Florida Gulf Coast University Program Self-Study: BS in Criminal Forensic Studies, May 2011 Table of Contents. Introduction and Program Overview

Transcription

1 Florida Gulf Coast University Program Self-Study: BS in Criminal Forensic Studies, May 2011 Table of Contents Introduction and Program Overview The BS in Criminal Forensic Studies at Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) is interdisciplinary curriculum that blends the behavioral, social, and natural sciences with Constitutional Criminal Law. As Forensics is neither a discipline, nor a profession, the relationship of a discipline with the system of jurisprudence is stressed. FGCU is the 11 th University of the Florida State University System and the newest public University in the United States. The University, while only 13 years old, has an enrollment exceeding 12,000 students and a planned anticipated growth to 20,000 students. The University initial curricula followed the typical liberal arts majors and then expanded by student demand and availability of resources. The Criminal Forensics curriculum was not designed as a major but was initiated following the hiring of a Criminal Justice Professor with academic preparation and field experience as a Forensic Behavioral Analyst. The first course, Forensic Psychology was offered in a traditional classroom format in Spring semester, Due to the popularity of the course it was subsequently offered in Fall semester, 2000 as an online course and again in the traditional classroom format in Spring, In recognition of student interest and law enforcement agency demand, a four course Forensic curriculum was initiated, developed, and authorized by the Criminal Justice Advisory Council, University Undergraduate Curriculum Team, and the University Provost in Fall, The Forensics curriculum was implemented in Spring, 2001 as an authorized Track in the Justice Studies Division and a stand alone four course curriculum for practitioners. Following successful completion of the four courses, students and practitioners received a FGCU Certificate indicating successful completion of the course of study. Certificate Courses Forensic Psychology Introduction to Forensic Science Introduction to Criminalistics Advanced Forensic Psychology In , three Forensic special topics elective courses were added: Computer Forensics Forensic Anthropology Terrorism The initial plan for the academic year was to further develop the Forensics curriculum into a formal concentration in the Criminal Justice Major and a University Forensics Minor. However, the University Provost determined that he wanted a multidisciplinary Bachelor of Science in Criminal Forensic Studies. The initial interdisciplinary curriculum was developed with a core curriculum and four areas of concentrations; representing concentrations from four of the University Colleges. Following review by the Provost, the College of Business and the College of Arts and Sciences were removed from the collaboration. The subsequent curriculum included a core curriculum and concentrations from the College of Professional Studies and the College of Health Professions. The Clinical Laboratory Sciences Department of the College of Health Professions was subsequently transferred to the College of Arts and Sciences to form the new Department of Biotechnology. Consequently, the intended multidisciplinary curriculum was dismissed and the Forensic Curriculum was interfaced with the Criminal Justice Degree Program and recommended as a separate Bachelor of Science in Criminal Forensic Science within the College of Professional Studies. The new Bachelors of Science in Criminal Forensic Studies was approved by the FGCU Board of Trustees on January 22, 2004 and subsequently by the Florida State University System.

2 The Bachelors of Science in Criminal Forensic Studies was implemented in Fall semester, 2004 (see curriculum description below) with 91 majors. This overwhelming student response to the Bachelors of Science in Criminal Forensic Studies prompted the University President to direct the development of a Masters Degree in Criminal Forensic Studies to be developed during the academic year. The Masters Degree in Criminal Forensic Studies was approved by the FGCU Board of Trustees on January 17, 2006 and subsequently by the Florida State University System. The Masters Degree in Criminal Forensic Studies was implemented in Fall semester, Part 1: Program Overview 1A: Curriculum (Course Offerings): The Bachelors of Science in Criminal Forensic Studies was implemented in Fall semester, 2004 (see curriculum description below) with 91 majors. The initial program description was: The Bachelor of Science in Criminal Forensic Studies provides students with the skills requisite to the investigation of criminal offenses and the identification, apprehension, and prosecution of criminal offenders. This curriculum integrates the theoretical perspectives of different disciplines pertaining to deviant and criminal behavior with the practice of identification, procurement, and presentation of evidence resulting from criminal activity. This program builds upon a solid liberal arts core to achieve a balanced criminal justice perspective, which includes an emphasis upon the victim, the offender, the criminal justice system and society. Recognizing the multidisciplinary nature of Forensics, this curriculum blends crime scene analysis, laboratory analysis, behavioral analysis, and Constitutional Criminal Law. The program s objective is to develop a sound educational foundation for graduate work or professional practice at the bachelor s level. It is designed as a scholar/practitioner curriculum providing students with advanced levels of knowledge in criminal investigation, thus increasing the employment potential for the graduates of this degree. The initial program requirements were: TABLE 1A: COURSES in original BS in Criminal Forensic Studies Course # Course Name Catalog Description Notes* ANT 3520 Forensic Anthropology 3 credits Forensic Anthropology is an analysis of the human anatomy with specific attention to injuries and death pertaining to wrongful criminal conduct and the decomposition of the tissues and skeletal remains. The curriculum also delineates anatomy pursuant to age, gender, sex, race, and ethnicity. ANT 2511C Introduction to Physical Anthro. ANT 2511 is strongly recommended prior to taking this course. CCJ 3024 CJ Systems and Processes 3 credits Components of the criminal justice system, including police, courts, corrections, the juvenile justice system, and the relationship of the criminal justice system to broad political, economic, and social issues. CCJ 3603 Forensic Psychology 3 credits Pragmatic review of the psychological, physiological, and sociological theories and practices which seek to evaluate and analyze deviant human behavior and environments that precipitate criminal conduct. CCJ 3610 Theories of Criminal Behavior 3 credits Complex factors related to criminal behavior. Focus on understanding criminal and delinquent behavior from a multi- FS CJ FS CJ

3 disciplinary perspective (biological, psychological, social) with emphasis on past and present theories. CCJ 3670 Introduction to Criminalistics 3 credits CCJ 3701 CCJ 4487 Research Methods in Criminal Justice Ethics in the Criminal Justice System An introduction to the identification, collection, preservation, and presentation of physical evidence from crime scenes. 3 credits Methods of gathering, analyzing, and reporting social data, with a focus on the purpose and logic of scientific inquiry and quantitative research techniques in criminal justice. Includes qualitative research, data collection, experimental and nonexperimental designs, measurement procedures, sampling methods, and interpretation of research results. 3 credits Identification, analysis, and response to diverse ethical issues, unethical practices, and unprofessional conduct encountered in the criminal justice system. CCJ 4674 Advanced Forensic Psychology prerequisite courses. Clinical interpretation of behavior and laboratory science to interpret crime scenes and suggest offender psychological profiles. Prerequisites: CCJ 3603 CCJ 4934 Senior Seminar 3 credits Integrative experience through which students comprehensively analyze and assess significant theories, policies, and practices related to criminal justice. CCJ 4940 Internship 1 to 6 credits Placement with one or more of the agencies comprising the criminal justice system. A minimum of 3 credits is required. Students may elect to take 1-3 additional hours as an elective. CHS 3501C Introduction to Forensic Science 3 credits Lecture and laboratory applications of the specialty areas in criminalistics (criminal analysis) including organic and inorganic analysis, physical evidence, hair, fiber, toxicology, arson, explosives, ballistics, serology, fingerprinting and DNA. CHS 3505C Forensic Microscopy I 3 credits The study of the light and polarized light microscope and its use in the identification and comparison of trace evidence. Prerequisites: CHS 3501C CJE 4612 Interview and Interrogation 3 credits Interview and Interrogation is designed on the principle of kinesics and understanding various aspects of verbalizations. Students are exposed to the interview process in logical steps, each designed to understand deception and malingering, and mechanisms for counteracting. CJE 4641 Advanced Criminalistics 3 credits Advanced Forensics focuses on the death investigation which encompasses latent prints, taphonomy, blood pattern analysis, pathology, entomology, and human remains decomposition. Study also includes trauma associated with arson, blunt and sharp instruments, ballistics, poisoning, asphyxiation, and electrocution. Prerequisites: CCJ 3670 CJL 4064 Constitutional Criminal Law 3 credits CJ FS CJ CJ FS CJ CJ FS FS FS FS

