STUDENT LEARNING ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

SUMMARY FORM AY 2005-2006

Degree and

Program Name:

Submitted By:

PART ONE

What are the learning objectives? / How, where, and when are they assessed? / What are the expectations? / What are the results? / Committee/ person responsible? How are results shared?
1. Students will demonstrate an understanding of the structure and operation of the American legal system. / Direct Measurement: Faculty members teaching History 3600 were asked to require pre-law minors to submit electronically to the Pre-Law Minor Advisory Committee Chair an appropriate piece of writing. HIS 3600 was selected because it is one of the three required courses in the pre-law minor curriculum – all pre-law minors thus take this course. The Pre-Law Minor Advisory Committee determined that the papers submitted in this course are substantive enough to allow assessment of learning objectives 1, 2, 4 and 5. The History professor who sits on the Pre-Law Minor Advisory Committee requested all History faculty teaching this course during Fall 2005 and Spring 2006 to determine what writing assignment best links to the learning objectives, and to include in the course syllabus a mandate that students with pre-law minors submit the paper to the Pre-Law Minor Advisory Committee Chair. The Pre-Law Minor Advisory Committee Chair completed an assessment rubric for each writing sample that was submitted. The PTA rubric asks a series of questions concerning how well the paper reflects the student’s ability to understand the structure and operation of the American legal system. The Pre-Law Minor Advisory Committee Chair ranked the writing samples on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being poor and 5 being excellent.
Indirect Measurement: 291 alumni who had obtained a pre-law minor at EIU and graduated in the years 1992-2005 were mailed a survey about the minor. 19 surveys were returned “unable to forward.” 44 alumni returned the survey, resulting in a response rate of 16.2%. For this learning objective, alumni were asked to rank on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being “strongly agree” and 5 being “strongly disagree” his or her response to the statement “The Pre-Law Minor assisted me in understanding the structure and operation of the American legal system.” / A score of 3 on each part of the PTA. A score of 3 will indicate that student learning was “satisfactory.”
Alumni should at least “agree” (rank of 2) with the statement. / Three individual assessment rubrics were completed. All rubrics were graded as a 3 or better. One student was graded a 5, one a 4, and one a 3.
66% of alumni responded with a 2 or higher. 27% “strongly agree,” and 39% “agree” with “agree” being the modal response. / The results will be shared with the Pre Law Minor Advisory Committee. The Committee will consider these results when making curriculum changes during the next year. The results will be particularly shared with History professor who sits on the Pre-Law Minor Advisory Committee, in hopes that more students will submit writing samples to the Pre-Law Minor Advisory Committee Chair in the future.
The results will be shared with the Pre Law Minor Advisory Committee.
2. Students will demonstrate the ability to understand and analyze legal cases. / Direct Measurement: The same review process described in learning objective #1 (above) was used here. The Pre-Law Minor Advisory Committee Chair used a PTA rubric asking a series of questions concerning how well the paper reflects the student’s ability to understand and analyze legal cases.
Indirect Measurement: The same alumni survey described in learning objective #1 (above) was used here. For this learning objective, alumni were asked to rank on a scale from 1 to 5 his or her response to the statement “The Pre-Law Minor assisted me in developing the ability to understand and analyze legal cases.” / Same as described in learning objective #1 (above).
Same as described in learning objective #1 (above). / Three individual assessment rubrics were completed. Most rubrics were graded as a 3 or better. One student was graded a 5, one a 4, and one a 2.
64% of alumni responded with a 2 or higher. 30% “strongly agree,” and 34% “agree” with “agree” being the modal response. / Same as described in learning objective #1 (above).
Same as described in learning objective #1 (above).
3. Students will demonstrate the ability to communicate effectively orally. / Direct Measurement: Faculty members teaching English 4760, one of the three required courses in the pre-law minor curriculum, were to have been asked to evaluate pre-law minors in their execution of an appropriate oral communication assignment. The English professor who sits on the Pre-Law Minor Advisory Committee was to have determined what oral assignment best links to this learning objective and was to have worked with other English professors teaching ENG 4760 to implement this request. A PTA rubric designed to assess this learning objective has been developed by the English department. Results were to have been forwarded to the Pre-Law Minor Advisory Committee Chair.
Indirect Measurement: The same alumni survey described in learning objective #1 (above) was used here. For this learning objective, alumni were asked to rank on a scale from 1 to 5 his or her response to the statement “The Pre-Law Minor assisted me in developing the ability to communicate effectively orally.” / Same as described in learning objective #1 (above).
Same as described in learning objective #1 (above). / This was not implemented AY 05-06.
48% of alumni responded with a 2 or higher. “Uncertain” was the modal response with 36% circling this on the survey. Only 14% “strongly agree.” / Same as above. Concerns will be particularly shared with English professor who sits on the Pre-Law Minor Advisory Committee, to ensure that assessment will be implemented AY 06-07.
Same as described in learning objective #1 (above).
4. Students will demonstrate the ability to communicate effectively in writing. / Direct Measurement: The same review process described in learning objective #1 (above) was used here. The Pre-Law Minor Advisory Committee Chair used a PTA rubric asking a series of questions concerning how well the paper reflects the student’s ability to communicate effectively in writing.
Indirect Measurement: The same alumni survey described in learning objective #1 (above) was used here. For this learning objective, alumni were asked to rank on a scale from 1 to 5 his or her response to the statement “The Pre-Law Minor assisted me in developing the ability to communicate effectively in writing.” / Same as described in learning objective #1 (above).
Same as described in learning objective #1 (above). / Three individual assessment rubrics were completed. All rubrics were graded as a 4 or better. One student was graded a 5, and two a 4.
50% of alumni responded with a 2 or higher. 23% “strongly agree,” and 27% “agree” with “agree” being the modal response. / Same as described in learning objective #1 (above).
Same as described in learning objective #1 (above).
5. Students will demonstrate the ability to identify, analyze, and synthesize relevant information. / Direct Measurement: Same as described in learning objective #1 (above).
The same review process described in learning objective #1 (above) was used here. The Pre-Law Minor Advisory Committee Chair used a PTA rubric asking a series of questions concerning how well the paper reflects the student’s ability to identify, analyze, and synthesize relevant information.
Indirect Measurement: The same alumni survey described in learning objective #1 (above) was used here. For this learning objective, alumni were asked to rank on a scale from 1 to 5 his or her response to the statement “The Pre-Law Minor assisted me in developing the ability to identify, analyze, and synthesize relevant information.” / Same as described in learning objective #1 (above).
Same as described in learning objective #1 (above). / Three individual assessment rubrics were completed. All rubrics were graded as a 3 or better. Two students were graded a 4, and one a 3.
68% of alumni responded with a 2 or higher. 25% “strongly agree,” and 43% “agree” with “agree” being the modal response. / Same as described in learning objective #1 (above).
Same as described in learning objective #1 (above).

