weber state university annual assessment of evidence of ... annual... · 1 weber state university...

1

Weber State University Annual Assessment of Evidence of Learning

Cover Page Department/Program: Philosophy Academic Year of Report: 2011-2012 Date Submitted: October 5, 2012 Report author: Dr. Robert Fudge Contact Information: Dr. Robert Fudge Phone: x7046 Email: [email protected]

2

A. Brief Introductory Statement:

Please review the Introductory Statement and contact information for your department displayed on the assessment

site: http://www.weber.edu/portfolio/departments.html - if this information is current, please indicate as much. No further

information is needed. We will indicate “Last Reviewed: [current date]” on the page.

If the information is not current, please provide an update:

Information on website is current.

http://www.weber.edu/portfolio/departments.html

3

B. Mission Statement

Please review the Mission Statement for your department displayed on the assessment site:

http://www.weber.edu/portfolio/departments.html - if it is current, please indicate as much; we will mark the web page as “Last

Reviewed [current date]”. No further information is needed.

If the information is not current, please provide an update:

The philosophy program seeks to impart knowledge and skills that fall under the three following general categories: (1) Liberal Education: teaches the ideas of influential past and contemporary thinkers who have sought to understand the world and our experience of it. These ideas concern such topics as the nature of truth and reality, the limits of knowledge, standards of right and wrong, the experience of beauty, and world religions. (2) Methodology: emphasizes methods of sound practical reasoning, deductive logic, and language analysis. (3) Application: critically analyzes non-philosophical disciplines. For example, the philosophy of democracy analyzes the value assumptions behind democratic forms of government, while medical ethics seeks to identify and resolve dilemmas arising from conflicts between medical technology and the quality of life.


4

C. Student Learning Outcomes Please review the Student Learning Outcomes for your department displayed on the assessment site:

http://www.weber.edu/portfolio/departments.html - if they are current, please indicate as much; we will mark the web page as

“Last Reviewed [current date]”. No further information is needed.

If they are not current, please provide an update: Consistent with our mission, it is expected that students graduating with a B.A. from the program will have gained both “Knowledge Of” and “Knowledge How” with respect to philosophy. These expectations are delineated as follows*: Knowledge Of: Knowledge of philosophy is understood to consist of two distinct, though not mutually exclusive, subcategories—historical knowledge and topical knowledge.

1. Historical knowledge Familiarity with the basic ideas of at least three major historical figures, of whom the following are representative: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Mill, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Heidegger.

2. Topical knowledge An understanding of the basic issues and terminology in the following areas: logic, metaphysics or epistemology, and ethics or aesthetics.

Knowledge How: Students in the program should be able to demonstrate proficiency with each of the following skills:

1. Critical thinking: The ability to distinguish between and assess the strength of arguments and explanations. 2. Reading comprehension: The ability to explain, interpret, and evaluate philosophical texts. 3. Writing skills:

(a) The ability to present ideas clearly and with minimal grammatical and other writing errors. (b) The ability to conduct research in accordance with generally accepted standards within the discipline. (c) The ability to write in a way that reflects careful attention to language, logic, and subtleties of reasoning.

* All core courses have specific, measurable learning outcomes tied to these department goals.


5

D. Curriculum

Please review the Curriculum Grid for your department displayed on the assessment site:

http://www.weber.edu/portfolio/departments.html - if it is current, please indicate as much; we will mark the web page as “Last

Reviewed: [current data]”. No further information is needed.

If the curriculum grid is not current, please provide an update: Curriculum Map

Core Courses in Program Program Learning Outcomes

Kn

ow

led

ge o

f:

His

tori

cal

Kn

ow

led

ge o

f:

To

pic

al

Kn

ow

led

ge H

ow

: C

riti

cal T

hin

kin

g

Kn

ow

led

ge H

ow

: R

ead

ing

Co

m-

pre

hen

sio

n

Kn

ow

led

ge H

ow

: W

riti

ng

Skil

ls

PHIL HU1000 Introduction to Philosophy I I I I I PHIL HU1250 Critical Thinking E E E PHIL QL2200 Deductive Logic E PHIL 3010 History of Philosophy: Classical and Medieval

M E E E E

PHIL 3020 History of Philosophy: Modern M E E E E PHIL 3600 Ethical Theory M E E E PHIL 3650 Aesthetics M E E E PHIL 4510 Metaphysics M M M M PHIL 4520 Epistemology M M M M PHIL4900 Capstone Seminar M M M M Note: I= introduced, E = emphasized, M = mastered “Knowledge Of” Learning Outcomes: 1. Historical Knowledge


6

2. Topical Knowledge “Knowledge How” Learning Outcomes: 1. Critical Thinking 2. Reading Comprehension 3. Writing Skills

7

E. Assessment Plan Please review the Assessment Plan for your department displayed on the assessment site:

http://www.weber.edu/portfolio/departments.html - if the plan current, please indicate as much; we will mark the web page as

“Last Reviewed [current date]”. No further information is needed.

