|
Executive Summary
The Philosophy Department has taken a variety of actions in order to
improve our program in light of what we have learned from our assessment
activities during the period 1999-2002:
We have improved our publicity, making information about our program
and our courses readily available. We have also improved our advising
through the use of a departmental advising sheet and by assigning a designated
faculty advisor for each new philosophy major. We have changed the requirements
in the history of philosophy for the major, requiring both P201 (Ancient
Greek Philosophy) and P214 (Modern Philosophy), in order to provide a
more coherent transition from introductory to intermediate to advanced
courses. We have experienced a favorable long-term growth trend in our
enrollments, both in general and in 200 and 300 level classes, enabling
us more effectively to schedule the classes students need to take when
they are ready to take them. Students are now better prepared for the
philosophy courses they take than they were 5 or 6 years ago. These improvements
have come about largely because of close attention given to student learning
outcomes and to having student as well as faculty input to our assessment
procedures.
The main procedures used during 1999-2002 were (1) a capstone experience
consisting of a proseminar project and (2) a portfolio, with students
choosing one of the two, in combination with (3) a student-faculty bilaterial
exit interview.
Third Year Review 1999-2003
1. Overview of Assessment Process
There are three primary stages in the department's process for assessing
its program performance in relation to student learning outcomes: (1)
in the first stage, graduating seniors choose either to complete a proseminar
project or to submit a portfolio of papers written in philosophy classes;
having successfully completed the project or submitted a portfolio, (2)
in the next stage, the graduating seniors and the philosophy faculty participate
in a bilateral exit interview; and (3) in the third stage, the philosophy
faculty, in discussions following the exit interview, analyzes the data
about student learning outcomes obtained from 1 and 2, and draws conclusions.
The methods and techniques employed in this three-stage (annual) process
are described more fully in Section 3 below. An additional technique,
which we implement both informally through conversation and e-mail among
colleagues, and more formally in department meetings at least once and
sometimes twice each year, is an ongoing inventory by departmental faculty
of student progress in the program and of what we are doing well and what
we could be doing better. (This is the technique labeled "Faculty
Inventory" in our Annual Assessment Reports.) Still another technique
we use is external peer review; our last external review took place in
the spring of 1998; another such self study, to be followed by an external
review, will be undertaken in approximately a year.
2. Annual Assessment Reports are contained in Appendix III.
3. Instrumentation and Documentation
Methods and techniques of assessing student learning outcomes
Proseminar Project: Students who select the proseminar option enroll
in the department's senior proseminar (P495) in order to pursue a substantial
writing project, either a revision of an earlier paper or a new paper.
The purpose of the proseminar is to produce a piece of written work that
meets rigorous scholarly standards and that is ready for public presentation.
Students are expected to present the paper to the IU South Bend Philosophy Colloquium
or to some other suitable group or forum. Four of the ten students who
graduated with the B.A. in Philosophy during the 3-year period, July 1999-August
2002, selected the proseminar option.
Portfolio: Students who select the portfolio option submit a portfolio
consisting of approximately three papers written in philosophy classes.
The papers are read by the philosophy faculty to determine how the student
has matured in philosophical understanding, analytical and reflective
abilities, and written expression during the student's undergraduate years
at IU South Bend. Even more specifically, the papers are read to determine how
well the student has displayed each of the five learning outcomes identified
in our departmental assessment plan (see Appendix I). Six of the ten students
who graduated during the years covered by this report selected the portfolio
option.
Exit Interview: An extremely important part of our assessment process
is the exit interview with graduating majors. The exit interview typically
occurs at the end of the spring semester. We have always invited majors
who are scheduled to graduate in May or August of the calendar year (and
prior to spring 2002, in December as well, although most recently we held
a separate exit interview session for majors scheduled to graduate in
December 2002). In preparation for the interview, philosophy faculty read
the proseminar projects or portfolio papers of the students participating
in the interview. Students, in the letter of invitation, are asked to
share their reflections on their experience as philosophy students and
on the IU South Bend philosophy program. The interview is very much a bilateral
exchange: faculty ask questions about and offer observations on the student's
written work, and students reflect on what they have learned in philosophy
classes and offer observations about strengths of the philosophy program
and areas in which the program might be improved. In the spring of 2000,
two students participated in the exit interview (one submitted a proseminar
paper and the other submitted a portfolio). In the spring of 2001, three
students participated in the exit interview (one submitted a proseminar
paper and two submitted portfolios). In spring of 2002, all three students
who participated in the exit interview submitted portfolios.
