College Annual Assessment Reporting Form
2008-09
College: Social and Behavioral Sciences
Submitted by: Christina von Mayrhauser on behalf of Dean Stella Theodoulou
Due: December 1, 2009 (submitted January 14, 2010)
1. Program Assessment and College Strategic Planning Goals
Our College Strategic Planning Goals (published on our website) are:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Applied training where possible
Urban focus where possible
Knowledge of global context
Facilitate community based research
Widen relationship with community and provide opportunities for life-long
learning
(6) Maintain commitment to continuous improvement of student experience
(7) Support and develop research capabilities of faculty and students
In the following chart we describe how department/program activities furthered these strategic
goals. This summary was itself synthesized from individual department-level reports to the
College submitted in Fall 2009 for the 2008-09 academic year.
Department
or Program
Which department/program assessment activities furthered
strategic planning goals of the College
Political
Science
POLS continued piloting e-portfolio as data capture tool (for
which its faculty members received a Beck grant) and continued
applying its Progressive Direct Assessment (PDA) direct
assessment model designed to involve all faculty in the
department, be an integrated component of the existing
educational process, and provide information about student
learning outcomes from students’ introduction to Political
Science research methods to their final courses as majors in the
department. For the current academic year, POLS continued
assessing gateway and capstone courses, assessed each of POLS’
departmental SLOs and tracked students as they progressed
through the Political Science major. With these courses, POLS
was able to assess each of their departmental SLOs and track
students as they progressed through the Political Science major.
1
Relevant
College
Strategic
Planning
Goal
1, 6, 7
POLS had developed this assessment plan to try to measure
student learning longitudinally in order to observe our students as
they progress through the major. Because the materials assessed
are randomly selected, POLS does not track specific students but
rather a cohort as it progresses from the gateway through to the
capstone courses.
Results of 2008-09 Assessment: The results for the writing
rubrics used to evaluate the papers show that writing skills
improved slightly as majors move from the gateway to the
capstone courses. The majority of students scored in the
satisfactory range. This suggests that there is still a need to work
on the development of SLOs 1a & 1b. Students also appear to
improve somewhat with regard to the other SLOs, including 6a
which measures political analytical skills.
Actions taken based on asessment data: In 2006-2007, the
department suggested that faculty provide more detailed
instructions to students as the more detailed the exam
question/essay prompt, the better the student outcomes tended to
be. This approach was adopted by many faculty in 2008 and the
evidence suggests improvement from the gateway to capstone
courses. In addition, faculty in 2008-09 considered whether
students have enough of an opportunity to acquire and develop
the skills necessary for Political Science majors if they are taking
classes so close together. Sequencing of courses may be changed
in the future.
Psychology
PSYCH’s work with assessment was published in 2009 by
students and faculty. The citation:
Thaler, Nicholas, Kazemi, Ellie and Huscher,
Crystal(2009). 'Developing a Rubric to Assess Student
Learning Outcomes Using a Class Assignment’, Teaching
of Psychology,36:2,113 — 116.
Ellie Kazemi is the assessment liaison for PSYCH. PSYCH also
in 2008-09 developed and got approved by the College Academic
Planning Committee (APC) a re-organization of its major on the
basis of 2006 and 2007 data which involved the creation of
several new courses and multiple course modifications and
deletions (43 documents in total.) The entire PSYCH program
modification and course modification packet was approved at the
University level in Fall 2009 and will be implemented Fall 2010.
In preparation for this massive curriculum modification
Psychology finalized Student Learning Objectives for the new
300-level breadth requirement ‘clusters’ (Clinical/Personality
2
1, 6, 7
Cluster, Cognitive Cluster, Developmental Cluster, & Social
Cluster). These clusters are designed to provide students with
both applied skills and skills needed for post-BA research.
PSYCH finalized Student Learning Objectives for the new
capstone requirements, again with full faculty involvement
(These SLOs were developed at a psychology faculty retreat on
1/16/09). In addition, PSYCH completed its Program Review (in
which assessment details are presented in full.) External
Reviewers visited the department in F09 and lauded the
department for its assessment-driven program and course
modifications.
