€¦ · Web viewGraduating seniors were also asked to rank the importance of several student goals and their perception of CWU’s contribution toward achieving those goals. The

CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

2008-2009 Student Learning Annual Academic Assessment Report

Central Washington University is an AA/EEO Title IX InstitutionTDD (509) 963-3323

Table of Contents

Executive Summary p. 4I. Overview 5II. Evidence of Student Learning Outcome Achievement 6III. General Education Evidence 6III.A General Education - Perception Data 9III.A.1 Alumni Surveys 9III.A.2 National Survey of Student Engagement 11III.A.3 Graduating Senior Survey 15III.A.4 General Education Perception Data Summary 16III.B General Education - Student Achievement Data 17III.B.1 Collegiate Learning Assessment Exam 17III.B.2 Washington Educators Skills Test - Basic 19III.B.3 Construction Quality Exam - Level 1 21III.B.4 General Education Student Achievement Data Summary 21III.C Other Institutional Evidence 22III.D General Education Improvements Made Since the 2007/2008

Assessment Report 23III.E. Summary and Areas for Improvement in CWU General

Education 23IV. Program Related Evidence of Student Learning 24IV.A Program Student Achievement Data 24IV.A.1 Washington State Educators Skills Test - Endorsement 24IV.A.2 ETS Major Field Tests 25IV.A.3 Construction Quality Level 1 Exam 32IV.A.4 Collegiate Learning Assessment Senior Exam Results 33IV.A.5 Summary of Program Achievement Data 34IV.B Program Perception Data 34IV.B.1 Graduating Senior Survey 35IV.B.2 Senior National Survey of Student Engagement Results 35IV.B.3 Alumni Survey Responses 37IV.B.4 Summary of Program Perception Data 38IV.B.5 Program Improvements Made Since the 2007/2008

Assessment Report 38IV.C Summary and Areas for Program Improvement 39V. Other Changes / Improvements to Assess Student Learning at

CWU 40VI. Evaluation and Improvement of Assessment Efforts 41VI.A. Assessment Processes 41VI.B. Suggestions for Continuous Improvement 47

October 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report p. 2 of 209

Table of Appendices

1. 2008 NSSE Benchmark Comparisons of First Year and Senior Students p. 49

2. 2008 NSSE First Year Detailed Statistics 53 3. NSSE Senior Detailed Statistics 57 4. Multi-Year Benchmark Reports for First Year and Senior NSSE

Results 61 5. 2008/2009 Collegiate Learning Assessment Summary 64 6. Washington Educators Skills Test Basic and Endorsement - WEST-

B and WEST-E 71 7. 2008/2009 Annual Program Assessment Reports - Executive

Summary and Rubric 76 8. Institution-wide Summary of Annual Assessment Reports 83 9. College of Arts and Humanities - Review of Annual Assessment

Reports 8510. College of Business - Evaluation of Annual Assessment Reports 8811. College of Education & Professional Studies - Review of Annual

Assessment Reports 9012. College of The Sciences - Review of Annual Assessment Reports 9313. Interdisciplinary and Other Programs - Review of Annual

Assessment Reports 9614. 2009/2010 CWU General Education Mission and Learning Goals 9815. CWU Student Evaluations Of Instruction (SEOI) Summary online

and Face-to-Face (F2F) Courses 10316. Central Washington University Summary of 2008/2009 ETS Major

Field Tests 11717. Summary of the 2008 Institutional Research Senior Survey 12618. Summary of Some Common Questions to The Five Year

Department/Program Review Alumni Survey 13219. CWU College of Arts & Humanities 2008/2009 Assessment Plans 14020. CWU College of Business 2008/2009 Assessment Plans 15121. CWU College of Education and Professional Studies 2008/2009

Assessment Plans 15522. CWU College of the Sciences 2008/2009 Assessment Plans 16123. Recent National, Regional, and State Recognition of CWU Student

and Alumni work 168

Submitted October, 2009 by:

Dr. Tracy Pellett - Associate Vice-President of Undergraduate Studies


Dr. Tom Henderson - Director of Testing and Assessment Services


Central Washington University 2008/2009 Annual Assessment Report - Executive Summary

This report provides a summative look at CWU's assessment and improvement of learning outcomes during the 2008/2009 academic year. It is not meant to be exhaustive. It is meant to provide benchmarks and a snapshot of the assessment and improvement of student learning outcomes across the institution.

Findings

1. CWU has several measures indicating that its students' learning compares very well to U.S. and peer institutions: Over 500 CWU students took ETS Major Field Tests during 2008/2009.

The weighted average score of all cohorts put CWU's students at the 71st percentile nationally.

CWU Construction Management seniors taking the Construction Quality Exam - Level 1 scored higher than national averages on 9 of 10 sub-scores.

After adjusting for ACT/SAT scores on the Collegiate Learning Exam, CWU first year students' average scores were at the 84th percentile of all peer institutions; CWU seniors scored at the 71st percentile.

2. CWU has strong indirect evidence of an outstanding group of students and alumni. A listing of recent national, regional, and state awards includes: (a) four Fulbright grants during 2008/2009 and 2009/2010, (b) the 2008 and 2009 Washington State Teacher of the Year are CWU alums, (c) finalists for the 2008 U.S. Principal of the Year and the 2009 U.S. Assistant Principal of the Year are CWU alums, (e) the 2009 CWU Construction Management teams took three awards at regional competition and finished second nationally, et. al.3. CWU still has room for improvement in several areas:

continued improvement of general education assessment and learning outcomes

increasing the number of in-class, oral presentations completed by first year and senior students,

track and possibly improve students' altruism or their place in "self and society"

Conclusions and Recommendations

1. CWU has effective assessment processes in place at the program, department, college, and institutional level. The institution needs to remain committed to these processes and continue to improve them.2. CWU has increased the number of methods used to assess and improve learning at the General Education level. Most of these assessment methods


are assessing seniors and graduates. CWU needs to implement some direct assessment of students' work completed in General Education courses.3. CWU students, graduates, faculty, and staff can be very proud of the accomplishments highlighted in this annual report.


I. OVERVIEW

This second annual Central Washington University (CWU) Academic Assessment Report provides a transparent look at a variety of ways in which the university measures itself academically in relation to its institutional mission, goals and academic strategic objectives. In the mission and goals of Central Washington University is this statement: “The University will 'maintain and strengthen an outstanding academic and student life on the Ellensburg and University Center campuses.'” Academic Affairs strategic objectives refer to “cultivating a creative and challenging learning environment” and “preparing students for their personal and professional lives and for lifelong learning.” Central Washington University accomplishes these goals and strategic objectives through effective curricular, instructional, and assessment processes. Assessment and improvement of student learning outcomes is an ongoing departmental, college, and university responsibility and the cornerstone of continuous improvement at CWU.

This annual report is summative in nature. The gathering of various assessment results allows CWU to spot trends in student learning at different levels, at different times, and with various assessment methods. This report is not meant to be exhaustive. CWU has many methods of assessment of student learning efforts taking place at program, departments, colleges, and the university level that may not be mentioned in this report.

Assessment and student learning at Central Washington University can be framed around three questions:

1. What evidence is there that students achieve stated learning outcomes?

2. In what ways is student learning evidence used?3. How is assessment of student learning efforts evaluated and/or

improved?

Evidence of student learning and achievement by CWU students and alumni is impressive:

377 CWU students participating in ETS Major Field Tests during 2008/2009 attained a weighted average rating at the 71st percentile nationally.

38 CWU Construction Management students scored better than the national average on all sub-scores of the Construction Quality Exam, Level 1.

67 CWU seniors scored at the 57th percentile amongst peer institutions on the Collegiate Learning Assessment Exam. Once their CLA scores


were adjusted for ACT/SAT scores they ranked at the 71st percentile among peer institutions.

CWU first year students had an average score on the Collegiate Learning Assessment exam at the 81st percentile among peers when adjusted for entering ACT/SAT scores.


The number of CWU programs participating in annual program assessment reviews increased during 2008/2009, especially the number of graduate programs participating in annual reviews. Average scores improved on 4 of 5 criteria evaluated with the rubric.

CWU students and alums have recently garnered many national, regional, and statewide awards including:

o Four Fulbright scholarshipso 2008 Washington State Teacher of the Yearo 2008 Washington State Principal of the Yearo 2009 Washington State Teacher of the Yearo A Grammy nominationo many other awards (see an annotated list in Appendix 23)

II. EVIDENCE OF STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME ACHIEVEMENT

Evidence of student learning and academic achievement at CWU is gathered from three basic sources: general education, program-related, and other institution level data (e.g., institution-wide surveys, awards). These data sources form the basis for decision-making and continuous improvement efforts related to student learning at the departmental, college, and institutional levels.

III. GENERAL EDUCATION EVIDENCE

CWU offers a liberal arts education in order to cultivate thoughtful and responsible persons and citizens, to prepare them for the world of work, and to teach them to pursue knowledge for its own sake. In order to accomplish those broad goals, the general education program seeks to promote effective reasoning, broad and deep learning, and the inclination to inquire.

The most recent review of the goals and structure of General Education at CWU resulted in a set of revised goals that were adopted by the Faculty Senate in spring, 2009.

2009 General Education Goals and Outcomes

Goal 1: To practice and apply the essential skills required to lead enlightened and productive lives.

Rationale: One of the three major goals in CWU's Mission Statement is to "... prepare students for enlightened and productive lives."


Outcomes: Students will be able to: 1. Read, reason, and conduct research critically. 2. Apply quantitative literacy skills to solve problems. 3. Write effectively for a variety of purposes and situations. 4. Organize and present information and ideas for a variety of

purposes and situations using oral and visual communication skills.

5. Demonstrate effective uses of technology to identify, evaluate, and present information.

Goal 2: To observe and reason scientifically about the natural world.

Rationale: The ability to think scientifically about the natural world allows us to recognize appropriate uses of the scientific methods. We study the natural sciences to develop critical thinking and quantitative reasoning skills by encouraging accurate observation, open-mindedness, and a reasoned understanding of the nature and value of empirical evidence.

Outcomes: Students will be able to: 1. Apply scientific methods. 2. Describe natural phenomena and predict consequences. 3. Use knowledge of scientific disciplines to describe the natural world

Goal 3: To understand and apply principles of social and behavioral dynamics.

Rationale

The social and behavioral sciences focus on how individuals, cultures, and societies operate and evolve. Studying these fields helps us to function as informed, responsible participants in communities and relationships.

Outcomes: Students will be able to: 1. Explain and apply methods and principles used by social and

behavioral scientists to investigate and analyze group and individual behavior.

2. Analyze dynamics of social groups and institutions.

Goal 4: To appreciate and give expression to beauty and truth through the arts.


Rationale: Aesthetic experience is fundamental to human existence; interacting with art allows us to construct meaning through the senses and the imagination. We study the arts to understand, interrogate and/or engage in the creative process and to explore the connections between art, culture and history.

Outcomes: Students will be able to: 1. Create meaning through the analysis of or by participating in imaginative/artistic production 2. Interpret aesthetic experiences and expressions within their historical, artistic, and cultural tradition 3. Recognize and/or apply techniques or forms used to create aesthetic meaning in at least one art form.

Goal 5: To analyze and critique historical and contemporary accounts of human experience.

Rationale: Through the humanities, we develop a sense of continuity, change, empathy, and personal ethics. We study the humanities to observe how individuals and societies have articulated and acted on their most profound ideas. Through historical and contemporary sources, the humanities reveal the complex interactions between ideas, individuals and societies.

Outcomes: Students will be able to:1. Examine ways in which beliefs and values affect interpretations of experience and events.2. Analyze expressions of individual and human experience within historical and social contexts.3. Apply critical and analytical approaches typical of the humanities to formulate, justify, and evaluate substantive claims.

Goal 6: To develop knowledge and skills necessary to be reflective, active participants in a changing, multicultural, intercultural world.

Rationale: Diversity courses invite us to examine how our assumptions about cultural identifications such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and religion can influence our perceptions of ourselves and of others; these courses teach us to understand cultures different from our own; and they prepare us to participate in diverse settings with mutual respect and appreciation. The courses focus on one or more non-dominant


cultures or peoples of the United States and on comparative cultures across national and continental boundaries. Outcomes: Students will be able to:1. Examine critically their own perceptions and assumptions about people who have had a different set of historical experiences.2. Analyze individual and institutional forms of prejudice, bias, and discrimination based on factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, religion, and sexual orientation.3. Describe how globalization impacts local and national issues of diversity.4. Describe how socially and culturally diverse groups manifest a variety of values, perspectives and contributions related to social and historical issues and events.5. Analyze the implications and requirements of equity, human dignity, and social justice as these shared values influence U.S. ethnic and international/global interactions.

Goal 7: To observe the interconnectedness of knowledge by employing multiple modes of inquiry across disciplines to address issues and solve problems.

(Outcomes for Goal 7 are pending a discussion of the proposed Mid-study Seminar)

Central Washington University has assessed general education outcomes in the past several years in a variety of ways (surveys, focused projects, studies, and standardized exams). Following is a short description of these efforts for the 2008/2009 academic year as well as related results/findings.

III.A. GENERAL EDUCATION PERCEPTION DATA

There are a variety of measures and data that are used at CWU to assess student perceptions as to General Education Outcome achievement. These data come primarily from surveys that are routinely administered on a regular basis. Following are the most recent results from alumni surveys, graduating senior surveys, and a nationally standardized survey (National Survey of Student Engagement - NSSE).

III.A.1. ALUMNI SURVEYS


Alumni surveys are administered in two formats as a part of examining student perceptions of academic quality and development while at CWU. The Office of Testing and Assessment Services administers an alumni survey targeted to graduates of programs engaged in the CWU's five year program review process. 2007 and 2008 Program Review Alumni Surveys of 2001-2007 Alumni

Alumni from the past five years are surveyed during each department's five year Program Review. The surveys include questions on CWU’s mission and general education outcomes. Respondents included 226 alumni (10.4% response rate) for the 2007 surveys and 709 responses out of 5,034 alums survey in 2008 for a 14% response rate. Alums from 2007 departments included Biological Sciences, Business Administration, Foreign Languages, Family Consumer Sciences, Primate Behavior & Ecology, and Recreation & Tourism. The programs surveyed in 2008 include Asia/Pacific Studies, Communications, Economics, Education, Environmental Studies, Gerontology, Health/Human Performance/Nutrition, History, Latin American Studies, and Law & Justice. Respondents rated a list of academic skills by importance to career, and then reported how prepared they were from their CWU educational experience in those same skills.


TABLE 1. Alumni Survey Results - Summary of Responses to 2007 and 2008 Surveys

How well

prepared? 2007 Median

Importance to

career? 2007

Median

How well prepared? 2008 Median

Importance to

career? 2008

MedianThinking critically - check your and others' assumptions; consider multiple perspectives from various sources, etc.

4 4 4 4

Communications - use appropriate oral, written, and visual means for each audience; listen effectively

4 5 4 5

Quantitative reasoning - apply quantitative tools and computer skills to solve problems; comprehend symbolic representations

4 4 4 4

Information literacy - critically evaluate data sources as I gather relevant information

4 4 4 4

* The response scaled for "How well prepared" was:1 = Not at all prepared, 2 = Not prepared, 3 = Somewhat prepared, 4 = Prepared, 5 = Very well prepared** The response scale for "How important are each of the following competencies to your career?"1 = Not at all important, 2 = Not important, 3 = Somewhat important, 4 = Very important, 5 = Critical

Note the "communication gap" for alums from both the 2007 and 2008 surveys. They rate their communication skills as highly as the other skills surveyed (a median of four on a five point scale) but almost two thirds of alums on both surveys rated communication skills as "critical" to their careers (a median of 5 on a scale of 5).

Table 2 summarizes results from alums when they were asked how well CWU prepared them for Mission Statement goals and the "old" (pre 2009) General Education goals.


TABLE 2. 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 Alumni Survey Results "How strongly do you agree that your education from CWU helped you..."

2007 Survey Median Respons

e

2008 Survey Median Respons

ea become a responsible citizen 4 4b become a responsible steward of the earth 4 3c become a productive and enlightened (informed,

good learner, insightful) individual 4 4d value different perspectives 4 4e appreciate the breadth and depth of scientific

and human knowledge 4 4

f increase your sense of the interconnectedness of knowledge 4 4

g integrate knowledge from diverse fields to solve problems 4 4

h increase your awareness of the many ways that knowledge evolves 4 4

i ask incisive and insightful questions 4 4

Results Summary: Overall, alumni rated their academic experience high with regard to preparation of important general education skills with almost all medians of 4 on a 5 point scale. The lowest median rating was a 3 on the 2008 survey for "becoming a responsible steward of the earth." This result is notable because one of the three main goals of CWU's Mission Statement is to "... prepare students for responsible stewardship of the earth."

III.A.2 NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT (NSSE)

The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) is used across the nation and has been administered to CWU students for the last several years. Although not intended to assess students’ perception of achievement, this survey has been viewed as an informative institutional instrument as it assesses first year and senior students’ effort and time dedicated to educationally meaningful activities and the extent to which institutions emphasize effective educational practices. 774 colleges and universities participated in the spring 2008 administration.

Following are CWU 2008 results (also see Appendix 2) from 211 first year and 609 senior students (12% and 27% response rates) compared to peer institutions regarding questions relevant to General Education outcomes (communicating, critical-thinking, values and ethics).


Table 3. A summary of NSSE questions for first year and senior respondents) where there are significant peer differences for first year students. These differences are out of 83 questions summarized in Appendices 2-4. Note: questions about "How often have you done each of the following?" are based on a scale of never=1, sometimes=2, often=3, very often=4. See: http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/NSSE2008_US_English_Web.pdf

----- First Year Students ----------------- Seniors

-----------

CWU mean

Peer

mean

p-value

Effect

size

CWU

mean

Peer mea

n

p-valu

e

Effect

sizeMade a class presentation * 1.98 2.33 .000 -.43 2.97 2.87 .01 .11Participated in community-based projects as part of course

1.44 1.57 .01 -.16 1.71 1.76 .25 .05

Used an electronic medium to discuss or complete an assignment

2.24 2.55 .000 -.30 2.66 2.82 .000 -.16

Number of written papers or reports between 5 and 19 pages

2.12 2.24 .003 -.15 3.23 2.98 .000 .22

Work on research project with faculty member outside of course

1% 5% .000 -.18 16% 16% .853 .01

Spending significant amounts of time on academic work

2.99 3.10 .042 -.15 3.03 3.10 .036 -.09

Learning effectively on your own 2.75 2.92 .014 -.19 2.85 3.00 .000 -.17* Cohen's "rule of thumb" for effect size is that .2 to .3 is "small", .5 is medium, and .8 to infinity is large. Cohen warned to use his rule of thumb judiciously. "Made a class presentation" is noted because it is the only difference with a medium effect size for first year students. Note: NSSE states that "Effect size is calculated by subtracting the comparison group mean from the school mean, and dividing the result by the pooled standard deviation." This appears to be the calculation for "Cohen's d" effect size.

Note that CWU seniors score higher than CWU first year students on all questions and are significantly lower than peers on only three of the questions.

Appendix 4 charts multi-year NSSE benchmark results for both first year and senior students. CWU's benchmarks have been steadily improving. The only decrease in CWU benchmark scores from 2004 to 2008 has been in "Supportive Campus Environment" which improved quite a bit from 2007 to 2008. National NSSE staff commented that this benchmark has also been trending "up and down" nationally. According to NSSE "The benchmarks are based on 42 key questions from the NSSE survey that capture many vital aspects of the student experience. These student behaviors and institutional


http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/NSSE2008_US_English_Web.pdf

features are some of the more powerful contributors to learning and personal development." See: http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/nsse_benchmarks.pdf.


http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/nsse_benchmarks.pdf

Table 4. CWU First Year Student NSSE Benchmark Trends

NSSE 2008 Multi-Year Benchmark ReportMulti-Year Chartsa

Central Washington UniversityFIRST-YEAR STUDENTS

Level of Academic Challenge (LAC)

46.1 48.6 50.3 49.0 48.3 50.5

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08

Active and Collaborative Learning (ACL)

35.4 36.4 37.7 38.5 37.8 38.7

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08

Student-Faculty Interaction (SFC)b

33.0 35.839.0 37.9 37.1 40.1

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08

Enriching Educational Experiences (EEE)c

21.625.1 24.4 24.7 25.2

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08

Supportive Campus Environment (SCE)

54.859.8 58.5 56.9 56.4 58.1

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08

Notes: a. Recalculated benchmark scores are charted for all years

of participation since 2001. See page 5 for detailed statistics. For more information and recommendations for analyzing multi-year NSSE data, consult the Multi-Year Data Analysis Guide: www.nsse.iub.edu/pdf/2008_Institutional_Report/ Multiyear_Data_Guide.pdf.

b. For institutions with 2001-2003 data, due to a change to the ‘research with faculty’ item in 2004, ‘SFC’ (the alternate version of ‘SFI’ that does not include that item) is charted on this page. Statistics for both versions are provided on page 5.

c. 2001-2003 ‘EEE’ scores are not provided because these scores are not comparable with those of later years; response options for several ‘EEE’ items were altered in 2004.


Table 5. CWU Senior Student NSSE Benchmark Trends


Central Washington UniversitySENIORS


57.3 57.653.7 54.1 56.2 57.3

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08


52.1 51.4 50.7 52.3 53.3 52.9

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08


43.1 45.9 43.0 44.3 45.1 46.8

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08


33.5 33.9 36.1 36.9 35.1

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08


51.555.4 55.1 53.9 53.4 56.2

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08






NSSE Results Summary: Over the past five years CWU first year students and seniors have been improving on five of the six NSSE major benchmarks. The one exception is "supportive campus environment." Average responses did jump on this benchmark from 2007 to 2008. CWU needs to continue that trend. This may be a challenge in the face of decreasing state funding in Washington for higher education.

III.A.3 GRADUATING SENIOR SURVEY

Graduating seniors at CWU complete a survey that assesses student satisfaction and perceived development of various academic skills. 1,036 of the 2,113 bachelor degree recipients for 2006 returned a completed survey representing a response rate of 49%. 1,144 seniors responded to the 2008 survey out of a graduating class of 2,399 for a response rate of 48%.

Table 6. Graduating Senior Survey Results

ACADEMIC SKILLS

2006 Senior Survey

% Very or Mostly

Satisfied

2008 Senior Survey

% Very or Mostly

SatisfiedDevelopment of using Knowledge from your Major n/a 90%Development of working in a cooperative group n/a 84%Development of Independent Learning 83% 83%Development of Analyzing 82% 80%Development of Solving Problems 77% 80%Development of using knowledge from outside your major n/a 77%

Development of Understanding of Society and Environment 74% 72%

Development of Writing 73% 72%Development of Speaking 73% 73%Readiness for Career 73% 73%Development of Responsibility and Service 63% 62%Development of Quantitative Principles 62% 64%Development of Understanding Diverse Philosophies 72% 71%Development of Scientific Principles 62% 62%Development of Arts 51% 51%

Results Summary: Given a list of academic skills (see Table 6), students were asked “How satisfied are you with Central Washington University’s contribution to your growth in the following areas?”

Greatest satisfaction was reported with CWU’s contribution to the development of skills in their major (90%) working in a collaborative group (84%) and the development independent learning (83%). Students reported the least satisfaction with their development of skills related to the Arts. Note


that over 70% of respondents reported high satisfaction with CWU’s contribution to their development of solving problems, writing, speaking, and understanding society and diverse philosophies. These results are similar to those reported in 2006.

III.A.4 GENERAL EDUCATION - PERCEPTION DATA SUMMARY

Overall, the 2008/2009 perception data gather on General Education at CWU is positive. Based on the results (graduating senior, alumni, and NSSE surveys) collected and analyzed during the 2008/2009 academic year, the following conclusions can be made:

935 recent CWU alums surveyed during 2007 and 2008 report that they "learned well" CWU's General Education goals (the median response on all general education goals was a 4 on a 1 to 5 scale). Note: there were the "old" General Education goals in place during their time in school.

CWU alumni say that they learned critical thinking, quantitative reasoning, information literacy and communication skills (writing, speaking, listening) well. The median response on both the 2007 and the 2008 surveys for all questions was a 4 on a scale of 1 to 5. However, alums on both surveys rank communication skills as being "critical" to their success. Almost two thirds of the alums ranked communications skills as 5 on a scale of 1 to 5. These seems to by a small gap in how well CWU students learned communication skills (4 out of 5) and how important those skills are to their careers (5 out of 5).

The NSSE survey indicates that CWU first year students are significantly less likely than students at peer institutions to "make a class presentation." CWU first year students also write significantly fewer papers that are between 5 and 19 papers. CWU seniors score higher than peers on both measures. This, combined with the important that CWU alums place on communication skills, indicates that CWU's General Education program should focus even more writing and oral presentation skills.

Both CWU first year and senior students are lower than peers on "Spending significant amounts of time on academic work" and "Learning effectively on your own." Seniors on the senior survey rate their skills on "development of independent learning" at CWU very highly. It is possibly that CWU students could achieve even better results if they were challenged more.


III.B GENERAL EDUCATION - STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA

Measures of student learning as related to General Education help the institution understand how students are performing and what students know in relation to broad-based skills (information literacy, writing, quantitative and symbolic reasoning, and critical thinking) important for college graduates to attain. Assessment of these skills during the 2008-2009 academic year is reflected through four sources of "achievement" information. These sources include the:

Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) exam Washington Educator Skills Test - Basic (WEST-B) Construction Management Construction Qualification Exam (CQE) Individual Programmatic Study

III.B.1 COLLEGIATE LEARNING ASSESSMENT (CLA) EXAM

CWU administered the CLA exam to first year and senior students for the first time during the 2008/2009 academic year. First year students took the exam during the fall, 2008 term, seniors took the exam during the spring, 2009 term.

The CLA exam is designed to measure an institution's "value added" In terms of writing and elements of critical thinking. Over 400 institutions and 165,000 students have participated to date. 87 CWU first year and 67 seniors took the exam. Of the seniors, 34 were "native" CWU students and 33 were transfer students. CWU does not record the ACT or SAT for transfer students and with such a small sample, the CLA was not able to adjust the four main categories of questions for entering ACT/SAT scores. The exam scores for first year and senior students were excellent when compared to peers. See Tables 7, 8, and 9.

Table 7. CWU First Year Student Count and Scores on Major Sections of the CLA

First-Year StudentsStudent Count

Mean EAA

Score

Expected Mean CLA

Score

Observed Mean

CLA Score

Unadjusted Percentile

RankDeviation Score

Adjusted Percentile Rank

Performance Level

Total CLA Score 87 994 1048 1094 54 1.0 85 Above Performance Task 43 995 1029 1116 73 2.1 98 Well

Above Analytic Writing Task

44 993 1066 1072 41 0.1 58 At

Make-an-Argument 44 993 1069 1053 33 -0.2 43 At Critique-an-Argument

45 992 1062 1089 49 0.5 72 Above


Table 8. CWU Senior Student Scores on the CLA (all major sub-sections are N/A)

Performance

Adjusted percentile

rankDeviation score

Unadjusted percentile

rank

Observed mean CLA

score

Expected mean CLA

score

Mean EAA

scoreStudent count

Total CLA score

Above 71 0.6 57 1217 1190 1064 40


Table 9. Overall Summary of CWU Collegiate Learning Assessment Exam Results

FIRST YEAR CWU STUDENTSUNADJUSTE

D PERCENTIL

E RANKMean CLA

score

Unadjusted

Percentile Rank

First-Year Students


Performance Level

ADJUSTED PERCENTIL

E RANK

53%

1094 53 Total CLA score 84 Above 84

%1116 73 Performanc

e 98 Well above

1072 40 Analytic writing 57 At

1053 33 Make-an-argument 43 At

1089 49Critique-

an-argume3nt

72 Above

SENIOR CWU STUDENTSUNADJUSTE

D PERCENTIL

E RANK

Mean

CLA scor

e

Unadjusted

Percentile Rank

First-Year Students


Performance Level ADJUSTED

57%


%N/A * N/A * Performan

ce N/A * N/A *

N/A * N/A * Analytic writing N/A * N/A *

N/A * N/A * Make-an-argument N/A * N/A *

N/A * N/A *Critique-

an-argume3nt

N/A * N/A *

VALUE ADDED

Value Added


Performance Level

ADJUSTED PERCENTIL

E RANKTotal CLA

score37 At 37


%These results are very positive. CWU can look forward to a strong 2008/2009 first year class. CWU can also be proud of raw and adjusted percentiles of its senior class.

One note: the relatively high percentile scores by seniors seem to indicate that analytic writing skills along with critical thinking and quantitative skills are strong. These scores may improve even more if a new focus is placed on communication skills at the General Education level.

III.B.2 CWU RESULTS FOR WASHINGTON EDUCATOR SKILLS TEST - BASIC EXAMS

The Washington State Professional Educator Standards Board established the "Washington Educator Skills Test – Basic" (WEST-B) as a requirement for admission to approved teacher preparation programs in Washington. The WEST-B is also required of persons from out-of-state seeking a Washington State residency teaching certificate.The WEST-B measures basic skills in reading, mathematics, and writing through three subtests. The reading and mathematics subtests have 60 multiple choice questions each. On the writing subtest, examinees respond to 50 multiple choice questions and 2 writing prompts.

Tables 10, 11, and 12 summarize average scores on the WEST-B for peer education programs in the State of Washington. The pass rate was calculated by dividing the number of candidates admitted to the teacher preparation program by the number passing during the academic year.

The passing score is 240 for each of the three subtests (reading, mathematics and writing) on a scale of 100 to 300.

TABLE 10. West-B Reading - 2006/2007 and 2998/2009 Academic Year Subtest Scores - Washington State Public Institutions

2006/2007 RESULTS 2007/2008 RESULTS

Number

Mean

Pass Rate * Numb

erMea

n

Pass Rate

*STATEWIDE 3,065 270 96% 2,961 271 96%Central Washington (Ellensburg) 578 265 91% 564 266 92%


Eastern Washington(Cheney) 213 266 100% 242 267 99%

The Evergreen StateCollege (Olympia) 40 276 100% 40 279 93%

University ofWashington (Bothell) 59 276 100% 70 276 99%

University ofWashington (Seattle) 104 279 95% 93 282 100%

University ofWashington (Tacoma) 37 278 100% 41 280 100%

Washington StateUniversity (Pullman) 411 268 99% 294 268 100%

Western Washington(Bellingham) 450 273 100% 454 272 100%

Note: Data for this table retrieved from the WWW at:http://www.pesb.wa.gov/Publications/reports/documents/Final07-08AssessmentReportPrintVersion.pdf


http://www.pesb.wa.gov/Publications/reports/documents/Final07-08AssessmentReportPrintVersion.pdf

TABLE 11. WEST-B Mathematics - 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 Subtest Scores

2006/2007 RESULTS 2007/2008 RESULTSNumb

erMea

nPass Rate

Number Mean

Pass Rate

STATEWIDE AVERAGE 3,049 277 95% 2,945 278 96%Central Washington(Ellensburg) 574 273 91% 556 274 91%Eastern Washington (Cheney) 213 275 100% 242 277 99%The Evergreen StateCollege (Olympia) 40 282 100% 40 287 93%

University ofWashington (Bothell) 59 283 100% 70 281 99%University ofWashington (Seattle) 105 286 95% 93 289 100%University ofWashington (Tacoma) 37 277 100% 40 282 98%Washington StateUniversity (Pullman) 411 276 100% 294 277 100%Western Washington(Bellingham) 449 279 100% 454 280 100%Note: Data for this table retrieved from the WWW at:http://www.pesb.wa.gov/Publications/reports/documents/Final07-08AssessmentReportPrintVersion.pdf

TABLE 12. WEST-B Writing - 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 Subtest Scores 2006/2007 RESULTS 2007/2008 RESULTS

Number Mean

Pass Rate

Number Mean

Pass Rate

STATEWIDE 2,999 265 94% 2,941 265 96%Central Washington(Ellensburg) 527 260 83% 549 259 90%Eastern Washington(Cheney) 213 261 100% 242 260 99%

The Evergreen StateCollege (Olympia) 40 268 100% 40 275 93%

University ofWashington (Bothell) 59 269 98% 70 271 99%

University ofWashington (Seattle) 104 275 95% 92 277 99%

University ofWashington (Tacoma) 37 268 100% 37 272 95%

Washington StateUniversity (Pullman) 411 262 99% 292 263 99%

Western Washington(Bellingham) 450 267 100% 453 267 100%

Note: Data for this table retrieved from the WWW at:http://www.pesb.wa.gov/Publications/reports/documents/Final07-08AssessmentReportPrintVersion.pdf




WEST-B Results Summary:

Although WEST-B tests are not administered to all CWU students, more than 20% of all CWU graduates are education majors and their specialties span all colleges. Overall WEST-B results are positive and provide direct evidence of CWU student achievement in basic skills developed through General Education. This conclusion is based on the fact that the weighted average pass rate for all three 2007/2008 WEST-B tests is 91%. It should be noted that CWU Writing pass rates increased from 83% during 2006/2007 to 90% during 2007/2008. CWU tends to rate lower with regard to passing on all measures as compared to state-wide peers. Also, CWU enrolls almost 20% of all education majors in the State of Washington.