4 Basic concepts of constitutional criminal law, including the historical basis of the American criminal law system. IDS 3920 University Colloquium 3 credits The University Colloquium brings together students from all five colleges in a series of interdisciplinary learning experiences. These experiences are designed to address the ecological perspective outcome in relations to other university outcomes and guiding principles. Critical thinking and communication skills will be enhanced through field trips, discussion, projects, and a journal to be maintained by each student. CCJ, CJE, CJJ, CJL Criminal Justice attributes (CRJE) 12 hours (four of these courses) required beginning in the catalog year: CCJ 3603 Forensic Psychology (3) CCJ 3653 Drugs, Alcohol and Crime (3) CCJ 3666 Victimology (3) CCJ 3670 Introduction to Criminalistics (3) CCJ 4035 Media and Crime (3) CCJ 4042 Issues in International Justice (3) CCJ 4454 Issues in CJ Administration (3) CCJ 4601 Human Behavior (3) CCJ 4674 Advanced Forensic Psychology (3) CCJ 4630 Comparative Justice (3) CCJ 4662 Minorities and Crime (3) CCJ 4663 Female Crime (3) CCJ 4681 Domestic Violence (3) CCJ 4910 Independent Research (3) CCJ 4933 Special Topics in CJ (3) CCJ 4940 Internship (1-3) CCJ 4957 CJ Study Tour Abroad (3) CJC 3410 Methods of Offender Treatment (3) CJC 4010 American Corrections (3) CJC 4015 Issues in Corrections (3) CJC 4166 Alternatives to Incarceration (3) CJE 3365 Crisis Intervention (3) CJE 4014 Issues in Law Enforcement CJE 4114 Law Enforcement (3) CJE 4444 Crime Prevention (3) CJJ 3501 Juvenile Delinquency (3) CJJ 4015 Juvenile Justice System (3) CJJ 4018 Issues in Juvenile Justice CJL 4064 Constitutional Criminal Law (3) CJL 4074 Legal Issues in Corrections (3) CJL 4415 Law and Social Control (3) PLA 4570 Globalization and the Rule of Law (3) U RE

5 *FS = Required core course in criminal forensic studies program; CJ = required core course in criminal justice program and criminal forensic studies program; U = University requirement; RE= Restricted electives (electives in the major field); no courses were offered less frequently than every two years. This initial program requirements included no common prerequisites. The Bachelors Degree in Criminal Forensic Studies experienced an unexpected hurdle related to the nature of the program. As FGCU is one of the eleven Florida State Universities, its programs are subject to statewide common prerequisites by major. Curriculum and prerequisites are approved by the State University System. As no other Florida University has a similar Forensics curriculum, FGCU s Bachelor of Science in Criminal Forensic Studies was assigned the same common prerequisites as Florida Universities with a Bachelor of Forensic Science degree (these are heavily laboratory-focused). Beginning with the 2009/10 catalog year, the following common prerequisites were added to the catalog: BSC 1010C General Biology w/lab I (4) CHM 1045C General Chemistry w/lab I (4) MAC 2311 Calculus I (4) PHY 2053C College Physics w/lab I (4) STA 2023 Statistical Methods (3) These common prerequisites for the Bachelor of Forensic Science degree included Calculus and Physics with laboratory. As the FGCU curriculum is Forensic Studies, not Forensic Science, the academic skill sets of Calculus and Physics with laboratory are not required. These added common prerequisites resulted in a slight reduction in the rate of new Criminal Forensic Studies Majors. In Fall semester, 2010, the common prerequisites were appealed and the Florida State University System concurred with the position of FGCU and the Calculus and Physics with laboratory prerequisites were dropped. In November of 2005, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act became law and Congress authorized "the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on forensic science". The study was financially supported by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Institute of Justice. The study included hundreds of hours of testimony from professionals from dozens of disciplines that practice in the system of jurisprudence, the judiciary, and criminal justice. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations were approved by the Board of the National Research Council and published as Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward by the National Academies Press in I have taken excerpts and created my version of an Executive Summary. The recommendations are under review and there will be implementation with Congressional oversight. 1. There is NO single set of standards for the Certification and Accreditation of Individuals, Agencies, Laboratories, and Academic Programs. One will be created and will also include disciplinary actions for individuals, agencies, laboratories, and academic institutions practicing forensics without requisite accreditation. 2. Forensic practice will include criminal law, civil applications, natural and human made disasters, and direct involvement with the US Department of Homeland Security. Accreditation and Certification will reflect these areas of application. 3. Collaboration of the disciplines, judiciary, and law enforcement is mandated at the local, state and federal level. 4. Significant increase in the academic preparation of new Forensic Practitioners with Proficiency Testing. Further, we can expect mandatory proficiency tests for existing practitioners and required CEUs. Resultant to these recommendations, it became imperative that we modify our curriculum to reflect these new requirements. There has been an additional shift in the paradigm since the adoption of the Bachelors of Science in Criminal Forensic Studies. In 2003, FGCU was the only academic program offering "CSI type" courses in SW Florida. Now these courses are readily available. A survey of local institutions demonstrated such with the coursework at the Associate level with 1000 & 2000 level courses. To explore the employment value of the laboratory courses, three local County Sheriff Departments were contacted to identify hiring practices and requirements for entry level CSI