PSYCH also continued administering pre-post multiple choice
and short answer tests across PSY 320 and 429 with the goal of
improving student learning.
Social Work
AY 2008-2009 was an experimental year in terms of SWRK’s
assessment efforts because the profession’s accrediting body, the
Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), put forth new
Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards.
These standards called for 3 changes: (1) Change from
objectives to competencies: The MSW Department converted its
program objectives to program competencies. There are now 10
foundation year program competencies (instead of the previous
12) and there are still 5 concentration year program
competencies. (2) Field is signature pedagogy: The Department
began the process of making field the signature pedagogy or
central form of instruction and thus, central form of assessment.
(3) Assess both the implicit and the explicit curriculum: The
Department experimented with different methods of assessing the
explicit curriculum, mainly using student self-assessment, faculty
assessment of student learning, or a combination of both. The
implicit curriculum assessment and changes were also discussed
such as commitment to diversity; admissions policies &
procedures; advisement, retention, and termination policies;
student participation in governance; faculty; administrative
structure; and resources.
Measurement instruments used for assessment in 2008-09
included the following:
1. Student Self-Efficacy Scale, (retained from previous years): a
pre-post-test 55-item scale
2. Student Self-Report of Course Competency Learning: a posttest asking students to access their learning on course
3
1,2,6
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
competencies
Faculty Grid Ratings on One Common Assignment: In
committees consisting of faculty in each core area
Field skill sets were identified by each field placement
agency.
Focus group: One focus group was held for graduates.
Alumni Survey: The alumni survey and 2nd administration of
the student self-efficacy instrument was administered for the
first time this year.
Final Graduate Project: Faculty and field instructors rated the
final project poster session based on a grid developed for it.
Context: The Department had received their initial accreditation
from the Council on Social Work Education in February 2008 for
four years, and will come up again for re-accreditation in 2012. In
February 2009 the Department sent to CSWE a progress report
based on assessment data collected in 2008 Spring and 2009 Fall
based on the above categories. CSWE approved of the progress
made in the area of assessment, leading the Department to
continue analyzing results from self-efficacy tests and field
assessments collected in 2008-09 for the purpose of strengthening
its curriculum’s explicit focus on urban families among other
areas.
Geography
Geography completed e-portfolio database containing student
work collected from 2007 and 2008 and pioneered large-scale
embedded assessment for Geog 150. In 08/09 Geography mined
e-portfolio for evidence to support curricular change (away from
geomorphology and towards sustainability, primarily.)
Specifics: For SLO measurement, GEOG implemented a large
scale embedded assessment project for Geog 150 (Introductory
course in world geography) and an evaluation of GEOG 490
capstone presentations and papers. Pre- and post-test at the 100level (Geog 150, World Geog)’s purpose was to find out the level
of students’ incoming geographic knowledge and see how much
remedial work GEOG will need to do in future classes. Geog
490’s assessment entailed the evaluation of a written research
paper and an oral presentation. Oral presentation and paper data
now being analyzed to determine “average score” on relevant
SLOs in anticipation of proposing structural changes to GEOG’s
curriculum in 09-10.
(Context: SLO 1.1: Students recognize, recall and identify facts
and ideas constituent of the core content knowledge of physical
geography; SLO 2.2: Student demonstrates ability to construct a
4
1,3,6
literature review; SLO 4.1: Student writes an effective essay;
SLO 4.2: Student writes an effective research paper; SLO 4.3:
Student communicates effectively using maps, tables, charts or
other graphics; and SLO 4.4: Student communicates effectively
using numbers, statistics.)
Structural changes to the curriculum have now (as of Fall 2009)
been proposed on the basis of this assessment data and are now
under review at the College level Proposed changes are slated to
go to the University level for review in Spring 2010.
Additionally, GEOG continued analyzing student work archived
in e-portfolio in 2007-08 for evidence pertaining to new
Sustainability initiative but made the decision to discontinue due
to the fact that few students maintained their accounts. GEOG
however is working on a free version of the online portfolio and
will continue to work with this in across the 09-10 year in
conjunction with the University’s adoption of Moodle.