III.B.3 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SENIOR CQE EXAM - COMMUNICATIONS SCORES

The Construction Management department administers a national certification exam to all seniors. CWU seniors' average 2008 scores exceeded national averages on all areas measured. 2007 seniors exceed national averages on all areas measured except for Communications. Table 13 summarizes the 2007 and 2008 Communications scores. CWU increase their scores while the national average on Communications decreased from 2007 to 2008.

Table 13. Construction CQE Level 1 Exam Communications Scores - CWU vs. U.S. Average Area Scores for 2007 and 2008

Area Scoresaverages

CWU Averag

e

National Average

Max Possibl

e

Passing

Score2007 Communications - CQE 1 11.25 11.85 18 132008 Communications - CQE 1 12.97 11.65 17 12

III.B.4 GENERAL EDUCATION - STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA SUMMARY

Based on the results of various student achievement data collected and/or analyzed during the 2008-2009 academic year, the following conclusions can be made:

CWU first year and senior students scored relatively high compared to students at peer institutions on the Collegiate Learning Assessment Exam. After adjusting for exam taker's ACT/SAT scores CWU first year students' average score ranked at the 81st percentile among peer


institutions. Seniors' average score (after adjustment) ranked at the 71st percentile of peer institutions. The CLA measures "Performance" skills (critical thinking and quantitative reasoning) and Analytic Writing (which includes "make-an-argument" and "critique-an-argument"). This is very strong evidence that General Education at CWU is performing well.


General Education - Student Achievement Data Conclusions (continued)

The evidence of good writing skills by CWU students is corroborated by CWU students' 2008 Construction Quality Exam scores.

During 2007/2008 the weighted average pass rate of CWU students on the WEST-B Reading, Writing, and Mathematics exams was 91%. CWU improved Writing scores from 83% on the 2006/2007 exam up to 90%on the 2007/2008 exam. The pass rate is still relatively low when compared to other Washington State public institutions. This is an indication that CWU has room to improve General Education learning outcomes.

Additional direct measures are needed to assess elements and skills developed through General Education. Some ideas include using rubrics to "spot check" actual General Education course assignments. CWU programs gather programmatic evidence of student learning outcomes in General Education courses. Currently CWU has no "clearing house" for gathering and tracking such data.

III.C. OTHER INSTITUTION LEVEL EVIDENCE Over the past two years Central Washington University students and alums have received many national, regional, and state awards (see Appendix 23 for an annotated list). This is indirect, but strong evidence of the strength of CWU General Education and degree programs. CWU's recent Fulbrights are:

2008/2009 - Jennifer M. VanTuyl 2008 CWU Graduate in Teaching English as a Foreign Language, Her Fulbright is to South Korea.

2008/2009 - John Pena holds a BFA from Central Washington University and an MFA 2008 from Carnegie Mellon University. He is a recent Fulbright recipient to La Universidad del Valle Cali, Colombia 2008-9. http://www.johnpena.net/

2009/2010 - Allison Rice, a Harrah native and Central Washington University graduate, has earned a Fulbright scholarship. Rice graduated with a double major in elementary education and German. The 26-year-old will work in Germany and teach students about the United States culture and the English language.http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2009/08/02/pair-of-cwu-graduates-earns-fulbright-scholarships

2009/2010 - Rebecca Funke received a Fulbright scholarship. The 23-year-old native of Friday Harbor, Wash., studied Spanish and Elementary Education at CWU. Rebecca will be teaching English to elementary students at the Can Andres Primary School in Colmenar


http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2009/08/02/pair-of-cwu-graduates-earns-fulbright-scholarships%20

http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2009/08/02/pair-of-cwu-graduates-earns-fulbright-scholarships%20

http://www.johnpena.net/

Viejo, a small town located on the outskirts of Madrid, Spain. http://sanjuanupdate.com/2009/05/rebecca-lands-a-fulbright-to-teach-in-spain-wahoo/

III.D. CWU GENERAL EDUCATION IMPROVEMENTS MADE SINCE THE 2007/2008 REVIEW

During 2008/2009 CWU: The CWU General Education Committee and the Faculty Senate finalized

a major revision to the General Education program at CWU Administered the Collegiate Learning Assessment exam to first year and

senior students CWU has received a small grant from the National Science Foundation

to implement the "CAT" or Critical Thinking Assessment Test institution wide

Continued its Annual Assessment Report which includes a summative assessment of General Education at CWU

Dr. Patsy Callaghan served out her term as Director of General Education

III.E. SUMMARY AND POSSIBLE STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE GENERAL EDUCATION AT CWU

CWU alums and students rate, in general, their General Education skills highly when surveyed about them.

CWU students scored well when compared to peers on the Collegiate Learning Assessment Exam. After adjusting for their ACT/SAT scores first year students scored at the 84th percentile and seniors at the 71st percentile. This is good news for the institution, indications are that the 2008/2009 entering students are academically strong.

CWU's "value added index" was only at the 37th percentile. This was about average when compared to peers. Improving General Education skills, such as communication, should improve CWU's value-added.

CWU students and alumni tend to be less satisfied, perceive less institutional emphasis and opportunity for engaging in, and demonstrate less achievement related to communication, especially oral presentation skills. This area for improvement remains from the 2007/2008 Annual Assessment Report.

Assessment methods, particularly those that measure General Education learning directly, are needed at the institutional level. Examples might include developing a rubric and using it to "spot check" actual work done in General Education classes. The focus would then be on using that


http://sanjuanupdate.com/2009/05/rebecca-lands-a-fulbright-to-teach-in-spain-wahoo/

data to make improvements in student learning outcomes at the General Education level.

NSSE results indicate the need for in-class oral presentations in General Education classes

NSSE results also indicate that CWU courses could be more challenging. IV. PROGRAM RELATED EVIDENCE

This report does not summarize the many assessment methods that programs use to measure and improve learning outcomes. However, there are other measures and reviews that are used at CWU to assess programmatic learning outcomes.

IV. A. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA

CWU student achievement data is collected at the institutional level through the:

Washington Educators Skills Test - Endorsement (WEST-E) ETS Major Field Tests The Construction Quality Exam - Level 1 Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Exam

IV.A.1 WASHINGTON EDUCATORS SKILLS TEST - ENDORSEMENT (WEST-E)

The Washington State Professional Educators Standards Board publishes annual scores for the WEST-E exams. A summary of Central Washington University, Eastern Washington University, and Western Washington University latest published scores from 2007/2008 scores follows. A detailed summary follows in Table 14 and is at: http://www.pesb.wa.gov/Publications/reports/documents/Final07-08AssessmentReportPrintVersion.pdf

TABLE 14. 2007/2008 WEST-E % PASS RATES FOR CWU, EWU AND WWU

WEST-E ENDORSEMENT EXAM

------- CWU ------- ------- EWU * ------- ------- WWU * -------

TOTAL #

PASS %

TOTAL #

PASS %

TOTAL # PASS %

Art: Content Knowledge 22 91% 11 91% 5 100%Biology: Content Knowledge 8 100% 8 100% 7 100%Business Education 8 100% 4 100%Chemistry: CK 6 83% 1 100% 2 100%Driver Education 1 100%Earth Science: CK 3 100% 1 100% 3 100%



Education of Exceptional Students: Core Content Knowledge

39 100% 22 100% 27 100%

Education of Young Children 113 94% 6 100% 2 100%Elementary Education: CK 387 95% 113 96% 99 99%English Language Literature Composition: Ck

20 95% 40 95% 21 100%

English to Speakers of Other Languages 74 50% 8 63% 13 100%Family and Consumer Sciences 10 100%


TABLE 14 (continued). 2007/2008 WEST-E % PASS RATES FOR CWU, EWU AND WWU

WEST-E ENDORSEMENT EXAM

------- CWU ------- ------- EWU * ------- ------- WWU * -------

TOTAL #

PASS %

TOTAL #

TOTAL # PASS %

General Science: Content Knowledge 12 83% 6 100% 9 100%German: Content Knowledge 2 50%Health and Physical Education: CK 28 96% 17 94% 11 100%Library Media Specialist 13 100% 3 100%Marketing Education 6 83% 3 100%Mathematics: Content Knowledge 31 68% 13 100% 10 100%Middle School English Language Arts 1 100% 6 80% 9 100%Middle School Math 35 74% 4 75%Middle School Science 33 76%Music: CK 11 100% 4 100% 1 100%Reading Specialist 78 62% 52 71% 4 100%Social Studies: CK 34 74% 33 82% 22 91%Spanish: CK 14 71% 13 77% 7 100%Special Ed: Preschool / Early Childhood 1 100% 7 86% 2 100%Theater 2 100% 1 100% 3 100%NUMBER OF EXAMINEES and WEIGHTED AVERAGE PASS RATES

992 86% 337 90% 257 99%

* EWU & WWU WEST-E scores were not included if they had no students in a CWU category

Results Summary: The average pass rate of all CWU students completing the WEST-E exams during the 2007/2008 academic year was 86%. This is significant as the criterion pass rate as determined by NCATE accreditation standards (which CWU is bound) is 80%. Thus, these results provide strong and positive evidence of CWU student learning achievement across several content areas and majors. CWU has more than twice as many students/alumni taking the WEST-E exam as either EWU or WWU. CWU’s average pass rate (86%) is close to EWU (90%). However it is significantly lower than WWU's (99%). Thus, it can be concluded that CWU is somewhat comparable to state peers.


IV.A.2 MAJOR FIELD TESTS, CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATION EXAM, AND COLLEGIATE LEARNING ASSESSMENT RESULTS

The following tables (15 - 19) summarize national percentile rankings of CWU students taking standardized Major Field Tests for Biological Sciences, Computer Science, Physics, and Psychology programs as developed by Educational Testing Service (ETS). Scores are summarized for fall 2008, winter 2009, and spring 2009 cohorts. One note: the final tables for translating scores into percentiles are not yet published for 2008/2009. ETS representatives have said in the past that prior year tables would work as close surrogates. A weighted average of the percentile rankings of each cohort follows and is detailed in Tables 15 through 19.

CWU students taking 2008/2009 Major Field Tests: 529

Weighted average percentile ranking against all institutions: 71st percentile

Majors from: Biological Sciences, Business, Computer Science, Physics, and Psychology


Table 15. CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY - Biological Sciences Major Field TestsPercent of all institutions at below the lower limit of CWU's core interval Weighted Averages of 2007/2008 Exam Cohorts


BIOLOGICAL SCIENCESCWU BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES MAJOR FIELD TEST SCORES (1)

12 test takers 35 test takers 26 test takers ---- FALL 2008 ---- -- WINTER '09 -- -- SPRING '09 --

Raw U.S. Raw U.S. Raw U.S.Score (2) Rank (3) Score (2) Rank (3) Score (2) Rank (3)

OVERALL SCORE 156.1 60% 161.8 85% 156.0 60%

SUB-SCORES1Cell Biololgy 57.7 75% 61.7 85% 56.5 65%2Molecular Genetics 51.3 30% 58.7 80% 52.5 40%3Organismal 58.2 75% 62.7 90% 57.7 75%4Population, Ecology, Evolution 55.2 60% 60.2 85% 56.1 65%

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCESCWU BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES MAJOR FIELD TEST SCORES (1) - continued

12 test takers 35 test takers 26 test takersASSESSMENT INDICATOR ---- FALL 2008 ---- -- WINTER '09 -- -- SPRING '09 --

1 Biochemistry and Cell Energetics 50 75% 57 90% 49 70%

2Cellular Structure, Organization, Function 60 65% 62 75% 58 55%

3Molecular Biology and Molecular Genetics 47 55% 56 85% 44 40%

4 Diversity of Organisms 57 80% 62 90% 52 55%5 Organismal - Animals 61 55% 66 80% 60 50%6 Organismal - Plants 53 75% 58 90% 56 90%

7 Population Genetics and Evolution 58 65% 63 85% 61 80%8 Ecology 59 55% 65 85% 59 55%9 Analytical Skills 53 45% 61 85% 57 65%

(1) ETS score conversion tables were used with senior scores from August 2005 through J une 2008.See: http:/ / www.ets.org/ Media/ Tests/ MFT/ pdf/ MFT%20PDFs%202007/ Biology4BMF.pdf

(2) Raw scores are CWU average mean percent correct(3) "Rank" or "Percentile" is the percent of U.S. institutions that are at or below CWU raw scores.

For example, 60% means that CWU scored as high or higher than60% of the institutions nationwide participating in Najor Field Tests.


Table 16. CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY - Business Sciences Major Field Tests Percent of all 564 institutions at below the lower limit of CWU's score interval

COLLEGE of BUSINESSCWU BUSINESS MAJOR FIELD TEST SCORES (1)

CWU Averages Compared to the Averages of 564 Institutions

103 test takers 97 test takers 131 test takers -- SUMMER 2008 -- --- FALL '08 ---

--- WINTER '09 ---

Raw U.S. Raw U.S. Raw U.S.

Score (2)Percentil

e (3) Score (2)Percentil

e (3) Score (2)Percentil

e (3)

OVERALL SCORE 156.8 75% 156.3 70% 158.6 80%

ASSESSMENT INDICATOR1 Accounting 59.8 90% 55.8 80% 60.7 95%2 Finance 62.5 80% 58.5 65% 64.0 80%3 Economics 54.0 80% 51.5 70% 56.5 90%4 Quantitative Analysis 45.8 45% 50.3 70% 50.7 75%

5Legal/Social Environment 49.5 70% 50.5 75% 48.4 65%

6 International Issues 60.5 75% 59.8 70% 61.2 75%7 Marketing 53.8 55% 57.0 70% 58.2 75%8 Management 59.0 65% 58.0 60% 60.7 75%9 Information Systems 61.3 65% 59.3 55% 63.4 80%

(1) ETS score conversion tables were used with senior scores from domestic institutions during August 2006 through June 2008.

These were the most recent conversion tables. See: http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/MFT/pdf/MFT%20PDFs%202007/Business4CMF.pdf(2)

Raw scores are CWU average mean percent correct

(3) Percent of U.S. institutions that are at or below CWU raw scores.

For example, a 60% means that CWU scored as high or higher than60% of the institutions nationwide participating in Major Field Tests.


Table 17. CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY - Computer Science Major Field Tests Percent of all institutions at below the lower limit of CWU's core interval. Weighted Averages of 2007/2008 Exam Cohorts

COMPUTER SCIENCECWU MAJ OR FIELD TEST SCORES (1)

9 test takers 15 test takers --- WINTER '09 --- --- SPRING '09 ---

Raw U.S. Raw U.S.Score (2) Rank' (3) Score (2) Rank (3)

OVERALL SCORE 154.0 65% 154.0 65%

ASSESSMENT INDICATOR1 Programming 62 60% 66 75%2 Discrete Structures and Algorithms 44 80% 39 65%

3Systems: Architecture/ Operating Systems/ Networking/ Database 40 35% 42 40%

(1) ETS score conversion tables were used from August 2005 through June 2008.The most recent conversion tables available were used. See:http://www.ets.o rg/M edia/Tests/MFT/pd f/MFT%20PD Fs%202007/ComputerScience4CMF.pdf

(2) Raw scores are CWU average mean percent correct(3) Percent of U.S. institutions that are at or below CWU raw scores.

For example, a 65% means that CWU scored as high or higher than65% of the institutions nationwide participating in Naj or Field Tests.


Table 18. CWU - Physics Major Field Tests Percent of all institutions at below the lower limit of CWU's core interval. Weighted Averages of 2007/2008 Exam Cohorts

PHYSICSCWU MAJOR FIELD TEST SCORES (1)

10 test takers --- 2008/2009 ---

Raw U.S.Score

(2) Rank (3)

OVERALL SCORE 147.0 45%

SUB-SCORES1 Introductory Physics 48.0 50%2 Advanced Physics 46.0 35%

ASSESSMENT INDICATOR1 Classical Mechanics and Relativity 49 55%2 Electromagnetism 45 45%3 Optics/Waves and Thermodynamics 43 60%

4Quantum Mechanics and Atomic Physics 46 50%

5 Special Topics 31 20%

(1)ETS score conversion tables were used from August 2005 through June 2008. See:http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/MFT/pdf/MFT%20PDFs%202007/Physics4AMF.pdf


For example, a 60% means that CWU scored as high or higher than60% of the institutions nationwide participating in Major Field Tests.


http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/MFT/pdf/MFT%20PDFs%202007/Physics4AMF.pdf

Table 19. CWU - Psychology Major Field Tests Percent of all institutions at below the lower limit of CWU's core interval. Weighted Averages of 2007/2008 Exam Cohorts

PSYCHOLOGYCWU MAJOR FIELD TEST SCORES (1)

------ FALL 2008 ------ --- WINTER '09 --- --- SPRING '09 ---Raw U.S. Raw U.S. Raw U.S.

Score (2) Rank (3) Score (2) Rank (3) Score (2) Rank (3)

OVERALL SCORE 160 60% 156 45% 159 60%

SUB-SCORES

1Learning & Cognition: Language, Memory, & Thinking 58 55% 62 75% 60 60%

2Perception, Sensory, Physiology, Comparative, & Ethology 63 80% 57 50% 57 50%

3 Clinical, Abnormal, and Personality 58 55% 54 30% 56 40%4 Developmental and Social 57 45% 51 20% 59 60%

ASSESSMENT INDICATOR - Psychology Assessment Indicators are not available at this time 7-28-20091 Memory and Thinking 2 Sensory and Physiology 3 Developmental4 Clinical and Abnormal5 Social6 Measurement and Methodology

(1) ETS score conversion tables from August 2005 through J une 2008. See:http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/MFT/pdf/MFT%20PDFs%202007/Psychology4BMF.pdf


For example, a 60% means that CWU scored as high or higher than60% of the institutions nationwide participating in Najor Field Tests.

11 test takers 14 test takers 66 test takers


IV.A.3 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SENIOR CEQ EXAM RESULTS

Each year CWU seniors majoring in Construction Management take the Construction Quality Level 1 Exam. 2007 CWU seniors exceeded the national average on all sub-scores except for Communications. Note that all 2009 exam sub-scores except for "Construction Safety" exceed national averages including Communications.

Table 20. Construction Credentials 2008 Exam - CWU vs. U.S. Average Area Scores

Area Scoresaverages

CWU Averag

e

National Average

Max Possibl

e

Passing

ScoreCommunications 11.25 11.85 18 13Engineering concepts 25.53 23.38 34 24Management concepts 10.22 9.79 13 9Materials, Methods, and Plan Reading 26.14 25.55 34 24Bidding and Estimating 34.42 32.13 45 32Budgeting, Costs, and Cost Control 23.25 22.58 32 22Planning, Scheduling, and Control 31.69 30.64 41 29Construction Safety 17.69 18.22 25 17Surveying and Project Layout 9.03 8.14 11 8Project Administration 35.03 14.64 46 32

Table 21. Construction Credentials (CQE) April, 2009 Exam - CWU vs. U.S. Average Area Scores (31 of 38 CWU students passed, 666 out of 1,009 passed nationally).

CWU "school average" = 234.34; the national average was 219.59

Area Scoresaverages

CWU Averag

e

National

Average

Max Possibl

e

Passing

Score

Communications 12.97 11.65 17 12Engineering concepts 21.84 20.01 27 19Management concepts 9.92 9.59 13 9Materials, Methods, and Plan Reading 23.92 22.33 31 22Bidding and Estimating 38.39 34.85 51 36Budgeting, Costs, and Cost Control 25.39 23.33 31 22


Planning, Scheduling, and Control 37.00 34.71 46 32Construction Safety 16.76 16.83 23 16Surveying and Project Layout 5.13 4.84 6 4Project Administration 43.00 41.54 55 38


IV.A.4 CWU COLLEGIATE LEARNING EXAM RESULTS - SENIORS

CWU administered the CLA exam to first year students during the fall 2008 term and to seniors during spring 2009. 67 CWU seniors took the senior CLA exam, 34 were "native" students, 33 were transfer students. The CLA is designed to evaluation "performance tasks," i.e., thinking critically and analytic reasoning; analytic writing, make-an-argument, and critique-an-argument. Sub-scores are not available for CWU seniors because almost half of the seniors taking the exam were transfer students. CWU does not record ACT or SAT score for transfer students, thus their "adjusted" CLA scores could not be computer.

Table 22. CWU Collegiate Learning Assessment Senior Percentile Ranks (% of comparable institutions scoring at or below CWU average student scores)

UNADJUSTED

PERCENTILE RANK

Mean

CLA scor

e

Unadjusted

Percentile Rank

First-Year Students



57%



ce N/A * N/A *




an-argume3nt

N/A * N/A *

VALUE ADDED

Value Added


Performance Level

ADJUSTED PERCENTIL

E RANKTotal CLA

score 37 At 37%

Performance N/A * N/A *

Analytic writing N/A * N/A *

Make-an-argument N/A * N/A *Critique-

an-argume3nt

N/A * N/A *


IV.A.5 PROGRAM ACHIEVEMENT DATA SUMMARY

Strong CWU Seniors' Major Field Test results

CWU's 2008/2009 results on the Education Testing Services' Major Field Tests were very strong. 529 CWU seniors took Major Field Tests and CWU's overall average was at the 71st percentile nationally.

Strong CWU Senior Results on the Construction Quality Level 1 Exam

CWU's results for the 2009 Construction Quality Level 1 exam were also very strong. CWU students exceed the national average on 9 of 10 sub-scores.

Strong CWU Senior Results on the Collegiate Learning Assessment

CWU's Collegiate Learning Results for seniors were also strong. CWU's average score on the CLA after adjusting for ACT/SAT results was at the 71st percentile of peer institutions. The CLA compliments the more discipline-specific skills measured in the Major Field Tests and CQE exam with skills such as critical thinking, analytic reasoning, analytic writing, make-an-argument, and critique-an-argument.

Average Results on the Collegiate Learning Assessment "Value Added" Index

CWU's "value-added" index as measured against peer institutions was at the 37th percentile. The CLA considers this "at" performance level. One reason the "value-added" may be relatively low is the strong CLA scores achieved by CWU's first year students.

Room for Improvement on CWU's Washington Educator Skills Test - Endorsement

The average score of CWU students and alums on the WEST-E exam exceed NCATE minimums but CWU's average scores are below other state institutions.

IV.B. PROGRAM STUDENT PERCEPTION DATA

Again, this report does not include summaries of all types of perception data collected by CWU's degree programs. However, results from several institutional methods of assessing perception data are included:

Senior Surveys


National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Alumni Surveys


IV. B.1. GRADUATING SENIOR SURVEY

Graduating seniors complete a survey on a regular basis that assesses student satisfaction and perceived development of various academic skills. 1,144 of the 2,399 bachelor degree recipients for 2008 returned a completed survey representing a response rate of 49 percent. 2006 and 2008 results are summarized in Table 6 on page 15. The three questions with the best response and the three questions with the lowest response follow in Table 23.

Table 23. 2006 and 2008 Senior Survey Highest and Lowest Responses - Graduating Senior Academic Skills Results 2006 and 2008 surveys - “How satisfied are you with Central Washington University’s contribution to your growth in the following areas?”

ACADEMIC SKILLS

2006 Senior Survey

% Very or Mostly

Satisfied

2008 Senior Survey

% Very or Mostly

SatisfiedDevelopment of using Knowledge from your Major n/a 90%Development of working in a cooperative group n/a 84%Development of Independent Learning 83% 83%Development of Understanding Diverse Philosophies 72% 71%Development of Scientific Principles 62% 62%Development of Arts 51% 51%

Note that two of the questions on the 2008 survey were not on the 2006 survey, i.e., "knowledge from your major" and "working in a cooperative group."

The highest response, "knowledge from your major" corroborates the strong results in the Major Field Tests and the Construction Quality Exam.

The three lowest responses seem to fit into two categories (1) scientific principles, and (2) arts & philosophy.

IV.B.2 CWU SENIOR YEAR NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT (NSSE) RESULTS

Detailed statistics for CWU seniors participating in the NSSE survey are included in Appendix 3. Summary statistics are provided for 85 questions. CWU was significantly different than its Carnegie Class peers on 30 or the 85 questions. Some of the differences are because of CWU's residential and


rural setting. These differences are not the end-all of assessment but they can provide insights. A summary of the differences follows.

Table 24. CWU Significantly Higher (not necessarily better) Results than Carnegie Peers - NSSE Senior Year Student Survey

QuestionCWU

nCWU mean

Carnegie

meanSignifica

nceEffect Size

CLPRESEN - Made a class presentation 609 2.97 2.87 .007 +.11CLUNPREP - Come to class without completing readings or assignments 606 2.18 2.07 .002 +.13OCCGRP - Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare assignments

607 2.93 2.73 .000 +.22

INTIDEAS - Ideas/concepts from different courses for assignmnts/class

594 3.00 2.92 .019 +.09

READASGN - # of assigned textbooks/books/book-length packs 586 3.39 3.17 .000 +.21WRITESML - Number of written papers or reports of fewer than 5 pages

589 3.23 2.98 .000 +.22

PROBSETA - # problem sets that take you more than an hour to complete

585 2.76 2.65 .030 +.09

PROBSETB - # problem sets that take you less than an hour to complete

584 2.57 2.41 .003 +.13

EXRCSE05 - Exercised or participated in physical fitness activities

579 2.74 2.58 .000 +.15

ACADPR01 - Preparing for class 566 4.25 4.03 .002 .13SOCIAL05 - Relaxing and socializing (watching TV, partying, etc.) 566 3.56 3.39 .014 .11

Most of the results on Table 24 are positive. The one exception is that CWU seniors self report that they "Come to class without completing readings or assignments" more often than CWU's Carnegie peer institutions. The effect size of +.13 is small but this is still an area (challenging students) that CWU needs to track and improve.

Table 25. CWU Significantly Lower (not necessarily worse) Results than Carnegie Peers - NSSE Senior Year Student Survey

QuestionCWU

nCWU mean

Carnegie

meanSignifica

nceEffect Size

WORSHP05 - Participated in 579 1.95 2.05 .023 -.09


activities to enhance your spiritualityINTERN04 - Practicum/internship/field experience/co-op/clinical assignment 579 .41 .48 .000 -.15VOLNTR04 - Community service or volunteer work 578 .47 .55 .000 -.16SNRX04 - Culminating senior experience (capstone course, et. al. 579 .22 .30 .000 -.17ENVNACAD - Helping you cope with your non-academic responsibilities 561 1.89 1.97 .043 -.09GNGENLED - Acquiring a broad general education 561 3.14 3.26 .000 -.15GNWRITE - Writing clearly and effectively 559 2.99 3.11 .001 -.14Table 25 (continued). CWU Significantly Lower (not necessarily worse) Results than Carnegie Peers - NSSE Senior Year Student Survey

QuestionCWU

nCWU mean

Carnegie

meanSignifica

nceEffect Size

GNSPEAK - Speaking clearly and effectively 560 2.89 3.03 .001 -.15GNCITIZN - Voting in local, state, or national elections 552 1.80 2.10 .000 -.29GNINQ - Learning effectively on your own 551 2.85 3.00 .000 -.17GNETHICS - Developing a personal code of values and ethics 552 2.54 2.68 .001 -.14GNCOMMUN - Contributing to the welfare of your community 552 2.30 2.44 .001 -.14GNSPIRIT - Developing a deepened sense of spirituality 550 1.72 1.93 .000 -.20ADVISE - Overall, how would you evaluate the quality of academic advising 555 2.59 2.81 .000 -.23 ENTIREXP - How would you evaluate your entire educational experience 555 3.03 3.14 .000 -.16

The results on Table 25 all have relatively low effect sizes but the t-tests of average responses indicate that CWU means are significantly lower than Carnegie peer institutions.

Table 5 (page 14) showed CWU's NSSE trends on the senior year survey since 2001. CWU did not administer the NSSE during 2002 and 2003. The "least squares" slope of the trend line is given for each chart. CWU has made improvements in all of the major NSSE categories except for "Supportive Campus Environment." CWU senior responses have a negative slope from 2004 through 2008.


The CWU senior NSSE results are reverse of some of the achievement data and some of the other student perception data.

IV.B.3 Alumni Survey Results

Tables 1 and 2 summarize results for 2007 and 2008 alumni surveys. Alums of programs going through the five-year program review process are surveyed.

The alumni responses indicate that:

1. Communication skills are critical to CWU graduates' careers2. There was a drop in the average rating from 2007 to 2008 on how well alums feel that they were prepared as "stewards of the earth." This is one of CWU's three key missions.


IV.B.4 SUMMARY OF PROGRAM PERCEPTION DATA

CWU students and alumni are overwhelmingly satisfied with their development of major related skills and readiness for a career. This is per the senior and alumni surveys.

CWU seniors score lower than peers on the NSSE and self-report low the senior surveys on questions relating to "self and society." Some examples include:

Lower than peers on the NSSE and lower responses to the Senior Survey on:

o Votingo Developing a personal code of ethicso Contributing to the welfare of the community/community serviceo Developing a deepened sense of spiritualityo Understanding diverse philosophieso Development of the Arts

Some of the perception data seems to be in conflict with itself and achievement data

o NSSE seniors average lower than peers on "writing clearly and effectively" while seniors on the CLA exam scored at the 71st percentile on subjects including analytic writing, make-an-argument, critique-an-argument

o The average CWU responses to the NSSE question on "learning effectively on your own" was lower than peers. However, 84% of CWU seniors rate very or mostly satisfied on " Development of Independent Learning"

IV.B.5 PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS MADE SINCE THE 2007.2008 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

1. Program Achievement Data is especially strong for this 2008/2009 report:

CWU seniors continue to improve and rank near the upper quartile nationally on Major Field Tests

The Collegiate Learning Assessment administered during 2008/2009 provided CWU with key insights into program learning outcomes


CWU seniors ranked at the 57th percentile of peers on the CLA exam, they ranked at the 71st percentile after their scores were adjusted for entering ACT/SAT scores


2. More programs are participating in the Annual Program Assessment Reporting process. There work is evaluated annually using a rubric that measures (see Appendix 7):

a. What outcomes were assessed this year and why? b. How were they assessed?

i. What methods were used?ii. Who was assessed?ii. When was it assessed?

c. What was learned (assessment results)?d. What will the department do as a result of that information (feedback/program improvement)?e. How did the department or program make use of the feedback from

last year’s assessment?

3. The future looks bright at CWU for student outcomes. The 2008/2009 first year class scored very well on the CLA and CWU has many programs that are focused on improving both their assessment of learning and how they use assessment results to make changes that improve learning outcomes.

IV.C. SUMMARY AND AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR PROGRAM RELATED LEARNING EVIDENCE

1. It has already been noted that CWU ranks high nationally and among peer groups in several measures of discipline specific learning outcomes

CWU cohorts average at the 71st percentile of the Major Field Tests CWU Construction Management students again averaged higher than

national averages on nine of ten sub-scores

2. CWU seniors and alums self-report their satisfaction with discipline specific learning on senior surveys and alumni surveys

3. CWU seniors rank highly among peer institutions on the Collegiate Learning Exam which measures skills such as critical thinking, analytic reasoning, analytic writing, make-an-argument, and critique-an-argument


V. OTHER EVIDENCE OF CHANGES MADE IMPROVEMENTS TO CWU STUDENT LEARNING

A summary follows of other changes/improvements made at CWU to improve student learning. Again, this list is by no means exhaustive.

1. Dr. Patsy Callaghan served out her term as Director of General Education. It was a very successful term working with the CWU General Education committee with major changes to the program, new General Education goals, the first implementation of the Collegiate Learning Assessment exam at CWU, etc.

2. General Education at CWU is completing major reforms. New General Education goals have been approved by the CWU Faculty Senate.

3. Dr. Jan Bowers continued work as the Director of the Center for the Teacher/Scholar (see http://www.cwu.edu/~avpugrad/teacher-scholar/)

4. The five-year program/departmental review process continues and is improving. See a summary of reports at: http://www.cwu.edu/~avpugrad/programreview/fiveyearreview.html

5. CWU continues to improve services to University Centers. CWU now has Writing Center staff at Des Moines, Lynnwood, Pierce County, Yakima, and by appointment at Wenatchee.

6. CWU Colleges continue to implement, review, and improve college-wide assessment plans. See appendices 19,20,21, and 22 of this report.

7. CWU updated its Educational Assessment Plan. This was a major update of the old "assessment matrix." Twenty goals are detailed in five major areas: (1)Measures Related to Admission, Placement, and Mentoring, (2) Review of Program, Department, College, Division, and Institutional Goals, (3) Assessing Student Learning, (4) Persistence, Graduation, and Follow Up, and (5) Perceptions of Students, Alumni, and Employers. Each goal includes a summary of (1) current practice, (2) when processes were last modified, (3) the cycle for completion, (4) administrator/s response for oversight, (5) how effectiveness is determine, and (6) how information is shared.

8. The 2008/2009 Academic Affairs Strategic Plan and Assessment Report with metrics and status/reflection was completed and it is at: http://www.cwu.edu/~avpugrad/reports/reports.html.

