Weber State University   

Anthropology

Results of Assessment

2001-2002 (submitted 11/12/02)

This was the second year for the Anthropology Program to engage in the university’s assessment development program. In AY2000-01 the program developed a mission statement, identified eight learning objectives or outcomes of the major, constructed a curriculum grid with respect to these objectives, and developed and administered an exit interview as the first measure of student learning outcomes. 

This year (2001-02) the exit interview was again administered to graduates, a focus group session was held, general education and diversity courses were reviewed, alumni tracking was initiated, and further progress was made on developing a formal plan for measuring learning outcomes. Below is a brief discussion of the results of the data collected this year (2001-2002) and the program’s assessment plans for the future.

1 . Summary of Assessment Data Collected:

a. An Exit Interview, which was developed in 2000-01 based on the program’s eight learning objectives or outcomes, was employed again this year.  The survey-style interview was mailed in April 2002 to 18 students, to include all of the 2001-2002 graduating majors (14) and minors (4). Thirteen students (12 majors and 1 minor) returned the surveys by May 24, 2002 for a 72% total response rate and an 86% response rate of majors. 

A summary of the central patterns of responses is described here. Only data on responses from majors are included here due to there being only one minor who responded. Overall results indicate the program mission is being upheld and the learning outcomes are being effectively accomplished.

(1) Every respondent reported a significant increase in their understanding, proficiency, and knowledge in the eight desired learning outcomes of the program from the time before they began the program to after their completion of the program.

(2) Respondents indicated they selected anthropology as a major primarily because of personal interest in the subject, their desire to better understand human diversity, and their enjoyment of the classes, fieldwork, and the professors.

(3) Most respondents (83%) indicated cultural anthropology as their 1^st or 2^nd choices of specialized field of interest within anthropology, followed by archaeology, biological anthropology, and linguistics. It is understandable, with only one course offered in linguistics, that it was ranked last.

(4) The majority of respondents (83%) indicated they planned to attend graduate school after graduation, and approximately half (50%) had already been accepted to some graduate program for next year. Four of these students (33% of respondents) were accepted into anthropology programs.

(5) 67% of the graduating Majors intend to pursue a career in anthropology. The remaining 33% indicated career interests in fields typically benefiting from anthropological knowledge (e.g., law, education, museum directorship, public policy analysis, international relations), and/or may return to anthropology in the future.

(6) All respondents (100%) indicated that the greatest strengths of the program were the faculty (expertise in teaching and research, diversity in specialization, and personableness); some also mentioned the field school; and a few mentioned they liked the small, intimate size of the program.

(7) Most respondents felt that the greatest weaknesses of the program pertain to the limited number and variety of courses offered — especially in biological anthropology and linguistics, as well as the small number of faculty and the difficulty in scheduling classes without competing against each other.

(8) The changes most often suggested for the program’s courses or requirements were to add more courses for variety, especially in biological anthropology, linguistics, and region-specific courses, and to possibly split a couple of courses into two courses. Several mentioned the recognized need for more faculty and more funding. Most, however felt satisfied with the program the way it is.

(9) All respondents (100%) indicated that their WSU anthropological training has broadened and positively changed the way they view the world and peoples of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. This was essentially expressed as their becoming more open minded by developing attitudes of cultural relativism and racial equality and using a holistic perspective in their understanding of humans and their behavior. All expressed the belief that they were better able to participate in a global society due to their anthropological training.

b. A Focus Group Session was conducted by Dr. Brian Davis during Fall Semester 2001 (November 15, 2001). The students enrolled in the Anthropological Theory class were selected to be the participants of this discussion because this is a required course in which all are anthropology majors or minors who would represent a good cross-section of our total declared students in the program. Although a class period (75 minutes) was dedicated to this session, attendance was voluntary with no grade implications. Twenty-five students participated. This focus group session consisted of two segments: (1) students were asked to individually and anonymously fill out an 18-question survey instrument prepared by Brian Davis based on his informed understanding of the anthropology program, and (2) a whole-group discussion was led (and taped) by Dr. Davis which was guided by the questions posed on the survey questionnaire. The responses to the questionnaire and the taped group discussion were transcribed and compiled by the department secretary (Carol Jensen), and the anthropology faculty reviewed this material toward the end of spring semester. While the results of this focus group are still undergoing discussion by the faculty, here is a brief summary of the basic findings per question.

(1) The main reasons cited by students for choosing to major in anthropology were the caliber of the instructors; students’ personal interests in the subject and in human cultures; the enjoyment of the classes; the uniqueness of the anthropological approach to understanding humans holistically, comparatively, and with cultural relativism; and the desirable combination of anthropology with their career and life goals.

(2) All students indicated that their experiences in the anthropology program were as good or better than expected and generally rewarding in interest, information, and organization.