History
In continuation of past practice, in 2008-09 HIST reviewed
samples of student papers in gateway and capstone courses and
discussed results among faculty, for the purpose of improving
student learning and mastery of key concepts and approaches to
the study of history.
In March 2009 the HIST assessment liaison coordinated and used
faculty discussion of assessment data to rewrite departmental
SLOS for inclusion in 2010-12 catalog.
Assessment-related outcomes of this faculty discussion of
gateway and capstone paper evaluations: HIST was able to cut
out ambiguity in SLO wording for purpose of improving
assessment data. In addition, HIST determined that more
differentiation in instruction may be needed: an honors version
might be useful for a HIST 301 or 497 course and the LRC
consultation might be made a requirement for struggling students.
From this discussion a 20-item freshman questionnaire on factual
knowledge (following the example of the Geography
Department) was also created for use in 09-10. The 20 questions
were designed to cover the HIST Department’s revised SLO’s
and are intended provide HIST faculty with clues about the
incoming freshman knowledge base. Results will be used to
further stimulate faculty discussion on curriculum modifications
in Spring 2010,
5
6
Pan African
Studies
In 2008-09, Pan African Studies successfully completed its
Program Review and its Departmental Self Study is now being
used as a model for subsequent Program Reviews across the
campus. Assessment information in detail is described therein.
2,3,5,6
In addition to preparing the Self-Study (which was remarkable
for its involvement of faculty in assessment-related discussion),
PAS conducted in 2008-09 conducted an assessment of the PAS
capstone course to determine whether outgoing students were
meeting department SLOS. Result: students were not meeting
department SLOs.
In addition to changes covered in the Departmental Self Study,
PAS is now acting on the 2008-09 assessment data indicating that
students are not meeting departmental SLOS. PAS in Spring
2009 began to assess the five lower division courses that part of
the PAS Core Requirements for all options. In addition, they have
put forth a proposal to, in conjunction with English, Asian
American Studies, Chicano/a Studies, and Central American
Studies, revise “Approaches to University Writing” (formerly
Freshman Composition) by creating a “stretch” model that allows
students to master SLOS set by departments over the course of
three semesters.
Other course modifications being considered on the basis of
assessment data in PAS: faculty are considering standardization
of the text in PAS 100 (Introduction to Black Studies) to be used
so that our students are getting the same information that would
prepare them to tackle very efficiently courses that build upon
PAS 100.
Finally, PAS faculty are now also collectively looking at the
viability of PAS 165 (Intro to Pan Africanism) and PAS 171
(Classical African Civilization) for the core. Assessment that will
be collected in 2009-10 on PAS 100 and these courses directly
relate to Priority 8 in the PAS Departmental Three Year Plan: to
examine the gateway course (PAS 100: Into to Black Studies)
with the objective of redesigning it to include content relating to
history of Pan African Studies.
Anthropology
On the basis of assessment data from 2005-07 indicating that
students have insufficient knowledge of human cultural and
biological diversity and evolution, two new courses were
6
1,3,6
proposed and approved in 2008-09: ANTH 212 “Anthropology
of Sex” and ANTH 341, “Bones.” ANTH, using this assessment
data, also successfully hired two new tenure-track biological
anthropologists (one of whom started in Spring 2009) and the
department will ask them to re-assess biological and cultural
diversity and evolution knowledge once they have been given
time to become more familiar with the program.
In addition, ANTH 153 (Intro to Archaeology), ANTH 465
(Museum Anthropology) and ANTH 473 (Archaeology Theory
and Method) were taught for first time. All three of these
archaeology courses were also developed in recognition of 200506 assessment data indicating the lack of introductory and
advanced courses on cultural and biological diversity – subjects
dealt with by archaeology as well as biological and cultural
anthropology.