9. Academic Affairs Strategic Plan goals and tactics have been mapped to CWU Educational Assessment Plan goals. Both documents are tied to CWU's


http://www.cwu.edu/~avpugrad/reports/reports.html

http://www.cwu.edu/~avpugrad/programreview/fiveyearreview.html

http://www.cwu.edu/~avpugrad/teacher-scholar/)

Mission and Strategic Plan. See “Academic Strategic Plan Tactics that Address the Educational Assessment Plan Goals ") .


http://www.cwu.edu/~testing/docs/AASPTacticsmappedEAPGoals.doc

http://www.cwu.edu/~testing/docs/AASPTacticsmappedEAPGoals.doc

VI. EVALUATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF ASSESSMENT EFFORTS

Over 2008/2009 CWU has implemented/improved/institutionalized several assessment processes that are now part of the institution's regular practice. Examples include:

the Annual Program Assessment Reports and their evaluation using specific evaluation criteria (a rubric),

the Five Year Departmental/Program Review Process College Level Assessment Plans Several updated institutional assessment plans with metrics and self-

evaluation

CWU should continue is regular assessment of learning outcomes and improved learning at the program/departmental/college/institutional levels.

One weakness in CWU's current assessment processes is in General Education. CWU is gathering quite a bit of information about General Education but most of it is "after the fact" and results are a mixture of "native" and transfer students. Process should be implemented during 2009/2010 to directly measure, track, and improve General Education learning outcomes. The processes could be samples over time; they do not have to be large, expensive measures.

VI.A. 2008/2009 ANNUAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORTS

Annual Program Assessment Reports were instituted during the 2007/2008 academic year. The goal of the reports was to provide feedback to programs and how they could improve their assessment of student learning outcomes and use those assessment results to implement changes and improvements to programmatic student learning outcomes.

Annual assessment data is collected, analyzed, and reported by all degree-granting graduate and undergraduate programs. Student learning outcome evidence and the accompanying reports are based on the student learning outcomes listed in individual program assessment plans. The reports are reviewed by the program faculty, the program’s Dean and the Associate Vice President of Undergraduate Studies and members of the Academic Assessment Committee.

The 2008/2009 Annual Program Assessment Reports showed higher participation rates by programs and improved outcomes on 4 out of 5 measures.

In short, CWU's Annual Program Review process has been a big success: (1) a large percentage of programs are now reporting, (2) CWU has baseline data on almost all programs, (3) during 2008/2009 CWU programs improved


in 4 out of 5 metrics measured, (4) this process has shifted the focus of assessment at CWU from "doing assessment" to "using assessment results to improve learning outcomes."


Table 26. CWU "Institution-wide" Program Review Rubric Scores for 2007/2008 and 2008/2009

Outcomes Assessed

Methods Used Results

Feedback/

Program Improv.

Previous

Year Use

Mean: CWU 2008-2009

2.84 2.43 3.10 1.07 1.47

Mean: CWU 2007-2008

2.60 2.30 3.00 1.05 1.49

Target Rubric Scores

2 2 2 2 2

Table 27. CWU University-Wide Participation In Annual Program Reviews For 2007/2008 and 2008/2009

2008-2009 2007-2008Undergraduate (UG) Reports 88 87

Graduate (GR) Reports 30 28Non-Reporting UG 8 12Non-Reporting GR 8 17

% Reporting UG 91% 87%% Reporting GR 73% 40%

% Reporting Total 86% 75%

Comment: Almost all undergraduate and more than three quarters of graduate programs submitted student learning outcome reports for the 2008-2009 academic year. This is a major improvement from the previous year, especially in relation to graduate programs when less than half of the reports were submitted. It is clear that the campus is becoming more engaged in continuous programmatic improvement efforts and is reporting those efforts. The university met the target rubric levels for “outcomes”, “measures”, and “results" suggesting that outcomes are being written, measured, and attainment reported. The university also showed improvement in all rubric categories except the “use of data from the previous year.” It is clear that an effective and more developed assessment culture is taking shape institutionally. Documentation of the use of data for program improvement is still needed for this coming academic year. Continued emphasis by Deans, chairs, and focused professional development from the academic assessment committee and the Center for the Teacher Scholar should continue to help improve programmatic assessment processes.

Note: Summaries of rubric scores for each participating CWU program are available by college. See appendices 9 through 13.


Summaries and comparisons of Annual Assessment Reports for each CWU college follow. Please note that the rubric scale is 0, 1, and 2 for how well programs have used assessment results to implement improved learning outcomes, i.e., "Feedback/Program Improvement," and "Previous Year Use."

Table 28. CWU College of Arts and Humanities Average Rubric Scores

Outcomes

Methods

Results

Feedback/

Program

Improv.

Previous

Year Use

Mean Rubric CAH 2008-2009 2.58 2.12 2.46 0.92 1.562007-2008 2.40 1.72 2.84 0.75 1.29

Target Rubric Scores 2 2 2 2 2

Table 29. CWU College of Arts & Humanities Program Participation Rates

2008-2009

2007-2008

Undergraduate (UG) Reports 25 27Graduate (GR) Reports 7 7

Non-Reporting (UG) 3 4Non-Reporting (GR) 3 5

% Reporting (UG) 88% 85%% Reporting (GR) 57% 24%

% Reporting (Total) 81% 74%

Comments: All undergraduate Arts & Humanities academic programs submitted student learning outcome reports except for one department for the 2008-2009 academic year. In addition, a majority (a little more than half) of graduate reports were submitted. Inter-disciplinary programs also provided reports this year. This is a major improvement for the college from last year. Other than some continued and increased focus of assessment progress in the Art and Music departments, the college is well on its way to being a leader with regards to assessment on campus. The college met the target rubric for “outcomes”, “measures”, and “results" suggesting that outcomes are being written, measured, and attainment reported. This is an improvement from last year where only “outcomes” and “results” met the target rubric level. Enhanced college emphasis and documentation of the use of data for program improvement is needed this coming year. The following programs should be noted for best practice in relation to assessment (BA Language & Literature; BA Philosophy; BA Theatre Arts Teaching; MA English Literature).



Table 30. CWU College of Business Average Rubric Scores

Outcomes

Methods

Results

Feedback/

Program

Improv.

Previous

Year Use

Mean Rubric CB 2008-2009 2.50 2.25 3.00 0.75 1.502007-2008 2.67 2.33 2.67 1.00 1.00


Table 31. CWU College of Business Program Participation Rates

2008-2009

2007-2008

Undergraduate (UG) Reports

3 3

Graduate (GR) Reports 1 1Non-Reporting (UG) 0 1Non-Reporting (GR) 0 0



Comments: The College of Business submitted student learning outcome reports for all programs during the 2008-2009 academic year. This is a significant improvement from the previous year. The college met the target rubric for “outcomes”, “measures”, and “results" suggesting that outcomes are being written, measured, and attainment reported. These results are similar to last year. Enhanced documentation of the use of data for program improvement is still needed.

Table 32. CWU College of Education & Professional Studies Average Rubric Scores

Outcomes

Methods

Results

Feedback/ Program Improv.

Previous Year Use

Mean Rubric CEPS 2008-2009 3.04 2.44 3.12 1.21 1.52

2007-2008 3.17 1.83 2.35 0.95 1.73Target Rubric Scores 2 2 2 2 2


*Table 33. CWU College of Education & Professional Studies Participation Rates

2008-2009 2007-2008


27 26




Comment: Almost all undergraduate College of Education and Professional Studies academic programs submitted student learning outcome reports for the 2008-2009 academic year. In addition, a little more than half of graduate reports were submitted. This is an improvement from last year when only three-quarters of undergraduate and a little more than a third of graduate programs were submitted. The college met the target rubric for “outcomes”, “measures”, and “results" suggesting that outcomes are being written, measured, and attainment reported. This is an improvement from last year where only “outcomes” and “results” met the target rubric level. Although improved from the previous year, continued college emphasis and documentation of the use of data for program improvement is needed. The following programs should be noted for best practice in relation to assessment (BS & BAS –ITAM; BS Construction Management; BS Flight Technology; BS Recreation & Tourism).

Table 34. CWU College of the Sciences Average Rubric Scores

Outcomes

Assessed

Methods

UsedResul

ts

Feedback/

Program

Improv.

Previous

Year Use

Mean Rubric COTS 2008-2009

2.56 2.29 2.91 1.47 1.77


Table 35. CWU College of the Sciences Program Participation Rates

2008-2009 2007-2008





% Reporting (Total) 92% 84%Comments: All but one interdisciplinary undergraduate College of the Sciences program completed a student learning outcome report for the 2008-2009 academic year. In addition, more than three quarter of graduate reports were submitted. This is a significant improvement from last year (2007-2008), especially in relation to graduate programs when only two-thirds of reports were submitted. Although the college average dropped in all categories, programs still met the rubric target for “outcomes”, “measures”, and “results." It should also be noted that the use of data for program improvement was highest for the College of the Sciences as compared to the other colleges. The following programs should be noted for best practice in relation to assessment (BS Computer Science; BA Psychology; M.Ed. School Psychology).

Table 36. CWU Interdisciplinary and Other Programs - Average Rubric Scores

Outcomes Assessed

Methods Used

Results


Previous Year

UseMean Rubric

Interdisc. Programs 2008-2009

3.50 3.00 4.00 1.00 1.75

2007-2008 2.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 NATarget Rubric Scores 2 2 2 2 2

Table 37. CWU Interdisciplinary and Other Programs - Participation Rates

2008-2009

2007-2008

Undergraduate (UG) Reports 4 4

Graduate (GR) Reports 3 3





Comment: All undergraduate Individual Studies and Interdisciplinary academic programs (4) submitted student learning outcome reports for the 2008-2009 academic year. Graduate individual study reports were not submitted from a lack of students completing those programs. The undergraduate programs met the target rubric for "outcomes", "methods", "results," and “use of feedback from previous year” suggesting that outcomes are being written, measured, and attainment reported. Documentation of the use of data for program improvement was also provided.


VI.B. SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

The 2008/2009 Annual Assessment Report has highlighted many achievements that CWU students, graduates, faculty, staff, and family can be very proud of.

As a result of this year's 2008/2009 programmatic assessment reporting and feedback cycle, the following suggestions are made to improve the process and institutional performance for the next year:

Continue to develop and refine the yearly assessment reporting and feedback process currently in place. This process takes place at the program, departmental, college, and institutional level. For example, raising expectations as to reporting outcomes, methods, and results seem plausible since institutional performance already exceeds current expectations.

Provide professional development and continue to fund assessment grants (if possible0 that assist faculty and programs in integrating best practice assessment processes. This should continue to bolster and improve direct assessment methods and include greater focus on indirect assessment of knowledge, skill, and student dispositions.

Recognize and reward departments and programs that exhibit best practice assessment processes.

Provide examples and means for programmatic assessment information dissemination through the academic assessment newsletter, web-based streaming video assessment news update, and webinar forums.

Implement procedures to (a) regularly assess actual student work at the General Education level, track outcomes, and implement improvements.

This report over these past two years has highlighted the need to raise students' awareness of the importance of stewardship of the earth. This is one of CWU's three main missions and is becoming more important to society.

There are indications that CWU students score lower on the NSSE and rate their learning lowest in "self and society" areas. Examples include self-reported lower voting rates, development in the arts, spirituality, etc. CWU needs to continue to track these outcomes and focus institutional assessment toward their improvement.



ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT - 2008/2009

APPENDICES


APPENDIX 1

CWU NATIONAL SURVEY of STUDENT ENGAGEMENT (NSSE)

BENCHMARK COMPARISONS OF FIRST YEAR and SENIOR STUDENTS


First-Year Students

Mean SD b SEM c 5th 25th 50th 75th 95th Sig. f

LEVEL OF ACADEMIC CHALLENGE (LAC)CWU (N = 188) 50.5 10.7 .8 31 44 51 56 68

Far W es t Publ i c 51.5 13.0 .2 30 43 51 60 73 205 -1.0 .233 -.07Carnegie Class 51.8 13.4 .1 30 43 52 61 74 191 -1.3 .103 -.10

NSSE 2008 52.9 13.5 .0 31 44 53 62 75 188 -2.3 .003 -.17Top 50% 56.4 13.1 .1 35 48 56 66 77 190 -5.9 .000 -.45Top 10% 60.7 12.8 .2 38 52 61 70 80 205 -10.1 .000 -.80

ACTIVE AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING (ACL)CWU (N = 210) 38.7 15.0 1.0 14 29 38 48 67

Far W es t Publ i c 42.8 16.5 .2 19 33 43 52 71 6,831 -4.1 .000 -.25Carnegie Class 42.3 16.8 .1 19 29 42 52 71 213 -3.5 .001 -.21

NSSE 2008 42.5 16.9 .1 19 29 42 52 71 210 -3.8 .000 -.23Top 50% 47.5 17.0 .1 24 33 48 57 76 213 -8.8 .000 -.52Top 10% 51.6 17.9 .2 24 38 50 62 83 229 -12.8 .000 -.72

STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTION (SFI)CWU (N = 189) 34.0 16.5 1.2 11 22 33 44 67

Far W es t Publ i c 31.8 18.3 .2 7 17 28 40 67 6,214 2.2 .103 .12Carnegie Class 34.1 18.7 .1 11 22 33 44 72 25,995 -.1 .934 -.01

NSSE 2008 34.6 18.7 .1 11 22 33 44 72 189 -.7 .584 -.04Top 50% 39.7 19.4 .1 11 28 39 50 78 192 -5.7 .000 -.30Top 10% 43.6 21.2 .3 13 28 39 56 83 213 -9.6 .000 -.46

ENRICHING EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES (EEE)CWU (N = 179) 25.2 12.3 .9 6 18 25 32 45

Far W es t Publ i c 26.1 13.3 .2 8 17 25 33 50 191 -.9 .337 -.07Carnegie Class 26.4 13.5 .1 8 17 25 34 50 181 -1.2 .207 -.09

NSSE 2008 27.5 13.6 .0 8 18 26 36 51 179 -2.3 .013 -.17Top 50% 30.3 13.7 .1 11 21 29 38 54 180 -5.1 .000 -.37Top 10% 33.0 14.3 .2 11 23 32 42 58 189 -7.8 .000 -.54

SUPPORTIVE CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT (SCE)CWU (N = 174) 58.1 18.3 1.4 28 44 58 72 89

Far W es t Publ i c 58.6 18.9 .3 28 44 58 72 92 5,776 -.5 .722 -.03Carnegie Class 60.3 19.0 .1 28 47 61 73 92 24,220 -2.2 .121 -.12

NSSE 2008 61.1 18.9 .1 30 47 61 75 92 82,083 -3.0 .039 -.16Top 50% 65.8 18.4 .1 33 53 67 78 94 24,779 -7.7 .000 -.42Top 10% 68.5 18.4 .2 36 56 69 81 97 5,839 -10.4 .000 -.56

NSSE 2008 Benchmark ComparisonsDetailed Statistics and Effect Sizes a

Deg. of Freedo

m e

Mean Statistics Distribution StatisticsReference Group

Comparison Statistics

Central Washington University

Percentiles dMean Diff.

Effects i ze g


Seniors

Mean SD b SEM c 5th 25th 50th 75th 95th Sig. f

LEVEL OF ACADEM IC CHALLENGE (LAC)

CWU (N = 590) 57.3 13.8 .6 34 48 57 67 80

Far West Public 56.6 14.2 .1 33 47 57 66 80 17,896 .7 .272 .05Carnegie Class 56.1 14.3 .1 32 46 56 66 79 60,744 1.2 .047 .08

NSSE 2008 56.5 14.3 .0 33 47 57 67 79 179,408 .7 .218 .05Top 50% 59.9 13.8 .1 37 51 60 70 82 55,984 -2.6 .000 -.19Top 10% 63.3 13.5 .1 40 54 64 73 84 11,508 -6.1 .000 -.45

ACTIVE AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING (ACL)

CWU (N = 609) 52.9 17.3 .7 24 43 52 62 83

Far West Public 50.6 17.2 .1 24 38 48 62 81 18,917 2.2 .002 .13Carnegie Class 51.3 17.5 .1 24 38 52 62 81 64,037 1.6 .028 .09

NSSE 2008 50.8 17.6 .0 24 38 48 62 81 189,499 2.1 .003 .12Top 50% 55.4 17.2 .1 29 43 56 67 86 58,307 -2.6 .000 -.15Top 10% 59.7 17.3 .2 33 48 57 71 90 12,287 -6.8 .000 -.39

STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTION (SFI)

CWU (N = 591) 41.7 19.9 .8 17 28 39 56 78

Far West Public 38.2 20.4 .2 11 22 33 50 78 17,990 3.6 .000 .17Carnegie Class 41.1 20.9 .1 11 28 39 56 83 61,097 .6 .467 .03

NSSE 2008 42.3 21.2 .0 11 28 39 56 83 594 -.6 .493 -.03Top 50% 49.3 21.5 .1 17 33 47 67 89 609 -7.6 .000 -.35Top 10% 55.3 21.7 .3 22 39 56 72 94 738 -13.6 .000 -.63

ENRICHING EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES (EEE)

CWU (N = 579) 35.1 17.2 .7 11 21 33 46 67

Far West Public 37.1 17.3 .1 11 25 36 48 68 17,387 -2.0 .005 -.12Carnegie Class 37.8 17.8 .1 11 25 36 50 69 59,364 -2.7 .000 -.15

NSSE 2008 40.5 18.2 .0 12 27 40 53 72 582 -5.4 .000 -.30Top 50% 47.3 17.7 .1 18 35 47 60 76 60,745 -12.2 .000 -.69Top 10% 54.3 17.3 .2 22 43 55 67 81 9,856 -19.2 .000 -1.11

SUPPORTIVE CAMPUS ENVIRONMENT (SCE)

CWU (N = 564) 56.2 17.8 .7 25 44 56 69 83

Far West Public 55.0 19.1 .1 22 42 56 67 89 608 1.2 .118 .06Carnegie Class 57.3 19.5 .1 25 44 58 69 89 576 -1.2 .118 -.06

NSSE 2008 58.0 19.4 .0 25 44 58 72 90 567 -1.8 .017 -.09Top 50% 63.5 18.9 .1 31 50 64 78 94 50,790 -7.3 .000 -.39Top 10% 66.7 18.5 .2 33 56 67 81 97 12,258 -10.6 .000 -.57

Percentiles d Mean Diff.

Effectsize g

Deg. of Freedom e

NSSE 2008 Benchmark ComparisonsDetailed Statistics and Effect Sizes a

Mean Statistics Distributi on StatisticsReference Group

Comparison Statistics

Central Washington University


a. All statistics are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size.

b. Standard Deviation is a measure of the average amount the individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution.

c. The 95% confidence interval for the population mean it is equal to the sample mean plus/minus the product of 1.96 times the standard error of the mean.

d. A percentile is the point in the distribution of student-level benchmark scores at or below which a given percentage of benchmark scores fall.

e. Degrees of freedom used to compute the t-tests. Values vary for the total Ns due to weighting and the equal variance assumption.

f. Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance.

g. Effect size is calculated by subtracting the comparison group mean from the school mean, and dividing the result by the pooled standard deviation.


APPENDIX 2

CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

FIRST YEAR DETAILED STATISTICS

2008


NSSE 2008 DETAILED STATISTICS - FIRST YEAR STUDENTS N

CWU vs. FAR WEST & MASTERS INSTITUTIONS

Abbreviated NSSE questions Far

Wes

t Pu

blic

Carn

egi

e Cl

ass

Far

Wes

t Pu

blic

Carn

egi

e Cl

ass

CLQUEST - Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions 211 2.66 2.66 2.77 .82 .83 .84 6,829 28,569 .995 .050 .00 -.14CLPRESEN - Made a class presentation 209 1.98 2.42 2.33 .76 .79 .81 222 211 .000 .000 -.55 -.43REWROPAP - Prepared ?2 drafts of a paper or assignment before turning it in 210 2.69 2.66 2.69 .95 .96 .97 6,813 28,516 .646 .980 .03 .00INTEGRAT - Paper/project required integrating ideas/info from various sources 210 3.12 3.05 3.08 .70 .78 .78 6,816 28,532 .197 .410 .09 .06DIVCLASS - Included diverse perspectives in class discussions or writing 210 2.76 2.84 2.80 .84 .86 .87 6,818 28,516 .175 .518 -.10 -.04CLUNPREP - Come to class without completing readings or assignments 209 2.07 2.09 2.01 .72 .77 .77 6,778 28,387 .727 .258 -.02 .08CLASSGRP - Worked with other students on projects during class 208 2.39 2.52 2.44 .74 .85 .83 224 211 .017 .323 -.15 -.06OCCGRP - Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare assignments 209 2.44 2.40 2.36 .79 .85 .88 6,824 28,557 .549 .181 .04 .09INTIDEAS - Ideas/concepts from different courses for assignmnts/class 193 2.59 2.62 2.62 .78 .81 .82 6,384 26,673 .655 .677 -.03 -.03TUTOR - Tutored/taught other students (paid or voluntary) 192 1.55 1.68 1.65 .73 .84 .83 6,381 26,658 .027 .072 -.16 -.13COMMPROJ - Participated in a community-based project as part of course 193 1.44 1.55 1.57 .70 .80 .82 208 196 .038 .010 -.13 -.16ITACADEM - Used an electronic medium to discuss or complete an assignment 193 2.24 2.53 2.55 1.06 1.02 1.03 6,384 26,659 .000 .000 -.29 -.30EMAIL - Used e-mail to communicate with an instructor 193 3.15 2.98 3.09 .75 .84 .82 6,371 26,613 .006 .278 .20 .08FACGRADE - Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor 193 2.54 2.50 2.60 .89 .87 .88 6,371 26,626 .450 .364 .06 -.07FACPLANS - Talked about career plans with a faculty member or advisor 193 2.32 2.02 2.16 .78 .91 .91 6,381 26,663 .000 .013 .33 .18FACIDEAS - Discussed readings/classes ideas with faculty outside of class 193 1.86 1.85 1.89 .83 .89 .90 6,381 26,651 .858 .621 .01 -.04FACFEED - Prompt feedback from faculty on academic performance 190 2.61 2.61 2.64 .84 .83 .84 6,235 26,076 .946 .649 .00 -.03WORKHARD - Worked harder than you thought you could to meet standards 188 2.54 2.58 2.65 .81 .83 .83 6,234 26,058 .523 .058 -.05 -.14FACOTHER - Worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework 188 1.66 1.56 1.63 .87 .81 .85 6,223 26,019 .085 .576 .13 .04OOCIDEAS - Discussed ideas from readings/classes with others outside class 190 2.58 2.67 2.66 .86 .88 .88 6,223 26,015 .181 .215 -.10 -.09DIVRSTUD - Serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity 189 2.56 2.68 2.59 1.03 1.00 1.01 6,225 26,011 .106 .697 -.12 -.03DIFFSTU2 - Serious conversations with students very different from you 190 2.77 2.69 2.67 .99 .98 .98 6,228 26,026 .242 .150 .09 .10MEMORIZE - Memorize facts/ideas/methods from course 187 2.84 2.88 2.91 .84 .86 .86 6,178 25,795 .560 .251 -.04 -.08ANALYZE - Analyze basic elements of idea/experience/theory in depth 188 3.03 3.09 3.06 .74 .78 .78 200 25,748 .281 .530 -.08 -.05SYNTHESZ - Synthesizing and organizing ideas/information/experiences 188 2.96 2.89 2.85 .81 .83 .84 199 190 .234 .075 .09 .13EVALUATE - Making judgments about the value of information 187 2.90 2.91 2.90 .82 .85 .85 6,162 25,713 .809 .987 -.02 .00APPLYING - Applying theories/concepts to practical problems/new situations 188 2.93 2.97 2.99 .90 .85 .85 6,154 25,715 .489 .355 -.05 -.07READASGN - # of assigned textbooks/books/book-length packs 188 3.23 3.17 3.20 .87 .91 .92 6,152 25,708 .408 .669 .06 .03READOWN - # of books read on your own (not assigned) 188 2.06 2.03 2.04 .98 .89 .92 197 25,729 .671 .734 .03 .02WRITEMOR - Number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or more 188 1.22 1.26 1.27 .57 .66 .69 6,150 192 .393 .175 -.06 -.08WRITEMID - Number of written papers or reports between 5 and 19 pages 188 2.12 2.21 2.24 .57 .80 .82 212 193 .047 .003 -.11 -.15WRITESML - Number of written papers or reports of fewer than 5 pages 187 3.02 2.95 3.00 .93 1.00 1.03 6,162 25,737 .338 .761 .07 .02

Far W

est

Publ

ic

Far W

est

Publ

ic

Carn

egie

Cl

ass

Mean

Far W

est

Publ

ic

CWU

CWUcompared

CWU

Carn

egie

Cl

ass

CWU

Carn

egie

Cl

ass

CWUcompared

StDev c Degrees/Free d Significance e Effect Size f




Abbreviated NSSE questions Far

Wes

t Pu

blic

Carn

egi

e Cl

ass

Far

Wes

t Pu

blic

Carn

egi

e Cl

ass

PROBSETA - # problem sets that take you more than an hour to complete 184 2.53 2.74 2.65 1.00 1.10 1.10 6,128 25,615 .008 .120 -.20 -.12PROBSETB - # problem sets that take you less than an hour to complete 182 2.80 2.72 2.79 1.03 1.18 1.18 195 184 .294 .815 .07 .02EXAMS - which exams challenged you to do your best work. 186 5.32 5.29 5.34 1.04 1.19 1.19 6,132 25,691 .775 .759 .02 -.02ATDART07 - Attended an art exhibit/play/dance/music/theatre et. Al. 181 2.38 2.11 2.18 .92 .91 .93 6,067 25,394 .000 .002 .30 .23EXRCSE05 - Exercised or participated in physical fitness activities 183 2.98 2.67 2.73 .95 1.07 1.07 197 185 .000 .001 .28 .23WORSHP05 - Participated in activities to enhance your spirituality 183 1.89 1.81 1.96 1.03 1.03 1.07 6,059 25,358 .335 .358 .07 -.07OWNVIEW - Examined strengths/weaknesses of your own views 183 2.56 2.54 2.55 .81 .90 .89 196 185 .703 .794 .03 .02OTHRVIEW - Tried to better understand someone else's views 182 2.74 2.76 2.74 .82 .88 .87 6,063 25,375 .764 .961 -.02 .00CHNGVIEW - Learned something that changed your view of issue/concept 183 2.76 2.83 2.82 .78 .84 .83 6,065 25,365 .235 .355 -.09 -.07INTERN04 - Practicum/internship/field experience/co-op/clinical assignment 179 .05 .08 .08 .22 .27 .27 195 182 .088 .073 -.11 -.11VOLNTR04 - Community service or volunteer work 179 .30 .31 .36 .46 .46 .48 5,920 181 .670 .104 -.03 -.12LRNCOM04 - Participate in a learning community 178 .14 .15 .15 .35 .36 .36 5,922 24,794 .546 .526 -.05 -.05RESRCH04 - Work on research project with aculty member outside of course 179 .01 .04 .05 .11 .21 .22 217 188 .000 .000 -.16 -.18FORLNG04 - Foreign language coursework 178 .21 .19 .18 .41 .39 .38 5,916 180 .397 .211 .06 .10STDABR04 - Study abroad 176 .03 .03 .03 .16 .17 .17 5,913 24,752 .791 .790 -.02 -.02INDSTD04 - Independent study or self-designed major 178 .02 .03 .04 .15 .17 .19 5,907 182 .610 .179 -.04 -.08SNRX04 - Culminating senior experience (capstone course, et. Al. 179 .03 .02 .02 .18 .13 .14 184 180 .298 .383 .10 .08ENVSTU - Relationships with other students 178 5.22 5.34 5.43 1.53 1.43 1.43 5,922 24,779 .293 .051 -.08 -.15ENVFAC - Relationships with faculty members 178 5.12 5.04 5.16 1.29 1.34 1.35 5,919 24,798 .460 .698 .06 -.03ENVADM - Relationships with administrative personnel and offices 178 4.58 4.42 4.59 1.48 1.55 1.56 5,907 24,760 .161 .947 .11 .00ACADPR01 - Preparing for class 175 3.68 3.91 3.84 1.34 1.56 1.54 188 177 .025 .109 -.15 -.11WORKON01 - Working for pay on campus 175 1.43 1.47 1.50 1.11 1.23 1.23 5,865 24,547 .702 .445 -.03 -.06WORKOF01 - Working for pay off campus 175 1.75 2.58 2.74 1.80 2.23 2.42 190 178 .000 .000 -.37 -.41COCURR01 - Participating in co-curricular activities 175 1.99 1.97 2.15 1.31 1.42 1.55 5,870 177 .815 .108 .02 -.10SOCIAL05 - Relaxing and socializing (watching TV, partying, etc.) 175 3.79 3.79 3.75 1.54 1.70 1.66 5,851 24,522 .985 .769 .00 .02CAREDE01 - Providing care for dependents living with you 173 1.35 1.80 1.88 1.13 1.45 1.71 190 178 .000 .000 -.31 -.31COMMUTE - Commuting to class (driving, walking, etc.) 175 2.14 2.41 2.33 .92 1.11 1.12 190 177 .000 .009 -.24 -.16ENVSCHOL - Spending significant amounts of time on academic work 173 2.99 3.08 3.10 .73 .78 .76 184 175 .090 .042 -.12 -.15ENVSUPRT - Providing the support you need to help you succeed academically 173 2.96 2.98 3.04 .81 .81 .80 5,759 24,164 .659 .194 -.03 -.10ENVDIVRS - Encouraging contact among students from different backgrounds 173 2.65 2.69 2.66 .94 .96 .96 5,764 24,154 .628 .834 -.04 -.02ENVNACAD - Helping you cope with your non-academic responsibilities 174 2.18 2.23 2.26 .94 .95 .97 5,759 24,135 .517 .299 -.05 -.08ENVSOCAL - Providing the support you need to thrive socially 172 2.36 2.43 2.47 .93 .93 .94 5,740 24,055 .351 .156 -.07 -.11ENVEVENT - Attending campus events and activities 174 2.91 2.66 2.77 .91 .95 .94 185 24,129 .000 .051 .26 .15ENVCOMPT - Using computers in academic work 172 3.18 3.22 3.27 .86 .82 .80 5,764 24,169 .530 .176 -.05 -.10GNGENLED - Acquiring a broad general education 172 3.14 3.13 3.17 .71 .78 .78 185 174 .853 .598 .01 -.04GNWORK - Acquiring job or work-related knowledge and skills 172 2.65 2.65 2.75 .95 .95 .95 5,629 23,717 .984 .179 .00 -.10GNWRITE - Writing clearly and effectively 172 3.01 2.96 3.02 .83 .85 .85 5,642 23,733 .399 .897 .07 -.01

Far W

est

Publ

ic

Far W

est

Publ

ic

Carn

egie

Cl

ass

Mean

Far W

est

Publ

ic

CWU

CWUcompared

CWU

Carn

egie

Cl

ass

CWU

Carn

egie

Cl

ass

CWUcompared





Abbreviated NSSE questions

Far

Wes

t Pu

blic

Carn

egi

e Cl

ass

Far

Wes

t Pu

blic

Carn

egi

e Cl

ass

GNANALY - Thinking critically and analytically 172 3.10 3.17 3.18 .76 .77 .78 5,634 23,709 .220 .194 -.09 -.10GNQUANT - Analyzing quantitative problems 172 2.79 2.92 2.92 .85 .86 .87 5,628 23,668 .052 .054 -.15 -.15GNCMPTS - Using computing and information technology 171 3.05 2.94 3.01 .85 .91 .89 5,632 23,736 .126 .621 .12 .04GNOTHERS - Working effectively with others 171 2.94 2.98 2.98 .83 .87 .88 5,637 23,712 .566 .510 -.04 -.05GNCITIZN - Voting in local, state, or national elections 168 2.23 2.29 2.24 1.06 1.04 1.05 5,533 23,279 .473 .871 -.06 -.01GNINQ - Learning effectively on your own 170 2.75 2.89 2.92 .83 .86 .87 5,530 23,251 .049 .014 -.15 -.19GNSELF - Understanding yourself 170 2.70 2.78 2.79 .94 .95 .97 5,528 23,250 .267 .240 -.09 -.09GNDIVERS - Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds 170 2.61 2.72 2.68 .92 .95 .96 5,533 23,250 .113 .311 -.12 -.08GNPROBSV - Solving complex real-world problems 170 2.54 2.66 2.66 .88 .92 .93 5,527 23,263 .089 .082 -.13 -.13GNETHICS - Developing a personal code of values and ethics 169 2.53 2.64 2.67 .94 .97 .98 5,527 23,253 .156 .063 -.11 -.14GNCOMMUN - Contributing to the welfare of your community 170 2.30 2.37 2.42 .85 .98 .99 183 172 .282 .077 -.07 -.12GNSPIRIT - Developing a deepened sense of spirituality 170 1.84 2.00 2.12 .95 1.04 1.07 5,512 172 .046 .000 -.16 -.26ADVISE - Overall, how would you evaluate the quality of academic advising 171 2.92 2.88 2.96 .84 .84 .84 5,591 23,542 .480 .546 .05 -.05 ENTIREXP - How would you evaluate your entire educational experience 171 3.05 3.10 3.14 .70 .72 .70 5,587 172 .329 .077 -.08 -.14SAMECOLL - If you could start over again, would you attend CWU? 171 3.14 3.15 3.17 .87 .82 .82 5,596 23,556 .807 .590 -.02 -.04

a All statistics are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size.b The 95% confidence interval for the population mean is equal to the sample mean plus/minus the product of 1.96 times the standard error of the mean.c A measure of the average amount individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution.d Degrees of freedom used to compute the t-tests. Values differ from the total Ns due to weighting and the equal variances assumption.e Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance. f Effect size is calculated by subtracting the comparison group mean from the school mean, and dividing the result by the pooled standard deviation.

