Department of Art & Designfresnostate.edu/academics/oie/documents/soap/Arts...The data results for...

Department of Art & Design Studio Art Option

Annual Assessment Report AY 2014/2015

Preface. The following assessment report is for the Studio Art option in the Department of Art & Design. Interior Design, M.A. in Art, and Art Education generate separate reports. Similarly, the Graphic Design Option will be included in a separate report as a part of the B.F.A. in Graphic Design. 1. What Learning Outcomes did you assess?

Common Goal 1.2 Identify, analyze and apply in visual, verbal and written form, the perceptual and conceptual elements of art and design.

Common Goal 1.3

Identify and evaluate conceptual elements and aesthetic principles of art and design in visual, verbal and written form.

Common Goal 2.3

Develop skills in visual analysis, synthesis and application of art and design. 2. What instruments did you use to assess them?

Direct measures: Studio Art faculty engaged in a portfolio review utilizing the portfolios collected in ART 37. Sample students from different areas were chosen. Both sophomore and senior portfolios were utilized. Both formative and summative assessments were conducted using visual examples and written artist statements. Updated language for the Learning Outcomes was used. A rubric was developed and used to assess the outcomes. A scale of limited, developing, capable and strong in each of the outcomes assessed was utilized. An additional, separate assessment was conducted in the Drawing/Painting area. Sample works were gathered from ART 20: Beginning Drawing and compared to works from ART 120: Advanced Drawing. Area Learning Outcomes (DPG) was utilized. A four-stage rubric was employed.

Indirect measures:

A survey was conducted in the 3D Ceramics area. Lower division and senior students self-assessed their understanding of materials and technical processes.

3. What did you discover from the findings?

Although we are still working through the updated language of the Common Outcomes (Goals), we were able to obtain better results in our assessment activities than last year. Direct assessment data in the formative assessment was in line with expectations for freshman/sophomore students. The data results for the summative assessment indicated areas of weakness in the Photography and Drawing portfolios. After much discussion, it was determined that additional or altered coursework was needed in both areas. Drawing currently only has a beginning and advanced course (not to be confused with figure drawing, which is a different track). This is too large a bridge for students to develop proficiency. Similarly, it was determined that photography may need to adjust courses. There have only been two primary photo courses, ART 30 and ART 130, being taught. The new tenure-track faculty member will further evaluate current coursework and determine if the structure and offering of the remaining courses need to be changed. The survey conducted in the Ceramics area showed student progress in line with expectations.

4. What changes did you make as a result of these findings?

Changes were accomplished from the last cycle. They are included in the following list as well.

1) A revision of the Common Outcomes was conducted. Most language was revised.

2) Area Outcomes were brought into the Common Outcomes. 3) A redesign of portfolio assignments was implemented to require assignment-

based works where possible to allow better materials for assessment. 4) A curriculum proposal was developed to implement a prerequisite for ART

112 to ensure students take portfolio courses in proper order. It is currently going through the curriculum committee review process.

5) A curriculum proposal was developed for ART 119: Intermediate Drawing. It is starting the curriculum committee review process.

5. What assessment activities will you be conducting in the 2015-16 academic year?

1) Continued revision of the Goals and Student Learning Outcomes to be clearer and more conducive to assessments.

2) Another full portfolio review will occur. Approximately 3 Common Outcomes will be assessed.

3) Rubrics will be enhanced to a 10-point annotated scale to better determine ranges in both the formative and summative assessments.

4) Additional areas will engage with entrance/exit surveys.

6. What progress have you made on items from your last program review action plan?

Action plan items from the 2013 program review:

(2012-2013) Employ Scoring Rubric for Art projects and Art History exams, Rubric for Portfolios in Art 37 and GD35 - Common Goals (CG) 1 & 4 Area Goals (AG) 1

(2013-2014) Employ Scoring Rubric for Art projects and Art History exams, Rubric for Portfolios in Art 37 and GD35 - CG 2 & 3 AG 3




(2017-2018) Employ Scoring Rubric for Art projects and Art History exams, Rubric for Portfolios in Art 37 and GD35 - CG 1 & 5 AG 1 & 3

(2018-2019) Employ Scoring Rubric for Art projects and Art History exams, Rubric for Portfolios in Art 37 and GD35 - CG 1 & 4 AG 1 & 3

Progress:

Employing a scoring rubric for portfolios from Art 37, CG 1 and 2 were assessed. Because the language of the Common Outcomes was updated, it seemed appropriate to assess the same numbered items so a comparison could be made with last year’s assessment results.

Assessment Activities in the Area of Art Education Department of Art and Design Fall 2014 Assessment activities in the area of Art Education are conducted continually throughout the program. Assessment occurs in a timeline of three stages, related to the three stages of the program: 1) Subject Matter Preparation Program 2) Single Subject Credential coursework, and 3) Single Subject Credential final student teaching. Subject Matter Preparation Program Goal: The goal of the Subject Matter Preparation Program is for students to achieve competency in a broad range of areas of studio art and art history. Direct Measures: The first direct measure of assessment occurs in one of two ways. First, in the completion of a 66 unit set of courses certified by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing as constituting subject matter competency in art. As an alternative to this measure, students may complete the CSET test in Art. The second direct measure of assessment occurs in the satisfactory completion of a portfolio that includes works from a specified set of twelve areas of art practice. Closing the loop: Students in the program meet with an advisor periodically to review their progress in the completion of coursework and in the development of the portfolio. They are given feedback as to what is needed to achieve satisfactory completion of each measure. Single Subject Credential Coursework Goals: To achieve knowledge in the foundations of secondary education and to achieve knowledge and skill in curriculum planning and pedagogy in the teaching of art. Direct Measures: In the course Methods and Materials in Secondary Art Teaching (CI 161), students submit lesson and unit plans, which are evaluated on the dimensions of goals, objectives, concepts, visuals, supplies and equipment, teaching procedure and evaluation. (In other courses in the Single Subject Program, other appropriate direct measures, such as examinations and papers, are used; the comments here focus on the courses in the art area). Closing the loop: Students receive comments on their unit plans and lesson plans, and then submit revised lesson and unit plans later in the semester to demonstrate progress. Single Subject Credential Final Student Teaching Goals: To achieve competency in secondary art teaching and to develop the practice of reflective inquiry in the development of teaching skills. Direct Measures: During final student teaching, students are observed and evaluated by

both a university supervisor and a master teacher on a set of dimensions articulated in the California Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs). At a midterm conference and at a final conference, the student, supervisor, and master teacher discuss the student’s progress in relation to the TPEs. In addition, students work throughout the semester on two projects in the Fresno Assessment of Student Teachers (FAST). FAST is designed to provide evidence on the pedagogical competence of Single Subject Credential Candidates as measured by the TPEs. Tasks are to be completed in a particular sequence and scored by trained scorers using FAST task-specific rubrics. Indirect Measures: At the end of the semester students complete evaluations of their own progress, and of the contributions of the master teacher and the university supervisor. Closing the loop: Beginning in 2013-2014, a final student teaching seminar (EHD154B) is taken concurrently with final student teaching (EHD155B). As one component of the seminar, students study the FAST program and receive comments on their written exercises related to the several dimensions of the program, with the objective of improving the quality of the final FAST submissions in EHD155B. A second means of closing the loop occurs in the midterm conference in EHD155B. Students receive discussion and written comments related to areas of achievement and areas for further improvement and development. The feedback provided by students in their own evaluations of their performance and of the program are used in a continual process of adaptation and development of the program.

