QUESTION: MissionB2

The Department of Accounting faculty use assessment results and observations to change its curriculum.  

During September 2007, the Department of Accounting faculty reviewed the results for our graduates on the Uniform Certified Public Accounting examination.  The trend data indicated that our students were not improving on the examination.  Based partly on CPA exam results, the MPA Program curriculum was realigned to focus on helping students improve their performance on the CPA exam.  The program now uses CPA exam results as a learning outcome for outcomes assessment.

The faculty also observed that the pre-admission requirements for the B.S. in Business Administration degree included a minimum GPA in the pre-admission core to be 2.5 or higher.  The accounting faculty discussed this matter and decided that our standards should meet or exceed the business administration standard.  The faculty decided to increase the pre-admission GPA from 2.25 to 2.50 for both pre-admission courses and overall grade point average.  

The faculty also observed that many of our accounting students at the centers were approaching graduation but had not finished their general education requirements.  Since CWU does not offer general education at the centers, these students had to go back to community colleges to complete these requirements.  The vast majority of our accounting majors are at the centers.  The accounting faculty decided that the general education requirements needed to be completed to apply for the accounting program, which would make students complete their direct transfer degree before enrolling in our accounting program.

The planning process has shown that we need to revise our departmental entry/exit exam to bring it into line with the current curriculum.  The exam does not reflect the most current paradigm shift in cultural anthropology, while course content has incorporated these changes.  We are now planning to revise the exam.  Second, there is information we would like to collect from graduating seniors that can best be gathered through an exit survey.  We need to revise this instrument and regularize its use in the capstone/graduation checkout process.  The capstone course is now undergoing revision to take account of these and other needs. 

The 2006 program review provided the department with an external assessment of it degree programs.  The pertinent suggestions were discussed among the faculty meetings and decisions were made about which changes to undertake.  In response to the review the department has undertaken a full revision of its curriculum.

[Student Evaluations of Instructor (SEOI) are conducted quarterly. While student evaluations are meaningful aids in determining teaching effectiveness, those involved with the faculty review are encouraged to submit as candidates evidence of peer reviews of teaching, teaching awards, innovative pedagogy, and student achievements and student awards.  The latter are particularly helpful as outside, objective evaluations of the positive impact of an educator that is not influenced by negative subjective input.]

Continuous assessment of FAA courses and programs, including flight labs, is conducted as per Code of Federal Regulations CFR Part 141 and must meet all requirements specified by the FAA in that part and by the FAA approved Training Course Outline (TCO) on file.  All requirements to maintain FAA certification with regards to instructors, students, facilities, curriculum, and equipment are assessed on a continuous basis.  The FAA District Office in Spokane, WA has oversight of the CWU programs.

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) requirements are also continuously assed with regards to student requirements, instructor training, and equipment and facility reqiuirements.  

As an ultimate measure of how well we have achieved our goals we are beginning to assess our students at the end of their degrees and at 1-5 years post-graduation.  The end of major assessment is in the form of a national standardized test and the post-graduation assessment is in the form of a survey.  In addition to these assessments, we are planning on implementing a procedure where we can track the careers of our graduates.  

We are continually striving to improve our programs to be effecient and at the same time increase student learning.  Three recent examples show where we have used the evaluation process to improve our programs.

1.One of the issues facing us has been increasing student body with no additional tenure-track faculty.  Our response had been to continue to add one student at a time to already overloaded courses.  We discussed student learning and the best way to approach the problem of increasing enrollment while maintaining quality learning environments for our students. Much of the discussion focused on upper division labs.  In the end we decided to cap enrollment in our courses.  We also have proactively and aggressively looked for funding to support faculty lines in the chemistry department.  We were awarded one faculty line from the Provost, supported by the Dean, based on our rationale and high need.  A year and a half ago we filled this position.  We successfully garnered HECB funding for Organic Chemistry through a High Demand grants.  This grant included two faculty lines in Organic chemistry.  We are currently in the search process for these positions.

