MALONE UNIVERSITY ASSESSMENT ANNUAL REPORT CARD. Psychology Program: Department:

Transcription

1 Program Name: Psychology Assessment Report prepared by: Dr. Eb de Oliveira, Department of Psychology Date/Cycle of Assessment: Reporting cycle of Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Mission Statement: The mission of the Department of Psychology is to promote the development of students who understand a broad range of areas within psychology and make connections among Christian faith, learning and living. Program Goals: 1. Develop students' knowledge across a broad range of areas within psychology. 2. Teach Students to use ethical guidelines and procedures involved in psychological research. 3. Challenge students to contemplate the connections among Christian faith, learning, and living. 4. Prepare students to serve in their future educational, career, and personal endeavors. MALONE UNIVERSITY ASSESSMENT ANNUAL REPORT CARD Department: Psychology Program: Psychology Assessment report prepared by: Dr. Eb de Oliveira Time Period Covered: Submission Date: October 19, 2014 Program Intended Learning Outcomes (PILO) Means of Program Assessment & Criteria for Success Summary of Data Collected Use of Results Outcome #1 Students will evidence a satisfactory level of knowledge of key theories, findings, and methods across a broad range of the primary subdisciplines in psychology. ETS Major Field Test (MFT) in psychology Total score, four subscale scores, and six assessment indicators (11 total). Departmental data and national comparative data have been gathered since We aim to have the trend in our mean scores at or above the comparative mean in all areas of the MFT. NA

2 See Appendix for specific results from As in the previous cycle, the Department decided not to collect additional data in the fall of 2013 for financial reasons and also because no significant change has been recently detected that might require special attention. This fall new data are being collected. Outcome #2 Students will demonstrate familiarity with the ethical guidelines and procedures involved in developing, performing, and reporting psychological research. The first tool involves a series of courseembedded assessments in PSYC 273 (formerly, PSYC 373) to assess student mastery of ethics and methods. The assessments are done using a rubric. The second tool involves a courseembedded final exam in PSYC 273. The exam is designed to test a student's ability to apply knowledge about research ethics and methods to a novel problem. Thus, the exam involves general knowledge and transfer of training. See Appendix 1 for details. We aim to have 66% of scores at or above satisfactory level. Data were collected in PSYC 273 in the spring of As in last year's assessment cycle, the new embedded-assessment data suggest that a high percentage of students are meeting or exceeding expectations for this outcome. The only exception is Item # 5, "sampling techniques." Likewise, final exam data show a high percentage of achievement, except for "sampling techniques" and "iteration of two or more ethical issues." For the first time, instructor provided a 5-minute explanation of rubric just before giving final exam. See Appendix for specific results. - Instructors of PSYC 273 are meeting to discuss how to best improve students' mastery of sampling terminology/techniques. - For the first time, students were offered (and accepted) the option of presenting their research at the university's annual student research symposium, instead of inclass presentation. - If high percentage rates persist in most outcome items for two years, the faculty will consider revising expectations or rubric, as suggested by the MU Director of Student Learning Assessment. Outcome #3 Students will demonstrate a satisfactory ability to comprehend, synthesize, and critique psychological knowledge presented in primary journal articles which are judged by the departmental faculty to be accessible to undergraduate students. Student writing In both PSYC 272 (sophomores, formerly PSYC 372) and PSYC 480 (seniors) students write a summary and critical analysis paper in response to reading an empirical study published in a psychology journal (i.e., primary source material). PSYC 272 papers are scored with a rubric, and used formatively and as first stage in pre-post assessment. PSYC 480 papers are scored We aim to have 66% of scores at or above satisfactory level in PSYC 480. PSYC 272 embedded assessment is formative. Data were collected in the fall 2013 (PSYC 272 and 480). Student performance reached the target for summary skills (items # 1-3) in PSYC 272 but not 480, in which only item #2 ("research methodology") reached acceptable levels. Synthesis (item #4) did not reach the target in PSYC 480, and - Fluctuations within outcome items over time have posed a challenge to interpretation and led the program to adopt a rubric, beginning with this year's assessment cycle. - Once greater inter-rater reliability is attained,