ASSESSMENT REPORT, AY 2014-15 Department of Communication

College of Arts & Humanities

In 2014-15, Goal 4 was assessed for Communication 100 (Communication Theory) and Goal 1 was assessed for Communication 3 (Fundamentals of Public Communication).

COMMUNICATION 100 1. Learning Outcomes Assessed. Goal 4. Students will demonstrate competency in personal, narrative, and research writing. The learning outcomes for this goal state that students will be able to: 4.1 Develop a thesis statement or research question that makes an arguable claim or addresses a relevant communication issue. 4.2 Utilize an organizational format that effectively develops an intended purpose. 4.3 Utilize appropriate language choice, sentence structure, and grammar. 4.4 Follow appropriate research style conventions (e.g. MLA or APA). 2. Instruments (and assignment) Used in Assessment Fifteen student papers from Communication 100 (Communication Theory) were assessed. The papers represented a stratified sample of high, medium, and low scoring papers. This assignment required students to read a scholarly article in which the researchers used Social Exchange Theory and Uncertainty Reduction Theory to explain why there are different outcomes to betrayal in romantic relationships. Students needed to explain how and why the authors used these theories in their research, identify two research decisions made by the authors, apply two of the researchers’ to experiences in their own lives, and explain how findings in the article could be used to help communicators make better communication choices. A 4-point scale was used to assess each student’s performance on the paper and on each subcategory of the assessment. 4—Accomplished 3—Competent 2—Developing 1—Beginning Students were evaluated in four areas: mastery of content, adherence to the prompts in the assignment, use of APA format, and style/organization. A rubric developed by three faculty members (and included in an appendix to this report) was used to assess students in each of these areas. The department’s goal was for 75% of the students to be rated competent or higher on the assignment.

3. Findings From the Data Two faculty members applied the rubric to each of the papers. Students were evaluated based on the following scale: 3.5 to 4.0--Accomplished 2.5 to 3.4--Competent 1.5 to 2.4—Developing 0 to 1.4—Beginning Based on this scale, the number of students in each category was as follows: Accomplished 3 Competent 8 Developing 3 Beginning 1 With respect to the subcategories, the mean student scores were: Adherence to Prompts 2.96 Style and Organization 2.75 Mastery of Content 2.71 APA Format 2.57 The data indicate that 73.3% of the student papers scored in the competent or accomplished range. The mean score of the student papers fell in the competent range each of the subcategories. The mean score for APA format was the lowest of the four subcategories, suggesting a priority for student improvement in the future. 4. Actions Taken as a Result of the Findings The department held an all-day retreat, at which improvement in student writing was a major topic of discussion. The department plans to have ongoing discussions this year about new courses to be added to the curriculum that will focus on improvement in student writings. 5. Assessment Activities in 2015-16 The department will assess Goal 2: Students will demonstrate proficiency in the theoretical and methodological developments in communication and rhetorical theory and practice. An ongoing assessment of student writing will be included in this process.

COMMUNICATION 3 1. Learning Outcomes Assessed. Goal 1, Learning Outcome 1: demonstrate effective communication by analyzing, creating, and presenting extemporaneous informative and persuasive messages with clear lines of reasoning, development of ideas, and documentation of external sources. 2. Instruments (and assignment) Used in Assessment Fifteen extemporaneous student speech outlines from Communication 3 (Fundamentals of Public Communication) were assessed. A stratified sample of high, medium, and low scoring outlines was selected. These outlines contain the content that the students will present when delivering their persuasive speeches, organized in alpha-numeric form. On this assignment, students are required to organize their speeches into clearly delineated main points, indicate the ideas and evidence they will use to develop their main points, and properly cite their research sources. A 4-point scale was used to assess each student’s performance on the paper and on each subcategory of the assessment. 4—Accomplished 3—Competent 2—Developing 1—Beginning Students were evaluated in four areas: persuasive thesis, organization, persuasive content, and idea development. A departmental rubric that has been used in previous assessments of Goal 1, Learning Outcome 1 (included as an appendix to this report) was employed to assess students in each of these areas. The department’s goal was for 75% of the students to be rated competent or higher on the assignment. 3. Findings From the Data Two faculty members applied the rubric to each of the papers. Students were evaluated based on the following scale: 3.5 to 4.0--Accomplished 2.5 to 3.4--Competent 1.5 to 2.4—Developing 0 to 1.4—Beginning Based on this scale, the number of students in each category was as follows: Accomplished 5 Competent 8 Developing 2 Beginning 0 With respect to the subcategories, the mean student scores were:

Persuasive Thesis 3.50 Organization 2.82 Persuasive Content 2.91 Idea Development 3.05 The data indicate that 86.6% of the outlines assessed scored in the competent or accomplished category. The mean scores of the outlines were in the accomplished range for persuasive thesis and in competent range for organization, persuasive content, and idea development. 4. Actions Taken as a Result of the Findings The results of the assessment will be shared with the Director of the Graduate Teaching Associates for Communication 3 and taken into account in planning the curriculum for the department’s Teaching Practicum course. 5. Assessment Activities in 2015-16 The timeline for future assessment of Goal 1 will be updated in collaboration with the Directors of Graduate Teaching Associates for Communication 3 and Communication 8.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION SOAP SCORING RUBRIC, COMM 100 PAPERS

Scoring Level Mastery of Content Adherence to Prompt APA Format Style and Organization4=Accomplished Paper discusses relevant Paper addresses each Paper consistently adheres Paper uses headings and/or

concepts/principles correctly; question; discussion relates to APA format in all aspects signposts for each question;

Paraphrases accurately, to question; answers reflect of in-text citations; quoting author's lines of thought

limited use of block quota- depth of analysis and paraphrasing sources; easy to follow; word choice

tions; Effective application references page. Contains conveys ideas effectively;

of concepts/principles to few (if any) errors. few (if any) spelling or

subject matter of question grammatical errors.

3=Competent Paper generally discusses Paper addresses each Paper usually adheres to Paper makes it clear when

relevant concepts/principles question; discussion is APA format for in-text each question is addressed;

correctly; Includes mix of generally relevant to citations, quoting and Generally the reader can

accurate paraphrases and question; depth of answers paraphrasing sources, and follow the author's lines of

block quotations; Includes meet assignment guidelines references page. Makes thought and ideas. Limited

significant application of a few errors but none would spelling/grammatical errors.

concepts/principles to subject make it difficult to match in-

matter, but some application text citation to references or

faulty or underdeveloped locate original source.

2=Developing Paper includes relevant Paper addresses each Paper generally adheres to Paper generally makes it

concepts/principles but question; includes mix of APA format for in-text clear where each question is

some explanations erroneous; relevant/irrelevant discussion; citations, quoting and addressed; Overall the reader

Overuses block quotations; includes answers of paraphrasing sources, and can follow lines of thought

Includes some application of sufficient depth although references page. May contain and ideas but segments of

concepts/principles. other answers are limited several errors but evidences the paper are problematic.

or contain significant padding. good faith effort to comply. Generally follows rules of

spelling/grammar but makes

a number of errors.

1=Beginning Paper has insufficient Paper fails to address some Paper contants substantial Paper does not make it clear

discussion of relevant con- questions; several answers are not errors in following APA where each question is

cepts/principles; Excessive do not relate to question; format. addressed; significant

use of block quotations or answers generally contain difficulty in following lines

minimal reference to readings; insufficient depth or of thought, substantial

Minimal (if any) application significant padding. spelling/grammar errors

of concepts/principles.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION SOAP SCORING RUBRIC, GOAL 1, LEARNING OUTCOME 1

Scoring Level Thesis Organization Persuasive Content Idea Development4=Accomplished The thesis is indicated and The speech consistently uses The main points are persua- Each main point is developed

it is persuasive. organizational strategies, sive in nature, and they are with supporting materials

including a preview of main organized in an appropriate (including credible sources)

points, clearly titled main pattern for a persuasive appropriate for a persuasive

points, and transitions. The speech message. Supporting materials

outline is in proper alpha- are subordinate to the main

numeric form. points. Depth of development

is appropriate given time

limit and requirements of a

working speech outline.

