2012-2013 Annual Program Assessment Report
Please submit report to your department chair or program coordinator, the Associate Dean of your College and the assessment
office by Monday, September 30, 2013. You may submit a separate report for each program which conducted assessment activities.
College: CSBS
Department: Political Science
Program: Undergraduate
Assessment liaison: Kristy Michaud
1. Overview of Annual Assessment Project(s). Provide a brief overview of this year’s assessment plan and process.
In 2012-13, the Political Science department continued to collect evidence of student learning in our undergraduate program using a
direct assessment method. The approach our department has been using for the past several years is called Progressive Direct
Assessment (PDA). It is designed to involve many faculty members 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 2012-13 academic year we assessed three SLOs—
critical thinking, political decision making, and political analytical skills. We received copies of papers from eight courses from the
Fall 2012 and the Spring 2013 semesters. Instructors were asked to share the essay prompts given to the students in order to
provide context for the scoring. The assessment coordinator chose a random sample of fifteen works per course.
This year, the assessment committee consisted of five full-time faculty members, including the assessment coordinator. Each
committee member was asked to read the sample of final papers for three classes and score them according to the SLO rubrics. The
scores were then averaged and synthesized into charts that show the percentages of papers meeting the ‘unsatisfactory,’
‘elementary,’ ‘developing,’ ‘proficient,’ and ‘exemplary’ designations. Overall, the evidence shows that our students are performing
well on the political decision making and political analytical skills, but that there is room for improvement. Compared to these two
SLOs, our students need the most improvement when it comes to critical thinking.
In addition to collecting evidence in 2012-13, the assessment committee made progress on assessment planning. After years of
collecting evidence about student learning, the assessment committee has committed to spend 2013-14 analyzing the data and
making specific recommendations for program reform based on the evidence. For instance, the evidence collected indicates that
political science students would benefit from more structured course sequencing, beginning with a course that would introduce
them to the field of political science and possible career paths for political science graduates. Our data collection efforts also
1
indicate that some methodological changes to our assessment approach are in order. Beginning in 2013-14, our department will
begin using a longitudinal approach that will allow us to track our students as they progress through the major. This approach will
also allow us to begin assessing one of our courses that satisfies the Title 5 requirement (Political Science 155--American Political
Institutions). In addition, the assessment committee developed a plan to assess the six undergraduate programs SLOs using the
updated methodology in three years. Once the undergraduate program SLOs have been assessed, we will begin assessing the
graduate program.
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?
Our entire department—including faculty leadership, full-time, and part-time faculty—are involved in assessment activities. Each
department meeting includes a discussion of the department’s student learning assessment. The chair places on each meeting
agenda a report by the assessment coordinator on the assessment committee’s efforts, followed by a group discussion that informs
the assessment committee’s activities. In 2012-13, as in previous years, every full- and part-time faculty member who was asked by
the assessment coordinator to share a copy of their students’ final papers with the assessment committee agreed. Overall, there is
broad support for assessment in our department.
3. 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.
For 2012-13, we measured SLOs IV, V, and VI.
IV. Critical Thinking – Students should demonstrate increasingly sophisticated skills in reading primary sources critically. Students
should be able to research and evaluate the models, methods and analyses of others in the field of Political Science, and critically
integrate and evaluate others’ work.
V. Political Decision Making– Students should demonstrate an in-depth understanding and knowledge of the political institutions
through which public policies are formulated, modified, and implemented.
VI. Political Analytical Skills – Students should demonstrate a working knowledge of research designs, hypothesis formulation,
measurement of variables, data collection, and analysis
2
3a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
IV. Critical Thinking – Students should demonstrate increasingly sophisticated skills in reading primary sources critically. Students
should be able to research and evaluate the models, methods and analyses of others in the field of Political Science, and critically
integrate and evaluate others’ work.
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
3c. Does this learning outcome align with University’s commitment to supporting diversity through the cultivation and exchange
of a wide variety of ideas and points of view? In what ways did the assessed SLO incorporate diverse perspectives related to race,
ethnic/cultural identity/cultural orientations, religion, sexual orientation, gender/gender identity, disability, socio-economic
status, veteran status, national origin, age, language, and employment rank?