3 intended to reflect these abilities should evidence quality, clarity, and mechanics consistent with the current Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. by both instructors with a rubric. Rating discrepancies are resolved through discussion and used as second-stage in pre-post assessment. See Appendix 1 for details. neither did critical analysis (item #5) in both times of assessment. Item # 6 ("quality and clarity of expression") fell below the target in both times of assessment, but item # 7 ("APA style") reached the target in PSYC 480 but not 272. See Appendix for specific results. pedagogical changes may be considered targeting weak areas that persist for a few years. Outcome #4 Students will articulate an informed position on the relations between Christianity and the discipline of psychology, including consideration of worldview, epistemic, and other key foundational issues. Paper on Christianity-PSYC relationship; scored with a rubric See Appendix 1 for details. We aim to have 66% of scores at or above satisfactory level No data were collected for this outcome in this assessment cycle. It is noted that in the last assessment cycle the data suggested that students were meeting or exceeding the expectations for all items in this outcome. A rubric is being developed for adoption, as suggested by the MU Director of Student Learning Assessment. N/A See Appendix for results in previous cycles. Outcome #5 Students will evidence reflection upon their reasons for studying psychology, their short-and long-term educational and career goals, and their intellectual, personal, and interpersonal strengths and weaknesses. They will also evidence the ability to reflect back on their undergraduate careers and describe continuity and change in these areas as well as plans for the future. Students reflections on these areas will exhibit an understanding of relations among faith, learning, and living. Seniors write a reflection paper about their journey as psychology majors by looking at papers they wrote in the sophomore year (i.e., at a snapshot of their previous selves). Scored with a rubric by both instructors. Rating discrepancies are resolved through discussion. See Appendix 1 for details. We aim to have 66% of scores at or above satisfactory level. No data were collected for this outcome in this assessment cycle. Last year's data showed that the target was being reached for all items in this outcome with just one exception. See Appendix for results in previous cycles. NA

4 Appendix Annual Assessment Report, PSYC 2011 (2012 and 2013 not assessed) Assessment Data Student Learning Outcome I: ETS Major Field Test in Psychology Overall Scale Score (Range ) and Subscale Scores (Range ) Note. ETS changed the Major Field Test (MFT) in Psychology in Therefore, results cannot be compared to previous years. Also, our students began to take the MFT on-line in Overall Scale Score Learning & Cognition Percept/Comp/ Eth/Sens/Physio Abnormal & Personality Developmental & Social 2005 M (N = 7) SD M (N = 8) SD M (N = 19) SD M (N = 10) SD M (N = 19) SD M (N = 13) SD

5 2011 M N=12 SD National Data M /05 to 12/06 SD National Data M /05 to 6/11 SD Assessment Indicators: Mean Percent Correct Note. Assessment indicators are broken down into more specific subfields than are subscores 2005 (N = 7) 2006 (N = 8) 2007 (N = 19) 2008 (N = 10) 2009 (N = 19) 2010 (N = 13) 2011 (N = 12) National Data 2/05 to 12/06 (2/05 to 6/10) [2011] Memory & Thinking (49) [44] Sensory & Physio (39) [49] Developmental (47) [52] Clin. & Abnormal (66) [59] Social (62) [57] Meas. & Method (53) [54]

