2013-2014Annual Program Assessment Report

2013-2014Annual Program Assessment Report

Please submit report to your department chair or program coordinator, the Associate Dean of your College, and to , director of assessment and program review, by Tuesday, September 30, 2014. You may submit a separate report for each program which conducted assessment activities.

College: Social and Behavioral Sciences

Department: Geography

Program:

Assessment liaison: Ron Davidson

Overview of Annual Assessment Project(s). Provide a brief overview of this year’s assessment plan and process.

This year’s assessment comprisedtwo main components:

We directly assessed 3 SLOs using the capstone (Geography 490) paper. These were: SLO 2.2: Student demonstrates ability to construct a literature review; SLO 3.2: Student uses prior research to construct an argument or to evaluate a hypothesis; SLO 4.2: Student writes an effective research paper.
We continued administering pre- and post-tests for World Geography (Geography 150), enabling us to document “value added” in the world-geography components of SLOs 1.1 and 1.2 (Students recognize, recall and identify facts and ideas constituent of the core content knowledge of physical geography (1.1) and human geography (1.2).)

Assessment Buy-In.Describe how your chair and faculty were involved in assessment related activities. Did department meetings include discussion of student learning assessment in a manner that included the department faculty as a whole?

All faculty meetings have assessment on the agenda. At these meetings the faculty continue anongoing conversation on the purpose and content of the capstone course, have discussed faculty teaching practices and priorities, and have shared information on university-sponsored programs (like the Social Science Writing Project) in response to assessment activities and findings. Dr. Graves is the department’s most active faculty member when it comes to assessment, and uses his Geography 300 course as a laboratory of new and experimental learning activities. The (now-former) chair, Shawna Dark, oversaw assessment activities in the department, lead discussions of assessment during faculty meetings, and actively promoted assessment buy-in for the department as a whole.

Student Learning Outcome Assessment Project.Answer items a-f for each SLO assessed this year. If you assessed an additional SLO, copy and paste items a-f below, BEFORE you answer them here, to provide additional reporting space.

3a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?

SLO 2.2: Student demonstrates ability to construct a literature review

3b. Does this learning outcome align with one or more of the university’sBig 5 Competencies?(Delete any which do not apply)

Critical Thinking
Written Communication
Quantitative Literacy
Information Literacy

3c. What direct and/or indirect instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?

Capstone course (Geography 490) papers.

3d. Describe the assessment design methodology: For example, was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different points)or was a cross-sectional comparison used (Comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.

This year the SLO was assessed strictly in the capstone course. The papers were scored with a rubric.

3e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO:Provide a summary of how the results wereanalyzed and highlight findings from thecollected evidence.

All of the literature reviews in our random sample met department expectations, with one exceeding those expectations. This result is satisfactory, but comes with the caveat that many rough drafts received extensive feedback and editing by faculty, which elevated the quality of the final drafts. The faculty overall were not pleased with the quality of student writing, and spent considerable time in Geography 490 working with students to improve their work.

3f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO:Describe how assessment results were used to improve student learning. Were assessmentresults from previous years or from this year used to make program changes in this reporting year? (Possible changes include:changes to course content/topics covered, changes to course sequence, additions/deletions of courses in program, changes in pedagogy, changes to student advisement, changes to student support services, revisions to program SLOs, new or revised assessment instruments, other academic programmatic changes, and changes to the assessment plan.)

Faculty are pleased with the assessment outcome, but firmly believe that student writing skills need improvement. Several steps are being taken to address this problem. These will be described below with respect to SLO 4.2, below. However, the following changes have been made specifically to improve student performance in literature reviews:

-Dr. Laity has added several new video clips on the nature of literature reviews to the Capstone course she teaches. She reinforces the content in class discussion. Students do a "beginner" synthesis of their literature reviews in their research proposals and then have three more opportunities to develop it in successive drafts of their theses.

-Dr. Craine has incorporated WRAD workshop ideas into his Africa (326) and Oceania (334) classes that should help students improve literature reviews.

