Fall 2011 General Education Assessment Report—Philosophy
Prepared by Dr. E. Das Janssen (ext. 2433)/
General Education Assessment Coördinator for Philosophy
Scope of Assessment
The scope of this assessment includes
PHIL 1030 Critical Thinking, three sections p. 1
PHIL 1020 Introduction to Logic, four sections p. 3
PHIL 1040 Introduction to Ethics, one section p. 7
PHIL 2710 Race & Society, one section p. 9
Decision-Making, &c. p. 10
Critical Thinking Assessment Outcomes
The assessment instrument for the philosophy course in Critical Thinking measures six criteria from the Chicago State University General Education Outcomes:
1) Use the standard dialect of American English in speaking, reading, and writing;
2) Find information, evaluate it critically in terms of reliability, and use it appropriately in thinking
and writing;
5) Apply the basic methods, questions, and vocabularies of the humanities, mathematics, the natural
sciences, and the social sciences;
7) Recognize the role of creativity in problem-solving, addressing issues and concerns, and
generating new knowledge;
10) Demonstrate how scientific inquiry has affected human understanding of the natural world in
which we live; and
11) Apply analytical skills, including mathematical reasoning, to the natural sciences, social
sciences, and the humanities.
This is accomplished by making certain students in Critical Thinking are able to:
(a) understand the philosophical nature of what an argument is;
(b) discern key indicator words that assist in distinguishing reasons or premises from conclusions;
(c) determine the difference between deductive and inductive arguments;
(d) assess arguments for both logical strength (i.e., validity) and soundness;
(e) discriminate between premises that provide independent support for their conclusion(s) and
premises that provide joint support for their conclusion(s); and
(f) learn numerous fallacies that reveal errors in reasoning.
Question 1 addresses General Education Outcomes Goals 1, 5, & 11
Question 2 addresses General Education Outcomes Goals 1, 5, & 11
Question 3 addresses General Education Outcomes Goals 1, 5, & 11
Question 4 addresses General Education Outcomes Goals 1, 5, 7, & 10
Question 5 addresses General Education Outcomes Goals 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, & 11
Method of Assessment
In an attempt to determine to what extent the above outcomes have been achieved, the Philosophy faculty has developed a Critical Thinking Assessment Instrument, which is given at the beginning of the semester and at the end of the semester. The assessment includes five multiple-choice questions, which are fairly difficult for a first-time student in a critical thinking course, but quite manageable for a student who has completed the course. These questions are specifically designed to address the criteria noted above.
The target set by the Philosophy faculty is for each section to achieve a 70% or better overall score for Post-Test assessment findings. In addition, since interest has been shown in the number of students who pass the assessment post-test, a score of 3 correct answers has been set by the Philosophy faculty as a passing grade for each individual student.
Critical Thinking Assessment Findings/Interpretations/Conclusions
Spring 2011 Critical Thinking (Phil 1030) Assessment Findings
PHIL1030-01 / Pre-
Test / Post-
Test
Q1 / Q2 / Q3 / Q4 / Q5 / Q1 / Q2 / Q3 / Q4 / Q5
Choice A / 7 / 4 / 9 / 12 / 11 / Choice A / 2 / 3 / 5 / 17 / 9
Choice B / 19 / 20 / 10 / 6 / 9 / Choice B / 20 / 19 / 13 / 4 / 11
Choice C / 0 / 2 / 6 / 6 / 4 / Choice C / 0 / 0 / 4 / 1 / 1
Choice D / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 2 / Choice D / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1
No Choice / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0 / No Choice / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
%Correct / 73% / 77% / 38% / 46% / 42% / % Correct / 91% / 86% / 59% / 77% / 41%
OVERALL / 55% / 277% / OVERALL / 71% / 355%
Number of Students: Pre-Test 26; Post-Test 22 IMPROVEMENT: 16%