6 Student Learning Outcome II: Assessment of Specific Skills in Research Methods Spring, Based on Research Methods (PSYC 273/373) Quizzes Psychology Majors Only 2005 N = 8; 2006 N = 12; 2007 N = 14; 2008 N = 11; 2009 N = 19; 2010 N = 13; 2011 N = 15*; 2012 N = 15; 2013 N = 7;2014 N=21 Rating Frequencies and Mean Rating (with SD) in Each Area are Given Below The student is able to describe the problem area in his/her research study. The student is able to state an hypothesis about the study outcomes Means M=4.00 SD=.54 M=3.88 SD= Means M=4.00 SD=.00 M=3.42 SD= Means M=3.71 SD=.73 M=3.21 SD= Means M=3.91 SD=.83 M=3.64 SD= Means M= 3.63 SD=.96 M=3.42 SD= Means M=4.08 SD=1.34 M=4.15 SD= Means M=3.87 SD=.99 M=3.60 SD= Means M=4.33 SD=.72 M=4.20 SD= Means M=4.71 SD=. 76 M=4.29 SD= Means M=4.14 SD=.91 M=4.14 SD=.73 The student is able to describe the basic procedures associated with IRB submissions and is able to identify key ethical concerns. M=3.25 SD=.88 M=3.91 SD=.90 M=3.29 SD=.91 M=4.09 SD=.70 M=3.74 SD=1.05 M=4.23 SD=.90 M=3.20 SD=.86 M=3.93 SD=1.10 M=4.43 SD=.79 M=3.95 SD=.92 The student is able to describe the basic design of the study and its procedures. M=3.25 SD=.46 M=2.67 SD=.78 M=3.50 SD=.76 M=3.82 SD=.60 M=3.42 SD=.77 M=3.69 SD=.65 M=3.60 SD=.63 M=3.29 SD=.91 M=4.29 SD=.95 M=3.90 SD=.83 The student is able to describe the sampling techniques. M=2.75 SD=.46 M=2.83 SD=.83 M=2.93 SD=.73 M=3.64 SD=.92 M=3.11 SD=.81 M=3.62 SD=1.01 M=3.27 SD=.80 M=2.57 SD=.51 M=4.14 SD=1.46 M=3.00 SD=1.38 The student is able to state a plausible statistical procedure for analyzing data from his/her project. M=3.50 SD=.53 M=3.50 SD=1.31 M=3.86 SD=.86 M=3.64 SD=.92 M=3.47 SD=.90 M=4.00 SD=.87 M=3.07 SD=.88 M=3.13 SD=.83 M=4.14 SD=1.07 M=4.29 SD=.78 The student communicates ideas clearly and demonstrates a knowledge of key terms used in psychological research. M=3.13 SD=.64 M=2.75 SD=.87 M=3.07 SD=.62 M=3.73 SD=.47 M=3.37 SD=.60 M=3.54 SD=.92 M=3.13 SD=.64 M=3.47 SD=.64 M=3.71 SD=.76 M=3.38 SD=.67 prepared by Lauren Seifert; (SLOAP Outcome #2, Section III) Assessment of Specific Skills in Research Methods Spring, 2014 Based on Research Methods (PSYC 273) Quizzes N = 21 (Psychology Majors ONLY) Rating Frequencies and Mean Rating (with SD) in Each Area are Given Below

7 1. The student is able to describe the problem area in his/her research study. 2. The student is able to state an hypothesis about the study outcomes Satisfact ory 4 Good 5 Superior Mean % > Satisfactory M = 4.14 SD = % M = 4.14 SD = % 3. The student is able to describe the basic procedures associated with IRB submissions and is able to identify key ethical concerns. 4. The student is able to describe the basic design of the study and its procedures M = 3.95 SD = % M = 3.90 SD = % 5. The student is able to describe the sampling techniques M = 3.00 SD = % 6. The student is able to state a plausible statistical procedure M = 4.29 for analyzing data from his/her project. SD = % 7. The student communicates ideas clearly and demonstrates a knowledge of key terms used in psychological research M = 3.38 SD = % Prepared by : L. Seifert Assessment of Specific Skills in Research Methods: Derived from Final Exams in PSYC273 (titled PSYC373 prior to 2010) Psychology Majors Only: 2005 N = 8; 2006 N = 12; 2007 N = 14; 2008 N = 12; 2009 N= 19; 2010 N=13; 2011 N =17*; 2012 N=14; 2013 N=6;2014 N=21 Assessed Overall clarity M = 3.14 SD =.38 M = 3.00 SD =.74 M = 3.14 SD =.36 M = 3.25 SD =.62 M = 3.32 SD =.75 M = 3.77 SD =.73 M = 3.29 SD =.59 M = 2.86 SD =.53 M = 4.00 SD=.63 M =3.34 SD =.58 Overall correctness of content M = 2.88 SD =.64 M = 3.08 SD =.51 M = 3.21 SD =.58 M = 3.17 SD =.39 M = 3.16 SD =.60 M = 3.85 SD =.55 M = 3.00 SD =.35 M = 2.86 SD =.53 M = 4.17 SD=.75 M = 3.57 SD =.75 Statement of the problem M = 3.00 SD =.93 M = 3.08 SD =.51 M = 3.14 SD =.77 M = 3.58 SD =.79 M = 3.74 SD =.99 M = 4.31 SD =.75 M = 3.41 SD = 1.23 M = 3.64 SD = 1.22 M = 4.17 SD=.98 M = 4.81 SD =.51