Additional assessment Activities in 2008-09: one section of Anth
490 Senior Seminar (490C: Food, Society and Culture, Fall 2008)
was used as a model for developing a more formal capstone
course in the major. The various stages in students’ research
projects were evaluated using a series of rubrics that assessed
their ability to (1) do library research; (2) conduct interviews; (3)
construct a compelling research question and apply
anthropological method and theory to its evaluation; (4) properly
use evidence to support their thesis; and (5) write a coherent,
well-structured paper using proper writing mechanics.
ANTH on the basis of the above efforts has begun to develop an
electronic archive of departmental assessment materials.
The ANTH 490 assessment also helped department faculty
identify student writing skills as a key area needing improvement.
A committee subsequently worked to identify primary student
deficiencies and objectives for an effort to improve students’
writing abilities, and wrote a (not yet funded) Beck grant
proposal to fund workshops for faculty to develop their ability to
teach writing and to ensure that their approach to writing was
integrated across their curriculum.
Sociology
Sociology continued administration of its ETS field test. Major
Field tests in Sociology were administered to all general option
internship classes in Fall 08 and to all criminology option
internship classes in Spring 09. An additional instrument was
created and pilot tested in one of the Soc. 497 classes in Spring
09.
7
1,2,4,5,6,7
SOC in 2008-09 also made several substantive curriculum
changes based on their previously-collected ETS field test data
results (SOC administered ETS major field test in Sociology in
2007-08 to assess whether program modifications need to be
made in SOC’s four options: general sociology,
criminology/corrections, social welfare, and counseling. Changes
made are as follows:
Field Studies: This course was revised to further enhance what is
taught in the sociology major by extending student learning
beyond the classroom. It will provide students with opportunities
to use newly acquired academic skills and knowledge in real-life
situations in their own communities. Students will participate in
research, internship, or service-learning projects under the
direction of the instructor. The experience culminates in a written
report that demonstrates the student’s ability to apply sociological
perspectives and research techniques.
The seminar portion of the course focuses on the application of
sociological perspectives and methodology in the student
projects.
Option 4 Revision: The curriculum for Option IV, previously
known as “Counseling and Interviewing: Work Settings” was
revamped this year to make it more current and relevant for
Sociology majors. The new “Work and Society” option is
intended for students who are interested in studying the diverse
ways by which work is organized and experienced. It provides
students with a theoretical and practical foundation for
understanding how changing labor markets and globalization
affect the workplace as well as the consequences of changes in
the nature of work for individuals, institutions, and society. In
addition this option prepares students for further education or
entry level careers in a variety of contemporary work settings
such as: human resource management, workforce development
and training, career and educational counseling, and labor and
community organizing. Students majoring in this option are
required to meet with one of the option advisors. Modification of
counseling option was reviewed by college in Nov. 08 and
approved by EPC in Spring 2009.
Additionally, in 2008-09 the Sociology Department designed and
approved several changes to the graduate program. First, the
structure of the comprehensive examination option was changed
to allow students who pass in some examination areas, but who
8
fail in other areas, only to have to retake the exam in the
unpassed areas. This change was implemented during the Spring
2009 semester. Second, several changes were made to the course
requirements for the graduate program. These changes include:
the addition of the graduate program proseminar course as a
required course, the addition of a graduate-level statistics course
as a required course, and an increase in the number of total
formal program units from 30 to 32.
These changes have been approved by the department and
program modifications were submitted to the College during the
Fall 2009 semester, and are slated for review at the University
level in Spring 2010. Efforts are also underway to increase the
number of courses offered each semester from 4 to 5 courses, and
to implement daytime courses on a trial basis.
Urban Studies
In 2008-09 the department faculty revised the department’s
curriculum requirements for the BA degree based on assessment
results collected in 2007-08. The revisions in the curriculum
reflect a number of modest changes in the organization of the
required and elective courses and most importantly a wholesale
revision of the degrees’ sub-specialization options. The existing
two options have been revised in name and course content and
two additional options have been added for the purpose of
increasing the applied training opportunities for students in the
field of Urban Planning. These modifications reflect ongoing
changes in the practice of planning and the study of urban areas.
The proposed revisions were approved at both the college and
university level and took effect in Fall 2009.