Percentage of students who passed the Post-Test: 86%
PHIL1030-02 / Pre-
Test / Post-
Test
Q1 / Q2 / Q3 / Q4 / Q5 / Q1 / Q2 / Q3 / Q4 / Q5
Choice A / 4 / 4 / 2 / 3 / 5 / Choice A / 0 / 1 / 3 / 5 / 5
Choice B / 7 / 8 / 4 / 1 / 3 / Choice B / 7 / 6 / 3 / 1 / 1
Choice C / 1 / 0 / 2 / 5 / 2 / Choice C / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 1
Choice D / 0 / 0 / 4 / 3 / 2 / Choice D / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 0
No Choice / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / No Choice / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
% Correct / 58% / 67% / 33% / 25% / 42% / % Correct / 100% / 86% / 43% / 71% / 71%
OVERALL / 45% / 225% / OVERALL / 74% / 371%
Number of Students: Pre-Test 12; Post-Test 7 IMPROVEMENT: 29%
Percentage of students who passed the Post-Test: 86%
PHIL1030-61 / Pre-
Test / Post-
Test
Q1 / Q2 / Q3 / Q4 / Q5 / Q1 / Q2 / Q3 / Q4 / Q5
Choice A / 1 / 1 / 4 / 3 / 5 / Choice A / 1 / 2 / 2 / 6 / 8
Choice B / 12 / 11 / 8 / 1 / 3 / Choice B / 7 / 7 / 7 / 1 / 1
Choice C / 1 / 2 / 2 / 5 / 2 / Choice C / 1 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 0
Choice D / 0 / 0 / 0 / 5 / 4 / Choice D / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
No Choice / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / No Choice / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
% Correct / 86% / 79% / 57% / 21% / 36% / % Correct / 78% / 78% / 78% / 67% / 89%
OVERALL / 56% / 279% / OVERALL / 78% / 389%
Number of Students: Pre-Test 14; Post-Test 9 Improvement: 22%
Percentage of students who passed the Post-Test: 100%
Spring 2011 Critical Thinking (Phil 1030) Assessment Interpretations
What do the data for this year’s assessment reveal?
The department’s target of achieving a 70% or higher overall score on the Post-Test was achieved in all three of the sections taught. 86% of students passed the Post-Test in two sections, and 100% passed in the third.
What does a review of the trend data show?
That this year is consistent with previous years’ performances.
In what areas do students do well?
Student success is evenly distributed across the questions.
In what areas have they not succeeded?
Students in various classes have most difficulty with different questions, which is consistent with the fact that different instructors emphasise different material.
Spring 2011 Critical Thinking (Phil 1030) Assessment Conclusions
Have the student learning outcomes that this instrument measures been met?
The outcome target has been met and exceeded.
If not, what can be done to help the students reach the learning objective?
All instructors of this course will be informed of the assessment findings and urged to continue to challenge students.
Which strengths and weaknesses were identified in the course /program?
The instructors for this course do an excellent job teaching the foundations of Critical Thinking.
What can be done to improve the weaknesses?
Faculty will continue to meet, as it has been doing, and discuss pedagogical theory and technique. The Assessment Coördinator will make sure that the outcomes of the Assessment Reports continue to be discussed in meetings of the Philosophy faculty. The Critical Thinking assessment tool has done a very good job of detecting successes and areas in need of improvement by the Assessment Coördinator and the temporary faculty.
Introduction to Logic Assessment Outcomes
The assessment instrument for the philosophy course in Logic measures six criteria from the Chicago State University General Education Outcomes:
1) Use the standard dialect of American English in speaking, reading, and writing;
5) Apply the basic methods, questions, and vocabularies of the humanities, mathematics, the
natural sciences, and the social sciences;
7) Recognize the role of creativity in problem-solving, addressing issues and concerns,
and generating new knowledge;
10) Demonstrate how scientific inquiry has affected human understanding of the natural world in
which we live; and
11) Apply analytical skills, including mathematical reasoning, to the natural sciences, social
sciences, and the humanities.