Our department’s critical thinking SLO encourages students to consider the complexities of political issues and to acknowledge and
synthesize the perspectives of others, which supports diversity through the cultivation and exchange of a wide variety of ideas and
points of view. This year, we used a newly developed critical thinking rubric that includes five criteria, two of which allow us to
evaluate this aspect of diversity of view point.
SLO 4b asks for students to identify pros and cons and to analyze and evaluate alternative points of view. One component of this
outcome is that the “specific position or perspective or thesis or hypothesis is imaginative, taking into account the complexities of an
issue. Limits of position are acknowledged. Others’ points of view are synthesized within position.” Our results from this year’s
assessment project indicate that the majority of our students in both the research methods courses and the capstone courses are
able to do this at the proficient or exemplary level (see Figure 1). Nearly half of the students in the capstone courses (44%) are able
to acknowledge and synthesize other perspectives at the exemplary level.
The second component of SLO 4b is that the student “thoroughly (systematically and methodically) analyzes own and others'
assumptions and carefully evaluates the relevance of contexts when presenting a position.” Again, majorities of students in both
sets of courses are able to do this at the proficient or exemplary level (see Figure 2). More than a third of the students in the
capstone courses (37%) are able to analyze others’ assumptions and evaluate the context when presenting a position.
While there is room for improvement in this area and more direct measures of how well our students are learning about diverse
perspectives, these results seem to indicate that our students are generally able to consider other points of view.
3d. What direct and/or indirect instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
3
The critical thinking SLO was assessed directly using the final paper assigned by the instructors in eight courses from the Fall 2012
and Spring 2013 semesters. Instructors were asked to share the essay prompts given to the students in order to provide context for
the scoring. The assessment coordinator chose a random sample of fifteen works per course. Each member of the assessment
committee read the sample of final papers for three classes and scored them according to the SLO rubrics. The scores were then
averaged and synthesized into charts that show the percentages of papers meeting the ‘unsatisfactory,’ ‘elementary,’ ‘developing,’
‘proficient,’ and ‘exemplary’ designations.
3e. 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 SLO was assessed using a cross-sectional comparison between two sets of courses—the introductory research methods course
and the senior seminar. The research methods course (Political Science 372) was originally included in our assessment efforts years
ago because it is required for all political science majors and it was considered to be a gateway course that would serve as a pre-test.
However, years of evidence collection have revealed that not all students take Pols 372 at the beginning of their Political Science
coursework. The course is currently listed as a prerequisite for the senior seminar, but not for all other courses in the major,
meaning that students may take the course in the same year as the senior seminar. The senior seminar (Political Science 471A-F) is
required for all political science majors and is intended for seniors only (although juniors may take the course with instructor
consent). Most of our students take the senior seminar in their senior year, so this course serves as an effective post-test. The
critical thinking SLO was assessed in three sections of the research methods course, totaling 42 cases, and in five sections of the
senior seminar, totaling 71 cases.
3f. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the results were analyzed and highlight findings from the
collected evidence.
The members of the assessment committee submitted completed rubrics to the assessment coordinator, who aggregated the data
and calculated the frequencies and averages. Overall, the evidence collected in 2012-2013 suggests that our students are proficient
in the area of critical thinking, but that work is needed to move more of our students up to the proficient and exemplary levels. Of
the two components of our critical thinking SLO—presenting and supporting an argument (SLO 4a) and identifying pros and cons and
evaluating alternative points of view (SLO 4b)—our students are showing slightly stronger performance in the former. Of the two
sets of courses we evaluated, students are meeting the critical thinking SLO better in the capstone courses than in the research
methods courses. We are not entirely sure how to explain this result, since we know many of our students are not taking the
research methods course at the beginning of their political science coursework. It may be that the students in our sample are early
in their political science coursework, or it may be the result of the very different types of assignment prompts between the two
4
classes. For 2013-14 we will be using a different methodological approach to assessment in order to try to track student learning as
students progress through the major. We hope this will allow us to better capture and explain change over time.
Students in the research methods courses earned an average score of 2.57 (on a scale from 0 to 4) when it came to presenting and
supporting an argument and 2.61 when it came to identifying pros and cons and analyzing and evaluating alternative points of view
(see table 1). Students in the capstone courses scored even higher, earning an average score of 3 in both categories of the critical
thinking SLO.
