. Thetrends of the subsections of theRN-Predictor are used to evaluate thecurriculum content and process. Themajority of students graduating inDecember 2007 and May 2008 wereenrolled in a required 3-semester creditNCLEX-preparation course, N440 in thefifth semester if they did not achieve theestablished benchmark, a score in the65th percentile or higher on the RNComprehensive Predictor. This benchmarkwas considered by ATI to be predictive ofsuccess on the NCLEX (table 4-3). TheATI recommended changing the scoringfor the Comprehensive Predictor frompercentile to percent probability ofpassing, and its recommended benchmarkwas 94% probability. The Undergraduatestudents take the exam at the end of thefourth semester, having one semesterbefore taking the NCLEX-RN. The SONcurrent benchmark is 98% probability ofpassing NCLEX-RN. Beginning withstudents in Level 5 fall semester 2008,the process changed to better utilize our
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
8 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
resources and student synthesis oflearning in this culminating semester.Students graduating in December 2008and May 2009 were now required to enrollin Virtual ATI (VATI) 2 weeks prior tograduation if their score on theRN-Predictor was less than thebenchmark of 98% probability of passingNCLEX. This is an online individualizedNCLEX preparation course that predicts99% probability of success. The twostudents who were not successful inDecember of 2008 on first time pass,were enrolled in VATI, but did notparticipate before taking NCLEX. This isreflected on the 2009 Education SummaryReport for the National Council of StateBoards of Nursing.
NCLEX-RN:The SON benchmark is at or above thenational percent passing of first time BSNcandidates as specified by the NationalCouncil Licensure Examination forRegistered Nurse. This is also thebenchmark used by the UT System andTHEC for program effectiveness. The 2009pass rate only includes the class thatgraduated in December 2008. As ofAugust 2009, 23 of the 24 student whograduated in May 2009 have taken theNCLEX-RN exam: all have passed on thefirst attempt.
Pass rate for first time writers of theNCLEX-RN2006 Pass Rate=92.32007 Pass Rate=87.27%2008 Pass Rate=100%2009 Pass Rate=91.6%
Graduation Rate:The graduation rate for the BSN Programis calculated by dividing the number ofstudents entering the nursing major intothe number of students graduating sevensemesters later. The benchmark is 85%.The graduation rate for 2008 was 83%(table 4.5). This occurred because 4students withdrew from the program and3 students were dismissed for academicreasons. The four students who withdrewdid so for personal reasons such ascomplicated pregnancy, husbandrelocating, and other family situations.The first cohort of the RN to BSN Trackbegan May 2007. This group of students’graduation rate is 96%.
Traditional Student UndergraduateGraduation Rates (calculation based uponseven semesters)2006=93%2007=88%2008=83%
CAAP:All undergraduate graduating seniors arerequired to take the CollegiateAssessment of Academic Proficiency(CAAP), a standardized multiple-choicetest used to measure content areasrelated to writing skills, mathematics,reading, science, and critical thinking.Aggregated results are reported.University students are randomlyassigned to take only one of the fivetests mentioned during the semesterbefore they graduate. Since the exam is
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
9 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
given after the student has completed allSON courses in addition to Universitygeneral education courses, faculty believethat comparing our students withUniversity and College students is ameans of gauging student learningeffectiveness.
In 2006, students graduating in thenursing major had higher mean scores inreading than other graduating students inthe College and higher means thanCollege and total University graduatingstudents in science reasoning and criticalthinking, but lower means in writing skillsand mathematics.
Critical Thinking:The SON also measures Critical Thinkingusing the ATI exam. There was nodifference in entry/exit Critical Thinkingscores for the January 2007 graduates.This is likely a regression toward themean phenomenon as this class enteredwith an unusually high mean, closer tothe exit scores of the other classes. Thefirst cohort of Gateway students did notshow a significant increase in scores,however, the time between testing wasabbreviated as the students not giventhe entrance test until they had been inthe program for about 6 months. Thisoversight has been corrected.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Research findings in practice
Mapped to:USA- CCNE- The Essentials ofBaccalaureate Education forProfessional Nursing Practice(2008): Essential III, Essential IV,Essential IX
Measures & Findings
Student & Alumni SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: AdvisementExit InterviewsAlumni Survey
Target: Current and graduating studentsand alumni
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student & AlumniSatisfaction
Summary of Findings: Advisement:Student satisfaction with advisement andstudent satisfaction as they exit from theprogram are other indicators of programeffectiveness. The SON advises allpre-nursing students, one of our largestcommunity of interest groups.Advisement is considered an importantcomponent of University effectiveness.Block advisement is performed withtraditional students enrolled inUndergraduate Program The Pre-NursingGroup evaluates the advising processeach semester (table 4.10). TheBenchmark for Pre-Nursing studentsatisfaction with advisement is 90%.University-wide advisement of SONstudents median score on a scale of 1 to6 is consistently 6. Student satisfactionwith the Pre-Nursing Advisement processcontinued to improve and SONadvisement of all students is consideredoutstanding by the University.
Exit Interviews:As a component of ongoing continuousquality improvement, exit interviews ofstudents at the end of the fifth semesterbegan in spring 2007. Prior to this time,satisfaction with the Program was
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
10 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
measured at one year post graduation bymail surveys. This method was ineffectivedespite many reminders; the rate ofreturn was dismal. Tables 4.11- 4.13present the Undergraduate Exit interviewquestions. Summary data of question (4):“is there anything else you would like toshare with us about your experiences atthe SON?” will be available on site.Because of the difference in studentpopulation and teaching methodology,the Gateway students complete an exitexam that measures their educationalexperience. Data will be available forreview in the Resource Room.
Alumni Survey:Alumni satisfaction with the program ismixed. For the May 08 graduates, thenumber of respondents was only 9 alumniat six months. Of those nine alumni,33-50% were dissatisfied with somemeasures but 77% were satisfied withskills and competencies acquired from theprogram. This is consistent with the exitinterviews; time did not change theirperception. Of the overall mixed resultssuch as classroom space, studentgathering area, and student in-put intothe program, we have responded andhave processes in place: the renovationof space should be complete fallsemester 2009 and we are actively tryingto involve the students in governance ofthe SON.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Student AchievementProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: ATI RN PredictorNCLEX examCollegiate Assessment of AcademicProficiency (CAAP)Graduation RateCritical Thinking
Target: Graduating BSN students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student Achievement
Summary of Findings: ATI RN Predictor:The ATI RN-Predictor is used to measurethe likelihood of student success on firstattempt writing the NCLEX-RN exam. Thetrends of the subsections of theRN-Predictor are used to evaluate thecurriculum content and process. Themajority of students graduating inDecember 2007 and May 2008 wereenrolled in a required 3-semester creditNCLEX-preparation course, N440 in thefifth semester if they did not achieve theestablished benchmark, a score in the65th percentile or higher on the RNComprehensive Predictor. This benchmarkwas considered by ATI to be predictive ofsuccess on the NCLEX (table 4-3). TheATI recommended changing the scoringfor the Comprehensive Predictor frompercentile to percent probability ofpassing, and its recommended benchmarkwas 94% probability. The Undergraduatestudents take the exam at the end of thefourth semester, having one semesterbefore taking the NCLEX-RN. The SONcurrent benchmark is 98% probability ofpassing NCLEX-RN. Beginning withstudents in Level 5 fall semester 2008,the process changed to better utilize ourresources and student synthesis oflearning in this culminating semester.Students graduating in December 2008and May 2009 were now required to enrollin Virtual ATI (VATI) 2 weeks prior to
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
11 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
graduation if their score on theRN-Predictor was less than thebenchmark of 98% probability of passingNCLEX. This is an online individualizedNCLEX preparation course that predicts99% probability of success. The twostudents who were not successful inDecember of 2008 on first time pass,were enrolled in VATI, but did notparticipate before taking NCLEX. This isreflected on the 2009 Education SummaryReport for the National Council of StateBoards of Nursing.
NCLEX-RN:The SON benchmark is at or above thenational percent passing of first time BSNcandidates as specified by the NationalCouncil Licensure Examination forRegistered Nurse. This is also thebenchmark used by the UT System andTHEC for program effectiveness. The 2009pass rate only includes the class thatgraduated in December 2008. As ofAugust 2009, 23 of the 24 student whograduated in May 2009 have taken theNCLEX-RN exam: all have passed on thefirst attempt.
Pass rate for first time writers of theNCLEX-RN2006 Pass Rate=92.32007 Pass Rate=87.27%2008 Pass Rate=100%2009 Pass Rate=91.6%
Graduation Rate:The graduation rate for the BSN Programis calculated by dividing the number ofstudents entering the nursing major intothe number of students graduating sevensemesters later. The benchmark is 85%.The graduation rate for 2008 was 83%(table 4.5). This occurred because 4students withdrew from the program and3 students were dismissed for academicreasons. The four students who withdrewdid so for personal reasons such ascomplicated pregnancy, husbandrelocating, and other family situations.The first cohort of the RN to BSN Trackbegan May 2007. This group of students’graduation rate is 96%.
Traditional Student UndergraduateGraduation Rates (calculation based uponseven semesters)2006=93%2007=88%2008=83%
CAAP:All undergraduate graduating seniors arerequired to take the CollegiateAssessment of Academic Proficiency(CAAP), a standardized multiple-choicetest used to measure content areasrelated to writing skills, mathematics,reading, science, and critical thinking.Aggregated results are reported.University students are randomlyassigned to take only one of the fivetests mentioned during the semesterbefore they graduate. Since the exam isgiven after the student has completed allSON courses in addition to Universitygeneral education courses, faculty believethat comparing our students withUniversity and College students is a
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
12 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
means of gauging student learningeffectiveness.
In 2006, students graduating in thenursing major had higher mean scores inreading than other graduating students inthe College and higher means thanCollege and total University graduatingstudents in science reasoning and criticalthinking, but lower means in writing skillsand mathematics.
Critical Thinking:The SON also measures Critical Thinkingusing the ATI exam. There was nodifference in entry/exit Critical Thinkingscores for the January 2007 graduates.This is likely a regression toward themean phenomenon as this class enteredwith an unusually high mean, closer tothe exit scores of the other classes. Thefirst cohort of Gateway students did notshow a significant increase in scores,however, the time between testing wasabbreviated as the students not giventhe entrance test until they had been inthe program for about 6 months. Thisoversight has been corrected.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Communication skills
Mapped to:USA- CCNE- The Essentials ofBaccalaureate Education forProfessional Nursing Practice(2008): Essential II, Essential VI,Essential VII
Measures & Findings
Employer SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: BSN EmployerSurvey
Target: Employers of BSN graduates
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Employer Satisfaction
Summary of Findings: Obtaining surveydata from employers has historically beendifficult.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : To distributesurveys at the yearly Nursing CommunityAdvisory Committee meeting, where thereis wide representation from the agenicesemploying graduates of ourundergraduate program.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Employment RateProgram level; Indirect - Interview
Details/Description: Exit Interview
Target: Graduating BSN students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Employment Rate
Summary of Findings: Employment Rate:Employment rate is gathered at exitinterview. Additionally, we are able tosee our graduates employed over timethrough Preceptorship faculty feedback asmany of our graduates ask to bepreceptors when qualified. All studentswho desire employment have reportedsuccess over a multi-year period.Students in the Traditional UndergraduateProgram are actively sought for positionsas nurse techs before graduation and asprofessional nurses upon graduation.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
13 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
Substantiating Evidence:
Student & Alumni SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: AdvisementExit InterviewsAlumni Survey
Target: Current and graduating studentsand alumni
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student & AlumniSatisfaction
Summary of Findings: Advisement:Student satisfaction with advisement andstudent satisfaction as they exit from theprogram are other indicators of programeffectiveness. The SON advises allpre-nursing students, one of our largestcommunity of interest groups.Advisement is considered an importantcomponent of University effectiveness.Block advisement is performed withtraditional students enrolled inUndergraduate Program The Pre-NursingGroup evaluates the advising processeach semester (table 4.10). TheBenchmark for Pre-Nursing studentsatisfaction with advisement is 90%.University-wide advisement of SONstudents median score on a scale of 1 to6 is consistently 6. Student satisfactionwith the Pre-Nursing Advisement processcontinued to improve and SONadvisement of all students is consideredoutstanding by the University.
Exit Interviews:As a component of ongoing continuousquality improvement, exit interviews ofstudents at the end of the fifth semesterbegan in spring 2007. Prior to this time,satisfaction with the Program wasmeasured at one year post graduation bymail surveys. This method was ineffectivedespite many reminders; the rate ofreturn was dismal. Tables 4.11- 4.13present the Undergraduate Exit interviewquestions. Summary data of question (4):“is there anything else you would like toshare with us about your experiences atthe SON?” will be available on site.Because of the difference in studentpopulation and teaching methodology,the Gateway students complete an exitexam that measures their educationalexperience. Data will be available forreview in the Resource Room.
Alumni Survey:Alumni satisfaction with the program ismixed. For the May 08 graduates, thenumber of respondents was only 9 alumniat six months. Of those nine alumni,33-50% were dissatisfied with somemeasures but 77% were satisfied withskills and competencies acquired from theprogram. This is consistent with the exitinterviews; time did not change theirperception. Of the overall mixed resultssuch as classroom space, studentgathering area, and student in-put intothe program, we have responded andhave processes in place: the renovationof space should be complete fallsemester 2009 and we are actively tryingto involve the students in governance ofthe SON.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
14 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
Student AchievementProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: ATI RN PredictorNCLEX examCollegiate Assessment of AcademicProficiency (CAAP)Graduation RateCritical Thinking
Target: Graduating BSN students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student Achievement
Summary of Findings: ATI RN Predictor:The ATI RN-Predictor is used to measurethe likelihood of student success on firstattempt writing the NCLEX-RN exam. Thetrends of the subsections of theRN-Predictor are used to evaluate thecurriculum content and process. Themajority of students graduating inDecember 2007 and May 2008 wereenrolled in a required 3-semester creditNCLEX-preparation course, N440 in thefifth semester if they did not achieve theestablished benchmark, a score in the65th percentile or higher on the RNComprehensive Predictor. This benchmarkwas considered by ATI to be predictive ofsuccess on the NCLEX (table 4-3). TheATI recommended changing the scoringfor the Comprehensive Predictor frompercentile to percent probability ofpassing, and its recommended benchmarkwas 94% probability. The Undergraduatestudents take the exam at the end of thefourth semester, having one semesterbefore taking the NCLEX-RN. The SONcurrent benchmark is 98% probability ofpassing NCLEX-RN. Beginning withstudents in Level 5 fall semester 2008,the process changed to better utilize ourresources and student synthesis oflearning in this culminating semester.Students graduating in December 2008and May 2009 were now required to enrollin Virtual ATI (VATI) 2 weeks prior tograduation if their score on theRN-Predictor was less than thebenchmark of 98% probability of passingNCLEX. This is an online individualizedNCLEX preparation course that predicts99% probability of success. The twostudents who were not successful inDecember of 2008 on first time pass,were enrolled in VATI, but did notparticipate before taking NCLEX. This isreflected on the 2009 Education SummaryReport for the National Council of StateBoards of Nursing.
NCLEX-RN:The SON benchmark is at or above thenational percent passing of first time BSNcandidates as specified by the NationalCouncil Licensure Examination forRegistered Nurse. This is also thebenchmark used by the UT System andTHEC for program effectiveness. The 2009pass rate only includes the class thatgraduated in December 2008. As ofAugust 2009, 23 of the 24 student whograduated in May 2009 have taken theNCLEX-RN exam: all have passed on thefirst attempt.
Pass rate for first time writers of theNCLEX-RN2006 Pass Rate=92.32007 Pass Rate=87.27%2008 Pass Rate=100%2009 Pass Rate=91.6%
Graduation Rate:The graduation rate for the BSN Programis calculated by dividing the number ofstudents entering the nursing major intothe number of students graduating sevensemesters later. The benchmark is 85%.
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
15 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
The graduation rate for 2008 was 83%(table 4.5). This occurred because 4students withdrew from the program and3 students were dismissed for academicreasons. The four students who withdrewdid so for personal reasons such ascomplicated pregnancy, husbandrelocating, and other family situations.The first cohort of the RN to BSN Trackbegan May 2007. This group of students’graduation rate is 96%.
Traditional Student UndergraduateGraduation Rates (calculation based uponseven semesters)2006=93%2007=88%2008=83%
CAAP:All undergraduate graduating seniors arerequired to take the CollegiateAssessment of Academic Proficiency(CAAP), a standardized multiple-choicetest used to measure content areasrelated to writing skills, mathematics,reading, science, and critical thinking.Aggregated results are reported.University students are randomlyassigned to take only one of the fivetests mentioned during the semesterbefore they graduate. Since the exam isgiven after the student has completed allSON courses in addition to Universitygeneral education courses, faculty believethat comparing our students withUniversity and College students is ameans of gauging student learningeffectiveness.
In 2006, students graduating in thenursing major had higher mean scores inreading than other graduating students inthe College and higher means thanCollege and total University graduatingstudents in science reasoning and criticalthinking, but lower means in writing skillsand mathematics.
Critical Thinking:The SON also measures Critical Thinkingusing the ATI exam. There was nodifference in entry/exit Critical Thinkingscores for the January 2007 graduates.This is likely a regression toward themean phenomenon as this class enteredwith an unusually high mean, closer tothe exit scores of the other classes. Thefirst cohort of Gateway students did notshow a significant increase in scores,however, the time between testing wasabbreviated as the students not giventhe entrance test until they had been inthe program for about 6 months. Thisoversight has been corrected.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Ethical manner
Mapped to:USA- CCNE- The Essentials ofBaccalaureate Education for
Measures & Findings
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
16 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
Professional Nursing Practice(2008): Essential IX , Essential VIII
Employer SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: BSN EmployerSurvey
Target: Employers of BSN graduates
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Employer Satisfaction
Summary of Findings: Obtaining thisdata has been historically difficult.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations :
Notes : To distribute surveys at theyearly Nursing Community AdvisoryCommittee meeting, where there is widerepresentation from the agenicesemploying graduates of ourundergraduate program.
Substantiating Evidence:
Employment RateProgram level; Indirect - Interview
Details/Description: Exit Interview
Target: Graduating BSN students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Employment Rate
Summary of Findings: Employment Rate:Employment rate is gathered at exitinterview. Additionally, we are able tosee our graduates employed over timethrough Preceptorship faculty feedback asmany of our graduates ask to bepreceptors when qualified. All studentswho desire employment have reportedsuccess over a multi-year period.Students in the Traditional UndergraduateProgram are actively sought for positionsas nurse techs before graduation and asprofessional nurses upon graduation.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Student & Alumni SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: AdvisementExit InterviewsAlumni Survey
Target: Current and graduating studentsand alumni
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student & AlumniSatisfaction
Summary of Findings: Advisement:Student satisfaction with advisement andstudent satisfaction as they exit from theprogram are other indicators of programeffectiveness. The SON advises allpre-nursing students, one of our largestcommunity of interest groups.Advisement is considered an importantcomponent of University effectiveness.Block advisement is performed withtraditional students enrolled inUndergraduate Program The Pre-NursingGroup evaluates the advising processeach semester (table 4.10). TheBenchmark for Pre-Nursing studentsatisfaction with advisement is 90%.University-wide advisement of SONstudents median score on a scale of 1 to6 is consistently 6. Student satisfactionwith the Pre-Nursing Advisement processcontinued to improve and SONadvisement of all students is consideredoutstanding by the University.
Exit Interviews:As a component of ongoing continuousquality improvement, exit interviews ofstudents at the end of the fifth semesterbegan in spring 2007. Prior to this time,satisfaction with the Program wasmeasured at one year post graduation bymail surveys. This method was ineffectivedespite many reminders; the rate ofreturn was dismal. Tables 4.11- 4.13present the Undergraduate Exit interview
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
17 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
questions. Summary data of question (4):“is there anything else you would like toshare with us about your experiences atthe SON?” will be available on site.Because of the difference in studentpopulation and teaching methodology,the Gateway students complete an exitexam that measures their educationalexperience. Data will be available forreview in the Resource Room.
Alumni Survey:Alumni satisfaction with the program ismixed. For the May 08 graduates, thenumber of respondents was only 9 alumniat six months. Of those nine alumni,33-50% were dissatisfied with somemeasures but 77% were satisfied withskills and competencies acquired from theprogram. This is consistent with the exitinterviews; time did not change theirperception. Of the overall mixed resultssuch as classroom space, studentgathering area, and student in-put intothe program, we have responded andhave processes in place: the renovationof space should be complete fallsemester 2009 and we are actively tryingto involve the students in governance ofthe SON.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Student AchievementProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: ATI RN PredictorNCLEX examCollegiate Assessment of AcademicProficiency (CAAP)Graduation RateCritical Thinking
Target: Graduating BSN students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student Achievement
Summary of Findings: ATI RN Predictor:The ATI RN-Predictor is used to measurethe likelihood of student success on firstattempt writing the NCLEX-RN exam. Thetrends of the subsections of theRN-Predictor are used to evaluate thecurriculum content and process. Themajority of students graduating inDecember 2007 and May 2008 wereenrolled in a required 3-semester creditNCLEX-preparation course, N440 in thefifth semester if they did not achieve theestablished benchmark, a score in the65th percentile or higher on the RNComprehensive Predictor. This benchmarkwas considered by ATI to be predictive ofsuccess on the NCLEX (table 4-3). TheATI recommended changing the scoringfor the Comprehensive Predictor frompercentile to percent probability ofpassing, and its recommended benchmarkwas 94% probability. The Undergraduatestudents take the exam at the end of thefourth semester, having one semesterbefore taking the NCLEX-RN. The SONcurrent benchmark is 98% probability ofpassing NCLEX-RN. Beginning withstudents in Level 5 fall semester 2008,the process changed to better utilize ourresources and student synthesis oflearning in this culminating semester.Students graduating in December 2008and May 2009 were now required to enrollin Virtual ATI (VATI) 2 weeks prior tograduation if their score on theRN-Predictor was less than thebenchmark of 98% probability of passingNCLEX. This is an online individualizedNCLEX preparation course that predicts
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
18 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
99% probability of success. The twostudents who were not successful inDecember of 2008 on first time pass,were enrolled in VATI, but did notparticipate before taking NCLEX. This isreflected on the 2009 Education SummaryReport for the National Council of StateBoards of Nursing.
NCLEX-RN:The SON benchmark is at or above thenational percent passing of first time BSNcandidates as specified by the NationalCouncil Licensure Examination forRegistered Nurse. This is also thebenchmark used by the UT System andTHEC for program effectiveness. The 2009pass rate only includes the class thatgraduated in December 2008. As ofAugust 2009, 23 of the 24 student whograduated in May 2009 have taken theNCLEX-RN exam: all have passed on thefirst attempt.
Pass rate for first time writers of theNCLEX-RN2006 Pass Rate=92.32007 Pass Rate=87.27%2008 Pass Rate=100%2009 Pass Rate=91.6%
Graduation Rate:The graduation rate for the BSN Programis calculated by dividing the number ofstudents entering the nursing major intothe number of students graduating sevensemesters later. The benchmark is 85%.The graduation rate for 2008 was 83%(table 4.5). This occurred because 4students withdrew from the program and3 students were dismissed for academicreasons. The four students who withdrewdid so for personal reasons such ascomplicated pregnancy, husbandrelocating, and other family situations.The first cohort of the RN to BSN Trackbegan May 2007. This group of students’graduation rate is 96%.
Traditional Student UndergraduateGraduation Rates (calculation based uponseven semesters)2006=93%2007=88%2008=83%
CAAP:All undergraduate graduating seniors arerequired to take the CollegiateAssessment of Academic Proficiency(CAAP), a standardized multiple-choicetest used to measure content areasrelated to writing skills, mathematics,reading, science, and critical thinking.Aggregated results are reported.University students are randomlyassigned to take only one of the fivetests mentioned during the semesterbefore they graduate. Since the exam isgiven after the student has completed allSON courses in addition to Universitygeneral education courses, faculty believethat comparing our students withUniversity and College students is ameans of gauging student learningeffectiveness.
In 2006, students graduating in thenursing major had higher mean scores in
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
19 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
reading than other graduating students inthe College and higher means thanCollege and total University graduatingstudents in science reasoning and criticalthinking, but lower means in writing skillsand mathematics.
Critical Thinking:The SON also measures Critical Thinkingusing the ATI exam. There was nodifference in entry/exit Critical Thinkingscores for the January 2007 graduates.This is likely a regression toward themean phenomenon as this class enteredwith an unusually high mean, closer tothe exit scores of the other classes. Thefirst cohort of Gateway students did notshow a significant increase in scores,however, the time between testing wasabbreviated as the students not giventhe entrance test until they had been inthe program for about 6 months. Thisoversight has been corrected.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Evaluate own nursingpractice
Mapped to:USA- CCNE- The Essentials ofBaccalaureate Education forProfessional Nursing Practice(2008): Essential II, Essential III,Essential V , Essential VIII
Measures & Findings
Student & Alumni SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: AdvisementExit InterviewsAlumni Survey
Target: Current and graduating studentsand alumni
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student & AlumniSatisfaction
Summary of Findings: Advisement:Student satisfaction with advisement andstudent satisfaction as they exit from theprogram are other indicators of programeffectiveness. The SON advises allpre-nursing students, one of our largestcommunity of interest groups.Advisement is considered an importantcomponent of University effectiveness.Block advisement is performed withtraditional students enrolled inUndergraduate Program The Pre-NursingGroup evaluates the advising processeach semester (table 4.10). TheBenchmark for Pre-Nursing studentsatisfaction with advisement is 90%.University-wide advisement of SONstudents median score on a scale of 1 to6 is consistently 6. Student satisfactionwith the Pre-Nursing Advisement processcontinued to improve and SONadvisement of all students is consideredoutstanding by the University.
Exit Interviews:As a component of ongoing continuousquality improvement, exit interviews ofstudents at the end of the fifth semesterbegan in spring 2007. Prior to this time,satisfaction with the Program wasmeasured at one year post graduation bymail surveys. This method was ineffectivedespite many reminders; the rate ofreturn was dismal. Tables 4.11- 4.13present the Undergraduate Exit interviewquestions. Summary data of question (4):“is there anything else you would like toshare with us about your experiences atthe SON?” will be available on site.Because of the difference in student
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
20 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
population and teaching methodology,the Gateway students complete an exitexam that measures their educationalexperience. Data will be available forreview in the Resource Room.
Alumni Survey:Alumni satisfaction with the program ismixed. For the May 08 graduates, thenumber of respondents was only 9 alumniat six months. Of those nine alumni,33-50% were dissatisfied with somemeasures but 77% were satisfied withskills and competencies acquired from theprogram. This is consistent with the exitinterviews; time did not change theirperception. Of the overall mixed resultssuch as classroom space, studentgathering area, and student in-put intothe program, we have responded andhave processes in place: the renovationof space should be complete fallsemester 2009 and we are actively tryingto involve the students in governance ofthe SON.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Student AchievementProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: ATI RN PredictorNCLEX examCollegiate Assessment of AcademicProficiency (CAAP)Graduation Rate
Target: Graduating BSN students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student Achievement
Summary of Findings: ATI RN Predictor:The ATI RN-Predictor is used to measurethe likelihood of student success on firstattempt writing the NCLEX-RN exam. Thetrends of the subsections of theRN-Predictor are used to evaluate thecurriculum content and process. Themajority of students graduating inDecember 2007 and May 2008 wereenrolled in a required 3-semester creditNCLEX-preparation course, N440 in thefifth semester if they did not achieve theestablished benchmark, a score in the65th percentile or higher on the RNComprehensive Predictor. This benchmarkwas considered by ATI to be predictive ofsuccess on the NCLEX (table 4-3). TheATI recommended changing the scoringfor the Comprehensive Predictor frompercentile to percent probability ofpassing, and its recommended benchmarkwas 94% probability. The Undergraduatestudents take the exam at the end of thefourth semester, having one semesterbefore taking the NCLEX-RN. The SONcurrent benchmark is 98% probability ofpassing NCLEX-RN. Beginning withstudents in Level 5 fall semester 2008,the process changed to better utilize ourresources and student synthesis oflearning in this culminating semester.Students graduating in December 2008and May 2009 were now required to enrollin Virtual ATI (VATI) 2 weeks prior tograduation if their score on theRN-Predictor was less than thebenchmark of 98% probability of passingNCLEX. This is an online individualizedNCLEX preparation course that predicts99% probability of success. The twostudents who were not successful inDecember of 2008 on first time pass,were enrolled in VATI, but did notparticipate before taking NCLEX. This is
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
21 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
reflected on the 2009 Education SummaryReport for the National Council of StateBoards of Nursing.
