QUESTION: EducationB4

The Department of Accounting follows the policies and procedures of Central Washington University and the College of Business in assessing student perceptions of instructional effectiveness. The Student Evaluation of Instruction is administered in every section of every accounting course taught during the academic year.  

The accounting faculty believe that accounting students should be exposed to a variety of traditional and innovative teaching methods, as dictated by the skills and needs of both students and faculty. Thus, the use of innovative instructional methods is dispersed across the curriculum, but not universal. Accounting students trhough required or elective courses are exposed to the use of teams (ACCT 305, Cost Accounting), presentations and writing (ACCT 484, Professional Writing and Speaking for the Accountant), service learning (ACCT 492, Volunteer Income Tax Assistance), and projects (ACCT 455, Accounting Information Systems), as a means of mastering course content. 

The Chair and Administrative Staff review the curriculum each quarter as it is planned in order to maintain balance in the program and offer courses that allow for efficient progress toward the degree for students.  Faculty propose their teaching schedule based on needed contributions to the majors, sub-disciplines, general education curriculum, inter-disciplinary programs, and elective.  This is done in light of previous enrollment figures and faculty perceptions of subject areas that need strengthening.  For example, the need for a course in conservation from cultural and environmental perspectives is developing along several dimensions through the Anthropology, REM, Environmental Studies and Primate Behavior and Ecology programs.  A new course will be developed to address the needs of these programs.  A recent innovation of a similar kind is the new 3xx course in Environmental Issues, developed collaboratively and taught by Prof. Wood.
 
Department members McCutcheon and Andrews have been involved in the development of the American Indian Studies minor.  . Recent connections have been established based on the research and teaching interests of new faculty. For example, Lene Pedersen has established connections between visual anthropology and communications, with one cross-listed course (Visual Anthropology ANTH/COM 351). ANTH 440 Ecology and Culture, developed by Tracy Andrews is cross-listed with geography and resource management.  Anth 356 Gender Roles in Cross-Cultural Perspective and Anth 384 Language and Gender are cross-listed with Women’s Studies and Communications.  The need for Museum Studies courses to be expanded and offered at 3xx and 4xx levels can now be addressed with the addition of Prof. Wood to the Museum Studies and Anthropology programs as well as Resource Management.  This year we will hire a biological anthropologist who can develop courses in the emerging field of molecular genetics as it related to primate and human adaptation.  Need for this set of expertise emerged from the department wide discussion of our current capabilities, the advice of the three biological anthropologists and consultation with the Biology Department.  This new hire will support a crucial area of curriculum that is currently understaffed.

Periodic reviews of curriculum including syllabi, student evaluation of instructors, and end of program assessments. These actions are complemented by department,college, and university funded efforts at enhancing course delivery.

Appropriate assessment activities, including programmatic and student, are ongoing.  Fall 2007 the department completed the university-wide program and student learning outcomes plans as submitted to the AVP for Undergraduate studie and a follow-up report will be submitted in the spring 2008.

The Department of Aviation conducts weekly faculty/staff meetings. Any proposed assessment activities are discussed and responsibility for oversight of the activities is assigned. Timeframes are established; assigned personnel correspond with other faculty and staff as needed and are expected to report back to the Department Chair by the end of the timeframe.

The faculty of the Department of Biological Sciences regularly meet as specific departmental committees and smaller working groups. The Curriculum Committee has facilitated two faculty workshops over the past 4 years. These workshops lasted one to two days and involved all biology faculty. Issues such as course content, integration of key topics throughout the curricula, and coordination of content between courses were among the topics discussed.

Effectiveness of instruction is measured similarly for all courses and instructors. Effectiveness of methods, both innovative and traditional, used by each faculty member is under continuous self-evaluation.  During the last week of every course, including laboratories, each faculty member has a colleague or staff member administer a Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI).  Each year all department faculty participate in peer evaluation of their teaching.

Effectiveness of instruction is also indicated by results of standardized American Chemical Society exams where appropriate.  These exams are administered during the final exam period in the following courses: CHEM 183, 251, 363, 381, 432, 452.  Students typically perform at the national average on these exams.

