Assessment of Student Learning - Minnesota State University Moorhead

Philosophy
Assessment Report 2005

The Philosophy Department’s assessment plan was approved in February 1998. Some changes were made to the plan in 1999. Our Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes Report in our six-year report (2003) included a review of all data collected under the Philosophy Department’s assessment plan.

The Philosophy Department assessment plan assumes that the Department offers courses for two distinct student constituencies. Students take courses to satisfy Liberal Studies (“general education”) requirements for graduation, and students take courses due to an interest in philosophy or to apply them to a major or minor in philosophy. A few students take advanced philosophy courses to satisfy requirements in other programs (e.g., the minor in Women’s Studies and the major in Legal Studies). While these different groups are not mutually exclusive, we assume that lower division courses exist primarily to satisfy Liberal Studies demand, while upper division courses exist primarily to meet the needs of students who major in philosophy.

Liberal Studies objectives are laid out in the University’s Policy and Procedures Handbook. Objectives for our own program are laid out in the Department’s official assessment plan, in particular in one document: Expectations of Philosophy Majors: Skills and Abilities. Most of our assessment activities are directed at measuring our success in satisfying the objectives for philosophy majors (with the understanding that these same objectives hold for students pursuing a minor or taking philosophy out of interest in the subject matter).

The Assessment Plan:

Assessment efforts directed at philosophy involve six sources of assessment data:

Senior Portfolio with Self-Assessment, and faculty evaluations of each portfolio.

Critique sheet for philosophy papers.

Faculty Evaluation of Upper Division Courses.

Student Evaluation of Objectives in Upper Division Courses.

Blue ribbon papers (student essays kept in the Philosophy Department office).

Relevant multiple-choice questions on standardized evaluation form addressing Liberal Studies Objectives (Standarized form for student evaluation of philosophy: questions 26, 27, 29).

The present assessment report will discuss #1, #3, #4, and #6. Because there was no agreement that it should be a mandatory assessment tool, #2 has been used sporadically by faculty and does not yielded sufficient data to be discussed in this report. #5 is used sporadically now that papers are collected in senior portfolios, and it does not generate data relevant to this report.

Results since 2003: Senior Portfolios

The most significant element of our assessment plan is the student portfolio project. Since completing our six-year report in the spring of 2003, seven portfolios have been evaluated (numbers 25-31completed since the requirement was implemented). This group shows that students regularly exceed our expectations in the areas of reading and understanding philosophical texts, and in the writing of philosophical essays. (Five of the seven exceeded expectations regarding the former, all seven exceeded expectations in at least one sub-category for the writing of essays, and six of the seven exceeded expectations in at least two sub-categories for the writing of essays.)

Although four of the seven portfolios fell short of expectation in at least one way, there was no specific pattern of failing to meet our expectations that can be abstracted from this group. However, there is one area in which graduating majors seldom exceed expectations, the area of philosophical research. Only one student exceeded expectations here, and only two showed substantial improvement from early to late papers written for philosophy courses. It appears that most students are leaving the major with the same research skills that they had when they started taking philosophy courses.

Results since 2003: Faculty Evaluation of Upper Division Courses

Due to error, we forgot to distribute these assessment instruments during two of the semesters being reviewed. However, we find no patterns of either strength or weakness are indicated by those collected since our last assessment report.

Results since 2003: Student Evaluation of Objectives in Upper Division Courses

This standardized questionnaire addresses elements of our expectations that cannot be assessed through portfolios of student writing. We survey all students in all upper division courses, and then pool the results so that we are measuring the Department as a whole and not individual course achievement. 269 responses were collected during the most recent four semesters.

Compared with the results compiled in 2003, no significant differences are evident in the results since 2003. Across the board, the mean scores are virtually identical for the two periods. However, they are in every case slightly higher in the most recent four semesters. This new set of scores is detailed in Appendix A.

This evaluation measure shows no pattern of weaknesses needing to be addressed. While there is some variation from semester to semester, the strongest areas are developing the skills to present arguments, getting students to be more concerned with finding the truth than with scoring points or impressing others, developing skills to attempt to understand correctly the opinions of others, showing respect for others, and keeping comments directed to the issue.