If the plan is not current, please provide an update: The site should contain an up-to-date assessment plan with planning going out a minimum of three years beyond the current

year. Please review the plan displayed for your department at the above site. The plan should include a list of courses from

which data will be gathered and the schedule, as well as an overview of the assessment strategy the department is using (for

example, portfolios, or a combination of Chi assessment data and student survey information, or industry certification exams,

etc.). Five Year Assessment Plan Each lower division core and gen ed course will be assessed annually. Each upper division core course will be assessed the first time it is taught, beginning fall 2012, and every other time thereafter, unless initial assessment results suggest additional assessment is necessary. The exception is PHIL4900, which we will continue to assess every spring. Upper division assessment will be conducted by means of a rubric that addresses each of the course learning outcomes and that can be applied to selected assignments (papers and exams) in student portfolios. Lower division courses will be assessed by means of embedded test questions and/or paper assignments.


8

Semester Core and Gen Ed Courses to be Assessed

PH

IL1

00

0 I

ntr

o t

o P

hil

oso

ph

y*

PH

IL1

12

0 C

on

tem

po

rary

Mo

ral

Pro

ble

ms*

*

PH

IL1

25

0 C

riti

cal T

hin

kin

g*

PH

IL2

20

0 D

edu

ctiv

e L

ogi

c***

PH

IL3

01

0 C

lass

ical

& M

edie

val

PH

IL3

02

0 M

od

ern

PH

IL3

60

0 E

thic

al T

heo

ry

PH

IL3

65

0 A

esth

etic

s

PH

IL4

51

0 M

etap

hys

ics

PH

IL4

52

0 E

pis

tem

olo

gy

PH

IL4

90

0 C

apst

on

e Se

min

ar

Fall 2012 X X X X Spring 2013 X X X X Fall 2013 X X X X Spring 2014 X X X X Fall 2014 X X Spring 2015 X X X Fall 2015 X X Spring 2016 X X X Fall 2016 X X X X Spring 2017 X X X X * Denotes a lower-division course that is assessed for both general education and course/department learning outcomes. ** Denotes a lower-division course that is assessed for only general education learning outcomes. *** Denotes a lower-division course that is assessed for only course/department learning outcomes.

9

F. Report of assessment results for the most previous academic year: There are a variety of ways in which departments can choose to show evidence of learning. This is one example. The critical pieces to include are 1) what learning outcome is being assessed, 2) what method of measurement was used, 3) what the threshold for ‘acceptable performance’ is for that measurement, 4) what the actual results of the assessment were, 5) how those findings are interpreted, and 6) what is the course of action to be taken based upon the interpretation.

a. Evidence of Learning: Courses within the Major (duplicate this page as needed)

Evidence of Learning: Courses within the Major PHIL 4900 Senior Capstone Seminar

Measurable Learning Outcome Students will…

Method of Measurement Direct and Indirect Measures*

Threshold for Evidence of Student Learning

Findings Linked to Learning Outcomes

Interpretation of Findings

Action Plan/Use of Results

Demonstrate an understanding of the basic issues and terminology in the following areas: logic, metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

Measure 1: Students complete a set of exams over ChiTester covering each of the four areas being assessed.

Measure 1: Each exam will be passed by at least 80% of students within two attempts of taking it.

Measure 1: Five out of five students taking the course in spring 2012 passed all the exams on the first attempt.

Measure 1: Students successfully demonstrated adequate understanding of issues and terminology in the four areas being tested.

Measure 1: No curricular or pedagogical changes needed at this time.

Measure 2: Students complete a Capstone paper on a topic of their choice.

Measure 2: At least 80% of students will successfully complete Capstone paper.

Measure 2: Five out of five students taking the course in spring 2012 passed the Capstone paper.

Measure 2: Students successfully demonstrated adequate understanding of topic on which they were writing.


10








Demonstrate the ability to distinguish between and assess the strength of arguments and explanations.

Measure 1: Reasoning skills evaluated in capstone paper on a topic of their choice.

Measure 1: At least 80% of students will demonstrate the ability to construct and defend plausible arguments in support of their main thesis.

