Program Assessment Report

Program Assessment Report I. Degree Name: Criminal Justice II. Academic year: 2011-12 III. Completer of Form: Barry Langford IV. Sources of Evaluative information: Seniors in CJAD 495 take the Major Field test in Criminal justice. The national mean scaled score was a 153.6. Results from each site are provided below. Sites having at least five students taking the MFT also appear with a content subscore for each assessment area. All sites listed below report a mean score at the site in excess of the national mean. The department also uses the Degree Program Assessment form. My review of all submitted forms suggest that the vast majority of students in CJAD 495 are well equipped in the major content areas in Criminal Justice, and that they have the necessary skills to succeed in the job market. There were occasional instances where student enters CJAD 495 as deficient in one content area(typically corrections and/or juvenile justice), and a small percentage of students were weak in one or more communication(writing or speaking) skills. Multiple evaluators have commented about deficient writing skills with some students, and willingness and ability to manage time effectively and use technology. We have received a few suggestions that we should tighten the prerequisites for CJAD 495. Site Assessment Indicator Mean Percentage Correct (1)Florida 1 Theories of Criminal Behavior 35 The Law 63 Law Enforcement 66 Corrections 55 The Court System 66 Critical Thinking 58 Research Methodology & Statistics 45 Mean Score at Site: 158-testing of 28 students

(2)Illinois 1 Theories of Criminal Behavior 36 The Law 58 Law Enforcement 57 Corrections 51 The Court System 62 Critical Thinking 59 Research Methodology & Statistics 42 Mean Score at Site: 153-testing of 7 students (3)JC Theories of Criminal Behavior 34 The Law 61 Law Enforcement 64 Corrections 57 The Court System 66 Critical Thinking 59 Research Methodology & Statistics 46 Mean Score at Site: 157-testing of 10 students (4) Texas 1 Theories of Criminal Behavior 40 The Law 62 Law Enforcement 66 Corrections 60 The Court System 60 Critical Thinking 63 Research Methodology & Statistics 53 Mean Score at Site: 159-testing of 7 students (5)UT 1 Theories of Criminal Behavior 33 The Law 54 Law Enforcement 58 Corrections 52 The Court System 56 Critical Thinking 55 Research Methodology & Statistics 38 Mean Score at Site: 151-testing of 11 students

(6)Online Theories of Criminal Behavior 37 The Law 61 Law Enforcement 65 Corrections 59 The Court System 67 Critical Thinking 62 Research Methodology & Statistics 45 Mean Score at Site: 158-testing of 118 students (7)Home Campus Evening Mean Score at Site: 158-testing of 4 students-content area sub-scores not available due to small testing group. (8)Home Campus Day Mean Score at Site: 165-testing of 3 students- Content area sub-scores not available due to small testing group. V. Agency for Program Evaluation/Change Full time Departmental faculty in cooperation with the EVP/DAA. VI. Assessment Feedback loop Departmental faculty meetings Integrative Seminar Curricular advisory board Program Reviews Faculty Integration conferences Chair review of faculty evaluations and communications from key informants, including our career services center.

VII. Progress on most recent recommendations The most recent Assessment report suggested no immediate recommendations other than continuing with data collection and analysis, and preparation for and participation in the program review. VIII. Feedback loop results During 2011-12 the primary focus of our Department was the continued review of MFT scores and DPAF forms, and close scrutiny of our day program enrollments and courses in contemplation of a possible addition of a new faculty member. Our students continue to perform at a high level on the Major Field test. Only one site tested this year had scores below the national mean. Certain instructors in CJAD 495 have suggested that we revise the prerequisites for the course. The Department will have a faculty integration conference in April 2013. We will discuss our curriculum at this conference, specifically the issue of course prerequisites for CJAD 495 among others. We initiated one curriculum change since the last report, obtaining approval for two new research courses to be added as options for the BA degree in Criminal Justice. This change was initiated as a result of discussions with our curricular advisory board. Additionally, we prepared for and participated in the program review. The Department engaged it its program review during the Fall of 2012. The following four recommendations(followed by our responses)were pertinent to the CJAD program (1) - Blended learning models- The relevant language is as follows: Allowing students to participate in blended learning models or providing an easier transition to some web-based learning models may assist and remove a student s either or decision regarding program choice. The criminal justice faculty members are very involved in the review process of course offerings, so students will be equally prepared when transitioning from the classroom to the computer based learning models. Blended models provide students-- and a very strapped department faculty-- the ability to utilize time in the classroom for advanced discussion of topics and introduction to material not in the text. Departmental response-the primary focus of the review was the Day program. We don t regard hybrid courses as appropriate for and consistent with the mission of the day program. Most of our courses involve significant application of technology both in and out of the classroom. We understand the argument that many students prefer the online format for scheduling and other personal reasons. We would support a campus wide liberalization of the rules for day students to take online classes, but that is not under our direct control. (2) Partnerships with High Schools -The relevant language follows: To assist in recruitment and familiarizing potential students with what the campus and the faculty have to offer, the review team suggests evaluating partnerships with the large high schools in the community. Courses designed to introduce introductory course work and field experiences to these students may encourage enrollment locally for the on campus program