This is accomplished by making certain students in Introduction to Logic are able to:
(a) determine whether or not an argument is valid;
(b) locate the premises and conclusion(s) of an argument;
(c) distinguish the subject class, the predicate class, and the middle class of categorical
arguments;
(d) use a Venn diagram in order to determine whether or not a categorical argument is valid or
invalid; and
(e) use symbolic notation to convert an argument in English prose into symbolic argument
structure.
Method of Assessment
In an attempt to determine to what extent the above assessment outcome criteria have been achieved, the Philosophy faculty has developed a Logic Assessment Instrument, which is given at the beginning of the semester and at the end of the semester. The assessment includes five multiple-choice questions, which are fairly difficult for a first-time student in a logic course, but quite manageable for a student who has completed the course. These questions are specifically designed to address the criteria noted above.
Question 1 addresses General Education Outcomes Goals 1, 5, & 11
Question 2 addresses General Education Outcomes Goals 1, 5, & 11
Question 3 addresses General Education Outcomes Goals 1, 5, & 11
Question 4 addresses General Education Outcomes Goals 1, 5, 7, 10, & 11
Question 5 addresses General Education Outcomes Goals 1, 5, 7, 10, & 11
The target set by the Philosophy faculty is for each section to achieve a 70% or better overall score for Post-Test assessment findings. In addition, since interest has been shown in the number of students who pass the assessment post-test, a score of 3 correct answers has been set by the Philosophy faculty as a passing grade for each individual student.
Introduction to Logic Assessment Findings/Interpretations/Conclusions
Spring 2011 Introduction to Logic (Phil 1020) Assessment Findings
PHIL1020-01 / Pre-
Test / Post-
Test
Q1 / Q2 / Q3 / Q4 / Q5 / Q1 / Q2 / Q3 / Q4 / Q5
Choice A / 27 / 11 / 25 / 8 / 9 / Choice A / 16 / 7 / 14 / 7 / 15
Choice B / 2 / 18 / 3 / 11 / 14 / Choice B / 1 / 10 / 3 / 8 / 2
Choice C / 0 / 0 / 1 / 10 / 6 / Choice C / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 0
Choice D / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / Choice D / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
No Choice / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / No Choice / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
% Correct / 93% / 38% / 86% / 28% / 31% / % Correct / 94% / 41% / 82% / 41% / 88%
OVERALL / 55% / 276% / OVERALL / 69% / 347%
Number of Students: Pre-Test 29; Post-Test 17 IMPROVEMENT: 14%
Percentage of students who passed the Post-Test: 94%
PHIL1020-02 / Pre-
Test / Post-
Test
Q1 / Q2 / Q3 / Q4 / Q5 / Q1 / Q2 / Q3 / Q4 / Q5
Choice A / 15 / 7 / 11 / 5 / 9 / Choice A / 21 / 12 / 17 / 12 / 13
Choice B / 2 / 10 / 6 / 7 / 5 / Choice B / 1 / 10 / 5 / 1 / 8
Choice C / 0 / 0 / 0 / 5 / 3 / Choice C / 0 / 0 / 0 / 9 / 1
Choice D / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / Choice D / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
No Choice / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / No Choice / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
% Correct / 88% / 41% / 65% / 29% / 53% / % Correct / 95% / 55% / 77% / 55% / 59%
OVERALL / 55% / 276% / OVERALL / 68% / 341%
Number of Students: Pre-Test 17; Post-Test 22 IMPROVEMENT: 13%
Percentage of students who passed the Post-Test: 86%
PHIL1020-61 / Pre-
Test / Post-
Test
Q1 / Q2 / Q3 / Q4 / Q5 / Q1 / Q2 / Q3 / Q4 / Q5
Choice A / 18 / 6 / 8 / 9 / 11 / Choice A / 8 / 7 / 7 / 8 / 8
Choice B / 2 / 15 / 12 / 7 / 5 / Choice B / 0 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0
Choice C / 0 / 0 / 1 / 4 / 3 / Choice C / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Choice D / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / Choice D / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
No Choice / 0 / 0 / 0 / 1 / 1 / No Choice / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
% Correct / 86% / 29% / 38% / 43% / 52% / % Correct / 100% / 88% / 88% / 100% / 100%
OVERALL / 50% / 248% / OVERALL / 95% / 475%
Number of Students: Pre-Test 21; Post-Test 8 IMPROVEMENT: 45%
Percentage of students who passed the Post-Test: 100%
Spring 2011 Introduction to Logic (Phil 1020) Assessment Interpretations
What do the data for this year’s assessment reveal?
