HIST 2311 - 2312
American History
Fall 2004
Courses
U.S. History to 1877 (History 2311)
U.S. History since 1877 (History 2312)
Logic and Process of Assessment
The assessment of core curriculum courses begins with the Goals of the History Program, which are translated into Student Learning Objectives that are directly related to specific Blue Ribbon Core Curriculum Competencies. In order to measure the degree to which Student Learning Objectives are achieved, the department evaluates student essays according to criteria that match the objectives. The essays consist of a pretest and a posttest each based on a set of essay questions that are the same for both tests and used for all courses being assessed.
Goals of the History Program
- To present basic information on the main stages of human cultural development
- To illustrate the interrelationships among historical events through an understanding of the process of change, continuity, and causation over time
- To offer opportunities to analyze the implications of a broad range of social economic, political, and cultural problems and developments.
- To improve student reading, writing, and critical thinking skills
Student Learning Objectives for Core Courses
- Students will demonstrate a knowledge of historical information such as names, dates and chronologies, events, s, terms, and concepts.
- Students will demonstrate an understanding of the diversity and complexity of the historical context that shapes human experience.
- Student will demonstrate an understanding of the inter-relatedness of historical events as expressed in such concepts as continuity and change, causation, interdependence of cultures, and the interaction between differing groups and societies.
- Students will organize and articulate their ideas through an essay that presents a thesis relevant to the question.
- Students will support their ideas with historical evidence and will reach conclusions based on that evidence.
Relationship between Student Learning Objectives and the Goals of the History Program
Objective 1 fulfills Goal A
Objective 2 fulfills Goal B
Objective 3 fulfills Goal C
Objective 4 fulfills Goal D
Objective 5 fulfills Goals A-D
Relationship between Student Learning Objectives and Blue Ribbon Competencies for Core Courses
Objective 1 is related to Historical Consciousness, International Awareness, Social & Cultural Awareness, and Ethical & Moral Consciousness.
Objective 2 is related to Historical Consciousness, International Awareness, Social & Cultural Awareness, and Ethical & Moral Consciousness.
Objective 3 is related to Historical Consciousness, International Awareness, Social & Cultural Awareness, and Ethical & Moral Consciousness.
Objective 4 relates to Critical Thinking and Verbal Literacy
Objective 5 relates to Critical Thinking and Verbal Literacy
Criteria for evaluation of student essays
- Student includes accurate and relevant information
- Student shows an awareness of historical context.
- Student shows an awareness of the interrelatedness of events.
- Student presents a thesis relevant to the question.
- Student articulates and organizes ideas in a coherent argument
Relationship between criteria and Student Learning Objectives
Each criterion measures the Student Learning Objective of the same number.
Analysis of Assessment Scores
Explanation of the system
The scores on the attached sheet are based on evaluations of student pretests and posttests on five criteria, using a rating system of 0 to 3. An average score for each category is calculated and than a single-number average for all categories. That overall average on the pretest is subtracted from the overall average on the posttest and the difference (see label “Difference” report of scores) represents the degree of change resulting from the course. One might think of it as the “value added” by the course, and it is referred to by that phrase below ..
History 2311
- Section A
- Evaluator A : 0.2
- Evaluator B : 0.2
- Section B
- Evaluator A : 0.6
- Evaluator B : 0.5
- Section C
- Evaluator A : 0.2
- Evaluator B : 0.5
History 2312
- Section A
- Evaluator A : 1.0
- Evaluator B : 0.9
- Section B
- Evaluator A : 0.8
- Evaluator B : 0.8
- Section C
- Evaluator A : 0.8
- Evaluator B : 0.7
The interpretation of the scores is that the students in History 2311 Section A showed an average improvement on all criteria of .2 by both evaluators on a scale of 0 to 3, while the students in History 2312 Section A showed an average improvement of 1.0 according to one evaluator and .9 according to the other. Obviously if this data represents reality, the students in the 2312 course received significantly more “value added” as a result of the course.
In general the scores are probably lower than the actual value added. The success of the program depends on students doing as well as possible on each of the essays. It is very likely that students do not put as much effort as they might, particularly at the end of the course. Anecdotal evidence indicates that some instructors do not stress, indeed may discount, the importance of the system, and that some of the posttests were given on the day of the final exam after students had taken the final.
The evaluators are reasonably close in their scores, indicating a significant degree of reliability on the evaluation.
Evaluation of the system
- The pretest/posttest system can provide a valid assessment of “value added” because it is based on criteria that are closely related to the Student Learning Objectives of the History Department. It also provides a significant degree of reliability in that the two evaluators are reasonable close in the way they score the essays.
- The pretest/posttest system can provide not only a measurement of “value added” but also a benchmark that could be used to measure improvement over time and also a means of evaluating individual instructors.
- A major weakness in the system is that the effectiveness of the system depends on the degree to which students do as well as they can on both tests.
- This year is the first full time use of the pretest/posttest format after a small pilot program last year. Thus there is no previous data that allows for a meaningful comparison.
Feedback Loop
- TheDepartment hold special meeting to discuss results of U.S. core assessment. One focus is on nature of program and how it can be improved. A second focus is on how teaching methods can be changed in order to improve “value added.”
- Individual faculty members whose courses were evaluated receive copies of the pretests and posttests and also of the evaluations so that they can see the raw data and the evaluation.
Recommendations of the Assessment Committee to the Department.
The Assessment Committee recommends a number of changes in order to provide better results and make the Assessment Program a more meaningful part of the department’s overall program for core courses.
- Pretests and Posttest be given by assessment team members who can impress students with importance of the program and also see that the tests are given on an appropriate date at the beginning and end of the semester.
- In order to maintain and improve reliability, the evaluators meet prior to scoring the tests and discuss evaluation of sample tests in order to reach agreement on general nature of scoring.
- Pretests and posttests be given in the Spring semester and in all sections ..
- The essay questions used come are a sample of a large group of questions so that instructions do not “teach the test.”
- The concept of “value added” as measured by the assessment should become a factor in the teaching evaluation of the instructor.