PART TWO

Describe what your program’s assessment accomplishments since your last report was submitted. Discuss ways in which you have responded to the CASA Director’s comments on last year’s report or simply describe what assessment work was initiated, continued, or completed.

·  Direct measurement: Though only 3 papers were submitted, the mechanism for direct measurement is in place and only needs more effective oversight to function more effectively.

·  Indirect measurement: Surveys were sent to all pre-law minors identified by the Alumni Office as graduating from 1992-present, whereas last year we only had contact information for 2004 alumni. Results should provide a baseline for measuring improvements in the program as the years progress and future alumni are surveyed.

·  In view of the CASA Director’s comments on last year’s report, a previously articulated learning objective “students will demonstrate the ability to think critically” was dropped as it does not have meaning independent of the ability to identify, analyze, and synthesize relevant information; critical thinking is a component of the rubric used to evaluate student learning of objective 5.

PART THREE

Summarize changes and improvements in curriculum, instruction, and learning that have resulted from the implementation of your assessment program. How have you used the data? What have you learned? In light of what you have learned through your assessment efforts this year and in past years, what are your plans for the future?

·  Direct measurement procedures will be improved as indicated above. I have learned that it is not enough to have an assessment plan in place and to have persons designated to carry it out; as the coordinator of the pre-law program, I must be more active in monitoring the assessment work that others do.

·  The alumni survey reveals overall satisfaction with the pre-law minor curriculum and the pre-law program more broadly. The weakest area is in student learning how to communicate effectively orally. I will examine my course syllabi and develop additional exercises to include in my courses in order to strengthen student mastering of this valuable skill, and I will encourage members of the Pre Law Minor Advisory Committee to do the same.

·  Open-ended questions on the alumni survey concerning identification of beneficial aspects of the pre-law program and areas where improvement is needed have produced useful comments. In particular, 36% of alumni identified “Mock Trial” as one of the most educationally or professionally beneficial aspects of the program. And, 48% of alumni who in fact attended law school did so. (61% of alumni returning the survey have gone on to attend law school). This has bolstered my view that hands on “simulation” exercises are an extremely valuable part of a pre-law program, and I will fight to maintain funding for pre-law simulations.