Far W

est

Publ

ic

Far W

est

Publ

ic

Carn

egie

Cl

ass

Mean

Far W

est

Publ

ic

CWU

CWUcompared

CWU

Carn

egie

Cl

ass

CWU

Carn

egie

Cl

ass

CWUcompared



APPENDIX 3

CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITYNATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

SENIOR DETAILED STATISTICS

2008


NSSE 2008 DETAILED STATISTICS - SENIOR YEAR STUDENTS N


Far

Wes

t Pu

blic

Carn

egi

e Cl

ass

Far

Wes

t Ca

rne

gie

CLQUEST - Asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions 608 3.06 2.93 3.08 .84 .88 .85 653 63,993 .000 .509 .15 -.03CLPRESEN - Made a class presentation 609 2.97 2.84 2.87 .86 .86 .86 18,891 63,925 .000 .007 .15 .11REWROPAP - Prepared ?2 drafts of a paper or assignment before turning it in 608 2.59 2.50 2.52 1.03 .96 .97 642 617 .028 .091 .10 .07INTEGRAT - Paper/project required integrating ideas/info from various sources 607 3.35 3.33 3.32 .74 .73 .73 18,901 63,928 .476 .252 .03 .05DIVCLASS - Included diverse perspectives in class discussions or writing 609 2.85 2.88 2.85 .90 .92 .91 18,877 63,861 .547 .998 -.02 .00CLUNPREP - Come to class without completing readings or assignments 606 2.18 2.16 2.07 .82 .77 .78 641 615 .646 .002 .02 .13CLASSGRP - Worked with other students on projects during class 605 2.65 2.65 2.60 .85 .87 .87 18,866 63,855 .963 .155 .00 .06OCCGRP - Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare assignments 607 2.93 2.76 2.73 .83 .89 .90 653 620 .000 .000 .19 .22INTIDEAS - Ideas/concepts from different courses for assignmnts/class 594 3.00 2.93 2.92 .78 .81 .81 637 605 .044 .019 .08 .09TUTOR - Tutored/taught other students (paid or voluntary) 594 1.90 1.83 1.84 .93 .93 .94 18,258 61,818 .087 .116 .07 .06COMMPROJ - Participated in a community-based project as part of course 594 1.71 1.72 1.76 .88 .91 .93 18,242 61,795 .826 .250 -.01 -.05ITACADEM - Used an electronic medium to discuss or complete an assignment 595 2.66 2.83 2.82 1.04 1.02 1.02 18,260 61,854 .000 .000 -.16 -.16

EMAIL - Used e-mail to communicate with an instructor 596 3.38 3.27 3.33 .74 .78 .76 641 61,764 .001 .148 .14 .06FACGRADE - Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor 596 2.82 2.72 2.81 .88 .88 .88 18,260 61,822 .009 .864 .11 .01FACPLANS - Talked about career plans with a faculty member or advisor 596 2.43 2.26 2.39 .95 .94 .96 635 61,802 .000 .284 .19 .04FACIDEAS - Discussed readings/classes ideas with faculty outside of class 594 2.16 2.04 2.11 .90 .91 .93 18,254 61,840 .001 .175 .13 .06FACFEED - Prompt feedback from faculty on academic performance 592 2.79 2.67 2.79 .77 .81 .82 636 61,264 .000 .969 .15 .00WORKHARD - Worked harder than you thought you could to meet standards 591 2.76 2.69 2.76 .87 .84 .84 18,024 61,224 .055 .989 .08 .00FACOTHER - Worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework 585 1.80 1.71 1.80 .93 .90 .95 18,007 61,147 .010 .947 .11 .00OOCIDEAS - Discussed ideas from readings/classes with others outside class 588 2.83 2.84 2.82 .85 .86 .86 18,017 61,159 .856 .831 -.01 .01DIVRSTUD - Serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity 589 2.59 2.79 2.66 .96 .98 .99 18,011 61,187 .000 .080 -.20 -.07DIFFSTU2 - Serious conversations with students very different from you 590 2.72 2.72 2.69 .95 .97 .97 18,006 61,195 .917 .427 .00 .03MEMORIZE - Memorize facts/ideas/methods from course 590 2.83 2.78 2.77 .88 .91 .91 632 60,827 .107 .097 .07 .07ANALYZE - Analyze basic elements of idea/experience/theory in depth 590 3.21 3.26 3.22 .72 .75 .75 633 601 .087 .584 -.07 -.02SYNTHESZ - Synthesizing and organizing ideas/information/experiences 584 3.01 3.04 3.03 .78 .84 .83 629 596 .351 .460 -.04 -.03EVALUATE - Making judgments about the value of information 588 2.97 2.99 3.00 .83 .88 .86 632 60,717 .531 .328 -.03 -.04APPLYING - Applying theories/concepts to practical problems/new situations 591 3.23 3.16 3.18 .76 .83 .82 638 603 .018 .078 .09 .07READASGN - # of assigned textbooks/books/book-length packs 586 3.39 3.21 3.17 .97 1.00 1.02 17,851 60,585 .000 .000 .19 .21

CWU

CWUcompared

Carn

egie

Cl

ass

Carn

egie

Cl

ass

Far W

est

Publ

ic

Far W

est

Publ

ic

CWUcompared

CWU

CWU

Carn

egie

Cl

ass

Far W

est

Publ

ic

Effect Size fMean St Dev c Degrees/Freedm d Significance e




Far

Wes

t Pu

blic

Carn

egi

e Cl

ass

Far

Wes

t Ca

rne

gie

READOWN - # of books read on your own (not assigned) 588 2.23 2.15 2.17 1.04 .98 .99 624 60,642 .044 .152 .09 .06WRITEMOR - Number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or more 588 1.68 1.65 1.63 .83 .82 .79 17,858 60,625 .280 .095 .05 .07WRITEMID - Number of written papers or reports between 5 and 19 pages 588 2.60 2.61 2.57 .93 .96 .97 17,862 60,640 .887 .434 -.01 .03WRITESML - Number of written papers or reports of fewer than 5 pages 589 3.23 3.00 2.98 1.14 1.14 1.16 17,865 60,651 .000 .000 .20 .22PROBSETA - # problem sets that take you more than an hour to complete 585 2.76 2.77 2.65 1.18 1.23 1.20 17,687 60,182 .779 .030 -.01 .09PROBSETB - # problem sets that take you less than an hour to complete 584 2.57 2.34 2.41 1.27 1.21 1.21 619 593 .000 .003 .19 .13EXAMS - which exams challenged you to do your best work. 590 5.37 5.36 5.37 1.26 1.34 1.31 17,835 60,544 .910 .890 .00 -.01ATDART07 - Attended an art exhibit/play/dance/music/theatre et. Al. 579 1.95 2.00 2.01 .88 .89 .91 17,665 60,061 .224 .129 -.05 -.06EXRCSE05 - Exercised or participated in physical fitness activities 579 2.74 2.59 2.58 1.05 1.04 1.05 17,629 59,955 .001 .000 .14 .15WORSHP05 - Participated in activities to enhance your spirituality 579 1.95 1.92 2.05 1.05 1.07 1.10 17,648 590 .455 .023 .03 -.09OWNVIEW - Examined strengths/weaknesses of your own views 579 2.66 2.64 2.65 .88 .91 .90 17,652 60,027 .562 .681 .02 .02OTHRVIEW - Tried to better understand someone else's views 579 2.84 2.84 2.82 .85 .86 .85 17,654 60,046 .967 .487 .00 .03CHNGVIEW - Learned something that changed your view of issue/concept 578 2.91 2.87 2.87 .81 .83 .82 619 60,043 .213 .208 .05 .05INTERN04 - Practicum/internship/field experience/co-op/clinical assignment 579 .41 .44 .48 .49 .50 .50 619 590 .139 .000 -.06 -.15VOLNTR04 - Community service or volunteer work 578 .47 .52 .55 .50 .50 .50 17,339 59,210 .022 .000 -.10 -.16LRNCOM04 - Participate in a learning community 576 .27 .24 .25 .44 .43 .43 611 59,168 .074 .324 .08 .04RESRCH04 - Work on research project with aculty member outside of course 575 .16 .15 .16 .37 .35 .36 17,320 59,120 .444 .853 .03 .01FORLNG04 - Foreign language coursework 577 .34 .35 .34 .47 .48 .47 17,343 59,169 .562 .984 -.02 .00STDABR04 - Study abroad 574 .10 .09 .10 .30 .29 .30 17,319 59,131 .472 .938 .03 .00INDSTD04 - Independent study or self-designed major 579 .13 .13 .16 .33 .34 .36 17,301 591 .862 .051 -.01 -.08SNRX04 - Culminating senior experience (capstone course, et. Al. 579 .22 .29 .30 .42 .46 .46 627 592 .000 .000 -.16 -.17ENVSTU - Relationships with other students 572 5.65 5.50 5.58 1.24 1.39 1.37 621 585 .005 .187 .11 .05ENVFAC - Relationships with faculty members 570 5.30 5.27 5.41 1.35 1.40 1.38 17,341 59,256 .593 .061 .02 -.08ENVADM - Relationships with administrative personnel and offices 569 4.54 4.34 4.50 1.69 1.69 1.69 17,317 59,162 .006 .622 .12 .02ACADPR01 - Preparing for class 566 4.25 4.28 4.03 1.68 1.78 1.70 609 58,806 .723 .002 -.01 .13WORKON01 - Working for pay on campus 566 1.87 1.60 1.63 1.56 1.42 1.44 597 574 .000 .000 .19 .16WORKOF01 - Working for pay off campus 568 3.29 4.20 4.29 2.70 2.72 2.82 17,191 579 .000 .000 -.33 -.36COCURR01 - Participating in co-curricular activities 566 1.84 1.81 1.93 1.35 1.36 1.46 17,206 58,809 .520 .147 .03 -.06SOCIAL05 - Relaxing and socializing (watching TV, partying, etc.) 566 3.56 3.40 3.39 1.64 1.51 1.52 598 575 .021 .014 .11 .11CAREDE01 - Providing care for dependents living with you 568 2.31 2.45 2.65 2.28 2.22 2.44 17,132 579 .162 .001 -.06 -.14COMMUTE - Commuting to class (driving, walking, etc.) 568 2.32 2.54 2.46 .86 1.05 1.10 626 585 .000 .000 -.21 -.13ENVSCHOL - Spending significant amounts of time on academic work 561 3.03 3.15 3.10 .77 .78 .78 599 58,290 .001 .036 -.14 -.09ENVSUPRT - Providing the support you need to help you succeed academically 564 2.81 2.81 2.90 .83 .85 .85 17,006 58,182 .942 .017 .00 -.10ENVDIVRS - Encouraging contact among students from different backgrounds 561 2.49 2.50 2.49 .96 .99 .99 17,011 58,172 .867 .987 -.01 .00

CWU

CWUcompared

Carn

egie

Cl

ass

Carn

egie

Cl

ass

Far W

est

Publ

ic

Far W

est

Publ

ic

CWUcompared

CWU

CWU

Carn

egie

Cl

ass

Far W

est

Publ

ic





Far

Wes

t Pu

blic

Carn

egi

e Cl

ass

Far

Wes

t Ca

rne

gie

ENVNACAD - Helping you cope with your non-academic responsibilities 561 1.89 1.91 1.97 .87 .91 .95 17,009 58,148 .760 .043 -.01 -.09ENVSOCAL - Providing the support you need to thrive socially 558 2.15 2.12 2.19 .89 .91 .93 16,940 57,891 .396 .298 .04 -.04ENVEVENT - Attending campus events and activities 563 2.44 2.47 2.51 .95 .95 .96 16,966 58,036 .490 .066 -.03 -.08ENVCOMPT - Using computers in academic work 561 3.46 3.44 3.43 .72 .76 .76 17,026 572 .464 .214 .03 .05GNGENLED - Acquiring a broad general education 561 3.14 3.21 3.26 .85 .83 .81 16,842 57,599 .046 .000 -.09 -.15GNWORK - Acquiring job or work-related knowledge and skills 562 3.10 3.00 3.08 .91 .95 .92 16,829 57,506 .013 .494 .11 .03GNWRITE - Writing clearly and effectively 559 2.99 3.09 3.11 .86 .86 .85 16,835 57,562 .013 .001 -.11 -.14GNSPEAK - Speaking clearly and effectively 560 2.89 2.97 3.03 .90 .89 .89 16,819 57,534 .044 .001 -.09 -.15GNANALY - Thinking critically and analytically 561 3.26 3.30 3.32 .79 .79 .77 16,815 57,537 .265 .078 -.05 -.07GNQUANT - Analyzing quantitative problems 560 3.07 3.06 3.06 .85 .89 .88 16,782 57,437 .631 .669 .02 .02GNCMPTS - Using computing and information technology 561 3.17 3.20 3.21 .87 .87 .85 16,824 57,550 .337 .193 -.04 -.06GNOTHERS - Working effectively with others 561 3.16 3.13 3.17 .85 .86 .85 16,821 57,505 .486 .711 .03 -.02GNCITIZN - Voting in local, state, or national elections 552 1.80 2.10 2.10 .95 1.05 1.05 598 564 .000 .000 -.29 -.29GNINQ - Learning effectively on your own 551 2.85 2.93 3.00 .94 .93 .90 16,564 560 .034 .000 -.09 -.17GNSELF - Understanding yourself 550 2.72 2.72 2.78 1.00 1.01 1.01 16,576 56,867 .985 .133 .00 -.06GNDIVERS - Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds 548 2.63 2.69 2.66 1.00 .99 .99 16,585 56,862 .112 .453 -.07 -.03GNPROBSV - Solving complex real-world problems 551 2.79 2.74 2.75 .92 .96 .96 592 562 .258 .338 .05 .04GNETHICS - Developing a personal code of values and ethics 552 2.54 2.59 2.68 1.06 1.04 1.03 16,584 56,844 .284 .001 -.05 -.14GNCOMMUN - Contributing to the welfare of your community 552 2.30 2.37 2.44 .97 1.03 1.03 594 563 .070 .001 -.08 -.14GNSPIRIT - Developing a deepened sense of spirituality 550 1.72 1.78 1.93 .99 1.01 1.07 16,568 562 .151 .000 -.06 -.20ADVISE - Overall, how would you evaluate the quality of academic advising 555 2.59 2.73 2.81 .95 .93 .94 16,714 565 .000 .000 -.15 -.23 ENTIREXP - How would you evaluate your entire educational experience 555 3.03 3.08 3.14 .75 .75 .74 593 564 .076 .000 -.08 -.16SAMECOLL - If you could start over again, would you attend CWU? 553 3.13 3.14 3.15 .85 .85 .87 16,730 57,391 .782 .598 -.01 -.02

a All statistics are weighted by gender, enrollment status, and institutional size.b The 95% confidence interval for the population mean is equal to the sample mean plus/minus the product of 1.96 times the standard error of the mean.c A measure of the average amount individual scores deviate from the mean of all the scores in the distribution.d Degrees of freedom used to compute the t-tests. Values differ from the total Ns due to weighting and the equal variances assumption.e Statistical significance represents the probability that the difference between the mean of your institution and that of the comparison group occurred by chance. f Effect size is calculated by subtracting the comparison group mean from the school mean, and dividing the result by the pooled standard deviation.

CWU

CWUcompared

Carn

egie

Cl

ass

Carn

egie

Cl

ass

Far W

est

Publ

ic

Far W

est

Publ

ic

CWUcompared

CWU

CWU

Carn

egie

Cl

ass

Far W

est

Publ

ic



APPENDIX 4


MULTI-YEAR BENCHMARK REPORTS FOR FIRST YEAR AND SENIOR NSSE RESULTS

2001 - 2008

9/8/2009 D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report p. 79 of 209


Central Washington UniversityFIRST-YEAR STUDENTS


46.1 48.6 50.3 49.0 48.3 50.5

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08


35.4 36.4 37.7 38.5 37.8 38.7

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08


33.0 35.839.0 37.9 37.1 40.1

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08


21.625.1 24.4 24.7 25.2

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08


54.859.8 58.5 56.9 56.4 58.1

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08







Central Washington UniversitySENIORS


57.3 57.653.7 54.1 56.2 57.3

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08


52.1 51.4 50.7 52.3 53.3 52.9

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08


43.1 45.9 43.0 44.3 45.1 46.8

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08


33.5 33.9 36.1 36.9 35.1

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08


51.555.4 55.1 53.9 53.4 56.2

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

85

'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08






APPENDIX 5


2008/2009 COLLEGIATE LEARNING ASSESSMENT SUMMARY


The CLA provides an authentic, stable platform for samples of your students to demonstrate performance in key higher order skills:

Critical thinking Analytic reasoning Problem solving Written communication

The CLA calculates both unadjusted and adjusted scores to give two important perspectives on institutional performance and comparisons. Unadjusted scores report absolute performance and enable absolute comparisons across schools.

Although absolute measures, such as graduation or retention rates, are traditionally relied upon in post-secondary outcomes and comparisons, there is a strong case to adjust scores to control for entering academic ability.

Adjusted scores level the playing field for schools with different admissions standards or imperfectly representative samples.

To adjust scores, CLA computes an expected CLA score for your student sample.Expected scores are based on two factors: (a) the academic ability of your students prior to matriculation and (b) the estimated linear relationship between CLA scores and entering academic ability of student samples at all schools. Differences between observed and expected scores are reported in standard error units for uniform comparisons across CLA tasks. CLA labels these "Deviation Scores."

For this report, Mean CLA Scores quantify unadjusted performance and permit absolute comparisons while Deviation Scores quantify adjusted performance and enable controlled comparisons.

The next page summarizes both unadjusted and adjusted results for your student samples. It shows Mean CLA Scores, Percentile Ranks (two sets) and Performance Levels.

CLA Percentile Scores and CLA "Performance Levels" on the CLA Exam

Percentile

Performance Level

90-99th Well Above Expected70-89th Above Expected30-69th At Expected10-29th Below Expected0-9th Well Below Expected


CWU CLA RESULTS

FIRST YEAR CWU STUDENTSUNADJUSTE

D PERCENTIL

E RANKMean CLA

score

Unadjusted

Percentile Rank

First-Year Students


Performance Level

ADJUSTED PERCENTIL

E RANK

53%


%1116 73 Performanc

e 98 Well above

1072 40 Analytic writing 57 At

1053 33 Make-an-argument 43 At

1089 49Critique-

an-argume3nt

72 Above

SENIOR CWU STUDENTSUNADJUSTE

D PERCENTIL

E RANK

Mean

CLA scor

e

Unadjusted

Percentile Rank

First-Year Students



57%



ce N/A * N/A *




an-argume3nt

N/A * N/A *

VALUE ADDED

Value Added


Performance Level

ADJUSTED PERCENTIL

E RANKTotal CLA

score 37 At 37Performance N/A * N/A *

Analytic writing N/A * N/A *

Make-an- N/A * N/A *


argument

%Critique-

an-argume3nt

N/A * N/A *

Many CWU seniors who took the CLA were evidently transfer students. Their ACT/SAT scores are not recorded. Thus, the CLA could not compute adjusted percentile ranks for individual measurements.


CWU CLA Results - First year Students

Performance level

Adjusted

percentile rank

Deviation

score

Unadjusted

percentile rank

Observed

mean CLA

score

Expected

mean CLA

score

Mean

EAA scor

e

Student

countTotal CLA score Above 84 1.3 53 1094 1048 994 87Performance task

Well above 98 2.1 73 1116 1029 995 43

Analytic writing At 57 0.1 40 1072 1066 993 44Make-an-argument At 43 -.02 33 1053 1069 993 44Critique-an-argument

Above 72 0.5 49 1089 1062 992 45

CWU CLA Results - Senior Students

Performance

Adjusted percentile rank

Deviation

score

Unadjusted

percentile rank

Observed

mean CLA

score

Expected

mean CLA

score

Mean

EAA scor

e

Student

countTotal CLA score Above 71 0.6 57 1217 1190 106

4 40Performance task N/A * N/A * N/A * N/A * N/A * N/A * N/A

* 20Analytic writing N/A * N/A * N/A * N/A * N/A * N/A * N/A

* 20Make-an-argument N/A * N/A * N/A * N/A * N/A * N/A * N/A

* 20Critique-an-argument

N/A * N/A * N/A * N/A * N/A * N/A * N/A * 20

CWU CLA Results - Senior StudentsPerformanc

elevel

Adjusted percentile rank

Difference score

Total CLA score At 37 -0.4Performance task N/A * N/A * N/A *Analytic writing N/A * N/A * N/A *Make-an-argument N/A * N/A * N/A *Critique-an-argument N/A * N/A * N/A *

The tables above shows how many students completed the CLA and their mean Entering Academic Ability (EAA) scores,* as well as their expected and observed mean CLA scores.** Unadjusted percentile ranks show how CWU's mean CLA scores compare to those at other schools BEFORE adjusting for ability. Adjusted percentile ranks are based on deviation scores and are used to assign performance levels.*** Deviation scores control for ability


and quantify the difference between observed and expected mean CLA scores in standard error units. Difference scores represent estimates of value added. They are calculated by subtracting first-year deviation scores from senior deviation scores.


RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CLA PERFORMANCE AND ENTERING ACADEMIC

ABILITY (EAA)

CWU Seniors CWU First year

Seniors at other schools First year students at other institutions

The figure above shows data for schools where at least 25 students had both a CLA and EAA score in fall 2008 and/ or spring 2009. The solid blue square (freshmen) and solid red square (seniors) represent the samples of CWU students tested. Outlined blue and red and squares represent other schools.

The diagonal lines (blue for freshmen and, above that, red for seniors) show the estimated linear relationship between an institution’s mean EAA score and its mean CLA score for its students. Schools above the relevant lines scored higher than expected, whereas those below the lines did not.


Mea

n To

tal C

LA S

core

Mean EAA Score

Mean EAA Score

CLA DIAGNOSTIC GUIDANCE

CLA results operate as a signaling tool of overall institutional performance on tasks that measure higher order skills holistically. However, the three types of CLA tasks—Performance, Make-an-Argument and Critique-an-Argument—differ slightly in the combination of skills necessary to perform well. Indeed, some schools score significantly lower on one type than on another. Examining performance across CLA task types can serve as an initial diagnostic exercise. Specifically, cases of performance Well Below Expected or Below Expected on a particular task type indicate that students are not demonstrating the expected level of skill (given their EAA scores) at analyzing complex, realistic scenarios; writing a persuasive, analytic essay to support a position on an issue; and/or critiquing written arguments.

PERFORMANCE TASK

Analyzing complex, realistic scenarios

2008–2009 CLA Institutional Report 7 Diagnostic GuidanceSynthesizing information from multiple sources; recognizing conflicting evidence, weighing the credibility ofdifferent sources of evidence; identifying logical fallacies, interpreting data, tables, and figures correctly; drawingreasonable and logical inferences from the available information; developingsound conclusions based on all available evidence; and utilizing the most relevantand credible evidence available to justify their conclusion.

MAKE-AN-ARGUMENT

Writing a persuasive, analytic essay

Establishing a thesis or a position on an issue; maintaining the thesis throughout the essay; supporting the thesis withrelevant and persuasive examples (e.g., from personal experience, history, art, literature, pop culture, or current events); anticipating and countering opposing arguments to the position, fully developing ideas, examples, and arguments; crafting an overall response that generates interest, provokes thought, and persuades the reader; organizing the structure of the essay (e.g., paragraphing, ordering of ideas and sentences within paragraphs); employing transitions and varied sentence structure to maintain the flow of the argument; and utilizing

CRITIQUE-AN-ARGUMENT

Critiquing written arguments

Identifying a variety of logical flaws or fallacies in a specific argument; explaininghow or why the logical flaws affect the conclusions in that argument; and presenting their critique in a written response that is a grammatically correct, organized, well-developed, logically sound, and neutral in tone.


sophisticated grammar and vocabulary.


Senior CLA Results by Department and Test Component

Psychology: Percent of students achieving scores at specified levels across all schools.

Well Above Above At Below

Well Below

Total at/above/wel

l above expectation

PT 53.3% 13.3% 13.3% 20% 66.6%ESS (writing)

30% 20% 6.7% 26.7% 13.3% 56.7%

MA 26.7% 6.7% 20% 26.7% 20% 54.4%CA 40% 6.7% 20% 13.3% 20% 66.7%

Total students: 47: 25 transfer, 22 native

Music: Percent of students achieving scores at specified levels across all schools.

Well Above Above At Below

Well Below

% at/above/wel

l above expectation

PT 12% 33% 10% 11% 33% 55%ESS 22% 22% 11% 44% 44%MA 12% 33% 22% 12%CA 11% 11% 44% 11%

Total students; 20: 9 transfer,11 native

KEY

(PT) Performance Task(ESS) Analytical Writing Task(MA) Make an Argument(CA) Critique Written Argument


APPENDIX 6


WASHINGTON EDUCATORS SKILLS TEST BASIC and ENDORSEMENT

WEST-B and WEST-E


CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITYCWU STUDENT PASS RATE FOR WASHINGTON EDUCATOR SKILLS TESST

BASIC (B) AND ENDORSEMENT (E)

Summary of West B Results

2005 – 2007

West B Reading

West BMath

West B Writing

Passed first try 91% 89% 81%Passed second try 4% 5% 8%Passed third try .5% 1% 2%> than 3 tries .5% 1% 1%Incomplete 3.6% 4% 8%

2007 – 2008

West B Reading

West BMath

West B Writing

Passed first try 86% 87% 75%Passed second try 5% 3% 7%Passed third try 1% 1% 2%> than 3 tries 1% .02% 2%Incomplete 7% 9% 14%


WASHINGTON EDUCATORS SKILLS TEST - BASIC

Range of Subtest Scores Statewide and by Preparation Program 2007/2008

The following table displays the statewide number of admitted candidates who passed reading, mathematics, and writing subtest along with the range of scores for all public universities.

RANGE OF READING, MATHEMATICS, AND WRITING SUBTEST SCORES FOR WASHINGTON PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES

Preparation Program

Passed Reading Passed Mathematics Passed Writing

Number Mean SD Min Max Number Mean SD Min Max Number Mean SD Min Max

STATEWIDE (public and private colleges/universities)

2,961 271 13.5 240 300 2,945 278 15.4 240 300 2,941 265 13.5 240 300

203 Central Washington University (Ellensburg) 564 266 13.4 240 300 556 274 16.1 240 300 549 259 12.0 240 293

213 Eastern Washington University (Cheney) 242 267 13.4 240 297 242 277 15.4 240 300 242 260 12.0 240 294

234 The Evergreen State College (Olympia) 40 279 10.0 252 300 40 287 9.4 255 300 40 275 10.1 254 292236 University of

Washington (Bothell) 70 276 12.3 240 297 70 281 13.8 240 300 70 271 11.3 243 295237 University of

Washington (Seattle) 93 282 10.5 240 300 93 289 8.3 266 300 92 277 11.3 245 296238 University of

Washington (Tacoma) 37 274 11.3 240 291 37 280 13.2 246 300 37 272 13.0 247 300240 Washington State

University (Pullman) 294 268 13.2 240 297 294 277 14.9 240 300 292 263 12.1 240 292248 Western Washington

Univ. (Bellingham) 454 272 12.8 240 300 454 280 14.4 240 300 453 267 12.8 240 298

Downloaded from the WWW on 8-3-2009: http://www.pesb.wa.gov/Publications/reports/documents/Final07-08AssessmentReportPrintVersion.pdf




SUMMARY OF CWU WEST-E (AND PRAXIS-II?) RESULTSFor Three Academic Years - 2005/2006, 2006/2007, and 2007/2008

Program Passed Tested2007-2008

(n=868) Passed Tested2006-2007 (n=1144) Passed Tested

2005-2006 (n=727)

Over All 730 868 84% 998 1144 87% 650 727 89%Bilingual Ed/ESL 31 67 46% 52 85 61% 17 33 52%Biology 4 4 100% 6 6 100% 9 9 100%Business Ed 7 7 100% 5 5 100% 4 4 100%Chemistry 5 5 100% 3 6 50% 1 3 33%Drama 1 1 100% 5 5 100% 3 3 100%Early Childhood Ed 75 79 95% 129 140 92% 87 90 97%Earth Science 2 2 100% 4 4 100% 0 0 -Elemenatry Ed 326 348 94% 421 453 93% 265 282 94%Eng/Lang Arts 17 18 94% 23 24 96% 22 26 85%Family & Cons. Sci 4 4 100% 8 8 100% 7 7 100%Health/Fitness 27 28 96% 56 57 98% 30 31 97%Library/Media Specialist 11 11 100% 17 17 100% 11 11 100%Marketing Ed 4 4 100% 2 2 100% 4 4 100%Mathematics 27 34 79% 36 48 75% 31 33 94%M/L Math 21 34 62% 39 45 87% 9 13 69%M/L Science 21 30 70% 24 31 77% 8 9 89%Music 10 10 100% 24 26 92% 21 21 100%Physics 0 0 - 2 2 100% 0 0 -Reading 43 71 61% 32 51 63% 41 61 67%Science 8 11 73% 1 2 50% 3 5 60%Social Studies 22 29 76% 41 51 80% 25 29 86%Spanish 10 15 67% 7 13 54% 5 5 100%Special Ed 35 35 100% 40 40 100% 39 40 98%Technology Ed 1 1 100% 2 2 100% 3 3 100%Traffic Safety 2 2 100% 4 4 100% 0 0 -Visual Arts 16 17 94% 15 16 94% 5 5 100%


CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITYWEST-E TRENDS 2005 - 2008

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

WEST E Institutional Pass Rate 2005-08 by Endorsement

2007-2008 (n=952) 2006-2007 (n=1226) 2005-2006 (n=761)


APPENDIX 7

CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 2008/2009 ANNUAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY and RUBRIC USED TO EVALUATE REPORTS

Note 1: the rubric was used by members of the CWU Academic Assessment Committee to evaluate 2007/2008 program reports and it is being used toe valuated 2008/2009 annual program assessment reports.

Note 2: Reports that obtain higher scores are characterized by specific curricular and pedagogical improvement information.


Student Learning Outcome Assessment at Central Washington University

2008-2009 Executive Summary - September 24, 2009As Prepared by

Tracy L. Pellett, Associate Vice President for Undergraduate StudiesIan Quitadamo, Assessment Committee Co-Chair

Assessment of student learning is an essential component of Central Washington University’s ongoing effort to evaluate overall academic and institutional effectiveness as indicated by development of student knowledge, skill, and dispositions. Central Washington University offered 88 undergraduate and 30 graduate degree programs during the 2008-2009 academic year in four colleges (Education and Professional Studies, Business, Sciences, and Arts & Humanities). As of spring, 2009, almost all of the 118 degree programs were expected for the second time to provide ongoing documentation (i.e., yearly) of achievement of programmatic student learning outcomes. Almost all academic programs (102 - 86%) submitted a report for 2008-2009. As was the case the previous year, undergraduate programs submitted proportionately more yearly reports than did graduate programs (91% of undergraduate programs compared to 73% of graduate programs), suggesting a more developed emphasis and culture of assessment at the undergraduate level. However, the percentage of graduate programs submitting reports grew exponentially (40% in 2007-2008 to 73% in 2008-2009) suggesting greater attention to and improvement of graduate programs in assessment processes. The following summary is intended to provide a qualitative aggregated analysis of those individual programmatic reports and provide documentation and evidence of college and university student learning outcome attainment for 2008-2009.

Programmatic assessment of student learning at Central Washington University is framed around five component questions:

1. Are learning outcomes appropriate?2. Are assessment methods effective?3. Is there evidence that students achieve stated learning outcomes?4. In what ways are student learning results used for programmatic improvement?5. In what ways are student learning results disseminated?

Component 1: Student Learning Outcome Appropriateness

All academic departments have developed clear student learning outcomes that encompass all degree offerings and focus on development of student knowledge, skill, and/or dispositions. (see http://www.cwu.edu/~avpugrad/programreview/assessment_plans.html). All student learning outcomes are aligned to Central Washington’s goals to “maintain and strengthen an outstanding academic and student life on the Ellensburg and University Center campuses” as well as specific departmental and college goals as noted. This alignment demonstrates program coherence and connection with and between individual programmatic, departmental, college, and university goals, curriculum, instruction, and assessment processes.9/8/2009 D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report p. 98 of 209

http://www.cwu.edu/~avpugrad/programreview/assessment_plans.html

In examining the 102 assessment reports submitted in 2008-2009, all but three (97%) linked student learning outcomes with broader departmental, college, and university goals. This is strongly encouraging and verifies institutional, college, departmental, and programmatic goal coherence at Central Washington University.