Figure 2 reveals that a plurality of students in the research methods courses (43%) are at the developing level when it comes to
presenting and supporting an argument (SLO 4a). In the capstone courses, a plurality of students (44%) are proficient in this area.
However, one in five (21%) are at the developing level. When it comes to the second component of critical thinking-- identifying
pros and cons and analyzing and evaluating alternative points of view (SLO 4b)--roughly one-third of students in the research
methods courses are at the proficient level and one-third are at the developing level (see Figure 3). Approximately one-quarter are
exemplary in this area. In the capstone courses, nearly half of the students (49%) are proficient and one-third (32%) are exemplary.
Even still, 17 percent are at the developing level when it comes to SLO 4b. It should be noted that the research methods course
sample included one face to face section and two online sections. Although the data were aggregated by course type (research
methods and senior seminar), the averages for the face to face section were compared with the averages for the online sections to
ensure that aggregating would not skew the results. The averages for the two modes were similar, and in fact, those for the online
sections were slightly higher.
Compared with 2011-12, students in both the research methods course and the senior seminar have generally improved on 4a-present and support argument and 4b--identify pros and cons, analyze and evaluate alternative points of view (see table 1.1). The
improvement is most pronounced in the research methods courses. The percentage of students in the research methods course
who were rated as proficient or exemplary on SLO 4a increased from 27 percent to 54 between 2011-12 and 2012-13. The
percentage of research methods students rated as proficient or exemplary on SLO 4b increased from 44 percent to 59 percent. In
the senior seminars, the percentage of students who were rated as proficient or exemplary on SLO 4a increased from 70 percent to
76 percent. On SLO 4b, ratings went from 73 percent rated as proficient or exemplary to 81 percent proficient or exemplary.
In short, our students are proficient in the area of critical thinking, but work is needed to move more of our students from
“developing” to “proficient” and “exemplary.” Furthermore, our students are showing improvement in the area of critical thinking.
This year, the assessment committee will discuss setting benchmarks to help us set goals for improving student learning when it
comes to critical thinking.
5
3g. 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.)
In 2012-13 our department continued collecting evidence and began the discussion about how to close the feedback loop to
improve student learning. Among the changes we are discussing is adding an Introduction to Political Science course, which would
serve as a gateway and introduce students to the five subfields of political science. We are also discussing adding course sequencing
to allow students to progress through the major in a way that will build critical thinking skills by helping students to understand the
connections between the courses they take and the concepts they learn in those courses. In 2013-14 the curriculum committee is
working on developing these proposals for these changes so they may begin moving through the curricular review process.
3a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
V. Political Decision Making– Students should demonstrate an in-depth understanding and knowledge of the political institutions
through which public policies are formulated, modified, and implemented.
3b. Does this learning outcome align with one or more of the university’s Big 5 Competencies? (Delete any which do not apply)
This SLO does not directly align with the Big 5 Competencies.
3c. Does this learning outcome align with University’s commitment to supporting diversity through the cultivation and exchange
of a wide variety of ideas and points of view? In what ways did the assessed SLO incorporate diverse perspectives related to race,
ethnic/cultural identity/cultural orientations, religion, sexual orientation, gender/gender identity, disability, socio-economic
status, veteran status, national origin, age, language, and employment rank?
This SLO requires that students can identify political issues—including those involving equality and diversity—and then connect
those issues with the political institutions involved in solving these issues. As such, it requires that students are introduced to a wide
range of ideas and perspectives. The SLO as it is written does not currently measure students’ understanding of specific issues
involving diversity, but this is something the assessment committee will discuss.
3d. What direct and/or indirect instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
The political decision making SLO was assessed directly using the final paper assigned by the instructors in five capstone courses
from the Fall 2012 and Spring 2013 semesters. Instructors were asked to share the essay prompts given to the students in order to
provide context for the scoring. The assessment coordinator chose a random sample of fifteen works per course. Each member of
6
the assessment committee read the sample of final papers for three classes and scored them according to the SLO rubrics. The
scores were then averaged and synthesized into charts that show the percentages of papers meeting the ‘unsatisfactory,’
‘elementary,’ ‘developing,’ ‘proficient,’ and ‘exemplary’ designations.
