Criminal Justice - Undergraduate
Results of Assessment
2000-2001 (submitted 05/15/01)
The following Outcome were Assessed in the Spring of 2001. They will be
Assessed again in the Spring of 2002. The results of this Assessment has been
circulated among the Criminal Justice Faculty and will be discussed at our first
Departmental Meeting after the Summer break.
- DESIRED OUTCOME:
Appreciate constitutional values of due process,
equal protection and fundamental fairness in policing, courts and corrections.
- HOW ASSESSED: A series of questions given to three upper division
law classes: two sections of Constitutional Rights and Responsibilities
(CJ 4160) and one section of Laws of Arrest, Search and Seizure (CJ 4100);
- WHO DID THE ASSESSMENT: Michelle E. Heward, J.D.;
- RESULTS:
The questions were designed to assess student awareness of
what the due process clause is and its general application in criminal
justice areas. The students overwhelmingly knew that "due process"
requires the government to act in a fundamentally fair manner. Over ninety
percent knew that the due process clause was contained in the 14th
Amendment of the United States Constitution. Few knew that it also contained
the 6th Amendment– many appeared to have guessed incorrect
amendments. Over ninety percent of the students could name specific areas
where the due process clause applied to the states, i.e. to a fair trial
process, confront and cross-examine witnesses, an attorney, exclude
illegally seized evidence in the 4th Amendment area, et al. Most
students were not able to give the language of the due process clause.
However in discussion after the examination it appeared that most students
knew the answer but had either not understood the question or not realized
that they knew the answer;
- IMPLICATIONS: Students understand the concept of fundamental
fairness required by the due process clause. Students needed further
instruction to understand the mechanics of how the due process clause
works to guarantee rights from state authorities vs. the federal
government. That discussion was had in each of the classes after the
assessment and the professor was satisfied that the students understood
that concept. The discussion after the assessment was helpful to confirm
the professor’s belief that the class understood the basic concepts of
constitutional fairness.
DESIRED OUTCOME: Majors should know how cases are processed through the
criminal justice system from arrest through parole.
- HOW ASSESSED: Assessment through a series of questions embedded in
the comprehensive exam given to all seniors during the senior seminar
course;
- WHO DID THE ASSESSMENT: Michelle E. Heward, J.D.;
- RESULTS: Students did not do well in the assessment. As a whole,
they do not appear to understand the basic concepts of how a case proceeds
through the criminal justice system. This may be because they do not
understand the process;
- IMPLICATIONS: Students are taught the process of a criminal case in
lower division courses. It may be helpful to re-emphasize the process in
other courses so that students receive reinforcement of the concepts they
have learned. A class like senior seminar may be a good place for a final
review of the process since it is one of the few required classes for
seniors. It would also be helpful to speak with the students who were
assessed for their feedback.
DESIRED OUTCOME: Majors should demonstrate the "ability to
effectively communicate in writing."
Assessment of Journals during Spring Semester’s Senior
Seminar;
WHO DID THE ASSESSMENT: Dr. Paul Johnson;
RESULTS: While not graded, the journals were evaluated for progressive
growth... Journals were also read toward identifying organizational, grammatical
and spelling shortcomings. Writing reflected unexpected results. The students
mentioned how journal writing helped them become organized; how placing thoughts
on paper made them think in new ways and view problems from a different
perspective, giving possible solutions to otherwise nebulous frustrations.
Several related how the act of writing had helped them discover an untapped
source of creativity, ("I didn’t know I could write), and how writing
improved their concentration. Many reported the emotional therapy value of
unburdening concerns on paper;
IMPLICATIONS: Overall, students reported that the original
"busywork" perception of journaling had become an excellent vehicle
for improving written communication skills and clarifying their thoughts. This
Student Outcome, The Ability to Effectively Communicate in Writing, was clearly
accomplished through journaling and directly impacted development of this most
important skill for the graduating student. Students were privately counseled
without penalty with regards to organizational, grammatical and spelling
shortcomings.