8 States level of ethics review M = 3.13 SD =.99 M = 3.50 SD = 1.09 M = 2.86 SD = 1.61 M = 3.75 SD = 1.29 M = 2.53 SD = 1.65 M = 4.38 SD =.96 M = 1.88 SD = 1.58 M = 1.64 SD = 1.34 M = 3.67 SD=2.97 M = 3.48 SD=1.44 Iterates ethical issues M = 3.25 SD = 1.04 M = 3.17 SD = 1.34 M = 2.29 SD = 1.33 M = 4.08 SD =.79 M = 2.32 SD = 1.06 M = 3.62 SD = 1.04 M = 2.76 SD = 1.35 M = 2.36 SD = 1.34 M = 3.5 SD=1.52 M = 3.57 SD=1.40 Iterates ethical safeguards M = 2.50 SD =.76 M = 3.33 SD = 1.23 M = 2.21 SD = 1.42 M = 3.75 SD =.87 M = 2.68 SD = 1.29 M = 4.00 SD = 1.08 M = 2.94 SD = 1.34 M = 2.50 SD = 1.45 M = 4.00 SD=.89 M=3.86 SD=1.20 Describes sampling M = 2.63 SD =.74 Describes study M = 3.13 type/design SD =.83 Describes data M = 3.13 collection SD =.83 Describes data M = 2.75 recording SD =.71 M = 3.17 SD = 1.03 M = 2.58 SD =.67 M = 3.17 SD =.58 M = 2.83 SD =.72 M = 2.79 SD = 1.05 M = 2.79 SD =.80 M = 3.50 SD =.52 M = 2.50 SD =.94 M = 2.75 SD =.87 M = 3.00 SD =.74 M = 2.92 SD =.79 M = 2.75 SD =.87 M = 3.84 SD =1.07 M = 3.63 SD =1.01 M = 3.58 SD =.77 M = 3.26 SD =.81 M = 4.31 SD = 1.03 M = 4.38 SD =.65 M = 4.38 SD =.77 M = 4.08 SD =.95 M = 3.06 SD = 1.30 M = 3.00 SD =.35 M = 4.06 SD =.56 M = 3.47 SD =.87 M = 2.57 SD = 1.16 M = 3.14 SD =.77 M = 3.57 SD = 1.02 M = 3.00 SD =.88 M = 3.67 SD=1.51 M = 3.50 SD=.84 M = 4.33 SD=.82 M = 4.00 SD=1.10 M=2.90 SD=1.09 M=3.90 SD=1.30 M=3.10 SD =.89 M=3.10 SD=1.26 Describes data analysis Describes desired conclusions M = 2.88 SD =.64 M = 2.88 SD =.64 M = 2.58 SD = 1.24 M = 3.08 SD =.67 M = 2.43 SD = 1.22 M = 3.00 SD =.68 M = 3.58 SD =.90 M = 3.67 SD = 1.07 M = 2.95 SD =.85 M = 3.47 SD =.96 M = 2.46 SD =.88 M = 3.38 SD =.77 M = 2.71 SD = 1.05 M = 3.35 SD =.79 M = 2.29 SD =.73 M = 3.07 SD =.92 M = 3.67 SD=1.03 M = 3.33 SD=1.21 M=3.38 SD=1.02 M=3.90 SD=1.00 Prepared by L. Seifert Assessment of Specific Skills in Research Methods Spring, 2014 Derived from Research Methods (PSYC273) Final Exams (Psychology Majors ONLY; N = 21)* (Ref: SLOAP Rubric Section II) Reported as Frequency Data "1" "2" "3" "4" "5" Satis- Superior factory Good MEAN % > to "Satisfactory