3e. 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 SLO was assessed using a cross-sectional sample of students in the five senior seminars that meet this SLO and were offered in
2012-13, offering a sample size of 71. The research methods course used to assess the critical thinking SLO does not meet the
political decision making SLO.
3f. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the results were analyzed and highlight findings from the
collected evidence.
The members of the assessment committee submitted completed rubrics to the assessment coordinator, who aggregated the data
and calculated the frequencies and averages. Overall, the evidence collected in 2012-2013 suggests that our students are doing very
well when it comes to the political decision making SLO. Students are meeting both components of our decision making SLO—
identifying and describing political issues and institutions involved in solving these issues (SLO 5a) and identifying policy formation
and implementation models (SLO 5b)—equally well.
Students in the capstone courses earned an average score of 3.1 (on a scale from 0 to 4) on both components of the political
decision making SLO (see table 2). Figure 5 reveals that just under a majority of students are at the exemplary level for both
components of the decision making SLO. More than one-third are proficient on both dimensions. Just about one in ten students are
at the developing level, a number that we’ll work to reduce in the coming years.
In short, 87% of our students are proficient (38%) or exemplary (49%) when it comes to identifying and describing political issues and
institutions involved in solving these issues. Eighty three percent are proficient (35%) or exemplary (48%) when it comes to
identifying policy formation and implementation models. Compared to the critical thinking SLO, our students are performing better
on the political decision making SLO.
3g. 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.
7
In 2012-13 our department continued collecting evidence and began the discussion about how to close the feedback loop to
improve student learning. Among the changes we are discussing is adding an Introduction to Political Science course, which would
serve as a gateway and introduce students to the five subfields of political science. We are also discussing adding course sequencing
to allow students to progress through the major in a way that will build critical thinking skills by helping students to understand the
connections between the courses they take and the concepts they learn in those courses. In 2013-14 the curriculum committee is
working on developing these proposals for these changes so they may begin moving through the curricular review process.
3a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
VI. Political Analytical Skills – Students should demonstrate a working knowledge of research designs, hypothesis formulation,
measurement of variables, data collection, and analysis
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. Does this learning outcome align with University’s commitment to supporting diversity through the cultivation and exchange
of a wide variety of ideas and points of view? In what ways did the assessed SLO incorporate diverse perspectives related to race,
ethnic/cultural identity/cultural orientations, religion, sexual orientation, gender/gender identity, disability, socio-economic
status, veteran status, national origin, age, language, and employment rank?
This SLO does not directly align with this University commitment.
3d. What direct and/or indirect instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
The critical thinking SLO was assessed directly using the final paper assigned by the instructors in four courses from the Fall 2012 and
Spring 2013 semesters. Instructors were asked to share the essay prompts given to the students in order to provide context for the
scoring. The assessment coordinator chose a random sample of fifteen works per course (the instructor who taught the senior
seminar that meets the political analytical skills SLO assigned a group term paper as the final assignment, so there are only 11 papers
in the sample). Each member of the assessment committee read the sample of final papers for three classes and scored them
according to the SLO rubrics. The scores were then averaged and synthesized into charts that show the percentages of papers
meeting the ‘unsatisfactory,’ ‘elementary,’ ‘developing,’ ‘proficient,’ and ‘exemplary’ designations.
3e. 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.
8
The SLO was assessed using a cross-sectional comparison between three sections of the introductory research methods course and
one section of the senior seminar (see the discussion of this comparison under the critical thinking SLO above). The political
analytical skills SLO was assessed in three sections of the research methods course, totaling 42 cases, and in one section of the
senior seminar, totaling 11 cases (the instructor who taught the senior seminar that meets the political analytical skills SLO assigned
a group term paper as the final assignment which is why there are 11 papers in the sample).
3f. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the results were analyzed and highlight findings from the
collected evidence.
The members of the assessment committee submitted completed rubrics to the assessment coordinator, who aggregated the data
and calculated the frequencies and averages. The sample size for the capstone that meets the political analytical skills is small, but
at least for the section of the course included in this analysis, the students are doing well with regard to this SLO—81% are at the
proficient (45%) or exemplary (36%) levels (see Figure 6). Compared to the students in the senior seminar, the students in the
research methods course are not performing quite as well—62% are at the proficient (52%) or exemplary (10%) levels.
