Lander University
Institutional Effectiveness Summary 2001-2002
According to Section 59-101-350 of the SC Code of Laws, 1976, as amended, each public institution in the state of South Carolina must submit an Institutional Effectiveness Report annually to the South Carolina Legislature and to the people of the state of South Carolina. Lander University’s assessment procedures are very much a part of our mission. Lander University has been an institution dedicated to providing higher education to the people of South Carolina, particularly in the upstate region, from its inception, and we want to show the taxpayers of South Carolina, to whom we are accountable, that our institution is both extremely effective and cost-efficient. At Lander University, each unit establishes its program goals and assessment measures to be consistent with both the university’s mission statement and each unit’s unique area of expertise. Lander University assesses its effectiveness continually, and we strive to maintain educational excellence while working to improve in any area that demonstrates a need for improvement.
The 2001-2002 Institutional Effectiveness Report for Lander University reports on the assessment of educational effectiveness for the following areas, following the Commission on Higher Education’s established uniform schedule for reporting:
Full Reports
Environmental Science
Exercise Studies
Sports Medicine/Athletic Training
Psychology
History
Political Science
Sociology
Interim Reports
Biology (Life Sciences)
English Language and Literature
Update
In addition, pursuant to the 2001 legislative amendment to SC 59-101, we include a statement on Lander University’s policies and procedures for preparing a technologically skilled workforce.
Majors and Concentrations
The various academic units employ a broad array of assessment techniques in their program evaluation, each using multiple measures tailored for the specific qualities of the discipline. During the 2000-2001 academic year, majors in Environmental Science, Sports Medicine, Athletic Training, Exercise Studies, History, Political Science, Sociology, and Psychology reported assessment findings through the CHE Program Reviews, and interim reports were submitted for Life Sciences (Biology) and English Language and Literature. The table below summarizes the assessment measures used by the majors under review.
Table 1. Assessment Measures of Majors under Review
|
Discipline |
Alumni Interviews/ Surveys |
Exit Interviews/ Student Surveys |
Content Area Exams |
Portfolios/ Student Work |
|
Environmental Science |
X |
|
X |
X |
|
Exercise Studies |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
Sports Medicine/ Athletic Training |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
Psychology |
X |
|
X |
|
|
History |
X |
X |
X |
|
|
Political Science |
X |
X
|
X |
|
|
Sociology |
X |
|
X |
|
|
Life Sciences (Biology) |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
English Language and Literature |
|
X |
|
X |
The Environmental Science program at Lander University uses several assessment measures to monitor students’ learning in the field of Environmental Science, students’ perceptions of the program, and students’ abilities to communicate effectively specialized information to a general audience. The assessment measures employed by the Environmental Science program are very specifically tied to the program goals.
Program Goals and Assessment
The goal of the Environmental Science program is to train environmental scientists and to produce graduates who are prepared for post-baccalaureate pursuits, including graduate or professional schools and employment in the discipline. Program graduates will:
1. possess an understanding of a broad spectrum of the accumulated knowledge and
methodology in the discipline.
2. be able to enter and compete in graduate or professional school programs, or be able to
secure employment in the discipline.
3. possess an understanding of the vocabulary of the discipline and be able to
communicate concepts through the proper use of this vocabulary.
Students are given a multiple choice professional knowledge examination developed by the environmental science faculty assessing material presented in the core courses of the program as freshmen and again as seniors in order to measure the change in each student’s knowledge of the discipline, the methodology, and the vocabulary/ability to communicate concepts as a result of matriculation in the program. Alumni are surveyed in order to determine their continued placement in environmental science careers or graduate programs. Students are required to submit writing samples as freshmen and again as seniors in order to measure the gained ability of students to use appropriate environmental science vocabulary in order to communicate basic concepts to a general audience, and senior students are required to present a 30 minute PowerPoint presentation on a research topic approved by the faculty in order to assess further their gained communication abilities.
Outcomes
Professional knowledge exam
This exam was first administered in the fall of 1998 to the second group of incoming freshmen in the newly created Environmental Science Program and has been administered annually since then to freshmen and for the first time to seniors in the spring of 2001. As the following table shows, the average score of incoming freshmen for the first four years varied between 23 and 28%. The available data for graduating seniors (N=7) show an average score of 56%.