NCLEX-RN:The SON benchmark is at or above thenational percent passing of first time BSNcandidates as specified by the NationalCouncil Licensure Examination forRegistered Nurse. This is also thebenchmark used by the UT System andTHEC for program effectiveness. The 2009pass rate only includes the class thatgraduated in December 2008. As ofAugust 2009, 23 of the 24 student whograduated in May 2009 have taken theNCLEX-RN exam: all have passed on thefirst attempt.
Pass rate for first time writers of theNCLEX-RN2006 Pass Rate=92.32007 Pass Rate=87.27%2008 Pass Rate=100%2009 Pass Rate=91.6%
Graduation Rate:The graduation rate for the BSN Programis calculated by dividing the number ofstudents entering the nursing major intothe number of students graduating sevensemesters later. The benchmark is 85%.The graduation rate for 2008 was 83%(table 4.5). This occurred because 4students withdrew from the program and3 students were dismissed for academicreasons. The four students who withdrewdid so for personal reasons such ascomplicated pregnancy, husbandrelocating, and other family situations.The first cohort of the RN to BSN Trackbegan May 2007. This group of students’graduation rate is 96%.
Traditional Student UndergraduateGraduation Rates (calculation based uponseven semesters)2006=93%2007=88%2008=83%
CAAP:All undergraduate graduating seniors arerequired to take the CollegiateAssessment of Academic Proficiency(CAAP), a standardized multiple-choicetest used to measure content areasrelated to writing skills, mathematics,reading, science, and critical thinking.Aggregated results are reported.University students are randomlyassigned to take only one of the fivetests mentioned during the semesterbefore they graduate. Since the exam isgiven after the student has completed allSON courses in addition to Universitygeneral education courses, faculty believethat comparing our students withUniversity and College students is ameans of gauging student learningeffectiveness.
In 2006, students graduating in thenursing major had higher mean scores inreading than other graduating students inthe College and higher means thanCollege and total University graduatingstudents in science reasoning and criticalthinking, but lower means in writing skills
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
22 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
and mathematics.
Critical Thinking:The SON also measures Critical Thinkingusing the ATI exam. There was nodifference in entry/exit Critical Thinkingscores for the January 2007 graduates.This is likely a regression toward themean phenomenon as this class enteredwith an unusually high mean, closer tothe exit scores of the other classes. Thefirst cohort of Gateway students did notshow a significant increase in scores,however, the time between testing wasabbreviated as the students not giventhe entrance test until they had been inthe program for about 6 months. Thisoversight has been corrected.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Life-long learning.
Mapped to:USA- CCNE- The Essentials ofBaccalaureate Education forProfessional Nursing Practice(2008): Essential IX , Essential VII
Measures & Findings
Student & Alumni SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: AdvisementExit InterviewsAlumni Survey
Target: Current and graduating studentsand alumni
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student & AlumniSatisfaction
Summary of Findings: Advisement:Student satisfaction with advisement andstudent satisfaction as they exit from theprogram are other indicators of programeffectiveness. The SON advises allpre-nursing students, one of our largestcommunity of interest groups.Advisement is considered an importantcomponent of University effectiveness.Block advisement is performed withtraditional students enrolled inUndergraduate Program The Pre-NursingGroup evaluates the advising processeach semester (table 4.10). TheBenchmark for Pre-Nursing studentsatisfaction with advisement is 90%.University-wide advisement of SONstudents median score on a scale of 1 to6 is consistently 6. Student satisfactionwith the Pre-Nursing Advisement processcontinued to improve and SONadvisement of all students is consideredoutstanding by the University.
Exit Interviews:As a component of ongoing continuousquality improvement, exit interviews ofstudents at the end of the fifth semesterbegan in spring 2007. Prior to this time,satisfaction with the Program wasmeasured at one year post graduation bymail surveys. This method was ineffectivedespite many reminders; the rate ofreturn was dismal. Tables 4.11- 4.13present the Undergraduate Exit interviewquestions. Summary data of question (4):“is there anything else you would like toshare with us about your experiences atthe SON?” will be available on site.Because of the difference in studentpopulation and teaching methodology,the Gateway students complete an exitexam that measures their educationalexperience. Data will be available forreview in the Resource Room.
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
23 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
Alumni Survey:Alumni satisfaction with the program ismixed. For the May 08 graduates, thenumber of respondents was only 9 alumniat six months. Of those nine alumni,33-50% were dissatisfied with somemeasures but 77% were satisfied withskills and competencies acquired from theprogram. This is consistent with the exitinterviews; time did not change theirperception. Of the overall mixed resultssuch as classroom space, studentgathering area, and student in-put intothe program, we have responded andhave processes in place: the renovationof space should be complete fallsemester 2009 and we are actively tryingto involve the students in governance ofthe SON.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Student AchievementProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: ATI RN PredictorNCLEX examCollegiate Assessment of AcademicProficiency (CAAP)Graduation RateCritical Thinking
Target: Graduating BSN students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
No Findings Added to StudentAchievement
Value individual differences
Mapped to:USA- CCNE- The Essentials ofBaccalaureate Education forProfessional Nursing Practice(2008): Essential I, Essential VII
Measures & Findings
Student & Alumni SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: AdvisementExit InterviewsAlumni Survey
Target: Current and graduating studentsand alumni
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student & AlumniSatisfaction
Summary of Findings: Advisement:Student satisfaction with advisement andstudent satisfaction as they exit from theprogram are other indicators of programeffectiveness. The SON advises allpre-nursing students, one of our largestcommunity of interest groups.Advisement is considered an importantcomponent of University effectiveness.Block advisement is performed withtraditional students enrolled inUndergraduate Program The Pre-NursingGroup evaluates the advising processeach semester (table 4.10). TheBenchmark for Pre-Nursing studentsatisfaction with advisement is 90%.University-wide advisement of SONstudents median score on a scale of 1 to6 is consistently 6. Student satisfactionwith the Pre-Nursing Advisement processcontinued to improve and SONadvisement of all students is consideredoutstanding by the University.
Exit Interviews:As a component of ongoing continuousquality improvement, exit interviews of
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
24 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
students at the end of the fifth semesterbegan in spring 2007. Prior to this time,satisfaction with the Program wasmeasured at one year post graduation bymail surveys. This method was ineffectivedespite many reminders; the rate ofreturn was dismal. Tables 4.11- 4.13present the Undergraduate Exit interviewquestions. Summary data of question (4):“is there anything else you would like toshare with us about your experiences atthe SON?” will be available on site.Because of the difference in studentpopulation and teaching methodology,the Gateway students complete an exitexam that measures their educationalexperience. Data will be available forreview in the Resource Room.
Alumni Survey:Alumni satisfaction with the program ismixed. For the May 08 graduates, thenumber of respondents was only 9 alumniat six months. Of those nine alumni,33-50% were dissatisfied with somemeasures but 77% were satisfied withskills and competencies acquired from theprogram. This is consistent with the exitinterviews; time did not change theirperception. Of the overall mixed resultssuch as classroom space, studentgathering area, and student in-put intothe program, we have responded andhave processes in place: the renovationof space should be complete fallsemester 2009 and we are actively tryingto involve the students in governance ofthe SON.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Student AchievementProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: ATI RN PredictorNCLEX examCollegiate Assessment of AcademicProficiency (CAAP)Graduation RateCritical Thinking
Target: Graduating BSN students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student Achievement
Summary of Findings: ATI RN Predictor:The ATI RN-Predictor is used to measurethe likelihood of student success on firstattempt writing the NCLEX-RN exam. Thetrends of the subsections of theRN-Predictor are used to evaluate thecurriculum content and process. Themajority of students graduating inDecember 2007 and May 2008 wereenrolled in a required 3-semester creditNCLEX-preparation course, N440 in thefifth semester if they did not achieve theestablished benchmark, a score in the65th percentile or higher on the RNComprehensive Predictor. This benchmarkwas considered by ATI to be predictive ofsuccess on the NCLEX (table 4-3). TheATI recommended changing the scoringfor the Comprehensive Predictor frompercentile to percent probability ofpassing, and its recommended benchmarkwas 94% probability. The Undergraduatestudents take the exam at the end of thefourth semester, having one semesterbefore taking the NCLEX-RN. The SONcurrent benchmark is 98% probability ofpassing NCLEX-RN. Beginning withstudents in Level 5 fall semester 2008,the process changed to better utilize ourresources and student synthesis oflearning in this culminating semester.
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
25 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
Students graduating in December 2008and May 2009 were now required to enrollin Virtual ATI (VATI) 2 weeks prior tograduation if their score on theRN-Predictor was less than thebenchmark of 98% probability of passingNCLEX. This is an online individualizedNCLEX preparation course that predicts99% probability of success. The twostudents who were not successful inDecember of 2008 on first time pass,were enrolled in VATI, but did notparticipate before taking NCLEX. This isreflected on the 2009 Education SummaryReport for the National Council of StateBoards of Nursing.
NCLEX-RN:The SON benchmark is at or above thenational percent passing of first time BSNcandidates as specified by the NationalCouncil Licensure Examination forRegistered Nurse. This is also thebenchmark used by the UT System andTHEC for program effectiveness. The 2009pass rate only includes the class thatgraduated in December 2008. As ofAugust 2009, 23 of the 24 student whograduated in May 2009 have taken theNCLEX-RN exam: all have passed on thefirst attempt.
Pass rate for first time writers of theNCLEX-RN2006 Pass Rate=92.32007 Pass Rate=87.27%2008 Pass Rate=100%2009 Pass Rate=91.6%
Graduation Rate:The graduation rate for the BSN Programis calculated by dividing the number ofstudents entering the nursing major intothe number of students graduating sevensemesters later. The benchmark is 85%.The graduation rate for 2008 was 83%(table 4.5). This occurred because 4students withdrew from the program and3 students were dismissed for academicreasons. The four students who withdrewdid so for personal reasons such ascomplicated pregnancy, husbandrelocating, and other family situations.The first cohort of the RN to BSN Trackbegan May 2007. This group of students’graduation rate is 96%.
Traditional Student UndergraduateGraduation Rates (calculation based uponseven semesters)2006=93%2007=88%2008=83%
CAAP:All undergraduate graduating seniors arerequired to take the CollegiateAssessment of Academic Proficiency(CAAP), a standardized multiple-choicetest used to measure content areasrelated to writing skills, mathematics,reading, science, and critical thinking.Aggregated results are reported.University students are randomlyassigned to take only one of the fivetests mentioned during the semesterbefore they graduate. Since the exam isgiven after the student has completed allSON courses in addition to University
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
26 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
general education courses, faculty believethat comparing our students withUniversity and College students is ameans of gauging student learningeffectiveness.
In 2006, students graduating in thenursing major had higher mean scores inreading than other graduating students inthe College and higher means thanCollege and total University graduatingstudents in science reasoning and criticalthinking, but lower means in writing skillsand mathematics.
Critical Thinking:The SON also measures Critical Thinkingusing the ATI exam. There was nodifference in entry/exit Critical Thinkingscores for the January 2007 graduates.This is likely a regression toward themean phenomenon as this class enteredwith an unusually high mean, closer tothe exit scores of the other classes. Thefirst cohort of Gateway students did notshow a significant increase in scores,however, the time between testing wasabbreviated as the students not giventhe entrance test until they had been inthe program for about 6 months. Thisoversight has been corrected.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Demonstrate critical thinkingskills.
Mapped to:USA- CCNE- The Essentials ofBaccalaureate Education forProfessional Nursing Practice(2008): Essential III
Measures & Findings
Employer SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: BSN EmployerSurvey
Target: Employers of BSN graduates
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Employer Satisfaction
Summary of Findings: Obtaining thisdata has been historically difficult.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations :
Notes : To distribute surveys at theyearly Nursing Community AdvisoryCommittee meeting, where there is widerepresentation from the agenicesemploying graduates of ourundergraduate program.
Substantiating Evidence:
Employment RateProgram level; Indirect - Interview
Details/Description: Exit Interview
Target: Graduating BSN students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Employment Rate
Summary of Findings: Employment Rate:Employment rate is gathered at exitinterview. Additionally, we are able tosee our graduates employed over timethrough Preceptorship faculty feedback asmany of our graduates ask to bepreceptors when qualified. All studentswho desire employment have reportedsuccess over a multi-year period.Students in the Traditional UndergraduateProgram are actively sought for positionsas nurse techs before graduation and asprofessional nurses upon graduation.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
27 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Student & Alumni SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: AdvisementExit InterviewsAlumni Survey
Target: Current and graduating studentsand alumni
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student & AlumniSatisfaction
Summary of Findings: Advisement:Student satisfaction with advisement andstudent satisfaction as they exit from theprogram are other indicators of programeffectiveness. The SON advises allpre-nursing students, one of our largestcommunity of interest groups.Advisement is considered an importantcomponent of University effectiveness.Block advisement is performed withtraditional students enrolled inUndergraduate Program The Pre-NursingGroup evaluates the advising processeach semester (table 4.10). TheBenchmark for Pre-Nursing studentsatisfaction with advisement is 90%.University-wide advisement of SONstudents median score on a scale of 1 to6 is consistently 6. Student satisfactionwith the Pre-Nursing Advisement processcontinued to improve and SONadvisement of all students is consideredoutstanding by the University.
Exit Interviews:As a component of ongoing continuousquality improvement, exit interviews ofstudents at the end of the fifth semesterbegan in spring 2007. Prior to this time,satisfaction with the Program wasmeasured at one year post graduation bymail surveys. This method was ineffectivedespite many reminders; the rate ofreturn was dismal. Tables 4.11- 4.13present the Undergraduate Exit interviewquestions. Summary data of question (4):“is there anything else you would like toshare with us about your experiences atthe SON?” will be available on site.Because of the difference in studentpopulation and teaching methodology,the Gateway students complete an exitexam that measures their educationalexperience. Data will be available forreview in the Resource Room.
Alumni Survey:Alumni satisfaction with the program ismixed. For the May 08 graduates, thenumber of respondents was only 9 alumniat six months. Of those nine alumni,33-50% were dissatisfied with somemeasures but 77% were satisfied withskills and competencies acquired from theprogram. This is consistent with the exitinterviews; time did not change theirperception. Of the overall mixed resultssuch as classroom space, studentgathering area, and student in-put intothe program, we have responded andhave processes in place: the renovationof space should be complete fallsemester 2009 and we are actively tryingto involve the students in governance ofthe SON.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
28 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
Student AchievementProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: ATI RN PredictorNCLEX examCollegiate Assessment of AcademicProficiency (CAAP)Graduation RateCritical Thinking
Target: Graduating BSN students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student Achievement
Summary of Findings: ATI RN Predictor:The ATI RN-Predictor is used to measurethe likelihood of student success on firstattempt writing the NCLEX-RN exam. Thetrends of the subsections of theRN-Predictor are used to evaluate thecurriculum content and process. Themajority of students graduating inDecember 2007 and May 2008 wereenrolled in a required 3-semester creditNCLEX-preparation course, N440 in thefifth semester if they did not achieve theestablished benchmark, a score in the65th percentile or higher on the RNComprehensive Predictor. This benchmarkwas considered by ATI to be predictive ofsuccess on the NCLEX (table 4-3). TheATI recommended changing the scoringfor the Comprehensive Predictor frompercentile to percent probability ofpassing, and its recommended benchmarkwas 94% probability. The Undergraduatestudents take the exam at the end of thefourth semester, having one semesterbefore taking the NCLEX-RN. The SONcurrent benchmark is 98% probability ofpassing NCLEX-RN. Beginning withstudents in Level 5 fall semester 2008,the process changed to better utilize ourresources and student synthesis oflearning in this culminating semester.Students graduating in December 2008and May 2009 were now required to enrollin Virtual ATI (VATI) 2 weeks prior tograduation if their score on theRN-Predictor was less than thebenchmark of 98% probability of passingNCLEX. This is an online individualizedNCLEX preparation course that predicts99% probability of success. The twostudents who were not successful inDecember of 2008 on first time pass,were enrolled in VATI, but did notparticipate before taking NCLEX. This isreflected on the 2009 Education SummaryReport for the National Council of StateBoards of Nursing.
NCLEX-RN:The SON benchmark is at or above thenational percent passing of first time BSNcandidates as specified by the NationalCouncil Licensure Examination forRegistered Nurse. This is also thebenchmark used by the UT System andTHEC for program effectiveness. The 2009pass rate only includes the class thatgraduated in December 2008. As ofAugust 2009, 23 of the 24 student whograduated in May 2009 have taken theNCLEX-RN exam: all have passed on thefirst attempt.
Pass rate for first time writers of theNCLEX-RN2006 Pass Rate=92.32007 Pass Rate=87.27%2008 Pass Rate=100%2009 Pass Rate=91.6%
Graduation Rate:The graduation rate for the BSN Programis calculated by dividing the number ofstudents entering the nursing major intothe number of students graduating sevensemesters later. The benchmark is 85%.
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
29 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
The graduation rate for 2008 was 83%(table 4.5). This occurred because 4students withdrew from the program and3 students were dismissed for academicreasons. The four students who withdrewdid so for personal reasons such ascomplicated pregnancy, husbandrelocating, and other family situations.The first cohort of the RN to BSN Trackbegan May 2007. This group of students’graduation rate is 96%.
Traditional Student UndergraduateGraduation Rates (calculation based uponseven semesters)2006=93%2007=88%2008=83%
CAAP:All undergraduate graduating seniors arerequired to take the CollegiateAssessment of Academic Proficiency(CAAP), a standardized multiple-choicetest used to measure content areasrelated to writing skills, mathematics,reading, science, and critical thinking.Aggregated results are reported.University students are randomlyassigned to take only one of the fivetests mentioned during the semesterbefore they graduate. Since the exam isgiven after the student has completed allSON courses in addition to Universitygeneral education courses, faculty believethat comparing our students withUniversity and College students is ameans of gauging student learningeffectiveness.
In 2006, students graduating in thenursing major had higher mean scores inreading than other graduating students inthe College and higher means thanCollege and total University graduatingstudents in science reasoning and criticalthinking, but lower means in writing skillsand mathematics.
Critical Thinking:The SON also measures Critical Thinkingusing the ATI exam. There was nodifference in entry/exit Critical Thinkingscores for the January 2007 graduates.This is likely a regression toward themean phenomenon as this class enteredwith an unusually high mean, closer tothe exit scores of the other classes. Thefirst cohort of Gateway students did notshow a significant increase in scores,however, the time between testing wasabbreviated as the students not giventhe entrance test until they had been inthe program for about 6 months. Thisoversight has been corrected.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Professional behavior.
Mapped to:USA- CCNE- The Essentials ofBaccalaureate Education for
Measures & Findings
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
30 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
Professional Nursing Practice(2008): Essential VI, Essential VIII
Employer SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: BSN EmployerSurvey
Target: Employers of BSN graduates
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Employer Satisfaction
Summary of Findings: Obtaining thisdata has been historically difficult.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : To distributesurveys at the yearly Nursing CommunityAdvisory Committee meeting, where thereis wide representation from the agenicesemploying graduates of ourundergraduate program.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Employment RateProgram level; Indirect - Interview
Details/Description: Exit Interview
Target: Graduating BSN students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Employment Rate
Summary of Findings: Employment Rate:Employment rate is gathered at exitinterview. Additionally, we are able tosee our graduates employed over timethrough Preceptorship faculty feedback asmany of our graduates ask to bepreceptors when qualified. All studentswho desire employment have reportedsuccess over a multi-year period.Students in the Traditional UndergraduateProgram are actively sought for positionsas nurse techs before graduation and asprofessional nurses upon graduation.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Student & Alumni SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: AdvisementExit InterviewsAlumni Survey
Target: Current and graduating studentsand alumni
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student & AlumniSatisfaction
Summary of Findings: Advisement:Student satisfaction with advisement andstudent satisfaction as they exit from theprogram are other indicators of programeffectiveness. The SON advises allpre-nursing students, one of our largestcommunity of interest groups.Advisement is considered an importantcomponent of University effectiveness.Block advisement is performed withtraditional students enrolled inUndergraduate Program The Pre-NursingGroup evaluates the advising processeach semester (table 4.10). TheBenchmark for Pre-Nursing studentsatisfaction with advisement is 90%.University-wide advisement of SONstudents median score on a scale of 1 to6 is consistently 6. Student satisfactionwith the Pre-Nursing Advisement processcontinued to improve and SONadvisement of all students is consideredoutstanding by the University.
Exit Interviews:As a component of ongoing continuousquality improvement, exit interviews ofstudents at the end of the fifth semesterbegan in spring 2007. Prior to this time,satisfaction with the Program wasmeasured at one year post graduation bymail surveys. This method was ineffectivedespite many reminders; the rate ofreturn was dismal. Tables 4.11- 4.13present the Undergraduate Exit interview
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
31 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
questions. Summary data of question (4):“is there anything else you would like toshare with us about your experiences atthe SON?” will be available on site.Because of the difference in studentpopulation and teaching methodology,the Gateway students complete an exitexam that measures their educationalexperience. Data will be available forreview in the Resource Room.
Alumni Survey:Alumni satisfaction with the program ismixed. For the May 08 graduates, thenumber of respondents was only 9 alumniat six months. Of those nine alumni,33-50% were dissatisfied with somemeasures but 77% were satisfied withskills and competencies acquired from theprogram. This is consistent with the exitinterviews; time did not change theirperception. Of the overall mixed resultssuch as classroom space, studentgathering area, and student in-put intothe program, we have responded andhave processes in place: the renovationof space should be complete fallsemester 2009 and we are actively tryingto involve the students in governance ofthe SON.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Student AchievementProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: ATI RN PredictorNCLEX examCollegiate Assessment of AcademicProficiency (CAAP)Graduation RateCritical Thinking
Target: Graduating BSN students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Student Achievement
Summary of Findings: ATI RN Predictor:The ATI RN-Predictor is used to measurethe likelihood of student success on firstattempt writing the NCLEX-RN exam. Thetrends of the subsections of theRN-Predictor are used to evaluate thecurriculum content and process. Themajority of students graduating inDecember 2007 and May 2008 wereenrolled in a required 3-semester creditNCLEX-preparation course, N440 in thefifth semester if they did not achieve theestablished benchmark, a score in the65th percentile or higher on the RNComprehensive Predictor. This benchmarkwas considered by ATI to be predictive ofsuccess on the NCLEX (table 4-3). TheATI recommended changing the scoringfor the Comprehensive Predictor frompercentile to percent probability ofpassing, and its recommended benchmarkwas 94% probability. The Undergraduatestudents take the exam at the end of thefourth semester, having one semesterbefore taking the NCLEX-RN. The SONcurrent benchmark is 98% probability ofpassing NCLEX-RN. Beginning withstudents in Level 5 fall semester 2008,the process changed to better utilize ourresources and student synthesis oflearning in this culminating semester.Students graduating in December 2008and May 2009 were now required to enrollin Virtual ATI (VATI) 2 weeks prior tograduation if their score on theRN-Predictor was less than thebenchmark of 98% probability of passingNCLEX. This is an online individualizedNCLEX preparation course that predicts
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
32 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
99% probability of success. The twostudents who were not successful inDecember of 2008 on first time pass,were enrolled in VATI, but did notparticipate before taking NCLEX. This isreflected on the 2009 Education SummaryReport for the National Council of StateBoards of Nursing.
NCLEX-RN:The SON benchmark is at or above thenational percent passing of first time BSNcandidates as specified by the NationalCouncil Licensure Examination forRegistered Nurse. This is also thebenchmark used by the UT System andTHEC for program effectiveness. The 2009pass rate only includes the class thatgraduated in December 2008. As ofAugust 2009, 23 of the 24 student whograduated in May 2009 have taken theNCLEX-RN exam: all have passed on thefirst attempt.
Pass rate for first time writers of theNCLEX-RN2006 Pass Rate=92.32007 Pass Rate=87.27%2008 Pass Rate=100%2009 Pass Rate=91.6%
Graduation Rate:The graduation rate for the BSN Programis calculated by dividing the number ofstudents entering the nursing major intothe number of students graduating sevensemesters later. The benchmark is 85%.The graduation rate for 2008 was 83%(table 4.5). This occurred because 4students withdrew from the program and3 students were dismissed for academicreasons. The four students who withdrewdid so for personal reasons such ascomplicated pregnancy, husbandrelocating, and other family situations.The first cohort of the RN to BSN Trackbegan May 2007. This group of students’graduation rate is 96%.
Traditional Student UndergraduateGraduation Rates (calculation based uponseven semesters)2006=93%2007=88%2008=83%
CAAP:All undergraduate graduating seniors arerequired to take the CollegiateAssessment of Academic Proficiency(CAAP), a standardized multiple-choicetest used to measure content areasrelated to writing skills, mathematics,reading, science, and critical thinking.Aggregated results are reported.University students are randomlyassigned to take only one of the fivetests mentioned during the semesterbefore they graduate. Since the exam isgiven after the student has completed allSON courses in addition to Universitygeneral education courses, faculty believethat comparing our students withUniversity and College students is ameans of gauging student learningeffectiveness.
In 2006, students graduating in thenursing major had higher mean scores in
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
33 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
reading than other graduating students inthe College and higher means thanCollege and total University graduatingstudents in science reasoning and criticalthinking, but lower means in writing skillsand mathematics.
Critical Thinking:The SON also measures Critical Thinkingusing the ATI exam. There was nodifference in entry/exit Critical Thinkingscores for the January 2007 graduates.This is likely a regression toward themean phenomenon as this class enteredwith an unusually high mean, closer tothe exit scores of the other classes. Thefirst cohort of Gateway students did notshow a significant increase in scores,however, the time between testing wasabbreviated as the students not giventhe entrance test until they had been inthe program for about 6 months. Thisoversight has been corrected.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Resource Management
Mapped to:USA- CCNE- The Essentials ofBaccalaureate Education forProfessional Nursing Practice(2008): Essential III, Essential IV,Essential V
Measures & Findings
Employer SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: BSN EmployerSurvey
Target: Employers of BSN graduates
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Employer Satisfaction
Summary of Findings: Obtaining thisdata has been historically difficult.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : To distributesurveys at the yearly Nursing CommunityAdvisory Committee meeting, where thereis wide representation from the agenicesemploying graduates of ourundergraduate program.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Employment RateProgram level; Indirect - Interview
Details/Description: Exit Interview
Target: Graduating BSN students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Employment Rate
Summary of Findings: Employment Rate:Employment rate is gathered at exitinterview. Additionally, we are able tosee our graduates employed over timethrough Preceptorship faculty feedback asmany of our graduates ask to bepreceptors when qualified. All studentswho desire employment have reportedsuccess over a multi-year period.Students in the Traditional UndergraduateProgram are actively sought for positionsas nurse techs before graduation and asprofessional nurses upon graduation.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Student & Alumni SatisfactionProgram level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: AdvisementExit Interviews
Findings for Student & AlumniSatisfaction
Summary of Findings: Advisement:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
34 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
Alumni Survey
Target: Current and graduating studentsand alumni
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
Student satisfaction with advisement andstudent satisfaction as they exit from theprogram are other indicators of programeffectiveness. The SON advises allpre-nursing students, one of our largestcommunity of interest groups.Advisement is considered an importantcomponent of University effectiveness.Block advisement is performed withtraditional students enrolled inUndergraduate Program The Pre-NursingGroup evaluates the advising processeach semester (table 4.10). TheBenchmark for Pre-Nursing studentsatisfaction with advisement is 90%.University-wide advisement of SONstudents median score on a scale of 1 to6 is consistently 6. Student satisfactionwith the Pre-Nursing Advisement processcontinued to improve and SONadvisement of all students is consideredoutstanding by the University.
Exit Interviews:As a component of ongoing continuousquality improvement, exit interviews ofstudents at the end of the fifth semesterbegan in spring 2007. Prior to this time,satisfaction with the Program wasmeasured at one year post graduation bymail surveys. This method was ineffectivedespite many reminders; the rate ofreturn was dismal. Tables 4.11- 4.13present the Undergraduate Exit interviewquestions. Summary data of question (4):“is there anything else you would like toshare with us about your experiences atthe SON?” will be available on site.Because of the difference in studentpopulation and teaching methodology,the Gateway students complete an exitexam that measures their educationalexperience. Data will be available forreview in the Resource Room.