On average, students in the research methods course scored 2.62 (on a scale from 0 to 4), while the 11 papers assessed in the senior
seminar scored 3.14 (see table 3). The political analytical skills SLO has six dimensions, and students in the research methods course
scored highest on SLO 6a-- identify research questions, proposes hypotheses and analyzes, critiques and integrates source material
(2.81). Their lowest score was earned on SLO 6e-- present and accurately evaluate strengths and weaknesses of own research
(2.51). The same was true of the senior seminar students—the highest score was earned on SLO 6a (3.27) and the lowest score was
earned on SLO 6e (2.91).
While it is difficult to generalize from the results of the analysis of the capstone course because of the small sample size, it appears
that the 471 students are performing rather well when it comes to political analytical skills, particularly when compared to students
in the introductory research methods course. Students are performing about as well on the political analytical skills SLO as they are
on the political decision making SLO, but are performing better on this SLO than on the critical thinking SLO.
3g. 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.)
In 2012-13 our department continued collecting evidence and began the discussion about how to close the feedback loop to
improve student learning. Among the changes we are discussing is adding an Introduction to Political Science course, which would
9
serve as a gateway and introduce students to the five subfields of political science. We are also discussing adding course sequencing
to allow students to progress through the major in a way that will build critical thinking skills by helping students to understand the
connections between the courses they take and the concepts they learn in those courses. In 2013-14 the curriculum committee is
working on developing these proposals for these changes so they may begin moving through the curricular review process.
4. Assessment of Previous Changes: Present documentation that demonstrates how the previous changes in the program resulted
in improved student learning.
In 2012-13 we observed improvement in the area of critical thinking. Compared with 2011-12, students in both the research
methods course and the senior seminar have generally improved on 4a--present and support argument and 4b--identify pros and
cons, analyze and evaluate alternative points of view (see table 1.1). The improvement is most pronounced in the research methods
courses. The percentage of students in the research methods course who were rated as proficient or exemplary on SLO 4a increased
from 27 percent to 54 between 2011-12 and 2012-13. The percentage of research methods students rated as proficient or
exemplary on SLO 4b increased from 44 percent to 59 percent. In the senior seminars, the percentage of students who were rated
as proficient or exemplary on SLO 4a increased from 70 percent to 76 percent. On SLO 4b, ratings went from 73 percent rated as
proficient or exemplary to 81 percent proficient or exemplary.
This may be the result of improved essay prompts, which has been a topic of discussion among our faculty based on past assessment
results. It may also be the results of recent new hires and scheduling that ensures that those full- and part-time faculty members are
assigned to teach classes in their area of expertise.
5. Changes to SLOs? Please attach an updated course alignment matrix if any changes were made. (Refer to the Curriculum
Alignment Matrix Template, http://www.csun.edu/assessment/forms_guides.html.)
Our department did not change our SLOs in 2012-13, but we did use improved scoring rubrics, which are included in this report. The
rubrics allowed us to disaggregate the SLOs so that we are able to observe more data points.
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,
http://www.csun.edu/assessment/forms_guides.html.)
The 5 year assessment plan was effective in guiding our evidence collection efforts. This year we are updating our 5 year plan to
include a commitment to using the data we’ve collected over the past several years to inform program change, and to update our
methodological approach to assessment. Our department has developed and updated the 5 year assessment plan collectively. The
plan was developed by the assessment committee with feedback from the department.
10
Our main focus in 2013-14 will be on closing the feedback loop to improve student learning. Among the program changes we are
discussing is adding an Introduction to Political Science course, which would serve as a gateway and introduce students to the five
subfields of political science. We are also discussing adding course sequencing to allow students to progress through the major in a
way that will build critical thinking skills by helping students to understand the connections between the courses they take and the
concepts they learn in those courses. In 2013-14 the curriculum committee is working on developing these proposals for these
changes so they may begin moving through the curricular review process.
Beginning in 2013-14, our department will begin using a longitudinal approach that will allow us to track our students as they
progress through the major. This approach will also allow us to begin assessing one of our courses that satisfies the Title 5
requirement (Political Science 155--American Political Institutions). In addition, the assessment committee developed a plan to
assess the six undergraduate programs SLOs using the updated methodology in three years. Once the undergraduate program SLOs
have been assessed, we will begin assessing the graduate program.