2. Through course assessments and student surveys, we recognized a lack of quantitative skill in our upper division  courses, especially Physical Chemistry.  We decided to add another math course prerequisite to Physical Chemsitry, requiring a full year of Calculus prior to beginning pchem.  This requirement is in line with other institutions across the nation and has resulted in students better prepared to meet the learning outcomes in the Physical Chemistry course.

3. The Chemistry Teaching major and minor must prepare students to meet State competencies for secondary chemistry teachers.  We have analyzed student performance on the end of program portfolio and WEST-E (content exit exam)and made modifications to both programs including the addition of one credit to the secondary science methods course and a senior seminar course.  Based on these data we also added a course in biochemistry to the minor.

The Communication Department uses the information from all assessment activities to examine and upgrade curriculum.  This is espeically true of the curriculum and planning meeting held prior to fall term, and the secondary meetings held at the end of each term.  Insights provided through our students' end of program essays and portfolios, and from students' internship essays are particularly useful.  Trends of responses from internship supervisors are also utilized.

January, 2008
The department, through an annual evaluation of instruction and peer-review, has developed a method for developing consensus concerning the goals of the program, student learning outcomes and faculty professional development.

Currently the department carries out this evaluation during the Spring Faculty Development Day.  The evaluation consists of two pieces: (1) a peer-review of teaching together with a review of other assessment measures and a review and (2) setting of faculty members professional achievements and goals.  Being a small department, both pieces are reviewed by the committee of the whole.  Additional review, particularly with respect to the capstone courses, occurs as specific milestones are achieved during the courses.

The department requires faculty participation in the annual peer-review of teaching and assessment of student learning outcomes.  Here each faculty member will conduct a thorough review of one class (or perhaps a pair of sequenced classes.  Each faculty member is asked to prepare a complete portfolio for the class (or classes).  [Different classes are to be presented each year until the department has reviewed the entire curriculum. The entire curriculum is generally reviewed over a three year period.]  

The purpose of the review is two-fold.  The first purpose is to review the current professional instructional development of each faculty member.  The second purpose is to provide another tool for our curriculum review.  Portfolios include the following information:  textbook, syllabus, objectives, notes, slides, other materials including web-based, programming projects, exams, and samples of student work. Additionally, the faculty reviews the collected assessment data which includes results of the capstone courses, results of the Major Field Test, results of the senior colloquium, senior exit interviews, comments from graduates and participation in undergraduate research.

In the professional development review, each faculty member provides the current year's goals, accomplishments and a self-evaluation.  In the goal setting, each faculty member proposes goals for the next year that are reviewed, by the committee and the Dean, for appropriateness for professional development and appropriateness to departmental, college and university mission.  The Department also believes that this is an appropriate time for faculty to propose filling a particular niche or role within the department.  As with the goals, the committee and the Dean review such proposals for appropriateness for professional development and appropriateness to departmental, college and university mission.

At the end of each quarter, the DOE faculty members conduct student evaluations in each section of each course. Students are requested to fill out a questionnaire as well as write a short essay concerning their overall impression of the instructor. These results are tabulated and made available to the instructor after the quarter has been completed and student grades are turned in. Results of faculty evaluations are a major p art of the criteria used in evaluating faculty for retention, promotion, and salary increases. 

Program objectives have been set using professional standards. Data are collected and analyzed based on such standards. The student outcomes as measured through the analysis process are then reviewed in order to identify which, if any, changes need to be made to the curriculum.  This review process begins at the instructor level, with each instructor using the data in order to make needed changes.  The data are then used at the program level to assure all students are meeting professional standards. The department chair uses the data and program reports to document department progress.

Assessment data are reviewed by the chair and are presented to the department as a whole or to the relevant committee(s) as appropriate.  Recommended program changes originate with the committees (Undergraduate, English Education, Writing Specialization, and Graduate) and are voted on by the department.  For large scale changes, we have also used department retreats.  An example of a recent program change based on assessment data is changing ENG 320 (English Grammar) and ENG 304 (English Linguistics) from options to core requirements.  Data from senior surveys and group exit interviews indicated that many students lacked confidence in their knowledge of grammar.  Subsequent surveys and interviews indicate a high level of satisfaction with the grammar course in particular. 