Table 2. Mean results of professional knowledge exam
|
Year |
Entry Mean |
Exit Mean |
|
1998 |
28.5 (N=4) |
|
|
1999 |
23.1 (N=7) |
|
|
2000 |
27 (N=4) |
56.3 (N=7) |
|
2001 |
23.6 (N=5) |
|
N = the number of students who took the exam
The Professional Knowledge Exam is directly related to the educational objectives of the program and provides a standardized way of measuring student knowledge. Numerically, the students doubled the score on the exam due to the knowledge that they gained during their stay at Lander.
The exam is periodically reviewed and questions are added or deleted for the purpose of ensuring that the exam corresponds to the curriculum that the students have taken.
Alumni Surveys
Alumni of the Environmental Science program were surveyed, and the surveys showed the following breakdown of career paths. All of the graduates remained in South Carolina with the exception of one, who now attends graduate school at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Table 3. Career Paths of Environmental Science
Graduates
|
Career path |
Number of Students |
|
graduate school |
2 (Oceanography/MBA) |
|
environmental consulting companies |
2 |
|
analytical laboratory |
1 (double major in chemistry) |
|
chemical industry |
1 |
The placement of all of the Environmental Science graduates is good, particularly when seen in light of the recession that began approximately at the same time the first students graduated from the program. Competitiveness was shown especially by the student attending Georgia Tech, who competed against graduates from highly regarded institutions. The location of placement indicates that the program serves the needs of the state of South Carolina.
Writing Sample
Writing samples were collected from freshmen and graduating seniors. The samples are graded on a 0-4 scale based on the organization of the essay, the development of ideas, the clarity of explanations, and the usage of standard, grammatically correct English. A grade of “4” is given to essays that demonstrate a high degree of writing competence, a grade of “3” signifies competence, and a grade of “2” indicates limited competence due to obvious weaknesses in one or more of the evaluated areas. A grade of “1” reflects on fundamental deficiencies in writing skills, and unintelligible essays are given a grade of “0”. Table 2 shows a paired comparison of the writing sample evaluations for the six graduated Environmental Science majors.
Table 4. Comparison of Scores for First year and Graduating Senior Writing Samples
|
Student |
Freshman score |
Senior score |
|
1 |
AP credit |
3.0 |
|
2 |
2.5 |
3.0 |
|
3 |
3.0 |
2.5 |
|
4 |
transfer |
2.0 |
|
5 |
1.5 |
3.0 |
|
6 |
3.0 |
2.5 |
|
Average |
2.50 |
2.67 |
All of the Environmental Science graduates demonstrated limited competency or higher on their writing samples. No particular pattern of improvement is noticeable. This agrees with faculty impressions from class work.
Since the scores on the writing samples did not indicate fundamental deficiencies in writing skills, no changes are necessary.
Oral Presentation
Graduates of the Environmental Science Program should be able to present information effectively and coherently about a specialized topic. To assess this ability, students in the first graduating cohort (2001) were required to prepare and deliver a 30 minute PowerPoint presentation on a topic in the field of environmental science. The talks were presented in the senior seminar course, ES-499, under the direction of a faculty member. Topics were chosen by the students and approved by the faculty. The oral competency of each student was assessed subjectively on a pass-fail basis.
All graduating members of the 2001 cohort received passing grades. It is believed that a more objective and quantitative grading system is desirable, and in the future, a 5-point Likert scale will be used to evaluate the organization, presentation, use of English, vocal projection, and clarity of presentation.
The Exercise Studies program at Lander University employs several assessment measures to measure the professional knowledge of graduating seniors with degrees in Exercise Studies have, how competitive they are in the field, and what perceptions they have of the program.
Program Goals and Assessment
The Exercise Studies program with an emphasis in Exercise Science is designed to prepare students for careers in public, private, and corporate wellness programs, industrial and cardiac rehabilitation programs, and fitness and conditioning programs. Students will also be well prepared for graduate study in areas such as cardiac rehabilitation, exercise physiology, and physical therapy.
The student will possess necessary competencies and knowledge by meeting the following objectives of the Exercise Studies program:
1. Understand the role of exercise in maintenance of lifetime physical fitness.
2. Know the physiological/biochemical changes occurring in the human organism when it is placed under
physical stress.
3. Know methods, techniques, and procedures used to assess physical fitness, i.e. cardiovascular
endurance, body composition, muscular strength and endurance, and flexibility.
4. Know and be able to use scientifically-collected data to prepare accurate programs of exercise,
progressive resistance, flexibility, and body composition alterations.
5. Know the scientific methods of conducting research and possess the ability to understand basic
discipline-based research material presented in verbal or written form.
