Weber State University   

Honors Program

Results of Assessment

2002-2003  (submitted 06/03/03)

The results of the four components of the Honors Program assessment plan as measured against the curriculum grid are as follows:

1. Course Assessment.

At the end of each Honors course students were given a list of the learning outcomes and asked to evaluate on a scale of 1-4, with 4 high, the degree to which their experience in the course helped them achieve each particular goal. Averages for each course level were compiled. This information will be shared with instructors teaching in the upcoming academic year.

1000-level courses:

These courses are primarily designed to develop the basic skills in group 1 of the Learning Outcomes, and these scores reflect a substantial awareness on the part of students that these courses helped them advance toward those goals. (The low score in category 1f is to be expected, in that independent research is generally not part of these general education courses.) The scores for category 2 suggest that these students also felt they made progress toward the broad-minded and critical thinking that the outcomes of this category embody. The score for collaborative efforts (3a) could be better, and next semester’s instructors will be encouraged to incorporate something along these lines. The averages in 3b (campus involvement) and 3c (community service) conceal the fact the scores for these in the Introduction to Honors class were very high (3.6 and 3.8). Since this course was overhauled with the specific purpose of fostering these goals of the program, these results are a positive sign; the lower scores in these areas in classes subsequently taken by students suggest that we need to develop ways to keep this involvement alive in other classes beyond the introductory one.

2000-level courses:

The numbers suggest that these courses were successful in continuing the students’ development of skills and intellectual orientation. However, they also reinforce the need to incorporate elements of community interaction in courses beyond honors 1110.

3000-level courses:

Obviously, these two courses were not as successful as the lower-level courses. Based on written student comments, there were factors specific to these classes that at least partially contributed to this low assessment. Future data will be carefully scrutinized to see if the colloquia in general are not sufficiently supporting the goals of the Honors Program.

One outcome of this year’s experience is a set of notes to be distributed to all new Honors instructors, alerting them to some of the special challenges involved in teaching Honors classes, and dispelling some inaccurate preconceptions they may have about what Honors students are like and how Honors classes differ from non-Honors.

2. Student Portfolios / Exit Interviews

Since the initiation of portfolios is too recent for any seniors to have one, we used exit interviews with the director and staff to assess the experiences and achievements of the 8 students graduating with University Honors.

The elements of the program most often singled out for commendation were the small class size, the interactive nature of the classes, and the high level of student participation, as opposed to lectures. Particularly appealing was the opportunity to fulfill general education requirements with courses that emphasized conceptualization rather than the memorization of factual material, and that tested knowledge through writing rather than multiple-choice examination. The welcoming and informal atmosphere of the Honors Center was cited as conducive to students getting to know one another well.

Concerns were raised about the atmosphere in the classroom becoming at times too informal, when instructors failed to enforce rules about tardiness, attendance, and the timely submission of written work. Problems were brought up concerning team-taught courses, in particular the lack of continuity when the instructors seem to be teaching merely consecutively, rather than collaboratively. These comments will also contribute to the notes to future instructors, noted above. There was also a suggestion, as often, that there ought to be more Honors classes offered each semester, so as to provide greater choice. This problem involves something of a vicious cycle to which we have yet to find a solution: we can’t reasonably offer more courses because we don’t have to enrollment to support them, but students tell us they would take more courses if they had more choice.

3. Senior Project

The individual serving as primary mentor for each of the Honors Senior Projects was given the list of the Honors learning outcomes, with the instructions to evaluate his/her student’s achievement of each goal. Averages over all 8 graduating students:

These data support our expectation that, as a capstone for the overall Honors experience, the year-long senior independent work of students who have gone through the entire University Honors program should demonstrate progress toward all of the goals of the program. Particularly impressive was the students’ ability to present their work orally, and respond to questions and criticisms from members of their committee.

4. Post-graduate data.

As we are still in process of compiling a data-base of addresses for Honors graduates, we do not yet have any information in this area.

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