Departmental response-we believe this idea has potential, although perhaps the term partnership is slightly over extended and formalized. The Boogie team for the new Science building has some initiatives that pertain to this recommendation. There are campus wide efforts in place to increase faculty presence as guest speakers at local schools. We believe our Department has numerous possibilities for this initiative. Also, our Mock Trial team could be more involved with local schools. The possibility of summer camps for Mock Trial and Forensic Science also has good potential. We plan to follow up on these issues with other campus stakeholders next semester. (3) Dual offerings MSCJ/Undergrad Relevant language is as follows: The curriculum in the Criminal Justice Masters Programs lends itself neatly to providing dual offerings at the 400/500 level. Building these dual offerings provides a more efficient use of resources (faculty/space) provides the opportunity for undergraduate students to work with graduate students and builds a bridge for those students considering entering a graduate program. The review team identified the MS Law Enforcement courses MSCJ 577 and MSCJ 543, as well as the MS Corrections courses MSCJ 587 and MSCJ 589 as possible candidates for dual listed courses. A general Research Methods course would also serve this function, but would need to have a 400 level course built to serve as the bridge for undergraduates. A reevaluation of specific courses and their prerequisites should occur prior to building these dual offerings. As listed, prerequisites into these graduate courses seem disconnected, for example: MSCJ 551 lists transfer student as a prerequisite, whereas the majority list graduate standing as the prerequisite. Undergraduates should be able to qualify for dual listed courses if they currently meet the entrance requirements (albeit the BS/BA earned degree) of the Graduate degree program, or have the permission of the instructor. It would not be recommended any more than 9 hours be made available for students to use for both their undergraduate and graduate degree. Departmental response- We support this recommendation, but we are mindful that it may be difficult to implement. Last fall, we explored the possibility of proposing a five year joint program (Bachelor s and Masters ), and we encountered several obstacles. Dr. Lyman and Dr. Weigenstein are going to discuss this further next semester. (4) Alumni surveys-relevant language is as follows: The review team suggests Administrative support for the assessment of recent alumni to provide further evidence of both effective education and educational satisfaction. These types of proactive evaluations are indeed time intensive, but provide valuable evidence of field tested opinions of those alumni who now are in a position to utilize their education. In addition, it allows valuable assessment of the alumni resources for current students and faculty. Maintaining and updating contacts can result in a better understanding of alumni positions, and added expertise that can be lost in typical alumni communications with the university. There are many models of alumni interviews that provide this evidence of impact. Selection of which model should fit the needs of the department. Departmental response-we support this recommendation, and we will seek guidance from relevant campus offices (Career services, Alumni, Development, etc.) on possible ways to implement this suggestion.

Program Assessment Report I. Degree Name: Forensic Science II. Academic year: 2011-12 III. Completer of Form: Barry Langford IV. Sources of Evaluative information: A major field test is not available for Forensic Science. Forensic Science students take the MFT for Biology or Chemistry, depending on track declared. Six Forensic Science students have taken the relevant MFT(four Chemistry, two Biology) since the last assessment report. The four Chemistry track students achieved scaled scores of 124,133,142, and 146. The national mean for Chemistry is 148.5 and the median is 145. The Biology track students achieved a scaled score of 149 and 162. The national mean for Biology is a 152.3 and the median is 153. The Degree Program Analysis form is used in CJAD 475. There has only been one offering of CJAD 475(taught with six students ) since the most recent Assessment report. The DPAF reveals that Forensic science students are well prepared on the Criminal Justice side of Forensic Science, and they possess technological, communication and analytical skills commensurate with seniors in a rigorous academic program. V. Agency for Program Evaluation/Change Full time Departmental faculty in cooperation with the EVP/DAA. VI. Assessment Feedback loop Departmental faculty meetings Senior Seminar(including MFT) Curricular advisory board Program Reviews Faculty Integration conferences