9 Overall clarity M = 3.34 SD =.58 Overall correctness of content M = 3.57 SD =.75 Statement of the problem M = 4.81 SD = % 95.24% 100% Knowledge about ethics *states level of review required M = % SD = 1.44 *iterates at least two potential ethical issues in the M = % proposed research SD = 1.40 *iterates at least two approaches to minimize risks to SS M = % SD = 1.20 Description of research methods * sampling techniques M=2.90 SD= % * type of study/design M=3.90 SD= % * methods for data collection M=3.10 SD= % *methods of data recording M=3.10 SD= % Proposal for data analysis M =3.38 SD= % Description of the desired conclusions M=3.90SD = % Student Learning Outcome III: Summary and Critical Analysis SumCrit Paper #1 (PSYC 272/372) Fall 2005 to Fall 2013 (N = 12, 11, 12, 21, 18, 16, 16, 8, and 21, respectively) 2004 N = 0 (break-out data for Psychology Majors, not available; After 2004, data are provided for Psychology Majors only)

10 Note. Rubric element #4 is not applicable to PSYC 372 assignment Satisfact ory Good Superior Mean (SD) % > Satisfactory 3 1. Summary of theory and/or hypothesis under investigation Fall (1.09) Fall (1.11) Fall (0.98) Fall (0.79) Fall (0.49) Fall (0.80) Fall (0.77) Fall (0.86) Fall (0.92) 87.5 Fall (.77) 100

11 2. Summary of key aspects of the research methodology Fall (0.83) Fall (1.30) Fall (0.69) Fall (0.52) Fall (0.75) Fall (0.77) Fall (0.83) Fall (0.93) Fall (1.16) 62.5 Fall (.97) Summary of key findings and conclusions Fall (1.01) Fall (0.97) Fall (0.52)

12 Fall (0.78) Fall (0.76) Fall (0.75) Fall (0.87) Fall (1.18) Fall (0.93) 87.5 Fall (.91) Ability to take and defend a critical position on some aspect of the article Fall (0.94) Fall (1.07) Fall (0.52) Fall (0.52) Fall (0.79) Fall (0.92) Fall (0.00)

13 Fall (0.86) Fall (0.99) 75 Fall (.98) Quality and clarity of expression Fall (0.99) Fall (0.90) Fall (0.75) Fall (0.75) Fall (0.87) Fall (1.06) Fall (0.73) Fall (0.82) Fall (1.2) 75 Fall (1.07) 52.4* 7. Adherence to APA style

14 Fall (1.00) Fall (1.00) Fall (0.93) Fall (0.74) Fall (0.78) Fall (1.15) Fall (0.57) Fall (0.93) Fall (1.39) 37.5 Fall (1.00) 52.4* * Note from instructor: There were significant issues in both sections of PSYC272 in FA13 that related to lazy writing and close paraphrasing of articles. The course instructor addressed the issues with each student and Rubric Items #6 and #7 reflect poor performance by some students due to the issues.

