Please enter information for 2 or 3 learning outcomes that your program assessed this year. At least one means of assessment for each outcome should be direct evidence (indirect evidence, for example, would be students' opinion of their learning). Please complete your posting by June 30, 2016.
Intended Student Learning Outcome #1 |
|---|
| 2. Demonstrate critical reading, writing and oral presentation skills. a. close reading skills to texts from multiple disciplines, historical eras and global cultures. b. Argue a thesis persuasively in writing, employing correct grammar and mechanics |
| Alignment with institutional mission and goals | Please type text in boxes below. They will expand as needed. |
|---|---|
| College Mission Reference | Mission: "rigorous curriculum" and "socially responsible." Values: learning civic responsibility, and (social) stewardship |
| Relevant College Planning Goal | Focuses on learning and student success are most applicable |
| Relevant Academic Affairs Planning Goal | |
| Relevant Program Goal | Graduating students should be able to find and synthesize information, from multiple disciplines, in order to draft an original thesis pertinent to women's and gender studies and argue it persuasively in writing. Graduating students should also have a basic fluency in the application of feminist theories. |
| First Means of Assessment | Please type text in boxes below. They will expand as needed. |
|---|---|
Procedures & Criterion for Success | We chose to assess the advanced level students' final essays in WGST 330 Feminist Theories and WGST 490 Senior Seminar. We applied the following rubric: 1 does not meet expectations 2 approaches expectations 3 satisfies expectations 4 exceeds expectations |
| Assessment Results | 17 students were assessed across two courses. 6 students achieved 4's; 5 earned 3's; 3 were rated as 2's; 3 were given 1's. |
| Reflection on Results | See below |
| Second Means of Assessment | Please type text in boxes below. They will expand as needed. |
|---|---|
Procedures & Criterion for Success | Share and compare results and discuss with faculty advisory committee. |
| Results | We find some students are highly motivated and some much less so across both sections. With less motivated seniors, we found that even low stakes steps to lead them to stronger final projects were sometimes simply ignored. |
| Reflection on Results | The students who satisfied or exceeded expectations in 330 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. Of the ten students in 490, 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? We will change the pre-requisites for WGST 330. Discussion will be ongoing, as this is the first year we have had a major. |
Intended Student Learning Outcome #2 |
|---|
| 2. Demonstrate critical reading, writing and oral presentation skills c. Share the results of research or a project in an oral presentation |
| Alignment with institutional mission and goals | Please type text in boxes below. They will expand as needed. |
|---|---|
| College Mission Reference | Mission: "rigorous curriculum" and "socially responsible." Values: learning civic responsibility, and (social) stewardship |
| Relevant College Planning Goal | Focuses on learning and student success are most applicable |
| Relevant Academic Affairs Planning Goal | |
| Relevant Program Goal | Graduating students should be able to effectively present their ideas in oral form, using appropriate rhetorical strategies, technology, and examples in different media to make their presentations persuasive. |
| First Means of Assessment | Please type text in boxes below. They will expand as needed. |
|---|---|
Procedures & Criterion for Success | We chose to assess the advanced level students' GREAT Day presentations WGST 490 Senior Seminar, 495 Internship, and 499 Directed Study capstone. We applied the following rubric: 1 does not meet expectations 2 approaches expectations 3 satisfies expectations 4 exceeds expectations |
| Results | Presentations were slightly more successful than essays: 11 students assessed: 5 at the 4 level, 5 at the 3 level, and 1 at the 2 level. |
| Reflection on Results | Students put in more effort in synthesizing their material into a 12 minute presentation, with graphics, and attending to the level of their audience than they did in general on their final essays. 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. |
| Second Means of Assessment | Please type text in boxes below. They will expand as needed. |
|---|---|
Procedures & Criterion for Success | |
| Results | |
| Reflection on Results |
Intended Student Learning Outcome #3 |
|---|
| Alignment with institutional mission and goals | Please type text in boxes below. They will expand as needed. |
|---|---|
| College Mission Reference | |
| Relevant College Planning Goal | |
| Relevant Academic Affairs Planning Goal | |
| Relevant Program Goal |
| First Means of Assessment | Please type text in boxes below. They will expand as needed. |
|---|---|
Procedures & Criterion for Success | |
| Results | |
| Reflection on Results |
| Second Means of Assessment | Please type text in boxes below. They will expand as needed. |
|---|---|
Procedures & Criterion for Success | |
| Results | |
| Reflection on Results |
Have you made, or are you considering, any program changes in light of results from your previous round of assessment? If so, please describe the changes below.
We did not have a previous round of assessment because this is the first year with a major. We have decided on one immediate change for WGST 330: it needs more pre-requisites. We will continue to monitor seniors' progress and formally assess lower level courses and another learning outcome next year.