Weber State University   

Criminal Justice - Undergraduate

Results of Assessment

2004-2005 (submitted 04/19/05)

Undergraduate Program Outcome Assessments

DESIRED OUTCOME: To gain an awareness of crime victim assistance 

MEANS OF ASSESSMENT: Assignments, quizzes, and exams 

ASSESSOR: David Murphy, Ph.D. 

RESULTS:  The majority of students entered the class with a strong commitment to identifying and respecting the rights and needs of crime victims.  During the semester, most students gained an understanding of the challenge of balancing the needs of victims with the rights of the accused.  Students were also introduced to the notion that the interests of victims may conflict with other CJ system objectives.  Throughout the course of the term, students demonstrated growth in their awareness of the needs of crime victims.  For example, course exams confirmed that students were able to demonstrate an understanding of why some victims choose not to report their experiences to the police.  In addition, students demonstrated an ability to identify strategies for making the criminal justice system’s response to crime more sensitive to the needs of victims. 

DESIRED OUTCOME: To gain a general understanding of the principles of social research methodology 

MEANS OF ASSESSMENT: Research projects 

WHO DID THE ASSESSMENT: David Murphy, Ph.D. 

RESULTS:  Most students entered the course without a strong background in the principles of social science research methods.  During the semester, students gained an understanding of the importance of research to the criminal justice community.  In addition, through in-class exercises students gained a familiarity with a variety of methods useful for purposes of conducting research as well as the strengths and weaknesses associated with each.  Field research projects provided students with the opportunity to develop skills in the areas of data recording, coding, and analysis.  Over the course of the term, students also developed the ability to critically examine scholarly research as was demonstrated via their composition of literature reviews.  Finally, each student was successful in independently applying the aforementioned skills and abilities through the completion of written research design proposals. 

DESIRED OUTCOME:  Tolerance of legitimate cultural differences in diverse society

MEANS OF ASSESSMENT:  Focus Group, N=14.  CJ 4980 Research Methods Class

ASSESSOR:  Scott Senjo

RESULTS:  see below

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

Well, I basically think the US is a melting pot and basically everyone in the world is here.

In every little town, every little section of the US there are all kinds of groups and beliefs.   I think we have a lot of different beliefs and we take all of those into consideration when making up the whole.

Um, Salt Lake City is comprised of different cultures and therefore we are all unified and diverse. 

It allows for everyone to have their own way of life and we don’t have to live by others’  rules.  It is diverse and it is also connected.

A lot like Meghan, I think of  a lot of all the cultures mixed together.  We are a lot of cultures mixed together.

2.  How do you define the term “cultural tolerance?”

I think it’s just respecting other people’s beliefs and opinions and that tolerance is kind of just putting up with it.

Well like some parts of the world, they don’t put up with their beliefs, but here we just go with the flow pretty much. 

I guess just tolerating other people’s cultures,  just allowing them to be celebrated.  Such as national holidays or informal celebrations.

To be culturally tolerant – its like everyone has said, it allows everyone to be who they are.  To not hold it against them for practicing what they do. 

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

Umm, like he said, with holidays, also with others religious beliefs, days of celebrating.  I think we’re culturally tolerant, we go out of our way to make sure that other cultures can get into college, we establish laws to be culturally tolerant.

I don’t think we are really, but there are some groups that are not.  Our government is, but as a whole, I think it is quite culturally tolerant.

Um, something that specifically came to mind, in NYC, Chinatown, there is serious diversity and people embrace that a lot.

You mention hate groups and you can note that we are tolerant of that!  Even hate groups and KKK can be tolerating.  Its tolerating the intolerant.

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

I tend to disagree with most people in this room, especially the government.  Look at same-sex marriage. That is huge.  That is culturally intolerant!  There is a huge amount of cultural intolerance there, especially in the southern states.  There’s so much intolerance!  Everyone has it.  One of the big problems is understanding!  When we have no understanding, we can’t be tolerant.  Education increases it.  The more you understand something, the more you can tolerate it.  If you don’t understand it, you may not tolerate it.

I just thought that as education increases tolerance, look at government.  They have education, and they are not tolerant!  It also very much depends on whether the education is on the street or in the classroom.  It also depends on the type of education.  And also the period of time.

Going back to the case of immigrants getting drivers licenses, we were so tolerant and progressive before and then look at what happened; look at 9-11.  We are trying that as we were more open, we may have gotten hurt, so now the pendulum swings back the other way.

I may not tolerate others, but that does not make me bad.  It just means that I have different values.

I grew-up in UT and I’m not LDS, and people have tried to push them around.

Expression is one thing, but it’s not intolerant.  LDS is an expression.  Its not really pushing or hating or hurting anyone.

I was in the South and Baptist ministers came up to me and said I’m going to hell.  I told him I would see him there.

War is an example of intolerance.

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

I think that it starts with people being more open-minded.  A lot of what we talked about was religion.  If people could be more open minded, and appreciate that, especially with children, that would create more openness.

I agree exactly with Lisa, to promote tolerance, like with the drivers license and privilege, we have every right to complain, and that makes the U.S. different.

I think passing legislation that surpasses certain groups is the ultimate in intolerance.  Excluding groups does not work.  Slaves were not real people, they were property.