(Of the 8 majors who participated in exit interviews during the latest
3-year cycle, 6 have graduated and 2 have not as yet graduated. Two other
majors who graduated during this cycle submitted portfolios and participated
in an exit interview in a year prior to the beginning of the cycle. The
remaining two majors who graduated during this cycle completed a proseminar
project but (because of a family emergency or work-schedule conflict)
did not take part in an exit interview.)
Documentation and record keeping
After the exit interview, philosophy faculty cooperate in writing narrative
statements summarizing each student's performance on the proseminar project
or the portfolio papers, commenting on evidence of progress, overall quality,
and how the project or portfolio gives expression to the student's understanding
and personal integration of philosophical ideas. These narrative statements
also incorporate evaluations of the student's performance during the exit
interview itself. And they incorporate as well the student's statements
on the strengths of the department and areas in which the department could
improve. After the narrative statements have been revised in light of
comments and discussion by all faculty, and each statement has been approved
by the faculty, a copy of the statement is placed in the student's departmental
record folder and an electronic copy of the statement is saved in a subfolder
on the Philosophy shared drive (H:\Assessment\Student Exit interview summaries).
See Appendix II for examples of these narrative statements, one for a
major who chose the proseminar option and one for a major who chose the
portfolio option; the statements have been edited to preserve anonymity.
Other documents and records pertaining to assessment are kept with departmental
records (in the department chair's office for recent items, in a locked
file cabinet presently located in DW3210 for older items, and in many
instances also on the Philosophy shared drive). Copies of our original
and revised assessment plan, of Annual and Third Year Reports to the Assessment
Committee, of Evaluations of our reports from the Committee, and of our
internal deliberations in regard to assessment are among the types of
records kept.
4. Analysis of Data
In order to determine how well graduating majors had met the objectives
of our program during the period 1999-2002, we read each student's written
work and listened to the discussion during the exit interview sessions
with the following questions in mind, each of which correlates with one
of the five student learning outcomes identified in our departmental assessment
plan:
1. Is the student reflective and inquiring?
2. Is the student skilled in logical and critical thinking?
3. Does the student show knowledge of the history of philosophy where
appropriate?
4. Does the student express herself (or himself) effectively in philosophical
writing?
5. Does the student have a sense of connection between the study of philosophy
and his (or her) personal goals?
Much of the detailed analysis of data that we do occurs during the period
immediately following the exit interview as philosophy faculty work together
to construct and fine tune the narrative statements on each student's
work. These statements include not only an evaluation, with respect to
the aforementioned five learning outcomes, of the written work submitted
by students and of the students' performance in the exit interview sessions
but also observations about how well the philosophy program has helped
prepare students for future academic, occupational, and personal challenges.
Graduating majors have in general demonstrated that, in their study of
philosophy at IU South Bend, they have learned relevant concepts, mastered skills
and gained insights of enduring value. The department has been favorably
impressed with the analytic, creative, and reflective skills of the students
and with the maturity with which they have integrated philosophy within
their personal lives.
The narrative statements as finally produced served as the basis for
the generalized group ratings recorded on our annual reports to the assessment
committee.
In giving our overall assessment of student achievements on each signature
page, we said that our students did "Better than expected" on
Discipline specific knowledge and skills because of how we rated them
on items 1-3 above.
We said that our students did "Better than expected" on Personal
development and career preparation because of how we rated them on items
1, 2, and 5 above.
We said that our students did "Better than expected" on Basic
academic success skills because of how we rated them on items 1, 2, and
4 above.
We said that our students did "Better than expected" on Academic
values because of how we rated them on items 1-3 and especially 5 above.
