Weber State University
   

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