If we can see everyone as an equal, and not beat the other person.  That would help.

A lot of my thoughts go along with what everyone has said.  But you know, there are some who just will always be intolerant and there’s nothing you can do.  We then should try to be tolerant of them.

People are afraid of what they don’t know.  We should be celebrating differences, and if we listen to others, we will be better off.

A lot of people like to travel and they go overseas, and that will let them be more tolerant because they are face to face with others who are different from themselves.

Develop your own critical thinking skills; travel; go to college. 

I think what a sad world we would live in if we did not have beliefs.  Many people who say they are intolerant - if we didn’t believe strongly what would be the reason of life.  We have to have strong beliefs or what is the purpose?

Going back to promoting tolerance, I spent some time in the middle east and I got to be friends with a lot of them.  I did not have positive interactions with the Saudi’s. Where the bias I had went away after positive interaction.  Negative interactions do not promote tolerance of others.

Education and experiences affect how everyone has different beliefs.

Better to have separation between church and state.

Going back to education, high schools and some colleges do not have much diversity, and the private schools are not diverse, and I was exposed to different cultures on the playing field and in the classroom.

What constitutes a legitimate cultural difference?  What is legitimate?  The biggest thing to help is to get involved!  Get involved and stayed involved!

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

MEANS OF ASSESSMENT:  Evaluation of journals during Fall and Spring Semesters, AY 2004-2005. 

ASSESSOR: Dr. Paul Johnson 

RESULTS:   During this fourth year of formal assessment,  I evaluated and selected  the best practices in student journal writing based on the past three years of experience. The findings of previous reports remain valid. Thinking with a pencil, daily entries and neat, typewritten pages continued to bring out the best of the students’ writing skills. Added to this was a request for students to include in their journals any critical comments/observations from the week’s reading assignment. Also, I added two directed topics-think pieces-requesting their informed opinions. As in the past, most students didn’t see the value of this writing exercise, that is, journals in general, but to a person they all agreed in its importance once they started on resumes and cover letters. As in the past, they commented on how writing helped to clarify their thinking, giving substance to ideas. 

IMPLICATIONS: As in the findings of previous years, students were able to actually see the value of their writing experience as they struggled to develop their resumes and cover letters. Students who felt weak and threatened in the writing area found a means to face their writing fears head on and practice this essential skill for fourteen weeks. Over the period of the semester I was able to  measure and observe the confidence students acquired by performing this written exercise.

DESIRED OUTCOME: General Understanding of Major Theories of Ethics 

MEANS OF ASSESSMENT:  Student comprehension and application of theoretical principles of ethics are demonstrated in the following ways: 

ASSESSOR: Dr. Frank W. Budd 

METHODS: 

Student responses on 4 examinations, including a final exam are required of each student. Each examination includes multiple-choice, true-false questions that test the student’s knowledge of the subject matter detailed in assigned readings, as well as information brought to the class by the professor. Additionally, each examination includes brief essay response questions requiring the student to apply the principles covered in the specific block of instruction. 

During the term, all students are required to submit their responses to 4 case studies. For each study, there is no completely right or wrong answer. Rather, the student is required to consider the facts of the case, and then apply, in his/her best judgement, the most appropriate solution. In fact, conclusions can be, and often are, at each end of the spectrum of possibilities. Yet, each response requires reasoning and the application of theories including: utilitarian, deontological, religious ( absolute/ relative), natural law, and/or situational ethics as they apply to  criminal justice. Students are expected to include the additional concepts of justice, duty and peacemaking. 

At the end of each semester, all students are required to submit a short paper explaining their personal/professional ethical philosophy. Their answers should include the application of all theoretical concepts studied throughout the semester. 

As appropriate, the professor periodically poses "real life" ethical problems, dilemmas, and challenges he has personally faced as a criminal justice practitioner. This stimulates class discussion and the consideration of " what should be done/ what should have been done." 

Five video presentations are used to present the challenges, temptations, and legal considerations faced by law enforcement, attorneys and judges. Since there is comparatively less media available for the study of attorney ethics, an attorney with criminal and civil litigation experience is invited to attend class and speak to the students about the manner in which the system functions. 

RESULTS: Student performance on the examinations, the case studies, and the expression of personal philosophy indicate that every student understands the theoretical basis for decision making. The first exam of the semester focuses on the theories of utilitarianism, deontological (duty) principles, the categorical and hypothetical imperatives, and the importance of the study of ethics.  For the Spring semester, 2005, the mean score was 90, with the lowest score of 71. The median score for this same exam was 93.5. The mean score for the case study was 20 out of a possible 20 points. As the semester progresses, the overall mean score for all case studies is estimated to be 72 to 75 out of a possible 80 points. 

IMPLICATIONS: This course continues to challenge students to assess their own ethical behavior and how they determine the course of their actions. Not only are they expected to form solid, ethically defensible decisions, they are "pushed" to thoughtfully consider "why" they decided to act in a specific manner. While it is not essential for students to defend their decisions and actions to the professor, it is critical for them to defend decisions to themselves, based on sound theoretical applications.

It is common for students from past semesters to report to the professor applications of this course in their careers and/or the job seeking process.

This course will now be required for all criminal justice majors and minors beginning with the Fall semester, 2005.

DESIRED OUTCOME:  General understanding of police work