The Department employs a number of ways to assess teaching performance and effectiveness including SEOIs for each course with department expectations for minimum scores on key assessment criteria spelled out in the department’s Handbook. Likewise, all faculty are required to submit copies of their Syllabi each quarter which are kept in the department’s main office for review. Tenure-track faculty with specializations in fields where adjuncts instruct are encouraged to supervise/mentor the adjuncts in classroom instruction and pedagogy. Chair visitations and peer observations are all encouraged. 

These methods and the expectations of the department are detailed in the Tenure and Promotion Guidelines for the department.

January, 2008
The department specifically considers the results of the following in measuring and assessing the student learning outcomes, reviewing the curriculum and making alterations.

1. All seniors participate in the Major Field Test published by ETS.  In addition to an overall score, the test provides scores on three (formerly four) major indicators in undergraduate computer science education.

2. All seniors participate in a two-term capstone sequence of courses.  Results of this sequence course form part of the consideration of our assessment of student learning outcomes.

3. All seniors participate in a senior colloquium.  Results of this course form part of the consideration of our assessment of student learning outcomes.

4. All seniors participate in exit interviews.  Feedback from these interviews form part of the consideration of our assessment of student learning outcomes.

5. The department interviews recent graduates.  Results of these interviews form part of the consideration of our assessment of student learning outcomes.

6. Many students participate in undergraduate research, independent studies, cooperative education and internships.  The faculty considers the effectiveness of these projects and activities in furthering the goals of the students.

7. All students participate in the core curriculum.  Review of these courses and student performance help measure the breath of the program.

8. The faculty conducts an annual peer review of instruction.  The primary purpose of this review is two-fold.  In addition to reviewing faculty performance, it allows the faculty to take an in-depth look a several courses.

As noted above, the department also reviews the program curriculum with respect to the recommendations of current experts in the field of computer science education, the most recent being Curriculum 2001.  Participation of all seniors is assured as all measures are tied to specific course requirements (this includes participation in the MFT and exit interviews that are part of the course requirements in the senior colloquium).

Concerning instruction, the DOE maintains that faculty members should actively share their educational background as well as research experience with their students. Not only do faculty members maintain formal office hours, but they have an open door policy and are willing to help students throughout the day. Faculty members integrate their research findings into their economics lectures. Faculty members also direct students with research projects, some of which have led to publications and presentations at professional meetings. Faculty of this department remain active in outreach programs and participate actively in SOURCE and Douglas Honors College. This allows the faculty and students of DOE to interact vigorously with other faculty and students across campus, and makes this department one of the most visible on campus. 

The Department of Education reviews instructional effectiveness through two key points.  The first is a review of SEOIs. Faculty who score below 3.5 on key indicators are monitored and assisted in order to improve their instruction. 
The other review procedure is the analysis of data collected as a result of coursework. The majority of this data is collected via LiveText. Programs meet together to analyze the data and see where and what changes need to be made.

As part of the review and reappointment process, faculty submit course syllabi, graded papers showing a range of grades, and other course materials.  In addition to standard SEOIs, peer evaluations and observations are regularly conducted. We encourage the formative use of evaluations, asking faculty to reflect on how they have responded to evaluations.  Our senior surveys also ask students to evaluate specific pedagogical strategies used in their courses.  Probationary faculty are mentored by senior faculty. In addition, we have organized departmental discussions and workshops on pedagogical theory and practice.  

FCS Education:
1. Instructor uses Academic Service learning when/where appropriate, group learning projects, cooperative and active learning exercises, the development of daily and unit lesson plans, field experiences, class discussions, and interviews as assessment of the student and program.  Before graduation, students are required to create an electronic portfolio to be used in job interviews.  Simulations, role play and authentic learning activities are utilized to facilitate student learning.

2. While parts of all classes require the use of Blackboard and the Internet, they are still thought of as the “traditional classroom”

3. Additional information is acquired through faculty peer-evaluations of instruction.

Family Studies:

1. Instructors use Academic Service learning, group learning projects, cooperative and active learning exercises and original research projects.  Before graduation, students are required to participate in the planning, development and implementation of a community –based family life education program or needs assessment.  Class lectures are supplemented by use of online technology.  Simulations, role play, and authentic learning activities are utilized to facilitate student learning.