15 SumCrit Paper #2 (PSYC 480) Fall 2004 to Fall 2013 (N = 10, 7, 8, 19, 10, 20, 13, 12, 15 and 17, respectively) Note. Rating frequencies and means for each rubric element are given below (parentheses contain standard deviations) Satisfactory 4 Good 5 Superior Mean (SD) % > Satisfactory 3 1. Summary of theory and/or hypothesis under investigation Fall (0.7) Fall (1.7) Fall (0.7) Fall (1.1) Fall (1.2) Fall (0.89) Fall (0.9) Fall (0.72) Fall (0.70) 73.3 Fall (1.14) Summary of key aspects of the research methodology

16 Fall (1.0) Fall (1.7) Fall (0.5) Fall (1.0) Fall (0.9) Fall (0.75) Fall (0.9) Fall (1.0) Fall (1.0) 66.7 Fall (.87) Summary of key findings and conclusions Fall (0.7) Fall (1.1) Fall (0.7) Fall (1.0) Fall (0.9) Fall (0.97) Fall (0.8) Fall (0.90)

17 Fall (0.96) 80 Fall (1.03) Ability to relate specific aspects of the article to other theories and findings Fall (1.2) Fall (1.5) Fall (0.8) Fall (1.3) Fall (1.3) Fall (1.28) Fall (1.6) Fall (0.67) Fall (0.93) 73.3 Fall (1.50) Ability to take and defend a critical position on some aspect of the article Fall (0.9) Fall (1.3) Fall (0.9)

18 Fall (1.3) Fall (0.7) Fall (0.94) Fall (1.4) Fall (1.0) Fall (1.03) 33.3 Fall (1.24) Quality and clarity of expression Fall (1.1) Fall (1.0) Fall (1.0) Fall (0.9) Fall (1.0) Fall (1.10) Fall (1.1) Fall (1.0) Fall (0.92) 73.3

19 Fall (1.11) Adherence to APA style Fall (0.7) Fall (1.2) Fall (1.3) Fall (1.1) Fall (0.9) Fall (1.17) Fall (1.2) Fall (1.0) Fall (0.46) Fall (1.07) Student Learning Outcome IV: Integration

20 Position Paper on Christianity and Psychology (PSYC 410) (Spring 2014 data not available) Spring 2004 & 2005 Combined (N = 23) Note. Rating frequencies and means for each rubric element are given below (parentheses contain standard deviations) Satisfactory 4 Good 5 Superior Mean (SD) 1. Epistemology (1.07) 2. Cosmology (0.94) 3. Philosophical Anthropology 4. Personal Philosophy of Integration (1.11) (1.26) Spring 2006 (N = 6) Satisfactory Good Superior Mean (SD)

21 1. Epistemology (1.4) 2. Cosmology (1.3) 3. Philosophical Anthropology 4. Personal Philosophy of Integration Select & Defend PSYC- Christianity Paradigm (1.2) (1.5) (1.3 Spring 2007 (N = 17) Satisfactory Good Superior Mean (SD) 1. Epistemology (1.2) 2. Cosmology (1.2)

22 3. Philosophical Anthropology 4. Personal Philosophy of Integration Select & Defend PSYC- Christianity Paradigm (1.3) (1.2) (1.2) Spring 2008 (N = 16) Satisfactory Good Superior Mean (SD) Select & Defend PSYC (1.2) Christianity Paradigm Note. Due to a pedagogical experiment, the full set of rubric elements could not be used during Spring The data from Spring 2009 will include the full set of rubric elements. Spring 2009 (N = 12)

23 Satisfactory Good Superior Mean (SD) 1. Epistemology (1.40) 2. Cosmology (1.24) 3. Philosophical Anthropology 4. Personal Philosophy of Integration Select & Defend PSYC- Christianity Paradigm (1.14) (1.28) (1.17) Spring 2010 (N = 14) Satisfactory Good Superior Mean (SD)

24 1. Epistemology (1.3) 2. Cosmology (1.2) 3. Philosophical Anthropology 4. Personal Philosophy of Integration Select & Defend PSYC- Christianity Paradigm (1.2) (1.4) (1.4) Spring 2011 (N = 14) Satisfactory Good Superior Mean (SD) 1. Epistemology (0.89) 2. Cosmology (1.07)

