2018 Assessment

For this first year in which we have a major, and two graduating seniors in the major, we chose to assess our Learning Outcomes 2a,b,c at the advanced level. Final projects in WGST 330 and 490 were used for the following assessment.

Course: WGST 330 (S18, Roth)

Assignment evaluated: Final paper

LO Assessed: 2a&b

Rubric: 1 does not meet expectations

2 approaches expectations

3 satisfies expectations

4 exceeds expectations

Student papers ranked according to rubric:

C 1

R 3

T 4

J 2

A 3

C 4

M 1

Commentary:

Focusing on LO 2a & b, 2 students exceeded expectations (28.5%), 2 students satisfied expectations (28.5%), 1 student approached expectations (14%), and 2 students did not meet expectations (28.5%).

Some notes: The students who satisfied or exceeded expectations include one WGST major who graduated this year and one student who is not a declared WGST minor, but has completed substantial course-work for the minor. In addition, the student who approached expectations was a WGST concentrator. However, none of the other four students in the course are minoring, majoring, or concentrating in WGST (or at least, their plans to do so in the future are unclear). Also of note: regarding the two students whose papers did not satisfy expectations, one of the students failed to turn in a final paper at all, and thus failed the course.

In reflecting on these assessment results one issue for the WGST program to consider is the makeup of students who took the course and the question of how best to frame the course within our curriculum. For instance, only two students in the course were declared WGST majors, minors, or concentrators. In addition a number of students seemed to take this course early in their WGST e.g. as freshman or sophomores or as a senior with an unrelated major taking “a few WGST courses for fun.” Such students cannot reasonably be expected to produce mastery level work in feminist theory, and thus we might question whether the course ought to have a more demanding prerequisite.

Course: WGST 490/499 (S18, Blood)

Assignment evaluated: Final paper and presentation

LO Assessed: 2a,bmc

Rubric: 1 does not meet expectations

2 approaches expectations

3 satisfies expectations

4 exceeds expectations

Student essays ranked according to rubric:

TC 3

KM 4

EM 4

AM 1

JM 3

MM 2

CR 3

SS 4

TT 4

SW 2

Student presentations ranked for effectiveness

TC 3

KM 4

EM 4

AM 2

JM 4

MM 3

CR 3

SS 4

TT 4

SW 3

Commentary:

Of the ten students in the course, two are WGST majors, seven are WGST minors, and one is a WGST concentrator. For LO 1&2, 4 exceeded mastery, 3 met expectations, 2 approached expectations, and 1 failed to meet expectations.

Students ability to conduct research, synthesize ideas, and write persuasively upon entering the class had a strong effect on their final scores, as did the effort put in across the required steps, from proposing a thesis to revising their rough drafts. 1 student with a “3” would likely have achieved a 4 had she followed the required steps. Others, with 1’s and 2’s, repeatedly turned in late work or did not make the requested revisions. Is this senioritis or a lack of understanding of the level of work expected?

On the presentation, 5 exceeded expectations, 4 met expectations, and 1 approached expectations. Students put in more effort in synthesizing their material into a 12 minute presentation, with graphics, and attending to the level of their audience. I saw notes from dry run in class taken to heart virtually universally. Perhaps it’s the public nature of this requirement that motivated students more than on their essays? Perhaps because it’s a brief version of the work they did better? I was most please that a couple of students who were clearly nervous and fearful of public speaking in the dry run did outstanding work on GREAT Day.