Anthropology
Results of Assessment
2004-2005 (submitted 06/15/05)
This was the fifth year the Anthropology Program
participated in the university’s formal outcomes assessment program. In
AY2000-01 Anthropology developed its current mission statement, identified eight
central learning objectives for the major, constructed a curriculum outcomes
grid, and developed and administered an exit interview as a measure of student
learning outcomes. In AY2001-02 the exit interview was again administered to
graduates, a student focus group session was held, general education and
diversity courses were reviewed, and an alumni tracking process was
investigated. In 2002-2003, the curriculum grid was amended slightly to more
accurately reflect course foci, a formal “assessment plan” was articulated, the
exit interview of graduates was again conducted, an initial alumni data
assessment plan was made, and the program participated in general education and
diversity assessment of specific courses. In 2003-2004, data were collected
using the exit interview, student grades, and graduation and retention rates of
graduating majors. This year (2004-2005) the exit interview was again employed
and further data were gathered on the academic records of graduating majors.
Here is a brief discussion of the results of these outcomes measures, the
program changes to be made, and the program’s plans for assessment in the
future. (See the Appendix of this
report for further details.)
1 . Summary of Data
Collected:
a.
Exit Interview:
An exit interview,
first developed in 2000-01, was based on the program’s learning objectives or
outcomes. (See copy of interview instrument in Appendix of this report.) This
survey-style, written interview was again distributed this year in December,
2004 and April, 2005, to a total of 30 graduates, to include all of the
2004-2005 graduating majors (17) and minors/BIS (13). Twenty students
(14 Majors = an 82% response and 6 Minors = a 46% response)
returned the surveys by the time of this report (June 1, 2005). A summary of
the central patterns of responses from Majors only is provided
here (though minors showed very similar patterns). As the following
description demonstrates, the overall conclusion to be drawn from the results of
this interview is that the program mission is being well executed, the learning
outcomes are being effectively accomplished, and the students appear to be
highly satisfied with the existing program.
(1) Every respondent reported a
significant increase in their understanding, proficiency, and knowledge
within the eight desired learning outcomes of the program as measured from
the time before they began the program to their completion of the program.
(See the numeric results of the interview in the Appendix of this report.)
The overall mean shift was 3 scale steps on a 5-step model, with students
typically claiming to have achieved a “high to very high” acquisition of
skills and knowledge at completion of the program.
(2) Respondents indicated they selected
anthropology as a major primarily because of personal interest in the
subject, a desire to better understand humans, the discipline’s unique
insights, and their enjoyment of the classes and the professors.
(3) Most respondents indicated cultural
anthropology as their 1st or 2nd choices of
specialized field of interest within anthropology, followed by biological
anthropology and archaeology, with linguistics last. However, all four
fields were appreciated by the students.
(4) The majority of respondents (75%)
indicated they planned to attend graduate school some time after graduation,
and over half (53%) intend to pursue anthropology. One fourth of these
graduating seniors were already accepted into anthropology graduate programs
at the time of the interview.
(5) Over half (57%) of
the graduating Majors intend to pursue a career in anthropology. The
remaining 43% indicated career interests in fields typically benefiting from
anthropological knowledge (e.g., education, counseling, history,
international relations), and/or may return to anthropology in the future
(6) All respondents (100%) indicated that
the greatest strength of the program was the faculty (with their knowledge,
experience in the field, teaching expertise, high expectations, diversity in
specialization, and friendly personalities). Some also mentioned the
variety of learning experiences provided to students, the small, intimate
classroom environment, and the philosophical nature of the program’s
perspectives on the world.
(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 more frequently and without competing against each other. Several
felt that no changes were necessary — they liked it as is.
(8) The changes most often suggested for
the program’s courses or requirements were to: a) split the theory course
into two courses (e.g., classical and contemporary); b) add more courses for
variety, especially in biological anthropology, linguistics, and
region-specific courses, and c) provide even more research experiences to
students. Several mentioned the need for more faculty and more funding.
Most, however, felt satisfied with the program as it is.