25 3. Philosophical Anthropology 4. Personal Philosophy of Integration Select & Defend PSYC- Christianity Paradigm (1.17) (1.24) (1.29) Spring 2012 (N = 15) Satisfactory Good Superior Mean (SD) 1. Epistemology (1.29) 2. Cosmology ( Philosophical Anthropology (1.04)

26 4. Personal Philosophy of Integration Select & Defend PSYC- Christianity Paradigm (1.29) (1.35)

27 Assessment Matrix For Outcome # Students will articulate an informed position on the relations between Christianity and the discipline of psychology, including consideration of worldview, epistemic, and other key foundational issues PASS Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Below Expectations % # % # % # % Foundational (Philosophical) Issues Contributions of Theology Contributions of Psychology Personal Philosophy of Integration Students will demonstrate awareness of how their worldviews shape their approach to epistemology, cosmology, and philosophical anthropology. Students will demonstrate their awareness what theology* can contribute to a holistic understanding of persons. (*For the purpose of this assignment, theology can refer to religious practice or belief; students do not need to personally embrace Christianity to answer this question adequately.) Students will demonstrate their awareness what theology can contribute to a holistic understanding of persons. Students will select and defend a paradigm for relating psychology and Christianity, including personal application 85.00% 80.00% 90.00% % % % % % % % % 10.00% 80.00% % % %

28 Outcome V: Personal and Vocational Reflection PVRP (PSYC 272/372 & 480, Assessed in 480) Fall 2013 data not available. Fall 2003 & 2004 Combined (N = 22) Note. Rating frequencies and means for each rubric element are given below (parentheses contain standard deviations) Satisfact ory Good Superior Mean 1. Ability to express reasons for studying psychology (1.0) 2. Ability to analyze continuity and change in reasons for studying psychology (1.0) 3. Ability to express educational and career goals (0.8) 4. Ability to analyze continuity and change in educational and career goals 5. Ability to express intellectual strengths and weaknesses (0.9)

29 6. Ability to express personal strengths and weaknesses (1.1) (1.1) 7. Ability to express interpersonal strengths and weaknesses 8. Ability to analyze continuity and change in strengths and weaknesses 9. Ability to express relations among faith, learning, and living 10. Quality of composition (grammar, mechanics, style, etc.) (1.0) (1.0) (1.3) (1.0)

30 Fall 2005 & 2006 Combined (N = 15) Note. Rating frequencies and means for each rubric element are given below (parentheses contain standard deviations) Satisfact ory Good Superior Mean 1. Ability to express reasons for studying psychology (0.8) 2. Ability to analyze continuity and change in reasons for studying psychology (0.8) 3. Ability to express educational and career goals (0.5) 4. Ability to analyze continuity and change in educational and career goals 5. Ability to express intellectual strengths and weaknesses (0.9) (1.1) 6. Ability to express personal strengths and weaknesses (0.9)

31 7. Ability to express interpersonal strengths and weaknesses 8. Ability to analyze continuity and change in strengths and weaknesses 9. Ability to express relations among faith, learning, and living 10. Quality of composition (grammar, mechanics, style, etc.) (1.0) (1.1) (0.8) (0.6)

32 Fall 2007 (N = 19) Note. Rating frequencies and means for each rubric element are given below (parentheses contain standard deviations) Satisfact ory Good Superior Mean 1. Ability to express reasons for studying psychology (1.0) 2. Ability to analyze continuity and change in reasons for studying psychology (0.9) 3. Ability to express educational and career goals ( Ability to analyze continuity and change in educational and career goals 5. Ability to express intellectual strengths and weaknesses (0.9) (1.0) 6. Ability to express personal strengths and weaknesses (0.8)

33 7. Ability to express interpersonal strengths and weaknesses 8. Ability to analyze continuity and change in strengths and weaknesses 9. Ability to express relations among faith, learning, and living 10. Quality of composition (grammar, mechanics, style, etc.) (0.9) (0.7) (1.2) (1.0) Fall 2008 (N = 10) Note. Rating frequencies and means for each rubric element are given below (parentheses contain standard deviations) Satisfact ory Good Superior Mean 1. Ability to express reasons for studying psychology (0.5)