6 positions. The academic requirements range from a GED to an Associate degree. While the FGCU Bachelor of Science graduates will qualify, the agencies are able to hire employees with lesser academic preparation at an obvious lower pay grade. Further, the national trend is to NOT make CSI employees Academy Certified Law Enforcement Officers. As our program has been directed toward highly qualified law enforcement professionals, FGCU determined to adjust the curricula to meet this shift in paradigm and point to national accreditation. The following programmatic changes went through division, college, and university review; changes will be implemented in the fall 2011: 1. Change the Title of the programs (both BS & MS) to "Forensic Studies" instead of Criminal Forensic Studies. This change reflects the requirements of the national study that programs must include civil law applications, natural and human made disasters, and the direct relationship with the US Department of Homeland Security. 2. Change CHS 3501C Introduction to Forensic Sciences to CCJ 1XXX or 2XXX - Introduction to Forensics. This course will be a lower level prerequisite to ALL of the other Forensics Courses. It will be a survey course, which introduces students to the multidisciplinary nature of forensics. Professionals from a dozen (+,-) different disciplines will deliver lectures on the role of their discipline in forensics; Forensic Anthropology, Forensics Odontology, Forensic Psychology, Forensic Social Work, Computer Forensics, Forensic Nursing, Forensic Accounting, Forensics Bio-Chemistry, Forensic Facial Reconstruction, etc. 3. Drop or retire CHS 3505C Forensic Microscopy. The Faculty were surveyed and there is minimal use of microscopes in the other courses. Further, Law Enforcement crime scene units indicate that entry level CSI positions only require a high school level knowledge of microscope use. 4. Change the name of CCJ 3670 Introduction to Criminalistics to Crime Scene Investigation. The SUS associates the word "criminalistics" with Forensic Science curricula. 5. Drop or retire CCJ 4650 Advanced Criminalistics. In its current form it is redundant activity with CCJ 3670 and, again, to meet the SUS expectations. 1B: Faculty Faculty teaching in the B.S. in Criminal Forensic Studies are primarily full-time faculty. Several of the core courses in the program are also core in the B.S. in Criminal Justice program. Table 2 (below) highlights the primarily disciplinary content each faculty member contributes to the program. Please see Appendix 1 for faculty vita. These faculty hold terminal degrees in their specific fields; all are actively involved in the discipline, in the community, and in the University. Most notable, faculty scholarly productivity crosses several thresholds; faculty write in policing (or even school bus driver) oriented publications, in books oriented toward the general public, and in traditional scholarly outlets. This mix of academic and trade or even general public access is vital to being a scholar who is relevant to the field; this "scholar-practitioner" model makes us somewhat unique. TABLE 2: FACULTY teaching primarily Criminal Forensic Studies courses Name Status (Full or Part-Time)/ Primary specialization Rank (if appropriate)

7 Ronald Curtis, Ph.D. Part-Time / Law Enforcement Adjunct Instructor Duane Dobbert, Ph.D. Full-Time / Forensic Psychologist Professor Barry Lipton, M.D. Full-Time / Forensic Odontologist Associate Professor Dave Thomas, Ph.D. Full-Time / Law Enforcement Assistant Professor Heather Walsh-Haney Full-Time / Forensic Anthropologist Assistant Professor 1C: Students/ Enrollment As illustrated in Table 3 (below), enrollments initially grew drastically in the first two years of implementation of the program, then flattened out and experienced a small decline. Many factors have contributed to this, including the difficulty of offering enough sections of some courses to meet student demand and the increased competition in the Crime Scene Investigation programs available locally at the associate's degree level. With the programmatic changes being implemented in the fall 2011, we anticipate an additional "growth spurt" for the program. TABLE 3: STUDENTS Academic Year Unduplicated Notes Headcount (fall term) 2004/ Initial year of degree program 2005/ / / / First year without substantial growth; class sizes are larger, labs are filled to capacity 20009/ Common prerequisites implemented 2010/ Common prerequisites revised 1D: Library resources, physical resources, staff support, and student support services The BS in Criminal Forensic Studies program has had sufficient resources for students and faculty. Our library carries the forensics-related databases (including a database with ebooks in the forensic sciences), we have dedicated classrooms for the use of microscopes and the analysis of human remains (Dr. Walsh-Haney has made arrangements to have a substantial collection of human remains housed at the University). While enrollment growth has made classroom space a bit tight in our dedicated spaces, we are pleased to have them. The forensics faculty share an executive secretary with the other programs in our division (criminal justice and legal studies), and the University has extensive student support systems. As we move into the College of Arts and Sciences in the fall 2012, it will be vital to continue providing these resources and prioritizing the unique needs of the forensics program. Part 2: Review of mission(s) and purpose(s) of the program (6C (3)(b)1, FAC) The Bachelor of Science in Criminal Forensic Studies degree program adheres to the following BOG priorities and FGCU Mission and Guiding Principles:

8 Board of Governors Strategic Plan The university is responsible for aligning its mission, vision, and strategic plan with the Board of Governors Strategic Plan. The BOG Strategic Plan provides the more general context for the university s work. The four goals of the plan are: Goal 1: Access to and production of degrees. Goal 2: Meeting statewide professional and workforce needs. Goal 3: Building world-class academic programs and research capacity. Goal 4: Meeting community needs and fulfilling unique institutional responsibilities. The complete BOG Strategic Plan is located at: The University mission, vision and guiding principles The university s mission, vision, guiding principles, and strategic plan is aligned with the wider goals of the Board of Governors. The FGCU mission, vision, and guiding principles state: Florida Gulf Coast University will achieve national prominence in undergraduate education with expanding recognition for graduate programs. (Approved Jan 19, 2010 by BOT) Vision Mission M1: Established on the verge of the 21 st century, Florida Gulf Coast University infuses the strengths of the traditional public university with innovation and learning-centered spirit, its chief aim being to fulfill the academic, cultural, social, and career expectations of its constituents. M2: Outstanding faculty uphold challenging academic standards and balance research, scholarly activities, and service expectations with their central responsibilities of teaching and mentoring. Working together, faculty and staff of the University transform students lives and the southwest Florida region. M3: Florida Gulf Coast University continuously pursues academic excellence, practices and promotes environmental sustainability, embraces diversity, nurtures community partnerships, values public service, encourages civic responsibility, cultivates habits of lifelong learning, and keeps the advancement of knowledge and pursuit of truth as noble ideals at the heart of the university s purpose. (Approved Jan 19, 2010 by BOT) P1: Student success is at the center of all University endeavors. FGCU Guiding Principles P2: Academic freedom is the foundation for the transmission and advancement of knowledge. P3: Diversity is a source of renewal and vitality.