3=Competent The thesis is persuasive in The speech generally uses The main points are generally Main points are generally

nature, but it needs to appropriate organizational persuasive in nature. The developed with appropriate

be more explicit strategies. Organizational speech structure evidences supporting materials. How-

errors are minor. an effort to persuade. ever, some main points lack

sufficient quantity of support

or include significant content

that is not persuasive in nature

2=Developing The speech has a thesis, The speech includes a number The main points include Main points are developed

but it is not persuasive in of appropriate organizational persuasive claims, although with supporting materials.

nature strategies, but also includes significant segements of the However, the speech is brief

significant organizational speech focus on other relative to the time limit or

errors. rhetorical purposes. includes a significant portion

of content that is not persua-

sive in nature

1=Beginning The thesis is missing or The organizational structure The main points are generally Main points are developed

difficult to ascertain is difficult to ascertain not persuasive; the primary with limited supporting

focus of the speech has a materials.

different rhetorical purpose

Year-End/Assessment Report AY 2014-15 Department of English The larger a department and the more numerous the programs it supports, the more complex the job of assessment becomes—and the more onerous when the work must be conducted by a diminished faculty contingent “volunteering” time and energy beyond their work as teachers and scholars, often outside the academic year. Nevertheless, the Department of English offers the following report—or actually reports, plural—on assessment work undertaken in regard to AY 2014-15 classes pertaining to the multiple graduate and undergraduate programs we support. Some of our on-going assessment has been through “indirect” measures. Last year we looked, first, at the success of our English 1L courses—small-group tutoring classes offered in the Writing Center in support of General Education Area A2. Comparison of pass rates between students enrolled in 1L as well as English 5AB and those not revealed a statistically significant difference in favor of the former. The difference was, in fact, the greatest among those students with the lowest EPT scores upon entering the University. Second, we are still in the process of acquiring and analyzing data that will allow us to take a closer look at the variant pass rates of students in another of our contributions to General Education: the Upper Division Writing Exam (English 100W). Having made some changes to the exam format (in response to an earlier assessment project) we wish to revisit some measures and investigate some new questions relating to variant preparation across the curriculum for the critical thinking/writing skills the exam demands. Third, the MFA in Creative Writing has undertaken a major alumni survey on the success of the program in preparing students for careers after graduation. Two areas were identified for potential program development: more emphasis on the business of publishing; and more opportunity to learn from visiting writers. The Department was also able to focus on three more direct assessment activities, as “assigned” for this year-end report. First, English 105 (Introduction to Literary Analysis) is required of all English and all English Education majors, and stands as prerequisite to all Upper-Division Literature coursework. Final papers from multiple sections of this course offered during both Fall and Spring semesters were gathered and “scored” according to a rubric relating to students’ ability to perform (at least at a rudimentary level) a series of related critical reading and writing skills. Particular attention was thus paid this year to their capability for conducting basic research in the discipline: their abilities to understand research methods in both literary history and critical theory, and to apply those methods to literary texts in a meaningfully sophisticated way. The results were good, albeit leaving (as ever)

some room for improvement: the average was above 3.2 on a 5-point scale (where 1 is “no ability evidenced” and 5 is “superior ability evidenced;” 3 is “ability sufficient for further work in the field”). This result illustrates a basic capability, to be sure, but does imply that refinement and reinforcement will need to take place in other coursework if students are to be prepared for, say, graduate work in the discipline. Fortunately, a parallel scoring and analysis of the same goal (albeit ideally at a higher level) in papers gathered from multiple sections of English 193T (Senior Seminar) shows that students are, by the time they graduate, advancing in their research skills. We did find, however, some difference in skill acquisition between English Majors and English Education Majors. (Because of some differing coursework mandated by the California State Subject Matter Requirements, students within the English Education major have less coursework—and therefore develop less strength—in theoretical and methodological literacy as well as the breadth of their exposure to literary traditions.) A third direct assessment exercise was conducted in relation to English 182 (English Portfolio Workshop), a culminating requirement specifically for graduating English Education Majors in preparation for their accrediting as new California High School teachers. Scoring according to a rubric taking into consideration both program SOAP goals and State-mandated SMRs revealed that our graduates have a good knowledge of the traditional canon of literature and are mostly able to demonstrate close reading skills in their writing. They were somewhat less able to apply critical theory to their readings (a similar outcome as noted above in our assessment of senior seminar papers), and often seemed overly rigid in their understanding, preferring a strict, “correct” answer to the nuances and discussions that characterize the discipline’s approach to literary analysis. Students were often lacking also in significant awareness of the breadth and depth of literary traditions, restricting their choices of topics to the known and comfortable. Though they demonstrated competency in basic research skill, their range of sources tended to be limited, especially to the most easily accessible. Their awareness of the writing process, however, showed them to have, as a group, developed this skill and to be able to articulate how they would transfer their own capability to the classroom and the teaching of others. The Department is still engaged in collecting samples by which to assess the graduate seminars taken by both MA and MFA students. Because the classes are smaller and more varied in their topics and methodologies, gathering a statistically useful sample (not to mention the development of a generalized, multiply-applicable rubric) has proven difficult. This is research perhaps more usefully conducted over a longer period than a single year. Assessment on this important portion of the Department’s curriculum is therefore still on-going.

Art and Design Department BFA in Graphic Design 2014-15 AY ASSESSMENT REPORT

What learning outcome(s) did you assess this year?

GD Learning Outcomes (GDLO) Students should be able to: GDO1.1 Produce graphic design works that Identify, define and apply traditional and

contemporary principles of art and graphic design. GDO2.2 Produce graphic design works that Identify, evaluate and apply creative processes in

graphic design. GDO4.1 Identify, define and apply technological methods or processes in graphic design

including typography, illustration or interactive multimedia design.

What instruments did you use to assess them? What did you discover from these data?

The GD area faculty met during the Spring 2015, Graphic Design Senior Exhibit to evaluate and analyze the students’ culminating experience and portfolios. This particular year, the faculty evaluated 14 students from the graphic design emphasis. A rubric based on the above learning outcomes was used for the assessment. The rubric is given a rating of 1 through 4. Four being the highest score.

2015 Graphic Design Senior Exhibit / 30 seniors participated. 14 graphic design student were evaluated. As a result, the GD faculty determined that: • Most (99%) of our GD students have scores of 3 and 4 on the rubric. • Most students had a portfolio that can professionally compete with any other GD school in

the areas of creativity, technical ability and presentation. • For the most part, the culminating experience reflected the students’ creativity and

execution of projects at a professional level. This could be attributed to the inclusion of GD180 and GD179 to the BFA program.

• It noted that several of these students entered the BFA in GD program with low ratings and expectations but were able to succeed with a strong showing of their portfolio and exhibition. Their progress though the program is commendable.

• Out of the 14 graphic design students, four have been offered and/or are working in the field as designers.

What changes did you make as a result of the findings?

Due to the large cohort of BFA students and the demand of time and workload on faculty, The GD faculty will consider splitting the GD179 and 180 courses into two or three courses. Each

course will represent each of the areas of emphasis. This will assist the faculty and students maintain quality education and enrollment management.