We said that our students did "Better than expected" on Higher
order thinking skills because of how we rated them on items 1 and 2, but
particularly 4, and above all 5 above.
During each period of post-interview assessment the faculty also reflected
on students' suggestions about how the program might be improved and began
discussing possible ways to implement suggested improvements. This was
particularly so on one occasion when we sensed a possible shortcoming
in the attainment of one of our student learning outcomes, in particular,
the outcome pertaining to the history of philosophy (see the final portion
of item B in Appendix II). In response to this particular finding of our
assessment process we implemented a significant change in our history
of philosophy requirement for the philosophy major (noted in section 5
below).
5. Summary of Actions Taken
In order to improve our program in light of what we have learned we have
taken a variety of actions:
We have continued to improve our publicity and to make information about
our program and our courses readily available. When students look in the
Schedule of Classes booklet under Philosophy, the first thing the see
is ACourse descriptions written by the instructors are available at http://www.IU South Bend.edu/~phil"--a
notation we began using in the spring semester of 1999-2000. Each semester
we produce and make available to students in our classes an attractive
course description booklet, and we distribute copies of the booklet to
key faculty members and advisors in other units. We also try to provide
these advisors with guidance as to which 200-300 level courses are most
suitable for students who have already taken one or more philosophy courses
and which courses may be suitable for serious students who have little
if any prior experience with philosophy.
We have improved our advising. We require our majors to be advised every
semester. During the past three years, whenever we have advised a student
for an upcoming semester, we have filled out both a college and a departmental
advising sheet to facilitate advising majors on philosophy area requirements
and assessment activities. Recently, we instituted a procedure of assigning
a designated faculty advisor for each new philosophy major.
Our more frequent interactions with students through advising and the
more extensive records we are keeping on advising sessions have enabled
us to do a better job scheduling the classes students need to take when
they are ready to take them. We encourage majors to take a class in logic
or scientific reasoning, as well as classes in the history of philosophy,
at an early stage in the philosophy program.
We have experienced a favorable long-term growth trend in our enrollments,
both in general and in 200 and 300 level classes:
Philosophy Student Credit Hours, fall and spring, by academic year (200-level
and above)
1990-1991 327 1996-1997 500
1991-1992 305 1997-1998 491
1992-1993 451 1998-1999 478
1993-1994 357 1999-2000 450
1994-1995 435 2000-2001 500
1995-1996 404 2001-2002 534
2002-2003 600
Not only has the total number of students taking these classes increased,
the average size of these classes has increased as well; in the fall and
spring of 2001-02, for example, the average class size was 18.4, compared
to 16.1 in the period fall 1992 through spring 1994. With improved enrollments
in these classes, we have, in recent years, had little if any reason to
waive prerequisites in order to keep a class from being canceled.
Thanks to the foregoing actions/changes, students are now better prepared
for our more advanced courses than they were five or six years ago. Thus,
we have effectively dealt with an area of possible concern identified
in our 1998 external review, namely, that some of our advanced courses
were frequently taken by underprepared as well as by well-prepared students,
which may be a disservice to more capable students. A good example of
such progress comes from comparing our advanced epistemology course on
the two most recent times it was offered--in Fall 2002 with 8 majors in
the P312 Second Level Writing section and one major, one advanced minor,
and one other student in the P313 section, and in Fall 2000 when it was
offered as a P312 Honors Second Level Writing course with 5 majors, one
award-winning senior sociology major, and one other student--with the
course as it was in Spring 1998 when there were no philosophy majors and
only 2 or 3 out the 10 students enrolled were well-prepared to take the
course.
Furthermore, as a direct result of what we have learned from our assessment
activities, we have made an important curriculum change in the requirements
for a philosophy major, effective with the 2003-05 Bulletin for new students
entering the College. Previously we required majors to take two courses
in the history of philosophy, chosen from a group of five courses. Now
(for new students) we require two of these courses, P201 (Ancient Greek
Philosophy) and P214 (Modern Philosophy), specifically. Our purpose in
making this change was to not only to streamline our requirements, but
also to provide a more coherent transition from introductory to intermediate
to advanced courses. While it will be several years before the tangible
effects of this curriculum change will show up as student learning outcomes
in our assessment results, we should see at least some change in enrollment
patterns next year when P201 Ancient Greek Philosophy will be offered
in fall and P214 Modern Philosophy will (presumably) be offered in the
spring. This change should also help eliminate the division, noted above,
between well-prepared and underprepared students in upper-level classes.