(9) All respondents (100%) indicated
that their WSU anthropological education has opened their eyes and minds and
positively changed their views of the world and human diversity. They
expressed how the program transformed their awareness and attitudes toward
greater cultural relativism and racial equality and to use a holistic
perspective in understanding humans and behavior. All expressed the belief
that they were better able to participate in a global society due to their
anthropological background.
(10) The results of
this year’s exit interview are remarkably consistent with those obtained
from previous years. This tends to reaffirm the conclusion that students
are very satisfied with the program and that our expectations of program
outcomes are being met.
b. Data on Graduates and Program Retention Rates
: We have now
collected data on all 75 anthropology majors who have graduated since the
inception of the major in Spring 2000. (See Tables B-1 & B-2 in the Appendix of
this report.) These data provide some direct measures of student learning
outcomes and depict a very positive picture of the program. These measures
include: (1) graduates’ overall cumulative graduating grade point averages
(GPAs); (2) graduates’ cumulative GPAs in just anthropology courses; (3)
graduates’ grades earned in the two program exit courses required of all
majors: ANTHRO 4200 (Anthropological Theory) and ANTHRO 4300 (Anthropological
Research Methods); (4) the length of time to graduation measured from two datum
points: (a) from date of entry to WSU until graduation, and (b) from date of
declaration as an anthropology major until graduation; and (5) the graduation
and retention rates of the program. This is the second year we have collected
this information. Here is a summary of the central findings from this data:
(1) Cumulative GPA: The mean
overall graduating GPA of the 75 anthropology majors who have graduated from
the program is 3.41 (GPA range = 2.35-3.99). This compares
favorably to the mean overall GPA of all graduating seniors of WSU which was
calculated by the WSU Department of Institutional Research as 3.33 in
AY2002-2003.
(2) Anthropology GPA: The mean
GPA of the 75 anthropology graduates in just their anthropology courses is
3.59 (GPA range=2.75-4.00) which is statistically
significantly higher than their overall mean GPA. This figure indicates a
very high level of performance by these students in their anthropology
coursework and demonstrates significant competency with the course content
and the desired learning outcomes as specified for these courses.
(3) Grades: The ultimate measure
of competency for majors in this program is their performance in the two
required exit courses: ANTHRO 4200 (Anthropological Theory) and 4300
(Anthropological Research Methods). These two courses provide high levels
of five of the eight program learning objectives to be achieved (see
Anthropology Course Outcomes Grid in the Institutional website). The
grades earned in these courses are believed to be a direct measure of
student attainment of these program learning objectives. (The grades of the
total 75 graduates from the program and their pattern of distribution are
displayed in Tables B-1 and B-2 of the Appendix of this report.) Because it
is mandatory, by program requirement, that students must pass all
anthropology courses with grades of C or better to be counted toward their
major, it is expected that all graduates have, indeed, earned grades of C
or better in these two required courses to graduate. Hence, it is possible
to conclude that those who graduate have performed at least average or
better in these courses and have met the minimum standards for attaining the
learning objectives designated for these courses. A measure of even higher
levels of competency of the graduates can also be ascertained, however, by
looking at those graduates who perform above the minimum standard of
a C grade. The data indicate that 95% of the 75 graduates earned grades
of B- or better in both courses, with 61% having earned grades of A- or
better in ANTHRO 4200 and 81% having earned A- or better in ANTHRO 4300.
This is a very high record of achievement in meeting the program’s learning
objectives by these students and equally demonstrates that the program is
graduating very well-prepared students in anthropology.