The GD faculty specifically in the Interactive Multimedia (IM), will continue to develop new introductory courses and two advanced courses for this emphasis. The introductory will assist students develop an overall but basic understanding of the field of Interactive Multimedia. The advanced courses will assist the students with their professional based projects and portfolio that is directed towards their field of study. These changes will also provide needed curricular changes in the IM area that is focused and with clear directions to the culminating experience and portfolio.

What assessment activities will you be conducting in the 2015-16 academic year? Briefly list the outcomes to be assessed and how you will measure them. This should align with the activities provided in your SOAP.

The GD area faculty will meet during the Graphic Design Senior Exhibit to evaluate and analyze the students’ culminating experience and portfolios. A rubric based on the above goals and learning outcomes will be used for the assessment. This will be the third year for this assessment activity. And again, the GD faculty will be considering the following learning outcomes.

GD Learning Outcomes (GDLO) Students should be able to: GDO1.1 Produce graphic design works that Identify, define and apply traditional and

contemporary principles of art and graphic design. GDO2.2 Produce graphic design works that Identify, evaluate and apply creative processes in

graphic design. GDO4.1 Identify, define and apply technological methods or processes in graphic design

including typography, illustration or interactive multimedia design.

What progress have you made on items from your last program review action plan?

Since the last program review under the BFA in Graphic Design and BA in Art with GD Option, the GD area faculty implemented various new graphic design projects in the GD 178 courses. This is due to the fact that it was indicated that in previous years our students lacked the “professional” level of design projects. The new projects will be implemented to cover collateral applications to graphic systems and identity systems.

Finally, this summer the faculty concluded the new SOAP- Student Outcomes Assessment Plan for the BFA in GD.

August 24, 2015

Memorandum re: Outcomes assessment reporting

After a two-year battle, CSU faculty were rewarded with some much-needed salary increases in 2015. Fresno State faculty were treated to an even greater amount of relief among the lower paid members. Unfortunately, much of this relief did not come from the home office in Long Beach, but rather came in the form of one-time equity adjustments thanks to the largesse of President Castro and his administration. Such adjustments, while welcome and commendable, should never be needed, and would not ever be needed if the CSU administration returned to a correctly structured salary scale for the faculty. Such a scale must include annual seniority-based increases contingent on satisfactory performance, known as SSIs. The administration should not expect faculty cooperation with the ongoing operation of the university until a properly structured salary regime with annual increases has been restored.

Like all universities, Fresno State operates smoothly thanks in part to service roles that are willingly played by faculty members, who work diligently beyond the minimum requirements. One such role is that of the Outcomes Assessment Coordinator, who provides an assessment report to the department each year, which is ultimately sent to the Office of Institutional Effectiveness. Faculty may no longer be willing to perform these duties in a timely fashion until the CSU administration restores the correct type of salary structure to our faculty ranks. Assessment activities, while desired by administration for the purpose of accreditation among other things, are not strictly necessary for the faculty to provide programs of study. Therefore, the Office of Institutional Effectiveness should expect a delay before the 2015 outcomes assessment reports are received.

Sincerely,

Sean Fulop

Professor of Linguistics

October 8, 2015

Student outcome assessment report

2014-15

Linguistics Outcomes Assessment Coordinator: Sean Fulop

Undergraduate program

We developed a new Student Outcomes Assessment Plan (SOAP) this year. In doing so we revised the learning outcomes for the programs in Linguistics.

We assessed the following outcomes directly through method Exam A1:

Analyze phonological data.

Analyze morphological data.

Demonstrate knowledge of sentence patterns (syntax) and how to analyze syntactic data.

Use the International Phonetic Alphabet to transcribe language, and make basic acoustic measurements of speech. We assessed the following outcomes directly through method Project B:

Describe what is known about how language is acquired. Describe what is known about how language is processed by the brain. Describe current best practices for teaching a second language. Analyze and design lesson plans and mini-units that focus on language skills (listening, speaking, reading, or writing) or integrated skills, to facilitate achieving communicative competence in ESL/EFL.

Assessment methods LING 100, 139, 142 and 143 were assessed by the exam performance for the four Exam A1 outcomes stated above. LING 141, 165, and 171 were assessed by the project performance for the Project B outcomes stated above. Information about which course serves which outcomes can be seen in the SOAP curriculum map.

Results Exams LING 100 exam results were assessed for two sections from the academic year. In one section the final exam average score was 66%, in the other it was 75%. LING 139 test averages went from 83% to 64% to 65%.

LING 142 final exam average was 79%. LING 143 midterm average was 40/50, improving to 44/50 on the final exam. Projects LING 165 term project average was 73%. LING 141 Twelve students received a grade of 6/6 on an essay test. Two earned 5.5 and just one student earned 4.5 points. LING 171 Nine students’ project scores and professor comments were evaluated by the course professor. Seven of the nine students earned high total scores and received high evaluations (As) for their section scores. Two students received satisfactory total scores. Discussion: The only low points in the direct assessment findings are the LING 139 Phonetics test scores, which should be brought up somehow, and also the LING 165 Language Acquisition term project scores. The faculty will focus on the potential trouble spots relating to objectives in phonetics and language acquisition.

Graduate program

We assessed the following objectives from the MA program SOAP pertaining to the TESL option: Produce a research paper which includes a literature review, appropriate methodology, data, interpretation of data, and a discussion of theoretical implications. Produce a curriculum for a language course which includes a focused literature review, needs assessment, goals and objectives, course design overview, sample lesson plans, and language assessments. Assessment methods: The first goal above was assessed using the MA thesis. The second goal was assessed from the curriculum design projects in LING 244. Results Only one MA thesis was filed by a TESL student in AY 2014-15. This thesis, while judged adequate, was not among our best in the department. From the LING 244 projects, all 13 students were awarded grades of at least B+, with 9 being awarded a grade of A. Discussion The results from direct assessment are satisfactory, so no program or procedure changes are indicated at this point in time.

Philosophy Department

Assessment Report for AY 2014-15

Submitted September 1, 2015

1. What learning outcomes were assessed? a. LOC 1: Appreciate the significance of philosophy and religion in human affairs b. LOC 2: Understand basic logic underlying ideas, values, and approaches in philosophy c. LOC 3: Recognize critical thinking employed in texts, traditions, arguments, and ideas d. LOC 4: Value the global and local diversity of philosophical and religious

interpretations

2. What instruments were used?

a. Assessed oral presentation skills from undergraduate student conference presentations (“Voicing Ideas”) and at our departmental convocation event using scoring rubric for three primary learning outcomes of History of Philosophy (LOC1), Logical Argumentation (LOC2), and Critical Thinking (LOC 3)—as well as the more nebulous general goal of fostering the spirit of philosophical inquiry, concern for justice, and social/historical awareness. We used a questionnaire and feedback from faculty.

b. Assessed performance of students in Phil 150 (“Foundations of Knowledge”) which is a required course in the major and also upper level Gen Ed. A rubric was employed by a committee of the whole, which was used to evaluate papers.

c. Assess graduates at annual Convocation for four primary learning outcomes of History of Philosophy, Logical Argumentation, Critical Thinking, and Act of Service. This was a focused conversation immediately after the event, consisting of faculty from the entire department.

d. Assessed the use of participation grading in four courses (Phil 150, Phil 120, Phil 101, and Phil 156) from three professors. This project was designed in order to understand how well we are teaching and assessing oral presentation skills (connected to LOC 3).

e. Assessed student evaluation data from the IDEA center, based upon the question of what our faculty are selecting as important and essential teaching objectives and how they overlap with our department learning outcomes. This helps us understand the broad nature of what our faculty believe we are teaching across the curriculum.