The department’s target of achieving a 70% or higher overall score on the Post-Test was achieved in at least one of the four sections taught. Twowere close, but did not quite reach the target, and the data for one section were unavailable. Interestingly enough, in all sections measured, student achievement was high, with 86%, 94%, and 100%.
What does a review of the trend data show?
That this year is consistent with previous years’ performances.
In what areas do students do well?
Students do very well on Questions 1 and 5.
In what areas have they not succeeded?
Students seem to have the most trouble with Questions 3 and 4.
Spring 2011 Introduction to Logic (Phil 1020) Assessment Conclusions
Have the student learning outcomes that this instrument measures been met?
By and large, the outcome target has either been met or come very close to being met.
If not, what can be done to help the students reach the learning objective?
All instructors of this course will be informed of the assessment findings and asked to take these into consideration as they plan their courses for upcoming semesters.
Which strengths and weaknesses were identified in the course /program?
The instructors for this course do an excellent job teaching the foundations of Logic. One of the two questions that have weak responses also happens to be of one of the most difficult types of question to learn. The other had a large number simply left unanswered both on the Pre-Test and on the Post-Test, which is unusual.
What can be done to improve the weaknesses?
Faculty will continue to meet, as it has been doing, and discuss pedagogical theory and technique. The Assessment Coördinator will make sure that the outcomes of the Assessment Reports continue to be discussed in meetings of the Philosophy faculty. The Introduction to Logic assessment tool has done a very good job of detecting successes and areas in need of improvement by the Assessment Coördinator and the temporary faculty.
It is noteworthy that courses that scored lower overall had unusually large retention figures and also high levels of success when measured as individual student grades. This may indicate that greater retention in courses can lower overall scores but still lead to effective learning on the students’ part. More data will be needed to ascertain whether this conclusion can be drawn from this phenomenon.
Ethics Assessment Outcomes
The assessment instrument for the philosophy course in Ethics measures four criteria from the Chicago State University General Education Outcomes:
1) Use the standard dialect of American English in speaking, reading, and writing;
5) Apply the basic methods, questions, and vocabularies of the humanities, mathematics, the
natural sciences, and the social sciences;
7) Recognize the role of creativity in problem-solving, addressing issues and concerns,
and generating new knowledge;
11) Apply analytical skills, including mathematical reasoning, to the natural sciences, social
sciences, and the humanities.
This is accomplished by making certain students in Ethics are able to:
(1) construct a proper essay (e.g., introduction, body, conclusion);
(2) determine the most important factors associated with the Heinz stealing example;
(3) make clear whether or not the morality of the Heinz scenario is one’s personal opinion, an
objective judgment, a universal judgment; and
(4) utilize the concepts of duty, utility, and/or character to justify one’s moral assessment of the
Heinz scenario.
Method of Assessment
In an attempt to measure to what extent the above criteria have been achieved, the Philosophy faculty has developed an Ethics Assessment Instrument, which is given at the beginning of the semester and at the end of the semester. The assessment is a scenario in which the students have to make a moral determination about the actions of one of the individuals. Basically, a man steals medicine from a doctor because his dying wife is in desperate need of it. The man offered the doctor $1,000 with the proviso that he would pay the rest later, but the doctor insisted on $2,000, knowing full well the man’s wife was dying.
Keeping in mind the four criteria, the students are asked to determine the moral status of the man who stole the medicine (see attached assessment instrument).
The target set by the Philosophy faculty is for each section to achieve a 70% or better overall score for Post-Test assessment findings. In addition, since interest has been shown in the number of students who pass the assessment post-test, a score of C or above has been set by the Philosophy faculty as a passing grade for each individual student.