In 2008-09 the department also undertook three principal
activities in assessment. In Fall 2008, URBS faculty reviewed,
discussed, and then developed a clearly articulated set of learning
outcomes (objectives) for its principal general education course,
URBS 150, and then based on this exercise developed an
assessment instrument to use in Spring 2009. In Spring 2009 the
department carried out a learning objectives assessment exercise
in URBS 150 and URBS 310, both general education classes.
The assessment exam was administered at the start of the
semester in all sections of these two classes, and then repeated
again for all sections of these classes at the end of the semester.
9
1,2,6
2. College Assessment Activities
Please provide an overview of college-level assessment planning, studies, findings or
subsequent changes, which align with university Fundamental Learning Competencies, for
2008-09.
Introduction: College Overview (from College Website – written by Dean Theodoulou)
CSBS seeks to provide the highest quality Liberal Arts education in the field of Social &
Behavioral Sciences while at the same time providing students with sound applied and
professional training. Over its 36 year history, the College has adapted to the changing nature of
higher education, the changing demands of its urban environment and of society, and to the
world’s expanding knowledge base.
As a college serving one of the world’s most diverse urban regions, we have a special
commitment to studying the problems of urban America and contributing to the betterment of
our society by preparing graduates to be active leaders in urban societies. We believe we should
provide our students with diverse ways of understanding and solving the problems facing
America in the global context. Embracing such a focus, our faculty is encouraged to conduct
research, develop curriculum and internship opportunities which benefit the community and
region and contribute to active learning. The College vision can be summed up in one word:
Relevance.
Through the College’s commitment to applied social science research, students acquire the
critical core skills necessary for them to meet the needs of the region as well as to be competitive
in the market place as either members of the workforce or graduate students.
The vision is implemented through the college plan. The plan is structured around three strategic
themes which have four core priorities; all proposed activities and objectives promote these
strategic themes and reflect the core priorities. In order to implement the themes and priorities
the college pursues its strategic goals. We are currently on a three-year planning cycle, with the
current plan extending through 2010.
Section 1: College Level Assessment Planning As It Relates to/Aligns with University
Fundamental Learning Competencies, for 2008-09
As will be described below, CSBS in 2008-09 made a substantive decision to connect College
Strategic Planning to assessment undertaken at the Department levels, and to begin an alignment
of College Goals (CGs), University Fundamental Learning Competencies (FLCs), and
Departmental curricula. The meta-analysis that CSBS conducted of departmental assessment
reports and alignment matrices (described below) provided the impetus for this decision, but the
mechanism for how to link FLCS, CGs and curriculum came from our further study of the
American Association of Colleges and Universities’ “Liberal Education and America’s Promise”
10
(LEAP) Initiative.
CSU joined the LEAP Initiative as a partner state in 2008, and on July 1, 2008, CSU announced
that the LEAP Essential Learning Outcomes (ELOs) would guide development of new general
education requirements for the system. These two occurrences led us to home in on the LEAP
Initiative and its resources during AY 2008-09.
Based on our understanding that the LEAP ELOs mapped onto our University’s recently
approved Fundamental Learning Competencies (because they were derived from the same
source), we commenced in 2008-09 an inquiry of how the LEAP ELOs connected to our College
vision, strategic priorities and goals. We then conceived of an infrastructure for College-level
assessment that would make use of ten AAC&U “VALUE” (Valid Assessment of Learning in
Undergraduate Education) Rubrics, normed by AAC&U for use in assessing LEAP ELOs.
These ten rubrics tied directly to the ten LEAP. ELOs determined by our Dean to align with the
Strategic Goals of our College: Civic Engagement, Critical Thinking, Inquiry and Analysis,
Ethical Reasoning, Information Literacy, Intercultural Knowledge and Competence, Foundations
and Skills for Lifelong Learning, Problem Solving, Quantitative Literacy, and Teamwork. The
AAC&U-normed VALUE rubrics, like CSUN's Fundamental Learning Competencies, are based
on the organization’s LEAP Outcomes.