Alumni Survey:Alumni satisfaction with the program ismixed. For the May 08 graduates, thenumber of respondents was only 9 alumniat six months. Of those nine alumni,33-50% were dissatisfied with somemeasures but 77% were satisfied withskills and competencies acquired from theprogram. This is consistent with the exitinterviews; time did not change theirperception. Of the overall mixed resultssuch as classroom space, studentgathering area, and student in-put intothe program, we have responded andhave processes in place: the renovationof space should be complete fallsemester 2009 and we are actively tryingto involve the students in governance ofthe SON.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Student AchievementProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: ATI RN PredictorNCLEX examCollegiate Assessment of AcademicProficiency (CAAP)Graduation Rate
Findings for Student Achievement
Summary of Findings: ATI RN Predictor:The ATI RN-Predictor is used to measurethe likelihood of student success on firstattempt writing the NCLEX-RN exam. Thetrends of the subsections of the
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
35 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
Critical Thinking
Target: Graduating BSN students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Current
Key/Responsible Personnel: KatherineLindgren
Supporting Attachments:
RN-Predictor are used to evaluate thecurriculum content and process. Themajority of students graduating inDecember 2007 and May 2008 wereenrolled in a required 3-semester creditNCLEX-preparation course, N440 in thefifth semester if they did not achieve theestablished benchmark, a score in the65th percentile or higher on the RNComprehensive Predictor. This benchmarkwas considered by ATI to be predictive ofsuccess on the NCLEX (table 4-3). TheATI recommended changing the scoringfor the Comprehensive Predictor frompercentile to percent probability ofpassing, and its recommended benchmarkwas 94% probability. The Undergraduatestudents take the exam at the end of thefourth semester, having one semesterbefore taking the NCLEX-RN. The SONcurrent benchmark is 98% probability ofpassing NCLEX-RN. Beginning withstudents in Level 5 fall semester 2008,the process changed to better utilize ourresources and student synthesis oflearning in this culminating semester.Students graduating in December 2008and May 2009 were now required to enrollin Virtual ATI (VATI) 2 weeks prior tograduation if their score on theRN-Predictor was less than thebenchmark of 98% probability of passingNCLEX. This is an online individualizedNCLEX preparation course that predicts99% probability of success. The twostudents who were not successful inDecember of 2008 on first time pass,were enrolled in VATI, but did notparticipate before taking NCLEX. This isreflected on the 2009 Education SummaryReport for the National Council of StateBoards of Nursing.
NCLEX-RN:The SON benchmark is at or above thenational percent passing of first time BSNcandidates as specified by the NationalCouncil Licensure Examination forRegistered Nurse. This is also thebenchmark used by the UT System andTHEC for program effectiveness. The 2009pass rate only includes the class thatgraduated in December 2008. As ofAugust 2009, 23 of the 24 student whograduated in May 2009 have taken theNCLEX-RN exam: all have passed on thefirst attempt.
Pass rate for first time writers of theNCLEX-RN2006 Pass Rate=92.32007 Pass Rate=87.27%2008 Pass Rate=100%2009 Pass Rate=91.6%
Graduation Rate:The graduation rate for the BSN Programis calculated by dividing the number ofstudents entering the nursing major intothe number of students graduating sevensemesters later. The benchmark is 85%.The graduation rate for 2008 was 83%(table 4.5). This occurred because 4students withdrew from the program and3 students were dismissed for academicreasons. The four students who withdrewdid so for personal reasons such ascomplicated pregnancy, husbandrelocating, and other family situations.
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
36 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
The first cohort of the RN to BSN Trackbegan May 2007. This group of students’graduation rate is 96%.
Traditional Student UndergraduateGraduation Rates (calculation based uponseven semesters)2006=93%2007=88%2008=83%
CAAP:All undergraduate graduating seniors arerequired to take the CollegiateAssessment of Academic Proficiency(CAAP), a standardized multiple-choicetest used to measure content areasrelated to writing skills, mathematics,reading, science, and critical thinking.Aggregated results are reported.University students are randomlyassigned to take only one of the fivetests mentioned during the semesterbefore they graduate. Since the exam isgiven after the student has completed allSON courses in addition to Universitygeneral education courses, faculty believethat comparing our students withUniversity and College students is ameans of gauging student learningeffectiveness.
In 2006, students graduating in thenursing major had higher mean scores inreading than other graduating students inthe College and higher means thanCollege and total University graduatingstudents in science reasoning and criticalthinking, but lower means in writing skillsand mathematics.
Critical Thinking:The SON also measures Critical Thinkingusing the ATI exam. There was nodifference in entry/exit Critical Thinkingscores for the January 2007 graduates.This is likely a regression toward themean phenomenon as this class enteredwith an unusually high mean, closer tothe exit scores of the other classes. Thefirst cohort of Gateway students did notshow a significant increase in scores,however, the time between testing wasabbreviated as the students not giventhe entrance test until they had been inthe program for about 6 months. Thisoversight has been corrected.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_ass...
37 of 37 8/23/2010 10:57 AM
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Physical Therapy: DPT
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
Entry-Level DPT
Outcomes
NPTE Pass Rate
Mapped to:USA- CAPTE- Standards: Element CO-1, ElementCO-3
Measures & Findings
NPTE Pass RateProgram level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: This objective is measured byreviewing the pass rate report provided by the FSBPT.
Target: equal to or higher than the national average forpass rates for first time takers who are graduates of USPT programs
Implementation Plan (timeline): Annual
Key/Responsible Personnel: DepartmentHead/Accreditation Committee
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for NPTE Pass Rate
Summary of Findings: 100% first-time pass rate;National average 85.92%.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:2008 pass rates (MHTML)
Safe Practice
Mapped to:USA- CAPTE- Standards: Element CO-1, ElementCO-2, Element CO-4
Measures & Findings
Clinical Performance Instrument Safe PracticeProgram level; Indirect - Other
Details/Description: Clinical Performance Instrument(PHYT 790 Clinical Internship) results as submitted byclinical instructors.
Target: 100%
Implementation Plan (timeline): Annual
Key/Responsible Personnel: Director of ClinicalEducation
Supporting Attachments:APTA PT Clinical Performance Instrument (Web
Link)Link to APTA Physical Therapist Clinical Performance
Findings for Clinical Performance Instrument SafePractice
Summary of Findings: All students met CPI indicator#1 at entry-level at point of graduation.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes : Hard copies of individual student CPI recordsavailable upon request in the PT department.
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
1 of 3 8/6/2010 1:11 PM
Instrument for students (June 2006). The CPI used for thiscycle was version December 1997. Hard copy of documentavailable in the PT Department (copyrighted document).http://www.apta.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=CPI1&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=59105
Professional Behavior
Mapped to:USA- CAPTE- Standards: Element CO-1, ElementCO-2, Element CO-4
Measures & Findings
Clinical Performance Instrument ProfessionalBehaviorProgram level; Indirect - Other
Details/Description: Clinical Performance Instrument(PHYT 790 Clinical Internship) results as submitted byclinical instructors. Indicator #3.
Target: 100%
Implementation Plan (timeline): Annual
Key/Responsible Personnel: Director of ClinicalEducation
Supporting Attachments:APTA PT Clinical Performance Instrument (Web
Link)Link to APTA Physical Therapist Clinical PerformanceInstrument for students (June 2006). The CPI used for thiscycle was version December 1997. Hard copy of documentavailable in the PT Department (copyrighted document).http://www.apta.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=CPI1&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=59105
Findings for Clinical Performance InstrumentProfessional Behavior
Summary of Findings: All students met CPI indicator#3 at entry-level at point of graduation.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes : Hard copies of individual student CPI recordsavailable upon request in the PT department.
Substantiating Evidence:
CPI Entry-Level Competence
Mapped to:USA- CAPTE- Standards: Element CO-1, ElementCO-2, Element CO-4
Measures & Findings
Clinical Performance Instrument Entry LevelCompetenceProgram level; Indirect - Other
Details/Description: Clinical Performance Instrument(PHYT 790 Clinical Internship) results as submitted byclinical instructors. Indicators #1-24.
Target: 100%
Implementation Plan (timeline): Annual
Key/Responsible Personnel: Director of ClinicalEducation
Supporting Attachments:APTA PT Clinical Performance Instrument (Web
Link)Link to APTA Physical Therapist Clinical PerformanceInstrument for students (June 2006). The CPI used for thiscycle was version December 1997. Hard copy of documentavailable in the PT Department (copyrighted document).
Findings for Clinical Performance InstrumentEntry Level Competence
Summary of Findings: All students met CIP indicators#1-24 at entry-level at point of graduation.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes : Hard copies of individual student CPI recordsavailable upon request in the PT department.
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
2 of 3 8/6/2010 1:11 PM
http://www.apta.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=CPI1&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=59105
Successful Course Completion
Mapped to:USA- CAPTE- Standards: Element CO-1, ElementCO-2, Element CO-4
Measures & Findings
Transcript AuditProgram level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Transcript audit for each graduateof the program will show 100% successful completion(minimum C) of all entry-level DPT program courses.
Target: 100%
Implementation Plan (timeline): Annual graduationaudit
Key/Responsible Personnel: RegistrarDepartment Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Transcript Audit
Summary of Findings: All graduates schieved aminimum of C in all entry-level DPT didactic courses.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
3 of 3 8/6/2010 1:11 PM
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Social Work: BSW
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
BSW Program Outcomes
Outcomes
1.
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
SOCW 342 ( Human behavior and SocialEnvironment II)Global Perspectives RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #4: Apply enhancedbio-psycho-social assessment skills with families,groups, communities, and organizations. (ProgramObjectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): FAll 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 342 ( Human behavior andSocial Environment II)Global Perspectives Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this measurewas a 7 out of a possible 10.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: TOTAL SCORECourse Obj#10: Apply and evaluate research knowledgeand skills through the development of a formal researchproposal and completion of an agency-based researchproject. (Program Objectives1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #8: Design,implement, and evaluate a social action project in thecommunity and, flowing from that, create a sustainable
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
1 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
entity to continue the work to promote economic humanrights in the community. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): FAll 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOcW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #3: Apply andevaluate the problem-solving process at the macro level,particularly within organizational systems. (ProgramObjectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): FAll 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #2: Strengthen anddeepen understanding of populations at-risk and theneed for social and economic justice. (ProgramObjectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #4: Develop and applyskills to form mutually collaborative and respectfulprofessional relationships that empower clients tobecome aware of and to utilize personal, family, group,community, organizational, and societal assets insolving individual and collective challenges. (ProgramObjectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
2 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #7: Enhance andevaluate skills in verbal and written communicationthrough the use of assignments from Social Actionproject. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #1: Describe thegeneralist social work abilities needed to work in macrosettings. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SoCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #5: Developcommunity assessment and program evaluation skills.(Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SoCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #10: Enhance andevaluate skills in verbal and written communicationthrough the use of assignments from Social Actionproject. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW Faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) Rubric-Community Experience
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric-Community Experience
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
3 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
Details/Description: Course Obj. #5: Developcommunity assessment and program evaluation skills.(Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) Rubric-Community ExperienceDetails/Description: Course Obj. #4: Develop and applyskills to form mutually collaborative and respectfulprofessional relationships that empower clients tobecome aware of and to utilize personal, family, group,community, organizational, and societal assets insolving individual and collective challenges. (ProgramObjectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric-Community Experience
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) Rubric-Community ExperienceDetails/Description: Course Obj. #6: Integrate one’sown diversity sensitivity to individuals, families, groups,and communities from differing social, cultural, racial,class, age, religious backgrounds, and those withdifferent sexual orientations through participation in thecommunity visitation field work. (Program Objectives 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric-Community Experience
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) Rubric-Community ExperienceDetails/Description: Course Obj. #6: Integrate one’sown diversity sensitivity to individuals, families, groups,and communities from differing social, cultural, racial,class, age, religious backgrounds, and those withdifferent sexual orientations through participation in thecommunity visitation field work. (Program Objectives 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric-Community Experience
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
4 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 417(Applied Research )RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj# 5: Demonstrate acommitment to ethical research practice and adherenceto human subject protection safeguards. (ProgramObjectives1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW Faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 417(Applied Research )Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVE #8: Apply appropriate strategiesfor analyzing, formulating, influencing, and advocatingfor desired changes at all levels of government, anddemonstrate a commitment to the principles of socialand economic justice. (Program Goals #1, #4, #5)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was9.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVE #4: Apply strategies forcontinuous self-evaluation including supervision andconsultation, and feedback from peers and other sourcesfor self development. (Program Goals #1, #4, #5)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was9.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
5 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: IELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVE #2: Synthesize and integratevaried sources to inform decisions and create solutionsand appropriate problem-solving strategies congruentwith the social work knowledge base. (Program Goals#3, #4)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): FAll 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was9.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVE #3: Demonstrate professionalbehavior congruent with the social work Code of Ethicsand apply strategies to effectively identify, address, andresolve ethical conflicts in professional practice.(Program Goals #2, #3, #4, #5)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was9.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I) EcomapRubricDetails/Description: (Course Obj #2: Recognize thepsychosocial needs and strengths of individuals andfamilies. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW Faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I)Ecomap Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I) GenogramRubricDetails/Description: (Course Obj #4: Implement basicskills of engagement, interviewing, data collection and
Findings for SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I)Genogram Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
6 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
assessment, intervention and evaluation appropriatewith individuals, families, groups, organizations, andcommunities. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9,10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I) GenogramRubricDetails/Description: (Course Obj #2. Recognize thepsychosocial needs and strengths of individuals andfamilies. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I)Genogram Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I) GenogramRubricDetails/Description: (Course Obj #2: Recognize thepsychosocial needs and strengths of individuals andfamilies. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I)Genogram Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 306 (Social Work Practice III) Eco mapRubricDetails/Description: (Course Obj #2. Recognize thepsychosocial needs and strengths of individuals andfamilies. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 306 (Social Work Practice III)Eco map Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 312(Human Behavior and the SocialEnvironment) LIT REVIEW RUBRIC
Findings for SOCW 312(Human Behavior and theSocial Environment) LIT REVIEW RUBRIC
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
7 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
Details/Description: Course Obj. #2: Demonstrateunderstanding of various theoretical explanations offorms of human diversity. (Program Objectives 1,2, 3,6,8,9) Course Obj. #7: Apply assessment skills withinthe context of human behavior and diversity across thelifespan with special emphasis given to interpretation ofvarious theoretical perspectives. (Program Objectives 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) Course Obj. #12: Evaluate varioustheoretical perspectives in terms of evidence-basedpractice and culturally competent social work practice.(Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
Target: Fall 2009
Implementation Plan (timeline): A score of 7 points outof 10 possible points.
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW FACULTY
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 333(Social Work Practice with SpecialPopulations) MidtermDetails/Description: Course Obj. #1: Implementbeginning interpersonal skills that are culturallycompetent. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9). CourseObj. #2: Develop and apply a framework forunderstanding and articulating social and culturalaspects relating to social work practice with specialpopulations. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW FACULTY
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 333(Social Work Practice withSpecial Populations) Midterm
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was6.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 333(Social Work Practice with SpecialPopulations) MidtermCourse level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Course Obj. #1: Implementbeginning interpersonal skills that are culturallycompetent. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall Semester 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 333(Social Work Practice withSpecial Populations) Midterm
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was6.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 342 (Human Behavior and the SocialEnvironment) Rubric
Findings for SOCW 342 (Human Behavior and theSocial Environment) Rubric
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
8 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
Details/Description: Course Obj. #4: Apply enhancedbio-psycho-social assessment skills with families,groups, communities, and organizations. (ProgramObjectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 out of 10 points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 342 (Human Behavior and the SocialEnvironment) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #8: Critique theimpact of sociocultural variables on human developmentand group and family functioning. (Program Objectives 1,2, 3, 4, 6,, 8, 9)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 for this item.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 342 (Human Behavior and theSocial Environment) Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 417 (Applied Research) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj# 5: Demonstrate acommitment to ethical research practice and adherenceto human subject protection safeguards. (ProgramObjectives1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW Faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 417 (Applied Research) Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442 (Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVE #7: Apply a range of social worktheories and evidence-based interventions withindividuals, families, small groups, organizations, andcommunities in all types of settings. (Program Goals #1,#4, #5)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Findings for SOCW 442 (Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was9.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
9 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OUTCOME #1: Apply culturally competentevidence-based practice skills adaptable to meet theneeds of individuals and groups with diversebackgrounds by utilizing understandable language andmulti-culturally sensitive communication skills. (ProgramGoal #2)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW Faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was9.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVE #5: Understand the forms andmechanisms of oppression and discrimination and applyinnovative social change strategies which promote bothsocial and economic justice. (Program Goals #1, #4, #5)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): FAll 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was9.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVE #10: Function professionallywithin an organizational system and when appropriate,effect positive change. (Program Goals #1, #4, #5)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was9.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
10 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVE #6: Understand and appreciatethe history of the social work profession in the contextof contemporary social policy and practice and utilizethis knowledge to inform practice. (Program Goals #1,#4, #5)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): FAll 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was9.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 490 ( Senior Seminar) Eportfolio RubricDetails/Description: Cultural Competence
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 490 ( Senior Seminar)Eportfolio Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
2.
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Details/Description: Course Obj#9: Demonstrate abeginning ability and skill in using software packages toanalyze statistical data. (Program Objectives 2, 4, 7, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 for this item.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was6.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 342 ( Human behavior and SocialEnvironment II) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #4: Apply enhancedbio-psycho-social assessment skills with families,groups, communities, and organizations. (ProgramObjectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Findings for SOCW 342 ( Human behavior andSocial Environment II) Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
11 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 342 ( Human behavior and SocialEnvironment II) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #8: Critique theimpact of sociocultural variables on human developmentand group and family functioning. (Program Objectives 1,2, 3, 4, 6,, 8, 9)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): FAll 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 342 ( Human behavior andSocial Environment II) Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #1: Describe thegeneralist social work abilities needed to work in macrosettings. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #2: Strengthen anddeepen understanding of populations at-risk and theneed for social and economic justice. (ProgramObjectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #8: Design,implement, and evaluate a social action project in thecommunity and, flowing from that, create a sustainableentity to continue the work to promote economic humanrights in the community. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was9.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
12 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #10: Enhance andevaluate skills in verbal and written communicationthrough the use of assignments from Social Actionproject. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #7: Enhance andevaluate skills in verbal and written communicationthrough the use of assignments from Social Actionproject. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SoCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #5: Developcommunity assessment and program evaluation skills.(Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #3: Apply andevaluate the problem-solving process at the macro level,particularly within organizational systems. (ProgramObjectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
13 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #4: Develop and applyskills to form mutually collaborative and respectfulprofessional relationships that empower clients tobecome aware of and to utilize personal, family, group,community, organizational, and societal assets insolving individual and collective challenges. (ProgramObjectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) Rubric-Community ExperienceDetails/Description: Course Obj. #1: Describe thegeneralist social work abilities needed to work in macrosettings. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric-Community Experience
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) Rubric-Community ExperienceDetails/Description: Course Obj. #5: Developcommunity assessment and program evaluation skills.(Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric-Community Experience
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) Rubric-Community ExperienceDetails/Description: Course Obj. #6: Integrate one’sown diversity sensitivity to individuals, families, groups,and communities from differing social, cultural, racial,class, age, religious backgrounds, and those withdifferent sexual orientations through participation in the
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric-Community Experience
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
14 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
community visitation field work. (Program Objectives 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) Rubric-Community ExperienceDetails/Description: Course Obj. #4: Develop and applyskills to form mutually collaborative and respectfulprofessional relationships that empower clients tobecome aware of and to utilize personal, family, group,community, organizational, and societal assets insolving individual and collective challenges. (ProgramObjectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric-Community Experience
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) Rubric-Community Experience RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #6: Integrate one’sown diversity sensitivity to individuals, families, groups,and communities from differing social, cultural, racial,class, age, religious backgrounds, and those withdifferent sexual orientations through participation in thecommunity visitation field work. (Program Objectives 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric-Community Experience Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 417 ( Applied Research) Final ResearchRubricDetails/Description: Course Obj #10: Apply APAstandards to professional writing with special attentionto using non-biased language. (Program Objectives 2, 3,6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Findings for SOCW 417 ( Applied Research) FinalResearch Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
15 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 417 ( Applied Research) Final ResearchRubricDetails/Description: 2. Summarizes main findings in theliterature on topic. (Course Obj #9: Objectively critiquepublished studies in the social work literature. (ProgramObjectives 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)Comments:
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 417 ( Applied Research) FinalResearch Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 417 ( Applied Research) Final ResearchRubricDetails/Description: (Course Obj #7: Describe how thescientific approach can be used to test the efficacy ofsocial interventions.) (Program Objectives 2, 3, 6, 8, 9,10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 417 ( Applied Research) FinalResearch Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 417 ( Applied Research) Final ResearchRubricDetails/Description: (Course Obj #5: Apply APAstandards to professional writing with special attentionto using non-biased language.) (Program Objectives 2,3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 417 ( Applied Research) FinalResearch Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 417 ( Applied Research) Final ResearchRubricDetails/Description: B. (Course Obj #2Compare andcontrast the scientific approach with other ways ofobtaining knowledge, and understand how the methodsdiffer with regard to causality and generalizability.)(Program Objectives 2, 3)
Findings for SOCW 417 ( Applied Research) FinalResearch Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
16 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 417 ( Applied Research) Final ResearchRubricDetails/Description: (Course Obj #3: Compare themajor research designs and discuss the strengths andweaknesses of each.) (Program Objectives 2, 3)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 417 ( Applied Research) FinalResearch Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 417 ( Applied Research) Final ResearchRubricDetails/Description: (Course Obj #8: Utilize APA stylesand formats when writing professional documents.)(Program Objectives 2, 3)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 417 ( Applied Research) FinalResearch Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 417(Applied Research )RubricDetails/Description: TOTAL SCORECourse Obj#10: Apply and evaluate research knowledgeand skills through the development of a formal researchproposal and completion of an agency-based researchproject. (Program Objectives1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW Faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 417(Applied Research )Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 417(Applied Research )RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj#7: Compare andcontrast both qualitative and quantitative researchmethodologies in social science research including thestrengths and limitations of both paradigms. (ProgramObjectives 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10)
Findings for SOCW 417(Applied Research )Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
17 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW Faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 417(Applied Research )RubricDetails/Description: as specific as possible): CourseObj# 5: Demonstrate a commitment to ethical researchpractice and adherence to human subject protectionsafeguards. (Program Objectives1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW Faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 417(Applied Research )Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 417(Applied Research )RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj# 5: Demonstrate acommitment to ethical research practice and adherenceto human subject protection safeguards. (ProgramObjectives1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 417(Applied Research )Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 417(Applied Research )RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj# 5: Demonstrate acommitment to ethical research practice and adherenceto human subject protection safeguards. (ProgramObjectives1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW Faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 417(Applied Research )Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 417(Applied Research )RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj#6: Recognize theimpact of research on oppressed and vulnerablepopulations and the ethical and value dilemmas relatedto researching these populations. (Program Objectives1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points .
Findings for SOCW 417(Applied Research )Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
18 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 417(Applied Research )RubricDetails/Description: (Course Obj #7: Describe how thescientific approach can be used to test the efficacy ofsocial interventions.) (Program Objectives 2, 3, 6, 8, 9,10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW Faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 417(Applied Research )Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 417(Applied Research )RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj#4: Evaluate theefficacy and significance of specific interventions used insocial work practice through the use of self and agencyevaluation. (Program Objectives 2,3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 417(Applied Research )Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVE #3: Demonstrate professionalbehavior congruent with the social work Code of Ethicsand apply strategies to effectively identify, address, andresolve ethical conflicts in professional practice.(Program Goals #2, #3, #4, #5)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was9.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENT
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
19 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
LEARNING OBJECTIVE #5: Understand the forms andmechanisms of oppression and discrimination and applyinnovative social change strategies which promote bothsocial and economic justice. (Program Goals #1, #4, #5)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): FAll 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was9.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVE #8: Apply appropriate strategiesfor analyzing, formulating, influencing, and advocatingfor desired changes at all levels of government, anddemonstrate a commitment to the principles of socialand economic justice. (Program Goals #1, #4, #5)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVE #6: Understand and appreciatethe history of the social work profession in the contextof contemporary social policy and practice and utilizethis knowledge to inform practice. (Program Goals #1,#4, #5)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVE #2: Synthesize and integrate
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
20 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
varied sources to inform decisions and create solutionsand appropriate problem-solving strategies congruentwith the social work knowledge base. (Program Goals#3, #4)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
9.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OUTCOME #1: Apply culturally competentevidence-based practice skills adaptable to meet theneeds of individuals and groups with diversebackgrounds by utilizing understandable language andmulti-culturally sensitive communication skills. (ProgramGoal #2)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): FAll 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVE #7: Apply a range of social worktheories and evidence-based interventions withindividuals, families, small groups, organizations, andcommunities in all types of settings. (Program Goals #1,#4, #5)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENT
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
21 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
LEARNING OBJECTIVE #10: Function professionallywithin an organizational system and when appropriate,effect positive change. (Program Goals #1, #4, #5)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I) RubricDetails/Description: 1. Discussed “who you are” andhow that impacts (or will likely impact) clients in yourupcoming field practicum and future practice.Demonstrate a sense of professionalism and a positiveidentification with the social work profession. (ProgramObjectives 2, 4, 6, 9, 10)Comments:
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): FAll 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I) RubricDetails/Description: Integrate the components anddynamics of ecological and systems perspectives asapplied to generalist social work practice. (ProgramObjectives 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I) RubricDetails/Description: Integrate social work ethics andvalues into generalist social work practice. (ProgramObjectives 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): fAll 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
22 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I) RubricDetails/Description: Analyze generalist practice throughan ecological/person-in-environment and systems theorylens. (Program Objectives 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I) EcomapRubricDetails/Description: Reflective Paper: (Course Obj #2.Recognize the psychosocial needs and strengths ofindividuals and families. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 6,8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I)Ecomap Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I) EcomapRubricDetails/Description: (11. Integrate the components anddynamics of ecological and systems perspectives asapplied to generalist social work practice. (ProgramObjectives 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I)Ecomap Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I) EcomapRubricDetails/Description: 1. (Course Obj #2: Recognize thepsychosocial needs and strengths of individuals andfamilies. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I)Ecomap Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
23 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I) EcomapRubricDetails/Description: Critical Thinking
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I)Ecomap Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was9.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I) GenogramDetails/Description: (Course Obj #4: Implement basicskills of engagement, interviewing, data collection andassessment, intervention and evaluation appropriatewith individuals, families, groups, organizations, andcommunities. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9,10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I)Genogram
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I) GenogramDetails/Description: (Course Obj #2. Recognize thepsychosocial needs and strengths of individuals andfamilies. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): FAll 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I)Genogram
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I) GenogramDetails/Description: A. Genogram (Course Obj #2:Recognize the psychosocial needs and strengths ofindividuals and families. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 6,8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I)Genogram
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
24 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I) GenogramDetails/Description: Course Obj#11. Integrate thecomponents and dynamics of ecological and systemsperspectives as applied to generalist social workpractice. (Program Objectives 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): FAll 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I)Genogram
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 312(Human Behavior adn the SocialEnvironment) LIT REVIEW RUBRICDetails/Description: Course Obj. #2: Demonstrateunderstanding of various theoretical explanations offorms of human diversity. (Program Objectives 1,2, 3,6,8,9) Course Obj. #7: Apply assessment skills withinthe context of human behavior and diversity across thelifespan with special emphasis given to interpretation ofvarious theoretical perspectives. (Program Objectives 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) Course Obj. #12: Evaluate varioustheoretical perspectives in terms of evidence-basedpractice and culturally competent social work practice.(Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW Faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 312(Human Behavior adn theSocial Environment) LIT REVIEW RUBRIC
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 312(Human Behavior adn the SocialEnvironment) LIT REVIEW RUBRICDetails/Description: Course Obj#8: Apply enhancedanalytical and critical thinking skills through thedevelopment of an annotated bibliography and literaturereview. (Program Objectives 2, 3, 8, 9)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Socw Faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 312(Human Behavior adn theSocial Environment) LIT REVIEW RUBRIC
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 333(Social Work Practice with SpecialPopulations) MidtermDetails/Description: #1: Implement beginninginterpersonal skills that are culturally competent.(Program Objectives 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9)
Findings for SOCW 333(Social Work Practice withSpecial Populations) Midterm
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was6.
