SACSCOC Fifth Year Interim Report
Spacer
Assessment : 2011 - 2012 : Educational Programs :
History BS
History BS
1 Goal 1 Objective 3 Indicators 3 Criteria 9 Findings 3 Actions
| GOAL: Student Knowledge Development |
| 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semester, students enrolled in history courses will demonstrate significant improvement in their understanding of the historical content covered in their respective courses.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-post 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 US history themes. Overall class improvement of at least 15% on the class average post-test score versus the class average pre-test 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 tracking 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-post 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 post tests on an instrument that was developed by the world history faculty. HIST 2311 students averaged 50% correct on the pre-test and 61% on the post-test. HIST 2312 students averaged 42% correct on the pre-test and 58% correct on the post-test. |
| 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 pre-test 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 400-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. |
| 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 |
|
|||
|
IIn 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 |
|
|||
|
Action For the senior student learning outcome during 2012-2013, we will, once again, provide the writing process advisement that proved successful for 2011-2012. We will want to stress posing a relevant historical question, interpreting the source material, and coming to a reasonable conclusion |
| 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.
|