6. Know the basic legal implications associated with every aspect of a wellness (fitness) program.
7. Know the scientific basis of nutrition and the relationship of proper nutrition to physical
performance.
8. Know and be certified in CPR and first aid.
Students are given a professional knowledge examination consisting of 100 multiple choice questions developed by the Physical Education and Exercise Studies faculty assessing material presented in the core courses of the program. Alumni are surveyed in order to determine their placement in related graduate programs, and graduating students are asked to complete exit interviews. Students are required to complete two graded three credit hour internships with businesses or institutions outside of the university, and as seniors, students must present a research project at a colloquy open to the university community and the public in order to assess their gained communication abilities within this field.
Outcomes
Professional knowledge exam
Of the 18 students taking the Exercise Studies professional knowledge exam in 2001, 3 passed and 15 failed. The percentage of students who passed the exam is 16.6%.
There are two possible explanations for the marginal performance of graduating seniors on the professional knowledge examination. There have been several instructor changes since 1998 when the professional knowledge exam was revised, which may have impacted the continuity of information given to students in the core courses. In addition, the students’ performances on the professional knowledge exam have no impact on graduation, grades, or completion of core requirements of the program. Anecdotally, most students report not preparing for this inventory. The Division of Physical Education and Exercise Studies is currently considering the possibility of making this assessment a part of the capstone course and requiring a passing grade on it for graduation.
Alumni Surveys
According to the alumni surveys, four students applied for graduate or professional programs related to exercise studies. All four students were accepted into the programs to which they applied.
Exit Interviews
Fifteen of the 18 graduating seniors completed anonymously the exit interview questionnaire. Strengths identified within this process were student satisfaction with Lander University, the general education program, and the education they received within the Exercise Studies program. The greatest strengths of the Exercise Studies program were the quality contact with professors and the outstanding facilities and equipment of the Chandler Center. Weaknesses identified were a need for more PEES faculty and a greater availability of classes within the division.
Internships
For the 2000-2001 school year, 100% of the Exercise Studies students passed their internship experiences. In addition, Exercise Studies majors regularly comment very positively regarding the “hands-on” approach to learning within the PEES Division. Successful entry into graduate programs has been linked to this emphasis on practical skills and applications.
Research Projects
For the 2000-2001 school year, 100% of the Exercise Studies seniors passed their research presentation
requirement.
Sports Medicine/Athletic Training
The Sports Medicine/Athletic Training program at Lander University is a relatively new program that has not yet graduated its first students. It is currently undergoing its initial self-study for the purpose of external review and accreditation by the accrediting bodies JRC-AT (Joint Review Committee on Athletic Training) and CAAHEP (Council on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs).
Program Goals and Assessment
The mission of the Sports Medicine/Athletic Training program is to provide a comprehensive and progressive undergraduate educational experience that prepares students for a career in athletic training. Through a systematic progression of pedagogical and clinical instruction, supervised learning, and continuous evaluation each student has the opportunity to develop and master the concepts and clinical proficiencies necessary to provide the highest quality of sports injury prevention, assessment, care and rehabilitation services in a dynamic and rapidly-changing society.
Goals and Objectives
I. To develop athletic trainers who understand and appreciate the contemporary role of athletic training
within the context of a rapidly changing health care delivery system.
Objectives: After successfully completing the Lander University Sports Medicine/Athletic Training
program, the student will be able to...
A. Identify and discuss the major factors in the evolution of the field of athletic training
from its earliest historical roots to its present position in American allied health
services.
B. Demonstrate an understanding of critical issues facing contemporary health care in
America and discuss possible strategies for addressing those issues that directly impact
the athletic training profession.
II. To develop and maintain an environment that encourages and enables cognitive, psychomotor, and
affective learning excellence.
Objective: On a continuing basis, the Lander University Sports Medicine/Athletic Training faculty will
identify, develop, and utilize a variety of instructional methods and directed learning
experiences that address the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective learning needs of the
students.
III. To develop and maintain a broad and effective network of allied health resources in Greenwood
and the surrounding area.
Objective: On a continuing basis, the Director of the Lander University Sports Medicine/Athletic
Training will seek out, identify, recruit, and establish contractual relationships with a wide
variety of allied health professionals and clinical sites within Greenwood and the adjacent
counties.
IV. To develop athletic trainers who possess competencies and clinical proficiencies necessary to meet
the challenging sports injury management needs of our rapidly-changing society.
Objectives: A. perform anthropometric measurement techniques and other appropriate examination/
screening procedures on physically active participants.
