SACSCOC Fifth Year Interim Report
Spacer
Assessment : 2011 - 2012 : Educational Programs :
History BA
History BA
2 Goals 2 Objectives 4 Indicators 4 Criteria 10 Findings 4 Actions
| GOAL: History Teacher Preparation |
| Objective |
|
||||
| Graduating students will demonstrate necessary knowledge and skills to be effective history teachers. |
| Indicator |
|
|||
|
Teacher education students who major or minor in History will pass the TExES examination. The Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES) was developed by the State Board of Educator Certification/Texas Education Agency as a multiple-choice criterion-referenced examination designed to measure a candidate’s knowledge in relation to an established criterion rather than to the performance of other candidates.. The History TExES has three domains: (I) World History, (II) U.S. History, and (III) Foundations, Skills, Research, and Instruction. |
| Criterion |
|
|||
| 80% of all teacher education students who major or minor in History will pass the TEXES history examination with at least a score of 70%. |
| Finding |
|
|||
|
In academic year 2009-2010, the department identified inequities in student TExES performance between domain I World history and domain II US history. While the department achieved success in leveling student testing performance across both domains in 2010-2011, the overall passage rate of 79% fell short of the stated criterion for this indicator. Thus the department retained the indicated 80% passage rate for academic year 2011-2012. During 2010-11, 70% of history majors passed the Texas Examination for Educator Standards (TExES) exam for future history teachers and 100% history majors passed the Social Studies TExES. Both of these results were unreliable because of very small sample sizes. Due to sharp reductions in state educational funding, many students opted not to pursue teaching careers in 2011-2012. Breaking down the general results, it was apparent among all passing test takers that they performed comparably in Domain I (World History) and Domain II (US History). |
Actions for Objective:
| Action |
|
|||
| TExES testing population was very small in academic 2011-2012 because of state budgetary difficulties and resulting legislative cuts to public education expenditures. Looking forward to reconstruction of public education budgets, the History Department will seek consultation with the SHSU College of Education to determine ways to recruit teaching candidates for the future. |
| GOAL: Skills And Knowledge In History |
| Objective |
|
||||
| During the course of the semester, students enrolled in history courses will demonstrate significant improvement in their understanding of the historical content covered in their respective courses. |
| Indicator |
|
|||
| During the course of a semester, students enrolled in US history courses will demonstrate significant improvement in their understanding of American history by taking pre and posttests in that subject matter. The test instrument is not nationally normed but was locally constructed with the aim of monitoring change over time in basic knowledge of the major themes covered in the world history survey curriculum. The State of Texas Core Curriculum Component Area guidelines were consulted before the creation of this testing instrument. |
| Criterion |
|
|||
|
At least 20% of students enrolled in the US surveys will be given pre-posttests over content relevant to these courses. A statistical analysis of the results of this testing will demonstrate significant student improvement in knowledge of pertinent US history themes. Overall class improvement of at least 15% on the class average posttest score versus the class average pretest score will indicate success. |
| Finding |
|
|||
| During Fall 2011, US history survey classes that included 386 HIST 1301 students (representing 25% of the total number of students taking HIST 1301) and 183 HIST 1302 students (representing 27% of the total number of students taking HIST 1302) took pre- and posttests on an instrument that was developed by the US history faculty. HIST 1301 students averaged 30% correct on the pretest and 58% correct on the posttest. HIST 1302 students averaged 41% correct on the pretest and 50% correct on the posttest. |
| Finding |
|
|||
| During Spring 2012, US history survey classes that included 175 HIST 1301 students (representing 37% of the total number of students taking HIST 1301) and 615 HIST 1302 students (representing 54% of the total number of students taking HIST 1302) took pre- and posttests on an instrument that was developed by the US history faculty. HIST 1301 students averaged 44% correct on the pretest and 52% correct on the posttest. HIST 1302 students averaged 36% correct on the pretest and 56% correct on the posttest. |
| Finding |
|
|||
|
The combined results for Fall 2011 and Spring 2012 were as follows: Course # Tested Pretest PostTest % Change HIST 1301 561 37% 55% +18% HIST 1302 798 38% 53% +15% Improvement on both the 1301 and 1302 examinations was consistent across each of the mastery areas assessed by the evaluation instrument (i.e., understanding sources, chronology, factual accuracy). |
| Indicator |
|
|||
| During the course of a semester, students enrolled in world history courses will demonstrate significant improvement in their understanding of world history. The test instrument is not nationally normed, but was locally constructed with the aim of monitoring change over time in basic knowledge of the major themes covered in the world history survey curriculum. The State of Texas Core Curriculum Component Area guidelines were consulted before the creation of this testing instrument. |
| Criterion |
|
|||
|
At least 20% of students enrolled in world history surveys will be given pre-pos tests over content relevant to these courses. A statistical analysis of the results of this testing will demonstrate significant student improvement in knowledge of pertinent world history themes. Overall class improvement of at least 15% on the class average posttest score versus the class average pretest score will indicate success. |