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
25 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 333(Social Work Practice with SpecialPopulations) MidtermDetails/Description: Course Obj. #1: Implementbeginning interpersonal skills that are culturallycompetent. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9). CourseObj. #2: Develop and apply a framework forunderstanding and articulating social and culturalaspects relating to social work practice with specialpopulations. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline):
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW all faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 333(Social Work Practice withSpecial Populations) Midterm
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was6.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
4.
Mapped to:No Mapping
Measures & Findings
SOCW 342 ( Human behavior and SocialEnvironment II) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #8: Critique theimpact of sociocultural variables on human developmentand group and family functioning. (Program Objectives 1,2, 3, 4, 6,, 8, 9)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 342 ( Human behavior andSocial Environment II) Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 342 ( Human behavior and SocialEnvironment II) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #4: Apply enhancedbio-psycho-social assessment skills with families,groups, communities, and organizations. (ProgramObjectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Findings for SOCW 342 ( Human behavior andSocial Environment II) Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
26 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #4: Develop and applyskills to form mutually collaborative and respectfulprofessional relationships that empower clients tobecome aware of and to utilize personal, family, group,community, organizational, and societal assets insolving individual and collective challenges. (ProgramObjectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #8: Design,implement, and evaluate a social action project in thecommunity and, flowing from that, create a sustainableentity to continue the work to promote economic humanrights in the community. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SoCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #3: Apply andevaluate the problem-solving process at the macro level,particularly within organizational systems. (ProgramObjectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #2: Strengthen anddeepen understanding of populations at-risk and theneed for social and economic justice. (ProgramObjectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was9.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
27 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
Implementation Plan (timeline): FAll 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #1: Describe thegeneralist social work abilities needed to work in macrosettings. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #5: Developcommunity assessment and program evaluation skills.(Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #7: Enhance andevaluate skills in verbal and written communicationthrough the use of assignments from Social Actionproject. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SoCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj. #5: Developcommunity assessment and program evaluation skills.(Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
28 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word) Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) Rubric-Community ExperienceDetails/Description: Course Obj. #5: Developcommunity assessment and program evaluation skills.(Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric-Community Experience
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) Rubric-Community ExperienceDetails/Description: Course Obj. #4: Develop and applyskills to form mutually collaborative and respectfulprofessional relationships that empower clients tobecome aware of and to utilize personal, family, group,community, organizational, and societal assets insolving individual and collective challenges. (ProgramObjectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): FAll 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric-Community Experience
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) Rubric-Community ExperienceDetails/Description: Course Obj. #6: Integrate one’sown diversity sensitivity to individuals, families, groups,and communities from differing social, cultural, racial,class, age, religious backgrounds, and those withdifferent sexual orientations through participation in thecommunity visitation field work. (Program Objectives 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric-Community Experience
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) Rubric-Community ExperienceDetails/Description: Course Obj. #6: Integrate one’sown diversity sensitivity to individuals, families, groups,
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric-Community Experience
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
29 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
and communities from differing social, cultural, racial,class, age, religious backgrounds, and those withdifferent sexual orientations through participation in thecommunity visitation field work. (Program Objectives 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) Rubric-Community ExperienceDetails/Description: Course Obj. #1: Describe thegeneralist social work abilities needed to work in macrosettings. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric-Community Experience
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III) Rubric-Community ExperienceDetails/Description: Course Obj. #1: Describe thegeneralist social work abilities needed to work in macrosettings. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 407( Social Work Practice III)Rubric-Community Experience
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 417(Applied Research )RubricDetails/Description: TOTAL SCORECourse Obj#10: Apply and evaluate research knowledgeand skills through the development of a formal researchproposal and completion of an agency-based researchproject. (Program Objectives1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW Faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 417(Applied Research )Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
30 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
SOCW 417(Applied Research )RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj#9: Demonstrate abeginning ability and skill in using software packages toanalyze statistical data. (Program Objectives 2, 4, 7, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 417(Applied Research )Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was6.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 417(Applied Research )RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj# 5: Demonstrate acommitment to ethical research practice and adherenceto human subject protection safeguards. (ProgramObjectives1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW Faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 417(Applied Research )Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 417(Applied Research )RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj#6: Recognize theimpact of research on oppressed and vulnerablepopulations and the ethical and value dilemmas relatedto researching these populations. (Program Objectives1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW Faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 417(Applied Research )Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was9.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 417(Applied Research )RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj# 5: Demonstrate acommitment to ethical research practice and adherenceto human subject protection safeguards. (ProgramObjectives1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW Faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 417(Applied Research )Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
31 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
SOCW 417(Applied Research )RubricDetails/Description: (attach annotated bibliography ofreferences): Course Obj#4: Evaluate the efficacy andsignificance of specific interventions used in social workpractice through the use of self and agency evaluation.(Program Objectives 2,3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Socw faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 417(Applied Research )Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 417(Applied Research )RubricDetails/Description: Course Obj#7: Compare andcontrast both qualitative and quantitative researchmethodologies in social science research including thestrengths and limitations of both paradigms. (ProgramObjectives 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW Faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 417(Applied Research )Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVE #3: Demonstrate professionalbehavior congruent with the social work Code of Ethicsand apply strategies to effectively identify, address, andresolve ethical conflicts in professional practice.(Program Goals #2, #3, #4, #5)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): FAll 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was9.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVE #6: Understand and appreciatethe history of the social work profession in the contextof contemporary social policy and practice and utilizethis knowledge to inform practice. (Program Goals #1,#4, #5)
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
32 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): FAll 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVE #4: Apply strategies forcontinuous self-evaluation including supervision andconsultation, and feedback from peers and other sourcesfor self development. (Program Goals #1, #4, #5)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was9.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OUTCOME #1: Apply culturally competentevidence-based practice skills adaptable to meet theneeds of individuals and groups with diversebackgrounds by utilizing understandable language andmulti-culturally sensitive communication skills. (ProgramGoal #2)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was9.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVE #8: Apply appropriate strategiesfor analyzing, formulating, influencing, and advocatingfor desired changes at all levels of government, anddemonstrate a commitment to the principles of socialand economic justice. (Program Goals #1, #4, #5)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
33 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVE #5: Understand the forms andmechanisms of oppression and discrimination and applyinnovative social change strategies which promote bothsocial and economic justice. (Program Goals #1, #4, #5)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was9.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVE #9: Critically evaluate andanalyze the effectiveness of evidence-basedinterventions with individuals, families, small groups,organizations, and communities, using a variety ofqualitative and quantitative methods. (Program Goals#1, #4, #5)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): FAll 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442( Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: IELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVE #2: Synthesize and integratevaried sources to inform decisions and create solutionsand appropriate problem-solving strategies congruentwith the social work knowledge base. (Program Goals#3, #4)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Findings for SOCW 442( Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was9.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
34 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I) RubricDetails/Description: Integrate social work ethics andvalues into generalist social work practice. (ProgramObjectives 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I) RubricDetails/Description: Integrate social work ethics andvalues into generalist social work practice. (ProgramObjectives 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I) RubricDetails/Description: 1. Discussed “who you are” andhow that impacts (or will likely impact) clients in yourupcoming field practicum and future practice.Demonstrate a sense of professionalism and a positiveidentification with the social work profession. (ProgramObjectives 2, 4, 6, 9, 10)Comments:
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I)Rubric
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I) GenogramDetails/Description: (Course Obj #4: Implement basicskills of engagement, interviewing, data collection andassessment, intervention and evaluation appropriatewith individuals, families, groups, organizations, andcommunities. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9,
Findings for SOCW 306 ( Social Work Practice I)Genogram
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
35 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 312 LIT REVIEW RUBRICDetails/Description: Course Obj. #2: Demonstrateunderstanding of various theoretical explanations offorms of human diversity. (Program Objectives 1,2, 3,6,8,9) Course Obj. #7: Apply assessment skills withinthe context of human behavior and diversity across thelifespan with special emphasis given to interpretation ofvarious theoretical perspectives. (Program Objectives 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) Course Obj. #12: Evaluate varioustheoretical perspectives in terms of evidence-basedpractice and culturally competent social work practice.(Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 for this item.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: Socw all faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 312 LIT REVIEW RUBRIC
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was6.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 333(Social Work Practice with SpecialPopulations) MidtermDetails/Description: Course Obj. #1: Implementbeginning interpersonal skills that are culturallycompetent. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9). CourseObj. #2: Develop and apply a framework forunderstanding and articulating social and culturalaspects relating to social work practice with specialpopulations. (Program Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): FAll 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 333(Social Work Practice withSpecial Populations) Midterm
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 333(Social Work Practice with SpecialPopulations) MidtermDetails/Description: #1: Implement beginninginterpersonal skills that are culturally competent.(Program Objectives 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9)
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): FAll 2009
Findings for SOCW 333(Social Work Practice withSpecial Populations) Midterm
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was7.
Target Achievement: Met
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
36 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442 (Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVE #7: Apply a range of social worktheories and evidence-based interventions withindividuals, families, small groups, organizations, andcommunities in all types of settings. (Program Goals #1,#4, #5)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10 possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): FAll 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 442 (Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
SOCW 442 (Field Education II) Field LearningOutcomeDetails/Description: FIELD EDUCATION STUDENTLEARNING OBJECTIVE #10: Function professionallywithin an organizational system and when appropriate,effect positive change. (Program Goals #1, #4, #5)LINKED WITH PROGRAM OBJECTIVES # 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10
Target: A score of 7 points out of 10possible points.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Fall 2009
Key/Responsible Personnel: SOCW faculty
Supporting Attachments:ProgramGoalsObj (Microsoft Word)
Findings for SOCW 442 (Field Education II) FieldLearning Outcome
Summary of Findings: The mean score for this item was8.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome Assessment Details http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp?qy...
37 of 37 8/6/2010 1:12 PM
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Engineering: BSE
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
Engineering
Outcomes
Outcome 1
Mapped to:
USA- ABET-Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs: Element (a), Element (k)
Measures & Findings
College Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) Program level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: College Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) is a standardized test that covers 5 sections – writing, reading, mathematics, science, and critical thinking. The completion of a section of the CAAP is a University requirement for graduation. The engineering program uses CAAP results to evaluate (1) proficiency in basic technical subjects that support engineering and (2) broad knowledge of subjects outside of engineering, such as social studies. Results in the “Math” and “Science” categories are used to assess Outcome 1.
Target: Graduating Seniors from the Engineering Programs Score should be greater than or equal to the 60th percentile of the national scores.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Every Semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Student, Administrative Assistant
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for College Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) Summary of Findings: The CAAP results for UTC engineering students graduating during the 2008-2009 academic year are: Writing: UTC mean = 64.67 (n= 9) which is 58.89 national percentile Mathematics: UTC mean = 63.28 (n= 7) which is 89.15 national percentile Science: UTC mean = 65.08 (n=12) which is 74.33 national percentile Reading: UTC mean = 61 (n=9) which is 42.33 national percentile Critical Thinking: UTC mean = 65.75 (n=12) which is 71.67 national percentile The goals for Writing and Reading were not met during this academic year. The writing score is close to meeting its goal; however the reading score is much lower than desired. In addition, the average UTC Writing score as a national percentile has increased over the last four years. The UTC reading score as a national percentile has decreased significant in the last year.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : The 2009-2010 scores for both writing and reading will be assessed closely to see if there is a negative trend.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Course Assessments Course level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: A key tool in the assessment of program outcomes is the evaluation of courses within the
Findings for Course Assessments Summary of Findings: ENGR 222, 270, 303, and 307 are assessed for this outcome.
Page 1 of 16Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
curriculum. Learning objectives have been established for each course, and these objectives have been mapped to corresponding program outcomes. Upon completion of a course, the instructor assembles a course folder. If the course is involved in the assessment process, the instructor completes a course assessment form similar to that shown in Figure 3. This form is used to score each learning objective based on the level of achievement demonstrated in student work contained in the course folder. The scoring, which ranges from 1 to 3, indicates whether the performance of the assessed students reflects an expected level of achievement (score of 2), a higher than expected level of achievement (score of 3), or a lower than expected level of achievement (score of 1). Two to three additional reviewers from the engineering faculty also complete assessment forms. The scores from the three to four assessments are averaged and recorded on the first page of the form. This gives a course-specific mean score for each program outcome supported. The instructor is required to examine the completed forms and make recommendations for course modifications to address any deficiencies. The next time the course is taught, the course instructor examines the prior assessment form to see what changes to the course were suggested. Significant changes are brought to the attention of the engineering faculty. Action is taken on an as-needed basis. Target: Courses that introduce and emphasize program objectives. Outcome assessment average should be greater than or equal to 2.0. Implementation Plan (timeline): Course assessments are completed in a two year cycle with half the ENGR courses being evaluated in the first year and the other half being evaluated in the second year.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Wigal and all CECS faculty
Supporting Attachments:
ENGR 222: ENGR 270: ENGR 303: ENGR 307: The course assessments average a ?? out of 3.0.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
FE Exam Program level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) examination is a nationally administered test developed by the
Findings for FE Exam Summary of Findings: The 2008-2009 UTC FE Average % Correct Scores as a Percent of National % Correct Scores are
Page 2 of 16Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). The FE exam covers subject matter taught in a typical baccalaureate engineering program and includes the following range of subjects: - Chemistry - Computers - Electricity and Magnetism - Engineering Economics - Engineering Mechanics - Engineering Probability and Statistics - Ethics & Business Practices - Fluid Mechanics - Material Properties - Mathematics - Strength of Materials - Thermodynamics as well as more specific topics related to various engineering disciplines. The FE categories considered for Objective 1 are Chemistry, Computers, Engineering Mechanics, Material Properties, Math, and Engineering Probability and Statistics. The FE exam results are obtained from the Tennessee State Board of Architectural and Engineering Examiners in Nashville following each fall and spring test. All engineering students at UTC are strongly encouraged to take the FE exam toward the end of their senior year. Some students take the general test in both the morning and afternoon sessions while others elect to take the subject test in the afternoon. An overall score for each outcome is formed by averaging the scores for the categories related to that outcome. The metric goals established for the FE exam are that the overall score for UTC engineering students for each outcome will be at least 95 percent of the corresponding national average score. This goal was chosen because we have a commitment to produced students who perform at least as well as the average national engineering population of graduates.
Target: Graduating Engineering Students from the various engineering programs 95% of National average per each subject area
Implementation Plan (timeline): Every Semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Wigal (UG Assistant Dean) and McDonald
Supporting Attachments:
Mathematics: 95.06% ENGR Probability and Statistics: 103.58% Chemisry: 98.35% Computers: 94.09% Engineering Mechanics: 115,33% Strength of Materials: 109.79% The area of computer applications is slightly lower than the projected goal of 95%.
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : The faculty will review the FE questions being asked under the computer applications area to ensure clear understanding of the subject requirements. Then the faculty will identify where in the curriculum the topics are covered/addressed and ensure they are sufficient. In addition the 2009 - 2010 data will be reviewed to see if the % downward is a trend or just a minor "blip".
Notes : Target is met for all except one subject area.
Substantiating Evidence:
Page 3 of 16Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Outcome 2
Mapped to:
USA- ABET-Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs: Element (e), Element (k)
Measures & Findings
FE Exam Program level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) examination is a nationally administered test developed by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). The FE exam covers subject matter taught in a typical baccalaureate engineering program and includes the following range of subjects: - Chemistry - Computers - Electricity and Magnetism - Engineering Economics - Engineering Mechanics - Engineering Probability and Statistics - Ethics & Business Practices - Fluid Mechanics - Material Properties - Mathematics - Strength of Materials - Thermodynamics as well as more specific topics related to various engineering disciplines. The FE categories considered for Objective 2 are Electricity and Magnetism, Engineering Economics, Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, Strength of Materials, and specialty topics. The FE exam results are obtained from the Tennessee State Board of Architectural and Engineering Examiners in Nashville following each fall and spring test. All engineering students at UTC are strongly encouraged to take the FE exam toward the end of their senior year. Some students take the general test in both the morning and afternoon sessions while others elect to take the subject test in the afternoon. An overall score for each outcome is formed by averaging the scores for the categories related to that outcome. The metric goals established for the FE exam are that the overall score for UTC engineering students for each outcome will be at least 95 percent of the corresponding national average score. This goal was chosen because we have a commitment to produced students who perform at least as well as the average national engineering population of graduates.
Target: Graduating Engineering
Findings for FE Exam Summary of Findings: The FE Exam assessment is based on the morning general exam on the following topics: electricity & magnetism, engineering economics, fluid mechanics, material properties, and thermodynamics. The level of achievement is provided below: ENGR Economics: 100.1% Material Properties: 104.35% Fluid Mechanics: 112.04% Elect & Magnetism: 108.16% Thermodynamics: 108.63% The UTC Engineering students exceed target achievements in all subject areas.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : None
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Page 4 of 16Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Students from the various engineering programs 95% of National average per each subject area
Implementation Plan (timeline): Every Semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Wigal (UG Assistant Dean) and McDonald
Supporting Attachments:
Graduating Senior Survey (EBI) Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Educational Benchmark, Inc. (EBI) produces a standardized, national survey that is administered to students at engineering schools throughout the United States. The survey contains a number of questions relevant to the seven ENGR program outcomes. A member of the Engineering faculty analyzes and interprets the EBI provided data and reports the results. The responses from all engineering students are reviewed for the ENGR program since the seven outcomes being assessed are outcomes of all engineering programs and most of the knowledge and skills associated with the outcomes are developed in the core ENGR courses. The survey was given to UTC engineering students in 2005 & 2007. The 2005 data is for all engineering graduating seniors for 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 (2 academic years). The 2007 data is for all engineering graduating seniors for 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 (2 academic years). UTC uses this survey to aid in evaluating ENGR program outcomes 2 through 7. The questions that relate to each outcome are identified below. Outcome 2: (2003: 43,44,66) (2005: 41,44,53,54,69) (2007: 41,42,43) Outcome 3: (2003: 38,39,40,50) (2005: 36,37,38) (2007:36,37,38,50) Outcome 4: (2003: 53-63) (2005: 39,47) (2007: 39,60-63,65-67) Outcome 5: (2003: 17,42,48,49) (2005: 15,40,45,46) (2007: 15,40,46,47) Outcome 6: (2003: 45) (2005: 42,49) (2007: 44,48,64) Outcome 7: (2003: 46) (2005: 43,55) (2007: 49,57) An overall score for each outcome is formed by averaging the scores for
No Findings Added to Graduating Senior Survey (EBI)
Page 5 of 16Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
the questions related to that outcome.
Target: All UTC Graduating Engineering Students The metric goals established for the EBI survey are that the overall UTC score for each outcome will exceed the overall average score for all participating institutions reported by EBI Implementation Plan (timeline): Graduating seniors complete the EBI survey at the end of the fall and spring semester every year. Every other year the collection of surveys (from the past 2 years) are provided to EBI. The survey is scored by EBI. EBI provides UTC with the UTC specific scores (overall and major) as well as scores collected from other participating schools.
Key/Responsible Personnel: CECS Department Heads, UG Assistant Dean
Supporting Attachments:
Outcome 3
Mapped to:
USA- ABET-Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs: Element (b), Element (k)
Measures & Findings
Course Assessments Course level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: A key tool in the assessment of program outcomes is the evaluation of courses within the curriculum. Learning objectives have been established for each course, and these objectives have been mapped to corresponding program outcomes. Upon completion of a course, the instructor assembles a course folder. If the course is involved in the assessment process, the instructor completes a course assessment form similar to that shown in Figure 3. This form is used to score each learning objective based on the level of achievement demonstrated in student work contained in the course folder. The scoring, which ranges from 1 to 3, indicates whether the performance of the assessed students reflects an expected level of achievement (score of 2), a higher than expected level of achievement (score of 3), or a lower than expected level of achievement (score of 1). Two to three additional reviewers from the engineering faculty also complete assessment forms. The scores from the three to four assessments are averaged and recorded on the first page of the form. This gives a course-specific mean score for each program outcome supported. The instructor is required to examine
No Findings Added to Course Assessments
Page 6 of 16Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
the completed forms and make recommendations for course modifications to address any deficiencies. The next time the course is taught, the course instructor examines the prior assessment form to see what changes to the course were suggested. Significant changes are brought to the attention of the engineering faculty. Action is taken on an as-needed basis. Target: Courses that introduce and emphasize program objectives. Objective assessment average should be greater than or equal to 2.0. Implementation Plan (timeline): Course assessments are completed in a two year cycle with half the ENGR courses being evaluated in the first year and the other half being evaluated in the second year.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Wigal and all CECS faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Graduating Senior Survey (EBI) Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Educational Benchmark, Inc. (EBI) produces a standardized, national survey that is administered to students at engineering schools throughout the United States. The survey contains a number of questions relevant to the seven ENGR program outcomes. A member of the Engineering faculty analyzes and interprets the EBI provided data and reports the results. The responses from all engineering students are reviewed for the ENGR program since the seven outcomes being assessed are outcomes of all engineering programs and most of the knowledge and skills associated with the outcomes are developed in the core ENGR courses. UTC uses this survey to aid in evaluating ENGR program outcomes 2 through 7. An overall score for each outcome is formed by averaging the scores for the questions related to that outcome.
Target: All UTC Graduating Engineering Students The metric goals established for the EBI survey are that the overall UTC score for each outcome will exceed the overall average score for all
No Findings Added to Graduating Senior Survey (EBI)
Page 7 of 16Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
participating institutions reported by EBI Implementation Plan (timeline): Graduating seniors complete the EBI survey at the end of the fall and spring semester every year. Every other year the collection of surveys (from the past 2 years) are provided to EBI. The survey is scored by EBI. EBI provides UTC with the UTC specific scores (overall and major) as well as scores collected from other participating schools.
Key/Responsible Personnel: CECS Department Heads, UG Assistant Dean
Supporting Attachments:
Outcome 4
Mapped to:
USA- ABET-Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs: Element (c)
Measures & Findings
Course Assessments Course level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: A key tool in the assessment of program outcomes is the evaluation of courses within the curriculum. Learning objectives have been established for each course, and these objectives have been mapped to corresponding program outcomes. Upon completion of a course, the instructor assembles a course folder. If the course is involved in the assessment process, the instructor completes a course assessment form similar to that shown in Figure 3. This form is used to score each learning objective based on the level of achievement demonstrated in student work contained in the course folder. The scoring, which ranges from 1 to 3, indicates whether the performance of the assessed students reflects an expected level of achievement (score of 2), a higher than expected level of achievement (score of 3), or a lower than expected level of achievement (score of 1). Two to three additional reviewers from the engineering faculty also complete assessment forms. The scores from the three to four assessments are averaged and recorded on the first page of the form. This gives a course-specific mean score for each program outcome supported. The instructor is required to examine the completed forms and make recommendations for course modifications to address any deficiencies. The next time the course is taught, the course instructor examines the prior assessment form to see what changes to the course were suggested. Significant changes
No Findings Added to Course Assessments
Page 8 of 16Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
are brought to the attention of the engineering faculty. Action is taken on an as-needed basis. Target: Courses that introduce and emphasize program objectives. Objective assessment average should be greater than or equal to 2.0.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Course assessments are completed in a two year cycle with half the ENGR courses being evaluated in the first year and the other half being evaluated in the second year.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Wigal and all CECS faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Graduating Senior Survey (EBI) Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Educational Benchmark, Inc. (EBI) produces a standardized, national survey that is administered to students at engineering schools throughout the United States. The survey contains a number of questions relevant to the seven ENGR program outcomes. A member of the Engineering faculty analyzes and interprets the EBI provided data and reports the results. The responses from all engineering students are reviewed for the ENGR program since the seven outcomes being assessed are outcomes of all engineering programs and most of the knowledge and skills associated with the outcomes are developed in the core ENGR courses. UTC uses this survey to aid in evaluating ENGR program outcomes 2 through 7. An overall score for each outcome is formed by averaging the scores for the questions related to that outcome.
Target: All UTC Graduating Engineering Students The metric goals established for the EBI survey are that the overall UTC score for each outcome will exceed the overall average score for all participating institutions reported by EBI Implementation Plan (timeline): Graduating seniors complete the EBI survey at the end of the fall and spring semester every year. Every other year the collection of surveys (from the past 2 years) are provided to EBI. The
No Findings Added to Graduating Senior Survey (EBI)
Page 9 of 16Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
survey is scored by EBI. EBI provides UTC with the UTC specific scores (overall and major) as well as scores collected from other participating schools.
Key/Responsible Personnel: CECS Department Heads, UG Assistant Dean
Supporting Attachments:
Outcome 5
Mapped to:
USA- ABET-Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs: Element (d), Element (g)
Measures & Findings
Course Assessments Course level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: A key tool in the assessment of program outcomes is the evaluation of courses within the curriculum. Learning objectives have been established for each course, and these objectives have been mapped to corresponding program outcomes. Upon completion of a course, the instructor assembles a course folder. If the course is involved in the assessment process, the instructor completes a course assessment form similar to that shown in Figure 3. This form is used to score each learning objective based on the level of achievement demonstrated in student work contained in the course folder. The scoring, which ranges from 1 to 3, indicates whether the performance of the assessed students reflects an expected level of achievement (score of 2), a higher than expected level of achievement (score of 3), or a lower than expected level of achievement (score of 1). Two to three additional reviewers from the engineering faculty also complete assessment forms. The scores from the three to four assessments are averaged and recorded on the first page of the form. This gives a course-specific mean score for each program outcome supported. The instructor is required to examine the completed forms and make recommendations for course modifications to address any deficiencies. The next time the course is taught, the course instructor examines the prior assessment form to see what changes to the course were suggested. Significant changes are brought to the attention of the engineering faculty. Action is taken on an as-needed basis. Target: Courses that introduce and emphasize program objectives. Objective assessment average should
No Findings Added to Course Assessments
Page 10 of 16Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
be greater than or equal to 2.0.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Course assessments are completed in a two year cycle with half the ENGR courses being evaluated in the first year and the other half being evaluated in the second year.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Wigal and all CECS faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Graduating Senior Survey (EBI) Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Educational Benchmark, Inc. (EBI) produces a standardized, national survey that is administered to students at engineering schools throughout the United States. The survey contains a number of questions relevant to the seven ENGR program outcomes. A member of the Engineering faculty analyzes and interprets the EBI provided data and reports the results. The responses from all engineering students are reviewed for the ENGR program since the seven outcomes being assessed are outcomes of all engineering programs and most of the knowledge and skills associated with the outcomes are developed in the core ENGR courses. UTC uses this survey to aid in evaluating ENGR program outcomes 2 through 7. An overall score for each outcome is formed by averaging the scores for the questions related to that outcome.
Target: All UTC Graduating Engineering Students The metric goals established for the EBI survey are that the overall UTC score for each outcome will exceed the overall average score for all participating institutions reported by EBI Implementation Plan (timeline): Graduating seniors complete the EBI survey at the end of the fall and spring semester every year. Every other year the collection of surveys (from the past 2 years) are provided to EBI. The survey is scored by EBI. EBI provides UTC with the UTC specific scores (overall and major) as well as scores collected from other participating schools.
