Weber State University   

Criminal Justice - Undergraduate

Results of Assessment

2001-2002 (submitted 05/14/02)

The following Outcome were Assessed in the Spring of 2002. They will be Assessed again in the Spring of 2003. The results of this Assessment will be circulated among the Criminal Justice Faculty and discussed at our first Departmental Meeting after the Summer break.

1. 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 two upper division law classes: two sections of Constitutional Rights and Responsibilities (CJ 4160).

WHO DID THE ASSESSMENT: Michelle E. Heward

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 14^th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Few knew that it also contained the 5^th Amendment. Nearly all 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, assistance of an attorney, reasonable searches and seizures, et al. Approximately eighty percent of the students could state the language of the due process clause, and in our subsequent discussion the students exhibited a clear understanding of the concept of due process.

IMPLICATIONS: Students in upper division classes understand the concept of fundamental fairness required by the due process clause. They were able to demonstrate that they could identify the provision, define it, and give examples of how it works and specifically how it applies to the criminal justice field.

2. 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 given in one section of senior seminar, in two upper-division law classes, and in one lower division legal class. None of these classes involved a review or teaching of the process to the students.

WHO DID THE ASSESSMENT: Michelle E. Heward

RESULTS: While most of the students were able to generally determine how a case proceeds through the system, approximately half of them made errors in determining the specific function and order of an arraignment and a preliminary hearing. In discussing the process with students after the assessment, it appeared that this was information that many of them had not received in class.

IMPLICATIONS: Students are taught the process of a criminal case in lower division courses. We should continue 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.

3. DESIRED OUTCOME: Majors should demonstrate the "ability to effectively communicate in writing."

HOW ASSESSED: Assessment of journals during Fall and Spring Semesters Senior Seminar (AY 2001-2002).

WHO DID THE ASSESSMENT: Dr. Paul Johnson

RESULTS: This being the second year of formal, structured evaluation of this assessment, it has allowed measurement and comparison of outcomes. All of last year’s comments on this report remain valid, i.e., evaluation of progressive growth, identifying individual writing shortcomings and emphasizing placing thoughts on paper as a means to provide clarity of thought (see last year’s report for full review of Assessment, Results and Implications).

This year I extended evaluation to both Fall and Spring semesters, added an additional informational handout on journaling, and spent another hour of classroom time discussing the journal, its importance and practical uses. I further read several anonymous examples of journals written by former Senior Seminar students, a practice that seemed to reduce some of the anxiety and fear associated with the writing activity. I also insisted that journals be typewritten and follow the principles of the handout information as their experiences allowed. This gave them minimum but helpful structure.

IMPLICATIONS: While the same implications were found as in last year’s implications, this year’s journal submissions were much improved in depth and quality. There was also an unexpected outcome with the journal assignment. As the classes progressed to the remaining written requirements, the cover letter and resume, they experienced much less time and difficulty in their completion. When I mentioned the comparison in time, effort and results to past classes, they mentioned that the journal writing was in large part responsible for easing them into the cover letter and resume.

4. 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: [NOTE: Dr. Mike Norman was on sabbatical leave this year, so a copy of his report from last year is included below.]

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.

5. DESIRED OUTCOME: Tolerance of Legitimate Cultural Differences in a Diverse Society

HOW ASSESSED: Focus groups. Two groups of students were formed for purposes of this focus group research (N=13; N=6). All of the respondents were presented a 5-slide PowerPoint slide show which described the use of focus group research. The students were then informed about the purpose of the focus group in which they were participants. Everyone was told "there are no wrong answers" and to "be as open and candid as possible" with their answers to the specific questions for the study.

The topic "Tolerance of Legitimate Cultural Differences in a Diverse Society" was broken-down into five (5) sub-topics and placed into the form of questions for the respondents to answer. This provided for the operationalization of the main topic. The five questions that the respondents were asked are as follows:

1. What do you think is meant by the saying "the U.S. is a ‘culturally diverse’ society"?

2. How do you define the term "cultural tolerance?"

3. In what ways do you think American society is culturally tolerant?

4. In what ways do you think American society is culturally intolerant?

5. What more do you think could be done to promote tolerance of legitimate cultural differences in our diverse society?

The respondents’ answers to the five questions above were immediately transcribed into a computer word processing application. A tape recorder was not used. Hence, a small amount of data was not captured (because I could not type on a keyboard that fast, and simultaneous to the data entry, had to moderate the discussion, provide validation of responses, and otherwise keep the discussion flowing along and consistent with the question being answered). Overall, respondent answers were long and detailed. There was no need to make the effort to try and elicit more information from the respondents. The did not need encouragement to answer or speak-up. Their answers were long and seemingly constructive.