(4) Graduation Rates: Table B-1
of the Appendix of this report shows that the 75 anthropology graduates
took 5.97 years on average to graduate from WSU since entering
the university (range = 2-18 years; mode = 4 years). The institutional
average length of time to graduation for all other bachelor degree graduates
is higher than this (6.58 years) as reported by the WSU Office of
Institutional Research in 2004. The cumulative institutional graduation
rate was 45% within 6 years of the entering first-time full-time freshmen as
reported in the WSU Institutional Profile for 2003-2004. An accurate
comparative graduation rate for anthropology does not yet exist, since our
major was instituted too recently to show a 6-year comparison group, but
this information will be included in our assessment report in following
years. Our sense, however, is that the graduation rate for the program must
be significantly higher than that for the university, since we have had 75
students graduate by Spring 2005, out of a stable group of declared majors
which has never exceeded 107 students in any given year over the five years
of the major’s history (see data in Section V.K.2. of this report). Perhaps
another more direct measure of this is a time-frozen picture which shows
that of the total 86 students listed within the program as declared
anthropology majors as of March 13, 2002 (just 2 years after the inception
of the major), 44 students (or 51.2%) graduated by May 6, 2005 (just 3 years later). While more precise data are needed to make any
firm conclusions, the data do indicate a very good graduation rate for the
program and further imply that the program objectives are being met very
efficiently.
(5) Retention Rates: The program retention rates appear to be above
average for the university. The WSU Office of Institutional Research
reported that 90% of students who had declared anthropology
majors by Fall 2002 remained as majors as of Spring 2004), and 76%
of the Fall 2002 anthropology majors returned as actively enrolled students
or graduated in 2003-2004 compared with 71% for all other campus majors
institutionally. This high retention rate is interpreted to reflect a
very high level of student satisfaction with the program.
c.
Other Assessments -- General
Education & Diversity:
Although these types of assessment don’t relate as directly to program
assessment, they do have implications for it. Anthropology has participated in
the General Education assessment discussions and efforts for the Social
Sciences, the Life Sciences, and for assessing the Diversity Requirement
outcomes on campus over several years. Data have been collected through student
surveys prepared by committees involving several anthropology courses. The main
area where results have been communicated pertain to that of a Life Sciences
general education student survey of ANTHRO 2200 (Biological Anthropology). This
course received the overall highest student ratings among life science classes
surveyed for both Spring 2003 and 2004 for fulfilling life science general
education outcomes.
2. Changes to be Implemented as a Result of the
Data Collected:
Discussions and analysis
of the results of our various program assessments lead us to be generally
satisfied with the existing program, though we need to examine the data more
thoroughly in the coming year and collect additional information before any
definitive directions for maintenance or change become apparent. The main
changes which are anticipated to occur in the near future will be: (a) modest
course scheduling revisions whenever possible to prevent conflict, (b) a
curriculum review of existing course design, and (c) more information to provide
better career advisement for majors.
3. Plans for Ongoing Assessment of Anthropology
Outcomes:
Although further discussion is necessary to
define our next steps, the faculty plan to:
a. Review and revise the exit
interview for next year.
b. Select and include more direct
assessment measures. Those under discussion are exams (local pre- and
post tests; possibly national tests); and GRE patterns. Further appropriate
institutional research data will be sought.
c. Administer the newly created alumni
survey during Fall 2005 and compile and analyze the results by Spring
Semester 2006. Since the program has now graduated approximately 75
majors since 2000, there are sufficient numbers of alumni to obtain
statistically meaningful information for assessment purposes. An alumni
survey instrument is being developed in the department by our Alumni
Tracking & Outreach Committee and will be distributed during Fall Semester
2005. We realize that employment and graduate school patterns will not yet
be well defined with only one to five years for these young alumni to have
fully entered their careers in the workforce or to have completed graduate
degrees, but we intend to track these alumni longitudinally, using this
survey for several years which will bring out the significant patterns.
Additional data will be collected from the campus Development and Alumni
Offices and will be added to create an even stronger alumni assessment
database.
d. Continue to
work collaboratively on general education and diversity course assessments.
|
APPENDIX
The following
contains the compiled data of responses obtained from 14
of 17 total graduating majors (82% response rate).
