Academic Degree Program Assessment

School of Arts and Sciences

Use of Results Report

SIS - BS International Studies

 

1. Please list the Program Outcomes which were met and briefly discuss these. 

Program Outcomes 1, 2, and 4 were achieved by all specified measures. In most cases, the performance criteria were not just met but significantly surpassed. (See Appendix for detailed information.)
Outcome 1. Articulate the ways in which commonality and diversity affect human behavior.
Outcome 2. Describe how historical, religious, economic, political, social, and spatial relationships develop, persist, and change.
Outcome 4. Critically analyze their own culture and relate that culture to local, national, and global social issues.

2. If any program outcomes were not met, please list these and discuss these in more detail.   

A. Program Outcome 5: Discern the ways in which science and technology affect and are affected by society and culture in an international context.
The following courses were not taught during the 2007-2008 academic year as a result of a major restructuring of the course rotation. (Required courses in the major were moved from an alternate-year to every-year basis starting with Fall 2008.):
PSYC 3101, POLS 2801, SIS 4100, STS 4000
As a result of this, both courses used to assess Program Outcome #5 (SIS 4100 and STS 4000) were out of the rotation for this year, and that Program Outcome was not assessed.

B. Program Outcome 3: Identify and analyze both contemporary and historical perspectives on contemporary issues.
This Outcome is to be assessed with data from POLS 2801 (not taught this academic year) and HIST 3801.
The number of majors earning a C or better in HIST 3801 significantly exceeded the performance criterion of 70%.
The results of learning outcome assessments were far less clear. The instructor used multiple assessments for each learning outcome, producing a wide range of values, with no clear pattern across the term.
Based on the instructor’s insightful written analysis of the data collected for this course, there were significant problems with the quality of the data collected for Learning Outcomes 1 & 2, and the problems there may be with the measures used, not with student performance. Learning Outcome 3 was achieved by 3 out of 5 measures (and very nearly by a fourth). Learning Outcome 4 was very clearly (nearly perfectly) achieved.
This program outcome must be considered insufficiently assessed rather than achieved. With data from both POLS 2801 and HIST 3801—and the opportunity to refine the data collection in HIST 3801 based on this years experience—much clearer conclusions will be possible in the 2008-2009 cycle.

C. Outcome 6: Comprehend, speak, read and write a language other than the first language at the level indicated by the USG Learning Outcomes for Languages at the 2002 level.
This outcome is to be assessed with data from FREN 2002 and SPAN 2002. There were data collection and reporting problems with FREN 2002, so only data for SPAN 2002 was available for analysis (with the exception of writing in the French course).
In Spanish, two of the four course learning outcomes (those focused on speaking and writing) were achieved at levels well above the performance criteria. This was also true for writing in French.
In Spanish, the performance criterion of 70% was very nearly achieved (69%), and will be achievable with minor adjustments.
Assessment results in Spanish revealed a serious deficiency in student mastery of listening skills (the fourth learning outcome). The class average was 58%, well below the 70% target.

D. Outcome 7: Demonstrate an understanding of the professional methodologies and ethical standards of international studies disciplines.
This outcome is to be assessed with data from SIS 1000 (the freshman orientation course) and STS 4800 (the senior capstone course).
This program outcome was achieved by every measure except the number of majors achieving a C or better in SIS 1000 (67% rather than 70%). There was also a very high drop rate in this required course in the major, and the instructor reports that those who failed generally did so because they stopped attending but did not drop the course. If the C-or-better statistic was based only on those who completed the course, the target would easily have been met.
This was the very first iteration of a new course created at the urging of our graduates (based on exit interview information). Departmental faculty also supported the creation of the SIS 1000 course, owing largely to the students' lack of preparation in the basic research, reading, and writing tasks that they would need later in the program.  The SIS 1000 instructor likewise found the students to be unprepared in these areas.
To begin to address these problems, the instructor will incorporate additional research, reading, and writing assignments. In addition, the Chair and the Major Coordinator will attempt to determine why so many students either dropped or simply disappeared from the class

3. Chairs: 
1. Please discuss how you think that or anticipate that these results might be used.

In a multi-disciplinary department such as ours, individual instructors (who serve as discipline specialists) play a very significant role in assessment and in guiding plans for improvement. This is especially the case with the language courses above, where Dr. Nuhfer-Halten has already instituted a number of changes (including a return to required Language Lab participation) to strengthen students’ listening skills across  the range of elementary and intermediate language courses. (Program Outcome 6.)

The departmental data (or lack thereof) for Program Outcomes 3, 5, and 6 underscored the need for an on-going effort in the department to improve the Individual Course Assessment Form, follow standardized reporting formats, and submit data and supporting documentation in a timely fashion.

2. Please note below when you are tentatively planning to discuss these results and the use of these results with your faculty and with others. 

Copies of this document and the supporting appendix are being submitted to the full-time faculty for review and discussion. This is part of a much broader process of continuous review and improvement.
This report represents the end of the first full cycle of this particular process for us, and many of the problems we have experienced this year have been the result of developing, implementing, and refining the process. Each of these steps have been taken in a spirit of collaborative work and commitment to our students and to improving the quality of our program.

4. Dates of Meetings:  Please list below the dates of meetings at which the use of assessment results was discussed and also briefly summarize the discussions and decisions.  

   Department meeting to develop ICA: 27 August 2007
   implementation required for Fall 2007
   Department retreat to develop assessment mechanisms: 14 September 2007
   development of overall assessment plan, initial development of individual components
   Follow-up meeting: 24 September 2007
   continued development of assessment plans and instruments
   Mandatory department meeting on assessment: 25 February 2008
   implementation of revised ICA
   Mandatory department meeting on assessment: 12 August 2008
   additional instruction on using the ICA; a result of data reporting problems in the previous iteration

 

 

 

Academic Degree Program Assessment (A&S)

Planning and Assessment Homepage