** Individual assessment reports and rubrics are included here.

1 8-Oct-15

3. What did you discover?

a. We are proud of our student evaluations. We continue to be among the best teachers on campus, as measured by student teaching evaluations.

b. The faculty are coherent and consistent in connecting our stated department goals with what we ask students to evaluate at the end of the semester.

c. We are making progress in focusing on written and oral argumentation.

d. We are pleased with the oral communication skills and philosophical spirit of our best students (Voicing Ideas assessment). As usual, students need further focus on philosophical argumentation, contextualization, and hermeneutical strategies. We want more students to achieve at this level. We need to make efforts to create excitement among students about formal oral presentations outside of the classroom.

e. The department wants to develop more focus on oral presentation skills, by being more attentive to how participation is graded and cultivated in our courses and the need to hold in class and online discussions to higher standards to achieve that goal for more students.

f. The department is concerned about grade inflation and cheating and plagiarism.

g. The department wants to develop more of a sense of community among students and increase the sense of inclusion that is already part of our community.

4. What changes did you make?

a. We have been more intentional about teaching argumentation in our courses.

b. We are working to communicate better with part-time and ad hoc lecturers about curriculum, grading, and content in classes.

5. What will we do in 2015-16

a. We will work to develop a list of alumni who can be contacted for a more robust form of alumni survey.

b. We will work to reinvigorate the Student Philosophy Club, Phi Alpha Delta, and other student groups.

c. We will work to discuss common pedagogical strategies and grading rubrics—to avoid grade inflation and respond to concerns about cheating and plagiarism.

d. We will aim to hire an assistant professor in Philosophy of Law who can work to integrate the pre-law courses with the rest of our curriculum.

2 8-Oct-15

6. What progress have you made on your last program review action plan?

B.A. PH ILOSOPHY ( INC LUDIN G PRE-LAW OP TION A ND RELIGIOU S STUD IES OP TION) Department of Philosophy

ACTION PLAN

I. Vision for the Program

The Philosophy Department will continue to offer three options: Religious Studies, Pre-Law, and General Philosophy. We will continue to contribute to the University’s General Education array and will find ways to expand our service to General Education and our service to other disciplines in the area of ethics. We will expand our contribution to General Education as a way of recruiting students. We will continue to serve the community by engaging the region with programs and projects focused on value inquiry broadly construed to include ethics and religious studies. In the next seven years, we want to bolster faculty expertise in three areas Religious Studies, Bioethics, and Cognitive Science. We want to continue to serve large numbers of majors in the Pre-Law program, while increasing the number of majors in the Religious Studies track. And we want to reinvigorate our contribution to the Interdisciplinary Cognitive Science program.

[What changes in direction or new initiatives do you anticipate as a result of the review?]

II. Specific actions to be taken to achieve the vision

1. Recruit faculty to bolster expertise in Religious Studies, Bioethics, and Cognitive Science and to service General Education

a. We have hired three new faculty: one in Ethics and Bioethics, one in Religious Studies with a specific focus on Asian Traditions, and one in Epistemology. The department has moved away from Cognitive Science. We are hiring a new person in Pre-Law to bolster the pre-law option.

2. Expanding General Education offerings:

We still need to work on this. We are working to provide mega-sections of C-1 courses in order to work within the new College of Arts and Humanities budget process.

ACTION PLAN

II. Specific actions to be taken to achieve the vision (continued)

3. Serve the Region in Value Inquiry, including Religious and Ethical Topics

a. We have received grants and organized conferences, workshops, and lectures focused on value inquiry, broadly construed to include religion.

4. Increase the number of Religious Studies majors

a. We are still working on this. This year (AY 2015-16) we will revise the Religious Studies curriculum. We made a new hire in R.S., who began last year and who will help with this process.

3 8-Oct-15

5. Contribute to the Interdisciplinary Cognitive Science Program

a. We are moving away from Cognitive Science along with the rest of the campus (and would gladly contribute, if the rest of the campus wanted to work to reinvigorate this program).

6. Update the SOAP and continue working on Student Outcomes Assessment

a. We have updated the SOAP plan and been much more diligent about assessment. A new assessment coordinator has been named: Carolyn Cusick.

4 8-Oct-15

Assessment Activity Reports Assessment Exercise for PHIL 150

Submitted by Carolyn Cusick

On 12/11/14 the philosophy faculty conducted an assessment exercise for the 150, Foundations of Knowledge. The class is required for our majors and is part of upper level Gen Ed.

The course covers the basics of epistemology: What is knowledge? What structure(s) of knowledge can quiet the skeptic? How are beliefs justified? And how is knowledge acquired? We read primary texts, some excerpts and some whole essays. Most of the readings are contemporary with a smattering of historical texts too. Students take exams: short answers and a short essay on each, so we cover some comprehension and some critical thinking. And they write short papers (2-3 pages) with a similar combination of goals. They are largely asked to summarize in the papers but also to recognize and practice the conversational, back-and-forth, structure of philosophical (academic) thinking by posing an objection and giving a reply too. This semester, I asked them to write the short papers in the form of letters, first to a friend then to the author they were summarizing, in hopes that giving them a concrete audience for their writing would make it clear when they should explain generally and when they should argue more in detail, and what the differences are between those two.

From a random sampling of 10 students’ last short essays, the faculty assessed whether the students demonstrate skill with three of our department goals by measuring on a three point scale of 1 = poor, 2 = adequate, 3 = well done. The goals we considered were:

1. Appreciate significance of phil & religion in human affairs … describe the history of ideas … and explain philosophical areas/topics, including Epistemology

2. Understand basic logic underlying ideas, values, and approaches in philosophy and religion … defend a specific thesis in writing using logical argumentation and authoritative evidence

3. Recognize critical thinking in texts, traditions, arguments, and ideas… be able to employ and explain basic exegetical and hermeneutical methodologies … reconstruct dialogues/debates among philosophers and traditions

There was consensus among the faculty that, despite one or two poor outliers, students were adequately meeting the first and third goals and a few were doing it well. They were able to summarize and explain texts and traditions as well as see the significance of disagreement between different perspectives. Students are comprehending the readings and the arguments; they are learning philosophy. Often, they are also connecting epistemological viewpoints to actual life or appreciating the significance of epistemology of human affairs.

5 8-Oct-15

There was also consensus that the second goal to “defend a specific thesis in writing” was not adequately represented in these essays. While it wasn’t a priority in the assignment, we expect that students should be including more of their own arguments than we saw in this sampling. This assessment exercise suggests that we could place more emphasis on this goal and give more attention to meeting this goal in the future.

6 8-Oct-15

Assessment Activity Report

Submitted by Andrew Fiala

Activity: Department met and discussed the reviewers’ evaluations of submissions for our undergraduate conference, “Voicing Ideas”

Date: March 12, 2015

Personnel: Mariana Anagnostopoulos, Vincent Biondo, Carolyn Cusick, Andrew Fenton, Andrew Fiala, Veena Howard, Robert Maldonado, Terry Winant

Procedure: We discussed student performance at Voicing Ideas, undergraduate philosophy conference. We used a survey for feedback from faculty.

Outcomes/Discussion:

1. Most faculty felt that students were performing “excellent” or “good.” The consensus was that the papers were of high academic quality. Faculty were also impressed by the fact that most papers had a “social justice” focus in terms of themes and topics. Every paper included argument and evaluation, which is one of our key area of assessment and central to all of our learning outcomes.