Although it is the area that showed the greatest improvement, the weakest area appears to be development of skills for oral presentations. Compared with the results in 2003, only half as many students choose “does not apply” for the category of developing skills for making effective and clear oral presentations. Yet this area received a much higher rate of “does not apply” than any other.

Results since 2003: Standardized Evaluation Form

The standardized questionnaire is relevant to assessment because three of the questions are relevant to our assessment of philosophical discussion and arguments. Question 26 asks students about the degree to which the course stimulated them to evaluate their basic assumptions. Question 27 asks students about the degree to which the course required them to reason about issues covered in the course. Question 29 asks students to rate the instructor’s willingness to allow the expression of other points of view.

Results: We break out the data for lower division courses and upper division courses. The evaluation forms demonstrate no change in the percentage of enrolled students taking lower division philosophy courses in order to satisfy Liberal Studies requirements. No significant differences are evident in the results for 2003-2005 compared with the results compiled in 2003. Across the board, the mean scores for “excellent” and “good” responses are virtually identical for the two periods. The new set of scores is detailed in Appendix B.

The results confirm that enrolled students overwhelmingly regard courses in the Philosophy Department as successfully stimulating them to evaluate basic assumption and to reason about issues covered, and as courses allowing expression of other points of view.

Summary of Assessment Findings:

Based on the above, the Philosophy Department continues to maintain the same level of success in meeting student learning goals as documented in our last assessment report. Although there is some measurable improvement in each area, there are two areas remain our identifiable weaknesses. The two areas of weakness are student research skills and effectiveness in oral presentation.

We find no reason to alter our assessment plan at this time.

Curricular and Program Changes

No curricular or program changes were made during this time as a consequence of assessment activities.

Mean Scores of Student Outcomes Results (4.0 scale)
		Spring	2003	to	Fall	2004
1. Keep comments directed to the issues being discussed, and avoid irrelevant material.
a. does not apply			5.20%
b. excellent	t =4.0				MEAN:	3.45
c. good	=3.0
d. fair	=2.0
e. poor	=1.0

2. Show respect for others and for their opinions.
a. does not apply			8.17%
b. excellent	t =4.0				MEAN:	3.6
c. good	=3.0
d. fair	=2.0
e. poor	=1.0

3. Attempt to understand correctly the opinions of others.
a. does not apply			10.40%
b. excellent	t =4.0				MEAN:	3.55
c. good	=3.0
d. fair	=2.0
e. poor	=1.0

4. Make effective and clear oral presentations.
a. does not apply			13.75%
b. excellent	t =4.0				MEAN:	3.37
c. good	=3.0
d. fair	=2.0
e. poor	=1.0

5. Willingness to change mind in reaction to points raised in discussion.
a. does not apply			8.17%
b. excellent	t =4.o				MEAN:	3.34
c. good	=3.0
d. fair	=2.0
e. poor	=1.0

6. Present arguments for your opinons.
a. does not apply			5.57%
b. excellent	t =4.0				MEAN:	3.45
c. good	=3.0
d. fair	=2.0
e. poor	=1.0

7. Have confidence to express and debate ideas.
a. does not apply			7.43%
b. excellent	t =4.0				MEAN:	3.38
c. good	=3.0
d. fair	=2.0
e. poor	=1.0

8. Be more concerned with finding the truth than with scoring points or impressing others.
a. does not apply			7.43%
b. excellent	t =4.0				MEAN:	3.55
c. good	=3.0
d. fair	=2.0
e. poor	=1.0

Assessment of Student Outcomes
Results		Spring 03	Fall 03	Spring 04	Fall 04	TOTALS
1.	Keep comment directed to the issues being discussed, and avoid irrelevant material.
a.	does not apply	3	4	2	5	14
b.	excellent	40	30	40	26	136
c.	good	30	15	29	28	102
d.	fair	7	0	4	4	15
e.	poor	1	0	0	1	2

2.	Show respect for others and for their opinions.
a.	does not apply	3	7	1	11	22
b.	excellent	53	28	51	36	168
c.	good	19	11	20	14	64
d.	fair	4	3	2	2	11
e.	poor	2	0	1	1	4