2. Classroom instruction is supplemented through the use of BlackBoard technology and podcasting.

3. Additional information is acquired through faculty peer-evaluations of instruction.

Fashion Merchandising:

1. The Fashion Merchandising program addresses the scholarship of teaching with collaborative research, inquiry-based learning, fluid experiences, class lectures, guided discussions and civic engagement projects.  Supporting documentation is provided in the FM templates on learner outcomes and program goals.

2. Innovative instructional methods include using industry websites, web pages for student portfolios, field trips to industry sites and the fashion show production course.

3. In addition to SEOI evaluations, peer reviews, and self evaluations the industry placements of graduates are used to evaluate instruction effectiveness.

4. Five year history – Refer to Appendix

Recreation and Tourism:
1. The Recreation and Tourism program utilizes internships, practicums, and service learning projects.  Each student is required to complete 12 credit hours of RT 490 Cooperative Education or Internship and 6 credits of RT 292 Practicum experience.  For each credit students are required to successfully complete 40 hours.   (program total = 720 hours minimum)

Academic Service Learning consistently occurs in RT 221/Fundamentals of RT, RT/488 Program Management, RT 431/Camp Administration, and in RT 471/Tourism Planning and Development.  Students take responsibility for planning RT activities and events, research, and fundraising.

Classic lecture is used in most classes along with discussion, guest speakers, exercises, role playing, cooperative learning, and group projects.  

Group interactive learning and presentations are used heavily.

2. Besides the above listed items, faculty in the RT Program actively use technology in the classroom (i.e. powerpoint, internet, DVD and video, and live presentations.  Students gain exposure and instruction in use of the Internet, software programs, and other technology experiences such as Global Positioning Systems.  

Faculty regularly bring the profession to the classroom and also take students into the field for tours, professional presentations, and authentic learning experiences.  

The Program involves students in community service projects (competitions and activities for local youth and children, a spring event for the Ellensburg Adult Activity Center, the Morgan Middle School "Honors Camp,"  community development, and research and data collection.  Majors and minors routinely serve as volunteer assistants with professional association conferences, boards, and workshops.

3. Peer evaluation of instruction
Feedback from employers
Student progress and performance in work, internships and other activities.

Interior Design:
1. Almost all of the design courses require multi-media presentations.  In addition, classes are structured to include a variety of lecture, individual hands-on work and team projects.  Students are expected to take responsibility for their learning and contribute to the class in discussion groups and team assessment.  Guest speakers and field trips are also an important asset to the program and occur several times each quarter.

2. Interior design classes use lecture, graphic examples to illustrate the work to be done and to achieve the outcome expected.  Faculty use sample models of previous work, guest speakers who are proficient in a specific area being taught, class visits to furniture stores, interior materials stores, construction materials stores, construction sites, sample buildings and videos or movies to illustrate concepts being studied.

In the Commercial and Residential Practicum class faculty have used examples of buildings that they have worked on in their private practice. In a past class, students were given the plans of a local school to use as the basis for their interior design projects. The class visited the building and the instructor explained to them the relationship between what students saw in a plan form and real life.  This helped students to understand the space they would be working on with greater clarity. They could perceive the structure as it really was, aiding them to decide which were the best space planning and interior design choices for the problem that they were to resolve.

3. In addition to SEOI evaluations, peer review, portfolio assessments by industry experts and the industry placement of graduates are used to evaluate instruction effectiveness.

4. Five year history – Refer to Appendix

Department faculty regularly seek out and address ways to improve our program; any weaknesses or omissions in student and programmatic assessment will be discussed in a collaborative manner and an appropriate course of action will be taken. 

Individual faculty are encouraged to review and reflect on the feedback received as part of the SEOI process for each course of instruction.  Changes in  course content, modes of delivery, learning outcomes, student assignments, and assessment tools, are all subject to revision as part of this self-reflective engagement. 

Peer review is also utilized by the Geography department as another way to improve instructional effectiveness.   A comprehensive formalized structure of classroom peer review was tried during AY 2006-07, but this proved less than fully effective in that the faculty felt a more flexible approach would be more amenable and useful, and so that has been the guideline in place this year.  Individual faculty are encouraged to invite colleagues to visit classes on a mutually agreed upon session.  A hard-copy review form was developed by the Chair as a revision to what had been used previously.  Alternatively, peer review of syllabi and other course materials is another way faculty seek to achieve improvement in instructional effectiveness.