Finally, as reported to the Committee with the submission of our Annual
Report for 2001-02, we have made several fine-tuning revisions of our
assessment procedures with respect to student portfolios, revisions that
simplify (and better reflect our actual practice in) this part of our
assessment activities. The revisions in question came about because of
student as well as faculty input to the design and subsequent modification
of our procedures.
6. Proposed Next Steps
We shall continue to follow the assessment procedures described above.
As of August 2002, we had gone through the assessment process with 23
senior philosophy majors. We have thus accumulated a sizable base of information
about student learning outcomes.
We have maintained an organized collection of data and other information
from our various assessment activities as part of departmental records.
It is important that we continue to do so.
We have had excellent participation to date, both from our faculty--100%
of our full-time faculty in residence on all occasions when we have read
portfolios and conducted exit interview sessions--and from our graduating
majors 10 students graduated with the B.A. in Philosophy during the 3-year
period (July 1999-August 2002) in question, and all 10 participated significantly
in the assessment process, although two who had elected the proseminar
option were unable to attend the exit interview because of a family emergency
or work-schedule conflict.
We shall soon be submitting our Annual Report for 2002-03, which will
be the first year in our next 3-year cycle; it is likely that we will
then switch to the new, narrative version of the reporting form.
A newly conducted survey of philosophy alumnae and alumni would be worth
undertaking, particularly given their increased number and the positions
of responsibility that many of them hold (e.g., the current Senior Judge
of the Superior Court of St. Joseph County is an IU South Bend philosophy alumnus,
as is the recently appointed Superintendent of all United Methodist churches
in Northwest Indiana).
All of our assessment activities are group-oriented, and we believe they
should stay that way. First and foremost among these is the bilateral
exit interview session we have with our graduating majors. Here, students
are coequal partners in a conversation of mutual self-evaluation and self-discovery.
Students can take pride in having participated in, and shaped, these sessions,
for which they have every right to feel, as we do, a sense of ownership.
We will therefore do everything we can not only to maintain the exit interview
portion of our assessment activity but also to emphasize its importance
to students throughout the time they are majors.
Submitted by:
Andrew Naylor
Chair
Department of Philosophy
go to top
Appendix I
Departmental Assessment Plan (as revised 6-22-02)
I. Conceptual Framework
Mission. The major program in philosophy cultivates reflective inquiry,
imparts logical and critical skills, and teaches the history of philosophy.
The major is designed both for students who wish to go on to graduate
school in philosophy (and other areas) and for students who seek an undergraduate
education that will prepare them for careers in business and civil service
and for professional training in such fields as law, social work, health
services, and the ministry. The philosophy major is also designed for
students who are undecided about career goals and desire a liberal education
that will challenge and cultivate the mind.
Curriculum structure. The ongoing study of philosophy consists in broadening
knowledge and appreciation of major texts and issues, in developing and
progressively refining skills, both imaginative and critical. Majors therefore
take at least twenty-seven credit hours in philosophy courses, including
both electives and upper-level courses selected to satisfy specific area
requirements within the major. A senior-level proseminar is offered as
a capstone course for majors who want to pursue a special topic or problem
under faculty supervision. The proseminar is a vehicle for one of the
assessment options that the department uses.
Student Outcomes - At the completion of the major program:
* Students will be reflective and inquiring.
* Students will be skilled in logical and critical thinking.
* Students will be familiar with major philosophers from several periods
in the history of philosophy.
* Students will express themselves effectively in philosophical writing;
they will, for example, be able to recognize and cogently describe philosophical
issues.
* Students will have a sense of connection between the study of philosophy
and their personal goals; they will, for example, be able to apply ideas
from the study of philosophy to ethical dilemmas and other practical concerns.
