SACSCOC Fifth Year Interim Report
Spacer
Assessment : 2012 - 2013 : Educational Programs :
Criminal Justice PhD
Criminal Justice PhD
2 Goals 2 Objectives 2 Indicators 2 Criteria 2 Findings 2 Actions
| GOAL: Conduct Scientific Research |
| Objective |
|
||||
|
Students completing the Ph.D. program will demonstrate the necessary tools and knowledge to produce an empirically-based research manuscript eligible for submission to a peer reviewed academic journal. |
| Indicator |
|
|||
|
Doctoral students are required to submit and defend a portfolio of selected written research products that were developed during their tenure in the doctoral program to a panel of faculty members. The portfolio committee chair will select one written component that best demonstrates the student’s ability to conduct scientific research. The portfolio chair will utilize the attached rubric, which lists the key aspects of a quality scientific manuscript, to assess the selected element. |
| Criterion |
|
|||
|
Students will average a summary score of 80 or above on the elements included in the rubric with items weighted equally. Within the selected element, students will have integrated the various disparate components of the literature on a specific CJ topic into a cogent review of literature, presented a well-defined research question, quantitative or qualitative analysis of data, a summary of results, and contextualized those results. A discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the research will be included. |
| Finding |
|
|||
|
During AY 2012-2013, 10 students submitted and defended a portfolio of selected written products as a demonstration of their scientific research abilities. Of these students, 9 successfully defended their portfolio with scores higher than 80 percent indicated the pass/fail distinction. Moreover, within these nine students, 5 students were designated as having received “high passes” – a distinction of the highest quality of the doctoral portfolio process. One student failed to successfully defend their portfolio and chose to depart the Doctoral program. |
Actions for Objective:
| Action |
|
|||
| As additional Ph.D. students progress through the program, an increased number of portfolios will be examined with an eye toward determining the feasibility of this process in measuring research competency and whether an added rubric is needed. |
| GOAL: Doctoral Teaching Fellows Provide Quality Classroom Teaching |
| Objective |
|
||||
|
Advanced doctoral students will develop and demonstrate their aptitude for providing high quality classroom instruction for undergraduate students. |
| Indicator |
|
|||
| Doctoral Teaching Fellows IDEA Evaluation Forms and Direct Observation by Faculty |
| Criterion |
|
|||
|
Doctoral Teaching Fellows will perform at or above the similar/middle 40% box on the IDEA evaluation form. Summary Evaluation will be 4.0 or above for teaching evaluations. The attached rubric will be used by faculty observers of a selected DTF led lecture. Students will obtain an average score of 80 or above on the overall rubric. |
| Finding |
|
|||
| In the Fall 2012 semester, teaching evaluations for courses taught by doctoral teaching fellows ranged from 2.9 to 4.6 with a mean score of 3.6. In the Spring 2013 semester, teaching evaluations for courses taught by doctoral teaching fellows ranged from 3.1 to 4.5 with a mean score of 3.95. Only a limited number of DTFs were observed for their teaching abilities a test pilot test of the rubric. Each DTF observed ranked above 80 or higher on the faculty-developed rubric; however, a number of suggestions were made to allow improvement in their pedagogy. |
Actions for Objective:
| Action |
|
|||
| Refinements to the doctoral curriculum and evaluation activities will be made to provide students with additional opportunities to learn, develop and reflect upon their teaching pedagogy. Further, more frequent classroom observation by varying faculty will be considered as an additional feedback mechanisms for DTF’s. |
| Previous Cycle's "Plan for Continuous Improvement" |
|
The CRIJ 7333 has been very beneficial in preparing the new cohort of Ph.D. students for the rigors of the program and the challenges they will be facing in the upcoming years. The literature review rubric has proved to be a great tool and will be used in the class to identify strengths and weaknesses in the students' writing. The IDEA evaluation forms highlight where new student professors need additional help and we will assess these to address these concerns and to punctuate those good qualities. In the 2012-2013 academic year, we will see a change in the Assistant Dean of Graduate Studies for the College of Criminal Justice. This person will identify new goals and objectives for the graduate program.
|
| Update on Previous Cycle's "Plan for Continuous Improvement" |
|
As per the previous cycle’s plan for improvement, the IDEA evaluation forms were used to highlight areas of strength and deficit among the graduate students. We also saw a change in the Assistant Dean of Graduate Studies for the College of Criminal Justice to Dr. Gaylene Armstrong and just recently Dr. Danielle Boisvert. While the CRIJ 7333 literature review had been used in the past to assess quality of students writing, we have moved toward an assessment of writing within the student’s doctoral portfolio which may include the CRIJ 7333 literature review but also other written elements.
|
| Plan for Continuous Improvement |
|
During the 2013-2014 AY, a committee of faculty will be developed to provide an increased level of assessment and feedback to doctoral students on their strengths and areas for improvement in teaching. Further, the utilization of the portfolio process as evidence of doctoral student writing ability and research competency will be examined to determine its feasibility in future assessment cycles. Faculty led development of a standard rubric will occur if deemed necessary by the Director of the Criminal Justice and Criminology graduate programs.
|