(3) a. Students were generally pleased with the quality of faculty advisement given in anthropology, claiming it to be helpful, personal, and informative. Some suggested that more advisement attention be given to student career goals and future plans.

b. Student responses to the quality of advisement given by the college or university ranged from adequate to inadequate, with a majority stating that they had negative experiences having to seek multiple offices and opinions with misinformation or lack of information frequently given to them.

(4) Several suggestions were given to improve academic advisement, particularly in areas of career plans and job placement.

(5) A widespread majority of the courses which exist in the curriculum were selected by students as the best anthropology courses they took in the program and stated their reasons why. Because the answers were so diffuse, no particular pattern emerged from this response.

(6) 64% indicated an anthropology course they hadn’t enjoyed for one reason or another, usually indicating these were lower division, general education courses which seemed too general or courses which were too in-depth and with teaching styles not matching their leaning styles. 36% indicated they hadn’t had a bad course yet.

(7) Most students stated that technology was only minimally utilized in anthropology courses, limited primarily to E-reserve, videos and slides, scantrons, and a couple of on-line courses, and they said they liked it that way.

(8) All students indicated that courses provided them with skills and ideas to be utilized in their careers, citing such examples as analytical and critical thinking skills, observational and research skills, open-mindedness and appreciation for diversity, and lab and field techniques.

(9) 68% indicated that the skills or content areas were adequately addressed in the program; 12% felt there should be more biological anthropology taught in the curriculum; 12% suggested more fieldwork and experience in writing papers; and the remaining 8% wanted more culture area courses to be offered, particularly on Africa, Asia, and India.

(10) Additional courses most often recommended to be added to the curriculum were more on archaeology, mythology, cultural area courses, biological anthropology (particularly on primates), linguistics, and fieldwork (cultural and linguistic).

(11) 80% recommended no courses to be eliminated from the curriculum; the remaining 20% registered discontent with their personal challenges completing the advanced required courses in the program (e.g., theory, research, statistics). The only course mentioned for reexamining was Peoples and Cultures of the World (ANTHRO 2000), and primarily just for its structure.

(12) Most agreed that the overall workload for the anthropology courses matched their expectations, being especially fair in the upper division level courses.

(13) Most felt that the workload for their anthropology courses was the same or heavier/harder than that compared to other courses taken at WSU. Only 2 students claimed there was a lighter workload in their anthropology courses.

(14) The career expectations of the respondents ranged widely. The responses were primarily listings of different career possibilities.

(15) Most (60%) students felt their career expectations had changed slightly since coming into the program, primarily in more specified directions within anthropology. The remaining 40% indicated that their expectations had not changed.

(16) Most felt that their career advising expectations had been met but recommended more time and effort be devoted to this.

(17) 60% of the students recommended more advisement be given specifically on graduate school and career planning by the program. 40% indicated they were satisfied with the existing career advising or made no recommendations.

(18) Suggested improvements to the anthropology program included obtaining more faculty and resources; expanding the curriculum by adding more courses; and providing more post-graduation planning and advisement (i.e., graduate school & careers).

c. Other Assessments - General Education & Diversity: Although these do not directly pertain to program assessment per se, they have implications for the program and its courses. The Anthropology program has participated in the General Education Assessment discussions and assessment efforts for the Social Sciences, the Life Sciences, and the Humanities. Data were collected pertaining to how faculty have addressed the knowledge/skills designated in Area 1 of the General Education criteria in their courses. These data were compiled and analyzed with the results indicating that the faculty do indeed address all five of these criteria, with differences existing only in the degree of emphasis and techniques among the faculty and across the criteria. The program also participated in a Diversity Course Survey at the end of Fall Semester 2001. Biological Anthropology (ANTHRO 2200) was selected to be surveyed using an instrument developed by the Diversity Action Team of Academic Affairs, along with several other courses. The results and analysis of this survey are still under discussion.

2. Changes to be Implemented as a Result of the Data Collected:

Although further discussion of the results of these assessment efforts (i.e., exit interviews, focus groups, and general education reviews) needs to occur among the faculty, we were generally satisfied with feedback on what we are doing, and the only changes anticipated to occur will be modest course and teaching revisions with a possible adjustment in our scheduling patterns of course offerings.

3. Plans for Ongoing Assessment of Outcomes:

The faculty plan to further review and possibly revise the exit interview and focus group sessions this next year, as well as complete creating a more comprehensive assessment plan. The inclusion of additional or different assessment measures to better assess all eight of the program’s learning outcomes is also under discussion. Suggestions include using more direct measures such as exams (local pre- and post tests; possibly national tests, student grades, and GPAs ), as well as adding further indirect measures such as institutional research data, and alumni tracking and surveys. (An alumni survey is currently being developed to collect assessment data from the program alumni. We intend this survey to be ready to send to alumni during 2002-03 with the results to be compiled and analyzed by Spring/Summer Semesters 2003.) Further work on general education and diversity course assessments is also planned.

Mission Statement / Student Learning Outcomes / Curriculum Grid / Assessment Plan / Contact Person