The VALUE rubrics, we saw, could help us plan better for how to help our CSBS students
graduate well-equipped. The University FLCs led us to the LEAP ELOs and the CSU-wide
Assessment Office (organized by Ken O’Donnell) led us to the VALUE rubrics, which in turn
helped us clarify that we at CSBS want our CSBS graduates to be informed consumers of social
science research, and to be well-positioned in their chosen fields of study because of how they
have learned to think, reason, write and communicate about their local and global contexts and
personal and social responsibilities.
Once we chose which VALUE rubrics would best help us study student learning connected with
certain College Goals and FLCs, we became better positioned to study departmental alignment
matrices (illustrating connections between programmatic SLOs and individual courses) for the
purpose of identifying courses could be assessed centrally by the college, beginning in 2009-10.
The next two sections describe how this plan emerged during 2008-09 through a meta-analysis of
departmental alignment matrices and reports.
Section Two: College Level Assessment Studies and Findings As They Relate to/Align with
University Fundamental Learning Competencies, for 2008-09
In 2008-09, we were in the first phase of planning a coordinated college approach to assessment
and did not undertake direct or indirect measurement of progress in student learning at the
College level in 2008-09. The first data collection period based on the infrastructure developed
in 2008-09 and the first half of 2009-10 is scheduled for Spring 2010.
11
While no direct measurement of student learning took place at the College level at that time, the
new College Assessment Plan described above was developed in 2008-09 following a metaanalysis of individual department assessment reports and alignment matrices. (The latter were
developed originally in 2005 to reflect connections between courses and program-level SLOs at
varying levels of student mastery.) This meta-analysis was undertaken as part of the Universitymandated “College Strategic Planning” process. A report submitted to the Provost in December
2008 outlined an initial plan based on conclusions reached by this content analysis.
This plan was further revised in Spring 2009 when an additional qualitative query was made of
this set of documents collected for the meta-analysis. The query was undertaken for the purpose
of determining how closely aligned departmental assessment foci were with College visions and
strategic goals, and how relevant they were to FLCs at the University Level.
The University-adopted FLCs are (as excerpted verbatim from an FLC document retrieved from
CSUN’s Office of Academic Assessment and Program Review Website in December 2009):
“Knowledge of Human Cultures and the Physical and Natural World: CSUN
graduates understand the history and scope of human knowledge in the natural and social
sciences and appreciate the diversity of aesthetic and cultural achievements throughout
the world.”
2. “Intellectual and Practical Skills: CSUN graduates can effectively engage in inquiry
and problem-solving, critical analysis, and creative thinking; they have quantitative
literacy, are information competent and appreciate the role of these as life-long learning
skills.”
3. “Communication Skills: CSUN graduates can communicate effectively through written,
signed or spoken languages, through visual and audio media using text, video, graphics,
and quantitative data, both individually and as a member of a team.”
4. “Personal and Social Responsibility: CSUN graduates are actively engaged in diverse
local and global communities, have multi-cultural knowledge, and use ethical principles
in reasoning and action when solving real-world challenges.”
1.
The qualitative inquiry revealed that the closest fit between FLCs, College Goals and Programlevel assessment efforts lay in the College’s providing applied training to students.
In 2008-09 eight of the nine departments in CSBS addressed this College Goal in their
assessment efforts. This fit is illustrated in Item 1 of this report (in the section connecting
College Goals to program-level assessment efforts. ) We found alignment with FLCs 2 and 4.
In addition, several departments were found to be addressing College Goals for increasing
students’ knowledge of our collective urban/local and global contexts and increasing their
capacities to write and reason about these contexts. These assessment efforts appear to connect to
FLCs 1 and 4 (with emphasis also on FLC 3 primarily in History and Anthropology.)
The 2008-09 qualitative query also helped us identify the least well-aligned College Goals, i.e.,
the ones that fewest departments attended to in their assessment efforts. These included College
12
Goals 4 (community-based research), 5 (widen relationship with community and provide
opportunities for life-long learning) and 7 (support and develop research capacities of faculty and
students.) These in theory would be connected to FLCs 2 and 4 and could in the future be
explored in more depth by departments so that we would have data on how well our College is
achieving its goals through learning that occurs at the program level.