9 P4: Informed and engaged citizens are essential to the creation of a civil and sustainable society. P5: Service to Southwest Florida, including access to the University, is a public trust. P6: Technology is a fundamental tool in achieving educational quality, efficiency, and distribution. P7: Connected knowing and collaborative learning are basic to being well educated. P8: Assessment of all functions is necessary for improvement and continual renewal. 2A: PROGRAM MISSION AND PURPOSE The original program purpose and mission are discussed above. The revised program description is as follows: The Bachelors or Science (BS) in Forensic Studies is a contemporary multidisciplinary curriculum that blends the social, behavioral, and natural sciences with the United States System of Jurisprudence. The curriculum also reflects the findings of the Congressional Hearings required of the Science, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006 and accordingly expands the definition of Forensics to include criminal and civil law, manmade and natural disasters, and the direct relationship with Homeland Security. It provides students with the skills requisite to the investigation of criminal offenses, and the identification, apprehension, and prosecution of criminal offenders. It also provides students with knowledge pertaining to forensic applications in civil cases, child abuse and neglect, and domestic violence. This curriculum integrates the multidisciplinary theoretical perspectives with research in the examination, identification, and application of alternative solutions to social problems. This program builds upon a solid liberal arts core to achieve a balanced justice perspective, which includes an emphasis upon the victim, the offender, the system of jurisprudence, and society. Part 3: List of teaching, research, service, and other program goals and objectives (6C (3)(b)2, FAC) Faculty in the division have recently revised their strategic plan to include the curricular changes that are forthcoming. The strategic plan for implementation and assessment of revised program (BS in Forensic Studies) is as follows: Program Strategic Plan: Implementation and assessment of revised BS in Forensic Studies program(effective fall 2011) Program: BS in Criminal Forensic Studies Revised: BS in Forensic Studies: November 30, 2010 by CJ/Forensic Leadership Team (Interim Chair, MaryAnn Zager; Duane L. Dobbert, Professor, Forensic Studies

10 PROGRAM GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND MEASURES Program Goal #1 Assessment of Student Learning Objective Complete Seven Year Program Review process Measure #1 Under the Guidance of the Office of Planning and Institutional Performance, select an extern al reviewer. Measure #2 Complete the self-study in spring 2011 Measure #3 Attain, and review, the External Review and prepare a response Measure #4 Following meetings with the Dean and Provost, develop a plan for meeting the concerns of the External Reviewer and ongoing program assessment. Objective Complete annual program assessment in order to improves student learning in the program (build upon previous analysis of critical thinking in research methods course to include additional assessments as per IPM) Measure #1 Gather direct and indirect assessment materials every year in spring semester. Quantitative Assessment will include 10% of the final examination in the core courses and qualitative through submissions in Senior Seminar. Measure #2 Following analysis if the qualitative and quantitative measure in Measure #1, core courses will be revised to reflect these findings. Measure #3 Review and revise Academic Learning Compacts. Measure #4 Review and update Integrated Program Matrices reflecting modifications in the core courses and subsequent evaluation of said modifications and closing the loop, thus annually demonstrating improvement in student outcomes in meeting the academic skill sets. Program Goal #2 Allocation of Faculty and Staff Objective Ascertain the number of fulltime and adjunct faculty to meet the scholarly and instructional requirements of the core courses and electives. Measurement #1 Evaluate the requisite disciplines necessary to meet the breadth of esoteric core and elective courses. Measurement #2 Based upon the assessment in Measure #1, request and hire sufficient full time and adjunct faculty to meet the student demand. Objective Hire sufficient full-time and part-time support staff to meet the demands of program.

11 Measurement #1 Review the number of individuals supported by administrative staff. Measurement #2 Compile a list of equipment supported by administrative staff Measurement #3 Based upon data, determine and request sufficient fulltime and part time laboratory support personnel and administrative staff. Program Goal #3 Faculty Service and Scholarship Objective Faculty are active scholars in their field Measurement #1 Through the annual review process, guide and track Faculty Scholarship on an annual basis. Measurement #2 Through the annual review process, guide and track Faculty participation in Independent Study and Research with students and colleagues. Objective Faculty are active in service to the community, the profession, and the university Measurement #1 Through the annual review process, guide and track Faculty participation in service activities Measurement #2 Review service activities to ensure that 75% or more of the faculty service is related to the University, College, and Program goals. Program Goal #4 Teaching and Curriculum Objective Review and update curriculum to meet contemporary issues 3D: SLOS Measurement #1 Ascertain the frequency of core and elective course offerings to meet student graduation requirements and demand. Measurement #2 Review current course offerings to ascertain relevance to contemporary issues. Measurement #3 Develop new courses to meet changes in the forensic disciplines. The Integrated Program Matrix (IPM) has also been revised. The IPM for the assessment of student learning in the revised program (BS in Forensic Studies) is as follows: Bachelor of Science in Forensic Studies Integrated Program Matrix (updated in FS faculty meeting March 28, 2011) FGCU Undergraduate Student Learning Goals College of Professional Studies Core Competencies Program Student Learning Outcomes Bachelor of Science in Forensic Studies Assessment Criteria and Measures Bachelor of Science in Forensic Studies

12 FGCU Undergraduate Student Learning Goals Aesthetic Sensibility: know, understand, analyze, and evaluate the variety of aesthetic frameworks and principles at work; collaborate in projects involving aesthetic awareness/analysis. Culturally Diverse Perspective: know and understand diversity in local/global communities; analyze and evaluate the impact of cultural differences; and participate in projects involving interaction with diverse people, ideas and values. Ecological Perspective: know issues of ecological/economic sustainability; analyze and evaluate local & global ecological issues; participate in ecological/ environmental projects Effective Communication: know principles for effective communication; organize thoughts and compose ideas; and participate in collaborative communication projects. Ethical Responsibility: know and understand ethical issues; analyze and evaluate ethical issues in a variety of contexts; and participate in collaborative projects involving ethical analysis and/or discussions. Information Literacy: identify and locate sources of information; analyze and evaluate information in a variety of contexts; and participate in collaborative analysis/application of information. Problem-Solving Abilities: Understand multi/interdisciplinary nature of knowledge; apply critical, analytical, creative and systems thinking; and work individually and collaboratively to recognize and solve problems. Technological Literacy: Develop knowledge of modern technology; process information through use of technology; and collaborate with others using technology tools. Community Awareness and Involvement: Know and understand relationships between individuals and their communities; analyze, evaluate and assess human needs and practices; and participate collaboratively in community service projects. College of Professional Studies Core Competencies All programs in the College of Professional Studies link students learning experiences to the needs of communities and their members. These programs are all designed to meet the College goals: Prepare students to respond in innovative ways to the evolving social, political, economic, and natural environments in which policy-making and service delivery are carried out. Cultivate an ethic of public integrity and civic engagement in professional, political, and community activities. Develop an understanding of the multi-cultural and increasingly global contexts within which public problems emerge, as well as an ability to formulate interdisciplinary strategies for their identification and resolution. Cultivate the knowledge, skills, and personal attributes required for life-long growth and development. Integrate multiple, state-of-the-art technologies into the learning environment and develop students abilities to use technology creatively in their work. Develop comprehensive field-based experiences linked to individual and community development. Program Student Learning Outcomes Bachelor of Science in Forensic Studies a. Enumerate, explain, and discuss the multidisciplinary nature of Forensics. b. Articulate the relationship of crime scene investigation, behavioral analysis of crime, and Constitutional Criminal Law. Discuss the role of culture in the context of criminal behavior and suggest methodologies for enhanced cultural awareness as it pertains to human behavior through time and across the globe. c. Demonstrate the collection and preservation of physical evidence and the chain of custody. Articulate the relationship of environmental criminal conduct to ecological sustainability. d. Discuss the application of forensic disciplines to civil law, humanmade and natural disasters, and homeland security. e. Infer behavioral motivation from crime scene evidence, victimology, and human trauma analysis in one or more of these ways: - Recognize the behavioral manifestations of mental illness and personality disorders -Suggest precursor behaviors from behavioral patterns. -Predict future behavior based upon current behavioral manifestations. -Delineate probable suspect groups f. Correlate Constitutional Due Process guarantees with suspect interview and interrogation. Assessment Criteria and Measures Bachelor of Science in Forensic Studies Assignments within core courses assessed using written assignments, classroom/laboratory/ field exercises (through rubrics developed for the specific assignment) and exams. Core courses will assess student acquisition of knowledge through specific items on examinations and written assignments and field project (through rubrics developed for the specific assignment). Instructors of core courses collaborate on assignments that evaluate this criterion. Instructor of Crime Scene Investigation course will assess acquisition of this outcome through specific questions on examinations that have been developed by faculty as a team; notebook with documented lab outcomes will be assessed by more than one faculty member (through rubrics developed for the specific assignment). Core courses will assess student acquisition of knowledge through specific items on examinations and written assignments and field project (through rubrics developed for the specific assignment). Instructors of core courses collaborate on assignments that evaluate this criterion. Instructors of forensic psychology courses will collaboratively develop assignments to meet this goal and maintain records of successful completion of these skills (as a subset of an exam or a final project). Instructor of Interview & Interrogations CJE 4612 and at least one other faculty member will keep records of successful completion of these skills (as a subset of an exam). Critical thinking skills are captured through program student learning outcomes b, d, & f. Communication skills are captured through program student learning outcomes a, b, e, & g. Assessment of student learning (6C (3)(b)3b, FAC) g. Demonstrate the knowledge requisite to presenting evidence in court in a logical, professional manner. Part 4: Instructor of Constitutional Criminal Law CJL 4064 will keep records of successful completion of these skills as assessed by more than one faculty member (through rubrics developed for the specific assignment). In the spring of 2005, the University released its strategic plan. Under Goal 2: The student community, this plan called for increased enrollment:

13 1.1.a: Student headcount for should reach 7400 (from 6151 currently) and generate 3951 full-time equivalent students (current est for 04-05) (subject to full funding from the state). Benchmarks for 07-08, headcount 10,169 and FTE 4,999 and 09-10, 12,925 headcount and 6,135 FTE. (2005, p. 21). This plan for increased enrollment heavily influenced the plan for assessment of student learning in the BS in Criminal Forensic Studies program. Program Assessment for the BS in Criminal Forensic Studies The program uses a variety of means to assess outcomes and foster improvement and program efficacy, including embedded course assessments; formal and informal student assessment of courses; and state employment and continuing education data. For the academic years 2005/06 through 2009/10, student learning was assessed directly through embedded assessment in the required research methods course (this course is also a core course in the Criminal Justice Program, so this was a focus of assessment for the division). The longitudinal time-series design was chosen to monitor student learning of difficult core material over a period when the University was expected to feel the "growing pains" of transitioning from small to larger classes. Because faculty anticipated challenges to incorporating alternative pedagogy into on campus classrooms and online, maintaining a consistent level of student mastery of core student learning outcomes related to critical thinking and communication skills was the primary goal of this phase of assessment of student learning. Selecting core student learning outcomes and the appropriate assessment strategy were central to the longitudinal assessment plan. Direct & Indirect Assessment of Student Learning: Critical Thinking The student learning outcomes most central to successfully completing the curriculum were identified as the target outcomes for the assessment of student learning. During the last several assessment cycles (2005/ /10), the program focused its efforts on critical thinking from the Integrated Program Matrix. The learning outcomes are central to being a successful criminal justice system practitioner, but not generally what incoming students expect to learn. Criminal Forensic Studies students generally expect to learn about the criminal justice system. However, faculty and potential employers see the value in less obvious student learning outcomes that emphasize the link between theory and practice and the integration of technology in to curriculum (McBride, 1994). The original BS in Criminal Forensic Studies Integrated Program Matrix (IPM) was highly focused on critical thinking in the discipline. In conjunction with the BS in Criminal Justice program, student assessment focused on students' critical thinking skills as enrollment grew. Direct Assessment of Student Learning: Embedded Assessment in a core research methods course The longitudinal analysis of student learning of the critical outcomes identified above was embedded in the required research methods course(s) in the program CCJ This course was chosen as the focus of the assessment strategy because it had been identified as a course with a high D/W/F rate among majors with the potential to significantly affect their chances to ultimately complete the program. This longitudinal assessment design facilitated faculty discussion and development of alternative pedagogy as class sizes grew to meet increased student enrollment. Assessment of student learning was focused on both delivery of course materials and assessment tools and strategies. The program assessed learning outcomes using essay questions and problems on examinations, student feedback during and after the term, and objective quizzes/exams embedded in CCJ 3701 Research Methods in Criminal Justice (which later became CCJ 3700 Criminal Justice Research Methods as part of the curricular change that resulted from the assessment process). Course descriptions for the initial course and subsequent courses are included in Appendix 2. The course content is essentially a toolkit to address any question related to the criminal justice system. As such, the variety of concepts covered in the course is not limited to one core area of the broad subject matter addressed in the program. Specifically, this course addressed both o the connection between theory and practice using active learning tools and o technological tools for criminal justice researchers and practitioners. As students were required to plan study protocols to test theory and/or apply theory to programs prior to testing program efficacy, this course required students to address critical thinking related to the application of theoretical perspectives to criminal justice practice, a core learning outcome that is reflected in the program description and in the learning outcome of critical