Key/Responsible Personnel: CECS Department Heads, UG Assistant Dean
Supporting Attachments:
No Findings Added to Graduating Senior Survey (EBI)
Page 11 of 16Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Outcome 6
Mapped to:
USA- ABET-Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs: Element (f), Element (i)
Measures & Findings
Course Assessments Course level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: A key tool in the assessment of program outcomes is the evaluation of courses within the curriculum. Learning objectives have been established for each course, and these objectives have been mapped to corresponding program outcomes. Upon completion of a course, the instructor assembles a course folder. If the course is involved in the assessment process, the instructor completes a course assessment form similar to that shown in Figure 3. This form is used to score each learning objective based on the level of achievement demonstrated in student work contained in the course folder. The scoring, which ranges from 1 to 3, indicates whether the performance of the assessed students reflects an expected level of achievement (score of 2), a higher than expected level of achievement (score of 3), or a lower than expected level of achievement (score of 1). Two to three additional reviewers from the engineering faculty also complete assessment forms. The scores from the three to four assessments are averaged and recorded on the first page of the form. This gives a course-specific mean score for each program outcome supported. The instructor is required to examine the completed forms and make recommendations for course modifications to address any deficiencies. The next time the course is taught, the course instructor examines the prior assessment form to see what changes to the course were suggested. Significant changes are brought to the attention of the engineering faculty. Action is taken on an as-needed basis. Target: Courses that introduce and emphasize program objectives. Objective assessment average should be greater than or equal to 2.0.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Course assessments are completed in a two year cycle with half the ENGR courses being evaluated in the first year and the other half being evaluated in the second year.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Wigal and all CECS faculty
No Findings Added to Course Assessments
Page 12 of 16Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Supporting Attachments:
FE Exam Program level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) examination is a nationally administered test developed by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). The FE exam covers subject matter taught in a typical baccalaureate engineering program and includes the following range of subjects: - Chemistry - Computers - Electricity and Magnetism - Engineering Economics - Engineering Mechanics - Engineering Probability and Statistics - Ethics & Business Practices - Fluid Mechanics - Material Properties - Mathematics - Strength of Materials - Thermodynamics as well as more specific topics related to various engineering disciplines. The FE categories considered for Objective 6 are Ethics & Business Practices. The FE exam results are obtained from the Tennessee State Board of Architectural and Engineering Examiners in Nashville following each fall and spring test. All engineering students at UTC are strongly encouraged to take the FE exam toward the end of their senior year. Some students take the general test in both the morning and afternoon sessions while others elect to take the subject test in the afternoon. An overall score for each outcome is formed by averaging the scores for the categories related to that outcome. The metric goals established for the FE exam are that the overall score for UTC engineering students for each outcome will be at least 95 percent of the corresponding national average score. This goal was chosen because we have a commitment to produced students who perform at least as well as the average national engineering population of graduates.
Target: Graduating Engineering Students from the various engineering programs 95% of National average per each subject area
Findings for FE Exam Summary of Findings: UTC: 82.96% Nat'l: 74.67% UTC % Correct vs Nat'l % Correct: 111.1%
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : None
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Page 13 of 16Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Implementation Plan (timeline): Every Semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Wigal (UG Assistant Dean) and McDonald
Supporting Attachments:
Graduating Senior Survey (EBI) Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Educational Benchmark, Inc. (EBI) produces a standardized, national survey that is administered to students at engineering schools throughout the United States. The survey contains a number of questions relevant to the seven ENGR program outcomes. A member of the Engineering faculty analyzes and interprets the EBI provided data and reports the results. The responses from all engineering students are reviewed for the ENGR program since the seven outcomes being assessed are outcomes of all engineering programs and most of the knowledge and skills associated with the outcomes are developed in the core ENGR courses. UTC uses this survey to aid in evaluating ENGR program outcomes 2 through 7. An overall score for each outcome is formed by averaging the scores for the questions related to that outcome.
Target: All UTC Graduating Engineering Students The metric goals established for the EBI survey are that the overall UTC score for each outcome will exceed the overall average score for all participating institutions reported by EBI Implementation Plan (timeline): Graduating seniors complete the EBI survey at the end of the fall and spring semester every year. Every other year the collection of surveys (from the past 2 years) are provided to EBI. The survey is scored by EBI. EBI provides UTC with the UTC specific scores (overall and major) as well as scores collected from other participating schools.
Key/Responsible Personnel: CECS Department Heads, UG Assistant Dean
Supporting Attachments:
No Findings Added to Graduating Senior Survey (EBI)
Outcome 7
Mapped to:
Measures & Findings
Page 14 of 16Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
USA- ABET-Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs: Element (h), Element (j)
College Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) Program level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: College Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) is a standardized test that covers 5 sections – writing, reading, mathematics, science, and critical thinking. The completion of a section of the CAAP is a University requirement for graduation. The engineering program uses CAAP results to evaluate (1) proficiency in basic technical subjects that support engineering and (2) broad knowledge of subjects outside of engineering, such as social studies. Results in the “critical thinking” category is used to assess Outcome 7.
Target: Graduating Seniors from the Engineering Programs
Implementation Plan (timeline): Every Semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Student, Administrative Assistant
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for College Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) Summary of Findings: The Outcome 7 CAAP results for UTC engineering students graduating during the 2007-2008 academic year are: Critical Thinking: UTC mean = 65.75 (n=12) which is 71.67 national percentile
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Graduating Senior Survey (EBI) Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Educational Benchmark, Inc. (EBI) produces a standardized, national survey that is administered to students at engineering schools throughout the United States. The survey contains a number of questions relevant to the seven ENGR program outcomes. A member of the Engineering faculty analyzes and interprets the EBI provided data and reports the results. The responses from all engineering students are reviewed for the ENGR program since the seven outcomes being assessed are outcomes of all engineering programs and most of the knowledge and skills associated with the outcomes are developed in the core ENGR courses. UTC uses this survey to aid in evaluating ENGR program outcomes 2 through 7. An overall score for each outcome is formed by averaging the scores for the questions related to that outcome.
Target: All UTC Graduating Engineering Students The metric goals established for the EBI survey are that the overall UTC score for each outcome will exceed the overall average score for all participating institutions reported by
No Findings Added to Graduating Senior Survey (EBI)
Page 15 of 16Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
EBI Implementation Plan (timeline): Graduating seniors complete the EBI survey at the end of the fall and spring semester every year. Every other year the collection of surveys (from the past 2 years) are provided to EBI. The survey is scored by EBI. EBI provides UTC with the UTC specific scores (overall and major) as well as scores collected from other participating schools.
Key/Responsible Personnel: CECS Department Heads, UG Assistant Dean
Supporting Attachments:
Page 16 of 16Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Mechanical Engineering: BSME
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
Mechanical Engineering: BSME Outcomes - for current students
Outcomes
1. Fundamentals engineering, math, sciences and computers
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
1st priority - Course Assessment Course level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: ENGR assessment of ENGR 222, 270, 303, & 307 course files to find evidence Outcome 1
Target: On assessment form for the course being evaluated for Outcome 1 if student get > 2.0 on scale of 1.0 to 3.0 then that student work assess meets the outcome
Implementation Plan (timeline): Process performed every 2 years in a six year cycle
Key/Responsible Personnel: Engineering faculty assessment committee assigned
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 1st priority - Course Assessment Summary of Findings: The students assessed in course met or exceeded the assessment mean of 2.0 on a 1.0 to 3.0 scale.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the use of the assessment tools to monitor this student's success (> 2.0 mean) of this outcome.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
2nd prioirty - Fundamentals of Engineering Exam Program level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Average of all examination category scores relevant to Outcome 1. Subjects are Chemistry, Computers, Dynamics Material Science, Math and Statics
Target: From a 0% to 100% scale, target for all ME majors to be 85% in all subjects related to Outcome 1
Implementation Plan (timeline): Evaluated annually in a six year cycle
Key/Responsible Personnel: ME department head and appointed ME faculty to help with the analysis
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 2nd prioirty - Fundamentals of Engineering Exam Summary of Findings: The assessment in subject area met or exceed the national ME mean. All percentages greater than the 85% target except mathematics which was 82%.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the FE review subject sessions every semester with a strengthted review in the mathematics.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Page 1 of 11Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
3rd priority - CAAP exam Program level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Annually, ME seniors take one part of the CAAP exit exam. The subject parts are writing, mathematics, science, reading and critical thinking.
Target: Seniors scores for each subject are compared to the national norms for each subject with the target of our ME seniors to meet and exceed the national averages
Implementation Plan (timeline): Annually
Key/Responsible Personnel: ME department head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 3rd priority - CAAP exam Summary of Findings: The UTC ME CAAP scores met or exceeded the national average for engineering students taking the CAAP test.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the use of the assessment tools to monitor this student's success of this outcome. (meeting and exceeding the national average of students taking CAAP)
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
4th priority - EBI Senior Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Every year, each ME senior takes the EBI Senior survey. Specific survey questions are identified for Outcome 1 and are used to assess the outcome
Target: The target is for the mean scores for the UTC ME senior responses for the target questions supporting Outcome 1 to meet or exceed national mean scores for the total participating schools that are using the EBI senior survey.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Surveyed annually. Scores evaluated every two-years in a six year cycle.
Key/Responsible Personnel: ME Department head and appointed ME faculty to help with the evaluation.
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 4th priority - EBI Senior Survey Summary of Findings: The UTC ME seniors expressed opinions concerning the questions mapped to this outcome that met and exceeded the responses from ME students from all universities participating in the EBI survey nationally.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the evaluation of seniors on a continuing two-year cycle using the EBI survey results for UTC ME students and comparing them to the national ME results of those schools using the EBI survey for the same two-year cycle.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
2. Engineering Tools
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
1st priority - Course Assessment Course level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: ME assessment of ENME 304, 309, 347, 348, 442, 443, 447, & 450 course files to find evidence Outcome 2. Also, ENME 440 and 441 are used for students in the energy option, while ENME 445, 446, or 448 are used for student in the mechanical option.
Target: On assessment form for the course being evaluated for Outcome 2 if student get > 2.0 on scale of 1.0 to 3.0 then that student work assess meets the outcome
Implementation Plan (timeline):
Findings for 1st priority - Course Assessment Summary of Findings: The students assessed in course met or exceeded the assessment mean of 2.0 on a 1.0 to 3.0 scale.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the use of the assessment tools to monitor this student's success (> 2.0 mean) of this outcome.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Page 2 of 11Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Process performed every 2 years in a six year cycle
Key/Responsible Personnel: Engineering faculty assessment committee assigned
Supporting Attachments:
2nd priority - Fundamentals of Engineering Exam Program level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Average of all examination category scores relevant to Outcome 2. Subjects are Electrical Circuits, Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, and Mechanics of Materials.
Target: From a 0% to 100% scale, target for all ME majors to be 85% in all subjects related to Outcome 2
Implementation Plan (timeline): Evaluated annually in a six year cycle
Key/Responsible Personnel: ME department head and appointed ME faculty to help with the analysis
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 2nd priority - Fundamentals of Engineering Exam Summary of Findings: The assessment in subject areas met or exceed the national ME mean. All percentages greater than the 85% target.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the FE review subject sessions every semester with a strengthted review in the mathematics and other targeted subject areas (where percentages fall below the 85% target).
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
3rd priority - EBI Senior Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Every year, each ME senior takes the EBI Senior survey. Specific survey questions are identified for Outcome 2 and are used to assess the outcome
Target: The target is for the mean scores for the UTC ME senior responses for the target questions supporting Outcome 2 to meet or exceed national mean scores for the total participating schools that are using the EBI senior survey.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Surveyed annually. Scores evaluated every two-years in a six year cycle.
Key/Responsible Personnel: ME Department head and appointed ME faculty to help with the evaluation.
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 3rd priority - EBI Senior Survey Summary of Findings: The UTC ME seniors expressed opinions concerning the questions mapped to this outcome that met and exceeded the responses from ME students from all universities participating in the EBI survey nationally.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the evaluation of seniors on a continuing two-year cycle using the EBI survey results for UTC ME students and comparing them to the national ME results of those schools using the EBI survey for the same two-year cycle.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
3. Engineering Experimentation
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
1st priority - Course Assessment Course level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: ME assessment of ENME 347 & 447 course files to find evidence Outcome 3.
Target: On assessment form for the course being evaluated for Outcome 3 if student get > 2.0 on scale of 1.0 to
Findings for 1st priority - Course Assessment Summary of Findings: The students assessed in course met or exceeded the assessment mean of 2.0 on a 1.0 to 3.0 scale.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the
Page 3 of 11Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
3.0 then that student work assess meets the outcome
Implementation Plan (timeline): Process performed every 2 years in a six year cycle
Key/Responsible Personnel: Engineering faculty assessment committee assigned
Supporting Attachments:
use of the assessment tools to monitor this student's success (> 2.0 mean) of this outcome.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
2nd priority - EBI Senior Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Every year, each ME senior takes the EBI Senior survey. Specific survey questions are identified for Outcome 3 and are used to assess the outcome
Target: The target is for the mean scores for the UTC ME senior responses for the target questions supporting Outcome 3 to meet or exceed national mean scores for the total participating schools that are using the EBI senior survey.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Surveyed annually. Scores evaluated every two-years in a six year cycle.
Key/Responsible Personnel: ME Department head and appointed ME faculty to help with the evaluation.
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 2nd priority - EBI Senior Survey Summary of Findings: The UTC ME seniors expressed opinions concerning the questions mapped to this outcome that met and exceeded the responses from ME students from all universities participating in the EBI survey nationally.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the evaluation of seniors on a continuing two-year cycle using the EBI survey results for UTC ME students and comparing them to the national ME results of those schools using the EBI survey for the same two-year cycle.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
4. Engineering Design
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
1st priority - Course Assessment Course level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: ENGR assessment of ENGR 185, 385 and 485 & ENME 442, 443, 447, & 450 course files to find evidence Outcome 4.
Target: On assessment form for the course being evaluated for Outcome 4 if student get > 2.0 on scale of 1.0 to 3.0 then that student work assess meets the outcome
Implementation Plan (timeline): Process performed every 2 years in a six year cycle
Key/Responsible Personnel: Engineering faculty assessment committee assigned
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 1st priority - Course Assessment Summary of Findings: The students assessed in course met or exceeded the assessment mean of 2.0 on a 1.0 to 3.0 scale.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the use of the assessment tools to monitor this student's success (> 2.0 mean) of this outcome.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
2nd priority - EBI Senior Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Every year,
Findings for 2nd priority - EBI Senior Survey Summary of Findings: The UTC ME
Page 4 of 11Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
each ME senior takes the EBI Senior survey. Specific survey questions are identified for Outcome 4 and are used to assess the outcome
Target: The target is for the mean scores for the UTC ME senior responses for the target questions supporting Outcome 4 to meet or exceed national mean scores for the total participating schools that are using the EBI senior survey.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Surveyed annually. Scores evaluated every two-years in a six year cycle.
Key/Responsible Personnel: ME Department head and appointed ME faculty to help with the evaluation.
Supporting Attachments:
seniors expressed opinions concerning the questions mapped to this outcome that met and exceeded the responses from ME students from all universities participating in the EBI survey nationally.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the evaluation of seniors on a continuing two-year cycle using the EBI survey results for UTC ME students and comparing them to the national ME results of those schools using the EBI survey for the same two-year cycle.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
5. Engineering Communication and Team Building
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
1st priority - Course Assessment Course level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: ENGR assessment of ENGR 185, 247, 329, 385 and 485 & course files to find evidence Outcome 5.
Target: On assessment form for the course being evaluated for Outcome 5 if student get > 2.0 on scale of 1.0 to 3.0 then that student work assess meets the outcome
Implementation Plan (timeline): Process performed every 2 years in a six year cycle
Key/Responsible Personnel: Engineering faculty assessment committee assigned
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 1st priority - Course Assessment Summary of Findings: The students assessed in course met or exceeded the assessment mean of 2.0 on a 1.0 to 3.0 scale.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the use of the assessment tools to monitor this student's success (> 2.0 mean) of this outcome.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
2nd priority - EBI Senior Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Every year, each ME senior takes the EBI Senior survey. Specific survey questions are identified for Outcome 5 and are used to assess the outcome
Target: The target is for the mean scores for the UTC ME senior responses for the target questions supporting Outcome 5 to meet or exceed national mean scores for the total participating schools that are using the EBI senior survey.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Surveyed annually. Scores evaluated every two-years in a six year cycle.
Key/Responsible Personnel: ME Department head and appointed ME
Findings for 2nd priority - EBI Senior Survey Summary of Findings: The UTC ME seniors expressed opinions concerning the questions mapped to this outcome that met and exceeded the responses from ME students from all universities participating in the EBI survey nationally.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the evaluation of seniors on a continuing two-year cycle using the EBI survey results for UTC ME students and comparing them to the national ME results of those schools using the EBI survey for the same two-year cycle.
Notes :
Page 5 of 11Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
faculty to help with the evaluation.
Supporting Attachments: Substantiating Evidence:
6. Engineering Ethics & Professional Development
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
1st priority - Course Assessment Course level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: ENGR assessment of ENGR 485 & ENME 450 course files to find evidence Outcome 6.
Target: On assessment form for the course being evaluated for Outcome 6 if student get > 2.0 on scale of 1.0 to 3.0 then that student work assess meets the outcome
Implementation Plan (timeline): Process performed every 2 years in a six year cycle
Key/Responsible Personnel: Engineering faculty assessment committee assigned
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 1st priority - Course Assessment Summary of Findings: The students assessed in course met or exceeded the assessment mean of 2.0 on a 1.0 to 3.0 scale.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the use of the assessment tools to monitor this student's success (> 2.0 mean) of this outcome.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
2nd priority - EBI Senior Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Every year, each ME senior takes the EBI Senior survey. Specific survey questions are identified for Outcome 6 and are used to assess the outcome
Target: The target is for the mean scores for the UTC ME senior responses for the target questions supporting Outcome 6 to meet or exceed national mean scores for the total participating schools that are using the EBI senior survey.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Surveyed annually. Scores evaluated every two-years in a six year cycle.
Key/Responsible Personnel: ME Department head and appointed ME faculty to help with the evaluation.
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 2nd priority - EBI Senior Survey Summary of Findings: The UTC ME seniors expressed opinions concerning the questions mapped to this outcome that met and exceeded the responses from ME students from all universities participating in the EBI survey nationally.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the evaluation of seniors on a continuing two-year cycle using the EBI survey results for UTC ME students and comparing them to the national ME results of those schools using the EBI survey for the same two-year cycle.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
3rd priority - Fundamentals of Engineering Exam Program level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Average of all examination category scores relevant to Outcome 6. Subject is Ethics.
Target: From a 0% to 100% scale, target for all ME majors to be 85% in all subjects related to Outcome 6
Implementation Plan (timeline): Evaluated annually in a six year cycle
Key/Responsible Personnel: ME
Findings for 3rd priority - Fundamentals of Engineering Exam Summary of Findings: The assessment in subject area met or exceed the national ME mean. All percentages greater than the 85% target.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the FE review subject sessions every
Page 6 of 11Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
department head and appointed ME faculty to help with the analysis
Supporting Attachments:
semester with a strengthted review in the mathematics and other targeted subject areas (where percentages fall below the 85% target).
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
7. Engineering in Global Societal Context
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
1st priority - Course Assessment Course level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: ENME assessment of ENME 443 & ENME 450 course files to find evidence Outcome 7. For ME students in the energy option, ENME 441 is assessed, but for ME students in the mechanical option, ENME 445 is assessed.
Target: On assessment form for the course being evaluated for Outcome 7 if student get > 2.0 on scale of 1.0 to 3.0 then that student work assess meets the outcome
Implementation Plan (timeline): Process performed every 2 years in a six year cycle
Key/Responsible Personnel: Engineering faculty assessment committee assigned
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 1st priority - Course Assessment Summary of Findings: The students assessed in course met or exceeded the assessment mean of 2.0 on a 1.0 to 3.0 scale.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the use of the assessment tools to monitor this student's success (> 2.0 mean) of this outcome.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
2nd priority - CAAP exam Program level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Annually, ME seniors take one part of the CAAP exit exam. The subject parts are writing, mathematics, science, reading and critical thinking.
Target: Seniors scores for each subject are compared to the national norms for each subject with the target of our ME seniors to meet and exceed the national averages
Implementation Plan (timeline): Annually
Key/Responsible Personnel: ME department head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 2nd priority - CAAP exam Summary of Findings: The UTC ME CAAP scores met or exceeded the national average for engineering students taking the CAAP test.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the use of the assessment tools to monitor this student's success of this outcome. (meeting and exceeding the national average of students taking CAAP)
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
3rd priority - EBI Senior Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Every year, each ME senior takes the EBI Senior survey. Specific survey questions are identified for Outcome 7 and are used to assess the outcome
Target: The target is for the mean scores for the UTC ME senior
Findings for 3rd priority - EBI Senior Survey Summary of Findings: The UTC ME seniors expressed opinions concerning the questions mapped to this outcome that met and exceeded the responses from ME students from all universities participating in the EBI survey nationally.
Target Achievement: Met
Page 7 of 11Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
responses for the target questions supporting Outcome 7 to meet or exceed national mean scores for the total participating schools that are using the EBI senior survey.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Surveyed annually. Scores evaluated every two-years in a six year cycle.
Key/Responsible Personnel: ME Department head and appointed ME faculty to help with the evaluation.
Supporting Attachments:
Recommendations : To continue the evaluation of seniors on a continuing two-year cycle using the EBI survey results for UTC ME students and comparing them to the national ME results of those schools using the EBI survey for the same two-year cycle.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
8. Engineering Skills to Model Systems
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
1st priority - Course Assessment Course level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: ENME assessment of ENME 309,443, & 447 course files to find evidence Outcome 8. For ME students in the energy option, ENME 440 is assessed, but for ME students in the mechanical option, ENME 445 is assessed.
Target: On assessment form for the course being evaluated for Outcome 8 if student get > 2.0 on scale of 1.0 to 3.0 then that student work assess meets the outcome
Implementation Plan (timeline): Process performed every 2 years in a six year cycle
Key/Responsible Personnel: Engineering faculty assessment committee assigned
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 1st priority - Course Assessment Summary of Findings: The students assessed in course met or exceeded the assessment mean of 2.0 on a 1.0 to 3.0 scale.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the use of the assessment tools to monitor this student's success (> 2.0 mean) of this outcome.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
2nd priority - EBI Senior Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Every year, each ME senior takes the EBI Senior survey. Specific survey questions are identified for Outcome 8 and are used to assess the outcome
Target: The target is for the mean scores for the UTC ME senior responses for the target questions supporting Outcome 8 to meet or exceed national mean scores for the total participating schools that are using the EBI senior survey.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Surveyed annually. Scores evaluated every two-years in a six year cycle.
Key/Responsible Personnel: ME Department head and appointed ME faculty to help with the evaluation.
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 2nd priority - EBI Senior Survey Summary of Findings: The UTC ME seniors expressed opinions concerning the questions mapped to this outcome that met and exceeded the responses from ME students from all universities participating in the EBI survey nationally.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the evaluation of seniors on a continuing two-year cycle using the EBI survey results for UTC ME students and comparing them to the national ME results of those schools using the EBI survey for the same two-year cycle.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Page 8 of 11Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
9. Engineering Skills to Analyze Systems
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
1st priority - Course Assessment Course level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: ENME assessment of ENME 309, 347, 348, 442, & 443 course files to find evidence Outcome 9. For ME students in the energy option, ENME 440 is assessed, but for ME students in the mechanical option, ENME 445 or ENME 448 is assessed.
Target: On assessment form for the course being evaluated for Outcome 9 if student get > 2.0 on scale of 1.0 to 3.0 then that student work assess meets the outcome
Implementation Plan (timeline): Process performed every 2 years in a six year cycle
Key/Responsible Personnel: Engineering faculty assessment committee assigned
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 1st priority - Course Assessment Summary of Findings: The students assessed in course met or exceeded the assessment mean of 2.0 on a 1.0 to 3.0 scale.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the use of the assessment tools to monitor this student's success (> 2.0 mean) of this outcome.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
2nd priority - Fundamentals of Engineering Exam Program level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Average of all examination category scores relevant to Outcome 9. Subjecta are Chemistry, Computers, Dynamics, Material Science, Mathematics, Statics, Electrical Circuits, Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, Mechanics of Materials, and Ethics.
Target: From a 0% to 100% scale, target for all ME majors to be 85% in all subjects related to Outcome 9
Implementation Plan (timeline): Evaluated annually in a six year cycle
Key/Responsible Personnel: ME department head and appointed ME faculty to help with the analysis
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 2nd priority - Fundamentals of Engineering Exam Summary of Findings: The assessment in subject area met or exceed the national ME mean. All percentages greater than the 85% target.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the FE review subject sessions every semester with a strengthted review in the mathematics and other targeted subject areas (where percentages fall below the 85% target).
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
3rd priority - EBI Senior Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Every year, each ME senior takes the EBI Senior survey. Specific survey questions are identified for Outcome 9 and are used to assess the outcome
Target: The target is for the mean scores for the UTC ME senior responses for the target questions supporting Outcome 9 to meet or exceed national mean scores for the total participating schools that are
Findings for 3rd priority - EBI Senior Survey Summary of Findings: The UTC ME seniors expressed opinions concerning the questions mapped to this outcome that met and exceeded the responses from ME students from all universities participating in the EBI survey nationally.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the evaluation of seniors on a continuing two-year cycle using the EBI survey
Page 9 of 11Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
using the EBI senior survey.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Surveyed annually. Scores evaluated every two-years in a six year cycle.
Key/Responsible Personnel: ME Department head and appointed ME faculty to help with the evaluation.
Supporting Attachments:
results for UTC ME students and comparing them to the national ME results of those schools using the EBI survey for the same two-year cycle.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
10. Engineering Skills to Design Systems
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
1st priority - Course Assessment Course level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: ENME assessment of ENME 442, 443 & 450 course files to find evidence Outcome 10.
Target: On assessment form for the course being evaluated for Outcome 10 if student get > 2.0 on scale of 1.0 to 3.0 then that student work assess meets the outcome
Implementation Plan (timeline): Process performed every 2 years in a six year cycle
Key/Responsible Personnel: Engineering faculty assessment committee assigned
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 1st priority - Course Assessment Summary of Findings: The students assessed in course met or exceeded the assessment mean of 2.0 on a 1.0 to 3.0 scale.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the use of the assessment tools to monitor this student's success (> 2.0 mean) of this outcome.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
2nd priority - EBI Senior Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Every year, each ME senior takes the EBI Senior survey. Specific survey questions are identified for Outcome 10 and are used to assess the outcome
Target: The target is for the mean scores for the UTC ME senior responses for the target questions supporting Outcome 10 to meet or exceed national mean scores for the total participating schools that are using the EBI senior survey.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Surveyed annually. Scores evaluated every two-years in a six year cycle.
Key/Responsible Personnel: ME Department head and appointed ME faculty to help with the evaluation.
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 2nd priority - EBI Senior Survey Summary of Findings: The UTC ME seniors expressed opinions concerning the questions mapped to this outcome that met and exceeded the responses from ME students from all universities participating in the EBI survey nationally.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the evaluation of seniors on a continuing two-year cycle using the EBI survey results for UTC ME students and comparing them to the national ME results of those schools using the EBI survey for the same two-year cycle.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
11. Engineering Professionalism
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
1st priority - Course Assessment Course level; Direct - Portfolio
Findings for 1st priority - Course Assessment
Page 10 of 11Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Details/Description: ENME assessment of ENME 442, 443, 447 & 450 course files to find evidence Outcome 11.
Target: On assessment form for the course being evaluated for Outcome 11 if student get > 2.0 on scale of 1.0 to 3.0 then that student work assess meets the outcome
Implementation Plan (timeline): Process performed every 2 years in a six year cycle
Key/Responsible Personnel: Engineering faculty assessment committee assigned
Supporting Attachments:
Summary of Findings: The students assessed in course met or exceeded the assessment mean of 2.0 on a 1.0 to 3.0 scale.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the use of the assessment tools to monitor this student's success (> 2.0 mean) of this outcome.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
2nd priority - EBI Senior Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Every year, each ME senior takes the EBI Senior survey. Specific survey questions are identified for Outcome 11 and are used to assess the outcome
Target: The target is for the mean scores for the UTC ME senior responses for the target questions supporting Outcome 11 to meet or exceed national mean scores for the total participating schools that are using the EBI senior survey.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Surveyed annually. Scores evaluated every two-years in a six year cycle.
Key/Responsible Personnel: ME Department head and appointed ME faculty to help with the evaluation.
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for 2nd priority - EBI Senior Survey Summary of Findings: The UTC ME seniors expressed opinions concerning the questions mapped to this outcome that met and exceeded the responses from ME students from all universities participating in the EBI survey nationally.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : To continue the evaluation of seniors on a continuing two-year cycle using the EBI survey results for UTC ME students and comparing them to the national ME results of those schools using the EBI survey for the same two-year cycle.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Page 11 of 11Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Civil Engineering: BS
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
Civil Engineering: BS Outcome Set
Outcome
Fundamental Knowledge
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Fundamental Knowledge Other level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) examination is a nationally administered test developed by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). The FE exam covers subject matter taught in a typical baccalaureate engineering program. All CE students at UTC are strongly encouraged to take the FE exam toward the end of their senior year.