Reports also indicated that student knowledge and skills were assessed much more frequently than dispositions/attitudes. Specifically, 353 student learning outcomes were assessed across all university programs. This included 11 in the College of Business, 155 in the College of the Sciences, 100 in the College of Education and Professional Studies, 81 in the College of Arts & Humanities, and 6 outcomes from individual and interdisciplinary programs not affiliated with a college. Three hundred and twenty-two of the 353 outcomes (91%) were knowledge or skill-related, whereas 31 (9%) were related to dispositions. These results were similar to last year’s finding where 93% of the measured outcomes were skill and knowledge while 7% were dispositions. These findings continue to demonstrate Central Washington’s emphasis and varied approach to analyzing programmatic goals. It also indicates the need for more programs to assess dispositions since professional attitudes are likely to be important within most disciplines.

Component 2: Assessment Method Effectiveness

Effective methods of analysis should be related to learning outcomes and the activities that support those outcomes. Assessment methods should include direct (i.e., tests, essays, projects, assignments, etc.) and indirect (i.e., surveys, focus groups, interviews) approaches to provide as complete a picture as possible as to whether students are developing targeted knowledge, skills, dispositions. Methods should also have clear standards of mastery against which results are compared to provide assurance of student outcome attainment.

Examination of the assessment reports submitted during the 2008-2009 academic year showed all but three programs (97%) used some form of direct or indirect method for programmatic outcome measurement. Direct methods were used more frequently and proportionately more often than indirect methods. Only eight programs reported the use of both direct and indirect methods for all goals assessed during programmatic outcome measurement. This is in comparison to only four programs last year (2007-2008). Two hundred and eighty-one of the 353 program outcomes assessed (80%) had clear standards of mastery that allowed definitive analysis of outcome attainment.

Component 3: Evidence of Student Learning Outcome Achievement

Student learning and programmatic outcome attainment is an important element of institutional academic integrity and achievement. Assessment 9/8/2009 D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report p. 99 of 209

reports submitted during the 2008-2009 academic year indicated that 102 of 118 (86%) of CWU programs collected data and reported on student learning outcome achievement. Undergraduate programs (91%) provided greater documentation of assessment practice and reporting than graduate programs (73%). Of the 88 undergraduate assessment reports that were submitted, almost all (n=80, 91%) presented student learning results in specific quantitative (measurable) terms. Of the 22 graduate level assessment reports that were submitted, almost all (n=18, 82%) presented student learning results in specific quantitative (measurable) terms. In addition, 90 of 102 programs (88%) submitted program reports that compared their results to established standards of mastery. These comparisons, when qualitatively analyzed, reflected strong and positive academic programmatic outcome attainment. Specifically, 353 programmatic outcomes (66 graduate and 287 undergraduate) were assessed and compared to established standards of mastery. Two hundred and sixty-seven of the 353 (76%) programmatic outcomes were reported as students meeting and/or exceeding stated outcome mastery/criterion levels. This trend was slightly stronger at the graduate level (n= 54 of 66 - 82%) than it was for the undergraduate (213 of 287 - 74%). However, in either case, the results provide an important element of assurance of institutional student learning and achievement.

Component 4: Using Student Learning Evidence for Programmatic Improvement

“The important question is not how assessment is defined but whether assessment information is used…” (Palomba & Banta, 1999). It can be concluded that assessment evidence is analyzed and used to improve pedagogy and/or program curricula at Central Washington University. Of the 102 assessment reports submitted for 2008-2009, 94 (92%) provided documentation of pedagogical and/or curricular change as a result of their assessment findings. In addition, more than half of the programs that submitted assessment reports (n=59 - 57%) provided evidence that assessment results and findings from previous years were being used for long-term pedagogical and curricular decision-making. This finding provides strong evidence that academic programs have been actively engaged in continuous improvement for some time.

Component 5: Student Learning Results Dissemination

Student learning is a campus-wide responsibility. Disseminating programmatic assessment results is important, particularly for increasing the transparency of how assessment processes are (and should be) used to continuously improve student learning, instruction, and ultimately programs. Whereas faculty play a key role in all aspects of the assessment process, questions of program and institutional effectiveness cannot be fully addressed without participation and collaboration with other internal (student-affairs, librarians, administrators, faculty, and students) and 9/8/2009 D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report p. 100 of 209

external (alumni, trustees, employers) audiences whose experience and potential input can enrich discussion and further broaden programmatic understanding and support. During the 2008-2009 academic year, 26 of 102 (25%) program reports provided evidence that assessment results and/or changes were reported to internal and/or external constituents. This is a slight improvement from 22% reported last year (2007-2008). An increased emphasis of dissemination or at least the reporting of such dissemination is needed based on these results.

Summary

The development of systematic and routine assessment processes by departments and programs is encouraging and improving at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. The following conclusions can be drawn from the Central Washington University 2008-2009 degree program assessment report cycle.

1. Almost all academic programs submitted a student learning outcome assessment report for the 2008-2009 academic year. This represented a significant improvement over last year. Although undergraduate programs tended to submit proportionately more reports than graduate programs again this year, a marked increase in the number of graduate program reports submitted suggests a developing emphasis and assessment culture across all levels.


2. Programmatic student learning outcomes were aligned again this year to broader departmental, college, and university goals. This continues to demonstrate program coherence and connection with and between programmatic, departmental, college, and university goals, curriculum, instruction, and assessment processes.

3. Almost every academic program used some form of direct or indirect methods for outcome measurement again this year. Direct methods were used proportionately more often than indirect methods while very few programs used both direct and indirect methods for all programmatic goals. The majority of academic programs have clear standards of mastery that allow for focused analysis of outcome attainment.

4. The majority of CWU academic programs collected data and reported on student learning outcome achievement in quantitative terms that compared results to established standards of mastery.

5. Students met and/or exceeded most mastery/criterion levels again this year for programmatic outcomes. This trend was somewhat stronger at the graduate level than at the undergraduate level this year.

6. Almost all CWU academic programs provided documentation of pedagogical and/or curricular change as a result of assessment findings.

7. Only a quarter of CWU academic programs report assessment results and curricular/pedagogical changes and improvement to internal and/or external constituents.

Suggestions for Continuous Improvement

As a result of this year’s programmatic assessment reporting and feedback cycle, the following suggestions are made to improve the process and departmental performance for next year:

1. Continue to encourage all departments and programs to complete the yearly assessment report process.

2. Continue to refine the assessment yearly reporting and feedback system to meet the natural planning cycles of departments and programs. Some elements of reporting may be better completed in the fall rather than the spring as is currently in place. Changing some due dates while still providing opportunities for report feedback may encourage greater departmental participation and use of assessment information.

3. Continue to refine the assessment feedback system as far as the rubric scores. Expectations to reporting outcomes, methods, and results should probably be increased since institutional performance exceeds current expectations.

4. Continue to provide professional development to assist faculty in integrating best practice assessment processes. This should continue to bolster and improve direct assessment methods and include greater


focus on indirect assessment of knowledge, skill, and student dispositions.

5. Continue to recognize and reward departments and programs that exhibit best practice assessment processes.

6. Continue to provide examples and means for programmatic assessment information dissemination through the academic assessment website.


Central Washington University (2007-2008)Assessment of Student Learning Report: Target Levels

Feedback for the Department of Degree Award: Program:

Table A1-2 - Evaluation Criteria for Annual Assessment Reports

1. What outcomes were assessed this year and why?

Value

Guidelines for Assessing a Program’s Reporting of Student Learning Outcomes (Target = 2)

4 Outcomes are written in clear, measurable terms and include knowledge, skills, and attitudes. All outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and goals.

3 Outcomes are written in clear, measurable terms and include knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Some outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and goals.

2 Outcomes are written in clear, measurable terms and include knowledge, skills, or attitudes. Outcomes may be linked to department, college and university mission and goals.

1 Some outcomes may be written as general, broad, or abstract statements. Outcomes include knowledge, skills, or attitudes. Outcomes may be linked to department, college and university mission and goals.

0 Outcomes are not identified.

Comments: Reports that obtain higher scores are characterized by increasingly specific student learning outcomes that relate to multiple domains of student development (knowledge, skill, and attitudes). In addition, higher scored reports will clearly articulate the relationship between program outcomes and department, college and university mission and goals.

2. How were they assessed?a. What methods were used?b. Who was assessed?c. When was it assessed?

Value Guidelines for Assessing a Program's Reporting of Assessment Methods (Target = 2)

4 A variety of methods, both direct and indirect are used for assessing each outcome. Reporting of assessment method includes population assessed, number assessed, and when applicable, survey response rate. Each method has a clear standard of mastery (criterion) against which results will be assessed

3 Some outcomes may be assessed using a single method, which may be either direct or indirect. All assessment methods are described in terms of population assessed, number assessed, and when applicable, survey response rate. Each method has a clear standard of mastery (criterion) against which results will be assessed.

2 Some outcomes may be assessed using a single method, which may be either direct or indirect. All assessment methods are described in terms of population assessed, number assessed, and when applicable, survey response rate. Some methods may have a clear standard of mastery (criterion) against which results will be assessed.

1 Each outcome is assessed using a single method, which may be either direct or indirect. Some assessment methods may be described in terms of population assessed, number assessed, and when applicable, survey response rate. Some


methods may have a clear standard of mastery (criterion) against which results will be assessed.

0 Assessment methods are non existent, not reported, or include grades, student/faculty ratios, program evaluations, or other “non-measures” of actual student performance or satisfaction.

Comments: Reports that obtain higher scores are characterized by increasingly clearer information in determining how the assessment took place and the use of a standard of mastery. In addition, higher scored reports will include a greater number of methods in assessing each outcome.

*Target Levels are bolded for each area.

3. What was learned (assessment results)?

Value

Guidelines for Assessing a Program’s Reporting of Assessment Results (Target = 3)

4 Results are presented in specific quantitative and/or qualitative terms. Results are explicitly linked to outcomes and compared to the established standard of mastery. Reporting of results includes interpretation and conclusions about the results.

3 Results are presented in specific quantitative and/or qualitative terms and are explicitly linked to outcomes and compared to the established standard of mastery.

2 Results are presented in specific quantitative and/or qualitative terms, although they may not all be explicitly linked to outcomes and compared to the established standard of mastery.

1 Results are presented in general statements.0 Results are not reported.

Comments: Reports that obtain higher scores are characterized by increasingly clearer information about what was learned from the assessment, particularly in relation to a standard of mastery.

4. What will the department do as a result of that information (feedback/program improvement)?

Value

Guidelines for Assessing a Program’s Reporting of Planned Program Improvements (Target = 2)

2 Program improvement is related to pedagogical or curricular decisions described in specific terms congruent with assessment results. The department reports the results and changes to internal and external constituents.

1 Program improvement is related to pedagogical or curricular decisions described only in global or ambiguous terms, or plans for improvement do not match assessment results. The department may report the results and changes to internal or external constituents.

NA Program improvement is not indicated by assessment results.0 Program improvement is not addressed.

Comments: Reports that obtain higher scores are characterized by specific curricular and pedagogical improvement information. In addition, the department reports the results and changes to internal and external constituents.

5. How did the department or program make use of the feedback from last year’s assessment?

Valu Guidelines for Assessing a Program’s Reporting of Previous Feedback (Target = 2) 9/8/2009 D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report p. 105 of 209

e2 Discussion of feedback indicates that assessment results and feedback

from previous assessment reports are being used for long-term curricular and pedagogical decisions.

1 Discussion of feedback indicates that assessment results and feedback from previous assessment reports are acknowledged.

NA This is a first year report.0 There is no discussion of assessment results or feedback from previous assessment

reports.


APPENDIX 8


SUMMARY OF ALL CWU ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS

AVERAGE RUBRIC SCORES - 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 PROGRAM PARTICIPATION RATES - 2007/2008 and

2008/2009


CWU UNIVERSITY-WIDE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORT AVERAGE RUBRIC SCORES

2007/2008 and 2008/2009

Outcomes Assessed

Methods Used Results

Feedback/

Program Improv.

Previous

Year Use

Mean: CWU 2008-2009

2.84 2.43 3.10 1.07 1.47

Mean: CWU 2007-2008

2.60 2.30 3.00 1.05 1.49

Target Rubric Scores

2 2 2 2 2

CWU UNIVERSITY-WIDE PARTICIPATION IN ANNUAL PROGRAM REVIEWS

FOR 2007/2008 AND 2008/2009

2008-2009 2007-2008Undergraduate (UG) Reports 88 87

Graduate (GR) Reports 30 28Non-Reporting UG 8 12Non-Reporting GR 8 17

% Reporting UG 91% 87%% Reporting GR 73% 40%

% Reporting Total 86% 75%

Comment: Almost all undergraduate and more than three quarters of graduate programs submitted student learning outcome reports for the 2008-2009 academic year. This is a major improvement from the previous year, especially in relation to graduate programs when less than half of the reports were submitted. It is clear that the campus is becoming more engaged in continuous programmatic improvement efforts and is reporting those efforts. The university met the target rubric levels for “outcomes”, “measures”, and “results" suggesting that outcomes are being written, measured, and attainment reported. The university also showed improvement in all rubric categories except the “use of data from the previous year.” It is clear that an effective and more developed assessment culture is taking shape institutionally. Documentation of the use of data for program improvement is still needed for this coming academic year. Continued emphasis by Deans, chairs, and focused professional development from the academic assessment committee and the Center for the Teacher Scholar should continue to help improve programmatic assessment processes. 9/8/2009 D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report p. 108 of 209

APPENDIX 9


COLLEGE OF ARTS AND HUMANITIES REVIEW OF ANNUAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT REPORTS

Abbreviation Key:

NA = Not ApplicableNA1 = Revised PlanNA2 = Program Under SuspensionNA3 = No Students in ProgramNA4 = Program Under ReviewNA5 = Annual Report - No SLONA6 = Assess. Plan being Revised

NA7 = No Report Submitted


COLLEGE OF ARTS & HUMANTIES - 2008/2009 Program Assessment Rubric Scores

Dept./Program Degree Program

Report Submitte

dOutcome

sMethod

sResult

s

Feedback/

Program Improv.

Previous Year

UseArt BFA-Art NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7

BA-Art NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7BS-Visual Arts Teach. NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7MFA-Art NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7MA-Art NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7

Asia/Pacific Studies Program

BA-Asia/Pacific Studies X 2 3 4 1 NA

Communications BA-Communication Studies X 3 3 3 0 2BA-Public Relations X 4 3 3 0 2BA-Journalism X 4 3 3 0 2

English BA-Language and Literature X 2 1 1 2 1BA-English Language Arts Teach X 2 3 2 1 1

MA-English Literature X 4 4 4 1 2MA-TESOL X 2 3 1 NA 1

Film & Video Studies Program

BA-Film/Video Studies X 4 3 4 1 2

Foreign Languages BA-Foreign Languages Major X 3 1 3 1 1BA-Foreign Languages Teaching X 3 1 3 1 1

BA- Spanish Major X 3 1 3 1 1BA-Spanish Teaching Major X 3 1 3 1 1

History BA-History X 2 1 1 1 2BA-History Teaching X 2 1 1 1 2MA- History X 2 1 1 1 2

Music BM-Music Theory/Composition X 2 2 2 1 2

BM- Music Vocal Performance X 2 2 2 1 2

BM-Performance X 2 2 2 1 2BM-Music Education Major X 2 2 2 1 2BA-Music Major X 2 2 2 1 2MM-Music NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7

Philosophy & Rel. Studies

BA-Philosophy Major X 4 4 4 2 2

Theatre Arts BA-Theatre Arts X 2 3 4 1 0BFA-Theatre Arts X 2 2 2 1 2BA-Theatre Arts: Teaching K-12 X 4 3 4 1 2

MA-Theatre Production X 0 0 0 0 0


COLLEGE OF ARTS & HUMANITIESCollege-wide Average Rubric Scores - 2007/2008 and 2008/2009

Outcomes

Methods

Results

Feedback/

Program

Improv.

Previous

Year Use

Mean Rubric CAH 2008-2009 2.58 2.12 2.46 0.92 1.562007-2008 2.40 1.72 2.84 0.75 1.29


COLLEGE OF ARTS & HUMANITIESProgram Participation Rates- 2007/2008 and 2008/2009

2008-2009

2007-2008





Comments: All undergraduate Arts & Humanities academic programs submitted student learning outcome reports except for one department for the 2008-2009 academic year. In addition, a majority (a little more than half) of graduate reports were submitted. Inter-disciplinary programs also provided reports this year. This is a major improvement for the college from last year. Other than some continued and increased focus of assessment progress in the Art and Music departments, the college is well on its way to being a leader with regards to assessment on campus. The college met the target rubric for “outcomes”, “measures”, and “results" suggesting that outcomes are being written, measured, and attainment reported. This is an improvement from last year where only “outcomes” and “results” met the target rubric level. Enhanced college emphasis and documentation of the use of data for program improvement is needed this coming year. The following programs should be noted for best practice in relation to assessment (BA Language & Literature; BA Philosophy; BA Theatre Arts Teaching; MA English Literature).


APPENDIX 10


COLLEGE OF BUSINESS

EVALUATION OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS

Abbreviation Key:




COLLEGE OF BUSINESS - 2008/2009 Program Assessment Rubric Scores

Dept./ProgramDegree

Program

Report Submitte

dOutcome

sMethod

sResult

s

Feedback/

Program Improv.

Previous Year

UseAccounting BS-Accounting

Major X 2 3 4 1 2

Master of Professional Accountancy

X 2 3 4 1 2

Economics BS-Economics Major X 2 1 2 0 1

Management/Finance & OSC

BS-Business Administration Major

X 4 2 2 1 1

COLLEGE OF BUSINESSCollege-wide Average Rubric Scores - 2007/2008 and 2008/2009

Outcomes

Methods

Results

Feedback/

Program

Improv.

Previous

Year Use

Mean Rubric CB 2008-2009 2.50 2.25 3.00 0.75 1.502007-2008 2.67 2.33 2.67 1.00 1.00


COLLEGE OF BUSINESSProgram Participation Rate - 2007/2008 and 2008/2009

2008-2009

2007-2008


3 3




Comments: The College of Business submitted student learning outcome reports for all programs during the 2008-2009 academic year. This is a significant improvement from the previous year. The college met the target rubric for “outcomes”, “measures”, and “results" suggesting that outcomes 9/8/2009 D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report p. 113 of 209

are being written, measured, and attainment reported. These results are similar to last year. Enhanced documentation of the use of data for program improvement is still needed.


APPENDIX 11


COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & PROFESSIONAL STUDIES

REVIEW OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS

Abbreviation Key:




CWU COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES (CEPS)SUMMARY OF 2008/2009 and 2007/2008 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS

Dept./Program Degree Program

Report Submitte

dOutcome

sMethod

sResult

s

Feedback/

Program Improv.

Previous Year

UseAdvanced Programs M.Ed. School Administration X 4 4 4 1 1Aviation BS-Flight Technology Major X 4 4 4 2 2EFC M.Ed.-Master Teacher NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7FCS BA-Family Studies X 2 3 3 1 0

BA-Family & Consumer Sciences X NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1

BS-FCS, Career & Tech. Ed. Teaching X 4 2 3 1 2

BS-Fashion Merchandising X 4 1 3 1 2BS-Recreation and Tourism X 4 4 4 1 2BS-Global Wine Studies X 2 1 1 1 NAMS-Family & Consumer Sciences X NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1

IET BS-Construction Management X 4 3 4 2 2

BS-Electronic Eng Tech NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7BS-Industrial Technology X NA5 NA5 NA5 NA5 NA5BAS-Industrial Technology X NA5 NA5 NA5 NA5 NA5BS-Mechanical Engineering Technology X 2 3 4 2 2

BS-Industrial Education X 4 3 4 1 1BS-Safety and Health Management NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7

BAS-Occupational Safety & Health X 0 0 4 1 NA

MS-Engineering Technology X 2 3 4 2 2ITAM BS-ITAM X 4 4 4 1 2

BAS-ITAM X 4 4 4 1 2LLSE BA-Special Education Major NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7

M.Ed.-Reading Specialist NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7M.Ed.-Special Education NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7

NEHS BS-Exercise Science X 2 3 4 1 1BS-Paramedic Major X 2 1 3 2 0BS-Food Science & Nutrition X 4 2 2 1 2BAS-Food Service Management NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7

MS-Exercise Science X 4 1 4 NA 1MS-Nutrition X 2 3 4 1 1

TEACH BA-Early Childhood Ed. Major X 4 3 1 1 NABA-Elementary Education Major X 4 3 1 1 NA

PESPH BS-PE:Teach K-12 Health Fitenss X 2 1 1 1 2

BS-Public Health X 4 1 4 1 1BA-School Health X 2 1 3 1 2MS-Health and Physical Education X 2 3 1 1 2


CWU CEPS ANNUAL PROGRAM REVIEWAVERAGE RUBRIC SCORES for 2008/2009 & 2007/2008

Outcomes

Methods

Results


Previous Year Use

Mean Rubric CEPS 2008-2009 3.04 2.44 3.12 1.21 1.52


CEPS PARTICIPATION RATES for 2008/2009 and 2007/2008

2008-2009 2007-2008


27 26




Comment: Almost all undergraduate College of Education and Professional Studies academic programs submitted student learning outcome reports for the 2008-2009 academic year. In addition, a little more than half of graduate reports were submitted. This is an improvement from last year when only three-quarters of undergraduate and a little more than a third of graduate programs were submitted. The college met the target rubric for “outcomes”, “measures”, and “results" suggesting that outcomes are being written, measured, and attainment reported. This is an improvement from last year where only “outcomes” and “results” met the target rubric level. Although improved from the previous year, continued college emphasis and documentation of the use of data for program improvement is needed. The following programs should be noted for best practice in relation to assessment (BS & BAS –ITAM; BS Construction Management; BS Flight Technology; BS Recreation & Tourism).


APPENDIX 12


COLLEGE OF THE SCIENCES


Abbreviation Key:




CWU COLLEGE OF THE SCIENCES - SUMMARY OF 2008/2009 ANNUAL PROGRAM REVIEWS

Dept. Program

Report Submitte

dOutcome

sMethod

sResult

s

Feedback/

Program Improv.

Previous Year

UseAnthropology BA-Anthropology X 2 2 2 1 2

BS-Anthropology X 2 2 2 1 2Biological Sciences BA-Biology Major X 2 1 2 1 2

BS-Biology Major X 2 1 2 1 2BS-Biology Teaching Major X 3 3 4 2 2MS-Biology NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7

Chemistry BA-Chemistry Major X NA3 NA3 NA3 NA3 NA3BA-Chemistry Teaching Major

X 3 3 4 2 2

BS-Chemistry Major X 2 2 2 1 2MS-Chemistry NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7

Computer Science BS-Computer Science X 4 3 4 2 2Environ. Studies Program

BS-Environmental Studies X 2 3 3 1 NA

Geography BA-Geography Major X 2 1 2 1 NAGeological Sciences BS-Geology Major X 2 3 4 2 2

BA-Geology Major X 2 3 4 2 2BS-Environmental Geological Sciences

X 2 3 4 2 2

BA-Earth Science Teaching Major

X 3 3 4 2 2

MS-Geological Sciences X 2 2 3 1 NAGerontology Program

BS-Gerontology NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7 NA7

Law and Justice BA-Law and Justice X 2 2 2 2 2Mathematics BS-Mathematics X 2 3 2 1 1

BA-Mathematics, Teaching Major

X 2 2 3 2 0

MA-Mathematics, Teaching X 4 1 2 1 1Physics BA-Physics Major X 3 1 2 2 2

BS-Physics Major X 3 1 2 2 2Political Science BA-Political Science Major X 2 3 4 2 2

BS-Public Policy Major X 1 0 0 0 0Primate Behavior Program

BS-Primate Behavior X 2 3 3 1 1

MS-Primate Behavior X 2 3 3 1 NAPsychology BA-Psychology Major X 4 3 4 2 2

MS-Experimental Psychology X 4 2 3 2 2MS-Mental Health Counseling

X 4 3 3 2 2

M.Ed.-School Counseling X 4 3 3 2 2M.Ed.-School Psychology X 4 4 4 2 2

Resource Management

MS-Resource Management X 3 3 4 1 2

Science Education BS-General Science Teaching NA3 NA3 NA3 NA3 NA3Sociology BA-Sociology X 2 2 3 1 2

BS-Sociology X 2 2 3 1 2BS-Social Services Major X 2 2 3 1 2


COTS - Annual Assessment Reports Average Rubric Scores 2008/2009 and 2007/2008

Outcomes

Assessed

Methods

UsedResul

ts

Feedback/

Program

Improv.

Previous

Year Use

Mean Rubric COTS 2008-2009

2.56 2.29 2.91 1.47 1.77


COLLEGE OF THE SCIENCES - Annual Program Review Participation Rates for 2008/2009 and 2007/2008

2008-2009 2007-2008





Comments: All but one interdisciplinary undergraduate College of the Sciences program completed a student learning outcome report for the 2008-2009 academic year. In addition, more than three quarter of graduate reports were submitted. This is a significant improvement from last year (2007-2008), especially in relation to graduate programs when only two-thirds of reports were submitted. Although the college average dropped in all categories, programs still met the rubric target for “outcomes”, “measures”, and “results." It should also be noted that the use of data for program improvement was highest for the College of the Sciences as compared to the other colleges. The following programs should be noted for best practice in relation to assessment (BS Computer Science; BA Psychology; M.Ed. School Psychology).


APPENDIX 13


INTERDISCIPLINARY AND OTHER PROGRAMS


Abbreviation Key:




CWU INTERDISCIPLINARY & OTHER ANNUAL PROGRAM REVIEW RUBRIC SCORES

Dept. Program

Report Evaluate

dOutcom

esMetho

dsResul

ts

Feedback/

Program Improv.

Previous Year

UseIndividual Studies Program BA-Individual Studies X 4 3 4 1 2 BS-Individual Studies X 4 3 4 1 2 BM-Individual Studies X 4 3 4 1 2 MA-Individual Studies NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 M.Ed.-Individual Studies NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 MS-Individual Studies NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1 NA1Interdisciplinary Studies

BA-Interdiscip. Stud-Social Sciences X 2 3 4 1 1

INTERDISCIPLINARY & OTHER AVERAGE RUBRIC SCORE for 2008/2008 & 2007/2008

Outcomes Assessed

Methods Used

Results


Previous Year

UseMean Rubric

Interdisc. Programs 2008-2009

3.50 3.00 4.00 1.00 1.75

2007-2008 2.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 NATarget Rubric Scores 2 2 2 2 2

CWU INTERDISCIPLINARY & OTHER 2008/2009 * 2007/2008 PARTICIPATION RATES

2008-2009

2007-2008

Undergraduate (UG) Reports 4 4

Graduate (GR) Reports 3 3




Comment: All undergraduate Individual Studies and Interdisciplinary academic programs (4) submitted student learning outcome reports for the 2008-2009 academic year. Graduate individual study reports were not 9/8/2009 D R A F T - 2009 CWU Annual Assessment Report p. 122 of 209

submitted from a lack of students completing those programs. The undergraduate programs met the target rubric for "outcomes", "methods", "results," and “use of feedback from previous year” suggesting that outcomes are being written, measured, and attainment reported. Documentation of the use of data for program improvement was also provided.

APPENDIX 14

2009/2010 CWU GENERAL EDUCATION MISSION and LEARNING GOALS



The 2005 General Academic Assessment Plan has been updated for 2009 and beyond to: Track student performance in relation to new program outcomes

through course-embedded assessments and sampling techniques using common rubrics

Track NSSE and faculty perceptual data related to the visibility and consistency of the new goals and outcomes in required courses

Use standardized testing, including the CLA (Collegiate Learning Assessment) and the CAT (NSF Critical Thinking Assessment Test) at the freshman and senior levels to monitor the development of and competence in the essential skills of writing, critical thinking, quantitative literacy, and problem-solving

Continue to use a multiplicity of measures, including disciplinary accreditations, certification and pre- and post-program assessments, faculty surveys, syllabus reviews, and alumni surveys for comparison decision-making related to student success and improvement.

Current Practice: Goals for the general education program have been included in the university catalog throughout the decade. However, they are periodically reviewed; the most recent review of the goals and structure of general education resulted in a revised set of goals that were adopted by the Faculty Senate in spring, 2009.

General Education Mission Statement

In alignment with Central Washington University’s mission, the General Education Program helps to prepare graduates to become responsible citizens, to explore and understand the natural world, and to become independent learners to lead enlightened and productive lives. The responsibility of the General Education Program is to offer students multiple and varied opportunities to engage with, inquire about, and interrogate ideas to liberate and enrich our students’ greatest potential as human beings. Through the General Education curriculum, students will be introduced to an intellectual legacy that includes the best ideas, methodologies, and accomplishments in the broad areas of the natural sciences, the social and behavioral sciences, the humanities, and the arts. In addition, students will develop through repeated praxis the habits of mind and modes of expression essential to leading enlightened and productive lives in their local and global communities.

General Education Goals and Outcomes

Goal 1: To practice and apply the essential skills required to lead enlightened and productive lives.

Rationale: One of the three major goals in CWU's Mission Statement is to "... prepare students for enlightened and productive lives."


Outcomes: Students will be able to: 1. Read, reason, and conduct research critically. 2. Apply quantitative literacy skills to solve problems. 3. Write effectively for a variety of purposes and situations. 4. Organize and present information and ideas for a variety of purposes and situations using oral and visual communication skills. 5. Demonstrate effective uses of technology to identify, evaluate, and present information.

Goal 2: To observe and reason scientifically about the natural world.

Rationale: The ability to think scientifically about the natural world allows us to recognize appropriate uses of the scientific methods. We study the natural sciences to develop critical thinking and quantitative reasoning skills by encouraging accurate observation, open-mindedness, and a reasoned understanding of the nature and value of empirical evidence.

Outcomes: Students will be able to: 1. Apply scientific methods. 2. Describe natural phenomena and predict consequences. 3. Use knowledge of scientific disciplines to describe the natural world

Goal 3: To understand and apply principles of social and behavioral dynamics.

Rationale

The social and behavioral sciences focus on how individuals, cultures, and societies operate and evolve. Studying these fields helps us to function as informed, responsible participants in communities and relationships.

Outcomes: Students will be able to: 1. Explain and apply methods and principles used by social and behavioral scientists to investigate and analyze group and individual behavior. 2. Analyze dynamics of social groups and institutions.

Goal 4: To appreciate and give expression to beauty and truth through the arts.


Rationale: Aesthetic experience is fundamental to human existence; interacting with art allows us to construct meaning through the senses and the imagination. We study the arts to understand, interrogate and/or engage in the creative process and to explore the connections between art, culture and history.

Outcomes: Students will be able to: 1. Create meaning through the analysis of or by participating in imaginative/artistic production 2. Interpret aesthetic experiences and expressions within their historical, artistic, and cultural tradition 3. Recognize and/or apply techniques or forms used to create aesthetic meaning in at least one art form.

Goal 5: To analyze and critique historical and contemporary accounts of human experience.

Rationale: Through the humanities, we develop a sense of continuity, change, empathy, and personal ethics. We study the humanities to observe how individuals and societies have articulated and acted on their most profound ideas. Through historical and contemporary sources, the humanities reveal the complex interactions between ideas, individuals and societies.

Outcomes: Students will be able to:1. Examine ways in which beliefs and values affect interpretations of experience and events.2. Analyze expressions of individual and human experience within historical and social contexts.3. Apply critical and analytical approaches typical of the humanities to formulate, justify, and evaluate substantive claims.

Goal 6: To develop knowledge and skills necessary to be reflective, active participants in a changing, multicultural, intercultural world.

Rationale: Diversity courses invite us to examine how our assumptions about cultural identifications such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and religion can influence our perceptions of ourselves and of others; these courses teach us to understand cultures different from our own; and they prepare us to participate in diverse settings with mutual respect and appreciation. The courses focus on one or more non-dominant cultures or peoples of the United States and on comparative cultures across national and continental boundaries. Outcomes: Students will be able to:


1. Examine critically their own perceptions and assumptions about people who have had a different set of historical experiences.2. Analyze individual and institutional forms of prejudice, bias, and discrimination based on factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, religion, and sexual orientation.3. Describe how globalization impacts local and national issues of diversity.4. Describe how socially and culturally diverse groups manifest a variety of values, perspectives and contributions related to social and historical issues and events.5. Analyze the implications and requirements of equity, human dignity, and social justice as these shared values influence U.S. ethnic and international/global interactions.

Goal 7: To observe the interconnectedness of knowledge by employing multiple modes of inquiry across disciplines to address issues and solve problems.

(Outcomes for Goal 7 are pending a discussion of the proposed Mid-study Seminar)

Process Last Modified: Program goals were last updated and adopted by the Faculty Senate in spring, 2009.

Cycle for Completion: As needed.