34 2. Ability to analyze continuity and change in reasons for studying psychology (0.9) 3. Ability to express educational and career goals (1.1) 4. Ability to analyze continuity and change in educational and career goals 5. Ability to express intellectual strengths and weaknesses (0.9) (0.9) 6. Ability to express personal strengths and weaknesses (1.5) 7. Ability to express interpersonal strengths and weaknesses 8. Ability to analyze continuity and change in strengths and weaknesses 9. Ability to express relations among faith, learning, and living 10. Quality of composition (grammar, mechanics, style, etc.) (1.1) (1.2) (1.2) (1.0)

35 Fall 2009 The data collected for this measure was modified to measure only seven of the ten original elements based on the preferences of the instructors. Therefore these data are not being reported for this year. Student Learning Outcome #5 PSYC 480, Fall 2010 (N = 13) Psychology Major Students will evidence reflection upon their reasons for studying psychology, their short-and long-term educational and career goals, and their intellectual, personal, and interpersonal strengths and weaknesses. They will also evidence the ability to reflect back on their undergraduate careers and describe continuity and change in these areas as well as plans for the future. Students reflections on these areas will exhibit an understanding of relations among faith, learning, and living Satisfactory Good Superior Mean (SD) Percentage at/above Satisfactory

36 1. Ability to express reasons for studying psychology 3.8 (1.2) Ability to analyze continuity and change in reasons for studying psychology 3.3 (1.2) Ability to express educational and career goals 3.2 (1.0) Ability to analyze continuity and change in educational and career goals 2.8 (1.1) Ability to express intellectual strengths and weaknesses 3.0 (0.9) Ability to express personal strengths and weaknesses 3.0 (1.5) Ability to express interpersonal strengths and weaknesses 2.8 (1.1) Ability to analyze continuity and change in strengths and weaknesses 2.6 (1.2) Ability to express relations among faith, learning, and living 1.9 (0.6) 15.4

37 10. Quality of composition (grammar, mechanics, style) 3.2 (1.0) 76.9 Overall (Across Rubric Elements) 3.0 (1.2) 62.3 Fall 2011 (N = 11) Note. Rating frequencies and means for each rubric element are given below (parentheses contain standard deviations) Satisfact ory Good Superior Mean 1. Ability to express reasons for studying psychology (0.94) 2. Ability to analyze continuity and change in reasons for studying psychology (0.83) 3. Ability to express educational and career goals (0.79)

38 4. Ability to analyze continuity and change in educational and career goals 5. Ability to express intellectual strengths and weaknesses (0.63) (1.12) 6. Ability to express personal strengths and weaknesses (0.54) 7. Ability to express interpersonal strengths and weaknesses 8. Ability to analyze continuity and change in strengths and weaknesses 9. Ability to express relations among faith, learning, and living 10. Quality of composition (grammar, mechanics, style, etc.) (0.89) (0.60) (1.04) (0.60) Fall 2012 (N = 15) (see next page) Note. Rating frequencies and means for each rubric element are given below (parentheses contain standard deviations)

39 Satisfact ory Good Superior Mean 1. Ability to express reasons for studying psychology (0.92) 2. Ability to analyze continuity and change in reasons for studying psychology (1.0) 3. Ability to express educational and career goals (0.93) 4. Ability to analyze continuity and change in educational and career goals 5. Ability to express intellectual strengths and weaknesses (0.74) (1.13) 6. Ability to express personal strengths and weaknesses (0.91) 7. Ability to express interpersonal strengths and weaknesses (0.90) 8. Ability to analyze continuity and change in strengths

40 and weaknesses (0.82) 9. Ability to express relations among faith, learning, and living 10. Quality of composition (grammar, mechanics, style, etc.) (1.22) (0.80)