Assessment of the philosophy major occurs at various stages. When students
are advised, when they evaluate their courses and instructors, when they
participate in departmental colloquia or discussion groups, when their
work is reviewed prior to the department's selection of its annual award
for excellence -- each of these occasions provides information that the
department uses in order to assess its program. For each student, the
process culminates in one of two assessment options.
II. Two Assessment Options
Having two different assessment strategies benefits both students and
the department and provides flexibility in how assessment is accomplished.
Students should make their choice known at the beginning of the senior
year and make arrangements with the department chair for completing the
assessment option chosen sometime within the senior year.
1. Proseminar Project - The student enrolls in the department's
senior proseminar (P495) in order to pursue a substantial writing project
under the supervision of a project committee made up of at least two full-time
faculty members. The purpose of the proseminar project is to produce a
paper (or a significant revision of an earlier paper) that is researched
and formulated in a manner suitable for public presentation. Students
selecting this option have to meet the project expectations of their committee
and present their paper to the IU South Bend Philosophy Colloquium (or to some
other suitable group or forum). The student's performance under this option
is based on both the paper and the presentation, and a minimum grade of
C is expected for the student's work in the proseminar to be an indication
of a satisfactory rating of the major program for the purpose of assessment.
This option requires significant research, supervised writing, and public
presentation. Provided this requirement is met, the department is open
to alternative ways of pursuing the proseminar option. The department
encourages, but does not require, all majors to pursue this option, especially
majors who plan to go to graduate or professional school.
2. Portfolio - The student submits a portfolio of three or more
papers. These papers are read and evaluated by a committee consisting
of at least two full-time department members. If funding allows, people
from outside the IU South Bend resident faculty (e.g., part-time philosophy instructors
or philosophers from other colleges or universities) will at times be
asked to serve on portfolio committees. The point of the portfolio is
not just to collect and evaluate examples of a student's best work but
also to help the student achieve a larger perspective on his or her work
in philosophy and to provide specific guidelines for further progress.
The portfolio is the basis for a thorough review of the student's work
and achievements during his or her undergraduate career. This review is
communicated at a final meeting between the student and the portfolio
committee. This meeting serves as a bilateral exit interview. It provides
an occasion for a thorough exchange of evaluative observations and constructive
recommendations between the faculty and the student.
III. Evaluation of Assessment Process
Both options involve constructive interaction between faculty and students.
This is especially true of the proseminar option, which involves close
supervision of a semester-long project by at least two faculty members.
The portfolio option is interactive in that it involves a general evaluation
meeting between the faculty and the student at the end of the portfolio
process. In involving constructive interaction in these ways, both options
provide the opportunity not only for faculty to give feedback to students
but also for students to give feedback to the faculty.
The faculty committee, upon completing its final meeting with the student,
prepares a written summary of the student's level of accomplishment, indicating
the extent to which the student has met the expected outcomes listed in
Part I. Suggestions from students about how the philosophy curriculum
or assessment process might be improved are reported to the department
and action, if appropriate, is taken.
IV. Additional Funding Needed
The assessment plan needs little immediate support beyond the (considerable)
time and energy of department members. There is, however, a point at which
need of funding would, or could, eventually come into play. If, in the
portfolio option, philosophers were invited from outside the IU South Bend resident
faculty to serve on portfolio committees, we would need to pay them a
reasonable compensation, perhaps $200, for reading and evaluating papers
and for meeting with the committee and the student to discuss the student's
accomplishments.
go to top
Appendix II
Sample Narrative Statements Evaluating Student Learning Outcomes
A. [Student X] presented a senior proseminar project called ".
. . ." His/her project was a substantial, 30-page research paper
that discussed several key resemblances between the thought of ________and
various ________ and ________ writers by whom _______ may have been influenced
or inspired.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[Student X] discussed his/her paper at a public presentation with other
students and faculty in attendance, and during his/her exit interview.