B. obtain and interpret data regarding environmental factors, and recognize potentially
hazardous conditions and situations in the activity setting.
C. select and apply preventive and protective equipment, taping, wrapping, splinting,
bracing, and other rehabilitative devices in order to prevent re-injury.
D. perform proper clinical evaluation techniques.
E. utilize selected therapeutic modalities.
F. demonstrate an understanding of pharmacological agents and their appropriate
utilization in the management of exercise-related injuries and illnesses.
G. design and carry out appropriate rehabilitative activities utilizing contemporary
isokinetic, isotonic, and isometric strength testing/improvement devices.
H. use contemporary computer hardware and software.
I. perform record-keeping duties with sensitivity to patient confidentiality.
J. design, evaluate, and manage an athletic training facility.
K. design and implement an emergency management plan (EMP).
V. To develop athletic trainers who will successfully meet the NATA-BOC standards for
certification, consistent with the domains of the most current NATA-BOC Role Delineation
Study.
Objective: After successfully completing the Lander University Sports Medicine/Athletic Training
program, 100% of the students who take the NATABOC certification exam will pass
the exam and attain NATABOC certification.
Outcomes
The program goals and objectives will be assessed by student course evaluations, clinical instructor evaluations, alumni surveys, senior exit interviews, and the pass rate of graduates on the NATA-BOC certification exam. The results of the accreditation self-study will be available September 15, 2002. The self-study process has yielded several curriculum changes.
Program Goals and
Assessments
The plan for assessing the psychology program at Lander University is based on the following goals, which were revised in the fall of 2001.
Lander University students graduating with a baccalaureate degree in psychology will have
1. The ability to comprehend complex written material concerning psychological issues;
2. The ability to think logically, critically, and objectively;
3. A general knowledge of the theories, issues, and findings in the areas of human development,
experimental methodology, and personality;
4. The ability to write technical reports in APA style;
5. A knowledge of basic methods of statistical analysis;
6. Knowledge of ethical issues pertaining to psychology.
Means of Assessment
Achievement Test in Psychology: this instrument was devised by the faculty in 1998 and consists of
100 multiple choice items. The test has five subtests that measure knowledge of general
psychology, development, personality, methodology (including ethics), and statistics. The
test is administered annually to seniors, whose scores are compared to those of past senior
classes and to baseline scores of students enrolled in freshman level, sophomore level, and
junior level psychology classes.
ETS Major Field Test: this standardized, nationally-normed test consists of 160 multiple choice items
that pertain to various areas within the discipline.
University Alumni Survey: this is conducted annually by the Office of Career Services and
reports the average salary of graduates and how many graduates have jobs related to their
majors.
Faculty/Student Feedback Committee: this was created in 1999 in order for the faculty to get feedback
about the program from upper-division students.
Annual S.C.P.A. Psychology Bowl: this is a jeopardy-like contest in which teams of psychology majors
from various colleges and universities within the state compete against each other.
Goal 4, the ability to write technical reports in APA style, is assessed in terms of being a requirement in
the methodology and behavioral statistics course.
Outcomes
1. Achievement Test in Psychology
Table 5. Comparisons of Mean Scores of Psychology
Achievement Test by Class
|
class |
mean score |
|
PSYC 101 (General Psychology) |
39.75 |
|
PSYC 203 (Developmental Psychology) |
51.08 |
|
PSYC 330 (Methods of Behavioral Research) |
54.58 |
|
average senior score* |
66.083 |
*Scores from 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 classes have been averaged.
A one-way analysis of variance and post hoc analyses were performed on the scores of the senior classes of 1999 (N=16), 2000 (N=18), 2001 (N=24), and 2002 (N=41). The analysis also included the baseline scores of students enrolled in general psychology (N=91), developmental psychology (N=52), research methods and logic (N=31), and behavioral statistics (N=14).
As expected, significant differences in achievement were found among the groups, F (7,286) = 66.18, p < .0001. The senior classes had means varying from 64.12/100 to 68.05/100, and these means were not significantly different from each other. The senior classes significantly outperformed the baseline groups except for the behavioral statistics class (mean = 67.29/100). The means of the general psychology, developmental psychology, and research methods classes were 39.75/100, 51.08/100, and 54.58/100, respectively.
These baseline groups also significantly differed from each other depending on how advanced the courses were. Specifically, students in the most advanced course, the junior-level statistics course, scored higher on the test than did students in the less advanced courses in junior-level methodology, sophomore-level developmental, and freshman-level general psychology. In turn, the methodology students outperformed the students in developmental and general psychology, and the students in developmental outperformed the students in general psychology.