2. We are concerned about the low number of student who volunteer to participate in this event. Every year we have trouble rounding up student papers. This suggests that our students need more mentoring and encouragement and that they need to better understand the joy of public philosophizing.

Recommendations:

1. The department should continue to work to clarify argumentative methodology and explain how to construct and defend a thesis.

2. Faculty should continue to mentor outstanding students. We should also seek out and nurture students who can benefit from the experience of public philosophy, including minority students and students from underrepresented groups.

7 8-Oct-15


Submitted by Andrew Fiala

Activity: Department met and discussed student performance at our annual convocation ceremony.

Date: May 15, 2015

Personnel: Mariana Anagnostopoulos, Vincent Biondo, Carolyn Cusick, Andrew Fiala, Andrew Fenton, Veena Howard, Robert Maldonado, Terry Winant

Procedure: Students at the Philosophy Department Convocation are asked to speak for 5 minutes to express what they have learned from philosophy and what they are planning to do. Students also provide some information to the department with regard to future plans. Faculty met after the event to discuss our student accomplishments.


1. Students appear to have a good grounding in the “spirit of philosophy.” They express concern for justice, ethical behavior, and the life of the mind. Several expressed an interest in continuing with graduate studies in philosophy.

2. We are concerned that there is some disconnect among our students—especially between the three options of our major. We would like to see more collegial relations among our students.

3. Our graduates represent a diverse range of students of varying backgrounds and abilities. We are proud of our inclusive program.

Recommendations:

1. The department should make an effort to build community among students and to ensure that each track is considered as important and integrated into advising, club activities, etc. We should continue to work on creating an inclusive environment.

2. Faculty should continue to remind students of the cultural, political, and historical importance of philosophical study—both in the classroom and in the culture of the department, aligned with our departmental mission state to the be the beacon of the life of the mind in the Central Valley.

8 8-Oct-15



Activity: Department met and compared our SOAPs to our IDEA form important & essential objectives

Date: August 21, 2015

Personnel: Mariana Anagnostopoulos, Carolyn Cusick, Andrew Fiala, Andrew Fenton, Veena Howard, Robert Maldonado

Procedure: We compared the summary data from the Spring 2015 IDEA forms to our SOAPs. We noted which objectives were most and least commonly selected as important or essential. We identified which objective mapped onto which department learning outcomes.


• We quickly noticed that 100% of our courses select Objective 11 “Learning to analyze and critically evaluate ideas, arguments, and points of view” which accurately reflects the very heart of our discipline. It is explicit in both LOC 2 and LOC 3. The personnel present were satisfied with the consistency of this choice and that it is so clearly emphasized in both locations.

• We found it relatively easy to match our stated goals to the objectives, especially where we had high rates of objective selection.

• We noted also that those objectives that were never or very rarely selected did not have clearly corresponding learning outcomes.

• We noted the similarities and differences between objectives 10 and 12, and how one or the other might better map on to our LOC 4. We discussed whether we might emphasize more exploration of personal values in some courses.

Recommendations:

1. Noticing that we average over the recommended number of objectives to select on the IDEA form, we should be more selective. Reviewing the connections to our SOAPs helped in prioritizing and understanding the language of similar sounding objectives and we must pass this to everyone in the department.

2. We should also moderately revise our SOAPs to a. eliminate some unnecessary and confusing redundancy as well as to b. highlight the importance we place in nurturing curiosity and independent questioning

for the development of life-long learning

9 8-Oct-15



Activity: Department met and compared participation assignments and grade outcomes for 4 courses, both GE and Major courses, with three different participation grade standards to assess one of our learning outcomes

Date: August 21, 2015

Personnel: Mariana Anagnostopoulos, Carolyn Cusick, Andrew Fiala, Andrew Fenton, Veena Howard, Robert Maldonado

Procedure: We looked at the last exam grade, participation grade, and final grade for students in PHIL 150 (Foundations of Knowledge), PHIL 120 (Contemporary Conflicts of Morals), PHIL 101 (Ancient Philosophy), PHIL 156 (Moral Psychology) to see how different participation standards affect student grades and whether they are similar to their grades on the final exam in each class. We discussed how we understand and assess our program’s stated goal of having students “engage in oral argumentation.”


• While the final exam grade was highly predictive of the final grade, we noticed that the majority of the time participation improved everyone’s grades, although not always the final letter grade just the raw score. Some were harmed by failure to participate, but that was usually due more to excessive absences than to shyness or unwillingness to participate.

• Everyone agreed that there is a similar result when we have formal oral presentations – that the grades tend to be high, but that the quality of work tends to be quite good too. The format of oral expression, formal or informal, planned or spontaneous, requires something that the privacy of print doesn’t.

• Our discussion centered more around the value of participation in general and the significance of oral expression in our discipline. We found the discussion helpful for our own reflections about pedagogical commitments and practices. It was good for collegiality.

Recommendations:

1. We should be wary of letting participation grades inflate students’ grades too high, and focus more on requiring high quality oral expression for which students seem to prepare better than for exams and essays rather than rewarding any bit of participation in class discussion. This might include more use of online forums or small groups discussions in class where students spend more time crafting their claims, as that has more impact on retention than free flowing discussion.

2. But we shouldn’t use this as reason to return to lecture formats, just to guide our student assessment and grading rubrics.

10 8-Oct-15

II. Curriculum Map (Matrix of Courses X Learning Outcomes)

“I” = Introduced; “R” = Reinforced; “A” = Advanced

Course LO 1 – History of Philosophy (Demonstrate engagement with particular philosophical and/or religious ideas, theories, and traditions)

LO 2 – Logical Argumentation Write a paper on an arguable topic using logical organization and quoted evidence from authoritative sources

LO 3 –Critical Thinking Demonstrate analytical and interpretive skills by integrating distinct times, places, and disciplinary methodologies

LO 4 – Act of Service In a complex world, contribute an act of service that involves engaged dialogue

1 I I I I

2 I I I I

10 I I I I

20 I I I I

25 I I I I

28 I I R R

45 I I I I

101 R R R R

103 R R R R

105 R R R R

107 R R R R

108 R R R R

110 R R R R

115 R R R R

118 R R R R

120 R R R R

11 8-Oct-15

121 R R R R

122 R R R R

125 R R R R

127 R R R R

129 n/a n/a n/a n/a

130 R R R R

131 R R R R

132 R R R R

133W R R R R

134 R R R R

135 R R R R

136 R R R R

137 R R R R

138 R R R R

140 R R R R

145 R R A A

146 R R A A

150 R R R R

156 R R R R

157 R R R R

165T n/a n/a n/a n/a

170T A A A A

172T A A A A

199 A A A A

12 8-Oct-15

Attached please find the revised and updated SOAP for the Spanish MA, as well as the annual assessment report for AY 2014–2015 below. 1. What learning outcome(s) did you assess this year?

• Outcomes A.1 and D.2 (oral expression and instructional methodology) in SPAN 201. Outcome A.1 is reviewed in this course; D.2 is introduced.

• Analyze results of Comprehensive Exam OR Thesis

2. What instruments did you use to assess them? Rubric in SPAN 201 The attached rubric is used in SPAN 201 to assess outcomes A.1 and D.2 (oral communication, instructional methodology) from the Spanish MA SOAP. Students are graded on four areas: 1) quality and quantity of content; 2) design of the instructional sequence; 3) grammar, spelling & punctuation in the lesson; 4) quality of language used in the lesson (including proficiency level of instructor, register, speech rate, comprehensibility, and level adequacy). Mini-lessons were assessed by ascertaining the following from the rubric summarized above:

• Was the content appropriate to the lesson—was it interesting and relevant, and did it lend itself to being used to contextualize the lesson? Was enough appropriate content included in the lesson?