UPDATED JULY 2008
Quality of instruction is critical to the department, and in response to the emphasis placed on excellent delivery of classes, all faculty carefully evaluate their own classes. They respond to informal and formal feedback provided by colleagues and students. Formal instructional effectiveness is addressed through careful review of SEOIs by each faculty member, the personnel committee (during relevant personnel reviews) and the department chair. Although the department recognizes that some aspects of the SEOIs are problematic, to improve content and/or delivery, faculty use patterns or themes common to multiple classes through several years. For pre-tenure faculty and non-tenure track faculty, peer evaluation is conducted each year by the chair and in some cases, by other faculty, to provide constructive feedback that informs changes faculty make. For pre-tenure and non-tenure track faculty, discussion of teaching strengths and challenges occurs in an annual meeting with the chair. The department also has as a goal to provide annual feedback to each tenured member, and post-tenure review (currently every three years) provides a mechanism for more detailed discussion of teaching effectiveness between the chair and faculty member.

In conjunction with student evaluations, faculty annually assemble their course syllabi, reflective essays on their teaching goals, evidence of participation in conferences and workshops devoted to better teaching.  They invite colleagues to observe them in the classroom, attend the quarterly Faculty Development Workshops, and discuss pedagogy on a regular informal basis. 

The faculty periodically discuss the skill levels of the students in individual courses and in the senior seminar and make adjustments as necessary in syllabi, tests, and required papers. Poor student performance in the first years of History 481 launched the creation of History 302.  Faculty learned that graduating seniors in History 481 had not assembled solid research skills and determined that History 302 should lay a firm foundation at the beginning of the History major. The addition of History 302 has indeed yielded improvements in upper level history courses. 

There are multiple paths of teaching effectiveness, quality evaluation and improvements within the IET department.  
1. Each new and existing course must include in the syllabus teaching objectives, learner outcomes and assessments consistent with programmatic goals, accreditation requirements and catalogue descriptions.  Learner outcomes and assessment are reviewed before each class is taught. 

2. Course improvements are the responsibility of the individual professor teaching each specific class.  The primary method of course feedback is through Student Evaluation Of Instruction (SEOI).  SEOI are required for each course taught and are reviewed by the department chair and are a required part of a faculty member’s professional record. Each faculty member is required to reflect on each class that has been taught and document improvements and assesments via a continuous quality improvement process.  

3. Program level discussions are held regularly (approximately quarterly by some programs, less frequently by others).  The discussions also include results of assessments. These discussions can result in course or program changes.

4. Advisory Boards meet to discuss input to the programs from an industry perspective.  Some programs assign a specific class for advisory council member to review. 

5. Externally, TAC /ABET reviews MET and EET, and ACCE reviews Construction Management regularly (about 6 years).  An example of a change from TAC/ABET is the inclusion of MET315 Fluids as a core course (not as an Option course).  An example of a change from AACE is the inclusion labor laws into a Contract Law class.  

6. Faculty members attend their specific programs national educational conferences to maintain currency in the scholarship of teaching, to apply appropriate material and use the latest tools of the teaching profession.

7. Instructional methods to produce student learning are based upon traditional methods of lecture, inquiry-based/ open learning, case study, individual and group projects, laboratory experiences, field experiences, field trips, service learning, and collaborative research.

In addition to a yearly retreat, the faculty meet regularly throughout the year—formally at bi-monthly department meetings and informally daily.  During these meetings, faculty members discuss current issues and trends and how they may or may not impact the curriculum.  It is through many of these discussions that proposed curriculum changes are made.

Our current research into ABET accreditation is necessitating a major review of our curriculum and assessment strategies, which might lead to another overhaul of our curriculum; something not unexpected in this young, rapidly changing academic area.

The LAJ department relies upon the university’s Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) procedure for evaluation of instructor effectiveness. We are in the process of implementing peer reviews of teaching. Each quarter the Chair reviews syllabi for all classes and reviews all of the student evaluations from the previous quarter and addresses any concerns that are raised with each faculty member or, in the case of adjunct faculty, with the appropriate center director. 

J. Anderson uses movies in both MGT 380 and MGT 483 classes as case studies for discussion/written work.  Some of the case study discussions will be guided by students rather than the instructor.  She also has a few role-playing exercises that were created for feedback delivery, interviews, and running meetings that are used in MGT 380 classes. 