Administrator Responsible for Oversight: Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies

How Information is Shared: Information about General Education and the new goals are shared through the Faculty Senate, the website of the associate vice president for undergraduate studies, student advising, new student orientation, the catalog, and http://www.cwu.edu/~gen_ed/.


http://www.cwu.edu/~gen_ed/

APPENDIX 15

CWU STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF INSTRUCTION (SEOI) SUMMARY

ONLINE AND FACE-TO-FACE (F2F) COURSES

FALL 2008, WINTER 2009, and SPRING 2009


CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITYFALL 2008 STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF INSTRUCTION - COMPARISON OF ONLINE vs. F2F RESPONSESNote 1: Averages for Online vs. F2F (Scantron) are compared. "? " denotes different questions.Note 2: Comparisons to F2F SEOI's are not exact, e.g., paper SEOI's do not have a "Not applicable" optionNote 3: 409 responses for online sections / 21,371 responses for F2F Form A SEOI's; graduate sections excluded.Note 4: The p-value (of t-tests) tests the hypothesis that average responses to Online = F2F.Note 5: The Mann-Whitney U test compares medians for non-parametric data. It is comparable to a T-test.Note 6: Cohen's d is used to estimate effect size. It is computed using pooled standard deviation.Data from Testing and Assessment Services. For questions call #2046 or email [email protected]

Online Survey Question 1 Neve

r / Lo

w

2 3 4 5 Alw

ays / High

Not Applic

able

N # onlin

e responses

Online Ave

rage

(w/o

N/A)

Online St

Dev

F2F F

orm A

Equivalent M

ean

F2F S

tandard

Deviation

p -value o

f T Tes

t

p- valu

e of M

W

U med

ian te

st

Cohen's

d Effe

ct Size

Equivalen

t

Form A

questio

n

A. DIAGNOSTIC FEEDBACK FOR THE INSTRUCTOR

Q1The instructor was actively engaged in the class. 3% 10% 15% 21% 48% 3% 366 4.060 1.140 ? ? 21,279 ? ? ? ?

Q2Course activities were well organized. 3% 7% 13% 21% 55% 1% 374 4.198 1.093 4.386 0.818 21,268 0.000 0.000 -0.228 2

Q3The instructor provided useful feedback on student progress. 6% 9% 16% 19% 49% 1% 405 3.963 1.2630 4.325 0.923 21,245 0.000 0.002 -0.390 3

Q4I was confident in the instructor's knowledge. 2% 6% 9% 18% 64% 1% 402 4.378 1.002 4.659 0.664 21,242 0.000 0.000 -0.419 4

Q5The instructor exhibited genuine interest in the subject. 3% 7% 13% 19% 56% 3% 366 4.205 1.105 ? ? 21,243 ? ? ? ?

Q6 The instructor encouraged students to express themselves. 4% 5% 10% 20% 60% 2% 398 4.296 1.080 4.490 0.795 21,265 0.006 0.098 -0.242 6

Q7Instructor communicated in a timely manner. 6% 13% 12% 23% 46% 1% 351 3.900 1.285 ? ? 21,226 ? ? ? ?

Q8Instructor provided extra help when requested. 5% 11% 9% 18% 48% 8% 373 4.038 1.250 4.571 0.710 21,241 0.000 0.000 -0.740 7

Q9Course objectives were clearly stated. 1% 6% 12% 21% 60% 0% 407 4.334 0.966 4.449 0.833 21,246 0.001 0.005 -0.138 8

Q10The instructor gave clear explanations. 4% 8% 15% 25% 47% 1% 400 4.048 1.142 4.312 0.921 21,215 0.000 0.000 -0.286 9

Q11 The instructor presented alternative explanations when needed. 6% 6% 12% 21% 44% 11% 363 4.033 1.216 4.436 0.830 21,225 0.000 0.000 -0.481 10

Q12Answers to student questions were clear and meaningful. 3% 9% 11% 21% 51% 5% 386 4.114 1.163 4.436 0.835 21,198 0.000 0.000 -0.384 11

Q13Instructor raised important questions or problems. 2% 7% 10% 21% 57% 3% 391 4.271 1.054 4.458 0.802 21,179 0.000 0.005 -0.232 12

Q14 Appropriate examples and illustrations were used. 2% 6% 13% 23% 53% 3% 396 4.217 1.055 4.489 0.772 21,187 0.000 0.000 -0.351 13


Online Survey QuestionB. INFORMATION ABOUT THE COURSE

Q15 The technology used for the course(s) allow for easy navigation. 3% 9% 11% 24% 54% 0% 378 4.159 1.122

≠ ≠21,288

≠ ≠ ≠ ≠

Q16 Instructor was interested in whether students learned. 4% 8% 12% 19% 54% 3% 395 4.157 1.151 4.354 0.852 21,254 0.000 0.000 -0.229 16

Q17 Instructor helped develop an appreciation for the field. 4% 7% 18% 18% 51% 1% 399 4.058 1.177 4.374 0.892 21,234 0.000 0.000 -0.353 17

Q18 Instructor applied course material to real world issues. 3% 4% 10% 19% 62% 1% 402 4.343 1.031 4.414 0.892 21,203 0.000 0.004 -0.079 18

Q19 Course objectives were met. 1% 5% 11% 17% 66% 0% 407 4.420 0.930 4.543 0.787 21,153 0.000 0.005 -0.156 19

Q20 Assigned readings and other offline work were useful. 2% 7% 14% 22% 52% 3% 394 4.198 1.044 4.292 0.951 21,243 0.385 0.778 -0.098 20

Q21Evaluative and grading techniques (tests, papers, projects, etc.) were fair. 1% 8% 13% 22% 55% 0% 407 4.216 1.042 4.457 0.897 21,234 0.000 0.000 -0.268 21

Q22 Amount of work was appropriate to course level and credits. 8% 15% 0% 24% 52% 0% 408 3.958 1.378 4.395 0.955 21,219 0.000 0.000 -0.453 22

Q23 Student responsibilities and requirements were clearly stated. 2% 7% 9% 20% 62% 0% 407 4.346 1.008 4.534 0.779 21,233 0.000 0.001 -0.240 23

Q24Instructor treated students with respect, regardless of sex, race or age. 1% 2% 3% 7% 80% 6% 381 4.732 0.745 4.813 0.570 21,254 0.004 0.027 -0.141 24

C. HOW W OULD YOU DESCRIBE?

Q25How would you describe the intellectual challenge presented to you on a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest? 0% 3% 16% 45% 36% 0% 408 4.118 0.818 4.096 0.987 21,255 0.266 0.032 0.022 25

Q26

How would you describe the amount of your effort needed to succeed in this course on a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest?? 0% 2% 12% 41% 45% 0% 408 4.294 0.743 4.181 0.913 21,247 0.068 0.564 0.125 26

Q27

How would you describe your involvement (doing assignments, participating online, etc.) on a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest? 0% 1% 11% 31% 56% 0% 408 4.422 0.757 4.547 0.708 21,210 0.073 0.033 -0.178 27


Online Survey Question

D. GENERAL EVALUATION

Q28

On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being "excellent" and 1 being "very poor," describe how you believe the course as a whole was: 6% 6% 17% 32% 39% 0% 405 3.914 1.165 4.239 0.904 21,196 0.000 0.000 -0.358 28

Q29

On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being "excellent" and 1 being "very poor," describe what you believe the instructor's teaching effectiveness was: 7% 7% 14% 28% 44% 0% 407 3.966 1.213 4.354 0.894 21,136 0.000 0.000 -0.432 29

Q36How strongly do you agree that the technologies used were reliable? High = 5, Low =1 0% 46% 37% 11% 4% 2% 375 4.205 0.941

≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠

E. GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOURSELF.

Q30W hy did you take this course? (please select a ll that apply)

Online %

F2F %

a. In my major 54% 43%b. In my minor 5% 6%c. General Ed. requirement 3% 7%d. Elective 9% 6%e. Reputation of instructor 3% 23%f. Time of day 2% 3%

g. Curiosity 4% 5%h. Advice of advisor 1% 2%i. Advice of friend 0% 4%j. Offered online 17% ≠

100%

Q31Class: "other" is not included in the average class standing

Online Count 1 3 168 199 27 8 406 3.62 Junior +F2F Count 4,014 3,168 5,907 6,786 475 700 21,050 2.83 Sophomore +

Online Percentage 0% 1% 41% 49% 7% 2% 100%F2F Percentage 19% 15% 28% 32% 2% 3% 100%


Q32 On average, how many hours per

week have you spent on this class? < 2 2-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 19-21 >22Total

(n) MeanOnline Count 15 152 109 70 37 15 5 3 406

F2F Count 1455 7513 6371 3344 1341 575 202 300 21,101

Online Percentage 4% 37% 27% 17% 9% 4% 1% 1% 100% 7.92 hrs / wkF2F Percentage 7% 36% 30% 16% 6% 3% 1% 1% 100% 7.56 hrs / wk

Q33W hat grade do you expect to get in this class? A B C D F Other Total (n)

Expect Grade

Online Count 229 142 33 3 - - 407 F2F Count 9,029 8,821 2,648 265 42 192 20,997

Online Percentage 56.3% 34.9% 8.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 3.47F2F Percentage 43.0% 42.0% 12.6% 1.3% 0.2% 0.9% 100% 3.25

Q34How many online courses have you taken before this course? none 1 to 2 3 to 4 > 4 Total (n) Mean

Online Count 23 52 124 208 407 Online Percentage 6% 13% 30% 51% 100% 3.81

35. What online technologies were utilized in this course (please select all that apply):n % n %

Announcements 64 21% Calendar 2 1%Discussion Board 193 64% Glossary 0 0%Collaboration (Chat) 4 1% Tests/Surveys 15 5%Email 27 9% Gradebook 37 12%Messages 3 1% Turnitin 1 0%Pronto 0 0% iTunes 0 0%Groups 5 2% Other 20 7%Digital Dropbox/Assignment Manager 6 2% TOTAL 302 100%


CENTRAL W ASHINGTON UNIVERSITYWinter 2009 STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF INSTRUCTION - COMPARISON OF ONLINE vs. F2F RESPONSESNote 1: Averages for Online vs. F2F (Scantron) are compared. "≠ " denotes different questions.Note 2: Comparisons to F2F SEOI's are not exact, e.g., paper SEOI's do not have a "Not applicable" optionNote 3: 643 responses from 31 online sections / 19,514 responses from 945 F2F Form A SEOI's; graduate sections excluded.Note 4: The p-value (of t-tests) tests the hypothesis that average responses to Online = F2F.Note 5: The Mann-W hitney U test compares medians for non-parametric data. It is comparable to a T-test.Note 6: Cohen's d is used to estimate effect size. It is computed using pooled standard deviation.Data from Testing and Assessment Services.

Online Survey QuestionA. DIAGNOSTIC FEEDBACK FOR THE INSTRUCTOR

Q1 The instructor was actively engaged in the class. 1% 4% 11% 27% 54% 3% 628 4.338 0.889 ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠

Q2 Course activities were well organized. 0% 3% 10% 28% 58% 0% 623 4.415 0.814 4.474 0.806 18,465 0.073 0.051 -0.079 2

Q3 The instructor provided useful feedback on student progress. 3% 7% 13% 24% 53% 0% 624 4.186 1.0650 4.265 0.988 18,339 0.069 0.196 -0.086 3

Q4 I was confident in the instructor's knowledge. 1% 2% 7% 21% 70% 1% 627 4.581 0.748 4.632 0.746 18,372 0.098 0.052 -0.073 4

Q5 The instructor exhibited genuine interest in the subject. 1% 2% 9% 22% 65% 1% 627 4.495 0.814 ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠

Q6 The instructor encouraged students to express themselves. 1% 4% 11% 20% 63% 2% 626 4.420 0.908 4.461 0.855 18,377 0.261 0.577 -0.052 6

Q7 Instructor communicated in a timely manner. 2% 7% 12% 26% 53% 0% 628 4.207 1.032 ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠

Q8 Instructor provided extra help when requested. 2% 4% 7% 22% 55% 10% 624 4.359 0.985 4.416 0.896 18,281 0.173 0.462 -0.069 7

Q9 Course objectives were clearly stated. 1% 3% 8% 21% 67% 0% 626 4.498 0.834 4.502 0.827 18,282 0.924 0.975 -0.004 8

Q10 The instructor gave clear explanations. 2% 4% 12% 29% 53% 1% 627 4.273 0.958 4.336 0.955 18,233 0.110 0.045 -0.070 9

Q11 The instructor presented alternative explanations when needed. 2% 3% 12% 23% 50% 10% 626 4.283 0.975 4.410 0.894 18,206 0.002 0.005 -0.153 10

Q12 Answers to student questions were clear and meaningful. 2% 3% 11% 25% 55% 4% 627 4.314 0.970 4.409 0.891 18,287 0.018 0.045 -0.114 11

Q13 Instructor raised important questions or problems. 0% 2% 11% 27% 57% 3% 619 4.419 0.792 4.487 0.815 18,204 0.039 0.013 -0.090 12



Online Survey QuestionB. INFORMATION ABOUT THE COURSE

Q15 The technology used for the course(s) allow for easy navigation. 1% 5% 11% 26% 57% 0% 627 4.334 0.916 ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠

Q16 Instructor was interested in whether students learned. 2% 3% 12% 24% 58% 1% 626 4.343 0.947 4.492 0.830 18,301 0.000 0.001 -0.192 16

Q17 Instructor helped develop an appreciation for the field. 3% 6% 11% 26% 53% 1% 623 4.222 1.051 4.333 1.002 18,239 0.010 0.008 -0.119 17

Q18 Instructor applied course material to real world issues. 1% 2% 9% 21% 67% 0% 626 4.514 0.823 4.523 0.825 18,254 0.790 0.724 -0.012 18

Q19 Course objectives were met. 0% 2% 7% 25% 65% 0% 626 4.529 0.747 4.569 0.753 18,174 0.186 0.101 -0.058 19

Q20 Assigned readings and other offline work were useful. 1% 3% 10% 30% 55% 1% 626 4.371 0.848 4.236 0.992 18,230 0.000 0.015 0.148 20

Q21Evaluative and grading techniques (tests, papers, projects, etc.) were fair. 2% 5% 12% 26% 54% 0% 626 4.248 1.007 4.409 0.934 18,291 0.000 0.000 -0.185 21



Q24Instructor treated students with respect, regardless of sex, race or age. 0% 1% 3% 12% 80% 3% 626 4.774 0.570 4.804 0.587 18,263 0.204 0.147 -0.055 24

C. HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE?

Q25How would you describe the intellectual challenge presented to you on a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest? 1% 2% 16% 48% 33% 0% 627 4.089 0.832 4.175 0.924 19,095 0.012 0.000 -0.098 25

Q26How would you describe the amount of your effort needed to succeed in this course on a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest?? 1% 2% 11% 42% 44% 0% 625 4.261 0.797 4.242 0.896 19,080 0.571 0.567 0.022 26

Q27

How would you describe your involvement (doing assignments, partic ipating online, etc.) on a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest? 0% 1% 10% 31% 58% 0% 625 4.445 0.747 4.482 0.759 19,042 0.216 0.138 -0.052 27




Q28

On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being "excellent" and 1 being "very poor," describe how you believe the course as a whole was: 4% 2% 13% 38% 43% 0% 625 4.138 0.990 4.218 0.952 19,032 0.046 0.038 -0.089 28

Q29

On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being "excellent" and 1 being "very poor," describe what you believe the instructor's teaching effectiveness was: 3% 3% 12% 32% 50% 0% 624 4.212 1.002 4.311 0.967 18,985 0.015 0.007 -0.109 29


≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠


Q30W hy did you take this course? (please se lect a ll that apply)

Online %

F2F %

a. In my major 63% 56%b. In my minor 14% 8%c. General Ed. requirement 7% 10%d. Elective 34% 8%e. Reputation of instructor 6% 28%f. Time of day 15% 3%

g. Curiosity 1% 6%h. Advice of advisor 5% 3%i. Advice of friend 18% 7%j. Offered online 5% 2%

168% 130%

Q31Class: "other" is not included in the average class standing

Online Count 11 15 255 299 37 9 626 3.58 junior +F2F Count 3,602 3,043 5,698 6,027 139 397 18906 2.85 soph +



Q32On average, how many hours per week have you spent on this class? < 2 2-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 19-21 >22

Tota l (n) Mean

Online Count 24 234 170 97 55 30 7 9 626 8.22 hrs / wkF2F Count 1,123 7,064 5,739 2,931 1,199 470 208 269 19,003 7.74 hrs / wk

Online Percentage 4% 37% 27% 15% 9% 5% 1% 1% 100%F2F Percentage 6% 37% 30% 15% 6% 2% 1% 1% 100%


Expect Grade

Online Count 298 267 48 8 1 2 624 3.37 F2F Count 8,358 7,853 2,339 200 27 88 18,865 3.29


Q34How many online courses have you taken before this course? none 1 to 2 3 to 4 > 4 Total (n) Mean

Online Count 131 162 119 213 624 2.66Online Percentage 21% 26% 19% 34% 100%


Announcements 485 78% Calendar 71 11%Discussion Board 502 80% Glossary 14 2%Collaboration (Chat) 0 0% Tests/Surveys 327 52%Email 421 67% Gradebook 409 66%Messages 152 24% Turnitin 4 1%Pronto 0 0% iTunes 71 11%Groups 234 38% Other 62 10%Digital Dropbox/Assignment Manager 306 49% TOTAL 624


CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITYSpring 2009 STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF INSTRUCTION - COMPARISON OF ONLINE vs. F2F RESPONSESNote 1: Averages for Online vs. F2F (Scantron) are compared. "? " denotes different questions.Note 2: Comparisons to F2F SEOI's are not exact, e.g., paper SEOI's do not have a "Not applicable" optionNote 3: 643 responses from 31 online sections / 19,514 responses from 945 F2F Form A SEOI's; graduate sections excluded.Note 4: The p-value (of t-tests) tests the hypothesis that average responses to Online = F2F.Note 5: The Mann-Whitney U test compares medians for non-parametric data. It is comparable to a T-test.Note 6: Cohen's d is used to estimate effect size. It is computed using pooled standard deviation.Data from Testing and Assessment Services.


r / Lo

w

2 3 4 5 Alw

ays /

High

Not Applica

ble

N # onlin

e resp

onses

Online Ave

rage (w

/o

N/A)

Online St

Dev

F2F F

orm A

Equiva

lent Mean

F2F S

tandard

Deviation

F2F N

p -value of T

Test

p- value of M

W U

median test

Cohen's d Eff

ect Siz

e

Form

A question

A. DIAGNOSTIC FEEDBACK FOR THE INSTRUCTOR

Q1The instructor was actively engaged in the class. 1% 3% 9% 22% 63% 2% 622 4.466 0.849 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Q2 Course activities were well organized. 1% 4% 6% 22% 66% 0% 625 4.493 0.852 4.50 0.79696 17,496 0.865 0.535 -0.007 2

Q3The instructor provided useful feedback on student progress. 1% 7% 11% 19% 61% 0% 622 4.326 1.0106 4.295546 0.97669 17,466 0.463 0.102 0.031 3

Q4I was confident in the instructor's knowledge. 1% 2% 7% 14% 74% 2% 622 4.613 0.786 4.646318 0.73144 17,462 0.298 0.561 -0.046 4

Q5The instructor exhibited genuine interest in the subject. 1% 2% 6% 17% 72% 2% 616 4.598 0.791 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Q6The instructor encouraged students to express themselves. 1% 2% 8% 21% 68% 1% 624 4.546 0.784 4.506097 0.81818 17,467 0.213 0.227 0.049 6

Q7Instructor communicated in a timely manner. 2% 6% 9% 23% 61% 0% 617 4.354 0.979 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Q8Instructor provided extra help when requested. 1% 4% 5% 20% 60% 10% 620 4.471 0.906 4.43573 0.87274 17,442 0.370 0.096 0.040 7

Q9 Course objectives were clearly stated. 0% 3% 7% 21% 69% 0% 622 4.574 0.734 4.534746 0.80635 17,455 0.191 0.466 0.049 8

Q10The instructor gave clear explanations. 1% 5% 11% 22% 60% 1% 616 4.358 0.941 4.386467 0.93037 17,453 0.469 0.483 -0.030 9

Q11 The instructor presented alternative explanations when needed. 3% 3% 10% 20% 56% 8% 614 4.350 0.995 4.456238 0.87595 17,401 0.013 ,0336 -0.121 10

Q12Answers to student questions were clear and meaningful. 2% 3% 9% 20% 62% 4% 611 4.439 0.914 4.449339 0.86725 17,410 0.779 0.751 -0.012 11

Q13Instructor raised important questions or problems. 2% 3% 9% 21% 64% 2% 617 4.454 0.891 4.522671 0.79189 17,401 0.061 0.184 -0.087 12




r / Lo

w

2 3 4 5 Alw

ays /

High

Not Applica

ble

N # onlin

e resp

onses

Online Ave

rage (w

/o

N/A)

Online St

Dev

F2F F

orm A

Equiva

lent Mean

F2F S

tandard

Deviation

F2F N

p -value o

f T Tes

t

p-valu

e of M

W U

median

test

Cohen's

d Effect

Size Form A ques

tion

B. INFORMATION ABOUT THE COURSE

Q15 The technology used for the course(s) allow for easy navigation. 1% 4% 9% 27% 59% 0% 616 4.401 0.860

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Q16Instructor was interested in whether students learned. 2% 4% 9% 20% 64% 2% 614 4.434 0.940 4.51768 0.8144 17,451 0.031 0.173 -0.102 16

Q17Instructor helped develop an appreciation for the field. 2% 5% 11% 22% 59% 1% 619 4.315 1.010 4.38022 0.9689 17,440 0.115 0.101 -0.067 17

Q18Instructor applied course material to real world issues. 1% 3% 5% 22% 69% 1% 616 4.570 0.767 4.56783 0.7871 17,419 0.945 0.710 0.003 18

Q19 Course objectives were met. 0% 2% 7% 19% 72% 0% 621 4.608 0.719 4.60374 0.7252 17,375 0.883 0.854 0.006 19

Q20Assigned readings and other offline work were useful. 1% 4% 11% 25% 57% 2% 617 4.348 0.928 4.26907 0.9808 17,423 0.041 0.055 0.080 20

Q21 Evaluative and grading techniques (tests, papers, projects, etc.) were fair. 1% 4% 11% 21% 63% 0% 616 4.407 0.906 4.43968 0.9214 17,433 0.373 0.295 -0.036 21



Q24 Instructor treated students with respect, regardless of sex, race or age. 0% 1% 3% 9% 84% 3% 615 4.812 0.548 4.8108 0.5746 17,431 0.955 0.787 0.002 24

C. HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE?

Q25How would you describe the intellectual challenge presented to you on a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest? 0.48% 2.58% 14.84% 40% 42% 0% 620 4.203 0.820 4.17891 0.9216 17,433 0.471 0.715 0.026 25

Q26

How would you describe the amount of your effort needed to succeed in this course on a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest?? 0.65% 1.30% 7.98% 39% 51% 0% 614 4.386 0.744 4.25243 0.8812 17,415 0.000 0.003 0.152 26

Q27 How would you describe your involvement (doing assignments, participating online, etc.) on a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest? 0.32% 0.65% 7.59% 32% 59% 0% 619 4.491 0.693 4.49263 0.7524 17,368 0.498 0.327 -0.002 27




Q28

On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being "excel lent" and 1 bei ng "very poor," describe how you bel ieve the course as a whole wa s: 3% 4% 11% 30% 52% 0% 611 4.236 0.995 4.2676 0.9385 17,368 0.436 0.762 -0.034 28

Q29

On a scale of 1-5, with 5 being "excel lent" and 1 bei ng "very poor," describe wha t you bel i eve the ins tructor's teaching effectiveness was : 3% 3% 12% 25% 57% 0% 618 4.298 0.992 4.3579 0.9479 17,311 0.138 0.144 -0.063 29


≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠ ≠


Q30W hy did you take this course? (please select a ll that apply)

Online %

F2F %

a. In my major 57% 56.3%b. In my minor 13% 8.1%c. Genera l Ed. requirement 8% 11.2%d. Electi ve 23% 7.5%e. Reputation of instructor 9% 25.4%f. Time of day 5% 3.0%g. Curi os ity 16% 7.0%h. Advice of a dvisor 4% 2.5%i. Advice of friend 2% 7.9%j. Offered onl ine / Only avai labl e 41% 2.0%

621 22972


Q31 Class: "other" is not included in the average class standing Fres

hman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

Graduate

OtherTotal

(n)

Est. M

ean

Online Count 7 31 239 319 11 9 616 3.44 junior +F2F Count 3,171 2,811 5,288 5,176 381 390 17,217 2.88 sophmore +

Online Percentage 1% 5% 39% 52% 2% 1%F2F Percentage 18% 16% 31% 30% 2% 2%

Q32On average, how many hours per week have you spent on this class? < 2 2-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 19-21 >22

Total (n)

Est. Mean

Online Count 19 179 188 123 64 27 14 8 622 8.86F2F Count 1,139 6,659 5,091 2,628 1,038 404 161 230 17,350 7.58

Online Percentage 3% 29% 30% 20% 10% 4% 2% 1%F2F Percentage 7% 38% 29% 15% 6% 2% 1% 1%



Expect Grade

Online Count 305 240 64 6 0 3 618 3.36F2F Count 7,801 7,167 1,935 194 22 84 17,203 3.32

Online Percentage 49% 39% 10% 1% 0% 0%F2F Percentage 45% 42% 11% 1% 0% 0%

Q34 How many online courses have you taken before this course? none 1 to 2 3 to 4 > 4 Total (n)

Est. Mean

Online Count 251 122 123 120 616 2.16Online Percentage 41% 20% 20% 19%


Announcements 567 91% Calendar 74 12%Discussion Board 553 89% Glossary 24 4%Collaboration (Chat) 80 13% Tests/Surveys 333 53%Email 505 81% Gradebook 449 72%Messages 185 30% Turnitin 8 1%Pronto 6 1% iTunes 68 11%Groups 258 41% Other 72 12%Digital Dropbox/Assignment Manager 144 23% TOTAL 622



APPENDIX 16

CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SUMMARY OF 2008/2009 ETS MAJOR FIELD TESTS

Biological Sciences College of Business Computer Science Physics Psychology

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCESCWU BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES MAJOR FIELD TEST SCORES (1)

12 test takers 35 test takers 26 test takers ------ FALL 2008 ------ --- WINTER '09 --- --- SPRING '09 ---

Raw U.S. Raw U.S. Raw U.S.Score (2) Percentile (3) Score (2) Percentile (3) Score (2) Percentile (3)

OVERALL SCORE 156.1 60% 161.8 85% 156.0 60%

SUB-SCORES1Cell Biology 57.7 75% 61.7 85% 56.5 65%2Molecular Genetics 51.3 30% 58.7 80% 52.5 40%3Organismal 58.2 75% 62.7 90% 57.7 75%4Population, Ecology, Evolution 55.2 60% 60.2 85% 56.1 65%

ASSESSMENT INDICATOR1Biochemistry and Cell Energetics 50 75% 57 90% 49 70%

2Cellular Structure, Organization,

Function 60 65% 62 75% 58 55%

3Molecular Biology and Molecular

Genetics 47 55% 56 85% 44 40%4Diversity of Organisms 57 80% 62 90% 52 55%5Organismal - Animals 61 55% 66 80% 60 50%6Organismal - Plants 53 75% 58 90% 56 90%7Population Genetics and Evolution 58 65% 63 85% 61 80%8 Ecology 59 55% 65 85% 59 55%9Analytical Skills 53 45% 61 85% 57 65%

(1)ETS score conversion tables were used with snior scores from domestic institutions during August 2005 through June 2008.These were the most recent conversion tables. See: http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/MFT/pdf/MFT%20PDFs%202007/Biology4BMF.pdf

(2)Raw scores are CWU average mean percent correct(3)Percent of U.S. institutions that are at or below CWU raw scores.For example, a 60% means that CWU scored as high or higher than60% of the institutions nationwide participating in Major Field Tests.

CWU College of Business 2008/2009 ETS Major Field Test ResultsEnd-of-Major Evaluation of Student Learning.

Summary results for the overall test appear in the table following. The data reveal that CWU has scored consistently higher than the nationally-normed data. They also provide a starting point from which to assess future improvements.

Beginning Summer 2005, in order to confirm consistent quality across the 3 sites, the ETS major field exam results were recorded by location of the Ellensburg campus and the centers at Des Moines and Lynnwood. NOTE: 2008 and 2009 mean percentile correct was converted to the "% of Institutions At or Below the CWU Mean" using ETS tables from August, 2006 through June, 2008. ETS has not yet published tables for 2008/2009 as of this writing at 9/10/2009. See: http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/MFT/pdf/MFT%20PDFs%202007/Business4CMF.pdffor the tables used to compute % at or below. TWH Testing & Assessment Services

ETS Major Field Exam Results - CWU Averages vs. Average of 564 Institutions

Quarter Location # Students CWU Mean

All Schools'Institutiona

l Mean

% of Institutions At/Below CWU

MeanSum. 2008 Ellensburg 27 158.20 152.9 80%

Des Moines 33 152.79 152.9 50%Lynnwood 43 158.98 152.9 80%Accounting 56 160.66 152.9 90%Business

Adm.52 152.40 152.9 45%

CB ALL 103 156.81 152.9 75%Fall 2008 Ellensburg 48 157.27 152.9 75%


Adm.63 154.02 152.9 55%

CB ALL 97 156.28 152.9 70%Winter 2009

Ellensburg 48 161.13 152.9 90%


Adm.68 155.88 152.9 70%

http://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/MFT/pdf/MFT%20PDFs%202007/Business4CMF.pdf

CB ALL 131 158.56 152.9 80%

The ETS Field Exam in Business also provides valuable student performance information in eight specific functional areas of business. Before addressing these specific areas of business, please note that in the 9 quarters from Summer 2005 to Fall 2007, across 21 classes, Ellensburg campus, with 575 test takers, has had a grand average of 159. Des Moines, with 238 test takers over 10 sections had a grand average of 156. Across 13 exams with 381 test takers, Lynnwood’s grand average is 157. Seeing no real actionable differences between the three locations of test administration in terms of overall scores, the scores for Ellensburg, Des Moines, and Lynnwood are collapsed across campus in the following discussion of the functional areas of business and effective Winter 2008 the scores are reported by major as well as location. It is observable that in general BS-Accounting students outperform BS-Business Administration students in overall scores. As revealed in following tables, for both time periods, ’02-’05 and ’06-08, %At/Below CWU Mean, CWU students consistently perform better in the more quantitative areas of business—accounting (85%/81%), finance (73%/65%), economics (74%/69%), quantitative business analysis (77%/61%), information systems (74%) than they do in the less quantitative areas—legal and social (53%/62%), international (60%/62%), marketing (58%/59%), management (57%/64%). There is slippage in the percentiles which is no doubt a function of better schools beginning to take the ETS exam. Specifically, examining the list of institutions which take the exam shows that the ’06-07 list had 30% AACSB accredited schools taking the exam and the ’06-08 list shows 29% of the list is AACSB accredited. However visual inspection indicates that there seem to be many Research I institutions using the exam. Though there is slippage is percentile rating, it is observed that with few exceptions for CWU students, the number of questions answered correctly is increasing.

Accounting Area Assessment

CBMean %Correct

Nat'l

% At/BelowCWUMean

# CWUStudents

Mean %

Quarter

Correct 2006-2008

Summer 2008 103 59.8 49.8 90%Fall 2008 97 55.8 49.8 80%Winter 2009 127 60.7 49.8 95%

Finance Area Assessment CB Nat'l % At/Below # CWU Mean % Mean % CWU

Quarter Students Correct Correct MeanSummer 2008 103 62.5 54.9 80%Fall 2008 97 58.5 54.9 65%Winter 2009 127 64.0 54.9 80%

Economics Area Assessment CB Nat'l % At/Below # CWU Mean % Mean % CWU


Quantitative Business Analysis Area Assessment CB Nat'l % At/Below # CWU Mean % Mean % CWU


Legal & Social Environment Area Assessment CB Nat'l % At/Below # CWU Mean % Mean % CWU


International Issues Area Assessment CB Nat'l % At/Below # CWU Mean % Mean % CWU


Marketing Area Assessment CB Nat'l % At/Below # CWU Mean % Mean % CWU


Management Area Assessment CB Nat'l % At/Below # CWU Mean % Mean % CWU


Beginning in the latter part of the Summer 2006, ETS added to the exam the new functional area of Information Systems. The results to date follow.

Information Systems Assessment CB Nat'l % At/Below # CWU Mean % Mean % CWU


To improve on the assessment of the Economics program, a new course has been developed, EC 406, Assessment, effective 2007-2008, which is a required course that is taken by all students majoring in Economics and are about to graduate. In addition, the internally developed assessment exam in economics has been replaced by the Economics exam provided by Educational Testing Service (ETS).

COMPUTER SCIENCECWU MAJ OR FIELD TEST SCORES (1)

9 test takers 15 test takers --- WINTER '09 --- --- SPRING '09 ---

Raw U.S. Raw U.S.Score (2) Percentile (3) Score (2) Percentile (3)

OVERALL SCORE 154.0 65% 154.0 65%

ASSESSMENT INDICATOR1 Programming 62 60% 66 75%2 Discrete Structures and Algorithms 44 80% 39 65%

3Systems: Architecture/ Operating Systems/ Networking/ Database 40 35% 42 40%

(1) ETS score conversion tables were used with snior scores from domestic institutions during August 2005 through J une 2008.The most recent conversion tables available were used. See: http:/ / www.ets.org/ Media/ Tests/ MFT/ pdf/ MFT%20PDFs%202007/ ComputerScience4CMF.pdf



PHYSICSCWU MAJ OR FIELD TEST SCORES (1)

10 test takers --- 2008/ 2009 ---

Raw U.S.Score (2) Percentile (3)

OVERALL SCORE 147.0 45%

SUB-SCORES1 Introductory Physics 48.0 50%2 Advanced Physics 46.0 35%

ASSESSMENT INDICATOR1 Classical Mechanics and Relativity 49 55%2 Electromagnetism 45 45%3 Optics/ Waves and Thermodynamics 43 60%4 Quantum Mechanics and Atomic Physics 46 50%5 Special Topics 31 20%

(1) ETS score conversion tables were used with snior scores from domestic institutions during August 2005 through J une 2008.See: http:/ / www.ets.org/ Media/ Tests/ MFT/ pdf/ MFT%20PDFs%202007/ Physics4AMF.pdf



APPENDIX 17

SUMMARY OF THE 2008 INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH SENIOR SURVEY

Volume 12, Issue 1 Office of Institutional Research Spring 2009

2008 GRADUATING SENIOR SURVEY: A SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS

This In Focus report highlights the findings from the Central Washington University (CWU) Graduating Student Questionnaire, distributed to seniors applying for graduation. The survey is to assess the seniors’ satisfaction of their undergraduate experience at Central. Of the 2,399 bachelor degree recipients for 2008, 1,144 returned a completed survey representing a response rate of 48 percent.