Another one-way analysis of variance, with subsequent post hoc analyses, was performed on the five sub-test scores of the four senior classes. Some significant mean differences were found, F (4,380) = 101.68, p < .0001. Achievement levels in developmental psychology and personality were not significantly different (means of 15.12/100 and 14.81/100, respectively). Achievement levels in general psychology and methodology were not significantly different, either (means of 13.59/100 and 13.10/100, respectively). However, the achievement levels in developmental psychology and personality were significantly greater than the achievement levels in general psychology, methodology, and statistics (mean of 9.25/100). The achievement levels in general psychology and methodology were significantly greater than the achievement level in statistics.
2. ETS Major Field Test
ETS results are reported in 11 ways—a mean scale score for the entire test and mean subscale scores for the following areas.
Table 6. Scores and Percentiles of ETS Major Field
Test in Psychology
|
Areas of ETS Test |
Score |
Percentile |
|
The entire test |
153.4/200 |
30th |
|
Learning and Cognition |
53.9/100 |
30th |
|
Perception/Sensation/Physiology/Comparative/Ethology |
50.9/100 |
12th |
|
Clinical/Abnormal/Personality |
55.9/100 |
28th |
|
Developmental and Social |
56.7/100 |
43rd |
|
Memory and Thinking |
48.7/100 |
38th |
|
Sensory and Physiology |
25.3/100 |
7th |
|
Developmental |
48.8/100 |
80th |
|
Clinical and Abnormal |
41.9/100 |
25th |
|
Social |
50.6/100 |
23rd |
|
Measurement and Methodology |
50.7/100 |
67th |
No comparative data are available for the psychology program as 2001 was the first year that the ETS Psychology Field Test was administered. The scores presented above represent a baseline against which future scores will be measured.
3. Alumni Surveys
Survey findings were available for the class of 1999 (N=5) and the class of 2000 (N=12). Four of the five 1999 respondents had jobs related to the major, and the respondents had an average salary of $26,999. Eleven of the 12 2000 respondents had jobs related to the major, and the respondents had an average salary of $31,363.
4. Faculty/Student Feedback Committee
Consistently since 1999 the representatives from the junior and senior classes have reported being generally satisfied with their program. The students perceive the program as being well-structured and as being demanding. They also consistently report that the courses in methodology and statistics are the most difficult. The seniors reported that the internship course was helpful in making career choices and gaining work experience that, in turn was helpful in finding employment. Students further reported being very satisfied with the one hour introduction-to-the-major course. That course helped clarify what is expected of majors and provided realistic information about graduate programs.
5. Annual S.C.P.A. Psychology Bowl
Since the inception of the Psychology Bowl in 1996, our teams have performed well against teams from such schools as Furman, Clemson, Francis Marion, Winthrop, and the College of Charleston. Our teams won first place in 1996 and 2001, and third place in 1999 and 2000.
Assessment of Outcomes
1. Achievement Test in Psychology
These results indicate that in general, psychology majors do acquire more and more knowledge of their curriculum as they progress from being freshmen to being seniors. The sole exception is in the area of statistics. Perhaps the abstract nature of statistical concepts and decision-making could explain why students have difficulty retaining knowledge of the material.
The achievement test has a high degree of reliability as evidenced by the consistency of scores from senior class to senior class. The test also has a high degree of content validity in that all items were derived from the content base of the required core psychology courses. The test will continue to be used as an internal measure of student knowledge and progress.
2. ETS Major Field Test
ETS cautions that major field test results are not to be used for the purpose of curriculum assessment until several years worth of data have been collected. Not surprisingly, the seniors did better in developmental and measurement/methodology because courses in those areas are required for all majors.
3. Alumni Surveys
These findings seem to indicate that psychology graduates are able to find employment related to the major and earn an adequate income. Since the survey data are scanty, the psychology program devised its own website survey in 2001.
4. Faculty/Student Feedback Committee
As a result of feedback from previous years, in the fall of 2001 the faculty made the second required courses in mathematics more flexible. Options were expanded from MATH 121 or 212 to MATH 121 or 212 or 111 or 131. A similar change was made for the required third composition course. Students are no longer restricted to ENGL 373, but now can choose between ENGL 373 or 275.
5. Annual S.C.P.A. Psychology Bowl
This successful record is another indication that the psychology program is doing its job of imparting knowledge to its majors. The successful performance of our teams is also a reflection of their ability to think logically, critically, and objectively, and to do so while under pressure.