Measure 1: Five out of five students taking the course in spring 2012 demonstrated the ability to construct and defend plausible arguments in support of their main thesis.

Measure 1: Students successfully demonstrated critical thinking skills.


Demonstrate the ability to explain, interpret, and evaluate philosophical texts.

Measure 1: Explicative, interpretive, and evaluative skills are evaluated in capstone paper on a topic of their choice.

Measure 1: At least 80% of students will demonstrate the ability to accurately explain, interpret, and evaluate philosophical texts.

Measure 1: Five out of five students taking the course in spring 2012 demonstrated the ability to accurately explain, interpret, and evaluate philosophical texts.

Measure 1: Students successfully demonstrated explicative, interpretive, and evaluative skills.


The ability to present ideas clearly and with minimal grammatical and other writing errors.

Measure 1: Writing skills assessed in capstone paper.

Measure 1: At least 80% of students will demonstrate the ability to present ideas clearly and with minimal grammatical and other writing errors.

Measure 1: Five out of five students taking the course in spring 2012 demonstrated the ability to present ideas clearly and with minimal grammatical and other writing errors.

Measure 1: Students successfully demonstrated the ability to present ideas clearly and with minimal grammatical and other writing errors.


The ability to conduct research in accordance with generally accepted standards within the discipline.

Measure 1: Students will demonstrate ability to research, document, and cite sources in capstone paper.

Measure 1: At least 80% of students will demonstrate the ability to research, document, and cite sources in capstone paper.

Measure 1: Five out of five students taking the course in spring 2012 demonstrated effective research skills.

Measure 1: Students successfully demonstrated effective research skills.


11








The ability to write in a way that reflects careful attention to language, logic, and subtleties of reasoning.

Measure 1: Writing skills assessed in capstone paper.

Measure 1: At least 80% of students will demonstrate the ability to present ideas clearly with careful attention to language, logic, and subtleties of reasoning.

Measure 1: Five out of five students taking the course in spring 2012 demonstrated the ability to present ideas clearly with careful attention to language, logic, and subtleties of reasoning.

Measure 1: Students successfully demonstrated the ability to present ideas clearly with careful attention to language, logic, and subtleties of reasoning.


*At least one measure per objective must be a direct measure; indirect measures may be used to supplement direct measure(s).

b. Evidence of Learning: High Impact or Service Learning (duplicate this page as needed) Department does not offer high impact or service learning courses. c. Evidence of Learning: General Education Courses (duplicate this page as needed or delete if department does not offer GE courses) Department did not assess general education courses during 2011-2012.

12

G. Summary of Artifact Collection Procedure

Artifact Learning Outcome Measured When/How Collected? Where Stored? Final Capstone Project Knowledge Of:

2. Topical knowledge

Knowledge How: 1. Critical thinking: 2. Reading comprehension 3. Writing skills

Paper or electronic copies collected by instructor at end of semester.

Copies stored by instructor, either in paper or electronic form.

Area Exams Knowledge Of: 2. Topical knowledge

Knowledge How: 1. Critical thinking:

Exams can be completed at any time during the semester.

Completed exams stored on ChiTester

Prior to fall 2012, the Senior Capstone Seminar was the nearly exclusive method used for program assessment. Students enrolled are required to complete a major writing project and four area exams. Beginning fall 2012, all core and gen ed courses will be assessed on a regular basis.

13

Please respond to the following questions.

1) Reflecting on this year’s assessment(s), how does the evidence of student learning impact your faculty’s confidence in the program being reviewed; how does that analysis change when compared with previous assessment evidence? To answer this question, compare evidence from prior years to the evidence from the current year. Discuss trends of evidence that increases your confidence in the strengths of the program. Also discuss trends of concern (e.g. students struggling to achieve particular student outcomes). This year’s assessment gives our faculty strong confidence that the program is imparting the knowledge and skills referenced in our learning outcomes. This analysis is consistent with prior years’ analyses, as we have consistently had a very high rate of success with students completing their senior capstone project and area exams.

2) With whom did you share the results of the year’s assessment efforts?

This year’s assessment efforts are being reported to Dr. Nancy Haanstad, Chair of the Department of Political Science and Philosophy, Dr. Frank Harrold, Dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, all philosophy faculty in the Department of Political Science and Philosophy, and Gial Niklason, head of assessment at Weber State University.

3) Based on your program’s assessment findings, what subsequent action will your program take?

This year’s assessment findings do not necessary any subsequent actions. However, as explained above, we will expand our assessment efforts considerably, beginning fall 2012.

weber state university annual assessment of evidence of ... annual... · 1 weber state university...

Documents