Weber State University   

Honors Program

Results of Assessment

2004-2005  (submitted 05/23/05)

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:

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 these goals. The scores in 16 of the 17 categories reflect an increase over last year’s results. The low score of 2.9 in category 1f (up from 2.6) is to be expected, in that independent research does not play as great a part in these general education courses as it will in subsequent courses. The scores for category 2 suggest that these students also felt that they made progress toward the broad-minded and critical thinking that the outcomes of this category embody. The increase in scores for category 3 is particularly heartening. The goals in this category are concerned with engaged learning, campus involvement, and community service, which are major components of Honors Program’s mission, but have consistently lagged behind the more academic goals in the degree to which students feel they have attained them. This year instructors were specifically asked, on the basis of unsatisfactory scores in last year’s assessment, to endeavor to include more such work in their courses.

2000-level courses:

A primary goal of these courses (entitled Great Ideas of the West, and Great Ideas of the East) is to further the student’s appreciation for diversity of viewpoint, and the variety of human experience. The high scores recorded in this group for category 2 are therefore particularly encouraging, although they reflect a slight drop from last year’s results.

3000-level courses:

The results of this group of evaluations must be viewed with some caution, since it consists of very few courses with few students. On the basis of three very successful courses, last year’s averages were extremely high. This year’s are somewhat lower. None the less, these scores do suggest that the colloquia are successful in their goal of incorporating all elements of the Honors program into a unified educational experience. The relatively low score in 1f (ability to carry out a program of independent research) is somewhat troubling, since one of the functions of these courses in the overall structure of the Honors curriculum is to prepare students for the senior thesis. It will perhaps be necessary to monitor more closely what sorts of assignments are being given in these courses, and why students do not perceive that they are gaining useful experience in this area.
At all three course levels, the scores in category 3 remain the lowest. To try to rectify this deficiency, the Honors Program is partnering with a group of faculty working on furthering the degree and quality of engaged learning on the WSU campus, with a view toward using the Honors Program as a laboratory to explore ideas and methodologies that can then be shared with the rest of the campus. Honors should benefit from any strategies that emerge from this collaboration.

2. Student Portfolios / Exit Interviews

Student portfolios, which are to include examples of students’ work and documentation of their progress toward the goals of the program, were instituted two years ago. Beginning in the next two years we shall therefore be able to begin using portfolios of graduating seniors to assess their experiences during their years in the Honors Program. In the meantime, we have been using exit interviews with graduates for this purpose.

As in the past, students repeatedly mentioned small class size, personal interaction with faculty, and the congenial nature of the Honors center and its staff as the strongest features of the program. In addition mention was also made of student input into the structure and running of the classes, the variety of readings assigned (and in particular the use of more primary and fewer textbook-type readings), and the opportunity to display creativity and originality in written assignments.

One criticism that came up more than once is the perceived failure on the part of some instructors to enforce regulations concerning attendance, assignment deadlines, etc. The students’ feeling is that the sense of community we are trying to create in the classroom is weakened by some of the participants being repeatedly absent, clearly not doing the reading, not participating, and in other ways not “playing by the rules.” This issue will be brought up with the Honors faculty before the next semester.

As was true last year, a weakness that persists is the degree to which students have been able or willing to take advantage of the range of presentations, social and cultural activities, and service projects offered by the program. Lack of time and work schedules are most frequently cited as the reason. We have made some gains this year. Many students took advantage of reduced-cost tickets to the ballet and the opera. Combining service projects with social activities has emerged as a fruitful idea. And for the upcoming year, the instructors of the Introduction to Honors course have agreed to try to include attendance at some Honors-sponsored events as part of the course.

3. Senior Project

No assessment data were collected from senior projects in 2005.

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