G. Cant uses a ‘student-centered learning’ pedagogy in several classes.  A major element of this approach is a requirement that students undertake particular activities prior to coming to class e.g. answer questions associated with a case study.  They are then required to discuss their insights with other students in groups and with the whole class.  In a personal journal, students need to record their initial learning as well as the additional insight gained through class interactions.  Challenging their initial ideas through class discussions is the essence of this approach.  The journals form part of their assessment.

J. Avey includes an assessment that uses the practice PHR exam twice (Time 1 and Time 2- compare mean differences).

J. Avey has students prepare HRM informational projects that go out to professionals via web.
In the Business and Society class, G. Cant has groups of students develop a case study on ethics or social responsibility and then facilitate the whole class undertaking the case. 

G. Coetzer uses a process called a skill development team in MGT 482. He creates an even number of student teams then the teams are paired (team members then identify someone in the other team to be their learning partner).  Teams then work on various exercises while being videotaped and observed by their learning partners.  When the exercises are over they spend time with their learning partner receiving and processing feedback.  Both the team member and the learning partner also have an opportunity to view the videotape later as a way to confirm and deepen their understanding of things that happened during the team experience.

N. Graber Pigeon uses a pre-chapter quiz for each chapter in Business Law. The intent is that if students have read the material, they will do well (the quiz is not graded). If they have not read the chapter, it is an overview and gives me a chance to discuss important points within the chapter. After the quiz, we go over it, students ask questions, etc. Then we head into the chapter.

N. Graber Pigeon uses an oral jeopardy style final exam which is cumulative in HRM 479 and students earn fake money which then translates into points and a grade. The individual students answer the questions orally which puts a fair amount of peer pressure on them not to sound inadequate in front of their peers. They tend to study together as well which helps them all. 

Evidence other than Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI) that is gathered and used in the department to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction?

Several faculty use their own informal or structured student feedback tools.  For example, Jennifer Anderson uses a mid-quarter evaluation form she created to get student feedback on course content delivery.  Other approaches included attending another instructors class to provide feedback and offer suggestions for improvement.  The department chair arranges to attend and observe all new faculty in the first quarter they are appointed.  Verbal feedback is provided and if necessary new faculty will be paired up with a mentor to assist them improve the quality of their instruction.  As mentioned elsewhere, the department also uses information gained from the Alumni survey and from the ETS field exam to assess the quality of instruction.

The program assessment plans describe the annual activities undertaken to review and improve instructional effectiveness. In particular, the department uses a variety of sources to collect information about student learning, including portfolios, reflective essays, student and graduate surveys.

· The intrinsic nature of the discipline is such that public demonstrations of teaching effectiveness is an almost daily occurrence, since so much of the instruction is performance-oriented, and takes the form of ensemble directing or coaching or the private tutoring associated with applied lessons.  Frequent student recitals, end-of-quarter concerts by student ensembles and other events, such as opera productions, provide much evidence of teaching effectiveness.

· The final exam in all applied music courses takes the form of a “jury” performance—a short performance by each student in front of a group of faculty provides a snapshot of the student’s present performing skill, and the improvement of the student in successive juries demonstrates not only the student’s work, but the effectiveness of the instruction. Each faculty observer fills in a jury report form, with comments on the performance. These reports and a jury repertoire form are kept in the student’s file in the Music Office.

· For music education students, their performance in the student teaching experience provides a capstone demonstration of their success in acquiring the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in the field, and, by implication, the effectiveness of the instruction they received.  All music student teachers are observed twice by department faculty members, who provide first-hand reports on their progress.

· In a very practical sense, the effectiveness of instruction is reflected by the very presence of talented students in the program.

Consistent with all CWU departments, the course syllabi of all HHPN department classes include teaching objectives, learner outcomes, and assessments consistent with programmatic goals and objectives.  The department uses traditional methods of instructional assessment including SEOIs, as well as peer review in some programs.  SEOIs evaluations are mandatory for each course within the College of Education and Professional Studies. 

Faculty utilize traditional instructional methods such as inquiry- base/open-ended learning, classic lectures, laboratory experiences and experimentation, clinical case studies, and a multitude of pedagogical techniques including field experiences, practicum, comprehensive internships, site visitations, service learning, and collaborative research. 