The rating scale used for each
question was:
1 = Very Low, 2 = Low, 3 = Medium, 4 = High, and 5 =
Very High.
|
| (1) Level of understanding
human biological and cultural differences and similarities across
the world and through time in terms of anthropological description
(data) and explanations (theories)... |
(a) Before beginning the program:
Majors’ response: mean = 2.07
Mode = Low
100% selected Very Low to Medium
|
(b) After completing the
program:
Majors’ response: mean = 4.93
Mode = Very High
100% selected High to Very High
|
| (2) Understanding the
nature of the four specialized fields within anthropology
(archaeology, biological anthropology, anthropological linguistics,
and cultural anthropology), and how these interrelate to provide a
holistic approach to understanding human differences and
similarities across the world and though time... |
(a) Before beginning the program:
Majors’ response: mean
= 1.43
Mode = Very Low
100% selected Very Low to Low
|
(b) After completing the
program:
Majors’ response: mean
= 4.93
Mode = Very High
100% selected High to Very High
|
| (3) Level of proficiency
in basic anthropological concepts and terminology... |
(a) Before beginning the program:
Majors’ response: mean
= 1.71
Mode = Between Very Low to Low
100% selected Very Low to Medium
|
(b) After completing the
program:
Majors’ response: mean
= 4.86
Mode = Very High
100% selected High to Very High
|
| (4) Knowledge of the
processes of theory formation and how various theories have been
developed, applied and evaluated throughout the history of the
discipline of anthropology... |
(a) Before beginning the program:
Majors’ response: mean
= 1.21
Mode = Very Low
100% selected Very Low to Low
|
(b) After completing the
program:
Majors’ response: mean
= 4.36
Mode = High
100% selected High to Very High
|
| (5) Knowledge and skills
of anthropological research methods and techniques of analysis
were... |
(a) Before beginning the program:
Majors’ response: mean
= 1.57
Mode = Low
100% selected Very Low to Low
|
(b) After completing the
program:
Majors’ response: mean
= 4.13
Mode = High
100% selected Medium to Very High
|
| (6) Abilities in critical
thinking and reasoning as applied to anthropological problems and
issues... |
(a) Before beginning the program:
Majors’ response: mean
= 2.00
Mode = Low
100% selected Very Low to Medium
|
(b) After completing the
program:
Majors’ response: mean = 4.79
Mode = Very High
100% selected High to Very High
|
| (7) Abilities to write,
speak and communicate about anthropological issues... |
(a) Before beginning the program:
Majors’ response: mean
= 1.57
Mode = Very Low
100% selected Very Low to Medium
|
(b) After completing the
program:
Majors’ response: 0 = 4.71
Mode = Very High
100% selected Medium to Very High
|
| (8) Awareness of the
existence of human prejudice and discrimination (e.g., racism,
ethnocentrism, sexism, anthropocentrism), and the anthropological
insights and alternatives which value the broad range of human
behavior and adaptations ... |
(a) Before beginning the program:
Majors’ response: mean
=2.43
Mode = Low
100% selected Very Low to High (with 86% Low to Medium)
|
(b) After completing the
program:
Majors’ response: mean
= 4.79
Mode = Very High
100% selected High to Very High (with 79% Very High)
|
For Anthropology majors: The overall statistical
mean of the mean answers for the questions pertaining to “before beginning the
program” is 1.75 (between Very Low and Low), with the range of the
mean answers being 1.21 to 2.43. The overall mean of the mean answers pertaining
to “after completing the program” is 4.74 (between High and Very
High), with the range of these mean answers being 4.36 to 4.93. In all
cases there is a significant positive ratings shift
acknowledged by students between their level of anthropological skills and
knowledge before they began the program and the level reported after completing
it, with responses showing a shift of 2 or more steps higher on the learning
outcomes scale upon completion of the program. The overall mean shift was
2.99 scale steps from lower to higher status as they completed the
program. The actual range of shift varied per question set: Questions 1, 6, and
8 had the least degree of shift, and questions 2, 3, 4, and 7 showed the highest
amount of shift. All questions, however, showed statistical modes of high to
very high ratings in acquisition of skills and knowledge at completion of the
program.
STUDENT
ANSWERS TO -- PART B. Additional Questions:
1. Why did you choose
anthropology as a major or minor?
100% of respondents indicated their primary reason for selecting anthropology
was personal interest of anthropology’s subject matter and perspective.
Additional reasons stated were enjoying the classes and the professors; learning
about cultures and their past; and being fascinated with understanding humans.