Academic and Personal Growth

Given a list of academic skills, students were asked “How satisfied are you with Central Washington University’s contribution to your growth in the following areas?” At least 80 percent of respondents reported being “very” or “mostly” satisfied with Central’s contribution to their development in these areas: using knowledge from their major, working in a cooperative group, independent learning, solving problems, and analyzing. In addition, over 75 percent of graduating seniors were “very” or “mostly” satisfied with the university’s contribution to their development of: use of knowledge from outside their major, and readiness for advanced education (see Table 1).

Graduating seniors were also asked to rank the importance of several student goals and their perception of CWU’s contribution toward achieving those goals. The goals that were seen as most important include being productive and reliable as well as developing self-confidence, leadership skills and management skills (see Chart A). The majority of respondents (62 percent or more) also reported that CWU made a “Major Contribution” or “Strong Contribution” to achieving those goals.

Respondents were also asked to evaluate the quality of instruction and advising in their major. Eighty-five percent of respondents were “very” or “mostly” satisfied with the quality of instruction in their major, and 67 percent were “very” or “mostly” satisfied with the quality of advising they received in their major program. Fewer respondents reported being “very” or “mostly” satisfied with advising in general education (45 percent “very” or “mostly” satisfied). However, quality of instruction in general education courses was evaluated highly, with 67 percent of respondents “very” or “mostly” satisfied with instruction in those courses.

Instructors in MajorSeniors who expressed an opinion reported positive perceptions of the instructors in their major in a number of categories. Four of these categories were rated very highly, with 80 percent or more of seniors responding that “almost all” or “most” of the instructors in their major courses fit the description provided (see Table 2). Overall, 85 percent of seniors reported that the instructors in their major were “excellent” or “very good.”

Campus Offices and ServicesStudents were asked to assess their satisfaction with over twenty campus offices and services available to them. Five of these offices and services were rated highly, with 70 percent or more of respondents “very” or “mostly” satisfied (see Table 3). A majority of seniors reported being “very” or “mostly” satisfied with almost every office and service, the only exceptions being University Dining Services, and Parking.

Time to DegreeWhen asked about expected time to complete a degree, 28 percent of 2008 graduates reported that it took them longer than expected to finish their degree or certification at CWU. The most commonly cited reasons include:

Courses not offered in desired quarter Essential courses offered at the same time Poor advising Desired courses were full Unexpected course requirements

Overall Education at Central Washington UniversitySurvey respondents from the class of 2008 evaluated their overall education at CWU highly. Eighty-two percent of respondents categorized their overall education at CWU as “excellent” or “good.” In addition, if respondents could “begin again,” 75 percent reported that they would attend CWU.

AZukowskH:\SurveyResearch\Senior Survey\2008\InFocus_08Grads.doc

Central Washington University is an AA/EEO Title IX InstitutionTDD (509) 963-3323

APPENDIX 18

SUMMARY OF SOME COMMON QUESTIONS TO THE FIVE YEAR DEPARTMENT/PROGRAM REVIEW ALUMNI SURVEY

2,171 alumni were surveyed, 226 responses for a 10.4% response rate

3. How important are each of the following competencies to your career? Not at all Not Somewhat Veryimportant important important important Critical

1 2 3 4 5 n Mean Median St. Dev

a0 4 24 88 85 201 4.264 4 0.745

b 0 1 11 63 126 201 4.562 5 0.622

c2 10 54 82 54 202 3.871 4 0.900

d 1 8 31 89 73 202 4.114 4 0.842

4. How well were you prepare you for each of these competencies?Not at all Not Somewhat Verupreapred prepared prepared Prepared prepared

1 2 3 4 5 n Mean Median St. Dev

a 1 8 64 93 35 201 3.761 4 0.802

b 0 3 61 99 39 202 3.861 4 0.733

c 3 18 72 74 34 201 3.587 4 0.924

d 3 7 65 89 38 202 3.752 4 0.851

CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY2007 ALUMNI SURVEYS

SUMMARY RESPONSES TO COMMON QUESTIONS

Thinking critically - check your and others' assumptions; consider multiple perspectives from various sources, etc.








CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY2007 ALUMNI SURVEYSCOMPARISON OF "HOW IMPORTANT ARE EACH OF THE FOLLOWING COMPETENCIES TO YOUR CAREER"vs. "HOW WELL DID YOUR PROGRAM AT CWU PREPARE YOU FOR THESE COMPETENCIES:

2,171 alumni survey, 226 responses

COMPARISON PERCENTAGE HISTOGRAMS: Upper bound of all Charts = 80%, mid-point = 40%Yellow (light) bars are "How important", Black bars are "How well learned" How How well Difference

Important learned in MedianMedian Median Responses

a

4 4 0

b

5 4 1

c

4 4 0

d

4 4 0





0%

40%

80%

a. b. c. d. e.

0%

40%

80%

a. b. c. d. e.

0%

40%

80%

a. b. c. d. e.

0%

40%

80%

a. b. c. d. e.

14. These next few questions relate to CWU's Mission and General Education goals. How strongly do you agree that your education from CWU helped you...

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5 n Mean Median StDeva 4 9 75 101 37 226 3.699 4 0.853

b 5 23 83 83 31 225 3.498 4 0.931

c 0 4 40 132 49 225 4.004 4 0.685

d 1 4 43 135 43 226 3.951 4 0.701

e 0 7 44 122 53 226 3.978 4 0.745

f 1 8 51 127 39 226 3.863 4 0.751

g 2 4 50 125 45 226 3.916 4 0.752

h 3 8 55 123 37 226 3.810 4 0.797

i 2 7 48 125 43 225 3.889 4 0.774

Question 14. % Histogram - Summary of Question Leaves 15.a. through 15.i. Note: all responses except "b" have a median of "4" or "Agree" (4 is the checkered column)

become a responsible citizenbecome a responsible steward of the earthbecome a productive and enlightened (informed, good learner, insightful) individual value different perspectives

ask incisive and insightful questions

appreciate the breadth and depth of scientific and human knowledgeincrease your sense of the interconnectedness of knowledge

integrate knowledge from diverse fields to solve problemsincrease your awareness of the many ways that knowledge evolves

0%

35%

70%

a b c d e f g h i

CWU 2008 FIVE YEAR PROGRAM REVIEW ALUMNI SURVEY

CWU degree programs go through a program review process every fifth year. CWU has begunsurveying graduates of the programs being reviewed. A summary of responses to common questions to the 2008 alumni survey follows. Only questions common to all surveys are included in this summary.

The summary is based on a "convenience sample." All alums were surveyed; this summary is of graduates who voluntarily responded. Graduates with certificate, bachelors, and graduate degrees were surveyed. The survey response rate is very low, especially in programs with a large percentage of graduates with certificates.

2008 Program Review Alumni Survey Response RatesOnline USPS Total

Responses 562 147 709 Alumni surveyed 3,036 1,998 5,034 Response rates 19% 7% 14%

What year did you graduate or complete your program from CWU?

- n - - % -2003 105 15%2004 119 17%2005 150 22%2006 165 24%2007 148 22%

687 100%

CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY2008 ALUMNI SURVEYS

SUMMARY OF ALL RESPONSES TO COMMON QUESTIONS

How important are each of the following competencies to your career?

Mean Median StDev - n -

a.4 6 74 270 341 4.350 4 0.750 695

b.1 1 26 195 424 4.584 5 0.587 695

c.

9 61 207 252 164 3.723 4 0.964 693

d.5 11 156 274 247 4.078 4 0.840 693

How well did your program prepare you for each of these competencies?


a.3 22 153 351 160 3.933 4 0.786 689

b.8 21 136 322 169 3.932 4 0.832 691

c.

16 62 230 285 98 3.560 4 0.922 691

d.10 33 171 302 172 3.862 4 0.896 688

Not at all prepared

Not prepared Prepared

Very prepared

CriticalThinking critically - check your and others' assumptions; consider multiple perspectives from various sources, etc.Communications - use appropriate oral, written, and visual means for each audience; listen effectivelyQuantitative reasoning - apply quantitative tools and computer skills to solve problems; comprehend symbolic representations

Not at all important

Not important

Somewhat important

Very important

Somewhat prepared



Information literacy - critically evaluate data sources as I gather relevant information.

Information literacy - critically evaluate data sources as I gather relevant information.


COMPARISON OF QUESTION #3. "IMPORTANCE" vs. QUESTION 4 "HOW WELL LEARNED""How "How well "How "How well "How "How well

Important" Prepared" Important" Prepared" Important" Prepared"Median Median Difference Mean Mean Difference StDev StDev

a.

4 4 0 4.350 3.933 0.416 0.750 0.786

b.5 4 1 4.584 3.932 0.652 0.587 0.832

c.

4 4 0 3.723 3.560 0.163 0.964 0.922

d.4 4 0 4.078 3.862 0.216 0.840 0.896

Information literacy - critically evaluate data sources as I gather relevant information)


Communications - use appropriate oral, written, and visual means for each audience; listen effectivelyQuantitative reasoning - apply quantitative tools and computer skills to solve problems; comprehend symbolic representations

Please select the response that best describes your opinion about your program's education at CWU.


a.5 15 41 193 296 4.382 5 0.812 550

Your approximate annual income is…?

- n - - % -118 17% Less than $20,000252 37% $20,001 to $40,000189 28% $40,001 to $60,00081 12% $60,001 to $80,00030 4% $80,001 to $100,0007 1% $100,001 to $120,0006 1% $120,001 to $140,0001 0% Over $140,000

684 100%

Estimated, approximate, average annual income of survey respondents: $42,193

I am very satisfied with my education from the xxxxxxxx program at Central Washington University.

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral

Strongly agreeAgree

Are you…?

- n - - % -312 45% Male389 55% Female701 100%

What is your highest level of education?

- n - - % -549 81% Bachelor’s degree102 15% Master’s degree23 3% Professional (J D, M.D., etc)1 0% Doctorate

675 100%

What is your race or ethnicity? Please select all that apply.note: some surveys had "other" but those responses were not included in the summary

- n - - % -5 1% American Indian or Alaskan Native

25 4% Asian14 2% Black or African American40 6% Hispanic / Latino3 0% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

612 88% White

These next few questions relate to CWU's Mission and General Education goals. How strongly do you agree that your education from CWU helped you...


a. 8 24 215 330 115 3.751 4 0.812 692

b. 18 63 333 205 73 3.364 3 0.884 692

c.5 4 103 415 163 4.054 4 0.687 690

d. 2 12 79 407 191 4.119 4 0.688 691

e.9 16 142 361 161 3.942 4 0.805 689

f.7 13 166 370 136 3.889 4 0.769 692

g.7 22 135 383 144 3.919 4 0.785 691

h.8 21 146 376 137 3.891 4 0.792 688

i. 8 20 127 366 161 3.956 4 0.803 682

increase your sense of the interconnectedness of knowledge

increase your awareness of the many ways that knowledge evolvesask incisive and insightful questions

integrate knowledge from diverse fields to solve problems

appreciate the breadth and depth of scientific and human knowledge

become a responsible citizenbecome a responsible steward of the earthbecome a productive and enlightened (informed, good learner, insightful) individual

value different perspectives

Strongly agreeDisagree Neutral Agree

Strongly disagree

APPENDIX 19

CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNVIERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS and HUMANITIES

2008/2009 COLLEGE ASSESSMENT PLAN

Updates are available at: http://www.cwu.edu/~avpugrad/reports/reports.html


College of Arts and Humanities 2008/2009 Assessment PlanCAH

Strategic Goal /

Learning Goal

Related Univ Goals

Related AA Goals Tactics

Method of Assessment

Who/What Assessed

When Assesse

d

Administered by Whom

Criterion of achievement /

successProgress to

DateSTRATEGIC GOALSSGoal #1 Create and maintain high quality academic programs

Maintain and strengthen an outstanding academic and student life on the Ellensburg campus

Achieve regional and national prominence for the university

T. 1.3 Encourage and support faculty mentored undergraduate research and creative activity.

T. 1.7 Support program assessment that informs curriculum to enhance student learning.

T. 2.7 Enhance opportunities for student and faculty honors programs.T. 5.7 Improve the quantity and reliability of data about our graduates.

T. 8.1 Ensure that the Spheres of Distinction inform academic program planning.

T. 9.6 Develop strategies to address policies and practices of the Legislature, Higher Education Coordinating Board and Professional Educators Standards Board.

Tactic #1 Ensure that all depts. and programs use assessment and program review findings to improve programs

Annual Assessment Report

All degree programs in CAH

End of each academic year

Departments and programs working with CAH Dean and AVP for Undergrad Studies

100% of degree programs have at least one student learning outcome linked to each college student learning goal (see learning goals at end of document)

100% of degree programs document implementation of changes to address issues raised by assessment info and program review suggestions – by June 09 report

50% of programs document by June 09 improvement as a result of changes

First reports submitted summer 08, though some more complete than others.

Feedback on reports shows that considerable work needed on using assessment results to improve programs

T. 9.8 evaluate and develop academic programs for optimal placement at University centers and Ellensburg.

T. 9.10 Use data generated by Academic Affairs Program Review for decision-making purposes.

Tactic #2 Create funding for dept success/improvement initiatives and teaching initiatives

Annual Assessment Report

Teaching Grant Application Form

All Applicants for Dept funding and summer teaching grants

End of academic year

CAH Dean’s Office

At least one dept each year receives success/improvement initiative funding; at least 2 faculty receive teaching initiative funding—starting 2008

Three dept assessment awards scheduled to be given fall 08; two summer teaching grants to faculty summer 08

Tactic #3 Develop and sustain unique/signature programs for which Central is known

Catalog/Website

CAH degree programs in relation to others in the state of WA

At least once each year

Department Chairs and Program Directors

Each CAH Department has at least one signature (unique or outstanding) undergraduate program for which it is known in the state and region

CAH has at least three signature graduate programs within the next three years

Music continually cited internally and externally as an outstanding program for which CWU is known; arts programs/facilities in general recognized as a university strength in SOD marketing grant;

Theatre MA program that is unique in the nation; will be discussing new certificate in community college teaching that will be unique in the state;

SGoal #2 Enhance support for faculty

Maintain and strengthen an outstanding academic

T. 2.9 Enhance the internationalization of the curriculum.

Tactic #1 Increase support for travel grants and summer research/creativity

CAH Budget/Funding Records

# of recipients of CAH travel grants

# of recipients

End of year

CAH Dean’s Office

Fund all worthy applications for travel funding in a given year

Done so far

Done, though 2 of the grants were

research and creative activity

and student life on the E’burg campus

T. 2.10 Enhance faculty and student international exchange programs.

T. 3.6 Improve support for research and creative activities.T. 4.3 Enhance professional development support for faculty and staff.

T. 4.5 Develop an appropriate reward structure to acknowledge outstanding faculty and staff performance.

T. 7.4 Ensure sufficient training opportunities in the use of new technologies.

grants of summer grants, and amount awarded

Provide at least 5 summer creativity grants of $2500 each, starting summer 2008

for teaching. Might try for 3 and 3, or 4 and 2 this coming summer

Bike-a-thon n the works for summer 2009--$30,000 goal

Tactic #2 Enable more faculty participation in exchange programs with universities abroad

Number of faculty completing exchange programs

Records in International Programs

End of each fiscal year

CAH Dean’s office and Internat'l Prog

Work more closely with internatl programs

At least two true faculty exchange activities each year, starting 09-10

Had a chairs council meeting with Mike Launius and will meet in fall with the new study abroad and exchange director.

Tactic #3 Increase submissions for internal and external funding

Data from graduate studies

All CAH applicants for internal and external funding

End of each fiscal year

CAH Dean’s Office

Enhance the number of submissions by at least 5 each year, starting July 09

Tactic #4 Implement creative, flexible course scheduling to allow for more research time

Faculty Workload Data

All CAH faculty who are teaching full time

After workload plans are submitted to the dean

CAH Dean’s Office working with Chairs

In most depts, at least one faculty member each quarter has a course reassignment for research, or has one or no classes to teach in a given quarter because of

Many depts. are doing this type of creative scheduling; we agreed to try to find more ways to free up time for scholarship

meeting FTE requirements mostly in two quarters

CAH Strategic Goal / Learning Goal

SGoal #3 Improve visibility of the college

Achieve regional and national prominence for the university

T. 2.3 Enhance the visibility of faculty and graduate research and creative activity.

T. 4.4 Improve communication about professional development opportunities.

T. 5.2 Work with SAEM to support department-level student recruitment.

T. 5.4 Increase enrollment in high demand programs when funding is available.

T. 9.2 Improve public visibility of Academic Affairs.

T. 9.4 Improve web design and presence.

T. 9.7 Strengthen relationships with regional economic development entities.

Tactic #1 Maintain user-friendly, engaging, and up to date dept and college websites

Website content and design analysis

All websites in the college

Regularly

Designated webmasters in depts. and in the college

90 % of CAH websites are informative, user-friendly, relatively error free, and up to date;

medium and information should be current; should include trailers from tv show on college website

Information is often more current than medium;

Tactic #2 Distribute engaging marketing and recruiting materials

Track where materials are distributed

College and program hard copy recruiting materials

End of Year

CAH Dean’s Office together with Admissions and CAH Chairs and Directors

Recruiting materials are distributed at each University Center, at all major feeder high schools and community colleges visited by Central recruiters, and at all recruiting fairs on campus

90 % of CAH faculty

College postcards are distributed and depts. and programs have info at recruiting fairs.

Faculty are distributing material when

who visit high schools and community colleges leave behind recruiting materials

Create a CAH presence on Facebook and Myspace

they visit schools;

Workshop is being scheduled for Chairs on Facebook, etc.

Tactic #3 Create TV program highlighting CAH faculty, student, and alumni work

Arts and Humanities are Central shows for Channel 15

All shows End of each academic year

CAH Dean’s Office and TV film crew

Two shows are filmed each quarter, starting Jan 2008

Three shows have aired so far. One each quarter is probably the max that the crew can handle, plus one in summer.

Tactic #4 Hire a marketing person for the college who is linked as well to Becky Watson’s office in University Relations

Money is allocated for hire, and search completed

SOD grant and hiring documents

End of AY 08-09

CAH Dean’s Office and Becky Watson’s office

Funded SOD grant with University Relations that supports a marketing staff person for the arts to begin Fall or Winter quarter in 08-09

SOD funding for one year for half-time person


SGoal #4 Increase CAH share of resources and match resources to growth

Strengthen and further diversify our funding base and strengthen infrastructure to support academic and student programs

T. 2.2 Incubate innovative programs through self-support.

T. 2.4 Assess the role of graduate education, appropriate size of programs, and resource trends.

T. 2.5 Refine the focus of individual graduate programs and identify strategic support to advance them.

T. 2.8 Create a support structure for new program development and delivery.T. 12 Encourage

Tactic #1 Enhance summer revenue with strategic course offerings and scheduling, as well as summer enrichment programs/workshops

Annual Summer Earnings and Allocation

Earnings and Allocation information for each year

Fall quarter each year

CAH Dean’s Office

Enhance summer revenue by at least 10% each year

Summer revenue increased by 24%; should increase as well in 2008

instructional collaborations with community colleges and baccalaureate institutions.

T. 14 Enhance and strengthen General Education.

T. 3.2 Increase extramural funding through contracts and grants.

T. 4.3 Enhance professional development support for faculty and staff.

T. 7.3 Develop technology replacement and upgrade plans for classrooms, labs, and faculty and staff workstations.

Tactic #2 Increase the number of tenured and tenure track faculty

Compare number of active tenured and tt faculty lines in the college each year since 2005

Data from the college and from IR

Beginning of each AY

CAH Dean’s Office

Replace all lines vacated by retirements, resignations, and so forth

Obtain funding for at least two new lines each year

Submit at least one internal or external grant each year that involves a tt hire

Done.

Obtained funding for 6 new lines for 08-09

Challenge Grant submitted 08—to be resubmitted

Tactic #3 Stabilize funding for general education

CAH annual budget allocation

Budget memo from the provost

Fall quarter

CAH Dean’s Office

At least $400,000 funded to base to cover the general education costs to the college outside of base funding

Requested in annual budget request—no money, but provost is now talking about this as a possibility

CAH Build T 13. Support Tactic #1 Create a Task Force Task Force End of CAH Dean’s Task force is formed Announcement of

Strategic Goal / Learning Goal

SGoal #5 Build a more diverse college community

inclusive and diverse campus communities that promote intellectual inquiry and encourage civility, mutual respect, and cooperation

existing and new ethnic area studies programs.

T. 5.2 Work with SAEM to support department-level student recruitment.

T. 6.1 Develop curriculum that attracts culturally diverse students and faculty.

T. 6.2 Work with SAEM to develop an enrollment management strategy for improving student diversity.

T. 6.4 Explore partnership opportunities with community groups that mirror the region’s diversity.

T. 6.5 Apply public outreach services to a wider audience.

T. 6.6 Foster a civil and diverse university environment.

T. 6.7 Develop a plan for diversifying the faculty.

T. 8.1 Ensure that the Spheres of Distinction inform academic program planning.

CAH Diversity Task Force

accomplishments

Report/ Recommendations

Fall quarter 08

Office by beginning of fall quarter 08 and submits recommendations by early winter quarter 09

Task Force in Sept 08 Monday Memo—call for nominations

Tactic #2 Increase the numbers of faculty, students and staff from underrepresented groups

Monitor numbers and makeup of CAH faculty, student and staff population

Data from IR Beginning of each AY

CAH Dean’s Office

Increase by 10% numbers of CAH faculty, students and staff from underrepresented groups over the next three years

Tactic #3 Promote diversity in college curricula and programming

Workshop evaluation

Catalog analysis

Information for evaluation forms

Data from catalog

End of workshop

Spring 2008 or Fall 2008

CAH Dean’s Office

Sponsor at least one workshop on integrating diversity into courses and curriculum

Compile data on current courses/ curriculum that integrate diversity

Possibly for Prof Devel Day in March 2009


SGoal #6 Promote Interdepartmental programming and collaboration

Maintain and strengthen an outstanding academic and student life on the E’burg campus

T. 1.5 Evaluate the changing student demographicas in order to address diverse student population.

T. 2.6 Encourage and support interdisciplinary curriculum.

T. 4.1 Encourage communication among faculty and staff university-wide.

T. 5.3 Improve coordination and communication with SEAM.

T. 9.3 Ensure strategic collaboration with the other university divisions.

Tactic #1 Improve funding and bureaucratic support for interdisciplinary programs

Grant Proposals submitted

Data from Grad Studies

End of each AY

CAH Dean’s Office

Submit at least two grants each year on behalf of interdisciplinary programs

Done for 08

Tactic #2 Create interdisciplinary courses at every curricular level through cross listing

Analysis of curriculum offerings

Catalog With pub of each new catalog

Each interdisciplinary program in the college has a variety of courses with interdisc prefix that are cross listed with specific disciplines

Tactic #3 Create learning communities, particularly at the 100 level

Analysis of course offerings

Catalog With pub of each new catalog

Creation of at least 5 learning communities by spring 2009

So far, LLAS, Music, and ABS


SGoal #7 Develop a climate of fundraising

Strengten and further diversify our funding base and strengthen infrastructure to support academic and student programs

T. 5.7 Improve the quantity and reliability of data about our graduates.

Tactic #1 Ensure that each department has at least one endowed scholarship

Monitor amount of money in scholarship fund accounts

Foundation reports

End of each academic year

CAH Development Officer

Each dept will have at least one fully endowed scholarship by fall 2010

Five of 8 departments have at least one fully endowed scholarship.

Tactic #2 Obtain sponsorships for CAH cultural programming

Number of sponsors

Sponsors lists in brochures, programs, etc.; contracts between sponsors and CAH

Each quarter

CAH Development Officer

At least 8 sponsors by end of summer 2008

3 sponsors for fall; first season sponsor at $3,000

CAH Strategic Goal / Learning Goals

Tactic #3 Increase contact with alums, and invite them back to campus whenever possible

Number of interactions with alums, on campus or off

Contact reports

End of fiscal year

CAH Development Officer and Chairs

10% increase in number of contacts by end of summer 2009

Very successful alumni day.

LEARNING GOALSLGoal #1 Ensure that students develop disciplinary specific competencies for success in their fields

T. 1.3 Encourage and support faculty mentored undergraduate research and creative activity.

LGoal #2 Improve students’ knowledge of human cultures and diversity for success in a global society


T 13. Support existing and new ethnic area studies programs.

T. 6.6 Foster a civil and diverse university environment.

LGoal #3 Facilitate disciplinary and interdisciplinary integrative learning for creative inquiry

T. 1.4 Evaluate alternative ways to engage students in learning.

T. 2.6 Encourage and support interdisciplinary curriculum.

LGoal #4 Develop students’ intellectual and practical skills for

lifelong learning

L Goal #5 Enhance students' civic knowledge and engagement locally and globally for responsible citizenship

T. 1.1 Support academic service learning and civil engagement, including internships.


T. 2.10 Enhance faculty and student international exchange programs.

T. 3.7 Support faculty and staff in efforts to engage the community and to enhance economic development in the region.

T. 6.4 Explore partnership opportunities with community groups that mirror the region’s diversity.

T. 6.5 Apply public outreach services to a wider audience.

APPENDIX 20

CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNVIERSITY COLLEGE OF BUSINESS




College of Business Assessment Plan January, 2008

College Goals Related AA Goals

Related University

Goals

Method(s) of Assessment (What is the assessment?)

Who/What Assessed (population, item)

When Assessed (term, dates)

Criterion of Achievement (Expectation of how good things

should be?)1.Create value by graduating students who possess foundation knowledge

AA1:Cultivate a creative and challenging learning environment

I:Maintain and strengthen an outstanding academic and student life on the Ellensburg campus…at the university centers

Direct (ETS; CPA Exam) Graduating seniors: ETS Exit Exam;

Graduating MPAs: CPA Exam

Occurs in every MGT 489/ECON 406 capstone courseSections of CPA exam taken throughout MPA program required courses

Vested in continuously improving overall average scores

Vested in continuously improving pass rates on each portion of the exam

2.Create value by graduating students who possess appropriate skills in the following areas: written communication, oral communication, teamwork, critical thinking and ethics



Direct (rubrics for written communication; oral communication; teamwork; critical thinking; and ethics)

Graduating seniors: rubrics applied to Exit Case Study and Group Project

Occurs in every MGT 489 capstone course

Vested in continuously improving average rubric scores

3. Create value by graduating students who are satisfied with their educational experience



Indirect (surveys) Alumni Indirect: CWU Testing Services surveys graduates every 5 years by department

Vested in continuously improving perceptions of knowledge, skills, and abilities

4. Create opportunity by providing accessibility to students in Washington state through programs and courses delivered at the Ellensburg campus and at well-established University Centers co-located on dynamic community college campuses


I: Maintain and strengthen an outstanding academic and student life on the Ellensburg campus & at centers

Direct: Enrollment data Enrollment (annual average FTES) by departments, by location (Ellensburg, Westside centers)

Enrollment expectations are based on capacity as measured by number of faculty deployed in conjunction with the CB standards for maximum enrollments by level of course taught.

College of Business Assessment Plan - Jaanuary 2008 (continued)College Goals Related AA

GoalsRelated

University Goals





should be?)5.Create opportunity for a diverse student population

AA6:To recruit, support, and retain a diverse student body, faculty, and staff

VI: Build inclusive and diverse campus communities that promote intellectual inquiry and encourage civility, mutual respect, and cooperation.

Diversity data (by headcount) Diversity by gender and by ethnicity

Gender/ethnicity levels approximate gender/ethnicity representation in the state

6.Create opportunity by providing an affordable business education

Direct: CWU tuition costs CWU tuition costs CWU tuition costs.

CWU tuition benchmarks

7. Provide quality in undergraduate education through teaching excellence

AA1; AA3:To cultivate a creative a challenging learning environmentTo promote the highest standards of teaching excellence informed by active faculty scholarship and creative activity

IMaintain and strengthen an outstanding academic and student life on the Ellensburg campus…at the university centers

Indirect (Surveys: Student Evaluation of Instruction)

Faculty Every quarter, every class

Vested in stable, continuous improvement of the SEOIs averaged across the college

8. Provide quality in undergraduate education by delivering courses with an appropriate mix of academically/professional-qualified (AQ/PQ) faculty and participating/supporting faculty

AA3:To promote the highest standards of teaching excellence informed by active faculty scholarship and creative activity

V:Achieve regional and national prominence for the university

Direct: Faculty who meet AQ/PQ standards

Direct: Faculty who are classified as participating

% of faculty deemed academically qualified/professionally qualifiedRatio of participating/supporting faculty

Yearly At least 50% of the faculty are AQ and 90% are AQ+PQ

Participating faculty deliver 75% of the school’s teaching and 60% of the teaching by discipline, academic program, and location

College of Business Assessment Plan - Jaanuary 2008 (continued)College Goals Related AA

GoalsRelated

University Goals





should be?)9.Provide quality in undergraduate education through our faculty who research primarily in the area of contributions to practice, and learning and pedagogical research, and secondarily in discipline-based research

AA3:To promote the highest standards of teaching excellence informed by active faculty scholarship and creative activity

V:Achieve regional and national prominence for the university

Direct: Category A and Category B output for professional development

Faculty research output Yearly At least 50% of the faculty are AQ; Mix of research output with contribution to practice and pedagogical research dominating the mix

10. Provide quality in undergraduate education through excellent facilities, distance education facilities, and library data-base resources

AA7:To provide technologies that enhance the learning and working environments, and ensure the optimal delivery of academic programs.

III:Diversify funding base and strengthen infrastructure to support academic and student programs

Direct: Monetary investments Physical facilitiesDE facilitiesLibrary data-base resources

Yearly Adequate CWU budget devoted to maintain or enhance Physical facilities, DE, library resourcesStable/increasing # of faculty willing to participate in DE course delivery

11. Provide quality in undergraduate education through linkages with CB Advisory Board, alumni, and employers, as well as through faculty professional service (e.g., serving on professional boards)

IV:Build mutually beneficial partnerships with the public sector, industry, professional groups, institutions, and communities surrounding our campuses

Direct: Advisory Board and alumni participationDirect: FundraisingDirect: Professional Service by faculty

#of Board Members regularly participating in meetings#Alumni participating in eventsAmount raised from private resources# of Faculty participating and #of organizations served

Yearly Maintain or increase

APPENDIX 21

CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNVIERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION and PROFESSIONAL STUDIES




College of Education and Professional Studies - Assessment Matrix 2007-2009GOAL 1: Provide for an outstanding academic and professional growth experience for students at all CWU locations. (CWU Goals 1,2,5)

Goal/Objective ResourcesAssessment

Strategy CriterionAdministered

WhenAdministered by

Whom?Administered by What Unit? Contact Person

In last admin was criterion

achieved?How are results

used?

How & to whom are results

communicated?a. Objective 1a:

Meet and maintain required accreditation, state, and/or professional standards in all CEPS programs

Funds needed for fees, workload, and visits

Spreadsheet of accreditation costs, visits, outcomes

Spreadsheet contains indications of “met, unmet, in progress”

Fall Quarter Department Chairs

Associate Dean for Professional Studies

Associate Dean for Professional Studies

4/08 – PESB approvalSpr 09 – 3 pgmsFall 09 – 3 pgms + NCATE focus

Improve and support program quality

Website and Newsletter to faculty, alumni, and students

b. Objective 1b: Provide opportunities for students to participate in activities that enhance their college experience

Funds for CEPS speaker series and faculty/ student partnership opportunities

Spreadsheet of activities offered

Participation in SOURCE, program student groups, CEPS speaker series, and research


Departments Chairs Improve student participation in program enhancement activities

Reports to Chairs, Information on Website and in CEPS Newsletter

c. Objective 1c: Determine what high-demand programs should be offered at the Centers

Spreadsheet of programs currently offered and needs for new programs

Identified state and national needs

Winter Quarter

Department Chairs

Associate Dean for Professional Education


Identify high demand programs

Report to Academic Affairs

d. Objective 1d: Identify, support and monitor center program needs

Funds needed to support program development and delivery

Spreadsheet of programs currently offered and needs for new programs

Offer programs identified as high demand in CWU geographic areas

Winter Quarter

Department Chairs



Increase identified high demand programs

Report to Academic Affairs

e. Objective 1e: Develop, support and monitor graduate level programs within CEPS

Funds to support program development and delivery

Spreadsheet of graduate programs

State and national needs, FTEs generated

Spring Quarter

Department Chairs

Departments &Associate Dean for Professional Education

Chairs &Associate Dean for Professional Education

Determine programs that require support

Report to Chairs and Academic Affairs

College of Education and Professional Studies - Assessment Matrix 2007-2009 - continuedGOAL 2: Prepare students to participate in an increasingly diverse economy and environment. (CWU Goal 6; AA Goal 1))



WhenAdministered

by Whom?