14 thinking. As students were required to plan research studies utilizing the most appropriate methodologies, this course required students to be aware of and incorporate technological tools (such as online survey administration and electronic data files available for public use) into their research plans. This course had the most literal translation from campus to virtual offerings. As illustrated by the campus and virtual syllabi included in Appendix 3, the only difference in course assignments was that campus students engaged in activities in class while virtual students engaged in online discussion via web boards for a small portion (15%) of the course grade. As strategies for course content delivery and assessment changed for campus students, they also changed for virtual students, maintaining the synergy between campus and virtual delivery of the course and the assessments. It is important o note that not all courses in the BS in Criminal Forensic Studies were available via distance learning modalities; however, many of the courses were available online, so the comparison is important. This course is a junior level course. As such, it addresses students skill levels as they enter their major. Future assessment plans (to be implemented in the 2011/12 academic year) include additional courses in the major, some of which are senior level courses. Allan McBride, who taught research methods for more than a decade before publishing his perspective on the course, summed up the reasons that a research methods course was appropriate to use as the central location for this longitudinal assessment of student learning: Undergraduate and graduate-level courses in social science research methods are widely avoided and maligned by students while faculty members who are required, or who choose, to teach these courses often suffer from poor student evaluations. The reasons for this situation are related to the nature of the material, which leaves little opportunity for students to apply the knowledge they have gained in other courses in their major; at least students believe this to be the case. Additionally, students are required to master the language of scientific methods, with specific and technical definitions; to understand scientific and experimental notation; and to comprehend the difficult area of probability theory and its relation to sampling, all matters for which students see little or no purpose. Yet faculty recognize that students who are to be well-informed citizens, or to attend graduate school, or to seek professional employment upon graduation need to master some of these skills to contribute successfully to their communities and to their professional lives (1994, p. 533). A criterion for student success is that each student will be able to (at minimum) identify and address the primary objective of the problem; this corresponds to milestone 2 on the AAC&U critical thinking value rubric (the rubric is included as Appendix 4). From the spring 2005 term through the fall 2010 term, both the assessment tool and the curriculum underwent revision based on assessment results. Results of the direct assessment are discussed below; actual scores on these assessments are included as Appendix 5. Initial Direct Assessment Instrument, Administration, and Targets In the first version of the assessment tool Meets Expectations for the student learning outcome of critical thinking is identified by scoring at least 16.0 of 25 possible points on the exam (see Appendix 6 for an example exam). This assessment tool was in place from the spring 2005 through fall The first embedded assessment tool used (when the assessment process began in the spring 2005 term) was the final examination in CCJ This exam was required to complete the course; all students took this with a proctor. Most took it in the classroom setting, distance students took it with a pre-approved proctor, and some students took it in the Office of Adaptive Services (usually with an extended time accommodation). Student learning outcomes were addressed with three essay questions on planning and/or critiquing research methodology that fit an identified research topic in criminal justice and three problems where students received variable descriptions and interpreted statistical analysis of those variables. For the essay portion, students were given a hypothetical research problem and questions related to that problem (both theoretical and applied research questions are used in each exam) with specific parameters including one or more of the following: qualitative research, quantitative research, sampling techniques, budgetary constraints, time constraints, survey item critique, index/scale construction, and/or evaluation research. Students then described the most appropriate methodology to solve the research problem, used appropriate methodological terminology in the description, and defended their choices. This required students to 1) apply learned methodological terms to a new example, 2) focus the theoretical problem to a specific, concrete research question, 3) identify components of the theoretical perspective that must be measured to test the theory, 4)create a measure that addresses all core components of a theoretical construct, 5) create a process through which the theoretical perspective is practiced (program design), and/or 6) identify the process for evaluating the effectiveness of that program. Essay Questions

15 Essay questions were scored numerically (scores ranged from 0 to 4): 4.0 (100%, excellent) Student identified the primary objective and at least one secondary objective of the problem and addressed those with appropriate methodological terminology and without error. 3.5 (87.5%, very good) Student identified and addressed the primary objective (but did not address secondary objectives); student used appropriate methodological terminology with minor error. 3.0 (75%, fairly clear) Student identified and addressed the primary objective (but did not address secondary objectives); student used appropriate methodological terminology with more than one minor error or one serious error. 2.5 (62.5%, problematic) Student identified and addressed the primary objective or at least one secondary objective but made at least one serious error. 2.0 (50%, off base) Student did not identified and address the primary or secondary objectives; student did attempt to address a research problem, just not the problem that was presented in the question. 1.0 (25%, inadequate) Student response did not address any research problem. Statistical Analysis Problems For the statistical analysis problems, Students are provided with a codebook for data they have not seen in class (new example of learned concepts). Questions on the exam asked students to examine statistical output and 1) determine if the statistical analysis provided is appropriate for the variables used 2) if so, interpret the statistical analysis Data Analysis problems were scored numerically (scores ranged from 0 to 4): 4.0 (100%, excellent) Student identified whether analysis provided was correct, level of measurement of variables, independent and dependent variables (where applicable) and interpreted the test(s) completely without error. 3.5 (87.5%, very good) Student identified whether analysis provided was correct, level of measurement of variables, independent and dependent variables (where applicable). Interpretation was limited to statistical significance. 3.0 (75%, fairly clear) Student identified whether analysis provided was correct, level of measurement of variables, independent and dependent variables (where applicable). Interpretation was incorrect. 2.5 (62.5%, problematic) Student provided a correct interpretation of the incorrect statistic (incorrect tables/tests chosen). 2.0 (50%, off base) Student misidentified whether analysis provided was correct, level of measurement of variables, independent and dependent variables (where applicable), but did attempt to interpret. 1.0 (25%, inadequate) Student wrote a general statement about the variables without identifying whether analysis provided was correct, level of measurement of variables, independent and dependent variables, and interpretation of statistical test. Initial Direct Assessment Target: The target for this version of the assessment was that each student average at least milestone 2 on the AAC&U critical thinking value rubric, indicated by scoring at least 16.0 of 25 possible points on the final exam. Group Target: 75% of the students will achieve the target indicated by at least 16.0 of 25 possible points on the final exam. Initial Direct Assessment Results: Program goal 75% of students meet criterion met spring 2005 spring Spring 2005: 23 of 28 students who took the exam (82%) met the criterion. Summer 2005: 21 of 25 (84%) students who took the exam met the criterion. Fall 2005: 21 of 28 (75%) students who took the exam met the criterion. Spring 2006: 19 of 25 (76%) students who took the exam met the criterion. Decline in student success in fall Fall 2006: 26 of 36 (72%) on campus and 8 of 14 (57%) virtual students who took the exam met the criterion (under target).

16 Program goal 75% of students meet criterion met spring 2007 spring Spring 2007: 24 of 30 on campus (80%) and 6 of 7 (86%) virtual students who took the exam met the criterion. Summer 2007: 22 of 29 (76%) on campus and 6 of 7 (86%) virtual students who took the exam met the criterion. Fall 2007: 29 of 32 (91%) on campus and 7 of 7 (100%) virtual students who took the exam met the criterion. Spring 2008: 29 of 33 (88%) on campus and 4 of 5 (80%) virtual students met the criterion. Baseline data from the first year (spring 2005 through spring 2006) indicate that the program goal of having at least 75% of student meet the criterion for the exam, corresponding to a basic level of critical thinking (level 2 on the AAC & U scale ranging from 1 to 4), was realistic using the current curriculum and course sizes of 25 to 30. In the fall 2006 term, the total number of students participating in class assignments by the time the exam was administered increased to 50 (campus and distance combined). Because there was no curricular change for this period, this indicated that the current curriculum was not as successful with larger classes as with the previous semesters' smaller classes. Indirect measures of student learning supported this finding (see discussion below). Beginning in the spring 2007 term, class sizes were lowered to a maximum of 40 (both campus and virtual sections). This brought student learning back to the target goal. However, the total of 40 students per section would not be sufficient to address program needs as the student body grew. Indirect assessments (below) showed other indicators of the need for curricular change. Second Version of Direct Assessment Instrument, Administration, and Targets In the spring 2008 term, the assessment was broken into three components: the first of the three exams was used as the direct assessment of student learning of critical thinking. Appendix 6 has an example exam from this assessment strategy. Second Direct Assessment Target: The target for this version of the assessment was that each student average at least milestone 2 on the AAC&U critical thinking value rubric, indicated by at least 6.5 of 10 possible points on the first examination. Group Target: 75% of the students will achieve the target indicated by at least 6.5 of 10 possible points on the first examination. Second Direct Assessment Results: Program goal 75% of students meet criterion met spring Spring 2008: 29 of 33 (88%) on campus and 4 of 5 (80%) virtual students met the criterion. The strategy of separating the assessment into three separate assessments did result in maintaining the criterion for success. Indirect assessment (discussed below) and the upcoming need for full sections of the course online and on campus influenced further curricular revision. Third Version of Direct Assessment Instrument, Administration, and Targets Third Direct Assessment Target: The target for this version of the assessment was that each student average at least milestone 2 on the AAC&U critical thinking value rubric, indicated by a score of 65% or higher on the first objective exam. Group Target: 75% of the students will achieve the target indicated by at least 65% on the first examination. Third Direct Assessment Results: Program goal 75% of students meet criterion met fall 2008; first full section of virtual students in spring 2009; target met in both campus and virtual sections. Fall 2008: 24 of 32 (75%) on campus and 12 of 15 (80%) virtual students met the criterion. Spring 2009: 25 of 28 (89%) on campus and 26 of 32 (81%) virtual students met the criterion.