Here are three typical quotes: “Anthropology provides a structured, scientific,
and holistic approach to answering the ‘big’ questions we face as humans.” “I
love human diversity and am particularly enamored by the human past.”
“Anthropology fulfilled my desire to learn & understand other cultures and types
of people.”
2. Which field(s) of
anthropology interested you most? Place in numeric order 1 through 4 (with 1
being most personally interesting and 4 being least interesting):
| /1=1st /
Archaeology |
/ 3=1st /
Biological A. |
/ 10=1st /
Cultural A. |
/ 0=1st /
Linguistics |
| 5=2nd |
4=2nd |
2=2nd |
4=2nd |
| 6=3rd |
2=3rd |
2=3rd |
3=3rd |
| 2=4th |
5=4th |
0=4th |
7=4th |
3. What are your plans after
graduation?
A. Attend
graduate school: / 10 / Yes / 2 / Maybe/ Later
/ 2 / No
Where? _ Primarily
within the western U.S,; 1 in Florida; 1 in England.____
What discipline/field? ___Most in anthropology; some in other related social
sciences._____
(If Anthropology indicate the
subfield: _Primarily Cultural Anthro & Archaeology_)
What degree? _Most answer M.A., some Ph.Ds.__________
B. Intend to pursue a
career in anthropology: / 7 / Yes / 4 / No
/3 / Don’t Know
C. Intend to
pursue a career in some field other than anthropology (please specify):
This ranged from Art History to Dance, Counseling, Community Services,
Business Sales.
D. Other
plans? Examples: travel, teaching, Peace Corps, religious service, and work
in volunteer groups.
4. What do you believe to be
the greatest strengths of the WSU Anthropology Program?
100% of respondents indicated the professors were the greatest strength (their
knowledge, expertise, experience, personableness, availability, high
expectations, and helpfulness). Other answers mentioned the small, intimate
size of program, strong advisement, clarity of structure and requirements of
program, and subfields such as archaeology and cultural anthropology were strong
in the program.
5. What do you believe to be
the greatest weaknesses of the WSU Anthropology Program?
Most often mentioned were: (1) a limited number of courses/classes and a very
small program; (2) not enough funding; (3) classrooms being uncomfortable and
poorly ventilated; (4) not enough biological anthropology courses; (5) the
theory course being possibly too intensive/extensive; (6) university policies &
procedures being difficult for students to negotiate; and (7) the lack of
understanding of anthropology by the larger community preventing the program
from growing or being valued. Three students (21%) identified no weaknesses.
6. Do you think the WSU
Anthropology Program should add, delete, or change any courses or requirements
in its curriculum? What? (please specify) Why? (please explain)
Four students indicated there should be no changes. The remaining 10 made
primarily three suggestions: (1) add more biological anthropology courses (esp.
forensics); (2) add more upper division linguistics courses; and (3) split the
Anthropological Theory course into two with Classical Theory separated from
Contemporary Theory. Other recommendations were to add more courses in general
and more hands-on student research whenever possible.
7. How has your WSU
anthropological training changed the way that you view the world and peoples of
different cultural and ethnic backgrounds?
Here are some quotes: “I have a greater appreciation for & understanding of the
human animal.” “It made me more aware of everyone’s similarities within each
culture.” “It has allowed me to take a more objective & holistic approach when
I view other cultures. I have learned not to judge other cultures based on
subjective cultural standards.” “I am more aware of other cultures – those that
are not typically known by the general public. I am more accepting of their
beliefs & practices and could look at reasons to explain their behavior.”
“Cultural relativism ...I have gained a greater thirst for learning about other
people and understanding what they value.” “...viewing the world with less
bias. I find myself considering all aspects of a different culture with the
idea of understanding them as opposed to judging them.” “It has given me a
good sense of how the world works and how people fit together in the whole
scheme of things.”