I. The Exercise Science degree requires students to complete one or more short (40-hour) practical experiences from a variety of setting selections (fitness, clinical, management, laboratory assessment) under the supervision of qualified professionals.  Additionally, successful completion of the aforementioned 400-480-hour internship provides a penultimate and culminating experience to the student about to graduate. This capstone requirement for a Bachelors in Exercise Science is accomplished at a site germane to the specific career interest and demonstrated academic aptitude of the student.

II. Graduate Programs program provides opportunities for service learning in their fitness lab and at off site facilities.

III. Health Programs

   A. School Health Education provides health fairs for community elementary schools, classroom visitations, video teaching evaluations, peer teaching evaluations, portfolio development, and service learning. 

   B. The Public Health program requires peer teaching evaluations, portfolio development, service learning, field work and experience, as well as a 400-hour cooperative education culminating experience for each of their students.

IV. The Food Science & Nutrition program works with the student Nutrition Science Club to provide service learning experiences.  Currently students work with the Health Center, the Student Union and Recreation Center in providing nutrition services.  In addition, many students take advantage of summer cooperative field experiences in a wide variety of settings.

V. Paramedics requires each student to complete a comprehensive internship at multiple sites focusing on competency standards and cores skills.

VI. Physical Education K-12 provides numerous field experiences in their skills classes (rock climbing, ropes course, elementary school outdoor camp, dance instruction programs for elementary schools), classroom visitations, activity class supervised teaching at the university, and video teaching evaluations, and computerized teaching analysis.

VII. The Activity program provides opportunities for community providers of fitness and lifetime activities to offer their services for university credit (fitness clubs, golf courses, and other community providers).
   
   A. Activity Program; Skiing – Mission Ridge; Karate – Central Washington School of Karate; Golf – Ellensburg Golf and Country Club; Bowling – Rodeo Bowl and Entertainment Center; Fly Fishing – Evening Hatch Guide Service; Martial Arts – In conjunction with Ellensburg Community Schools; Bicycling – Recycle Bicycle Store; Hiking/Orienteering/Cross Country Skiing – Mountain High Sports; Yoga – Lori Chandler/Jazzercise; Kris Harper/Yoga Self Center; Women’s Self-Defense – Central Washington University Police Department 

   B. Provides opportunities according to the ADS.
   
   C. Provides functional fitness opportunities for the hypokentic to the well conditioned athlete.

Program Directors observe, give feedback and provide mentoring to all new and non-tenure track faculty. During the course of the academic year, the HHPN Department Chair observes all faculty at least once. The HHPN Department holds regular monthly faculty meetings to provide an opportunity for the Chair to share informational updates and discuss important issues related to instructional effectiveness. Program Directors meet bimonthly with the Chair to discuss key issues and also schedule regular meetings with faculty in their respective programs.  Directors meet regularly with their program faculty and staff to discuss programmatic changes.  

The Activity Program Coordinator currently holds quarterly meetings jointly; individual meetings on observations; workshop on new equipment, and; observations once per quarter.

The Department’s Curriculum Committee is a committee of the whole.  As is the case with all departments, we drop old courses from the catalog and add new ones as former members who retire are replaced by professors with different areas of training and interest.  As noted above, we are committed to diversity and training our students in global issues and interdisciplinary study.  We are routinely approached by new interdisciplinary programs to contribute new courses, as evidenced in the four new courses approved last year. Recognizing the need for broader student participation in study abroad, the department has sponsored interdisciplinary short term experiences that contribute to our students’ elective options. Dr. Li was also awarded an Interdisciplinary Course team-teaching grant for his work with Dr. Bruce Palmquist in developing the Religion and Science course. Faculty annually develop a variety of Special Topics courses in response to student interest and as a means of augmenting their own research. Some recent examples include Legacy of the Hebrew Bible, Consciousness and Reality, The Holocaust, Comparative Apocalypticism, Lost Books of the Bible and Gender and Sacred Literature.

Although it is difficult to accurately measure instructional effectiveness, the Department has decided to consider the results of the following in measuring and assessing the student learning outcomes, reviewing the curriculum and making alterations.

1. All seniors participate in the Major Field Test published by ETS.  In addition to an overall score, the test provides scores on introductory and advanced topics.  The Department’s Assessment Committee will be responsible for analyzing this data.