Each FCS program completes an end of year assessment report. The report indentified the progress made on program outcomes and also identified how the assessment information will be used to make program modifications.

Not applicable

Departmental programs undergo continual and perennial assessment as faculty go about their duties and reflect upon individual successes and shortcomings, or else think about how the department and its culture might be improved upon.  Any issues that arise from such critical introspections are brought out and discussed in the public forum of our regularly held faculty meetings.  These discussions are for us the main vehicle for effecting change, yet likewise provide a foundation of continuity and tradition in the department.  For example, when faculty members retire or leave for greener pastures, there ensues intense debate among those who remain regarding what sort of geographer we wish to bring on board as a replacement.  Will it be a person whose interests and research trajectories directly correspond to that person who vacated the position?  Or have we collectively and through consensus identified an unmet teaching and research need that was previously unrecognized?  In addition, among common topics of discussion at faculty meetings are ongoing courses and instructional effectiveness, leading to adjustments as needed whenever those courses are again offered in subsequent quarters of instruction. 
 
Feedback from students is highly valued by our faculty.  Students evaluate all courses taught in the department using the standard SEOI forms, and supplemental written comments are especially encouraged when these forms are handed out at the end of every quarter in all of our classes.  The results, in terms of both individual student comments and the numerical rankings of standardized questions, are reviewed for both instructional and program concerns.  In the context of student performance at the program level, the GEOG 489–Geography Capstone course has been the primary tool for an overall, end-of-studies assessment of our geography majors.  This course is under the supervision and facilitation of the department Chair, and is a required course for all graduating seniors.  The results of student interviews and other feedback from this course are used as a basis for considering program directional adjustments, as well as formal curricular or other instructional shifts, including responding to any identified need for more offerings of one course or fewer offerings of another.  

UPDATED JANUARY 29, 2008
Faculty and staff assess the data, which to date has been mostly qualitative, to identify areas for improvement or that address regional or national needs. For example, emphasis over the last decade on the environment and environmental problems led the department to develop an environmental geological sciences major. This major prepares students to be interdisciplinary contributors to the major scientific and technological challenges that will face humans in the coming decades.  As a way to further strengthen the department’s contribution to environmental research and education, we are in the process of hiring an environmental tenure track faculty member (winter, 2008). A second example includes the appointment of a 50% Science (Geology) Education 50% Geological Sciences tenure track faculty member. Through this hire, the department is addressing the growing need for well-educated earth science teachers in Washington State and nationally and the increasing importance of delivering pedagogically informed university level classes.

Department activities, such as classes, are changed in response to several kinds of assessment data.  As an example, a common theme in some of our student evaluations is the desire to be involved in more field work. The impact field studies have on many of our students is also evident in alumni surveys, which indicate our six week field class as one of the most important experiences students have. In response, we have worked to try to increase field opportunities both in the our courses and as a part of research projects.  

Faculty have also attempted to integrate instrumentation into more of our courses. This change is primarily in response to observations of national trends that there is and will continue to be a shortage of individuals trained in science and technology fields.  Students who gain direct experience with instrumentation will potentially be more competitive for jobs.

Faculty agreement on essential learning outcomes and rubrics for evaluating research papers in History 481, the Capstone course for graduating seniors, permits coherent goals for all majors, regardless of the instructor of the course.  It also ensures unanimity concerning skill-building assignments in preliminary courses, notably History 302: Introduction to History for beginning history majors.

Twice a year the department faculty and staff reflect on the accomplishment of our goals and objectives.  In the spring we reflect back and review each goal and objective to measure our success.  In the fall we review our goals and objective with a view toward the upcoming academic year and make any adjustments as necessary. 

All courses taught within the ITAM Department include teaching objectives, learner outcomes, and assessments consistent with the department, college, and university programmatic goals and objectives.