3.	Attempt to understand correctly the opinions of others.
a.	does not apply	2	8	1	17	28
b.	excellent	44	31	49	25	149
c.	good	30	10	21	15	76
d.	fair	4	0	4	7	15
e.	poor	1	0	0	0	1

4.	Make effective and clear oral presentations.
a.	does not apply	7	8	10	12	37
b.	excellent	30	26	39	21	116
c.	good	35	13	24	19	91
d.	fair	8	2	1	9	20
e.	poor	1	0	1	3	5

5.	Willingness to change mind in reaction to points raised in discussion.
a.	does not apply	1	9	1	11	22
b.	excellent	26	28	37	23	114
c.	good	45	10	33	20	108
d.	fair	7	2	4	8	21
e.	poor	2	0	0	2	4

6.	Present arguments for your opinions.
a.	does not apply	1	7	0	7	15
b.	excellent	37	29	43	25	134
c.	good	37	12	28	26	103
d.	fair	6	1	4	5	16
e.	poor	0	0	0	1	1

7.	Have confidence to express and debate ideas.
a.	does not apply	2	8	0	10	20
b.	excellent	37	26	50	27	140
c.	good	28	10	16	20	74
d.	fair	10	5	6	4	25
e.	poor	4	0	3	3	10

8.	Be more concerned with finding the truth than with scoring points or impressing others.
a.	does not apply	2	7	3	8	20
b.	excellent	46	33	46	33	158
c.	good	26	9	22	18	75
d.	fair	4	0	3	4	11
e.	poor	3	0	1	1	5

Appendix B

Student Evaluation: Standardized Questions 26, 27, & 29

Lower Division Courses Spring 2003-Fall 2004

Question 7; Reason for taking the course, students selecting answer B (to fulfill Liberal Studies requirement)

PHIL 101 sections (Intro to Western Philosophy, Division D1): 77.7%

PHIL 105 sections (Philosophical Thinking, Division D): 62.48%

PHIL 110 sections (Practical Reasoning, Division E): 63.46%

PHIL 115 sections (Contemporary Moral Issues, Division D): 69.42

PHIL 120 sections (World Religions, Division F): 48.8%

PHIL 235 sections (Phil of Love & Sex, Division D): 53.1%

Question 26: Degree to which taking this course stimulated you to evaluate basic assumptions and interpretation of yourself and the world around you.

Students selecting a or b (excellent or good)

Mean score for all lower division sections: 78.06%

Highest score for any section: 97%

Lowest score for any section: 32.3%

Question 27: Degree to which the course required you to reason about issues covered.

Students selecting a or b (excellent or good)

Mean score for all lower division sections: 81.08%

Highest score for any section: 97.1%

Lowest score for any section: 41.2%

Question 29: Rate the instructor’s willingness to allow the expression of other points of view.

Students selecting a or b (excellent or good)

Mean score for all lower division sections: 85.45%

Highest score for any section: 100%

Lowest score for any section: 67.6%

Due to inconsistency in administering the standardized questionnaire, summer session and external studies courses are not included in this data.

Upper Division Courses Spring 2003-Fall 2004

Question 7; Reason for taking the course, students selecting answer B (to fulfill Liberal Studies requirement): 22.8 %

Question 26: Degree to which taking this course stimulated you to evaluate basic assumptions and interpretation of yourself and the world around you.

Students selecting a or b (excellent or good)

Mean score for all lower division sections: 78.5%

Highest score for any section: 100%

Lowest score for any section: 43.8%

Question 27: Degree to which the course required you to reason about issues covered.

Students selecting a or b (excellent or good)

Mean score for all lower division sections: 87.7%

Highest score for any section: 100%

Lowest score for any section: 43.8%

Question 29: Rate the instructor’s willingness to allow the expression of other points of view.

Students selecting a or b (excellent or good)

Mean score for all lower division sections: 86.8%

Highest score for any section: 100%

Lowest score for any section: 46.1%

Due to inconsistency in administering the standardized questionnaire, summer session and external studies courses are not included in this data.

Philosophy Assessment Report 2005

Philosophy
Assessment Report 2005