Introduction to Ethics Assessment Findings/Interpretations/Conclusions
Spring 2011 Introduction to Ethics (Phil 1040) Assessment Findings
PHIL1040-01
Pre-Test / A's / B's / C's / D's / E's
0 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 3
% / 0% / 20% / 0% / 20% / 60%
Overall C and over / 20%
Post-Test / A's / B's / C's / D's / E's
0 / 1 / 2 / 1 / 1
% / 0% / 20% / 40% / 20% / 20%
OVERALL C and over / 60%
IMPROVEMENT / 40%
Number of Students: Pre-Test 5; Post-Test 5 IMPROVEMENT: 40%
Percentage of students who passed the Post-Test: 60%
Spring 2011 Introduction to Logic (Phil 1020) Assessment Interpretations
What do the data for this year’s assessment reveal?
The department’s target of achieving a 70% or higher overall score on the Post-Test was not achieved in the section taught. Students responded to the question by indicating more-or-less correctly how different moral theories might assess the practical dilemma Heinz faces, used moral terminology correctly and gave a coherent account of the alternative courses of action, and a large percentage scored at C or above.
What does a review of the trend data show?
That this year is consistent with previous years’ performances.
In what areas do students do well?
Students do very well with giving a personal opinion.
In what areas have they not succeeded?
Students seem to have the most trouble with distinguishing between ethical theories; this is not surprising, as this is a difficult skill to master. They also have a great deal of difficulty articulating their position in a grammatical manner, which may have a great deal to do with their difficulty in understanding others’ ideas.
Spring 2011 Introduction to Logic (Phil 1020) Assessment Conclusions
Have the student learning outcomes that this instrument measures been met?
No, the outcome target was not met.
If not, what can be done to help the students reach the learning objective?
All instructors of this course will be informed of the assessment findings and asked to take these into consideration as they plan their courses for upcoming semesters.
Which strengths and weaknesses were identified in the course /program?
The instructor for this course consistently does an excellent job teaching Introduction to Ethics. There are no weaknesses in this course, although the Assessment instrument does speak to the need for continued emphasis on both writing skills and reasoning skills at CSU. In addition, the small number of students who completed the Assessment instrument may have skewed the percentages. Five students simply is not a large enough sample to generate reliable data.
What can be done to improve the weaknesses?
Faculty will continue to meet, as it has been doing, and discuss pedagogical theory and technique. The Assessment Coördinator will make sure that the outcomes of the Assessment Reports continue to be discussed in meetings of the Philosophy faculty. The Introduction to Ethics assessment tool has done a very good job of detecting successes and areas in need of improvement by the Assessment Coördinator and the temporary faculty.
Race & Society Assessment Outcomes
The assessment instrument for the philosophy course in Race & Society measures four criteria from the Chicago State University General Education Outcomes:
1) Use the standard dialect of American English in speaking, reading, and writing;
5) Apply the basic methods, questions, and vocabularies of the humanities, mathematics, the
natural sciences, and the social sciences;
7) Recognize the role of creativity in problem-solving, addressing issues and concerns,
and generating new knowledge;
11) Apply analytical skills, including mathematical reasoning, to the natural sciences, social
sciences, and the humanities; and
16) Articulate the inter-relatedness of culture, race, class, gender, and human identity and
personality.
This is accomplished by making certain students in Race & Society are able to:
(1) identify historical facts;
(2) determine multiple correct conditions for the conceptual history of the current age; and
(3) identify contradictions and hypocrisies.
Method of Assessment
In an attempt to determine to what extent the above assessment outcome criteria have been achieved, the Philosophy faculty has developed a Race & Society Assessment Instrument, which is given at the beginning of the semester and at the end of the semester. The assessment includes six multiple-choice questions that are fairly difficult for a first-time student who has not yet taken this course, but quite manageable for a student who has completed the course. These questions are specifically designed to address the criteria noted above.