8. Any further comments or
suggestions? “Great curriculum!” “Wonderful program.” “ You are all making
a difference in changing the way young people view the world around them, for
the better. I hope that every member of the Anthro. faculty realizes what an
impact they are having, and that you all take great pride in your work!” “I
loved the department! Thanks for the wonderful education experience. Even if I
don’t go into Anthropology in grad school, I will always value this experience
and will keep the ideas and viewpoints from anthropology in whatever I do.” “I
really like the way the classes are taught by professors who are both
knowledgeable & experienced in the particular course material such as
Conover/Linguistics & Bio Anthro, Arkush/Archaeology ,CRM & Prehistory, etc. It
brings a certain validity to what is being taught and I feel it aids learning.”
“I came to WSU not knowing what Anthro was and I am leaving totally and
completely in love with it.”
TABLE
B-1: DATA ON 75 GRADUATED ANTHROPOLOGY MAJORS FROM SPRING 2000 TO SPRING 2005
|
Student by
Order
of Graduation: |
Date
Grad |
Cum
GPA |
Anth
GPA |
ANTH
4200 |
ANTH
4300 |
Date
Began
WSU |
Date Began
Anthro |
Yrs
to
Grad |
Transfer
|
|
75. |
05-Aug-05 |
3.78 |
3.95 |
A |
A |
Spr 1999 |
Aut 2001 |
6 |
No |
|
74. |
05-Aug-05 |
2.81 |
3.18 |
B |
A |
Aut 1994 |
Aut 1995 |
11 |
No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73. |
06-May-05 |
3.54 |
3.65 |
A |
A |
Aut 2002 |
Aut 2002 |
3 |
Yes |
|
72. |
06-May-05 |
3.97 |
4.00 |
A |
A |
Aut 2002 |
Aut 2003 |
3 |
No |
|
71. |
06-May-05 |
3.80 |
3.80 |
A |
A |
Aut 2000 |
Spr 2001 |
5 |
No |
|
70. |
06-May-05 |
3.88 |
3.95 |
A |
A |
Spr 1999 |
Aut 2002 |
6 |
No |
|
69. |
06-May-05 |
3.32 |
3.47 |
B+ |
A |
Spr 1999 |
Aut 2001 |
6 |
Yes |
|
68. |
06-May-05 |
3.27 |
3.55 |
B+ |
A |
Aut 2001 |
Aut 2002 |
4 |
No |
|
67. |
06-May-05 |
3.25 |
3.28 |
B |
A |
Aut 2002 |
Aut 2002 |
3 |
Yes |
|
66. |
06-May-05 |
3.92 |
3.98 |
A |
A |
Spr 2001 |
Spr 2001 |
4 |
Yes |
|
65. |
06-May-05 |
3.67 |
3.75 |
A |
A |
Aut 2000 |
Spr 2001 |
5 |
No |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64. |
17-Dec-04 |
3.13 |
3.39 |
A- |
B+ |
Aut 1999 |
Spr 2000 |
5 |
Yes |
|
63. |
17-Dec-04 |
3.57 |
3.73 |
A |
A |
Spr 2001 |
Spr 2001 |
4 |
Yes |
|
62. |
17-Dec-04 |
3.12 |
3.36 |
A |
B |
Aut 2001 |
Spr 2002 |
3 |
Yes |
|
61. |
17-Dec-04 |
2.91 |
3.40 |
B |
A |
SU 1996 |
Spr 2002 |
9 |
No |
|
60. |
17-Dec-04 |
3.58 |
3.79 |
A |
A |
Spr 1991 |
Aut 1994 |
14 |
No |
|
59. |
17-Dec-04 |
3.32 |
3.30 |
C |
A |
Spr 2001 |
Spr 2001 |
4 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58. |
07-May-04 |
3.86 |
4.00 |
A |
A- |
Spr 2000 |
Spr 2000 |
4 |
No |
|
57. |
07-May-04 |
2.80 |
3.03 |
A |
I |
Aut 1995 |
Spr 1996 |
9 |
No |
|
56.
|
07-May-04 |
3.36 |
3.46 |
A |
A- |
SU 1998 |
Aut 1999 |
6 |
No |
|
55.
|
07-May-04 |
3.35 |
3.93 |
A |
|