Program Goals and Assessments
The plan for assessing the history program at Lander University is based on the following goals. Lander University students graduating with a baccalaureate degree in history will:
1. Know the basic historical chronologies of the United States and western civilization;
2. Possess detailed knowledge of selected areas of European, U.S., and world histories;
3. Be able to read and evaluate critically primary and secondary historical sources;
4. Be able to examine and evaluate conflicting interpretations of events and personalities;
5. Be able to perform historical research in libraries, archives, and other appropriate
repositories of historical records;
6. Be able to write about historical questions and evidence in a clear, analytical, and
organized manner, including the technical ability to document research and to
construct a bibliography;
7. Be able to discuss historical findings in clear and coherent oral presentations;
8. Be able to understand and explain historical information drawn from other cultures,
both within the United States and from other countries.
Means of
Assessment
Student Exit Questionnaire: This instrument uses a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from
1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree) to measure the perception of seniors
concerning how well the program met its goals.
Exit Exam: This instrument was devised by the history faculty and consists of 100
questions. The exam measures knowledge of historical chronologies and
selected areas of history.
Lander University Alumni Survey: This is conducted annually by the Office of Career Services and reports
the average salary of graduates and how many graduates have jobs related to their majors.
Outcomes
1. Student Exit Questionnaire
Table 7. Graduates’ Perceptions of History Program’s Goals Outcomes
|
Goal |
Average rating on
5-point scale |
|
1. Know the basic historical chronologies of the United States and western civilization. |
3.80/5.0 |
|
2. Possess detailed knowledge of selected area of European, U.S., and world histories. |
4.4 |
|
3. Be able to read and evaluate critically primary and secondary historical sources. |
3.95 |
|
4. Be able to examine and evaluate conflicting interpretations of events and personalities. |
4.0 |
|
5. Be able to perform historical research in libraries, archives, and other repositories of historical records. |
4.9 |
|
6. Be able to write about historical questions and evidence in a clear, analytical, and organized manner, including the technical ability to document research and to construct a bibliography. |
4.56 |
|
7. Be able to discuss historical findings in clear and coherent oral presentations. |
4.65 |
|
8. Be able to understand and explain historical information drawn from other cultures, both within the United States and from other countries. |
4.8 |
These findings indicate that the five seniors of 2001 agreed that goals 1 and 3 were met. The seniors substantially agreed that the other goals were met. The only slightly low ratings were given to goal 1, which received a score of 3.80.
The history faculty will need to determine why item 1 (knowing the basic chronologies of the U.S. and western civilization) was somewhat lower than the others.
Item 13 of the Student Exit Questionnaire needs to be modified. It is worded in a negative fashion that could cause confusion for some students.
2. Exit Exam
The original exam consisted of 120 items that measured knowledge of U.S., European, and western civilization chronologies and knowledge of selected areas of U.S., European, and world histories. As noted above, some assessment data from the questionnaire were not available because of administrative transitions. Similarly, the exit exam data for the senior classes of 1999 and 2000 were not available.
Baseline data were obtained in the spring of 2002 from students (N=85) who had completed a freshman-level course. They and five members of the senior class of 2002 were given a shorter version of the exam, 100 items, in order to let them complete the exam within a 50 minute class period. Scores from the 120 item test were available for the seniors of 1998 (N=14) and 2001 (N=5). These scores were transformed to percentages in order to make comparisons with the baseline data and the data from the 2002 seniors.
A one-way analysis of variance was performed on the four sets of scores. The baseline group had a mean of 47.01/100 with a standard deviation of 12.32. The means and standard deviations of the senior classes were as follows:
Table 8. History Program Exit Exam Means and Standard
Variations
|
class |
mean |
standard deviation |
|
1998 |
73.71 |
11.51 |
|
2001 |
61.40 |
20.20 |
|
2002 |
78.11 |
8.93 |
The analysis found that the mean scores of the senior classes of 1998 and 2002 were not significantly different. Both of these senior classes significantly outscored the 2001 class and the baseline group. The 2001 seniors did not differ significantly from the baseline group.
The exam scores of the 1998 and 2002 seniors indicate that the history program met its goals of imparting knowledge of historical chronologies and knowledge of selected areas of U.S., European, and world history to the history majors as they progress through the curriculum. The aberrant nature of the class of 2001 results can be accounted for by the smallness of the sample and the wide disparity in scores. Two seniors were evidently strong, and two others were evidently weak.
The faculty will contin