Traditional methods of instructional assessment are utilized by the department, including Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI), a self-reflective paper, and advising/office hours. SEOI evaluations are mandatory for each course within the College of Education and Professional Studies.  ITAM faculty are required to administer SEOIs every quarter for every class taught; including summer.  A faculty member participated in a Peer Observation Training project so this method of instructional assessment could be implemented within the department and college.

In our 2004-2005 program review, both the department and the reviewer commented that the ITAM Department needed to develop a more detailed assessment process. For that reason, the department has redefined our goals (November 2007) and is studying the feasiblity of securing ABET accreditation.

Additionally, the academic field of Information Technology is only six years old; as this field matures, and as our faculty continue re-training in this new field, goals, outcomes, and assessment strategies will by necessity change.

The LAJ department has made huge strides in the development and implementation of an evaluation process in the past five years.  As recommended in the last LAJ program review (2003-2004) the LAJ department has devised and implemented an assessment plan.  The pilot of this plan was implements in 2006/2007 and the department is now working on improvements suggested by this process.  Some suggestions resulting from this process included making sure the related learning objectives of the department were sufficiently addressed in the core courses, to develop assignments that were more consistent across sections of the same core course, and to continue to approve, develop and utilize rubrics to assess the learning objectives in each of the core courses. The pilot year also demonstrated several weaknesses in the original LAJ assessment plan, which has been revised to improve on the ability of the LAJ department to adequately and consistently measure learner outcomes both on the Ellensburg campus and at the centers.  Some improvements to the plan included creating a realistic timeline, which focuses on specific core courses each quarter, for systematically collecting data in Ellensburg and at the centers, working closely with the Career Service office to collect Employer Evaluation of Cooperative Field Experience so that we can evaluate our students’ performances at internship and gage additional programmatic needs related to Alumni employment not currently being met by the LAJ department.   On a yearly basis the Assessment Committee reports to the faculty the results of the previous year’s assessment and at a dedicated faculty meeting these results are discussed and plans are made for both individual and programmatic improvement.   In conjunction with this meeting the LAJ faculty review syllabi to ensure that all required elements are clearly stated and the learning objectives complement the learner outcomes measured in the assessment plan. 

Additionally, time is regularly allocated at LAJ faculty meetings for discussions of planned change that incorporate suggestions made during our last program review, suggestions from the dean, as well as a continued focus on the mission and goals of the LAJ department.  In the past three years some changes resulting from this process include hiring two new tenure-track faculty members that help to meet the needs of our program, replacing one of the courses in our core curriculum with a course that focuses on theory, updating departmental practice on Internships, Teaching Assistants, Research Assistants and Independent Studies, changing the name of our “Paralegal” tract to “Legal Studies”, and hiring a part-time person to help with pre-advising on the Ellensburg campus. Through the process of planned change and the addition of several new faculty members with diverse strengths and new ideas the LAJ department has also revised its focus away from some of the goals that were stated in its last program review. 

The Mathematics Department is a strong department with a focus on student learning.  Over the last five years all three of our major programs have been analyzed and revised in an effort to insure all of our student learning outcomes are being met.  These self-studies have resulted in our department incorporating more relevant technology into our classes (Mathematics, Maple, Excel, Minitab, etc.).  We have also begun offering a wider variety of “topics” courses to ensure that students are exposed to a breadth of mathematical content.  

1. Programs that are not sufficiently supported by faculty resources have been eliminated: ex. 1. The MM in Music History, ex 2. The BA in Music Business has been put on reserve.

2. Evolving practices in the discipline require adjustment: ex. 1 The BM in Composition/Theory is in process of being changed to BM in Composition (only)

3. The need to meet Accreditation standards resulted in a change in the Music History core, adding World Music to the core.

4. Comparing present syllabi in music education, both in department and professional education courses area leading to a major revision of the program, presently being conducted by Music Education specialists.

5. Hire of TT faculty Composition Specialist this year will result in overhaul of B.M in Composition title and curriculum.