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 asked concerning the topic of Tolerance of Legitimate Cultural Differences in Diverse Society.

1. 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 the students understood this concept well. Typical of the many responses was this one: "There’s lots of different cultures, beliefs, religions, and everyone trying to function together."

2. How do you define the term "cultural tolerance"

Typical quotes recorded by Dr. Senjo were, "Can’t we all just get along" and "anything can be accepted and practiced here if it does not break the law or harm anyone."

3. In which ways do you think American society is culturally tolerant?

The quotes appear to suggest a division among the students. Unlike last year, all the students this year believed America was extremely tolerant and seemed to express strong approval for that. Typical comments were, "our system of government is set up to protect the minority- that is great" and "when I lived in Albuquerque... we said the pledge of allegiance in English and Spanish."

4. In which ways do you think American society is culturally intolerant?

The quotes gathered by Dr. Senjo mentioned such things as "pockets of racism," "immigrants are paid dirt cheap," and "now all Arabs are [wrongfully considered to be] terrorists." These quotes suggest that students show an understanding and sensitivity to cultural intolerance.

5. What more do you think could be done to promote tolerance of legitimate cultural differences in our diverse society?

This year the quotes gathered by Dr. Senjo focused mainly on education and programs in schools.

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.

6. DESIRED OUTCOME: Grasp fundamental concepts, nature of criminal law.

HOW ASSESSED: Series of fourteen questions in Comprehensive Exam in Senior Seminar

WHO DID THE ASSESSMENT: Dr. David Lynch

RESULTS: Fourteen questions measuring a student’s grasp of criminal law fundamentals were embedded in a comprehensive exam given to every senior in the major at the beginning of the semester. Two sets of students were evaluated early in the Spring of 2002 in two different senior seminar courses.. The first group provided an average correct response rate of 98.7% to the fourteen questions while the second group provided an average correct response rate of 98.1% to these same questions. The range of correct responses from the first group on any particular question was 95% to 100%. The range of correct responses from the second group was 96% to 100%.

IMPLICATIONS: Last years results were very good but this years results were truly outstanding. Apparently students are grasping the fundamental concepts and nature of criminal law. Criminal Law is a required core course in the program that all majors take. We seem to be doing a good job at instilling these concepts in our students.

7. 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 2001 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. On the qualitative project students scores ranged from 77 to 95 with most students receiving a B or an A. On the quantitative project student scores ranged from 78 to 98 with most student receiving a B or an A. 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 very serious problems with grammar in the presentation of their findings. I did not take off heavily for grammar errors but had I done so grades would have been significantly lower. In sum, students did well in substance but need to work on their style of presentation, in particular their command of the English rules of grammar.

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.

8. 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: [No new assessment was done this year so the report from last year is reported below.]

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.

9. 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: [No new assessment was done this year so the results of last year are reported below.]

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.

11. DESIRED OUTCOME: Have a marketable credential for employment or foundation for graduate school

HOW ASSESSED: Graduation Exit Surveys

WHO DID THE ASSESSMENT: Dr. Kay Gillespie and Ms. Julie Jenkins

RESULTS: A total of forty three exit surveys were undertaken. As to current employment, 13 of the 43 students were already employed in CJ jobs. Thirty others had jobs but not in CJ. With regards to the question, "If not in CJ currently, do you have a position waiting," 8 students indicated that they were already employed in CJ jobs and did not need a position, 5 students had a CJ position waiting, and 30 did not have a position waiting. With regards to "are you actively seeking a position in the CJ field," 25 were actively seeking CJ employment, 4 were actively seeking admission to graduate school, 4 were not seeking CJ employment because they were currently satisfactorily employed in CJ, and 10 were not seeking employment.

IMPLICATIONS: The above presents a mixed bag. Though many students upon graduation either had CJ jobs already or had positions waiting, many did not. It appears that this is an area we really need to focus more on as a department. We need more data to see what is exactly going on and why.

12. DESIRED OUTCOME: Foundation in scientific investigation, crime lab procedures, and crime scene processing

HOW ASSESSED: Series of questions in comprehensive exam

WHO DID THE ASSESSMENT: Dr. David Collins

RESULTS: Dr. Collins was just hired and is in the process of redesigning the forensics program. He will participate in this assessment beginning next year.

IMPLICATIONS: See "Results" above

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