Administered by What

Unit?Contact Person

In last admin, was criterion

achieved?How are

results used?

How & to whom are

results communicated?

a. Objective 2a: Facilitate Diversity throughout CEPS programs

Time for Chairs to review program syllabi

Spreadsheet of diversity in programs and courses

Speaker seriesPgm outcomesDiversity stats




Inform programs of outcomes

Report to Chairs

b. Objective 2b: Facilitate Globalism throughout CEPS programs

Time for Chairs to review program syllabi

Spreadsheet of globalism in programs and courses

Study abroad program outcomes




Inform programs of outcomes

Report to Chairs

c. Objective 2c: Recruit and retain diversity in students

Funds to develop and use recruitment materials with districts

Chart diversity information provided by IR

Monitor student diversity statistics

Fall Quarter Associate Dean for Professional Education



Increase diversity in CEPS students

Report to Chairs, website, newsletter

College of Education and Professional Studies - Assessment Matrix 2007-2009 - continuedGOAL 3: Recruit and retain a diverse and highly qualified faculty to develop and sustain prominent programs. (CWU Goals 1,2,5)



WhenAdministered

by Whom?Administered by What Unit? Goal / Objective Resources

Assessment Strategy Criterion

a. Objective 3a: Provide support for faculty professional development

Funds to support Faculty Development

Spreadsheet of professional development supported

Increase support for professional development

Spring Quarter

Dean Dean’s office Dean, Associate Deans

$300 thru Dean’s Office

Increase professional development activities

Reports to Chairs, Information on Website and in CEPS Newsletter

b. Objective 3b: Facilitate and monitor mentorship program for new faculty, including TT, FTNTT, and Lecturers

Reassigned time for faculty to mentor new faculty

Spreadsheet of faculty assigned to new faculty and identified mentorship activities and timeline

Track mentorship activities

Fall Quarter Chairs Department Chairs Acculturate new faculty to CEPS

Report to Dean

c. Objective 3c: Recognize exemplary teaching, scholarship and service

Funds for annual awards luncheon and newsletter printing and distribution

Spreadsheet of faculty recognized for each category

Annual spring recognition luncheon

Winter Quarter

Chairs and Dean

DepartmentDean’s Office

Chairs, Dean, Associate Deans

Annual CEPS Spring luncheon

Increase professional development activities

Information on Website and in CEPS Newsletter

d. Objective 3d: Increase the number of tenure-track faculty positions in departments within the college

Funding for new positions

Track faculty positions and use of lecturers

Spreadsheet of positions filled and request for new positions

Increase fulltime positions to 80% of total positions in CEPS

Track Requests & positions allocated

Spring Quarter - review Fall Quarter – searches

DeanChairs

Dean’s Office DeanChairs

Baseline for 2006-07- 78 FT/FTTT

(73%)- 29 FTNTT

(27%)2008 Hired 25 new faculty

Increase full time tenure track faculty and/or FTNTT

Meetings with Chairs

Reports to Chairs

e. Objective 3e: Recruit and retain diversity in faculty

OEO information for reaching a

Spreadsheet of applicants per position

Increase diversity of faculty

Fall Quarter Faculty and Chairs

DepartmentDean’s Office

Chairs Increase diversity of faculty

Report to Dean and Academic Affairs

diverse pool of candidates

College of Education and Professional Studies - Assessment Matrix 2007-2009 - continuedGOAL 4: Build mutually beneficial partnerships with alumni, industry, professional groups, institutions, and the communities surrounding our campus locations. (CWU Goal 4)



WhenAdministered

by Whom?Administered by What Unit?

Goal / Objective Resources


a. Objective 4a: Facilitate relationships between CEPS and PK-20 educational institutions

Funds for Travel and work load units or reassigned time for collaboration

Annual Activity Reports

Increase relationships

Spring Quarter

Department Chairs chart faculty involvement

Departments Chair Report, including program changes, to the Dean and Associate Deans


b. Objective 4b: Facilitate interdisciplinary relationships with other universities, colleges and departments

Work load units or reassigned time for collaboration

Travel funds

Program Lead time


Increase relationships

Establish advisory committees

Fall Quarter Department Chairs chart faculty involvement



c. Objective 4c: Facilitate internal and external partnerships

Funds for Travel and work load units or reassigned time for collaboration

Program Lead time


Increase partnerships

Fall Quarter Department Chairs chart faculty involvement



College of Education and Professional Studies - Assessment Matrix 2007-2009 - continuedGOAL 5: Provide professional, high-quality staffing, facilities, technologies, and appropriate resources to ensure the highest levels of academic and professional development. (CWU Goals 1,2,3)



WhenAdministered

by Whom?Administered by What Unit?

Goal / Objective Resources


a. Objective 5a: Upgrade and add onto buildings and facilities

Capitol building funds

Maintenance Funds

Spreadsheet of requests and granted projects

CEPS upgrades continually in the Capitol Building/ Maintenance Budget

Fall QuarterAnnually

Dean Dean’s Office Dean Inform Chairs of project status

Meeting with Chairs

b. Objective 5b: Provide and maintain hardware and software technologies

Funds for a technology budget

Spreadsheet of technology requests and funded requests

Updating technology on an annual rotating basis

Fall Quarter Annually

Dean Dean’s Office Dean Rotating technology upgrades, as needed


c. Objective 5c: Increase departmental office goods and services budget

Funds in annual budget

Track current allocations and department needs

Increase G&S budgets to appropriate levels

Spring Quarter - budget requestsFall Quarter - allocations

DeanChairs


No increases during the 2008-09 budget allocation

Justification for G&S increases


d. Objective 5d: Ensure staffing and lecturer positions are funded to meet department needs

Funds for new staffing positions, as needed

Track staffing positions and use of lecturers

Support meets department needs

Spring Quarter - review

DeanChairs


Justification to increase staffing and lecturer positions, as needed


e. Objective 5e: Expand sources of revenue to support CEPS initiatives

Expanded revenue

Development Officer

Track sources of revenue

Increase revenue

Fall Quarter – priorities Spring Quarter - resources

DeanChairsDev. Officer

Dean’s Office Dean To expand resources


APPENDIX 22

CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNVIERSITY COLLEGE OF THE SCIENCES




College of the Sciences Assessment Plan January, 2009


College Goals

Related AA

Goals

Related University Goals

Method(s) of Assessment (What is the

assessment?)

Who/What Assessed

(population, item)

When Assessed

(term, dates)

Criterion of Achievement

(Expectation of how good things

should be?)I. Provide for an outstanding academic and student experience in the College of the Sciences.

1-9 1, 5 Percentage of COTS students graduating with university and dept-level honors

SEOI Survey Results

Instructional Awards received

Program Review (Student Surveys and external reviewer comments) and occasional university-wide graduate survey questions

Accreditations

Major Field Area Test

Enrollment Growth

Enrollment Growth in diverse population groups including international students

Faculty Growth

Graduating COTS seniors

Students in courses with N of 5 or greater

Faculty

Students and graduates

Depts & programs

Graduating Seniorsin some depts & programs

Dept or program

Dept, program and college enrollment numbers (Safari and Institutional Research datasets)

FTEF (esp TT faculty) at

Annual

Quarterly

Annual Activity Reports, FallProgram Review, every 5th year

Every 5th Year,Varies

Varies

Annually: but reported every 5th year in program review

Annually

Annually

AnnuallyEvery 5th year

5 percent of the total receive honors of either kind

A majority of courses in each department approach or exceed College Mean on items 28, 29 (roughly 4.2)

As a special honor success would constitute any COTS faculty reporting such an award

A majority of students/graduates will report satisfaction with the education they received in both major coursework and general education coursework

A majority of external reviewer evaluations will assess the department or program positively

Program is Accredited without recommendations

Dept/program reports its graduates met department goals for exam performance

Increased FTES relative to prior year or years: increase in student enrollment constitutes an indirect measure of quality


College Goals

Related AA

Goals



assessment?)

Who/What Assessed

(population, item)

When Assessed

(term, dates)



should be?) Produces:

1. Greater course scheduling predictability

2. Increased availability of faculty advisors (only TT faculty provide advising)

dept and colleges levels COTS scheduling reports andDept self studies (dept self reflection and external reviewer’s evaluation)

Self Study reports on Students—senior and graduate surveys

Annual,

Every 5th year,

Every 5th year, and occasional university-wide graduate survey

dept/program

Increased FTES in these populations relative to prior years; preferred rate of growth would be 1-5% increase over a 5 year period

Increased FTEF, esp. TT lines relative to NTT

Fewer course cancellationsDepts report fewer problems with course scheduling and fewer students failing to meet graduation requirements

Students report greater degree of satisfaction with advisement and success in getting the courses they need in a timely fashion

II.Provide for an outstanding academic and student life in college programs and courses at the university centers.

1-7,9 2, 5 SEOI Survey Results


Accreditations

Major Field Area

Students in courses with N of 5 or greater


Depts & programs

Graduating Seniors

Quarterly


Varies

Annually: but reported every 5th year in

A majority of courses in each department approach or exceed College Mean on items 28, 29 (roughly 4.2)

A majority of students/graduates will report satisfaction with the education they received in both major coursework and general education courseworkA majority of external reviewer evaluations will assess the department or


College Goals

Related AA

Goals



assessment?)

Who/What Assessed

(population, item)

When Assessed

(term, dates)



should be?)Test

Enrollment Growth


Faculty Growth Produces:


2. Increased availability of

faculty advisors (only TT faculty provide advising)SEOI Survey Results

in some depts & programs

Dept or program


FTEF (esp TT faculty) at dept and colleges levels COTS scheduling reports andDept self studies (dept self reflection and external reviewer’s evaluation)


program review

Annually

Annually


Annual,

Every 5th year,


program positively


Dept/program reports its graduates met department goals for exam performance

Increased FTES relative to prior year or years: increase in student enrollment constitutes an indirect measure of quality dept/program





III. Provide for

1-7,9 1, 2, 5 SEOI Survey Results

Students in courses with

Quarterly A majority of courses in each


College Goals

Related AA

Goals



assessment?)

Who/What Assessed

(population, item)

When Assessed

(term, dates)



should be?)outstanding graduate programs that meet focused regional needs and achieve academic excellence.


Accreditations

Enrollment Growth


Faculty Growth Produces:


2. Increased availability of

faculty advisors (only TT faculty provide

N of 5 or greater


Depts & programs

Dept or program


FTEF (esp TT faculty) at dept and colleges levels COTS scheduling reports andDept self studies (dept self reflection and external reviewer’s evaluation)



Varies

Annually

Annually


Annual,

Every 5th year,


Annually-Faculty Activity Reports, every 5th year in program review

department approach or exceed College Mean on items 28, 29 (roughly 4.2)

A majority of students/graduates will report satisfaction with the education they received in major coursework A majority of external reviewer evaluations will assess the department or program positively


Increased FTES relative to prior year or years: increase in student enrollment constitutes an indirect measure of quality dept/program





College Goals

Related AA

Goals



assessment?)

Who/What Assessed

(population, item)

When Assessed

(term, dates)



should be?)advising)SEOI Survey ResultsApplied Research Studies commissioned for public and private entities

# of such studies completed and # of faculty involved


Increased # of studies requested and completed and increased % of COTS faculty involved in such studies (= an additional component of teacher/scholar model alongside of traditional academic research)

IV.Develop a diversified funding base to support curriculum and academic facilities, student and faculty research and scholarships, as well as faculty development, service and applied research in college disciplines.

1-6,8,9 3 Grants/Contracts AwardedGraduate AssistantshipsCOTS Specific Scholarship Funding

COTS Specific Scholarships Awarded

Scholarship Output

COTS Faculty Development Expenditures

Number of known options for Internship/Field Placement opportunities

Applied Research Studies commissioned for public and private entities

$ and ## and $ level# and $ Amount in total COTS Scholarship Accounts# and $ Amount distributed to students# of publications and presentations by each faculty member

$ of funds distributed to faculty members

Agencies/institutions/businesses providing these opportunitiesas revealed in senior and graduate (and any

AnnuallyAnnuallyAnnually

Annually

Annually

Annually

Occasionally and every 5th year (program review self study)

Annually-Faculty Activity Reports, every 5th year in program review

Increase in $Increase in # or $ levelIncreased # or $ level

Increased # or $ level

Increased # and % of faculty involved

Increase in $ distributed

Increased options for students/graduates

Increased # of studies requested and completed and increased % of COTS faculty involved in such studies (= an additional


College Goals

Related AA

Goals



assessment?)

Who/What Assessed

(population, item)

When Assessed

(term, dates)



should be?)employer) surveys and in Career Services’ quarterly reports on cooperative field placements

# of such studies completed and # of faculty involved

component of teacher/scholar model alongside of traditional academic research)

V.Build partnerships that support academic program quality and student experiences in the college of the sciences, including those with private, professional, academic, government, and community-based organizations.

1-3,5,6,9 4, 5 COTS Development Council Participation

New partnerships established

Number of known options for Internship/Field Placement and employment opportunities

Recruitment of and Retention of Members

# of Formal MOUs (memorandum of understanding) executed with public and private agencies, and formal recruitment plans initiated (internally with Student Affairs and Enrollment Management; or externally with other universities [foreign and domestic] and community colleges)

Agencies/institutions/businesses providing these opportunities

Annually

Occasionally as these arrangements arise (ideally an annual report would collect these in one location)

Occasionally and every 5th year (program review self study)

Quarterly

Stable to increased membership

Increase in the number and distribution of such agreements between COTS departments and programs with other units in and organizations outside the university

Increased options for students/graduates


College Goals

Related AA

Goals



assessment?)

Who/What Assessed

(population, item)

When Assessed

(term, dates)



should be?)as revealed in senior and graduate (and any employer) surveys For Internships only quarterly reports on cooperative field placements

VI.Strengthen the college’s contributions to the field of education.

1-4,9 1, 2 Count of Grants/Contracts Awarded

Count of Scholarship Output

Count of Science Education Courses

Count of Science Education Faculty

$ and #

# of publications and presentations by each faculty member# of credit hours offered and FTES enrolled

# of FTEF SCED faculty

Annually

Annually

Annually

Annually

Increase in $

Increased # and % of faculty involved

Increased CR and/or FTES

Increased # of SCED faculty

VII.Create and sustain productive, civil, and pleasant learning environments.

1,4,6,9 6 Number of Complaints Filed or Received

Count of Workshops and trainings available

Students, Faculty, Staff, Labor Unions, Parents

# of such events and # participating

Occasionally

Occasionally

Decrease in complaints may be an indication of better campus climate

In theory increased offerings and/or participation rates should produce a better campus climate

APPENDIX 23

ANNOTATED LIST OF RECENT NATIONAL, REGIONAL, and STATERECOGNITION OF CWU STUDENTS AND ALUMS

A. RECENT NATIONAL RECOGNITION FOR CWU STUDENTS and ALUMS (in no particular order)

Fulbright Grants Awarded to CWU Graduates

2009/2010 - Allison Rice, a Harrah native and Central Washington University graduate, has earned a Fulbright scholarship.

Rice graduated with a double major in elementary education and German. The 26-year-old will work in Germany and teach students about the United States culture and the English language.

See: http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2009/08/02/pair-of-cwu-graduates-earns-fulbright-scholarships

2009/2010 - Rebecca Funke, also received a Fulbright scholarship. The 23-year-old native of Friday Harbor, Wash., studied Spanish and elementary education. She graduated from CWU during 2009. She will travel to a school close to Madrid, Spain to teach students about culture and English.

See: http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/sanjuans/jsj/community/46492402.htmland http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2009/08/02/pair-of-cwu-graduates-earns-fulbright-scholarships

2008/2009 - Jennifer M. VanTuyl 2008 CWU Graduate in Teaching English as a Foreign Language received a grant from the J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board (FSB) for teaching in South Korea for the 2008-2009 academic year.

2008/2009 - John Pena holds a BFA from Central Washington University and an MFA 2008 from Carnegie Mellon University. He is a recent Fulbright recipient to La Universidad del Valle Cali, Colombia 2008-9. http://www.johnpena.net/See also: http://newsletter.fulbrightonline.org/124.html '

October 2009 CWU 2008/2009 Academic Assessment Report - D R A F T p. 198 of 209

198.

http://newsletter.fulbrightonline.org/124.html%20

http://www.johnpena.net/

http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2009/08/02/pair-of-cwu-graduates-earns-fulbright-scholarships


http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/sanjuans/jsj/community/46492402.html



8/8/2008 - CWU alum Stacey Locke is the 2008 Washington State Principal of the Year and one of three finalists for the U.S. National Principal of the Year.

YAKIMA — Eisenhower High School principal Stacey Locke is one of three finalists for the National Principal of the Year.

Next week, she and two other finalists travel to Reston, Va., for the final round of judging for the national award, which comes with a $5,000 grant to improve learning at the recipient's school.

Locke attended Central Washington University, where she received a bachelor of arts in education and a master's degree in education administration.

See: http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2008/08/06/ike-s-locke-named-finalist-for-us-principal-of-the-year

Michael O’Donnell Named Finalist for 2009 National Assistant Principal of the Year Award

Michael O’Donnell, (CWU 1999) assistant principal of Cle Elum-Roslyn High School, Cle Elum-Roslyn School District, has been named one of three finalists for the 2009 NASSP/Virco National Assistant Principal of the Year Award. In October 2008, O’Donnell was named the Washington State Assistant Principal of the Year by the Washington Association of Secondary School Principals, a component board of the Association of Washington School Principals (AWSP). As a national finalist, he will join assistant principals from Nebraska and Maryland in the final round of competition. The three finalists will be interviewed at the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) national convention in San Diego, taking place later this month.

See: http://www.cwu.edu/bulletin/pastissues/dec08pastissue.html


199.

http://www.cwu.edu/bulletin/pastissues/dec08pastissue.html

http://www.yakima-herald.com/stories/2008/08/06/ike-s-locke-named-finalist-for-us-principal-of-the-year

CWU Army Battalion 2009 "Order of the Founders and Patriots of American"

CWU's Army ROTC Wildcat Battalion has received yet another honor for its already distinguished program. It was named as the number one ROTC program in the nation by the U.S. Army Cadet Command in Fort Monroe, Virginia. As the top school in the U.S. the Wildcat Battalion has received the "Order of the Founders and Patriots of American" (OFPA) award for excellence. The Wildcat Battalion beat out 276 other colleges and universities for the top spot. In addition to national honors the Battalion has won the prestigious McArthur award for the second year running as the best in the Northwest.

April 17, 2009 was proclaimed as CWU ROTC RECOGNITION DAY by Washington State governor Chris Gregoire.

CWU Marketing Club Nets National Recognition (4/18/07)

For the second year in a row, the CWU Marketing Club earned recognition from the American Marketing Association (AMA) as an "Outstanding Collegiate Chapter," a designation that distinguishes the club as one of the top 16 collegiate chapters in the nation. The club competes with over 200 active AMA collegiate chapters from all sizes of colleges and universities from across the U.S., Canada, and Puerto Rico.


200.

http://www.cwu.edu/~market

March 9, 2009 - Construction Management Team places at Nationals

ELLENSBURG, Wash. - The congratulations continue for Central Washington University's Construction Management Team. The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) announced that Central's team is one of just nine nationwide to place at the National Student Championships at AGC's 90th Annual Convention and Expo, which was held in San Diego, Calif., this past week. CWU is the only school from Washington State to place at the national level.

Central's team competed in a two-day simulated construction project against teams made up of college students from all across the country. Each team was charged with successfully planning, scheduling and bidding on a simulated construction project.

The CWU Society of Physics Students Chapter (advisor: Sharon Rosell) received the “Outstanding SPS Chapter” Award for the 2007-2008 academic year from the national society. This is the twelfth time CWU’s Chapter has received this award in the past fifteen years. Only 56 of the almost 800 chapters in the nation received the award.

Music alumnus, saxophonist, and Fullerton College Jazz Studies Director Bruce Babad got a second consecutive Grammy nomination for his work with the Bill Holman Band. See Babad's web site at: http://www.brucebabad.com/

Miss Rodeo U.S.A.

Public Relations major Jamie Virden is the new Miss Rodeo U.S.A. She will spend next year touring the U.S. She was honored by Governor Gregoire at the Capitol.


201.

http://www.brucebabad.com/

CWU Softball Players win a 2008 ESPY Award for the "Best Moment in the 2008 Sports Year"

It was during a home game at CWU on April 26, when CWU software players Mallory Holtman and Liz Wallace performed a selfless act of sportsmanship. During the game, Western Oregon senior outfielder Sara Tucholsky hit her first-ever home run. Distracted and surprised by her accomplishment, Tucholsky missed first base as she ran past it. She turned around to tag the base, but her knee gave

out, sending her to the ground in pain. She had torn her ACL.

Oregon had no other option but to put in a pinch runner, which would take away Tucholsky's first and only home run of her softball career. That's when Holtman spoke up and asked if she could carry the injured opponent around the bases. Wallace joined in and together the girls locked their hands under Tucholsky, gently lifted her up and carried her from base to base, allowing her to tap each one. The three players exchanged giggles as they made it around the field. And the rest, as they say, is history.

(photo from SeattlePI @ http://blog.seattlepi.com/spi/archives/143959.asp)

B. REGIONAL AND STATE RECOGNITION OF CWU STUDENTS AND ALUMS (in no particular order)

2008 Washington State Teacher of the Year and 2008 Principal of the Year

Two Central Washington University graduates, Laura Jones and Stacey Locke, were given statewide recognition last fall for theirdedication to education. Jones was named the 2008 Washington

Teacher of the Year in October during a ceremony in Seattle, while Locke was awarded the 2008 Principal of the Year.

(photo from: http://www.ccsso.org/projects/national_teacher_of_the_year/state_teachers/2008/11147.cfm)

CWU Alum Susan Johnson named the 2009 Washington Teacher of the Year


202.

http://www.ccsso.org/projects/national_teacher_of_the_year/state_teachers/2008/11147.cfm

http://www.ccsso.org/projects/national_teacher_of_the_year/state_teachers/2008/11147.cfm

http://blog.seattlepi.com/spi/archives/143959.asp%20

ELLENSBURG, Wash. -- Central Washington University alumna and Cle Elum-Roslyn High School language arts teacher Susan Johnson was named 2009 Washington State Teacher of the Year Oct. 8, 2008, in Seattle. Johnson is now a candidate for National Teacher of the Year.

(photo from: http://www.esd105.wednet.edu/index.php/educational-services/teacher-of-the-year)

Three CWU film and video studies students, Ryan Fudacz (Waitress Life) Mike Winfrey (Sarah Jane Road), and Gabriel Manjares (Unexpected Cheaters), made it to the National Broadcasting Society finals. Mike’s piece won the NBS regional award and also won an award at the Boomtown Film and Music Festival in Texas. Mike Winfrey and Nick Brown won the on campus music video competition for the summer session video.

Central HR Team Earns Trip To Nationals (4/21/08) by Teri Olin, CWU

ELLENSBURG, Wash. - Three student teams from Central Washington University took home top honors at this year's 26th Annual Northwest Human Resource Management Association (NHRMA) Student Conference and HR Games in Portland, Ore. Central students competed against 14 teams from five other universities in a Jeopardy-style competition that tested their knowledge of human resources. Teams from Central, made up of members of the CWU chapter of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), placed first, second and fourth in the competition. Members of the first place team earned an all expense paid trip to Chicago in June to compete at the national HR Games finals.

The collaborative effort between a CWU Public Relations student group (PRSSA) and the Ellensburg Downtown Association won the Washington Community, Trade and Economic Development Award for Outstanding Public Partnership.

Five CWU broadcast journalism and film and video studies students won

honors at the National Broadcasting Society’s Western Regional audio-video competition. Mike Winfrey won in the movie trailer category for his entry “Sarah Jane Road,” Winfrey, John Heimark and Tracy Loeffers won the video instructional/industrial, promotional category with “Talking Rain Promotion,” and Gabriel Manjares won top honors for “Unexpected Cheaters” in the video comedy category. Recent graduate Ryan Fudacz tied for first place for “Waitress Life” in the video news feature category.


203.

http://www.esd105.wednet.edu/index.php/educational-services/teacher-of-the-year

http://www.esd105.wednet.edu/index.php/educational-services/teacher-of-the-year

Composition undergrad Matthew Woodard won the Opus 7 composition competition for his choral composition. It will be performed in Seattle on 9 May.

Jazz Band I has released a professional CD with Sea Breeze Records in

CA. It is causing a stir in the jazz world. One reviewer couldn’t believe the group was all students and said, “A large and pleasurable surprise from undersized Ellensburg, Washington.

Art graduate student Alex Chaney won best in show at the Central Washington Artists Exhibition at the Larson Gallery. She submitted 4 amazing necklaces.

Four students won honors at the regional conference of the National

Association of Teachers of Singing: Elijah Blaisdell (1st place), Courtney VanWinkle (2nd), Jared Ice (3rd), and Jordan Cowart (honorable mention)

Chris Ward and Birkin Owart were accepted to perform at the 2008

Eugene Rousseau International Saxophone master class at the University of Minnesota.

John Harbaugh’s trumpet student Christi Wans Henderson, a junior

music major, won the young artists brass division at the Music Fest Competition in Spokane. She will receive a gold medal, $600, and a chance to solo with the Spokane Symphony.

Three of the four Construction Management teams that CWU sent to

regionals in Reno, Nevada brought home top honors at the Associated School of Construction's (ASC) Region 7 2009 student competition and conference. Along with taking first honors at the competition CWU's teams received $1,500 and an invitation to the national competitions.

Two students from the CWU Mechanical Engineering Technology Program earned first place in the 2009 American Society of Mechanical Engineers’ Student Design Competition for District D, which includes Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and other areas in the Northwest. CWU advisor Roger Beardsley and the students will go on to Orlando, Florida, for the national competition next November.

Graduate student April Barreca was awarded an honorable mention at the Joint Meeting for Ichthyologists and Herpetologists this summer in Montreal for presenting her data titled "Overwintering of Rana cascadae" (Cascades frogs).

Delphine Tsinajinnie, Graduate student in the Resource Management M.S. Program, received the First Place award of $500 (sponsored by Boeing and Proctor & Gamble) in the Graduate Student Poster Competition at the 2008


204.

National Conference of the American Indian Science & Engineering Society for "Acceptance of Unconventional Word Order and Use of yi-/bi- Affixes in Nihookáá’ Dine’é Creative Writing"

The following poster was accepted to the 2009 Posters on the Hill event that will take place in Washington, D.C. on May 5: “Using Computational Intelligence as Predictive Tool for Biological Activities of Drug Candidates Targeted Towards Therapeutically Important Enzymes for Rapid Screening” C. Badi’ Abdul-Wahid (chem major), Catharine J. Collar (chem MS alum), Sarah Abdul-Wahid (C.S. alum), Grant I. Barker (Chem graduate student), Nicholas Salim (Chem BS alum), Lukas Magill (C.S. alum), Levente Fabry-Asztalos (Chem faculty), Razvan Andonie (C.S. faculty). Only a small number of posters are selected from across the nation to this event. Posters are presented to the members of the Congress.

CWU undergraduate student, Joseph Nelson, has been awarded a Morris K. Udall Foundation Undergraduate Scholarship for the 2009-10 academic year ($5,000). Joseph was CWU's first applicant for this very prestigious and competitive scholarship, and was awarded support for his career goal of becoming an MD and working on American Indian health care issues. He is the first Udall Scholar at CWU. (Prof. Tracy Andrews is the faculty representative who shepherded his application.)

History graduate student Ian Stacy won the prize for Best Graduate Paper at the recent Phi Alpha Theta Regional Conference. His paper is entitled “Under an Atomic Sky: Origins of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation’s Infamous Green Run,” and was supervised by Tom Wellock. He will present the paper at the AHA conference to be held in Pasadena, CA. This is the second year in a row that a CWU history student has won this award. Patrice Laurent also won this award.

The Theatre Department’s production of Noh Telling, recently presented in Laramie, WY, was selected as one of six shows nationally vying for four spots in the national Kennedy Center American College Theatre Festival.

Central’s Jazz Band I was selected to participate in the Monterey Jazz Festival’s Next Generation Festival. The Monterey Jazz Festival is one of the largest and most prestigious jazz festivals in the world, so this is quite a coup.

The CWU Horn Ensemble was been selected to perform at the International Horn Festival in Denver, CO.


205.

CWU Theatre alumna Joanna Horowitz’s one-woman country musical Pickups, Hookups and Hangovers is getting great reviews and playing to full houses at the Capitol Hill Arts Center in Seattle.

Cello alum Ashia Grzesik performed at our recent Cello Celebration and wowed the crowd with her amazing playing and unique voice. She just released her first CD.

2008 alumnus Justin Beckman has been awarded the 2008 Outstanding Student Achievement in Contemporary Sculpture Award for his installation Homestead. The award was given by the International Sculpture Center.

1998 alumnus Justin Gibbens was the recipient of a 2008 Artist Trust/Washington State Arts Commission Fellowship. He will receive $7500.

CWU's E.C.O. (Exito. Conocimiento. Oportunidad) student club recently received affiliation with the NHBA (National Hispanic Business Association) making them the 2nd NHBA chapter in the state of Washington.

CWU's Air Force ROTC cadre won the 2008/2009 "Right of Line Award" given for the most outstanding Detachment in the Air Force ROTC NW Region for 08-09.

Nathan DiPietro recently exhibited 9 egg tempera-on-panel paintings at Punch Gallery in Seattle. The exhibition received excellent reviews in Seattle where CWU artists are known for the style “Ellensburg Funky,” which involves surrealistic narrative painting and sculpture.

Jennifer Greene will appear in the lead role of the composer in the premier of the opera The Two Cents at the Theatre for the New City. She recently appeared in an opera in Carnegie Hall.

Art student Alex Chaney won Best in Show at the international juried exhibition “Sixth Biennial Wearable Expressions 2008" held at the Palo Verdes Art Center in Ranch Palo Verdes, CA.

Several art students received Chinook ADDY Awards (Advertising competition) for their innovative advertising: Best of Show to Chris Mayer, David Lambo and Cassandra Lea; Gold Awards to Daniel Steel, Jules Walker and Stephanie Collins. Dan Steel’s “Stop Aids” campaign made it to the ADDY nationals.


206.

Senior Broadcast Journalism major Ryan Fudacz won the grand prize in the National Student Electronic Media Competition for the Video News Segment for his “Jail Life.”

Senior photography major Laurel Ebenal was chosen as the first award finalist in “Driven”-a National Juried Exhibition for Young Artists with Disabilities. 15 finalists were selected from a pool of over 200 applicants. She won for her digital photographs “Faun” and “Painting the White Tiger”-Faun will be featured in an exhibition at the Smithsonian, and Painting the White Tiger will be at the Kennedy Center. For this award she will receive $10,000.

Art Alumnus Dick Elliott was the recipient of the 2007 Governor's Arts Award. Chosen by Gov. Chris Gregoire and the Washington State Arts Commission, the award recognizes individuals for their significant contributions to the creative vitality of Washington. He also received a Best Public Art Project Award from Americans for the Arts. Dick=s latest commission is for a reflector panel on a retaining wall to help save lives on a St. Louis interstate.


207.

WENAS CREEK MAMMOTH PROJECT

http://www.cwu.edu/~masters/mammoth2008/information.html

Year

Number of Students* in the Field

School2005 52006 152007 92008 162009*

22

* In 2009 students in the Wenas Creek Mammoth field school came from Western Washington University, Washington State University, Harvard, Adelphi (NY), CC of VT, Purdue, U of Pittsburg, U of Arizona, and U of Idaho. Nine of the students were from Central Washington University.

SOURCE - CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY'S SYMPOSIUM ON UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH and CREATIVE EXPRESSION

SOURCE is a university-wide forum that showcases all genres of scholarly work by CWU students, faculty, and staff.

In 2007, SOURCE combined the Symposium on Undergraduate Research and Creative Expression and the Conference on Graduate Student and Faculty Scholarship. The goal was to foster an awareness of and appreciation for the high-quality scholarship that goes on at CWU, in all disciplines and at all academic levels. SOURCE 2009 continues that tradition.

CWU students who submit abstracts must have a faculty mentor.

A listing of all 230 SOURCE abstracts for 2009 is at: http://www.cwu.edu/~source/submission/view_mentor_approved_new.php October 2009 CWU 2008/2009 Academic Assessment Report - D R A F T p. 208 of 209

208.

http://www.cwu.edu/~source/submission/view_mentor_approved_new.php%20

http://www.cwu.edu/~masters/mammoth2008/information.html


209.

€¦ · Web viewGraduating seniors were also asked to rank the importance of several student goals and their perception of CWU’s contribution toward achieving those goals. The

Documents