-Dr. Jackiewicz has incorporated a proposal writing assignment in his Tourism (345) course which requires them to write a literature review summarizing and integrating research into their topics.

-Dr. Davidson has, like Dr. Laity, incorporated a video on literature reviews for his Cultural Geography (301) class and reinforces the video with class discussion and analysis of examples from the geographic literature.

3a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?

SLO 3.2: Student uses prior research to construct an argument or to evaluate a hypothesis

3b. Does this learning outcome align with one or more of the university’s Big 5 Competencies? (Delete any which do not apply)

Critical Thinking
Written Communication
Quantitative Literacy
Information Literacy

3c. What direct and/or indirect instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?

Capstone (Geography 490) papers.

The assessment was done on 490 papers only.

3e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO:Provide a summary of how the results were analyzed and highlight findings from thecollected evidence.

This year’s graduating students wrote better hypotheses than last year’s, based on assessment. This probably reflects the changes we made last year to address performance on this SLO. However, we are making additional changes to consolidate our gains and further improve student performance in this skill.

3f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO:Describe how assessment results were used to improve student learning. Were assessmentresults from previous years or from this year used to make program changes in this reporting year? (Possible changes include:changes to course content/topics covered, changes to course sequence, additions/deletions of courses in program, changes in pedagogy, changes to student advisement, changes to student support services, revisions to program SLOs, new or revised assessment instruments, other academic programmatic changes, and changes to the assessment plan.)

Dr. Steve Graves, who has taught our Gateway course (300) until taking a sabbatical this fall, interviewed students and found that few have written hypotheses above what he characterizes as “elementary school quality”. He also found that few students understand what a hypothesis is. When asked, they tend to characterize a hypothesis as “an educated guess”.

Dr. Graves now insists that students write hypotheses in “If-then” form, as in: “If my sweetheart loves me, THEN he/she will buy me at least 12 roses”. Insisting on this formulation helps guarantee that students formulate testable hypotheses that can be used in a social science framework.

In addition, Dr. Graves plans to expand the statistical portion of Geography 300 to 3 weeks, which increasesstudent opportunities to practice writing testable hypotheses.

Dr. Jackiewicz added a proposal writing component to his Tourism (Geography 345) class that requires students to come up with a testable hypothesis.

3a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?

SLO 4.2: Student writes an effective research paper

3b. Does this learning outcome align with one or more of the university’s Big 5 Competencies? (Delete any which do not apply)

Critical Thinking
Written Communication
Information Literacy

3c. What direct and/or indirect instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?

The capstone (Geography 490) papers were assessed.

3d. Describe the assessment design methodology: For example, was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different points)or was a cross-sectional comparison used (Comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.

A rubric was used to assess the papers.

3e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO:Provide a summary of how the results were analyzed and highlight findings from thecollected evidence.

Writing quality was significantly worse this year than last. In both years, the majority of students met department expectations. However, fewer students wrote above expectations while more wrote below expectations this year. In addition, writing scores would have been even lower had faculty not worked intensively editing and providing feedback on rough drafts.

Several changes have been made to improve student writing:

Dr. Dark now requires additional writing in her internship (494) class.

Dr. Craine has incorporated WRAD (Writing Across the Disciplines) workshop ideas into his Africa (326) and Oceania (334) classes.

As noted above, Dr. Jackiewicz has added a proposal writing assignment to his Tourism (345) class that helps develop writing skills. He also plans to continue using the writing assignments he added last year to his Urban Geography (351) course.

Dr. Davidson now spends an entire session of his Cultural Geography (301) class discussing the elements of a thesis-driven paper: topics include finding appropriate sources, defining a narrative, using topic sentences, constructing a thesis statement, and overall structure.

3a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?

SLOs 1.1 and 1.2 (Students recognize, recall and identify facts and ideas constituent of the core content knowledge of physical geography (1.1) and human geography (1.2).)