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.
While faculty have published based on our department’s assessment activities in the past, none published in 2012-13.
8. Other information, assessment or reflective activities or processes not captured above.
11
Appendix A: Academic Year 2012-2013 Assessment Data
Figure 1: Critical Thinking—Student Analyzes and Evaluates Alternative Points of View (SLO 4b)
Figure 2: Critical Thinking—Student Analyzes Own and Others’ Assumptions and Evaluates Context (SLO 4b)
12
Table 1: Average Scores—Critical Thinking SLO
SLO 4a: Presents and Supports Argument
SLO 4b: Identify Pros and Cons, Analyzes
and Evaluates Alternative Points of View
Political Science 372 (n=42)
2.57
2.61
Political Science 471 (n=71)
3.0
3.0
Figure 3: Critical Thinking SLO—Presents and Supports Argument (SLO 4a)
13
Figure 4: Critical Thinking SLO—Identifies Pros and Cons, Analyzes and Evaluates Alternative Points of View (SLO 4b)
14
Table 1.1: Change in Critical Thinking SLO Performance Over Time among Pols 372 (Research Methods) Students
4a
2011-12 (n=30)
4b
2012-13 (n=42)
2011-12 (n=30)
2012-13 (n=42)
Unsatisfactory
10%
0%
0%
0%
Elementary
33%
20%
20%
5%
Developing
30%
37%
37%
36%
Proficient
17%
37%
37%
33%
Exemplary
10%
67%
67%
26%
15
Table 2.2: Change in Critical Thinking SLO Performance Over Time among Pols 471 (Senior Seminar) Students
4a
2011-12 (n=30)
4b
2012-13 (n=42)
2011-12 (n=30)
2012-13 (n=42)
Unsatisfactory
0%
0%
0%
0%
Elementary
9%
3%
6%
1%
Developing
21%
21%
21%
17%
Proficient
47%
44%
50%
49%
Exemplary
23%
32%
23%
32%
Table 2: Average Scores—Political Decision Making SLO
Political Science 471 (n=55)
Figure 5: Political Decision Making SLO
16
SLO 5a: Identify and describe political
issues and institutions involved in solving
these issues
SLO 5b: Identify policy formation and
implementation models
3.1
3.1
Figure 6: Political Analytical Skills SLO
17
Table 3: Average Scores—Political Analytical Skills SLO
SLO 6
18
SLO 6a:
identify
research
questions,
proposes
hypotheses
and analyzes,
critiques and
integrates
source
SLO 6b:
identify
sampling
population,
designs
instrument
and collects
data
SLO 6c: use
appropriate
method to
analyze data
SLO 6d:
present data
in an
appropriate
format
SLO 6e:
present and
accurately
evaluate
strengths
and
weaknesses
of own
research
material
Political Science
372 (n=42)
2.62
2.81
2.65
2.52
2.61
2.51
Political Science
471 (n=11)
3.14
3.27
3.41
3.04
3.09
2.91
Figure 6: Political Analytical Skills SLO
19
Appendix B: Rubrics
POLS ________
___________________________________
________________________, 20____
Brief Title of Paper
Semester
Program Objective IV: Critical Thinking – Students should demonstrate increasingly sophisticated skills in reading primary sources critically.
Students should be able to research and evaluate the models, methods, and analyses of others in the field of Political Science, and critically
integrate and evaluate others’ work.
4 = Exemplary; 3 = Proficient; 2 = Developing; 1 = Elementary; 0 = Unsatisfactory
4a. PRESENTS AND SUPPORTS ARGUMENT
An exemplary paper:
4 3 2 1 0
An unsatisfactory paper:
Issue/problem to be considered critically is
stated
clearly
and
described
comprehensively, delivering all relevant
information
necessary
for
full
understanding.
Issue/problem to be considered critically
is stated without clarification or
description.
Specific
position
(perspective,
thesis/hypothesis) is imaginative, taking into
account the complexities of an issue. Limits
of position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis)
Specific
position
(perspective,
thesis/hypothesis) is stated, but is
simplistic and obvious.
20
are acknowledged. Others' points of view
are synthesized within position (perspective,
thesis/hypothesis).
