Annual Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
Report
Department of Anthropology and Geography
Unit Name: Anthropology
Program Click here for Geography
Prepared By: Frank Williams Date: June 2, 2005
Academic Year: 2004-2005
|
III. Changes to Procedures or Curriculum Based on Assessment |
|
|
II. Achievement
of Departmental Objectives for Students
A. Undergraduate--
|
The
Anthropology Program’s Learning Outcomes for undergraduate majors were assessed
by comparing data from faculty members who were asked to rate student
performance in their courses. This
approach avoided identifying students individually and did not involve
transferring sensitive information about student grades. There are currently two courses that are
required of all of our majors: Theory in Anthropology and the Senior
Seminar. These two courses provide
students with a strong background in the discipline and include a nexus of
major concepts generally used in the field.
The
learning outcomes for the graduate students are encapsulated in the
comprehensive examination. This exam is
required of all of graduate students, and is normally taken in the third
semester of the MA program.
B. Elements of assessment
The rubric used to assess the
Program’s undergraduate learning outcomes was designed to capture the degree to
which students attained analytical competence, critical thinking aptitude,
communication skills and general knowledge about the world and about
anthropology specifically.
The graduate students are
assessed individually by their committees, which consist of three regular
university faculty members, two of whom must be Department faculty
members. The comprehensive exam is
tailored to each graduate student’s interest and is written by the student’s
major advisor. These questions consist
of (1) the field of inquiry, (2) theory pertaining to
the research, and (3) method to be employed in the research. The graduate students are asked to write 7-10
pages for each question, and to return the completed exam to each committee
member within two weeks. The exam is then
evaluated; the advisor, in consultation with the committee, rates the exam as a
pass, contingent pass or fail.
C. Data collected
The undergraduate tool of
assessment consisted of faculty evaluations of student performance. The faculty members that taught the two
courses required of anthropology majors during the AY 2004-2005 (Theory in
Anthropology offered in Fall 2004 and Senior Seminar offered in Spring 2005)
were asked to rank the learning objectives on a one to four scale by examining
the grades the students earned during the semester. The evaluation consisted of twenty questions,
and included the following items: (1) interpreting causal relationships, (2)
use of theory in research design, (3) identifying major themes in the
literature, (4) critiquing the literature, (5) designing and implementing
research, (6) interpreting charts, diagrams and statistical relationships, (7)
representing ideas using symbolic notation, (8) translating symbolic notation
of others, (9) utilizing information technology for research, (10) using
critical thinking skills to form opinions, (11) mastering self-reflectivity,
(12) understanding cultural relativism, (13) expressing ideas in writing, (14)
expressing ideas orally, (15) collaborating on research projects, (16)
developing visual materials to show relationships, (17) understanding the basis
of social inequality, (18) mastering key concepts in anthropology, (19)
identifying new insights from their research, (20) understanding how to apply
anthropology to the real world. In
addition to key concepts in anthropology, these learning outcomes encapsulate
the major themes articulated by the
The Anthropology Graduate
Program Director was consulted to obtain data on the number students who took
the comprehensive exam. Data recorded
included (1) the number of students who took the comprehensive exam, (2) the
number of students who successfully passed the exam on the first attempt, (3)
the number of students who encountered problems with passing the exam, and (4)
the number of students who ultimately passed the comprehensive exam.
D. Data Analysis
For the undergraduates, a
t-test of the rankings was performed to evaluate whether differences existed
between the faculty evaluators. Means of
the rankings were then examined to identify how students performed on each of
the learning outcomes. An overall mean
was calculated to show how students met the outcomes generally.
For the graduate students, the
number of students who took the exam was compared to the number of students who
successfully passed the exam the first time, as well as the number of students
who ultimately passed the exam. These
data were converted to percentages.
II. Achievement of Departmental
Objectives for Students
A t-test of the faculty rankings of student performance showed no
statistical difference between the faculty members (p = 0.365). However, visual inspection of the scores
revealed that the faculty member who taught the Senior Seminar consistently
ranked the students lower. The means of
the two evaluations suggest students excelled at:
·
mastering
the identification of themes in the literature,
·
designing
and implementing research,
·
understanding
cultural relativism,
·
social inequality
and key anthropological concepts, and
·
developing new
insights from their research.
The students performed adequately in:
·
understanding
causal relationships,
·
using
theory to develop research questions,
·
obtaining
critical thinking skills,
·
interpreting
diagrams, charts and statistical relationships,
·
mastering
self-reflectivity,
·
oral
communication and
·
understanding how
to apply anthropology to the real world.
The students performed less than adequate in:
·
the use
of information technology in their research,
·
collaborating
with one another and
·
developing visual
materials to show relationships.
Both faculty members did not evaluate the student performance in
representing ideas using symbolic notation and interpreting the symbolic
notation of others, and one faculty member also did not rank students in the
design and implementation of research, interpretation of charts, diagrams and
statistical relationships and using information technology for research. The overall mean rank for all questions and
evaluations is 1.57 (s.d. = 0.64), suggesting that
generally the anthropology majors excelled at learning analytical, critical,
communicative skills as well as anthropological thought and practice.
Eleven graduate students were administered
the comprehensive exam during the AY 2004-2005.
Out of these, nine passed their exam outright, two graduate students
were given a “contingent pass” requiring one or more sections of the exam to be
rewritten and approved by their advisor, and one student failed the exam.
Over two-thirds (72.7%) of
the graduate students who took the comprehensive exam passed the first time
without complications. Both of the
students who were asked retake parts of the exam passed on their second
try. The one student who failed the
comprehensive exam is no longer in the program.
Overall, ten out of eleven students (90.1%) ultimately passed their
comprehensive exam.
III.
Changes to Procedures or Curriculum Based on Assessment
Students generally performed extremely well in most of the learning
outcomes. Improvement however is
certainly warranted in areas of information technology, statistical
representation of ideas and visual representation of data. The anthropology faculty might consider
reinstating the introductory statistics course that was formerly required of
anthropology majors. Alternatively, the
faculty may decide to require an upper-division course that systematically
exposes students to these areas. One
additional possibility is to introduce a subsection in either the theory course
or in the senior seminar that focuses specifically on the areas where students
are not meeting their learning outcomes as well as they should.
This
was the first year that we established a standard time frame for students to
take the comprehensive exam. We may
return to a more flexible schedule to administer the exam, or change the
deadline of the exam for earlier in the semester.
IV. Changes in Department’s Assessment Goals
The
assessment goals of the Anthropology Program are in line with those of the