Target: Our students will score 85% of the national average
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year
Key/Responsible Personnel: ABET Coordinator within the CE department
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Fundamental Knowledge Summary of Findings: Our students scored 97% of the national average. Our students scored well above the target of 85%.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No curricular improvements are recommended at this time.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Fundamental Knowledge Course level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: A key tool in the assessment of program outcomes is the evaluation of courses within the curriculum. Learning objectives have been established for each course, and these objectives have been mapped to corresponding program outcomes. Upon completion of a course, the instructor assembles a course folder. The course folder is then evaluated by at least three faculty members.
Target: Portfolio's accessed must score greater than 2 on a scale of 1 to 3, with 3 being the highest.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year
Key/Responsible Personnel: ABET
Findings for Fundamental Knowledge Summary of Findings: Average score on the portfolio's was 2.1 which meets the set target of 2.0.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No curricular improvements are required at the present time.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Page 1 of 6Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
coordinator within the CE department
Supporting Attachments:
Contemporary, Societal and Global Issues
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Contemporary, Societal and Global Issues Other level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Educational Benchmark, Inc. (EBI) produces a standardized, national survey that is administered to students at engineering schools throughout the United States. Graduating seniors complete the EBI survey at the end of the fall and spring semester every year.
Target: Our students will score 90% of participating schools' average score
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year Key/Responsible Personnel: ABET coordinator within the CE department Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Contemporary, Societal and Global Issues Summary of Findings: Our students scored 106% of the national average. Our students scored well above the target of 90%.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No curricular improvements are recommended at this time.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Contemporary, Societal and Global Issues Course level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: A key tool in the assessment of program outcomes is the evaluation of courses within the curriculum. Learning objectives have been established for each course, and these objectives have been mapped to corresponding program outcomes. Upon completion of a course, the instructor assembles a course folder. The course folder is then evaluated by at least three faculty members.
Target: Portfolio's accessed must score greater than 2 on a scale of 1 to 3, with 3 being the highest.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year
Key/Responsible Personnel: ABET coordinator within the CE department
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Contemporary, Societal and Global Issues Summary of Findings: Average score on the portfolio's was 2.0 which meets the set target of 2.0. Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : No curricular improvements are required at the present time.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Modern Engineering Tools
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Modern Engineering Tools Program level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) examination is a nationally administered test developed by the National Council of Examiners for
Findings for Modern Engineering Tools Summary of Findings: Our students scored 100% of the national average. Our students scored well above the target of 85%.
Page 2 of 6Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). The FE exam covers subject matter taught in a typical baccalaureate engineering program. All CE students at UTC are strongly encouraged to take the FE exam toward the end of their senior year.
Target: All students will score 85% of national average score
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year
Key/Responsible Personnel: ABET coordinator within the CE department
Supporting Attachments:
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No curricular improvements are required at the present time.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Modern Engineering Tools Course level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: A key tool in the assessment of program outcomes is the evaluation of courses within the curriculum. Learning objectives have been established for each course, and these objectives have been mapped to corresponding program outcomes. Upon completion of a course, the instructor assembles a course folder. The course folder is then evaluated by at least three faculty members.
Target: Portfolio's accessed must score greater than 2 on a scale of 1 to 3, with 3 being the highest.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year Key/Responsible Personnel: ABET coordinator within the CE department
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Modern Engineering Tools Summary of Findings: Average score on the portfolio's was 2.2 which meets the set target of 2.0.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No curricular improvements are required at the present time.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Effective Communication and Team Work
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Effective Communication and Team Work Other level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Educational Benchmark, Inc. (EBI) produces a standardized, national survey that is administered to students at engineering schools throughout the United States. Graduating seniors complete the EBI survey at the end of the fall and spring semester every year.
Target: Our students will score 90% of participating schools' average score
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year
Key/Responsible Personnel: ABET coordinator within the CE department
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Effective Communication and Team Work Summary of Findings: Our students scored 108% of the national average. Our students scored well above the target of 90%.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No curricular improvements are recommended at this time.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Effective Communication and Findings for Effective
Page 3 of 6Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Team Work Course level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: A key tool in the assessment of program outcomes is the evaluation of courses within the curriculum. Learning objectives have been established for each course, and these objectives have been mapped to corresponding program outcomes. Upon completion of a course, the instructor assembles a course folder. The course folder is then evaluated by at least three faculty members.
Target: Portfolio's accessed must score greater than 2 on a scale of 1 to 3, with 3 being the highest.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year
Key/Responsible Personnel: ABET coordinator within the CE department
Supporting Attachments:
Communication and Team Work Summary of Findings: Average score on the portfolio's was 2.2 which exceeds the set target of 2.0. Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No curricular improvements are required at the present time.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Ethical Responsibilty and Professional Societies
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Ethical Responsibility and Professional Societies Other level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) examination is a nationally administered test developed by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). The FE exam covers subject matter taught in a typical baccalaureate engineering program. All CE students at UTC are strongly encouraged to take the FE exam toward the end of their senior year.
Target: All students will score 85% of national average score
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year
Key/Responsible Personnel: ABET coordinator within the CE department
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Ethical Responsibility and Professional Societies Summary of Findings: Our students scored 94% of the national average. Our students scored well above the target of 85%.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No curricular improvements at this time. Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Ethical Responsibility and Professional Societies Other level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Educational Benchmark, Inc. (EBI) produces a standardized, national survey that is administered to students at engineering schools throughout the United States. Graduating seniors complete the EBI survey at the end of the fall and spring semester every year. Target: Our students will score 90%
Findings for Ethical Responsibility and Professional Societies Summary of Findings: Our students scored 94% of the national average. Our students scored well above the target of 90%.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No curricular improvements are recommended at this time.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Page 4 of 6Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
of participating schools' average score
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year
Key/Responsible Personnel: ABET coordinator within the CE department
Supporting Attachments:
Plan and Conduct Experiments
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Plan and Conduct Experiments Other level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Educational Benchmark, Inc. (EBI) produces a standardized, national survey that is administered to students at engineering schools throughout the United States. Graduating seniors complete the EBI survey at the end of the fall and spring semester every year.
Target: Our students will score 90% of participating schools' average score
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year
Key/Responsible Personnel: ABET coordinator within the CE department
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Plan and Conduct Experiments Summary of Findings: Our students scored 110% of the national average. Our students scored well above the target of 90%.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No curricular improvements are recommended at this time.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Plan and Conduct Experiments Course level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: A key tool in the assessment of program outcomes is the evaluation of courses within the curriculum. Learning objectives have been established for each course, and these objectives have been mapped to corresponding program outcomes. Upon completion of a course, the instructor assembles a course folder. The course folder is then evaluated by at least three faculty members.
Target: Portfolio's accessed must score greater than 2 on a scale of 1 to 3, with 3 being the highest. Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year Key/Responsible Personnel: ABET coordinator within the CE department
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Plan and Conduct Experiments Summary of Findings: Average score on the portfolio's was 2.2 which exceeds the set target of 2.0. Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No curricular improvements are required at the present time. Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Major Dseign in Civil Engineering
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Major Design in Civil Engineering Course level; Direct - Portfolio
Details/Description: A key tool in the assessment of program outcomes
Findings for Major Design in Civil Engineering Summary of Findings: Average score on the portfolio's was 1.9 which barley meets the set target of 2.0.
Page 5 of 6Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
is the evaluation of courses within the curriculum. Learning objectives have been established for each course, and these objectives have been mapped to corresponding program outcomes. Upon completion of a course, the instructor assembles a course folder. The course folder is then evaluated by at least three faculty members.
Target: Portfolio's accessed must score greater than 2 on a scale of 1 to 3, with 3 being the highest.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year
Key/Responsible Personnel: ABET coordinator within the CE department Supporting Attachments:
Target Achievement: Not Met
Recommendations : No curricular improvements at this time. The faculty adopted a wait and see approach. The department will continue to monitor and this outcome will be assessed in the next cycle of assessment.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Major Design in Civil Engineering Other level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Educational Benchmark, Inc. (EBI) produces a standardized, national survey that is administered to students at engineering schools throughout the United States. Graduating seniors complete the EBI survey at the end of the fall and spring semester every year.
Target: Our students will score 90% of participating schools' average score
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year
Key/Responsible Personnel: ABET coordinator within the CE department
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Major Design in Civil Engineering Summary of Findings: Our students scored 110% of the national average. Our students scored well above the target of 90%.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : No curricular improvements are recommended at this time.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Page 6 of 6Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Computational Engineering: PhD
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
Computational Engineering: PhD Outcome Set
Outcomes
Academic Preparation
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Competency in the Three Computational Engineering Core Areas Program level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: At or near the completion of all coursework, students are given a comprehensive examination on material from the three core areas of computational engineering. This review and exam provides a global perspective of coursework, especially in relation to the dissertation research project. These exams cover four of the following five major topics: (1) computational fluid dynamics, (2) physical fluid dynamics, (3) mathematics of computation, (4) parallel scientific computing, and (5) grid generation. All students’ exams include material from topics (1) and (3); the other two areas are determined by the student and their major advisor, based on the dissertation research area.
Target: All students score very good or excellent (4+) in 3 exams and satisfactory (3+) in the 4th (1-5 scale).
Implementation Plan (timeline): Assessment is made at the time of the preliminary exam.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Program coordinator and faculty examiners.
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Competency in the Three Computational Engineering Core Areas Summary of Findings: 1) Students with non-engineering backgrounds need exposure to engineering problem solving as well as some important physics-related topics related to computational field simulation. 2) Computational engineering coursework is heavily project oriented and requires at an intermediate level of scientific programming skills. Many new students struggle with completing their course-related projects because of a lack of programming skills. 3) Most new students needed introduction to computational engineering as soon as possible. 4) Given that this is an innovative interdisciplinary program in which no undergraduate major provides complete preparation for the program, it was found that a systematic and thorough orientation and advisement process was needed for incoming students. 5). Faculty have noticed that a small number of students have had difficulty with various mathematical manipulations and derivations requiring skills that should have been mastered in undergraduate mathematics courses.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : 1) Based on the advisement process, students needing
Page 1 of 4Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
more background are required to take 2-3 undergraduate engineering courses in vector statics, fluid mechanics, and thermodynamics (these courses are not counted as part of students' graduate degree). 2) A new 1-hour course was introduced to provide basic orientation and instruction in computer skills needed early in the program. 3) All new students are given introductory projects in simulation-related programming designed to provide practical experience in formulating a numerical algorithm, implementing the algorithm in software, compiling and debugging the software, and interpreting computed results. Students are to complete these projects during the summer that follows their first two, full-time semesters. 4) An orientation process for each individual student was developed and implemented by the Program Coordinator. The orientation includes a formal advisement interview and checklist, a SimCenter tour, assignment of cubical space, authorization for SimCenter computer access, and a booklet “Process Information for New Students” explaining administrative processes such as registration and payroll encountered by new SimCenter students. Early in the first semester, the Department Head also gives a PowerPoint presentation “New Student Orientation” to all new students covering 1) program objectives, 2) building, 3) computer resources, 4) expectations of faculty and students, 5) academic requirements, 6) research requirements, 7) faculty and staff, and 8) the summer project. To reinforce all three outcome objectives, the program’s working environment that includes students in the team research conducted in the SimCenter is explained. There is a mutual expectation among SimCenter faculty and students that students are expected to have meaningful technical interactions with multiple faculty and with other students. 5). Beginning in the Fall 2010 semester, a mathematics review test will be given during the new-student orientation and advisement process to provide early diagnosis of any weaknesses relevant to the curriculum.
Notes :
Page 2 of 4Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Substantiating Evidence:
Communication and Teamwork
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Assessing Teamwork Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: The program monitors and assesses this outcome by obtaining individual evaluations of each student from all SimCenter academic and research faculty in the program. An anecdotal survey of faculty documents both significant/regular and occasional faculty/student interactions that relate specifically to research activities, as opposed to normal student-instructor interactions associated with coursework.
Target: All students having significant/regular research interactions with at least two faculty, and occasional interaction with at least two faculty.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Survey is conducted yearly near the end of the Spring semester.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Program coordinator.
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Assessing Teamwork Summary of Findings: Both Ph.D. and M.S. (Thesis) students had regular research interactions with about 2 faculty and occasional interactions with an additional 4-5 faculty. Current students (Fall 2009) with 1 or more years in the program are also developing significant interaction with multiple faculty members. On average, non-thesis students had significantly less faculty interaction and less research progress than other students, which is consistent with their election of the non-thesis option.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Results obtained thus far are viewed as excellent outcomes for graduates and evidence of success in meeting this program objective.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Independent Research
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Assessment of Research Progress Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Informal survey of faculty members' perception of students' progress with research.
Target: 75% rated as "Making Excellent Progress" and 25% rated as "Expected to Make Progress."
Implementation Plan (timeline): Assessment is made annually around the end of spring semester.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Program coordinator.
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Assessment of Research Progress Summary of Findings: 77% of the faculty who reported significant/regular or occasional interactions with the 10 Ph.D. students who have graduated assessed their research as “Making Excellent Progress,” whereas 21% of faculty reported these students as “Expected to Make Progress.”
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Although this is a small sample, these results are viewed as excellent outcomes for graduates and evidence of success in meeting this program objective.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Quality of Dissertation Research Program level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Students submit a written dissertation that is reviewed by the major advisor and
Findings for Quality of Dissertation Research Summary of Findings: The results of the anecdotal assessment by faculty of dissertation quality and student
Page 3 of 4Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
committee members. Students present and defend their dissertation in a general audience, after which the faculty and committee members conduct an oral exam to complete their evaluation of the dissertation. The Program Coordinator subsequently consults with faculty and records an anecdotal assessment of the dissertation quality and student research expertise.
Target: 75% of dissertations rated as "A" and 25% rated as "B".
Implementation Plan (timeline): Assessment is made following committee approval of the dissertation.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Program coordinator and Dissertation committee.
Supporting Attachments:
research expertise for the ten Ph.D. students who have graduated are: A (70%) and B (30%).
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Although the quantitative goals of 75% (A) and 25% (B) were technically not met, the number of samples observed thus far is considered small and the actual 70%-30% findings are considered excellent outcomes for students and evidence that this program objective is being achieved.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Page 4 of 4Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Computer Science
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
(A - K) ABET Outcomes for Computer Science
Outcome
Outcome A
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
CAAP Program level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Portions of the CAAP test are required of all graduates of UTC. Students are randomly chosen to take different modules of the test: Reading, Writing Skills, Writing Essay, Mathematics, Science, Critical Thinking. The results of each graduating class on these test modules are used in the faculty evaluation of all Outcomes A-K/L at the end of the spring semester.
Target: Senior Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year
Key/Responsible Personnel: Department Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for CAAP Summary of Findings: All UTC graduating seniors are required to take the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP),, which provides measures of student General Education achievement. The CAAP, developed by the ACT organization, is a standardized, nationally-normed test which measures proficiency of five elements of UTC’s general education program. ACT is a nonprofit corporation, founded in 1959, which offers a wide variety of assessment instruments and services, including the ACT test required by many colleges and universities for admission. More information on the CAAP test may be found at http://www.act.org/caap/, which is the source of the information in this report. As described on the web site http://www.utc.edu/Administration/PlanningEvaluationAndInstitutionalResearch/caap.php, graduating seniors are required to take the CAAP test as a condition of graduation from UTC, but each student is randomly assigned to be tested in only one of the five areas: writing skills, mathematics, reading, science, and critical thinking. Results are reported for the Computer Science program, the College of Engineering and Computer Science, and UTC as a whole, allowing comparisons among majors at UTC. National statistics also allow comparison of UTC students’ level of proficiency with that of students in a variety of universities across the United States. The original plan was that CS majors would be compared to all college majors, then all UTC students, then to national averages. However, the small number of CS graduates makes this impracticable. It would take a minimum of five graduates to have even one student taking each section of the test, and since students are randomly assigned to sections, having five students take the test would not insure that each section would provide a even a single result. This would not allow any results obtained to be statistically significant. Even looking at graduates of the college of Engineering and Computer Science still provides a very small sample size. However, since our students take the same general education courses as the other students at UTC, and since our students are, based on incoming qualifications, at least as well qualified as those in other majors, we feel justified in examining the performance of UTC students as compared to national norms, and extrapolating those results to our CS majors, to provide one measure of how well the outcomes covered by this test are met by our students. These results are not the only measure we apply, but since our other measures, such as surveys, are subjective, this objective measure has been retained, although it is imperfect. We will continue to use the information which CAAP provides, while continuing to search for any additional objective measures of this content. The only results currently available are those of the 2008 and 2009 exams.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : More frequent exams.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MFT Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The Major Field Test is given to seniors every
Findings for MFT Summary of Findings: The Computer Science Major Field Test was developed by the Educational Testing Service, the nonprofit organization behind such seminal, well-respected exams as the GRE, the SAT, and PRAXIS. The computer science test is a two-
Page 1 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
two years. The results from the three subsections (Programming, Discrete Structures and Algorithms and Systems) are also used in the faculty evaluation of all Outcomes A-K/L at the end of the spring semester.
Target: Senior Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Every 3 years
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
hour, multiple choice examination designed to test content knowledge in the areas of discrete structures (at least 15 percent), programming (at least 21 percent), algorithms and complexity (at least 16 percent), systems (at least 16 percent), software engineering (at least 3 percent), information management (at least 3 percent), and other topics such as intelligent systems, professional issues, and human computer interaction. Results are provided for individual test takers and for the university computer science program as a whole. Assessment indicators, in the form of average percentage of correct answers in particular content areas, supply feedback as to whether students in a program are having difficulty in a given subject area. In addition, a Comparative Data Guide is generated each year, which allows a program to compare its performance to that of the numerous other programs, ranging from small liberal arts college to large state research universities, which participate in the exam nationally. Information on the MFT is taken from www.ets.org, and more information may be found at this site. Due to cost constraints, this test was formerly given to graduating seniors only once every five years. However, due to a recognition of the need for more objective measurement of how well students in our program achieve outcomes and compare to those at other universities, it was agreed in 2008 that this test would be taken by graduating seniors every second year, beginning Spring 2008. The test covers Programming Fundamentals, Computer Organization and Architectures, Operating Systems, Algorithms, Computer Science Theory, and Computational Mathematics. Results of the test in the past have been used as an informal measure of program success, but no formal process was in place. For evaluation of results, a process was proposed by which the Assessment Committee would compare our students’ scores, as a group, to the national averages using a comparison of the number of standard deviations away from the national averages our students were in different categories. Any areas in which our students scored more than one standard deviation below the national mean would be brought to the attention of the full CSE faculty at the annual fall retreat for discussion. As the number of students currently in the program is small, setting percentage goals for scores at this point was thought to be impractical. However, each year, the evaluation results were to be examined for trends and evidence of weaknesses in the program by the Assessment Committee, and appropriate recommendations will be made to the CSE faculty. As the number of students in the program increases, use of numerical targets would be reexamined.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Results of the test are given and compared to previous results
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Program Rubrics Program level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Rubrics were identified for each A-K/L Outcome by the faculty. Each rubric is designed to assess one program outcome A-K/L and the extent that each program outcome was met was measured based on the course outcome competencies listed in each program outcome.
Target: All students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Every semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dept. Head/Assessment Coordinator
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Program Rubrics Summary of Findings: The course student surveys allow us to capture the students’ input into the assessment process. The course artifacts provide the instructor’s measure of student competencies. The assessment team’s evaluation of the course artifacts and evaluation of each Outcome A-K/L gives us a measure of the effectiveness of our instruction and the extent to which students meet the set objectives and program outcomes.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : We are fine tuning the rubrics.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Student/Course Survey Course level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description:
Findings for Student/Course Survey Summary of Findings: The results of the student survey and portfolios of typical student work are included with the course report. The portfolios consists of all of the exercises and exams for at least three students – one excellent (A) student, one average (B-C)
Page 2 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
For each core course a team composed of those faculty who have special expertise with the course (they have taught the course or subsequent courses that have prerequisite competencies from the course) prepares a list of course objectives and a student survey designed to gauge the students’ perception of their attainment of the course objectives. The team identifies the mapping of course objectives to Outcome competencies. The team reviews the course objectives and mapping each spring or more often if review is requested by faculty teaching the course.
Target:
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year
Key/Responsible Personnel: Head of Department/Assessment Coordinator
Supporting Attachments:
student and one poor (D-F) student – is included in the course report. The student survey results and portfolios in the course reports are used in the course review and evaluation of the appropriate competencies for Program Outcomes A-K/L.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome B
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Alumni Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: The survey of alumni is the primary means of measuring the opinions of the alumni on how well the outcomes were achieved at the time of graduation, from a more mature perspective, provide a valuable indicator of outcomes as well. The survey is a contneous online survey with enough security parameters to allow only legitimate alumni.
Target: Alumni Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Online
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Alumni Survey Summary of Findings: The survey of alumni was initiated in spring 2008, and was planned to take place each spring semester. It was planned that graduates would be surveyed three years after graduation to give them a chance to become fully functioning Computer Science professionals, and each graduate would be surveyed only once. The survey conducted spring 2008, of 2005 graduates, was to serve as a baseline against which future results would be compared. Many of the same questions (e.g., regarding successful fulfillment of Outcomes) were asked on both the alumni survey and the senior survey. However, it was thought that the three years of professional practice between the two should give the graduate a more mature perspective, and a much more realistic assessment of how well this program actually prepared him or her for the profession – for this reason, the alumni survey would be useful in assessing fulfillment of both the Outcomes and the Objective of the program. The survey also included questions regarding such issues as continuing education, what the graduate now most wishes had been taught, commitment to lifelong learning (which is especially critical in the Computer Science profession) and strengths and weaknesses of the program. Some objective information, such as rates of graduate school acceptance and increasing levels of responsibility of alumni, could also be collected using this instrument. The surveys would also be used in the periodic assessment of the mission and objective, and in determining how well our outcomes imply our objective of preparing the student for successful practice of the Computer Science profession. As with the senior survey, in 2009, the
Page 3 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
survey was altered to reflect the newly approved outcomes for the ISA programs and for the Scientific Applications and Software Systems concentrations in the department; since these were the first officially approved outcomes for the ISA program, the 2008 results for the outcomes for the two other concentrations in the department are not shown. The survey was also converted to a web format for easier administration and easier collation, and comparison of results from multiple years.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Recommendations : This survey will continue to be refined, and will continue to be administered each spring. The initial plan was for each student to be surveyed only once, three years after graduation, but with the web application, alumni from more than one graduation year responded. How this should be handled will be addressed by the Assessment Committee in the 2009-10 school year.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Insdustrial Advisory Board/Employers Program level; Indirect - Focus Group
Details/Description: Informal industry and employer interactions and inputs have always been part of the program. These encounters include informal focus groups with a few faculty members, faculty consulting, student internships, IEEE participation, and the College of Engineering and Computer Science Industrial Advisory Board (IAB). The College Industrial Advisory Board has been in place for many years, but is more focused on Engineering than Computer Science. The CSE department has established a departmental Industrial Advisory Board to provide more specific feedback on the needs of local industry related to our programs and the performance of our graduates whom they have employed
Target: Program
Implementation Plan (timeline): Twice a year
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Insdustrial Advisory Board/Employers Summary of Findings: The board was established in fall 2007, and the first meeting of the board took place on January 24, 2008, and at least one meeting has taken place in each semester since that time. A prйcis of the board meeting is included in the “Assessment Results” section of Appendix B-4-3. All minutes of the meetings with the advisory board will be available for inspection by the members of the ABET team at the time of the fall visit. The evolution of the department assessment processes has led to the establishment of Reading Day, the day between the last day of classes and the first day of exams in each semester, as the regularly scheduled meeting of the Advisory Board with the department faculty, giving two regularly scheduled meetings each school year. However, in the event of special needs, additional meetings with the board will be scheduled. The members of the advisory board have demonstrated a strong commitment to supporting our programs now and in the future.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Program Rubrics Program level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Rubrics were identified for each A-K/L Outcome by the faculty. Each rubric is designed to assess one program outcome A-K/L and the extent that each program outcome was met was measured based on the course outcome competencies listed in each program outcome.
Target: All students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Every Semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: DH/Assessment Coordinator
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Program Rubrics Summary of Findings: The course student surveys allow us to capture the students’ input into the assessment process. The course artifacts provide the instructor’s measure of student competencies. The assessment team’s evaluation of the course artifacts and evaluation of each Outcome A-K/L gives us a measure of the effectiveness of our instruction and the extent to which students meet the set objectives and program outcomes.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Needs fine tuning.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Senior Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: A survey of seniors in the CSE concentrations was developed to be given each spring in
Findings for Senior Survey Summary of Findings: A survey of seniors in the CS concentrations was developed to be given each spring in
Page 4 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
CPSC 490, a course that all senior CSE students must take as a capstone. The survey is administered through the class Blackboard site, assuring that each student takes the survey once. The survey consists of the Outcome competencies that broadly measure the effectiveness of our program. Each survey question is mapped to one or more competencies. The survey questions and the mapping of the questions to Outcome competencies is given in Appendix E. The results of the survey are used in the faculty evaluation of all Outcomes A-K/L at the end of the spring semester.