[Student X] is not as adept verbally as s/he is in writing, being somewhat
reluctant to speak, and settling too often for explanations such as that
a view attracted him/her because it "just felt right." However,
when given opportunity to answer pointed questions, s/he often exhibits
a broad knowledge of his/her topic, and a good ability to make connections
between it and other areas of philosophy (such as the philosophy of science).
Based on his/her project and presentation of it, and his/her previous
work in philosophy, it is clear that [Student X] has met well the objectives
of our program. S/he embarked on his/her project because of deep personal
interest and conviction, and (as s/he remarked during his/her exit interview)
regarded it as a capstone of a process of personal growth triggered by
the study of Eastern religious traditions, growth that studying philosophy
enabled him/her to experience. [Student X's] sense of connection between
his/her study of philosophy and his/her personal goals is thus exceptionally
strong. Moreover, [Student X] is reflective and inquiring, as shown by
his/her ability to draw connections and relate them clearly in writing
between the thought of disparate thinkers, based on an examination of
a good number of primary and secondary sources. In his/her presentation
and exit interview, s/he evinced good knowledge of the history of philosophy
in the areas related to his/her project. It is clear from his/her writing
that [Student X] is very capable of a high level of logical thinking and
critical analysis, even though verbally s/he reports that s/he relies
more on intuition ("it just felt right") and sometimes has to
be prodded to make arguments for his/her views.
Overall, the Philosophy Department regards [Student X] as a strong student
who exhibits well the objectives we have set for our majors.
B. [Student Y] presented a portfolio consisting of three papers,
". . .," ". . . ," and ". . . ." All
three are strong pieces.
The [first] paper is primarily an expository project. [Student Y] sets
forth in a brief but effective manner ________'s skeptical considerations
about miracles and ____________'s rejoinder to _________. The concluding
section of the paper could have been more substantial. [Student Y] might
have assessed the arguments and counter arguments in more detail. She/he
says only that s/he is persuaded by _______'s critical observations but
still wants to believe in miracles. Still, on balance, the paper accomplishes
its primary purpose well: to exposit the views of _______ and ________.
[The second paper] is a paper of a very different type. It, too, is an
expository project, in part, setting forth in a crisp and insightful way
the basic ideas of foundationalist and coherentist views in epistemology.
But this paper differs from the [first] paper in having a substantial
creative component. [Student Y] presents his/her own idea of how the strengths
of foundationalist and coherentist views might be combined. In our discussion
at the exit interview, [his/her] proposal for a "coherent foundation"
was the focus of considerable discussion, indeed challenge. [S/he] defended
his/her position with dexterity and insight. [The paper] is also noteworthy
for the way it integrates [his/her] cross cultural studies in philosophy.
In the paper, [s/he] fruitfully compares foundationalist views with the
Western emphasis on individualism (i.e., on delimited, separate existence)
and coherentist views with the Asian emphasis on contextualism (i.e.,
on existing within a field of interrelationships).
[The third paper] is a short paper written for a course on Chinese philosophy.
[Student Y] analyzes a few key terms in Confucian philosophy and shows
how these terms give expression to the Confucian ideal of a humane life
rooted in social context and tradition. The paper is written with sensitivity
to cross cultural issues, especially matters of philosophical language
in cultural context.
[Student Y's] contributions to our discussion at the exit interview were
focused and well considered. S/he answered our questions about his/her
papers without difficulty, thus demonstrating clarity and incisiveness
of thought not only in his/her written work but also in oral communication.
[S/he] also contributed useful observations about philosophy as an undergraduate
major and about the IU South Bend philosophy department in particular. S/he spoke
in praise of philosophy as an undergraduate major, describing the many
transferable (e.g., analytical, critical, expository, communicative) skills
that one develops in studying philosophy. And, in general terms, s/he
spoke favorably of the department as well, stating that s/he felt that
he had received a good education in philosophy. As a constructive suggestion,
[Student Y], agreeing with the other two graduating majors at the meeting,
thought that the department should think about introducing a two semester
history of philosophy sequence. All three students at the meeting said
that it would be valuable to have a wide spectrum basis in the history
of philosophy early on in their study of philosophy.
Appendix III
Annual Assessment Reports [Printed copies to be inserted]
Go to top
|