| Finding |
|
|||
| During Fall 2011, world history survey classes that included 42 HIST 2311 students (representing 18% of the total number of students taking HIST 2311) and 42 HIST 2312 students (representing 20% of the total number of students taking HIST 2312) took pre- and posttests on an instrument that was developed by the world history faculty. HIST 2311 students averaged 50% correct on the pretest and 61% on the posttest. HIST 2312 students averaged 42% correct on the pretest and 58% correct on the posttest. |
| Finding |
|
|||
| During Spring 2012, world history survey classes that included 107 HIST 2311 students (representing 43% of the total number of students taking HIST 2311) and 86 HIST 2312 students (representing 55% of the total number of students taking HIST 2312) took pre- and posttests on an instrument that was developed by the world history faculty. HIST 2311 students averaged 53% correct on the pretest while 60% on the posttest. HIST 2312 students averaged 48% correct on the pretest and 56% correct on the posttest. |
| Finding |
|
|||
|
The combined results for Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 were as follows: Course # Tested Pretest PostTest % Change HIST 2311 149 51% 61% +10% HIST 2312 128 45% 57% +12% Review of the specific results showed HIST 2311 and HIST 2312 students' greatest weaknesses were in the areas of African and Asian history. |
| Indicator |
|
|||
| During the course of the semester, students enrolled in 4000-level (senior level) courses will demonstrate significant improvement in their abilities in historical scholarship and writing, as determined by a panel of history faculty. |
| Criterion |
|
|||
| All students in senior level history courses will produce semester research papers. At least 20% of these papers from the total senior level course enrollment will undergo a quality and outcome assessment review by a panel of history faculty. The panel will not include faculty currently teaching senior level courses and will review the selected papers double-blind according to a 6-point rubric developed from norms promoted by the American Historical Association. At least 80% of all sampled papers will reach 18 points or higher on the 6-30 point scale of the rubric. |
| Finding |
|
|||
|
In the Fall of 2011, the history department randomly sampled 17 or roughly 20% of all research papers from the senior undergraduate level seminars. On a scale of 6 to 30 (18 being average), three evaluators ranked the papers according to the rubric with the following results: Evaluator 1 gave scores averaging 17.7 Evaluator 2 gave scores averaging 15.0 Evaluator 3 gave scores averaging 19.7 The overall average was 17.5 30% of papers received an average score of 18.0 or higher. Among the papers failing to achieve 18.0 or higher, the most common problems (in order of prevalence) were lack of proper citation form or logic; failure to analyze or interrogate documentary sources; failure to frame a significant historical question for the paper as a whole. |
| Finding |
|
|||
|
In the Spring of 2012, the history department randomly sampled 24 or roughly 20% of all research papers from the senior undergraduate level seminars. On a scale of 6 to 30 (18 being average), three evaluators ranked the papers according to the rubric with the following results: Evaluator 1 gave scores averaging 18.3 Evaluator 2 gave scores averaging 23.4 Evaluator 3 gave scores averaging 17.0 The overall average was 19.6 52% of papers received an average score of 18.0 or higher. Among the papers failing to achieve 18.0 or higher, the most common problems (in order of prevalence) were: difficulty or failure to discern a relevant historical question; difficulty or failure interpreting source material; difficulty or failure to draw a significant or reasonable conclusion from the exercise. |
| Finding |
|
|||
| With poor results in the fall of 2011, the department prioritized senior undergraduate research and writing skills for spring 2012. Instructors of the senior seminar classes closely advised students through the paper writing process. Students learned of outcome assessment categories and honed technical skills to enhance excellence in historical writing. The improvement in assessments from fall 2011 to spring 2012 demonstrated the efficacy of these interventions. |
Actions for Objective:
| Action |
|
|||
| For the 2012 academic year, the department proposes to increase the rigor of the assessment instrument by researching and/or developing a nationally normed database of US history questions. |
| Action |
|
|||
| For the 2012 academic year, the department proposes to increase the rigor of the assessment instrument by researching and/or developing a nationally normed database of World history questions. |
| Action |
|
|||
| Pursuant to History Department plans to revise and enhance the pre/posttesting instrument, the department drafted first versions of the new tests with reference to curricular standards as elaborated by the Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative. The objective will be to assess with pretesting students' preparedness relative to final secondary curricular goals. Posttesting will then give a comparative measure of the relative improvement and consolidation of survey learning objectives. |
| Closing the Loop |
|
Undergraduate education is the heart and foundation of the Department mission. For that reason, the History Department has undertaken to enhance procedures and instruments for assessing and improving undergraduate learning outcomes. The department will continue to review and improve assessment testing. Perhaps more importantly, the department will increase emphasis on the critical thinking skills inherent to the discipline, making students aware of rubric objectives and strengthening their mastery of those objectives.
|