• Was the lesson contextualized? Were vocabulary and grammar taught within the context of culture or some other content? Was grammar taught mostly inductively? Did the instructional sequence adhere to the sequencing structure studied in class and in course readings? Was the lesson structured such that the students never had to spend more than seven minutes without having to do something with the language? Was the lesson student-centered?

• Did the instructor employ normative Spanish grammar in his or her delivery of input to the class? Did the instructor use correct spelling and punctuation in written material presented in class, such as handouts, Power Point presentations, and language written on the board?

• Was the instructor’s proficiency level adequate for the job of teaching Spanish? Was the language used by the instructor comprehensible and level-appropriate? Was the instructor’s speech rate level-appropriate? Did the instructor repeat key vocabulary in order to enhance comprehensibility? Did the instructor use body language, hand gestures and facial expressions to model vocabulary and to enhance comprehensibility?

Students are expected to score an average of 80% on the attached rubric in order to receive a B or better on the assignments (and thus, to meet the standards for the graduate-level work at Fresno State).

3. What did you discover from these data? Overall oral communication and instructional methodology met program goals. Instructional methodology was the only area of moderate concern, with a small percentage of students displaying register, organizational, or pacing issues. The instructor noted that students presented a total of four mini-lessons over the course of the semester, and performance improved appreciably for all but two students. It is noteworthy that SPAN 201 is taken most often by first-semester MA students, which gives us the opportunity for early intervention if needed and a comparison with their abilities assessed in more advanced courses as they progress in the program, as outlined in the SOAP. In addition, we evaluated both our Comprehensive Exam and Thesis results and determined that the majority of our MA students have shifted to the Project as the culminating experience of choice. As a result, there was insufficient data available on the Comprehensive (three students, all Linguistics-track) and the Thesis (only one thesis completed in 2014-15) to adequately assess them. The Spanish faculty will discuss these findings at our program retreat on September 16, 2015. 4. What changes did you make as a result of the findings? We will discuss the results of these findings at our annual Spanish faculty retreat on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 to determine specifically how we will close the loop before moving forward with changes. 5. What assessment activities will you be conducting in the 2015-16 academic year? In 2015–2016, we will assess outcomes A.2, A.3, B.1, B.2, B.3, and B.4 (writing, research methods, and MLA style) in SPAN 201, 202, 203, and *224. We will also analyze the results of the Language Exam both semesters. As always, we will analyze the results of our OA activities at our annual program retreat in early fall to determine what adjustments may be needed and how to best close the loop. *Note: SPAN 224 is being substituted for the scheduled 249 in AY 2015–2016 while the Spanish faculty conduct a search to fill the new vacancy for the specialist to teach 249. 6. What progress have you made on items from your last program review action plan? To date we have still not received a program review action plan, despite having submitted our program self study in 2011.

Assessment Report 2014-2015 for the B.A. in Spanish Department of Modern and Classical Languages and Literatures

Submitted by Assessment Coordinator: Dr. Gloria Medina-Sancho

1. What learning outcome(s) did you assess this year?

Although the revision of the SOAP for the Spanish B.A. is currently under discussion, the Spanish Section agreed to add Spanish 140 (Introduction to Literary Analysis) to the SOAP. This course is a good benchmark because it is the first literary course required for all majors. During AY 2014-15 more emphasis was given to outcomes B.3, B.4 and B.5 for essays in Spanish 140. These outcomes are listed as follows:

[B] 3. Formulate a thesis in an essay and support it with evidence.

[B] 4. Employ the language style appropriate for research papers.

[B] 5. Analyze literary texts within the major literary movements in Spain and Latin America, and formulate a thesis in relation to these texts.

2. What instruments did you use to assess them?

Since different instructors teach this course every semester, the rubrics presented in this report were used just by one instructor (attached as Appendix A). These rubrics emphasize written proficiency in literary analysis of texts, through essay and paragraph structure, argumentation and interpretation, as well as orthography, accentuation, grammar points, and thesis statement.

The other instructor does not work anymore at Fresno State. For this reason, no data was submitted for the course taught during the Fall 2014.

3. What did you discover from these data?

The instructor that used the attached rubrics said: “As stated in Spanish 140 course syllabus objectives, 80% of student performance has been relatively high: 24/30 in areas of thesis statement formulation, organization, evidence, research. (Students have responded well to an effective Loyola Marymount University thesis formula: Topic + claim + reason = thesis) Approximately 80% of students have achieved 21/30 or higher scores for basic writing

mechanics in spelling, accentuation, grammar, punctuation. In exams, percentages have been similar, with 80% of students scoring at 70% or higher as evaluated in grammar, reading comprehension, literary analysis. In my classes involving writing, students have 'scored' very high in accentuation with 90% scoring 27/30 in essays and 80% scoring 90% or higher in exams. This is due to a an effective/well received UCLA formula to determine accent placement. 80% of students learn this formula quickly and employ it well in class and beyond."

4. What changes did you make as a result of the findings?

The instructor that used the attached rubrics said: "I rely on experience, intuition, classroom interaction with each student. I try to adapt as quickly as possible in any given class as I see how individual students and classes as a whole express strengths and weaknesses. This is something I have learned first-hand and I feel that for me, personally, informed intuition serves as my best guide to help individual students and quickly effect changes. For the future, I am, of course, very willing to incorporate statistics to support my observations and/or consequent adjustments. I try to meet particular needs of different classes and students; for me this effort is best served without relying too much on scores that may not always reflect the strengths and needs of individual students."

5. What assessment activities will you be conducting in the 2015-2016 academic year?

Since we got feedback from just one instructor, and it was the first time Spanish 140 was included in the SOAP, the assessment coordinator will propose to the Spanish section (at our next retreat on 09/16/15) to repeat the assessment for this course in order to get more feedback from other instructors. Moreover, because Spanish 140 is taught by different instructors every semester, the Spanish Section is considering standardizing the format of the readings, the essays (also giving more emphasis to the rewrites), and the exams required.

Another assessment method under discussion to be implemented in the updated SOAP is to evaluate the sequence of Spanish 121A and 121B. The method proposed is a survey of discrete items in Spanish 121B.

As always, we will analyze the results of our OA activities at our annual program retreat in early fall to determine what adjustments may be needed and how to best close the loop.


N/A: To date we have still not received a program review action plan.

Appendix A

Rubric I have adapted for Spanish 140 essays in literary texts:

UCLA Rubric I have adapted for various writing classes: 1

Theatre Arts Assessment Report 2014-15 1. What learning outcomes did you assess this year?

Employ Scoring Rubric for Auditions (Goal 3.1) Goal 3.1.1. Acting students will present audition monologues in the format required by professional theatres and graduate schools. This will be assessed by the incorporation of prepared monologues into the department’s mainstage auditions each semester. The auditions will be scored by a committee comprised of the directors and acting faculty. This committee will review the results immediately after the completion of auditions. It may decide to make improvements in the procedure immediately. Such changes will be reported to the entire faculty at the Fall retreat.

Employ Scoring Rubric for Design (Goal 3.1.2) Goal 3.1.2. Design students will present design projects with documentation in the format favored by professionals and graduate schools. These projects will be evaluated by the faculty member in the student’s specialty. Results will be reported to a committee of the entire design faculty at the end of the semester. This committee’s suggestions for improving the curriculum will be shared at the Fall retreat. Employ Scoring Rubric for Dance (Goal 3.1.3) Goal 3.1.3. Dance students will choreograph and rehearse pieces to be tested and refined in performance. These dance pieces will be evaluated by the instructor for Dance 117D, and the results will be reviewed at the end of the semester by a committee comprised of the entire dance faculty. Possible weaknesses and suggestions for improving the curriculum will be shared with the entire faculty at the Fall retreat.