Both the original meta-analysis and the second qualitative query conducted in 2008-09 revealed
to staff working on College-level assessment infrastructure that we already were readily
connecting to the University-wide FLCS through programmatic assessment efforts in the areas of
applied skill-building, local/global knowledge capacity-building, and continuous improvement of
student learning.
We also saw that department-level assessment efforts were not generally well aligned with FLCS
4, given our relatively weak attention placed on assessing community-based and research-based
learning opportunities at the department level. Such programmatic learning opportunities do exist
in every department and are highly valued by CSBS (see College overview at outset of this
essay) but usually exist in the form of supervision courses. Such courses are not typically
targeted for assessment.
To date there has not been a systematic evaluation of field, internship and service learning
courses, as was made apparent by our analysis (in which we saw a gap between what we offer
students (and value, per our College Goals and per the University’s FLCs) and what courses we
choose to assess. We were, simply put, not yet able to quantify the “value added” by our College
offering to CSUN students more than 15% of all of its supervised field study/internship-type
courses.
This finding helped CSBS decide (beginning in Fall 2009) to add a College layer of assessment
that would, on the one hand, continue focusing on what most departments are consistently
assessing (Goal 1: applied training, and Goal 6: continuous improvement of the student learning
experience); while on the other hand stepping in where departments do not typically tread in
assessment: field study and other supervised courses which would be providing research
opportunities (largely community-based) to students.
This decision, in turn gave us the idea that in 2009-10, we could (in addition to developing a
college-wide mechanism for assessing applied training through methods classes, a strength of
our College) possibly combine the small (N) of students typically enrolled in supervised field
courses across departments and use that broader sample to collect College level data pertinent to
the less-well addressed College Goals and University FLCs.
Section Three: Assessment-Driven Changes Made at the College Level As They Relate
To/Align with University Fundamental Learning Competencies, for 2008-09
As described above, the large change CSBS made in 2008-09, in which our College decided to
add a College-level assessment layer, is directly connected to our recognition (based on a metaanalysis of assessment reporting from departments) that the College could potentially serve as a
13
sort of “meso” (middle) level between “micro” (department/program) and “macro”
(university/FLC) levels.
In 2008-09 Humanities and CSBS administrators held a series of discussions about how we
could insert such a meso layer for the purpose of connecting FLCs with programmatic efforts,
and how doing so would provide a missing link not only between university and program levels
but also provide a missing link between the College Strategic Planning Processes that colleges
undergo and Program-level assessment.
In-progress Program-level assessment efforts being undertaken by departments in both Colleges
in 2008-09 illustrated for us that while Departments were making good faith efforts to study how
well their own students were meeting Program-based SLOS, that there was little explicit
attention paid by departments to the connection between what they were assessing and what the
College (and University) perceived as being fundamental expectations and goals for student
learning.
While Humanities and CSBS subsequently decided by the end of AY2008-09 to each construct
our own infrastructure for College-level assessment, we resolved to continue to collaborate and
document our different attempts at connecting FLCs to department SLOS and at connecting
Strategic Planning to assessment more generally. The efforts of CSBS, Humanities and Health
& Human Development to create a College-level (meso) assessment layer were shared with other
Associate Deans of the Campus at a June 2009 meeting facilitated by the CSUN Office Of
Assessment, for the purpose of encouraging other colleges to move in this direction.
Conclusion
In conclusion, 2008-09 assessment activity undertaken at the College level consisted of planning,
meta-analyses, and infrastructure building. It has led the College in Fall 2009 to the point where
we have been able to publish the following overview on the CSUN WASC Website:
The dual purpose of the College of Social and Behavioral Science's Assessment Plan is to
investigate and document (1) how the College is meeting its Strategic Goals and (2) how the
College contributes to the fulfillment of CSUN's Fundamental Learning Competencies through
the pursuit of College Strategic Goals. The aim is to gather data useful for horizontal and
vertical assessment of, and for, learning.