2. The Department has decided to require a one-quarter capstone course for all majors.  As part of this course, all seniors will be required participate in an exit interview with the Department Chair.  Feedback from these interviews will contribute to the Department’s assessment of student learning outcomes and program goals.

3. All majors participate in research.  The Department will adopt a rubric so that consistent assessment can be performed across all sub-disciplines in physics.

4. All students participate in the core curriculum.  Review of these courses and student performance help measure the breath of the program.

5. The faculty conducts an annual peer review of instruction.  The primary purpose of this review is two-fold.  In addition to reviewing faculty performance, it allows the faculty to take an in-depth look a several courses.

Finally, during the last week of every course, including laboratories, each faculty member has a colleague or staff member administer a Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI).  Each year all department faculty participate in peer evaluation of their teaching.  Physics faculty then reflect on their SEOI scores along with other assessment tools particular to the course to ascertain one measure of the effectiveness of the instructional methods used in that course.

As part of the department performance standards and procedures, we periodically - based on rank and evaluation cycles - review faculty members’ instructional performance and attempt to provide feedback. These include examinations of syllabi, student course evaluations (the SEOI), and relevant portions of the Senior Assessment exit survey. As of 2004-05, the Department has begun implementing a peer evaluation of instruction for all tenured, tenure-track, and full-time non-tenure track faculty. Once course per year is sampled, wherein the chair or a tenured member of the department discusses the course with the instructor, its goals, how they approach it, etc.; reviews the syllabi; makes a classroom visitation, and then writes a formal letter of review.

-Faculty members may also use their development funds from the University, College, and (if available) Department to attend conferences.  Elsewhere, we comment on the (in)adequacy of such resources.
In addition:

-The faculty are involved in varying degrees with the Senior Assessment course, as several different members have taught it over the years (currently, however, only the chair has the “workload units” to do it).  All faculty are given results of the course survey, and performance of students on exams and papers, which they are welcome to review if they wish.

-Various members of the Department utilize other innovative, or at least, non-traditional, methods of instruction in their courses.  Some use simulation exercises or games that have students role play (such as members of Congress in a committee or countries in the international system or model United Nations), class debates, poster presentations,  etc.  
Jan. 08

(January 2008)
• Yearly faculty assessment day reviews of syllabi and evaluation methods.
• Use of SEOI data.
• Peer observation of probationary faculty.
• Post-tenure review of all tenured faculty.
• Personnel committee mentoring of probationary faculty.
• Continuing education course attendance by licensed faculty members.
•	We encourage participation in campus-sponsored courses in educational technology, such as Blackboard.

Teaching effectiveness will be assessed through quantitative and qualitative indicators generated from CWU’s (SEOI) Student Evaluation of Instruction survey …and through peer evaluation of instruction based on syllabus review and direct observation in the classroom setting.

The Department of Sociology conducts peer review of instruction on two levels.  First, both qualitative and quantitative SEOI survey results and course syllabi are reviewed by the chair of the personnel committee and department chair as one means of assessing instructional performance.  Second, department faculty members are encouraged to pair up into dyads composed of members who offer similar courses to review syllabi.  With the exception of non-tenured tenure-stream faculty who must allow annual direct observation of their instructional performance, this dyad also has the option of conducting direct observations on classroom performance.  It is expected that the parties will engage in a dialog consisting of constructive feedback on instructional style and course logistics.  Through this exchange of information it is anticipated that the faculty will enhance their classroom performance.

Program effectiveness is reviewed on a continuing basis.  The faculty meets together for two hours once every two weeks to discuss department issues.  Major/minor adjustments, curriculum proposals, and resource requirements are discussed in detail.  In addition to the bi-weekly meetings, once each quarter the faculty meets for a full-day retreat.  All facets of the program as reviewed and long-range (vision) goals are planned.

All members of the faculty distribute student evaluation (or SEOI) forms to their students at the end of every course.  These are reviewed by the chairman quarterly and by the dean annually.  Faculty-chair discussions are held if results warrant consultation.  In conjunction with student evaluations, faculty annually assemble their course syllabi, reflective essays on their teaching goals, evidence of participation in conferences and workshops devoted to better teaching.  They invite colleagues to observe them in the classroom, attend the quarterly Faculty Development Workshops, and discuss pedagogy on a daily basis over lunch.