17 Comparison of campus and virtual students: Two full sections of CCJ 3701 (11041 on campus, virtual) were administered the same examination. Objective questions on the exam covered identification and application of critical concepts related to critical thinking (example items from the objective exam are included in Appendix 7). The research paper covered identification and application of critical concepts related to program student learning goal c from the program IPM (in future terms, this goal will be assessed in CCJ 3701 Data Analysis in Criminal Justice). The independent samples t-test (equal variances not assumed) indicated no statistically significant difference in mean scores on exam one for the virtual students as compared to the on campus students (t=0.814; df = ; p < 0.419). The mean score on exam #1 for crn (campus section) was 77.7; the mean score on exam #1 for crn (virtual section) was Additional analysis of virtual and campus students indicated that the mean score on the data analysis project (final submission of the completed research paper) was not different for campus and virtual students. The mean score for campus students in crn was 71.0; the mean score for virtual students in crn was Independent samples t-test (equal variances assumed) indicated no statistically significant difference in mean scores for these two groups (t=1.738; df = 58; p < 0.088). The objective test, coupled with the research paper, indicated that students in both the on campus and the virtual sections of CCJ 3701 Research Methods in Criminal Justice met the established criteria for the student learning goals b & c, as well as critical thinking and communication skills. This set the stage for continuing the use of objective assessments of student learning as the curriculum was divided into two required courses (one covering research methodology, the other covering data analysis) in the fall 2009 term. Fourth Version of Direct Assessment Instrument, Administration, and Targets Fourth Direct Assessment Target: The target for this version of the assessment was that each student average at least milestone 2 on the AAC&U critical thinking value rubric, indicated by a score of 65% or higher on the first objective exam in the new course, CCJ 3700 Methods of Criminal Justice Research. Group Target: 75% of the students will achieve the target indicated by at least 65% on the first examination. Fourth Direct Assessment Results: Program goal 75% of students meet criterion met fall 2009 and spring New assessment tool first exam in CCJ 3700 with objective questions. The 55 item exam demonstrated internal consistency (Cronbach s alpha = 0.859) and comparable success rates to the previous tool. Fall 2009: 44 of 44 (100%) on campus and 9 of 10 (90%) virtual students met the criterion. Spring 2010: 25 of 28 (89%) on campus and 26 of 32 (81%) virtual students met the criterion. The objective assessment tools indicate successful student learning of objective b and critical thinking. This result persisted across larger class sizes (over 50 students each term) and among campus and distance learners. Summary of Direct Assessment Results Level longitudinal trends in student achievement of milestone 2 level criterion persisted across moderately increased class sizes, changes in assessment tools, and division of program content. The program faculty have demonstrated that they can be effective in facilitating student learning in larger class sizes, even in the most difficult courses, for both on campus and distance learners. Indirect Assessment of Student Learning: Student Feedback through Formal (Student Assessment of Instruction) and Informal (Feedback requested by Professor) Venues Initial Indirect Assessment Instrument, Administration, and Targets Student feedback (in combination with the results of the direct assessments) prompted the faculty to explore the curricular revision that was ultimately implemented in the fall 2009 term, with two required courses (one in research methodology, one in data analysis) replacing the single core course covering booth topics. This indirect assessment of student learning of core

18 competencies in CCJ 3701 was gleaned from written comments on the Student Assessment of Instruction (SAI) tool that is administered to every fall and spring class (and some summer classes, depending on term and whether the instructor specifically requested the SAI be administered) at FGCU near the end of the term. In addition to the traditional questions about learning in the classroom such as whether the instructor made the material interesting, whether the instructor showed respect for students, whether the instructor was on time for class, and student's overall assessment of the instructor, students are given an opportunity to add comments on any component of the course in an open ended comments section. These comments are summarized here, with exemplars. Initial Indirect Assessment Results: Spring 2005: To illustrate the difference between "general comments regarding the course and/or the professor" and "constructive suggestions for course improvement", all student comments are included for this term. For later terms, only comments with constructive suggestions for course improvement are included. Seven students wrote comments; two provided constructive feedback in terms of improving students learning (Wish the processes of the actual software and data analysis would have been introduced sooner; I thought that she was very good, but I wish that she got back to us sooner on the assignments.); two were generally negative re: the course and instructor (The instructor talks like we should know what is going on just because she is knowledgeable in the area; pointless), two were generally positive toward the course and the instructor (This is one out of two classes that I have taken at FGCU that has both stimulated my mind and that did not consist of redundant information. Furthermore, the course was not as difficult as my peers make it seem. Excellent class and professor.; While I believe this is the hardest course I've taken, I am happy with the time Dr. X has taken to help me understand and clarify issues. I have actually enjoyed the course more than I originally thought I would. Thanks) ; and one was generally positive toward the professor but not the class (Great professor, difficult class. Even though I didn't totally enjoy the class, I really enjoyed having Dr. X as a professor.). Thus, student suggestions for improving student learning in this course included: more immediate feedback on assignments and moving the timeline for the second portion of the course forward. Summer 2005: Five general comments were written about the instructor and/or course; three were generally positive, two were generally negative. No constructive comments for improving student learning in future terms. Fall 2005: Six written comments were provided. Four were generally positive, two focused on critiquing course content, three provided constructive feedback: one suggested partnering people up for the project or having group conference calls to discuss any problems or road blocks; two persons suggested breaking the course into two separate courses due to the large amount of material covered. Spring 2006: Seven written comments were provided. Six were generally positive, one was generally negative, one provided constructive feedback: questions on the assignments were sometimes difficult to understand and more help needed on bivariate analysis. Fall 2006: Eight written comments were provided. Seven were generally positive, one was generally negative but also critiqued course content (too much material, easy to get lost, should not be taught online), one provided constructive feedback: lecture notes to campus students prior to the day of class. Spring 2007: Eight written comments were provided. Five were generally positive, two were generally negative, two provided constructive feedback: data analysis section of class seemed to be a completely new subject toward the end of the semester and that material was very difficult; should have a copy of the SPSS software on reserve in the library; lecture notes to campus students prior to the day of class. Based on these written comments received through the formal assessment of instruction and informal discussions with students, the faculty began exploring the possibility of separating this course into a series of two courses. over the 2007/08 year, faculty discussed the possibility in faculty meetings, and in the fall 2008 the formal process of curricular revision began. Changes in curriculum were implemented in the fall 2009 term. To further assess student's perception of their learning after the curriculum was divided in to two courses, all students in CCJ 3700 were given the opportunity to replace one of the five required assignments with a sixth "make-up" assignment. That assignment was to provide the instructor with one concrete suggestion that they believed would improve future students' learning in the course. These comments are included in full in Appendix G. Although students were directed to provide suggestions for improvement (and instructions were revised to emphasize this for the