DESIRED OUTCOME: Majors should be "aware of the goals, successes,
and challenges of institutional and community corrections."
- HOW ASSESSED: Series of global questions embedded in exam.
Specifically, two short essay examination questions as well as several
true/false, multiple choice questions were scattered throughout the test.
The questions probed student knowledge of (1) prison sentencing laws, (2)
sentencing goals/objectives, (3) sentencing practices, and (4) the
sentencing options available to the court;
- WHO DID THE ASSESSMENT: Dr. Mike Norman;
- RESULTS: The examination questions designed to measure student
understanding of sentencing practices and laws were weighted in such a way
as to account for almost 50% of the total examination points. Eighteen of
the 22 students enrolled in the course demonstrated mastery of the
sentencing content by achieving grades of "C" or better (12
students received a grade of "B" or higher). Additional student
learning occurred after the examination was returned to the students. I
conducted a review of the test questions and had students verbally discuss
the correct answers. The discussion also provided a vehicle for assessing
student understanding of the material. At the conclusion of the examination
review, I was satisfied that most students had not only accumulated new
knowledge about sentencing, but also had developed a better understanding of
the roles that various justice system actors play when sentencing criminal
offenders;
- IMPLICATIONS: Dr. Mike Norman seemed satisfied that the goal was
being accomplished and the pedagogy was effective.
DESIRED OUTCOME: Tolerance of Legitimate Cultural Differences in a
Diverse Society.
- HOW ASSESSED: Two Focus Groups of Students Formed Specifically to
Address this outcome. Students were provided with a two-page handout which
described the use of focus group research. The students were then provided
with a list of 5 questions which operationalized the topic. The respondents’
answers to the five questions were written down by the assessor;
- WHO DID THE ASSESSMENT:
Dr. Scott Senjo;
- RESULTS:
The findings from the focus groups are presented below. They
will be reported in order of the five questions that were addressed;
- What do you think is meant by saying "the U.S. is a ‘culturally
diverse’ society"?
- Dr. Senjo reported lots of verbatim raw data (actual quotes). It
appears that most of the students understood that the United States
is, unlike countries like "Japan" or "China," more
of a "salad bowl" rather then a "melting pot" and
that there is no dominant culture.
- How do you define the term "cultural tolerance"
- The quotes recorded by Dr. Senjo suggest that students generally
perceived this to mean "live and let live" and not being
"hostile" to view of others despite your own cultural
background.
- In which ways do you think American society is culturally tolerant?
- The quotes appear to suggest a division among the students. About
half seemed to think that Americans were good at letting people be
free "to be who they are." The other half seemed to feel
that "there’s probably a lot more intolerance than we
think."
- In which ways do you think American society is culturally intolerant?
- The quotes gathered by Dr. Senjo mentioned such things as "hate
crimes," "Matthew Sheppard" [gay who was brutally
murdered], being "attacked just for who you are," or for
being attacked even though "not disturbing another person."
- What more do you think could be done to promote tolerance of
legitimate cultural differences in our diverse society?
- The quotes gathered by Dr. Senjo mentioned "education,"
"parents," "there will never be a solution- there will
always be prejudice," and "get rid of hyphenated America...
Asian-American this and Hispanic-American that."
- IMPLICATIONS:
Dr. Senjo apparently felt that the above data speak for
themselves. The implications for pedagogy within the criminal justice program
will need to be addressed when we as a department go over these findings in
our departmental meeting.
DESIRED OUTCOME: Grasp fundamental concepts, nature of criminal law.
- HOW ASSESSED: Series of twelve questions in Comprehensive Exam in
Senior Seminar;
- WHO DID THE ASSESSMENT:
Dr. David Lynch;
- RESULTS:
Twelve questions measuring a student’s grasp of criminal
law fundamentals were embedded in a comprehensive exam given to every senior
in the major. Two sets of students were evaluated in the Spring of 2001. The
first group provided an average correct response rate of 85.3% while the
second group provided an average correct response rate of 81.2% to these
twelve questions. The range of correct responses from the first group on any
particular question was 67% to 100%. The range of correct responses from the
second group was 57% to 100%;
- IMPLICATIONS:
Overall, the results were quite satisfactory with the
exception of Question #3 (the most frequently missed question: 38% average
wrong response among all students). This question had to do with the nature of
"actus reus." This weakness needs to be better addressed in CJ 1330
(Criminal Law) in the future.