Target: Senior Students CPSC 490 -
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year
Key/Responsible Personnel: Deaprtment Head/Assessment Coordinator
Supporting Attachments:
CPSC 490, a course that all senior CS students must take as a capstone, ensuring that each student is surveyed once and only once. The plan was that after the instructor of CPSC 490 administered the survey, the Assessment Committee would perform an initial collation and evaluation of the results, which would then be discussed each fall in the pre-semester retreat for all CSE faculty. Changes, additions, and emphases of the program may be altered based on these results. The form was designed to make it numerically scorable, and therefore facilitate the evaluation of trends, areas needing improvement, and effects of changes from year to year. The Outcomes section of the survey has both “scored” responses and space for seniors to comment. All surveys and results will be available for inspection by future accreditation teams. A copy of the survey given to seniors in Spring 2008 is included in Appendix B-4-6-b, along with graphs of the results of the 2008 and 2009 administrations of the survey. In 2009, the survey was altered to reflect the newly approved outcomes for the ISA programs and for the Scientific Applications and Software Systems concentrations in the department; since these were the first officially approved outcomes for the ISA program, the 2008 results for the outcomes for the two other concentrations in the department are not shown. The survey was also converted to a web format for easier administration and easier collation and comparison of results from multiple years. Results from both 2008 and 2009 surveys are discussed in the “Assessment Results” section of Appendix B-4-3. This survey will continue to be refined, and will continue to be administered in the senior capstone course each spring, to make sure that each student takes it only once, and when he or she is close to graduation.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome C
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Alumni Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: The survey of alumni is the primary means of measuring the opinions of the alumni on how well the outcomes were achieved at the time of graduation, from a more mature perspective, provide a valuable indicator of outcomes as well. The survey is a contneous online survey with enough security parameters to allow only legitimate alumni. Target: Program Alumni
Implementation Plan (timeline): Online (ongoing)
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Alumni Survey Summary of Findings: The survey of alumni was initiated in spring 2008, and was planned to take place each spring semester. It was planned that graduates would be surveyed three years after graduation to give them a chance to become fully functioning Computer Science professionals, and each graduate would be surveyed only once. The survey conducted spring 2008, of 2005 graduates, was to serve as a baseline against which future results would be compared. Many of the same questions (e.g., regarding successful fulfillment of Outcomes) were asked on both the alumni survey and the senior survey. However, it was thought that the three years of professional practice between the two should give the graduate a more mature perspective, and a much more realistic assessment of how well this program actually prepared him or her for the profession – for this reason, the alumni survey would be useful in assessing fulfillment of both the Outcomes and the Objective of the program. The survey also included questions regarding such issues as continuing education, what the graduate now most wishes had been taught, commitment to lifelong learning (which is especially critical in the Computer Science profession) and strengths and weaknesses of the program. Some objective information, such as rates of graduate school acceptance and increasing levels of responsibility of alumni, could also be collected using this instrument. The surveys would also be used in the periodic assessment of the mission and objective, and in determining how well our outcomes imply our objective of preparing the
Page 5 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
student for successful practice of the Computer Science profession. As with the senior survey, in 2009, the survey was altered to reflect the newly approved outcomes for the ISA programs and for the Scientific Applications and Software Systems concentrations in the department; since these were the first officially approved outcomes for the ISA program, the 2008 results for the outcomes for the two other concentrations in the department are not shown. The survey was also converted to a web format for easier administration and easier collation, and comparison of results from multiple years. Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Recommendations : Recommendations : This survey will continue to be refined, and will continue to be administered each spring. The initial plan was for each student to be surveyed only once, three years after graduation, but with the web application, alumni from more than one graduation year responded. How this should be handled will be addressed by the Assessment Committee in the 2009-10 school year. Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Course Objects/Student Survey Course level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: For each core course a team composed of those faculty who have special expertise with the course (they have taught the course or subsequent courses that have prerequisite competencies from the course) prepares a list of course objectives and a student survey designed to gauge the students’ perception of their attainment of the course objectives. The team identifies the mapping of course objectives to Outcome competencies. The team reviews the course objectives and mapping each spring or more often if review is requested by faculty teaching the course. Target: All Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Every Semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Course Objects/Student Survey Summary of Findings: The results of the student survey and portfolios of typical student work are included with the course report. The portfolios consists of all of the exercises and exams for at least three students – one excellent (A) student, one average (B-C) student and one poor (D-F) student – is included in the course report. The student survey results and portfolios in the course reports are used in the course review and evaluation of the appropriate competencies for Program Outcomes A-K/L.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MFT Program level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The Major Field Test is given to seniors every two years. The results from the three subsections (Programming, Discrete Structures and Algorithms and Systems) are also used in the faculty evaluation of all Outcomes A-K/L at the end of the spring semester. Target: Program
Implementation Plan (timeline): Every 3 years
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for MFT Summary of Findings: The Computer Science Major Field Test was developed by the Educational Testing Service, the nonprofit organization behind such seminal, well-respected exams as the GRE, the SAT, and PRAXIS. The computer science test is a two-hour, multiple choice examination designed to test content knowledge in the areas of discrete structures (at least 15 percent), programming (at least 21 percent), algorithms and complexity (at least 16 percent), systems (at least 16 percent), software engineering (at least 3 percent), information management (at least 3 percent), and other topics such as intelligent systems, professional issues, and human computer interaction. Results are provided for individual test takers and for the university computer science program as a whole. Assessment indicators, in the form of average percentage of correct answers in particular content areas, supply feedback as to whether students in a program are having difficulty in a given subject area. In addition, a Comparative Data Guide is generated each year, which allows a program to compare its performance to that of the numerous other programs, ranging from small liberal arts college to large state research universities, which participate in the exam nationally. Information on the MFT is taken from www.ets.org, and
Page 6 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
more information may be found at this site. Due to cost constraints, this test was formerly given to graduating seniors only once every five years. However, due to a recognition of the need for more objective measurement of how well students in our program achieve outcomes and compare to those at other universities, it was agreed in 2008 that this test would be taken by graduating seniors every second year, beginning Spring 2008. The test covers Programming Fundamentals, Computer Organization and Architectures, Operating Systems, Algorithms, Computer Science Theory, and Computational Mathematics. Results of the test in the past have been used as an informal measure of program success, but no formal process was in place. For evaluation of results, a process was proposed by which the Assessment Committee would compare our students’ scores, as a group, to the national averages using a comparison of the number of standard deviations away from the national averages our students were in different categories. Any areas in which our students scored more than one standard deviation below the national mean would be brought to the attention of the full CSE faculty at the annual fall retreat for discussion. As the number of students currently in the program is small, setting percentage goals for scores at this point was thought to be impractical. However, each year, the evaluation results were to be examined for trends and evidence of weaknesses in the program by the Assessment Committee, and appropriate recommendations will be made to the CSE faculty. As the number of students in the program increases, use of numerical targets would be reexamined.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Results of the test are given and compared to previous results
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Program Rubrics Program level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Rubrics were identified for each A-K/L Outcome by the faculty. Each rubric is designed to assess one program outcome A-K/L and the extent that each program outcome was met was measured based on the course outcome competencies listed in each program outcome. Target: Student work
Implementation Plan (timeline): Every semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Program Rubrics Summary of Findings: The course student surveys allow us to capture the students’ input into the assessment process. The course artifacts provide the instructor’s measure of student competencies. The assessment team’s evaluation of the course artifacts and evaluation of each Outcome A-K/L gives us a measure of the effectiveness of our instruction and the extent to which students meet the set objectives and program outcomes.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Needs fine tuning.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Senior Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: A survey of seniors in the CSE concentrations was developed to be given each spring in CPSC 490, a course that all senior CSE students must take as a capstone. The survey is administered through the class Blackboard site, assuring that each student takes the survey once. The survey consists of the Outcome competencies that broadly measure the effectiveness of our program. Each survey question is mapped to one or more competencies. The survey questions and the mapping of the questions to Outcome competencies is given in Appendix E. The results of the survey are used in the faculty evaluation of all Outcomes A-K/L at the end of the spring semester. Target: Students
Findings for Senior Survey Summary of Findings: A survey of seniors in the CS concentrations was developed to be given each spring in CPSC 490, a course that all senior CS students must take as a capstone, ensuring that each student is surveyed once and only once. The plan was that after the instructor of CPSC 490 administered the survey, the Assessment Committee would perform an initial collation and evaluation of the results, which would then be discussed each fall in the pre-semester retreat for all CSE faculty. Changes, additions, and emphases of the program may be altered based on these results. The form was designed to make it numerically scorable, and therefore facilitate the evaluation of trends, areas needing improvement, and effects of changes from year to year. The Outcomes section of the survey has both “scored” responses and space for seniors to comment. In
Page 7 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Target: Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
2009, the survey was altered to reflect the newly approved outcomes for the ISA programs and for the Scientific Applications and Software Systems concentrations in the department; since these were the first officially approved outcomes for the ISA program, the 2008 results for the outcomes for the two other concentrations in the department are not shown. The survey was also converted to a web format for easier administration and easier collation and comparison of results from multiple years.
Target Achievement:
Recommendations : This survey will continue to be refined, and will continue to be administered in the senior capstone course each spring, to make sure that each student takes it only once, and when he or she is close to graduation.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome D
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Course Objects/Student Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: For each core course a team composed of those faculty who have special expertise with the course (they have taught the course or subsequent courses that have prerequisite competencies from the course) prepares a list of course objectives and a student survey designed to gauge the students’ perception of their attainment of the course objectives. The team identifies the mapping of course objectives to Outcome competencies. The team reviews the course objectives and mapping each spring or more often if review is requested by faculty teaching the course. Target: Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Every semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Course Objects/Student Survey Summary of Findings: The results of the student survey and portfolios of typical student work are included with the course report. The portfolios consists of all of the exercises and exams for at least three students – one excellent (A) student, one average (B-C) student and one poor (D-F) student – is included in the course report. The student survey results and portfolios in the course reports are used in the course review and evaluation of the appropriate competencies for Program Outcomes A-K/L.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Industrial Advisory Board/Employers Contacts Program level; Indirect - Focus Group
Details/Description: Informal industry and employer interactions and inputs have always been part of the program. These encounters include informal focus groups with a few faculty members, faculty consulting, student internships, IEEE participation, and the College of Engineering and Computer Science Industrial Advisory Board (IAB). The College Industrial Advisory Board has been in place for many years, but is more focused on Engineering than Computer Science. The CSE department has established a departmental Industrial Advisory Board to provide more specific feedback on the needs of local industry related to our programs and the performance of our graduates whom they have employed. Target: Program
Implementation Plan (timeline): Twice a year
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Industrial Advisory Board/Employers Contacts Summary of Findings: The board was established in fall 2007, and the first meeting of the board took place on January 24, 2008, and at least one meeting has taken place in each semester since that time. A prйcis of the board meeting is included in the “Assessment Results” section of Appendix B-4-3. All minutes of the meetings with the advisory board will be available for inspection by the members of the ABET team at the time of the fall visit. The evolution of the department assessment processes has led to the establishment of Reading Day, the day between the last day of classes and the first day of exams in each semester, as the regularly scheduled meeting of the Advisory Board with the department faculty, giving two regularly scheduled meetings each school year. However, in the event of special needs, additional meetings with the board will be scheduled. The members of the advisory board have demonstrated a strong commitment to supporting our programs now and in the future.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : More informal contacts
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Program Rubrics Findings for Program Rubrics
Page 8 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Program level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Rubrics were identified for each A-K/L Outcome by the faculty. Each rubric is designed to assess one program outcome A-K/L and the extent that each program outcome was met was measured based on the course outcome competencies listed in each program outcome. Target: Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year - Every Spring
Key/Responsible Personnel: dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
Summary of Findings: The course student surveys allow us to capture the students’ input into the assessment process. The course artifacts provide the instructor’s measure of student competencies. The assessment team’s evaluation of the course artifacts and evaluation of each Outcome A-K/L gives us a measure of the effectiveness of our instruction and the extent to which students meet the set objectives and program outcomes.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : needs fine tuning.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Senior Survey Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: A survey of seniors in the CSE concentrations was developed to be given each spring in CPSC 490, a course that all senior CSE students must take as a capstone. The survey is administered through the class Blackboard site, assuring that each student takes the survey once. The survey consists of the Outcome competencies that broadly measure the effectiveness of our program. Each survey question is mapped to one or more competencies. The survey questions and the mapping of the questions to Outcome competencies is given in Appendix E. The results of the survey are used in the faculty evaluation of all Outcomes A-K/L at the end of the spring semester. Target: Senior Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a Year - CPSC 490
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Senior Survey Summary of Findings: A survey of seniors in the CS concentrations was developed to be given each spring in CPSC 490, a course that all senior CS students must take as a capstone, ensuring that each student is surveyed once and only once. The plan was that after the instructor of CPSC 490 administered the survey, the Assessment Committee would perform an initial collation and evaluation of the results, which would then be discussed each fall in the pre-semester retreat for all CSE faculty. Changes, additions, and emphases of the program may be altered based on these results. The form was designed to make it numerically scorable, and therefore facilitate the evaluation of trends, areas needing improvement, and effects of changes from year to year. The Outcomes section of the survey has both “scored” responses and space for seniors to comment. All surveys and results will be available for inspection by future accreditation teams. In 2009, the survey was altered to reflect the newly approved outcomes for the ISA programs and for the Scientific Applications and Software Systems concentrations in the department; since these were the first officially approved outcomes for the ISA program, the 2008 results for the outcomes for the two other concentrations in the department are not shown. The survey was also converted to a web format for easier administration and easier collation and comparison of results from multiple years.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : This survey will continue to be refined, and will continue to be administered in the senior capstone course each spring, to make sure that each student takes it only once, and when he or she is close to graduation.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome E
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Alumni Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: The survey of alumni is the primary means of measuring the opinions of the alumni on how well the outcomes were achieved at the time of graduation, from a more mature perspective, provide a valuable indicator of outcomes as well. The survey is a contneous online survey with enough security parameters to allow only legitimate alumni. Target: Program alumni
Implementation Plan (timeline): Online - ongoing
Key/Responsible Personnel: Assessment committee
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Alumni Survey Summary of Findings: The survey of alumni was initiated in spring 2008, and was planned to take place each spring semester. It was planned that graduates would be surveyed three years after graduation to give them a chance to become fully functioning Computer Science professionals, and each graduate would be surveyed only once. The survey conducted spring 2008, of 2005 graduates, was to serve as a baseline against which future results would be compared. Many of the same questions (e.g., regarding successful fulfillment of Outcomes) were asked on both the alumni survey and the senior survey. However, it was thought that the three years of professional practice between the two should give the graduate a more mature perspective,
Page 9 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
and a much more realistic assessment of how well this program actually prepared him or her for the profession – for this reason, the alumni survey would be useful in assessing fulfillment of both the Outcomes and the Objective of the program. The survey also included questions regarding such issues as continuing education, what the graduate now most wishes had been taught, commitment to lifelong learning (which is especially critical in the Computer Science profession) and strengths and weaknesses of the program. Some objective information, such as rates of graduate school acceptance and increasing levels of responsibility of alumni, could also be collected using this instrument. The surveys would also be used in the periodic assessment of the mission and objective, and in determining how well our outcomes imply our objective of preparing the student for successful practice of the Computer Science profession. As with the senior survey, in 2009, the survey was altered to reflect the newly approved outcomes for the ISA programs and for the Scientific Applications and Software Systems concentrations in the department; since these were the first officially approved outcomes for the ISA program, the 2008 results for the outcomes for the two other concentrations in the department are not shown. The survey was also converted to a web format for easier administration and easier collation, and comparison of results from multiple years.
Target Achievement:
Recommendations : This survey will continue to be refined, and will continue to be administered each spring. The initial plan was for each student to be surveyed only once, three years after graduation, but with the web application, alumni from more than one graduation year responded. How this should be handled will be addressed by the Assessment Committee in the 2009-10 school year.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Course Objects/Student Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: For each core course a team composed of those faculty who have special expertise with the course (they have taught the course or subsequent courses that have prerequisite competencies from the course) prepares a list of course objectives and a student survey designed to gauge the students’ perception of their attainment of the course objectives. The team identifies the mapping of course objectives to Outcome competencies. The team reviews the course objectives and mapping each spring or more often if review is requested by faculty teaching the course. Target: Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Every semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Instructor
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Course Objects/Student Survey Summary of Findings: The results of the student survey and portfolios of typical student work are included with the course report. The portfolios consists of all of the exercises and exams for at least three students – one excellent (A) student, one average (B-C) student and one poor (D-F) student – is included in the course report. The student survey results and portfolios in the course reports are used in the course review and evaluation of the appropriate competencies for Program Outcomes A-K/L.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Program Rubrics Program level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Rubrics were identified for each A-K/L Outcome by the faculty. Each rubric is designed to assess one program outcome A-K/L and the extent that each program outcome was met was measured based on the course outcome competencies listed in each program outcome. Target: Student work
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year - Spring Semester
Findings for Program Rubrics Summary of Findings: The course student surveys allow us to capture the students’ input into the assessment process. The course artifacts provide the instructor’s measure of student competencies. The assessment team’s evaluation of the course artifacts and evaluation of each Outcome A-K/L gives us a measure of the effectiveness of our instruction and the extent to which students meet the set objectives and program outcomes.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Page 10 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Key/Responsible Personnel: Faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Recommendations : Needs fine tuning.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Senior Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: A survey of seniors in the CSE concentrations was developed to be given each spring in CPSC 490, a course that all senior CSE students must take as a capstone. The survey is administered through the class Blackboard site, assuring that each student takes the survey once. The survey consists of the Outcome competencies that broadly measure the effectiveness of our program. Each survey question is mapped to one or more competencies. The survey questions and the mapping of the questions to Outcome competencies is given in Appendix E. The results of the survey are used in the faculty evaluation of all Outcomes A-K/L at the end of the spring semester. Target: Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year when CPSC 490 is taught
Key/Responsible Personnel: Instructor
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Senior Survey Summary of Findings: A survey of seniors in the CS concentrations was developed to be given each spring in CPSC 490, a course that all senior CS students must take as a capstone, ensuring that each student is surveyed once and only once. The plan was that after the instructor of CPSC 490 administered the survey, the Assessment Committee would perform an initial collation and evaluation of the results, which would then be discussed each fall in the pre-semester retreat for all CSE faculty. Changes, additions, and emphases of the program may be altered based on these results. The form was designed to make it numerically scorable, and therefore facilitate the evaluation of trends, areas needing improvement, and effects of changes from year to year. The Outcomes section of the survey has both “scored” responses and space for seniors to comment. All surveys and results will be available for inspection by future accreditation teams. A copy of the survey given to seniors in Spring 2008 is included in Appendix B-4-6-b, along with graphs of the results of the 2008 and 2009 administrations of the survey. In 2009, the survey was altered to reflect the newly approved outcomes for the ISA programs and for the Scientific Applications and Software Systems concentrations in the department; since these were the first officially approved outcomes for the ISA program, the 2008 results for the outcomes for the two other concentrations in the department are not shown. The survey was also converted to a web format for easier administration and easier collation and comparison of results from multiple years. Results from both 2008 and 2009 surveys are discussed in the “Assessment Results” section of Appendix B-4-3. This survey will continue to be refined, and will continue to be administered in the senior capstone course each spring, to make sure that each student takes it only once, and when he or she is close to graduation.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Needs refining.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome F
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Alumni Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: The survey of alumni is the primary means of measuring the opinions of the alumni on how well the outcomes were achieved at the time of graduation, from a more mature perspective, provide a valuable indicator of outcomes as well. The survey is a contneous online survey with enough security parameters to allow only legitimate alumni. Target: Program alumni
Implementation Plan (timeline): Online - ongoing.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Assessment committee
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Alumni Survey Summary of Findings: The survey of alumni was initiated in spring 2008, and was planned to take place each spring semester. It was planned that graduates would be surveyed three years after graduation to give them a chance to become fully functioning Computer Science professionals, and each graduate would be surveyed only once. The survey conducted spring 2008, of 2005 graduates, was to serve as a baseline against which future results would be compared. Many of the same questions (e.g., regarding successful fulfillment of Outcomes) were asked on both the alumni survey and the senior survey. However, it was thought that the three years of professional practice between the two should give the graduate a more mature perspective, and a much more realistic assessment of how well this program actually prepared him or her for the profession – for this reason, the alumni survey would be useful in assessing fulfillment of both the Outcomes and the Objective of the program. The survey also included questions regarding such issues as continuing education, what the graduate now most wishes had been taught,
Page 11 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
commitment to lifelong learning (which is especially critical in the Computer Science profession) and strengths and weaknesses of the program. Some objective information, such as rates of graduate school acceptance and increasing levels of responsibility of alumni, could also be collected using this instrument. The surveys would also be used in the periodic assessment of the mission and objective, and in determining how well our outcomes imply our objective of preparing the student for successful practice of the Computer Science profession. As with the senior survey, in 2009, the survey was altered to reflect the newly approved outcomes for the ISA programs and for the Scientific Applications and Software Systems concentrations in the department; since these were the first officially approved outcomes for the ISA program, the 2008 results for the outcomes for the two other concentrations in the department are not shown. The survey was also converted to a web format for easier administration and easier collation, and comparison of results from multiple years. Results: Target Achievement: Met Recommendations : Recommendations : This survey will continue to be refined, and will continue to be administered each spring. The initial plan was for each student to be surveyed only once, three years after graduation, but with the web application, alumni from more than one graduation year responded. How this should be handled will be addressed by the Assessment Committee in the 2009-10 school year. Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Course Objects/Student Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: For each core course a team composed of those faculty who have special expertise with the course (they have taught the course or subsequent courses that have prerequisite competencies from the course) prepares a list of course objectives and a student survey designed to gauge the students’ perception of their attainment of the course objectives. The team identifies the mapping of course objectives to Outcome competencies. The team reviews the course objectives and mapping each spring or more often if review is requested by faculty teaching the course. Target: Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Every semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Instructor
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Course Objects/Student Survey Summary of Findings: The results of the student survey and portfolios of typical student work are included with the course report. The portfolios consists of all of the exercises and exams for at least three students – one excellent (A) student, one average (B-C) student and one poor (D-F) student – is included in the course report. The student survey results and portfolios in the course reports are used in the course review and evaluation of the appropriate competencies for Program Outcomes A-K/L.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Industrial Advisory Board/Employers Contacts survey/ Program level; Indirect - Focus Group
Details/Description: Informal industry and employer interactions and inputs have always been part of the program. These encounters include informal focus groups with a few faculty members, faculty consulting, student internships, IEEE participation, and the College of Engineering and Computer Science Industrial Advisory Board (IAB). The College Industrial Advisory Board has been in place for many years, but is more focused on Engineering than Computer Science. The CSE department has established a departmental Industrial Advisory Board to provide more specific feedback on the needs of local industry related to our programs and the performance of our graduates whom they have employed.
Findings for Industrial Advisory Board/Employers Contacts survey/ Summary of Findings: The board was established in fall 2007, and the first meeting of the board took place on January 24, 2008, and at least one meeting has taken place in each semester since that time. A prйcis of the board meeting is included in the “Assessment Results” section of Appendix B-4-3. All minutes of the meetings with the advisory board will be available for inspection by the members of the ABET team at the time of the fall visit. The evolution of the department assessment processes has led to the establishment of Reading Day, the day between the last day of classes and the first day of exams in each semester, as the regularly scheduled meeting of the Advisory Board with the department
Page 12 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Target: Program
Implementation Plan (timeline): Twice a year
Key/Responsible Personnel: Head of Department
Supporting Attachments:
faculty, giving two regularly scheduled meetings each school year. However, in the event of special needs, additional meetings with the board will be scheduled. The members of the advisory board have demonstrated a strong commitment to supporting our programs now and in the future.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : More informal meetings
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Program Rubrics Program level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Rubrics were identified for each A-K/L Outcome by the faculty. Each rubric is designed to assess one program outcome A-K/L and the extent that each program outcome was met was measured based on the course outcome competencies listed in each program outcome. Target: Student work
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year - Spring Semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Program Rubrics Summary of Findings: The course student surveys allow us to capture the students’ input into the assessment process. The course artifacts provide the instructor’s measure of student competencies. The assessment team’s evaluation of the course artifacts and evaluation of each Outcome A-K/L gives us a measure of the effectiveness of our instruction and the extent to which students meet the set objectives and program outcomes.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : needs fine tuning,
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Senior Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: A survey of seniors in the CSE concentrations was developed to be given each spring in CPSC 490, a course that all senior CSE students must take as a capstone. The survey is administered through the class Blackboard site, assuring that each student takes the survey once. The survey consists of the Outcome competencies that broadly measure the effectiveness of our program. Each survey question is mapped to one or more competencies. The survey questions and the mapping of the questions to Outcome competencies is given in Appendix E. The results of the survey are used in the faculty evaluation of all Outcomes A-K/L at the end of the spring semester. Target: Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year when CPSC 490 is taught.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Instructor
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Senior Survey Summary of Findings: A survey of seniors in the CS concentrations was developed to be given each spring in CPSC 490, a course that all senior CS students must take as a capstone, ensuring that each student is surveyed once and only once. The plan was that after the instructor of CPSC 490 administered the survey, the Assessment Committee would perform an initial collation and evaluation of the results, which would then be discussed each fall in the pre-semester retreat for all CSE faculty. Changes, additions, and emphases of the program may be altered based on these results. The form was designed to make it numerically scorable, and therefore facilitate the evaluation of trends, areas needing improvement, and effects of changes from year to year. The Outcomes section of the survey has both “scored” responses and space for seniors to comment. All surveys and results will be available for inspection by future accreditation teams. A copy of the survey given to seniors in Spring 2008 is included in Appendix B-4-6-b, along with graphs of the results of the 2008 and 2009 administrations of the survey. In 2009, the survey was altered to reflect the newly approved outcomes for the ISA programs and for the Scientific Applications and Software Systems concentrations in the department; since these were the first officially approved outcomes for the ISA program, the 2008 results for the outcomes for the two other concentrations in the department are not shown. The survey was also converted to a web format for easier administration and easier collation and comparison of results from multiple years. Results from both 2008 and 2009 surveys are discussed in the “Assessment Results” section of Appendix B-4-3. This survey will continue to be refined, and will continue to be administered in the senior capstone course each spring, to make sure that each student takes it only once, and when he or she is close to graduation.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Needs more fine tuning.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome G
Page 13 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Course Objects/Student Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: For each core course a team composed of those faculty who have special expertise with the course (they have taught the course or subsequent courses that have prerequisite competencies from the course) prepares a list of course objectives and a student survey designed to gauge the students’ perception of their attainment of the course objectives. The team identifies the mapping of course objectives to Outcome competencies. The team reviews the course objectives and mapping each spring or more often if review is requested by faculty teaching the course. Target: Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Every semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Instructor
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Course Objects/Student Survey Summary of Findings: The results of the student survey and portfolios of typical student work are included with the course report. The portfolios consists of all of the exercises and exams for at least three students – one excellent (A) student, one average (B-C) student and one poor (D-F) student – is included in the course report. The student survey results and portfolios in the course reports are used in the course review and evaluation of the appropriate competencies for Program Outcomes A-K/L.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Program Rubrics Program level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Rubrics were identified for each A-K/L Outcome by the faculty. Each rubric is designed to assess one program outcome A-K/L and the extent that each program outcome was met was measured based on the course outcome competencies listed in each program outcome. Target: Student work
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year - Spring Semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Program Rubrics Summary of Findings: The course student surveys allow us to capture the students’ input into the assessment process. The course artifacts provide the instructor’s measure of student competencies. The assessment team’s evaluation of the course artifacts and evaluation of each Outcome A-K/L gives us a measure of the effectiveness of our instruction and the extent to which students meet the set objectives and program outcomes.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Needs fine tuning.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Senior Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: Details/Description: A survey of seniors in the CSE concentrations was developed to be given each spring in CPSC 490, a course that all senior CSE students must take as a capstone. The survey is administered through the class Blackboard site, assuring that each student takes the survey once. The survey consists of the Outcome competencies that broadly measure the effectiveness of our program. Each survey question is mapped to one or more competencies. The survey questions and the mapping of the questions to Outcome competencies is given in Appendix E. The results of the survey are used in the faculty evaluation of all Outcomes A-K/L at the end of the spring semester.
Target: Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year when CPSC 490 is taught
Key/Responsible Personnel: Instructor
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Senior Survey Summary of Findings: A survey of seniors in the CS concentrations was developed to be given each spring in CPSC 490, a course that all senior CS students must take as a capstone, ensuring that each student is surveyed once and only once. The plan was that after the instructor of CPSC 490 administered the survey, the Assessment Committee would perform an initial collation and evaluation of the results, which would then be discussed each fall in the pre-semester retreat for all CSE faculty. Changes, additions, and emphases of the program may be altered based on these results. The form was designed to make it numerically scorable, and therefore facilitate the evaluation of trends, areas needing improvement, and effects of changes from year to year. The Outcomes section of the survey has both “scored” responses and space for seniors to comment. All surveys and results will be available for inspection by future accreditation teams. A copy of the survey given to seniors in Spring 2008 is included in Appendix B-4-6-b, along with graphs of the results of the 2008 and 2009 administrations of the survey. In 2009, the survey was altered to reflect the newly approved outcomes for the ISA programs and for the Scientific Applications and Software Systems concentrations in the department; since these were the first officially approved outcomes for the ISA program, the 2008 results for the outcomes for the two other concentrations in the department are not shown. The survey was also converted to a web format for easier administration and easier collation and comparison of results from multiple years. Results from both 2008 and 2009 surveys are discussed in the “Assessment Results” section of Appendix B-4-3. This survey will continue to be refined, and will continue to be
Page 14 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
administered in the senior capstone course each spring, to make sure that each student takes it only once, and when he or she is close to graduation.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Needs more fine tuning.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome H
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Alumni Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: The survey of alumni is the primary means of measuring the opinions of the alumni on how well the outcomes were achieved at the time of graduation, from a more mature perspective, provide a valuable indicator of outcomes as well. The survey is a contneous online survey with enough security parameters to allow only legitimate alumni.
Target: Program alumni
Implementation Plan (timeline): Online - ongoing.
Key/Responsible Personnel: Assessment committee
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Alumni Survey Summary of Findings: The survey of alumni was initiated in spring 2008, and was planned to take place each spring semester. It was planned that graduates would be surveyed three years after graduation to give them a chance to become fully functioning Computer Science professionals, and each graduate would be surveyed only once. The survey conducted spring 2008, of 2005 graduates, was to serve as a baseline against which future results would be compared. Many of the same questions (e.g., regarding successful fulfillment of Outcomes) were asked on both the alumni survey and the senior survey. However, it was thought that the three years of professional practice between the two should give the graduate a more mature perspective, and a much more realistic assessment of how well this program actually prepared him or her for the profession – for this reason, the alumni survey would be useful in assessing fulfillment of both the Outcomes and the Objective of the program. The survey also included questions regarding such issues as continuing education, what the graduate now most wishes had been taught, commitment to lifelong learning (which is especially critical in the Computer Science profession) and strengths and weaknesses of the program. Some objective information, such as rates of graduate school acceptance and increasing levels of responsibility of alumni, could also be collected using this instrument. The surveys would also be used in the periodic assessment of the mission and objective, and in determining how well our outcomes imply our objective of preparing the student for successful practice of the Computer Science profession. As with the senior survey, in 2009, the survey was altered to reflect the newly approved outcomes for the ISA programs and for the Scientific Applications and Software Systems concentrations in the department; since these were the first officially approved outcomes for the ISA program, the 2008 results for the outcomes for the two other concentrations in the department are not shown. The survey was also converted to a web format for easier administration and easier collation, and comparison of results from multiple years. Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Recommendations : Recommendations : This survey will continue to be refined, and will continue to be administered each spring. The initial plan was for each student to be surveyed only once, three years after graduation, but with the web application, alumni from more than one graduation year responded. How this should be handled will be addressed by the Assessment Committee in the 2009-10 school year. Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Program Rubrics Program level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Rubrics were identified for each
Findings for Program Rubrics Summary of Findings: The course student surveys
Page 15 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
A-K/L Outcome by the faculty. Each rubric is designed to assess one program outcome A-K/L and the extent that each program outcome was met was measured based on the course outcome competencies listed in each program outcome.