19 fall 2010 term), some students gave more general impressions of what did and did not work for them (for example, class was very difficult online and should be taught on campus) without specific suggestions for remedying identified issues. Many students who did make suggestions for improvement focused on three themes: making the written assignment instructions clearer, issues with applied questions on exams and/or quizzes (evidenced by saying they could not find the answer in the book), or general issues with the group project. Notably, very few students indicated that there was too much material covered in the course. Summary of Indirect Assessment (Student Feedback) Results Initial feedback from students indicated that there was too much material in the single combined course for students to learn the material effectively in one semester. Virtual students were particularly distressed with course requirements. These comments persisted despite generally favorable comments toward the instructor, and course structure. Student feedback prompted the faculty to explore the curricular revision that was ultimately implemented in the fall 2009 term, with two required courses (one in research methodology, one in data analysis) replacing the single core course covering booth topics. After the curricular revision, in the new research methodology course (CCJ 3700), student feedback did not indicate that there was too much material in the course for a one semester, three credit hour course. Comments focused on course assessment tools, explanation of course content, etc.. These issues will be addressed in future cycles of assessment of student learning. Indirect Assessment of Student Success: Progress in Program A program goal is program completion. As discussed above, the course where direct assessment is embedded (CCJ 3701) is commonly seen as a difficult class. Prior to the initial assessments, the Center for Academic Achievement (CAA) identified this course as one with an above average rate of D/F/W (Withdrawal, or grades of D or F) than most courses at the University. An indirect assessment of student progress, timely completion of program requirements, is measured by monitoring D/F/W rates to identify students having difficulty completing the course. Initial D/F/W rates - baseline Spring 2005: D/F/W grades assigned to 8 of 29 (28%) on campus and 3 of 9 (33%) virtual students. Summer 2005: D/F/W grades assigned to 12 of 29 (41%) on campus and 1 of 4 (25%) virtual students. Fall 2005: D/F/W grades assigned to 10 of 30 (33%) on campus and 5 of 9 (56%) virtual students. Spring 2006: D/F/W grades assigned to 10 of 31 (32%) on campus and 4 of 9 (44%) virtual students. Noticeable decline in student success (especially for the few virtual students) in terms of high rate of D/F/W (grades of D or F or withdrawal) curricular change implemented in fall Fall 2006: D/F/W grades assigned to 3 of 24 (13%) on campus and 8 of 17 (47%) of virtual students. Spring 2007: D/F/W grades assigned to 8 of 32 (25%) on campus students and 9 of 12 (75%) of virtual students. Summer 2007: D/F/W grades assigned to 5 of 29 (17%) on campus students and 4 of 9 (44%) of virtual students. Fall 2007: D/F/W grades assigned to 3 of 35 (9%) on campus students and 3 of 10 (30%) of virtual students. Spring 2008: D/F/W grades assigned to 6 of 36 (17%) and 5 of 9 (55%) of virtual students. Noticeable improvement in student success (especially for the few virtual students) in terms of high rate of D/F/W (grades of D or F or withdrawal). Fall 2008: D/F/W grades assigned to 7 of 34 (21%) on campus and 1 of 15 (7%) of virtual students. Spring 2009: D/F/W grades assigned to 2 of 30 (7%) on campus and 6 of 31 (19%) of virtual students Fall 2009: D/F/W grades assigned to 3 of 44 (7%) of on campus and 0 of 10 (0%) of virtual students Spring 2010: D/F/W grades assigned to 2 of 30 (7%) on campus and 6 of 31 (19%) of virtual students Baseline D/F/W rates hover near 30% for the first semesters of the assessment process. Beginning in fall 2005 and continuing through spring 2008, the D/F/W rate for virtual student is noticeably higher than the rate for campus students, and is well above the 30% threshold (as illustrated in the chart below). Curricular changes implemented after spring 2008 resulted in a

20 noticeable reduction in D/F/W rates for virtual students and campus students, with overall rates hovering near 20%. This indirect measure of student learning - whether they remain actively engaged in the course and are ultimately successful in completing the course - adds a dimension to the previous analysis of direct student learning of program outcomes. 80 Percent of Students with D/F/W grades in CCJ 3701, Spring 2005-Spring Campus Virtual Spring 2005 Summer 2005 Fall 2005 Spring 2006 Fall 2006 Spring 2007 Summer 2007 Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 Indirect Assessment of Student Success: Employment After Graduation A program goal is employment or graduate study for all graduates. Data from the Florida State University System (SUS) indicate that FGCU s Criminal Justice and Criminal Forensic Studies majors are successfully employed or attending graduate school at a higher rate than most programs in the SUS (Florida Education & Training Placement Information). Florida state employment data available for 2007/08 and 2008/09 show that the percentage FGCU s criminal justice graduates who are employed in Florida within six months after graduation is above the median percentage for criminal justice graduates in the SUS. In 2007/08, 73% of FGCU s 56 criminal justice graduates were employed; this is the third highest percent employed of the eight SUS criminal justice programs and well above the statewide average of 67%. In 2008/09, 74% of FGCU s 39 criminal justice graduates were employed. FGCU graduates also earn more than average. In 2007/08, FGCU s criminal justice graduates estimated full quarter average earnings were $9,927; this is the highest value of the eight SUS criminal justice programs and well above the statewide average of $8,223. In 2008/09, FGCU s criminal justice graduates full quarter average earnings were $10,589. These same data indicate that FGCU s graduates are also likely to attend graduate school after earning their BS in criminal justice. In 2007/08, 20% of FGCU s criminal justice graduates were attending graduate school; this is the fourth highest value of the eight SUS criminal justice programs although it is just below the statewide average of 21%. In 2008/09, 36% of FGCU s criminal justice graduates were attending graduate school. Much of this success is due to the thriving MS in Criminal Forensic Studies program at FGCU. Summary of Continuous Improvement Process - Time Series Design