2. What instruments did you use to assess them?

See attached rubrics. For Goal 3.1 Auditions:

3. What did you discover from these data? This activity gives the department a comprehensive direct assessment of the progress of all the acting majors. It offers the students experience in an audition as close to professional auditions as the department can make it. It also offers each student more detailed feedback on her audition than was ever available previously. Movement is the area most often showing need for improvement; this is a challenge even for post-graduate training programs. In Fall 2014, upper division majors rated 2.73 in movement on a 4-point scale, which seems respectable if not exciting; new majors rated 1.81. Historically, the quality of material presented was a concern of faculty but it improved in 2014, with upper division students scoring 3.1 and new

majors scoring 2.0. Another concern had been proper dress for auditions but this is also improving. At this audition 24 of 37 upper division majors received a top rating of 4.0 from each of the evaluators.

4. What changes did you make as a result of the findings? Almost without exception, theatre arts majors/minors scored significantly higher than non-majors. Because all numbers were up or steady and conformed to expectations, no changes were deemed necessary. Even the one area of concern, movement, has shown improvement over a 5 or 6 year period.

For Goal 3.1.2 Design

3. What did you discover from these data? The design faculty has scored all of the student designs created for University Theatre productions during 2014-15. There were thirteen designs done by students, including scenery, costumes, lighting, sound and hair/make-up. The work was rated highly: 3.6 on a 4-point scale for responsibility, 3.4 for technique, 2.8 for documentation and 3.4 for creativity and rationale, respectively. 4. What changes did you make as a result of the findings? Faculty will address the importance of documentation to students in design classes and mentoring. As well, the department has loosened its policies on student acquisition of documentation photos of productions so that students can more easily collect photos of their work for portfolios. The scores for technique have increased since the last assessment in this area in 2011-12, attesting to the repeated offering of Graphics as well as upgrades to design software. The costume shop has created and published criteria for attaining mainstage design assignments for students in costume and hair/makeup. The other design areas are planning to create similar road maps. The number of student designers has increased over the past 5 years, better preparing our students for professional work. In Spring 2015, 4 of the 6 graduating Design/Tech emphasis majors went on to graduate school or professional work in theatre/film (plus one Acting emphasis major who was accepted into a graduate lighting design program and 1 Studio Art major who was accepted to grad school for set design).

For Goal 3.1.3 Dance

3. What did you discover from these data? The attached rubric, devised in 2003, was used by the Dance faculty to score student pieces in Dance 117D in 2015. This area was last assessed in 2012.

Students scored satisfactorily (3.0 and above) on all areas except Depth of Expression, which fell to 2.2. 4. What changes did you make as a result of the findings? The faculty will increase the use of improvisation in the course to help students to access their emotions more effectively. In a larger context, the dance faculty has concluded that the rubric devised in 2003 and its use in Dance 117D itself needs to be revisited. Dance 117D is a techniques class but the rubric mostly assesses choreography, which is not a appropriate outcome for any of the varied technique classes in the program. The faculty is in the process of developing a new technique rubric that more accurately reflects the learning outcomes. Attached is the grading rubric used in Dance 158D, Ballet Technique as well as a draft of a new rubric to be employed in that class in the future. The dance faculty will develop a new rubric and test is in other technique classes in 2015-16.

5. What assessment activities will you be conducting in the 2015-16 year?

Employ Rubric for Crews, Casts (Goal 4, 5.2) Employ Rubric for Term Papers (Goal 2.3)


Drama 10/186 Exam The exam in Drama 10 and Drama 186 has been changed to better reflect the revised content of the Theatre History sequence. It will be administered this year in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the new assessment instrument. Alumni Survey This was postponed last year because of the sudden and unexpected resignation of the department administrator in charge of the Facebook page and alumni outreach. During the school year of 2014-15, the department replaced this person with a part-time temporary hire and thus the faculty decided to postpone the survey until a permanent person could be hired. This new person has been hired but only just started in August 2015. We will review the alumni survey with the new hire and plan to conduct the survey this academic year.

Appendix Changes to Dance Assessment Dance 158D Ballet Technique Scoring Rubric for Class Instructor Progress Assessment is 20 points. Feedback on your classroom progress is important. If you have questions about your progress in this class please seek feedback from the instructor at any point in the semester. Absences, tardiness and the inability to maintain a disciplined, positive, professional attitude – toward yourself and others during class will affect your progress grade. Use the following as a guideline for your progress grade. • An "A-excellent" (18.0-20.0) in progress will be earned if you work to your

maximum ability throughout class with no significant errors and with fluency, demonstrating strong improvement in overall technique, learn new work and improve the execution of work learned at previous levels while understanding the key features of the skill process.

• A "B-very good" (16.0-17.9) in progress will be earned if you work hard to achieve new goals with no significant errors and show good improvement, particularly in new work while demonstrating some improvement in basic technique.

• A "C-satisfactory" (14.0-15.9) in progress will be earned if you work at a satisfactory level attempting new work with average skill or rough approximation and your basic technique shows little growth or improvement while being comfortable with the familiar, but resistant to new work or methodology.

• A "D-unsatisfactory" (12.0-13.9) in progress will be assigned if no improvement is noted while new work is approached with reluctance and basic technique is often executed with inconsistency or without care.

• An “F-failure” (0-11.9) in progress will be given for work that fails to meet the course requirements.

Thirteen students were in the spring semester. Seven students earned an A grade (18.0-20.0)

Six students earned a B grade (16.0-17.9) Draft Outcomes Rubric to be used in future. 1. Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the body's capabilities and

limitations to develop dance technique and perform appropriate combinations, phrases and sequences relative to individual anatomical structure without the risk of technical faults or injuries occurring.

2. Comprehend and apply advanced ballet movement within the classical ballet framework including the capacity to engage focus, discrimination, mind/body harmony, technical excellence and personal investment in all processes such as learning movements, responding to direction, working with colleagues, individual exploration and performance.

3. Analysis and syntheses of the key elements of ballet vocabulary, history, musicality, and theory.

Appendix

Criteria for consideration for main stage design assignments: Costumes/Makeup

Please note these are the criteria to apply for Main Stage Design position consideration. No Main Stage Design positions are guaranteed to students. Students may apply to costume or makeup design for department main stage productions upon successful completion of the following: 1. Must have at least a 2.0 GPA in their majors courses 2. Must have successfully passed Drama 34 3. Must have at least 2 units of 115/189/15/89 in crew work 4. Earned a passing grade in 2 of the following courses: -Drama 181B Costume Design -Drama 181A Costume History -Drama 134B Costume Craft -Drama 41 Makeup * (required for makeup design) -Drama 110 Design 5. Must have completed one of the following options: a. Successfully designed costumes/makeup for a non-main stage production:

-ETC Production -The Opera Program (under faculty supervision)

b. Assistant designed for a Main stage Production in the proposed design area.

Transfer/Non Traditional Students: Transfer students can be considered for main stage design, but must provide references from previous costume shop for qualification verification. Students coming into the department with extensive outside design work may be considered for main stage design based on portfolio review and qualification verification. This would be in lieu of Requirement #5.

Department of Art & Designfresnostate.edu/academics/oie/documents/soap/Arts...The data results for...

Documents

Transcript of Department of Art & Designfresnostate.edu/academics/oie/documents/soap/Arts...The data results for...