Target: Student work
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year - Spring Semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Faculty
Supporting Attachments:
allow us to capture the students’ input into the assessment process. The course artifacts provide the instructor’s measure of student competencies. The assessment team’s evaluation of the course artifacts and evaluation of each Outcome A-K/L gives us a measure of the effectiveness of our instruction and the extent to which students meet the set objectives and program outcomes.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Needs fine tuning.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Senior Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: A survey of seniors in the CSE concentrations was developed to be given each spring in CPSC 490, a course that all senior CSE students must take as a capstone. The survey is administered through the class Blackboard site, assuring that each student takes the survey once. The survey consists of the Outcome competencies that broadly measure the effectiveness of our program. Each survey question is mapped to one or more competencies. The survey questions and the mapping of the questions to Outcome competencies is given in Appendix E. The results of the survey are used in the faculty evaluation of all Outcomes A-K/L at the end of the spring semester.
Target: Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year when CPSC 490 is taught
Key/Responsible Personnel: Instructor
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Senior Survey Summary of Findings: A survey of seniors in the CS concentrations was developed to be given each spring in CPSC 490, a course that all senior CS students must take as a capstone, ensuring that each student is surveyed once and only once. The plan was that after the instructor of CPSC 490 administered the survey, the Assessment Committee would perform an initial collation and evaluation of the results, which would then be discussed each fall in the pre-semester retreat for all CSE faculty. Changes, additions, and emphases of the program may be altered based on these results. The form was designed to make it numerically scorable, and therefore facilitate the evaluation of trends, areas needing improvement, and effects of changes from year to year. The Outcomes section of the survey has both “scored” responses and space for seniors to comment. All surveys and results will be available for inspection by future accreditation teams. A copy of the survey given to seniors in Spring 2008 is included in Appendix B-4-6-b, along with graphs of the results of the 2008 and 2009 administrations of the survey. In 2009, the survey was altered to reflect the newly approved outcomes for the ISA programs and for the Scientific Applications and Software Systems concentrations in the department; since these were the first officially approved outcomes for the ISA program, the 2008 results for the outcomes for the two other concentrations in the department are not shown. The survey was also converted to a web format for easier administration and easier collation and comparison of results from multiple years. Results from both 2008 and 2009 surveys are discussed in the “Assessment Results” section of Appendix B-4-3. This survey will continue to be refined, and will continue to be administered in the senior capstone course each spring, to make sure that each student takes it only once, and when he or she is close to graduation.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Needs fine tuning.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome I
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Alumni Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: The survey of alumni is the primary means of measuring the opinions of the alumni on how well the outcomes were achieved at the time of graduation, from a more mature perspective, provide a valuable indicator of outcomes as well. The survey is a contneous online survey with enough security parameters to allow only legitimate alumni. Target: Program alumni
Implementation Plan (timeline): Online - ongoing
Findings for Alumni Survey Summary of Findings: The survey of alumni was initiated in spring 2008, and was planned to take place each spring semester. It was planned that graduates would be surveyed three years after graduation to give them a chance to become fully functioning Computer Science professionals, and each graduate would be surveyed only once. The survey conducted spring 2008, of 2005 graduates, was to serve as a baseline against which future results would be compared. Many of the same questions (e.g., regarding successful fulfillment of Outcomes) were asked on both the alumni survey and
Page 16 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Key/Responsible Personnel: Assessment committee
Supporting Attachments:
the senior survey. However, it was thought that the three years of professional practice between the two should give the graduate a more mature perspective, and a much more realistic assessment of how well this program actually prepared him or her for the profession – for this reason, the alumni survey would be useful in assessing fulfillment of both the Outcomes and the Objective of the program. The survey also included questions regarding such issues as continuing education, what the graduate now most wishes had been taught, commitment to lifelong learning (which is especially critical in the Computer Science profession) and strengths and weaknesses of the program. Some objective information, such as rates of graduate school acceptance and increasing levels of responsibility of alumni, could also be collected using this instrument. The surveys would also be used in the periodic assessment of the mission and objective, and in determining how well our outcomes imply our objective of preparing the student for successful practice of the Computer Science profession. As with the senior survey, in 2009, the survey was altered to reflect the newly approved outcomes for the ISA programs and for the Scientific Applications and Software Systems concentrations in the department; since these were the first officially approved outcomes for the ISA program, the 2008 results for the outcomes for the two other concentrations in the department are not shown. The survey was also converted to a web format for easier administration and easier collation, and comparison of results from multiple years. Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Recommendations : Recommendations : This survey will continue to be refined, and will continue to be administered each spring. The initial plan was for each student to be surveyed only once, three years after graduation, but with the web application, alumni from more than one graduation year responded. How this should be handled will be addressed by the Assessment Committee in the 2009-10 school year. Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Course Objects/Student Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: For each core course a team composed of those faculty who have special expertise with the course (they have taught the course or subsequent courses that have prerequisite competencies from the course) prepares a list of course objectives and a student survey designed to gauge the students’ perception of their attainment of the course objectives. The team identifies the mapping of course objectives to Outcome competencies. The team reviews the course objectives and mapping each spring or more often if review is requested by faculty teaching the course.
Target: Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Every semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Instructor
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Course Objects/Student Survey Summary of Findings: The results of the student survey and portfolios of typical student work are included with the course report. The portfolios consists of all of the exercises and exams for at least three students – one excellent (A) student, one average (B-C) student and one poor (D-F) student – is included in the course report. The student survey results and portfolios in the course reports are used in the course review and evaluation of the appropriate competencies for Program Outcomes A-K/L.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Industrial Advisory Board/Employers Contacts Program level; Indirect - Focus Group
Details/Description: Informal industry and employer interactions and inputs have always been part of the program. These encounters include informal focus groups with a few faculty members, faculty consulting, student internships, IEEE participation, and the College of Engineering and
Findings for Industrial Advisory Board/Employers Contacts Summary of Findings: The board was established in fall 2007, and the first meeting of the board took place on January 24, 2008, and at least one meeting has taken place in each semester since that time. A prйcis of the board meeting is included in the “Assessment Results” section of Appendix B-4-3. All minutes of the meetings with the advisory board will be available for inspection by
Page 17 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Computer Science Industrial Advisory Board (IAB). The College Industrial Advisory Board has been in place for many years, but is more focused on Engineering than Computer Science. The CSE department has established a departmental Industrial Advisory Board to provide more specific feedback on the needs of local industry related to our programs and the performance of our graduates whom they have employed. Target: Program
Implementation Plan (timeline): Twice a year
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
the members of the ABET team at the time of the fall visit. The evolution of the department assessment processes has led to the establishment of Reading Day, the day between the last day of classes and the first day of exams in each semester, as the regularly scheduled meeting of the Advisory Board with the department faculty, giving two regularly scheduled meetings each school year. However, in the event of special needs, additional meetings with the board will be scheduled. The members of the advisory board have demonstrated a strong commitment to supporting our programs now and in the future.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : More informal meetings
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MFT Program level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The Major Field Test is given to seniors every two years. The results from the three subsections (Programming, Discrete Structures and Algorithms and Systems) are also used in the faculty evaluation of all Outcomes A-K/L at the end of the spring semester.
Target: Program
Implementation Plan (timeline): Every 3 years
Key/Responsible Personnel: Head of Department
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for MFT Summary of Findings: The Computer Science Major Field Test was developed by the Educational Testing Service, the nonprofit organization behind such seminal, well-respected exams as the GRE, the SAT, and PRAXIS. The computer science test is a two-hour, multiple choice examination designed to test content knowledge in the areas of discrete structures (at least 15 percent), programming (at least 21 percent), algorithms and complexity (at least 16 percent), systems (at least 16 percent), software engineering (at least 3 percent), information management (at least 3 percent), and other topics such as intelligent systems, professional issues, and human computer interaction. Results are provided for individual test takers and for the university computer science program as a whole. Assessment indicators, in the form of average percentage of correct answers in particular content areas, supply feedback as to whether students in a program are having difficulty in a given subject area. In addition, a Comparative Data Guide is generated each year, which allows a program to compare its performance to that of the numerous other programs, ranging from small liberal arts college to large state research universities, which participate in the exam nationally. Information on the MFT is taken from www.ets.org, and more information may be found at this site. Due to cost constraints, this test was formerly given to graduating seniors only once every five years. However, due to a recognition of the need for more objective measurement of how well students in our program achieve outcomes and compare to those at other universities, it was agreed in 2008 that this test would be taken by graduating seniors every second year, beginning Spring 2008. The test covers Programming Fundamentals, Computer Organization and Architectures, Operating Systems, Algorithms, Computer Science Theory, and Computational Mathematics. Results of the test in the past have been used as an informal measure of program success, but no formal process was in place. For evaluation of results, a process was proposed by which the Assessment Committee would compare our students’ scores, as a group, to the national averages using a comparison of the number of standard deviations away from the national averages our students were in different categories. Any areas in which our students scored more than one standard deviation below the national mean would be brought to the attention of the full CSE faculty at the annual fall retreat for discussion. As the number of students currently in the program is small, setting percentage goals for scores at this point was thought to be impractical. However, each year, the evaluation results were to be examined for trends and evidence of weaknesses in the program by the
Page 18 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Assessment Committee, and appropriate recommendations will be made to the CSE faculty. As the number of students in the program increases, use of numerical targets would be reexamined.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Results of the test are given and compared to previous results
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Program Rubrics Program level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Rubrics were identified for each A-K/L Outcome by the faculty. Each rubric is designed to assess one program outcome A-K/L and the extent that each program outcome was met was measured based on the course outcome competencies listed in each program outcome.
Target: Student work
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year - Spring Semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Program Rubrics Summary of Findings: The course student surveys allow us to capture the students’ input into the assessment process. The course artifacts provide the instructor’s measure of student competencies. The assessment team’s evaluation of the course artifacts and evaluation of each Outcome A-K/L gives us a measure of the effectiveness of our instruction and the extent to which students meet the set objectives and program outcomes.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Needs fine tuning.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Senior Survey Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: A survey of seniors in the CSE concentrations was developed to be given each spring in CPSC 490, a course that all senior CSE students must take as a capstone. The survey is administered through the class Blackboard site, assuring that each student takes the survey once. The survey consists of the Outcome competencies that broadly measure the effectiveness of our program. Each survey question is mapped to one or more competencies. The survey questions and the mapping of the questions to Outcome competencies is given in Appendix E. The results of the survey are used in the faculty evaluation of all Outcomes A-K/L at the end of the spring semester.
Target: Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year when CPSC 490 is taught
Key/Responsible Personnel: Instructor
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Senior Survey Summary of Findings: A survey of seniors in the CS concentrations was developed to be given each spring in CPSC 490, a course that all senior CS students must take as a capstone, ensuring that each student is surveyed once and only once. The plan was that after the instructor of CPSC 490 administered the survey, the Assessment Committee would perform an initial collation and evaluation of the results, which would then be discussed each fall in the pre-semester retreat for all CSE faculty. Changes, additions, and emphases of the program may be altered based on these results. The form was designed to make it numerically scorable, and therefore facilitate the evaluation of trends, areas needing improvement, and effects of changes from year to year. The Outcomes section of the survey has both “scored” responses and space for seniors to comment. All surveys and results will be available for inspection by future accreditation teams. A copy of the survey given to seniors in Spring 2008 is included in Appendix B-4-6-b, along with graphs of the results of the 2008 and 2009 administrations of the survey. In 2009, the survey was altered to reflect the newly approved outcomes for the ISA programs and for the Scientific Applications and Software Systems concentrations in the department; since these were the first officially approved outcomes for the ISA program, the 2008 results for the outcomes for the two other concentrations in the department are not shown. The survey was also converted to a web format for easier administration and easier collation and comparison of results from multiple years. Results from both 2008 and 2009 surveys are discussed in the “Assessment Results” section of Appendix B-4-3. This survey will continue to be refined, and will continue to be administered in the senior capstone course each spring, to make sure that each student takes it only once, and when he or she is close to graduation.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Needs fine tuning.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Outcome J
Page 19 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
CAAP Program level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: Portions of the CAAP test are required of all graduates of UTC. Students are randomly chosen to take different modules of the test: Reading, Writing Skills, Writing Essay, Mathematics, Science, Critical Thinking. The results of each graduating class on these test modules are used in the faculty evaluation of all Outcomes A-K/L at the end of the spring semester. Target: Senior Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for CAAP Summary of Findings: All UTC graduating seniors are required to take the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP),, which provides measures of student General Education achievement. The CAAP, developed by the ACT organization, is a standardized, nationally-normed test which measures proficiency of five elements of UTC’s general education program. ACT is a nonprofit corporation, founded in 1959, which offers a wide variety of assessment instruments and services, including the ACT test required by many colleges and universities for admission. More information on the CAAP test may be found at http://www.act.org/caap/, which is the source of the information in this report. As described on the web site http://www.utc.edu/Administration/PlanningEvaluationAndInstitutionalResearch/caap.php, graduating seniors are required to take the CAAP test as a condition of graduation from UTC, but each student is randomly assigned to be tested in only one of the five areas: writing skills, mathematics, reading, science, and critical thinking. Results are reported for the Computer Science program, the College of Engineering and Computer Science, and UTC as a whole, allowing comparisons among majors at UTC. National statistics also allow comparison of UTC students’ level of proficiency with that of students in a variety of universities across the United States. The original plan was that CS majors would be compared to all college majors, then all UTC students, then to national averages. However, the small number of CS graduates makes this impracticable. It would take a minimum of five graduates to have even one student taking each section of the test, and since students are randomly assigned to sections, having five students take the test would not insure that each section would provide a even a single result. This would not allow any results obtained to be statistically significant. Even looking at graduates of the college of Engineering and Computer Science still provides a very small sample size. However, since our students take the same general education courses as the other students at UTC, and since our students are, based on incoming qualifications, at least as well qualified as those in other majors, we feel justified in examining the performance of UTC students as compared to national norms, and extrapolating those results to our CS majors, to provide one measure of how well the outcomes covered by this test are met by our students. These results are not the only measure we apply, but since our other measures, such as surveys, are subjective, this objective measure has been retained, although it is imperfect. We will continue to use the information which CAAP provides, while continuing to search for any additional objective measures of this content. The results currently available are those of the 2008 and 2009 exams.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : We need to give this exam more frequently.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
MFT Program level; Direct - Exam
Details/Description: The Major Field Test is given to seniors every two years. The results from the three subsections (Programming, Discrete Structures and Algorithms and Systems) are also used in the faculty evaluation of all Outcomes A-K/L at the end of the spring semester. Target: senior Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Every 3 years
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for MFT Summary of Findings: The Computer Science Major Field Test was developed by the Educational Testing Service, the nonprofit organization behind such seminal, well-respected exams as the GRE, the SAT, and PRAXIS. The computer science test is a two-hour, multiple choice examination designed to test content knowledge in the areas of discrete structures (at least 15 percent), programming (at least 21 percent), algorithms and complexity (at least 16 percent), systems (at least 16 percent), software engineering (at least 3 percent), information management (at least 3 percent), and other topics such as intelligent systems, professional issues, and human computer interaction. Results are provided for individual test takers and for the university computer science program as a whole. Assessment indicators, in the form of average percentage of correct answers in particular content areas, supply feedback as to whether students in a program are having difficulty in a given subject area. In addition, a Comparative Data Guide is generated each year, which allows a program to compare its performance to that of the numerous other programs, ranging from small liberal arts college to large state research universities, which participate in the exam nationally. Information on the MFT is taken from www.ets.org, and more information may be found at this site. Due to cost constraints, this test was formerly given to graduating seniors only once every five years. However, due to a recognition of the need for more objective measurement of how well students in our program achieve outcomes and compare to those at other universities, it was agreed in 2008 that this test would be taken by graduating seniors every second year, beginning Spring 2008. The test covers Programming Fundamentals, Computer Organization and Architectures, Operating Systems, Algorithms, Computer Science Theory, and Computational Mathematics. Results of the test in the past have been used as an informal measure of program success, but no formal process was in place. For evaluation of results, a process was proposed by which the Assessment Committee would compare our students’ scores, as a group, to the national averages using a comparison of the number of standard deviations away from
Page 20 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
the national averages our students were in different categories. Any areas in which our students scored more than one standard deviation below the national mean would be brought to the attention of the full CSE faculty at the annual fall retreat for discussion. As the number of students currently in the program is small, setting percentage goals for scores at this point was thought to be impractical. However, each year, the evaluation results were to be examined for trends and evidence of weaknesses in the program by the Assessment Committee, and appropriate recommendations will be made to the CSE faculty. As the number of students in the program increases, use of numerical targets would be reexamined.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Results of the test are given and compared to previous results
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Program Rubrics Program level; Direct - Student Artifact
Details/Description: Rubrics were identified for each A-K/L Outcome by the faculty. Each rubric is designed to assess one program outcome A-K/L and the extent that each program outcome was met was measured based on the course outcome competencies listed in each program outcome. Target: All Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Every semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Program Rubrics Summary of Findings: The course student surveys allow us to capture the students’ input into the assessment process. The course artifacts provide the instructor’s measure of student competencies. The assessment team’s evaluation of the course artifacts and evaluation of each Outcome A-K/L gives us a measure of the effectiveness of our instruction and the extent to which students meet the set objectives and program outcomes.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Needs fine tuning.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Student/Course Survey Course level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: For each core course a team composed of those faculty who have special expertise with the course (they have taught the course or subsequent courses that have prerequisite competencies from the course) prepares a list of course objectives and a student survey designed to gauge the students’ perception of their attainment of the course objectives. The team identifies the mapping of course objectives to Outcome competencies. The team reviews the course objectives and mapping each spring or more often if review is requested by faculty teaching the course.
Findings for Student/Course Survey Summary of Findings: The results of the student survey and portfolios of typical student work are included with the course report. The portfolios consists of all of the exercises and exams for at least three students – one excellent (A) student, one average (B-C) student and one poor (D-F) student – is included in the course report. The student survey results and portfolios in the course reports are used in the course review and evaluation of the appropriate competencies for Program Outcomes A-K/L.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Page 21 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Target: All students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Every semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
Outcome K
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Alumni Survey Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: The survey of alumni is the primary means of measuring the opinions of the alumni on how well the outcomes were achieved at the time of graduation, from a more mature perspective, provide a valuable indicator of outcomes as well. The survey is a contneous online survey with enough security parameters to allow only legitimate alumni.
Target: Alumni Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Online
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Alumni Survey Summary of Findings: The survey of alumni was initiated in spring 2008, and was planned to take place each spring semester. It was planned that graduates would be surveyed three years after graduation to give them a chance to become fully functioning Computer Science professionals, and each graduate would be surveyed only once. The survey conducted spring 2008, of 2005 graduates, was to serve as a baseline against which future results would be compared. Many of the same questions (e.g., regarding successful fulfillment of Outcomes) were asked on both the alumni survey and the senior survey. However, it was thought that the three years of professional practice between the two should give the graduate a more mature perspective, and a much more realistic assessment of how well this program actually prepared him or her for the profession – for this reason, the alumni survey would be useful in assessing fulfillment of both the Outcomes and the Objective of the program. The survey also included questions regarding such issues as continuing education, what the graduate now most wishes had been taught, commitment to lifelong learning (which is especially critical in the Computer Science profession) and strengths and weaknesses of the program. Some objective information, such as rates of graduate school acceptance and increasing levels of responsibility of alumni, could also be collected using this instrument. The surveys would also be used in the periodic assessment of the mission and objective, and in determining how well our outcomes imply our objective of preparing the student for successful practice of the Computer Science profession. As with the senior survey, in 2009, the survey was altered to reflect the newly approved outcomes for the ISA programs and for the Scientific Applications and Software Systems concentrations in the department; since these were the first officially approved outcomes for the ISA program, the 2008 results for the outcomes for the two other concentrations in the department are not shown. The survey was also converted to a web format for easier administration and easier collation, and comparison of results from multiple years. Results: Target Achievement: Met Recommendations : Recommendations : This survey will continue to be refined, and will continue to be administered each spring. The initial plan was for each student to be surveyed only once, three years after graduation, but with the web application, alumni from more than one graduation year responded. How this should be handled will be addressed by the Assessment Committee in the 2009-10 school year. Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Course Objects/Student Survey Findings for Course Objects/Student Survey
Page 22 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Program level; Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: For each core course a team composed of those faculty who have special expertise with the course (they have taught the course or subsequent courses that have prerequisite competencies from the course) prepares a list of course objectives and a student survey designed to gauge the students’ perception of their attainment of the course objectives. The team identifies the mapping of course objectives to Outcome competencies. The team reviews the course objectives and mapping each spring or more often if review is requested by faculty teaching the course.
Target: Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Every semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Instructor
Supporting Attachments:
Summary of Findings: The results of the student survey and portfolios of typical student work are included with the course report. The portfolios consists of all of the exercises and exams for at least three students – one excellent (A) student, one average (B-C) student and one poor (D-F) student – is included in the course report. The student survey results and portfolios in the course reports are used in the course review and evaluation of the appropriate competencies for Program Outcomes A-K/L.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations :
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Industrial Advisory Board/Employers Contacts Program level; Indirect - Focus Group
Details/Description: Informal industry and employer interactions and inputs have always been part of the program. These encounters include informal focus groups with a few faculty members, faculty consulting, student internships, IEEE participation, and the College of Engineering and Computer Science Industrial Advisory Board (IAB). The College Industrial Advisory Board has been in place for many years, but is more focused on Engineering than Computer Science. The CSE department has established a departmental Industrial Advisory Board to provide more specific feedback on the needs of local industry related to our programs and the performance of our graduates whom they have employed. Target: Program
Implementation Plan (timeline): Twice a year
Key/Responsible Personnel: Dept. Head
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Industrial Advisory Board/Employers Contacts Summary of Findings: The board was established in fall 2007, and the first meeting of the board took place on January 24, 2008, and at least one meeting has taken place in each semester since that time. A prйcis of the board meeting is included in the “Assessment Results” section of Appendix B-4-3. All minutes of the meetings with the advisory board will be available for inspection by the members of the ABET team at the time of the fall visit. The evolution of the department assessment processes has led to the establishment of Reading Day, the day between the last day of classes and the first day of exams in each semester, as the regularly scheduled meeting of the Advisory Board with the department faculty, giving two regularly scheduled meetings each school year. However, in the event of special needs, additional meetings with the board will be scheduled. The members of the advisory board have demonstrated a strong commitment to supporting our programs now and in the future.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : More informal meetings.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Program Rubrics Program level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Rubrics were identified for each A-K/L Outcome by the faculty. Each rubric is designed to assess one program outcome A-K/L and the extent that each program outcome was met was measured based on the course outcome competencies listed in each program outcome.
Target: Student work
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year - Spring Semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Faculty
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Program Rubrics Summary of Findings: The course student surveys allow us to capture the students’ input into the assessment process. The course artifacts provide the instructor’s measure of student competencies. The assessment team’s evaluation of the course artifacts and evaluation of each Outcome A-K/L gives us a measure of the effectiveness of our instruction and the extent to which students meet the set objectives and program outcomes.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : Needs fine tuning.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Senior Survey Indirect - Survey
Details/Description: A survey of seniors in the CSE concentrations was developed to be given each spring in CPSC 490, a course that all senior CSE students must take as a capstone. The survey is administered through the class Blackboard site, assuring that each student takes the survey once. The survey consists of the Outcome competencies that broadly measure the
Findings for Senior Survey Summary of Findings: A survey of seniors in the CS concentrations was developed to be given each spring in CPSC 490, a course that all senior CS students must take as a capstone, ensuring that each student is surveyed once and only once. The plan was that after the instructor of CPSC 490 administered the survey, the Assessment Committee would perform an initial collation
Page 23 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
effectiveness of our program. Each survey question is mapped to one or more competencies. The survey questions and the mapping of the questions to Outcome competencies is given in Appendix E. The results of the survey are used in the faculty evaluation of all Outcomes A-K/L at the end of the spring semester.
Target: Students
Implementation Plan (timeline): Once a year when CPSC 490 is taught
Key/Responsible Personnel: Instructor
Supporting Attachments:
and evaluation of the results, which would then be discussed each fall in the pre-semester retreat for all CSE faculty. Changes, additions, and emphases of the program may be altered based on these results. The form was designed to make it numerically scorable, and therefore facilitate the evaluation of trends, areas needing improvement, and effects of changes from year to year. The Outcomes section of the survey has both “scored” responses and space for seniors to comment. All surveys and results will be available for inspection by future accreditation teams. A copy of the survey given to seniors in Spring 2008 is included in Appendix B-4-6-b, along with graphs of the results of the 2008 and 2009 administrations of the survey. In 2009, the survey was altered to reflect the newly approved outcomes for the ISA programs and for the Scientific Applications and Software Systems concentrations in the department; since these were the first officially approved outcomes for the ISA program, the 2008 results for the outcomes for the two other concentrations in the department are not shown. The survey was also converted to a web format for easier administration and easier collation and comparison of results from multiple years. Results from both 2008 and 2009 surveys are discussed in the “Assessment Results” section of Appendix B-4-3. This survey will continue to be refined, and will continue to be administered in the senior capstone course each spring, to make sure that each student takes it only once, and when he or she is close to graduation.
Target Achievement: Exceeded
Recommendations : Needs fine tuning.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Page 24 of 24Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Report: Assessment Plan Details for: Engineering: MS
Report Generated by TaskStream
Workspace: Academic Program Assessment
Assessment Plan: 2008-2009 Assessment Cycle: Assessment Plan and Assessment Findings
Assessment Plan Template: Academic Program Assessment
Report Generated: Friday, August 06, 2010
Measures and Findings
MS Engineering Outcome Set
Outcome
Fundamental Knowledge
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Fundamental Knowledge Course level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: There are 6 concentrations in the Engineering master's program, such as Chemical, Civil, Computational, Electrical, Industrial, and Mechanical. Graduate students are required to take 3-5 core graduate courses in their disciplines.
Target: 80% of students will make a minimum of B (3.0/4.0) in all core courses.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Each semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Instructor
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Fundamental Knowledge Summary of Findings: 80% of students passed their core courses with a minimum grade of B. Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : We would like to increase this ratio to 85% for next year.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Communication
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Communication Course level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Students need to communicate effectively in written and oral format with their classmates and instructor in each core course. Participation is an indication that students understand the concept of the course material. This will be evaluated using a combination of class interaction and peer evaluations that are used for group projects in core courses.
Target: 80% of students will get an average of 3.0/5.0 from their peer review evaluation.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Each semester
Key/Responsible Personnel:
Findings for Communication Summary of Findings: 80% of students got an average of 3.0/5.0 from their peer review evaluation. Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : We would like to increase this ratio to 85% for next year, and we are going to do this through by having stricter participation policy. Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Page 1 of 2Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...
Instructor
Supporting Attachments:
Research
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
Research Course level; Direct - Other
Details/Description: Students are required to write either a thesis or project by applying the engineering tools and techniques that they learned in the program and present it. Students must form a committee with an adviser and at least two committee members, one from the Department, and one from outside, and work with them throughout their thesis or project. Students performance is measured by grading their written report and using a checklist to measure their presentations.
Target: 90% of students will make a minimum 80/100 in their capstone checklist and written report.
Implementation Plan (timeline): Each semester
Key/Responsible Personnel: Thesis or Project Adviser and Committee
Supporting Attachments:
Findings for Research Summary of Findings: 90% of students made a minimum 80/100 in their their thesis or project checklist and written report.
Target Achievement: Met
Recommendations : We'd like to increase this ratio to 85/100 for 90% of students.
Notes :
Substantiating Evidence:
Diversity
Mapped to: No Mapping
Measures & Findings
No measures specified
Page 2 of 2Outcome Assessment Details
8/6/2010http://folio.taskstream.com/Folio/CIPReports/AMSReports_outcome_assessment_detail.asp...