Measurement tools adopted for this purpose are ten AAC&U “VALUE” Rubrics determined by
our Dean to align with the Strategic Goals of our College: Civic Engagement, Critical Thinking,
Inquiry and Analysis, Ethical Reasoning, Information Literacy, Intercultural Knowledge and
Competence, Foundations and Skills for Lifelong Learning, Problem Solving, Quantitative
Literacy, and Teamwork. The AAC&U-normed VALUE rubrics, like CSUN's Fundamental
Learning Competencies, are based on the organization’s LEAP Outcomes.
In 2009-10, the College's assessment activities inquire into the status of two of our College's
Strategic Goals: To provide students with applied training; and To support and develop the
research capabilities of faculty and students.
14
We are using Moodle to help us collect and evaluate final assignments submitted by students
taking research methods across the College, and to administer surveys to a random subset of
these students. We will use the results to decide whether a College-wide methods course (not yet
developed) could help us meet our strategic goal of increasing student/faculty research capacity.
The College, while adding these new College-level assessment layers, also continues to help
Departments collect and analyze Course- and Program-level assessment data pertaining to
student mastery of Department-specific SLOs.
Postscript: Work Continued Past AY2008-09
Since posting this information publicly on the WASC site the College has operationalized our
plan further using the LEAP ELOs., for the purpose of even more clearly linking our College
efforts to University FLCs. We have divided our process into a three-phase process derived from
the public policy literature: Formulation, Implementation and Evaluation. See attached
operational document for more information.
Quantitative Literacy and Critical Thinking have been selected as our two Essential Learning
Outcomes for piloting the three-phase assessment plan during the spring 2010 semester. The
latter two learning outcomes work well with our methods and statistical analysis courses offered
across CSBS programs. A list of all the Methods (both quantitative and qualitative) has been
compiled in Fall 2009 for each of the nine programs in the College. In Spring 2010 we will
collect pertinent assignments from students across these classes and also administer a collegewide Assessment Survey to students enrolled in these methods courses. While this process will
be explained in more detail in the 2009-10 College Assessment Report, a preliminary
“assessment of the assessment” indicates that it will be worthwhile in 2009-10 to continue on
behalf of the College and the University the work begun in 2008-09 to use LEAP Initiative
resources as a springboard for College-level mid-range assessment.
15
Operational Guide to CSBS Planned Assessment Phases
What
Formulation
-
FLCs


CSBS Strategic Goals


Why
Programs
-
Implementation
-
CSBS Strategic Goals


Programs
Summative
Formative
Measure how CSBS meets the University FLCs
How are they meeting FLCs
Does CSBS meet or develop competencies in specific areas?
16
Evaluation
-
-
-
FLCs


CSBS Strategic Goals
CSBS Strategic Goals


Programs
Measure whether CSBS meets the
University FLCs
How are they meeting FLCs
Does CSBS meet or develop
competencies in specific areas?
How can we better meet and refine
the CSBS Strategic Goals?
How
Formulation
-
Select from pre-identified list of
LEAP’s essential learning outcomes
Select CSBS courses for assessment
-
Moodle
In person
-
Christina and Talin develop plan
Dean approves plan
Committee reviews plan
Who
Where
-
Implementation
-
Utilize VALUE rubrics 1
o Horizontal (long-term;
longitudinal)
o Vertical (short-term, crosssectional; snapshot in time)
Moodle
(Select course faculty and students)
-
Moodle
Committee meetings
Talin will maintain the Moodle site
Committee will implement plan
Christina will supervise
implementation
-
Christina and Talin
Committee
(Data will be presented to Dean)
-
Refer to CSBS College-Level
Assessment Process Plan
Student Survey Implementation
Faculty Drop Box Implementation
-
-
Evaluation
Since CSUN’s FLCs are a result of LEAP’s Essential Learning Outcomes adopted by the CSU and measured by the VALUE
rubrics developed by the AAC&U, CSBS will utilize the same measurement instruments.
1
17