Again evaluations in the past were not systematic. But we did draw from evaluations to improve our program. For example, feedback from our graduates indicated that we did not have good coverage in analytic philosophy. We requested and filled a TT position in analytic philosophy in 2007. 

Two examples of action items resulting from the evaluation proecess in item 1.B.1 are:

1. The hire of an external Department Chair for the 2007-2008 academic year, and
2. The requirement of a math pre-requisite (placement into MATH 154) for students enrolling in PHYS 111 (Introductory Physics).  This decision was based on data presented to the Department by the PHYS 111 course instructors linking poor student performance in PHYS 111 with their math preparation. 

Regarding the Physics curriculum, although the Department collects a significant amount of data (via the Major Field Text [MFT} and end-of-the-major portfolios), the Department lacks a mechanism requiring students to diligently follow through on these activities.  Therefore, the Department has formed an Assessment Committee and has had its first assessment retreat on Faculty Development Day (June 2008).  The Department also introduced PHYS 489 (Senior Assessment) to formalize students participating in the Department's assessment process.  This should allow the Department to reflect on curricular issues annually rather than sporadically.

Based on the findings of our Senior Assessment Exit Survey, and the Senior Assessment Exam results, we are initiating some changes. In response to student feedback that we were not doing enough career counseling, advising, and the like, the Department initiated a major/career fair to discuss general academic and career strategies, internship and study abroad opportunities, and the like.  Exam and survey results, along with the Assessment course itself, also suggested some changes in core course concepts to be covered in Political Science 101 and other core, introductory classes. Members of the Department are currently in discussions over how best to alter some aspects of these courses to respond to these concerns.  The program review undertaken in 2005-06 identified further issues, such as in curriculum, student preparation, and faculty workload balance and development, which we detail more fully elsewhere. In this vein, we are currently undertaking a reevaluation of the department as a result of program review, and a broader understanding of the assessment process (as being about programmatic as well as student-academic assessments).
Jan. 08

(January 2008)
External evaluations are received from the college dean, Center for Teaching and Learning, Vice Provost for Graduate Studies, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies, and professional accrediting bodies. Their recommendations are referred to appropriate department and program committees for response. Internal evaluations are generated quarterly through evaluations of instruction and senior assessment classes, and annually at the department’s assessment day. Proposals for change arise from these sources and are voted upon by the department. Some recent examples of assessments that have led to program changes include:

• Creation of PSY 489, Senior Assessment, consisting of portfolio review, professional development, and program evaluation activities.

• Adding PSY 460, Cognitive Psychology and PSY 478, Physiological Psychology to our core set of required courses for the undergraduate major. 

• Raising the level of faculty support at our Puget Sound centers from part-time and term appointments to tenure track positions

• Creating a new standing committee of the department for program assessment. 

• Successful review and initial accreditation of our M. S. Mental Health Counseling program by the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Programs (CACREP).

• Revising our M. S. Experimental Psychology core and optional course selections and reducing the program from 60 to 48 credits.

• Inaugurating a new Applied Behavior Analysis track of the M.S. in Experimental Psychology program. 

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.

The department’s Curriculum Committee review’s the currency and accuracy of curriculum, as well as courses proposed by individual faculty members.  The committee asks the faculty as a whole for feedback on proposed changes, additions, modifications, or deletions. The department urges faculty to offer courses in their area of specialization, in addition to teaching as broad a spectrum of courses within the discipline as they are able. Old courses are dropped from the catalog and new ones are added as former members who retire are replaced by professors with different areas of training, expertise and interest.  Awareness of the need for diversity and globalism is universal, as is respect for interdisciplinary study.  To this end, the department has created courses aimed at diversity in our dramatic literature offerings; TH 382 Ethnic Drama, TH 377 Staging Gender, TH 375 Asian Theatre, TH 383 Contemporary World Drama, TH 365 Theatre History III, TH 511 Analysis and Criticism, TH 510 Studies in Dramatic Literature, TH 503 Survey of Theatre History and Literature.