DESIRED OUTCOME: Competent Consumers of Criminal Justice Research.
- HOW ASSESSED: Analyses of Research Projects done in Research
Methods Class;
- WHO DID THE ASSESSMENT: Dr. David Lynch and Dr. Robert
Wadman;
- RESULTS: In Dr. Lynch’s Fall 2000 Research Methods class,
students were asked to do both a qualitative project (based on oral
interviews) and a quantitative project (based on written surveys). Students
were expected to gather, organize, present and analyze the data in written
reports. The students exceeded Dr. Lynch’s expectations in both projects.
They all received and earned either a B or A on these two projects. Many
students went the extra mile using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences) in organizing and analyzing their quantitative data. The only
negative was some problems with grammar in the presentation of their
findings. In Dr. Wadman’s Research Method’s class, students were asked
to collect data (facts), organize the data in a conceptual manner, and
critically evaluate their findings. From the formulation of an idea to the
development of a research design, the students were assessed based on this
three part model. Dr. Wadman found mixed results as to the quality of these
projects. Some students excelled while others continued to display weakness.
- IMPLICATIONS: Most but not all students appear to have mastered the
ability to competently understand, consume, and even do criminal justice
research. Requiring research projects appears to be an overall effective way
to teach most students to be competent consumers of research by requiring
them to actually do such research themselves.
DESIRED OUTCOME: Appreciate major issues of effective policing.
- HOW ASSESSED: Three exams given during the semester on the topic of
Community Policing;
- WHO DID THE ASSESSMENT: Dr. Robert Wadman;
- RESULTS: Students consistently enter the Community Policing Class
with a traditional understanding regarding reactive policing in America.
After completing the course, students recognize the futility of traditional
policing. Most students learn to value the concepts of community policing.
Most students gain the skills that are grounded in developing community
trust and developing crime problem solving techniques. A few students cling
to the failed values found in traditional policing;
- IMPLICATIONS: Overall, the specialized course in Community Policing
(CJ 3040) seems to be having a pronounced change in students’ misguided
initial understanding of what constitutes effective policing. This is a very
useful course in our program.
DESIRED OUTCOME: Understand major theories of crime causation.
- HOW ASSESSED: Two exams, a midterm and final are given in
CJ/Sociology 3270 (our Criminology Course). Testing measures knowledge of
concepts, theories and the names of those who developed them. Additionally,
a 5-10 page paper is required in which students apply these theories and
concepts to their own personal lives;
- WHO DID THE ASSESSMENT: Dr. Kay Gillespie;
- RESULTS: While students struggle with the multiple-choice part of
the exam, especially the midterm, they soon learn to look for the concepts
and their definitions. It takes a while to convince them of the need to know
what others have done and the importance of using theory as a basis for
action- although, as they find out, everyday life is based on theory. It is
in the paper that they are able to put together the concepts and apply them
at a personal level. These papers show, at a qualitative level, the student’s
ability to incorporate classroom lectures and activity. By applying these
theories at a personal level they gain insight to how they might be useful
and how, as professionals, theory can be translated to criminal justice.
These papers show insight as well as sensitivity. Most students comment on
how surprised they are upon seeing the real life application of what is
learned in the classroom;
- IMPLICATIONS: Students comment that theory becomes meaningful
through the process of application. They also indicate that such application
would not be possible without the knowledge of the concepts. I believe both
of these assessment techniques are valuable and each enhances the other. The
challenge is to somehow convince students of this value earlier in the
semester so as to enhance their learning and ease their fears of theory.
Mission
Statement / Student
Learning Outcomes / Curriculum
Grid / Assessment Plan
/ Contact Person
|