Chair review of faculty evaluations and communications from key informants, including our career services center. VII. Progress on most recent recommendations The most recent Assessment report discussed the early stage of CJAD 475-the senior seminar in Forensic Science, and suggested no immediate recommendations other than continued data collection and analysis, and participation in the program review. VIII. Feedback loop results Forensic science students do not perform well on their respective MFT. During this administration, only one student out of six tested above the national mean. The Biology and Chemistry MFT tests have content areas not required for Forensic Science majors. Additionally, students may enroll in CJAD 475 before taking all of their necessary science courses. The department does not see this as a major concern, since our students are strong on the Criminal Justice side, and they remain competitive in employment and graduate school settings. Given this imperfect assessment instrument, there is no reason to suggest that these scores will change in a significant way in the immediate future. During the recent program review, the Department requested feedback on assessment along with other issues. One of the main recommendations from the program review concerned the recommended addition of a new faculty member in Forensic Science. Once selected, this faculty member could assume leadership over the Forensic Science curriculum, including Senior seminar and related assessment activities. Additionally, the program review team suggested improvement and enhanced efforts in obtaining feedback from alumni and recent graduates through surveys. The Department is supportive of these recommendations, and we will seek to implement them at the earliest opportunity.

Program Assessment Report I. Degree Name: Human Services II. Academic year: 2011-2012 III. Completer of Form: Barry Langford/Lia Willis IV. Sources of Evaluative information: A specific discipline major field test is not available for Human Services. Human Services faculty have designed an assessment instrument which was first used during fall 2009, in the senior seminar course. Test items are based on core program curriculum. The human services senior (spring) exam was given in April 2012. 9 students took this exam. The class average was 71%, the lowest score being 52% and the highest score being 88%. The scores were a little low, considering the past academic performance of the students in the course. This senior test was exported to the online venue in October 2012. 17 students took the senior test, with the class average at 68%. The lowest score was 48%, and the highest score was 88%. These averages are nearly identical to the main campus scores. The Degree Program Analysis form is used in HUMS 495. Review of DPAF forms in the relevant period indicates that most HUMS students in HUMS 495 are well equipped to graduate and enter the job market. HUMS 495 does not currently require completion of all HUMS core courses before enrollment. DPAF forms reveal occasional instances of HUMS 495 students being occasionally deficient in part of the core subject matter for this reason. Additionally, DPAF forms indicate some HUMS students would benefit from earlier guidance on the desirability of graduate school to reach career goals. A program review was competed in the spring of 2012 and the results summarized are in this document. V. Agency for Program Evaluation/Change Full time Departmental faculty in cooperation with the EVP/DAA.

VI. Assessment Feedback loop Departmental faculty meetings Program Reviews Faculty Integration conferences DPAF form Chair review of faculty evaluations and communications from key informants, including our career services center. VII. Progress on most recent recommendations The senior test being exported to the online venue was accomplished. VIII. Feedback loop results This program has been fully operational for seven years.the curriculum is in need of review and adjustment, to reflect assessment results and a program review that was completed last year. Until there is a national MFT available, the program will continue to use the departmentally created assessment examination in all venues. This exam consists of 50 questions written by faculty from the HUMS program. Questions were gleaned from the following required HUMS coursework in the HUMS major: Social Policy, Working with Individuals, Community Organization, Working with Groups, Research Design. The Human Services program review was conducted in Spring 2012. Program strengths were reported as quality of faculty, student satisfaction, and the use of technology in the classroom. Areas needing further development included assessment, curricular revising, and recruitment/retention of all students but, especially, minority students. It was suggested that the program have two internships, consider accreditation through the Council for Standards in Human Service Education (CSHSE), and investigate the Human Services-Board Certified Practitioner (HS-BCP) credential for students in the program. In the program response to the review, faculty agreed that assessment needs to be substantially expanded to provide information for improvement in curriculum, and ensure we are meeting student needs and expectations as best as possible. Faculty plan on revising the curriculum substantially. Faculty are looking into improving content, increasing student knowledge, and giving students more chances for integrating knowledge and practice. Improving (and changing

the requirements for) internships and service learning opportunities is being considered. CSHSE accreditation is not being considered at this time, but faculty are gathering information about the HS-BCP credential. The DPAF forms completed this review period indicate that, overall, the culminating experience course serves the purpose of helping students prepare for employment (through resume preparation, area of practice-specific assignments, and application of theory to cases) but that the book may not be the best option for this course. Students often complain about this textbook, also. The culminating experience course (HUMS 495) will be going through substantial revisions in the coming year, and the requirements will be changed to reflect the faculty concerns and the program review team s suggestions.