Conclusions
and
related
outcomes
(consequences and implications) are logical
and reflect student’s informed evaluation
and ability to place evidence and
perspectives discussed in priority order
Conclusion is inconsistently tied to some
of the information discussed; related
outcomes
(consequences
and
implications) are oversimplified.
4b. IDENTIFY PROS AND CONS, ANALYZES AND EVALUATES ALTERNATIVE POINTS OF VIEW
An exemplary paper:
4 3 2 1 0
Information is taken from source(s) with
enough interpretation/evaluation, to
develop a comprehensive analysis or
synthesis.
Viewpoints of experts are
thoroughly.
Information is taken from source(s)
without any interpretation/evaluation.
Viewpoints of experts are taken as fact,
without question.
questioned
Thoroughly
(systematically
and
methodically) analyzes own and others'
assumptions and carefully evaluates the
relevance of contexts when presenting a
position.
21
An unsatisfactory paper:
Shows an emerging awareness of
present assumptions (sometimes labels
assertions as assumptions). Begins to
identify some contexts when presenting
a position.
POLS ________
___________________________________
________________________, 20____
Brief Title of Paper
Semester
Program Objective V: Political Decision Making– Students should demonstrate an in-depth understanding and knowledge of the political
institutions through which public policies are formulated, modified, and implemented.
4 = Exemplary; 3 = Proficient; 2 = Developing; 1 = Elementary; 0 = Unsatisfactory
5a. IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE POLITICAL ISSUES AND INSTITUTIONS INVOLVED IN SOLVING THESE ISSUES
An exemplary paper:
Evidence suggests student is able to identify
political issues and link them to the
institutions involved in solving these issues.
4 3 2 1 0
An unsatisfactory paper:
Evidence suggests student is unable to
identify political issues and identify
institutions involved in solving these
issues.
5b. IDENTIFY POLICY FORMATION AND IMPLEMENTATION MODELS
22
An exemplary paper:
4 3 2 1 0
Evidence suggests student is able to identify
accurate
decision
making
and
implementation models but also able to link
them to a given problem.
An unsatisfactory paper:
Evidence suggests student is unable to
identify policy decision making and
implementation models.
POLS ________
___________________________________
________________________, 20____
Brief Title of Paper
Semester
Program Objective VI: Political Analytical Skills – Students should demonstrate a working knowledge of research designs, hypothesis formulation,
measurement of variables, data collection, and analysis.
4 = Exemplary; 3 = Proficient; 2 = Developing; 1 = Elementary; 0 = Unsatisfactory
6a. IDENTIFY RESEARCH QUESTIONS, PROPOSES HYPOTHESES AND ANALYZES, CRITIQUES AND INTEGRATES SOURCE MATERIAL
An exemplary paper:
23
4 3 2 1 0
An unsatisfactory paper:
Evidence suggests students can identify a
research question, propose a hypothesis and
provide a review of source material in support
of the hypothesis
Evidence suggests student is not able to
identify a research question, propose a
hypothesis, and provides a weak review of
source material.
6b. IDENTIFY SAMPLING POPULATION, DESIGNS INSTRUMENT AND COLLECTS DATA
An exemplary paper:
4 3 2 1 0
Evidence suggests student can identify
sampling population, design an effective
instrument and collect data
An unsatisfactory paper:
Evidence suggests student is unable to
define sampling population, design
research instrument and collect data
6c. USE APPROPRIATE METHOD TO ANALYZE DATA
An exemplary paper:
4 3 2 1 0
Evidence suggests student effectively uses
methods to analyze data and provide meaning
6d. PRESENT DATA IN AN APPROPRIATE FORMAT
24
An unsatisfactory paper:
Evidence suggests no understanding of
data analysis methods
An exemplary paper:
4 3 2 1 0
Evidence suggests that student is able to
present data and findings in an appropriate
format
An unsatisfactory paper:
Evidence suggests student is unable to
present data
6e. PRESENT AND ACCURATELY EVALUATE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF OWN RESEARCH
An exemplary paper:
Evidence suggests student is able to accurately
analyze strengths and weaknesses of own
research and effectively presents it
25
4 3 2 1 0
An unsatisfactory paper:
Evidence suggests student has no
understanding of own research methods
and cannot evaluate one’s own work
effectively