Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Assessment Team: Kristin Bates, Sharon Elise, Karen Glover, Donna Goyer, Linda Shaw, and Jill Weigt.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Assessment Team: Kristin Bates, Sharon Elise, Karen Glover, Donna Goyer, Linda Shaw, and Jill Weigt."— Presentation transcript:

1 Assessment Team: Kristin Bates, Sharon Elise, Karen Glover, Donna Goyer, Linda Shaw, and Jill Weigt

2 Collect data to determine student progress in mastering program goals stated in Student Learning Outcomes Use assessment data for program improvement

3  Criminology and Justice Studies “Analyze and interpret the diversity of social experience associated with criminology and social justice issues, especially as they relate to race, class, gender, age, sexual preference, religion, and nationality.”

4  Sociology “Analyze and interpret the diversity of social experience using a sociological perspective, especially as they relate to race, class, gender, age, sexual preference, religion, and nationality.”

5  Pre- and post-test  Scenario  Questions  Rubric for scoring

6  Luisa is a thirty-year-old Latina with a twelve-year-old son and a two-year-old daughter. She is a sexual abuse survivor and former drug user who is now clean and sober. She has a tenth grade education and was laid off last September from her $8 per hour cleaning job after the hospital where she worked was bought out by a large HMO. To save money and help out until she got another job, she moved in with her aunt Vera who is in poor health and lives on Social Security. Her children have the second bedroom and she sleeps on the couch. Meanwhile, she tried to find work, but because she had no car and had to care for Aunt Vera, she has applied for welfare but her grant is only $650 a month. By mid-November, Luisa could no longer support her children. She takes a job babysitting the neighbor’s children and chooses not to report it to her case worker. While Luisa is nervous and upset by this because she knows that failure to report her earnings is considered to be welfare fraud, and welfare fraud is a felony punishable by possible jail time, she says: “…I was only getting $645 per month, and my share of the rent was $439. I did not have much to live on, and I was told that if I reported it, my welfare check was going to be cut dramatically. …I am a single mother trying to make it. I know that lying about the money was wrong, but at the time, it seemed that I didn’t have much choice.”  Based on your understandings of social problems, please address in essay form the following questions about Luisa’s situation:

7  1) What is the fundamental problem that you see going on in this scenario?  2) What are the sources or underlying causes of Luisa’s problems?  3) What are the best solutions to these problems? Why do you think that these are the best solutions?

8  1 - individualistic; blames the victim; pathologizes the problem, even if they use a theory to do so;  2 - sympathetic and not pathologizing but not analytic nor does s/he acknowledge outside forces or use a structural/institutional explanation;  3 - not pathologizing and acknowledges outside forces but not analytic (e.g., does not draw upon social structural or institutional explanations);  4- doesn’t use pop culture and isn’t pathologizing; uses concepts from the course but does not talk about where they came from or broaden their analytic framework;  5 - uses names of theories as well as concepts from them; analysis acknowledges outside forces, using a structural/institutional framework.

9  Lower Division: There was no significant difference between pre- and post-test means in the lower division courses (composite: 1.51 vs. 1.61).  Upper Division: Whether student learning was measured through a composite score or by examining the individual differences in the scenario questions, there was increased ability to analyze and interpret the diversity of social experience using a sociological perspective between the beginning and end of the semester (SLO 1) (composite: 2.14 vs. 2.44).

10 Sociology courses combined: While both groups did increase their understanding, those with prior sociological experience learned more than those just being introduced to the sociological concepts (post: 1.99 vs. 2.67). In our lower division sections ONLY ONE student had prior experience in sociology classes, which we believe may account for the lower mean and non-significance in this group.

11 We examined the effect of declaring the major on learning outcomes in the lower division courses and found that even though these students have no prior sociological background, those who have an interest in sociology, as measured by declaring the major, score higher on the pre-test than non-majors and showed a stronger understanding of diversity issues from a sociological perspective than non- majors at the end of the semester (post: 1.51 vs. 1.96).

12  Lower Division: All four measures of SLO 1 in Sociology 105 showed a significant increase (composite: 1.76 vs. 2.36). Thus, over the course of the semester, students in Sociology 105 demonstrated an increased ability to analyze and interpret the diversity of social experience using a criminology and justice studies perspective, especially as they relate to race, class, gender, age, sexual preference, religion, and nationality.

13  Upper Division: In this course, whether student learning was measured through a composite score or by examining the individual differences in the scenario questions, there was a significant difference in student learning and ability to analyze and apply criminological and social justice understandings of diversity over the course of the semester (composite: 2.01 vs. 2.44).

14  We first examined the effect of having taken previous courses in the department and found that while both groups did increase their understanding, those with prior course experience learned more than those just being introduced to the criminology and social justice concepts(post: 2.20 vs. 2.71).  While there was no statistical difference in the pre-test means between majors and non-majors, in the post-test, majors had a significantly higher mean score than non- majors, showing that over the semester, majors learned more than non-majors. We believe this suggests that there may be exponential growth in the understanding of important criminology and social justice concepts as students become more advanced in the major (post: 2.09 vs. 2.54).

15 Results show student success in mastering the SLO #1 In SOC 101, student understanding increased over the semester, though the differences between the pre- and post-test scores were not significant; but majors showed significant improvement compared to non-majors For upper division core courses, differences between pre-and post-test results were statistically significant While the majority of students do not show mastery of SLO 1 in their first semester, students’ mastery improves over time with greater exposure to sociological ways of thinking as they move through the major.

16 Students’ mastery of SLO 1 increases as they move through the major. Students who have taken more of our courses improved more than those who had taken fewer courses in the major Majors showed greater increases in learning and skill development in our courses than non- majors.

17 Results not as strong as we expected/hoped possibly because:  1) students may have learned a great deal in these courses related to SLO 1 that might not have been captured by our assessment tool;  2) our assessment rubric set the bar very high; and  3) our majors’ perspectives run counter to dominant and strongly held ideological perspectives related to diversity in society.

18  Use sociological/criminology and justice studies perspectives, concepts, and theories to understand and identify societal problems as well as to specify their underlying sources and solutions


Download ppt "Assessment Team: Kristin Bates, Sharon Elise, Karen Glover, Donna Goyer, Linda Shaw, and Jill Weigt."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google