3b. Does this learning outcome align with one or more of the university’s Big 5 Competencies? (Delete any which do not apply)

Quantitative Literacy

3c. What direct and/or indirect instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?

We asses these SLOs by administering pre- and post-tests on World Geography (Geography 150) material. We give the pre-test at the start of the semester in World Geography (150) classes, and give the post-test in our Capstone (490) course.

3d. Describe the assessment design methodology: For example, was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different points) or was a cross-sectional comparison used (Comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.

The test is cross-sectional, being given in a 100-level course and again in a 400-level course.

3e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO:Provide a summary of how the results were analyzed and highlight findings from the collected evidence.

The pre-test average score this year was 50.5% (which is very typical of the pre-test scores in other years); the average post-test score was 73.5%. We believe this 23% improvement is significant. Last year the improvement measured was only 12%. Since obtaining that result we reduced the number of part-time instructors teaching 150, and the improvement found this year may in part reflect this change.

3f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO:Describe how assessment results were used to improve student learning. Were assessment results from previous years or from this year used to make program changes in this reporting year? (Possible changes include: changes to course content/topics covered, changes to course sequence, additions/deletions of courses in program, changes in pedagogy, changes to student advisement, changes to student support services, revisions to program SLOs, new or revised assessment instruments, other academic programmatic changes, and changes to the assessment plan.)

We are pleased with the degree of “value added” as measured in our pre- and post-test results of World Geography material this year. However, two years ago the value added was even greater (28%). We have decided to utilize Mastering Geography, a website offered by Pearson, to complement our World Geography textbook. With the website, which will be adopted for the first time in Spring 2015, students will get to practice a basic form of GIS and will be able to explore the material in a variety of engaging ways. Geography faculty member Dr. Jim Craine spent years helping Pearson develop the website, and we believe it will make an excellent addition to the class, we hope engaging students in new ways and increasing their retention of basic human and physical geography.

4. Assessment of Previous Changes: Present documentation that demonstrates how the previous changes in the program resulted in improved student learning.

The results of our World Geography pre- and post-tests are highly encouraging, as they suggest that our replacement of part-time faculty with full-time faculty has paid off in terms of student learning.

In addition, this year our sample of Capstone papers had significantly better hypotheses than last year. Basic writing skills stand out as a remaining challenge among SLOs assessed this and last year.

5. Changes to SLOs?Please attach an updated course alignment matrix if any changes were made. (Refer to the Curriculum Alignment Matrix Template,

N/A

6. Assessment Plan: Evaluate the effectiveness of your 5 year assessment plan. How well did it inform and guide your assessment work this academic year? What process is used to develop/update the 5 year assessment plan? Please attach an updated 5 year assessment plan for 2013-2018. (Refer to Five Year Planning Template, plan B or C,

Our five-year plan is an open document in that while it specifies where and how SLOs will be measured, it leaves the assessment timetable open as “ongoing”. This gives the faculty maximum flexibility to determine which SLOs should be assessed, based on previous assessment results and observed trends.

7. Has someone in your program completed, submitted or published a manuscript which uses or describes assessment activities in your program? Please provide citation or discuss.

N/A

8. Other information, assessment or reflective activities or processes not captured above.

Several faculty members have changed their courses to improve some aspect of student performance and assessment:

Dr. Dark has made significant changes to her Internship course. The first is that she now requires additional writing and discussion of articles related to professional skills and job hunting. She has students reflect upon their experience at CSUN and what professional skills they have and have not gained in our program. Then she helps them devise a plan to work on those skills. She also has them do self-assessment in regards to career options since some of the students are not necessarily interested in GIS.

Dr. Laity has added a good deal of upper-level NOAA online homework and added video clips from the USGS to her PowerPoints for her Hydroclimatology (414) class.

Dr. Craine recertified two courses (Africa and Oceania) to get them more inline with SLOs, and added those two to the Global Studies GE Path. He also switched over to narrated PowerPoint lectures for his online classes.